DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Satanists Seize On Hobby Lobby To Test The Limit Of Religious Freedom

And don't forget the meatballs!

You tried before to get me to rise to this very same piece of emotionally-laden bait, and it didn't work before. Did you think that perhaps I got a lobotomy in the past 6 weeks? It didn't work then, and it won't work now.

I spent a lot of time addressing this with you the last time. I was very calm. I was very patient. I was consistent in all facets of my argument. I countered your repeated attempts to sidline/derail the conversation with hypothetical scenarios, loaded questions, and 'gotcha' set-ups with logic, common sense and an adherence to the original principle.

This is an issue of civil rights being denied American citizens that are granted to others. That is antithetical to the tenets spelled out in the Bill of Rights, and it's wrong. As was said before, civil rights issues are wholly separate from 'morality' or religious issues in this case, because it deals with a point of law... not a personally-held belief about who's worthy of rights and who isn't.

Instead of playing out a scene from "Groundhog Day" with you, I'll simply link you back to our original discussion. The points I made back then are the same ones I'd make now. This would be a more economical use of my time.

Here it is. I'll save you some time, as well. You 'school session' began on page 4 near the bottom, and continued on pages 5 & 6.

No need to thank me...
I'm here for the people.

Get snarky if you want but I did suspect a Frontal Lobotomy due to your off base statements comparing the Black struggles for Civil Rights to men having sex. You are wrong to do so.

The greatest lesson I learned from the Black Civil Rights Movement is to judge a man's character by what he does in society, not by the color of his skin.
I don't much care for the Homosexual acts of men and I do not think the act adds anything to our society. The people are people, the act is sin and therefore unacceptable.

So by what he does in society, not in his bedroom?

So if a guy is a productive, tax paying American he does society good, right?

Finally, people talking sense!
Yes, the Gay person is a good and productive member of society but the act of Homosexuality is unacceptable the world over. I don't care what a Free American does in his bedroom, that is his business, but when you bring it to the streets and look for approval from society, demand equal footing to the marriage of one man to one woman and punish those who find it unacceptable, well that is crap.

Even the French roll their eyes at America...


Tens of thousands of people marched in Paris and Lyon on Sunday against new laws easing abortion restrictions and legalising gay marriage, accusing French President Francois Hollande's government of "family phobia".

Police said 80,000 people took to the streets of the French capital, creating a sea of blue, white and pink -- the colours of the lead organising movement LMPT (Protest for Everyone) -- who gave a far higher turnout figure of half a million.

Demonstrator Philippe Blin, a pastor from nearby Sevres, said he felt a "relentlessness against the family" in France.


At least 20,000 rallied in Lyon, many of them ferried in aboard dozens of buses, waving placards reading "Mom and Dad, There's Nothing Better for a Child" and "Two Fathers, Two Mothers, Children With No Bearings" -- a slogan that rhymes in French.

Organisers in the south-central city estimated the crowd at 40,000, their statement describing a "wave of blue and pink".

"We are in a society that has lost many of its bearings, and everything that was an institution... which served as a foundation, has gradually disappeared," said one protester in his 40s who gave his name only as Eric. "Attacks against the family are dangerous for the family, for children, for the country."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/03/france-anti-gay-marriage_n_4713619.html

nothing. i wasn't making any point with that post. just a general fun fact comment.

Man... if you thought that post was 'snarky,' you haven't read me when I'm actually annoyed at someone.

Your Father in Law called me and asked me to straighten you out. I'm trying.

I really am unhappy with the comparison of the Black Civil Rights Movement to what you see as the Gay Civil Rights Movement. I even resent having to call them that.
Perhaps you could coin a phrase like "Rainbow Civil Rights".
The Civil Rights Movement was all Black in my opinion so others should have to use a different name.

40, I don't know what to tell you besides what I already have. I'm not even trying to convince you I'm right, or trying to change your mind about this. You either understand the concept of "equal rights for all Americans" or you don't.

Another possibility I just considered: you actually DO understand the concept, but simply don't want it to apply to this particular group of Americans... for your own reasons which you feel are justified.

If you DON'T understand the concept, I've already given you an explanation laid out in coherent sentences. If you DO understand the concept, it means that you've rejected my train of thought, and further discussion is pretty much pointless.

You think I'm wrong-headed about this because of your belief framework. I think you're dogmatically opposed to my train of thought because of that same framework. There really is no common ground that I can see on which we can meet in agreement. That's actually OK with me- my life isn't going to be made one whit better or worse if folks see this differently than I do.

For the record: the term " Gay Civil Rights Movement" was your term. It's a label I never once used in my posts- not in this one nor the thread I linked. I think you might conflating the two because of my use of the descriptor 'civil rights'... which is exactly what this issue is- the same as women's reproductive rights and Americans With Disabilities are 'civil rights' issues.

The term transcends the limited use that you've tried to place on it. Civil Rights aren't just for Black folks- they're for ALL folks... which has really been my point all along.

Yes! That's it! Civil Rights are for all Americans BUT we don't allow all Americans to Marry. We don't see everything that people do as acceptable. Some things are still off limits in our society and if those people tried to force you to accept their marriage to animals, or force you to accept a man marrying multiple wives even if consenting, or God knows what you Libs will come up with next, you would come off your table and admit it is anti family and against a cohesive society.
It all comes down to what you are willing to accept as decent human behavior and are willing to make a Civil Rights case out of.

"We are in a society that has lost many of its bearings, and everything that was an institution... which served as a foundation, has gradually disappeared," said one protester in his 40s who gave his name only as Eric. "Attacks against the family are dangerous for the family, for children, for the country."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/03/france-anti-gay-marriage_n_4713619.html

Why is it that the only people suggesting others want to marry animals or have multiple spouses are the same ones who oppose 2 people who love each other be allowed the same rights that other married couples have?

If someone wants to marry an animal is it because of gay rights? If that were the case then couldn't we continue the cause to hetero-marriage?

There was a day when marriage involved possession of camels and other livestock be transferred. Wouldn't that be the source of someone's trying to justify marrying an animal?

Would you support a man having multiple wives if all are consenting adults and want to be legally married?

What does that have to do with marriage equality for gays?

I haven't and I haven't heard anybody else ask for multiple wives.

If people are asking for those things maybe you should ask them about it.

Damn it pains me greatly to support 40's buffoonery, but he is kind of making a good argument. Where is the line drawn? Who decides that?

I am not saying I am against gay marriage, I am kind of on the fence about it. I am a flip flopper, but I can see 40's point.

Why not. If all parties are agree, then have at it. Keyword being "all".

And there you have it. People on here called it buffoonery when I spoke of the slippery slope of Gay marriage and trying to make it a Civil Rights issue. At least now I know what will be next on the libby table. I better get ready for this to be forced down my throat too.

"We are in a society that has lost many of its bearings, and everything that was an institution... which served as a foundation, has gradually disappeared," "Attacks against the family are dangerous for the family, for children, for the country."

He doesn't really bring up a point... This is a civil rights issue that concerns marriage, not a marriage issue in itself. It's essentially like saying that if we desegregate the South where will the alligators go to use the bathroom.

Since only two people can marry each other currently there isn't any discrimination going on in terms of polygamy. Thus it's not a civil rights issue.

I think the SCOTUS decides.

I'm not sure why gay rights equal marrying animals. If we decide rights on the "slippery slope" concept to marriage then it should go beyond gays to the very beginning of marriage.

There have been many different forms of allowable marriages before our concept of "traditional" marriage.

Allowing 1 man to marry 1 woman has led us to the moral corruption we are currently experiencing as much as anything else.

Should we say it never should have never been allowed?

Cute. Now perhaps you will answer the question, do you support a man marrying multiple women if all are consenting?

I tried.
Twice.
It didn't work.
Expect similar results from your post.

I'm just smart enough to know when to throw in the towel.

He isn't going to 'get it' because he doesn't want to. I now understand that. It's why I've vacated the conversation... we each know where the other stands.

But- good luck (with yo' bad self)...

Dodging and saying others just don't get it is just running your mouth and you have that right.

The question, Clem, is do you support a man marrying multiple woman if all are consenting?

Perhaps the issue is too disgusting and against the morals of people on here and we should just let the issue go away for now.
I completely understand.

You didn't read the link I embedded, did you?

We've already had this conversation. My position hasn't changed.

Of course I read it, thought about it more, and came to the conclusion you are wrong. So I ask this simple question of posters but few want to answer, most just want to tell me how smart they are and how stupid I am.

Do you support a man marrying multiple woman if all are consenting and adults?
It is currently illegal in this Country but if they come calling, will you guys support legalizing it?

