Libs Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 (edited) Selek, I am not going to spend time defending myself against things that I never said. I never once said Cathy didn't have the RIGHT to say what he said. I never once said it was "hateful". I never even remotely compared his statement to McCarthyism or the Westboro group. Those comments were made in reference to your own claim that "hate speech" was a criminal offense (which it isn't!). You guys are yelling and screaming over Cathy being taken out of context, etc, but that is exactly what is being done to me, here. No one wants to address exactly what I said....you take a word or sentence out of context and make up your own meaning.If someone wants to actually address WHAT *I* SAID, I'll consider it. But, I am ignoring any further outrageous imaginings of what I said or think. Too much! Edited August 4, 2012 by Libs
Libs Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 I belong to a group who opposes ssm and believes that God's judgements will come on us as a people because of the choices of our citizens. Do you consider me as indulging in "hate" speech? Do you, on the basis of that information, consider me a hater?Of course not. I never said, Cathy was a hater, Ray. If you bother to go back and read, you will find that I said just the opposite...that I did not think he was coming from hate. <SIGH>
Libs Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 (edited) He does NOT directly reference homosexuals. Yes by inference one could assume that, and he probably was, but other inferences could be made. However stating that God's wrath will be visited on America for condoning whatever he is inferring is not hate speech. The hate speech label is used as club to silence and subdue those with alternate views and to me it is the ultimate hate speech. The label "hate speech" should be used with caution and only after careful deliberation.What other inferences could be made, about same sex marriage?? Who else could he possibly be talking about, in a reference to ss marriage, other than homosexuals, Ray?? Really, I would like a direct answer to that question. Edited August 4, 2012 by Libs
ERayR Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 Of course not. I never said, Cathy was a hater, Ray. If you bother to go back and read, you will find that I said just the opposite...that I did not think he was coming from hate. <SIGH>OK now that I know you do not consider me a hater am I still allowed to voice mine and my organizations stand on ssm publicly?
Libs Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 OK now that I know you do not consider me a hater am I still allowed to voice mine and my organizations stand on ssm publicly?You are "allowed" to say whatever you wish. Am *I* allowed to criticize the wisdom of that, if you do, without being accused of wanting to take away your freedom of speech or calling you a hater?
selek1 Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 Selek, I am not going to spend time defending myself against things that I never said. I never once said Cathy didn't have the RIGHT to say what he said. You're correct- you admitted that he that right- and with the same breath demanded that that right shuld be limited to audiences and venues of which you approve.I never once said it was "hateful". You have labored consistently, tirelessly, and without success to misrepresent what he said in the most damning fashion possible.You have labored for page after page to justify the manufactured outrage and smear campaign over his innocuous- and non-controversial- comments, and deliberately misrepresented him in order to justify the hatred against him. You guys are yelling and screaming over Cathy being taken out of context, etc, but that is exactly what is being done to me, here. No one wants to address exactly what I said....you take a word or sentence out of context and make up your own meaning. Which- even if true- is EXACTLY what you are doing to Dan Cathy.Your cries of "Can't we all just get along?" will be far more convincing once you put down the baseball bat. 1
selek1 Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 What other inferences could be made, about same sex marriage?? Who else could he possibly be talking about, in a reference to ss marriage, other than homosexuals, Ray?? Really, I would like a direct answer to that question.Asked and answered in at least five other posts, including Post #443.Of course, the fact that you are finally admitting that this charge is based on an inference, rather than anything Cathy actually said is progress. 1
Libs Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 You're correct- you admitted that he that right- and with the same breath demanded that that right shuld be limited to audiences and venues of which you approve.You have labored consistently, tirelessly, and without success to misrepresent what he said in the most damning fashion possible.You have labored for page after page to justify the manufactured outrage and smear campaign over his innocuous- and non-controversial- comments, and deliberately misrepresented him in order to justify the hatred against him.Which- even if true- is EXACTLY what you are doing to Dan Cathy.Your cries of "Can't we all just get along?" will be far more convincing once you put down the baseball bat.Sorry, but you are the one carrying the baseball bat. AGAIN, selek, I NEVER SAID DAN CATHY DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY OR DO WHAT HE DID. I have questioned the wisdom of it, because SOME WILL (understandably, IMO) misconstrue his comments as hateful.Stop putting words in my mouth and actually quote what I said, PLEASE.
