Recent comments by Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy sparked protests from liberals. Even the mayors of Boston, Chicago, and other places made statements to the effect that Chick-fil-A is not welcome in their respective cities. The vitriolic reaction has sparked Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day scheduled for today, August 1, when hundreds of thousands of people (including me) plan to show their support for the restaurant.
What did Cathy say that was so terrible? In an interview with Baptist Press, Cathy was asked about the company’s support of the traditional family. His response: “Well, guilty as charged.” He went on to add, “We are very much supportive of the family—the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. We operate as a family business … our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that.”
These comments have ignited angry rants against Cathy and Chick-fil-A. Boycotts and threats of bans have been common. Many of the online reports have completely twisted his words by saying that he was responding to a question about the company being anti-gay.
What was so shocking about his statement? Nothing. It has long been public knowledge that Cathy operates Chick-fil-A according to what he believes to be biblical values, such as the organization being closed on Sundays and donating money to national marriage ministries. This is often reported as donating to anti-gay or anti-marriage equality groups (notice the labels used to make the groups sound vicious and spiteful). In fact, just last year (February 2011) Chick-fil-A was in hot water for sponsoring a conference run by the Pennsylvania Family Institute. According to many on the left, this is a rabid anti-gay group (or perhaps they are just pro-traditional family). So there was absolutely nothing surprising about Cathy’s comments.
That’s what happened. Cathy didn’t say anything unexpected, and he didn’t say anything about banning homosexuals from going to or being hired by Chick-fil-A, or that he was in favor of stoning homosexuals, or anything like that. He simply reiterated that he was not in favor of gay marriage. And for that, Cathy has been called homophobic, hateful, bigoted, and more.
Let’s take a closer look at what is really going on, and we’ll see who has really been acting in a hateful, intolerant, and bigoted manner. Liberals love to claim that they are for “tolerance,” yet many of them are completely intolerant of anyone who dares to disagree with their views. Rather than being willing to calmly discuss the issue in an open exchange of ideas, the “tolerant” liberals will resort to name calling, shouting down the opposition, and in some cases, lawsuits and violence. Yeah, that seems tolerant.
I am a Christian, not a hatemonger
Think through this with me for a minute. I am not in favor of gay marriage. Why do I hold this position? Because I am a Christian who believes that the Bible is true from beginning to end, and that it is the authority in every area of life. I believe that God defined marriage at the beginning as being between one man and one woman for life. Jesus reiterated this in Matthew 19:4–5. Furthermore, the Bible consistently states in both the Old and New Testaments that homosexual behavior is sinful (Leviticus 20:13; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:9–10), so why would I condone behavior that God’s Word says is wrong?
Does that mean that I hate homosexuals? Absolutely not! Do I believe homosexual behavior is sinful? Yes I do, and so is adultery, lying, stealing, lust, greed, gluttony, etc., and I’ve certainly committed more than my fair share of sins. But I can be friends with a homosexual and treat them with respect and dignity. They are human beings made in the image of God, and I believe Jesus died on the Cross for all people (“For God so loved the world…”). The gospel needs to be shared with all people—not just heterosexuals—because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).
“But you believe the Bible is true, so you must believe that we should execute homosexuals since that’s what Leviticus says.” No I don’t believe we should execute homosexuals or adulterers. This doesn’t mean I’m rejecting the Bible. That law in Leviticus 20:13 was given to the Israelites, along with a bunch of other laws, during the time of Moses, and not to the church. According to the New Testament, as a Christian, I am not under the law (Galatians 5:18).
[Added 8/3/12: With a large number of unbelievers reading this post, this point needs a little more explanation. From the time of Exodus on through the rest of the Old Testament, God was dealing with humanity primarily through the nation of Israel. He gave them the Law (made up of 613 laws, by some counts). These consisted of moral, civil, and ceremonial laws. The law in Leviticus 20:13, which prescribes the punishment for homosexual behavior is part of the civil law code. In the New Testament, Jesus came, fulfilled the Law, and He commanded His disciples to take His message (the gospel) to all people, both Jew and Gentile (non-Jew). God’s standards and morality did not change, but the church is not a theocratic nation (as Israel was supposed to be), so I do not believe we are supposed to carry out the punishments that were part of the covenant made with the nation of Israel in Moses’ day. As mentioned above, Christians are not under the Law.]
Hypocrisy on Parade
There are some who behave despicably in the name of Christ, and I believe are very hateful toward those who disagree with them (Westboro Baptist quickly comes to mind). But the Westboro folks do not represent the vast majority of Christians. They are a fringe group and do not demonstrate the love, mercy, and grace required of Christians.
Christians certainly have their share of problems. I’m not afraid to admit that. But the hypocrisy from so many of the liberals and pro-homosexual groups is overwhelming when it comes to this issue.
There is currently a petition from a student group at the University of South Dakota seeking to ban Chick-fil-A from opening a store there (for which they already have a contract in place). I don’t have a problem with someone voicing their opinions, but consider the absolute hypocrisy from the student who started the petition. He said, “Universities should be beacons of tolerance. The official policy is not to discriminate. We feel official actions to the contrary only give lip service to the stated policy.”
