Chic-Fil-A

[CaptainHaplo]

I am suprised no one has brought this topic up. No - I am not talking about the issue of homosexual marriage. The idea of free speech and whether or not various governmental officials have the right to restrict free enterprise on the basis of a personal religious belief.

I think the 660,000+ people who participated in "Support Chic-Fil-A Day" made it clear that the rights to freedom OF religion and freedom of speech are not going to be lost without a fight.

[Takeda Shingen]

I didn't bring up the topic because I don't really care; I've never eaten there. From what others have told me, it's like overpriced KFC. Meh.

[Armistead]

Why I disagree with the CEO's fundy views, he has the right to speak them as long as he follows the law not to discriminate. If it can be proven that his views effect his hiring/promotion, then his mouth will certainly get him in trouble, but I don't see that it has. Course my guess is someone will eventually test this.

I like the food, will continue to eat there.

[Penguin]

Well, their business, their decision. If they want to sponsor a gay parade, why not? :smug: http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0802/N.H.-Chick-fil-A-manager-to-donate-sandwiches-to-gay-pride-fest (hint: a link, introducing the news topic you want to discuss, is always appreciated)

The interesting question however is, to which biblical definition of the family unit did Cathy refer to...

http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/461/biblemarriage.jpg

[Ducimus]

I didn't bring up the topic because I don't really care; I've never eaten there. From what others have told me, it's like overpriced KFC. Meh.

I've eaten there once. Your not missing much. But yeah, some bible thumper opened his mouth again, and the gays are up in arms again. Nothing new to see here.

[Takeda Shingen]

Re the image Penguin posted.

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

THen the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all of his days.

Well I'll be. Marriage between a man and his rape victim. That exactly what it says. Huh.

[Hottentot]

(hint: a link, introducing the news topic you want to discuss, is always appreciated)

You sir, with your reasonable politeness and simple yet efficient piece of advice, just robbed me an opportunity for an unnecessarily sarcastic reply.

The unused but already prepared sarcasm has now been stored in my must-be-used-before-sarcasm-overload storage and which I'm therefore going to shoot at the next five random passers by that haven't bothered to train their little mutts properly.

This will make me hated within my neighborhood, leads to me becoming a social outcast and never getting employed or married because everyone thinks I'm a sarcastic jerk.

Thanks a lot, melon head! :stare:

[Takeda Shingen]

You sir, with your reasonable politeness and simple yet efficient piece of advice, just robbed me an opportunity for an unnecessarily sarcastic reply.

The unused but already prepared sarcasm has now been stored in my must-be-used-before-sarcasm-overload storage and which I'm therefore going to shoot at the next five random passers by that haven't bothered to train their little mutts properly.

This will make me hated within my neighborhood, lead to me becoming a social outcast and never getting employed or married because everyone thinks I'm a sarcastic jerk.

Thanks a lot, melonhead! :stare:

Oh shut it and get me some more Oblivion AAR. One per day is no longer enough.

[Hottentot]

Oh shut it and get me some more Oblivion AAR. One per day is no longer enough.

Oh, there will be a big update in the imminent future. And the ending too, in fact. That is, until I win in a lottery and can get Skyrim to write a sequel.

[MH]

Re the image Penguin posted.



Well I'll be. Marriage between a man and his rape victim. That exactly what it says. Huh.

Actually this is supposed to be a law that forces a person to be responsible for his actions....in a wicked way but it was written long time ago.
Better think twice before you jump on a woman!!!
(quite progressive for its time:haha:)

well....

[Penguin]

Re the image Penguin posted.

Well I'll be. Marriage between a man and his rape victim. That exactly what it says. Huh.

I am not sure what the JKV in your quote refers to, if it is King James Version, it states "force and lie with her" or "takes her by force" (=rape) in different translations: http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Deuteronomy-22-28/

To be fair, verse 25 states that a man should be killed if he rapes an engaged woman.

Yes, I know the historical context, that a rape victim should be provided for, but the point of the pic is that the bible defines many different marriage concepts, while Cathy clearly refers to the first.
Why is it that so many people think their very own interpretation is the true version of god's will? (Cathy refgerred to god's will in the interview)

[razark]

Meh. Business owner has the right to say what he wants. He must face the consequences of his actions. The public has the right to support/protest as they wish. They are also responsible for the consequences.



I just wish the lines to donate to the food bank were as long as the ones at the Chic-Fil-A yesterday.

[Penguin]

This will make me hated within my neighborhood, leads to me becoming a social outcast and never getting employed or married because everyone thinks I'm a sarcastic jerk.

Thanks a lot, melon head! :stare:

lol, welcome to my life! :D

[geetrue]

When there is nothing left to argue about on same sex marriage ...

that's when the world wins.

One world views are very popular in the world to come :yep:

[Takeda Shingen]

I am not sure what the JKV in your quote refers to

KJV does indeed refer to the King James. NIV, by contrast is the New International Version. Both are favored by main-line protestants and evangelicals. The NJB, by contrast, stands for the New Jerusalem Bible and is a widely-used Catholic english language Bible.

I initially set out to disprove that part of the image, but was surprised when I reached for the King James on the shelf next to me and read it.

Yes, I know the historical context, that a rape victim should be provided for, but the point of the pic is that the bible defines many different marriage concepts, while Cathy clearly refers to the first.

And yet, if we are to take the evangelical approach, The Holy Bible is the very word of God, and must be taken at face value whether we like it or not. The earth was created in six days. It is only several thousand years old. Slavery is the law of the land. A man must marry his rape victim.

If we take a less fundamental approach, in that The Bible is a revelation of God to an uneducated, pre-scientific, pre-industrial people, then we can take much as symbolic liberty. The six days of creation are a metaphor for the working of God. Slavery is understood as an institution of society that, while used to illustrate the teachings of God, is ultimately incompatible with His will. God works through the process of evolution, not in contrast to it. A man must take responsibility for his crimes.

The question is which side does Cathy take, and does he take it selectively.

[Blood_splat]

http://i.imgur.com/6UmAR.png

[mookiemookie]

If we as Americans take our fast food so seriously that we use it to make a political statement, then we've just proven every stereotype about the American fatass to be true.

The Chick-fil-A in the mall that's attached to my building was packed yesterday. And the worst part - I bet 50% of those people didn't vote in our elections the other day, but yet they actually thought they were proving something or making some sort of difference by eating a damn chicken sandwich. Slacktivism at it's finest.

And what's even funnier....all those photos and pictures posted on Facebook (gay friendly company) by these proud Chick-fil-A supporters - They were most likely taken from an Apple product (gay friendly company), Google Android (gay friendly company) or uploaded using a Microsoft (gay friendly company) OS. Maybe they washed down their meal with a Coke - oh yeah, they're gay friendly also. Maybe they drove there in a GM or Ford vehicle - guess what! They just supported a gay friendly corporation when they did that too.

And the other side is just as stupid. Boycotting Chick-fil-A because their CEO is some bible thumper Baptist with pretty standard Baptist beliefs? Do they not realize that a lot of their gas and oil purchases benefit some pretty brutal regimes in the middle east that kill gay people? Why is there all this outrage when a Baptist CEO of a company so religious that they're closed on Sunday says in a Baptist newspaper that he's against gay marriage. This is a shock? Come on now.

In short, this whole thing is a foolish embarrassment to both sides. I eat at Chick-fil-A because I like the food. Everyone who wants to make my lunch a political battleground can kiss my nuggets. But they can't have my Honey Roasted BBQ sauce. That stuff is crack in a plastic condiment packet.

[August]

Mookie did you see any politicians or boosters working the crowd?

[mookiemookie]

Mookie did you see any politicians or boosters working the crowd?

What's that have to do with the price of rice?

[August]

What's that have to do with the price of rice?

I was just curious if anyone was trying to motivate those people to vote. I'd expect it'd be prime politiking grounds.

[mookiemookie]

I just walked by and didn't see anyone like that, but I guess you're right, that'd be a great place to hand out flyers to a bunch of like minded folks.

[Platapus]

like others have said, a business owner has the right to express his or her opinions. The citizens have the right to do business or not to do business with them.

If it were not for the media, this would not have been such a big deal.

Thanks to the media this company got a lot of free advertising, which may have been the entire intent.

[Ducimus]

Can i be the first one to say the following words in this particular combination:


"Chik-Fil-a; Dude! I don't care."

[August]

I just walked by and didn't see anyone like that, but I guess you're right, that'd be a great place to hand out flyers to a bunch of like minded folks.


Well for the record I was just wondering if anyone was taking advantage of the situation not that I was hoping they would.

[frau kaleun]

To be fair, verse 25 states that a man should be killed if he rapes an engaged woman.


To be even more fair, that's not because he raped another human being, but because he vandalized another man's property. And the most likely reason that he has to marry the "unspoken-for" property is because his defilement of it means its current owner will no longer be able to get full price for it on the open market. Any perceived benefit to the property as a result of the exchange is a secondary consideration.

In conclusion, the Old Testament can bite me. :P

[Rockstar]

God the author of a morally heinous crime? C'mon guys and gals. Im not the most versed biblical scholar in the world but what does Dueteronomy mean to anyone? Probably nothing. In Hebrew it has meaning, if im not mistaken (MH help me out here) it means words of words already said or spoken. 'Devarim'' is simply clarifying something not specifically mentioned the first time the commandment was written.

The original commandment can be found in the christian titled book Exodus. In Shemot 22:16 It says if a man seduces a woman and lies with her and is found out he is to marry her, not permitted to divorce and he will also be responsible to pay the bride price to young womans father. Since it was seduction it is consensual between two people. However the man is not permitted to just go about as he pleases sowing his wild oats. So they both must follow through with their action and they are to be married. Devarim concerns the same issue but goes further and identifies the minimum amount of the bride price. 'To take' a woman and lie with her in this instance is speaking of seduction. It is what we still call today a shot gun wedding.

The crime which you are speaking of is if a man is accused of forcable rape the commandment is dramatically different. He is to be tried and punished as if he had commited murder and if found guilty he was put to death.

[Sailor Steve]

In conclusion, the Old Testament can bite me. :P
Hmmmm.

[CaptainMattJ.]

http://i.imgur.com/6UmAR.png


The Chick-fil-A in the mall that's attached to my building was packed yesterday. And the worst part - I bet 50% of those people didn't vote in our elections the other day, but yet they actually thought they were proving something or making some sort of difference by eating a damn chicken sandwich. Slacktivism at it's finest.

And what's even funnier....all those photos and pictures posted on Facebook (gay friendly company) by these proud Chick-fil-A supporters - They were most likely taken from an Apple product (gay friendly company), Google Android (gay friendly company) or uploaded using a Microsoft (gay friendly company) OS. Maybe they washed down their meal with a Coke - oh yeah, they're gay friendly also. Maybe they drove there in a GM or Ford vehicle - guess what! They just supported a gay friendly corporation when they did that too.

And the other side is just as stupid. Boycotting Chick-fil-A because their CEO is some bible thumper Baptist with pretty standard Baptist beliefs? Do they not realize that a lot of their gas and oil purchases benefit some pretty brutal regimes in the middle east that kill gay people? Why is there all this outrage when a Baptist CEO of a company so religious that they're closed on Sunday says in a Baptist newspaper that he's against gay marriage. This is a shock? Come on now.

Excuse the long re-quote but QFT.
i dont care all to much what some fast food joint president thinks about gay marriage, he is one man. i dont agree with his views, and i certainly dont agree with his exorbitant contributions to organized anti-gay marriage groups, and thats all i care to think about him and his opinions. there arent any chic-fil-as anywhere near here so i dont eat there, but i would if the food is good. His singular vote doesnt outweigh others, nor does his voice because he owns a restaurant chain. if you were to argue to issue, it would best be directed against organized groups.

I do find it hilarious how people will boycott oero because they made a rainbow colored oreo but will fully support chic-fil-a's views and opinons because it's "all about free speech". Its ALL about free speech until someone supports the other side in which case it revolting and shameful. It was obvious they had alternative feelings, many of them, and used "free speech" as a cover because they dont have the cajones to stand up for what they believe in and face the other side. It happens to be the same way with illegal immigration. And racial discrepancies against "minorities" and other groups. People dont seem to have the steadfast attitude to stand up for what they believe in anymore, except the people who are usually in the wrong (excluding this issue, in which its those in the wrong cant stand up for what they believe in, apparently).

