Politicians Coast-to-Coast Take Sides on Chick-fil-A’s Gay Marriage Controversy

Even Stephen Colbert lays in, speculating as to whether Chick-fil-A created a fake Facebook account to defend itself

  • Share
  • Read Later
Robert MacPherson / AFP / Getty Images

Protesters hold signs and shout slogans outside a Chick-fil-A food truck in a mid-day demonstration organized by the Human Rights Campaign in Washington on 26 July, 2012 after the fast-food firm's president Dan Cathy came out against marriage equality in the United States.

It all started with Boston Mayor Thomas Menino. He vowed to block Chick-fil-A’s attempts to open a restaurant within his city’s limits in response to the company president’s statement against same-sex marriage, which is legal in that state. “There’s no place for discrimination on Boston’s Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it,” Menino wrote to Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy.

The strong words were in response to Cathy’s June 16 comments on the Ken Coleman show. “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.’” According to a report from LGBT advocacy group Equality Matters, Chick-fil-A donated more than $2 million in 2010 alone to Christian groups that oppose homosexuality.

Cathy’s words also prompted Jim Henson’s Muppets to cut ties with the restaurant; they will no longer make toys for the company. But that was just the beginning of the fallout.

(MORE: Boston Mayor Blocks Chick-fil-A Franchise Over Homophobic Attitude)

In Chicago, Ward 1 Alderman Proco “Joe” Moreno, told the Chicago Tribune on Tuesday that he would deny Chick-fil-A a permit if they tried to open a restaurant in his neighborhood, the cosmopolitan Logan Square area northwest of Chicago’s Loop. Calling Cathy’s comments “bigoted” and “homophobic,” Moreno said, “If you are discriminating against a segment of the community, I don’t want you in the 1st Ward. Because of this man’s ignorance, I will now be denying Chick-fil-A’s permit to open a restaurant in the 1st Ward.”

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel told the paper that he supported Moreno’s decision. “Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members,” Emanuel said. “This would be a bad investment, since it would be empty.” (There is already one Chick-fil-A branch in Chicago.)

San Francisco mayor, Ed Lee, has joined fellow mayors Menino and Emanuel in the fight. Mayor Lee had perhaps the harshest words for Chick-fil-A, tweeting a warning on Friday not to open an outlet in his city, either.

Whether these mayors can actually block the chains based on Cathy’s views alone is a tricky issue. Many invoke First Amendment rights and question whether Chick-fil-A has actually ever discriminated against gay or lesbian customers or employees. Chick-fil-A issued a statement last week saying it would “leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena” and that it always planned to “treat every person with honor, dignity, and respect—regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation, or gender.” That statement did not deter protestors, who have been holding same-sex kiss-ins at Chick-fil-A restaurants across the country. (Chick-fil-A chief spokesman, Don Perry, who was responsible for the company’s official response to the controversy, died unexpectedly on Friday at age 60. The company has not yet released the cause of his death.)

(MORE: Chick-fil-A Meets A First Amendment Buzzsaw in Chicago)

But despite the threat of stunted expansion, the chain is not completely without political friends. Former Republican nominee contenders Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum have formed a counter-protest. Huckabee has declared August 1 to be Chick-fil-A appreciation day, encouraging those who share their views on traditional marriage to have a meal at the restaurant that day. “Our support for traditional values will be heard loud and clear,” Santorum wrote in an email to supporters on Wednesday.

And Chick-fil-A has tried to defend itself as well via social media, though Gizmodo has accused the chain of creating a fake Facebook account to garner sympathy. The Facebook user in question is named “Abby Farle,” and, Gizmodo says, her profile picture is a stock image of a teenage girl. The company has denied to BuzzFeed that they created the profile.

Stephen Colbert, of course, is having a field day with this debate and the newest accusations of a fake Facebook account. On the Colbert Report on Thursday, Colbert said: “Conspiracy theorists accused poor, little Abby of being a fake front for the corporation just because her account was created yesterday morning, and her profile picture was a stock photo of a teenage girl. So? That’s just Chick-fil-A standing up for a different minority—our proud, stock photo Americans.”

Colbert went on to say (sarcastically) that he was glad another part of our lives has been politicized. Who ever thought ordering a fried chicken sandwich would become a political statement?

MORE: Why I Won’t Be Boycotting Chick-fil-A

55 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Mariana225
Mariana225

Thank youto the gay activists who created this controversy  for pointing out to all of  America that  Chick-Fil-A does NOT share the values of cities like Chicago and San Fransisco. It is great to know  that in a world so full of human putrefaction, there are still people like Dan Cathy who hold high moral values 

schm0ozer
schm0ozer

I have no problem with the homosexuals. Whatsoever. If this is how they choose to live, it is their business. What I have a real problem with, is when their life style (some call it "values") is being showed down my throat. As long as Chick-Fil-A does not deny them service, or sits them at separate booths, a personal opininon of the owner  (First Amendmend, anyone?) should not be used to qualify/disqualify this enterprise for doing business anywhere.

