toldailytopic: Will you eat at Chick-fil-A knowing they support traditional marriage?

[Alate_One]

Is it accurate to say that God has excluded homosexual couples from marriage altogether? Whatever the specific definition of marriage might be?

As I've said before marriage is both a civil and religious institution. The church can't really control the civil aspect of it. Though individual churches have long controlled who they are willing to marry (and that often doesn't include every heterosexual couple).

Well, there you go then. This is a meaningless quibble masquerading as substance.

I have heard a number of Christians complaining about gay marriage being a slippery slope to polygamy. Many Christians are honest and refer to "traditional marriage" rather than Biblical marriage.

Where are you getting that from?

Polygamy is apparently part of the culture. It certainly wasn't railed against.

In any case I think being anti-gay marriage is, at this point, a lost cause. As long as Christian churches and organizations are not forced to officiate or recognize said marriages, we will be fine.

Secular culture has always been depraved and will continue to be. Every culture all the way from Greek and Roman times has claimed that *insert moral values* are declining. Individual nations frequently rise and fall irrespective of their moral state. Our job as Christians is to show forth the righteousness and love of Christ in a depraved world, not force everyone else that isn't a Christian to live morally.

 

[Alate_One]

But, so far, he is free to hold to his own beliefs.

Sure, but as the head of a company people are also free not to patronize any company who has a spokesman that says things they disagree with. And others are free to buy more from companies that support causes they agree with.

It's called the free market. So many Christians essentially worship it, I don't see the sudden issue.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Sure, but as the head of a company people are also free not to patronize any company who has a spokesman that says things they disagree with. And others are free to buy more from companies that support causes they agree with.

It's called the free market. So many Christians essentially worship it, I don't see the sudden issue.

The sudden issue is attempts to deny business licenses based on personal beliefs and the ignoring of freedom of speech and religion.

 

[Angel4Truth]

In any case I think being anti-gay marriage is, at this point, a lost cause. As long as Christian churches and organizations are not forced to officiate or recognize said marriages, we will be fine.

Secular culture has always been depraved and will continue to be. Every culture all the way from Greek and Roman times has claimed that *insert moral values* are declining. Individual nations frequently rise and fall irrespective of their moral state. Our job as Christians is to show forth the righteousness and love of Christ in a depraved world, not force everyone else that isn't a Christian to live morally.

Who cares if people learn what sin is and their need for a savior right?

 

[Alate_One]

The sudden issue is attempts to deny business licenses based on personal beliefs and the ignoring of freedom of speech and religion.

Gee and you're ignoring the liberal press that's defending them from being attacked by local government officials.

Heavens those ebil liberals couldn't ever do anything good!

I won't ever give my business to a Chick-fil-A, and I know that many LGBTs and our allies will also stay away. But Chick-fil-A has every right to be in business, in the city of Chicago and elsewhere. I would never want their bigotry to keep them from getting a business license.

 

[Alate_One]

Who cares if people learn what sin is and their need for a savior right?

How does stopping them from getting married do any of that?

And if that's the purpose of civil laws, why aren't we banning, lying, adultery and talking back to your parents?

I think you're confusing a democracy with a theocracy.

 

[rexlunae]

Disclaimer: I've never eaten at one, and probably won't anytime soon for reasons having nothing to do with their political advocacy, simply because I've never lived very close to one.

Hey tolerance and diversity crowd.... isn't there room for just one disenting view in this world?

Sure. No problem with that.

Or will you not be satisfied until you beat every single human on earth into submission?

I may choose not to eat there, and take my $10 or whatever somewhere else because I don't like what they advocate with the money they make. They apparently donate about $2 million dollars a year to anti-gay activist groups. My pocket change versus their homophobic largess isn't much of a contest, is it? And who is really coming closer to "beating every single human on earth into submission"?

Is your world view so weak that it cannot handle a differing opinion???

On a like note, I'm sure you'd call their worldview weak if they decline to fund gay rights groups. Right? Since we're all just supposed to blindly tolerate anything and everything.

I would be very happy to eat at their stores (where convenient) if all they had was a differing opinion. They want to be closed Sundays? Great. No problem for me. I'll go Saturday. They want to donate to churches? Fine. I've got no beef with any of that.

But if they're taking the money that I pay them, and using it to fund a cause that I vehemently oppose, I think I am on solid ground hesitating to let them have my money. And I can't help but believe that you'd react the same way if the rolls were reversed. For example, would you consider not shopping at a business that you know donates to Planned Parenthood?

Edit: I'm also opposed to plans to try to drive them out of cities. I don't like their opinions, but they have every right to hold them without governments interfering with them.

