Chick-Fila
Options
Replies
-
But I didn't see anyone being denied service based on skin, nationality, creed or sexual orientation.
The fact that you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. In about half the states in this country you can legally be fired from your job for just being gay. The kind of bigotry this company supports just feeds into that.
Then I guess I am swimming on both sides as my voice (dollar wise) is supporting both groups. Can I be called neutral then?
It reminds me of DnD thing. A friend would always call druids, fence sitters. Druids were required to have a neutral alignment...it makes more sense if you've played.
I think it depends. If you spend your money at a place because of their product or service and don't care about what causes they use corporate funds to support, then there we have it. You do care about what you're purchasing/contracting for, and you don't care--or you care to a significantly less extent--about what they do with their money once you give it to them. There are words for people who don't care. In a previous response to someone else, I referred to that kind of supporter as an apathetic support of bigotry. People can talk about the degrees, and how much, etc, but it comes off sounding like rationalization to me.
I think true neutrality is a little different and probably hard to come by.
Ok, so you are actually pretty cool. I mean anyone who brings up DnD and admits to playing it, is awesome, haha.0 -
But I didn't see anyone being denied service based on skin, nationality, creed or sexual orientation.
The fact that you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. In about half the states in this country you can legally be fired from your job for just being gay. The kind of bigotry this company supports just feeds into that.
Then I guess I am swimming on both sides as my voice (dollar wise) is supporting both groups. Can I be called neutral then?
It reminds me of DnD thing. A friend would always call druids, fence sitters. Druids were required to have a neutral alignment...it makes more sense if you've played.
I think it depends. If you spend your money at a place because of their product or service and don't care about what causes they use corporate funds to support, then there we have it. You do care about what you're purchasing/contracting for, and you don't care--or you care to a significantly less extent--about what they do with their money once you give it to them. There are words for people who don't care. In a previous response to someone else, I referred to that kind of supporter as an apathetic support of bigotry. People can talk about the degrees, and how much, etc, but it comes off sounding like rationalization to me.
I think true neutrality is a little different and probably hard to come by.
Chaotic Neutral is so much more fun. I always hated druids.0 -
I really don't understand the rational that eating at chik-fil-a is automatically supporting anti-gay marriage or whatnot... So would saying that shopping at JC Penney is supporting pro-gay marriage?
It's indirect - a little bit of your money* spent at Chick-Fil-A makes it way to the charity and is given to organizations that actively hate on marriage equality. I don't know if JC Penney gives $$ to pro-equality organizations through a charitable means, but if they did, then yes, indirectly.
*It's something like 50% of sales and 15% of net profits that franchisees pay to Chick-Fil-A, then whatever percentage of that goes toward their charitable entity..
I can't seem to find anything concrete on JC Penney as far as donations are concerned... I know they take applications for donations though... and I know though that for Mother's and Father's day, they created a series of commercials featuring two moms and two dads...
And while yes, my money may be my voice... which voice is louder? The one that shops at places like JC Penney (where I can drop over $100 at a time there? Or the one that eats at Chik-fil-a (where I spend maybe $15)? or even better the one that votes? Like I said, regardless of where I shop... or don't... what's going to really matter is how I vote... and I will always vote for liberty and freedom regardless of how one chooses to live your life.... if you want to be a pot smoker, you should be able to... If you want to marry 15 people at the same time.... go for it.... Regardless of what I believe...
So when it comes down to it... I just want the chicken.... :sad:
The chicken can't be THAT good......
Now, if it was falafel, that would be a different story. It's really hard to find good falafel where I live.0 -
Ultimately, I think there's a combination of factors that causes this to bother me in a very personal way, and I don't think I've ever even seen a chik-fil-a.
*puts personal response hat on*--this is your cue not to be overly harsh. I thought a warning would be fair.
The original post gave a comparison between a racist restaurant owner and asked why this is such a big deal, presumably because racism is generally considered so much more abhorrent than being against civil rights for lgbts. Looking at the comparison, though, what if he was a racist? What if he made these statements about african americans and gave money to the clan?