Cedarstrip
Cedarstrip

old liberal philosophy: "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

New liberal philosophy: “You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against the population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the

forefront of inclusion."

Is that "inclusion by exclusion"?  It's not easy being a new liberal.

Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/...

Roberto F. Jacobus
Roberto F. Jacobus

The issue here is not gay rights. The issue is if a mayor should be allowed to forbid a business in his town because the business owner has a different view on an issue. ANY issue. I think not. It would be the people of the town the ones who should decide if the business should stay by coming in to buy or not.

Daniel LeBlanc
Daniel LeBlanc

So, during one of the worst recessions in our history, the plan is to bankrupt a prosperous business because the owner has a view you don't agree with? More unemployment will mean furthering this nightmarish economy. Scotland just legalized gay marriage AND gave legal protection for religious institutions and individuals who disagree/agree. Agree to disagree--what's so hard about that concept for the Left and Right to understand? Don't like the rules of a particular faith? You have the right to not follow them, but the Constitution strictly forbids the government from interfering with a citizens' Freedom of Worship.

Kyle Hitchens
Kyle Hitchens

Idiots.. you think this is actually harming the owners of Chic-fil-a more than the people that work for them?

Why don't you make something to compete with them.

Easy.. done.

macon365
macon365

In my  mind this whole discussion is ridiculous. If you don't like what Mr. Cathy view just don't go to chick-fil-a. The rest of us who support Mr. Cathy will continue to support his company.  The best part is that we won't have to stand in line so long because you won't be there. 

Danyz
Danyz

America, where have you gone?

David Gaines
David Gaines

Cathy has an opinion, which is an American right; he expressed it in public, which is an American right; people disagree which is an American right; people are upset, which is an American right.

So don't buy a chicken biscuit, but let's not get anti-American and act like because you don't agree with his opinion he doesn't have the right to have it or to express it.  He has an opinion and expressed just as any American has the right to do.  We respect other people's opinions whether we agree with it or not, but we don't attempt to hold them back because of it.  There are (hundreds of) thousands of Americans who agree; and as many who are Muslim, atheist, gay, straight, tall, short, vocal, shy...

Seriously?  Eat more beef and get over it!

Whether you agree is your right just as it's Cathy's right to express his.

Matthew Johnson
Matthew Johnson

That's right: don't by the silly biscuit, get the grilled chicken sandwich! It costs a bit more, but is worth it. It not only tastes better, but is healthier for you too. 

What is more, eating chicken instead of beef is even the 'green' thing to do. Chicken farts don't contribute to global warming the way cow farts do;)

Nwvotes
Nwvotes

City officials are banning Chick-Fil-A from the area after they came out against same sex marriage. Is it time to make a decision on legalizing gay marriage? Vote at Nationwidevotes.com 

Good and Godless
Good and Godless

Realize that the sick comments from Chik-Fil-A are based on the fiction of the bible, and fed publicly  by the republican party are as condemnable at the origination  as they are coming out of the dimwitted president of a company.

It is a good time to leave the church in all forms.

It is a great time to leave the republican party.

It is an excellent time to never patronize a company which supports either.

legtingle
legtingle

The Left is being exposed.

Obama is going to be exposed.  Check out your nearest bookstore.  About 4-5 books about him just came out.  My....he's finally being vetted.  He's a Communist/Marxist.

He will soon blow.  I can't wait to see this fraud fall apart before the dopes that fell for his crap.

Mariana225
Mariana225

Don't be so sure that Obama's re election is at risk as a result of these books or for any other reason. It is not.  His re election is guaranteed.  He made sure of it this past January, when he sold the rights to count the votes for at least 26 states to a company in Spain called SCYTL, which is said to have ties to George Soros.  Once the data is downloaded to SCYTL's main server, it will be MERGED, making it very easy for fraud to be committed, but impossible to trace.  Unless this 'outsourcing' is reversed, we are going to wake up on Nov. 7 to the news that he was re elected by a 'very slim margin' (of course, so the fraud won't be so obvious).

The networks did not cover this at all when it was uncovered this past April, but the info. is still on the Internet. Please look it up and find out if your state is one of the 26 involved.  If this is not stopped, America will be doomed!

Good and Godless
Good and Godless

No doubt you fear the unknown and seek to derail good functional ideals with spiteful superstition.

"Communist/Marxist"? where does that come from?

No God. None for the Democrats and None for the republicans.

Good and Godless
Good and Godless

You will find, as you try to get more specific that your claim decreases in merit. Communist/Marxist friends, mentor and associates does not make a person a Communist/Marxist. Even the Socialist deny him as a member. If you understood the differences between Obama and a Communist/Marxist/Socialist instead of being an ardent follower of fear mongering your postings would be a lot different.

Mariana225
Mariana225

It comes straight out of Obama's mouth.  Read his memoirs 'Dreams From My Father'.  It is all there.  Listen to the speech he gave in Osawatomie, Kansas.  It is on Youtube. 

No one is making this up.  He has said it over and over, but you who are so blind and deaf refuse to see and hear what he is saying.