Did you catch that? Universities should be “beacons of tolerance” and “the official policy is not to discriminate.” But apparently it is just fine to be intolerant of and discriminate against Christians. So much for tolerance and anti-discrimination.
Where was this outcry of intolerance and discrimination against President Obama? Up until a few months ago, he was supposedly against gay marriage. I don’t remember the mayors of Boston and Chicago calling for a ban against him. I don’t remember student groups seeking to forbid him from visiting their campuses. Where was the outrage from the liberal media calling him anti-gay, homophobic, and bigoted? Of course, he was likely in favor of gay marriage all along, and most people fully expected him to embrace it, so it could be that these groups gave him a pass for that reason.
Often the “tolerant” liberals and anti-traditional marriage people (see how easy it is to play word games) are the ones who are pushing others around and bullying. At a recent student journalism conference in Washington, a homosexual anti-bullying speaker ridiculed Christians and God to the point that dozens of students walked out of the assembly—and were heckled and cursed at in the process by this speaker.
So these people only accept and “tolerate” those who agree with them. But that is not tolerance at all. True tolerance can only be displayed toward those whose opinions and practices differ from your own.
A picture recently circulated on facebook pointing out the hypocrisy of boycotting Chick-fil-A for their support of traditional marriage. Apparently it is okay to act outraged over the comments made by a Christian businessman, yet not a word is said about the Islamic nations that execute homosexuals. Why haven’t these people boycotted gas stations since so much of our oil/gasoline comes from OPEC nations who put homosexuals to death?
Politically Correct Nonsense
Disagreeing with someone on the subject of gay marriage does not make one homophobic anymore than being in favor of gay marriage makes one heterophobic or “Christian-phobic.” I am not afraid of homosexuals, nor am I anti-gay or bigoted. I am anti-sin, but pro-sinner. I am supposed to love people enough to share the truth with them, but that does not mean that I should condone their behavior.
Here’s one of the great things about being an American. I should be able to say these things, and you should have a right to disagree with me if you want to. But the goal of using politically correct language is to silence any opposition. Instead of having a lively, but civil debate about the issue, liberals resort to name-calling, saying that someone is anti-gay or anti-marriage equality.
Those who are against abortion (like me) because they believe it is murder (since a human life is being taken) are said to be waging a war against women. We are allegedly anti-choice and anti-women’s rights, but we really are in favor of choice and women’s rights. We think the baby should be given the choice whether he or she wants to live. Also, since roughly half of the children killed in abortion clinics in this country are girls, then I could argue that those in favor of abortion are truly the ones waging a war on women and who are anti-women’s rights.
Politically correct terminology is designed to silence opposition and distract from the real issues. But it is effective, because it wears down the opponent and deceives those who don’t take the time to think through an issue logically.
For the record, homosexuals already have equal rights when it comes to marriage in this country. Any homosexual man can marry any woman who will have him (as long as she’s not a close relative), and that is the exact same right that a straight man has. That’s equality.
“But a person should be able to marry whoever they want to, as long as it’s consensual.” Really? Should a brother be able to marry his sister if they both agree to it? Should a man be able to marry five women if he wants to and if they agree to it? How about a father marrying his daughter as long as they love each other or a mother marrying her son? If you redefine marriage on your own terms and justify it with this argument, then where does it stop? There’s no good answer to those questions because those in favor of redefining marriage do not have an absolute standard to which they can appeal.
While I pray it does not happen, based on the direction our nation has been heading, I expect gay marriage will be legal in just about every state within a decade or so. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with it or believe it is moral. Some would call me a hater for holding the biblical view on this subject. So does that make them haters since they disagree with me? Why is okay to discriminate against Christian beliefs?
I would prefer that we stop these silly word games and have civil, rational discussions about the issues. We are told to stop the hate, but from what I’ve seen, the hate is not coming from Christians. Instead, it has been directed toward Christians like Dan Cathy who stand up for what they believe.
[Update 8/5/12: I have received numerous comments that are too vulgar and vicious to approve for posting. So if you plan to comment on here, please keep it family friendly.]
This blog post is pretty much exactly everything I’ve been telling my friends on Google+.
I would add one more point, which I like to bring up.
I disagree with various philosophies and charitable donations of many companies and their corporate heads. Google, for instance, strongly supports the gay community, recently providing large support to a gay pride parade, then posting pictures of it all over Google+. I disagree that homosexuality is okay, and I disagree with many charities they give money to. Yet I am a huge Google supporter, and a user of nearly every service they provide. Because they provide good products and services.
If I started boycotting every company I disagreed with on some issues, I would have to go live in the woods. Its just not possible in modern society to boycott every company you have some philosophical disagreement with. Even a liberal, if they took the time to count every cent a company like Google donates, will likely find some charitable donation they disagree with. Boycotts and protests of companies should be reserved for those with bad business practices, otherwise the very act of boycotting becomes diluted. For instance, I boycott Apple and Sony products due to their business practices and poor treatment of consumer rights, this is an effective form of boycott. Boycotting/protesting Monsanto would be another reasonable use, as one would not be disagreeing with their personal philosophies, but their products.
My view is very similar to what you’re saying. I don’t call on others to boycott certain places, even if I strongly disagree with the place. There are times that I refuse to do business with a place for certain reasons, sometimes good and sometimes strange. For example, I will not ever get a domain name from Go Daddy because of their semi-pornographic commercials, but I won’t tell others that they shouldn’t go there. That has to be a personal conviction on their part. I also won’t shop at Old Navy because their commercials are so stupid (at least when I first started seeing them), but that’s just my own decision, and I don’t have a problem with anyone else going there.
Obviously, I am opposed to gay “marriage,” but I’m sure some of the money I’ve spent somewhere has gone to promote it. I’m also sure that some of the money spent by those who push for marriage for homosexuals has gone to Christians or Christian organizations that do not support it. It would be nearly impossible to completely avoid having some of your money going toward causes that you don’t agree with. Even Paul mentioned that we can’t completely avoid sexually immoral people without leaving this world (1 Corinthians 5:9–11).
I agree with you. We cannot call evil good.
What about the founders, the Declaratiom of Independence, 1st amendment?
I am currently in a debate room on facebook ans it was posed that equal rights for all based on the declaration of independence, “all men created equal and endowed by their creator with certian right…” and the 1st amendment, “Congress shall establish no law with respect to religion nor deny the free excersize thereof.”
I gave a clear answer that the intent of the founders in regards to rights was never homosexual rights.
But what are your thoughts on this?
Thank you brother, and The Lord Jesus Bless and Keep you and your family.
If I misquoted, I’m sorry. Typing a novel on a smart phone. An be difficult.
No worries on the typos, typing on phones is a pain. 🙂 Thanks for your comments on this one. I would agree with you in the sense that the founders weren’t focused on or worried about homosexual rights. They were concerned about freedom of religion for all citizens. While many at that time would use the term “religion” for the various denominations of Christianity, I think it goes further than that, so that all people have the freedom of worship, as long as their practices are not violating the other laws (e.g., if someone said that their religion demanded that they sacrifice little kids–obviously, that would go against other laws, so it would not be acceptable). Brief history lesson here: While they are much maligned in the church, we can thank the Anabaptists (and later, Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island) for the freedom of religion. Rather than persecuting non-believers, as the Roman Catholics and Protestants were doing during the time of the Reformation, the Anabaptists believed that we should “let the heathen worship,” meaning that you can’t force someone to agree with your beliefs. Instead you should love them and share the gospel with them.
As I mentioned in the post, the gay man already has the exact same rights as a straight man when it comes to marriage. The issue is that people are trying to redefine what marriage is. I would strongly recommend reading Voddie Baucham’s fantastic article on this subject (Gay Is not the New Black).
Thanks again Julian!
You said – (e.g., if someone said that their religion demanded that they sacrifice little kids–obviously, that would go against other laws, so it would not be acceptable). I don’t know if people are aware of the realities of various forms of heathen practices but many still DO sacrifice children (and adults also, as well as numerous types of animals) and no, it didn’t just happen “in ancient times” – it has just gone underground since then. What, if anything, could be done to even attempt to stop this since getting the types of proof needed for court cases can be quite difficult and most leaders are part of occult societies and they would not prosecute or they would at least have these cases dismissed?
It’s true that this kind of thing still happens. I have a friend whose dad was murdered several years ago, presumably as part of some sort of occult ritual. I’m not sure what can be done to stop this kind of thing since it is often in secret. The further our nation drifts from its Judeo-Christian ethical foundation, the worse it will get with this kind of activity. I wouldn’t say that “most leaders” are part of the occult, but certainly some of them are (probably more than we would like to think).
The true solution is that we need to get back to the Word of God.
You cited the verse:
13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
You state, “… I am a Christian who believes that the Bible is true from beginning to end, and that it is the authority in every area of life.”
Do you honestly believe that homosexuals should be put to death?
Do you believe in the contradictory thought that God is perfect, but accidentally made homosexuals?
Do you believe that God is loving, but advocates death for one of his creations simply for loving someone of the same sex?
Do you believe that the world would be better if there was less love in it?
First, if you read my post, you would have seen these words immediately following the reference to Leviticus:
I recently added a paragraph under that one to help explain this for people who aren’t very familiar with the Bible.
Second, I do not believe a contradictory thought about God being perfect and accidentally making homosexuals. God is perfect, but He does not make people homosexuals. You can repeat the idea as often as you’d like, but it doesn’t make it true. The fact is that there are numerous ex-homosexuals, which could not be the case if it were genetic. Also, why are the so many sets of identical twins (with identical DNA, as far as we know) where one twin is homosexual and the other is straight? If it were genetic, then they would both be gay or both be straight. God made Adam and Eve and told them to be fruitful and multiply. He also gave them the ability to choose to obey Him or disobey Him. They chose to disobey, and that’s what their descendants are doing today. God says that homosexuality is a sin, yet some people choose to disobey Him in that area, just as others disobey when they commit other sins, such as lying, stealing, lust, etc.
