Online Now 4196

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

On this Board 2593
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 4478
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

247Rumors

College football scuttlebutt and scoop- powered by Football Rumor Mill

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Big Ten Board (Beta)

Reply

The Attack on Religious Freedom

  • Spliveman said...

    No the meat of the situation is that they are two men plugging each others a** and you are condoning it as a right which says its correct and its not correct as it speads disease and affects the heterosexual population as well as many of these freaks are married just to have kids and have sex with other males and bring diseases home to their families.
    Read about the expierences of any women that was married to one of these freaks.
    When they made the laws I am sure no one was thinking that our country would be so dumb as to allow this in the future.
    Most of you supporting this are brain washed or gay yourself trying to act like you are not.

    Proof that homosexual sex spreads disease?

    signature image

    Hawkifish

  • Spliveman said...

    I think you know that only about 35% of americans do vote unless you have had your head up your shute all your life thats a fact.The others are too apathetic to vote but they dont condone your way of life either.The other 65% dont vote.
    They are just sitting around with their guns and knives waiting for the shit to hit the fan
    and you think they are going to be sympathetic to your cause?
    If you dont want to have sex with a women or procreate because you want to then at what value do you have to a women.They are 50% of us would any informed women support gay marriage they would be fools for what it just undermines there value and thats because this country is becoming full of freaks.They better hang on to what they got as husbands are hard enough to come by in todays world

    Voter turnout is around 60% in the US. Just an FYI

    signature image

    Hawkifish

  • I wholeheartedly hope spliveman was just trolling.

    signature image

    Hawkifish

  • Hawkifish said...

    I wholeheartedly hope spliveman was just trolling.

    Agreed,but I wouldn't be surprised.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • smells like troll..or idiot, not sure

    signature image signature image signature image

    Sir Mix A Lot ●

  • I'm a Christian and a Conservative, but I can't see any legitimate reason for gov't to be involved in either. Gay marriage more than others I guess, as a surviving spouse is due social security benefits of the deceased spouse (I think). Politics is too over the top for me these days with the issues the opposing sides choose to fight about. Both issues are personal choice, IMO, whether I agree with them or not. As long as no one is forced to sell contraception or officiate gay marriage, just ignore it and do what you do. For the record...the contraception argument is ridiculous to me. No telling how many abortions it prevents, not to mention "normal" married couples that just don't want children. Finally, while I'm bashing my party, "smaller gov't" doesn't exactly say "lets get involved in peoples sex lives".

    On the other side, I want to keep more of my earned income, lock the borders, and repeal national healthcare. I just don't even watch the news anymore. Bunch of crybabies on both sides fighting over a cookie while the steak rots.

    signature image signature image signature image

    TheT12

  • TheT12 said...

    I'm a Christian and a Conservative, but I can't see any legitimate reason for gov't to be involved in either. Gay marriage more than others I guess, as a surviving spouse is due social security benefits of the deceased spouse (I think). Politics is too over the top for me these days with the issues the opposing sides choose to fight about. Both issues are personal choice, IMO, whether I agree with them or not. As long as no one is forced to sell contraception or officiate gay marriage, just ignore it and do what you do. For the record...the contraception argument is ridiculous to me. No telling how many abortions it prevents, not to mention "normal" married couples that just don't want children. Finally, while I'm bashing my party, "smaller gov't" doesn't exactly say "lets get involved in peoples sex lives".

    On the other side, I want to keep more of my earned income, lock the borders, and repeal national healthcare. I just don't even watch the news anymore. Bunch of crybabies on both sides fighting over a cookie while the steak rots.

    Interesting take. Pretty curious about the immigration issue. Living in Chicago, it's got minimal impact on me; it's not as though we have Canadians coming in on canoes accross Lake Michigan on a regular basis trying to work in CHI.

    So what's the big issue? Worried about a bunch of people coming in and just living off of welfare? What about those who are actually working? Given that just about all of our ancestors were immigrants, it seems a little odd to just say "ok, NOW you can't bring us your tired and your poor". If you want to lock the borders, then we'd probably have to tear down the Statue of Liberty.

    This post was edited by SpartanRocky on 2/28/2012 at 9:18 AM

    Michigan State does not and will not run the 3-4 defense.

    SpartanRocky

  • SpartanRocky said...