Good and Godless
Good and Godless

You ability follow the instructions to label President Obama a communist and ignore that every valid government program has "elements of communism" is indicative of a mock grass roots effort to create discord. Truly the interests of the nation align under President Obama whose righteous election was an affront to decades of political manipulation by the owners of the republican party.

legtingle
legtingle

Communist/Marxist comes from Obama.  I'm sure it didn't hurt that his grandparents were Communists as was his Mother as was his supposed father as was his probable father Frank Marshall Davis.

Plenty of vetting going on this go round.  Go to the local bookstore if you care to learn some facts about Obama.

brendonkuhn
brendonkuhn

Chic-Fil-A employs, and serves, homosexuals. It doesn't discriminate and Cathy never said he hated anybody. He said he supports traditional marriage values. That is his opinion, and he's allowed to have it. He hasn't committed any hate crime or violated and rights. It's unfair how blown out of proportion this has gotten.

Good and Godless
Good and Godless

Slow down there Abby...

Cite your sources of employing, serving and not discriminating homosexuals.

The source of his opinion is not "spontaneous", it is "indoctrinated" by the fictional religious tomes.

His opinion is indicative of the underlying poisoning of intellects by the church and the republicans.

It is unfair this avenue for social treason was not fully exposed when the 1st amendment was first drafted.

f_galton
f_galton

Government officials cannot punish Cathy's business for opinions he's expressed, it's a gross violation of the First Amendment. The threat alone is a violation, because it has a chilling effect on free speech. Unfortunately most Americans don't care much about free speech anymore.

uprightape
uprightape

The Bible condemns the eating of pork, shell fish, and many other delicious food items. To violate these commandments is to earn forever in Hell. What is clear is that the Bible is for idiots. Laws and morality in the 21st century should not be derived from Hebrew mythology that is not followed even by it's own believers. You Christians should worry about your own marriages and mind your own business. And stop eating pork.

Mariana225
Mariana225

Keep in mind that 'marriage' is a religious concept/institution, so if the Bible is for idiots, so is marriage. Just be consistent and leave 'marriage' to the idiot Christians.

Matthew Johnson
Matthew Johnson

No, what is clear is that your understanding of the Bible has never got above the "the Bible is for idiots" level. And despite the Press's depiction of the opinions floating about in society, Christians ARE "worrying about their own marriages and minding their own business". It is YOUR side that is intruding into everyone else's business by trying to force an ill-advised change on an institution of the whole society.

brendonkuhn
brendonkuhn

This argument/point is brought up far too often given how incorrect it is. The condemnation of such foods applie to the Old Testament prior to Christ and the new covenant. I understand this won't change your opinion, but stop making this point because it is 100% inaccurate. People can pick and choose and passage and critique it, but read the entire book because it may bring light to things like this that you question.

baxters
baxters

Liberal Reaction to Ground Zero Mosque Proposal: This is America! No one should be ostracized or denied a building permit based on their religious beliefs.

Liberal Reaction to Chick-Fil-A:  This is America! No one should be allowed to express a religious opinion I disagree with. Time to go all vendetta against this guy, boycott the restaurant and deny building permits.

This over the top campaign against the Chick-Fil-A guy is not exactly going to build bridges or convince anyone of your viewpoint, it just makes you look like a bunch of bullies who want to be the thought police. The Taliban would be proud.

Mariana225
Mariana225

In liberal logic, opening the doors to the establishment of a religion which  calls for the killing of homosexuals is more acceptable than the opinion of a businessman who opposes homosexual marriage.

The obvious conclussion:  Liberals are setting in place the means to exterminate homosexuals!   Will someone explain this?

legtingle
legtingle

What I find pathetic, yet amusing is how the homosexual activists and GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS that are trying to shut down CFA whistle by the graveyard re: Islam in this country.  

Hey, dopes.  Go after the people that want to cut your heads off for a change.

jacker101
jacker101

These gays make me sick. The man has a right to his beliefs.

RC
RC

Just so that everyone who has to deal with an anti gay christian can

have the facts behind them... I would like to put forth the following

information. please share as much as you want.

 

  First

off, in the ancient world gay couples were not considered homosexual as

any man professing to be female was simply treated and considered as

such by the society around them. They were considered no different from a

heterosexual couple. But were usually referred to as whatever sex they

proclaimed or others would proclaim them as natural born Eunuchs.

Investigation into ancient practices clearly shows this time and time

again.

 

Also while not explicit the bible actually speaks

of the loving homosexual relations between men several times as the

phrase "specially loved by" or "specially beloved" translates from many

of the original texts. Several texts say this in a roundabout way yet

there is one in which Jesus blesses a centurion and his beloved "pais"

Which in ancient Greek basically translates to what we would call a

"twink" today. Yes folks Jesus himself blessed a GAY couple.

