Chic-Fil-A

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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???

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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

Fair enough.

[antikristuseke]

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

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

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.
Yet you simply don't understand or see it.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

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]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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.

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.
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

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]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

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]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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?

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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]

Originally Posted by vienna

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 - 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]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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?????

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?