Wow, what a title for a blog post! But wait, you say. The big controversy is about the owner standing by their anti-gay beliefs, right? That is what the big controversy is about, isn't it?
After reading the ongoing back-and-forth going on at the Chick-fil-A Facebook Wall. I felt the need to comment on some serious misconceptions that keep getting spouted off and should be addressed in a more effective manner. Let us start by effectively chipping away at the most egregious of matters:
Why boycott an organization because of the owner's Christian beliefs?
Well, actually, that is not what is going on. The company is supporting certain organizations. That has to do with the company, not the owner. People are boycotting Chick-fil-A because of what Chick-fil-A is doing, as a company, not necessarily the opinion of the owner.
Why boycott an organization for standing by Christian values?
The values being demonstrated are hardly Christian; they are donating money organizations that are actively working to destroy families. That is a problem.
There is nothing wrong with standing by Christian values.
There is nothing Christian about working to destroy people's families and lives. In fact, it is anti-Christian.
The organizations are just working to maintain the traditional definition of marriage.
No, in using lies and distortion to enact public policy creating a legal definition of marriage limiting it to persons of opposite gender, these organizations work to destroy families.
Homosexuality is a sin in the bible. Accordingly, same-sex marriage is wrong.
A) No it is not.
B) Even if you refuse to accept any interpretation outside a damaging and archaic biblical scholarship, it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. We are talking about public policy, we are talking about human beings in the United States which stands by freedom of religion; which also includes freedom from religion. Different religions have different standards as to what constitutes marriage. Since we do not apply religious standards to the institution, we have to apply standards that are not discriminatory. Marriage being a legal contract binding two consenting adults, barring incest, in union is not discriminatory. This does not open the floodgates of marriage between a man and an infant; between a man and a corpse, between a man and a box turtle. It also does not open the possibility of plural marriage.
I am okay with organizations working to limit the legal definition of marriage to a man and a woman.
Are you okay with those organizations using lies and distortion to create public policy? Organizations that only cite studies that have been proven unsustainable or with fabricated data in order to defame lesbian and gay people, and generate negative public opinion about same-sex relationships?
A recent study of children raised in same-sex relationships pointed to the fact that those children suffer as opposed to children in different-sex parent homes. But this study runs counter to numerous other studies showing the opposite, and in fact was found useless and irreperably flawed. Organizations that work to create public policy disallowing same-gender marriage still use this study, without comment.
Regardless of your personal opinion about whether same-sex relationships are a sin, supporting such organizations is in fact, unChristian.
Limiting marriage to a man and a woman protects the family.
In fact, denying over 90% of legal rights that accompany marriage actively harms tens of thousands of families all across the United States. In denying a child the right to two happy, well adjusted parents with full legal protection, the consequences of marriage "definition" laws actively damages the well-being of those children and destroys families.
Chick-fil-A, in supporting those organizations, is destroying families.
When you eat at Chick-fil-A, you support a company that destroys families.
(Comments and suggestions are very welcome. I invite intelligent discussion on this topic whether pro or con. I also reserve the right to delete trolling or any comment that only serves to reiterate talking points that have already been beaten to death.)
