Nice of them to put it on the first day of school making it tough for anyone with kids.

Oh dear, need a little cheese with your whine?

You don't have to be in line by 6, that's when you can start lining... you can go now and line up

Irene,
Yes, you are correct, the store opens on Thursday morning. But, if you want a chance to win the "free chicken for life" prize, you have to be in line on Wednesday morning, beginning at 6:00 AM.
When I drove by this morning on the way to work around 6:30, there were about 30 - 40 people milling around the parking lot.

Free fattening chicken sandwiches for a year. What a way to eat healthy. Isn't gluttony against the bible's teachings?

The article says the 1st 100 people will get the free fattening chicken sandwiches. If there are more than 100 people by 6 AM on Wedneday (today) then it is determined by raffle.

So if you want to get free fattening chicken sandwiches you still have time to get in line.

Logan's Dad. You said, "Gluttany ...Free fattening chicken..."

Unlike other quick-service restaurants, CFA offers healthy lifestyle options with 10 menu items with 10 or fewer grams of fat. Chick-fil-A cooks in 100 percent refined peanut oil which is naturally trans-fat and cholesterol free. In fact, the entire menu is free of trans fat. Try the grilled-chicken sandwich on whole grain bread, with a fruit cup and low-fat milk. This link provides a meal calculator with healthy menu options:
http://www.chick-fil-a.com/Food/Healthful-Lifestyle

Keith,
Winning free chicken for a year no matter how "healthy" it is, is still gluttany. Each regular chicken sandwichor biscuit is 440 calories and has 1400mg of sodium. The grilled sandwich still has almost 300 calories. You try eating that for a year and then we can see how healthy that is.

Logan's Dad - Gluttony is eating in excess; or overeating. It deals with how much and how often you eat different kinds of food. Sure, if you only eat high fat, high calorie foods it would be a problem. But CFA offers a wide variety of food choices including grilled chicken, grilled nuggets, whole grain bread, fruit cups, cool wraps, low fat milk, 100% orange juice, etc.

Keith, so does McDonald's but you don't see Mcdonald's or any other fast food chain giving away free food for a year to the first 100 people.

Logan's Day, its one "value meal" per week for 52 weeks; not every day. And, the winners can substitute whatever they want on the menu. So, the choice is up to them as to what they eat.

@logans dad,

Why are you so bitter? Maybe one of those fattening chicken sandwiches would change your tune. :)

No Irene, I'm not telling you that at all. I myself do not prefer franchised fast food chicken.
My son, however, who is struggling financially and trying to make it on his own, just might have been the one to line up for a chance at free food, had he known in advance.
But thanks for jumping to the conclusion though.....

Its not about free speech.... it's about the money donated to groups specifically against equality. He can say whatever he would like... sure it was offensive, but that's not why everyone is upset.

Agreed. We don't need another empty building in Oswego. Why then do we keep allowing these fast food chains to keep opening up in town? We are saturated (ha, pun intended) with low cost, low nutrition convenience foods. How I long to have a non-chain decent restaurant in town. Tired of traveling to downtown Naperville for a real dining adventure.

"They also fired several women to put them "back in the home where they belong." This company is antigay AND anti-women."

That has to be one of the least-intelligent things I've ever read on the Patch (and there's plenty of competition). You have no proof of any of this, you're just throwing out fire-bombs in an effort to get attention to yourself. Fine, I get it, you don't like what the OWNER of CFA does with HIS OWN MONEY. Just don't go to CFA and that will be your protest.

Well John a google search would have shown this is true.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/07/30/chick-fil-a/

Logansdad, thanks for that info. I did more searching because I didn't trust the liberal-leaning site you linked to, which got its info from the PerezHilton gossip site.

It appears there's a lawsuit for 1 store in Duluth Georgia. The lawsuit was just files so we don't know all the facts, but that doesn't appear to stop anyone from jumping to conclusions. I see there are some that are willing to tar the owner of the company over the alleged actions of 1 store manager.

Ok, I get it, but please don't infer the entire company is like that because of 1 store manager. With thousands of stores, each independently owned and operated, you're going to find something if you did deep enough.

Oh yes, Logansdad and Christopher Erwin Hogan... EVERYTHING we read on the internet is true! It has to be... Abraham Lincoln even said so....

So Irena if you disagree with my post, where is your post to dispute it. I don't see you posting something to say my support is wrong.

John: I'll hazard a guess you won't consider Forbes magazine as a "liberal leaning' source or 'gossip site'. There have been more recent cases and similar law suits filed charging gender discrimination, in fact one was recently filed not long after the current story made headlines re: Mr. Cathy's admissions and 'guilty as charged' statement.
~~
The Cult of Chick-fil-A
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0723/080.html