Third, your definition of love is much different than God’s definition. Jesus said, “Greater love has no man than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends” (John 15:13). Over and over again, the Bible shows that love looks out for the best interest of others, rather than self. But our world has redefined love to refer to whatever makes me happy or feel good about myself. That isn’t love. It’s selfishness. God is absolutely loving. Because He loves us, He was willing to take the punishment for our sins, and He died on the Cross in our place so that we could be with Him. The penalty of death is upon all of us since all have sinned (Romans 3:23 and 6:23). This is because in addition to being loving, God is also holy and just, and He will (must) punish sin. If you refuse to accept Christ’s offer of salvation from your sins, then you will suffer the penalty yourself for all eternity.
Fourth, I believe the world would be far better if people understood what love is and that there was a lot more of biblical love in the world. But I think the world will be far worse if we follow your definition of love. We are already selfish enough. We need to learn to be selfless and look out for the needs of others. That is why I cannot support gay marriage. I cannot support something that God’s Word says is wrong. That would not be loving at all, but it would be quite hateful of me to encourage a friend to continue in sin against God. If you truly love someone, then you will want what is best for them. I want people to repent of their sin and trust in Christ, so that they will spend eternity with Him in glory, rather than suffer for eternity for rejecting the God who loved them so much that He would die in their place on the Cross.
Hello, Your article touches briefly on the various scenarios of marriage. I wish people would give serious consideration as to what will occur if married is opened up to more than one man/one women. If we allow homosexuals to marry, then what to do about bisexuals….? We will have to allow them to marry the man and the woman they love, especially if he wants to be a father because he’ll need a woman to do that. It would be discriminatory and against his ‘rights’ not to allow him to marry all the people he loves and is attracted to. Once that occurs, heterosexual men will look at the bisexual men, see that they have multiple partners and now the heterosexual men will lobby to be able to marry multiple women. It is common knowledge that it is very challenging for men to stay faithful to one women and if they can marry multiple women, then that will ‘solve’ their problem. Once a man knows he can have a different flavor every morning, he will NEVER want to go back to just having vanilla every day of the week. Not to be undone, once homosexual men see that heterosexual men can have more than one spouse, homosexual men will also lobby to have multiple husbands and will once again argue that they are being discriminated against if they can’t have multiple husbands. I’m sure there are many other types of relationships that other people will think of that should be eligible to be considered as marriage. Now for the complexity of the inevitable divorces….1. With all the multiple people involved in the marriages, how are assets divided (there are so many scenarios) 2. who gets the children? 3. who should be considered the actual parents of the children? 4. who pays the child support and for whose children? Does a woman who wants to leave a polygamist marriage have to pay child support of the children that her former husband had with another wife? Why not? She was part of the marriage so she should be partly responsible for the financial welfare of any children produced by the marriage of the group. I could go on and on with all the problems of divorce. I hope people don’t scoff and think that all these scenarios aren’t possible because they are all very much a natural progression that WILL occur after homosexuals area allowed to marry. At the end of the day, it is the children who are adopted/born into these ‘marriages’ who will suffer the most. Children can ONLY be produced from the egg of one woman and the sperm from one man and all children want is to be loved and cared for by their real mom and their real dad. If we open up marriage to let everybody ‘love who they want’ it will be the children who will never experience what it’s like to love and live with their real parents.
I appreciate you argument, and I agree that even if same-sex marriage is legalized throughout the country there may still be people that will push for marriage between 3 or more people, just as some already do. Though the issue at hand is the right for two consenting adults, (who are not closely related), to be allowed to marry regardless of sex or gender. These are people who are looking for a monogamous commitment between two people, the civil institution of marriage as recognized in this country, so that they may enjoy the same benefits and privileges that heterosexual married couples enjoy.
I would also like to address your thoughts about bisexual people and marriage. Just because an individual identifies as bisexual, it does not mean that they have or even desire to have multiple partners.
Also, let’s not make assumptions, especially about men. I would hope that if anyone got married, it was because they chose to live a life of monogamy with the one person they loved. If all of a sudden one was allowed to marry multiple people, it would not mean that those who committed themselves to monogamy would suddenly decide that they retract their wish to be monogamous and betray their wedding vows.
Hold on a second. Why would you say that bisexual marriage would lead to polygamy? Do heterosexual men not find more than one woman attractive? Your post clearly says they have an issue with faithfulness. And do heterosexual women not also have attraction to more than one man? If this was not the case, adultery would never occur, and nobody would go on more than one date. The fact that a person finds more than one person attractive does not mean they want to open the doors to polygamy, even if these multiple people happen to be different genders. If a bisexual man or woman finds somebody he or she truly loves, there will not be an issue of leaving. Bisexual and homosexual people still look for the same things in relationships as other people, just not necessarily with the opposite gender.
On a separate note, however, God has not spoken against multiple spouses. Our laws here in America do not allow it – as you said, it would be a mess to figure out on paper, especially in the case of a divorce – but if the people truly love each other, and all people are okay with it and know what they are doing, who is to stop a multiple marriage? It does not have to be on paper to be approved in the eyes of God.
My final note is to your closing statement. “… it will be the children who will never experience what it’s like to love and live with their real parents.”