 

Secondly

Jesus addresses the issue while taking a stance against divorce. He

refers to "Eunuchs who were born as such"... As mentioned, in the

ancient world this referred not only to those born inter-sexed, or with

genital deformity but generally also towards individuals who did not

have attraction for the opposite sex which were recognized and married

as the sex of their own choosing. He also goes on to talk about Eunuchs

who were made thus by men (as our modern translation goes) people who do

not marry for sake of their closeness with God etc. But he does specify

the general expressive words used in the ancient world to define

Homosexuals as being excluded from his condemnation of divorce and goes

on to allow them a place in heaven.

 

Meanwhile divorce rules are very very clear and he was deeply opposed.

 

Furthermore,

every single translation involving Jesus has agreed on the following

components. It is not our place to judge. All sin can be forgiven. All

people are sinners. The act of professing otherwise or judging is

considered a sin in itself no less than the act of fornication outside

of marriage.

 

The other statements made Biblically in

acceptance of this and condemnation of lust are made in the old

testament, which as any good christian should no, simply holds no real

relevance after Jesus declared the new covenant. That's why you're

allowed to eat pork and wear mixed fabrics without being bound for hell.

 

 Faulty

translations have been around for years tainted by men with agendas

ungodly in their own right. (King James who rewrote previous second and

third hand translations so he could get divorced.)  

 

 

Effeminate men were praised next to prostitutes so that those without

lust for women or love for other man may have a way. This was so that

sin may be alleviated and lust quenched without leading to

detriment. What was cursed by the bible was rampant lust leading to

rape, and men laying with men to satisfy their desires alone. The

translation here that has been construed as homosexuals actually

referred to straight men who would engage in homosexual behavior for

money. This is mostly explored in Leviticus.

 

Jesus does

perform the action of blessing later on with a short reference towards

the original stance. Jesus blessed the prostitute and the homosexual for

taking up needed places within human society.

 

 

 Now

for the final bit which is bound to come up. Many  "believers" won't

believe you. They will claim that they have read it, their pastors have

read it, they will spout off with the translations that have been passed

down and retouched for over 500 yrs. How could these things be true? I

wasn't raised that way! That's a lie! etc... 

 

The reason

they don't know these things is because the Bible as they know it has

been changed as many times as it has been read. None of the books were

written down until hundreds of years after the death of the last

apostle. Several thousand manuscripts were then written, none of them

said exactly the same thing.

 

When Rome converted to

Christianity, a council was convened to decide which of these they

wanted the people to follow. They formed what Catholics know as the

Bible after picking and choosing between these thousands of documents,

several of which they simply threw out. (These are included in the

Bibles of several other countries for example Ethiopia)

 

Now

according to the faithful, that council was God guided to pick these

and form the Catholic church... However Hundreds of years after that

those Bibles got re translated by hundreds more people and put into new

languages... Then from those translations, a guy named King James of

England got some guys to edit a bunch of things into the way he liked

them so he could get divorced. It didn't pass parliament... So he got

some guys to do some more editing from the formerly translated and re

translated bits until parliament said yes...

 

Then the book

kept going until another company either re translated that version into

modern English or your pastor translated a poorly translated document

from old English into modern English himself at which point you heard it

in church growing up... So, if you want to know the closest possible

version to the truth... You need to read the Books from multiple

countries, learn Latin, compare ancient translations, make corrections

to the newer translations you own (like I spent soooo much time actually

doing in my youth) and pray that you can actually get a quarter of it

right.

 

 

Please share this, copy it paste it, get it

wherever you need to because I am sick and tired of the people spouting

off with things they don't know about. Its like listening to a bad game

of telephone going from the deaf, the blind, the vengeful and faithful

alike until it's hardly recognizable.

 

Glaring example within the English translations.

 

"Red"

Sea... Old English long E = Reed Sea = portion of northern Nile delta

which dries up twice a year and is filled with crocodiles which

literally "swallowed" the Egyptians in their pursuit of the slaves.

 

"Thou

shalt not suffer a witch to live"  "witch" = old English "Wic" =

country dweller = medicine maker = what we refer to in the modern world

as a doctor. Tada! a passage about having faith that God will heal you

becomes a free reign for persecution of other religions and

practitioners of traditional ways... and we get what from that? An

inquisition and people being burnt alive... Coincidentally we also get

the word for a bundle of sticks being used to refer to homosexuals

because apparently somebody thought they were important enough to even

go on the fire, but had to go below it...

Scott Fillmer
Scott Fillmer

RC, I would agree with you to a point in that yes, a good many Christians will take what their pastors (or even certain media outlets) say, without ever investigating it themselves. There is a great need for Christians to study not their newest translation (yes, many of which are just plain bad) but to study what the original writers wrote from the Greek and Hebrew. Our country has a good many lazy Christians, and I would even content we are moving into an anti-intellectualism among Believers that makes your argument stronger.

It's a lifetime process of learning for Believers and it's much easier to just take what you been told instead of studying it yourself... it's also much easier in our culture today to just dismiss faith in Christ as fundamentalist wackos.

Something you, and many others who argue these points miss is that Christians, at least if they have read their Bibles, DO NOT hate gays any more than you hate someone for telling a lie.

Matthew Johnson
Matthew Johnson

That sounds nice in theory, but unfortunately, there are a lot of dishonest Greek and Hebrew scholars out there, whose dishonesty readily extends to giving the thin veneer of scholarly approval to an opinion that belongs in the scholar's trash basket, such as the opinion that αρσενοκοίτης could mean "homosexual sex slave" or even "trader in homosexual sex slaves", which false opinion is meant to undermine the clarity of the commandment against homosexuality in 1 Cor 6:9-10.

RC
RC

 Which is why the commentary and information is directed towards the

misinformed "anti gay" group of individuals claiming Christianity

without first learning on their own. There is a difference between

Christians and Anti Gay misinformed extremist "Christians".

happydayfortennis
happydayfortennis

This whole situation makes me sick. I disagree with Chick-fil-A's anti-gay beliefs, but the fact that the mayor is trying to ban it just makes everything so much worse. Let people decide with their wallets.

Gigabiting
Gigabiting

The public outrage is long overdue.

Chick-fil-A has never made a

secret of the bigotry and intolerance of its conservative corporate

ethos. The company has openly (and sometimes illegally) factored a

potential employee’s marital status and civic and church involvement in

its hiring process, and gives millions of dollars in contributions to

pretty much any organization that works to defeat gay marriage.

http://gigabiting.com/those-ar...

Scott Fillmer
Scott Fillmer

As I just stated over on my own site at http://scottfillmer.com/2012/0... there is a fundamental mis-understanding that those who support "gay rights" have when it comes to the convictions of those who defend the Truth. There is nothing more clearly stated as sin in the Bible than homosexuality and no mayor of Chicago or Boston is going to change that.

I applaud the conversation on both sides because I think Freedom of Speech is far more important than one politicians ability to dictate to the rest of us, especially when he apparently doesn't know anything about the constitution. No mayor in our day should threaten a family business from coming into their town, this isn't the 1960's, and he isn't a mob boss.

Joanna Byers
Joanna Byers

 Judge not, lest ye be judged.

Not a quote of mine, but I'm pretty sure you've probably heard it before at some point, haha.

backtooakland
backtooakland

Apparently you don't know much about what's in the bible.

RC
RC

Just so that everyone who has to deal with an anti gay christian can

have the facts behind them... I would like to put forth the following

information. please share as much as you want.

 

  First

off, in the ancient world gay couples were not considered homosexual as

any man professing to be female was simply treated and considered as

such by the society around them. They were considered no different from a

heterosexual couple. But were usually referred to as whatever sex they

proclaimed or others would proclaim them as natural born Eunuchs.

Investigation into ancient practices clearly shows this time and time

again.

 

Also while not explicit the bible actually speaks

of the loving homosexual relations between men several times as the

phrase "specially loved by" or "specially beloved" translates from many

of the original texts. Several texts say this in a roundabout way yet

there is one in which Jesus blesses a centurion and his beloved "pais"

Which in ancient Greek basically translates to what we would call a

"twink" today. Yes folks Jesus himself blessed a GAY couple.

 

Secondly

Jesus addresses the issue while taking a stance against divorce. He

refers to "Eunuchs who were born as such"... As mentioned, in the

ancient world this referred not only to those born inter-sexed, or with

genital deformity but generally also towards individuals who did not

have attraction for the opposite sex which were recognized and married

as the sex of their own choosing. He also goes on to talk about Eunuchs

who were made thus by men (as our modern translation goes) people who do

not marry for sake of their closeness with God etc. But he does specify

the general expressive words used in the ancient world to define

Homosexuals as being excluded from his condemnation of divorce and goes

on to allow them a place in heaven.

 

Meanwhile divorce rules are very very clear and he was deeply opposed.

 

Furthermore,

every single translation involving Jesus has agreed on the following

components. It is not our place to judge. All sin can be forgiven. All

people are sinners. The act of professing otherwise or judging is

considered a sin in itself no less than the act of fornication outside

of marriage.

 

The other statements made Biblically in

acceptance of this and condemnation of lust are made in the old

testament, which as any good christian should no, simply holds no real

relevance after Jesus declared the new covenant. That's why you're

allowed to eat pork and wear mixed fabrics without being bound for hell.

 

 Faulty

translations have been around for years tainted by men with agendas

ungodly in their own right. (King James who rewrote previous second and

third hand translations so he could get divorced.)  

 

 

Effeminate men were praised next to prostitutes so that those without

lust for women or love for other man may have a way. This was so that

sin may be alleviated and lust quenched without leading to

detriment. What was cursed by the bible was rampant lust leading to

rape, and men laying with men to satisfy their desires alone. The

translation here that has been construed as homosexuals actually

referred to straight men who would engage in homosexual behavior for

money. This is mostly explored in Leviticus.

 

Jesus does

perform the action of blessing later on with a short reference towards

the original stance. Jesus blessed the prostitute and the homosexual for

taking up needed places within human society.

