Chick-fil-A Controversy

Often people tend to disagree because they see things differently, even though they are looking at the same thing.

For example, I see a homeless person, and instinctively wish to help. Others can walk by that same person, and say “He brought upon himself his own misery. I won’t help.”

Two people see the same thing…. but feel differently. The question is, who is right? Should the homeless person be helped, or is he guilty of his own actions and does he deserve to remain helpless?

Let me use the previous analogy to explain how I feel about what is going on with Chick-fil-A. I have read Dan Cathy’s comments. In a nutshell, he says “I don’t support gay marriage, and I want to protect traditional marriage”. I see those words and think that he has an opinion, nothing more. Others see those words and say “He is anti-gay. He hates gays”.

I personally don’t see hate in those words. It is an expression of belief. For example, I don’t believe that people should drink alcohol, period. Not even a drop. But that doesn’t mean I hate people who drink it. I just don’t agree with their actions. The reason this gets so twisted in the discussion of gay-marriage or any issue pertaining to homosexuality for that matter, is because unlike my previous example, the gay community don’t feel like they are “choosing” to be gay, but that they are gay.  So, it’s like me not agreeing with drinking alcohol, but someone comes up to me saying “I was born with this condition that requires me to drink alcohol regularly”. Now how do I respond to this situation?

I only brought up the example in the previous paragraph because THAT is the real discussion. The real question that everyone wants answered, but no one talks about. The real question of whether its a civil, religious, or political issue, is whether or not we are talking about people who are “born” a certain way, or people continue to choose to live a certain way. I won’t attempt to address that topic here, perhaps another day.

Back to Chick-fil-A. I don’t believe Dan Cathy meant any hatred in his radio interview. I just think he gets sucked into the group of people who DO hate, which is unfair. Yes, there are people who don’t support gay marriage who are hateful, bigoted, and judgmental. But let’s give Dan Cathy the benefit of the doubt, since he never used the word “hate” in response to his questions in the entire interview.

But what about the groups Chick-fil-A funds? Aren’t they anti-gay? Doesn’t that mean he hates gays? And is intolerant? Again, two people see the same thing and view it differently. I view the “Marriage and Family Legacy Fund” (one of the organizations Chick-fil-A donated to in 2009) as a fund whose purpose is to pay for media campaigns that promote traditional marriage. I have read their executive summary. You can google it. Others, however, see the group as “anti-gay” and “hateful”.  So Chick-fil-A is either donating to a cause that is not filled with hate, or donating to a cause that IS filled with hate. Which is it? Again, people interpret it how they want.

There is much more to be said about this all, but to be brief, I would like to conclude with a religious theme.

The questions raised above “Who is right?” and “Which is it?” can be answered in many different ways by  many different people. Essentially, the same question can be asked of all matters. Is whole wheat good for you or bad for you? Is the Catholic church true, or is the Baptist church true, or neither? Are tattoos appropriate or not? Are gays born gay, do they choose to be gay, or is it a mixture of both? Is sex before marriage appropriate or not?  On and on the list goes…. what is right? Which is it? Who is right?

Do you see the problem? The world spins around each day in a “war of words, and a tumult of opinions. right? Or are they all wrong together?”

I believe that one must come to know truth by knowing God. I believe that if you really want to know,  He will reveal to you the truth of all things. Pray and ask, and you can know. If you don’t know who you are praying to, pray anyway. I believe that God exists, and that He knows all truth, and reveals it to His children. Were it not so, this war of opinions would be irrelevant, because there would be no truth, right, wrong, or any standard by which to govern our world. I believe there is right, wrong, truth, and law. And I believe that only the humble seeker of truth and happiness will find the answers.

What do you believe?


1 thought on “Chick-fil-A Controversy

  1. Thank you, first of all, for inspiring me carefully to think through my understanding of things, and thanks for providing this forum in which to express that understanding. I will respond to ‘the gay issue’ in three parts, my own experience, how I see the fallacy of the gay ‘choice’ issue, and finally a word on ‘gay marriage’. I hope you will read this through to the end. Here’s how I see it.

    I believe (and I use this word advisedly) the soul (the One Soul) is a tangible expression of God’s Love, equally in us and available to us all. I think few are effectively able to perceive and express this higher Love. But there is equal opportunity to learn (since it’s subjective) and to share in all aspects and expressions of God’s Love. That said, I also think this soul expression of Love is equally available to men and to women, to people of all religions, to straight people, so-called, and gay (including lesbian) people, also so-called, to the spiritual folks and the atheists (although agnostics or atheists call the soul ‘consciousness’ or ‘psyche’), and God’s love is equally available to the good and the bad. Our beliefs about God, Love and each other do not change the availability of this wondrous, transforming energy one bit. But these beliefs do produce in us our personal prejudices and the misunderstandings that prevent or distort our fullest participation in partaking of and sharing this higher Love which is our soul connection with God via all our relationships with others, both negative and positive. Our personal prejudices act as a dark cloud between our mind and the sunshine of our own soul. This has a negative, diminishing, effect on all our relationships.

    Around 1984 or ‘85, I was one of the first two volunteers at New York’s Mt. Sinai Hospital’s newly established AIDS ward. In those days we prepared people with AIDS to die; today they are counseled on living with AIDS, a great step forward. We didn’t know then what caused it. Now we know it involves dirty needles, tainted blood transfusions, or unprotected sex, whether homosexual and heterosexual, with exposed people. Prior to AIDS, mostly there was whispered or amused tolerance of homosexuality, today there is fear and prejudice.

    In the 1990’s I did extensive research for a series of published articles on family relations, choice, the viability of hormonal self-control, and the processes of birth (including a detailed description of embryonic and fetal growth). Human physical sexuality, always present at birth, even if ambiguous, is not cut and dried, black and white, it’s a literal rainbow from extreme maleness to extreme femaleness, and every variation in between.

    Interestingly, the ‘default body’ of all human beings is female. In order to produce a male, the mother’s body must produce sufficient testosterone within the uterine environment, and/or the embryonic or fetal brain must be able to absorb sufficient testosterone to effect the physical change from female to male. Evidence indicates that reproductive hormones alter brain function permanently during fetal development.

    A human “organism has the potential to be male or female. If a Y chromosome is present, testes or male gonads form. This development is the critical first step toward becoming a male. If the gonads do not produce male hormones or if for some reason the hormones cannot act on the tissue [of the developing brain], the default form of the organism is female”. (“Sex Differences in the Brain” by Doreen Kimura, Scientific American, Sept. 1992).

    Part of the controversy in all sexuality is the sentimental refusal of many to use technically accurate terms. A fetus, for example, medically, is only a potential baby. Using language correctly, a human infant in the uterus (not womb) goes through several stages. And ignorance of the spiritual significance (around the 18th week) of the process called ‘quickening’ produces huge misunderstandings as to the nature of human life itself, but I won’t go into that here. After conception, a fertilized egg divides into a tiny ball of totipotent (undifferentiated) cells that is called, for a few days, an ‘egg in cleavage’ or zygote; for the next 8 weeks it is an ‘embryo’, being an extension of the mother’s body, like tonsils or appendix; then from 8 weeks to birth it is called a ‘foetus’ or fetus. Only after birth, technically, is it called a baby.

    By the time a baby is born it’s sexuality is well established in both body and brain. The knowledge of this sexual orientation (much like soul awareness) may follow years or decades later, giving—for a period of time—the illusion of sexual choice. The only real choice—whether heterosexual or homosexual—is when, how, with whom, and under what circumstances to express that innate sexuality. Or not.

    So, no, I absolutely do not believe being ‘gay’ is a life-style choice. Neither is it ‘curable’. Self-control may be imposed but sexual orientation remains the same. For heterosexuals, like homosexuals, equally, the only real choice is whether or not to express physically their perceived love for another person, and under what circumstances.

    Now to the ‘gay marriage’ issue. I went to a wedding in Utrecht, Netherlands, a few years ago and was interested in their marital laws. I don’t know if gays can marry there or not. All people in the Netherlands who wish to be legally married, must marry in a civil ceremony. (The governmental quarters for marriage that I saw are lovely, pale blue and silver with lots of velvet and antiques. And their civil weddings are beautifully conducted). Then, if a person chooses, later that day or weeks later, a wonderful religious church wedding is arranged and held. The religious church weddings technically are not legally recognized by the State so they cannot take the place of the traditional civil ceremonies. The religious marriage is in addition to this.

    In the United States, there is no requirements for national civil marriages so it’s all mixed up with church weddings and God, and great legal chaos ensues about rights to this or that. Pity. It would be so simple to require civil weddings for everyone with full legal spousal rights. And then let those who so choose enjoy their religious church or Temple marriages based on their own unique beliefs about marriage and God.

    And just for the record. I am a tried and true heterosexual, four times married (twice, happily). I’ve had a Protestant church wedding, a civil wedding with a Judge, a hippy wedding (writing our own vows), and a Jewish wedding. Interesting and educational experiences that really don’t matter much once you’re happily divorced.

    Anyway, thanks for inspiring/forcing me to think all this through.

What do you believe?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s