[August]

About that Oreo boycott. Apparently it was manufactured by ABC.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/06/27/507005/abc-news-invents-fictional-anti-gay-oreo-boycott/

Though an individual can choose to boycott a product, a boycott is, by definition, only effective if organized on a large scale. ABC News chose to ignore this distinction when it reported yesterday, “Oreo Pride: Rainbow-Stuffed Cookie Sparks Boycott.” The article highlighted the rainbow Oreo posted on Facebook this week, which was accompanied by the message, “Proudly support love!” Though the innocuously inclusive message has largely been praised, ABC News drew its conclusions solely from some negative comments posted on Facebook:

But while many of the comments were supportive, some Facebook users pledged to boycott the cookie because of the post.
“I’ll never buy Oreo again,” one commenter wrote. “Disgusted with oreos,” wrote another. “Being gay is an abmonitation in GOd’s eyes i wont be buying them anymore.”


If such journalistic conclusions could be drawn from random typo-ridden comments on Internet content, news headlines would instantly lose all integrity. Two Facebook comments do not constitute a boycott, nor would 100 anti-gay comments even warrant calling the posting “controversial.” Culture wars have never merely been about a “difference of opinion.” Controversy is manufactured by such headlines that over-emphasize negative voices and draw false conclusions about their impact.

[MH]

http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/9100000/Funny-cookie-monster-sesame-street-9161044-320-310.jpg?1344000619833

[Morts]

How i feel as a european during this whole Chick-fil-a deal

https://images.nonexiste.net/popular/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Being-a-European-on-Reddit-these-days.jpeg

[Ducimus]

http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/9100000/Funny-cookie-monster-sesame-street-9161044-320-310.jpg


Protip for hotlinking: Close all instances of the image in your browser, clear your cache for the last hour, then preview your post. :O:

[August]

Adam Smith, (now) former CFO and treasurer of medical supplies manufacturer Vante, caused quite a stir when he put up a video of himself bullying a Chick-fil-A drive-thru employee in Tucson on YouTube.

http://youtu.be/Jg-jzlWcc0E

[Ducimus]

You know, i'm not big on bible thumpers, and I'm a borderline homophobe, but come on. This is ridiculous. I watched that video up until he opened his mouth to the lady at the drive in window with, "hateful corporation". That was it, i couldn't watch anymore. There's a point where self important, self entitled douchbags becomes intolerable. I think that was it.

[em2nought]

All this talk had me so hungry for a sandwich that I had to stop for one yesterday. Best way to deal with the bad press - coupons! Or even better chicken on Sundays! That's when I always hunger for Chic-fil-a anyway. :D

[Catfish]

How i feel as a european during this whole Chick-fil-a deal

https://images.nonexiste.net/popular/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Being-a-European-on-Reddit-these-days.jpeg


^ :rotfl2: Exactly that.

But really, how bigoted can one be ?
I say i believe in the bible and all start buying my chicken ? WTH ?
B.t.w. there are numerous examples in the bible of homosexuality, sometimes it is ok and a few pages further it is not. The bible contradicts itself all the time, not only in that aspect.

I wonder what happened if this king of chickens had ever seen the "Life of Brian" ?
"All who believe in god have to eat chicken, i have seen the truth. It will also help to take off your left sandal !"

Stupidity and self-righteousness knows no bounds :dead:

[u crank]

Adam Smith, (now) former CFO and treasurer of medical supplies manufacturer Vante, caused quite a stir when he put up a video of himself bullying a Chick-fil-A drive-thru employee in Tucson on YouTube.

http://youtu.be/Jg-jzlWcc0E

Very classy. Hassling a minimum wage employee at a fast food restaurant.

I'm impressed.

[CaptainMattJ.]

Its funny because they believe people should be denied the right to marry, and cite other than religious reasons, yet those people getting married is
1: none of their business
2: would not effect the opposing people's daily lives
3: would not change how openly gay people are.
4: NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS.

so why be so staunch as to deny them a very simple right? Why pour effort into something of such non-importance.

[mookiemookie]

I still find it sad that fried meat has become the moral dilemma of the year and something to motivate people politically.

This country is screwed.

[Takeda Shingen]

Its funny because they believe people should be denied the right to marry

To be fair, we don't know what the woman working the drive-thru in that video believes. For all we know, she could be gay and/or a supporter of gay marriage. What she was probably believing in at that time was her employment and likely didn't appreciate being harrassed at work over an issue that she neither started nor participated in. All she did was go to work that day.

Whatever personal views we hold, I don't think it is unreasonable to say that vitriol aimed at the people working the counters at these resturaunts is vitriol misplaced.

[Ducimus]

I still find it sad that fried meat has become the moral dilemma of the year and something to motivate people politically.

This country is screwed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icmRCixQrx8
Oh, and.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=U8rhIZJAdd0

[vienna]

First I want to post this:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/08/chick-fil-a-kiss-in-lapd-called-to-hollywood-store-over-media-mob.html


Los Angeles police were called to a Chick-fil-A restaurant in Hollywood on Friday amid a national "kiss day" related to the company president's opposition to gay marriage.

Authorities said the call was prompted by a heavy media presence at the restaurant that was making it difficult for the business to operate. There were no problems related to protests.


It eems the greatest problem is the media and not either side in the controversy...


To be fair, we don't know what the woman working the drive-thru in that video believes. For all we know, she could be gay and/or a supporter of gay marriage. What she was probably believing in at that time was her employment and likely didn't appreciate being harrassed at work over an issue that she neither started nor participated in. All she did was go to work that day.

Whatever personal views we hold, I don't think it is unreasonable to say that vitriol aimed at the people working the counters at these resturaunts is vitriol misplaced.


Takeda is dead on right. To prove the point, here is an earlier news report about the same Chick-fil-A restaurant cited in the first link dated 7/27/1,2 fully a week ago:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/27/jeremiah-cillpam-hollywood-chick-fil-a_n_1710913.html

As Takeda pointed out, not everyone involved with the chain is in lock-step with the CEO.

I live in Hollywood and the restaurant is not far from my home. I have passed it many times, but I have never eaten there. I have heard that the quality of the food is much like someone previously posted, "over-priced KFC" (and I am not too fond of KFC chicken, either). I doubt, other than the raving supporters of either side, many people will be influenced by anything other than their preference in food in making a decision to eat there or not.

Interestingly, there is an In-And-Out Burger franchise just down the block from the Hollywood Chick-fil-A. The chain is family-owned and the owners are very religious Christians. They have a long standing practice of printing references to Bible verses discreetly on their food packaging material. The references are very, very small and you would more or less have to seek them out. Here is the Wikipedia article about the chain; scroll down to the "Bible Verses" section to see examples of the packaging and a listing of the relevant verses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-N-Out_Burger

Another somewhat amusing note about In-And-Out Burgers: They used to give away bumper stickers that read "In-And-Out Burger". They soon had to replace the original design because some wags were altering the bumper stickers by removing the 'B' and the 's':

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/__OUGN0C31VE/SrQKyWNc3AI/AAAAAAAAAUU/CBDUSSjIxkk/s400/in-out-sticker.gif

...

[mookiemookie]

I can give you the Chick-fil-A report for today - no hot lesbians having a kiss in. In fact, no lesbians at all. I got my grilled chicken club with a side of disappointment.

[u crank]

You guys are making me hungry. :O:

[vienna]

You guys are making me hungry. :O:


For the chicken or the kissing lesbians?... :D

...

[u crank]

For the chicken or the kissing lesbians?... :D

...

Thinking.......

[August]

Having both would be better... :yep:

[CaptainMattJ.]

To be fair, we don't know what the woman working the drive-thru in that video believes. For all we know, she could be gay and/or a supporter of gay marriage. What she was probably believing in at that time was her employment and likely didn't appreciate being harrassed at work over an issue that she neither started nor participated in. All she did was go to work that day.

Whatever personal views we hold, I don't think it is unreasonable to say that vitriol aimed at the people working the counters at these resturaunts is vitriol misplaced.
AH, but i wasnt exactly referring to the video, more as a generality. I thought the video was misplaced and harsh, seeing as how she is simply an employee that is working hard and who happens to be working at a restaurant whos president somewhat recently announced his stance openly.

i understand that it is mainly the views of the president of chic-fil-a that supports bans on gay marriage, not necessarily an employee

[Weiss Pinguin]

All I know is, I had some darn good chicken on Wednesday, and I know I'll be having a heck of a lot more good chicken when I get back to school. If people want to boycott it, well, good for them. That just means shorter lines for me :yeah:

[Stealhead]

Maybe Zaxbys who is the direct competitor to Chick-Fil-A will come out saying
something pro or anti gay and jump on the band wagon.

I think the entire thing was a gimmick to get people to show up at Chick-Fil-A stores.

[CaptainHaplo]

Funny how no one seems to want to deal with the real issue.

Its about free speech. For mayors to come out and threaten - for a city official to write a letter - on official letterhead and as speaker of the council - trying to harm the legitimate free enterprise of a business based on one executive's personal view and morals - is despicable. The same would be the case if government officials were trying to hamper a gay friendly company.

Free speech is the issue - not gay marriage. Government officials should not be trying to punish or hamper free enterprise because the official holds a personal opinion that differs with the businessman.

[frau kaleun]

Free speech means you get to say stuff. It doesn't mean there are no consequences to what gets said.

He exercised his right to free speech when he opened his mouth, and since he successfully expressed his opinion it's pretty clear that his right to say what he wanted to say wasn't violated. He doesn't have the right to be free of the consequences of his own actions.

I'm sorry, but if you say something in public that you know is going to be controversial, it's kinda pathetic to act all butthurt about it when some people are offended.

[CaptainHaplo]

frau - I don't have a problem with people being offended and choosing to boycott if if they want. My issue is with government officials doing so in an OFFICIAL capacity - meaning government will determine if your personal morals are acceptable.

Are you ok with government deciding what is and is not acceptable for you - or someone else - to have as a personal belief?

When a mayor says that a business should not be allowed to open or expand in their city based on the personal belief of one executive - that is governmental discrimination.

When the Speaker of the NY City Council sends a letter on official letterhead urging NYU to boot C-F-A because of the personal view of the COO, its government interfering in free enterprise.

Those actions by governmental officials - in their official roles of representing government itself - are disgraceful. People can be offended - fine. But government should not be trying to penalize a business based on a personal moral belief. If a business was discriminating against people - that is one thing. But its not - yet some in government are trying to discriminate against a business based on personal beliefs. That is disgraceful.

[mookiemookie]

Oh, horse crap. Those mayors are expressing the very same right to free speech that you seem to want to bang the drum about, but only if it's your side doing the free speaking. Frau's right. Free speech doesn't mean that you're immune to someone else telling you that your freely spoken opinion is bigoted and not welcome.

Saying you don't want them in your city and urging other to cut ties with them is not the same as denying someone a business permit. The right wing persecution complex strikes again.

[Takeda Shingen]

Are you ok with government deciding what is and is not acceptable for you - or someone else - to have as a personal belief?

You mean like deciding who you can marry and who you can't? You're right; so long as no harm or legal disadvantage is given to another, government has no place in personal belief or behavior.

[mookiemookie]

You mean like deciding who you can marry and who you can't? You're right; so long as no harm or legal disadvantage is given to another, government has no place in personal belief or behavior.

http://i47.tinypic.com/2vi2dxt.jpg

[CaptainHaplo]

You mean like deciding who you can marry and who you can't? You're right; so long as no harm or legal disadvantage is given to another, government has no place in personal belief or behavior.

Last I checked, the COO of CFA doesn't get to decide who marries or not. He has an opinion.

To equate that with a Speaker of the City Council sending out a letter on official stationary trying to get NYU to cancel a business contract is hardly the same. Having a mayor say that a business should not try to come closer to his city is not the same.

That would be causing legal disadvantage and harm - using the force of government. Your saying you have no problem with that?

Do government officials have a right to free speech? Sure they do. But not on government letterhead or referencings their office in doing so. So what your saying is that if I was an anti-gay mayor of Charlotte, NC - I could hold a press conference and make a public statement that Ben and Jerry's or Amazon is not welcome in the city because they are supportive of gay rights if I wanted to? Your saying that if UNCC had a contract with Apple computers it would be ok for me to write a letter on official letterhead to remind them of my office and urge them to cancel it because of Apple's history of gay friendly policies? All of that would be perfectly acceptable to you? Really? I call bullcrap on that one.

[Takeda Shingen]

Last I checked, the COO of CFA doesn't get to decide who marries or not. He has an opinion

You're right. And you're right that governement has no right to censor this man's right to that expression. What you are missing is that this right and the right to marry who you wish are the same issue. Government should not be involved in either. It's all about people's basic rights.