How would this change if homosexual marriages were allowed? Divorces, unfortunate deaths, and adoptions already put many a child in this position around the world today. If anything, having homosexual couples could care for many of the orphans in our world. No, it is not the same as a traditional household with one man and one woman. But these children are no better off with a single parent or in an orphanage. These people are willing to help abandoned souls grow up in a household where they are loved and cared for, maybe not by their natural parents, but still loved and cared for. God taught us love and compassion through Jesus. We are all sinners, and no sin is greater than any other. Does this mean we are to let murderers roam free – of course not. But the only crime homosexuals commit is a sin equal in the eyes of god to any sin we have committed, not some form of harm to others.
I have spoken my peace. Jesus taught us to love our brothers. So let us spend our energies on helping those in need instead of condemning the lost.
Great post, I really enjoyed what you had to say. There was one paragraph that I wondered if you could clarify, as I think it sounds misleading to non-Christians:
“But you believe the Bible is true, so you must believe that we should execute homosexuals since that’s what Leviticus says.” No I don’t believe we should execute homosexuals or adulterers. This doesn’t mean I’m rejecting the Bible. That law in Leviticus 20:13 was given to the Israelites, along with a bunch of other laws, during the time of Moses, and not to the church. According to the New Testament, as a Christian, I am not under the law (Galatians 5:18).
If I were a non-Christian, this would be my line of thinking: Ok, so the church is not under the law–and if the “law” opposed homosexuality in the O.T.–why are most Christians today so adamantly opposed to homosexuality, if they are supposedly no longer under this law?
Perhaps a clarification between moral law and the ceremonial law for the Israelites would help your argument. But then again, as I was pondering this–the Ten Commandments (moral law) do not really have much to say in regards to homosexuality directly. But, a careful study would show that the 7th commandment of not committing adultery, coupled with Jesus’ teachings on adultery reveal that any lust outside the bounds of marriage defined by God is sinful. This, along with considering the three ordinances given in the Garden (work, the Sabbath, and fruitfully multiplying in marriage), would demonstrate that homosexuality is still wrong, even though Christians today are no longer under Israel’s ceremonial law.
Lastly, I think there are two separate issues going on: the issue of homosexuality itself, and the issue of gay marriage. I think what is polarizing the country is the issue of gay marriage more than homosexuality itself as a lifestyle.
Thanks for the suggestion. I originally had a few more sentences there, but I didn’t want to go off on a rabbit trail, but I think you’re right, as is pretty clear from a couple of the unapproved comments I’ve received. It would be helpful to explain why we aren’t under the Law. The Law is much more than just the Ten Commandments, although they provide a nice summary of the rest of the Law. The Jews had counted 613 laws, consisting of civil, moral, and ceremonial laws. I’ll add a little bit in brackets to explain.
As for the polarizing issue when it comes to homosexuality, I think it is more than gay marriage or homosexuality itself. I think Christians are getting sick and tired of the bullying that has been coming from the other side. We are tired of the homosexual agenda being pushed on elementary school students, in nearly every television show, and Hollywood in general. And whenever we speak against it, we are told that we are hateful, bigoted, and homophobic. The Chick-fil-A appreciation day response was (for many people) a way of saying enough is enough.
Some Christians have criticized the event because they didn’t think it was the right way to handle the situation. I can understand some of their concerns, but I think they missed the point of why many Christians took part. The point of what happened Wednesday was not about chicken, and it wasn’t just about freedom of speech (although that was a big part for many people). It was a way of visibly showing support for a fellow believer (Dan Cathy) who has been viciously attacked in the media. It was a way of doing our job as part of the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:26). Some will argue that the gospel wasn’t being proclaimed so how could it possibly be part of fulfilling the Great Commission. Once again, I think they missed the point for many Christians. The gospel was shared in many of the restaurants, Christians were edified as they met with other believers, and many were emboldened to share their faith. The gospel was proclaimed to numerous protestors, and think of the impact it had on the young workers at many of these stores to see Christians come together to support them when they are being persecuted.
Okay, I tried to restate without letting my emotions getting tied up in it. I’m sorry for any aggressive comments in my previous submission.
As for how far how far marriage can be redefined, here’s what I’ve got.
1. Marriage should be based on who you love, first and foremost. This was my biggest issue with this posting originally. If you don’t have love in a marriage, what do you have? Marriage shouldn’t be an excuse to have sex approved by God. It should be about finding somebody special that you want to spend the rest of your life with.
2. If you want to have multiple spouses, that’s your own business, but that has to be completely okay with all parties involved. Some people have open marriages. I personally think that the close connection of a single significant other is lost when it’s made open like that, but not everybody feels the same. But like I pointed out earlier, this was even supported in the Bible, so I don’t know how this contradicts with God’s word, anyways.
3. This marriage should not risk birth defects, meaning no close family members. The reason marriage of close family has become a taboo is because it often leads to complications, especially Tay Sachs.
4. As marriage must be consensual on all sides, marrying animals is off limits because they have no way to decide.
These are my guidelines for marriages that should hold true until the day chimps start talking.