    Interesting take. Pretty curious about the immigration issue. Living in Chicago, it's got minimal impact on me; it's not as though we have Canadians coming in on canoes accross Lake Michigan on a regular basis trying to work in CHI.

    So what's the big issue? Worried about a bunch of people coming in and just living off of welfare? What about those who are actually working? Given that just about all of our ancestors were immigrants, it seems a little odd to just say "ok, NOW you can't bring us your tired and your poor". If you want to lock the borders, then we'd probably have to tear down the Statue of Liberty.

    Well, I don't mean those legally crossing over. But I do mean deport those that do it illegally. It's obvious that the population issue was different in 1835. It's also obvious that the people of 1835 weren't shoving 7% (or 14%) of their income into social security, then worrying that they wouldn't have all of it, much less interest, at retirement because they had to share with poor immigrants. Personally, I've always impressed by how hard the working class from south of the border attack available jobs. It's commendable. But I have an incredibly hard time accepting the amount of money spent on people who cross the border illegally. Particularly when the recipients wave a Mexican flag and refuse to learn English.

    This is so cliche, but some of my best friends are Columbians. They waited years to get full citizenship. They did it the right way, they can come and go back home as often as they like with no worries, and they're very productive. They do, however, seem to be unbeatable when we play poker. It can't be because I'm the only guy that doesn't speak Spanish...?

    signature image signature image signature image

    TheT12

  • Ah immigration. Here's my take... If I go rob someone's house, and then use the defense of being a hard working and productive citizen in an attempt to absolve myself of liability for committing the crime of robbery, I will be laughed out of the courtroom. There are laws in place dealing with immigration and if those laws are not followed you need to be prosecuted and forced to GTFO. I'm not opposed to immigration at all as my wife is an immigrant who went through the proper channels and recently obtained citizenship in the US. However, we had to open up the pocketbook to Uncle Sam and go through a bunch of BS, as opposed to working the system and getting our pocketbooks filled by working citizens and permanent residents. We also had to wait almost 5 years for the process to run its course. Unless and until the laws are changed then everyone else should have to do the same regardless of whether they are a good person. I would agree that the laws should be rethought, especially when it comes to streamlining the process and reducing the amount of waiting and bureaucratic horseshit one has to deal with in the process. The process needs to be inviting to people from other countries and needs to encourage skilled workers and professionals to come here and add to our society, or to stay here after getting educated here.

    gwgator05

  • When it comes to immigration,we can either be realistic or principled.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • gwgator05 said...

    Ah immigration. Here's my take... If I go rob someone's house, and then use the defense of being a hard working and productive citizen in an attempt to absolve myself of liability for committing the crime of robbery, I will be laughed out of the courtroom. There are laws in place dealing with immigration and if those laws are not followed you need to be prosecuted and forced to GTFO. I'm not opposed to immigration at all as my wife is an immigrant who went through the proper channels and recently obtained citizenship in the US. However, we had to open up the pocketbook to Uncle Sam and go through a bunch of BS, as opposed to working the system and getting our pocketbooks filled by working citizens and permanent residents. We also had to wait almost 5 years for the process to run its course. Unless and until the laws are changed then everyone else should have to do the same regardless of whether they are a good person. I would agree that the laws should be rethought, especially when it comes to streamlining the process and reducing the amount of waiting and bureaucratic horseshit one has to deal with in the process. The process needs to be inviting to people from other countries and needs to encourage skilled workers and professionals to come here and add to our society, or to stay here after getting educated here.

    I'm down with that.

    Michigan State does not and will not run the 3-4 defense.

    SpartanRocky

  • TheT12 said...

    Well, I don't mean those legally crossing over. But I do mean deport those that do it illegally. It's obvious that the population issue was different in 1835. It's also obvious that the people of 1835 weren't shoving 7% (or 14%) of their income into social security, then worrying that they wouldn't have all of it, much less interest, at retirement because they had to share with poor immigrants. Personally, I've always impressed by how hard the working class from south of the border attack available jobs. It's commendable. But I have an incredibly hard time accepting the amount of money spent on people who cross the border illegally. Particularly when the recipients wave a Mexican flag and refuse to learn English.