[Platapus]

To equate that with a Speaker of the City Council sending out a letter on official stationary trying to get NYU to cancel a business contract is hardly the same. Having a mayor say that a business should not try to come closer to his city is not the same.

Just so we can all discuss this from the same data, do you have a citation for these events? It might help set a framework for discussion.

[CaptainHaplo]

You can find the letter here:

http://politicker.com/2012/07/quinn-breaks-with-bloomberg-over-chick-fil-a-not-welcome-in-nyc/

Note that it is in fact on official stationary and the first thing the writer mentions is her official governmentary post. Note how she states "I do not want establishments in my city that hold such discriminitory views". In other words - she disagrees so she wants to have their legal right to do business in "her" city ended. Also note her signature - again referencing her position as Speaker of the NY City Counsel.

Is that government enough for you?

How about Mayor Menino?
http://www.towleroad.com/2012/07/boston-mayor-chick-fil-a-move-along.html
His letter - again on official stationary and signed as Mayor - telling Chik-fil-a not to come to Boston...
http://hrc.org/files/assets/resources/menino-letter.pdf

Mayor Lee of SF? Stating "ChickFilA to San Francisco is 40 miles away & I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer." At least he did his via twitter....
http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-san-franciso-mayor-to-chickfila-keep-out-20120726,0,4169780.story

Need I even mention the Chicago Mayor?

I don't care what the issue is - I would be defending Ben and Jerry's for their right to do business regardless of their personal views. Government discriminiation for personal morals (when no illegal action such as discrimination against employees or customers has occured) is a very dangerous and real attempt for government - through the use of the government stick - to define what is an acceptable or unacceptable PERSONAL moral ethic.

I can't believe ya'll don't see that. I guarantee had this been some hick arkansas councilperson blasting a gay friendly business - many here would be singing a different tune.

[Takeda Shingen]

I can't believe ya'll don't see that. I guarantee had this been some hick arkansas councilperson blasting a gay friendly business - many here would be singing a different tune.

I do see it. What I can't believe is that you can't see that it is all the same issue. Of course, I have repeated this three times, so I'm not holding out much hope.

[CaptainHaplo]

I do see it. What I can't believe is that you can't see that it is all the same issue. Of course, I have repeated this three times, so I'm not holding out much hope.

Takeda - I don't disagree with you. I have said before on here that I don't believe it is the proper role of government to be involced in the "business" of marriage at all. The only reason they ARE involved is because they can make money off of it. License fees, seperate tax rates, etc.

My issue is not about marriage at all. My issue is governmental officials using the power of their office in an attempt to limit, cause harm to and deter a legal business from being able to engage in commerce - all based on the governmental officials personal moral views.

[Takeda Shingen]

My issue is not about marriage at all. My issue is governmental officials using the power of their office in an attempt to limit, cause harm to and deter a legal business from being able to engage in commerce - all based on the governmental officials personal moral views.

And my issue is that your issue is every bit as hypocritical as you claimed everyone else was. Denying life, liberty and the persuit of happiness based on personal moral views is wrong, whether that liberty is engaging in commerce or having your marriage legally recognized. To protect one man's liberty from government-enforced morality with one hand while denying another man's liberty in the name of government-enforced morality with the other is hypocrictical in even the most basic sense.

Those two issues are, in reality, the same single issue--government in your life.

[CaptainHaplo]

And my issue is that your issue is every bit as hypocritical as you claimed everyone else was.

Funny - we agree that government should not be involved in marriage. So I am hypocritical for agreeing with you?

Denying life, liberty and the persuit of happiness based on personal moral views is wrong, whether that liberty is engaging in commerce or having your marriage legally recognized.

Where have I denied - or try to deny - life, liberty or the pursuit of liberty? While I have a personal moral view, I have not advocated gays be killed, imprisoned or have self-determination removed from them.

To protect one man's liberty from government-enforced morality with one hand while denying another man's liberty in the name of government-enforced morality with the other is hypocrictical in even the most basic sense.

And again you claim that I think it is the role of government to enforce morality in marriage - when I have made clear that ideally - government should have NO role in the question at all.

Those two issues are, in reality, the same single issue--government in your life.

And I consistently said that both are wrong - so how am I hypocritical? Its ok to disagree with my personal moral belief, but me having a personal belief that you or others do not like doesn't make me or others who agree with me "hypocrits".

[Takeda Shingen]

Funny - we agree that government should not be involved in marriage. So I am hypocritical for agreeing with you?

Because you still support that restriction of freedom on homosexuals.

Where have I denied - or try to deny - life, liberty or the pursuit of liberty? While I have a personal moral view, I have not advocated gays be killed, imprisoned or have self-determination removed from them.

No, you just continue to advocate the denial of the same rights that you hold.

And again you claim that I think it is the role of government to enforce morality in marriage - when I have made clear that ideally - government should have NO role in the question at all.

And we are in agreement on that.

And I consistently said that both are wrong - so how am I hypocritical? Its ok to disagree with my personal moral belief, but me having a personal belief that you or others do not like doesn't make me or others who agree with me "hypocrits".

Let's be fair. You don't know what I think about God and gay marriage, but you do know what I think about civil society and gay marriage. Since we do not live in a theocracy, we seperate the two.

I refer to your repeatedly stated stance in the NC Gay Marriage Ban thread from awhile back. You do say that the government should not involve itself in marriage, but then proceed to give a myriad of reasons as to why the government should restrict homosexual unions to something less than marriage. That, combined with your stance here in support of other's basic life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is hypocritical. You would support some rights while denying others.

[CaptainHaplo]

Because you still support that restriction of freedom on homosexuals.

I support restrictions of freedom on lots of people. I support restrictions on murderers. I support restrictions on child molesters. I support restrictions on politicians. I support restrictions on pastors. I support restrictions on the mentally ill. I support restrictions on the blind. Need I go on?

Again - I haven't ever supported a RESTRICTION on homosexuals. Have I said I don't believe they should be able to redefine the term to match what THEY want it to be? Yes, but supporting a traditional definition of a word is not hypocrtical.

I refer to your repeatedly stated stance in the NC Gay Marriage Ban thread from awhile back. You do say that the government should not involve itself in marriage, but then proceed to give a myriad of reasons as to why the government should restrict homosexual unions to something less than marriage.

And here you go wrong. There is a big difference between something equal to marriage (Unions) and something LESS than marriage. I have stated my support to allow equal rights - inheritence, medical and legal, tax, etc - to homosexual couples. In fact - I even pointed out that MOST (but not all) of these "rights" are already available to homosexual partners.

That, combined with your stance here in support of other's basic life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is hypocritical.

So us agreeing and me stating I have no problem with homosexual couples having access to the exact same rights that come with a marriage somehow makes me hypocritical? Really? You must have a different definition of the word hypocrit than most people then.

You would support some rights while denying others.

Yes, I support the right to bear arms - but I don't support felons (like murderers) having that right. Does that make me a hypocrit? I support the right to pursue happiness, but I don't support child molesters preying on children. Does that make me a hypocrit? I support the right of free and unobstructed travel - but I do not support the right of the blind to drive. That must make me a hypocrit too, right? I support homosexuals having the same responsibilities and benefits of marriage - but I do not support a small segment of society being able to forcibly redefine a traditional, historical term for the entirity of society.

Let me be clear - I don't approve of homosexuality. However, what other people do in private is none of my business, its between them and the Almighty. He will deal with them as He sees fit.

Takeda - you call me hypocritical because I support a traditisonal definition of a word - yet is it not hypocritical for a small subset of people to require and expect that I and the rest of society must accept a homosexual redefintion of the word marriage? Its like the safety who gets beat on a downfield play, tackles the reciever as the pass is on its way, and then complains that it was the wide out's fault while asking for a flag for offensive pass interference. They say its "not fair that others force" them to accept a traditional definition, yet they simply want to be the "others" that can force a redefinition.

[August]

10 points to Haplo for the pre-season ramp up football analogy. Friggin safetys... :shifty: :)

[mookiemookie]

but I do not support a small segment of society being able to forcibly redefine a traditional, historical term for the entirity of society.

They said a lot of those same type of things about blacks in the 1960s too. Equal rights are for everyone, no matter how small the group. Equality isn't something consented to by a popular vote, so this "small segment of society" business is an argument that holds no water.

[Tribesman]

Takeda - you call me hypocritical because I support a traditisonal definition of a word
Same old same old.:Kaleun_Yawn:
Traditional definition is a business contract between two or more parties, nothing more nothing less.
In your last foray you managed to get as far as the "tradition" where one church started stepping in and running its own version of the government business of regulating the contracts as a money making influence peddling sideline.

So you are supporting your version of a fairly modern interpretation of a much changed and much evolved word and attempting to stop history at a fixed point of your choosing and impose that forever on the rest of the world regardless of reality and your only reasoning is your interpretation of your beliefs which you think are somehow right and should count as right for others regardless of what anyone else thinks.

Again - I haven't ever supported a RESTRICTION on homosexuals.
CAPS LOCK strikes with added emphasis:haha:, you support a restriction because you are not happy with normal definitions you don't like and wish to restrict others because you don't like it and want them to play your way instead.

They said a lot of those same type of things about blacks in the 1960s too.
Who is that bunch of "christians" who, just stopped some people getting married in a church in Miss. because they don't want no blacks ruining their fine white tradition?
Good timing eh Mookie.

[Sailor Steve]

I support restrictions of freedom on lots of people. I support restrictions on murderers. I support restrictions on child molesters. I support restrictions on politicians. I support restrictions on pastors. I support restrictions on the mentally ill. I support restrictions on the blind. Need I go on?
This is called selective reasoning. The restrictions you cite are all based on actual harm caused. Murderers and child molesters give up their rights based on the harm cause and their denial to rights of their victims. Restrictions on the mentally ill and the blind are based on the potential harm to themselves and others. Politicians and Pastors? These are people who have control over others. They need to be monitored based on the emotional power the wield. Gay marriage has no such power, and cannot be shown to cause any such harm. Therefore your reasoning is selective, and based on personal bias rather than any real cause.

Again - I haven't ever supported a RESTRICTION on homosexuals. Have I said I don't believe they should be able to redefine the term to match what THEY want it to be? Yes, but supporting a traditional definition of a word is not hypocrtical.
Your belief in this regard is not hypocritical. Your desire to use the government to enforce it is.

Takeda - you call me hypocritical because I support a traditisonal definition of a word - yet is it not hypocritical for a small subset of people to require and expect that I and the rest of society must accept a homosexual redefintion of the word marriage? <remove silly analogy> They say its "not fair that others force" them to accept a traditional definition, yet they simply want to be the "others" that can force a redefinition.
Does redifining that word cause harm to the "old school"? No. Does it hurt anyone else? No. So what's the problem, other than personal animosity? Again, the "hypocrite" part comes not from the desire to resist that change, but to use the government to enforce the resistance while claiming to be against government interference. You want it both ways, and while it doesn't fit the dictionary definition of "hypocrite", it does make your line of argument less than honest.

[Takeda Shingen]

Takeda - you call me hypocritical because I support a traditisonal definition of a word -

You mean polygamy?

Honestly, I didn't think that I was going to get anywhere here. Your mind is made up, and there is no room for movement.

[Tribesman]

You mean polygamy?

No, the tradition of drawing up the contract before birth, fulfillment as soon as possible after a medical examination of the goods then copulation in front of witnesses to confirm the deal was carried through then maybe pop out a couple of future assets before the bride hits the teens.

Its tradition isn't it:yep:

[CaptainHaplo]

They said a lot of those same type of things about blacks in the 1960s too. Equal rights are for everyone, no matter how small the group. Equality isn't something consented to by a popular vote, so this "small segment of society" business is an argument that holds no water.

Again, your avoiding both the point of the thread - and the legal reality.
Are you really telling me that Federal recognition of civil unions - specifically equating them to and granting the same rights as marriage - would somehow be less than equal? So how do you figure that if 2+2 equals 4 but if you reverse the numbers to make it 2+2 it somehow doesn't equal 4 anymore? :doh:

Yes - I would support such a Federal recognition of civil unions - just as I support DoMA. There is no reason both could not exist. The reason the gay lobby doesn't want to have this is because the issue is not equal rights or acceptance - its about forcing society to mainstream their behavior whethet society wants to or not....