As for the Bible, I would like to point out a few things, and please correct me if I’m wrong. I’m not here to make false statements to support my view. It supports polygamy, beating one’s wife, and women having pretty much no say in anything. It even says an unengaged rape victim has to MARRY her rapist as HIS punishment. The “Biblical” definition of marriage isn’t one man and one woman – it’s find a woman and make her your property. I just feel like you can’t say you support the Bible’s definition if you don’t support the whole thing. Like I said, if I’ve made a mistake, please let me know.
Anyways, the basis of this whole post isn’t quite true. First off, he did attack the pro-gay community with a couple of insults in his statement. But beyond that, the main anger wasn’t his view – it was that Chic-Fil-A was donating millions to political groups aimed at stripping gays of their rights. What was angering was that people found out that the money they spent on their food was going to anti-gay donations, regardless of their own beliefs.
Thanks for restating your ideas without the emotive language, which I wouldn’t have approved for the blog. But I appreciate that you toned it down and are willing to be civil. Some of these issues I have already addressed in previous comments, so if I’m not real thorough, check out the other comments. In response to your thoughts:
Marriage should absolutely include love, but what is your basis for defining marriage or love? Love is not about self-gratification, but true love is self-sacrificial, looking out for what is best for others. And encouraging someone to violate God’s moral law, or taking part in that violation is not love.
But if it is about how you are using the word “love,” then why not marrying multiple spouses or marrying family members? You said that marriage shouldn’t risk birth defects (although we all have defects, but I think we’re on the same page in saying that it shouldn’t include a higher risk of defects, which comes with incestuous relationships). However, what if the man in the relationship gets a vasectomy? Then should he be able to marry a close family member? You argument against marrying animals could be used against you when it comes to abortion. Since we should outlaw bestiality because we can’t ask the animal if they agree to the marriage or not, then abortion should be outlawed since we can’t ask the baby if they want to be killed.
You are certainly entitled to your own opinions on how marriage should be defined, but why should everyone have to follow your views? Why should Christians be accused of hating others just because we have a different belief? Ultimately, you are appealing to your own opinions on each of these points, and I’m fine with you expressing your opinions in a civil manner. But what rational basis do you have for claiming that these should be the rules for everyone?
As far as the Bible goes, the things you stated about it are not accurate. It does not ever condone the beating of one’s wife. It does not ever condone polygamy, although it does accurately record that many people (including some of its heroes) did have multiple wives. But it’s interesting that every single time a godly man is mentioned as having multiple wives, we immediately read about many of the problems that arose because of it (Abraham had Ishmael and Isaac with Hagar and Sarah and that has led to so many problems, even in our world today with Israel and many of the Arabs; Jacob married Leah and Rachel and look at what happened between Joseph and his brothers; Solomon had hundreds of wives and they led him to worship false gods). I think it is fair to say that we both have a bias when it comes to Scripture. I will give it the benefit of the doubt, while you will not (but thanks for being willing to listen to correction on this). The case in Deut. 22:28 is a good example of our biases. I think there is much more to it than a man rapes a virgin and so she has to marry him. The verses preceding this talk about the death penalty for a rapist, so it wouldn’t make sense that a rapist could just pick a young girl and then rape her so that she’d have to marry him. Since it doesn’t mention her crying out (like it does in the previous verses), it seems that there is some degree of agreement–not that she wanted to be abused, but that she is willing to marry the man (and her father is in agreement). They had a much different culture than we do today, so it seems strange to even say that. But a woman who had pre-marital sex would be stigmatized and would find it difficult to find a husband to care for her. While I wouldn’t be dogmatic about my interpretation here, it makes sense in light of similar passages like Exodus 22:16–17.
Also, I don’t agree at all that the basis for the complaints against Chick-fil-A is because people found out that the money they spent was going to pro-traditional marriage groups. That has been public knowledge for years, so no one should have been surprised by that. There was a big protest last February (2011) about Chick-fil-A supporting a group in Pennsylvania. So it isn’t like homosexual activists just finally found out about Chick-fil-A. I think it had a lot more to do with political activism. In this case they tried to seize an opportunity to create a crisis out of nothing, and I think it backfired in this case.
Thanks again for restating your thoughts in a civil manner. That demonstrates a lot more maturity than many people who wrote in that aren’t going to be approved on here.
My definition of love would be where you are committed to a person to a degree that you become self-sacrificial for the good of that person above your own interests. While it may be against what the Bible says, who is to verify that the Bible is even God’s true word? The Bible can’t be it’s own source of verification. It is hard to deny that the Bible is very representative of conditions when it was written instead of showing laws that seem irrelevant to time, because humans were obviously the ones to write any of this down. Even if they were writing God’s word, it was 30 years after Jesus had been crucified (in the case of the New Testament), and who was to stop these people for including other items they believed to be wrong? This isn’t to say they were lying intentionally, but they believed they were doing the right thing and including all sins as they remembered, but maybe not necessarily as God intended, and not to include the changes that occur as it has undergone translation after translation.
I digress, however. Regardless of being with or against God, our country was not founded on Christianity. Marriage by state standards doesn’t necessarily have to coincide with marriage on the Biblical level. If it did, atheists wouldn’t be allowed to be married, either. Even if we were to politically allow gay marriage, that doesn’t mean we have to rewrite the Bible to say it’s allowed. No matter what happens, there will always be churches that will deny acknowledgement to gay marriages in the eyes of God, because they simply believe that God disapproves.
