Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The_Education

Hudson Taylor on MSNBC speaking in support of

Recommended Posts

Funny how the only people who are attempting to legitimize polygamy are a bunch of fundamentalist right wingers. Just thought I'd point that out.

 

Yeah Slate.com are right wingers. The woman writing the article makes a solid case for it based on "feminism", it almost sounded like she was arguing for abortion.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/ ... r_all.html

 

Here is another one from the Council for Secular Humanism:

 

http://www.secularhumanism.org/?section ... miner_28_5

 

There are other calls for the legalization of polygamy and it is all coming from the left but I guess those out there in "uninformed voterland" haven't heard about it yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny how the only people who are attempting to legitimize polygamy are a bunch of fundamentalist right wingers. Just thought I'd point that out.

 

Yeah Slate.com are right wingers. The woman writing the article makes a solid case for it based on "feminism", it almost sounded like she was arguing for abortion.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/ ... r_all.html

 

The only ones practicing it or attempting to practice it are far to the right fundamentalist right wingers and or religious zealots. I know people who are escapees from Colorado City, AZ. Do you? Ask one of them. The politicians in both this state and in Utah are too afraid to do anything about it and have just tried to ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, please explain how dirt got here

 

 

 

Takes MORE faith to believe in evolution, in my opinion.

 

 

 

 

MORE faith? Nah....all it takes is a modicum of reason, intelligence and rationale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had a few posts deleted in this thread, and I'm not sure why. Richard, I used no harsh language, insulted no one, and made no inflammatory remarks.

 

Trip, you have called me a bigot (or perhaps it was Big, if so my apologies), despite the fact that I've said gays should have the right to marry. I've pointed out multiple misquotes that you've attributed to me, which you've never had the decency to apologize for, and I've provided ample support for my positions. Despite this, all you can do state that I'M name calling for labeling you a lefty, yet you immediately turn around and use the term righty? Why do you assume that my calling you a liberal is meant as an insult? I'm liberal on some issues, conservative on others. I don't really fit any label that you would like to hang on me. Libs so badly need to label, why is that?

 

You state that homosexuality isn't a behavior, that it's part of who they are. You compare it to being a particular race (gay is the same as being Asian?). However, there are plenty of examples of people behaving as homosexuals, then living as heterosexuals, and vice versa. The Gay Hero of the Week, Jason Collins, had a 7 year relationship with a woman, and was actually engaged. I don't remember any Asians being Irish for 7 years, prior to deciding to be Asian.

Maybe you can provide an example of someone who changed races recently? Michael Jackson doesn't count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Where you fall on the gay issue is about personal preference. However, the societal vitriol unleashed upon ESPN's Chris Broussard, who cited measured personal religious beliefs for disagreeing with Collins but did not disparage who he is, was a pathetic example of how far the real world has to go. It was as if Broussard, pilloried in social media, suggested separate-but-equal schools and separate buses and water fountains for the straight and gay."

 

This was taken from a column written by John Mitchell, a sportswriter for the Philly Inquirer in today's edition. The Inquirer is a far left wing publication.

 

Look at the terminology used to describe Chris Broussard's column in which he expressed his personal opinion on Jason Collins, and homosexuals in general. This is what the Left does. They tweak, spin, twist, to get the desired affect. He put words in Broussard's mouth, so to speak, trying to tie CB's opinion to Jim Crow laws? Lol, so predictable. The desired result? Completely dismiss Broussard (who is black) as a bigot, and an ignorant one at that.

Trip/Big, sound like any posters on here you can think of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A follow up comment from a blogger on the website:

 

"Very nicely put: "It was as if Broussard...suggested separate-but-equal schools and separate buses and water fountains for the straight and gay."

 

Sign the petition telling ESPN to take Chris Broussard off the air: http://faithfulamerica.org "

 

Another favorite move of the Left. If they disagree with your position, they want to silence you and destroy you in every way. So much anger. Broussard should lose his job for stating his position? Why does the Left hate so much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys,

While I do appreciate a solid discussion I would like to have us refocus. This thread is getting off topic. I dont want this to turn into a evolution v religion or lefty v righty debate. posts have been and will continue to be deleted if they can be perceived offensive so please continue the discussion but bring the focus back to the original topic of the gay athlete. I do appreciate it fellas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will do, but I honestly don't feel I posted anything in my post (or two) that was/were deleted, that was offensive.

Big and Trip attributed multiple statements to me that I never made, and I called them out (in a respectful manner) for it. Nothing more.

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A follow up comment from a blogger on the website:

 

"Very nicely put: "It was as if Broussard...suggested separate-but-equal schools and separate buses and water fountains for the straight and gay."

 

Sign the petition telling ESPN to take Chris Broussard off the air: http://faithfulamerica.org "

 

Another favorite move of the Left. If they disagree with your position, they want to silence you and destroy you in every way. So much anger. Broussard should lose his job for stating his position? Why does the Left hate so much?