Now - as for the "black" argument - are you really going to try and equate people objecting of the use of the word "marriage" for relationships between homosexuals to the widespread acceptance of lynchings, denials of service in restaraunts, etc - of blacks? Try selling that to many of those that marched during that time - see what the reaction is. Equating word usage to widespread murder - that's not a stretch at all....

@SailorSteve
Politicians and Pastors? These are people who have control over others.

Politicians - exactly my original point. Politicians abusing their office to harm should be stopped. So your agreeing with me that politicians shouldn't use their office as has occured? Good.

Pastors? Pastors do not have control over people. No one makes a person go to church. No pastor can bring the force of government against someone. No pastor can require a person to act in accordance with a religious tenent or theology.

Or did you mean how pastor's are in a position of "authority" over a small subset of a community? If so - where do you draw the line - after all - Parents are a small subset of a community with authority over othes - and most parents do not agree with same sex marriage (though many, like myself, have no issue with Civil Unions) - so parents should be monitored, restricted, etc so that they teach their kids whatever moral or ethical values are acceptable before who?..... the government? the community? one or another subset of people who feel that their way is the only way? If you answer yes to any of that - would you feel the same if government, the community or some theological group wanted to teach it was ok to kill gays, the mentally retarded, the homeless, veterans, the aged or any other "group" that it found unacceptable? Of course not - but then that position would make you a hypocrit....

So tell me Steve, Mookie - do you have a problem with polygamy between consenting adults? Should such be legalized? Why or why not?

Also Mookie - do you have a problem with the actions of the mayors or the speaker of the NY city council?

[Sailor Steve]

@SailorSteve

Politicians - exactly my original point. Politicians abusing their office to harm should be stopped. So your agreeing with me that politicians shouldn't use their office as has occured? Good.
No, I was pointing out that there is a valid reason for supporting restrictions on all the people you mentioned. There is no such valid reason for restrictions on gay marriage. You now attempt to skate around that point by highlighting a point of agreement.

Pastors? Pastors do not have control over people. No one makes a person go to church. No pastor can bring the force of government against someone. No pastor can require a person to act in accordance with a religious tenent or theology.
Then why do you support restrictions on them? What restrictions were you talking about. Again you seem to be trying to change the subject by expanding on it.

Or did you mean how pastor's are in a position of "authority" over a small subset of a community? If so - where do you draw the line - after all - Parents are a small subset of a community with authority over othes - and most parents do not agree with same sex marriage (though many, like myself, have no issue with Civil Unions) - so parents should be monitored, restricted, etc so that they teach their kids whatever moral or ethical values are acceptable before who?..... the government? the community? one or another subset of people who feel that their way is the only way? If you answer yes to any of that - would you feel the same if government, the community or some theological group wanted to teach it was ok to kill gays, the mentally retarded, the homeless, veterans, the aged or any other "group" that it found unacceptable? Of course not - but then that position would make you a hypocrit....
None of this has anything to do with what I said. You said you supported restrictions on certain segments of society in an attempt to equate those segments with gay marriage. I pointed out that some of those segments need restrictions for specific reasons. Gays do not need those restrictions, yet you would enforce them anyway. Why are you even talking about killing anyone? This again has nothing to do with this subject.

So tell me Steve, Mookie - do you have a problem with polygamy between consenting adults? Should such be legalized? Why or why not?
I don't know if I have a problem with it or not. It's not something I think about. If it comes up as a topic I will think about it, and maybe form an opinion. We do have polygamy here in Utah. It's illegal, but approximately 1% of the population practice it. There are problems with fathers forcing their underage daughters into unwanted marriages, and occasionally one group has been known to blow up another group's church. On the other hand most of the adult women interviewed seem to enjoy the arrangement. As long as the harm to children and the violent activities are curtailed, and no one is hurt, I'm not sure it would be such a bad thing.

Now why don't you quit trying to change the subject?

[Takeda Shingen]

I believe that mookie is refering to this:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Seperate-but-Equal.jpg

You are advocating a 'separate but equal' policy in terms of gay marriage. That, as history has shown, is never equal.

EDIT: Oh, and yes, polygamy should be legalized as well, and for the reasons I stated above.

[Tribesman]

Pastors? Pastors do not have control over people.
Tell that to the poor Christians who had to move their marriage last week because the pastor agreed with the good ol southern "christians" that the couple were too not white :doh:

Now - as for the "black" argument - are you really going to try and equate people objecting of the use of the word "marriage" for relationships between homosexuals to the widespread acceptance of lynchings, denials of service in restaraunts, etc - of blacks?
Bigotry is bigotry. Scale of bigotry is irrelevant as it is still bigotry.
If you are so hung up on your prefered definition of a word do you happen to throw a fit if a carpenter marries two pieces of timber?

So tell me Steve, Mookie - do you have a problem with polygamy between consenting adults? Should such be legalized? Why or why not?

Polygamy comes down to a massive set of financial complications, due to marriage being nothing but a business contract....
In a Traditional manner of course:rotfl2:

[CaptainHaplo]

No

So you don't agree.

Now why don't you quit trying to change the subject?

Me changing the subject? We can deal with the other questions in another thread - but lets look at my original post - my question was: is it appropriate for government officials to use the power of their office to attempt to interfere, harm or block the exercise of free enterprise because the official disagrees with the moral stance of a company or executive. I made that question very clear - it was not I who sidetracked this thread into yet another debate about homosexual marriage - or hypocrisy.

So I asked you if you agreed that official government interference in free enterprise because of an objection to an executive's morals is wrong. You said no. So you are fine with government officials discriminating against and causing harm to a company over moral beliefs? Really?

[mookiemookie]

Again, your avoiding both the point of the thread - and the legal reality.
Are you really telling me that Federal recognition of civil unions - specifically equating them to and granting the same rights as marriage - would somehow be less than equal? So how do you figure that if 2+2 equals 4 but if you reverse the numbers to make it 2+2 it somehow doesn't equal 4 anymore? :doh: Yes, I'm really telling you that separate but equal is inherently unequal, and so has the Supreme Court.

So tell me Steve, Mookie - do you have a problem with polygamy between consenting adults? Should such be legalized? Why or why not? Red herring. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_(fallacy))

Also Mookie - do you have a problem with the actions of the mayors or the speaker of the NY city council? Free speech is free speech.

[Tribesman]

Yes, I'm really telling you that separate but equal is inherently unequal, and so has the Supreme Court.

Funny that isn't it, comes back nicely what with him walking straight into it in terms of politicians calling for boycotts over others "moral" issues(which is of course a matter for those that elect those particular individuals anyway).
So mookie do you think Haplo deliberately walked himself into a Montgomery situation or was he just going off blindly without thinking it through .....again?:03:

Free speech is free speech.
And consequences are consequences.
If someone wants to put money into some political theocracy groups then you can expect people who don't like your strange ideas to target your money and the groups, that is the consequence.
If a politician wants to take a stand on an issue and people don't agree with it then they face the ballot, that is the consequence.

[mookiemookie]

Funny that isn't it, comes back nicely what with him walking straight into it in terms of politicians calling for boycotts over others "moral" issues(which is of course a matter for those that elect those particular individuals anyway).
So mookie do you think Haplo deliberately walked himself into a Montgomery situation or was he just going off blindly without thinking it through .....again?:03:
Oh I think he's just trying to avoid admitting that the two situations are more similar than they are different.

And consequences are consequences.
If someone wants to put money into some political theocracy groups then you can expect people who don't like your strange ideas to target your money and the groups, that is the consequence.
If a politician wants to take a stand on an issue and people don't agree with it then they face the ballot, that is the consequence.

Great point. If you don't like what they say, vote 'em out. Politicians use their bully pulpit all the time to try and influence all sorts of business. This isn't anything new or shocking.

[CaptainHaplo]

Well its nice to see my stalker is still following me around LOL.

So mookie, a conservative politician threatening to block a company expansion - or trying to harm their business - in an official capacity - because they might be pro gay marriage is perfectly ok with you then, right?

After all, free speech is free speech.

[mookiemookie]

So mookie, a conservative politician threatening to block a company expansion - or trying to harm their business - in an official capacity - because they might be pro gay marriage is perfectly ok with you then, right?

After all, free speech is free speech.

Happens every day here in Texas.

[CaptainHaplo]

Happens every day here in Texas.

Can you provide any documentation to such a thing?

If so, I can assure you I will personally contact the office of said official and express my displeasure. To do such a thing - regardless of the politics, is an abuse of office.

Its ok to have a personal view - its another to try to use the power of an office to harm a private entity for not agreeing with you.

So - who else agrees with mookie that such a thing is perfectly acceptable?

[August]

Great point. If you don't like what they say, vote 'em out. Politicians use their bully pulpit all the time to try and influence all sorts of business. This isn't anything new or shocking.

My old mayor Buddy Cianci thought the same way you do but that 5 1/2 year stretch he did in the Federal pen kinda disabused him of that idea.

[Sailor Steve]

So you don't agree.
I explained myself quite clearly, but you didn't quote or answer that part. You either didn't read what I wrote, or you intentionally ignored it. Prevarication is not debate.

Me changing the subject? We can deal with the other questions in another thread - but lets look at my original post - my question was: is it appropriate for government officials to use the power of their office to attempt to interfere, harm or block the exercise of free enterprise because the official disagrees with the moral stance of a company or executive. I made that question very clear - it was not I who sidetracked this thread into yet another debate about homosexual marriage - or hypocrisy.
Yes, it was you who sidetracked it. It was you pointed out that you wish for government to withhold the right of gays to marry, and you've been dancing around that accusation but never quite answering it. So now it's time for you to answer a direct question: Do you or do you not wish for government to deny gays the right to marry? Simple question, but one you keep avoiding.

So I asked you if you agreed that official government interference in free enterprise because of an objection to an executive's morals is wrong. You said no. So you are fine with government officials discriminating against and causing harm to a company over moral beliefs? Really?
Where did you ask me that. To repeat myself, I said your comparison of public officials, pastors, murderers and others with gays was invalid, because there was a reason for restricting all those people. Everything else you've said about my comment has been a diversion.

And just to be clear, no, I don't believe the government should be interfering in anything.

The accusation against you has been that you claim you don't want any government interference, yet that is the only way to prevent gay marriage, and you support that prevention. Thus the "hypocrite" claim.

As to your claims about redifining "marriage", words are redifined every day, and I'm willing to bet that you accept terms that have been redifined and don't even know it.

[CaptainHaplo]

Yes, it was you who sidetracked it.

So what was post #5 and post #7? They sure were not discussing the issue brought up in the original post were they? But its "all my fault".... Yeah right.

It was you pointed out that you wish for government to withhold the right of gays to marry

I have never known you to make stuff up, so WHERE did I do that???? Show me where I derailed this thread with such a statement, as I don't appreciate accusations that are untrue. I even went and reread every post I have made here and I do no such thing!

and you've been dancing around that accusation but never quite answering it. So now it's time for you to answer a direct question: Do you or do you not wish for government to deny gays the right to marry? Simple question, but one you keep avoiding.

Steve - I don't know what your reading - but you haven't been paying attention when reading my posts. Read the first line of my post #64 - how much clearer of an answer do you want?

To quote what I said:
Funny - we agree that government should not be involved in marriage

If government is not involved in marriage - it couldn't keep people from getting married, now could it? I don't with government to be involved. I wish government was OUT of the equation.

But you know - we don't live in the world of WISHES. We live in reality - and reality is that government is involved. Until it is out of the equation, then we need to maintain the status quo. My reasoning is explained below for why that is.

Where did you ask me that.
Post 73 - regarding restricting politicians. You said it should be done - so you agreed with me.

And just to be clear, no, I don't believe the government should be interfering in anything.

So your agreeing with me again.

The accusation against you has been that you claim you don't want any government interference, yet that is the only way to prevent gay marriage, and you support that prevention. Thus the "hypocrite" claim.

And what I have stated is that I don't want government involved at all. While my training is Baptist - I was ordained through a different faith - one that does sanction homosexual marriage. I don't have to agree with it - I don't have to perform any ceremony that violates my own, personal views.

I will say it again - if government is not involved in marriage - it couldn't keep people from getting married, now could it? If government was not involved in marriage - and a gay couple (consenting adults) wanted to get married and went to a minister who was willing to perform the ceremony - then they would get married, wouldn't they? I would support that - because at that point - it affects no one but themselves. Unfortunately - it currently involves government, and thus the rest of society. There is a rule I follow when looking at government - the more it gets involved in something - the more screwed up that something gets.

