Chic-Fil-A, Americans fight over marriage and chicken Options

[rewells]

So I know a lot of us are from different parts of the globe. Something weird happened here in the U.S. this week, and I'd like to know what other people think about this article (other U.S.ers feel free to comment too!)

Summery: The president of Chic-Fil-A, a fast-food chicken restaurant, randomly declared that he opposes same-sex marriage, and that those who support it "are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.” (notice how the FOX article doesn't included that quote...). It came out that he also donates to some controversial lobbys. People organized boycotts and some mayors of major U.S. cities declared that they would not allow anymore Chic-Fil-A stores in their cities (which is illegal, I think). Then, in a strange turn of events, ex-governor of New Mexico/FOX News show host declared "Chic-Fil-A appreciation day" and urged people to run to chic-fil-a to support traditional marriage and free speech...and it WORKED.

My thoughts: I didn't understand why the president of the company bothered to say what he did, because publicizing your controversial opinion is usually not smart for business...but it looks like things ended up in his favor. I think that's pure irony. I don't eat chicken because I'm a vegan, so I don't really care, I just don't understand why everyone (on both sides) is so pissy about this.In capitalism all money gets dirty eventually. But I am weirded out by how many people flooded to Chic-Fil-A yesterday (supposedly, according to my news sources - I don't know where my closest one is) just to show their opposition to same-sex marriage. Then again, if clogging their arteries is their way of speaking up...well I guess that's ok.

[The Law G14]

Well I have a couple points on the issue.

Firstly the issue of gay marriage in general. To be honest I believe it's pretty simple, you can agree or disagree with gays and lesbians marrying, and no one can tell you you're not allowed to give your opinion on whether you agree with it or not. This is completely opinion and fine. However, there cannot be an agree or disagree on their right to marry. They are citizens of a country that allows the citizens of that country to marry. Not allowing a specific sect would be discrimination. Now again, there is a key difference between agreeing/disagreeing on the marriage and agreeing/disagreeing on the right. I could disagree with my close friend marrying my sister, but I won't disagree on their right to do so. With that said, it's obvious gays have the right to marriage and this right cannot be taken away or else it's either a) were blatantly discriminating or b ) saying they're not citizens of a land that gives the right to all citizens to marry.

Secondly, I really don't understand why everyone is making a big deal out of what the President of Chic-Fil-A said (him saying it though was stupid for business even though it helped and I'm thinking though it was purely for political reasons...but whatever). If I said it, no one and their mother would care. Simply because he's a public figure and that public figures have "power" means nothing, it's simply his opinion and he can do nothing to change the fact that gays have a right to marry. He is completely entitled to his opinion that they shouldn't marry, he's not entitled to say they don't have the right to marry because they obviously must and do have it.

That's how I feel at least

[Sparrowsmith]

I'm oddly inclined to agree with the whole freedom of speech thing.
I don't usually avoid something just because the CEO has a conflicting opinion to myself. Now I wouldn't go and buy chicken over the whole ordeal, but I'll agree that he has a right to express his bigotry if he sees fit. If he goes out of his way, then I'd probably not eat his chicken anymore.
This is all hypothetical though. I'm a Brit so I've never had his chicken.
Anyway, the point is that his product is distinct from himself, and boycotting it was either:
a - an attempt to show dissatisfaction (at the WRONG thing)
b - an attempt to coerce him to a different opinion (which violates his freedom of speech/opinion)

That's not to say he's right. He's a bigoted idiot, but that doesn't make what people did in retaliation right, and ultimately they spurred on more bigots and counteracted their own aims for a legitimate one (freedom of speech).

The same freedom of speech that allows him to protest gay marriage is the same freedom of speech that allows Science to remain almost entirely clear of any kind of bias (and that very small amount of bias is usually wiped out swiftly.) and that allows people to argue in favour of change and acceptance.
In fact, the truth (as argued by Mill) requires its objectors their right to object, as this allows its defenders to reassert and memorise exactly why what they believe is the truth.
If we don't remember why something is the truth (right to marriage in this case) then it's easy to lose the battle when an opposing view comes along.

