Chick-Fil-A battle reaches Cal Poly

August 1, 2012

In support of GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee’s proclamation that today is Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, several church groups plan to bus parishioners to Cal Poly to support the restaurant’s anti-gay marriage stance by purchasing meals at Chick-fil-A.

The fast food restaurant chain’s president Dan Cathy said in The Baptist Press on July 16 that the Biblical view of marriage should be upheld.

“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit,” Cathy said. “We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”

Proponents of equal rights for the gay, lesbian and transgender community plan to arrive on the Cal Poly campus at 11:45 a.m. today to show their support for gay marriage. And on Friday, same sex couples are planning to return to Cal Poly’s Chick-fil-A for public displays of affection in what has been dubbed “National Same Sex Kiss Day.”

“For someone to be so anti-gay is disheartening,” said San Luis Obispo resident Sheryl Flores. “I wonder if Cal Poly will reconsider their relationship with Chick-fil-A in light of the University’s commitment to diversity and tolerance? From what I understand they don’t want gays in the restaurant. What would they do if openly gay people are in their restaurant. Will they ask us to leave?”


Loading...
HappyHuman

What exactly do you hope to accomplish by posting what is potentially his personal information? To make this debate about him, instead of about the issues? To sabotage discussion or cause harm to someone who disagrees with you on the internet? Seems real mature of you.


moderator

Those comments have been removed, some user may find their posting “rights” curtailed for a while. be civil please

??? or !!!

moderator@calcoastnews.com


HappyHuman

Thank you. I appreciate your prompt action on this.


zaphod

I cannot over emphasize the utility of Email :-)


austinmello

Thank you.


rmiller

Structure…you talk about selective readnig…how about selective interpretation. Being in support of the “biblical definition of the family unit” may not mean what they think it means. A dear friend and doctor of theology shared with me that, “family would have been composed of multiple wives and all the children that came from all those marriages. Family also would have included children from non-married relationships, e.g., Abrahams’s with Hagar, and Solomom and the queen of Sheba.”


I suspect that Dan Cathy did not mean that he was pro-polygamy…just that he was anti-gay.


austinmello

All evidence seems to indicate that this is, and has long been, a pretty standard human bonding arrangement. I wonder how many of our friends here would vote in favor of multiple-partner marriages?


Crusader

Your “dear friend and doctor of theology” is quite mistaken. Polygamy has never been a Judeo-Christian tradition — biblical or otherwise. If you think I’m wrong I would ask you to prove your friend’s opinion.


All too often posting are based on opinions that are offered as fact…


ebrummer

“Polygamy has never been a Judeo-Christian tradition — biblical or otherwise” I’m starting to think that your sole purpose is to troll people because if you actually believe what you say you do, and mean what you have said, you show far reaching ineptitude and a complete void of knowledge on most of what you have said here.


“Many of the Old Testament Prophets and Patriarchs had multiple wives, including Lamech, Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Gideon, Saul, David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Elkanah, Ashur, Abijah and Jehoiada. Some interpretations also suggest Moses had a second wife in Tharbis. Other polygamists identified in the Bible include Ahab, Ahasuerus, Ashur, Belshazzar, Benhadad, Caleb, Eliphaz, Ezra, Jehoiachin, Jehoram, Jerahmeel, Joash, Machir, Manasseh, Mered, Nahor, Shaharaim, Simeon, and Zedekiah.

