So What About Gay Marriage?
Did you know that Chick-Fil-A serves hate-chicken? That’s what some would have you believe since the owner was asked (at the very end of a long interview) about the long-established culture within the company. Here’s what CEO Dan Kathy said:
“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives…” [online source]
AAAHHHHHHHH! THE HATE! DIE CHRISTIAN SCUM FROM YOUR FATTY HEART-ATTACK INDUCING FAST FOOD!!!!
Seriously though, have we come to a place that an opinion like this is considered hate-speech? Chick-Fil-A serves anyone who comes through the doors, and even hires homosexuals. If they didn’t that would be bigotry.
It’s gotten to the point where cities want to prevent Chick-Fil-A from opening shop in their city. This week New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn sent a letter to New York University president asking the school to immediately end their contract with the fast food restaurant. She said:
“I write as the Speaker of the NYC Council, and on behalf of my family. NYC is a place where we celebrate diversity.”
Unless, you have a Christian world-view I guess. In response, yesterday was an unofficial “Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day.” I talked to someone last night who ate there 3 times that day. It was freakin’ HUGE, which, ironically, has gotten basically no media attention. But if 10 stinky hippies protest in front of Chick-Fil-A it makes the news cycle all week. Craziness.
What is happening to us? Can we all discuss controversial issues, like same-sex marriage, without hanging each other on the gallows?
I want to try to. Don’t you?
This weekend while the kids were watching an episode of Good Luck Charlie I decided to see what people were saying. That’s when I saw one of my friends on Facebook post:
Hey Christians, please remind me why gay marriage is”wrong”? And there’s this little thing called “proof” that I expect for each and every one of your claims. : )
The questions didn’t make me mad. It didn’t even make me squeamish. And it was clearly in response to this Chick-Fil-A issue that’s been building.
>I actually think this is a fair question to pose to Christians.
But I also think we must all agree on the starting point for this discussion.
There were, as usual, dozens of comments posted very quickly. It is a discussion I don’t usually get into, but for some reason I posted a response. Why? Did I want to mix it up? Nope. I just think we all need to be able to talk about things–even heated ones.
>Curiously, I have found any time that someone has been discussing this issue, the premise is never established.
A few times I have tried to establish a premise to build this discussion (and issue) on. The interesting thing is that I have NEVER had a response. Not once.
What do I mean? What’s that premise? Well, let me explain by quoting the comment I posted in my friends thread. I simply said:
I accept the challenge. But first, define the term “marriage”.
Immediately, my Facebook friend ‘liked’ my question. And predictably, it has been a week with over 50 comments and no one has answered my question. And I have to wonder why?
>There’s no question that gay marriage is an issue worth discussing no matter how uncomfortable it makes us feel.
But if I, as a Christian, am going to answer this and get in to this discussion, then we need to establish the starting point. My point is, Christian, you do need to be able to answer this question in a way that is creditable and respectable.
>In fact, no matter what side you are on with regard to this issue, you need to answer it in a way that is creditable and respectful.
That means for Christians (or any supporters of traditional marriage), we have to say more than, “Well, because the Bible says…”
And if you are a supporter of gay marriage, you’ve have to build on more than an emotional basis.
And it must be said, that just because someone has a different value system than you, doesn’t make them prejudice or a bigot.
>We’ve all got to develop enough strength of character to be able to take challenges to our beliefs and values. Let’s stop being so touchy.
Lastly, I share something that I think you will find very interesting, maybe shocking.
I was in my truck waiting in line to pick up my kids from camp on Monday. I was listening to the radio and decided to see what the dictionary had to say about all this. So I got out my iPhone.
I opened Google Chrome and searched for Dictionary.com.
I clicked on the link and typed in “marriage”. And here’s what came up first:
Did you see that? The first definition, and don’t ask me why it all came up like this, was the definition for gay marriage. So where is the traditional definition of marriage? You know, the one that most cultures have held to for the past 4,000 years?
The traditional definition of marriage came up 10th. That’s dead last.
Just thought you should know.
This entry was posted by Jason Berggren on August 2, 2012 at 6:22 am, and is filed under In The News, Touchy Subjects, Unauthorized Blogs. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I honestly think you’re mentally impaired. You have this notion that you’re a radical Christian, but you’re the same ol’ bigoted, uneducated evangelical that we’ve all seen before. Read a book, Jason… a book not published by a safe Christian publisher, and open yourself up to the possibility that your entire worldview is benighted and myopic.