Calm Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 What other inferences could be made, about same sex marriage?? Who else could he possibly be talking about, in a reference to ss marriage, other than homosexuals, Ray?? Really, I would like a direct answer to that question.Are you talking about the comment from the Father's Day interview or another one?If the first, it seems pretty clear he is talking about any case where there is not a married father and mother present in the home, which would mean that he is including divorce in his condemnation of those who reject God's standard (as in "Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.")
Libs Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 Asked and answered in at least five other posts, including Post #443.Of course, the fact that you are finally admitting that this charge is based on an inference, rather than anything Cathy actually said is progress.It's much more than inference. There is no other possible interpretation than the fact that he was talking about gays. That's what I have said all along and that, friend, is a FACT. He WAS talking about homosexuals..not anything else, in his reference to ss marriage. At least, Stargazer admitted to that. If you think differently, please tell me in plain English who else he could have possibly been referencing!
selek1 Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 It's much more than inference. There is no other possible interpretation than the fact that he was talking about gays. That's what I have said all along and that, friend, is a FACT. He WAS talking about homosexuals..not anything else, in his reference to ss marriage. At least, Stargazer admitted to that. If you think differently, please tell me in plain English who else he could have possibly been referencing!Asked and answered in at least five other posts, including Post #443.
Libs Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 (edited) I am talking about this statement:we’re inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage. And I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude that thinks we have the audacity to redefine what marriage is all about.”Who is he talking about here? Who is it that conservatives believe are redefining marriage? Who? Edited August 4, 2012 by Libs
Libs Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 Asked and answered in at least five other posts, including Post #443.Not. Not for this specific statement.
ERayR Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 What other inferences could be made, about same sex marriage?? Who else could he possibly be talking about, in a reference to ss marriage, other than homosexuals, Ray?? Really, I would like a direct answer to that question.Thanks to calmoriah who went out and found what he said. Please read:QuoteSince the interview was given on Father’s Day, the emphasis was on fathers. The radio host chose to feature Dan Cathy, a father of two and prominent Christian businessman who has honored his own father and has followed in his footsteps. Mr. Coleman simply asked Dan to comment on our “fatherless” society and what could be done to solve the problem. Dan elaborated on how emotionally detrimental it can be when the father or mother is absent from the family and how fatherless children do not get the benefit of the balance between both parents. He mentioned an “essential, emotional DNA” that we get as a result of having a balanced family....Ken Coleman: As you look at the crisis of fatherlessness that we have in this country — I wanted you to weigh in on that. I think it’s important for us to hear from you. What can we be doing as a country to be focusing on this growing problem?Dan Cathy: As an employer first off, just from that perspective, I see it’s a real crisis in the sense that there is a certain amount of emotional DNA – there’s physical DNA obviously that comes from the dad and also from the mom – but beyond that, there’s some essential emotional DNA that God intended for us to get from a mother and a dad that we observe over life as children and infancy and growing up that we can only get from our dad, and we only get it from our mom, and we’re to get it in a home dynamic environment where they’re interrelating together to build the stability and the self-esteem that God wants us to have to get through our teenage years. Now, when we don’t have one side or the other, you know, I just have to tell you, I think we’re just emotionally handicapped. It’s doesn’t mean we can’t survive and have a happy life, but it means we’re going to have some odds stacked against us, and hopefully there could be somebody that intervenes to help make that up for us. But to have so many people today that are growing up in homes where they don’t have a mom and dad – I’ll tell you, as an employer, it makes it that much more difficult for us because we sometimes actually have to have a parenting role. As it relates to society in general, I think we’re inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him as say, “We know better than You as to what constitutes a marriage,” and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude — to think that we would — the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is all about.Libs - I read that as a general statement pertaining to all including heterosexuals who redefine and pervert marriage and homosexuals who would redefine marriage. There are plenty of heterosexuals who pervert marriage with their "open" marriages and serial adultery. And yes in this day, when it is not sanctioned by God, even polygamy. To try and read a single meaning to that statement is simply myopic. 1
Libs Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 Of course, yes, he is including anyone who redefines marriage...but for WHOM are we redefining marriage??