The first polygamist mentioned in the Bible is Lamech, whose two wives were Adah and Zillah (Gen 4:19).[1] Abraham’s 3+ wives were Sarah, Hagar (Gen 16:3, 21:1-13), Keturah (Gen 25:1), and concubines (which are also referred to as “wives” in other parts of the Bible) (Gen 25:6). The concubines were Hagar (Gen 16:3, 25:6) and Keturah (Gen 25:6, I Chr 1:32). There is no reason to presume that he had concubines other than Hagar and Keturah. Hagar, like the slave women of Jacob’s wives, was more of a surrogate mother than a concubine in the normal sense as it appears that after using her in place of Sarah to provide a child, Abraham does not appear to have had sexual relations with her any more. Jacob’s four wives are Leah and Rachel (Gen 29:28) and despite an oath with their father Laban to not take any additional wives (Gen 31:48-54), Jacob took Bilhah (Gen 30:4) and Zilpah (Gen 30:9). As with Hagar, Bilhah and Zilpah were surrogate mothers to provide children on behalf of their mistresses, Leah and Rachel. It does not appear that Jacob continued to have sexual relations with the two women. In each of the three cases of Sarah, Leah and Rachel, each woman commanded her slave to have sexual relations with their husbands respectively. Neither Abraham nor Jacob took it upon themselves to approach their wives’ slave women. Moses’ 2 wives Zipporah (Ex 2:21, Ex 18:1-6) and an Ethiopian (Gk “burnt face”)(Cushite < כושי, kooshiy, ultimate meaning unknown but from ancient times signifying Upper (southern) Egypt, Nubia, and dark skinned (see Jer 13:23) or even red haired people) woman (Num 12:1), which Moses was permitted to marry by God, despite all the rest of his people being forbidden to take a foreign (because foreigners were per se pagan) wife. There is dissent on this. Some think that Zipporah, daughter (Ex 2:21) of a Midianite priest (Ex 2:16, Ex 18:1, 2), is the "Ethiopian" woman. Other opinion is that Zipporah died and Moses married an Ethiopian woman in her place. Interestingly enough, Aaron and Miriam were punished for disapproving of Moses' forbidden marriage. Gideon (also named Jerub-Baal) "had many wives" (Judges 8:29-32). Elkanah, Samuel the priest's father, had 2 wives: Hannah and Peninnah (1 Samuel 1:1-2). Often, people studying King David, get confused between his "wives" and "concubines" because the Bible calls 10 of his concubines "wives" in several places. An accurate list of David's wives would include at least 4 named wives: 1) Michal (1 Sam 18:27, 19:11-18, 25:44; 2 Sam 3:13-14, 6:20-23), 2) Abigail of Carmel (1 Sam 25:39, 1 Chr 3), 3) Ahinoam of Jezreel (1 Sam 25:43, 1 Chr 3), 4) Eglah (2 Sam 3:4-5, 1 Chr 3), and 5) Bathsheba (2 Sam 12:24). David also took "more wives and concubines" in 2 Sam 5:13, 12:7-8, 1 Chr 14:3, bringing the total women to a minimum of 5 + 2+ additional wives + 2+ additional concubines = 9+ women. Three additional women are mentioned, but we are not told if they are wives or concubines: 1) Maacah (2 Sam 3:3, 1 Chr 3), 2) Abital (2 Sam 3:3-4, 1 Chr 3), and 3) Haggith (2 Sam 3:3, 1 Chr 3). The new total is 12+ women for King David. And lastly, there are the 10 concubines, or "wives" as they are also referred to as, in 2 Sam 5:13, 15:16, 16:21-23, 1 Chr 14:3), bringing David's total women to at least 22+ "wives/concubines". David's son, Solomon, chose 700 wives and 300 concubines, totaling 1,000 women in 1 Kings 11:3. The Hebrew and Greek terms translated into English as "wife" simply means "woman," that is, "female human being." It is by context that it has to be determined by a translator whether it should be translated "wife" or "woman" ("woman" < "wif" woman as we mean by it today + "mann" human being, individual member of mankind) the kind of human being suitable as a wife as we mean by it today.

Seemingly in support of polygamy, in addition to the many examples of plural marriage, the Pentateuch also lists guidelines and rules concerning the taking of multiple wives; noting that "If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights, [Ex 21:10] and making it an obligation for men whose brothers have left a widow to marry her and support her family.[Deut 25:5–10] These verses encourage or promote polygamy and there are no verses in the law or Old Testament Bible that clearly forbid this practice.

