Chick-Fil-A As A Case Study For Same-Sex Marriage As A Threat To Religious Freedom

[Libs]

Yes that is one. There are more.

Name them and then tell me you honestly believe that's what Cathy was talking about.

[ERayR]

Do you really believe that's what Cathy was talking about?

A quick look at his families professed values lends me to believe that is probably included in his statement. From his statement quoted above.

But to have so many people today that are growing up in homes where they don’t have a mom and dad – I’ll tell you, as an employer, it makes it that much more difficult for us because we sometimes actually have to have a parenting role.

[Calm]

Do you really believe that's what Cathy was talking about?

While the term "redefinition of marriage" did not enter into public discourse until the SSM political movement I believe, I have seen some who have adopted it to apply to all issues of marriage which depart from the one man, one woman, no divorce allowed version.

So I view it as possible.

I would have to see how Cathy has used the term "redefinition of marriage" at other times to feel comfortable about drawing any conclusions.

Edited August 4, 2012 by calmoriah

[Libs]

While the term "redefinition of marriage" did not enter into public discourse until the SSM political movement I believe, I have seen some who have adopted it to apply to all issues of marriage which depart from the one man, one woman, no divorce allowed version.

So I view it as possible.

I view it as highly unlikely...at least, not primarily.

[Calm]

Also since the various constitutional amendments were about defining marriage as one man, one woman, in some cases polygamy would be included under the concept of "redefining marriage".

[ERayR]

Name them and then tell me you honestly believe that's what Cathy was talking about.

Libs go back up to post #489 and take off the blinders and read what it says. You have constantly lamented that you were being accused of saying things you didn't say. How ironic that you are projecting your own biases to Cathy's statements. Just go back and read them.

[Calm]

Now there is a driving force, with full media support, to redefine or, in truth, “undefine” marriage from a child-centered institution that unites one man and one woman together with any children born from their union into something different altogether: a system of domestic partnerships based on the romantic inclinations of adults. We understand this to be yet another assault against the dignity of marriage that will likely reinforce some of the negative cultural trends I previously mentioned, developments that research clearly shows are having very bad effects on children and, in turn, all of society.

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-nienstedt-fights-the-attempt-to-redefine-marriage-in-minnesota/

[ERayR]

Also since the various constitutional amendments were about defining marriage as one man, one woman, in some cases polygamy would be included under the concept of "redefining marriage".

Yes now we have at least two more. Thank you cal

[Calm]

http://pastortubbs.com/tag/redefinition-of-marriage

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/6-brands-playing-footsie-conservatives-and-paying-price?paging=off

[ERayR]

I view it as highly unlikely...at least, not primarily.

And that is indeed your problem in understanding. You have made up your mind and no amount of logic is going to change it. For h*** sakes read what the man said and read for comprehension. He is talking about as an employer having to help employees by taking on a parenting role.

[Calm]

http://thealisonandb...edefined-it-has

This site is proSSM but still talk about redefining marriage in very broad terms. They are not been the only proSSM who have used this argument in my experience (that marriage has been redefined over and over through the years...thus redefinition of marriage is seen as any change to what a society's standard of marriage has been whether it is divorce, age of participants, romance vs. arranged, etc.)

Across time and country, marriage is a term that has been constantly redefined. Just a few hundred years ago in the UK it would have been the norm for children of nobility to be married off at incredibly young ages, as arranged by their parents (e.g. David II of Scotland married Joan of England in 1328 when he was four and she was seven!) Today there would be moral outrage at such a suggestion, partly because the legal definition of marriage has changed – both parties must be 16 and must be consenting.

Just like many other terms, the phrase "redefinition of marriage" has, in my opinion, been expanded in usage beyond what it was first used for to the point that one should look directly at context rather than making assumptions based on how it is most often used. And in this case it seems to me the context is one of broad usage, not restricted solely to SSM.

Edited August 4, 2012 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

And that is indeed your problem in understanding. You have made up your mind and no amount of logic is going to change it. For h*** sakes read what the man said and read for comprehension. He is talking about as an employer having to help employees by taking on a parenting role.

Surely if Cathy meant all fatherless or motherless families he would have made a statement to that effect by now, since everbody and their dog believe he is against SSM.

[ERayR]

Surely if Cathy meant all fatherless or motherless families he would have made a statement to that effect by now, since everbody and their dog believe he is against SSM.