Chick-fil-A, the corporate parent, has been sued at least 12 times since 1988 on charges of employment discrimination, according to records in U.S. District Courts. Aziz Latif, a former Chick-fil-A restaurant manager in Houston, sued the company in 2002 after Latif, a Muslim, says he was fired a day after he didn't participate in a group prayer to Jesus Christ at a company training program in 2000. The suit was settled on undisclosed terms.
~~~

@Christopher, you need to scrutinize your news sources a little bit more. You shouldn't believe everything you read.

you are right katy, but when cathy made his public statement he invited people to look into his companies financials... and that's when the problem came out.

So Jennifer, Mr. Cathy can have his freedom of speech but the protesters can't? So much for people's rights granted by the Constitution.

If this is about religion, why does Cathy's religion trump everyone else's religion? My religious beliefs tell me same sex marriage is OK. Why don't you explain how Mr. Cathy's religious beliefs are being violated if same sex marriages are allowed. The fact is they are NOT.

He's not meeting anyone in a parking lot on a Wednesday morning with signs and large groups of people to behind him. (sounds threatening to me) He stated his beliefs when asked. That’s all. Next time he shows up at a gay pride parade protesting with 100 people holding signs – please post it here. I don’t believe he’s trying to trump anyone else’s religion…just hold on tight to his own.

"He's not meeting anyone in a parking lot on a Wednesday morning with signs and large groups of people to behind him. (sounds threatening to me)"

Based on that statement it would appear you didn't even read the article, a peaceful protest is planned with the protesters being on the parkway, what is threatening about that?

Cathy has done more than just stating his beliefs by donating money to organizations that promote the killing of gays in foreign countries and to organizations that try to "change gays". Stating your beliefs is one thing, when you start making donations to groups it is another.

Of course the protestors have a voice... But chastising Mr Cathy's in olerance with intolerance is quite hypocritical

Logansdad-- I wear a Penn State hat, does that mean I promote/permit child/sexual abuse?

Please explain

That reply Irena is just stupid. I urge you take some time and research the groups Mr. Cathy has made donations to .

Irena do you recommend that all gays, or straights in support of gays (including bi and transgendered) should just sit with their heads in the sand and not make it known that this is no longer acceptable? It is time that everyone is viewed as equal, there should not be hate groups against the equality of a specific group of people. These groups are responsible for countless acts of discrimination against gay people... it's about time people are making this known through peaceful protest... we can no longer sit by and watch our peers be treated as less than us, merely because of who they fall in love with. And we can not hide behind the bible any longer stating that this is what is right... Watch this whole video... http://www.upworthy.com/every-biblical-argument-against-being-gay-debunked-biblically?g=3&c=ufb1

So stupid that you couldnt answer the question? That, my friend, reverts back to you being not so bright =D

I read it. Still think it's ridiculous. Believe what you want and eat where you want. Hope the Chick fil a patrons have a great day out there! The weather is perfect and the food will be great. Enjoy!

No it means I have more common sense than to respond to people who cant use bssic logic.

Do you all know the situation in which he made his comment against gay marriage? He was being interviewed on a Christian radio program as a Christian businessman, and they asked him his opinion about gay marriage. Everyone has a right to their opinion, and everyone has the right to shop or not shop at any store or restaurant they choose. I can't believe everyone is still even talking about this a month later.

Cynthia, were you against all "these whiny people out there" who protested when Planned Parenthood was opening in Aurora. If it was a "Lover's Lane" store opening in the shopping center instead of a Chic-fil-a would people protesting be OK?

Trot out an AIDS reference to make a point. Nice. I'm sure a lot of families will be able to survive on what the good folks at CFA pay their fast food workers. Yep.

That was a very stereotypical statement there.... and CAF is paying minimum wage, so realistically the only people they are helping with jobs are high school students. Adults trying to support a family are unable to live off of minimum wage. As far as sales tax, we could just as easily get sales tax off of companies that are not constantly trying to make equality impossible.

Comment so narrow minded :( One of my many gay friends did help at an AIDs facility, he adopted a boy when the druggie mom he did not know died from AIDs, he joined the PTA, he was a soccer coach, and now his adopted son is happily married with children. All this time he has been faithful to his partner. Both men have been a positive influence in so many lives. Not so much different than parents of "traditional" families. So much hate out there against good people. Perhaps it is your fear that makes you a hater. I will pray for you

LOL!

Comment of the year candidate right there! Bravo Henry

Very good Henry! (although I think the tax cut is 20%, more fuel for the fire)

Nicely done

watch this video jill.. i recommend it to you http://www.upworthy.com/every-biblical-argument-against-being-gay-debunked-biblically?g=3&c=ufb1

It's sad that your views are so narrowminded... I suppose that someone should be able to dictate who you are able to marry, or how you should be able to live with the person you are in love with.

Now i will say I have heard many stories of Chick Fil A employees going above and beyond to help their customers, which is amazing!

Amanda, thank you for pointing us to the Matthew Vines video. For those that don't know, Matthew is a advocate for the acceptance of LGBT people within the Christian community. It is good for everyone to hear both sides of a discussion. I would point everyone to a rebuttal at http://moorematt.com/2012/03/28/god-condones-homosexuality-response-to-matthew-vines/. I personally believe that homosexuality, like fornication, lying, stealing, lust, etc, is a sin. It's not any more or less a sin than any act I commit against Jesus on a daily basis, and I'm even trying not to commit them! We need to remember that Jesus loves the LGBT community as much as he loves everyone who believes in his name. It's wrong for this to be an "us against them' argument. It's really an "us against us".

Let's not put each other down or insult one another. We're all lost and need to know the way back to God. If you don't believe in God or Jesus, that's your right, just like it's mine to believe. In order to see both sides of a disagreement you need to know both sides. I ask this specifically to the Christians because we are commanded by Jesus to not condemn others but also not to tolerate behavior the Bible says is immoral. We are to disagree in love and leave the conversion to Him.

"I am in love with my Father so I am thrilled to patronize a business where Godly principles are practiced in a positive way."

Is lying a godly principle? That is what CFA did when they posted messages about why they were no longer putting Henson toys in their kids meals.

Nice that you think of families that do not have both a mother and a father as inferior to those that do.

I feel sorry for Logan at this point.

Simple and to the point...well put Just Sayin.

I'm confused as to what to be proud of? Chicago spent the most money in the US on processed fattening fried chicken...

Keith,
Here are news articles about colleges not wanting CFA on their campuses:

http://www.inquisitr.com/301460/davidson-college-suspends-chick-fil-a-from-student-events/

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-08-20/news/bs-ed-university-maryland-chick-fil-a-20120820_1_marriage-equality-marriage-advocates-gay-marriage

http://www.change.org/petitions/the-university-of-south-dakota-do-not-bring-chick-fil-a-a-known-anti-gay-company-to-usd-s-campus

Logan's Dad, Don't believe everything you read in a news article. Last week, I contacted Davidson College and here is the reply from the VP and Dean of Admissions:

"An article from the Huffington Post was posted yesterday that has a number of factual errors, and errors that have likely encouraged you to send an email to our admission email account."

The bottom line is that news outlets often print misinformation that does not accurately communicate the truth. And, yes, there are petitions from both sides of the issue being sent to these colleges. Granted, some may stop serving CFA, but there are many colleges that do not have CFA that would gladly welcome it.

Keith,
There was nothing in your post that contradicts the information that was in the link I posted. CFA was suspended because the students objected. Furthermore, the dean did not say in his response what wasn't factual about the Huffington Post article. (If you can't provide proof, it didnt happen)

