Voting with appetite on marriage

Thanks for visiting The Daily Sentinel

Subscribers and registered users, log in to continue reading for free*

Forgot your password?    

Register to read for free! Become a subscriber

* 7-day subscribers have unlimited access to online content.
Registered users may read 12 articles per month.


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

I’m pretty sure there were some people there who were protesting against the homophobia, were they invisible to the Sentinel?

Imagine what it would have demonstrated if all those people took that money they spent at Chick-Fil-A yesterday and donated it to the Western Slope Food Bank of the Rockies. It would help feed our neighbors, reflect the teachings of Christ (‘take all that you have, give it to the poor, and follow me’-Matt 19:21- ‘whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me’ -Matt 25:40- ‘Be careful not to do your acts of righteousness before men to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.’- Matt 6:1- etc. etc. etc.).

I’m pretty sure the majority of people were there (as was I) to support free speech! I do support Biblical, traditional marriage but this issue was more about tolerating other points of view than your own.

Ms. Konola, being for traditional marriage does not mean someone is homophobic! Homosexuality, according to the Bible, is a sin as is lying, stealing, murder, and many other things. This does not mean that someone who disagrees with a sin hates the sinner. Jesus hated the sin but loved the sinner.

I have long appreciated Chick-fil-A’s stand for Biblical principles and they do make a killer spicy, chicken sandwich!

The kind-hearted Mr. Barker appears to not understand how the propaganda game is played, and that Ms. Konola understands full well that most Chick-Fil-A supporters are not in fact homophobic. The term for what Konola is doing is called “rhetorical brinksmanship.” Rhetorical brinksmanship, as practiced by the Left and other sophists, is raising the emotional heat and intensity of a conversation to the point it reaches either violence or capitulation. This is done as a matter of calculated strategy designed to get one’s polemical and/or philosophical opponent in the conversation to capitulate, or, at the very least, shut up and go away. The despicable manipulators who practice rhetorical brinksmanship presume that most well-intended, benign human beings will capitulate in a discussion rather than start exercising violence. And, of course, that disordered presumption is usually correct. Examples of rhetorical brinksmanship are 1) gays who fraudulently/manipulatively demonize people as “haters” and/or “homophobes” merely for holding the sincere belief that smearing feces on one’s urethra is disgusting and medically risky, that rectums were designed for the expulsion of waste not the expression of romantic love, and/or that, as has been the tradition in most cultures for millenia, “marriage” is between one man and one woman; 2) race-hustling blacks who in effect fraudulently/manipulatively say, “any white person who doesn’t want to pay more taxes so I can have more government freebies is a racist”; and 3) militant gender feminists (aka “feminazis”) who fraudulently/manipulatively demonize people as “misogynist” for merely holding the sincere moral belief that, at some stage in its development, pre-birth humans deserve to have the same legal rights as post-birth humans.
In my opinion, dealing with deliberately strategized aggressive propaganda rhetoric is different than merely dealing with the humanity and adverse opinions of another human being. Kindness and grace are appropriate when dealing with a person. But when dealing with deliberately aggressive sophistry, I suspect the “hate evil” admonition in Amos 5:15 is more effective. Accordingly, rhetorical tit-for-tat seems a more effective strategy when dealing with sophistry and rhetorical brinksmanship.

That was brilliant, Mr. Wilkenson, very well put!

John, you left a few out

4) People who feel so threatened by the love of others they have to imagine that those who choose different family situations other than their own are part of some militant ‘gay agenda’ out to ‘destroy traditional marriage.’

5) Are so freaked out by President Obama for whatever reasons, that they cannot limit themselves to criticizing his policy but must, instead, imagine he is some Manchurian secret communist Kenyan Muslim out to intentionally ruin our land.

Is it possible that Mr. Cathy promoted his view to garner sympathy so he could sell more unhealthy, factory-farm raised,long range transported deep fat fried so-called chicken crap.  If I must show my support for biblical marriage by consuming fast food then something is really out of balance.

Mr. Wilkenson appears to use “other sophists” in order to avoid saying “the Right.”

Search More Jobs

734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
Subscribe to print edition
Sign in to your account

© 2014 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy