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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeardoMSU

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[b]:
?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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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. ... 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/2012/1...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.

---

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shoeless joe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ennis Del Mar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msstate7

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PMDawg

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeWonItAll(Most)

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.

---

How insecure are you with your own sexuality that seeing other's intimacy makes you "uncomfortable"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeardoMSU

How insecure are you with your own sexuality that seeing other's intimacy makes you "uncomfortable"?

---

I didn't feel uncomfortable about what was shown. I just thought it kind of gross. Someone said it best on the radio yesterday. Sam basically just has an ugly girlfriend, if you want to think of it that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickiedawg

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.

---

I genuinely appreciate your concern. I just wanted to give you some feedback. Its completely up to you how you use it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boodawg

I didn't feel uncomfortable about what was shown. I just thought it kind of gross. Someone said it best on the radio yesterday. Sam basically just has an ugly girlfriend, if you want to think of it that way.

---

Ok, that's funny. Look, I'm not a fan of PDA either, but seeing two men kiss (and when I say kiss, they basically "pecked" each other pretty quick) is no more annoying than watching anyone else. The mashing cake on each other's face was gross, but only because I hate watching people play with their food....

http://ds106.joefinucan.com/wp-conte...ittlePiggy.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeardoMSU

How insecure are you with your own sexuality that seeing other's intimacy makes you "uncomfortable"?

---

stupidest post of the day, congrats

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bully13

stupidest post of the day, congrats

---

Coming from you, Bully, that made me laugh. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PMDawg

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.

---

Don't you know the left is always right?
They can't have a conversation without degrading the other side. It's the leftist playbook.
Why can't they disagree with someone without calling them names? I thought they were for tolerance...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeardoMSU

Coming from you, Bully, that made me laugh. Thanks.

---

the exact response I was expecting. you're welcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishwater99

Don't you know the left is always right?
They can't have a conversation without degrading the other side. It's the leftist playbook.
Why can't they disagree with someone without calling them names? I thought they were for tolerance...

---

This is true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rayburn8

This is true.

---

Ah, so Ennis calling someone a name is now "the leftist playbook"? Also, I'm pretty sure there have been plenty of names from the other side thrown around too, maybe not on this thread, but definitely on the political board (Bully13 is certainly guilty of this). Get real, guys.

this is worse than a group text message that wont go away .... somebody kill this thread and put it out of it's misery

Done