Further is the practice of the levir (Latin "husband's brother," that is, the widow of one's brother: the surviving brother is the widow's brother-in-law). The Hebrew is יִבֵּם, yabam, yavam, signifies to perform the duty of a brother-in-law to the widow of one's brother who did not provide an heir to her husband (De 25:5). Its literal meaning is unknown. The firstborn child, or son, resulting from the sexual relations between a man and his brother's widow was listed and considered the son of the deceased (De 25:6). No allowance is given for a man who already had a wife. If he does not want to take his brother's widow, she has the right to publicly denounce and insult him (De 25:7-10). The first reference to this custom, which was later incorporated into the Deuteronomic Code, is found in Gen 38:8, 9. When Onan did not want to provide a son to his deceased brother, Er, but did not want to be publicly denounced and insulted by his brother's widow[original research?], he conformed with the requirement to have sexual relations with her but to avoid providing an heir to his brother's name, thereby losing the right to inherit his brother's estate to the child, he withdrew his member from his sister-in-law and "destroyed" his sperms "on the ground" (Ge. 38:9). For this act YHWH (LORD in the KJV) killed him (Ge 38:10).

The Pentateuch also gives a list of laws that applies to the person of Judean kings. One of the laws regarding kingship states: "The king must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the Lord has told you, "You are not to go back that way again." He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray." (De 17:16-17, New International Version (NIV) Bible translation). The New Living Translation (NLT) also gives an accurate translation of these verses: "The king must not build up a large stable of horses for himself or send his people to Egypt to buy horses, for the Lord has told you, ‘You must never return to Egypt.’ The king must not take many wives for himself, because they will turn his heart away from the Lord. And he must not accumulate large amounts of wealth in silver and gold for himself." Other versions substitute "multiply" instead of "take many", but this is more of a confusing translation because it alludes inaccurately that "more than one" may not be permitted. However, if you look at Deut 17:16, the same word "multipy" or "take many" is used with regard to horses, and clearly a king will need more than one horse. So these verses are referring to not amassing a great number of horses and wives.

The prophet Nathan speaking for God confronting David with the murder of Uriah the Hittite said that he (God) would have given David more wives if he had wanted them.[2Samuel 12:8] God Himself, Who is usually (except to Arians and those with a similar belief) understood according to John 1:1-4 to be the God later incarnated, born of a woman, is portrayed as a bigamist (a polygamist with two wives only) in Jeremiah 3, Ezekiel 16 and 23. And in the New Testament Jesus is portrayed variously as the husband of His wife, the church (Rev 21:9, 22:17), in a strictly monogamous relationship, teaching that He has but one church, and as the "husband" of each individual Christian, who has a relationship with Christ analogous to the relationship of a wife to her husband in the flesh."


Copied verbatim from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Christianity There is far more analysis available on this subject, if you actually wished to learn something.


Moderator

Please do not submit entire articles from other publications.

Excerpt and a link are much better.

Wall of text , not so much.


The Gimlet Eye

Polygamy WAS practiced in OT times. See the article in the ISBE (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia): Polygamy


http://www.e-sword.net/


You can download the old edition (not the updated one) for free from this website.


rmiller

This is an important opportunity for those who believe that opposing marriage equality is bad for our community and bad for business to rally together. Please join GALA and several of Cal Poly’s GLBT organizations on Friday , August 3, at 1 pm for a pro-marriage equality rally in front of the Chick-fil-A location on the Cal Poly Campus. Event details can be found on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/#!/events/125654450912667/


Crusader

“Marriage equality?”


Again, is that a euphemism for simulated homosexual marriages?


Darth

I hope you don’t choke on a Chick fil a sandwich and the only person who knows CPR is gay.


R.Hodin

It wasn’t clear who you’re directing your comment towards (I hope it wasn’t everyone or anyone), but you must have been living in a cave for the last few years (or decades?) without a radio, or you’d know that the regular CPR procedure no longer has a breath component to it, and that the first aid for choking victims is something else entirely.


http://depts.washington.edu/learncpr/chokeconscious.html


Robert1

Chick-fil-A Marks Rise of ‘Eat-in’ Movement

8-02-2012

http://nbcnews.to/QCvnMl


dhg

When a person or business is attacked in an unfair or vicious way this is what happens. Backlash – big time.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/02/huckabee-chick-fil-appreciation-day-beyond-anything-could-have-imagined/


austinmello

A hate rally is nothing to be proud of. Your intolerance does not befit a civilized member of a modern society.


dhg

Austinmello..