Davidson College, a small private institution in North Carolina, announced yesterday that it will end its relationship with Chick-fil-A in response to a student petition. While there is not a Chick-fil-A restaurant on Davidson's campus, the school had previously ordered food from the restaurant to serve at After Midnight events. While the college has yet to make a final decision regarding their relationship with the vendor, they will be serving alternate options until a final decision is made. "The Davidson College Union Board is firmly committed to building an inclusive community that serves each member of our student body," the leaders of the Union Board explained.

As I previously stated, unlike other quick-service restaurants, CFA offers healthy lifestyle options with 10 menu items with 10 or fewer grams of fat. Chick-fil-A cooks in 100 percent refined peanut oil which is naturally trans-fat and cholesterol free. In fact, the entire menu is free of trans fat. Try the grilled-chicken sandwich on whole grain bread, with a fruit cup and low-fat milk. This link provides a meal calculator with healthy menu options:
http://www.chick-fil-a.com/Food/Healthful-Lifestyle

Martin, you said, "Cheap so-so chicken".

A quality that distinguishes Chick-fil-A from its fast-food competitors is its commitment to the customer. As a result, the chain has been honored with the following awards:
•Sandelman & Associates Quick-Track "Award of Excellence" (2011)
•QSR Magazine honors for “Best Drive-Thru in America" (2011)
•Consumer Reports "Nation's Top Chicken Chain" (2011)
•Zagat's Fast Food Survey's "Top Large Chain" (2011)

Then they have improved the quality of their food in the past couple years. I tried it 6 years ago and it was a blob of greasy and nasty meat on a bun.

Peanut oil? Hope that's posted for all to see when they walk in. My boys can't have PB&J sandwiches at school because all the room are 'nut safe'.

While you are at CFA make sure you order the new chicken sandwich: http://www.theonion.com/articles/chickfila-debuts-new-homophobic-sandwich,28888/
100% of the proceeds go to the Catholic Church.

Gotta love The Onion.
"Any sandwich that combines that great Chick-fil-A flavor with a hefty dose of vitriolic homophobia is definitely going to keep me coming back for more," said Atlanta customer John Oaks. “Come Wednesday, I’m going to be first in line for this thing.”

Logan's Dad, Last week, I received other correspondence from Davidson College that said:
"The Union Board serves different menus at After Midnight throughout the year, and Chick-fil-A is served ONCE OR TWICE ANNUALLY." (My caps)

Additionally, they said that no decision has been made to stop serving CFA. They would wait and decide at a future Union Board meeting.

Now can you see how the liberal media blows this kind of thing way out of proportion? It's because liberals like you froth at the mouth and take it in "hook, line and sinker".

There was nothing in your post that contradicts the information that was in the link I posted. CFA was suspended because the students objected. Furthermore, the dean did not say in his response what wasn't factual about the Huffington Post article. (If you can't provide proof, it didnt happen)

Davidson College, a small private institution in North Carolina, announced yesterday that it will end its relationship with Chick-fil-A in response to a student petition. While there is not a Chick-fil-A restaurant on Davidson's campus, the school had previously ordered food from the restaurant to serve at After Midnight events. While the college has yet to make a final decision regarding their relationship with the vendor, they will be serving alternate options until a final decision is made. "The Davidson College Union Board is firmly committed to building an inclusive community that serves each member of our student body," the leaders of the Union Board explained.

Logand, you said, "Davidson College. . . announced yesterday that it will end its relationship with Chick-fil-A in response to a student petition. . . While the college has yet to make a final decision regarding their relationship with the vendor, they will be serving alternate options until a final decision is made."

Your statements conflict. You first say that Davidson ended the relationship with CFA and then you say they have yet to make a final decision.

The reality is they have not made a decision, yet. Either way, they only serve CFA once or twice a year anyway. Much a do about nothing.

I guess you don't support many companies. So few treat anyone with respect and fairness, let alone everybody.

@Christopher...I guess you will be going to EVERY business to ever go to and first ask the management if they support what you believe in. If they don't will you leave?

Jim, the last time I looked, Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech were established in the US Constitution. But, I can’t seem to find the part about redefining marriage to include all different kinds of sexual lifestyles and behaviors, such as same-sex “marriage”, as being a right.

Keith, it comes right after the section that says it is ok to redefine marriage by divorcing and re-marrying as many times as one wishes. The bible says marriage is a life long commitment based on love but many heterosexuals seem to have already redefined marriage by divorcing.

Monty, your comment about the CFA cashier is a fabrication. If it were true, then "your friend" should have reported it to the CFA manager and the cashier would have been fired on the spot. If you go to any CFA they will treat you with utmost dignity and respect regardless of your race, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation. This company has been in existence for 44 years, has 1649 stores, and had $4.1 billion in sales last year. CFA could not have this kind of success with the kind of accusation that you made.

Jim, please don't confuse the Biblical Old Covenant, which was given only to the Jews, and the New Covenant, which is given to everyone. The New Covenant in Jesus speaks many times about "man and wife", not "man and wives".

Having multiple wives was a common practice by the Romans and Mesopotamians in Jesus' day. He, and his followers, stated it was wrong. Why did God allow this practice, and the taking of concubines, in the Old Covenant? I don't know. I'm ok with not having every answer to every question but please, again, be more specific when making such statements.

Jim, desires do not constitute rights. Just because you have a desire to do something doesn't mean you have the right to do it. Even among "consenting adults", there is no right to prostitution, polygamy, adultery, or incest. And, even if you were able to claim a private right to such behavior, you certainly have no right to government endorsement of that behavior. Yet that's what homosexual activists demand for homosexuality.

Keith, last time I checked homosexuality is not illegal. Nice try comparing illegal activities with being gay though.

Keith where do you see homosexual activists asking for acceptance? Asking for the equal rights is not asking for acceptance.

If you want to deny homsosexuals the right to marry based on moral grounds, then I guess we should take a way the marriage rights of those heterosexuals that have been convicted of felonies. After all convicts serving lengthy prison terms, some even on death row, are still allowed to get married.

"I feel bad for the folks who invested in the company and put up the franchise"

The people who opened the restaurant should have done their research and understood what they were buying into before putting money down on the franchise.

"the Corporate office loves publicity and as long as you protest on the street, they are in the news and so is their name"

I bet Penn State loved the publicity as well. Publicity is good as long as it is favorable to the company. Do you think Chic-fil-a would be enjoying the publicity if Cathy was caught in a men's bathroom soliciting sex?

"Does any one planning to protest know if .... support gay marriage? I bet you don't because they keep quite."

Exactly, which is the smarter way to run a business.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-26/god-and-gay-marriage-what-chick-fil-a-could-learn-from-marriott

FYI, Target, Office Max, Home Depot, Jewel , Best Buy, Olive Garden, McDonald's, and Chipotle are stores that do support the LGBT community

Would Becky be organizing this had Mr. Cathy kept his mouth shut, no probably not... but not because her feelings would be different... only because him opening his mouth is what lead people to look into his financial records... which then caused the uproar... everyone has a right to their own beliefs, but it is not good business sense to publicly announce a discriminating thought.... Would you feel the same had Mr. Cathy instead said "I think all couples should be white man/woman, hispanic man/woman, to have an interracial marriage or relationship is shaking your fist at god" It is no different than the fight we fought 40 years ago with interracial relationships...

Jimmy and Logan, CFA is a family-owned private business with no stockholders. The only up-front money required to be a CFA Operator is $5000. CFA splits profits with the store Operator and CFA owes the property and buildings.

