ERayR 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!Libs - I will state plainly that I agree with Cathy when he says: 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.I will not equivocate. Along with all of these other problems with marriage I include ssm. Now if that shocks your sensibilities I am sorry. Before you start claiming I am anti-homosexual I go on record to say I am not. I am anti-ssm. Those in my family who have these tendencies know my stand and when we meet at family gatherings or at my home or theirs we can still share a hug and civil conversation without denigrating each other. 3
KevinG Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 Surely if Cathy meant all fatherless or motherless families he would have made a statement to that effect by now, since everbody and their dog believe he is against SSM. HE DID! Can anyone read anymore or comprehend audio interviews?!His answer was in direct relation to a question about "fatherlessness". I'm tempted to start another rant on public schools. 1
ERayR Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 Maybe he feels it would be useless given the response or that he would just be accused of lying and just trying to make himself look better.Or maybe he knows the futility of trying to appease the lions. 2
KevinG Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 But it seems the media believe it to be a "gay issue", and the "kiss in" goes to show that the majority of those lining up do too. I thought if it weren't only gay parents Cathy is concerned about, wouldn't he have atleast made some kind of statement by now?Yes the media have been trying really really hard to portray this as a gay issue. When the vast majority of interviewees at the Chick-fil-a appreciation day were talking about Dan Cathy's free speech rights the media kept saying it was a protest against gay marriage. But why take Dan Cathy's word at face value when we have the talking heads at ABC, NBC and CNN to explain what he really meant. 1
ERayR Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 HE DID! Can anyone read anymore or comprehend audio interviews?!His answer was in direct relation to a question about "fatherlessness". I'm tempted to start another rant on public schools.Public schools may be part of the problem but it mostly about willful blindness. 4
KevinG Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 But it seems the media believe it to be a "gay issue", and the "kiss in" goes to show that the majority of those lining up do too. I thought if it weren't only gay parents Cathy is concerned about, wouldn't he have atleast made some kind of statement by now?Because it would just be twisted like his earlier statements. And the protests did succeed in shutting him up.http://www.chick-fil-a.com/Pressroom/Press-Releases#?release=LGBT-statement
KevinG Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 I meant a statement since the fiasco last week...Take your pick...http://www.chick-fil-a.com/Pressroom/Press-Releases
KevinG Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 (edited) But it seems the media believe it to be a "gay issue", and the "kiss in" goes to show that the majority of those lining up do too. I thought if it weren't only gay parents Cathy is concerned about, wouldn't he have atleast made some kind of statement by now? With an estimated kiss in participation in the low tens of thousands and Chick-fil-a appreciation day numbering in the high hundred thousands I think the majority of those lining up last week understood what Dan Cathy was trying to say. They are also fed up with spinning and slandering good people to push an agenda. That was what Wednesday was all about. Don't take the word of the talking heads. Listen to actual interviews with people who where there. The vast bulk of those talking about gay marriage are the press and those who are pushing a gay marriage agenda. Edited August 4, 2012 by KevinG 2
Tacenda Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 (edited) Take your pick...http://www.chick-fil.../Press-ReleasesI guess I thought of something from Mr. Cathy himself. But this is fine, I hadn't checked yet, my bad... Edited August 5, 2012 by Tacenda
Somebodyz Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 Libs - I will state plainly that I agree with Cathy when he says: 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.I will not equivocate. Along with all of these other problems with marriage I include ssm. Now if that shocks your sensibilities I am sorry. Before you start claiming I am anti-homosexual I go on record to say I am not. I am anti-ssm. Those in my family who have these tendencies know my stand and when we meet at family gatherings or at my home or theirs we can still share a hug and civil conversation without denigrating each other.Ditto. I too totally agree with the quote from Cathy above and with Rays views. Would give you a rep point Ray, but I'm out.
wenglund Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 (edited) 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.Referring to two keys as a lock and key set doesn't changing the definition of locks and key sets, it is just expands the definition. Thanks -Wade Englund- Edited August 4, 2012 by wenglund 1
ERayR Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 Referring to two keys as a lock and key set doesn't changing the definition of locks and key sets, it is just expands the definition. Thanks -Wade Englund-The expanded definition doesn't really work well but we all feel good. 2
Libs Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 I quoted you when you used Westboro Baptists and McCarthyism as illustrations for your point and you said you never said it. Go figure?I'm going to answer to this one post, because it is absolutely wrong and that's it.My reference to McCarthyism had to do with standing with liberals who fought against McCarthyism...in other words, they were fighting for our free speech rights. Someone (selek, I think) accused liberals of being against free speech, so that comment was made in response to that claim....had NOTHING to do with Cathy or his comments...nothing.The reference to Westboro was also in response to something selek said, about "hate speech" being a criminal act. I explained to him that was not the case, which is why you see the Westboro gang running around with their ridiculous signs. AGAIN, this comment was not AT ALL made as a comparison to what Cathy said.Now, I am done. I am feeling very slandered on this thread, with all of the misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of what I have said. here. Ridiculous and very disappointing.
ERayR Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 I'm going to answer to this one post, because it is absolutely wrong and that's it.My reference to McCarthyism had to do with standing with liberals who fought against McCarthyism...in other words, they were fighting for our free speech rights. Someone (selek, I think) accused liberals of being against free speech, so that comment was made in response to that claim....had NOTHING to do with Cathy or his comments...nothing.The reference to Westboro was also in response to something selek said, about "hate speech" being a criminal act. I explained to him that was not the case, which is why you see the Westboro gang running around with their ridiculous signs. AGAIN, this comment was not AT ALL made as a comparison to what Cathy said.Now, I am done. I am feeling very slandered on this thread, with all of the misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of what I have said. here. Ridiculous and very disappointing.Would that compare to how Cathy feels? 3
KevinG Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 I am feeling very slandered on this thread, with all of the misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of what I have said. here. Ridiculous and very disappointing.Like I said.Dan Cathy can relate.
Libs Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 (edited) Well, you both may very well believe that Dan Cathy has been "slandered", but the point is, he has not been slandered by ME. And, even if you thought that had been the case, does that justify doing it to someone else??I really expected better of you guys. I have shown you several times, how my words have been twisted and misused and yet no one seems to care...like it is justified? No apology, no going back to actually look at my words, just piling on and going on about things I haven't even said. Now, THAT is passive-aggressive (another ridiculous charge, as I have been very upfront with my comments...not that anyone has actually bothered to read them!).If you care so much about what has happened to Dan Cathy, but not at all what has happened to me, here, then your complaints are empty and hypocritical. Edited August 5, 2012 by Libs
Recommended Posts