    This is so cliche, but some of my best friends are Columbians. They waited years to get full citizenship. They did it the right way, they can come and go back home as often as they like with no worries, and they're very productive. They do, however, seem to be unbeatable when we play poker. It can't be because I'm the only guy that doesn't speak Spanish...?

    I gotcha. We don't have a national language, so the Spanish thing doesn't bother me so much, but I thought you were against ANY immigrants coming here.

    Michigan State does not and will not run the 3-4 defense.

    SpartanRocky

  • FOR EVERYONE.

    Time hasn't allowed me to keep up with some posts addressed to me. My apologies. I think some of my posts went too long to be fully dealt with, and maybe I didn't fully deal with someone's point of view. I'll offer a few bullets (in hopes that folks can answer my points more thoroughly) and appreciate and response someone may have.

    --The institution of marriage is the most vital factor dictating a society's success. As a result, it shouldn't be changed drastically at the whims of a few. And, please think more deeply about the emotional argument that claims the rights of homosexuals are being violated. They are free like the rest of us. The just don't have a "right" to be married anymore than the polygamist has a right to be married to a few women at once, even if they simply want it or want the tax breaks. Why should non-traditional marriage be considered vital to a society? How is polygamy different than homosexual marriage? The polygamist thinks he/she has every right to marry a few at once and wants it for their happiness. And, no one's getting in tthe way of homosexuals building a life together.

    --Certainly, part of my opinion comes from my commitment to the Biblical ethic (some Christians disagree with me). Someone would rightfully object that we have a separation of church and state. As a result, whatever we (The People) decide shouldn't be made solely b/c the Bible says so. However, we ALL base our undersanding of things on a set of assumptions/philosophies/rules, etc. Christians are guided by the Biblical ethic, Muslims are guided by the Koran, Atheists have a set of ideals/philosophies/ etc., And we all draw from these to guide us in how we see political issues. Like it or not the Biblical ethic has been vital for centuries to many peoples. It contains a lot of wisdom (no reasonable person argues against this). Other beliefs can offer helpful insights too. The point is, a Christian-American can rightfully vie for his/her opinion of marriage based solely on the Biblical ethic just like the Agnostic-American can vie for his/her opinion on the matter. The latter, of course, also having a list of assumptions (even if they don't have them listed somewhere) that they are basing their conclusions upon.

    I'll try to get to these tonight. Thanks.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by goodnews on 2/28/2012 at 12:08 PM

    signature image

    South Carolina Gamecocks. The 2010 National College Baseball Champs.

    goodnews

  • goodnews said...

    FOR EVERYONE.

    --The institution of marriage is the most vital factor dictating a society's success. As a result, it shouldn't be changed drastically at the whims of a few. And, please leave out the emotional argument that claims the rights of homosexuals are being violated. They are free like the rest of us. The don't have a right to be married anymore than the polygamist has a right to be married to a few women at once, even if they simply want it or want the tax breaks. Why should non-traditional marriage be considered vital to a society? How is polygamy different than homosexual marriage? The polygamist thinks he/she has every right to marry a few at once and wants it for their happiness. And, no one's getting in tthe way of homosexuals building a life together.

    --Certainly, part of my opinion comes from my commitment to the Biblical ethic (some Christians disagree with me). Someone would rightfully object that we have a separation of church and state. As a result, whatever we (The People) decide shouldn't be made solely b/c the Bible says so. However, we ALL base our undersanding of things on a set of assumptions/philosophies/rules, etc. Christians are guided by the Biblical ethic, Muslims are guided by the Koran, Atheists have a set of ideals/philosophies/ etc., And we all draw from these to guide us in how we see political issues. Like it or not the Biblical ethic has been vital for centuries to many peoples. It contains a lot of wisdom (no reasonable person argues against this). Other beliefs can offer helpful insights too. The point is, a Christian-American can rightfully vie for his/her opinion of marriage based solely on the Biblical ethic just like the Agnostic-American can vie for his/her opinion on the matter. The latter, of course, also having a list of assumptions (even if they don't have them listed somewhere) that they are basing their conclusions upon.

