Is Dan Cathy a bigoted homophobe?

[Seeker1961]

so, you think there should be a splintering of the term? That “marriage” should become “traditional marriage” and same sex unions should be called “same sex marriages?” If so, how would this be acceptable to the community that wants to eliminate any distinction between same sex unions and male/female unions?

Perhaps the difference in terms would be “sacred marriage” and “civil marriage”? That difference already exists. Couples have been choosing to marry inside or outside the church depending on their personal convictions for YEARS. Churches have been denying marriage ceremonies to people for YEARS for one reason or another-never heard of a single lawsuit. According to the Church, those people are already not married-so why would gay people being married by a JOP be a threat to sacred marriage? Are straight people married by a JOP a threat to sacred marriage now?

 

[stewstew03]

There are bigots on both sides of the issue. It is unfair and inaccurate to characterize liberals as such.

epan - how can both of these statements be true? If, as you say, there are bigots on both sides of the issue, then it would be both fair and accurate to characterize liberals as bigots.

Keep in mind that the majority of Americans have been in favor of gay marriage for some years now.

This is irrelevant, epan.

Their opinion would be that they have that view because they are not bigots, themselves.

Of course that would be their opinion.

So, while you may feel that the odds are stacking against you, and they are more rapidly every day, that should not be confused with bigotry coming at you.

epan, to borrow a line from Princess Bride: “Truly you have a dizzying intellect.”

It just is the feeling of being in a shrinking minority.

This is irrelevant, epan.

As that trend continues, people will wonder why you hold the views that you do, because there are so few of you.

epan, our views are based on Scripture and Tradition.

Question for you epan - are the following statements bigoted? (These are not my statements, I am paraphrasing another individual).

**(A) Those who commit sexual sins, including those who commit adultery, and men who have sex with other men, won’t enjoy God’s kingdom.

(B) God will abandon those men and women who lead an actively gay lifestyle. In the past, when men did shameful things with other men, God punished them for those wrongs.**

Are these statements bigoted?

 

[St_Francis]

Consider a man born sterile. He hasn’t “lost” his ability to procreate because he never had it.

I have a car that needs a new transmission. I cannot use it for its pirpose, which is transportation. It is what we call *broken. *

Is it no longer a car? Is its function no longer transporting? no. It is still a car; its purpose is still to transport. This is why we have the work *broken, *to describe the state of something which cannot fulfilll its purpose, but that is still its purpose.

From an ecolutionary standpoint, various parts of a body have various functions. Scientists talk about tye functions of the various parts of the body to this day. Scientists differentiate between things which currently have functions, such as legs, and “residual” things, those which at a previous point of evolution had a function but which now do not. Some bones in the dolphin for example.

Now, humans are social animals who can think in a way that other animals, as far as we can tell. Those swans which mate for life cannot change that–they cannot decide to institute divorce. However, in order for human to have a reasonable society, certain things must occur; among those things, provision for the future of society; eg *children. *

From an evolutionary standpoint, the society which provides a good stable environment for its children works better than one which does not. In order to achieve this state, a public declaration not of loooooove but of *intention *to form a new unit of society, a family, is necessary. Then certain social norms apply: monogamy is enforced, benefits bestowed, etc. Why? Because society has an interest in its future.

The “broken” or infertile state of some heterosexual couples does not affect this. It is not a state which affects the intention, it is, through no fault of the couple, an inability to fulfill their intention.

What intention are people who are *inherently *unable to procreate making? They are functionally unable to form a family, to bring the future of society into being.

We have eroded the institution of marriage to the point that we can think of something like this. What we should be doing at this point is examining ourselves to see what we are doing. We have countless people who already have no understanding of how marriage works because they have not seen it. We have countless people who do not know how to maintain a marriage because they have not seen enough of that.

From an evolutionary standpoint, I think it is pretty apparent that when marriage is viewed as a mere optional declaration of loooooove, the society dies. It seems to be an evolutionary dead-end. Reinforcing this by acknowledging the relationships of homosexuals will only further and hasten this process.

And this is why those of us who understand this are against the legal recognition of what is merely an emotional relationship with no further ramifications.

 

[atheistgirl]

You’re argument fails to acknowledge the fact that marriage is not a private institution. It’s a public statement. How you decide to live your relationship with your husband in private is not the same as the formal public recognition of your relationship as a marriage.

