These are my personal thoughts and you are welcome to agree or disagree as you wish. I am not setting myself up as a saint, but merely who I am–a mom of small children. I hate no one and try my best to respect others as I hope they respect me.
But as a mom of small children, I couldn’t help but notice that the recent media coverage of the Chick-Fil-a issue shows one side in a very elementary light, whether or not they seem to realize it.
Case in point–our local Chick-Fil-a had to order an extra truck of food on Wednesday. They had lines going nonstop all day. Employees who had the day off came in to help. Over 50 people were turned away at closing because the food was gone. 11pm or so and they still had people in lines!
But of course local news shows instead a video of a handful of protestors holding up a “hate is not a family value” sign.
Excuse me? Of course they have the right to free speech, but what did that sign prove?
A businessman says that he believes marriage is the God-given institution between one man and one woman. Immediately the usual petulance ensues, and frankly, it does sound like the kid on the playground who isn’t getting their way:
“Hey–you disagree with me! That means you must hate me! Well, you can’t play restaurant around me then. You’re just a bigot!!”
Those in a nutshell are the responses, aren’t they? I mean, the city of Chicago was going to pledge never to allow the Chick-Fil-a franchise because of this. And the bigot card makes as much sense as the tired “argument” that voting against President Obama means you’re a racist. No, it just shows that you have the argumentative tactic of the school kid who calls a name and stomps off feeling victorious.
But it hasn’t changed my mind.
In fact, none of the societal “advancements” of the last half-century proves that anything that tampers with the traditional nuclear family provides a lasting benefit to society. A good look at the divorce, contraception, unwed parents, suicide, abortion and depression rates can back me up on this.
If someone wants to prove that homosexual marriage is beneficial to society, can they do so respectfully and factually without playing the “hate speech” card or the “bigot” card? Is that possible? Could it be tried? After all, it wasn’t so long ago that men and women were able to respectfully debate their points in a public setting. The Chesterton-Shaw debates come to mind (I just finished Literary Converts by Joseph Pearce)
Instead we get this “kiss-in” at Chick-Fil-A nonsense, which I sincerely hope people are wise enough to stay out of it. It shows as much class as the playground kid sticking his tongue out to prove a point.