    On the point of gay marriage/polygamy. The civil liberty argument is not an emotional argument, it's a constitutional argument. We have a fundamental right to get married as Americans and that right is being limited without an overwhelming legal justification to limit that right. I don't view polygamy as any different. If we are talking about consenting adults who believe that polygamy is acceptable or preferential under their beliefs, then they should be allowed to exercise their religious freedom as well as their fundamental right to get married by entering into polygamist relationships and solidify the relationships through marriage. The government should be in the business of protecting those rights rather than curtailing them.

    I'm a Southern Baptist, believe in Jesus and accept and respect the Bible and its teachings. I may think that gay marriage and polygamy are sinful or wrong, but it's not my place to actively prevent other Americans from enjoying their liberty to marry the person that they choose to marry, and it sure as hell isn't the government's place to do that either. Like I said before, God understands the concept of liberty because God gives us the opportunity to make our own decisions, whether those decisions are good, bad or sinful and we have to face up to those decisions when we die. The constitution provides that same framework of liberty and as citizens of this country we need to honor the liberties of everyone.

    I don't have a problem with you expressing your views on the topic or the foundation of your views as such is your right. I just think that your position is incorrect based upon the framework document of our society.

    This post was edited by gwgator05 on 2/28/2012 at 12:29 PM

    gwgator05

  • goodnews said...

    FOR EVERYONE.

    Time hasn't allowed me to keep up with some posts addressed to me. My apologies. I think some of my posts went too long to be fully dealt with, and maybe I didn't fully deal with someone's point of view. I'll offer a few bullets (in hopes that folks can answer my points more thoroughly) and appreciate and response someone may have.

    --The institution of marriage is the most vital factor dictating a society's success. As a result, it shouldn't be changed drastically at the whims of a few. And, please think more deeply about the emotional argument that claims the rights of homosexuals are being violated. They are free like the rest of us. The just don't have a "right" to be married anymore than the polygamist has a right to be married to a few women at once, even if they simply want it or want the tax breaks. Why should non-traditional marriage be considered vital to a society? How is polygamy different than homosexual marriage? The polygamist thinks he/she has every right to marry a few at once and wants it for their happiness. And, no one's getting in tthe way of homosexuals building a life together.

    --Certainly, part of my opinion comes from my commitment to the Biblical ethic (some Christians disagree with me). Someone would rightfully object that we have a separation of church and state. As a result, whatever we (The People) decide shouldn't be made solely b/c the Bible says so. However, we ALL base our undersanding of things on a set of assumptions/philosophies/rules, etc. Christians are guided by the Biblical ethic, Muslims are guided by the Koran, Atheists have a set of ideals/philosophies/ etc., And we all draw from these to guide us in how we see political issues. Like it or not the Biblical ethic has been vital for centuries to many peoples. It contains a lot of wisdom (no reasonable person argues against this). Other beliefs can offer helpful insights too. The point is, a Christian-American can rightfully vie for his/her opinion of marriage based solely on the Biblical ethic just like the Agnostic-American can vie for his/her opinion on the matter. The latter, of course, also having a list of assumptions (even if they don't have them listed somewhere) that they are basing their conclusions upon.

    I'll try to get to these tonight. Thanks.

    I'll keep this simple. I have already explained (and many others have as well), the difference between gay marriage and polygamy: polygamists can still get married, homosexuals cannot. It really is that simple.

    Marriage has been ruled as a civil right. Therefore denying a specific group of people that is considered an infringement upon their rights. It's not an emotional argument, its a factual one.

    The idea of "traditional" marriage has been changed in the past (see interracial marriage).

    How is including homosexuals in marriage harmful to "traditional" marriage?

    I would also argue that marriage is the most important thing to a society's success. There have been societies that have survived without marriage. That is probably a debate for a different thread though.

    I don't necessarily disagree with your second paragraph.

    signature image

    Hawkifish

  • goodnews said...

    FOR EVERYONE.

    Time hasn't allowed me to keep up with some posts addressed to me. My apologies. I think some of my posts went too long to be fully dealt with, and maybe I didn't fully deal with someone's point of view. I'll offer a few bullets (in hopes that folks can answer my points more thoroughly) and appreciate and response someone may have.

    --The institution of marriage is the most vital factor dictating a society's success. As a result, it shouldn't be changed drastically at the whims of a few. And, please think more deeply about the emotional argument that claims the rights of homosexuals are being violated. They are free like the rest of us. The just don't have a "right" to be married anymore than the polygamist has a right to be married to a few women at once, even if they simply want it or want the tax breaks. Why should non-traditional marriage be considered vital to a society? How is polygamy different than homosexual marriage? The polygamist thinks he/she has every right to marry a few at once and wants it for their happiness. And, no one's getting in tthe way of homosexuals building a life together.