 

 

 Now

for the final bit which is bound to come up. Many  "believers" won't

believe you. They will claim that they have read it, their pastors have

read it, they will spout off with the translations that have been passed

down and retouched for over 500 yrs. How could these things be true? I

wasn't raised that way! That's a lie! etc... 

 

The reason

they don't know these things is because the Bible as they know it has

been changed as many times as it has been read. None of the books were

written down until hundreds of years after the death of the last

apostle. Several thousand manuscripts were then written, none of them

said exactly the same thing.

 

When Rome converted to

Christianity, a council was convened to decide which of these they

wanted the people to follow. They formed what Catholics know as the

Bible after picking and choosing between these thousands of documents,

several of which they simply threw out. (These are included in the

Bibles of several other countries for example Ethiopia)

 

Now

according to the faithful, that council was God guided to pick these

and form the Catholic church... However Hundreds of years after that

those Bibles got re translated by hundreds more people and put into new

languages... Then from those translations, a guy named King James of

England got some guys to edit a bunch of things into the way he liked

them so he could get divorced. It didn't pass parliament... So he got

some guys to do some more editing from the formerly translated and re

translated bits until parliament said yes...

 

Then the book

kept going until another company either re translated that version into

modern English or your pastor translated a poorly translated document

from old English into modern English himself at which point you heard it

in church growing up... So, if you want to know the closest possible

version to the truth... You need to read the Books from multiple

countries, learn Latin, compare ancient translations, make corrections

to the newer translations you own (like I spent soooo much time actually

doing in my youth) and pray that you can actually get a quarter of it

right.

 

 

Please share this, copy it paste it, get it

wherever you need to because I am sick and tired of the people spouting

off with things they don't know about. Its like listening to a bad game

of telephone going from the deaf, the blind, the vengeful and faithful

alike until it's hardly recognizable.

 

Glaring example within the English translations.

 

"Red"

Sea... Old English long E = Reed Sea = portion of northern Nile delta

which dries up twice a year and is filled with crocodiles which

literally "swallowed" the Egyptians in their pursuit of the slaves.

 

"Thou

shalt not suffer a witch to live"  "witch" = old English "Wic" =

country dweller = medicine maker = what we refer to in the modern world

as a doctor. Tada! a passage about having faith that God will heal you

becomes a free reign for persecution of other religions and

practitioners of traditional ways... and we get what from that? An

inquisition and people being burnt alive... Coincidentally we also get

the word for a bundle of sticks being used to refer to homosexuals

because apparently somebody thought they were important enough to even

go on the fire, but had to go below it...

Matthew Johnson
Matthew Johnson

Unfortunately, you talk about "having facts behind them", but even where you do get a fact right, you put the wrong spin on it. It is simply not true and it never was true that homosexuals were meant by the expression "natural born eunuchs". Nor did these "gay couples" exist except in the fantasies of revisionist historians. REAL historians know that both Rome and the Greek city-states had laws requiring citizens to marry and beget the next generations of citizens for the state. Enforcing said law was a priority for Augustus's reforms.

RC
RC

Allow me to elaborate by more specific and contextual means. The directly translated scriptures, their references, and the historically accepted context that is not "revisionist" so much as "often ignored".

FIRST Leviticus 18:22direct Hebrew translationAnd with a male thou shalt not lie down in a woman's bed; it is a despising.

 

This is the correct translation of Leviticus 18:22. It can be seen that, rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply forbids two males to lie down in a woman’s bed. Culturally, a woman's bed was her own. Other than the woman herself, only her husband was permitted in her bed, and there were even restrictions on when he was allowed in there. Any other use of her bed would have been considered defilement.  The passage is a warning against married men cheating on their wives with other men.Now before addressing Romans allow me to put some context in place. The ancient Greek and Roman concept of what was “normal” and what was moral was quite different from ours. Although such concepts as sexual orientation had not been named, in behavior, both the Greek and Roman empires expected everyone to be bisexual. There were very specific cultural rules regarding how this worked. A woman, for example, had one husband, and was not permitted sexual contact with any other male. But sexual contact with other women was permitted and even expected. For men, the rules permitted him wives, and perhaps concubines, depending on his wealth. But an adult man would also be “attached” to an adolescent male, to whom he would be teacher, mentor and lover. Any man or women who had relations with only one gender would have been thought odd or even abnormal. Church history documents that same-sex marriages existed, and continued, in the Christian church up until around the 13th or 14th century

 It was in the context of this society that Paul spoke. Romans chapter one, as a whole, deals with pagan Rome’s attempts to turn the creation into a god, worshiping the things created rather than the One who created them, and their attempt to remake that creation in their own design, by ignoring the inborn sexual orientation of the people, and expecting them to live bisexually. This chapter is not about homosexuality vs. heterosexuality, but rather about the error of trying to change the way we are created. and now the properly translated passageRomans 1:26-27 -  “Through this, God gave them over to passions of dishonor; their women exchanged the natural use into one against their nature, likewise also the men left the natural use of the female, men in men, committing an indecency in their pure lust, receiving in themselves the necessary reward for their error.”

