What can you add without changing the meaning and context? (Chick-Fil-A) - Religion, God, and Theology

Aaron W. · 07-24-2012, 09:44 PM

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...13.html?page=1

If you don't want to read the article, he's the gist of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baptist Press Article

Some have opposed the company’s support of the traditional family. “Well, guilty as charged,” said Cathy when asked about the company’s position. “We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. …

Quote:

Originally Posted by CNN

But the comments of company President Dan Cathy about gay marriage to Baptist Press on Monday have ignited a social media wildfire.

"Guilty as charged,", Cathy said when asked about his company's support of the traditional family unit as opposed to gay marriage.

Is adding the underlined a fair rendering of the original article? Can you be "for traditional family" without being "against gay marriage"?

asdfasdf32 · 07-24-2012, 09:53 PM

I think this part is heavily alluding to an opposition of gay marriage.

Quote:

“We are very much committed to that,” Cathy emphasized. “We intend to stay the course,” he said. “We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

On page two:

Quote:

"I think we 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.'"

Seems pretty clear.

asdfasdf32 · 07-24-2012, 10:04 PM

As an aside, even if I found out that Chick Fil-A was in favor of clubbing baby seals...with other baby seals, I would still eat there. Does that make me a bad person? Maybe. But I'll be a bad person with a delicious spicy chicken sandwich.

uke_master · 07-24-2012, 10:10 PM

There is an implicit "exclusively" thrown in there. As in "I exclusively support the traditional family" which, by definition, means they do not support gay marriage. If you don't have the exclusivity implication, then yes you are adding to your stance when you talk about gay marriage.

For instance, I support the traditional family, but I also support gay marriage. Both seems fine to me.

Bill Haywood · 07-24-2012, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

Can you be "for traditional family" without being "against gay marriage"?

Absolutely. One of the quaint 19th century traditions was the "Boston marriage" between two women. In those innocent times these long-term companionate commitments were assumed to be chaste. But girls will be girls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_marriage

Aaron W. · 07-25-2012, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdfasdf32

I think this part is heavily alluding to an opposition of gay marriage.

On page two:

Seems pretty clear.

Certainly, I think the individuals who lead the corporation are "not for" gay marriage, and these quotes say as much. But again, does this draw a fair dichotomy?

For example, you can be "pro-minority" in an affirmative action sense, but does that make you "anti-majority"?

Aaron W. · 07-25-2012, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Haywood

Absolutely. One of the quaint 19th century traditions was the "Boston marriage" between two women. In those innocent times these long-term companionate commitments were assumed to be chaste. But girls will be girls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_marriage

You're really going to go with that?

Quote:

There is often an assumption that in the era when the term was in use, it denoted a lesbian relationship. However, there is no documentary proof that any particular "Boston marriage" included sexual relations. In general, the amount of historical and social scientific knowledge of this phenomenon, and even of the currency of the term at the turn of the 20th century, is scant.

Not exhibiting strong reasoning skills, imo.

asdfasdf32 · 07-25-2012, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

Certainly, I think the individuals who lead the corporation are "not for" gay marriage, and these quotes say as much. But again, does this draw a fair dichotomy?

For example, you can be "pro-minority" in an affirmative action sense, but does that make you "anti-majority"?

It doesn't automatically make for a dichotomy. You can be pro-minority and pro-majority, or pro-minority and apathetic towards the majority. This, of course, doesn't describe Cathy's position.

SprayandPray · 07-25-2012, 01:06 AM

Nah, I think Aaron's got something there.

Aaron W. · 07-25-2012, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdfasdf32

It doesn't automatically make for a dichotomy. You can be pro-minority and pro-majority, or pro-minority and apathetic towards the majority. This, of course, doesn't describe Cathy's position.

Probably not. But in terms of deriving this position from the quotes, I'm not convinced that it's a fair implication to make.

You seem to allow me to say that I'm "FOR" traditional marriage without necessarily being "AGAINST" gay marriage. Is this correct?

asdfasdf32 · 07-25-2012, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

Probably not. But in terms of deriving this position from the quotes, I'm not convinced that it's a fair implication to make.

You seem to allow me to say that I'm "FOR" traditional marriage without necessarily being "AGAINST" gay marriage. Is this correct?

It would depend on the context of the conversation. If I ask "are you for gay marriage" and you respond with "I'm for traditional marriage" then there's an implicit dichotomy.

As an clarification on his position, Cathy is, I think, a Southern Baptist (of which I'm intimately familiar). This would place his views on homosexuality squarely in the abomination category.

Aaron W. · 07-25-2012, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdfasdf32

It would depend on the context of the conversation. If I ask "are you for gay marriage" and you respond with "I'm for traditional marriage" then there's an implicit dichotomy.

Does this fit the context of the original quote?

Quote:

As an clarification on his position, Cathy is, I think, a Southern Baptist (of which I'm intimately familiar). This would place his views on homosexuality squarely in the abomination category.

Sure. But that's not the question at hand. Whether it's true or false that he believe this, the question is whether this is a fair implication given the quote.

If you want to say that he's against gay marriage, that's fine with me. I think it's probably true. But that question is different from the one that I'm asking.

Edit: By the way, I don't think it's "news" that the beliefs are what they are. I'm basically sympathetic to the idea that this is an artificially generated controversy. It's not as if this would be a sudden revelation about the viewpoints of the leaders of the company.

Aaron W. · 07-25-2012, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdfasdf32

But I'll be a horrible person with a delicious spicy seal sandwich.

Might as well put that meat to use.

asdfasdf32 · 07-25-2012, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

Does this fit the context of the original quote?

Yes, I think so.

Quote:

Edit: By the way, I don't think it's "news" that the beliefs are what they are. I'm basically sympathetic to the idea that this is an artificially generated controversy. It's not as if this would be a sudden revelation about the viewpoints of the leaders of the company.

I agree, and wonder how much of this 'news' is due to Kraft/Oreo publicly declaring support for gay marriage.

BeaucoupFish · 07-25-2012, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

Is adding the underlined a fair rendering of the original article? Can you be "for traditional family" without being "against gay marriage"?

His views are clear, and you yourself know what they are, as you just stated.
When someone uses the term "for traditional family", this is generally accepted as code for "against same-sex marriage" and this can be tested by looking at the views and mission statements of the majority of Christian organizations with the word "Family" in their title.

Given the political climate, it is completely reasonable (imo) to assume that anyone who is "for traditional family" is "against same-sex marriage", in fact I would go so far as to say that they are specifically against same-sex marriage as opposed to say, polygamy, or other less common non-traditional marriages. If polygamy was the problem, I think it would be referred to somewhere in the comments they make.

Given how much the media is perceived to twist reality to sensationalize stories, this is a pretty weak technicality to get hung up on.