This answer you're reading is a cut/paste from our conversation in the thread I already linked earlier. In my previous post I asked you if you'd read the link. You just said 'yes' -when it's obvious that you didn't. If you HAD read the thread, you'd not be asking me the same question for the third time.

Unless of course, you have the short-term memory of a goldfish. That's about the only explanation that makes sense.

Until you can ask a question that hasn't already been asked AND answered, you & I are pretty much done in this conversation. My time's too valuable to burn going over the same stuff. I hope you understand.

I look forward to future talks with you- about something new.


p.s.
No 'snark' here- just plain talk that leaves no room for ambiguity or 'misunderstanding.'

best,
Clem.

And my next question will be, If you make a Civil Rights issue of Legalized Homosexuality and Gay Marriage, the slippery slope leads to a man with multiple wives. Will we make a Civil Rights issue of every act that men wish to do?

Is the Government not made up of "We the People" and should reflect our wishes in all the laws it makes? Should the Government go against EVERYTHING we may want?

possibly yes.

And the validity of those initiatives will be decided upon by the Supreme Court.

That's why we have them.

[quote=Clemdawg]possibly yes.

And the validity of those initiatives will be decided upon by the Supreme Court.

Yes, the slippery slope continues as our Government makes laws against the will of the people, one building upon another as they push their agenda and off to the Supreme's it goes. Seems to also be a slippery slope to losing ALL our Rights.

That's how the system works. It isn't perfect, but it's better than pretty much anywhere else.

The thing about it is this: decisions will be made every day that someone doesn't like. This time it may be you. Next time, it may be me. Every decision they make will be against the will of SOME people.

This is only a "we v. they" thing if you see other Americans as The Enemy.
It's only a w/l thing if you see our legal framework as a zero-sum game.
I do not see it in those terms.

I see it as a living, adaptive set of guidelines and parameters for an ever-changing society. I won't like ALL the changes we make, but I trust the construct left us by the Founding Fathers to get it right most of the time. Being realistic, it's the best any of us can hope for.



Let's also take some comfort in the knowledge that any decision made can be revisited at a later date. That flexibility is key to the adaptive nature I described.


p.s. this is much better than rehashing retread questions.

Can a woman have multiple husbands?

You paint a lovely picture but I see it a little more harshly...

So we are left with a Government pushing its agenda of destroying the foundations of moral thinking and tearing away at the very thinking our society was built upon and destroying the American family by passing laws for Legalized homosexuality as the supreme court upholds it. Clem sits by and says "It is the law of the land so I wash my hands of it."

Next they pass a law where a man can have multiple wives as the supremes uphold it because it is similar to the Gay Rights laws they have already upheld. Clem says its the law of the land so I wash my hands of it.

Next the Government says it is ok for a Gay man to have multiple male wives and the supremes won't even hear that case because it fits within decisions already upheld. Clems hands remain clean.

The Gay man marries 25 male wives and America now stands for the Civil Rights of the Gay Orgy.
Oh well, Clem says, it is the law of the land.

Next that Government comes to me and says we have an enemy on our border who wants to conquer us and force their ideals upon us, we need your sons to fight to protect our Nation. To which I reply...
Pfft

The multiple replies have indicated the question is irrelevant.

If you believe guns should be legal then should I be allowed to own a nuclear warhead?

BTW I don't really care how you answer because that question is equally irrelevant to the issue of our right to own guns.

It appears you're equating the government to the Supreme Court. After all, it's they who will decide such issues. Currently the Supreme Court is made up of more GOP appointees than it is Dem appointees. So wouldn't it stand to reason that IF the Supreme Court were to decide that gay marriage should be legal, that it is based on equal rights for all rather than some moral issue?

You are aware the Supreme Court IS part of the Government aren't you?
Executive
Legislative
Judicial

To the rest of your post, it certainly shows the need for diligence in keeping the Court stacked.

Yes I realize that the Supreme Court is one out of the three branches of our government. And it's already stacked. Which was my point.

So let me try this again.......

Since the Supreme Court is already a majority of GOP appointees, wouldn't you say that if they confirm that gay marriage is legal, wouldn't you say that it would be based far more about equal rights than a moral decision?

5-4? There are 9 justices so until such time as an independent wins the Whitehouse, one side or the other will always have at least a 1 person advantage. 5-4 isn't stacked, that's as even as it can be.

It's more of a 4-4 with a wildcard. There's a couple who are on the fence about certain issues given the topic at hand.

The SCOTUS is the one of the few parts which work out well. I like the drama their rulings cause.