Is Dan Cathy a bigoted homophobe?

[10gr8kids]

Exactly

Just like a gay couple getting married has no effect what so ever on my marriage, or anyone elses marriage
My marriage is none of their business. Their marriage is none of my business.

As Chriatians this is not what we believe.

If I had been in the garden with Adam and Eve, I may have said to Eve, "God said we shouldn’t eat from that tree, but go ahead if you want. It won’t effect me.

"We believe this is how sin entered the world and we do not believe that sin is private, it effects us all. All you have to do is read the Bible and all through it you see how whole cities and tribes of people are effected by the sins of others. I believe that is why our country is in the state it is in now.

I realize that you being an athirst may not agree with this, but this is where we are coming from. We believe we need to repent of our sins and turn back to God. And not just the sin of homosexuality. Hate is a sin also, God does not want us to hate homosexuals, but pointing out that this is sinful is not hate. We all sin and we need to pray that we will be able to recognize our sins and repent so God will have mercy on our country.

 

[stewstew03]

Mr Cathy can believe and say whatever he wants-but so can those who disagree with him. That’s what free speech means. It does not mean that either side can say what they want without consequences.

The issue isn’t can Dan Cathy do this or that; we know he will not be arrested and incarcerated for his beliefs on marriage (at least not yet).

The issue is this: can one hold a Christocentric view of marriage as a basis for opposing same-sex marriage without being labeled as “bigoted” or “homophobic”?

I believe marriage is between one man and one woman; does this belief, by itself, make me a bigot or a homophobe?

 

[St_Francis]

Thanks - but I’ll continue to express myself as I see fit, and clarify things if needed.

Nope.

No agenda.

But thanks for making the assumptions and projecting your bias and judgementalism.

Hey, all I did was to read the question and the answer you gave. I didn’t have to make any assumptions or project any bias to reach the conclusion I did.

Christ teaches us not to judge the state of people’s hearts, but He did not teach us not to judge actions. He called the Pharisees whites selpulchres (not a compliment!) and threw the money-changers out of the Temple.

I somehow doubt the incredibly noble and holy man your sn is based on would approve

Ouuuu, is that a little bit of judgementalism on your part, hmmmm?

 

[St_Francis]

I’ve never eaten one of their chicken sandwichs and never will.

But I’m wondering, if a gay couple walk into one of their stores, will they take their money, or are they principled enough to say Get thee hence with thy sinful ways

Or do they take gay couples money with a smile and a have a nice day

Sarah x

You are comparing apples to oranges. It is no sin to sell food to a sinner. But there is a difference between selling food to a sinner and enshrining the sin in law. Dan Cathy has just as much legal right to do what he is doing as any other large corporation does which supports homosexual “marriage,” and he has the moral right as well, unlike the corporations which support SSM.

Moreover, I don’t see those other large corporations refusing to take the money of those who oppose SSM, either.

 

[Sullibe]

Exactly

Just like a gay couple getting married has no effect what so ever on my marriage, or anyone elses marriage

My marriage is none of their business. Their marriage is none of my business.

I hope men and women who are homosexual will chose other establishments to purchase a sandwich from

Sarah x

On the contrary it does effect your marriage and mine as well, not directly, but it does.

Presumably you love your husband (I’m assuming you ARE indeed married since you reference it). But the love you feel for your husband is NOT what makes you married. And the love that those with same-sex attraction feel towards their partners is not what will make them married.

In order for marriage to exist there must be two unique characteristics,

1. Indissolubility

2 The inherent natural potential to procreate.

All of the other “requirements” of marriage stem back down to these two basic characteristics. What are the other main requirements? Currently, marriage is only for 2 people - why? because the more people you have a in a relationship the harder it is to maintain indissolubility, AND at bare-minimum there requires only 1 male and 1 female to reproduce. Another main requirement, the couple cannot be too closely related, precisely because of the inherent natural potential to procreate (to quote Eddie Izzard, “First rule of genetics - spread the genes apart.”). All we’re left with is consent.

Given the state of no-fault divorce in this country it is already incredible difficult to classify marriage with the first characteristic. If same-sex “marriage” is allowed, it effectively eliminates that 2nd characteristic, consequently eliminating the other requirements of marriage (lest they be assigned arbitrary and people appear bigoted for not allowing 4 or more people to get married, or adult sibling marriages, etc… etc…) This isn’t a slippery slope, this is simply cause and effect. The other requirements we associate with marriage are founded on that 2nd characteristic. If the characteristic is eliminated so as to allow same-sex marriage, then all the rest must be eliminated as well.