Governmental sanction of a divisive social issue makes it more divisive and more screwed up. If you need an example - just look at the issue of abortion. Society not only fights over it - we now also fight over whether or not tax money is used for it, whether or not those who don't believe in it have to pay for it through increased insurance premiums, etc etc..... See -the more they get involved - the more screwed up the issue becomes.

So the more government tries to "fix" or change things - the worse they get. Government needs to leave well enough alone. Leave things be or create a civil union recognition to stop the whining - until we can get it further OUT of the issue. Once that is done - its a moot point, now isn't it?

The federal government needs to have no input on marriage other than requiring participants to be mentally competent consenting adults. Such a requirement should simply mirror State law that should also exist. Otherwise - neither the State nor the feds should have a blasted thing to say about it. That is the ideal. Until the ideal happens - then I support keeping government from tinkering with the issue even further and causing even more problems. Currently, that means DoMA - though I have issues with it.

I also take issue with the "one man/one woman" definition (though for a different reason that homosexuality). Yet I support DoMA - because it is what it is right now - and I feel we are better off not screwing with it any more except to get government out of the equation.

Which - btw - is another great reason I support the flat tax. It would again help get the government out of the business of marriage - because it wouldn't be making money on it anymore!

As to your claims about redefining "marriage", words are redifined every day, and I'm willing to bet that you accept terms that have been redifined and don't even know it.

Oh there may be a few - I suspect there are some we all think have one meaning but that has changed frome something else. However - there is a difference between meanings changing over time naturally and a small group tryng to use the force of government to ramrod a change in the definition to accomplish their agenda.

[Tribesman]

Oh I think he's just trying to avoid admitting that the two situations are more similar than they are different.

I know, he is tying himself up in knots with the running around and contortionism while bumping into things.
It does raise an statement which missed by a mile at the begining but is very telling.
Instead of ....I am suprised no one has brought this topic up...it should be ....I am surprised anyone brought it up and even more surprised given the angles they are trying to argue as it can never paint their views in a positive light.


Well its nice to see my stalker is still following me around LOL.


You poor deluded individual.:doh:

If government is not involved in marriage - it couldn't keep people from getting married, now could it? I don't with government to be involved. I wish government was OUT of the equation.

So you are in favour of gay marriage then and polygamous marriage and marriage to children or siblings or to mules.
After all if the state cannot regulate business contracts then people can sign up for whatever their whim may suit.

Until it is out of the equation, then we need to maintain the status quo.
What status quo? you are choosing a meaningless arbitary measure to suit your own personal hang ups and attempting to establish that as everyone elses standard measure.
You are like a little tinpot dictator in that manner trying to force your particular idealism on others.

While my training is Baptist
So do you agree with the baptist minister who said ******s in his congragation cannot get married like the white folks in his congregation?
Do you agree with the current head of the baptist convention that this dumb bigotry is something pastors have to deal with regularly from their "christian" flock and that they can quickly find themselves out of business if they don't play along with the bigots.
You want the government out of the equation and want bigots like those to be able to take charge:hmmm:

Like I said, I am surprised you willingly stepped into the snakepit you contructed for yourself, but hey thats the blindness of idealism isn't it.:yeah:

Oh there may be a few - I suspect there are some we all think have one meaning but that has changed frome something else. However - there is a difference between meanings changing over time naturally and a small group tryng to use the force of government to ramrod a change in the definition to accomplish their agenda.
Can you possibly shoot yourself in the foot more effecively?:rotfl2:
Do you need to be reminded of your "supporting" evidence for your lame claim where a small group in Italy did exactly that and you agreed with them ramrodding it ?

[mookiemookie]

My old mayor Buddy Cianci thought the same way you do but that 5 1/2 year stretch he did in the Federal pen kinda disabused him of that idea.

But he did make good pasta sauce!

(I was hanging around Providence quite a bit in the late 90s and I remember Buddy pretty well. :up:)

[August]

But he did make good pasta sauce!

(I was hanging around Providence quite a bit in the late 90s and I remember Buddy pretty well. :up:)

You know the funny thing is even with the racketeering conviction if he ran for mayor tomorrow he'd have a pretty decent shot at winning the election. That's why I don't think Mayor "Mumbles" up in Boston has to really worry about this Chik-Fil-A controversy negatively affecting his upcoming.

[mookiemookie]

I always got the impression with Buddy that everyone thought "yeah, he's a scumbag, but he's our scumbag."

[Sailor Steve]

So what was post #5 and post #7? They sure were not discussing the issue brought up in the original post were they? But its "all my fault".... Yeah right.
Yes, they did sidetrack, but neither one was aimed at you.

I have never known you to make stuff up, so WHERE did I do that???? Show me where I derailed this thread with such a statement, as I don't appreciate accusations that are untrue. I even went and reread every post I have made here and I do no such thing!
Your running theme is about preventing gays from using the term marriage. Exactly who do you want to keep that from happening? Funk & Wagnalls? You are opposed to gays getting married, and it is the government that controls that. It appears that you want to have it both ways.

Steve - I don't know what your reading - but you haven't been paying attention when reading my posts. Read the first line of my post #64 - how much clearer of an answer do you want?

To quote what I said:


If government is not involved in marriage - it couldn't keep people from getting married, now could it? I don't with government to be involved. I wish government was OUT of the equation.
Again you say that, but you still want gays to be prevented from getting married. The government is the controlling factor. You seem to not get that this is where the "hypocrite" charge is coming from.

But you know - we don't live in the world of WISHES. We live in reality - and reality is that government is involved. Until it is out of the equation, then we need to maintain the status quo. My reasoning is explained below for why that is.
So you want government to be removed from the marriage game, but as long as it is involved you want to use it to achieve your agenda. Perfect example of a double standard.

Post 73 - regarding restricting politicians. You said it should be done - so you agreed with me.
Whether I agree with that one point is rrelevant. You side-tracked your own argument by using examples that have no connection with restrictions on gays. Now you keep trying to make my opinion of your digression be of some importance. It's not.

So your agreeing with me again.
More irrelevance. Dodge and dance, and hope no one notices.

I will say it again - if government is not involved in marriage - it couldn't keep people from getting married, now could it?
I would agree, except for the question of who non-believers would go to.

You say you support government involvement even when you disagree with it. Does this mean you support everything the government does, even when you disagree? Should we just follow blindly until someone else changes it for us?

Oh there may be a few - I suspect there are some we all think have one meaning but that has changed frome something else. However - there is a difference between meanings changing over time naturally and a small group tryng to use the force of government to ramrod a change in the definition to accomplish their agenda.
Not really. It's a simple change that would affect no one except those who are currently being denied its use. This is like the arguments that it would "ruin the sactity of marriage". It would change nothing for the general population.

[Hottentot]

So what was post #5 and post #7? They sure were not discussing the issue brought up in the original post were they? But its "all my fault".... Yeah right.

You're absolutely right, I would have never brought that up if I knew it caused us to use 7 pages (and counting) on discussing the shape of Penguin's cranium. What was I thinking?

[CaptainHaplo]

Your running theme is about preventing gays from using the term marriage.

Nice way to try and backtrack. You accused me of sidetracking the thread.

Yes, it was you who sidetracked it. It was you pointed out that you wish for government to withhold the right of gays to marry.

I challenged you to show me where I said it - and you can't because you know full well I didn't say it here. I demonstrate that the thread got sidetracked on post 5 (should have made it 4) - I didn't even post again till page 4, and it was who that brought up the issue of marriage and who can marry who???

You mean like deciding who you can marry and who you can't? You're right; so long as no harm or legal disadvantage is given to another, government has no place in personal belief or behavior.

So no Steve - you accused me of sidetracking this thread and saying something I didn't. You blame me for the comments of a moderator like yourself who was speaking purely from his own personal position. Heck - he demonstrated the exact point I was trying to have discussed - if he posts as "moderator" he signs it as "The Management", otherwise its his personal views. The distinction between those two is exactly the same as the point I was trying to make.

I responded at least 2x and did not address marriage at all before Takeda brought up the question. Look at my responses to the issue I was bringing up - free speech and whether it is appropriate for government officials to use the weight of their office to penalize a company for a moral view.

You can disagree with my views, but accusing me of crap and saying I said stuff I haven't said here is really disappointing. I thought you were above that.

Edit - @ Hottentot - my apologize - I got the numbers wrong - it was Post 4 and 6!

[Hottentot]

Edit - @ Hottentot - my apologize - I got the numbers wrong - it was Post 4 and 6!

Fair enough. :salute:

[antikristuseke]

CaptainHaplo, just trying to clarify things for myself, are you saying that you want marriage which has no legal standing?

[Tribesman]

Isn't this "freedom of speech issue" angle of gay marriage just like people claiming its a "states rights issue" over racial segregation?:hmmm:

They sure were not discussing the issue brought up in the original post were they?
The issue brought up in the opening post was a speech by an individual.
They discuss it directly and deal with the content .

Nice way to try and backtrack. You accused me of sidetracking the thread.

But you have, you set yourself up spectacularly for a fall and have since then been trying to dodge your problems.

You can disagree with my views, but accusing me of crap and saying I said stuff I haven't said here is really disappointing.
Well since you support a persons views on gay marriage and what they have said shouldn't you define which of the versions of biblical marriage you mean. That was all that is pointed out in post#4. If Carthy wants to spread his definition of marriage from a source then he had better specify which of the very different definitions in that source he means.
Lets face it, Carthy could very well be saying he supports slavery and rape and you are complaining that people are objecting to it.
The problem you have had Haplo is that you havn't been able to see what you are actually saying throughout this topic, your idealism and zealotry has left you blinded to the content of your own attempt at an arguement.

Your whole attempt even if you try to limit its scope fails for the single reason that has been repeated constantly throughout the topic and which you are completely unable to comprehend.
It begins with C and is not only totally natural and right as it is fully justifiable and easily understood but its also patently obvious.:know:
Yet you simply don't understand or see it.

[CaptainHaplo]

CaptainHaplo, just trying to clarify things for myself, are you saying that you want marriage which has no legal standing?

In essence - yes. The only reasons to havee marriage "legally recognized" is so that the government can be involved in it. Government wants legal recognition because it gets revenue from marriage - and divorce. Marriage license fees, divorce costs to the courts and its "contracted subsidiaries" - such as mediators....

With government out of the marriage game - requiring only that "marriage" - however practiced - be between mentally capable, consenting adults - then people could do whatever they wanted without having this big arguement over the issue. If people wanted to go to a church and get married, fine. If they are athiest and want to consider themselves married, fine. I mean - who really believes that because the state - or some pastor like myself - blesses a union it, it suddenly becomes "holy" or "special"? It doesn't change the commitment of the people involved. If a people want to join in a union between themselves and before their chosen diety, great. Without government invovled, if they want to just wake up one day and say "we are married" and everyone agrees - then they are to themselves - regardless of what everyone else says.

Yes - a simple "registration of marriage" filled out by the parties could be on file with the state, and poof - all the legal rights are provided to those involved. That's one of the reasons for a flat tax. Married, single, individual or whatever - including corporations - just pay a set amount. No deductions, no thousands of pages of tax rules - and no complications over marriage! Half of the objections over getting government out of marriage is over all the other crap that the government keeps the issue involved in.

Does that help?

[Sailor Steve]

Nice way to try and backtrack. You accused me of sidetracking the thread.
When you tried to compare your wish for restrictions on gays with restrictions on other classes, you sidetracked, pure and simple. The groups you brought up deserve restrictions for various reasons. The group you compared them with does not. Sidetracking.

I challenged you to show me where I said it - and you can't because you know full well I didn't say it here. I demonstrate that the thread got sidetracked on post 5 (should have made it 4) - I didn't even post again till page 4, and it was who that brought up the issue of marriage and who can marry who???
Your opinions on the subject are well known. You don't have to say it in one specific place for it to color all of your dealings. Your reputation preceeds you.

So no Steve - you accused me of sidetracking this thread and saying something I didn't. You blame me for the comments of a moderator like yourself who was speaking purely from his own personal position. Heck - he demonstrated the exact point I was trying to have discussed - if he posts as "moderator" he signs it as "The Management", otherwise its his personal views. The distinction between those two is exactly the same as the point I was trying to make.
Where does that last come from? I didn't bring up his official status, and I can't see why you would, unless it's from some personal animosity.

You can disagree with my views, but accusing me of crap and saying I said stuff I haven't said here is really disappointing. I thought you were above that.
Your views are your own and you're perfectly free to argue them. I didn't even enter this because of that. I joined in because it drives me crazy when people use bad tactics to cheat at an argument.