I know it is. But let’s be honest here - two complete strangers can decide to get married and just grab two more complete strangers off the street as witnesses So much for public recognition and a public institution.

You don’t agree with the fact that two people of the same gender cannot procreate? That’s just nonsensical.

They can’t procreate together, and it’s not what I was refering to.

Or is it that you do not accept the fact that marriage has always been the recognition of such a relationship. Again, that is simply dishonest. The fact is that the definition of marriage has to change before it can be applied to same sex couples. I’m not sure what would be more troubling. That you simply refuse to acknolwedge this, or that you honestly don’t see it?

I was refering to this statement you made: Quote:

A marriage is the formal recognition that the act between husband and wife that gives rise to new life is legitimate

I don’t agree that for procreation to take place it’s legitimacy needs the defining act of a marriage.

Two heterosexual people can decide to live together, stay together, create a loving nurturing home for their children, and live their lives happy ever after - the conception of their children and their relationship is not illigitimate just because they didn’t get officially married.

Thankfully we’ve stopped refering to children born outside of wedlock as ‘‘illigimate’’ and locking women away from society as being immoral when they became pregnant before marriage.

It was my choice to get married, and my choice to bring children into the world after I was married, but that in no way means that’s a more ligitimate way to do things that a relative of mine who has been with her partner for 22 years, in a relationship much closer than a lot of marriages I’ve observed, have raised 3 beautiful and wonderful children who are now about to make their own way in the world, and who is considering fostering now their own three are grown and flown.

So, you think there should be a splintering of the term? That “marriage” should become “traditional marriage” and same sex unions should be called “same sex marriages?”

Nope.

Marriage should just be marriage.

For everyone.

Including same sex couples.

I’m now going to be around much now for the next week or two and what little time I manage to free up will be better spend not being on here So I won’t be responding to anything follow up reply of yours for some time. Just so you know you’re not being ignored!

Sarah x

 

[Ignatius]

This question is primarily for “liberals” or those who renounce the traditional idea of marriage. I’m wondering if someone can oppose same-sex marriage without being “bigoted” or “homophobic”? In other words, must Dan Cathy (and others) abandon his Christocentric beliefs to avoid the wrath and fury of homosexual men and women?

Mr. Cathy is actually a faithful Christian.

 

[Ignatius]

Context here.

Dan Cathy: “We [Chick-Fil-A] 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. We give God thanks for that … We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that.”

We can support Chick-Fil-A for their support of Christian values here:
ThankChickfilA.Com

 

[PRmerger]

We can support Chick-Fil-A for their support of Christian values here:
ThankChickfilA.Com

Done!

 

[stewstew03]

Done!

And done!

 

[InSearchofGrace]

And done!

Same here, DONE!

,

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I know it is. But let’s be honest here - two complete strangers can decide to get married and just grab two more complete strangers off the street as witnesses So much for public recognition and a public institution.

What you describe is the abuse of the public institution of marriage. That’s not an argument for scrapping marriage anh more than a bad politician is an argument against democracy.
AG:

I don’t agree that for procreation to take place it’s legitimacy needs the defining act of a marriage.

I’m not saying that procreation biologically requires marriage. But, technically and historically speaking, marriage IS what makes children legitimate.
AG:

Two heterosexual people can decide to live together, stay together, create a loving nurturing home for their children, and live their lives happy ever after - the conception of their children and their relationship is not illigitimate just because they didn’t get officially married.

Throughout history, marriage is what made children “legitimate” in every legal sense of the word. While present laws do not impose the same level of deprivation on the children of an “illegitimate” affair, marrige still DOES create rights in the biological father of the child that would not otherwise exist. Why do you think this is? Because “marriage” is the public recognition of the commitment of man and woman to stay together for mutual benefit, and for the benefit of the children that are produced by their union. You make a good point for traditional marriage here. If the couple you describe were terminated, e.g. by the death of the woman/mother, the man/father would not have paternal rights over his children in some states. At the very least, he would not enjoy a presumption of paternity that exists in many states as well. Another point in favor of the traditional marriage definition.
AG:

Thankfully we’ve stopped refering to children born outside of wedlock as ‘‘illigimate’’ and locking women away from society as being immoral when they became pregnant before marriage.