Of course what this means is that ANYONE and EVERYONE is married as long as they consent.

So yes, the same-sex couple down the street is now married, but so is the single guy across the street who “loves” his BMW, and the 1st cousins who love each other (but who may or may not have sex), and the 2 widowed friends who love each other in that “you’re my best friend and I’ve got no one else to lean on” way. Heck, the Golden Girls could be considered married. (Of course, I’m thinking that might have dampened Blanche’s sex life). For that matter, if consent is the only thing now attributed to marriage, then why can’t marriages with just 1 person exist. Think of the ease, you (royal you) would only have to obtain consent with one person, yourself. We’d no longer need the “Single” box on forms, well except for maybe those few weirdos who only want to get married ONCE, to someone else.

And to paraphrase Syndrome from the Incredibles: “If Everyone is married, heh, heh, heh, No one will be.”

So if you’re okay with not really being married, because EVERYONE is considered married, regardless of their state of life (because marriage is really supposed to reflect one’s state of life - a particular and unique state of life) then HEY, Don’t worry about it, you’re absolutely right, it won’t effect your marriage at all.

But it certainly does effect mine, because my marriage DOES reflect my particular and unique state of life.

 

[atheistgirl]

So if you’re okay with not really being married, because EVERYONE is considered married, regardless of their state of life (because marriage is really supposed to reflect one’s state of life - a particular and unique state of life) then HEY, Don’t worry about it, you’re absolutely right, it won’t effect your marriage at all.

If a guy wants to marry his BMW - go for it I say

I really honestly truely don’t care.

It in no way invalidates, or affects, the wonderful marriage I enjoy with my husband.

If the Golden Girls get a licence - ditto. I can’t live their lives for them, they can’t live mine.

Only if BMW guy started to hit on my husband, would it interfere with my marriage, and even then it wouldn’t affect it, because I know my husband. BMW guy wouldn’t make that mistake again

Still, if BMW guy did leave his BMW for my husband

I could get the BMW

Are we talking about the Alpina B7 here?

Because my dad taught me to always find the upside, no matter how bad things seem to get, and work with that.

Sarah x

 

[stewstew03]

If a guy wants to marry his BMW - go for it I say

I really honestly truely don’t care.

It in no way invalidates, or affects, the wonderful marriage I enjoy with my husband.

If the Golden Girls get a licence - ditto. I can’t live their lives for them, they can’t live mine.

Only if BMW guy started to hit on my husband, would it interfere with my marriage, and even then it wouldn’t affect it, because I know my husband. BMW guy wouldn’t make that mistake again

Still, if BMW guy did leave his BMW for my husband

I could get the BMW

Are we talking about the Alpina B7 here?

Because my dad taught me to always find the upside, no matter how bad things seem to get, and work with that.

Sarah x

The last part made me chuckle, but the first part made me grimace. Do you think there should be any codified standards when it comes to marriage?

 

[djeter]

In fact, to be truly free as a human means to have the strength to act against ourselves, so that we do not live in bondage to our own inner impulses and drives, a key consideration that distinguishes us from the animals. Human freedom involves the mastery of those drives by redirecting them and ordering them to higher goals.
Fr. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D.

Fr. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D. earned his doctorate in neuroscience from Yale and did post-doctoral work at Harvard. He is a priest of the diocese of Fall River, MA, and serves as the Director of Education at The National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia. This essay on the nature of genes relies greatly on Fr. Pacholczyk scholarly opinion. Disputing the notion that one is “born gay” is regarded as homophobic by the Homosexualists and their liberal press pom-pom twirlers. Despite my bias, I have come to see that the culture at large has rejected Church teachings on this subject.

Recently though I’ve sensed a change in the air. This article in the **NYTimes Magazine ** from last summer begins to recognize the right of those whose faith demands a higher struggle with the demons of same-sex attraction to seek so-called reparative therapy. The homosexualist cant about “helping people to stay in the closet” is regrettable but the mere recognition that faith demands a different standard is what I want to draw your attention to – and from the NYTimes no less. (What hath God wrought!)

In truth, if you really think about it, these souls are the only ones the Church is fighting for. Jesus never forced conversion on anyone and neither does the Church. We fight against those who seek to get a pass on their sinfulness (homosexual acts). The homosexualists in our midst insist that any reparative treatment is *ipso facto *homophobic because it denies two of the key myths on which homosexualism is based (See #1 and #2).