I don't think anyone could possibly offer me any rationale or other evidence that would convince me that the same, record shattering number of people would line up to give him their money. I don't think it would be close. I don't think politicians would even suggest it.
This tells me that my previous statement about not buying it when people say they were there to support his first amendment right, is leaning very close to being likely accurate. Instead they were there because they falsely feel like the definition of marriage is somehow being taken from them and they wanted the world to know that they just don't like seeing two people of the same gender together. They have the right to feel that way, state as such, etc, but they don't have a right to pass based on that...that's a different discussion though.
Moving on to the part that I find upsetting for me, and my own reaction surprised me a little if I'm being honest, were the numbers. I remember full well what it was like growing up as a young gay man in the wake of AIDS hysteria and Mathew Shepherd. In a way, the manner in which AIDS was addressed, or not addressed, is something that I wonder if a lot of people can relate to; the message was clear, and it was that mainstream society was content to see people like me wiped out by what they wrongly considered to be a righteous plague.
That was my first introduction to the hate of bigotry, though I don't suppose I fully felt the weight of the impact at the time, but I feel it now. And I feel it when I see images of people standing in line to buy chicken, as silly as it sounds. There were smaller instances on a day-to-day basis. Name calling,etc. When I was younger it didn't happen to me, mind you, but I was exposed to it. And later there were definitely other demonstrations that did involve me. I've been bashed, had rocks thrown at me, clashed with counter protests at parades. It's fairly standard for any gay person, I assume. You learn to deal with it.
Now in terms of just dollar numbers, yesterday wasn't a huge deal. If they wanted, the Koch brothers could bat an eyelash and fund organizations that hate me in ways that I can't imagine. Maybe they do that already. I think more than anything else it was seeing the people lined up that bothered me most. Correction: those weren't people. That was a mandate. That was a mandate for Cathy to continue to do what he got flak for, if not more of it. And you would think that after years of looking at poll numbers showing how millions of people think I should be a second class citizen, seeing one fast food place line people up saying as much, that I shouldn't be bothered. It shouldn't be a surprise.
For whatever reason, images of yesterday struck me in a way that being bashed, being threatened to be curb stomped, etc just can't compete with. I can deal with someone, even a few someone's getting in my face, and I can deal with seeing stats, but actually seeing the tide people take time out of their day to do this...is a thing.
I sincerely don't know if I should break down or use it as righteous motivation of my own. It will probably be one followed by the other.
And for all this talk of biblical definition of marriage, I'd like to see one quote from this jack *kitten* asking that people line up to volunteer at food shelters instead.
*takes hat off*
I think I need a drink just now.0 -
Ultimately, I think there's a combination of factors that causes this to bother me in a very personal way, and I don't think I've ever even seen a chik-fil-a.
*puts personal response hat on*--this is your cue not to be overly harsh. I thought a warning would be fair.
The original post gave a comparison between a racist restaurant owner and asked why this is such a big deal, presumably because racism is generally considered so much more abhorrent than being against civil rights for lgbts. Looking at the comparison, though, what if he was a racist? What if he made these statements about african americans and gave money to the clan?
I don't think anyone could possibly offer me any rationale or other evidence that would convince me that the same, record shattering number of people would line up to give him their money. I don't think it would be close. I don't think politicians would even suggest it.
This tells me that my previous statement about not buying it when people say they were there to support his first amendment right, is leaning very close to being likely accurate. Instead they were there because they falsely feel like the definition of marriage is somehow being taken from them and they wanted the world to know that they just don't like seeing two people of the same gender together. They have the right to feel that way, state as such, etc, but they don't have a right to pass based on that...that's a different discussion though.
Moving on to the part that I find upsetting for me, and my own reaction surprised me a little if I'm being honest, were the numbers. I remember full well what it was like growing up as a young gay man in the wake of AIDS hysteria and Mathew Shepherd. In a way, the manner in which AIDS was addressed, or not addressed, is something that I wonder if a lot of people can relate to; the message was clear, and it was that mainstream society was content to see people like me wiped out by what they wrongly considered to be a righteous plague.