I am going to Chick-Fil-A today…..for the chicken – not for the ‘kiss-in’.


austinmello

I hope that every gay man in the place tries to make out with you.


slowtime

If any strange man or woman tried to” make out” with me, they would immediatly find themselves on the floor. Grow up. Everyone has a right to an opinion, respect that; even restaurant owners. If you dont like it, dont go. Simple.


austinmello

You’re really that violent of a person? Maybe you should grow up.


You fail to see that you’re elucidating EXACTLY the point of this whole argument. Everyone has a right to an opinion, and in America it is required that we respect those. Most of us Americans are of the opinion that same-sex couples deserve all the rights and recognition of hetero couples. Since allowing gay marriage increases freedom and doesn’t take anyone rights, you should respect it, even if you don’t agree with it. I support Chick-Fil-A’s right to hold and express their beliefs. However, they do NOT have a right to try to keep gays from marrying. Plain and simple.


slowtime

Point is you said you wish gay men would try and make out with him. That was childish. You have me wrong, I do respect others; I just dont care for chocolate and carpet. Some do, more power to them. Dont push your beliefs on me and invade my space. “making out” or a “kiss in” regardless of gender is really not appropriate is it? Does anyone have manners and dignity anymore?


austinmello

I don’t see where marriage equality interferes with your personal space or your life in general.


austinmello

Since I can’t actually reply to lakerhater, as his comment is buried too deep, I’ll do my best.


I just want to point out that I used my full name intentionally and it’s annoying that you people keep writing it out as a screen name. My name is actually Austin Mello, and you’re welcome to insult me as just ‘Austin.’ I’ll also gladly accept Rev. Mello.


slowtime

It doesn’t interfere with me, but saying this person is trying to stop marriage is dumb. BTW, stick with your own opinion, saying “most of us Americans” is lame and subject to proof.


austinmello

A June 6 CNN/ORC International poll showed that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage being legalized at 54%, while 42% are opposed.


A May 22 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 54% of Americans would support a law in their state making same-sex marriage legal, with 40% opposed.


A May 17-20 ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that 53% believe same-sex marriage should be legal, with only 39% opposed, a low-water mark for opposition in any national poll so far.


A May 10 USA Today/Gallup Poll, taken one day after Barack Obama became the first sitting President to express support for same-sex marriage, showed 51% of Americans agreed with the President’s endorsement. A May 8 Gallup Poll showed plurality support for same-sex marriage nationwide, with 50% in favor and 48% opposed.


An April Pew Research Center poll showed support for same-sex marriage at 47%, while opposition fell to an all-time low of 43%.


A March 7-10 ABC News/Washington Post poll found 52% of adults thought it should be legal for same-sex couples to get married, while 42% disagreed and 5% were unsure.[18] A March survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found 52% of Americans supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 44% opposed.


A February 29 – March 3 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found 49% of adults supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 40% opposed.


If you want to look at polls from previous years you will see a distinct and growing support for marriage equality.


Times are a-changing. Ethics are evolving. The human race is progressing and you nay-sayers are holding us back. However, you cannot stop change. The war on homosexual rights is all but lost and the near future will see a mass acceptance of individuals and their rights. Don’t worry, you’ll still be able to live exactly the life you do now, but without the imagined special considerations you all fight so hard for. Equality must be equality for all.


slowtime

Time to get back to work Austin. There are some bare feet waiting for you. If your Google search were the real reality, we wouldnt be having this discussion.


HappyHuman

I have, on many occasions, discussed the merits of racial segregation with white supremacists, despite the vast majority of Americans being opposed to racism and discrimination. Does the fact that two people argue about an issue on the internet mean that the majority of people aren’t against racism? No. Of course not. So why you would think that you being challenged on your prejudices is indicative of most Americans not supporting equality for all, is beyond me.


Robert1

Austin Mello

20 hours ago

I am seriously worked up about Chick-Fil-A for a number of reasons. Most of them have to do with equality and civil rights.