My original post was aimed at showing that your comparison was invalid. You did indeed change the subject so as to never actually answer what I said.

[Tribesman]

I didn't bring up his official status, and I can't see why you would, unless it's from some personal animosity.

Perhaps he is still upset at the moderators over his failed complaints when he had problems over yet another gay marriage topic, the one when he couldn't tell the difference between neo nazi "christians" and Christians. Though the fact that it was him and the neo nazi "christian" sharing the same views seems to have had him very confused over identity.:03:
It does make for a funny sig though, one that is so ridiculous it highlights a complete lack of thought.

The only reasons to havee marriage "legally recognized" is so that the government can be involved in it.
Bull, the only reason for having marriage legally recognised is because it is a business contract.
It explains a lot doesn't it, when Haplo has the basics so backwards it is no surprise that everything he tries following it doesn't make much sense:yeah:

With government out of the marriage game - requiring only that "marriage" - however practiced - be between mentally capable, consenting adults -
Who sets the parameters for mentally capable and who sets the age of adulthood and the age of consent?
Is it..
A the government and its extensions
B some backwards theocrat from yemen with his own traditional definition of marriage and all its conditions and legal implications.

[mookiemookie]

Who sets the parameters for mentally capable and who sets the age of adulthood and the age of consent?
Is it..
A the government and its extensions
B some backwards theocrat from yemen with his own traditional definition of marriage and all its conditions and legal implications.

And boom. Here's the point where Hap's argument completely falls apart.

[Tribesman]

And boom. Here's the point where Hap's argument completely falls apart.
Which arguement though?
the freedom of speech one fell apart in the opening post.
All his gay ones fell apart long before this topic, together with his futile definitions one which penguin kindly trashed again in post#4

[Penguin]

I demonstrate that the thread got sidetracked on post 5 (should have made it 4) - I didn't even post again till page 4, and it was who that brought up the issue of marriage and who can marry who???
Oh really? Pointing out that an absence of a link or an explanation is bad form, especially on an international board where not all members have domestic US issues on their radar 24/7, could be seen as sidetracking.
However how is"Their business, their decision" not a statement on the issue, or do you assume this goes only to gay-friendly corps? it was who that brought up the issue of marriage and who can marry who??? "We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family" - Dan Cathy
Complaining about bringing up biblical definitions of marriage in a Chik Fil-A thread, is like whining when someone mentions a type VII in a "Das Boot" thread...
If you do not want to be siddetracked, please don't read the next post, as I want to reply to vienna about a non-crappy Christian fast food brand.

[Penguin]

Interestingly, there is an In-And-Out Burger franchise just down the block from the Hollywood Chick-fil-A. The chain is family-owned and the owners are very religious Christians. They have a long standing practice of printing references to Bible verses discreetly on their food packaging material. The references are very, very small and you would more or less have to seek them out. Here is the Wikipedia article about the chain; scroll down to the "Bible Verses" section to see examples of the packaging and a listing of the relevant verses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-N-Out_Burger


I didn't know about the bible verses, but I have the impression that In-N-Out has a pretty good reputation – even in godless Commiefornia :O: - because of decent food and decent wages. The latter makes them more living up to the Christian ideal of benevolence than a company that donates millions to bigot organizations while paying minimum wage to most of their employees.

[CaptainHaplo]

When you tried to compare your wish for restrictions on gays with restrictions on other classes, you sidetracked, pure and simple.

Again you say I discussed my desire to use government to restrict gays was a sidetrack... yet when I challenged you to show me WHERE I said such a thing, you answer with this:

Your opinions on the subject are well known. You don't have to say it in one specific place for it to color all of your dealings. Your reputation preceeds you.

So in other words - your understanding of my opinions for past threads means I sidetracked this thread without me saying anything about those supposed opinions.... So what your telling me Steve - is that I can't post on any thread regarding anything that has the slightest connection to homosexual marriage without "sidetracking" it - even if my post has nothing to do with the question of governement's role.... Really???? Well that is one way to censor or try to browbeat someone, isn't it... Just tell them - in so many words - that their opinion is unwelcome and that if they post, you will just call them names and accuse them of saying stuff that they didn't say. Classy.

I posted up front that my intent was to discuss abuse of power by politicians against private enterpirse. I stated at the outset that I didn't want this to be about gay marriage.... I did not bring up gay marrriage, nor did I start the subject of government's role in marriage. Yet you accuse me of "sidetracking". What is more - to be blunt - one person starts moving the subject to marriage and who gets to control it while calling me a hypocrit (even though I agreed him), then you pile on saying I said things I haven't said and claiming this whole thing is all my fault while echoing the name calling and trying to justify it with all kinds of literary contortions.

Where does that last come from? I didn't bring up his official status, and I can't see why you would, unless it's from some personal animosity.

I brought it up because it speaks DIRECTLY to the original intent of my post. Takeda - as a moderator - uses that "office" judiciously and insures that no one confuses a statement by him regarding his personal views as somehow connected to his "official" capacity. This is what I was saying the mayors and the speaker of the city council were doing WRONG - they were using their OFFICE to speak against private enterprise - when they should do so ONLY as individuals under their own right of free speech. I was drawing the contrast between PROPER use of an "official" role - as demonstrated by Takeda - to the abuses of an official role as shown by the mayors and speaker. You know - trying to steer this back to the original subject????

Your views are your own and you're perfectly free to argue them. See, this is what get's me. I didn't say anything ABOUT my own views on gay marriage - but others brought them up just to call me a hypocrit. So basically I am free to present my views, unless of course, my views are already "well known" because then I simply just get called names and get accused of saying stuff I have not said, right? Yeah, got it.....

I didn't even enter this because of that. I joined in because it drives me crazy when people use bad tactics to cheat at an argument.
My original post was aimed at showing that your comparison was invalid. You did indeed change the subject so as to never actually answer what I said.

Again - you either didn't read or are intentionally misrepresenting my response. I didn't address the criminal and mentally ill because I can see your point on that - but the politician and pastor side I did specifically answer. Again - you call it "changing the subject" when if you actually READ post 73 (my response to you) I even used the politician answer to try to point back to the ORIGINAL subject of this thread while answering.

Or are you saying that me trying to get the discussion to the original subject is somehow me trying to "sidetrack" the thread????? :doh:

Oh - and personal animosity? I don't have any toward you - but I wish I could say that the reverse is not the case. It seems to me there is.

[Buddahaid]

Local governments restricting free enterprise is very common and I don't see that as a valid point. Slow growth ordinances, deciding big box stores don't fit in, deciding that the community doesn't want that chemical plant, etc. Would you want a dusty and noisy open pit mine next door to your Church?

Whether you like it or not communities have a right to determine what fits in and what doesn't and act accordingly. Sure it can be unfair, or stupid and this is why we have elections.

And the government has every right to be involved in marriage as it alters the legal standing of the people involved and their responsibilities. Who are the heirs? Who has visitation rights to the hospital room? Who are the legal guardians?

[Tribesman]

Local governments restricting free enterprise is very common and I don't see that as a valid point. Slow growth ordinances, deciding big box stores don't fit in, deciding that the community doesn't want that chemical plant, etc. Would you want a dusty and noisy open pit mine next door to your Church?

Walmart coca cola starbucks BP shell standard oil united fruit frenches mustard Jack Daniels union carbide .....bloody endless list, no elected official had better have ever done anything ever to affect those companies over other issues, I certainly hope none of those would ever be issues for politicians and the public.:03:

There comes a time when people have hung themslves so thoroughly they need support.
So I agree with Haplo, freedom of speech means any elected representative had better shut the hell up on anything involving politics business and social issues and I don't want some muppet in office telling people they should buy freedom fries or not buy Cape Apples or shop at a mom an pop store as that is just wrong, I also want to introduce a man in a skirt shouting FREEDOM as he is a "traditional" "christian" with his own views on marriage and I don't want no one saying anything that may be affecting his business of making films just because he said nasty things about Jews as he has the right to say what he wants and there should be no consequences at all as that is what freedom of speech means.

See, this is what get's me. I didn't say anything ABOUT my own views on gay marriage
And Zeewolf didn't say anything about his views on Jews when he brought up the topic of the USS Liberty.
But anyone can see why he raised the subject.

[Sailor Steve]

Again you say I discussed my desire to use government to restrict gays was a sidetrack...
I said you sidetracked it with your bogus comparisons. You keep avoiding that.

Well that is one way to censor or try to browbeat someone, isn't it... Just tell them - in so many words - that their opinion is unwelcome and that if they post, you will just call them names and accuse them of saying stuff that they didn't say. Classy.
Now you're jumping into "I'm being attacked" mode, another of your favorite diversions. I never said, or implied, that your opinion is unwelcome. I only commented on the cheap tactics you use, and even that is only my opinion.

I posted up front that my intent was to discuss abuse of power by politicians against private enterpirse.

I stated at the outset that I didn't want this to be about gay marriage.... I did not bring up gay marrriage, nor did I start the subject of government's role in marriage.
Fair enough. You did say that. You should have stuck with that high road and refused to be drawn in.

Yet you accuse me of "sidetracking". What is more - to be blunt - one person starts moving the subject to marriage and who gets to control it while calling me a hypocrit (even though I agreed him), then you pile on saying I said things I haven't said and claiming this whole thing is all my fault while echoing the name calling and trying to justify it with all kinds of literary contortions.
If you reread my initial post (#70) you'll see that my "sidetracking" comment was aimed directly at what I repeated here - your bogus comparison, and nothing else. In that post I only responded to what you said in this thread regarding the subject. You have yet to answer what I said there other than with prevarication and dodging.

I brought it up because it speaks DIRECTLY to the original intent of my post...You know - trying to steer this back to the original subject????
Again, fair enough, except...
See, this is what get's me. I didn't say anything ABOUT my own views on gay marriage - but others brought them up just to call me a hypocrit. So basically I am free to present my views, unless of course, my views are already "well known" because then I simply just get called names and get accused of saying stuff I have not said, right? Yeah, got it.....
Neither did I. I answered specific comments made by you, and you have yet to answer my response.


Again - you either didn't read or are intentionally misrepresenting my response. I didn't address the criminal and mentally ill because I can see your point on that - but the politician and pastor side I did specifically answer. Again - you call it "changing the subject" when if you actually READ post 73 (my response to you) I even used the politician answer to try to point back to the ORIGINAL subject of this thread while answering.
You changed the subject with your comparisons, which had nothing to do with either your original post or reality. I responded directly to what you had said.

Or are you saying that me trying to get the discussion to the original subject is somehow me trying to "sidetrack" the thread????? :doh:
No, I explained exactly what I meant several times, and you are still avoiding it.

Oh - and personal animosity? I don't have any toward you - but I wish I could say that the reverse is not the case. It seems to me there is.
I never said you did. I questioned your bringing up Tak's Moderator status when he didn't. My "animosity" comment was concerning him, not me. As for my own feelings, I've already said that I avoided entering this thread (except for my playful comment to Frau Kaleun) until you started using bad debate tactics in the form of diversion.

[Bilge_Rat]

This debate again? ...meh.

The handwriting is already on the wall for opponents of Gay marriage. They are getting desparate now.

[mookiemookie]

This debate again? ...meh.

The handwriting is already on the wall for opponents of Gay marriage. They are getting desparate now.

That's why I continue to eat at Chick-fil-A. If they want to waste their money donating to causes that are fighting against something that's going to happen anyways, I don't care. It's dumb on their part, but I get some tasty chicken out of the deal.

[Tribesman]

How about a real freedom of speech issue?
Rogers communications is fighting the Canadian government over their attempts to stifle the companies free speech.
The evil government is blatently affecting their business interests by saying that their adverts cannot be made up of lies and the claims they make must have some factual basis.
It is a companies right to lie to the public, someone needs to boycott Maple syrup over this to teach those damn canadian governmenters a lesson in the name of FREEDOM.
If no one stops these evil politicians then Rogers communications will end up going extinct like coca cola did when the evil US politicians clamped down on their free speech

[NeonSamurai]

There comes a time when people have hung themslves so thoroughly they need support.
So I agree with Haplo, freedom of speech means any elected representative had better shut the hell up on anything involving politics business and social issues and I don't want some muppet in office telling people they should buy freedom fries or not buy Cape Apples or shop at a mom an pop store as that is just wrong, I also want to introduce a man in a skirt shouting FREEDOM as he is a "traditional" "christian" with his own views on marriage and I don't want no one saying anything that may be affecting his business of making films just because he said nasty things about Jews as he has the right to say what he wants and there should be no consequences at all as that is what freedom of speech means.