That was my first introduction to the hate of bigotry, though I don't suppose I fully felt the weight of the impact at the time, but I feel it now. And I feel it when I see images of people standing in line to buy chicken, as silly as it sounds. There were smaller instances on a day-to-day basis. Name calling,etc. When I was younger it didn't happen to me, mind you, but I was exposed to it. And later there were definitely other demonstrations that did involve me. I've been bashed, had rocks thrown at me, clashed with counter protests at parades. It's fairly standard for any gay person, I assume. You learn to deal with it.
Now in terms of just dollar numbers, yesterday wasn't a huge deal. If they wanted, the Koch brothers could bat an eyelash and fund organizations that hate me in ways that I can't imagine. Maybe they do that already. I think more than anything else it was seeing the people lined up that bothered me most. Correction: those weren't people. That was a mandate. That was a mandate for Cathy to continue to do what he got flak for, if not more of it. And you would think that after years of looking at poll numbers showing how millions of people think I should be a second class citizen, seeing one fast food place line people up saying as much, that I shouldn't be bothered. It shouldn't be a surprise.
For whatever reason, images of yesterday struck me in a way that being bashed, being threatened to be curb stomped, etc just can't compete with. I can deal with someone, even a few someone's getting in my face, and I can deal with seeing stats, but actually seeing the tide people take time out of their day to do this...is a thing.
I sincerely don't know if I should break down or use it as righteous motivation of my own. It will probably be one followed by the other.
And for all this talk of biblical definition of marriage, I'd like to see one quote from this jack *kitten* asking that people line up to volunteer at food shelters instead.
*takes hat off*
I think I need a drink just now.
I've been following the chick fil a debates closely. And wow, just wow. That was probably hard to write but it was very moving for me. *hugs*0 -
Evan- thank you for that thoughtful post. I do not consider you a second class citizen, nor do I consider myself morally superior to you. You and I are equals in this life as humans, in my eyes. I hope you know I mean that sincerely.0
-
But I didn't see anyone being denied service based on skin, nationality, creed or sexual orientation.
The fact that you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. In about half the states in this country you can legally be fired from your job for just being gay. The kind of bigotry this company supports just feeds into that.
Then I guess I am swimming on both sides as my voice (dollar wise) is supporting both groups. Can I be called neutral then?
It reminds me of DnD thing. A friend would always call druids, fence sitters. Druids were required to have a neutral alignment...it makes more sense if you've played.
I think it depends. If you spend your money at a place because of their product or service and don't care about what causes they use corporate funds to support, then there we have it. You do care about what you're purchasing/contracting for, and you don't care--or you care to a significantly less extent--about what they do with their money once you give it to them. There are words for people who don't care. In a previous response to someone else, I referred to that kind of supporter as an apathetic support of bigotry. People can talk about the degrees, and how much, etc, but it comes off sounding like rationalization to me.
I think true neutrality is a little different and probably hard to come by.
LMAO!!!!! That's exactly what I was when I played DnD. A neutral druid name "Allister." I used to have the hardcore bible thumpers (extremists IMO) say it was a demonic game. I've been alright ever since (to my standards I guess.) Anyway, in part, I wish everyone did get along. It's what Jesus wanted (prove me otherwise). It's what Ghandi wanted.0 -
Ultimately, I think there's a combination of factors that causes this to bother me in a very personal way, and I don't think I've ever even seen a chik-fil-a.
*puts personal response hat on*--this is your cue not to be overly harsh. I thought a warning would be fair.
The original post gave a comparison between a racist restaurant owner and asked why this is such a big deal, presumably because racism is generally considered so much more abhorrent than being against civil rights for lgbts. Looking at the comparison, though, what if he was a racist? What if he made these statements about african americans and gave money to the clan?