As of February of this year, CFA is debt-free (unlike our federal goverment) and runs everything on internal cash. That includes all expenses as well as the purchase of new property and building construction of new restaurants. They build 75-100 new stores each year. Currently, they have 1649 restaurants - all in the USA.

"Your issue is not with the restaurant, it's with the government."

Wrong, the issue is both with the government and the restaurant. How many people were upset with the government when they thought their tax money might be given to Planned Partenthood to fund abortions? It is the same thing.

The profits CFA gets from its customers goes to Dan Cathy who then donates some of it to groups that support his beliefs. To some that is offsensive because some believe those groups are hate groups which treat people differently.

This is no different than OMM or NOM telling people to boycott JCP because JCP used Ellen as their spokesperson or telling people to boycott Target because of their donation to LGBT causes. So why is it an issue when the LGBT community decides to boycott a certain restaurant over an issue?

Jimmy, I have heard many times that the staff that work at chick fil a are very courteous with their customers, and I have continued to hear nice things about how they are treated. But the problem isn't about the government, that is a completely seperate battle. The reason behind gays and gay supporters not going to chick fil a anymore is due to now knowing where their money goes...

Well you can not eat there if you choose. If I do choose to eat there then I should not be berated as some sort of cave dwelling, LBGT hating moron. Let me put it this way: I'm self employed, I'm in business to make money. I do what do to make money. I don't do it as a hobby. I do it to make money. Period. I like money because I can do a lot of things with it. If what I do with my money is legal, it should be no concern of yours. Everyone bitches that Congress is polarized. No wonder, they are us, look at us, trying to dictate what other need to believe when they choose to believe something that isn't what you believe. That then is expanded to make people either for or against all because they happen to like a specific sandwich. I happen to like Chik-Fil-A and I will patronize them even if this one gets run out of town. If that make me a cave dwelling, hateful idiot...then I am I guess just that as measured on your scale.

Logan's Dad, your post is an exaggeration. Of the groups CFA's owner donates to, the only organizations that could really be considered anti-gay are Exodus International and the Family Research Council, and they receive just $1000 each.

Read the details at http://www.policymic.com/articles/12219/all-the-anti-gay-companies-you-fund-when-you-spend-5-25-on-a-chick-fil-a-sandwich (which is actually meant to be anti-CFA) and you'll see that the other groups are at worst not pro-gay. They are nevertheless being demonized because of relatively minor issues.

CFA isn't donating to these groups because they are anti-gay, but because they are pro-marriage; there is a difference.

Again, the liberal media and homosexual activists have blown this way out of proportion and you have sought to "crucify" the man and his business. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

"Of the groups CFA's owner donates to, the only organizations that could really be considered anti-gay are Exodus International and the Family Research Council, and they receive just $1000 each."

That is just your opinion, Keith. You didnt dig deep enough.

The donations:
National Christian Foundation: $631,600 - The National Christian Foundation (NCF) is a grant-making foundation that has made "hundreds of grants" to anti-gay groups like Focus on the Family, Family Life, and the Family Research Council.

The Family Research Council is on Southern Poverty Law Center list of hate groups.

Fellowship Of Christian Athletes: $480,000
FCA Ministry Leader Application Condemns "Impure Lifestyle" of Gays. The application to become an FCA Ministry Leader requires applicants to agree with the FCA's Sexual Purity Statement, which condemns gays as engaging in an "Impure Lifestyle":

If you still want to believe these groups are just pro-marriage group that is fine, but they are far from being "pro-marriage". Pro-marriage these days means donating to causes that are against same sex marriage. I have never seen any of these "pro-marriage" groups take a national stand against divorce.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for not digging deep enough into what these groups actually do.

Logansdad,

“Hate group” defined – An overused buzz-word used by homosexual activists and left-wing liberal organizations to defame and discredit any group that does not agree with them and their radical agenda. Mostly used when they've lost the argument and can't think of anything else to say.

Gay Agenda defined – An overused buzz-word used by conservatives and those activists with right-winged organizations to classify any action by a LGBT group that they feel goes against their beliefs. You would think after 40 years these groups could come up with a different buzz word.

It is not, nor has it ever been about how CFA treats it's customers.... and it is also not about a comment of one person, it is about how the company as a whole distributes their money to groups who strive to discriminate.

KKK and the groups that CFA supportas are not the same. On top of their views, the KKK is violent. None of the groups that CFA supports are violent.

It all depends on how you define violent. Violence does not have to take a physical form. You can bully someone without being violent and that is exactly what the groups that CFA donates money to do.

I don't know Martin, I would have to say shock therapy to "degay" you is pretty violent, or electric therapy... so they haven't killed anyone, but they sure do a number on both their emotional and mental health....

Cathy says:
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.
"We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized.

So the only family that counts in his eyes is the biblical definition of a family. A family that has a mother and a father and childen. All other forms of family are meaningless. So if you are a divorced parent raising your children, Cathy doesnt value your family because it doesn't meat the biblical definition of what constitutes a family. If you are child who lost their parent due to illness or an accident and are living with relatives, guess what Cathy doesn't value your family either.

So much for living up to Christian teachings - the ones that Cathy supposedly supports and follows. Just like other Christians, Cathy cherry picks which parts of those teaching he actually believes and follows.

@ Logansdad
The LGBT community is doing plenty of its own bullying...so lets leave that side of it alone.

Mr. Cathy never said that kids living with their relatives are not valued. He never even said that single parents aren't valued. If single-parent families weren't valued, they wouldn't have franchises.

@Amanda
I don't know enough about the groups that CFA is supporting. Do they use forced electro-shock to 'degay'? I thought it was praying the gay away for most of those groups.

BTW...I think Mr. Cathy is wrong in his beliefs...I think that gays should be allowed all the 'joys' of marriage that hetero's get.

"Mr. Cathy never said that kids living with their relatives are not valued. He never even said that single parents aren't valued. If single-parent families weren't valued, they wouldn't have franchises."

He said he believes in the biblical definition of a family. He values this above all other forms of "a family". He is saying that one form of a family is better because it has a mother and a father.

That is what Cathy is saying when he spouts his definition of biblical family.

If he believes something else, then he wouldnt need to make a distinction between family and biblical family.

@ Martin, from my understanding it is mostly "pray away the gay" But other more radical (ie electroshock therapy) methods have also been used

I can understand more radical methods being used...not supporting them, just intellectually understand they might be used by some. It leads the the qualifier I used...Forced. That qualifier appears in front of most of the Bibilical anti-gay references...being gay wasn't illegal, but forced same-sex sex (AKA Rape) was.

Desires do not constitute rights. Just because you have a desire to do something doesn't mean you have the right to do it. Even among "consenting adults", there is no right to prostitution, polygamy, adultery, or incest. And, even if you were able to claim a private right to such behavior, you certainly have no right to government endorsement of that behavior. Yet that's what homosexual activists demand for homosexuality.

The truth is that some relationships ARE better than others. People are equal, but their behaviors are not. Since homosexual behavior is contrary to the natural design and compatibility of the body, same-sex relationships can never function like men-women relationships, nor can they birth the same benefits. So let's stop trying to equate same-sex relationships with heterosexual relationships. They can never be the same. Biology prevents it and the evidence shows it. There is overwhelming evidence to support this.