So yes, freedom of speech won this time, and rightly so, because it did the exact opposite of what the anti-gay marriage people wanted.
It reminded all of the pro-gay marriage people why they are right.
and apparently some people bought chicken too... A peculiar side effect of all this.

Then again, if clogging their arteries is their way of speaking up...well I guess that's ok.

Bigots have a right to early heart problems. God bless America.

[Kaust]

-Sigh- what I find really frustrating is that everyone I hear telling me whats in the Bible seemingly haven't read it (once I even met a Christian who told me they didn't need to read the Bible because they already believed). Now I've not read the whole Bible (even in like size 6 font it is massive) but I've read a fair share and I've never encountered anything regarding homosexuality (though I did find a few lines supporting marijuana ).

I find it hard to believe that this, admittedly seemingly brilliant, business owner is also a scholar of theology. He's upset because he believes homosexuals are saying 'We know better than you what constitutes a marriage'? But isn't he saying 'I know and understand better than you the very word of God?'
Assuming he is correct; why is he so afraid of his 'merciful' God whose key attribute is forgiveness? Furthermore why does he want to protect a God that would smite a whole nation for the acts of a few?

You ask, Rewells, why people became 'pissy' and over-reacted (the whole mayors being against these stores in their areas thing); its very simple, they don't want to be associated with bigotry (even if counter-bigotry is in itself bigotry) and because if you don't in some way flaunt your belief people will think otherwise (especially people like political candidates whose entire career rests on how they are perceived; the educated are more likely to take an interest in politics and vote, and, frankly, its the educated who are more likely to oppose the very opposing of homosexuality).

I'll end on a favoured line by Bill Hicks (paraphrased of course):
"What can oppose God's will? If he has a plan for all of us, and he's omnipotent, NOTHING could oppose God's will."

[WeasleX]

This issue is and has been an ongoing issue for a few years because gay's here, in the states, simply want to marry. They basically want equal rights and freedoms of every American. However, obviously the church takes an issue with this, and we go around and around. I hate to admit it, and am a little embarrassed, but we don't have a complete separation of church and state in this country. WE SHOULD, but we don't, and whenever the church takes issue with something, they like to poke their stick into thinks, such as abortion. If they claimed that they were a private institution, then they would have to pay taxes, and really... whats the chance of that happening? So because of this, they have to follow the law, but they will fight it kicking and screaming.

This Chic-Fil-A thingy, is just the latest in a long list of crap flinging over gay marriage. Yes, the President of the company IS entitled to his own opinion, but as a business man with a large list of companies, he should try and stay neutral in touchy subjects and keep his mouth shut. That is of course... if he wanted to not have these gay protests flung at his doors.

and that, is my two cents, which is worth just that, two cents.

[Sparrowsmith]

I hate to admit it, and am a little embarrassed, but we don't have a complete separation of church and state in this country. WE SHOULD, but we don't

Unfortunately the issue is exactly what you're saying here, but not for the reason you think.
The problem is that the state (the state) offers benefits (stately benefits) for married couples (religious ceremony).
The Christians have some right to be offended about marriage, because to them marriage is holy (church) but to the state, marriage is a legal ceremony (state).

The state and the church are physically MERGED via marriage.
Which is why many homosexuals didn't want gay marriage, they wanted civil partnerships that gave the same benefits as marriage, but without the religious dogma attached. And many heterosexuals (myself included) would rather have a civil partnership than a marriage as well, but currently civil partnerships are of lesser value to marriage, and THAT is where the bigotry is.

Of course, gay marriage SHOULD be legal, but civil partnerships should carry the same benefits and be a non-religious and non-sexually biased alternative to marriage. I understand there are religious gay couples who want a religious marriage, but there are also many gay couples who don't want that religious dogma.