But, it is also excruciatingly frustrating to be constantly reminded of the delicious chicken I’ve been avoiding for such a god damn long time.


https://www.facebook.com/austinmello


austinmello

Yup, I have a sense of humor, a Facebook, and firm morals. You have a problem with any of those things?


maybe not

Hey Robert1, why don’t you post your own Facebook Page url on CCN.. I bet it’s entertaining!


kettle

Really Robert1?


You expose another yet hide behind a anonymous comment account, afraid of what?.


Man up and put your words to your name just like Dan Cathy.


You should be banned for violating someones privacy.


It’s Austin choice not yours.


austinmello

Comments must be related to the subject matter of the article or related matters. First time Comments are held for moderator approval before they will appear on the page. Comments containing any of the following will be deleted:

1. Vulgar, obscene, offensive, threatening or harassing language;

2. Promotion, fostering or perpetuation of discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, age, religion, gender, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, national origin, physical or mental disability or sexual orientation;

3. Comments determined to be in violation of federal, state or local laws;

4. Sexual content or links to sexual content;

5. Promotion or advertising of any business or other commercial purpose.

6. Content for conducting or encouraging illegal activity;

7. Information compromising the safety or security of the public or public systems; and

9. Violation of a legal ownership interest of any other party.


Moderator?


austinmello

I’m telling you that your comment breaks most of the rules about what you can post here. I’d also like to point out that you’re childish and cowardly. As long as you’re going to attack me personally because you disagree with me, I’d appreciate you putting yourself out there as well.


R.Hodin

Moderator’s out to lunch & supports personal attacks on CCN blog.

Nothing new


zaphod

I was having pancakes,

some comments deleted

??? or !!!

Email

moderator@calcoastnews


Please

simple request: don’t derail the discussion with your opinion about moderation


Again

please use the Email to let us know about problem comments or the website function

please use the text box to create commentary about the various topics / article


thank you


Robert1
Robert1

Top Wendy’s franchisee backs Chick-fil-A — Jim Furman, CEO of Tarheel Capital, which runs 74 Wendy’s restaurants, had the message “WE STAND WITH CHICK-FIL-A”

http://fxn.ws/RdIrcX


: ) :) :)


kettle

Chose to ignore the rest of the article did we?


“This is one independent franchisee’s personal opinion,” a statement from Wendy’s International read. “We are proud to serve customers of varied races, backgrounds, cultures and sexual orientation, with different beliefs and values. Bearing that in mind, this franchisee has decided to remove the messages from his restaurant signs.”


Apparently the franchisee wanted to keep his franchise, so much for sticking to his morals.


racket

Didn’t know we had a Chick-fil-A in SLO … Seems to me this added exposure is benefiting Chick-fil-A.


austinmello

While it is true that they’ve had their biggest day ever, it is also true that they are seeing a marked and growing decrease in sales in general since Dan Cathy went public with his “Guilty as charged” statement. Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day was a drop in the bucket compared to the losses they’ve foisted upon themselves. Not all attention is good.


Robert1

As in most of what you post, personal opinion and hear say,blah blah blah.


Crusader

No kidding. He’s simply lying at this point. Chik-fil-A’s nationwide have been mobbed with an increase in business ever since mayors Thomas Menino and Rahm Emanuel arrogantly announced that they spoke for the citizens of their cities and would not allow Chik-fil-A’s to be established locally.


austinmello

See below.


Robert1

Agree, the tens of millions of dollars earned in the last 24 to 48 hours will help many charities the company supports, and many employees got over time all while the suppliers prospered. It is a huge win win !


kettle

“As the controversy has snowballed, the company’s overall consumer brand health has dropped to its lowest levels since at least mid-August 2010. It also is the first time Chick-fil-A has sunk below the perception average of the top QSR restaurant chains.”

http://www.qsrweb.com/article/198103/Chick-fil-A-s-perception-drops-amid-gay-marriage-controversy


The son damages the success of his father. I think Shakespeare had a play about it.


kettle

Crusader says: ” since mayors Thomas Menino and Rahm Emanuel arrogantly announced that they spoke for the citizens of their cities”


Arrogantly announce? hardly, until their term runs out Menino and Emanuel literally speak for there city’s people. There was this thing, an election.


austinmello

http://dailyagenda.org/wp-content/uploads/Chick-Fil-A-suffering.jpg


Funny you would accuse me of speaking only out of personal opinion. You see, my personal opinion is legally indiscernible from the religious beliefs being spouted at me as support against marriage equality, except for one, very important feature; my position limits the rights of none and increases freedom in general, while the opposition aims to hinder and control where they have no right to do so. One of those opinions is a viable basis for legal change, the other is not, can you tell the difference, or must I spell it out again?