It's interesting how the media reported on Broussard's comments. The first article I read described him as "homophobic," but only reported snippets of his comments. For example, Broussard indicated that his openly gay colleague, L. Z. Granderson was a friend of his, saying the following about Ganderson:

 

He and I have played on basketball teams together for several years. We've gone out, had lunch together, we’ve had good conversations, good laughs together. He knows where I stand and I know where he stands. I don’t criticize him, he doesn’t criticize me and call me a bigot, call me ignorant, call me intolerant.we’ve had good conversations, good laughs together. He knows where I stand and I know where he stands. I don’t criticize him, he doesn’t criticize me, and call me a bigot, call me ignorant, call me intolerant.

The above doesn't sound at all homophobic to me. If anything, Broussard seemed to be saying that they mutually respected each other and were both tolerant of their differing views about homosexuality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's where the problem lies. Tolerance isn't enough, you need to fully adopt their views or you'll be a target. Broussard is simply one example of many.

The thing that used to make this country great was the ability to freely discuss all points of view civily. That's no longer the case, and you'll see manipulation of one's words, or complete fabrication/embellishment (as was seen in this thread), to gain the desired result. That result? Complete discounting of an opinion that lies contrary in any way to what they want or believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's where the problem lies. Tolerance isn't enough, you need to fully adopt their views or you'll be a target. Broussard is simply one example of many.

The thing that used to make this country great was the ability to freely discuss all points of view civily. That's no longer the case, and you'll see manipulation of one's words, or complete fabrication/embellishment (as was seen in this thread), to gain the desired result. That result? Complete discounting of an opinion that lies contrary in any way to what they want or believe.

 

This is also being applied to people who have zero problem with girls wrestling but disagree with the theory that it will help mens wrestling survive.

 

Anyone who disagrees is a target or is shouted down, my question is when does the push back begin because it is easy to demonize other people for their opinions and beliefs if there are no repercussions for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's where the problem lies. Tolerance isn't enough, you need to fully adopt their views or you'll be a target. Broussard is simply one example of many.

The thing that used to make this country great was the ability to freely discuss all points of view civily. That's no longer the case, and you'll see manipulation of one's words, or complete fabrication/embellishment (as was seen in this thread), to gain the desired result. That result? Complete discounting of an opinion that lies contrary in any way to what they want or believe.

 

In what era were we able to "freely discuss all points of view civilly"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's where the problem lies. Tolerance isn't enough, you need to fully adopt their views or you'll be a target. Broussard is simply one example of many.

The thing that used to make this country great was the ability to freely discuss all points of view civily. That's no longer the case, and you'll see manipulation of one's words, or complete fabrication/embellishment (as was seen in this thread), to gain the desired result. That result? Complete discounting of an opinion that lies contrary in any way to what they want or believe.

 

In what era were we able to "freely discuss all points of view civilly"?

 

From your sarcastic tone, I'm sure you'll disagree, but I'd say the 80s and 90s, by and large, was such a time. There seemed to be a balance between conservative and liberal points of view. Heck, the Defense of Marriage Act was signed by lib champion Bill Clinton (as well as "Don't ask/Don't Tell").

Now? The media is so fully engaged in forcing a liberal agenda on the nation that they simply discount/discredit any opinion that varies in any manner from what they deem acceptable.

 

The 60s/70s brought about change. The 80s/90s seemed to be a transtional time when those changes were widely accepted. Now? It seems it's payback/open season on anything conservative. That said, the majority of Americans still view themselves as somewhat right leaning/independent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guys,

While I do appreciate a solid discussion I would like to have us refocus. This thread is getting off topic. I dont want this to turn into a evolution v religion or lefty v righty debate. posts have been and will continue to be deleted if they can be perceived offensive so please continue the discussion but bring the focus back to the original topic of the gay athlete. I do appreciate it fellas

 

How about bringing back the "Politics/Non-Wrestling" forum to the message board........?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/tren ... itter.html

 

Another example of the intolerance of not agreeing with their opinion. A CHURCH isn't supportive of Jason Collins (or someone supportive of him), and chose not to have this speaker come to their church, and this writer attacks them and their intelligence (gee, attacking intelligence for disagreeing with someone, where have I seen that before?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, now that the tide has turned, can we be considered courageous if we stand up for and defend a Christian's lifestyle in living out their religion (which some here have purported to not be a choice)?

 

See real-time, governmental tide turning here - http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013 ... tian-Faith

 

I'm as Christian as anyone else on here, but what this guy did is apparently against the Dept. of Defense policy (I have to assume because of the 1st Amendment separation clause), which is an entirely different issue, if it violates policy.

 

As a Lutheran, we've always been staunch advocate in the separation of church and state anyway, simply because we don't want big gubment mandating to us how to observe and practice our faith, nor do we want others mandating their faith to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for separation of church and state.

 

Since our laws are based upon the tenets of the Bible ( and they are based upon them), will we throw out the baby with the bathwater?

