ABC’s ‘GMA’ Naturally Sides Against Chick-Fil-A Over Gay Marriage Stance (Video)

I guess if we invert what was said on ABC’s ‘Good Morning America’ about Chick-Fil-A fighting against gay Americans, then those advocating gay marriage are fighting against Christian Americans.

And no, love between gay men and women is not the same as the love between normal heterosexual couples. It is a perversion of love.

HT: Newsbusters

Related posts:

28 thoughts on “ABC’s ‘GMA’ Naturally Sides Against Chick-Fil-A Over Gay Marriage Stance (Video)

  1. "And no, love between gay men and women is not the same as the love between normal heterosexual couples." This view is based solely on your crackpot religious beliefs, that no-one should take any more seriously than astrology or Scientology.

    • It's biology Dave. Stop denying what the natural order of things, Natural Law is telling us. Even from an evolutionary viewpoint you cannot say homosexuality is apart of the natural order of things. Yes, there are exceptions, but the survival of any species depends on normal heterosexual relationships to propagate the species. Aristotle may shed some light on this as well in terns of the telos of a thing, it's natural end. Human sexuality, properly functioning and ordered, rightly and naturally leads to children in a heterosexual context. Femaleness and maleness are compatible for this, not same sex relationships. You lose even on scientific and philosophical grounds.

      • You don't understand science or philosophy. This is evidenced in your basing your arguments on idiotic assumptions. There is no "natural law" that dictates the necessity of the "survival of a species".

        Again. Your belief is based on what your pastors tell you (You don't think for yourself). And it's a fairy tale. And it has NOTHING to do with biology. You are either being dishonest again, or wallowing in your own ignorance.

        • You're not even a consistent evolutionist. The procreation of the species has nothing to do with biology? Denying the functionality of human body and the purpose of certain organs is rather ad hoc. No wonder we are on a path toward polygamy, polyamory and bestiality. If there is not function or purpose to humans sexuality then there are no limits, except your arbitrarily defined ones that are akin to personal preference like what kind of toppings a person likes on their pizza. You like pepperoni but someone else likes bacon, so a man likes sex with other men or with horses, same difference.

          • Good grief. I did not say that procreation has nothing to do with biology. I said there is no "Law" that can be derived from nature that says people must only have relationships that can produce offspring.

            How sick are you, Todd. Your logic would deny the right to marry to paraplegics or anyone else who could not have children.

          • "How sick are you, Todd. Your logic would deny the right to marry to paraplegics or anyone else who could not have children."

            Not even close. Proper sexuality is within the confines of man/woman. That is where sexual relationships ought to take place. That has nothing to do with being able to bear children. That would have to do more with the effects of the Fall and infertility.

          • Thus, you contradict yourself. You have failed to find a moral reason to deny gay marriage outside of your religious beliefs. You attempted to find one in the lame argument that biology demands offspring so that gay relationships are wrong (Yes. That is how stupid your argument was). I pointed out that this would make married infertile couples immoral. You now retreat to your religious belief that "proper sexuality is within the confines of man/woman"!

            Your religious beliefs are no more rational than voodoo or astrology. In the same way that we should not base moral law on Wiccan beliefs, we should not base moral law on Christian mumbo jumbo.

          • Hey, pardner, take it easy! There is no reason to respond with such anger! People should be able to discuss issues without such vitriol.

            Now, are you a believer in evolution? I think that you are, from what I've read on this website. If so, you need to know that evolution is a religion. Some of the top people in the evolutionary camp, know this, and have not shied away from proclaiming it. Here are a few examples:

            “Big bang cosmology is probably as widely believed as has been any theory of the universe in the history of Western civilization. It rests, however, on many untested, and in some cases untestable, assumptions. Indeed, big bang cosmology has become a bandwagon of thought that reflects faith as much as objective truth.”
            G. Burbidge, “Why Only One Big Bang?,” Scientific American, 266 no. 2 (1992): 96.

            "Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."
            Ruse, Michael, "Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians," National Post (May 13, 2000), p. B-3.

            So, there are people in the evolutionary camp, who realize that the belief in evolution is a religion, a religion of naturalism. This clears away all of the pretense, and allows a level field for debate. Now, here are a few words about evidences. Everyone has a 'worldview.' The evolutionary worldview is one of naturalism, i.e. time and chance are the governing factors. In the creationist view, Almighty Yahweh, is the creator and owner of all that exists, and He has specified certain rules for His creation to follow. The evidence for both views is practically the same: both sides have the same fossils, the same rocks, the same oceans, etc. If both sides have the same evidence, why the differences? The reason for the differences is a matter of interpretation. The evolutionary camp observes the evidence, and interprets it according to its naturalistic view. The Christian view, interprets the evidence based upon God's WORD, the Bible. The difference between the two views is the interpretation of the already existing evidence. Faith is required for both views. The evolutionary world view believes by faith in the existence of a singularity that somehow existed coming from nowhere, either eternally, with no creator, but with time and chance; or that the singularity will exist again when the universe collapses and retracts to its singular form. Some say that this is a continual process. The evolutionary world view also believes, by faith, in "The Big Bang" wherein this singularity with no external forces applied to it, suddenly exploded, and thus produced the universe. Now there is no external evidence for either the singularity or the Big Bang. No one who is alive, or ever was alive, was there to observe and report on these two things. Let us look at what some of the experts in the evolutionary worldview have to say:


          • Continued….

            "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

            Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review, 9 January 1997, p. 31.

            “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”
            S.C. Todd, Correspondence, Nature 401 no. 6752 (September 30, 1999): 423.

            "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
            —Stephen J. Gould, in Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin, ed. John Maynard Smith (New York: Macmillan, 1982), p. 140.

            "Piltdown man was thought to be a missing link for over 50 years before it was discovered to be a fraudulent combination of a human skull and an orangutan jaw. But because people wanted to believe evolution, they initially accepted the evidence without scientific scrutiny. The many different and dubious interpretations of Java man and Peking man (well documented in Bones of Contention by Martin Lubenow) are further evidence that people see what they believe in the fossils. Nebraska man was a hallmark in the Scopes Trial, but the tooth that inspired this image was later determined to be from an extinct pig."
            -Roger Patterson, Biological Evolution, Chapter 8, Feb. 3, 2011 (AiG, 2011)

            The Christian worldview depends upon the truth of the WORD of God. i.e. Christianity has an eyewitness report, given by the creator Himself. He is there at the beginning, He is there now, and He is there at the end or consummation of all things. Yahweh God is eternal, and lives outside of time, and has allowed nothing to be created by chance; instead, He is working according to a plan that He Himself made for the universe. He, being outside of time, is working through time to bring His plan to completion. No one, and/or no thing can interfere with His plan or change it.

          • Thank you Emcee, for your long and detailed post.

            Unfortunately it is a bit of a hodge-podge of quotes from all over the place that present no coherent refutation of he theory of evolution. For example, the Stephen Jay Gould quote is taken out of context in a way that could be construed as either ignorant or dishonest.

            I concede that many people accept the theory of evolution on blind faith. That is, they are told that it is true by their teachers or parents or the media and just accept it without questioning it.

            This is not the way I approach the theory of evolution. I am constantly questioning it on every level, in a way that you do not with your blind faith in a belief system that "feels right" to you.

          • Also, Emcee, I appreciate your call to tone down "vitriol" in these discussions. This is a fair enough request.

            On certain topics, I do find Todd's arguments extremely ignorant. Worse, it seems like he distorts the truth or affirms others' lies. On some issues, he shows blatant hypocrisy.

            I have been trying to tone my responses to this down somewhat. On the other hand, Jesus himself used extremely strong language in response to stupidity, dishonesty and hypocrisy, didn't he?

            All of this said, I will keep in mind your request for civil discussion.

          • Dave,

            I do not want to continue in a useless debate. I only have a few questions over definitions. It seems that definitions is where your opinion and ours differ.

            First, what is a crackpot religious belief? Is it any typically held religious belief or just specific ones? Is it a religious belief that you just don't agree with? I don't really know what you mean by this.

            Second, what is your definition of love? My definition of love is the active and continual will to lay down your own desires in order to do what is best for the one your love is focused on. In my experience and research, homosexual "love" does not do this. Instead it is willing to sacrifice the safety and health of the one that "love" is focused on for personal happiness and selfish desires. Note that many people in heterosexual relationships do the same thing and theirs is not my understanding of love either. Anyways, that is my definition of love, what is yours?

          • Thank you Michael. You have asked two extremely good questions.

            My definition of "crackpot religion" is a religious belief system that is baseless and incoherent. By baseless I mean that there is little or no evidence in support of it. The trouble here is of course, that adherents to such a belief system claim to have mountains of evidence for it. Astrologers will claim that their predictions come true, or that their star signs perfectly define them. Tom Cruise will claim that Scientology solves all problems. Todd will post a lecture by William Lane Craig that claims Jesus must have risen or the disciples would not have been willing to die for these beliefs. Once the blowtorch of critical thinking is turned on this kind of evidence however, it doesn't hold up, leaving such belief systems exposed as baseless.