Even if we ignore the issue of procreation, the evidence shows that homosexual unions are medically inferior to man-woman unions. Homosexual behavior results in numerous health problems for those who practice it, including increases in AIDs, other STD's, colon and rectal cancer, and hepatitis. These facts cannot be denied.

Keith....Where the heck do your information? Same-sex relationships cause cancer?

AIDs??? STDs? Hep? Monogamy cuts down on AIDs (sexual AIDs) and STDs, not male\female\relationships

The main research I've seen about relationships and health was that a married man lives longer than an unmarried one.

@ Martin and Keith...as far as same sex unions and medical issues. I believe it was yesterday or the day before on WGN Radio Mike McConnell had a guest on talking about some groups list of "hate groups". Apparently one and I want to say it's the CDC is on it because they publish medical findings such as there is a large incidence of depression in the homosexual community. Studies being studies you can work it how you want. One side agrees, one side disagrees, who is to be believed, no one is without a vested interest in the argument.

"And, even if you were able to claim a private right to such behavior, you certainly have no right to government endorsement of that behavior. Yet that's what homosexual activists demand for homosexuality."

Another one that believes the government is endorsing homosexuality by giving married same sex couples the same benefits as married heterosexual couples. The government is just applying the Constitution equally. The government already feels DOMA is unconstitutional. It makes me believe you fall into the same group that complains schools are "teaching" homosexuality when the subject is brought up in a school setting.

"Since homosexual behavior is contrary to the natural design and compatibility of the body, same-sex relationships can never function like men-women relationships, nor can they birth the same benefits. So let's stop trying to equate same-sex relationships with heterosexual relationships."

Why don't we stop equating marriage with procreation. You do not need to be married into order to pro-create. Last time I checked all it took was an egg and sperm to create life. Furthermore I do see where on the marriage license it asks whether or not you plan to have children of even if you are capable of having children.

Nice try but other failed argument.

"Homosexual behavior results in numerous health problems for those who practice it, including increases in AIDs, other STD's, colon and rectal cancer, and hepatitis. These facts cannot be denied."

Wow Keith, you really are grasping at straws. On a marriage license where does it ask about personal behavior in order to get benefits? Does it ask about drug use and infidefility? Does it as about what type of sex you plan on engaging in? I guess you don't want to believe or choose to ignore the fact that heterosexuals engage in the same sexual practices as homosexuals. That is a fact.

Logansdad. The truth is that our founding fathers would “roll over in their graves” if they knew that same-sex marriage(SSM) was being considered as a right. In fact, all US presidents since George Washington would concur with our founding fathers. Even liberal DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, along with both houses of congress in 1996, voted and signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman.

And, yes, even President Barack Obama affirmed the same when running for Senator in 2004 when he stated, “I’m Christian. I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.” Later, he reaffirmed the same belief in 2006, and when running for president in 2008.

So, according to your definition of hate, would you label all US presidents as hateful, bigoted, intolerant and homophobic because they denied gays their "rights" to "marry"? The fact is that NONE of these leaders saw same-sex "marriage" as a "right" in any way, shape, form or fashion. NONE. So, why are you "beating up" on Mr. Cathy and CFA, for holding the exact same beliefs as all our US Presidents?

Keith, now you want us to believe you know what the founding fathers would think of certain issues. I don't know what is funnier. That you believe you know what the founding fathers think of social issues today or that you cite Clintion. Clinton was not anit-gay and to think he was because the bill passed under his term is pathetic. Clinton passed DOMA because he felt imarriage was an issue left up to the states. Why don't you look back and see who controlled Congress at that time. It was the Republicans. They are the ones who created DOMA in the 1st place.

So Keith since you seem to have knowledge of what the founding fathers think of today's issues, ask them what they think of ordinary people owning semi-automatic weapons and guns that are capable of shooting off 45 rounds in a minute. I'd love to hear their views on today's guns.

Can you only go back to the founding fathers for their views on same sex marriage or can you go back and get the views of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle?

Have you thought about quitting your day job and opening a business where you make people believe you know what famous historians think of today's social issues?

Keith, love is a right, whether it comes from a man and a woman it is a right. There is no denying that. the government is supposed to seperate church and state, and it is only religion that constitutes same sex marriage as bad, therefore the government should not (based on their own constitution) use their religion in any way, shape or form to make that decision. that being said, I'm pretty sure that you, nor i have any idea what our founding fathers would be doing, for all we know they had gay lovers on the side (it wasn't uncommon). And for the fact that gay people are more likely to develop aids, pretty sure straight african americans are still leading in that category (no offense or stereotyping meant by that statement)... as for cancer, cigarrettes are known to cause cancer, radiation is known to cause cancer, gay sex will not... (i'm not going to point out the specifics of which parts of a body are used during both lesbian and gay sex, but let me tell you, straight couples use them too), as for STD's and Hep, guess what, if you sleep around, you have a high risk of them, again goes for both gay and straight...And for the some relationships are better than others, okay I'll give you that, but not based on gay vs straight, based on love, respect, trust, and understanding... and you don't need to be straight to have those, in fact... a lot of straight relationships dont have those... it's not a gay vs straight... you can only judge a relationship on a case by case basis.

Logansdad, Yes, I did mention our founding fathers, but I also said, "ALL PRESIDENTS SINCE GEORGE WASHINGTON" and that includes Democrats and Republicans, liberal and conservative, and everyone in-between. ALL understood marriage to be a union between one man and one woman. No exceptions.

Oh Keith, you are to funny. Marriage 225 years ago was not the same as it is today. Most marriages were arranged and women were treated as property. The founding fathers would probably be shocked that women have rights these days yet alone be running some households.

Now with your revisionist history lesson, you want us to believe that presidents years ago even gave same sex marriage a thought. I think Lincoln and FDR had more important things to worry about.

So since you seem to be channeling the thoughts of former presidents, what are there thoughts on inter-species marriages because you know a human at some point in time is going to want to marry a person from another planet.

Maybe so, but I'd rather stand by what's right, not what's popular!

They are closed on Sunday...my bet is that by next Monday...if that long...it'll all be over and the fryers will still be frying...in Oswego

Equality for all is not the same as winning a sport.... the right to be married to the person you love, is not even comparable to winning something you worked for.... that comparison is apples to oranges... You work hard to win a sport, you work hard to win valedictorian in school... that is not a right, that is a privilege that you work hard to earn... to be married and be allowed rights as a married couple (insurance, medical records, prison visitation, etc) is not a privilege, it is a right.

For arguments sake, I am going to assume you are married, due to your name being jimmy, I am also going to assume you are a man, and due to your standpoint on gay marriage, I am also going to assume you are married to a woman... lets say something happened to your wife, the woman you love more than the world, and have spent x amount of years devoted to, and unless there is a recent will made up with you as her guardian, you have no access to the drs to be a part of any decision making or get updates... this is what gay couples want, to be able to be with the people they love more than the world.... and who are you, or anyone else to say that they don't deserve that?