I don't think anyone could possibly offer me any rationale or other evidence that would convince me that the same, record shattering number of people would line up to give him their money. I don't think it would be close. I don't think politicians would even suggest it.
This tells me that my previous statement about not buying it when people say they were there to support his first amendment right, is leaning very close to being likely accurate. Instead they were there because they falsely feel like the definition of marriage is somehow being taken from them and they wanted the world to know that they just don't like seeing two people of the same gender together. They have the right to feel that way, state as such, etc, but they don't have a right to pass based on that...that's a different discussion though.
Moving on to the part that I find upsetting for me, and my own reaction surprised me a little if I'm being honest, were the numbers. I remember full well what it was like growing up as a young gay man in the wake of AIDS hysteria and Mathew Shepherd. In a way, the manner in which AIDS was addressed, or not addressed, is something that I wonder if a lot of people can relate to; the message was clear, and it was that mainstream society was content to see people like me wiped out by what they wrongly considered to be a righteous plague.
That was my first introduction to the hate of bigotry, though I don't suppose I fully felt the weight of the impact at the time, but I feel it now. And I feel it when I see images of people standing in line to buy chicken, as silly as it sounds. There were smaller instances on a day-to-day basis. Name calling,etc. When I was younger it didn't happen to me, mind you, but I was exposed to it. And later there were definitely other demonstrations that did involve me. I've been bashed, had rocks thrown at me, clashed with counter protests at parades. It's fairly standard for any gay person, I assume. You learn to deal with it.
Now in terms of just dollar numbers, yesterday wasn't a huge deal. If they wanted, the Koch brothers could bat an eyelash and fund organizations that hate me in ways that I can't imagine. Maybe they do that already. I think more than anything else it was seeing the people lined up that bothered me most. Correction: those weren't people. That was a mandate. That was a mandate for Cathy to continue to do what he got flak for, if not more of it. And you would think that after years of looking at poll numbers showing how millions of people think I should be a second class citizen, seeing one fast food place line people up saying as much, that I shouldn't be bothered. It shouldn't be a surprise.
For whatever reason, images of yesterday struck me in a way that being bashed, being threatened to be curb stomped, etc just can't compete with. I can deal with someone, even a few someone's getting in my face, and I can deal with seeing stats, but actually seeing the tide people take time out of their day to do this...is a thing.
I sincerely don't know if I should break down or use it as righteous motivation of my own. It will probably be one followed by the other.
And for all this talk of biblical definition of marriage, I'd like to see one quote from this jack *kitten* asking that people line up to volunteer at food shelters instead.
*takes hat off*
I think I need a drink just now.
I've been following the chick fil a debates closely. And wow, just wow. That was probably hard to write but it was very moving for me. *hugs*
Yeah. I don't consider anyone from the LG community a second class citizen. That's not the "druid" way. In all seriousness, I have never had a problem with it as I have said. Extremists from one said will call me a bigot for doing something, while the other side says I'm not committed. That's why I don't follow religion. But I also don't bash it. I have a gay niece, sister, countless friends and co-workers who know my views and the respect it as I have respected them. I wore my pink shirt and tie on "Diversity Day." My point is, not all christians are hate mongerers. Some do follow the golden rule. I like to think I do. I dno't force my views on anyone. But I will share them when asked. Every democrat doesn't agree with Obama. Every republican doesn't watch Fox news. I say we do like Bob Marley says and "Get together and feel alright." Evan, you specifically get a +1 for the DnD reference.0 -
In what should have been predicted: the counter move to show support through consumerism: www.isupportmarriageequality.com
Are they doing it just to increase some revenues? Maybe. Do I enjoy chi tea lattes and lemon pound cake? yes.0 -
But, of course!In what should have been predicted: the counter move to show support through consumerism: www.isupportmarriageequality.com0 -
This was written by one of my old high school friends who is now a pastor at a non-denominal parish:
THURSDAY, AUGUST 02, 2012
Chick-fil-a Sacrificed to Idols
1 Corinthians 8: 9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak.
This passage took on new meaning for me this morning and I wanted to share it with you.