As for the bestiality refusal tied with abortion, I don’t think it would make a case, for one simple reason. When it comes to the debate of abortion, people seem to miss what the actual issue is. Nobody who is okay with abortion is okay with slaughtering human life (well, of course we have some sick people, but the majority, at least). People just disagree on WHEN the embryo becomes a human life. Some people believe it’s at conception, when a new set of DNA is created with the possibility of forming a new human. Others believe it’s around 4 months in to the pregnancy, when the fetus begins to develop brain activity, thereby creating human thought. And some other cultures don’t even consider babies to be “people” until they’re 2 or 3 years old and show signs of individualized personalities. Nobody ever gets a choice in being murdered – otherwise it’s suicide. The whole argument of abortion simply comes to how you determine what is a person and what is not.
If a man gets a vasectomy and wants to marry his sister, I don’t care. Not that I don’t think marrying your sister is kind of weird and sick in a way, but at the same time, that family tree stops there, so at least those genes won’t be getting passed down.
Thank you for clarifying the polygamy in the Bible for me. I never did consider how they discussed the effects those marriages had.
The Deuteronomy excerpt does mention force in the case where she is engaged and cried out but was not saved, and when she is unengaged. The first of the examples only says the man has had sexual relations with her, but she did not fight it. Between that, and the final section 22:28 goes to say he has dishonored her, is how I arrive at her having been raped. And it also bothers me that a woman who had premarital sex would be looked down upon…[a few sentences were removed here by blog owner for graphic description, although it was not irrelevant, vulgar, or gratuitous]…As you said, they lived in a different culture, which to me, once again, says that some of people’s personal opinions made it into the Bible that may not have been what God truly intended. Humans had to write it, and we all know humans are far from perfect.
With Chic-Fil-A, yes, it is true that the information was out there for a while, but people were not aware of it until recently. I was just stating what I had seen the anger be about with people around me. However, as ever company now seems to donate to one side or the other, it seems kind of silly to be angry about, honestly. On top of that, this man built up a food chain that brings him a lot of money. He created the idea, he established it – it’s his. I don’t think people should actually be nosing into how he spends his money. I wasn’t given free food and just decided to make a donation after it, I paid for a product and a service, and I got it. Where the money goes from there isn’t my business. So yes, I think the anger was over the recent spreading of the information of these donations, but that doesn’t justify the widespread ridiculousness. If a pro-gay person feels that uncomfortable spending money there for that, that’s their own business, but that doesn’t make Chic-Fil-A an evil company. So I apologize for not clarifying my full feelings on this previously. I did, however, find it a bit sad that this sp many people made a physical effort to support Chic-Fil-A’s “Christian” stance, but have never made a contribution to those in need of food or shelter, which the Bible actually says to do. It’s just a little sad to see people who are only “Christian” when it’s convenient and comfortable for them.
Sorry about the length of this post.
When you aim to redefine a word, who gets to decide? Is it only you and those who agree with you? That doesn’t sound very equal or fair. Is it by majority? Every time there is a vote in this country, your definition is rejected. And it was by majority rule that the Nazis could and should eliminate millions of Jews because they were redefined as less than human. So, that is not a good reason to redefine a word.
I would point out that your definition is discriminatory.
Right now the legal definition is: The legal status, condition, or relationship that results from a contract by which one man and one woman, who have the capacity to enter into such an agreement, mutually promise to live together in the relationship of Husband and Wife in law for life, or until the legal termination of the relationship.
And the biblical definition is: A man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.
Let’s take a look at all those people that your definition would discriminate against.
1. “Marriage should be based on who you love, first and foremost.”
So all those that choose to marry because of a pregnancy or to have children, for financial reasons, for loneliness, or for any other reason other than love, right now have the right to marry but wouldn’t under your definition.
2. “If you want to have multiple spouses..”
When divorce happens (and it would), who gets the children? Do I have joint custody with 5 other people? Does 1 mother pay child support for the children of another? What if only 1 mother wants to leave that situation? Can she take her children with her even though the other 3 mothers want them to stay? Do the other mothers have to adopt any babies born even though they are already married? Can the children even be adopted by 5 mothers? It is much more complicated than, “If you want.”
3. “This marriage should not risk birth defects.”
There are over 6,000 genetic disorders that can be passed down through the generations. Should those with Cystic Fibrosis, anemia, HIV, and even now breast cancer (which research is showing may be genetic) be allowed to get married under your definition because of the risk to the children? What about those who choose not to have children and take measures to prevent it? Can a father and daughter who love each marry, as long as they don’t have children?