I agree. But that does not justify the removal of recognizing the significance of two people who commit to raising the children that arise from their union.
AG:

It was my choice to get married, and my choice to bring children into the world after I was married, but that in no way means that’s a more ligitimate way to do things that a relative of mine who has been with her partner for 22 years, in a relationship much closer than a lot of marriages I’ve observed, have raised 3 beautiful and wonderful children who are now about to make their own way in the world, and who is considering fostering now their own three are grown and flown.

Yes. It does. They may have a very loving and fruitful union. But it is not a marriage unless they live in a state that recognizes common law marriage. You’re continuing to confuse the very private romantic relationship between two people with the very public recognition of the union of a man and a woman as a marriage. It’s no argument to say that two people, regardless of gender, with feelings towards each other are in a de facto marriage.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Regular_Atheist]

I’d say he’s homophobic, but only because he claimed homosexuality was like, or as bad as, bestiality. I’d say you’re homophobic if you believe homosexuality is wrong, yes.

 

[stewstew03]

I’d say he’s homophobic, but only because he claimed homosexuality was like, or as bad as, bestiality. I’d say you’re homophobic if you believe homosexuality is wrong, yes.

I don’t recall Cathy saying anything about bestiality, but nevertheless… if one believes homosexuality is morally right (such as yourself), on what basis would that person believe bestiality is morally wrong?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

I don’t recall Cathy saying anything about bestiality, but nevertheless… if one believes homosexuality is morally right (such as yourself), on what basis would that person believe bestiality is morally wrong?

A thing called informed consent. Bestiality is cruelty to animals. It’s also what we use to distinguish between rape and normal sex (but, for some reason, people like you forget about it when it comes to homosexuality).

 

[stewstew03]

A thing called informed consent. Bestiality is cruelty to animals. It’s also what we use to distinguish between rape and normal sex (but, for some reason, people like you forget about it when it comes to homosexuality).

I had fish for dinner last night, but I did not obtain consent from the fish. Are you saying that eating the fish was immoral?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

I had fish for dinner last night, but I did not obtain consent from the fish. Are you saying that eating the fish was immoral?

I’m not, but I believe that is an argument vegetarians would use against eating meat. I think rape is generally more cruel than a preferably humane or quick death.

 

[stewstew03]

I’m not, but I believe that is an argument vegetarians would use against eating meat. I think rape is generally more cruel than a preferably humane or quick death.

So, leaving vegetarians aside - I can kill and then eat an animal, but I may not have “relations” with that animal…?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

So, leaving vegetarians aside - I can kill and then eat an animal, but I may not have “relations” with that animal…?

It’s funny, because that’s exactly what your Bible says. Anyway, to answer the question, no, I do not support animal cruelty. Do you? I believe it’s fine to kill them should it be done as humanely as possible.

 

[stewstew03]

It’s funny, because that’s exactly what your Bible says. Anyway, to answer the question, no, I do not support animal cruelty. Do you? I believe it’s fine to kill them should it be done as humanely as possible.

Is bestiality considered animal cruelty? That sounds like you’re being rather judgmental of those who practice bestiality… it’s almost as if you want to deny them of their rights to do as they please.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Is bestiality considered animal cruelty? That sounds like you’re being rather judgmental of those who practice bestiality… it’s almost as if you want to deny them of their rights to do as they please.

I do. Because what they want to do is cruel.

 

[epan]

This question is primarily for “liberals” or those who renounce the traditional idea of marriage. I’m wondering if someone can oppose same-sex marriage without being “bigoted” or “homophobic”? In other words, must Dan Cathy (and others) abandon his Christocentric beliefs to avoid the wrath and fury of homosexual men and women?

First of all, “liberals” don’t renounce traditional marriage. Only the fringe elements have suggested abolishing heterosexual marriage. They do advocate and expansion of marriage rights, which is not a renunciation of anything. “Traditional” marriage is not affected by this position, any more than allowing African Americans to marry, or mixed races to marry, affected existing marriages.

Secondly, Cathy has the right of freedom of speech. We live in a diverse world. I sincerely hope that if he breaks any employment laws, that he is held accountable. If his stated views translate to corporate policy, he could find himself in very hot financial waters. But he is a smart guy. I’m sure he has that covered with his lawyers. I am skeptical. It will not surprise me to see Chick-Fil-A courting gay customers in the near future. I think his statements are intended to be controversial, and to get attention.