Any thoughts on the Michael Sam Kiss on ESPN...

[fishwater99]

I could have done without it, and all the "media hype".

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/12/us/michael-sam-nfl-kiss-reaction/

I am not sure he will make the Rams roster.

[spiritual_machine2005]

I personally have no problem with it. Wish him the best. But LOLZ to the Marshall Henderson twitter reaction and meltdown afterward.

[hailmari]

I've found that having a good sense of humor about things is the best way to live. I'm sure some kids watching got a fun surprise though.

I actually think he'll at least get some good work in on ST if nothing else.

[trob115]

I personally hate how all of this has been forced upon us. I don't care to see gay couples kissing in public but that's their "right " I suppose. That being said, espn is trying to force everyone to accept it. Michael sam has the same right as every other football player in the nfl and the draft, but I hate how it is more about his sexual orientation.

[huffy]

according to Ian Rapoport, Sam is number 2 on rookie jersey sales behind Mr. Football. That's crazy. especially if he doesn't even make the Rams roster.

[BeardoMSU]

I could have done without it, and all the "media hype".

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/12/us/michael-sam-nfl-kiss-reaction/

I am not sure he will make the Rams roster.

I didn't have a problem with it. I generally don't like PDA, regardless of orientation, but I had no more a problem with Sam kissing his partner than anyone else.

He was obviously generally very happy and emotional. I'm happy for them.

[Goat Holder]

I personally hate how all of this has been forced upon us. I don't care to see gay couples kissing in public but that's their "right " I suppose. That being said, espn is trying to force everyone to accept it. Michael sam has the same right as every other football player in the nfl and the draft, but I hate how it is more about his sexual orientation.
I agree.

What people don't want to understand, is that disagreeing with homosexuality doesn't make you uneducated or anything else. I personally don't agree with the gay parade, so I'd rather not see them kiss. But I really don't GAF, and had he not been gay, he wouldn't have even had a camera on him.

[esplanade91]

I don't have a problem with gay rights and whatnot but I was out eating and saw him making out with his boyfriend on TV and it made me uncomfortable in front of my family (3 year old included). Someone asked if I would be uncomfortable if it was a straight couple, and it would also be inappropriate for ESPN to broadcast what felt like a 5 minute make out session during a sportscast. So yes. But it's different and you can't compare the two because it's different.

ESPN sucks ass sometimes, especially when it's a headline that will get picked up by real journalists.

[hacker]

I laughed because it looked staged/planned to me. But that's all I really thought about it.

http://cdn.urbanislandz.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/lil-wayne-birdman-kiss-pic.jpg

[DawgSaint]

If you look at it from the point of football...the guy is just an average NFL player. No other player around his draft position get near the attention. So, the real question is, does he get attention for being a great player or because he is gay? We all know the answer. Does SportsCenter show the guy picked before him or after him kissing his girlfriend? Of course not! Why would they? If there is Any way the media can portray this choice as "normal" they will jump all over it. The only thing that is considered offensive to people today is Christian Values and Decency!

[trob115]

If you look at it from the point of football...the guy is just an average NFL player. No other player around his draft position get near the attention. So, the real question is, does he get attention for being a great player or because he is gay? We all know the answer. Does SportsCenter show the guy picked before him or after him kissing his girlfriend? Of course not! Why would they? If there is Any way the media can portray this choice as "normal" they will jump all over it. The only thing that is considered offensive to people today is Christian Values and Decency!

All excellent points and I agree. Nobody is discriminated against more than the conservative Christian in today's United States.

[Irondawg]

It was a good PR move by STL b/c as I heard today only 50% or so of 6th and 7th round picks even play in an NFL game ever. So they get good PR and some jersey sales, etc. Good for them. Good for him. But I agree that I hate the way it's being forced upon on like it's some kind of human achievement that a gay football player could be drafted. We all know there are guys in all sports that have been in the closet for some time and most of their teammates probably know so it's relaly less of a big deal than any of the media tries to make it out to be.

[shoeless joe]

It does make it appear that he is going to play it up and that will rub some folks the wrong way.

I don't care if he's gay but the celebration of all this makes me dislike the fact that everything he does will be magnified because he's gay.

[BeardoMSU]

If you look at it from the point of football...the guy is just an average NFL player. No other player around his draft position get near the attention. So, the real question is, does he get attention for being a great player or because he is gay? We all know the answer. Does SportsCenter show the guy picked before him or after him kissing his girlfriend? Of course not! Why would they? If there is Any way the media can portray this choice as "normal" they will jump all over it. The only thing that is considered offensive to people today is Christian Values and Decency!

The mythical war on Christians.

And I'd be interested to hear what your definition of 'decency' is.

[FISHDAWG]

I just turned the channel and quit watching the whole thing ... I guess I'm one of the few that nobody cares about offending .... oh yeah, Modern Family also sucks

[drunkernhelldawg]

It's actually a little uncomfortable when anybody does PDA in front of me. However, it's time to stop labeling people as second-class citizens based only on who and how they love. Man up.

[tcdog70]

is it a coincidence the Rams signed Him. Would have been worse if the Packers did***

[LiterallyPolice]

If you look at it from the point of football...the guy is just an average NFL player. No other player around his draft position get near the attention. So, the real question is, does he get attention for being a great player or because he is gay? We all know the answer. Does SportsCenter show the guy picked before him or after him kissing his girlfriend? Of course not! Why would they? If there is Any way the media can portray this choice as "normal" they will jump all over it. The only thing that is considered offensive to people today is Christian Values and Decency!

I see. So you want ESPN to be completely egalitarian with its airtime, but you think Christian views on homosexuality should receive special treatment under the law.

Flawless logic. ***

[WeWonItAll(Most)]

I personally hate how all of this has been forced upon us. I don't care to see gay couples kissing in public but that's their "right " I suppose. That being said, espn is trying to force everyone to accept it. Michael sam has the same right as every other football player in the nfl and the draft, but I hate how it is more about his sexual orientation.
Then change the channel

[Political Hack]

Breaking News: There's a gay man.***

[OldFatDog]

All excellent points and I agree. Nobody is discriminated against more than the conservative Christian in today's United States.

Always cracks me up when someone makes this statement. Within five miles of my house there are at least 7 large conservative Christian churches. There are probably more but that is off the top of my head. Cite an example of this alleged discrimination. Michael Sam kissing his boyfriend is not an example of conservative Christians being discriminated against. It is an example of conservative Christians not being allowed to discriminate.

[PMDawg]

I could have done without it, and all the "media hype".

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/12/us/michael-sam-nfl-kiss-reaction/

I am not sure he will make the Rams roster.

It was staged and contrived for TV purposes. It was a spectacle. I'm just aggravated that every piece of coverage from the draft is centered around the 259th pick of the draft just because he's gay and he staged a kiss for ESPN (at their direction, I'm sure).

I don't understand their thinking. They want to be treated equally and not be made a spectacle, then they make spectacles of themselves. Just like all this "coming out" like it's some big deal. You're gay? Just be gay, don't hide it. We'll figure it out on our own. I have some gay friends. None of them "came out". When they started dating people of the same sex, we all figured it out, went "oh", and moved on about our business. If it's not supposed to be a big deal any more, then stop making it a big ****ing deal.

[West Houston Dog]

ESPN just couldnt mention him too much the other day. Obama calls him. The national media loves him. My homepage here at work is MSN, who cant post too many gay articles every day anyways, has THE KISS prominently displayed.

If you are gay ...fine. I wish no harm and wish you well.... but i am TIRED of the national media ramming this issue down our throats(no pun intended) over and over and over again. ENOUGH...MOVE ON from the advocacy on this issue.....









If you look at it from the point of football...the guy is just an average NFL player. No other player around his draft position get near the attention. So, the real question is, does he get attention for being a great player or because he is gay? We all know the answer. Does SportsCenter show the guy picked before him or after him kissing his girlfriend? Of course not! Why would they? If there is Any way the media can portray this choice as "normal" they will jump all over it. The only thing that is considered offensive to people today is Christian Values and Decency!

[drunkernhelldawg]

It was staged and contrived for TV purposes. It was a spectacle. I'm just aggravated that every piece of coverage from the draft is centered around the 259th pick of the draft just because he's gay and he staged a kiss for ESPN (at their direction, I'm sure).

I don't understand their thinking. They want to be treated equally and not be made a spectacle, then they make spectacles of themselves. Just like all this "coming out" like it's some big deal. You're gay? Just be gay, don't hide it. We'll figure it out on our own. I have some gay friends. None of them "came out". When they started dating people of the same sex, we all figured it out, went "oh", and moved on about our business. If it's not supposed to be a big deal any more, then stop making it a big ****ing deal.

You still refuse to get it. Lovers kiss in public all the time. Are they always making a spectacle of themselves? It's about the end of the double standard. It's not about the media; it's about people.

[sandwolf]

is it a coincidence the Rams signed Him. Would have been worse if the Packers did***

Hahaha

[PMDawg]

You still refuse to get it. Lovers kiss in public all the time. Are they always making a spectacle of themselves? It's about the end of the double standard. It's not about the media; it's about people.

Lol. Wow. This conversation is obviously waaaaay over your head. I can't believe you ACTUALLY thought that would be a good response. Holy cow...

[msstate7]

You still refuse to get it. Lovers kiss in public all the time. Are they always making a spectacle of themselves? It's about the end of the double standard. It's not about the media; it's about people.

So if the #248 pick (Ahmad Dixon) kissed his girlfriend, it would be newsworthy too?

[sandwolf]

I don't understand their thinking. They want to be treated equally and not be made a spectacle, then they make spectacles of themselves. Just like all this "coming out" like it's some big deal. You're gay? Just be gay, don't hide it. We'll figure it out on our own. I have some gay friends. None of them "came out". When they started dating people of the same sex, we all figured it out, went "oh", and moved on about our business. If it's not supposed to be a big deal any more, then stop making it a big ****ing deal.

Completely agree.

[Original48]

Agree with whoever said he wouldn't have had a camera on him if he wasn't gay. Very contrived and forced. My concern is Dan Patrick who continually refers to Sam as a 'sack specialist'.

[Boodawg]

I'll be honest, I thought it was pretty gross, but I would rather not watch anyone kissing. And, I am not Gay.

[PMDawg]

You still refuse to get it. Lovers kiss in public all the time. Are they always making a spectacle of themselves? It's about the end of the double standard. It's not about the media; it's about people.

Let me bring you up to speed. That wasn't PDA, that was ESPN putting 40 cameras on the guy and saying "when we point to you, kiss like you'll never see each other again" and then having them look awkward and contrived when the camera comes on.

PDA on the other hand, is natural, not planned or forced. Like the gay couple my wife and I sat next to at Ruth's Chris a couple months ago. They touched and kissed some just like any other couple out on a date. No problem. Or when my family was at disney during gay week. Lots of PDA there. No problems. All the "hey, I'm gay, look at me!!!" bullshit (like this was) is annoying. Especially when you're complaining about being treated differently out the other side of your mouth.

[shoeless joe]

So if the #248 pick (Ahmad Dixon) kissed his girlfriend, it would be newsworthy too?

Exactly...

[spiritual_machine2005]

Sorry folks...but it is history. First openly gay NFL draftee. It WILL be a news story and rightfully so.

Or maybe the first black woman to stand up to segregation by refusing to move to the back of the bus should have been skimmed over in history class?
Maybe women's right to vote should be just a footnote as well?

Sorry...you might not agree with it, but it is a land mark moment and will be treated as such in the media.

[Bully13]

I agree Boo, I'd rather not watch anyone making out. But there is one thing that many on here will not admit and I'm going to do it and I know I'll get trashed by some who want to see who can be the king liberal on the board. God gave all of us emotions that sometimes cannot be explained. They were not taught to us. just natural instincts. and the fact of the matter is, the majority of heterosexual males finds two men kissing as disgusting. I can't explain why but we do. and I'll give some of the libs on the board some extra ammo to trash me. I'm not bothered by "girls gone wild" when they make out. call me a hypocrite all day long. frankly I don't give a damn. I do not seek to hurt gay people's feelings. I would never say anything to their face that would be rude. I don't avoid being around them, working with them or anything like that. I don't make it a point to avoid them. They are welcomed at my table. I'll have a drink with them and break bread with them as I have done plenty of times in the past. I DON'T want to see them making out. I find it disturbing and disgusting. In a way, I wish those emotions were not in me but there is nothing I can do to change who I am or what rattles my chains.

I guess there is a reason God made men the way he did. he works in mysterious ways. If gay people want respect from mainstream America, they need to show some respect for us as well and I see very little of that from the gay community these days and the left winged folks who want us to ignore who WE really are as well.

[LiterallyPolice]

Lol. Wow. This conversation is obviously waaaaay over your head. I can't believe you ACTUALLY thought that would be a good response. Holy cow...

Wow. That was about as generic a retort as it gets.

You say it shouldn't be a big deal anymore.... Well guess what? They are still being denied the rights of straight couples. If you were in that situation, would you pipe down?

What is hard to understand about this? If you simply want the issue to go away and don't care one way or the other... You should advocate gay rights. Wanting the issue to simply "go away" with no change is saying the status quo is acceptable, which is decidedly anti-gay rights. So instead of tip-toeing around the issue, just say what you mean.

Please respond to this with more substance than the quote above.

[dogshiek]

The coverage for a seventh round pick is waay overblown. He totally bombed at the combines. He'll never make the squad.

[blacklistedbully]

For those of us who are Christian, we view homosexuality as a sin. Therefore, as Christians, it is not discriminatory of us to disapprove, as we would any sin, including the numerous ones we commit ourselves. Yet is is wrong, IMO to take judgment in our own hands and punish those who are gay. Leave it to God.

I think most of us don't have a personal problem with someone being gay (assuming it's not our own family). We just have a problem with it being foisted upon us by a community and/or media eager to have it considered "normal" or "main-stream". For Christians it is neither of those. You might as well try to convince us it's also OK to have open and public cheating on your spouse. We know a lot of married folks do that, but it's still wrong according to our beliefs.

Personally, I think what gay people do is between them and God. I don't look down my nose at them, I just consider what they are doing to be a sin. But I do resent being preached to by those eager to promote homosexuality as normal. When people try to force it upon me as anything less than a sin, it is in direct conflict with my religious beliefs, therefore I am offended, just as I am by atheists intent to remove any and all reference of God from the public.

[LiterallyPolice]

I agree Boo, I'd rather not watch anyone making out. But there is one thing that many on here will not admit and I'm going to do it and I know I'll get trashed by some who want to see who can be the king liberal on the board. God gave all of us emotions that sometimes cannot be explained. They were not taught to us. just natural instincts. and the fact of the matter is, the majority of heterosexual males finds two men kissing as disgusting. I can't explain why but we do. and I'll give some of the libs on the board some extra ammo to trash me. I'm not bothered by "girls gone wild" when they make out. call me a hypocrite all day long. frankly I don't give a damn. I do not seek to hurt gay people's feelings. I would never say anything to their face that would be rude. I don't avoid being around them, working with them or anything like that. I don't make it a point to avoid them. They are welcomed at my table. I'll have a drink with them and break bread with them as I have done plenty of times in the past. I DON'T want to see them making out. I find it disturbing and disgusting. In a way, I wish those emotions were not in me but there is nothing I can do to change who I am or what rattles my chains.

I guess there is a reason God made men the way he did. he works in mysterious ways. If gay people want respect from mainstream America, they need to show some respect for us as well and I see very little of that from the gay community these days and the left winged folks who want us to ignore who WE really are as well.

This is an honest post that makes several good points. I would just say that there are all kinds of things on TV that I think are seriously F'ed up. Stories and very graphic imagery involving gore, torture, rape etc. I watch SVU and I'm like.... man.... Who finds this enjoyable? So I guess the point is that I just change the channel and do my best to avoid things that make me cringe. I don't think it is wrong or unnatural if you like gore, etc. Many people do. I just chalk it up to folks being different.

[Boodawg]

Also, I don't remember the last time I saw a couple make out in public. A peck here and there maybe, but not making out or swapping spit. I'd be embarrassed to make out in public. It should be a private thing. Also, when I make out with my Wife, it's time to go to the bedroom.