          • Incoherence is another element of "crackpot" religion for me. A sacred text that is riddled with internal contradictions that require contortions of logic or grand leaps into suspension of disbelief. This is what taking the Bible literally requires, for example. One of the first contradictions I noticed myself when I was about 10 years old was the differing accounts of the death of Judas Iscariot. The second was two differing accounts of the census King David took (One says God inspired him to take it, the other says Satan did). Now, you may be aware of such discrepancies, Michael, and have heard your pastors cleverly explain how these discrepancies can be explained away. But it doesn't just have to be explained away once, but over and over again. Who killed Goliath? If you answered "David" you are correct- according to one of the two versions.

          • You might say "Ah, those a the historical details. The truth is in the ethical commands the Bible gives". Sorry. If it's the Word of God, it should be without error. And don't get me started on all the contradictions about ethics, or the nature of God, or how to live in the Bible.

            All of this is explained away by your pastors and you spoon it all up. When I asked as a twelve year old "How do we know the Bible is the Word of God" I was told "because it claims to be". I asked "But how can we trust that claim?" "Because it's the word of God"

            This kind of circular reasoning seems to underlie your belief system.

            So there you have it. "Crackpot religious beliefs" are baseless and incoherent. The icing on the cake is when those faiths try to control and restrict others based on such beliefs!

          • Your definition for love is fine. A bit simplistic for such an elastic word. The fatal weakness in your argument is how utterly subjectively your apply your definition to gay relationships, saying that they do not display those characteristics. To your credit, you admit that many heterosexual relationships do not show those qualities either. To which I say a hearty "amen". Michael, how many gay couples do I have to find that show "active and continual will to lay down your own desires in order to do what is best for the one your love" in order for you to approve their getting married. If you are a man of integrity, the only answer you should be able to give is "one couple". Because if they show those attributes BY YOUR DEFINITION they should be allowed to marry. I know that couple, Michael. Show some courage. Show some critical thinking. Show some integrity. Admit that they should have the right to marry.

          • Dave,

            The thing about homosexual love is that by nature it lays down the health and well being of the one you love in order for your own pleasure.

            In a homosexual relationship an individual is increasing their partner's chances of contracting diseases by hundreds. It decreases their average lifespan by over three decades. It increases their chances of committing suicide. It increases their chances of contracting AIDS and taking a total of 37 years off their average life span. It increases the chances of having an abusive relationship by 10 fold. It increases their chances of getting depression. Do I have to go on? I've barely even scratched the surface of the emotional problems known to be associated with the homosexual lifestyle.

            And what does the partner get in return, an opportunity to do the same, to cause the same damage to the one they "love." Not only that, they get to model to the people around them that this "love" is normal

            Now if you really cared for a person, if you loved them would you be willing to expose them to all the above and more? Homosexual "love" is all about selfish pleasure at the expense of others. There is a reason the God of the Bible has decided it was and is a sin on the same level as lying.

            My integrity causes me to strip away the false belief that homosexual "love" is harmless and show it in its true light. My courage makes me unable to stand for said "love" and instead to stand for true love, the same love that God had for us and I every day try to demonstrate to my wife and my child.

            Finally, who decided marriage was a right anyways?

          • Michael, haven't you and I been over this argument before? Perhaps I had it with someone else. In that particular discussion it quickly emerged that data used to suggest homosexuality was harmful was a) greatly overstated b) taken out of context and c) from highly biased sources.

            As I have said, Michael, and you have failed to engage with this argument- there ARE loving, safe, wholesome relationships in the gay community. In particular, lesbian relationships are FAR SAFER in terms of the dangers you speak of than straight relationships for heterosexual women. By your logic, we should be telling our daughters to avoid safe relationships because of the disease, abuse and heartache women statistically have to deal with through relationships with men.

            See how intellectually and morally bankrupt your argument above is?

            It only takes ONE gay relationship that is healthy, loving and safe to prove by your own argument that it is wrong to deny that couple a chance to marry.

            Michael, on this issue, your stance lacks thoughtfulness, integrity and courage.

          • Dave,

            We have been over this argument before and nothing that I originally posted was greatly overstated, taken out of context. There was one study done from a possible biased source but the study itself was not biased in its documentation. Now for another study, it was not the main goal of the study to show to decrease in lifespans in homosexual relationships, but it was a result of the study.

