Yes. I'm going to write about the recent uproar surrounding Dan Cathy and his restaurant "Chick-fil-a."
When I lived in Texas, I used to see these restaurants often. I'm now thankful I can say that I've never eaten at one. Their logo and marketing is (or at least was - I haven't seen an advertisement for them since I left Texas) really cute; a cow holding up a sign asking you to eat more chicken in some adorable misspelled manner. While I still find that add brings a sliver of a smile to my face, I find it now also reminds me of all of the evangelical religious views the company has taken.
A chicken restaurant has an evangelical stance?! They sure do! Dan Cathy, the "head honcho," has said that he is a proponent of "traditional marriage." Well, what the hell does that really mean? I've tried asking a few people who say they agree with Mr. Cathy and I get answers like, "He means Biblical marriage," or "Marriage between a man and a woman."
Let's explore this a little:
"Biblical marriage." What does this mean, anyway? First, in the Bible, men had MANY wives, not just one. Is this what they were talking about? Or were they referring to when your god sends down a plethora of helpmeets until you find one that suits you? (Thank goodness none of the animals God sent to Adam before he sent Eve worked out; we could be in a munch worse place had he taken interest in a squirrel instead of a woman.)
"Marriage is between a man and a woman." Why? Just because that's what's familiar? Because it keeps a certain group of socially repressed people from having to face the fact that there are others out there who live differently than they do? Not too long ago it was illegal for interracial couples to marry. Thankfully, that was thrown out. But what changed when interracial marriage became legal? Nothing, except now more people can be legally wed. If we, as a nation, can get past the fear of couples of mixed race marrying, why can't we acknowledge that same sex couples aren't going to cause a rift either?
Same race marriages didn't feel a rift and their life went on the same as before. Allowing mixed race couples didn't bring about beastiality (something I hear is "next" if same sex couples become legal to wed) or tear down the moral fabric of our society.
"You can't compare the Civil Rights Movement with gay couples wanting to marry." This is one I hear often. Far too often. Both of those aforementioned things can definitely be compared. The only difference is that one is here already, and one is proposed and could perhaps remain banned. The ban on same sex marriage does take a blow at human rights. Everyone deserves to marry who they are in love with, regardless of sex, gender or ethnicity
I've always told my kids that I don't care who they choose to love, my only concern is that they find someone who treats them well. I don't care if that person is a boy, a girl, transgender, gender queer, etc. I believe parents should spend more time worrying about the quality of the person that's chosen, and less time focusing on what's going to be going on in their child's bedroom in the evenings.
I cannot find a credible source in the Bible that speaks out against homosexuality. One verse tells men to not have gay sex in their wife's bed, and a other one speaks out against effeminate men. Neither of those things says homosexuality is wrong. And beside, not all gay men are effeminate, so what was that verse trying to get at?
Banning Chick-fil-a? I don't agree with that. The boycotts, yes. Absolutely and peacefully.
If a chicken restaurant doesn't like "the gays" and wants their money to go toward hate groups, then I absolutely believe in a boycott. But I do not agree with some officials wanting to block the restaurant from coming to their area. Let it come and protest it. Have a blast in costume with this one, too.