4. “As marriage must be consensual…”
This is already defined by our laws, but since you want our laws changed, you must now define this according to your law. Right now it is 18, but allowed at slightly younger ages with parental and/or judicial approval. When you write the new laws, will you discriminate against a 16 year old who is really in love but can’t get parental approval. In Mexico it is age 12. If your law doesn’t allow a 12 year old to marry the person she loves then you must be anti-marriage equality. You see, if you set any standard at all, you will ultimately discriminate against some group(s) of people. (You might say that as she grows up she might change her mind and she’s not old enough to make educated decisions. But who are you to decide that and place those limitations on her? And what about all those older couples – including same sex – that grow and change their minds and break up? So maybe we shouldn’t allow anyone to marry?) Also, should someone be able to marry an inanimate object? Or maybe themselves? You might think this is absurd, but there have been people in the past who have tried.
Even by your own definition, you exclude certain people. But marriage has already been defined by history, our government, and most importantly God.
“For the record, homosexuals already have equal rights when it comes to marriage in this country. Any homosexual man can marry any woman who will have him (as long as she’s not a close relative), and that is the exact same right that a straight man has. That’s equality.” That is equality from your viewpoint … after all, typically the man loves the woman so why shouldn’t they be allowed to be married? It is not the same as saying that one can marry who they love (as long as they’re not a close relative) — even if that person is of the same gender. Therefore the rights are NOT equal. One the one hand you ask that you be respected for your beliefs but on the other hand you do not allow others to be respected for their beliefs. What is right about that?
There was nothing false about the statement you quoted. They have the exact same right. You are attempting to redefine marriage to be about being with the one that you love. But that has not been the definition of marriage, which was originally defined by the Creator when He made Adam and Eve. Throughout history marriage has been between a man and a woman, and now you are seeking to redefine it. But like I asked in the post, where does the redefinition stop? If it’s simply about being with the one you love, then why can’t a man marry multiple women? Why can’t a mother marry her son? Why can’t a dad marry his daughter if they love each other and it’s consensual? If your response is that there would be a risk to the children, then what if the man had a vasectomy? For more on the issue I would strongly recommend this outstanding article by Voddie Baucham http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/07/19/gay-is-not-the-new-black/
Finally, I did not ask to be respected for my beliefs. I said that we can respect people that we disagree with and treat them with dignity (since they are human beings made in the image of God). Respecting a person and their right to have an opinion and their right to free speech is not the same as having respect for their opinion or the things they say.
Thanks for this post Tim!
A lot of great points. I myself favor mostly liberal political views, but you bring up great points concering the intolerance of the attacking party. The only section that doesn’t make sense to me is this:
“For the record, homosexuals already have equal rights when it comes to marriage in this country. Any homosexual man can marry any woman who will have him (as long as she’s not a close relative), and that is the exact same right that a straight man has. That’s equality.”
I understand that your definition of marriage is strictly based on biblical values, but how can you say that marriage is indeed equal when homosexuals are not able to marry their long time partners? Do expect them to simply “turn straight?” My point is that equal marriage for man should not be to marry a woman outside his family, equal marriage should be to marry whoever he loves. I do not believe that marriage within families is ethical, but that’s another debate.
I think this all stems from the notion that your sexuality is a “choice.” As we all know, that topic ignites endless arguments, so let’s try to avoid discussing that.
Thanks for being civil, even though you disagree with me. I had several comments that I will not approve on this blog because the incivility and nasty language. You seem willing to engage in a rational discussion, which is what is sorely needed in our country on issues that we disagree about.
As I mentioned in one of the other comments, your argument seeks to redefine marriage from what it was originally (Adam and Eve, one man and one woman for life) and what it has been historically. Again, if it is about just marrying the person that you love and that loves you back, then why can’t a father marry his daughter or a mom marry her son (especially if the man has a vasectomy so that there won’t be any danger to potential offspring)? What about polygamy? Where does it stop?
I know you didn’t want to get into whether or not it is a choice, but at least consider this point. If a person is born gay, then why is it that in the case of identical twins (who have identical DNA) that when one is gay the other one is not always gay? Since they have identical DNA, they should have identical sexual orientation if they are born gay? I know two sets of identical twins where one is gay and the other is not. I read a study (I believe it was done in Australia) where they said that it was about 50% of the time that one twin is gay that their twin will be gay. I’m not saying that genetics doesn’t have anything to do with it, but it certainly cannot be the sole determining factor. Even if a person is more predisposed to a certain type of behavior than another person, and their environment has pushed them toward a certain behavior, they still ultimately make the decision to act upon their desires. The Bible tells us that we are all born with a sinful desire or nature yet we are commanded not to sin. So while we have a bent or tendency to sin, we ultimately make the decision to commit the sinful actions.
Thanks again for being civil and respectful.
Wonderfully put. Tolerance has to come from both sides. Being required to accept anti-christian views (when you are a christian) is unacceptable. We (Christians) all know that we will ALWAYS
come up against the enemy when it has to do with Truth. Thank you for a very well written and thought out post! Be blessed!
Very well put, this whole thing is extremely out of hand. I believe there may be a typo, but I could be wrong. 1 Timothy 2:10 was possibly meant to be 1 timothy 1:9-10?
Thanks for the kind words and for catching the typo. I have just corrected it.
Pingback: Chick-Fil-A's Coals of Fire | Creation Today
Thank you Tim for stating the truth so beautifully. What you’ve said here is exactly what I’ve been wanting to say.
Tim, good points all around!!!