@ Amanda...you are correct on your assumptions .Gay marriage doesn't really matter to me personally, at least not to the point I'm going to take up arms and fight in the street. What's stopping gay marriage, forget the philosophical and the other issues, what's stopping it first and foremost? The law isn't it? How do you change laws? In a restaurant parking lot? Ok so maybe you take a few bucks away from the Oswego store and Mr. Cathy's anti gay fund ( if he has such a thing) drops by a few bucks. Its a southern company and I doubt you are going to change a lot of minds there. But you can try as is the right of every American to speak out and protest. I think though that to effect a change in the law, the energy would best be spent in Springfield and/or Washington not on Route 34.

I agree, which is why I am not protesting... which doesn't mean I don't feel strongly about gay marriage, or about gay rights. I am protesting on a personal level by not eating there, I would rather put my money into companies that are moving in an equality way. But I do support the people who will be protesting.

@Amanda....thanks for the civil commentary. I'd hope you would also support people who choose to do thing you may not agree with, it's their right to do that as much as it is yours to be the opposite.

@Logansdad....there you go. Let's make the opening of a restaurant a political battle. thanks for the tip to look up a definition. Typical of a liberal to assume a conservative, and BTW I'm a moderate which makes me either a conservative democrat or a liberal republican, doesn't understand English. In specific terms of the restaurant business anyone from the LGBT community can go there, order, eat and enjoy, just as anyone else can. Take a good look into ANY business and you will find something you don't like. So while you are protesting, I'll be eating, and that's my right and I sincerely hope that those who are against will not interfere with those who want to patronize it and that those who patronize it will not interfere with the rights of those who want to protest. So if that makes me a "conservative" I guess the shoe fits.

@ Amanda, and in that lies the common ground.

Says the one that tells everyone else to shut up .

"If you don't support it don't go there........it's that simple."
Those against SSM should take the same advice. If you don't like same sex marriage, dont marry someone of the same sex. It is that simple.

"The intolerance of some who would protest is interesting considering they have absolutely no tolerance of Godly beliefs."
Darn those Christians for picketing Planned Parenthood they have no tolerance of for those that don't share their beliefs.

karen that's one aspect of PP. It also provides mammograms and other services to those that can't afford it. My wife died 6 yrs ago and we used PP for some female testing. We maxed out our insurance with her cancer and had no other option without putting the burden on the public via public aid. I'm still paying off her medical bills while loosing a job myself.

Since when is a fetus a baby. Most abortions are preformed in the first 9 weeks, long before they are considered babies.

well Karen, I sure hope you don't end up in a situation where you would need planned parenthood... because they do a whole lot of good for a whole lot of people. And again, they are a business.... you can't apply your morals to one business and not to another, it's a two way street, either you choose to accept them all as a business or you put them all on a personal level of their beliefs vs. your own.

Calm down Karen. If you eat at CFA often enough it will render you sterile.

Logansdad, when do you think a fetus becomes a baby? At what point in its development does it move from non-life to life? Do you think it is ok to stop a beating heart?

Keith, another diversionary tactic from you. What dont we discuss some more important issues like which came first - the chicken or the egg.

SLG, it's funny because I was thinking the same thing... and I also agree with Portillos being much better... between portillos for the grilled chicken and wendys for the fried chicken... CFA doesn't have much to offer!

Amy, you would think that CFA would give away free food to the homeless when they opened a new restaurant. For a company that claims they follow Christian believes, you would think the millions of dollars that they have donated to hate groups could have been used for much better Christian causes.

Jimmy, deal with reality instead of all these "what ifs". I got a "what if" for you. What if there was no hate is this world, wouldnt the world be a much happier place.

To be honest, I'd request another team... there are always other options! like a different park district or a private situation... Or you find another donater. Why would you boycott a game against CFA? That's just crazy.

No Jimmy, I refuse to answer because it is pointless. People like you tend to come up with all these hypothetical questions to deflect from reality and the current topic. What is your point of asking the question in the first place? Why don't we discuss the topic when Chic-fil-a actually sponsors a team.

What if Chic-fil-a served shrimp. The Bible says eating shellfish is an abomination. Does that mean anyone who eats shrimp at CFA is going to hell? Does that mean that CFA is not following their Christian beliefs?

See I can play the what if game as well. Do you see how pointless it is? What difference does it make anyway?

It is quite possible that CFA sponsors teams as well. Obviously you don't know. As I said, when it becomes a reality then we can discuss until then your question is just another "what if". I am not discounting your question, as I said I think it is pointless until the situation actually happens.

Logan is just fine. At least he is open minded and deals with reality.

Perhaps if you knew more about the protest and when it actually started, you wouldnt have made the comment.

If it was the last team on earth, who would they play against?

See, pointless.

I meant Natalie, not Steve (wrong editor, sorry).

Quit putting in contravertial articles and you won't get the feedback!! Is your husband going to close this comment stream also? He never did answer my email.

Please Keith. The religious folk say, love the sinner but hate the sin. However in reality they can not separate the two when it deals homosexuality. If sin is sin and there is no degree, then what you say is true. However to these people somehow homosexuality is just as bad as murder.

You may find it immoral, fine. I don't care. But loving someone is not immoral and not a threat to the common good.

If you find homosexuality immoral don't engage in it. If you find same sex marriage wrong, don't get one. But to deny others this because you find it offensive is wrong.

People engage in harmful things and transmit disease by one vector or another. We've been doing this for a long time.

However, Christian fundamentalists will attempt to characterize such behavior as a judgement rendered by the version of god they worship. Smoking is harmful and so is being around someone who smokes. What is the percentage of new lung cancer cases directly related to smoking? When your god frowns upon smokers does he condemn their "lifestyle" and punish them with cancer?

The trouble with trying to conflate scientific data in support a fundamentalist religious doctrine is that so many of you go out of your way do disprove science. Before you cite scientific studies to support your personal religious opinion as fact, please readers know how you feel about such things as evolution and global climate change.

Keith, I hope CFA pays you well for your advocacy.

I do not believe we should resort to personal attacks or name-calling, but I do believe it is perfectly acceptable to present a strong and reasoned argument, even if some might be offended. Sometimes the truth is offensive.

For example, if someone says that the homosexual lifestyle is harmful and then provides statistics from the Centers for Disease Control that states that more than 82 percent of all known sexually-transmitted AIDs cases in 2006 were the result of male-to-male sexual contact, then even though it might be offensive to some, it is a statement of fact. It is not hateful, bigoted or intolerant to provide support for one's position if that information is supported by reliable evidence.

If you mean by "respectful" that we can't say anthing that might offend another, then I disagree with your definition of respectful. If there is evidence to support one's position, then it should be considered in the argument. Again, it is not being intolerant, hateful or bigoted to use facts to vigorously contend against another's ideas or behavior. If we "shut out" valid evidence, then all we have is personal attacks, name-calling, and one's opinon versus another. I prefer that we allow the facts to be presented and "let the chips fall where they may".

Well I thought that since your opinion is slathered all over this comment thread, you would notice that there is some disrepect going on throughout it. Those are the posts that my comment was directed towards. But if you can't see that, then I guess it's an entirely different problem all together.