Basically what I'm saying is that the whole situation is muddied by the fact that a marriage is both a state recognized institution AND a church recognized institution, and neither feels the other should be able to dictate who can and can't marry.

Still, in a perfect world, we wouldn't have any of this raffle on and we could be a whole lot more accepting, but people can be pretty set in their ways, and only time (by which I mean old age and death, I'm afraid) is the solution to that.
Change comes when the previous generation has passed and the new generation is more informed than the prior.

My point stands though. This entire process would be ALOT easier if marriage had been separated from the state hundreds of years ago.

[MagitekElite]

As a Christian I am deeply disappointed in this man, all those that attended this "support rally" of his views. He has the right to think or spread his opinions, but it should not be right to try and stop Gay and Lesbian couples from marrying. And using the Bible and God as justification of your hatred and bigotry is truly the most disgusting thing they can do. You have an opinion? Okay, fine, but don't let it oppose others or try to inflict it on others.

If these people ever read the Bible and not pick and choose which they liked, they would understand know the Bible is not against gay/lesbian couples or marriage. Jesus Christ would never do this to two people who loved each other, so any Christian that could do this or say anything like that, isn't acting very Christ like!

I hope all those who look at this in grief know that there are people who do not think this way and support their rights!

P.S

I just pray that most of the people thought "Oh hey, look a crowd, wonder what's going on" and not "time to support it!".

[Licentia Per Ori...]

On the subject of free speech, Yes that is important.
(after all it's what my avatar and handle are all about)

Where are most of his shops?
Where is most of his business?
hmmm shrewd PR move methinks.

As should Gay people have the right marriage, I think not.
It's an outdated system we should be getting rid of, not expanding.

It has it's roots in Rape, Bondage, oppression and then some.

You put a collar on a dog, and a ring on a woman.
So that others may know that it is no stray, but your property.

[MagitekElite]

What?

That's not what marriage is about at all and I wonder where you got that from. Marriage is a connection, for the rest of their lives, with the one they love. It is not some form of slavery and quite frankly, connecting marrying a woman/man to "owning a dog" is rather insulting to me. Marriage is an expression to the other person that you will always love them and that you will give your life to them (not in the way you are probably assuming I mean either).

Just because you believe it is a form of "owning" someone shouldn't mean not allowing Gay/Lesbians the same right to it. That's the whole problem. Your opinion is going to keep people from their rights. You can have your opinion, but don't force it on others or attempt to keep their rights from them because of it.

P.S

I'm not saying you are actively trying to keep them from their rights—in case that's what you were thinking about my post.

[SynthesisRTF]

I really don't think it's a good idea for fast food companies to have opinions on something like this...

I mean don't get me wrong - I think everyone should have an opinion and should be proud of what they believe in, but if a company says they're against same-sex marriage, then tons of people who are for same-sex marriages may boycott their products. Whatever the company supports, there's a strong chance that people who oppose what they support will just stop buying their products. If they remain neutral - everyone's happy.

Personally, I am for same sex marriage. Everyone should have the right to be miserable together. <xD I joke, of course. Marriage is kind of a flawed concept to begin with, anyway... in my opinion, that is.

[Kaust]

No, I sorta see where Licentia's coming from, though he willfully forgets that marriage puts the same limitations on the man as the woman (...especially in gay marriages).
Still this thread isn't really about marriage beyond the face value, its about one group of people being denied a 'liberty' ( clearly some disagree with that term and marriage) by another group that is so dominant it can flaunt its, lets face it, ignorant views that remain so prevalent in our supposedly 'evolved' society that it will receive a flash mob in support (...considering no-one's mentioned any sort of counter-mob occuring either).
It is pretty sickening to think that someone would deny a complete stranger such a simple form of happiness, particularly religious folks who would be expected to be benevolent.