            Actually, Lesbian relationships are the homosexual relationships that become the most abusive and violent. As it turns out male homosexual relationships have been shown to be very peaceful from the studies I have read.

            As for your leap and bounds to my logic, we should be telling our daughters and sons that the best and really the only relationship they should have is one good man for the daughters and one good woman for the sons for life. There is much more we should tell them but this is the gist of it.

            Again, my argument is not bankrupt. It only does not convince you because you reject any evidence that does not conform to your belief system. If you accepted all the evidence from the studies we discussed before, you would find that I am correct.

            You are right, it would take only one healthy, loving, and safe gay relationship to prove that they have the right to marry. The problem is by the nature of a homosexual relationship, it cannot be loving, many will not be safe, and there are very very little that are healthy.

          • Your definition of a "crackpot religion" is very interesting. You see, each person I've met who truly believes in their religion, by this I mean people who believe because they chose to after growing up and are not "religious" out of ignorance, tends to believe all other religious beliefs are baseless and incoherent. Islamic people believe Hindu's beliefs are baseless and incoherent and can find no evidence to support it. Hindu's believe atheism is baseless and incoherent and can find no real evidence to support it. You, possibly an Atheist, find all religions to be baseless and incoherent. (I do not want to get into a discussion over whether Atheism is a religion or not, so I ask that for now you just go with it.) I, a Christian, believe that Atheism is baseless and incoherent. So what makes you more right then then Hindu, or the studied Muslim, or a Christian like Todd or me? What makes your "crackpot religion" or non religion more valid then ours? What makes your opinion right and ours wrong?

            Is it because you decided that the evidence we give you isn't valid in your mind? Did you know the same thing happens to us? I, as a Christian, see the "evidence" people give me to believe in the Mormon god and decide that it is not valid, that the God I know, love, walk, and talk with is the true God. I have to assume you do the same thing. When given "evidence" regarding a religious belief do you reject it because you decide that it isn't valid? I can give you tons of evidence about the Christian God but if you have set it in your mind to reject that evidence, no evidence I give can change you mind.

            What I'm getting at is this: Just like the rest of us, you have a belief system, even if that belief system does not include a God. Also, just as you believe other belief systems like Christianity are "crackpot religions" that cannot stand up to critical thinking, the studied Christians believe your belief system is a "crackpot religion" and to them yours cannot stand up to critical thinking. A conversation will get nowhere if all you do is tell someone they are wrong and you are right and invalidate their argument because you think it is a "crackpot religion" based argument.

          • Hi Michael. Much of what you have written is very well said, and good food for thought.

            I am not an atheist. On intuition, rather than on evidence, I believe in God. You'll note that this is a somewhat wishy-washy qualification! I live in Japan, and every time the ground shakes violently, I send up fervent prayers. Believe you me, there is no atheist in this particular foxhole.

            I have already rejected a belief system. I was an ardent Bible believing Christian in my youth. I was fully invested in it, and it felt great. I loved the Bible, in particular. Because it is a great, compelling read. I know for a fact that many "Bible believing" Christians don't really read much of it critically, because if they did they would reject Biblical fundamentalism as I did.

            OBJECTIVELY SPEAKING, Michael, the Bible contradicts itself. It is not a matter of me as an atheist subjectively seeing incoherence in the Bible that isn't there. As a fundamentalist Christian I made the "mistake" of 1) Reading all (or most) of it and 2) not switching my God-given brain off when I did it. As a Christian, I rejected the Bible as God's Word, because it is self-contradicting. That is not subjective. It is an objective fact.

            I self indulgently tell you my story here because it actually knocks down your entire argument above like a house of cards.

            a) I did not reject Bible based Christianity as an atheist. I did this as a Christian who happened to read the Bible critically.

            b) I am not invested in atheism. I am ready to chuck skepticism at the drop of a hat and turn back to Christianity, or turn to Hinduism or witchcraft as soon as any of these provide strong evidence of being true.

            Thank you for taking the time to respond, though Michael. I thought your response was very honest and carefully thought out.

          • Dave,

            I have actually read the Bible through six times and written nine journals on it over the past seven years. I try my best to read it critically and teach it just a critically. I am actually a Children's pastor on Sundays and a Science Camp administrator when I am not going to school. Each time my God-given brain has helped me understand it, and learn more from it. I have been through several supposed contradictions and have found them to be false and often easily explainable by the times the people were living in. In all my reading I have never found the Bible to be self-contradicting.

            Now, you are telling me that you used your mind and decided Christianity is false. But I used my mind and decided that Christianity is true. The only difference is our minds. That means that your rejection and my acceptance are both subjective, not objective as you claim.