 

[annabenedetti]

But if they're taking the money that I pay them, and using it to fund a cause that I vehemently oppose, I think I am on solid ground hesitating to let them have my money. And I can't help but believe that you'd react the same way if the rolls were reversed. For example, would you consider not shopping at a business that you know donates to Planned Parenthood?

I can't fault you for the reasoning even if I don't agree with the causes you oppose or support. I'd try to avoid paying for any service that funneled money to Planned Parenthood.
Too bad I can't avoid paying taxes.

 

[ThePresbyteers]

If Jesus holds a coin and say what belongs to Caesar is Caesar's and what belongs to God is God's, how did the Biblical marriage get envoled on Caesar's side ro the goverment? Should the govrment come up with their own definition of marriage?

 

[MaryContrary]

As I've said before marriage is both a civil and religious institution. The church can't really control the civil aspect of it. Though individual churches have long controlled who they are willing to marry (and that often doesn't include every heterosexual couple).

I have heard a number of Christians complaining about gay marriage being a slippery slope to polygamy. Many Christians are honest and refer to "traditional marriage" rather than Biblical marriage.

I said "God", not "civil and religious institution". In fact, you said "God", too.

Last time I checked God didn't define marriage.

So is it accurate to say that God specifically excluded homosexuals from marriage or not?

Look, the point is that saying your fighting for "God's definition of marriage" by opposing homosexual marriage isn't all that inaccurate a thing to say.

The point is also that you're disturbingly close to supporting the notion that homosexual marriage is biblical. You certainly seem to be going out of your way to undermine any claim that it isn't.

Polygamy is apparently part of the culture. It certainly wasn't railed against.

So 1 Tim 3:2 implies that polygamous marriages are acceptable for the laity because it was the culture at the time (Wait...was it? Are you sure?) and polygamous marriage wasn't "rallied against".

Come on, man. Really? :mmph:

In any case I think being anti-gay marriage is, at this point, a lost cause.

Separate issue but...so? So what?

As long as Christian churches and organizations are not forced to officiate or recognize said marriages, we will be fine.

No, we won't be fine at all. Pick any other wrong or immoral thing that's currently outlawed, pretend our laws suddenly allow it and then say "we'll be fine as long as we don't have to officiate or recognize it".

The point you seem to be missing or glossing over is whether the thing in particular is acceptable or not in the first place. You apparently think that homosexual marriage is acceptable.

Secular culture has always been depraved and will continue to be. Every culture all the way from Greek and Roman times has claimed that *insert moral values* are declining. Individual nations frequently rise and fall irrespective of their moral state. Our job as Christians is to show forth the righteousness and love of Christ in a depraved world, not force everyone else that isn't a Christian to live morally.

So you don't support the criminalization of murder and rape? What about theft? Good grief, do you even support laws against cursing in public? :shocked:

 

[The Barbarian]

And if you want a real treat, use a drizzle of honey on your chicken sandwich.

My favorite way.

It's a stupid thing to get upset about. If Cathy wants to support anti-homosexual efforts (don't know for sure that he does), then it's his perfect right to do so. If some people find that offensive and don't want to support him any more, then that's also their perfect right.

Objections to that are just whining.

I'll still eat there. The breakfast chicken biscuit is very good.

Edit: I suspect Cathy thought that no one would notice and it wouldn't cost him any money. Really doesn't change things.

 

[The Barbarian]

If Jesus holds a coin and say what belongs to Caesar is Caesar's and what belongs to God is God's, how did the Biblical marriage get envoled on Caesar's side ro the goverment? Should the govrment come up with their own definition of marriage?

The root of all the trouble.

 

[The Barbarian]

I notice that the same people who are enthusiastically endorsing the use of state power to force people to conform to their notion of "good", are also the ones shrieking the loudest when the state does that for things other people think are "good."

And they haven't a clue as to why other people think it's funny.

 

[Alate_One]

I said "God", not "civil and religious institution". In fact, you said "God", too.

So is it accurate to say that God specifically excluded homosexuals from marriage or not?

There's no specific statement to that effect in scripture. In fact there's no "definition" of marriage in scripture at all. However, based on a number of scriptures that say homosexuality is sinful, having the church sanction it with marriage is not consistent with the overall theme of scripture. But neither is prohibiting polygamy. There are good reasons to prohibit polygamy in modern society but none of them are biblical ones.

The point is also that you're disturbingly close to supporting the notion that homosexual marriage is biblical. You certainly seem to be going out of your way to undermine any claim that it isn't.

Why would you think that? Polygamy is not homosexual marriage.