 

Because when you do....you open Pandora's box, literally.

 

Children don't like discipline/rules either, but when they grow up, they see (and appreciate) the wisdom and hardship of their parents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Equating being against homesexuality to racism is incorrect in my opinion. I agree with the posters above that point out there is a difference between behavior and skin color / straightness of hair, etc.

 

Homosexuality is a behavior. It may be a behavior which is encoded in genes and this is a natural part of a person. But we need to keep in mind that there are many other behaviors that are potentially encoded in ones genes. Tendencies toward laziness. Tendencies toward hard work. Willingness to fight, tendency toward flight. Willingness to use violence on another. A tendency to sacrifice your own good for the betterment of others. "Natural" leadership qualities. Being attracted to animals. Having an urge to have sex often. A tendency toward addictions. Some of these traits are trumpeted in our society. Some of these traits are shunned or legislated against.

 

These behaviors are linked to hormones / chemical balances / genetic predisposition, etc. Some may be a simple choice. Can be hard to tell.

 

However, I would argue that we as a society are allowed to say 'no' to behaviors that we feel are incorrect / immoral. Even if that person has a genetic bias toward that behavior. Extreme examples (which are not to be equated to homosexuality) are --- violent felons, drug addicts, people who lay with animals, pedophiles, polygamists, those that would choose to harm themselves, etc. I'm sure folks can come up with others.

 

I'm actually comfortable with gay marriage, etc. However, it bugs me when people summarily dismiss the views of those that are not comfortable with it. Morals are important to the fabric of society and we should respect each others views in the debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm all for separation of church and state.

 

Since our laws are based upon the tenets of the Bible ( and they are based upon them), will we throw out the baby with the bathwater?

 

Because when you do....you open Pandora's box, literally.

 

Children don't like discipline/rules either, but when they grow up, they see (and appreciate) the wisdom and hardship of their parents.

 

Which modern laws are based on the Bible? How then do those laws apply to non-Christians?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A follow up comment from a blogger on the website:

 

"Very nicely put: "It was as if Broussard...suggested separate-but-equal schools and separate buses and water fountains for the straight and gay."

 

Sign the petition telling ESPN to take Chris Broussard off the air: http://faithfulamerica.org "

 

Another favorite move of the Left. If they disagree with your position, they want to silence you and destroy you in every way. So much anger. Broussard should lose his job for stating his position? Why does the Left hate so much?

It's interesting how the media reported on Broussard's comments. The first article I read described him as "homophobic," but only reported snippets of his comments. For example, Broussard indicated that his openly gay colleague, L. Z. Granderson was a friend of his, saying the following about Ganderson:

 

He and I have played on basketball teams together for several years. We've gone out, had lunch together, we’ve had good conversations, good laughs together. He knows where I stand and I know where he stands. I don’t criticize him, he doesn’t criticize me and call me a bigot, call me ignorant, call me intolerant.we’ve had good conversations, good laughs together. He knows where I stand and I know where he stands. I don’t criticize him, he doesn’t criticize me, and call me a bigot, call me ignorant, call me intolerant.

The above doesn't sound at all homophobic to me. If anything, Broussard seemed to be saying that they mutually respected each other and were both tolerant of their differing views about homosexuality.

 

 

The liberal left media paints anyone that does not agree with the concept of homosexuality as homophobic; if you disagree with Obama - then you are a racist, if you are pro-life then you are against women's rights, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A follow up comment from a blogger on the website:

 

"Very nicely put: "It was as if Broussard...suggested separate-but-equal schools and separate buses and water fountains for the straight and gay."

 

Sign the petition telling ESPN to take Chris Broussard off the air: http://faithfulamerica.org "

 

Another favorite move of the Left. If they disagree with your position, they want to silence you and destroy you in every way. So much anger. Broussard should lose his job for stating his position? Why does the Left hate so much?

It's interesting how the media reported on Broussard's comments. The first article I read described him as "homophobic," but only reported snippets of his comments. For example, Broussard indicated that his openly gay colleague, L. Z. Granderson was a friend of his, saying the following about Ganderson:

 

He and I have played on basketball teams together for several years. We've gone out, had lunch together, we’ve had good conversations, good laughs together. He knows where I stand and I know where he stands. I don’t criticize him, he doesn’t criticize me and call me a bigot, call me ignorant, call me intolerant.we’ve had good conversations, good laughs together. He knows where I stand and I know where he stands. I don’t criticize him, he doesn’t criticize me, and call me a bigot, call me ignorant, call me intolerant.

The above doesn't sound at all homophobic to me. If anything, Broussard seemed to be saying that they mutually respected each other and were both tolerant of their differing views about homosexuality.

 

 

The liberal left media paints anyone that does not agree with the concept of homosexuality as homophobic; if you disagree with Obama - then you are a racist, if you are pro-choice then you are against women's rights, etc.

 

Sounds like those derned librils are out to get you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...