            By the way, thank you for this discussion, though I neglected some work that needed to be done to write so much. I even neglected writing my next post on my blog. I am not sure how much I can respond in the future. I will limit my self to one or two. I will begin praying for you, because I know the God you rejected truly does love you and wants you to meet Him.

          • "That means that your rejection and my acceptance are both subjective, not objective as you claim."

            I disagree. I use reason when I read the Bible, and am ready to change 180 degrees (again). You are committed body and soul to accepting it. You're invested in ways I am not.

            But say we're both subjective in our views. That gives you no right to expect that other people should be governed and restricted by your admittedly subjective views.

            Thanks for your time. Good luck with your blog. I'll drop by some time and try to be a well-mannered guest. Take care.

          • Dave,

            I don't really want to get into discussion about your supposed contradictions in the Bible.

            I was not raised as a Christian, in fact I was an Atheist until college. I was never told by anyone why the Bible was the word of God. It was as I read the Bible and spoke that I began to see why it was.

            The first thing God showed me was the difference in my wisdom I had in College and His wisdom. I was a liar growing up, I knew how to manipulate people with ease to the point where I convinced my 10 grade teachers that I had a brain tumor. The night I was saved, all alone in a living room, God led me to a Bible and to James 3. I remember reading that and knowing it described me, and in comparison to my tongue, God's wisdom far different.

            The second thing He showed me was about how He proves that He is the only God. The amount of fulfilled prophecies in the Bible are astounding. These are not confusing prophecies, they are very specific ones, focused on specific nations or peoples. Sometime soon I hope to go through several of them on my blog. One of which is in Ezekiel 26 regarding the Kingdom of Tyre and the two times it would be conquered, first by Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon then later by "them" a reference to the greeks under Alexander the great. Ezekiel 26:4 says specifically that "I will scrape her soil from her and make her a bare rock." Now Nebuchadnezzer conquered and destroyed the city of Tyre during his reign. The people of Tyre escaped though, to an island a short distance off the mainland which made it almost impossible for Babylon to attack. Hundreds of years later the greeks came and attacked the island of Tyre when they could not make progress against the island they used the stones from the destroyed city to make a causeway. The stones made one but it wasn't big enough so the Greeks swept the very dust from the city into the sea in order to complete the causeway and completely conquer the city. God used Babylon and the Greeks as His instruments in fulfilling that prophecy.

            There are hundreds more then this I could describe, most of them verified outside of the Bible. God said through Isaiah that the way we could tell He was the true God was through the fulfillment of His prophecies. You know what? We still can.

          • Thank you for your words of testimony, Michael. I respect your sharing a story that doesn't put you in a great light! Believe me, Christian upbringing and all my behavior as a youngster was just as awful!

            The contradictions aren't "supposed". They are there and irrefutable.

            The wonderful fulfilled prophecies that you write of are explained by scholars as having been written contemporaneously with the events they describe.

            To me, the Bible seems to be a collection of forgeries, fairy tales and dodgy histories. I am willing to be persuaded otherwise. You are NOT willing to be persuaded your viewpoint is wrong. That is where I can claim to be following cold hard reason while you are locked into your blind faith.

          • Wait, first you say contradictions are irrefutable and then say you are willing to be persuaded otherwise.

            Call me crazy but I don't think you are being intellectually honest with me. You say there is no way you can believe my belief system but then you say that you are willing to be persuaded that you can…

            On a side note I would like to see some more of your "supposed" contradictions. I have actually been through quite a few, including the ones you mentioned above, and found them all to be easily explained. For example: the name Goliath, like the name David or the name Michael was given to more then just one person. In fact I would be an honor to name a son after a great hero of the Philistines. Another example is Judas' death. He hung himself and the tree branch snapped, it happens more then you would think.

          • Classic! "The rope broke". The same thing I was told 25 years ago. Read the texts side by side. The unbelievable twisting of logic to harmonize the stories is priceless.

            That the Bible contradicts itself is as objective as 2 and 2 equalling 4. I would probably not be able to accept a string of far-fetched "The rope broke" explanations. You are right about that. It is up to you to show why these countless contradictions do not discount a deeper truth in your faith. That is what I meant. No. You are not going to convince me that pigs fly using a lot of smoke and mirror arguments. I will give you that.

  2. Ben Bernanke is stealing from the poor and hurting those who save with his ZIRP policy but that shouldn't be nearly as important as what some restaurant owner says about gay marriage should it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>