That is the problem. You are all trying to define what Cathy said to fit your own preconceived prejudices. Go read what he said not what you want to think he said, not what you think he meant, read what he said. He talks of single parent homes and as an employer having to help those with parenting their families. What he was talking about was family values.

Just go back up to post # 489 and read what he said. I mean what he really said not what someone has interpreted he said.

Why is it so hard to read for comprehension?

Edited August 4, 2012 by ERayR

[Tacenda]

That is the problem. You are all trying to define what Cathy said to fit your own preconceived prejudices. Go read what he said not what you want to think he said, not what you think he meant, read what he said. He talks of single parent homes and as an employer having to help those with parenting their families. What he was talking about was family values.

Just go back up to post # 489 and read what he said. I mean what he really said not what someone has interpreted he said.

Why is it so hard to read for comprehension?

But it seems the media believe it to be a "gay issue", and the "kiss in" goes to show that the majority of those lining up do too. I thought if it weren't only gay parents Cathy is concerned about, wouldn't he have atleast made some kind of statement by now?

[why me]

A quick look at his families professed values lends me to believe that is probably included in his statement. From his statement quoted above.

But to have so many people today that are growing up in homes where they don’t have a mom and dad – I’ll tell you, as an employer, it makes it that much more difficult for us because we sometimes actually have to have a parenting role.

This is becoming true in many parts of the western world. The teacher or employer are the parents. One reason for this is the busy nature of life these days. Parents are too busy with work, stress, and surviving. I am sure that in the fast food industry where the youth and young adults are hired it is common for the manager to be the parent.

[why me]

But it seems the media believe it to be a "gay issue", and the "kiss in" goes to show that the majority of those lining up do too. I thought if it weren't only gay parents Cathy is concerned about, wouldn't he have atleast made some kind of statement by now?

I think that he is concerned with the decline of the family which he transtates has between a man and a women. Most likely he sees same sex marriage as a breakdown of the traditional family. We need to remember that he is also a conservative evangelical, I believe.

[Calm]

But it seems the media believe it to be a "gay issue", and the "kiss in" goes to show that the majority of those lining up do too. I thought if it weren't only gay parents Cathy is concerned about, wouldn't he have atleast made some kind of statement by now?

I was under the impression a statement was made....

[Tacenda]

I was under the impression a statement was made....

I meant a statement since the fiasco last week...

Edited August 4, 2012 by Tacenda

[Calm]

I meant a statement since the fiasco last week...

Maybe he feels it would be useless given the response or that he would just be accused of lying and just trying to make himself look better. Edited August 4, 2012 by calmoriah

[KevinG]

Oh please. I never did any such thing. You have completely taken my comments out of context.

Dan Cathy can relate.

[KevinG]

Sorry, but you are the one carrying the baseball bat. AGAIN, selek, I NEVER SAID DAN CATHY DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY OR DO WHAT HE DID. I have questioned the wisdom of it, because SOME WILL (understandably, IMO) misconstrue his comments as hateful.

Stop putting words in my mouth and actually quote what I said, PLEASE.

I quoted you when you used Westboro Baptists and McCarthyism as illustrations for your point and you said you never said it. Go figure?

Edited August 4, 2012 by KevinG

[KevinG]

He WAS talking about homosexuals..not anything else, in his reference to ss marriage.

Once again please show in the transcript of the interview where he was referencing homosexuals or same sex marriage?

[ERayR]

But it seems the media believe it to be a "gay issue", and the "kiss in" goes to show that the majority of those lining up do too. I thought if it weren't only gay parents Cathy is concerned about, wouldn't he have atleast made some kind of statement by now?

Certainly the media wants to portray it that way they deal in controversy. Do you let the media do your thinking for you? Go back to the post I ask you to and read the content.

[KevinG]

Of course, yes, he is including anyone who redefines marriage...but for WHOM are we redefining marriage??

Divorce and having children out of wedlock were mentioned specifically. (He mentions we need support single parents) By inference only: anyone who redefines marriage to suit their own needs: homosexuals, polygamists, etc.

Again you are taking a general statement about defending marriage as protestants define it from their beliefs and spinning it into a condemnation of a currently politically popular variant on marriage. That is on you and on the press who enjoy pillorying conservatives and religious figures. It is not reasonably attributed to Dan Cathy in this interview, the Winshape foundation or Chick-fil-a.

Every CFR to show an anti-gay statement from Dan Cathy, the Cathy family. their foundations or businesses has failed to be answered. And I doubt its from lack of Googling on the part of critics or the press.