R.Hodin

Thank you.


slowtime

Attention is good. I for one never knew this chain existed until all of this. Now I will definetly try Chick-fil-a next time I’m near one.


unlisted

I’d like to take something from the religious right’s playbook by saying that the recent death of Chick-fil-A vice president of public relations Don Perry was an act of God for his company’s stand against homosexuals.


HappyHuman

That they say these things does not justify us saying the same things. Let’s try to be above the immaturity, bigotry and prejudice on display by many in this conversation, and try to remember that everyone is a human being, with concerns that should be evaluated and discussed on the basis of their own legitimacy.


bobfromsanluis

My largest issue with the fight against same-sex marriage always seems to be the hue-and-cry of religious followers, mostly those who self-identify as Christians; what was it that Jesus said about homosexuality? Oh yeah, NOTHING! Of course, you can postulate that he did not feel the need to say anything because there is already so much said in the Old Testament, or, perhaps he did not feel that there was not much of issue about it, so why bother? I do wonder though how the Christians who are in such an uproar about same-sex marriage square their loathing for the ideal of same-sex marriage with the tenet of the “Golden Rule”; you know, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”?

The outrage expressed by those Christians opposed to same-sex marriage usually centers around the word “marriage”; many here on this thread have expressed their belief that two adults can enter into any agreement, arrangement or contract they want to, so long as two same sex adults don’t want to call it marriage. The largest problem with that sentiment however is that by definition, “marriage” is a LEGAL arrangement, a LEGAL agreement, a LEGAL contract; the “government” has allowed special privileges for those who are legally married, like directing care for the other person when one of them can no longer speak for themselves or act in their best interests, or have certain visitation rights like in a hospital or even a prison, as well as being able to provide certain insurance benefits for a person that is married to someone with healthcare insurance, and ultimately, when a spouse dies, the surviving spouse is legally entitled to all of the possessions that the two married people had together.

My point is, marriage has certain “legal” rights that no other form of union can match, and if you have any doubts about the idea of marriage being a “legal” entity, try ending one; you will end up in a “court of law”, with a judge, and if you are smart, you will have hired an attorney.

Given that marriage is a legal arrangement then, to deny two people that are of the same sex but still meet all the other criteria (of legal age, not blood related, making the decision of their own free will) is a form of discrimination, period. If you know a young person who is old enough to understand what marriage is, ask them their opinion of whether or not same-sex marriage should be the law; eventually the laws will be changed and in ten, twenty or fifty years from now, most people will have wondered what all the outrage was about.


Crusader

“…what was it that Jesus said about homosexuality? Oh yeah, NOTHING!…”


That “argument” is always entertaining. It also couldn’t be more incorrect or disingenuous. To infer that Jesus Christ said nothing about homosexuality because the topic is not mentioned specifically in one of the 4 Gospels is just wrong.


ALL Christians accept the ENTIRE “Christian” Bible as the inspired and inerrant word of God.


ALL Christians accept Jesus Christ as the Second Person of God known as God the Son.


Therefore as God the Son, Jesus Christ said a great deal about homosexuality.


austinmello

And you keep all of the Levitical laws?


Crusader

I’m a Christian who accepts the New Covenant in Jesus Christ. As a Christian who actually knows their faith I am aware that this New Covenant does not vitiate the substance of every Mosaic Law.


austinmello

Which means you (or some other human) has decided which of those laws are and aren’t still relevant. Sounds exceedingly tenuous. The fact of the matter is that you are personally intolerant, and are finding whatever justification you can to maintain and externalize your own bigotry. It’s pretty uncomfortable to watch.


Crusader

I realize that you hate the gift of faith but you need to stop lying. There are Mosaic Laws in the Bible that have no foundation in the natural law and no longer need to be upheld by those who do not follow the Mosaic Law. The classic examples would be the eating of pork or shellfish.


