So, apparently Dan Cathy, current CEO of Chick-Fil-A Restaurants, made liberals cry the other day when he said that it was the height of hubris to believe that humans, not God, define marriage, and asked God to have mercy on us for believing otherwise. Liberals decided this makes him a big meany, and that they should vociferously boycott Chick-Fil-A Restaurants.
First off- good, that means there might be enough fewer people at the CfA drive-through when I go to lunch today that the line doesn't wrap all the way around the building.
Secondly, let's examine the idea he put forward- does Man, or God (or, if you prefer: The Universe) define marriage?
Now, to some extent, man defines marriage. Inasmuch as there is a societal construct called "marriage" that has varied from society to society, and that many societies have put the force of law behind that institution, marriage is "man made." We even call it "the marriage contract," for this reason.
However, if we examine nature, we find that God (or 'The Universe') defines marriage far more than man does. As CS Lewis once pointed out, different societies may have differed on marriage in that they differed about how many wives one could have, or how easy it was to dissolve that contract, but all societies everywhere have believed it wrong just to "have any woman you liked." Even animals, to one extent or another, follow these rules.
Now, much ado has been made about specific instances of "homosexual behavior" found in animals. These seem to fall into two categories- the truly abnormal, and what might be called, for lack of a better descriptor, "critical thinking in sexuality." Truly abnormal instances, like the so-called "gay penguins," are remarkable specifically because they are abnormal. Even those who believe in Darwinian evolution must concede that if homosexuality were the norm in animals, we'd have a lot fewer animals.
Liberals often, however, point to supposed "normal" homosexual behavior in some simian species, especially varieties of monkey. Even there, however, they have to admit that in the vast majority of cases the issue is not that the moneys are actually "homosexual," but rather that they tend to be males who have no chance of breeding with the females. One might say, "They have certain needs..."
In neither case is it considered "normal" behavior. It seems pretty clear that the "normal" mode of nature is heterosexual. Inasmuch as marriage as we know it is simply putting some limits on otherwise base and animal behavior, then we could say that God (or the Universe) defines marriage, not man.
Of course, if you're religious at all, you don't need to go through that thought process. God has spoken, and he defined marriage as a heterosexual union between one man and one woman. We got to the same place, but much simpler.
All of this backs up what Mr. Cathy said. Nothing Mr. Cathy said was discriminatory or bigoted. He didn't pass judgment on gay couples, simply on society for enabling or encouraging the behavior. As a social conservative, I must say I agree with him. You'll even note he never said anything about banning the behavior, simply not condoning it- which are two very different things.