User talk:Algonquin7

Welcome
Hello, Algonquin7, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- The Red Pen of Doom  21:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Change in Account Notice I'm John D. Rockerduck Now
'''I'm bored with Algonquin7 so now Im John D. Rockerduck if any wishes to contact me do it there from now on. or I probably will not see it.''' —Preceding undated comment added 06:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Name change
Your recent edit here shows you still editing under Algonquin7, even though it looks like you want to use a new name. If you haven't already, you may want to go to Changing username to make sure that change takes care of everything and makes it less confusing. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I started commenting that disscusion as user algonquin7 so I figured I would finish it as Algonquin to avoid a conflict of interest, plus I'm waiting till my new account is auto-confirmed before I retire Algonquin7, thanks for the advice though Algonquin7 (talk) 23:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

A friendly reply
Hi. Sorry to intrude, but RedPen closed that discussion re “traditional marriage” before I could reply to your last post there. I thought I’d post on your talk page instead, just so you know I had read your post and thought it deserved a reply.

If I understood you correctly, there is no issue about the term "traditional marriage" since (you say) it simply means "marriage between one man and one woman". In which case, why did Dan Cathy get so worked up about what might be called (for the sake of argument) "non-traditional" marriages such as civil marriages (as distinct from a church or Christian marriage) of same-sex couples? There would be no controversy in the first place but for Cathy’s condemnatory comments about those who “have the audacity to define what marriage is about”, and the fact his company has sponsored organizations known to have lobbied against the overturning of Proposition 8, and also against granting equal legal rights to LGBT people. Clearly when Cathy says he is supporting "the traditional family" he means far more than simply nurturing that institution. There is a lot of “collateral” (that is auxiliary meaning) in that phrase (certainly as Cathy uses it), and the trouble is that the collateral is different for so many people when they speak or hear that phrase "traditional marriage". That is the point I was trying to make in that discussion. Alfietucker (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Cathy did not at all get worked up he simply stated his beliefs, and there is nothing condemning in saying he thought people who wanted to re-define marriage where being blasphemous from his church teachings of what God meant marriage to be, If he said all who engage in gay marriages all bad people and all will go to Hell, then that will be condeming and controversial but he never condemed anyone and clearly he is for the "biblical defination of the family unit" because he thinks it is best for traditional families because those who argue against gay marriage always say it will be detrimental for family values the truth of those accusations is certainly debatable, but the fact that those who are gay marriage certainly think that is not. Also whether marriage is a right or privilage is also debatable since no legal constition (federal or state in the U.S.) says everyone has the right to get married that is apart of the debate on this issue and Alfie to reach the conclusion that it is a right insert that viewpoint in the arguement is unfairly giving one-side an advantage and that is my point — Preceding unsigned comment added by John D. Rockerduck (talk • contribs) 19:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Traditional Marriage and Interracial Marriage
Hey there, fellow editor, I saw your comments at Talk:2012_Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy, but that discussion has been closed, as it appears no reliable sources have probed Cathy's views on interracial marriage. Yes, the Bible was used until relatively recently (historically speaking) to argue that interracial marriage was forbidden. A number of verses would be cited, about not mixing with others and yoking like people to like, etc. See, e.g.,. The Bob Jones University ban on interracial dating, which was not repealed until 2000, was based on the same Biblical understandings though they were one of the last organizations to cling to this interpretation of the Bible, see. See also -- you can find tons of examples the harder you look. You can see the vestiges of the old beliefs in frequent newspaper clippings in the last twenty years where people ask whether the bible prohibits interracial marriage--and they are told, no, (this last guy wishes it was forbidden though!) but the reason people are asking is because they vaguely think the Bible bans it--probably because they were taught it did. Hope you find this interesting. I'll spare you links to entire books from the 1800s arguing that the Bible promotes slavery. Cheers.--Milowent • hasspoken 02:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As you said based on their interpretations though some have tried to interpret ambigouis passages in the bible to support their opposition to interacial marriage that does not mean the bible ever forbade it, the same goes for the second amendment a good number of people interpret it as a personal gun ownership rights when the original intent was only for state militias right for gun ownership just because people write books and quote certain passages that can possibly be interpreted for their arguement does not make it true that the bible ever meant that, and that was my point though I'm impressed in the work you put into the sources you cited I still think it is a false and bogus argueing point since it was never in the bible John D. Rockerduck (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)