Many well-meaning “Christians” took to the streets yesterday and PACKED Chick-fil-a’s across this country in what most deemed “Chick-fil-a Appreciation Day”. But we should know that is was more of a support of Dan Cathy’s stance on “biblical family values” than it was appreciation for good food and good service. Christians were countering an attempt by the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered) Community to show up en mass and merely order a cup of water in order to clog up lines and frustrate the staffs and management at CFA.
I saw pictures on Facebook of Christians standing in line, taking pictures with the CFA mascot, proudly carrying their cups and bags of CFA food around like a badge of honor. People actually ordered bags of CFA sandwiches to pass out to homeless people on street corners….all in support of CFA. While these are not all bad things, it is the tone and manner in which Christians are voicing their support of CFA that disturbs me. Our posture sucks.
The LGBT has taken Dan Cathy’s remarks that he supports a “traditional family unit, made up of a man and woman in marriage” as anti-gay. Their thought being, if you are FOR traditional marriage you hate gays. CFA’s known policies of hiring and serving everyone are the same. Patrons are not asked their sexual orientation when stepping to the counter and there is no blank on employment forms asking about sexual orientation. I also know that CFA donates moneys to pro-traditional family causes...(Focus on the Family being one and there are others).
But here is the rub for me in light of today’s reading……we need to be careful that we do not exercise our rights to a great chicken sandwich on a day and in a manner that is deemed to be anti-gay. Christ was not anti-gay. If we believe that he was, we have our theology screwed up. He was anti-sin. He was just as much anti-gossip, anti-adultery, anti-greed, anti-covetous, anti-glutton as he was anti-gay. Can we gossip and still be loved by Jesus? Can we covet and still be loved by Jesus? Then can’t a person be gay and still be loved by Jesus? And if Jesus loves them and the entire LGBT community, shouldn’t we also love them?
I am reminded of the story of the woman caught in adultery. Where he literally advocated for this woman as she was about to be stoned by the religious. The religious! He didn’t condemn her for her sin to the contrary. He knelt beside her and drew in the dirt, as the religious were picking out their stones to throw at her. He questioned their hearts asking the one that was without sin to cast the first stone. Then they dropped their stones and left. After they left he asked, “where are your accusers. Has no one condemned you (to die)?”. And she replied, “they have all left”. And he said to her, “nor do I condemn you". Jesus himself did not condemn…what gives us the right?
This condemning patriotic idol of traditional family values has become a STUMBLING BLOCK to the LGBT Community. I call it an idol because we have elevated it above our love for them. When Christ said, “love your neighbor as yourself”, he was talking about ALL of our neighbors, including the LGBT Community. When he said, “whatever you have done to the least of these brothers and sisters you have done to me” he was talking about ALL the marginalized, including the LGBT Community. Yet we have grabbed hold of their sin, elevated it above our own, and are willing to cast hate filled stones.
Right or wrong, our action of solidarity for a restaurant and it’s CEO can be construed as anti-gay. If it is perceived as wrong by the LGBT then we should not eat Chick-fil-a sandwiches sacrificed to the condemning patriotic idol of traditional family values.0 -
While I disagree with your pastor friend about the sinfulness of adult consenting same-sex relationship, I admire his take on Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day as idolatry.0
-
This was written by one of my old high school friends who is now a pastor at a non-denominal parish:
THURSDAY, AUGUST 02, 2012
Chick-fil-a Sacrificed to Idols
1 Corinthians 8: 9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak.
This passage took on new meaning for me this morning and I wanted to share it with you.
Many well-meaning “Christians” took to the streets yesterday and PACKED Chick-fil-a’s across this country in what most deemed “Chick-fil-a Appreciation Day”. But we should know that is was more of a support of Dan Cathy’s stance on “biblical family values” than it was appreciation for good food and good service. Christians were countering an attempt by the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered) Community to show up en mass and merely order a cup of water in order to clog up lines and frustrate the staffs and management at CFA.