    --Certainly, part of my opinion comes from my commitment to the Biblical ethic (some Christians disagree with me). Someone would rightfully object that we have a separation of church and state. As a result, whatever we (The People) decide shouldn't be made solely b/c the Bible says so. However, we ALL base our undersanding of things on a set of assumptions/philosophies/rules, etc. Christians are guided by the Biblical ethic, Muslims are guided by the Koran, Atheists have a set of ideals/philosophies/ etc., And we all draw from these to guide us in how we see political issues. Like it or not the Biblical ethic has been vital for centuries to many peoples. It contains a lot of wisdom (no reasonable person argues against this). Other beliefs can offer helpful insights too. The point is, a Christian-American can rightfully vie for his/her opinion of marriage based solely on the Biblical ethic just like the Agnostic-American can vie for his/her opinion on the matter. The latter, of course, also having a list of assumptions (even if they don't have them listed somewhere) that they are basing their conclusions upon.

    I'll try to get to these tonight. Thanks.

    Please. Please, I'm begging you, please.

    Explain what the threat to marriage is if you allow gays to marry. What is going to happen that you're so worried about? I've asked this 3 or 4 times and get no response. To my understanding, allowing 2 men to marry does NOT affect in any way, shape or form, the right for a man and woman to marry.

    Please explain what I'm missing here.

    Michigan State does not and will not run the 3-4 defense.

    SpartanRocky

  • SpartanRocky said...

    Please. Please, I'm begging you, please.

    Explain what the threat to marriage is if you allow gays to marry. What is going to happen that you're so worried about? I've asked this 3 or 4 times and get no response. To my understanding, allowing 2 men to marry does NOT affect in any way, shape or form, the right for a man and woman to marry.

    Please explain what I'm missing here.

    You're missing that they think it's wrong religiously.

    Of course, in christianity, there are no varying degrees of sin
    sooooo being gay is as bad as mudder, but then do is judging people, or lying, or having lust thoughts about a broad...

    This post was edited by GoingLightBarny on 2/28/2012 at 12:47 PM

    signature image
    signature image
     signature image

    www.yohoodent.com ... errybawdee awn ignorle

    GoingLightBarny

  • GoingLightBarny said...

    You're missing that they think it's wrong religiously.

    Of course, in christianity, there are no varying degrees of sin sooooo being gay is as bad as mudder, but then do is judging people, or lying, or having lust thoughts about a broad...

    the argument is that it's an important institution for society. I'm asking what he thinks will happen to that institution if gays marry. I think, because it doesn't affect a man and a woman being married, that there will be a negligible effect, if any.

    Michigan State does not and will not run the 3-4 defense.

    SpartanRocky

  • SpartanRocky said...

    the argument is that it's an important institution for society. I'm asking what he thinks will happen to that institution if gays marry. I think, because it doesn't affect a man and a woman being married, that there will be a negligible effect, if any.

    Well this is the same guy that thinks it ruined Greece and Rome...

    signature image
    signature image
     signature image

    www.yohoodent.com ... errybawdee awn ignorle

    GoingLightBarny

  • goodnews said...

    FOR EVERYONE.

    Time hasn't allowed me to keep up with some posts addressed to me. My apologies. I think some of my posts went too long to be fully dealt with, and maybe I didn't fully deal with someone's point of view. I'll offer a few bullets (in hopes that folks can answer my points more thoroughly) and appreciate and response someone may have.

    --The institution of marriage is the most vital factor dictating a society's success. As a result, it shouldn't be changed drastically at the whims of a few. And, please think more deeply about the emotional argument that claims the rights of homosexuals are being violated. They are free like the rest of us. The just don't have a "right" to be married anymore than the polygamist has a right to be married to a few women at once, even if they simply want it or want the tax breaks. Why should non-traditional marriage be considered vital to a society? How is polygamy different than homosexual marriage? The polygamist thinks he/she has every right to marry a few at once and wants it for their happiness. And, no one's getting in tthe way of homosexuals building a life together.