Wow, you can state facts from the CDC website for the sexual activity between men. What does that prove? Does this impact you at all? Are you going to deny that heterosexuals do not get STD's or AIDS? No you post these to disparage a group of people. The fact is the CDC does not post statistics based on sexual orientation. You can make any conclusion you want about male to male contact but that does not necessarily mean homosexual. It could mean a "straight" married guy having sex with a "bisexual" man . There are many "straight" guys who have sex with men but still identify themselves as straight.

I can get some facts that show African American have a high propensity to commit crime and be locked up in a jail for years. I bet you are not going to say that is harmful.

The truth is Keith, those statements are hateful because you are judging individuals based on some set of statistics. And once again, if you find those behaviors harmful then don't engage in them. People can say drug/cigarette use or alcohol is harmful, so why aren't you posting statistics about how harmful those can be.

It goes back to what I said the other day, show me an application other than an insurance application that makes you list out the behaviors a person. Do you have to list out all your behaviors whne you apply for a job or get a marraige license?

Thanks for the statistics Keith. I had a look at the CDC site and found some interesting stat as well, albeit from 2009. The total number of AIDS cases reported as male to male sexual contact was 17,005 and the number reported as heterosexual contact was 10,393. Not quite so disparate, wouldn't you agree? It seems that the latter of these cases is a much faster growing segment of the population than the former, no?

Thanks for the stat, Oswego resident. You've proved my point. Homosexual men represent less than 2% of the population, yet they account for almost twice the number of AIDs cases as heterosexuals.

I forgot to mention that even with less than 2% of the population gay and bisexual men account for 60% of all syphilis cases. These are some facts that the LGBT community does not want mentioned because it doesn't fit too well with the idea of a "gay" lifestyle.

And once again Keith has no point with his statistics other than to show how much he despises the homosexual community. What do those statistics have to do with equal rights or marriage or anything else for that matter?

Here is also another interesting statistic. Those that protest the loudest against homosexuals are usually closeted homosexuals themselves.

Keith,
What point was it exactly that your statistics proved? That homosexual men have a high incidence of HVv/AIDS? I don't think that point was ever in question, TBH. What was being discussed was the incidence of HIV/AIDS in both the Homo and Hetero population.
What is your take on the obvious rise in the percentage of heterosexual cases that are reported? I noticed you didn't address that issue. Doesn't this support the case that perhaps the heterosexual lifestyle is also "harmful" as you call it?

Oswego resident; the only way to contract HIV/AIDS is to have sex with someone who has it. That’s pretty obvious. So, if the rate is rising among heterosexuals they are obviously having promiscuous sex with someone who is infected.

How did that other person get infected? Who knows? But, we do know that the HIV/AIDS rate is extraordinarily higher among homosexuals. Therefore, a possible explanation might be that some heterosexuals are “playing around” with homosexuals/bisexuals.

Maybe we should be asking the question, “Why is the rate of HIV/AIDS so much higher among homosexual/bisexual men?” Do they have more partners? Do they have fewer monogamous relationships? Is the type of sex performed more risky because of the thinness of the membrane in the rectum that exposes them more to blood and fluids in the body?

@ Keith, Please site your source on the statistics of homosexual relationships/parenting. In my experience, which is quite diverse I have seen exactly the opposite. So I would love to know where you are getting it. According to every psychological report I've read, along with the child psychologists and social workers that I know, having gay parents is much better than having no parents, and gay parents are just as capable of providing a loving and stable home. I think of any parenting structure the one that offers a child the least is the single parenting (whether straight or gay) and i know this because I am a single parent, and I know how hard it is to be both the provider and the parent... it's a very hard place to be and a lot of times it's hard to give 100% at both. (I'm not saying that there aren't amazing single parents, I myself believe I am a fantastic single parent, but I will admit that having a second person would allow me to give more to my child) having people who love you, and who support you, and who take care of you... that is what a child needs from a parent, it doesn't matter what they do in a bedroom.

There are also many gay couples who have lasted 20, 30, 40, 50+ years... and many that are just starting but will last that long... it's on a case by case, again same as heterosexuals.

Congratulations on yours and your family's long marriages, however you are a minority in the present times.

Well put JM. I agree 100%

Careful with that thought. If marriage is only for pro-creation purposes, then what about sterile people? If a woman has had a hysterectomy or a guy has had a vasectomy...can they marry? No children can be produced from that union.

And to the point of it not being natural, science has shown that large, dense populations of mice\rabbits turn to homosexulity as a way to control the population.

Martin, "What about sterile people? They are the exception rather than the rule. The state recognizes marriage because marriage in general procreates and provides the more stable and nurturing environment for children. By the facts of nature, no homosexual act can do this - no exceptions.

It would not be possible or desirable for the state to attempt to determine which men and women are capable of procreation and which are not. However, since no homosexual relationship produces children, no homosexual can fulfill this basic function of marriage.”

Martin, yes, some animals engage in homosexual behavior on occasion, but some animals eat their young, too. Should we do that as well?

Martin, "What about sterile people? They are the exception rather than the rule. The state recognizes marriage because marriage in general procreates and provides the more stable and nurturing environment for children. By the facts of nature, no homosexual act can do this - no exceptions.

So no exceptions doesn't always mean no exceptions. If you make exceptions for steril people in regards to marriage why can't exceptions be made for same sex marrriage.

Another interesting fact is that there are more married sterile heterosexuals couples than there are married homosexual couples. So why does a small percentage of the population matter to you. Do you honestly think no more children will be created by allowing same sex marriage? In my opinion this world is over populated already.

"However, since no homosexual relationship produces children, no homosexual can fulfill this basic function of marriage.”

That is wrong. A gay man can have sex with a gay woman and still create a child. It is basic biology. A sterile woman and a sterile man can NOT create a child.

@Keith - really? After you stated above about using FACTS to support a point of view and not just ones opinion, you come out with this?"
"The state recognizes marriage because marriage in general procreates and provides the more stable and nurturing environment for children. By the facts of nature, no homosexual act can do this - no exceptions. "
Do you have any proof that this claim (other than the ability to prOcreate, which, if you consider artificial insemination in the case of a lesbian couple, is still possible, btw) has any basis in fact whatsoever? If you read the studies, you will see that the incidences of child abuse are much higher in heterosexual relationships than in homosexual ones. Or doesn't that fit your perception?
I can't be bothered to type them all out here, but if you go to the ACLU article in this link and scroll to the bottom, you will see all of the cited studies to rebut all of your myths about gay parenting.
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights_hiv-aids/overview-lesbian-and-gay-parenting-adoption-and-foster-care

It may not be possible for a gay couple to "make" a child together, however they can still provide a loving and supportive family, just as a straight couple, or a single person.... There is always adoption, just as a sterile couple. And there are far too many kids getting lost in the "system" as it is... so child rearing is not really a true option. Not to mention we have been redefining words since the beginning of time... as for redefining marriage... I urge you to read this article, very well written... it has already been redefined!

Oops forgot to add the link http://prospect.org/article/marriage-already-redefined

JM - I think you are blurring the line between creation and sexual attraction.
I think it is perfectly natural for one human being to be attracted to another, of either sex. Isn't that what kinship, friendship and brotherly love is all about? I don't think there is a hard and fast assumption (see what I did there? ;) ) that sexual relationships blossom from every attraction. I think this is natural.