I saw pictures on Facebook of Christians standing in line, taking pictures with the CFA mascot, proudly carrying their cups and bags of CFA food around like a badge of honor. People actually ordered bags of CFA sandwiches to pass out to homeless people on street corners….all in support of CFA. While these are not all bad things, it is the tone and manner in which Christians are voicing their support of CFA that disturbs me. Our posture sucks.
The LGBT has taken Dan Cathy’s remarks that he supports a “traditional family unit, made up of a man and woman in marriage” as anti-gay. Their thought being, if you are FOR traditional marriage you hate gays. CFA’s known policies of hiring and serving everyone are the same. Patrons are not asked their sexual orientation when stepping to the counter and there is no blank on employment forms asking about sexual orientation. I also know that CFA donates moneys to pro-traditional family causes...(Focus on the Family being one and there are others).
But here is the rub for me in light of today’s reading……we need to be careful that we do not exercise our rights to a great chicken sandwich on a day and in a manner that is deemed to be anti-gay. Christ was not anti-gay. If we believe that he was, we have our theology screwed up. He was anti-sin. He was just as much anti-gossip, anti-adultery, anti-greed, anti-covetous, anti-glutton as he was anti-gay. Can we gossip and still be loved by Jesus? Can we covet and still be loved by Jesus? Then can’t a person be gay and still be loved by Jesus? And if Jesus loves them and the entire LGBT community, shouldn’t we also love them?
I am reminded of the story of the woman caught in adultery. Where he literally advocated for this woman as she was about to be stoned by the religious. The religious! He didn’t condemn her for her sin to the contrary. He knelt beside her and drew in the dirt, as the religious were picking out their stones to throw at her. He questioned their hearts asking the one that was without sin to cast the first stone. Then they dropped their stones and left. After they left he asked, “where are your accusers. Has no one condemned you (to die)?”. And she replied, “they have all left”. And he said to her, “nor do I condemn you". Jesus himself did not condemn…what gives us the right?
This condemning patriotic idol of traditional family values has become a STUMBLING BLOCK to the LGBT Community. I call it an idol because we have elevated it above our love for them. When Christ said, “love your neighbor as yourself”, he was talking about ALL of our neighbors, including the LGBT Community. When he said, “whatever you have done to the least of these brothers and sisters you have done to me” he was talking about ALL the marginalized, including the LGBT Community. Yet we have grabbed hold of their sin, elevated it above our own, and are willing to cast hate filled stones.
Right or wrong, our action of solidarity for a restaurant and it’s CEO can be construed as anti-gay. If it is perceived as wrong by the LGBT then we should not eat Chick-fil-a sandwiches sacrificed to the condemning patriotic idol of traditional family values.
You had me up until the very end. Can you please elaborate on what your friend meant with the last statement, regarding a perceived wrong?0 -
I will have to ask him. My take on it is that he was saying although eating at Chic-Fil-A yesterday may not have been morally wrong to Christians, we should believe it was wrong because we were not showing love and acceptance to the LGBT community. I'm not so sure that any of my gay friends felt the love from the Christians buying chicken sandwiches yesterday. To me, that is the wrong.You had me up until the very end. Can you please elaborate on what your friend meant with the last statement, regarding a perceived wrong?0 -
I will have to ask him. My take on it is that he was saying although eating at Chic-Fil-A yesterday may not have been morally wrong to Christians, we should believe it was wrong because we were not showing love and acceptance to the LGBT community. I'm not so sure that any of my gay friends felt the love from the Christians buying chicken sandwiches yesterday. To me, that is the wrong.You had me up until the very end. Can you please elaborate on what your friend meant with the last statement, regarding a perceived wrong?
But I'm SURE they "felt the love" from this:Christ was not anti-gay. If we believe that he was, we have our theology screwed up. He was anti-sin. He was just as much anti-gossip, anti-adultery, anti-greed, anti-covetous, anti-glutton as he was anti-gay. Can we gossip and still be loved by Jesus? Can we covet and still be loved by Jesus? Then can’t a person be gay and still be loved by Jesus?
