We are all entitled to our opinions and free speech regarding same-sex marriage and everything else under the sun. People who are eating at Chick Fil A are doing so to make a statement that they support the corporation's position against same sex marriage, and whether they realize it or not, they are financially supporting the corporation and all the charities they donate to when they purchase from Chick Fil A. Some people are making it a freedom of speech issue, but what it really boils down to is do you support where they spend their dollars, not freedom of speech.
Chick Fil A is not alone in supporting controversial causes. For example, KFC supports tiger habitat destruction. McDonald's gets beef from the rainforest (where rainforests are cut down to provide land for the cattle to graze). Tuna fisheries used to kill dolphins in their fishing nets. If consumers are informed about where the corporations spend their money, they can make informed decisions about whom to support. When the public became aware of the dolphin kill problem, they along with watchdog groups like Greenpeace put enough pressure on the industry to change their fishing practices and label cans of "dolphin-safe" tuna.
Is it possible to be pro traditional marriage and pro same-sex marriage at the same time? I say yes it is. This is where religion and science have some crossover. I am heterosexual and married to a man. I support traditional marriage. But it's not because of the bible. It's because of science. A species is defined as a group of organisms capable of producing fertile offspring. It's not judgemental. It doesn't say sex has to be between a man and a woman, but men and women make up the human species because the males and females are capable of breeding and producing viable offspring. Traditional marriage is scientific marriage. Men and women make babies and get married to share the workload in raising those babies. That's the evolutionary reason for mating for life.
I support homosexuals' rights to same-sex marriage and I also support traditional, scientific, offspring producing marriage. Since much of the debate revolves around redefining the word, marriage, perhaps it could be solved by calling same-sex marriage just that, or maybe call it gay marriage, or some other verbage that sets it aside from male-female-offspring-producing marriage. There is a win-win solution. I don't see anything wrong with homosexual people who are committed for life to each other having the same rights as heterosexual couples. Love is love is love.
Will I support Chick Fil A today? No thanks. Now that I know they funnel millions of dollars to anti-gay groups, I don't think I will give them any more of my dollars. But should you eat there? If you support that cause, go for it. It's not a free speech issue. It's an issue about the power of the consumer dollar.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/02/chick-fil-a-anti-gay-group-donations-_n_1644609.html
http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/chickfila.asp
Well now this is stupid. Marriage is marriage, and marriage is a social and legal construct. There is no biological basis for marriage. Most species, you will find, do not mate for life, but that aside, propagation of the species is not dependent upon life-time commitment. As such, men and women don't need to marry to reproduce, they just need to have sex, and these days, with all the SCIENTIFIC advances, not even. The very thing you're trying to use, science, to set some arbitrary line that distinguishes between types of marriages as if one is more legitimate than the other, is the very things that defeats your argument. Perhaps just be honest with yourself about your views on gay marriage instead of thinly veiling it in a nonessential cloud of pseudo-science.
ReplyDelete