Other Mosaic Laws do have a foundation in the natural law. The practice of homosexuality is a prime example. A practice that by its very definition equates to death as homosexuals cannot reproduce if they actually lived monogamous lives.


Christians are precluded from actively living homosexual lives because the Mosaic Law is still in effect because the natural law is still in effect.


austinmello

In what universe did you hear that the rules about food don’t have a basis in natural law? Those prohibitions are aimed at keeping people safe from clean food. They’re irrelevant now thanks to science. The statement made about homosexuality has little to do with homosexuality and everything to do with cementing the inferiority of women.


Your claiming that some have their basis in natural law is your explanation of how and why you are CHOOSING which parts of the Bible to put credence in. I’m pretty sure it doesn’t work like that. Unfortunately for literalists, the book they believe to be inerrant is more internally inconsistent than the Book of Mormon. You necessarily have to make your own, opnion-based value judgment if you plan to believe absolutely a book that contradicts itself at every turn. http://sciencebasedlife.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/biblecontradictions-reasonproject.png


You can yell and scream about faith and sin as long as you want, but we’re talking about a social issue in a free country, and religious beliefs are inadmissible as justification for law. You’ve consistently refused to address the issue in any relevant terms. As for the point that homosexuals cannot procreate, what about marriages including a sterile partner? Not valid? What about couples that don’t intend to have children, not valid? I gotta say you’re only piling on evidence in favor of supporting these unions. In a world already well-overpopulated by our species, the best thing we can do for ourselves is to encourage non-procreative unions. It’s the only way we can possibly continue living on this planet indefinitely.


austinmello

*unclean food.


Also, you’ve made the point that Christians are prohibited from engaging in homosexual relationships. That’s fine, nobody wants to take that out of your book. You have to understand that we don;t all believe in it and everybody has the right to live by their own morals. Your qualms with homosexuality are irrelevant if you aren’t gay. It literally doesn’t effect you and you have no right to interfere in the business of others. Whether you think they’re sinning or not, they aren’t hurting you and you have no grounds on which to hurt them.


HappyHuman

How anyone could dislike the statement “Whether you think they’re sinning or not, they aren’t hurting you and you have no grounds on which to hurt them.” is beyond me.


bobfromsanluis

Crusader: Your response was predictable; notice that you did not address the legality of the issue, notice that you did not address how younger people feel about same-sex marriage, and about how history will look back on this time and wonder why there was such a heated debate about what will eventually be “normal”. Instead you have to (as in not being able to stop yourself) respond only to the mention of Jesus and what he did or didn’t say concerning homosexuality, and even then you have go on and on about how ALL Christians accept the ENTIRE “Christian” Bible; how is it that you know what ALL Christians feel about the Bible, about what Jesus did or didn’t say about the issue, and about how we (or our off-spring) will look back at this time and wonder what all the fuss was about. But I’m sure you will have a Biblical quote or two to make your point; those who have the weakest convictions in life always seem to be the most vocal about their views as if they are trying hard to convince themselves at least, even if no one else is.


austinmello

I’m done addressing him for this very reason. Too far gone for a rational discussion, too small a minority to worry too hard about.


Crusader

You’re talking smack right now, bob. If you were a student of history (and not just the last 30-40 years) you would know that things are not linear. They go in cycles. You suggest that what is argued about today will one day be “normal” and you simply don’t know that. The fact is, history says different.


The practice of homosexuality was tolerated in some ancient societies far more then it is today — in some cases by the very same societies. In other cases the rise of homosexuality and other corrosive elements led to the failure of the societies. If your thesis was actually valid, the practice of homosexuality would be embraced by all today and that’s hardly the case, thanks be to God.


I suspect down deep the real drive behind making the notion of homosexual “marriages” legal is an attempt to make the homosexual lifestyle more accepted by society. That’s probably also a big reason why it’s being resisted by so many — they don’t want degenerative behavior to be viewed as normal.