ERayR Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 You are "allowed" to say whatever you wish. Am *I* allowed to criticize the wisdom of that, if you do, without being accused of wanting to take away your freedom of speech or calling you a hater?OK now we have established that I am allowed to condemn what I think are immoral practices am I to be restricted to certain limited venues where I can express these sentiments?
ERayR Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 (edited) Of course, yes, he is including anyone who redefines marriage...but for WHOM are we redefining marriage??Thanks for acknowledging that he is including anyone who redefines marriage. At least we know he is not speaking only of one group.We are not redefining marriage but there are several groups attempting to redefine marriage. I think in one of the past posts Selek gave a short partial list. Perhaps you missed it. Edited August 4, 2012 by ERayR
Libs Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 OK now we have established that I am allowed to condemn what I think are immoral practices am I to be restricted to certain limited venues where I can express these sentiments?Again, this is a "when did you stop beating your wife" kind of question. I have never said that YOU or CATHY or anyone else does not have the RIGHT to say, do whatever!....I have questioned the "wisdom" of making those kinds of public statements, especially if you are a high profile business man....and then not expect some kind of repercussion?? Not wise...and not very realistic, IMO!
Libs Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 We are not redefining marriage but there are several groups attempting to redefine marriage. I think in one of the past posts Selek gave a short partial list. Perhaps you missed it.For whom, in this current political climate, are we redefining marriage? That is the question.
Libs Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 Btw, just to set the record straight, I don't believe anyone is trying to "redefine marriage". We want to make it more inclusive...not redefine it.
Calm Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 (edited) Of course, yes, he is including anyone who redefines marriage...but for WHOM are we redefining marriage??Christ states in the Bible that marriage does not involved divorce. I can see someone who believes that marriage can be ended both legally and morally through divorce sees this as a redefinition of how God wants marriage to be used. There would also be those who define marriage as "open" in the sense of sexual fidelity who could be included and anything else really that deviates from the biblical definition given by Christ as 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a]5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”The government has made it legal to divorce, including a no fault divorce. I have seen some who have viewed this as a redefinition of marriage that has greatly contributed to what they see as a decrease in morality etc. Edited August 4, 2012 by calmoriah 1
Libs Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 Christ states in the Bible that marriage does not involved divorce. I can see someone who believes that marriage can be ended both legally and morally through divorce sees this as a redefinition of how God wants marriage to be used.Do you really believe that's what Cathy was talking about?
ERayR Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 For whom, in this current political climate, are we redefining marriage? That is the question.WE are not trying to redefine marriage for anyone. There are several special interest groups trying to redefine marriagee but I am not affiliated with any of them so you are going to have to exclude me from the WE.
ERayR Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 Christ states in the Bible that marriage does not involved divorce. I can see someone who believes that marriage can be ended both legally and morally through divorce sees this as a redefinition of how God wants marriage to be used.Yes that is one. There are more.
Libs Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 WE are not trying to redefine marriage for anyone. There are several special interest groups trying to redefine marriagee but I am not affiliated with any of them so you are going to have to exclude me from the WE.Why would I include you in the "we" who are redefining marriage? I'm talking about people who support ss marriage.
Recommended Posts