So 1 Tim 3:2 implies that polygamous marriages are acceptable for the laity because it was the culture at the time (Wait...was it? Are you sure?) and polygamous marriage wasn't "rallied against".

Come on, man. Really? :mmph:

So you're annoyed when scripture contradicts your beliefs? Sorry.

No, we won't be fine at all. Pick any other wrong or immoral thing that's currently outlawed, pretend our laws suddenly allow it and then say "we'll be fine as long as we don't have to officiate or recognize it".

Why do you want *government* to tell you what is right and wrong?

The point you seem to be missing or glossing over is whether the thing in particular is acceptable or not in the first place. You apparently think that homosexual marriage is acceptable.

Is it acceptable in light of scripture? No. I don't want any church I attend performing homosexual marriages.
I do think gay people should be welcome in the church the same way other sinners should be.

However, if government wants to allow homosexual marriage and the populace supports it, there's not much that can be done in a democracy.

So you don't support the criminalization of murder and rape? What about theft? Good grief, do you even support laws against cursing in public? :shocked:

Homosexual marriage isn't murder nor is it rape nor theft.

What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes is none of my business save if they are in my church and claiming to be saved and in that case we'd use church discipline, not government. Do you want to have government throwing people in jail over adultery?

It's like Barbarian said, your sort rail against government until it's policing the bedroom. It makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Here's a quote from the president of Chick-fil-a

"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,'"

Gee, I wonder why nobody was upset when polygamy was outlawed.

Last time I checked God didn't define marriage.

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

I Tim 3:2 - implying that legitimate marriages could be polygamous, since bishops are held to a higher standards than the laity. (Also the numerous patriarchs and Israelite kings that had multiple wives)

I'm not saying gay marriage is supported by scripture, but saying we're fighting against God's "definition" of marriage is simply incorrect.

Christ who is God defined marriage perfectly in matthew chapter 19.

 

[Angel4Truth]

we cant wait to get our chick fil a tommorrow.

 

[voltaire]

Christ who is God defined marriage perfectly in matthew chapter 19.

Yep.

 

[Ktoyou]

What is a "Chick-fil-A"?

I guess I would buy one and give it to some kid?

 

[JPPT1974]

My family loves that place. Who knows if we will eat there tomorrow. Would not be surprised though.

 

[MaryContrary]

There's no specific statement to that effect in scripture. In fact there's no "definition" of marriage in scripture at all. However, based on a number of scriptures that say homosexuality is sinful, having the church sanction it with marriage is not consistent with the overall theme of scripture.

Them's a lotta words you spent trying not to answer the question.

So, no hope of a simple yes or no here? Does God specifically exclude homosexual couples from marriage or not? How can this be so hard for you to answer?

But neither is prohibiting polygamy. There are good reasons to prohibit polygamy in modern society but none of them are biblical ones.

We're not talking about polygamy. We're talking about homosexual marriage. So...

Why would you think that? Polygamy is not homosexual marriage.

Great. Let's talk about homosexual marriage then.

lain:

Because that's what we're talking about. Not polygamy. :listen:

So you're annoyed when scripture contradicts your beliefs? Sorry.

So I'll count that as a concession. Your claim that 1 Tim 3:2 implies that legitimate marriages could be polygamous by holding bishops to a higher standards than the laity is bogus. Noted.

Why do you want *government* to tell you what is right and wrong?

You're easily confused aren't you? I don't want government to tell me what is right or wrong. I want the laws they enforce to be just and right.

Where did you get this idea? Barbarian, right? Try sticking to our conversation when responding to here. Less confusion that way.

Is it acceptable in light of scripture? No. I don't want any church I attend performing homosexual marriages.

Do you oppose the government telling your church, by force of law, that they have to then? Because that's kinda what we're talking about here, in case you're confused.

I do think gay people should be welcome in the church the same way other sinners should be.

Of course.

However, if government wants to allow homosexual marriage and the populace supports it, there's not much that can be done in a democracy.

But you said we'd be "fine" in such a case, which was the point we were discussing here (did you forget?) So, would we be?

You realize you seem to be saying you'd be "fine" with our government doing this, presumably so long as there's the excuse of being outvoted.

Homosexual marriage isn't murder nor is it rape nor theft.

What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes is none of my business save if they are in my church and claiming to be saved and in that case we'd use church discipline, not government.

So do you support prostitution or drug trafficking, be it in the privacy of one's home?

Do you want to have government throwing people in jail over adultery?

Absolutely.

It's like Barbarian said, your sort rail against government until it's policing the bedroom. It makes no sense whatsoever.

I agree, you do seem confused here. :idunno:

I'd be happy to help explain but you're going to have to focus a bit. At least the minimum typically considered polite for discussions.