OT: Dabo's statement on turning down the award from the PFC
- Thread starter Smiling_Tiger
- Start date
Almost every serious Lib bumper sticker/slogan talks about "absolute tolerance." That's just not true..
There is no "absolute truth," that's the point. Super libs are trying to make absolute truths, when it's just their personal ideals going to work.
No, all Republicans don't all care about this, but staunch Liberals do. There's a HUGE difference. This is a pissing match, I'm out. I don't care if you're gay, straight, tranny, whatever. Dabo made the right move.
Last edited:
I expect Dabo will have a very vocal presence politically once he retires. He in no way shape or form strikes me as someone who won't continue to be in the public eye for as long as he's able.
For now, however, he just handled this like a boss.
For now, however, he just handled this like a boss.
You mean like the personal ideal that marriage is between a man and woman?[/QUOTE
"In your lifetime, you will see marriages between 3 or more people, people marrying animals, etc."
There is no way you truly believe this. Right?
"In your lifetime, you will see marriages between 3 or more people, people marrying animals, etc."
There is no way you truly believe this. Right?
Haha holy crap are you suggesting that I'm a staunch liberal? I've heard it all now... And by the way, I think you do care. A lot. Seems strange that grown men care about what other adults do in their private life.
This move by Dabo is disappointing, and I'll tell you why.
I fully understand that the liberal media, which supports the gay and lesbian agenda, jumped on to make a stink out of nothing, and get Dabo and Clemson to try to look bad. Unfortunately, they bowed to the paper tiger without understanding who their real audience is.
Dabo's audience, and customer, is NOT the liberal media, and it certainly isn't the gay and lesbian lobby.
Dabo's customer is that momma who wants her son to play under a Christian man of integrity. And Dabo just lost a little integrity because he won't make a public stand for his beliefs because there's a fake "controversy". This is exactly the opposite to what he did last year against the anti-Christians who attacked him.
A couple of years ago, Chick Fil A's owner made a public statement about being against gay marriage. The liberal media created a national firestorm. Gays and lesbians picketted Chick Fil A stores.
BUT..... Chick Fil A business SKYROCKETTED!!!! Immediately, LONG lines appeared at every store. It's been a couple of years, and business at their stores is still FAR higher than it was before the 'controversy'.
Lesson?
Take a stand for your Christian beliefs. Talk about Chist's love, and our love, for EVERYONE, but our desire for people not to be deceived by perversion. Let the liberal media make a stink about it.
And then stand back and laugh all the way to the bank. Or , in Dabo's case, let all those mothers send their boys to play for a man who takes a stand against huge pressure for the sake of righteousness and integrity.
Of course, I realize that Dabo was no doubt TOLD what to do. And that is really disappointing.
Is that really funny to you? The continual mention of Perry Noble in irrelevant threads is old and tiresome.
Dabo represents all Clemson students, alumni and is a selling point for the (public) university for prospective students. If he came out and took a hard stance that he supported an organization that actively creates and promotes laws/polices that deny rights to people, then he would no longer work at Clemson. He knows that and understands that is a part of the job.
Chick fil A is a private business and such the owners are able to say whatever they want, and that is their right. If Chick fil A was a public company, it probably would have been a different story.
I know many on this board have a hard time with change, but marriage equality is happening.
Nothing says "FreeSC" like deep pocket lobbyists using the faith of public figures in order to push their political agenda.
I can assure you Dabo being Dabo has done and will do more to promote "family" by the way he leads his life and they way he treats EVERYONE than some republican lobby masked as a family focused organization.
I assure you Dabo was not told what to do.
There was some misrepresentation from the group that extended the invitation and I'll leave it at that.
Once he learned more about the group, Dabo chose not to go. It was his choice, and his choice only.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/three-women-married-each-other-3453009
OOps! I guess it is happening in my lifetime
OOps! I guess it is happening in my lifetime
http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/court-told-humans-could-marry-animals/print/
This is well written, organized, and lays out the legal logic behind the controversy.
Basically, if you say there is no basis for defining marriage as strictly being defined as a union of a man and a woman, how can you then logically define a new defining basis of "two consenting adults"? You are essentially then only imposing a "new morality" into the equation. Your morality. There are people who want to "marry" and do marry animals, even though it is not currently legal to do so. But, I am sure that as society evolves and becomes more tolerant of everyone's desires and right to happiness, that this newest defining morality will be shot down by some federal judge at some point and then threesomes,(or more) and animals will also be included. It is after all only about sexual preferences, right? Who are you to deny anyone their happiness?
This is well written, organized, and lays out the legal logic behind the controversy.
Basically, if you say there is no basis for defining marriage as strictly being defined as a union of a man and a woman, how can you then logically define a new defining basis of "two consenting adults"? You are essentially then only imposing a "new morality" into the equation. Your morality. There are people who want to "marry" and do marry animals, even though it is not currently legal to do so. But, I am sure that as society evolves and becomes more tolerant of everyone's desires and right to happiness, that this newest defining morality will be shot down by some federal judge at some point and then threesomes,(or more) and animals will also be included. It is after all only about sexual preferences, right? Who are you to deny anyone their happiness?
^^^Obviously didn't read article^^ or has no capacity for understanding logic^^
I thought you summarized it. No way I'm going to waste my time reading the article.
Well, actually I did compare the two moral stances. One stance wants to limit marriage to man and woman. The newer stance is to limit or draw the line, so to speak, at two consenting adults. All I am saying is the newest stance is still a moral stance even though the proponents of said stance like to chastise the proponents of the traditional marriage stance as trying to force their morality on everyone. The truth is that the newest stance of 'consenting adults is also a moral stance and could limit people who are predisposed to having sex with, and being "in love" with more than one person,from fulfilling their desire to have a group marriage. The same could be said for those who are predisposed to bestiality Previously,link to an article from the UK where three women married each other. Anyone in this thread who is for homosexual marriage, would also have to be for group marriage or marriage to animals for that matter; based on the logic they use for chastising the traditional marriage folks.
Group marriage is coming too don't worry. If consenting adults want to marry anyone, let them. The animal angle is just dumb, as long as everyone is legal age and can actually say "I do" let them join the misery, that leaves the animals out.
So, you think it is dumb that some people, different from you, want to have sex with an animal, love that animal dearly and want to marry the animal? What right do have to impose your bigotry on another person who has the same right as you to be happy? They are not hurting anyone. Since you are narrow minded and refuse to do the google search, I will just free you from your willful ignorance. There is a growing movement of people who are just now feeling comfortable enough to go public with their desire to marry their pets. There will soon be no legal restrictions on these marriages. You might as well get over it, bigot.
Can the pet willfully enter into this marriage verbally articulating their desire to marry their owner, NO, like I said dumb. Things are changing but nobody is saying you have to.
Animals, like children, are not capable of giving consent. As a society, we've decided that consent is an important thing. I feel bad for people who are attracted to children or animals. That must suck. It is an expectation, however, that they do not act on those attractions BECAUSE THE THINGS THEY ARE ATTRACTED TO ARE LIVING AND CANNOT MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION. Associating homosexuality with bestiality is a lazy, incorrect, and bigoted argument.
Sorry, but nowhere did I associate bestiality with homosexuality, nor have I associated heterosexuality with homosexuality. My son had a Golden Retriever that would try to have sex, (hump), certain of my wife's friends. He didn't do this with all women, just two of them. I guess he knew what he liked and didn't like.
I am sure there is a lawyer somewhere who could make the argument that because the animal is happy and well fed while living with his or her owner, then that is construed as consent. There are people marrying animals and sex is not part of the deal. A rich woman in England actually married a porpoise. The point is that you cannot deprive these people of their rights unless you draw a line of morality somewhere.
Personally, I wish the state would just drop licensing marriage altogether. It, (marriage,)obviously means something different to me than it does to secularist folks. My faithfulness to my wife has nothing to do a license, but rather the covenant that I made with her and my Creator God, and likewise for my wife. This is a relationship that secular humanist don't understand and wouldn't want to understand. So, if the gov't totally removed itself from licensing and giving perks for being married, would there even be such a thing, (marriage) in the non Christian world. If so, who would it look like?
You compared homosexuality to bestiality when you talked about the slippery slope of being able to get married to animals. Maybe you think you've avoided this by separating the sex from it but I don't really buy it.
Anyone can make the argument that anything constitutes consent. You just made a straw man argument for it yourself. It doesn't make the argument valid, however. The way our society has defined consent leaves no room for animals to provide it.
Also, why can't love exist in a secular relationship? I imagine that the values that occur in secular marriages would be basically the same as in a religious marriage except for the "covenant with God" part. If the State wants to get out of recognizing marriages and providing benefits then fine. The idea though, and what that I believe is backed up by legitimate data, is that children benefit from having a stable family structure. Incentivizing marriages is good for taxpayers when you look at it in that light. (Studies have not shown that the children of same-sex parents have fared worse, btw. In fact I think those children tend to do better at a lot of measures).
All I am comparing is people's right to define marriage as whatever they want it mean. You obviously have the taken the ability to procreate out of the definition as you compare hetero and homo relationships as being equal; in light of what constitutes marriage. "Love" can mean many things to many different people, so, "love' can exist anywhere in any relationship. I "love" my dog and he "loves' me. We are not married by the way. Some Muslim societies force children into marriage. That is a different set of morals from yours or mine, so "consent" is basically just another moral line drawn in the sand. It's just your moral line that you don't believe should be crossed over. All I am getting to is that someday your moral line of "consent" will be breached by people making the same logic you are trying to use today.