[CadaverDawg]

It was staged and contrived for TV purposes. It was a spectacle. I'm just aggravated that every piece of coverage from the draft is centered around the 259th pick of the draft just because he's gay and he staged a kiss for ESPN (at their direction, I'm sure).

I don't understand their thinking. They want to be treated equally and not be made a spectacle, then they make spectacles of themselves. Just like all this "coming out" like it's some big deal. You're gay? Just be gay, don't hide it. We'll figure it out on our own. I have some gay friends. None of them "came out". When they started dating people of the same sex, we all figured it out, went "oh", and moved on about our business. If it's not supposed to be a big deal any more, then stop making it a big ****ing deal.

Yep

[notsofarawaydawg]

Agree with whoever said he wouldn't have had a camera on him if he wasn't gay.

Is this why the camera was always focused on Marshall Henderson? ***

[LiterallyPolice]

For those of us who are Christian, we view homosexuality as a sin. Therefore, as Christians, it is not discriminatory of us to disapprove, as we would any sin, including the numerous ones we commit ourselves. Yet is is wrong, IMO to take judgment in our own hands and punish those who are gay. Leave it to God.

I think most of us don't have a personal problem with someone being gay (assuming it's not our own family). We just have a problem with it being foisted upon us by a community and/or media eager to have it considered "normal" or "main-stream". For Christians it is neither of those. You might as well try to convince us it's also OK to have open and public cheating on your spouse. We know a lot of married folks do that, but it's still wrong according to our beliefs.

Personally, I think what gay people do is between them and God. I don't look down my nose at them, I just consider what they are doing to be a sin. But I do resent being preached to by those eager to promote homosexuality as normal. When people try to force it upon me as anything less than a sin, it is in direct conflict with my religious beliefs, therefore I am offended, just as I am by atheists intent to remove any and all reference of God from the public.

You can think homosexuality is a sin. Such is your right. And no one likes to feel preached at, regardless of views. This is a legal matter more than a moral one. All men are created equal. Separation of Church and State. As long as we're doing those things, I'm good. It sounds like you are too.

[PMDawg]

Wow. That was about as generic a retort as it gets.

You say it shouldn't be a big deal anymore.... Well guess what? They are still being denied the rights of straight couples. If you were in that situation, would you pipe down?

What is hard to understand about this? If you simply want the issue to go away and don't care one way or the other... You should advocate gay rights. Wanting the issue to simply "go away" with no change is saying the status quo is acceptable, which is decidedly anti-gay rights. So instead of tip-toeing around the issue, just say what you mean.

Please respond to this with more substance than the quote above.

See post #31.

[Goat Holder]

bully13 and blacklistedbully knocking it out of the park. I can't say it any better.

[dawgs]

All excellent points and I agree. Nobody thinks they are more discriminated against more than the conservative Christian in today's United States.

Nm

[dawgs]

News flash folks: the reason this is being celebrated as a big deal is because of a lot of the comments being made in this thread. When the anti-gay crowd ignores it and goes about their life, it won't be a big deal anymore. Think about that next time you want to bitch about it.

And it is a pretty big deal fwiw. Just like it was a big deal when Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier and many other "firsts" in sports. Sam isn't the 1st gay player, but he's the 1st openly gay player drafted in the nfl (or any major sport) and that's a pretty big "first".

[DudyDawg]

Not going to say how I feel about it necessarily but I'll say this to those complaining about the coverage and asking why they're covering it so much. And this thread alone is your answer. We have three pages going about a 7th round pick to a team I doubt has any fans in this thread. And that's because it is a story. Whether you agree w homosexuality or not as far as being okay or not, you're drawn by the story to post your feelings one way or the other. So don't bother complaining about the coverage bc it won't stop any time soon and this thread is a perfect example why. It's compelling

[blacklistedbully]

You can think homosexuality is a sin. Such is your right. And no one likes to feel preached at, regardless of views. This is a legal matter more than a moral one. All men are created equal. Separation of Church and State. As long as we're doing those things, I'm good. It sounds like you are too.


Not really a legal matter. I don't know of anyone who thinks it should be illegal, and yes, I'm aware there are states that still technically have laws on the book against homosexuality. It's far more a question of morality, with Christians, by definition, obliged to consider it immoral. We also consider adultery immoral. While we don't get automatically disgusted by a man kissing a woman, most of us would be disgusted if we knew that man was committing adultery while doing it. Homosexuality has the unfortunate feature of being completely obvious in this regard.

If we see same-sex couples engaging in this activity, it should illicit the same response we'd have if we knew a married man or woman was doing it with anyone outside their marriage, at least from a moral perspective. If someone starts trying hard to convince me that cheating on your spouse is A-OK, I'm gonna rail against that as well. If you want to cheat on your spouse, that's your business, but don't try to convince me there's nothing wrong with it.

[gtowndawg]

and will not watch Sportscenter for a while either.

I'm not going to let something that is wrong be pushed in my home, in front of my kids as something that is right and "good"

That doesn't mean I wish harm on him, I hope he does well and stays injury free but it doesn't mean I'm going to turn my back on something the Bible is very clear about.

//not judging, I'm plenty messed up and without grace we would all be in mucho trouble.

///in before the lock....

[dawgs]

For those of us who are Christian, we view homosexuality as a sin. Therefore, as Christians, it is not discriminatory of us to disapprove, as we would any sin, including the numerous ones we commit ourselves. Yet is is wrong, IMO to take judgment in our own hands and punish those who are gay. Leave it to God.

I think most of us don't have a personal problem with someone being gay (assuming it's not our own family). We just have a problem with it being foisted upon us by a community and/or media eager to have it considered "normal" or "main-stream". For Christians it is neither of those. You might as well try to convince us it's also OK to have open and public cheating on your spouse. We know a lot of married folks do that, but it's still wrong according to our beliefs.

Personally, I think what gay people do is between them and God. I don't look down my nose at them, I just consider what they are doing to be a sin. But I do resent being preached to by those eager to promote homosexuality as normal. When people try to force it upon me as anything less than a sin, it is in direct conflict with my religious beliefs, therefore I am offended, just as I am by atheists intent to remove any and all reference of God from the public.

The problem is the sheer number of sins in the bible that Christians don't harp on all the time, yet go out of their way to point out the sinful nature of homosexuality to justify their bigoted beliefs. Do you treat divorced couples the same way? What about those that have pre-marital sex? What about adulterers? What about all the other sins in the bible that aren't consider a huge deal in modern society? It's hypocrisy to pick one sin to justify your bigoted views while ignoring others. The bible was used to justify slavery and segregation once upon a time too.

[Esmerelda Villalobos]

Not all christian denominations find it a sin. So saying it is against christian beliefs is false.

[gtowndawg]

The problem is the sheer number of sins in the bible that Christians don't harp on all the time, yet go out of their way to point out the sinful nature of homosexuality to justify their bigoted beliefs. Do you treat divorced couples the same way? What about those that have pre-marital sex? What about adulterers? What about all the other sins in the bible that aren't consider a huge deal in modern society? It's hypocrisy to pick one sin to justify your bigoted views while ignoring others. The bible was used to justify slavery and segregation once upon a time too.

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23

The type of sin doesn't matter, they all send you to hell without salvation.

//don't shoot the messenger. trust me, I'd be the first person in line for hell without grace. I can still love Micheal Sam without condoning the lifestyle. that's what liberals will never understand.

[blacklistedbully]

The problem is the sheer numbers of sins in the bible that Christians don't harp on all the time, yet go out of their way to point out the sinful nature of homosexuality to justify their bigoted beliefs. Do you treat divorced couples the same way? What about those that have pre-marital sex? What about adulterers? What about all the other sins in the bible that aren't consider a huge deal in modern society? It's hypocrisy to pick one sin to justify you bigoted views while ignoring others. The bible was used to justify slavery and segregation once upon a time too.

Man, I don't know about you, but when it comes to sin, I "harp" on my own sins every Sunday at least, and a whole helluva lot more than I even think about homosexuality. As I said before, a factor in the "gay sin" thing is a certain portion of the population determined to make it "normal" or not considered a sin. It's certainly not "normal" for any Christian to decide any sin is "OK" to commit, or even worse, not really a sin.

When we see same sex couples in public or in the media doing their thing, it's like advertising the sin. It's wrong of you or anyone else to demand we accept it as normal. As I said before, I'm all on board for leaving it to God, and not allowing it to cloud my judgement any more than I would of others committing an obvious sin. Heck, if I was hiring someone right now, I'd probably hire a gay man over a known adulterer simply because the adulterer has already shown me he can't be trusted.

But ultimately, what is really being debated here isn't whether or not it's OK for him to kiss another man. Rather it's about whether it is right and reasonable to expect Christians to accept it as perfectly normal, or whether or not we have the right to be annoyed when any party attempts to "force it" into the mainstream.

[blacklistedbully]

Not all christian denominations find it a sin. So saying it is against christian beliefs is false.


I am quite certain all Christians consider homosexuality a sin. It is in the bible. That said, there are denominations who have made exceptions to rules allowing homosexuals to participate or even lead their churches.

[LiterallyPolice]

Not really a legal matter. I don't know of anyone who thinks it should be illegal, and yes, I'm aware there are states that still technically have laws on the book against homosexuality. It's far more a question of morality, with Christians, by definition, obliged to consider it immoral. We also consider adultery immoral. While we don't get automatically disgusted by a man kissing a woman, most of us would be disgusted if we knew that man was committing adultery while doing it. Homosexual has the unfortunate feature of being completely obvious in this regard.

If we see same-sex couples engaging in this activity, it should illicit the same response we'd have if we knew a married man or woman was doing it with anyone outside their marriage, at least from a moral perspective. If someone starts trying hard to convince me that cheating on your spouse is A-OK, I'm gonna rail against that as well. If you want to cheat on your spouse, that's your business, but don't try to convince me there's nothing wrong with it.

I was speaking more from the perspective of the homosexual community, who are fighting for legal equality. But yes, there is definitely a moral aspect to this as well. But someone getting preachy or trying to convince you of something isn't the same as someone actively working to deny you legal rights.

[Martianlander]

For those of us who are Christian, we view homosexuality as a sin. Therefore, as Christians, it is not discriminatory of us to disapprove, as we would any sin, including the numerous ones we commit ourselves. Yet is is wrong, IMO to take judgment in our own hands and punish those who are gay. Leave it to God.

I think most of us don't have a personal problem with someone being gay (assuming it's not our own family). We just have a problem with it being foisted upon us by a community and/or media eager to have it considered "normal" or "main-stream". For Christians it is neither of those. You might as well try to convince us it's also OK to have open and public cheating on your spouse. We know a lot of married folks do that, but it's still wrong according to our beliefs.

Personally, I think what gay people do is between them and God. I don't look down my nose at them, I just consider what they are doing to be a sin. But I do resent being preached to by those eager to promote homosexuality as normal. When people try to force it upon me as anything less than a sin, it is in direct conflict with my religious beliefs, therefore I am offended, just as I am by atheists intent to remove any and all reference of God from the public.

Excellent post. I will only add I thought Jeff Fisher's comparison with a gay draftee and drafting the first African American was totally out of line. A person's skin color is something you are born with, and being gay is a choice.

[fishwater99]

This is an honest post that makes several good points. I would just say that there are all kinds of things on TV that I think are seriously F'ed up. Stories and very graphic imagery involving gore, torture, rape etc. I watch SVU and I'm like.... man.... Who finds this enjoyable? So I guess the point is that I just change the channel and do my best to avoid things that make me cringe. I don't think it is wrong or unnatural if you like gore, etc. Many people do. I just chalk it up to folks being different.

It's not like this was Prime-Time TV or a pay channel. I don't want my 4 and 6 year old's seeing this. Do you?

I care less if Michael Sam is Gay, Bi or likes animals.

[M.Fillmore]

The mythical war on Christians.

So you think it is okay for a school to disallow a child to bring a Bible to school and privately read the Bible during "free reading period" when kids can bring a book of their choice?

So you think it is okay for a school to say that the Bible cannot be quoted in a speech when other great works of Western Civilization are not excluded?

So you think it is okay for the Air Force academy to disallow a Bible verse on a cadet's personal whiteboard space where they are given "free space" to write of their personal interests?

[dawgs]

Man, I don't know about you, but when it comes to sin, I "harp" on my own sins every Sunday at least, and a whole helluva lot more than I even think about homosexuality. As I said before, a factor in the "gay sin" thing is a certain portion of the population determined to make it "normal" or not considered a sin. It's certainly not "normal" for any Christian to decide any sin is "OK" to commit, or even worse, not really a sin.

When we see same sex couples in public or in the media doing their thing, it's like advertising the sin. It's wrong of you or anyone else to demand we accept it as normal. As I said before, I'm all on board for leaving it to God, and not allowing it to cloud my judgement any more than I would of others committing an obvious sin. Heck, if I was hiring someone right now, I'd probably hire a gay man over a known adulterer simply because the adulterer has already shown me he can't be trusted.

But ultimately, what is really being debated here isn't whether or not it's OK for him to kiss another man. Rather it's about whether it is right and reasonable to expect Christians to accept it as perfectly normal, or whether or not we have the right to be annoyed when any party attempts to "force it" into the mainstream.

Divorce is a sin, correct? Why aren't Christian conservatives fighting to make divorce illegal? Why aren't Christian conservatives fighting to nullify 2nd and 3rd marriages and strip those spouses of their rights? That's the hypocrisy right there. The sins of one's personal life that are being fought against by Christian conservatives are cherry picked and then the bible is used as a shield against claims of bigotry. Now this is hugely different from crimes like murder and burglary and rape, because those are sins that have a material and immediate affect on other members of society.

And I know some denominations are more modern in their social views, and that's great, but for Internet MB posting, I'm not going to list out the denominations. We all know what's being referred to here.

[LiterallyPolice]

But ultimately, what is really being debated here isn't whether or not it's OK for him to kiss another man. Rather it's about whether it is right and reasonable to expect Christians to accept it as perfectly normal, or whether or not we have the right to be annoyed when any party attempts to "force it" into the mainstream.

What? You think this debate is about your "right to be annoyed"? I thought we were talking about all those people in our country that don't have the right to marry who they choose.

Is this what Christians consider "persecution"? An imaginary agenda against their "right to be annoyed"?

[Esmerelda Villalobos]

Excellent post. I will only add I thought Jeff Fisher's comparison with a gay draftee and drafting the first African American was totally out of line. A person's skin color is something you are born with, and being gay is a choice.

Face palm

[dawgs]

Excellent post. I will only add I thought Jeff Fisher's comparison with a gay draftee and drafting the first African American was totally out of line. A person's skin color is something you are born with, and being gay is a choice.

When did you choose to be straight? I know I didn't choose to like chicks, it just naturally happened.

[DudyDawg]

Excellent post. I will only add I thought Jeff Fisher's comparison with a gay draftee and drafting the first African American was totally out of line. A person's skin color is something you are born with, and being gay is a choice.

And que the new argument ha

[dawgs]

So you think it is okay for a school to disallow a child to bring a Bible to school and privately read the Bible during "free reading period" when kids can bring a book of their choice?

So you think it is okay for a school to say that the Bible cannot be quoted in a speech when other great works of Western Civilization are not excluded?

So you think it is okay for the Air Force academy to disallow a Bible verse on a cadet's personal whiteboard space where they are given "free space" to write of their personal interests?

If like to see a link to a credible news source. I see shit like this on my FB feed all the time, and 90% of the time it's fake.

[Goat Holder]

The problem is the sheer number of sins in the bible that Christians don't harp on all the time, yet go out of their way to point out the sinful nature of homosexuality to justify their bigoted beliefs. Do you treat divorced couples the same way? What about those that have pre-marital sex? What about adulterers? What about all the other sins in the bible that aren't consider a huge deal in modern society? It's hypocrisy to pick one sin to justify your bigoted views while ignoring others. The bible was used to justify slavery and segregation once upon a time too.
Christians DO harp on those sins. That's where you go wrong. I suppose now you're going to accuse Christians of judging people who commit those sins. You'll be wrong again. Christians commit the same sins that non-Christians do. The difference is that Christians attempt to stay away from that. But we all sin, dude.

[Goat Holder]

I thought we were talking about all those people in our country that don't have the right to marry who they choose.

Ha, ha, prepare to be destroyed. Married in the eyes of whom? The church who condemns it? Or the State? Oh, why would you want to be 'married' if it's not a religious union? Oh, I know. DIVISION OF THE ASSETS.

Money. While you and other libs are out there championing this gay agenda about poor gay people having rights, all those gay people want is the green paper.

[fishwater99]

What? You think this debate is about your "right to be annoyed"? I thought we were talking about all those people in our country that don't have the right to marry who they choose.

Is this what Christians consider "persecution"? An imaginary agenda against their "right to be annoyed"?

So are you okay with Polygamy?
Why can't one person be in love more than one other person?
What about a man marrying another man and another woman at the same time?
When the government got in the marriage business, it opened Pandora's Box.

[dawgs]

Christians DO harp on those sins. That's where you go wrong. I suppose now you're going to accuse Christians of judging people who commit those sins. You'll be wrong again. Christians commit the same sins that non-Christians do. The difference is that Christians attempt to stay away from that. But we all sin, dude.

But where are the laws and campaigns that are trying to outlaw or limit the rights of the people committing these sins? I'm not saying those sins aren't preached about, I'm saying that outside of the church, Christians aren't out fighting to make divorce illegal or limit the rights of divorcees to remarry whoever they want. That's the hypocrisy. It's the selective imposing of sins on the state outside the church.

[Esmerelda Villalobos]

Im fine with polygamy. Why would you be against it?

I dont care how many people a man marries or how many men/women he chooses. Has nothing to do with you and doesnt effect you. As long as all parties agree, who the hell cares?

Polygomy has been around since man first walked. It is in our dna, as well as all animals.

Yall want to talk "unnatural", unnatural is marriage to one person forever. It goes against everything in our dna.

[dawgs]

So are you okay with Polygamy?
Why can't one person be in love more than one other person?
What about a man marrying another man and another woman at the same time?
When the government got in the marriage business, it opened Pandora's Box.

I'm ok with polygamy if that's your thing, so long as it doesn't lead to folks leeching off the govt by marrying lots of women and pumping out dozens of kids. And obviously there's need to be tax implications and social security and stuff that would need to be ironed out. But purely from a freedom to do as you please, I'm absolutely fine with polygamy, even if it's being married to a man and a woman.

That's about as far as the Pandora's box goes though since I think consenting adults making a choice is the barrier. (Just preemptively cutting off the "a man can marry his fish" argument here)

[dawgs]

Ha, ha, prepare to be destroyed. Married in the eyes of whom? The church who condemns it? Or the State? Oh, why would you want to be 'married' if it's not a religious union? Oh, I know. DIVISION OF THE ASSETS.

Money. While you and other libs are out there championing this gay agenda about poor gay people having rights, all those gay people want is the green paper.

Why shouldn't they get the same tax and inheritance benefits? Why shouldn't they get visitation rights? Why shouldn't they get every marriage benefit a straight couple gets? Of course money plays, why wouldn't it?

[Cabo32]

The guy is gay..ok I get it's a big deal that he is the first openly gay draft pick..but what I didn't care for was the all the kissing and cake being shoved in the face nonsense...also Saturday holly Rowe was at a gay bar in New York..why?? Why do all of that? Some people accept it and some people don't...I don't like the fact that they were constantly bringing the guy up, when let's face it, he's not going to be a good pro..

If they could put holly Rowe at a gay bar, then why couldn't they have Erin Andrews at a strip club anticipating the selection of Johnny Manziel?? I'll tell you why, and it's probably one of the most misunderstood rules regarding television...they can't show nipples on TV...it's total bullshit. Once people realize that nipples are just part of the human anatomy, then we as human beings can finally move on

[bgdog]

Money. While you and other libs are out there championing this gay agenda about poor gay people having rights, all those gay people want is the green paper.

You can't really believe that's the only reason gay people want the right to marry?

[M.Fillmore]

If like to see a link to a credible news source. I see shit like this on my FB feed all the time, and 90% of the time it's fake.

I'm wrapping up my lunch break and I have to get back to work so I'm not going the Google these things for you.

The first item was in the news last week. The article I read had a link to the voice mail the teacher left of the parent's phone saying the Bible is prohibited material.

The second item is a few months old. It was a regular news story.

The Air Force Academy has been in the news a lot over the issue I referenced. I have seen several new articles on this one.

These things are not "Facebook" articles. They are real issues.

[Goat Holder]

But where are the laws and campaigns that are trying to outlaw or limit the rights of the people committing these sins? I'm not saying those sins aren't preached about, I'm saying that outside of the church, Christians aren't out fighting to make divorce illegal or limit the rights of divorcees to remarry whoever they want. That's the hypocrisy. It's the selective imposing of sins on the state outside the church.
Marriage is a religious institution, so if it involves a church, there is no 'right'. Your battle is with whether or not the STATE recognizes marriage, for division of assets, ie, can two gays go to the courthouse and get a marriage license. Christians in a church have no power over that, but they do have power over who gets married in their church, and that's the way it is. Either way, I know if I had my way divorce would be much tougher to obtain. That's the price of living in a free society.

[M.Fillmore]

.

[LiterallyPolice]

Ha, ha, prepare to be destroyed. Married in the eyes of whom? The church who condemns it? Or the State? Oh, why would you want to be 'married' if it's not a religious union? Oh, I know. DIVISION OF THE ASSETS.

Money. While you and other libs are out there championing this gay agenda about poor gay people having rights, all those gay people want is the green paper.

Goat, word to the wise: writing "prepare to be destroyed" before your post does nothing but make you look like a toolbag.

But, out of courtesy, I did prepare myself for destruction... And was very disappointed when all I got was a small stream of strange, off-topic drivel.

Yes, they want to be married in the eyes of the state. One of the reasons is to be afforded the same tax/financial rights as straight couples. What is your point? Are these not worthy causes?

I've seen you make this argument elsewhere... And trust me, there is a reason it hasn't gained any traction outside of your own head(s).

[blacklistedbully]

What? You think this debate is about your "right to be annoyed"? I thought we were talking about all those people in our country that don't have the right to marry who they choose.

Is this what Christians consider "persecution"? An imaginary agenda against their "right to be annoyed"?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is not this thread about the kiss on national TV, what people thought of it, and the perception that the gay lifestyle is perhaps being inappropriately promoted by the media? When did it morph into homosexual legal rights?

[Goat Holder]

Read my other post dawgs. They should. But this has NOTHING to do with Christians.

[shoeless joe]

When did you choose to be straight? I know I didn't choose to like chicks, it just naturally happened.

So would you say it was in your DNA to be straight? If it just naturally happened then it HAS to be genetic. So if twins were born that were identical, i.e. genetically the exact same, both would have to be gay.

Problem is jarron Collins likes women while his identical twin Jason prefers men. Someone made a choice here...

[LiterallyPolice]

Marriage is a religious institution, so if it involves a church, there is no 'right'. Your battle is with whether or not the STATE recognizes marriage, for division of assets, ie, can two gays go to the courthouse and get a marriage license. Christians in a church have no power over that, but they do have power over who gets married in their church, and that's the way it is. Either way, I know if I had my way divorce would be much tougher to obtain. That's the price of living in a free society.

Jesus, Goat. What are you talking about? No one is saying churches should be forced to marry gays. This has always been about state-recognized marriage.

[Esmerelda Villalobos]

A wedding is a religious institution. Marriage is via the govt.

I wish they'd ban all marriage and be done with it. The simpletons will hide behind the bible until it is completely normal in 25 years and then there will be some new issue.

[Goat Holder]

So would you say it was in your DNA to be straight? If it just naturally happened then it HAS to be genetic. So if twins were born that were identical, i.e. genetically the exact same, both would have to be gay.

Problem is jarron Collins likes women while his identical twin Jason prefers men. Someone made a choice here...

I disagree shoeless joe. I know several gay people that I trust, and they say it was not a choice. Maybe it is in some instances. Either way, they still don't have to act on it, just like a straight man shouldn't have premarital sex. But we are all tempted and we still do it. Again, we all sin.

[BeardoMSU]

I am quite certain all Christians consider homosexuality a sin. It is in the bible. That said, there are denominations who have made exceptions to rules allowing homosexuals to participate or even lead their churches.

I disagree. Not all people take literal interpretations of the Bible, and that's where the divide is. Not all Christians think the Homosexuality is a sin, the same way not all Christians think the world is ca. 6,000 years old. I'd also add that many things that were written as "sin" can most often be attributed to the cultural norms of the day. But guess what: culture changes, as do norms, customs, ideas of morality, etc. It's inevitable.

[M.Fillmore]

That's about as far as the Pandora's box goes though since I think consenting adults making a choice is the barrier. (Just preemptively cutting off the "a man can marry his fish" argument here)

So then what gives you the right to close Pandora's box? A couple of months ago a UK woman went to some another western European country and had a wedding with her dog. Last week some guy petitioned to marry his laptop computer. If you are going to open Pandora's box, how will you determine how you will open and close it?

[Goat Holder]

Jesus, Goat. What are you talking about? No one is saying churches should be forced to marry gays. This has always been about state-recognized marriage.

Then why are you attacking Christians? They have no power over the State. Separation and stuff, you know?

[Esmerelda Villalobos]

Common denominator in all these type of discussions is religion makes people intolerant and say stupid shit. Christians dont have a stranglehold on that. It is all religions.

[Goat Holder]

You can't really believe that's the only reason gay people want the right to marry?

Why else? Can't they just live together and do whatever it is a gay family does without being married? I mean, they obviously don't care about the sin, so why take part in a religious institution if they can get all the benefits from the State?

Think about that.

[Esmerelda Villalobos]

Im atheist and married goat. Why?

[Goat Holder]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is not this thread about the kiss on national TV, what people thought of it, and the perception that the gay lifestyle is perhaps being inappropriately promoted by the media? When did it morph into homosexual legal rights?

When LiterallyPolice realized he was losing the argument. Textbook liberal tactic.

[BeardoMSU]

Yes, I'd like to see some credible sources of these happenings as well.

Do these things happen occasionally? I'm sure they do, but for every child not allowed to read their Bible at school, how many cases are there where Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, etc. are treated the same? This myth about only Christians being forbid to pray, read their Bible, etc., are totally overblown if not completely fabricated.

I see and hear Bible verses quoted in school speeches all the freakin' time, dude; so again, no dice.

As for the Air Force dude. If that actually happened, I suppose it would have to depend on exactly what verse the cadet chose to display. If it was Exodus 21:20-21 or Ephesians 6:5, I'm sure black guys in his unit would be quite offended. But I digress....

[bgdog]

Why else? Can't they just live together and do whatever it is a gay family does without being married? I mean, they obviously don't care about the sin, so why take part in a religious institution if they can get all the benefits from the State?

Think about that.

Of course they can, but why should they be denied something that their heterosexual counterparts aren't?

[drunkernhelldawg]

Lol. Wow. This conversation is obviously waaaaay over your head. I can't believe you ACTUALLY thought that would be a good response. Holy cow...

What the hell do you mean? People should not be officially labeled as second-class citizens because of who they love. Period. The world is bigger than a church parking lot.

[LiterallyPolice]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is not this thread about the kiss on national TV, what people thought of it, and the perception that the gay lifestyle is perhaps being inappropriately promoted by the media? When did it morph into homosexual legal rights?

Fair enough.... I see where you're coming from and, admittedly, I didn't really understand your comment until just now. In defense of my comment, however, from my perspective legal rights of homosexuals ties heavily into why both the gay community and the media are both so vocal.

[Ralph]

Im atheist and married goat. Why?

Bc our society, in which was originally created based on religious views from the Bible, has told you you're supposed to marry, have kids and experience the joys and strength a family provides.

[Goat Holder]

Of course they can, but why should they be denied something that their heterosexual counterparts aren't?

Hey, if they want that legal part of it, that's all on them. But again, that has nothing to do with Christians.

[War Machine Dawg]

This sums it up nicely. (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Sports/2014/0511/Michael-Sam-Is-emotional-kiss-exactly-what-some-NFL-teams-were-afraid-of) Sam is a marginal prospect made into a bigger deal because he chooses to very narrowly define himself by his sexuality and help push an agenda.

[LiterallyPolice]

Why else? Can't they just live together and do whatever it is a gay family does without being married? I mean, they obviously don't care about the sin, so why take part in a religious institution if they can get all the benefits from the State?

Think about that.

Serious question to the board.... Does anyone have any idea what Goat is talking about here?

Goat, are you arguing that marriage is strictly a religious ceremony?

[Goat Holder]

Im atheist and married goat. Why?

Division of the assets. Pretty much the same reason I mentioned above. All the legal benefits that come along with it. And I have no problem with gays wanting that. It's got nothing to do with the church, so don't try and make it about that.

A person can live with someone and raise a family without being married, religiously or legally, if they wish.

[Esmerelda Villalobos]

Associated goat? Wtf are you talking about? The majority of gays I know are Christian and go to church.

[blacklistedbully]

I disagree. Not all people take literal interpretations of the Bible, and that's where the divide is. Not all Christians think the Homosexuality is a sin, the same way not all Christians think the world is ca. 6,000 years old. I'd also add that many things that were written as "sin" can most often be attributed to the cultural norms of the day. But guess what: culture changes, as do norms, customs, ideas of morality, etc. It's inevitable.

Perhaps I should have qualified it by saying Christians denominations who believe fully in the Bible, and do not consider it subject to much, if any interpretation do not accept homosexuality as anything less than a sin. I am aware that there are plenty of Christians that believe abortion is OK, for example. And there are Christians who believe a wife should always submit to her husband, etc. In this day & age, it can be a real challenge to reconcile the Bible with modern society's views. So much of it comes down to faith.

Still, I'd be surprised if there are actual denominations that are truly Christian who consider homosexuality not a sin. This is not to say there aren't plenty who have accepted that Jesus Christ is our Saviour, yet believe it's also OK to be gay. I'm even aware there are some specific churches who have split away from their denomination over the "gay issue. But are they considered a denomination?

[Goat Holder]

Associated goat? Wtf are you talking about? The majority of gays I know are Christian and go to church.

Why would someone who intentionally and openly sins want to go to church? Doesn't that run counter to what they believe?

[BeardoMSU]

Of course they can, but why should they be denied something that their heterosexual counterparts aren't?

Oh, if twitter only existed in the 1940's and 50's....

#SeparateButEqual

[Esmerelda Villalobos]

Why would someone who intentionally and openly sins want to go to church? Doesn't that run counter to what they believe?

They dont believe being what god made them is a sin. Dont be so close minded man.

Im sure you intentionally and openly sin almost every day. Why do you go?

[BeardoMSU]

Perhaps I should have qualified it by saying Christians denominations who believe fully in the Bible, and do not consider it subject to much, if any interpretation do not accept homosexuality as anything less than a sin. I am aware that there are plenty of Christians that believe abortion is OK, for example. And there are Christians who believe a wife should always submit to her husband, etc. In this day & age, it can be a real challenge to reconcile the Bible with modern society's views. So much of it comes down to faith.

Still, I'd be surprised if there are actual denominations that are truly Christian who consider homosexuality not a sin. This is not to say there aren't plenty who have accepted that Jesus Christ is our Saviour, yet believe it's also OK to be gay. I'm even aware there are some specific churches who have split away from their denomination over the "gay issue. But are they considered a denomination?

From experience, I'd say the Episcopal Church, at least the ones I've been to, does not view homosexuality as a sin; they seem to focus more on being good people and helping others in need.

[LiterallyPolice]

They dont believe being what god made them is a sin. Dont be so close minded man.

Im sure you intentionally and openly sin almost every day. Why do you go?

You wanna know why I go to church? DIVISION OF ASSETS. ***

[Goat Holder]

They dont believe being what god made them is a sin. Dont be so close minded man.

Im sure you intentionally and openly sin almost every day. Why do you go?

We are all sinners. That's the point. And gays are welcome at church. I'm just assuming that if you have a guy who wants to do a bunch of sinful stuff, that he probably doesn't want to go to church.

I'm not close-minded. A sin is what it is. There's no negotiating on whether or not being gay is a sin in the eyes of the Christian church.

[fishwater99]

Im atheist and married goat. Why?

Did you get married in a Church by a Priest or Reverend?

[Esmerelda Villalobos]

Yes

[Goat Holder]

delete

[Goat Holder]

You wanna know why I go to church? DIVISION OF ASSETS. ***

Fairly certain you DON'T go to church.

Next sarcastic attempt to deflect, please.

[Esmerelda Villalobos]

Bc they dont think it is a sin goat.

There is negotiation on that as well. Hell, the pope just said atheist can go to heaven. Religion, like everything, evolves because it isnt fact. It will evolve until the end of time.

[dawgs]

So would you say it was in your DNA to be straight? If it just naturally happened then it HAS to be genetic. So if twins were born that were identical, i.e. genetically the exact same, both would have to be gay.

Problem is jarron Collins likes women while his identical twin Jason prefers men. Someone made a choice here...

Twins, even identical twins, don't have the exact same DNA.

[Ralph]

Yes

Then that's a perfect example of a Christian loving you even though he disagrees with you.

[dawgs]

Marriage is a religious institution, so if it involves a church, there is no 'right'. Your battle is with whether or not the STATE recognizes marriage, for division of assets, ie, can two gays go to the courthouse and get a marriage license. Christians in a church have no power over that, but they do have power over who gets married in their church, and that's the way it is. Either way, I know if I had my way divorce would be much tougher to obtain. That's the price of living in a free society.

Marriage for the purposes of this discussion and the government is not limited to religious marriages. Many people don't have religious ceremonies but their marriages are recognized by the state as the equivalent of someone who did get married in a religious ceremony.

[dawgs]

What are they being denied? The right to get married in a church? Tough sh*t, go get married at the beach.

Why would you want to be associated with religion if you didn't agree with it?


BECAUSE IN MANY STATES IN THIS COUNTRY, THEY STILL CANT GET MARRIED ON THE BEACH.

Jesus Christ, are you just trying to be obtuse here?

[Martianlander]

Bc they dont think it is a sin goat.

There is negotiation on that as well. Hell, the pope just said atheist can go to heaven. Religion, like everything, evolves because it isnt fact. It will evolve until the end of time.

I respect the fact that you and everyone else has a right to their opinion and I'm not judging you because I am certainly a sinner, but I do know that when we all stand before God, and we will, there will be no negotiation, and no discussion about how religion has evolved, only a fair and merciful judgment.

[Esmerelda Villalobos]

Then that's a perfect example of a Christian loving you even though he disagrees with you.

Sure. Im not sure how they would know I was one or not.

Christians are awful. The reason is they are nothing like their Christ. In fact, they are opposite. This thread proves that as the "libs" are acting more forgiving and loving than the thumpers.

[dawgs]

So then what gives you the right to close Pandora's box? A couple of months ago a UK woman went to some another western European country and had a wedding with her dog. Last week some guy petitioned to marry his laptop computer. If you are going to open Pandora's box, how will you determine how you will open and close it?

You've got to be ****ing kidding me with this shit. Are you not familiar with the concept of a consenting adult?

[LiterallyPolice]

Fairly certain you DON'T go to church.

Next sarcastic attempt to deflect, please.

Haha... Deflect what? Our argument ended because you didn't know that the state afforded benefits to married couples. Remember? You thought that gays were fighting for their right to get married in a church.

[Ralph]

Sure. Im not sure how they would know I was one or not.

Christians are awful. The reason is they are nothing like their Christ. In fact, they are opposite. This thread proves that as the "libs" are acting more forgiving and loving than the thumpers.

I agree with your post in many ways here... I have difficulty going to church bc of this. I've chosen to read the Bible and do my best to follow the 10 commandments instead.

[Esmerelda Villalobos]

Good way to live Ralph.

[LC Dawg]

I'm real curious to see where this goes from a football standpoint. Tim Tebow is basically toxic to the NFL now. I don't think it's because of his beliefs I think it's because of the media circus he brings. Coaches don't want to spend entire press conferences talking about 2nd or 3rd string quarterbacks. I also don't think they want to spend entire press conferences talking about whether a marginal defensive end is going to make the team. I also think that during training camp players are going to tire of killing themselves at practice only to come off the field and get questioned about Sam, just like they did with Tebow. If Sam wants to be an advocate for gay rights I think he's on the right track. If he really wants to be an NFL player I think he needs to consider how every one of his decisions will affect that prospect. I'm not saying this is fair, I just think its reality.

[LiterallyPolice]

You've got to be ****ing kidding me with this shit. Are you not familiar with the concept of a consenting adult?

I agree with M Fillmore. I think we are on a one-way ticket to beastiality. So we are best served to not only ban STRAIGHT marriage, but all forms of human contact as well. ***

[BeardoMSU]

I agree with M Fillmore. I think we are on a one-way ticket to beastiality. So we are best served to not only ban STRAIGHT marriage, but all forms of human contact as well. ***

The Mormons have been telling us this for a long time*****

http://i.imgur.com/srJtZ.jpg

[drunkernhelldawg]

Im fine with polygamy. Why would you be against it?

I dont care how many people a man marries or how many men/women he chooses. Has nothing to do with you and doesnt effect you. As long as all parties agree, who the hell cares?

Polygomy has been around since man first walked. It is in our dna, as well as all animals.

Yall want to talk "unnatural", unnatural is marriage to one person forever. It goes against everything in our dna.

I disagree with this whole post. Marriage may not be natural for dogs, but it is perfectly natural for my wife and me, as well as countless other happy couples. Man must progress beyond his simple animal nature. Furthermore, polygamy has nothing to do with gay marriage. Marriage is between two people. When you start experimenting beyond that, you're a swinger looking for validation. I'm not ever going to agree with sanctioning polygamy or beastiality, or however the hell you spell it.

[drunkernhelldawg]

Sure. Im not sure how they would know I was one or not.

Christians are awful. The reason is they are nothing like their Christ. In fact, they are opposite. This thread proves that as the "libs" are acting more forgiving and loving than the thumpers.

You're giving liberalism a bad name. Why do you want to just indiscriminately attack people's deepest beliefs with this shit? Does it make you feel smarter than people who have emotion? I feel like you only know the intellectual content of what you are talking about without any idea of the feelings behind it. Feelings matter.

[Esmerelda Villalobos]

A christian with the screen name drunkernhelldog that curses in his post is offended. Beautiful.

[LiterallyPolice]

A christian with the screen name drunkernhelldog that curses in his post is offended. Beautiful.

I think what he is trying to say is...

He's shot through the heart
And you're to blame
You give liberalism a bad name (bad name)

[dawgs]

A christian with the screen name drunkernhelldog that curses in his post is offended. Beautiful.

Because being drunkernhell (so long as you aren't hurting or a threat to others) and cursing aren't sins that should be legislated against, but gay marriage is.

[dickiedawg]

Here's my stance on the matter:

1. Homosexuality is sinful. In my mind, that's not up for debate. It's also not relevant to any discussion about the legality of gay marriage.

2. These particular sinners should ABSOLUTELY have the same rights as all the other sinners out there (myself and every other Christian included) in the eyes of the state.

[Goat Holder]

Bc they dont think it is a sin goat.

There is negotiation on that as well. Hell, the pope just said atheist can go to heaven. Religion, like everything, evolves because it isnt fact. It will evolve until the end of time.

That's where I believe you're wrong.

[drunkernhelldawg]

A christian with the screen name drunkernhelldog that curses in his post is offended. Beautiful.

I'm not a "Christian" the way you think. I'm for gay marriage, as I've said many times. I'm not offended either. I'm peeved that you're causing people to equate liberalism with sneering down at all who don't agree with your way of looking at things. I think your way of looking at things is shallow. I am a humanist.

[dawgs]

Here's my stance on the matter:

1. Homosexuality is sinful. In my mind, that's not up for debate. It's also not relevant to any discussion about the legality of gay marriage.

2. These particular sinners should ABSOLUTELY have the same rights as all the other sinners out there (myself and every other Christian included) in the eyes of the state.

And that's a 100% perfectly fine stance to take. No one is asking Christians who view homosexuality as a sin to change that view. We're asking them to take an objective, fair view of the world, and not treat homosexuals differently from other sinners, like divorcees and those who have pre-marital sex. Those sinners aren't prevented from marriage, having children, having legal spousal rights, tax benefits, etc etc etc by the state.

[WeWonItAll(Most)]

Im fine with polygamy. Why would you be against it?

I dont care how many people a man marries or how many men/women he chooses. Has nothing to do with you and doesnt effect you. As long as all parties agree, who the hell cares?

Polygomy has been around since man first walked. It is in our dna, as well as all animals.

Yall want to talk "unnatural", unnatural is marriage to one person forever. It goes against everything in our dna.

Marriage is actually one of the few things found in every culture, and in an overwhelmingly large number of cultures, it is a bond between two people. If it's not natural for two people to stay together then why would it be a rarity in cultures across the world for there to not be marriage between two people? I also highly doubt they have found genetic evidence that says it's not natural.

[drunkernhelldawg]

I think what he is trying to say is...

He's shot through the heart
And you're to blame
You give liberalism a bad name (bad name)

Beautiful.

[BeardoMSU]

That's where I believe you're wrong.

But where is he wrong, Goat?

Culture changes, man; it's inevitable. What was viewed as 'sin' a thousand years ago, by that particular society, at that particular time, will never be reflected exactly the same today. Obvious examples from the Bible are slavery, women's rights, punishments for adultery, certain food and clothing types, etc. Hell, even a few decades ago, a number of Christian denominations viewed interracial marriage as sinful. That's the problem with a literal interpretation of a cultural/religious text.

[Political Hack]

Here's my stance on the matter:

1. Homosexuality is sinful. In my mind, that's not up for debate. It's also not relevant to any discussion about the legality of gay marriage.

2. These particular sinners should ABSOLUTELY have the same rights as all the other sinners out there (myself and every other Christian included) in the eyes of the state.

I can respect that opinion.

[drunkernhelldawg]

Marriage is actually one of the few things found in every culture, and in an overwhelmingly large number of cultures, it is a bond between two people. If it's not natural for two people to stay together then why would it be a rarity in cultures across the world for there to not be marriage between two people? I also highly doubt they have found genetic evidence that says it's not natural.

To me, it borders on idiotic to equate polygamy with gay marriage. Marriage is between two people, the essential words being "two" and "people".

[BeardoMSU]

To me, it borders on idiotic to equate polygamy with gay marriage. Marriage is between two people, the essential words being "two" and "people".

Not just 2 people, but 2 consenting adults who love each other.

Also, the fools denoting the slippery-slope fallacy that gay marriage will lead to beastiality, probably said the same thing about interracial couples. Get a grip.

[thunderclap]

Yeah. Better him than me.

[msstate7]

And that's a 100% perfectly fine stance to take. No one is asking Christians who view homosexuality as a sin to change that view. We're asking them to take an objective, fair view of the world, and not treat homosexuals differently from other sinners, like divorcees and those who have pre-marital sex. Those sinners aren't prevented from marriage, having children, having legal spousal rights, tax benefits, etc etc etc by the state.

Nature (God) prevents them from having children

[RC3]

Nature (God) prevents them from having children

adoption....or artificial insemination for lesbians, or surrogate mothers for men

[BeardoMSU]

Nature (God) prevents them from having children

****Adoption; don't be obtuse*****

Also, in reference to nature, the Pan paniscus (i.e., Bonobo), our closest evolutionary relative, demonstrates these actions as well.

[dawgs]

Glad y'all took care if that one for me. Should have known I'd need to spell it out for a braves fan.

[hacker]

Nature (God) prevents them from having children

I didn't know having children was required for people to love one another.

[hacker]

****Adoption; don't be obtuse*****

Also, in reference to nature, the Pan paniscus (i.e., Bonobo), our closest evolutionary relative, demonstrates these actions as well.

You used the "e" word. You think that's going to get through to him? That's kinda like when a Christian says, "of course it's true, it's in the Bible!"

[WeWonItAll(Most)]

****Adoption; don't be obtuse*****

Also, in reference to nature, the Pan paniscus (i.e., Bonobo), our closest evolutionary relative, demonstrates these actions as well.

Same sex relations is common in a lot of animal species. Homophobia is a very modern concept, mainly due to Christianity and Islam being the biggest two religions in the world, both of which call gay marriage a sin.

Bonobos have sex as a social tool, similar to other species of monkeys grooming each other.

In Papua New Guiana, there are some cultures where heterosexual sex is viewed about the way homosexual sex is viewed in America.

[BeardoMSU]

You used the "e" word. You think that's going to get through to him? That's kinda like when a Christian says, "of course it's true, it's in the Bible!"

Damn, you're right. Ken Ham just shit his pants.

[hacker]

My favorite thing in all of this is when people use The Bible as an excuse for being anti-gay. Homosexuality is an abomination, right? Well, so is eating shrimp, oysters, etc (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+11%3A9-12&version=KJV).

Usually, when you point this out, the typical response is "well, times were different back then!" Yeah, maybe so -- so maybe that's why you shouldn't continue cherry-picking Bible verses to support your close-mindedness.

[BeardoMSU]

My favorite thing in all of this is when people use The Bible as an excuse for being anti-gay. Homosexuality is an abomination, right? Well, so is eating shrimp, oysters, etc (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+11%3A9-12&version=KJV).

Usually, when you point this out, the typical response is "well, times were different back then!" Yeah, maybe so -- so maybe that's why you shouldn't continue cherry-picking Bible verses to support your close-mindedness.

Not only that, but when you point out some of those other "sins", the typical response is: "well that was the Old Testament, before Jesus died", etc., etc.,....I guess homophobia is exempt from that clause.

[archdog]

If you look at it from the point of football...the guy is just an average NFL player. No other player around his draft position get near the attention. So, the real question is, does he get attention for being a great player or because he is gay? We all know the answer. Does SportsCenter show the guy picked before him or after him kissing his girlfriend? Of course not! Why would they? If there is Any way the media can portray this choice as "normal" they will jump all over it. The only thing that is considered offensive to people today is Christian Values and Decency!


This was the first openly gay NFL player. Everyone knows the reason he was on the t.v. It's great. Now we can all move on. Just like anything else the media latches on. 1st time, its something new. 2nd time, less of a big deal. 3rd time, there will not even be a mention that said player is gay.

[Charlie_Sheen420]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROehP8DVPM4

[msstate7]

My favorite thing in all of this is when people use The Bible as an excuse for being anti-gay. Homosexuality is an abomination, right? Well, so is eating shrimp, oysters, etc (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+11%3A9-12&version=KJV).

Usually, when you point this out, the typical response is "well, times were different back then!" Yeah, maybe so -- so maybe that's why you shouldn't continue cherry-picking Bible verses to support your close-mindedness.

Being under the law vs grace. After Jesus paid the sin debt, Christians live under grace now

[jeremyrbrown]

Serious question: What translation of 1 Corinthians doesn't sound like this?

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Cor 6:9-11

[dickiedawg]

I agree with your post in many ways here... I have difficulty going to church bc of this. I've chosen to read the Bible and do my best to follow the 10 commandments instead.

This is way off topic, but I'm very interested in what you've said here.
I've heard people mention things to this end, and it breaks my heart on a couple of levels.
1. It's a crying shame that Christianity in general has this bad reputation of being disingenuous and hypocritical, to the point that would-be church members are turned away.
2. Reading your Bible and doing your best to follow the 10 commandments, despite your good intentions, won't save you. The only thing that will is a relationship with Jesus Christ. Since you appear to believe in God and the Bible, that saddens me even more than some in this thread who apparently have no such belief.

I don't say any of this to be judgmental. Just expressing my beliefs since it was brought up.

[BeardoMSU]

This is way off topic, but I'm very interested in what you've said here.
I've heard people mention things to this end, and it breaks my heart on a couple of levels.
1. It's a crying shame that Christianity in general has this bad reputation of being disingenuous and hypocritical, to the point that would-be church members are turned away.
2. Reading your Bible and doing your best to follow the 10 commandments, despite your good intentions, won't save you. The only thing that will is a relationship with Jesus Christ. Since you appear to believe in God and the Bible, that saddens me even more than some in this thread who apparently have no such belief.

I don't say any of this to be judgmental. Just expressing my beliefs since it was brought up.

Many people view this as ethnocentric in nature; even the new Pope has expressed something similar. There are many non-Christians throughout the world who are amazing people, and I refuse to believe they aren't "as good as others" in the eyes of God. Hell, David Duke is a "Christian" (not saying he is an accurate representation of Christianity). Again, that's where the literal interpretation comes into play.

[jeremyrbrown]

This is way off topic, but I'm very interested in what you've said here.
I've heard people mention things to this end, and it breaks my heart on a couple of levels.
1. It's a crying shame that Christianity in general has this bad reputation of being disingenuous and hypocritical, to the point that would-be church members are turned away.
2. Reading your Bible and doing your best to follow the 10 commandments, despite your good intentions, won't save you. The only thing that will is a relationship with Jesus Christ. Since you appear to believe in God and the Bible, that saddens me even more than some in this thread who apparently have no such belief.

I don't say any of this to be judgmental. Just expressing my beliefs since it was brought up.

Well said. No individual's best effort will get him to heaven. Only God's grace and your faith in Jesus as Savior AND Lord of your life.

[PMDawg]

Common denominator in all these type of discussions is religion makes people intolerant and say stupid shit. Christians dont have a stranglehold on that. It is all religions.

You cry about intolerance, bigotry, and hate speech and then spew this? Lol. Tell me, where do you stand on irony?

For the record, your thinly veiled insults don't make you look that smart. I have an IQ in the top 2% and have some masters level theoretical physics under my belt...and I still have faith. So don't fool yourself into thinking you're more intelligent than someone just because they're religious.

[BeardoMSU]

You cry about intolerance, bigotry, and hate speech and then spew this? Lol. Tell me, where do you stand on irony?

For the record, your thinly veiled insults don't make you look that smart. I have an IQ in the top 2% and have some masters level theoretical physics under my belt...and I still have faith. So don't fool yourself into thinking you're more intelligent than someone just because they're religious.

I agree, it's wrong to assume someone is stupid just because they're religious. For me, however, it's always been about whether you follow a literal interpretation (yes, I keep saying this...) of the Biblical text that denotes intelligence. If you use the Bible for faith, spiritual enlightenment, and a model for altruism and helping others, I applaud you, but there are many who don't. They latch onto passages and concepts that make no sense, and thus, cause many people to question their intelligence. You for example, with all your knowledge of physics and science, if I heard you talking about how Genesis "proves" the Earth is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs and man lived together (e.g., Ken Ham), I would obviously think you weren't very smart. It's the same as when people who spoke out against heliocentrism were labeled as heretics and put to death. Or people who thought the earth was flat.

[drunkernhelldawg]

You cry about intolerance, bigotry, and hate speech and then spew this? Lol. Tell me, where do you stand on irony?

For the record, your thinly veiled insults don't make you look that smart. I have an IQ in the top 2% and have some masters level theoretical physics under my belt...and I still have faith. So don't fool yourself into thinking you're more intelligent than someone just because they're religious.

That's exactly how I read it too, except I can't truly call myself a person of faith. But the disrespect toward other people in that type statement makes my liberal behind angry. It's a terrific example of narrow mindedness across the political spectrum.

[jeremyrbrown]

I agree, it's wrong to assume someone is stupid just because they're religious. For me, however, it's always been about whether you follow a literal interpretation (yes, I keep saying this...) of the Biblical text that denotes intelligence. If you use the Bible for faith, spiritual enlightenment, and a model for altruism and helping others, I applaud you, but there are many who don't. They latch onto passages and concepts that make no sense, and thus, cause many people to question their intelligence. You for example, with all your knowledge of physics and science, if I heard you talking about how Genesis "proves" the Earth is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs and man lived together (e.g., Ken Ham), I would obviously think you weren't very smart. It's the same as when people who spoke out against heliocentrism were labeled as heretics and put to death. Or people who thought the earth was flat.

What was the most altruistic act in the Bible and why was it performed?

[drunkernhelldawg]

I agree, it's wrong to assume someone is stupid just because they're religious. For me, however, it's always been about whether you follow a literal interpretation (yes, I keep saying this...) of the Biblical text that denotes intelligence. If you use the Bible for faith, spiritual enlightenment, and a model for altruism and helping others, I applaud you, but there are many who don't. They latch onto passages and concepts that make no sense, and thus, cause many people to question their intelligence. You for example, with all your knowledge of physics and science, if I heard you talking about how Genesis "proves" the Earth is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs and man lived together (e.g., Ken Ham), I would obviously think you weren't very smart. It's the same as when people who spoke out against heliocentrism were labeled as heretics and put to death. Or people who thought the earth was flat.

I do despise literalism regarding the Bible, but I think it's important to respect people's beliefs because belief is central to experience and the idea of cutting somebody at the root does not seem right to me. Maybe I'm wrong; maybe we all need to hate one another.

[PMDawg]

I agree, it's wrong to assume someone is stupid just because they're religious. For me, however, it's always been about whether you follow a literal interpretation (yes, I keep saying this...) of the Biblical text that denotes intelligence. If you use the Bible for faith, spiritual enlightenment, and a model for altruism and helping others, I applaud you, but there are many who don't. They latch onto passages and concepts that make no sense, and thus, cause many people to question their intelligence. You for example, with all your knowledge of physics and science, if I heard you talking about how Genesis "proves" the Earth is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs and man lived together (e.g., Ken Ham), I would obviously think you weren't very smart. It's the same as when people who spoke out against heliocentrism were labeled as heretics and put to death. Or people who thought the earth was flat.

Well, your interpretation doesn't matter either. You're just giving a tiny bit more leeway but you still assume some people are stupid bc they have faith. I often find you "open minded" fellows to be very close minded. A lot of you just think you're smarter than everyone else.

[BeardoMSU]

I do despise literalism regarding the Bible, but I think it's important to respect people's beliefs because belief is central to experience and the idea of cutting somebody at the root does not seem right to me. Maybe I'm wrong; maybe we all need to hate one another.

Who's cutting somebody at the root? And I never said anything about hating one another. From my experience, being a devout Christian, and ignoring not just science, but history, are not mutually exclusive.

[BeardoMSU]

Well, your interpretation doesn't matter either. You're just giving a tiny bit more leeway but you still assume some people are stupid bc they have faith. I often find you "open minded" fellows to be very close minded. A lot of you just think you're smarter than everyone else.

Not true. Did I say having "faith" makes you stupd? Please point to where I said that. Believing in Jesus and following his teachings has nothing to do with what I said.

[Rayburn8]

Not all christian denominations find it a sin. So saying it is against christian beliefs is false.

The bible clearly states it is a sin. So if your truly believe the bible is the holy inspired work of God, the yeas it is against Christian beliefs.

[drunkernhelldawg]

Who's cutting somebody at the root? And I never said anything about hating one another. From my experience, being a devout Christian, and ignoring not just science, but history, are not mutually exclusive.

I agree with about everything you've posted. I was talking about Enis and putting my anti-literalism in context. Enis made some very flippant anti-Christian comments, and I guess I was still responding to that when I commented on your post. You're my favorite lib. voice, besides myself, on this board.

[Rayburn8]

Divorce is a sin, correct? Why aren't Christian conservatives fighting to make divorce illegal? Why aren't Christian conservatives fighting to nullify 2nd and 3rd marriages and strip those spouses of their rights? That's the hypocrisy right there. The sins of one's personal life that are being fought against by Christian conservatives are cherry picked and then the bible is used as a shield against claims of bigotry. Now this is hugely different from crimes like murder and burglary and rape, because those are sins that have a material and immediate affect on other members of society.

And I know some denominations are more modern in their social views, and that's great, but for Internet MB posting, I'm not going to list out the denominations. We all know what's being referred to here.

Divorce without justification is a sin. If your wife cheats on you, that is considered justified. To top off I do think we need to make it more difficult to divorce and make marriage seem permanent as it is not seen that way.

[BeardoMSU]

I agree with about everything you've posted. I was talking about Enis's post that was quoted by the post I quoted. Not you. You're my favorite lib. voice, besides myself, on this board.

Ok, my bad, dude. Muchas gracias.

[BeardoMSU]

Divorce without justification is a sin. If your wife cheats on you, that is considered justified. To top off I do think we need to make it more difficult to divorce and make marriage seem permanent as it is not seen that way.

I think every couple should live together before they get married. Why? Because after you live with someone for a period of time, there are really no more secrets; you know who that person is. I'd bet that would decrease the number of divorces substantially.

[fishwater99]

Bc they dont think it is a sin goat.

There is negotiation on that as well. Hell, the pope just said atheist can go to heaven. Religion, like everything, evolves because it isnt fact. It will evolve until the end of time.

The Pope never said that Atheist will go to Heaven, but that Christ came to save all people even Atheists.

http://www.catholicvote.org/what-pope-francis-really-said-about-atheists/


The Pope is simply affirming certain truths that any somewhat knowledgable Catholic will uphold.

First, that Christ died to redeem the whole world. We can distinguish his redemptive work from the acceptance of salvation. He redeemed the whole world. However, many will reject that saving work. In affirming the universality of Christ?s redemptive work we are not universalists. To say that he redeemed the whole world is not to conclude that all will be saved.

Secondly, the Pope is also affirming that all humans are created in God?s image and are therefore created good. Yes, created good, but that goodness is wounded by original sin.

Thirdly, he is affirming that all men and women are obliged to pursue what is beautiful, good and true. Natural virtue is possible?even obligatory, but natural virtue on its own is not sufficient for salvation. Grace is necessary to advance beyond natural virtue to bring the soul to salvation. The Pope does not say atheists being good on their own will be saved. He says they, like all men, are redeemed by Christ?s death and their good works are the starting place where we can meet with them?the implication being ?meet with them in an encounter that leads eventually to faith in Christ.

[dickiedawg]

Many people view this as ethnocentric in nature; even the new Pope has expressed something similar. There are many non-Christians throughout the world who are amazing people, and I refuse to believe they aren't "as good as others" in the eyes of God. Hell, David Duke is a "Christian" (not saying he is an accurate representation of Christianity). Again, that's where the literal interpretation comes into play.

Here's the thing, though: None of us are "good" in the eyes of God. God loves us all equally in spite of our sin and He offers salvation to all.

[PMDawg]

Sure. Im not sure how they would know I was one or not.

Christians are awful. The reason is they are nothing like their Christ. In fact, they are opposite.

Unfortunately this is the most accurate thing you've said. It's a shame, but it's true.

[fishwater99]

Serious question: What translation of 1 Corinthians doesn't sound like this?

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Cor 6:9-11

There are three kinds of laws in the Bible.

Civil laws.
These were specifically given for the culture of the Israelites, which includes everything from murder to restitution and dietary restrictions.

Ceremonial laws.
This literally stands for the customs of a nation. These would have included sacrifices of perfectly good animals, and rejection of food sources such as pork and rabbits. These laws were specific only toward the Jews.

God's moral laws.
These relate to justice and judgment. They are based on God's own holy nature.
As such, these ordinates are holy, just and unchanging.
Moral laws encompass regulations on justice, respect and sexual conduct. All people will be held accountable to these laws.

Just because someone is a Christian, and believes in the Bible, that does not make them haters, homophobics or heretics.
It just makes them a person who believes in God?s word and that Jesus came to die on the cross for our sins.

[Ralph]

This is way off topic, but I'm very interested in what you've said here.
I've heard people mention things to this end, and it breaks my heart on a couple of levels.
1. It's a crying shame that Christianity in general has this bad reputation of being disingenuous and hypocritical, to the point that would-be church members are turned away.
2. Reading your Bible and doing your best to follow the 10 commandments, despite your good intentions, won't save you. The only thing that will is a relationship with Jesus Christ. Since you appear to believe in God and the Bible, that saddens me even more than some in this thread who apparently have no such belief.

I don't say any of this to be judgmental. Just expressing my beliefs since it was brought up.

It saddens me too. To be clear, I have a very close relationship with Jesus; I find reading the Bible and applying the concepts and tales to what's happening in my life as a great tactic to strengthening that relationship. When I go to church, I see everyone trying to outdo everyone else.

And not to be critical to you or others that have made similar remarks, I would hesitate to encourage people to believe that going to church is the only way to achieve a relationship with God. It wasn't until I changed my approach that I finally was able to have that relationship that I was unable to achieve through church. Just how it works for me; not right or wrong.

I would also be hesitant to critique someones ability to go to heaven or be saved. Im not sure telling people that reading the Bible and following the 10 commandments won't get you to heaven. Other folks "relationship with God" may occur through ways that are unlike yours. This is a minor example of why I choose not to go to church.

[PMDawg]

Here's my stance on the matter:

1. Homosexuality is sinful. In my mind, that's not up for debate. It's also not relevant to any discussion about the legality of gay marriage.

2. These particular sinners should ABSOLUTELY have the same rights as all the other sinners out there (myself and every other Christian included) in the eyes of the state.

I agree with this and I'll go one more. It's none of the governments business. Legally, they deserve their rights. But this is still a democracy (barely) and it has to run its course. My original point remains. I'm tired of "look at me I'm gay! (But don't notice I'm gay)".

[dawgoneyall]

You are wrong.

[Esmerelda Villalobos]

You're giving liberalism a bad name. Why do you want to just indiscriminately attack people's deepest beliefs with this shit? Does it make you feel smarter than people who have emotion? I feel like you only know the intellectual content of what you are talking about without any idea of the feelings behind it. Feelings matter.

Well I dont really care because Im not a liberal....at all

[dawgs]

I think every couple should live together before they get married. Why? Because after you live with someone for a period of time, there are really no more secrets; you know who that person is. I'd bet that would decrease the number of divorces substantially.

It actually is true. States with a higher avg age of 1st marriage and higher rates of cohabitating unmarried couples have much lower divorce rates than states with lower avg age of 1st marriage and lower rates of cohabitating unmarried couples.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4639430

(I realize some of y'all with dismiss the article because of the source, but it's the 1st one that popped up in google and it's citing to and quoting statistics from a study not associated with huff post)

I've been with my now fiance for almost 5.5 years, living together for almost 4.5 years of that time. Her mom and sister asked why we weren't getting married instead of moving in together and I told them that when we get married it'll be because we are ready and not just because we were wanting to live together. Couldn't be happier, I believe in my heart I'm a good person, and never once felt like I was a "sinner".

[dawgs]

There are three kinds of laws in the Bible.

Civil laws.
These were specifically given for the culture of the Israelites, which includes everything from murder to restitution and dietary restrictions.

Ceremonial laws.
This literally stands for the customs of a nation. These would have included sacrifices of perfectly good animals, and rejection of food sources such as pork and rabbits. These laws were specific only toward the Jews.

God's moral laws.
These relate to justice and judgment. They are based on God's own holy nature.
As such, these ordinates are holy, just and unchanging.
Moral laws encompass regulations on justice, respect and sexual conduct. All people will be held accountable to these laws.

Just because someone is a Christian, and believes in the Bible, that does not make them haters, homophobics or heretics.
It just makes them a person who believes in God?s word and that Jesus came to die on the cross for our sins.

But when they can't separate church and state and want to impose their (selective) beliefs via legislation on large segments of the population, you go from believing in god/Jesus/the bible to forcing others to live their personal lives by what you believe.

[Esmerelda Villalobos]

That is becauSe you probably are a good dude and you arent sinning by living with your GF

[RossDawg82]

Hahaha
What if the rams trade him to the packers. That would be the headline of the year...... Rams trade first openly gay player to the packers for a backloaded deal

[drunkernhelldawg]

Well I dont really care because Im not a liberal....at all

You've done outsmarted me again.