... :hmmm: Mel Gibson?

Not even sure why I am bothering following this thread... Oh wait... it's my job :o

PS I hope the Canadian Government nails Rogers to the wall. They are one of the most dishonest and scummy companies that gouges their customers every single chance they get.

[CCIP]

PS I hope the Canadian Government nails Rogers to the wall. They are one of the most dishonest and scummy companies that gouges their customers every single chance they get.

Right there with you! Rogers is absolutely awful :down: Though to be fair, all of Canada's telecommunications and media is in a shameful state, because of the virtual Rogers-Bell duopoly. It's not surprising that they've been able to exert so much pressure over customers and government alike.

[Tribesman]

... :hmmm: Mel Gibson?

Yes, after all Hikind is an elected politician, he blocked one of his films in his district and his protests about the man in the skirt being a jew hating bigot were outside Murdochs offices when newscorp ditched poor oppressed Mels business.
It is wrong for politicians to say anything that affects peoples business because there is FREEDOM of speech and it doesn't come with consequences.:03:

Not even sure why I am bothering following this thread...
Because the attempt at an opening arguement guaranteed it would be quite funny?

[CaptainHaplo]

I said you sidetracked it with your bogus comparisons. You keep avoiding that.

No - post 70 and 85:
Your desire to use the government to enforce it is.
Yes, it was you who sidetracked it. It was you pointed out that you wish for government to withhold the right of gays to marry, and you've been dancing around that accusation but never quite answering it.

You said I sidetracked by saying that I wish for government to withold the right of gays to marry. So now your saying not only did I say something I didn't say, your claiming you didn't say what you said! Unreal....

Now you're jumping into "I'm being attacked" mode, another of your favorite diversions. I never said, or implied, that your opinion is unwelcome. I only commented on the cheap tactics you use, and even that is only my opinion.

No - I am pointing out that you have made up crap by claiming I have said something I didn't. How would you take that if someone did it to you?

Fair enough. You did say that. You should have stuck with that high road and refused to be drawn in.

Drawn in? You mean someone else changed the subject and by responding I am at fault for sidetracking? So your admitting that someone else broached different subjects, but you still blame me for it all. Again - yea ok....

If you reread my initial post (#70) you'll see that my "sidetracking" comment was aimed directly at what I repeated here - your bogus comparison, and nothing else. In that post I only responded to what you said in this thread regarding the subject.

Again - bullcrap. You state in that thread that I desire to use government to enforce no gays being married. Yes again - you can't show me where I say that "in this thread"! That seems to me to be a response to your view of me and based on something not in this thread. Takeda accused me of wanting that, you picked it up and when I have tried to deal with the accusation, you have just added to it with further accusations of me saying things I haven't, sidetracking, etc.

You have yet to answer what I said there other than with prevarication and dodging.... I answered specific comments made by you, and you have yet to answer my response.

Again - if you would stop reading "between the lines" to see what you want and instead actually read what I have written without prejudging it, maybe you would see your answer. I said I don't have an issue with your points on criminals and the mentally ill.

You changed the subject with your comparisons, which had nothing to do with either your original post or reality. I responded directly to what you had said.

The first 2 comparisons I have dealt with - and saying that talking about restricting politicians when the original post is about how politicians were abusing their office and that should not be allows has EVERYTHING to do with the original post. DUH!

No, I explained exactly what I meant several times, and you are still avoiding it.

Only if you choose to ignore what I write......

As for my own feelings, I've already said that I avoided entering this thread (except for my playful comment to Frau Kaleun) until you started using bad debate tactics in the form of diversion.

So you jumped in because you didn't like some of my comparisons. Fine. So why jump on me over the hypocrit issue? Why claim I said something I didn't? Why say its my fault that the thing gets sidetracked when I proved that it wasn't me that even brought up the marriage and government question? Why suggest/imply I have a problem with a mod just because I use his (right and proper) actions to demonstrate the difference between good official uses and bad ones?

These kind of reactions - and your continuation of "trying to move the ball" to defend your actions while ignoring my answers simply doesn't make sense if you just didn't like me using criminals and mentally ill people as examples of reasonable restrictions. If that was the only problem, this would have been gone a while ago.

Whatever the real issue is - my PM box is open. We can deal with it there as necessary.

[eddie]

A lot of companies here in the States are taking sides now!

http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/08/13165788-chicken-or-coffee-gay-marriage-or-no-when-companies-take-sides?lite

[CaptainHaplo]

A lot of companies here in the States are taking sides now!

http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/08/13165788-chicken-or-coffee-gay-marriage-or-no-when-companies-take-sides?lite

That is kind of funny - they take a picture of a couple kissing in front of a CLOSED chik-fil-a in what looks like a food court - and claim they are "participating" in the kiss-in. Uhm - the business would have to be OPEN!

The idea of the kiss-in was to protest the company - but that is kind of hard when the company isn't open.

Has nothing to do with the couple or with the restaurant - its funny because NBC displayed the pic (taken at the CNN Center) and can't even figure out such a glaring error. This passes for journalism?

I mean - I know there were locations where the kiss in was held and pictures of such could have been used. :rotfl2:

[Ducimus]

This has gone on for 8 pages? Really?! Must be a "slow news day" on GT. :haha:

[August]

I mean - I know there were locations where the kiss in was held and pictures of such could have been used. :rotfl2:

Maybe there aren't as many (usable) pictures as some would have us believe. :hmmm:

I mean the lines for appreciation day were around the block in dozens of cities so I figured the numbers for protest day would be similar but apparently the whole thing was a bust and the media has to put in fake pictures to compensate.

[Sailor Steve]

You said I sidetracked by saying that I wish for government to withold the right of gays to marry. So now your saying not only did I say something I didn't say, your claiming you didn't say what you said!
You've said many times that you believe gays should accept what they're given. How else do you enforce that if not by government?

Unreal....
You forgot to include the eye-rolling emoticon.

No - I am pointing out that you have made up crap by claiming I have said something I didn't. How would you take that if someone did it to you?
It's happened many times in many arguments. Yes, I get excited too. You still haven't addressed my original comment.

Drawn in? You mean someone else changed the subject and by responding I am at fault for sidetracking? So your admitting that someone else broached different subjects, but you still blame me for it all.
Sure, why not.

Again - yea ok....
Again, you forgot the :roll:

You state in that thread that I desire to use government to enforce no gays being married. Yes again - you can't show me where I say that "in this thread"! That seems to me to be a response to your view of me and based on something not in this thread. Takeda accused me of wanting that, you picked it up and when I have tried to deal with the accusation, you have just added to it with further accusations of me saying things I haven't, sidetracking, etc.
I'll repeat myself. You have said many times you are against gay "marriage". Please explain how you enforce that if not by government.

Again - if you would stop reading "between the lines" to see what you want and instead actually read what I have written without prejudging it, maybe you would see your answer. I said I don't have an issue with your points on criminals and the mentally ill.
I'm not reading between the lines. Just because you didn't say it "in this thread" doesn't mean you haven't said it. If you've said it anywhere then it is a valid argument toward your overall attitude.

[quote]The first 2 comparisons I have dealt with - and saying that talking about restricting politicians when the original post is about how politicians were abusing their office and that should not be allows has EVERYTHING to do with the original post. DUH!
What you haven't dealt with is my original point, which is that the restrictions you mention all have good reasons, but the restriction on gays doesn't, which makes the comparisons invalid. Yes, I wandered too, but you still haven't answered that.

Only if you choose to ignore what I write......
Pot and kettle.

So you jumped in because you didn't like some of my comparisons. Fine. So why jump on me over the hypocrit issue? Why claim I said something I didn't? Why say its my fault that the thing gets sidetracked when I proved that it wasn't me that even brought up the marriage and government question?
Fair and valid point. I'll apologise here and now for falling into that line of argument.

Why suggest/imply I have a problem with a mod just because I use his (right and proper) actions to demonstrate the difference between good official uses and bad ones?
Then why bring up his status at all? There was no point to that.

These kind of reactions - and your continuation of "trying to move the ball" to defend your actions while ignoring my answers simply doesn't make sense if you just didn't like me using criminals and mentally ill people as examples of reasonable restrictions. If that was the only problem, this would have been gone a while ago.
Again, the restrictions you mentioned were indeed reasonable, which is why I pointed out that the comparison is invalid, as you compared them with the restrictions you believe should be on gays, which are not reasonable.

Whatever the real issue is - my PM box is open. We can deal with it there as necessary.
What real issue are you thinking I hold? My only problem here is with bad debate tactics and invalid comparisons.

[CaptainHaplo]

I am going to skip some stuff because I think its better we just move forward.
You've said many times that you believe gays should accept what they're given. How else do you enforce that if not by government?
I'll repeat myself. You have said many times you are against gay "marriage". Please explain how you enforce that if not by government.

I can believe they shouldn't be married. That doesn't mean that I think the power of Government should be used to prohibit it. I don't think its the role of Government to be involved in it (other than protecting minors and others unable to give consent). The distinction is that we can't just snap our fingers and make Goverment get out. So what I AM for is maintaining as much of the status quo as possible (and I am ok with civil unions as a step) until we can do things RIGHT - instead of trusting Government to "get it right" with its next "fix". Basically, I would rather see something broken left alone so we can fix it, instead of breaking it MORE through getting government DEEPER into it - thus making it harder to get government out. As I have said before, I support but have issues with DoMA, and if government was out of the equation then gays could get married (either in a church or just agreeing to it themselves or however else they want) and my beliefs be damned. I am ok with that.

Ultimately - its not a great solution. I acknowledge that. But its better than making the problem worse - unless you think that Government should be in the business of marriage. Now if you think the government should be - then its a different discussion. If Government should be involved - then marriage becomes a civil contract. If it is a civil contract, it should - based upon the US constitution, be under the regulatory authority of the individual States. Thus it WOULD fall to the State government to regulate such contracts as each State decides is appropriate.

As I said - I would prefer government be out of it. However, if the alternative is governmental interference - then it should be done in a way that is constitutionally correct. While you say I am hypocritical, let me point out that there are states that have legalized gay marriage - and I don't think you can find any post I have made saying that the federal government should over-rule those states so that gays should be restricted. I don't think wanting government out - and then following the US Constitution if I can't have my "wish" is somehow hypocritical. While I don't expect you to agree with my line of reasoning, I trust this helps you understand it a little more.

Fair and valid point. I'll apologise here and now for falling into that line of argument.

Apology accepted and its water under the bridge. :salute:

Then why bring up his status at all? There was no point to that.

I brought up his status because his role as a moderator is what made the comparison to a government official possible. If he was "just" a regular member - the analogy of a moderator/politician speaking from an offical position vs speaking as a private individual wouldn't work. A moderator here is "like" a subsim gov't official. See the analogy? Takeda has always done a great job seperating the two - and I was holding him up as an example of what some politicians SHOULD be doing - keeping the two roles seperate. Hopefully, it makes more sense now.

[Tribesman]

I proved that it wasn't me that even brought up the marriage and government question?
You did bring it up :yep:
That means you are not telling the truth as you cannot have proved you didn't.
Its all in the opening post. Chic-Fil-A (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1919554#post1919554)
Chick fil A...a news topic about gay marriage and the political activities of its CEO and the natural ramifications from his campaigning and his recent comments.
You cannot bring up some mythical FREEDOM of speech issue without dealing with the speech.
Its like a topic on weather where you try and insist precipitation must not be mentioned.

So what I AM for is maintaining as much of the status quo as possible
So you are in favour of the government restricting the poofs.


Its a governemt role that (as you yourself have posted) the church moved into. It is the church who should move out and allow the government to keep its normal position which isn't any deeper than it has ever been.

I brought up his status because his role as a moderator is what made the comparison to a government official possible.
Are you going to condemn Hikind for damaging Gibsons business in his elected role or are you just going to be a complete hypocrit. :hmmm:(or are you going to accept that your attempted angle on this has no actual validity)
After all Hikind was "worse" as poor oppressed Mel wasn't involved in campaining on any actual political issues involved when he was being a bigot.