I'm sure your friend is patting himself on the back for his "tolerance" , but that sounds pretty degrading and hurtful to me. ("there, there, little sodomite---Jesus still loves you--and so do I").
I'm not gay, but if I were, I would tell your friend to just go buy his chicken sandwich.0 -
I'm not gay, but if I were, I would tell your friend to just go buy his chicken sandwich.
Yep.
Oh wait, I'm not allowed to just agree.
So...that's kinda my problem with religious people who are "tolerant": the idea that gays are fine and they are loved by Jesus even when they act...gay. Because that is sinful. Not being gay, of course, just actually acting on your gayness.0 -
No. I doubt he's patting himself on the back. He's actually taking a lot of crap from Christians for his stand. Christianity teaches that the hosexual act of sex is a sin. He's pretty much saying, "So what? We all sin". I realize there are many people who don't believe it's a sin, and I respect that. For any of us to make head way with fellow Christians, we have to say, "Okay, so it's a sin. Why is that any different than YOUR own sins"?I'm sure your friend is patting himself on the back for his "tolerance" , but that sounds pretty degrading and hurtful to me. ("there, there, little sodomite---Jesus still loves you--and so do I").
I think it's a step in the right direction to have Christian leaders speaking out, even if its not using the EXACT words others would like to hear. It's progress, though. I think it's unfortunate that the good can't be seen in his intentions and he's told to just shut up nd buy the sandwich. He tried. Which is far more than other Christian churches were willing to do.0 -
No. I doubt he's patting himself on the back. He's actually taking a lot of crap from Christians for his stand. Christianity teaches that the hosexual act of sex is a sin. He's pretty much saying, "So what? We all sin". I realize there are many people who don't believe it's a sin, and I respect that. For any of us to make head way with fellow Christians, we have to say, "Okay, so it's a sin. Why is that any different than YOUR own sins"?
See, that's the thing: the very idea that by merely living their life someone is committing a sin. So the celibate gays are ok by Jesus? The ones that actually fall in love and consummate their love in a physical manner? Those ones are the sinners? See, that's the problem I have right there.0 -
I totally understand the issue you have with Christianity on this issue. Just don't assume that ALL Christians believe this is so. There are many of us who believe people are born homosexual and find it incredibly sad that they are told to live a lonely life without knowing the love of being in a relationship.See, that's the thing: the very idea that by merely living their life someone is committing a sin. So the celibate gays are ok by Jesus? The ones that actually fall in love and consummate their love in a physical manner? Those ones are the sinners? See, that's the problem I have right there.0 -
No. I doubt he's patting himself on the back. He's actually taking a lot of crap from Christians for his stand. Christianity teaches that the hosexual act of sex is a sin. He's pretty much saying, "So what? We all sin". I realize there are many people who don't believe it's a sin, and I respect that. For any of us to make head way with fellow Christians, we have to say, "Okay, so it's a sin. Why is that any different than YOUR own sins"?I'm sure your friend is patting himself on the back for his "tolerance" , but that sounds pretty degrading and hurtful to me. ("there, there, little sodomite---Jesus still loves you--and so do I").
I think it's a step in the right direction to have Christian leaders speaking out, even if its not using the EXACT words others would like to hear. It's progress, though. I think it's unfortunate that the good can't be seen in his intentions and he's told to just shut up nd buy the sandwich. He tried. Which is far more than other Christian churches were willing to do.
I am completely aware of the good intentions and did not choose my words maliciously. I'm not trying to be mean, but for all the good intentions, he is still tone deaf and I think sometimes you need to be blunt about it.
It's called "tough-loving the sinner". ...:flowerforyou:
In some ways, it's more important to push those that are half way there all the way home, rather than those who haven't reached the start line yet. After all, we aren't handing out participation ribbons......
0