[Bully13]

Well I dont really care because Im not a liberal....at all

I'm calling BS on this quote... I don't believe it ....at all

[Bully13]

You've done outsmarted me again.

he did not outsmart you dthd, he bullshitted you.

[dickiedawg]

It saddens me too. To be clear, I have a very close relationship with Jesus; I find reading the Bible and applying the concepts and tales to what's happening in my life as a great tactic to strengthening that relationship. When I go to church, I see everyone trying to outdo everyone else.

And not to be critical to you or others that have made similar remarks, I would hesitate to encourage people to believe that going to church is the only way to achieve a relationship with God. It wasn't until I changed my approach that I finally was able to have that relationship that I was unable to achieve through church. Just how it works for me; not right or wrong.

I would also be hesitant to critique someones ability to go to heaven or be saved. Im not sure telling people that reading the Bible and following the 10 commandments won't get you to heaven. Other folks "relationship with God" may occur through ways that are unlike yours. This is a minor example of why I choose not to go to church.

I would not say "you can't get to heaven without going to church." The act of going to church isn't what saves you. It's not tithing or giving to charity or wearing the nicest outfit or singing in the choir, either. These are merely ways some people choose to honor God- even though, as you alluded to, some people seem to do them to honor themselves, wanting people to see what "good Christians" they are.

If you have a great relationship with Jesus, that's great. But if someone expressing genuine concern for you is an example of what is wrong with church, I don't know what to tell you.

[Dawgcentral]

Dont really give a flip who is sleeping with whom. Don't really want to see guys kiss each other.

I don't spend much time in places where these things occur. I might go to the French Quarter in the early evening for a certain eating establishment, but not for Mardi GRAS, or anywhere else in N.O. During that time period where things get crazy. I have no desire to spend time in Amsterdam, where the Red Light District boasts whores on display. Won't be making trips to Bankok, or other international cities of ill repute.

Don't appreciate a guy in drag dressed as Ms. Santa Claus leading the Macy's Christmas Parade. (I reckon they don't have enough parades ).

I have to wonder why homosexuality is considered "natural" when these guys are walking around with Spincter Tampons up their asses to keep from staining their pants. Sorry to be crude, but I believe in speaking plainly. I'm simply not one to agree with the masses when accepting what I consider to be bad behavior. And that includes stepping out on your spouse. It's my belief that it leads to a miserable existence.

Again, don't really care if they want a legal marriage. Or if they simply want to shack up and hurt each other in the name of physical attraction. But I'll teach my children that they don't have to agree with all lifestyles. It's my right.

[whosyourdawgy]

Shit I started reading this and there were 6 pages. I can't get to the damn end of it! Now there are 9 pages. Make that 10 before I hit post

[whosyourdawgy]

Same sex relations is common in a lot of animal species. Homophobia is a very modern concept, mainly due to Christianity and Islam being the biggest two religions in the world, both of which call gay marriage a sin.

Bonobos have sex as a social tool, similar to other species of monkeys grooming each other.

In Papua New Guiana, there are some cultures where heterosexual sex is viewed about the way homosexual sex is viewed in America.

Well, the homosexuals better be glad the heterosexuals are still there to make more babies so they can keep their culture going. Wow

[Goat Holder]

I have to wonder why homosexuality is considered "natural" when these guys are walking around with Spincter Tampons up their asses to keep from staining their pants.

Ha ha ha ha. Ugh man ugh

[Esmerelda Villalobos]

Some of yalls kids will start off way behind in this world.

[BeardoMSU]

Dont really give a flip who is sleeping with whom. Don't really want to see guys kiss each other.

I don't spend much time in places where these things occur. I might go to the French Quarter in the early evening for a certain eating establishment, but not for Mardi GRAS, or anywhere else in N.O. During that time period where things get crazy. I have no desire to spend time in Amsterdam, where the Red Light District boasts whores on display. Won't be making trips to Bankok, or other international cities of ill repute.

Don't appreciate a guy in drag dressed as Ms. Santa Claus leading the Macy's Christmas Parade. (I reckon they don't have enough parades ).

I have to wonder why homosexuality is considered "natural" when these guys are walking around with Spincter Tampons up their asses to keep from staining their pants. Sorry to be crude, but I believe in speaking plainly. I'm simply not one to agree with the masses when accepting what I consider to be bad behavior. And that includes stepping out on your spouse. It's my belief that it leads to a miserable existence.

Again, don't really care if they want a legal marriage. Or if they simply want to shack up and hurt each other in the name of physical attraction. But I'll teach my children that they don't have to agree with all lifestyles. It's my right.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8k3yuhST11qaeabd.gif
Yeah, that always seems to be the case when you're made into a second-class citizen.

[shoeless joe]

Same sex relations is common in a lot of animal species. Homophobia is a very modern concept, mainly due to Christianity and Islam being the biggest two religions in the world, both of which call gay marriage a sin.

Bonobos have sex as a social tool, similar to other species of monkeys grooming each other.

In Papua New Guiana, there are some cultures where heterosexual sex is viewed about the way homosexual sex is viewed in America.

I quit reading this because this argument only goes one way every time...but i did pick back up on this page for some reason and this post is absolutely wrong.

Animals don't have homosexual sex...they do "hump" other animals both male and female to show dominance.

It is quite telling that the side that wants to agree with absolute science in every single other aspect to disprove some religious beliefs now wants to go completely against science to disprove those same religious beliefs.

[M.Fillmore]

Regarding Beardo's claim of discrimination against Christians is "mythical".


Yes, I'd like to see some credible sources of these happenings as well.

I see and hear Bible verses quoted in school speeches all the freakin' time, dude; so again, no dice.

As for the Air Force dude. If that actually happened, I suppose it would have to depend on exactly what verse the cadet chose to display.

Okay, I got in from work so here are some sources. I don't know what you consider "credible" but you can look it up. Google isn't hard. BTW, because you see Bible verses around you say "no dice" to censorship of the Bible. Wow, the logical flaws in that statement are stunning.

So know I will await your sources of censorship "cases are there where Muslims, Buddhists" in US schools that you claim.

Local CBS Miami coverage of teacher banning a Bible being read in a student?s free time.
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2014/05/05/teachers-ban-on-reading-bibles-in-class-sparks-protest-change/
*********
School Superintendent orders wrestling team not to wear T-shirts (not a part of the uniform and paid for by parents) because the T-shirt read on the back ?I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.?
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/atheists-strong-arm-wrestling-team-over-bible-verse.html
*********
Here is a column about the Air Force Academy with commentary that this is not the first such action by the Air Force Academy.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/chuck-norris/2014/04/01/column-us-air-force-airbrushes-religious-liberty-yet-again
************
Official placed on unpaid administrative leave due to comments away from his job and unrelated to his duties.
http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-pasadena-leave-20140502-story.html
*****************
Des Moines Register on May 7 reported that Bob Eschiliman was fired as editor of the Newton Daily News for referring to homosexual activists as ?Gaystapo.?

[msstate7]

Same sex relations is common in a lot of animal species. Homophobia is a very modern concept, mainly due to Christianity and Islam being the biggest two religions in the world, both of which call gay marriage a sin.

Bonobos have sex as a social tool, similar to other species of monkeys grooming each other.

In Papua New Guiana, there are some cultures where heterosexual sex is viewed about the way homosexual sex is viewed in America.

If this is the case in Papua new Guiana, then this culture won't be around very long.

[BeardoMSU]

I quit reading this because this argument only goes one way every time...but i did pick back up on this page for some reason and this post is absolutely wrong.

Animals don't have homosexual sex...they do "hump" other animals both male and female to show dominance.

It is quite telling that the side that wants to agree with absolute science in every single other aspect to disprove some religious beliefs now wants to go completely against science to disprove those same religious beliefs.

Is your definition of "sex" contingent on procreation? Because, if so, there are lots of hetero couples who just "hump".

And you're absolutely wrong with homosexual tendencies in animals, especially the Bonobos. Yes dominance is a factor with some species, but for many, it's much more.

[M.Fillmore]

But when they can't separate church and state and want to impose their (selective) beliefs via legislation on large segments of the population, you go from believing in god/Jesus/the bible to forcing others to live their personal lives by what you believe.

Excuse me, but the legal process is all about forcing what you can and cannot do. The idea of "you can't legislate morality" is nonsense. Legislating morality is the function of many laws.

[DawgSaint]

Regarding Beardo's claim of discrimination against Christians is "mythical".



Okay, I got in from work so here are some sources. I don't know what you consider "credible" but you can look it up. Google isn't hard. BTW, because you see Bible verses around you say "no dice" to censorship of the Bible. Wow, the logical flaws in that statement are stunning.

So know I will await your sources of censorship "cases are there where Muslims, Buddhists" in US schools that you claim.

Local CBS Miami coverage of teacher banning a Bible being read in a student?s free time.
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2014/05/05/teachers-ban-on-reading-bibles-in-class-sparks-protest-change/
*********
School Superintendent orders wrestling team not to wear T-shirts (not a part of the uniform and paid for by parents) because the T-shirt read on the back ?I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.?
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/atheists-strong-arm-wrestling-team-over-bible-verse.html
*********
Here is a column about the Air Force Academy with commentary that this is not the first such action by the Air Force Academy.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/chuck-norris/2014/04/01/column-us-air-force-airbrushes-religious-liberty-yet-again
************
Official placed on unpaid administrative leave due to comments away from his job and unrelated to his duties.
http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-pasadena-leave-20140502-story.html
*****************
Des Moines Register on May 7 reported that Bob Eschiliman was fired as editor of the Newton Daily News for referring to homosexual activists as ?Gaystapo.?

It will be amusing to see how the libs will spin each story.

[M.Fillmore]

It will be amusing to see how the libs will spin each story.

Perhaps, but I'm not going to hang around and find out. I'll have a late supper and get back to work. It's a busy time of year.

[Goat Holder]

Some of yalls kids will start off way behind in this world.

Why? All he said was that he will teach his kids that they don't have to agree with certain lifestyles. Aren't YOU sort of being the intolerant one here.

[Martianlander]

Fishwater =I believe you started a hot topic here. I'm glad to see so many Christians step up to the plate that can express themselves much better than I can.

[CadaverDawg]

I won't stay in this long, but here are my thoughts....

If my best friend cheated on his wife, I would tell him how much I disapprove of what he did....but I would still be his friend because we all make mistakes and who am I to judge.

I feel the same way about homosexuals. If I have a homosexual friend that asks me what I think of his being gay, I will tell him that I disapprove of that lifestyle....but I will still be his friend and not hold that over his head, bc who am I to judge.

Now, if my friend started bragging and holding press conferences about how he cheated on his wife....It would piss me off and I would tell him that he is wrong for making it a spectacle. Same goes for the homosexual friend.

It's kind of like needing an emergency surgery, and the nurse coming in and saying "well, I must tell you that your doctor is gay". Is that going to keep me from letting him do the surgery? Hell no. And it's also information that didn't need to be shared with me in the first place, because I don't give a shit about your sex life or sexual orientation. So in other words, it's not a big deal if homosexuals don't make a spectacle of it.

And just because I don't share your same viewpoint, doesn't make me wrong for mine. "Equality" and "judging" someone works both ways.....Something the liberal and homosexual crowd seem to forget while bashing and judging those that don't agree with them.

[whosyourdawgy]

Some of yalls kids will start off way behind in this world.

Ennis, it sounds like you think we should all be bowing down to you. Damn you must be an asshole to be around. One of those always has to be right guys that thinks you are better than everybody else. You have got to be a "closet" Rebel. I have now read all 10 pages of this bullshit and there are some screwed up views on both sides of this fence on this board. But these are all of your opinions, and everyone is entitled to their own. My thoughts are that I believe in Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. That is my opinion, how I was raised, and what I believe! I hold no ill will toward gays, lesbians, and whatever the rest of that new politically correct term is. I have gay friends who I respect and admire for the people that they are. Doesn't mean that I agree with what goes on behind closed doors. I think that this 3 to 5 percent of the entire US population takes up way more than 3 to 5 percent of the news, tv shows, and movies out there. You can about name more shows on tv now that have the token gay person in it than you can shows that don't. Again, 3 to 5 percent of the entire US population is gay. Damn that small percentage has a LOUD voice

As far as the Michael Sam story goes, he and his agent were extremely smart in him coming out and creating this whirlwind before the draft. He would not have been drafted if he weren't gay period. He may have been the co-SEC player of the year on defense, and he earned that with his play on the field. But he is a true tweener. He has no true position in the NFL. He's too slow to be a linebacker and not big enough or strong enough to play with his hand down on the line. Every expert out there basically said this. Bill Polian said it best during the draft in the later rounds, teams always go for the numbers guys (meaning 40 times, bench press, vertical jump) with the later round picks and then go for the heart and effort guys in free agency. Polian said that Sam fell into this category. Now back to him being drafted and the cameras there. It had to be set up. The raw emotion he showed when the call came was actually great tv. I didn't even really mind the little smooch with his little tiny boy toy. But who the FREAK has a cake cutting on their draft day and proceeds to act like its wedding cake and smear it all over his face and then kiss it off for the world to see. This is all ESPN getting ratings, period! I would be willing to bet that none of the other 200 plus players did anything remotely similar to this and probably go back in the history of the draft and never see it either. This was all for show and to generate buzz on all their shows. It was about making Michael Sam a spectacle. And it worked. Dude is gonna get rich for being gay. He isn't gonna get rich because he is a football player. This will go down as one of the greatest player marketings of all time. Whoever his agent is, I bet all the big sports agent companies are trying to hire him away.

[shoeless joe]

Is your definition of "sex" contingent on procreation? Because, if so, there are lots of hetero couples who just "hump".

And you're absolutely wrong with homosexual tendencies in animals, especially the Bonobos. Yes dominance is a factor with some species, but for many, it's much more.

I'm using "hump" as a term referring to the thrusting of hips. Like when a dog mounts the shoulder of another dog and goes to town.

I am no bonobo expert but have quite a bit of experience in ecological and animal sciences and I have never seen nor read where a male of any species purposely has actual intercourse with another male.

The natural world has natural laws that are followed in nature. Unless divinely created, humans are subject to those same laws of nature.

[BeardoMSU]

I won't stay in this long, but here are my thoughts....

If my best friend cheated on his wife, I would tell him how much I disapprove of what he did....but I would still be his friend because we all make mistakes and who am I to judge.

I feel the same way about homosexuals. If I have a homosexual friend that asks me what I think of his being gay, I will tell him that I disapprove of that lifestyle....but I will still be his friend and not hold that over his head, bc who am I to judge.

Now, if my friend started bragging and holding press conferences about how he cheated on his wife....It would piss me off and I would tell him that he is wrong for making it a spectacle. Same goes for the homosexual friend.

It's kind of like needing an emergency surgery, and the nurse coming in and saying "well, I must tell you that your doctor is gay". Is that going to keep me from letting him do the surgery? Hell no. And it's also information that didn't need to be shared with me in the first place, because I don't give a shit about your sex life or sexual orientation. So in other words, it's not a big deal if homosexuals don't make a spectacle of it.

And just because I don't share your same viewpoint, doesn't make me wrong for mine. "Equality" and "judging" someone works both ways.....Something the liberal and homosexual crowd seem to forget while bashing and judging those that don't agree with them.

How is having a monogamous loving relationship with 1 other person the same as cheating on your wife? You see, one of those things is someone being a shitty person and cheating on his wife, while the other is a person just wanting to be with the person he/she loves. Those don't compute.

[CadaverDawg]

How is having a monogamous loving relationship with 1 other person the same as cheating on your wife? You see, one of those things is someone being a shitty person and cheating on his wife, while the other is a person just wanting to be with the person he/she is attracted to. Those don't compute.

No, they're both a sin according to my beliefs. Again, you don't have to feel the same way, but it doesn't make me wrong or you right

[BeardoMSU]

No, they're both a sin

Ah, ok. So, cheating on your wife, and/or breaking up another marriage, is the same as a man wanting to marry another man? Awesome.

[Bully13]

great post cadaver. not to mention the silicon valley CEO who was fired recently over donating $1,000 to a DOMA organization back in the time even barry himself was saying he thought a marriage should be between a man and a woman. chick filet outrage. those 2 twins who do good things with housing for the less fortunate on that t.v. show just got fired. all that crap with duck dynasty . the left winged blood hounds are sniffing around every nook and cranny to "out" anyone whose not "modern" enough for them. we are not out asking for heads to roll, the left is. they are the ones looking to destroy businesses (they needed to add another to their many other methods) and get people fired. I bet the left would even consider re-evaluating capital punishment if it could just be used exclusively for those against gay marriage.

[CadaverDawg]

Ah, ok. So, cheating on your wife, and/or breaking up another marriage, is the same as a man wanting to marry another man? Awesome.

Is a white lie the same as murdering someone? No. But it doesn't make them NOT both sins.

[BeardoMSU]

great post cadaver. not to mention the silicon valley CEO who was fired recently over donating $1,000 to a DOMA organization back in the time even barry himself was saying he thought a marriage should be between a man and a woman. chick filet outrage. those 2 twins who do good things with housing for the less fortunate on that t.v. show just got fired. all that crap with duck dynasty . the left winged blood hounds are sniffing around every nook and cranny to "out" anyone whose not "modern" enough for them. we are not out asking for heads to roll, the left is. they are the ones looking to destroy businesses (they needed to add another to their many other methods) and get people fired. I bet the left would even consider re-evaluating capital punishment if it could just be used exclusively for those against gay marriage.

A'hem....I'll just leave this here for you.
http://action.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147545693&mobile=true

[Esmerelda Villalobos]

I quit reading this because this argument only goes one way every time...but i did pick back up on this page for some reason and this post is absolutely wrong.

Animals don't have homosexual sex...they do "hump" other animals both male and female to show dominance.

It is quite telling that the side that wants to agree with absolute science in every single other aspect to disprove some religious beliefs now wants to go completely against science to disprove those same religious beliefs.

Omg? Do you know anything about animals and polygomy?

Arguing science with a thumper is like talking compound physics with a redneck from SoSo

[Esmerelda Villalobos]

Ennis, it sounds like you think we should all be bowing down to you. Damn you must be an asshole to be around. One of those always has to be right guys that thinks you are better than everybody else. You have got to be a "closet" Rebel. I have now read all 10 pages of this bullshit and there are some screwed up views on both sides of this fence on this board. But these are all of your opinions, and everyone is entitled to their own. My thoughts are that I believe in Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. That is my opinion, how I was raised, and what I believe! I hold no ill will toward gays, lesbians, and whatever the rest of that new politically correct term is. I have gay friends who I respect and admire for the people that they are. Doesn't mean that I agree with what goes on behind closed doors. I think that this 3 to 5 percent of the entire US population takes up way more than 3 to 5 percent of the news, tv shows, and movies out there. You can about name more shows on tv now that have the token gay person in it than you can shows that don't. Again, 3 to 5 percent of the entire US population is gay. Damn that small percentage has a LOUD voice

As far as the Michael Sam story goes, he and his agent were extremely smart in him coming out and creating this whirlwind before the draft. He would not have been drafted if he weren't gay period. He may have been the co-SEC player of the year on defense, and he earned that with his play on the field. But he is a true tweener. He has no true position in the NFL. He's too slow to be a linebacker and not big enough or strong enough to play with his hand down on the line. Every expert out there basically said this. Bill Polian said it best during the draft in the later rounds, teams always go for the numbers guys (meaning 40 times, bench press, vertical jump) with the later round picks and then go for the heart and effort guys in free agency. Polian said that Sam fell into this category. Now back to him being drafted and the cameras there. It had to be set up. The raw emotion he showed when the call came was actually great tv. I didn't even really mind the little smooch with his little tiny boy toy. But who the FREAK has a cake cutting on their draft day and proceeds to act like its wedding cake and smear it all over his face and then kiss it off for the world to see. This is all ESPN getting ratings, period! I would be willing to bet that none of the other 200 plus players did anything remotely similar to this and probably go back in the history of the draft and never see it either. This was all for show and to generate buzz on all their shows. It was about making Michael Sam a spectacle. And it worked. Dude is gonna get rich for being gay. He isn't gonna get rich because he is a football player. This will go down as one of the greatest player marketings of all time. Whoever his agent is, I bet all the big sports agent companies are trying to hire him away.

I didnt get past where you said adam and eve, not adam and steve. That automatically makes you an idiot

[BeardoMSU]

Is a white lie the same as murdering someone? No. But it doesn't make them NOT both sins.

And apparently working on Sunday, wearing clothes of different materials, eating pork and shellfish, gluttony, short hair, tattoos, tattered clothing, a garden with "mingled seeds", etc. etc. I could go on and on....

Leviticus is the literary equivalent to Buzz Killington.

[Churchill]

I think Sam is a little "gayer" than the NFL bargained for and now they`ve got a full blown (no pun intended) mess on their hands. Couldn`t happen to a nicer group.

[CadaverDawg]

And apparently working on Sunday, wearing clothes of different materials, eating pork and shellfish, gluttony, short hair, tattoos, tattered clothing, a garden with "mingled seeds", etc. etc. I could go on and on....

Leviticus is the literary equivalent to Buzz Killington.

Not sure where you got all that crap. Sounds like a deflection attempt to avoid having to say, "well, you're right". But that's ok.

It's a lot like your homosexual animal posts....you're having to stretch awfully far to try and back a point that you claim is so obvious

[BeardoMSU]

I didnt get past where you said adam and eve, not adam and steve. That automatically makes you an idiot

Its ANCHOR-MAN, NOT ANCHOR-LADY, AND THAT IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT!!!!!!

[BeardoMSU]

Not sure where you got all that crap. Sounds like a deflection attempt to avoid having to say, "well, you're right". But that's ok.

I'm not deflecting anything, Cadaver. I was merely point out the absurd amount of ridiculous "sins" that were apparently written in a book that is without flaws. I mean, if you wanted to, you could just say: "well, you're right...culture isn't in stasis...it changes....as do the norms that are placed on society....". But that's ok.

[Bully13]

A'hem....I'll just leave this here for you.
http://action.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147545693&mobile=true

sorry but I missed this story, a synopsis would be appreciated if you are so inclined.

[CadaverDawg]

I'm not deflecting anything, Cadaver. I was merely point out the absurd amount of ridiculous "sins" that were apparently written in a book that is without flaws. I mean, if you wanted to, you could just say: "well, you're right...culture isn't in stasis...it changes....as do the norms that are placed on society....". But that's ok.

Unless you suddenly grew a mangina next to your penis...your "changes" and "evolution" when it comes to homosexuality over time still make no sense. Sorry. We can agree to disagree, but nature and several other things are strongly on my side in this debate, and no "get with the modern times" mess is going to change that.

[Quaoarsking]

I'm not going to read through 11 pages of this, so I apologize if this point has already been raised, but:

Ever notice how the same people who get all riled up over gays because it's offensive to their Christian* beliefs never get riled up at all when Johnny Manziel shows up to every event with a different supermodel? In fact, those are usually the people applauding and envying him the most. I can assure you that Johnny's not saving himself or rejecting these women's advances...


*--well, really just their denomination, since many denominations of Christianity, such as Episcopals, most Lutherans, and the United Church of Christ, perform gay marriages and explictly don't consider it to be a sin

[BeardoMSU]

Not sure where you got all that crap. Sounds like a deflection attempt to avoid having to say, "well, you're right". But that's ok.

It's a lot like your homosexual animal posts....you're having to stretch awfully far to try and back a point that you claim is so obvious

Its only a stretch for people who willfully ignore what happens in nature, I suppose.

[CadaverDawg]

Its only a stretch for people who willfully ignore what happens in nature, I suppose.

Umm...you having to search for one animal species that nobody has ever heard of, is what I call "stretching". Again, sorry if you disagree. I'm out...better things to do.

[CadaverDawg]

I'm not going to read through 11 pages of this, so I apologize if this point has already been raised, but:

Ever notice how the same people who get all riled up over gays because it's offensive to their Christian* beliefs never get riled up at all when Johnny Manziel shows up to every event with a different supermodel? In fact, those are usually the people applauding and envying him the most. I can assure you that Johnny's not saving himself or rejecting these women's advances...


*--well, really just their denomination, since many denominations of Christianity, such as Episcopals, most Lutherans, and the United Church of Christ, perform gay marriages and explictly don't consider it to be a sin

Not sure who you're referring to...but I am not a Manziel fan and never have been. He's good at college football though

[shoeless joe]

Omg? Do you know anything about animals and polygomy?

Arguing science with a thumper is like talking compound physics with a redneck from SoSo

Umm...I was responding to a post about homosexuality in animals. Not how many sex partners an animal has.

And I know quite a bit about animal behavior. Would you like a resume?

[BeardoMSU]

Unless you suddenly grew a mangina next to your penis...your "changes" and "evolution" when it comes to homosexuality over time still make no sense. Sorry. We can agree to disagree, but nature and several other things are strongly on my side in this debate, and no "get with the modern times" mess is going to change that.

Are you talking about changes in morphology via natural selection? And what "other things" are backing your claims? All I've gotten so far is that being gay is a "sin", much in the same way as "cheating on your wife".

[BeardoMSU]

Umm...you having to search for one animal species that nobody has ever heard of, is what I call "stretching". Again, sorry if you disagree. I'm out...better things to do.

Uh...I didn't have to search for anything, nor would you if you'd taken an intro anthropology class. I know a lot of y'all don't subscribe to evolution, but still, I didn't think that the Bonobo was some obscure piece of trivial science that only elitist libs knew about. That's what I get, I guess....

[msstate7]

So, Uhhh... Y'all think we can take 2 outta 3 at bama this week?

[BeardoMSU]

So, Uhhh... Y'all think we can take 2 outta 3 at bama this week?

Lol....I hope so.

http://rack.3.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDEzLzAyLzE1LzhjL0JpbGxDb3NieUdJLjc2ZThkLmdpZg pwCXRodW1iCTEyMDB4OTYwMD4/32d51c94/04d/Bill-Cosby-GIF-2.gif

[dawgs]

And just because I don't share your same viewpoint, doesn't make me wrong for mine. "Equality" and "judging" someone works both ways.....Something the liberal and homosexual crowd seem to forget while bashing and judging those that don't agree with them.

So someone that uses the n-word and believes black people should be slaves isn't wrong, he just has different beliefs than you?

[BeardoMSU]

So someone that uses the n-word and believes black people should be slaves isn't wrong, he just has different beliefs than you?


#PostModernism

[whosyourdawgy]

I didnt get past where you said adam and eve, not adam and steve. That automatically makes you an idiot

Well if you got to that part then you saw all I needed you to see and you even helped to prove it for me. Thanks. You may want to read the rest because I actually talked about Michael Sam in my post, which is what this started out to be a thread about.

[ckDOG]

Some of y'all take the television too seriously. You can flip the channel. The only reason the media hypes anything is because they know people get fired up about this stuff. If folks wouldn't get so damn worked up when somebody gets attention for living differently than they do, they wouldn't try to capitalize on it every time they have the chance. This happens on all sides of the political/social spectrum.

Here's a good rule of thumb. The next time you see somebody on tv saying or doing something that physically upsets you, take a deep breath, go outside and look at some clouds or some trees, hug your wife, play with your kids, or anything productive and enjoyable. ESPN needs you more than you need it. It's spare time entertainment. Treat it as such.

[Quaoarsking]

Regarding Beardo's claim of discrimination against Christians is "mythical".



Okay, I got in from work so here are some sources. I don't know what you consider "credible" but you can look it up. Google isn't hard. BTW, because you see Bible verses around you say "no dice" to censorship of the Bible. Wow, the logical flaws in that statement are stunning.

So know I will await your sources of censorship "cases are there where Muslims, Buddhists" in US schools that you claim.

Local CBS Miami coverage of teacher banning a Bible being read in a student?s free time.
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2014/05/05/teachers-ban-on-reading-bibles-in-class-sparks-protest-change/
*********
School Superintendent orders wrestling team not to wear T-shirts (not a part of the uniform and paid for by parents) because the T-shirt read on the back ?I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.?
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/atheists-strong-arm-wrestling-team-over-bible-verse.html
*********
Here is a column about the Air Force Academy with commentary that this is not the first such action by the Air Force Academy.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/chuck-norris/2014/04/01/column-us-air-force-airbrushes-religious-liberty-yet-again
************
Official placed on unpaid administrative leave due to comments away from his job and unrelated to his duties.
http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-pasadena-leave-20140502-story.html
*****************
Des Moines Register on May 7 reported that Bob Eschiliman was fired as editor of the Newton Daily News for referring to homosexual activists as ?Gaystapo.?

Ok, I'll bite.

I'm not previously familiar with any of these cases, but just from looking at the article you linked:
1. The school's policy was that no religious books were allowed to be read during "free reading time," not just the Bible. Your article specifically says that, so it's not discrimination against Christians. It sounds like a pretty dumb policy, but I don't know what incidents occurred at the school to make them enact the policy. I doubt they just made it up out of the blue one day.
2. If that story is accurate and is telling the whole story (considering the source, I'm skeptical), I would say that's probably overreach. However, there's no evidence that it's specifically targeted at Christians. I would assume a verse from the Qu'ran would be similarly disallowed, probably with the support of the people who are mad over this. Like #1, there may very well be a good reason that justifies this policy, but even if there's not, it's not like Christianity is being singled out...
3. An opinion piece from Chuck Norris? Not exactly a very good source on this type of thing. I find it very telling that the article doesn't mention what the disallowed Biblical reference was. I'm assuming this means it was a very controversial verse, such as an anti-gay one. Remember, the Air Force Academy is generally considered to be one of the 2 or 3 most conservative major colleges in the whole country, so if it's something that was too right wing there, it's not going to fly anywhere. Also, I see no evidence that this policy, if it is indeed real, was for Christians/the Bible only.
4. Well no shit. If I went and publicly made comments like this I'd get fired from my job. So would you. So would almost everyone, including Muslims, Jews, etc.

So to summarize, you have a couple examples that might be government overreach if your stories are completely accurate and unbiased, and there aren't unreported justifications behind them, but even then they aren't specifically targeted at Christians, but at religion as a whole. And you certainly haven't demonstrated how a couple of isolated incidents from all over the country somehow are a grand overarching national trend -- I could like stories about anti-black discrimation picked out from around the country, but that doesn't mean America = 1980s South Africa.

[whosyourdawgy]

Some of y'all take the television too seriously. You can flip the channel. The only reason the media hypes anything is because they know people get fired up about this stuff. If folks wouldn't get so damn worked up when somebody gets attention for living differently than they do, they wouldn't try to capitalize on it every time they have the chance. This happens on all sides of the political/social spectrum.

Here's a good rule of thumb. The next time you see somebody on tv saying or doing something that physically upsets you, take a deep breath, go outside and look at some clouds or some trees, hug your wife, play with your kids, or anything productive and enjoyable. ESPN needs you more than you need it. It's spare time entertainment. Treat it as such.

I had watched a ton of the draft and enjoyed it probably more than I should have. Actually hoping to hear LDP's name called. And I watched up to the cake cutting and I switched it afterwards because I knew that the rest of the draft was toast. And I've gone to be a little earlier and listened to a lot less talk radio during the day and surprisingly haven't missed it.

[BeardoMSU]

Ok, I'll bite.