I don’t care if Dan Cathy yells from the rooftops with a microphone, goes on Fox TV to denounce gay marriage. I don’t care what he thinks or does. What I care about are the yahoos who are denouncing liberals. They are saying we’re taking away his freedom of speech. Last I heard the government wasn’t telling him to shut up. Learn the Constitution, people, before you make fools of yourselves. Do I agree with the mayors of Chicago and Boston? Morally, yes, but they are wrong to deny a company to do business because they don’t agree with their standing.
I mostly agree with you. I think the limiting free speech thing comes in to play because cities like Boston and Chicago want to ban them from their cities–or colleges banning them from campuses. And that is a legitimate point. It seems we all have yahoos in our camps from time to time.
I agree. Makes sense to me.
If marriage is for matting then it would really not make sense in a same sex marriage. I think it’s upon your definition of marriage and what you hold accountability towards. As a disciple of Jesus, I hold to the Word’s definition of marriage and that i hold myself accountable to God alone. I guess if had never received the Lord as my savior then I’d live in a different manner and hold myself accountable to whatever else.
Good thoughts. But I think as when entering political, cultural, and sociological conversation we’ve got to come from a different angle. We can’t present “because the Bible says so” as our foundational point. Plus, Jesus does not expect non-Christians to act like Christians. So if we believe this to be a universal principle regardless of religion, then we need to come to the table with universal truths. Make sense?
Came across your blog while having insomnia. Would love to hear what your response would be. I would answer with scripture because I feel like that is the truth…but I see your point…but struggle with what the right words would be…
Thanks for stopping by. Of course I have somewhat of an answer that I have developed, but I am not the one trying to redefine thousands of years of tradition. So in my opinion, it us incumbent upon the person(s) who are trying to redefine an accepted norm to offer a definition to discuss/debate from. That’s where I’m coming from. Just because someone claims something or makes a demand, doesn’t make it so. This is a social, political, and cultural issue that needs to build on something.
Jason, the reason close relatives never marry or mate – which is really the issue here – is not really a moral issue but one of survival. Close relatives mating produce offspring that cannot survive. Survival from the time our kind has been walking the earth has been tantamount. Therefore, mating within the family became something sick and repulsive. So, why are you asking such a ridiculous question? You should do some research for yourself and find out when marriage came into existence. It’s all very interesting.
Pam, thank you for dropping by. I have done research. And it is all very interesting, which is why I think it should be discussed.
When did I ever say it was a moral issue? That is something you implied.
So your definition/basis of marriage is for survival then? I have yet to hear a definition from you, in any event.
I welcome it.
I understand the dilemma at the root of this and I very much appreciate you posting your premise. I think I would consider myself spiritual but not religious so here is my definition of marriage:
A union of two people for the purpose of creating a safe, loving environment free from persecution or exception from the government in the eventuality that one should pass away. A legal safe harbor if you will but one that is afforded to those that love each other and want to proclaim that love to the world with the ultimate symbol of a fully recognized claim that is called marriage.
I understand there are moral considerations at play that many feel that the word “marriage” is purely a biblical term of definition and that it must be between a man and a woman.
So I’m stuck, you see, because I believe Christians are entitled to their rights but I also feel that the LGBT community are also entitled to their rights. I don’t feel that any one person’s rights should supercede anothers. Your right is just as valid as mine. Your argument for the sanctity of marriage is just as valid as mine for allowing whoever, within legal reason, to marry whoever.
I guess I’m just of the mind “Why can’t we just be NICE and get along?” If there were more love and acceptance without feeling the need to stand on soapboxes and push lifestyles in each other’s faces…more would get accomplished and true, intelligent discussions could be held without people getting so upset.
I think you presented a very good definition. Perhaps we must also establish in the discussion if marriage is a religious institution or other (say, a legal one). That is another challenge in this issue.
Also, in response to your anser (again, which I really like), would it be okay for close relatives to marry? Or for multiple people to marry (polygamy)? I don’t mean this antagonistically at all. I honestly want to know what you think here. Based on your definition, I think the answer could be “yes.” And if is not yes, then why? What is the addendum to the definition of marriage then?
I would’ve answered you with a few verses from Mark:
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
(I think we should use the word ‘Twain’ more….)
I’d also answer with a question, where, before 2001, has same-sex marriage every been legal or accepted?
Arthur, I understand. But my point as a Christian is that we need to be able to have this discussion in a political, social, and cultural context without using Bible verses–which I believe can be done. It’s what Jesus did all the time when he was speaking among the masses that followed him. Make sense?