    --Certainly, part of my opinion comes from my commitment to the Biblical ethic (some Christians disagree with me). Someone would rightfully object that we have a separation of church and state. As a result, whatever we (The People) decide shouldn't be made solely b/c the Bible says so. However, we ALL base our undersanding of things on a set of assumptions/philosophies/rules, etc. Christians are guided by the Biblical ethic, Muslims are guided by the Koran, Atheists have a set of ideals/philosophies/ etc., And we all draw from these to guide us in how we see political issues. Like it or not the Biblical ethic has been vital for centuries to many peoples. It contains a lot of wisdom (no reasonable person argues against this). Other beliefs can offer helpful insights too. The point is, a Christian-American can rightfully vie for his/her opinion of marriage based solely on the Biblical ethic just like the Agnostic-American can vie for his/her opinion on the matter. The latter, of course, also having a list of assumptions (even if they don't have them listed somewhere) that they are basing their conclusions upon.

    I'll try to get to these tonight. Thanks.

    I'd like for you to dispute/prove the following please:

    1. Marriage is a civil right. (Loving v Virginia).

    2. Marriage as it benefits society will change if homosexuals are allowed to marry.

    3. There is a difference between your religious opinion of marriage(ordained by God for procreation, between man/woman) and the legal term(contract between TWO citizens befitting with numerous benefits).

    4. Polygamy is a multi-lateral contract that conflicts with the current legal definition of marriage. Also, Hawkfish's argument that a polygamist can still marry another while a homosexual cannot.

    5. You used the phrase "building a life". How can one build a life as well as heterosexual couples if he/she cannot: enter into legal disputes for their loved one, have visitation rights at certain institutions, have different tax benefits, happily say that we are married(but we are not as equal) etc. etc. on benefits.

    6. "The institution of marriage is the most vital factor dictating a society's success." Please explain if you agree/disagree benefit to society has a factor in the determination of civil rights.

    7. Please explain why you wrote the second paragraph(which we would all agree with by the way) and why it is important to a legal/civil right dispute. Please explain if you agree/disagree we are trying to change your opinion on the matter. Please explain if you agree/disagree we are arguing something that has the ability to be changed(e.g. legal definition, right's issues etc.)

    Thanks

    This post was edited by BamaLivesFootba on 2/28/2012 at 12:59 PM

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • SpartanRocky said...

    I gotcha. We don't have a national language, so the Spanish thing doesn't bother me so much, but I thought you were against ANY immigrants coming here.

    No, no. I'm realistic. Just enforce the border laws. I don't have any problem with them speaking Spanish, per se. My point was that the ones that come in illegally, take funding that is available for them because they couldn't get it at home, are opportunistic in finding job opportunities because they couldn't get them at home, and then wave a Mexican flag. It's disrespectful. I understand being proud of your heritage, but don't bite the hand that feeds you.

    signature image signature image signature image

    TheT12

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    1. Marriage is a civil right. (Loving v Virginia).

    7. Please explain why you wrote the second paragraph(which we would all agree with by the way) and why it is important to a legal/civil right dispute. Please explain if you agree/disagree we are trying to change your opinion on the matter. Please explain if you agree/disagree we are arguing something that has the ability to be changed(e.g. legal definition, right's issues etc.)


    1. Appropriately named. But McLovin would have been better.

    2. This is the hardest thing for Christians to wrap their brain around. Being a Christian, I do NOT think that homosexuality is right. I'm not perfect, so I'll throw no stones. But I think the thing that Christians need to realize is that the Bible wasn't written to be forcibly enacted upon other people, but rather as a set of rules for the Christian to follow. If we're being honest with ourselves, Christians are charged with sharing testimony with those who have not heard it and allowing faith and free will to suffice for the potential convert while you provide a friendly sounding board and place of worship if they want it. I grew up in the Church of Christ, and my wife as a Baptist. When we first got married, we took turns at each Church. She repeatedly got lambasted by old ladies telling her that she'd been wrong her whole life and that she'd better switch quick. I'm no Dale Carnegie, but I'm pretty sure that's not how you win friends and influence people.

    signature image signature image signature image

    TheT12

  • TheT12 said...