I'm not previously familiar with any of these cases, but just from looking at the article you linked:
1. The school's policy was that no religious books were allowed to be read during "free reading time," not just the Bible. Your article specifically says that, so it's not discrimination against Christians. It sounds like a pretty dumb policy, but I don't know what incidents occurred at the school to make them enact the policy. I doubt they just made it up out of the blue one day.
2. If that story is accurate and is telling the whole story (considering the source, I'm skeptical), I would say that's probably overreach. However, there's no evidence that it's specifically targeted at Christians. I would assume a verse from the Qu'ran would be similarly disallowed, probably with the support of the people who are mad over this. Like #1, there may very well be a good reason that justifies this policy, but even if there's not, it's not like Christianity is being singled out...
3. An opinion piece from Chuck Norris? Not exactly a very good source on this type of thing. I find it very telling that the article doesn't mention what the disallowed Biblical reference was. I'm assuming this means it was a very controversial verse, such as an anti-gay one. Remember, the Air Force Academy is generally considered to be one of the 2 or 3 most conservative major colleges in the whole country, so if it's something that was too right wing there, it's not going to fly anywhere. Also, I see no evidence that this policy, if it is indeed real, was for Christians/the Bible only.
4. Well no shit. If I went and publicly made comments like this I'd get fired from my job. So would you. So would almost everyone, including Muslims, Jews, etc.

So to summarize, you have a couple examples that might be government overreach if your stories are completely accurate and unbiased, and there aren't unreported justifications behind them, but even then they aren't specifically targeted at Christians, but at religion as a whole. And you certainly haven't demonstrated how a couple of isolated incidents from all over the country somehow are a grand overarching national trend -- I could like stories about anti-black discrimation picked out from around the country, but that doesn't mean America = 1980s South Africa.

Ah, beat me to it. Well said.

Also, considering there are probably more Christian churches in this country than schools and hospitals combined, I feel comfortable in my characterization of the "war on Christianity" as mythical.

[drunkernhelldawg]

A lot of great posts in this thread. A lot of good thinking interspersed throughout. Appreciate whoever decided to keep the thread open and let the madness and consternation and righteousness blossom.

[Vandownbytheriver]

So, I'm assuming all of you who changed the channel and refuse to watch again will be boycotting games this fall right? After all, we have a shit ton of guys who have kids out of wedlock on the team. No sin is greater than the other and all that jazz.

[Churchill]

A lot of great posts in this thread. A lot of good thinking interspersed throughout. Appreciate whoever decided to keep the thread open and let the madness and consternation and righteousness blossom.

I agree. Nice job Edawgs...some other MSU boards could learn from the way you handled this. Props

[MabenMaroon]

What is the predicted timetable for acceptance of other perversions like beastiality, or maybe pedophilia or ...... seems that we as society may be headed that way.

[ckDOG]

What is the predicted timetable for acceptance of other perversions like beastiality, or maybe pedophilia or ...... seems that we as society may be headed that way.

Ah. It was only a matter of time. Yes, relationships bt 2 consenting adults clearly paves the way for ****ing animals and raping children. What planet do you people live on? Please be trolling.

[BeardoMSU]

What is the predicted timetable for acceptance of other perversions like beastiality, or maybe pedophilia or ...... seems that we as society may be headed that way.

Y'all spoke too soon, Drunkernhelldawg and Churchill, lol.

Beastiality and pedophilia, Maben? How in the hell are those related to 2 consenting adults wanting to get married? I'll hang up and listen.


Edit: sorry, ckDOG, didn't see your post. You said it.

[M.Fillmore]

Originally Posted by Quaoarsking
Ok, I'll bite.

I'm not previously familiar with any of these cases, but just from looking at the article you linked:
1. The school's policy was that no religious books were allowed to be read during "free reading time," not just the Bible. Your article specifically says that, so it's not discrimination against Christians. It sounds like a pretty dumb policy, but I don't know what incidents occurred at the school to make them enact the policy. I doubt they just made it up out of the blue one day.
The only thing prohibited was the Bible and the Broward County Superintendent of Schools has now come out and stated the teacher was in error.
2. If that story is accurate and is telling the whole story (considering the source, I'm skeptical), Ah yes, the old ”Fox News published it, so I should be skeptical.” I would say that's probably overreach. However, there's no evidence that it's specifically targeted at Christians. I would assume a verse from the Qu'ran would be similarly disallowed, probably with the support of the people who are mad over this. Freedom From Religion started this, please cite the cases where FFR has attacked the Qu’ran. Like #1, there may very well be a good reason that justifies this policy, but even if there's not, it's not like Christianity is being singled out... Parents paid for the t-shirts, they aren’t part of the uniform. There is no indication of a school uniform required by all students which the T-shirts would violate, just what is the problem?
3. An opinion piece from Chuck Norris? Not exactly a very good source on this type of thing. And why is Chuck Norris’ opinion less to be respected than yours? Why don't you rebut the assertions and facts he states in the opinion piece? Are you saying the opinion piece is invalid simply because it was written by Chuck Norris? I find it very telling that the article doesn't mention what the disallowed Biblical reference was. I'm assuming this means it was a very controversial verse, such as an anti-gay one. The verse was Galatians 2:20, “For I have been crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me, and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me.” Remember, the Air Force Academy is generally considered to be one of the 2 or 3 most conservative major colleges in the whole country, so if it's something that was too right wing there, it's not going to fly anywhere. Please cite your source for this statement. Also, I see no evidence that this policy, if it is indeed real, was for Christians/the Bible only. The Bible verse was the only thing prohibited by this "crackdown" on white boards.
4. Well no shit. If I went and publicly made comments like this I'd get fired from my job. So would you. So would almost everyone, including Muslims, Jews, etc. So dissent is dead? Just what does this have to do with his job? Much as Scientific American fired an engineering writer because they learned he believed in Intelligent Design. SA admitted no problems with the writing but they didn’t like what he said outside the scope of his job. Group think lives.

So to summarize, you have a couple examples that might be government overreach if your stories are completely accurate and unbiased, and there aren't unreported justifications behind them, but even then they aren't specifically targeted at Christians, but at religion as a whole. And you certainly haven't demonstrated how a couple of isolated incidents from all over the country somehow are a grand overarching national trend –Just how many incidents will satisfy you? I was asked to cite incidents, I did. These are all very recent. I never said it was a “grand overarching national trend". However, in time it could certainly get worse. I asked Beardo to cite incidents of discrimination against Buddhist, etc. which he claimed. At least I responded with citations, that is more than he has done. I could like stories about anti-black discrimation picked out from around the country, but that doesn't mean America = 1980s South Africa. I never said “America = 1980s South Africa”, you did. South Africa’s issues did not develop overnight, they developed over time, just as this problem is developing.

[HoopsCoach21]

And apparently working on Sunday, wearing clothes of different materials, eating pork and shellfish, gluttony, short hair, tattoos, tattered clothing, a garden with "mingled seeds", etc. etc. I could go on and on....

Leviticus is the literary equivalent to Buzz Killington.


Beardo just wanted to try to clear up one thing because I've seen these sins given as examples of things not observed by Christians already in this thread. I know that I will seem like I am trying to deflect, however most of what you have referenced in Leviticus comes from the Mosaic Law (Old Testament). Although I believe in what was written in the Old Testament I don't sacrifice animals or even keep the Sabbath holy in reality because the Sabbath was on Saturday. A new covenant was made with God upon the death of his son Jesus. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice and the reason we no longer have to observe some of those laws.

Many will say well now you are just picking which verses you will follow, but if you will take the time to read Hebrews chapter 8 and 9 it explains the new covenant much better than I ever could. Since some may not take the time to read here are a couple verses to illustrate the point of my post.


From Hebrews Chapter 8
7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and said:
?The days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
9
It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them,
declares the Lord.
10
This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11
No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ?Know the Lord,?
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12
For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.?[c]
13 [B]By calling this covenant ?new,? he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.



The bible also tells us that the new covenant is not the law until after the death of Christ.


From Hebrews Chapter 9
15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance?now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

16 In the case of a will,[g] it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it,
17 because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living.

[Quaoarsking]

Originally Posted by Quaoarsking
Ok, I'll bite.

I'm not previously familiar with any of these cases, but just from looking at the article you linked:
1. The school's policy was that no religious books were allowed to be read during "free reading time," not just the Bible. Your article specifically says that, so it's not discrimination against Christians. It sounds like a pretty dumb policy, but I don't know what incidents occurred at the school to make them enact the policy. I doubt they just made it up out of the blue one day.
The only thing prohibited was the Bible and the Broward County Superintendent of Schools has now come out and stated the teacher was in error. ... The article explicitly states the teacher said, "I noticed that he had a book, a religious book, in the classroom. He?s not permitted to read those books in my classroom." That means Bible, Qu'ran, Torah, Vedas, whatever. And I never said the teacher was in the right -- in fact I speculated that he was not, but I'd need to know the backstory before judging for sure.

2. If that story is accurate and is telling the whole story (considering the source, I'm skeptical), Ah yes, the old ?Fox News published it, so I should be skeptical.?It's not like they haven't earned that skepticism... I would say that's probably overreach. However, there's no evidence that it's specifically targeted at Christians. I would assume a verse from the Qu'ran would be similarly disallowed, probably with the support of the people who are mad over this. Freedom From Religion started this, please cite the cases where FFR has attacked the Qu?ran. I'm not sure if this is a serious question. Google "Freedom From Religion" Islam and you'll see anti-Islam articles on their site. Did you seriously think an anti-religion group wouldn't be anti-Islam too? How would that even make sense in your mind? Like #1, there may very well be a good reason that justifies this policy, but even if there's not, it's not like Christianity is being singled out... Parents paid for the t-shirts, they aren?t part of the uniform. There is no indication of a school uniform required by all students which the T-shirts would violate, just what is the problem?I don't have a problem with the shirts. I bet there's something more to the story. But if there's not, then I think the school is in the wrong. I'd also think they were in the wrong if they disallowed Qu'ran shirts, even though most Christians wouldn't.

3. An opinion piece from Chuck Norris? Not exactly a very good source on this type of thing. And why is Chuck Norris? opinion less to be respected than yours? Why don't you rebut the assertions and facts he states in the opinion piece? Are you saying the opinion piece is invalid simply because it was written by Chuck Norris? Chuck Norris can think whatever he wants. But I usually go for journalists to get factual information, not crazy celebrities like Chuck Norris, Paris Hilton, Charlie Sheen, etc. I find it very telling that the article doesn't mention what the disallowed Biblical reference was. I'm assuming this means it was a very controversial verse, such as an anti-gay one. The verse was Galatians 2:20, ?For I have been crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me, and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me.?Assuming that's correct, that seems like an innocuous verse, but I feel confident that the entire story isn't being told. The Air Force of all places isn't in the business of stomping out the Bible -- it employs explicitly Christian chaplains. Remember, the Air Force Academy is generally considered to be one of the 2 or 3 most conservative major colleges in the whole country, so if it's something that was too right wing there, it's not going to fly anywhere. Please cite your source for this statement. You seriously doubt this? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/17/reed-colleges-alumni-most_n_1973710.html Also, I see no evidence that this policy, if it is indeed real, was for Christians/the Bible only. The Bible verse was the only thing prohibited by this "crackdown" on white boards.Proof? Were there Qu'ranic verses that were allowed? Were all Bible verses disallowed? There's always more to stories like this, whatever flavor of the month story that fires up people on the Internet, and I'm sure there is on this one too.
4. Well no shit. If I went and publicly made comments like this I'd get fired from my job. So would you. So would almost everyone, including Muslims, Jews, etc. So dissent is dead? Just what does this have to do with his job? Much as Scientific American fired an engineering writer because they learned he believed in Intelligent Design. SA admitted no problems with the writing but they didn?t like what he said outside the scope of his job. Group think lives.If you publicly embarrass your employer, you're going to get fired. It's one thing to say "I don't believe in gay marriage." It's another to go off on a rant about how evil gay people are. A lot of people on this thread probably don't see the difference...

So to summarize, you have a couple examples that might be government overreach if your stories are completely accurate and unbiased, and there aren't unreported justifications behind them, but even then they aren't specifically targeted at Christians, but at religion as a whole. And you certainly haven't demonstrated how a couple of isolated incidents from all over the country somehow are a grand overarching national trend ?Just how many incidents will satisfy you? I was asked to cite incidents, I did. These are all very recent. I never said it was a ?grand overarching national trend". However, in time it could certainly get worse. I asked Beardo to cite incidents of discrimination against Buddhist, etc. which he claimed. At least I responded with citations, that is more than he has done.

I could like stories about anti-black discrimation picked out from around the country, but that doesn't mean America = 1980s South Africa. I never said ?America = 1980s South Africa?, you did. South Africa?s issues did not develop overnight, they developed over time, just as this problem is developing. The point I was trying to make that is that blacks in South Africa had real problems. Christians in America don't as a whole. Sure there's an isolated incident here and there, but they are in no way indicative of any kind of trend. They make up 75% of the population and well over 90% of government. I don't really know how to react to the guy who said Christians are the most discriminated against group in America other than just to laugh. .

[WeWonItAll(Most)]

I quit reading this because this argument only goes one way every time...but i did pick back up on this page for some reason and this post is absolutely wrong.

Animals don't have homosexual sex...they do "hump" other animals both male and female to show dominance.

It is quite telling that the side that wants to agree with absolute science in every single other aspect to disprove some religious beliefs now wants to go completely against science to disprove those same religious beliefs.
Ignorance is bliss, buddy. The point I was trying to make is homophobia isn't a universal thing, that's it's culturally constructed.

Personally gay people doing intimate things (kissing, hand holding, etc.) make me uncomfortable, and I do think that ESPN has an agenda and is trying to shove it down our throats, but rather than watching it over and over then bitching about how ESPN tried to shove it down my throat, I changed the channel. Sportscenter sucks anyways, it is less about sports and more about Lebron, Manziel, and off field crap like the Clippers owner and Michael Sam.

Also, your last paragraph doesn't make any sense, I never tried to disprove any religious beliefs, please show me where I did.

[PMDawg]

Omg? Do you know anything about animals and polygomy?

Arguing science with a thumper is like talking compound physics with a redneck from SoSo

Back to this huh? Name calling and assuming intellectual superiority over anyone of faith. I see you just completely ignored the fact that someone who is more intelligent than you is also a believer.

[WeWonItAll(Most)]

If this is the case in Papua new Guiana, then this culture won't be around very long.

Haha I think they understand how children are made and procreate enough to keep from dying out. Otherwise, as you said, that culture wouldn't exist anymore.

[BeardoMSU]

Back to this huh? Name calling and assuming intellectual superiority over anyone of faith. I see you just completely ignored the fact that someone who is more intelligent than you is also a believer.

Having faith and believing in Jesus' teaching is one thing, believing that every word in the Bible is literal truth is something quite different. But I digress....keep telling us how smart you.




Addendum: and let me be clear. I no way think that by being a person of "faith" makes you less intelligence than someone without.

[M.Fillmore]

The Bible was the only book censored, are you going to presume that no Muslim student in the Broward County (metro Miami) takes a Qu'ran to school?

I addressed your questions and you still default to you don't have to consider facts or opinions simply because Fox News is a source.

I evaluate Freedom From Religion by its actions. They claim to oppose Islam but I have only seen them attack Christians. Please cite sources to back up their claim if you are going to defend them on their words.

If Charlie Sheen or Paris Hilton offer a cogent point, that point should be addressed. You find guilt by association.

I know some military chaplains. They are reporting their roles are being under a steady stream of attacks and restrictions.

I have little regard for the Huffington Post, but I'll address your point. The article claims the Air Force Academy has the most conservative alumni. The actions of late come under the watch of the current head of the Air Force Academy. I'll presume that you are an MSU alum, do you follow lock step with MSU President Mark Keenum? What is Keenum made widespread changes, could I ascribe his actions to your thoughts? Of course, the article never quantifies "conservative". Social conservatism can be far flung from fiscal conservatism or added funding for military (which I have found to be equated with conservatism).

The area on the whiteboards was considered "free space" to put up things of personal interest. Freedom from Religion heard about the Bible verse, wrote a letter of complaint and down came the Bible verse. If the Bible verse is part of his personal interest, why should it come down? Are you backing off your previous claim that the verse was probably "anti-gay"?

The LA Times article never states the guy fired said "gay people are evil" rather it reported that he "criticizes homosexuality." Why do you put words in his mouth that are not reported? Are you saying that if someone "criticizes homosexuality" then they should be fired? Again, group think disallows dissent.

I was asked to cite recent instances, I did. Do you think widespread attacks on any group start overnight? Unfounded attacks take time to build, and these certainly can build and they are building.