[X-M-O]

You would have to understand one of the reasons a Christian would deny the "form of happiness" you describe.
For example, according to the Bible, it would be better to chop off a hand that offends you and enter heaven than to keep the hand and go to hell.
So denying someone from acting a certain way in order to save them from hell is likely another reason for their argument.

I'm sure that Christians base their argument of homosexuality on scriptures like the ones I found below:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."


Based on those Bible verses, I can see why a Christian would act strongly against same-sex marriage.
Especially since, as Sparrowsmith mentioned previously, the institution of marriage is very much ingrained into religion.



Personally I do not agree with the statement "religious folks who would be expected to be benevolent", Kaust. I say that because Christians are generally taught to "love the sinner but hate the sin", however they will likely do whatever they can to remove the sin (regardless of what they consider to be sin, they feel that is what it is and so they fight it).

It is important to note that the Bible is not a book about "bringing peace", rather it's about "bringing salvation". As the primary focus, it makes sense that Christians would fight for certain things versus simply being at peace with those things.



It's hard to argue one side or the other when it comes to this topic, but I think I might have helped show a bit about Christians that believe differently than has been represented in this topic thus far.
I used to argue with Christians all the time over these things, so here's their argument - you are all doing a fine job of the other side of the argument so no need to add anything there. XD

[SynthesisRTF]

Something I thought was interesting about the Bible... it wasn't originally written in English.

It's subject to mistranslations and misinterpretations just like a lot of things that were translated from one language to another.

[Licentia Per Ori...]

As I said, It has its roots in rape, bondage and the ownership of flesh.
Still to this day for women it can involve rape, paedophilia, enslavement or tacit prostitution.
And that's just for starters.

There are still many parts of the world where £100 buys you a 16 year old virgin to do with as you please.
After all it's not like you can rape your wife, that's not rape, it's consummation.

Marriage as an institution has a dark past and a grim present.

What is Marriage and why should gay people or polygamists have a right to marry?

Marriage is not about love.
It is about validation.
The validation of your relationship in the eyes of the state and church.
Not Love.
The state will recognise your union long before you are married.
Regardless of sexual orientation.

True love requires no such validation.
But the concept of Love has been lost, we are a society of consumers.
We define ourselves not by what we do, but what we own.
It is equally fickle to define your love by the possession of a marriage certificate.

If you are of religion, then a ceremony in the eyes of your God is all that is required.
Unless of course, if you are busy worrying about what mr and mrs Jones have next door.

The Idea of Love itself has been twisted and warped much by society.
This causes much misery.
The idea that Love and lust are somehow linked for example.
How many people have filed for divorce because on partner had sex with another person.
This breaks the "taught" concept of love these people knew.
"He slept with someone else so he does not love me"

Society has taught us that we are entitled.
Love is not something you can take, you can only give it.
"He slept with someone else, and that's ok. he loves me, and by being able to respond to his lust now and again makes him happier. I give him my love so I want him to be happy"

Love is natural, society has twisted into something it is not.
It has put the Disney fantasy into the heads of little boys and girls, and Holywood has perpetuated this myth.
The Myth that love is somehow something you can receive.

You cannot feel anothers love for you, only you're love for another.
So how can you take a wife, (or husband) if you cannot even take their love?

If you love someone, you want first for them to be happy, secondary to that you want to be with them.
In an age where two people can live their whole lives together without being married, and without being "outcast"
why get married? whats love got to do with it?

So if marriage is not about Love, what is it then?

Is it anything other than a status symbol?

[Kaust]

I'm sure that Christians base their argument of homosexuality on scriptures like the ones I found below:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

It's easy to pick and choose quotes from the Bible, like everyone on my lit course that consciously warped every text they got their hands on to fit their essays. This is especially true of the Bible that was most likely written by more than one person (from the logic of an agnostic's standpoint, as opposed to however true believers think it came about) and that's why different messages appear in different areas and half those quotes were from the book of Leviticus alone. In fact:

It is important to note that the Bible is not a book about "bringing peace", rather it's about "bringing salvation". As the primary focus, it makes sense that Christians would fight for certain things versus simply being at peace with those things.