    1. Appropriately named. But McLovin would have been better.

    2. This is the hardest thing for Christians to wrap their brain around. Being a Christian, I do NOT think that homosexuality is right. I'm not perfect, so I'll throw no stones. But I think the thing that Christians need to realize is that the Bible wasn't written to be forcibly enacted upon other people, but rather as a set of rules for the Christian to follow. If we're being honest with ourselves, Christians are charged with sharing testimony with those who have not heard it and allowing faith and free will to suffice for the potential convert while you provide a friendly sounding board and place of worship if they want it. I grew up in the Church of Christ, and my wife as a Baptist. When we first got married, we took turns at each Church. She repeatedly got lambasted by old ladies telling her that she'd been wrong her whole life and that she'd better switch quick. I'm no Dale Carnegie, but I'm pretty sure that's not how you win friends and influence people.

    First let me say I agree with a lot of the points you made. But, I'd say that homosexuality is most definitely a right. Not a right specifically listed in the Constitution, but a right that is embodied in the concept of "liberty". The Loving case stands for the proposition that marriage is a fundamental right that we enjoy by virtue of the inclusion of the term "liberty" in the due process clause of the constitution. If we are to truly have liberty in making our own life choices, and in exercising the fundamental rights guaranteed to us in this country, then we should have the liberty to legally create a family unit through marriage, be it a gay couple or a straight couple. Allowing the exercise of that liberty does not infringe on the rights of people outside of that relationship in any way, and we should all be in favor of allowing people to live freely under those circumstances.

    What we have now is government limiting the liberty of homosexuals because our so called leaders don't have the balls to make constitutionally sound decisions out of fear that the people who vote may disagree with that decision.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by gwgator05 on 2/28/2012 at 3:41 PM

    gwgator05

  • gwgator05 said...

    First let me say I agree with a lot of the points you made. But, I'd say that homosexuality is most definitely a right. Not a right specifically listed in the Constitution, but a right that is embodied in the concept of "liberty". The Loving case stands for the proposition that marriage is a fundamental right that we enjoy by virtue of the inclusion of the term "liberty" in the due process clause of the constitution. If we are to truly have liberty in making our own life choices, and in exercising the fundamental rights guaranteed to us in this country, then we should have the liberty to legally create a family unit through marriage, be it a gay couple or a straight couple. Allowing the exercise of that liberty does not infringe on the rights of people outside of that relationship in any way, and we should all be in favor of allowing people to live freely under those circumstances.

    What we have now is government limiting the liberty of homosexuals because our so called leaders don't have the balls to make constitutionally sound decisions out of fear that the people who vote may disagree with that decision.

    I think we were agreeing and had a communication breakdown. I said that I didn't think homosexuality was right, I didn't say that it wasn't A right. I disagree with it on a moral level, but I also believe that it falls under the right to privacy. The marriage issue is over my head. My point in all that was that because Christians think it's wrong doesn't mean their will should be imposed. The only way, IMO, that a right can be infringed upon by law is when someone is abusing that right to the detriment of others rights. Furthermore, I don't think Christians will win any non-Christians to their way of thinking by beating them over the head with a Bible. I challenge anyone that reads and comprehends the Bible to disagree with me on that point. Since when did Christ lock people up until they believed in him?

    That was my point. Just my humble opinion.

    This post was edited by TheT12 on 2/28/2012 at 6:49 PM

    signature image signature image signature image

    TheT12

  • TheT12 said...

    I think we were agreeing and had a communication breakdown. I said that I didn't think homosexuality was right, I didn't say that it wasn't A right. I disagree with it on a moral level, but I also believe that it falls under the right to privacy. The marriage issue is over my head. My point in all that was that because Christians think it's wrong doesn't mean their will should be imposed. The only way, IMO, that a right can be infringed upon is when someone is abusing that right to the detriment of others rights. Furthermore, I don't think Christians will win any non-Christians to their way of thinking by beating them over the head with a Bible. I challenge anyone that reads and comprehends the Bible to disagree with me on that point. Since when did Christ lock people up until they believed in him?

    That was my point. Just my humble opinion.

    Correct opinion. I will still fight it till i am dead though. I may not win any over to my point of view, but i'll go down swinging lol.

    signature image

    Lebron James will never be as good as Michael Jordan, thus we should get rid of his nickname, "The King".

    amrollZ71 ●

Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports