Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Chick-fil-A: Setting the record straight (added info)

The man said,
         “This is now bone of my bones,
         And flesh of my flesh;
         She shall be called Woman,
         Because she was taken out of Man.”

For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
(Genesis 2:23-25, NASB)


Now I have to admit, I haven't tried to read a lot on the current lib/prog cause of the moment.  I've read some quotes from Dan Cathy (founder of Chick-fil-A) and browsed a few "how dare you" blog posts and I kinda wonder if the professionally offended class were waiting for a chance to pounce on the man who makes a damn fine chicken sandwich, treats his employees well, and (dare I say it?) trains them to be polite to their customers.

Yes, even insignificant me is watched on a semi-regular basis by some in the professionally offended class. So I am quite sure there are folks out there who think it is their job, their solemn responsibility to be on the look out for any utterance by someone who has yet to get the message. Ho Hum.

But there is one thing I would like to set the record straight on.  As far as I've read, Dan Cathy has nothing against marriage equality.  I'm pretty sure he doesn't support "marriage" equality, though.  That's a problem. Because our professionally offended class is very adept at wielding their Newspeak as an offensive weapon and those who walk into the arena unprepared are usually cowed (as we've seen so recently).

Two men can no more be married to each other than one of them can be married to his dog.  Two women can no more be married to each other than one of them can be married to her pet dolphin. Such things are metaphysical impossibilities akin to claiming to be a married bachelor or to have drawn a perfectly round square. They just do not exist in this world.  They don't exist in any world that is not imaginary.

Marriage is the publicly recognized union of man and woman.  Every single one of us has the equal right to marriage.  Sally Ride's right to marriage was no more infringed than my right to marriage because Clive Owen won't return my phone calls (OK, so I've never called him and he is married already, but you get the point, right?).  Depth of feeling does not create a right to anything, much less something as foundational to society as marriage.  Yes, marriage is limited by custom and reason in circumstances of age and consanguinity.  But again, those limitations apply to all equally.

Desire, deep emotion, years of building a life together - none of these create a right to marriage. Because that is not what marriage is.

So let's just drop the Newspeak, shall we?  You may win society's recognition of a fiction.  But that is not a victory.  It is a defeat for us all.  A defeat for our children's future and our very survival as a culture. It will be left for the children of marriage, the real thing, to pick up the pieces of the society you broke. There will be a few of these sterile "marriages" which can afford to purchase the manufacture of a child with the help of outside parties.  But they will remain few.  It will be the children of fertile marriages that rebuild the future.

I pray they are strong enough and faithful to do the hard work we will leave for them.

Addenedum:





5 comments:

Ceuson said...

Kamilla, as I understand it, the problem is not an "utterance" but at least $2 million in anti-gay funding, including cure-the-gay counseling. The gay community is bringing awareness to their own purchases undermining themselves. I hope this helps understand the furor.
And, on the fertile and sterile debate, it's very weak for defending man-woman marriage. My best friend and her husband got voluntary sterilization when they married, and it didn't null their union. My grandfather married my beloved step-grandmother when I was 2, and she was post-menopausal, and no one questioned their union. Many marriages have nothing to do with children. If sterile were an issue, all of these marriages would be at least questioned, if not disapproved of.

Kamilla said...

Ceuson,

You can choose to view it as anti-gay funding, if you like. I doubt I can convince you to view it as I would guess Cathy views it - and as I view it - as the promotion of marriage and family. To contend that the uproar is *only* or even *primarily* about a segment of the population making themselves aware of their purchases invites me to not take you seriously.

There is a profound difference between marriages which are sterile by choice or natural circumstances and those physically intimate unions between persons of the same sex. The former are natural and of a fruitful type. The later are *necessarily* sterile. They are also not marriages.

On the contrary, natural fruitfulness is a foundation and necessary defense of marriage. Whether some unions are sterile is beside the point - they are still of a fruitful type and are still effective icons.

For a discussion about Humanae Vitae, conscience and why your friends may regret their voluntary sterilization, see here:

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html

Anonymous said...

Kamilla, I think you are a rare treasure in having the patience, knowledge, and courage to gently but firmly explain obvious things to confused people. Imagine living in time when we have to use terms like ´man-woman marriage!´
I feel they should be called out on their consistent unquestioned use of the term ´gay community,´ as if for centuries two camps have been living separated by a wall or waring with each other. Rather an uncommon unfortunate psychological condition has been exploited and warped into an identity and ´community´ by dark forces.One thing that really helps make a crack is showing them pre-WWII literature calling for communists to promote and normalise homosexuality as part of as a strategy to weaken and confuse society and destroy Christian faith.
Keep it up Kamilla!
-a reader

Daniel Lobato said...

I read your comment about Charles and Andy Stanley. You are obviously still a feminist. You are not a believer who understands the Bible and God's word.
CS did not commit adultry and neither did his wife. If they got a divorce, why does he have to leave the ministry as pastor? He was correct that God told him, "You stop preaching when I tell you." If he were guilty of adultry I would never support him or watch him again.
I never watch AS. I did not see anything about your quoted comment about gays, but they are not to serve on music ministries, in the pulpit, as a deacon, etc. Why don't you comment on their repentence of being gay when God said in the NT and OT, "The adulterer, homosexual shall not ...
You're a false Christian like 75% of the U.S. Woem are not to be leaders in the church and tomorrow at Brooklyn TC CS will be preaching and I will confront hom on this

Daniel Lobato said...

You're a nut.
So is Anonymous