This makes a lot of sense, and yet;
Luke 2:14- "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men".

Anyways, I mention that it's more disappointing to see such actions from religious types because there's an undeniable correlation between religion and morality, and while the actual morals taught differ between religions they are in general about kindness, understanding, all that jazz. Also, as religion has become something of an 'outsider' in modern society you'd think believers would be able to sympathise with homosexuals who suffer a similar rite of passage.
Its been said plenty already in this thread but just because someone believes something themselves, regardless of how whole-heartedly, it does not validate imposing those beliefs on others (and I'm not targetting the religious, has anyone ever seen an athiest street preacher? Most insulting person I've ever met, especially since he believed that science backed everything said; but I suppose he had made it just that, another belief system).

[Sparrowsmith]

I feel like I should probably state for the record, for the sake of the religious and non-religious alike, that the sheer number of denominations, interpretations, and personal ideals influencing religion, make it difficult if not impossible to say everyone feels the same way about religious texts.
Pretty much, try not to generalize. A lot of religious people are more new-testament, forgiveness, and tolerance, and they're usually allowing if not supportive of others. There's also a lot of religious people who aren't this way inclined. It's discrimination though to assume all religious people feel either way, or should feel either way. I'm a little perturbed by the fact that in a conversation on discrimination, there have been a few discriminatory statements (not hateful, but certainly stereotypes).

Licentia, you are both right and wrong.
The problem, as you accurately pointed out, is that marriage is flawed. No one should need validation for their love. State recognition, certainly, and a religious ceremony if you see fit, but a couple shouldn't need to be married to live together and be a real couple.
And yes, marriage likely did come about as 'ownership' but it's come a long way since then, and the connotations, while still valid, shouldn't be used to invalidate sincere emotions people feel.
Basically, while the institution is flawed, that doesn't make the mindset a bad one.

Whether or not monogamy is right is a different argument altogether, however, and we can discuss that another time. It is, like all things, muddied by our evolutionary past, and our industrial present, and it's not something with a strict answer.


In any case, the CEO of Chic-Fil-A certainly made invalid claims by basing his argument on bible passages, which not every christian agrees with, let alone non-christians. A well reasoned argument should be true regardless of one's beliefs (though some principles are necessary).
It's a case of doing what is commanded, regardless of what is right. It is very possible that he is in the right, and there is a god than doesn't want such relations, but it's also possible that he is in the wrong, which makes his actions very condemnable.

[rewells]

I brought this up because it involves several topics, all of which people brought up :-) Thanks for giving me things to think about. I've got some responses/ideas - sorry if I get long winded. If you get bored you can just skim through it and read the parts that look interesting to you - that's how most people read the Bible, because it's so long

I probably should have mentioned the groups that Chic-fil-a donates to, one of which I know too well. The company donates to the Alliance Defending Freedom, a group that in 2005 sued North Carolina Governor's School (where I went as a student and am now on the alumni board) for offering an optional, after-classes extracurricular book discussion on "The New Gay Teenager". Some parents were angry and claimed that the school turned their son gay. Fortunately, the administration did not stand down and nothing changed, but it did put a dent in our funds and created some yucky publicity. So it's not just a free-speech issue. Sorry for not explaining that, as I didn't really know either.

So, onto the other topics:

Free Speech

Many people In the U.S. feel very passionately about their freedom to say whatever they want whenever they want. Some people abuse that right to make others miserable, and unfortunately some people listen and make it news. I find it interesting that this would have never happened if no one had put a microphone in front of the guy's face.

Anyway, the initial boycott (by same-sex marriage supporters) was a mixed bag: some were educated about Chic-fil-a's donations, some were just appalled by what the president said and didn't want to give him their business, either of which makes sense. However, the counter-protests was also mixed: some supported Chic-fil-a because they oppose same-sex marriage, and some did to support free speech. This is curious, because the original boycotters were not protesting the man's right to say what he wants to - they were simply responding to it. This has become a common trend in the conservative Christian-driven anti-gay movement: to act like victims when they are indeed the majority and in dominant political and economic power. Which brings me to...

Religion

Some of you know I am a student of ancient mythology, which includes The Bible :-p, The ancient Greeks believed in their "myths" just as much as the ancient Hebrews believed in theirs. Anywho, I've read the first five books of the Old Testament in the King James translation of the Bible, which is also the Jewish holy book. It tells the stories of Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, the Tower of Babel, God introducing himself to Abraham by telling him to kill his son, God telling Jacob about the promised land, God guiding Moses and the other Jews out of slavery from Egypt, and then all that fun stuff about homosexuality being immoral, and finally Moses not making it to the promised land and dying. It's fun stuff, really, if you skip all of the pages that explain the lineages ("Adam begat Seth, and the Seth begat Joseph, and Joseph begat... "). My favorite part is when God makes the Earh open and swallow someone who was working on the sabbath! (the holy day, Saturday for Jews and Sunday for Christians)

Christianity (and Islam) have their roots in Judaism. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, and the oldest copies are The Dead Sea Scrolls, which date to about 100 years before Jesus was born. There are many theories about "who" wrote these documents, but the stories in them were likely were passed down for centuries before anyone wrote them down, and the first five and most important books (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) were supposedly narrated by Moses. The New Testament are the stories about Jesus, which Christians believe in and Jews do not. This is where things get tricky: while Moses's God likes people to slaughter goats and is, well, kind of crazy and violent and likes to do things like flood the Earth when people don't pay enough attention to him, Jesus talks about a loving God who wants you to be nice to each other. Jesus was executed for a reason: all of the other Jews thought he was full of crap. Ironically, they killed him (or rather, asked the Romans to execute him) not just because they disagreed with him, but simply for SAYING he disagreed with them.

A side-note: Many of the stories in the Old Testament are actually borrowed from even older stories, most notably The Epic of Gilgamesh, which is actually 2,000 years older. In Gilgamesh, the god Enlil is similar to the God of the Old Testament and floods the world in the same fashion as the Noah's Ark story, with some interesting difference in the plot. Ancient religions evolved from one another as nations dominated each other and usurped their culture, religious beliefs and traditions (consider that the Greek gods all have Roman names as well , i.e. Hades/Pluto).I read an article which suggested that the reason Judaism has survived for thousands of year despite the Jewish people being repeatedly dominated is that their God is mean to his own people. While other cultures viewed being destroyed by other nations as their gods abandoning them, the ancient Jews were convinced that they deserved it, and it was their fault for not worshipping their God hard enough.

And herein lies the bigger problem: A lot of Christians do not read the Bible - they only know excerpts, and they don't consider which half of the Bible they come from. As a whole, the Old and New Testaments can be read as a story of a vengeful God who sets up a bunch of rules and kills people for not following them, then he mellows out and loves you no matter what and just wants you to be nice to people (but if you don't worship Jesus he'll still send you to Hell). It does not take a literary scholar to see the incompatibility of "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Mark, New Testament) and "He that blasphemeth the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him." (Leviticus, Old Testament). Yes, there are contradictions in the Bible, and this gets even muckier when it comes to politics. While ancient Judaism was a complete theocracy led by priests, Jesus said "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things which are God's" (meaning the government should be separate from God). But again, some people believe in the Bible but don't know what it says, which is why we have...