  First Corinthians 6:9 "Or haven’t you known that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be misled; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor soft ones nor those who lie with males."

First let us address the term "soft ones" The Greek word malaki (mala-KEE) is a plural noun, derived from the adjective malakos (mala-KOS). The adjective means soft or fine, but is restricted in its use to describing material or clothing. It describes the type of clothing worn by wealthy people. This statement is an allusion towards those who deny work and gain wealth at the expense of others. Other synonyms for this would be "soft hands"

Now let us focus on the last part of this passage. "those who lie with males" ... Ordinarily, to determine if a Greek noun is masculine or feminine, one looks at it in the nominative case with the definite article. Problem being that the word used in these two verses never appears with a definite article... at all, anywhere. This is important. Greek nouns are declined according to case. That is, the ending of a noun changes to indicate how the word is being used in the sentence. 

So how is this weighed? First, when properly translated, Scripture contains no prior condemnation of homosexuality, and the Hebrew Old Testament contains the record of two same-sex marriages, neither condemned by God. Secondly in 1 Corinthians, the word is in the nominative case, and the ending is clearly a feminine ending. This would suggest that the word is referring to women lying with males, thus representing a condemnation of female promiscuity outside of marriage, as the word for fornicators and adulterers are in the male sense.

Then of course we have the passages of I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46; II Kings 23:7 in conjunction with Deuteronomy 23:17, which all use translations of the Hebrew word "Qadesh." which refers a  temple or cult prostitute -- that is a prostitute in a Pagan temple. This word is translated in alternate context to mean a male prostitute traditionally used in a pagan temple.

In the 17th century this word was translated to the term "Sodomite" which having undergone many contexual changes within its etymology had come to mean at the time "unnatural" sexual acts of any type, including anal sex, oral sex, etc. as defined by the current incarnation of the church before the King James revision.Now for Matthew 8:5-13

"5 And Jesus having entered into Capernaum, there came to him a centurion calling upon him,

6 and saying, `Sir, my pais hath been laid in the house a paralytic, fearfully afflicted,'

7 and Jesus saith to him, `I, having come, will heal him.'

8 And the centurion answering said, `Sir, I am not worthy that thou mayest enter under my roof, but only say a word, and my servant shall be healed;

9 for I also am a man under authority, having under myself soldiers, and I say to this one, Go, and he goeth, and to another, Be coming, and he cometh, and to my servant, Do this, and he doth [it].'

10 And Jesus having heard, did wonder, and said to those following, `Verily I say to you, not even in Israel so great faith have I found;

11 and I say to you, that many from east and west shall come and recline (at meat) with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the reign of the heavens,

12 but the sons of the reign shall be cast forth to the outer darkness -- there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of the teeth.'

13 And Jesus said to the centurion, `Go, and as thou didst believe let it be to thee;' and his pais was healed in that hour. amp; Luke 7:1-10 later on tells this same story over again using the word Pais yet again. 

The cultural and historical setting Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 addressed when they tell the Centurion and pais story is vitally important. BOTH Matthew and Luke use the Greek word pais to describe the Centurion's relationship with his “servant.” They used the word pais at a time when that word had definite same sex meaning when used as they used it, to refer to the relationship between a Roman Centurion and his "beloved" servant.

Of course the scholarly understanding of the word "Pais" is as follows. "The junior partner in homosexual eros is called pais (or of course, paidika) even when he has reached adult height and hair has begun to grow on his face"

Shall I proceed?

Matthew 19:10-12

"10 His disciples say to him, `If the case of the man with the woman is so, it is not good to marry.'

11 And he said to them, `All do not receive this word, but those to whom it hath been given;

12 for there are eunuchs who from the mother's womb were so born; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs who kept themselves eunuchs because of the reign of the heavens: he who is able to receive, let him receive.'"

In the original texts of the Bible a “eunuch” is termed saris (Hebrew, Old Testament)

or eunouchos (Greek, New Testament). However, both these words could apart from

meaning a castrate. In translations of ancient texts, "eunuch" may refer to a man who is not castrated but who is impotent, celibate or otherwise not inclined to marry and procreate. 

"Eunuchs who from the mother's womb were so born"

Dr. Robert Gagnon, prolific anti-gay, evangelical Christian author, admits on his website, "born eunuchs" in the ancient world did include people homosexually inclined, which incidentally puts to the lie the oft-repeated claim that the ancient world could not even conceive of persons that were congenitally influenced toward exclusive same-sex attractions." - Dr. Gagnon

In rare cases, eunuch could refer to one born with genital defects which make siring children impossible, although this condition is not mentioned in scripture. This is the closest the Bible ever comes to any reference towards hermaphrodites.

According to Jesus, this is a natural state of being having been inborn to the individual.

Earlier on God tells Solomon that the Eunuch is blessed for his faith and shall receive a place in heaven more suitable for his mind.

 Now knowing all of that consider the following. God stated in Genesis Verse 18: "It is not good for the man to be alone". This shows the importance that God gives to committed relationships. For a heterosexual, the only suitable companion is a person of the opposite gender. For a homosexual individual, the only suitable companion is a person of the same gender. To say that gays and lesbians should not form committed relationships is to say that it is good for people to remain alone. 