I would gladly swap losing this culture war for the recognition that Catholics and all Christians demand to be regarded differently. They need to be granted the recognition that for them there still exists what I have called a higher *Catholic space of freedom *within themselves.

dj

 

[stewstew03]

Fr. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D. earned his doctorate in neuroscience from Yale and did post-doctoral work at Harvard. He is a priest of the diocese of Fall River, MA, and serves as the Director of Education at The National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia. This essay on the nature of genes relies greatly on Fr. Pacholczyk scholarly opinion. Disputing the notion that one is “born gay” is regarded as homophobic by the Homosexualists and their liberal press pom-pom twirlers. Despite my bias, I have come to see that the culture at large has rejected Church teachings on this subject.

Recently though I’ve sensed a change in the air. This article in the **NYTimes Magazine ** from last summer begins to recognize the right of those whose faith demands a higher struggle with the demons of same-sex attraction to seek so-called reparative therapy. The homosexualist cant about “helping people to stay in the closet” is regrettable but the mere recognition that faith demands a different standard is what I want to draw your attention to – and from the NYTimes no less. (What hath God wrought!)

In truth, if you really think about it, these souls are the only ones the Church is fighting for. Jesus never forced conversion on anyone and neither does the Church. We fight against those who seek to get a pass on their sinfulness (homosexual acts). The homosexualists in our midst insist that any reparative treatment is *ipso facto *homophobic because it denies two of the key myths on which homosexualism is based (See #1 and #2).

I would gladly swap losing this culture war for the recognition that Catholics and all Christians demand to be regarded differently. They need to be granted the recognition that for them there still exists what I have called a higher *Catholic space of freedom *within themselves.

dj

Well said DJ.

 

[sw85]

A useful blog post on the topic (htt**p://orthosphere.org/2012/07/25/the-bad-cop-strikes/):

Larry Auster calls it the “good cop/bad cop” routine. I call it the “empirical two-step“. It just keeps happening.

Liberal wants X.
Conservative says no, because X will undermine Y.
Liberal insists that X will not undermine Y.  It will actually strengthen Y, perhaps by spreading Y more widely and fairly.
Liberal gets X.
Immediately thereafter, liberal insists that Y must be abolished or altered beyond recognition because it does indeed conflict with X.

I’ve just read an account of the purest imaginable case of this. Here’s the setup. We’ve all been told that calling homosexual relationships “marriage” will do nothing whatsoever to affect heterosexual marriage, and anyone who says different is a lying, hating hater who’s really just using the protection a venerable institution as a pretext for irrational animus. Remember that?

Okay, now suppose someone were to take the liberals at their word and announce that he wants to promote marriage as traditionally understood, saying nothing whatsoever–for or against–about sodomitical unions. What would happen to this person? Liberals say that they’re leaving marriage alone, just extending it, so they should be okay with this, right? It’s just a case of us heterosexuals minding our own affairs. Here’s how our cultural overlords actually respond:

• The highly successful Atlanta-based restaurant chain Chick-fil-A has been much in the news these days, because president and chief operating officer Dan Cathy (whose father founded the family-owned business) apparently came out in opposition to same-sex marriage. Or did he?

Terry Mattingly of the indispensable GetReligion site, which tracks all sorts of journalistic coverage of religion, first called attention to the manufacturing of a misleading story here.  In an interview with a writer for the Baptist Press, Cathy was asked about the company’s “support of the traditional family.”  His response was, “Well, guilty as charged.”  And he went on to talk about the company’s commitment “to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families,” because many of the individual restaurants are family-run operations, and because the Cathy family and their company believe, as Christians, in family-friendly policies.  (Their Christian faith and their desire to support families account for the restaurant chain’s being closed on Sundays, for instance, a decision by which the company forgoes many millions in annual revenue.)

At no point in the Baptist Press article did Dan Cathy say a word about the issue of same-sex marriage….

When Terry Mattingly set the record straight about the Baptist Press interview, the next redoubt for the let’s-hate-Chick-fil-A crowd was an interview Dan Cathy gave to radio host Ken Coleman in June, in which he said, “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.’”

But this too was hastily taken to be a commentary by Cathy on the same-sex marriage issue, which he never actually mentioned at all.  The interview can be heard online here.  The date was the day before Father’s Day, and Coleman asked him (start at about the 29:20 mark) about the crisis of fatherlessness in American society.  The question takes 30 or 40 seconds to unspool, and then Cathy answers for upwards of a minute and a half.  At about the 31:15 mark he gets to the words quoted above.  But his entire answer to Coleman’s question has been about the importance of moms and dads in the lives of kids, and especially the role of fathers (given that it’s Father’s Day weekend).  It’s clear that Cathy has just been talking about people getting married and staying married, so that children have mothers and fathers and intact families.  This is the context for his remark about “God’s judgment” being invited–namely, if we try to treat marriage as optional, or temporary, or a matter of little importance in the upbringing of children.  Again, Cathy says nothing, repeat nothing, directly addressing the subject of same-sex marriage….

Meanwhile, the mayor of Boston, incensed over the assumed affront to all right-thinking people committed by Dan Cathy, has decided to pull out all the stops to prevent the people of Beantown from having a good chicken sandwich, courtesy of Chick-fil-A.  At this point, the circus furiosus has reached its naturally absurd conclusion, with a pandering politico scampering to take advantage of the left’s misinformed hatreds.*

So, Cathy didn’t say anything about gay marriage. He apparently has said things to the effect of 1) marriage being an institution of divine origin and sanction, 2) it being–at least as a general rule–permanently binding, 3) its having as a core social purpose the establishment of a connection between fathers and their biological children. These are core features of anything recognizable as traditional marriage. One could say that these features–especially the third one–inherently presume heterosexual unions, but that inference is exactly the one that you and I have, until yesterday, been accused of pathological hatred for making. That was yesterday. Today, the Left can admit that, yes, the normalization of homosexuality is utterly incompatible with the Western/Christian nuclear family model. Therefore, that model must be scrapped.

 

[Sullibe]

If a guy wants to marry his BMW - go for it I say

I really honestly truely don’t care.

It in no way invalidates, or affects, the wonderful marriage I enjoy with my husband.

If the Golden Girls get a licence - ditto. I can’t live their lives for them, they can’t live mine.

Only if BMW guy started to hit on my husband, would it interfere with my marriage, and even then it wouldn’t affect it, because I know my husband. BMW guy wouldn’t make that mistake again

Still, if BMW guy did leave his BMW for my husband

I could get the BMW

Are we talking about the Alpina B7 here?

Because my dad taught me to always find the upside, no matter how bad things seem to get, and work with that.

Sarah x

LOL! Touche.

But my point still stands. If the guy who loves his BMW is also married, then the wonderful “marriage” you have with your husband is no different than the wonderful “marriage” he has with this BMW. If you don’t actually see any difference between these two relationships, then alright for you. But I do see a difference, and I see a difference that is worth protecting.

A relationship a guy has with his BMW holds no real difference than the relationship the kid down the street has with his dog which holds no real difference with the relationship with the two elderly widowed women who have gotten “married” to save on taxes, which holds no real difference than the gay-couple next door.

Your relationship, your marriage with your husband is different from all of those relationships above (or at least it should be). And that difference is what is being recognized in marriage.

 

[Seeker1961]

I won’t deny Cathy his right to believe and speak as he chooses, nor will I call him a “hater”, but I don’t think anyone misunderstood his meaning. Certainly all the Christians rushing to his defense and to his establishments knew exactly what he meant when he referred to “inviting God’s judgement” regarding the definition of marriage.

Besides, if he is on the “side of the angels” why claim that he was taken out of context or misunderstood?

 

[PRmerger]

As Chriatians this is not what we believe.

'zactly.

As Catholics we believe that other people’s marriages *are *our business.

That’s why we have witnesses to the sacrament of marriage.

That’s why we attend weddings.

We uphold, value and witness to the sanctity of each and every married couple’s marriage.

As the late, great Pope JPII said (paraphrasing): as the marriage goes, so goes the family. As the family goes, so goes society. As society goes, so goes the nation.

 

[PRmerger]

I won’t deny Cathy his right to believe and speak as he chooses, nor will I call him a “hater”,

Good.

Would you call him a homophobe? Or a bigot?

 

[meltzerboy]

On the contrary it does effect your marriage and mine as well, not directly, but it does.

Presumably you love your husband (I’m assuming you ARE indeed married since you reference it). But the love you feel for your husband is NOT what makes you married. And the love that those with same-sex attraction feel towards their partners is not what will make them married.

In order for marriage to exist there must be two unique characteristics,

1. Indissolubility

2 The inherent natural potential to procreate.

All of the other “requirements” of marriage stem back down to these two basic characteristics. What are the other main requirements? Currently, marriage is only for 2 people - why? because the more people you have a in a relationship the harder it is to maintain indissolubility, AND at bare-minimum there requires only 1 male and 1 female to reproduce. Another main requirement, the couple cannot be too closely related, precisely because of the inherent natural potential to procreate (to quote Eddie Izzard, “First rule of genetics - spread the genes apart.”). All we’re left with is consent.