Marriage

Marriage existed in Old Testament times, and back then it's economic and political importance could not be separated from it's religious importance because, again, the religion WAS the government (with God supposedly at the top). Marriage dictates lineages, birth rights and inheritance. The God of The Old Testament doesn't like people who are not Jewish by birth, meaning that their mother is not Jewish, which meant that it was super important for Jewish men to marry Jewish women so that their children would be in God's favor and inherit the promised land of Israel.

Marriage has evolved as religions have evolved, while until recently remaining quite oppressive to women. Currently, in 2012, in the United States of America, legal marriage (what supporters of same-sex marriage want) is a set of state recognized benefits for two people like medical decision rights, inheritance rights, parental rights, tax breaks and a bunch of other stuff. People of all religions and no religion get married to get these benefits. But because of historical affiliation, many people think marriage is something (their) God should be in charge of. I know Christian same-sex couples who have had wedding ceremonies in Churches and consider themselves married, but they do not get those state benefits.

On the whole though, marriage as an institution is falling apart at the seams. Divorce rates are sky high and the number of people getting married has fallen. In Europe, this could be attributed to increased government safety-nets eliminating the need (no need to get married for the health insurance if everyone has free health care). This is not to say that people are not coupling and settling down together, but they either don't see the symbolic significance of marriage or (like myself) do not think that married couples deserve more government benefits than single people. This is a recent trend and we are at a very interesting point in the history of this thousands-of-years-old, ever changing institution. I highly recommend the book "Against Love" by Laura Kipnis, a serious philosophical argument against marriage and monogamy, to anyone who is still reading ;-p

[X-M-O]

That's a lot of good information to think about.

It does not take a literary scholar to see the incompatibility of "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Mark, New Testament) and "He that blasphemeth the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him." (Leviticus, Old Testament). Yes, there are contradictions in the Bible

I would like to point out that most Christians would disagree with the statement about the Bible being contradictory. They have their reasons, but one in particular is the context of certain verses.
In specific:
2 Corinthians 5:17, "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."
So a Christian would argue that the New Testament (being about Christ) basically puts most of the things of the Old Testament as being "passed away" (so they are no longer valid and the New Testament replaces them).

This is hard to explain when you don't believe it, lol.
So here's the best I can come up with that they are trying to argue:
When Jesus came and died, the Old Testament became more of a reference for people to understand why they needed Jesus to come in the first place. So things said in the Old Testament appear to be no longer valid to many Christians.
I know there are some who say that they are valid exactly as they are written, but there are differing opinions on that.

Anyway, I'm not really sure how they would argue past that point, but they are completely convinced that there is no contradictions in the Bible.
(If anything can be interpreted in any way and by any one, then there is no standard on what is true or not, so any "contradictions" can be explained if someone wants to.)
That's the point I'm making, lol. (Don't really know what a Christian would argue outside of that, because I'm no expert when it comes to their religion.)

[rewells]

I would like to point out that most Christians would disagree with the statement about the Bible being contradictory. They have their reasons, but one in particular is the context of certain verses.
In specific:
2 Corinthians 5:17, "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."
So a Christian would argue that the New Testament (being about Christ) basically puts most of the things of the Old Testament as being "passed away" (so they are no longer valid and the New Testament replaces them).

I thought hard about using the word "contradictions". I interpreted the passage you mentioned as meaning that once someone converts to Jesus, they are forgiven of their sins and they have a blank slate, but I could be way off. I studied the Sermon of the Mount in a class, and we had a discussion on whether or not Jesus was overriding the Old Testament. Though he begins by saying, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.", he goes on to reinterpret stuff from the Old Testament. So he is actually replacing the Old Testament rules, but he's saying he's not, which is why I called them "contradictions" I see your point - Jesus explains it, but I think he contradicts himself in doing so. And, unfortunetely, there are Christians who don't read the Bible and only listen to what other people tell them, so they quote the Old Testament as if it's the moral law (some atheist even do this in their criticisms of Christianity).

[X-M-O]

Yeah, it's hard to convince someone of something if they are dead-set on what they believe, lol.