I’m sorry for blowing-away your “…what was it that Jesus said about homosexuality? Oh yeah, NOTHING!…” crap that so many self-described “Christians” preach, but the truth is that it’s just that. Crap.


bobfromsanluis

Crusader: I seriously doubt you are “sorry” for anything you say or do in your quest to exhibit to the world your religiosity. You have misinterpreted what I meant when I said that there will be a new “normal”, although you are correct that homosexuality has been very open and accepted at various times through history. What I meant when I said that there will be a new “normal” is that the term “marriage” will come to mean a loving relationship between two adults, regardless of gender. Just as you assert that history has shown us that definitions change over very long spans of time, I too assert that marriage has changed over the eons; in some cultures, a groom would “purchase” his bride as a child from a family, taking possession of her once she passed through puberty, in other cultures a family would have to make up a “dowery” to pay the groom-to-be to marry their daughter, and in other cultures there would be arranged marriages that sometimes would also include a financial transaction. My point is that marriage has not always meant the same thing since it first became a custom for two people to join into a lasting relationship and has actually “evolved” into the current situation that it is today, and my prediction is that it will evolved some more over time to include those of the same gender having all the legal rights that are currently afforded to heterosexual couples.

Perhaps in your quest to see more people follow the literal Bible we should consider going back to the historical marriages of having 5, 10 or a hundred wives? I, for one, have no desire to consider anything that radical; good luck to you if you do though.


The Gimlet Eye

Crusader, you made one very interesting and significant point regarding history, and you are quite correct.


History IS NOT linear.


Conditions can improve, but they can also get worse.


Societies grow and prosper, but they also degenerate and self-destruct.


There are good times and bad, good leaders and bad, good times and bad, good weather and bad, etc. Change is the only constant.


Nobody really knows what is going to happen next.


Where does this “linear” idea come from? Probably from the overemphasis on science which has overtaken our society.


austinmello

Overemphasis on science? If you take the time to consider comparable modern societies, we fair perhaps the worst at educating our citizens in science and math. Today’s America is an example of a country where personal, subjective beliefs threaten the presence of science, objectivity, and reason in our growth and governing.


We are a grossly anti-intellectual backwater with a rampant fear of science that has crippled our culture and our politics.


SLOBIRD

What is amazing about all this is I really don’t think anyone cares who you love, who you sleep with or what you do. Just don’t expect all of us to accept the marriage rite for homosexuals as some of us have Christian beliefs and family values that differ from yours and some of us strongly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman (even our President did until about three months ago when he figured out by flipping on this would get him lots of money and votes – check his record for the past four years, he was even interviewed and clearly stated his belief, but then again, he has flipped and lots of things) and that we can create a natural family with this union and that we believe our Christian beliefs and you have no right no ask me to change. I respect your choice, don’t understand it and don’t want too as I find it disguesting but I believe in freedom of choice, so go for it. So, let me carry my gun, vote my party of choice, choose and believe my faith, speak my peace, hire who I want, buy insurance if I want, donate to causes I believe in and I will let you and your friends do whatever as long as it is consenting adults and you have some dignity with it. Good bye, I’ve had enough of this subject…


ebrummer

Well, you made a number of random political statements in there that I won’t bother addressing but as for your marriage rite, sure that’s fine. I don’t expect you to initially allow gay people to get married in your church. (I say initially though you may think never because if you look at history, churches have eventually loosened up on their social issues as time passed… such as with women’s rights, non-white people, and interracial marriage.) But regardless of whether you allow two gay people to get married in your church or not, is of little concern to myself, a straight male who respects the rights of gays to get married, or to gay people. The problem is, so many people are spending millions of dollars campaigning to prevent gay people from marrying in the eyes of the law which denies gay people equal rights. If you want to have a church that doesn’t allow gay marriage, so be it but don’t actively try to prevent gay people from obtaining equal legal status under the law which is what President Dan Cathy promoted and does with his and Chic-fil-a’s money.


austinmello

We’re not asking you to accept it. You can disagree and disbelieve as much as you want, but you don’t get to withhold people’s rights simply because you;re uncomfortable with them. The laws that protect your ability to speak out against gay marriage protect the rights of gays to marry just as firmly. You cannot have it both ways, or else you are denying your fellow citizens the rights that you cling so hard to.