Ahh but I have not yet addressed Sodom or Gomorra... Right you are but a the passage is long I will refer you here http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/... to read it. It is quite clear that their destruction was over rampant violence and RAPE, not homosexual behavior. They turned from god and did un natural things to the flesh. Which includes rape, homosexual prostitution, adultery and murder, but not loving homosexual union.

So, now that you know you have a few choices... 1 - Find someone else capable of the translations and get a second opinion (though I have source checked with other scholars already) 2 - Refuse to believe the true word and continue living by the corrupted versions passed down for a few centuries now. 3 - Re evaluate what you thought you knew, and accept the truth of the message you profess faith in.Also simply on a historical note... They are still finding individuals from pre biblical times whose graves were recognized as the opposite gender from their physical sex... Gender meant more to the ancient world than the characteristics  of ones sex organs. this was generally true everywhere up until the rise of unified patriarchal conversions.

Raymondqa
Raymondqa

Gerald implied I am impressed that a stay at home mom can make $9154 in one month on the computer. did you see this(Click on menu Home)

acarmeni
acarmeni

"There is nothing more clearly stated as sin in the Bible than homosexuality and no mayor of Chicago or Boston is going to change that."

So murder, adultry, blasphemy...those are on the fence as to whether or not it's considered sin according to the bible.  But two people who love each other...NOW THAT'S SIN!

I think the ultimate misunderstanding is the fact that not everyone worships your god or your bible.  Forcing everyone to hold your beliefs does lead to their "salvation" or whatever, it just makes people angry.  As a commercial business, expressing your religion is completely your right but it's at your own risk.  The fallout can be more than anticipated, especially if your views can cause hurt and discrimination to others.

Matthew Johnson
Matthew Johnson

It is not love to make someone your partner in sin. On the contrary: as Augustine put it SO well, when Christ commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves, he commands us to "love as you love yourself, not as you hate yourself by loving wickedness". As for what "commercial business" should do, no Christian is supposed to put profits over speaking the truth.

Scott Fillmer
Scott Fillmer

yes, you are quite correct in being able to identify other sins also presented in Scripture, like murder, adultery, and so on. There are many concepts of true morality taught in Scripture as sin, homosexuality is just one of them, but it is clearly taught to be sinful throughout Scripture.

I never forced anyone to hold to my beliefs, you said that not me, you are welcome to believe whatever you like, but you make my point... it doesn't matter if you want to believe homosexuality is morally acceptable in the eyes of God or not, it doesn't change the fact that to those who hold to the truths of the Bible, they will not ever think it's acceptable, but Scripture clearly teaches it is not.

Scott Fillmer
Scott Fillmer

@qdiscqus:disqus  predictable... you obviously didn't read my post at http://scottfillmer.com/2012/0... where I addressed that very issue, but this was written about specifically on Homosexuality, Polyester and Shellfish here

http://headhearthand.org/blog/...

that's an old and tired argument though... we don't execute people for adultery any more either, for good reason, and for good hermeneutical examination of Leviticus.

qdiscqus
qdiscqus

What about men cutting their beards, or eating shellfish. Read your Leviticus. All abominations. Where is your anti-shellfish crusade?

Good and Godless
Good and Godless

The current version of the often re-translated and poorly edited version of the condratiction laden scriptures currently adopted by this particular derivative of the familial group of religions whose authority to determine the "beliefs" of decreasing millions has opted to ignore passages overlooked by the clergy or edited out by the predecessors and chosen a few rare phrases to limit the natural sexuality of some against its best interests and plunge further into myth and superstition based value systems is a poor target for your devotion. 

Beanybag
Beanybag

 Luckily for us, we all know the bible is full of crap and shouldn't hinder the progression of mankind. Luckily, fundamentalism is being pushed out of cities into the rural boonies. Hopefully, that's where it will stay, alongside the racists and sexists.

This is precisely why businesses should stay out of politics that doesn't concern them. Chic-fil-A's profits are in for some hurt from these protests, and for good reason. They don't just speak out vocally against gay rights, they speak with their money through millions in donations to anti-gay political groups. Why, oh why, did they have to make a simple sandwich political indeed?

Posh Raccoons
Posh Raccoons

Quick question... where does it say that chick-fil-A is giving millions in donations to anti-gay political groups? 

Meghan Elizabeth Topp
Meghan Elizabeth Topp

Fortunately, our nation was founded on a principle of Separation of Church and State, which was developed in order to prevent the State from discriminating against citizens for what they believe. 

There is a good deal of debate about where this line is drawn, but a spoken declaration of belief (with no evidence of any action of discrimination against employees) falls clearly on the not-any-business-of-the-state side, since it remains a belief with no violation of civil law. 

Politicians are welcome to speak out against them, but to wield the power of the State to try to kill a business that has broken no law, because of differences in religious beliefs, oversteps their authority.