At one point in mans evolution, I would think that the species mated without the "attraction" as you call it. It was more a matter of continuing the species, as you have stated.
How the various religions have interpreted the union of two individuals over the course of history is a whole different debate. It will depend on which religion you are referencing and which timeframe within that religion.

HIV\AIDS are transmitted through other ways than just sex. Drug use and the occasional (extremely-rare?) blood transfusion.

And you have yet to explain the point you are trying to prove. The stats you mention prove no point in THIS discussion except to demonize a group of people.

"In terms of marriage I am just going by what definition is and always has been a formal union between a man and woman."

So that is all marriage is to you, just the union of a man and a woman. Nothing to do about love or commitment?

Last time I checked marrige is supposed to be a life time contract. But I guess you don't see marriage being redefined when heterosexuals get divorced and re-married as many times as they wish. Is it more important who gets married that a life-time of being with the person who you love.

homosexuality, being sterile, having downsyndrome, being left handed, having red hair, I could go on an on..... these are all natural things, things that people are NATURALLY born with, things that may be the minority, but non the less natural. You don't have to agree with it, you don't have to approve of it, but to say it isn't natural is quite a stretch So the holes don't line up, that just means it's not for "natural" sex... And what we are still arguing about, which has no merit for this specific situation is religion.... When it comes to gay marriage, religion has no base... it is a government thing, if the christian religion doesn't like it, don't marry them in your church... a marriage is no longer based on a religion... people get married in court houses, outside, and vegas... that does not make the marriage any less important. That is the point, I get it, some religions don't accept homosexuality, that's fine... but their religious views are not allowed in a court room to decide who can marry... that can only be based upon the law and the government.

Amanda...you just hit the crux of the issue. If the US would adopt one thing from Europe it would be a TRUE seperation of Church and State in regards to Marriage. Marriages are things in the Church and Civil Unions are State items. This whole problem would go away (except for the fringe nuts) if the US adopted this simple ideology.

"The definition of Marriage says nothing about heterosexuals or divorce. You make yourself look silly by quoting what I said and then saying something totally opposite in response."

I am the one that looks silly? Are you married? Have you even listened to the marriage vows?

Groom: I,____, take thee,_____, to be my lawful wedded Wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I plight thee my troth.

Bride: I,_____, take thee,_____, to be my lawful wedded Husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I give thee my troth.

What part of "until death" do you not understand in those vows? Formal union or contract is just semantics.

When you get a divorce you are breaking those vows you take when you get married. You are breaking that contract/formal union. You are going against what is in the Bible.

I am sorry you are another person who doesnt want to debate anything. Like others, you are trying to put words in my mouth. Where did I say that a same sex marriage would never lead to divorce.

Typical chicken that runs away when you wont be able to keep to your definition.

So according to you marriage has never supposed to be a life long commitment? If you stand by that, then you are redefining what marriage is supposed to be.

Yes vows can be changed so the two people can say whatever they want. But if you are expecting me to believe that marriage is only for a specific amount of time, I will not believe that.

You never hear the couples saying...."I take you for 3 years, 2 months and 16 days unless I want a divorce sooner". It is understood when you enter into marriage it is for life - until one of the people dies.

This is according to the bible - you know that book that is used to demonize gays.
Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

So if those that say we need to do things according to what is in the bible - marriage IS A LIFELONG COMMITMENT.

All of that has nothing to do with my original post. This has gone wayyy off topic of what my first post was about because your agenda is not to debate its to do anything possible to twist and destroy what people are posting to fit your agenda. Much like everyone else has done. I am off to spend my time doing something else. I will leave you here to manipulate and construe words however you like. Have a great day everyone. Logansdad just try not to make yourself look silly when I am gone, there is only so much of that one person should do on a single topic.

How has this gone off topic. You keep saying you don't think marraige should be redefined. I have given you a reason why I think it has already been redefined through divorce. Instead of trying to prove me wrong, you run away and claim I am twisting your words.

You anti-same sex marriage people are all the same. You keep saying marriage is being redefined. but you can't even define what marriage means because everyone has their own definition.

What is so difficult about defining marriage.

No Keith, I am not advocating for divorce. I am trying to get some understanding. Those against same sex marriage say they are trying to protect the sanctity of marriage.

No one can actually define marriage or this "sanctity of marriage" except that it is one man and one woman being united - So that is all that marriage is the union - nothing to do about love or commitment????

When the sanctity of marriage is brought up, those against same sex marriage fail to mention anything about divorce and its effect on marriage. They fail to do anything to anything to change the 50-60% success rate of marriage.

You claim homosexual unions are more determental that a divorce. If that is your position, what proof do you have to back up that claim. How is two men or two women joined together in love more harmful then a split betwen a family?

"So, why are you advocating for something that is clearly harmful to children and an inferior model for the social structure of our nation?"

What is being done to fix an institution that has a 50% success rate? How is banning same sex marriage going to change that?

Again I make the claim that marriage has already been redefined by allowing people to divorce. Do you agree? If not, why?

Keith,

I can find facts from the American Academy of Pediatrics to say just the opposite:

There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/1/349.full

Just like with any other topic, I am sure you can find information to support what you believe based on who is conducting the study.

Keith,
If you paid attention, I said move Marriage back into the Church. If someone then has a problem with a Civil Union, a contractual relationship, of individuals of the same gender, then yes they would be a 'fringe nut'. Every single argument has boiled down to Religion..

Keith,
Do you think the Winshape Homes would accept a gay child? I don't see it mentioned on their website anywhere. Perhaps they might be able to "straighten" them out.

Keith, living in Georgia, how did you come across our little slice of heaven here in suburban Chicago?

OK, this is really getting weird. My daughter and a friend were eating at Olive Garden this evening and guess who was eating across from them? Dan Cathy, President of CFA, and his wife. She went over and spoke to them and confirmed that it was, in fact, Mr. Cathy and wife. This is two nights in a row that our family has come in contact with the Cathy family. Last night, I spoke with the billionaire Founder and CEO of CFA, and then tonight my daughter spoke with the President.

Does anyone else find this unusual, especially since I have been writing about them and their company in this forum the past week?

I don't know who just eats a grilled chicken sandwich. All their other chicken sandwiches are over 400 calories each. Add in your fries and pop you are well over 700 calories. Chic-fil-a is no better than having McDonalds or Chipoltle

I am not going to sit here and debate the how healthy the sandwiches are at CFA. If you want to believe their food is healthy then scarf it down. You can eat their for 30 days in a row for all I care. The fact is, it is fast food and fast food is not healthy. You can claim a salad is healthy for you, but it isnt when you add all kinds of cheeses and croutons and dressing.
Go back an actually look at their chicken sandwiches and see how much sodium is in them.

I wonder if you think something with 450 calories 22g of fat 90mg of cholesterol and 960mg of sodium is really healthy for you. I bet just reading those numbers you wouldnt be able to tell me if that was a chicken sandwich, burger, burrito or something else.

And to answer your question is grilled chicken healthier than burgers. Not necessarily. Compare the grilled chicken sandwich at McD's to their hamburger. You will see they are very similar in nutrition.