Given the state of no-fault divorce in this country it is already incredible difficult to classify marriage with the first characteristic. If same-sex “marriage” is allowed, it effectively eliminates that 2nd characteristic, consequently eliminating the other requirements of marriage (lest they be assigned arbitrary and people appear bigoted for not allowing 4 or more people to get married, or adult sibling marriages, etc… etc…) This isn’t a slippery slope, this is simply cause and effect. The other requirements we associate with marriage are founded on that 2nd characteristic. If the characteristic is eliminated so as to allow same-sex marriage, then all the rest must be eliminated as well.

Of course what this means is that ANYONE and EVERYONE is married as long as they consent.

So yes, the same-sex couple down the street is now married, but so is the single guy across the street who “loves” his BMW, and the 1st cousins who love each other (but who may or may not have sex), and the 2 widowed friends who love each other in that “you’re my best friend and I’ve got no one else to lean on” way. Heck, the Golden Girls could be considered married. (Of course, I’m thinking that might have dampened Blanche’s sex life). For that matter, if consent is the only thing now attributed to marriage, then why can’t marriages with just 1 person exist. Think of the ease, you (royal you) would only have to obtain consent with one person, yourself. We’d no longer need the “Single” box on forms, well except for maybe those few weirdos who only want to get married ONCE, to someone else.

And to paraphrase Syndrome from the Incredibles: “If Everyone is married, heh, heh, heh, No one will be.”

So if you’re okay with not really being married, because EVERYONE is considered married, regardless of their state of life (because marriage is really supposed to reflect one’s state of life - a particular and unique state of life) then HEY, Don’t worry about it, you’re absolutely right, it won’t effect your marriage at all.

But it certainly does effect mine, because my marriage DOES reflect my particular and unique state of life.

Your definition of marriage may fit Catholicism, and Christianity in general, but it does not exactly fit Judaism. For the latter, the unitive function of marriage is more important than the procreative function, not that this secondary function is unimportant. Moreover, while divorce is discouraged, it is permissible, and in certain cases even required, according to Jewish Law, and the Law speaks about, and allows, what is today called no-fault divorce long before it became “fashionable” in secular culture.

 

[PRmerger]

Moreover, while divorce is discouraged, it is permissible, and in certain cases even required,

What you have described above is very Catholic, meltzerboy!

 

[atheistgirl]

As Chriatians this is not what we believe.

I understand that’s the case.

I realize that you being an athirst may not agree with this, but this is where we are coming from.

I understand.

God does not want us to hate homosexuals, but pointing out that this is sinful is not hate.

No problem there.

It becomes a problem when you, as a Christian, want to impose your values and definitions on people who do not recognize them, or want them, and feel you can demand a certain group of people be denied what you have, under the law.

I am NOT talking about a sacramental marriage here.

I am talking about a secular marriage.

And having read most every word here on the subject, along with my own readings and discussions elsewhere, I simply do not see or agree that you have any right what so ever to interfer in the States choice to marry a gay couple, if that is the will of the people.

I also said elsewhere I would equally not support gay couples demanding a Church of any kind recognize their marriage sacramentally when this is against the rules of that Church.

But I will never, ever, support the view that gay couples can not and should not enjoy the full recognition of secular marriage.

I totally support their right to be married as a gay couple, under the law.

And in no way what so ever does this even remotely affect or devalue the marriage I treasure and enjoy with my husband.

Sarah x

 

[Robert_in_SD]

If a guy wants to marry his BMW - go for it I say

I really honestly truely don’t care.

It in no way invalidates, or affects, the wonderful marriage I enjoy with my husband.

If the State of California recognized that the guy-BMW marriage was valid, how does that NOT impact the legal status of your marriage to your wonderful husband? How can you not see that the legal recognition of your marriage as equivalent to the bond between a man and his luxury car is a significant reduction in the relationship that you describe as a wonderful marriage. In short, the State would be saying that there is no legal distinction between the relationship the man enjoys with his car, and the relationship your husband enjoys with you.

Peace,
Robert

 

[stewstew03]

Besides, if he is on the “side of the angels” why claim that he was taken out of context or misunderstood?

I’m not sure what you mean here - I didn’t claim he was taken out of context or misunderstood. I think it’s pretty clear he does not support same sex marriage.

 

[stewstew03]

It becomes a problem when you, as a Christian, want to impose your values and definitions on people who do not recognize them, or want them, and feel you can demand a certain group of people be denied what you have, under the law.

Whose values should we use - atheists’ values?

I totally support their right to be married as a gay couple, under the law.

What standard should we use? How should we, as a society, define marriage?