[Sailor Steve]

I can believe they shouldn't be married. That doesn't mean that I think the power of Government should be used to prohibit it. I don't think its the role of Government to be involved in it (other than protecting minors and others unable to give consent). The distinction is that we can't just snap our fingers and make Goverment get out. So what I AM for is maintaining as much of the status quo as possible (and I am ok with civil unions as a step) until we can do things RIGHT - instead of trusting Government to "get it right" with its next "fix". Basically, I would rather see something broken left alone so we can fix it, instead of breaking it MORE through getting government DEEPER into it - thus making it harder to get government out. As I have said before, I support but have issues with DoMA, and if government was out of the equation then gays could get married (either in a church or just agreeing to it themselves or however else they want) and my beliefs be damned. I am ok with that.
Fair enough, and a reasonable argument.

Ultimately - its not a great solution. I acknowledge that. But its better than making the problem worse - unless you think that Government should be in the business of marriage. Now if you think the government should be - then its a different discussion. If Government should be involved - then marriage becomes a civil contract. If it is a civil contract, it should - based upon the US constitution, be under the regulatory authority of the individual States. Thus it WOULD fall to the State government to regulate such contracts as each State decides is appropriate.
Again, much more reasoned and reasonable.

While you say I am hypocritical, let me point out that there are states that have legalized gay marriage - and I don't think you can find any post I have made saying that the federal government should over-rule those states so that gays should be restricted. I don't think wanting government out - and then following the US Constitution if I can't have my "wish" is somehow hypocritical. While I don't expect you to agree with my line of reasoning, I trust this helps you understand it a little more.
Somewhat, yes.

I brought up his status because his role as a moderator is what made the comparison to a government official possible. If he was "just" a regular member - the analogy of a moderator/politician speaking from an offical position vs speaking as a private individual wouldn't work. A moderator here is "like" a subsim gov't official. See the analogy? Takeda has always done a great job seperating the two - and I was holding him up as an example of what some politicians SHOULD be doing - keeping the two roles seperate. Hopefully, it makes more sense now.
Not really, but then I've said more than once that a lot of things don't make sense to me.

[mookiemookie]

I don't think its the role of Government to be involved in it (other than protecting minors and others unable to give consent). The distinction is that we can't just snap our fingers and make Goverment get out. So what I AM for is maintaining as much of the status quo as possible (and I am ok with civil unions as a step) until we can do things RIGHT - instead of trusting Government to "get it right" with its next "fix".
But the current status quo is that of inequality - gays can't get married to each other and have it be recognized with all of the rights and privileges that straight married couples enjoy. That's a situation that needs to be addressed, and doing it right isn't something we need to hm and haw about. The solution is glaringly obvious. "get it right"? Please. This doesn't take a complex solution arrived at after years of scientific studies.

Basically, I would rather see something broken left alone so we can fix it, instead of breaking it MORE through getting government DEEPER into it - thus making it harder to get government out. As I have said before, I support but have issues with DoMA, and if government was out of the equation then gays could get married (either in a church or just agreeing to it themselves or however else they want) and my beliefs be damned. I am ok with that. As Tribesman has pointed out many times, the government is, has been, and always will be in the marriage business. It's a legal contract that changes the legal standing of the parties involved. Wanting to drag feet so as to maintain the status quo is only a delaying tactic.

Ultimately - its not a great solution. I acknowledge that. But its better than making the problem worse - unless you think that Government should be in the business of marriage. Now if you think the government should be - then its a different discussion. If Government should be involved - then marriage becomes a civil contract. Contract law states that yes, the government is, has and will be involved in it.

If it is a civil contract, it should - based upon the US constitution, be under the regulatory authority of the individual States. Thus it WOULD fall to the State government to regulate such contracts as each State decides is appropriate.

As I said - I would prefer government be out of it. However, if the alternative is governmental interference - then it should be done in a way that is constitutionally correct. While you say I am hypocritical, let me point out that there are states that have legalized gay marriage - and I don't think you can find any post I have made saying that the federal government should over-rule those states so that gays should be restricted. I don't think wanting government out - and then following the US Constitution if I can't have my "wish" is somehow hypocritical. While I don't expect you to agree with my line of reasoning, I trust this helps you understand it a little more. It is the federal government's role to enact civil rights law and uphold the 14th Amendment. I trust the federal government a hell of a lot more than some of these backwards states to protect the civil rights of citizens. If they were able to, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if states like Mississippi and Oklahoma abolished the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Wanting to see the states in control of allowing gay marriage or not is another tactic to create enclaves of inequality and hold out and delay granting rights to gay people. You know darn well states like the ones I've mentioned would never allow it, and it's not due to some high minded legal philosophy of states rights or anything like that - it's due to pure theocracy.

[Tribesman]

If they were able to, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if states like Mississippi and Oklahoma abolished the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Wanting to see the states in control of allowing gay marriage or not is another tactic to create enclaves of inequality and hold out and delay granting rights to gay people. You know darn well states like the ones I've mentioned would never allow it, and it's not due to some high minded legal philosophy of states rights or anything like that - it's due to pure theocracy.
That is why I mentioned the good ol' boys in Mississippi last month stopping a couple getting married simply because of the colour of their skin.
Quite relevant when you consider that Haplo did a little celebration topic on a southern state banning equal rights in marriage when the last time that state made laws banning equal rights in marriage it was down to the colour of peoples skin.

As Tribesman has pointed out many times,
Thank Haplo for that, it was his failed attempt at proving his point which delivered conclusively.
It is so easy when people post "supporting" evidence for their views which manage to destoy the core of their whole arguement and I appreciate haplo for killing his own attempt at reason.

[CaptainHaplo]

But the current status quo is that of inequality - gays can't get married to each other and have it be recognized with all of the rights and privileges that straight married couples enjoy. That's a situation that needs to be addressed, and doing it right isn't something we need to hm and haw about. The solution is glaringly obvious. "get it right"? Please. This doesn't take a complex solution arrived at after years of scientific studies.

OK - the claim of inequality means your looking at marriage as a "right". Are we going to "fix" this but continue to deny "equal rights" to those who may be polyamorous and want to have multiple wives or multiple husbands? Or is it the role of the federal government to acknowledge and recognize any union claimed by a group consisting of more than one consenting adult as marriage?

As Tribesman has pointed out many times, the government is, has been, and always will be in the marriage business. It's a legal contract that changes the legal standing of the parties involved. Wanting to drag feet so as to maintain the status quo is only a delaying tactic.

I don't see tribesman since he only chooses to tear apart others views (often erroneously) while never trying to offer solutions. As such, his posts are a waste of time for me and others to read. So don't expect me to address posts I haven't seen.

Contract law states that yes, the government is, has and will be involved in it.

Well, now your stating that marriage is a contract. I thought it was a "right"?

It is the federal government's role to enact civil rights law and uphold the 14th Amendment. I trust the federal government a hell of a lot more than some of these backwards states to protect the civil rights of citizens.

So we are back to it being a right again? As for trust - therein lies one fundamental difference we have - you trust the federal government more that the States. I disagree and I doubt we will close that gap.

If they were able to, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if states like Mississippi and Oklahoma abolished the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I disagree that such would happen and it has nothing to do with the subject we are discussing. Your trying to try bigotry and racism to this subject (and those that hold a different view). Nice....

Wanting to see the states in control of allowing gay marriage or not is another tactic to create enclaves of inequality and hold out and delay granting rights to gay people. You know darn well states like the ones I've mentioned would never allow it, and it's not due to some high minded legal philosophy of states rights or anything like that - it's due to pure theocracy.

So if states would not agree with you - so they must be theocratic tyrannies at the State level? Is that the best you have? No accusations that gays would not be allowed to leave the state to go to another that DOES allow them to marry? No claims of "re-education" camps to "cure" them of the "sickness of homosexuality"? 32 states have passed constitutional ammendments disallowing gay marriage. So 32 states are "pure theocracies"? So places like California and Hawaii are theocracies? The facts prove your claim blatantly false.

The thing is you can't decide whether marriage is a right, or if its a civil contract. If you claim its a right - you still end up referencing the civil contract legalities. If it is a right - gays can live together and provide all the medical/legal authorities to their partners. They can leave their stuff to each other - preserving the right of inheritance. So they are not unequal because they have the ability to do the same.

If its a contract, you simply want to blow off the Constitution because you don't agree with what following it would mean. We disagree because I don't think the Constitution is something that can just be pushed to the side.

Now - I am going to open up a can of worms. Talk about a theocracy - you do realize that if I had my way, marriage would not only be open to gays, but to polygamists. If the people involved were of legal age and consent, you could marry anyone (and everyone) who was willing to marry you. Yes - I said it. Why? Because in an ideal world, its not my business who you marry. So tell me mookie - who should be allowed to marry and who shouldn't? Why should 2 gay men or gay women be allowed to marry - while a man or woman should not be allowed to marry an existing couple (or larger group)?

Yes - I don't think gays should marry. That is a moral stance. But I seperate my personal morals from the role of government. I don't think the government should be limiting the "rights" of its people on their free association. Do you? If you agree with me - then you have to recognize that the "fix" for the government as it stands is not to just "legalize" gay marriage - as that will still live many restricted. It is to get the Federal govt out of the business of marriage.

[Tribesman]

So don't expect me to address posts I haven't seen
A perfect demonstration of ignorance:yeah:
Quite funny really as the history of marriage contracts which destroys that part of his arguement was posted by himself, which means he is also ignorant of his own arguements:yep:

Well, now your stating that marriage is a contract. I thought it was a "right"?

Well duh .....Adults have the right to enter a contract:doh:

So we are back to it being a right again?
Well duh ...they are not mutually exclusive:doh:

is that the carolina two step where you prance around the point but never get to it?

I disagree that such would happen and it has nothing to do with the subject we are discussing.
Ignorance pays off again in a big way:yeah:

Your trying to try bigotry and racism to this subject (and those that hold a different view). Nice....
The people you are defending and their speech are tied to the funding of some very vocal bigots, they are certainly not nice people at all.
I suppose that is why you are trying to avoid the speech and concentrate on some mythical FREEDOM.:rotfl2:

Wow he tops it all by trying the constitution and rights even though he has completely failed on the issue of rights:har::har::har::har::har:

Too easy, you could almost feel sorry for him.


Interesting attempt on the polygamy(in keeping with post #4 which was in keeping with post#1), though the government would have to draw up lots and lots of new legislation to cover the multi partnership contracts to cover people rights....damn you said you wanted less government didn't you, does that add up to another of your epic fails?

[AngusJS]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZxFJm-lbZQ

We already allow homosexuals to live, in complete defiance of god's law! Do we dare try his patience further? We at Chic-Fil-A say no!:har:

[Tribesman]

I like the first comment.
There's***65279; a risk that the type of people your parody jokes about, won't know what the word "parody" means.:rotfl2:

[vienna]

The more things change, the more they remain the same:

http://blogs.laweekly.com/squidink/2012/08/fast_food_protests_nothing_new.php

Although the article says the Carl's Jr. was "short distance to the east", it actually was on the same lot now occupied by the Chick-Fil-A in Hollywood I noted in previous posts; I know because I used to buy food at the Carl's Jr. before thay shut down (before it was a Carl's Jr., it was a Rally's franchise - it appears fast food stores aren't very long-lived at that location). The article is an interesting view to how liitle things have changed...

The bottom line in the whole Chick-Fil-A matter is this:

1. Some gay activist(s) scoured the donation lists of groups they oppose and found a media-ready target;

2. The gay activists, seeing the opportunity to get media attention, boosting their public visibility, pounced on the media ready target;

3. The CEO of the media ready target probably saw an opportunity to boost his sales and increase his company's public visibility by pandering to his like minded public;

4. The CEO of the nedia ready target now steps forward and stokes the media fire by making futher pronouncements while watching his sales rise;

5. Media hungry tag-alongs like Huckabee, who wants to boost his public visibility and ratings versuses those of Limbaugh, also step forward to stoke the media fire;

6. The media, like the lemmings they are, see the opporunity to increase their visibility and corporate income, and dance, dare I say, gaily, around the media fire;

7. Various portions of the public, pro and con, being the lemmings following the lemmings, join the gaily dancing media in their dance and revel in the prognostications, pro and con, flitting about;

8. The rest of us, having really better things to do, glance at the whole spectacle and then move on...

Now, let's see what other non-exhausted topics there are out there... :D

...

[u crank]

7. Various portions of the public, pro and con, being the lemmings following the lemmings, join the gaily dancing media in their dance and revel in the prognostications, pro and con, flitting about;

8. The rest of us, having really better things to do, glance at the whole spectacle and then move on...

"Now we're getting somewhere..." said one of the lemmings.:O: