He should be judge on his performance. If a team likes him enough to draft him even with the evident media ficus that will surround him. Then they have every right to cut him if he stinks

gunsnewing wrote:I gotta give this guy credit. Him coming out now and risking his draft position is a heck of a lot more courageous than Jason Collins a hated ex-Nyet coming out when it was clear his career was over and he was not getting another job unless a GM signed him as a PR stunt

I give Collins some credit as the world was not ready prior and as a free agent he at least gave every team the decision to deal with a media circus and lockerroom distraction then do it mid contract. From what I have read he has not said he blames any team for not being signed. He also made it a little easier for the one who comes out and is on a roster. The road is a little more paved. Jason collins never raped anyone, was never a distraction and is well thoght of.

What Sams is doing is similar and his "agenda" is likely that since he already came out its not like most teams won't know anyway. But he is taking steam out of the bubble and letting teams decide if they want to take it on and in a way makes it easier for all as being drafted will sort of pave the way of acceptance. They drafted a gay man.

LIke I said, he could very well go undrafted and then sign on as a free agent. Teams would not be bound to him and while intentions might be all good its possilbe the lockerroom is not ready. Also given the Miami thing last year regarding "bullying" it gives a team an out if things don't go well.

It would be a shame if he has the talent and size to compete but his orientation gets in the way.

DrAlphaeus wrote:

jrodmc wrote:WTF made us realize that there are inherent shortcomings in building a society out of polygamists?

Good question. Related question, is why did people who were in direct communication with the Almighty Creator and founded the Abrahamic faiths *enthusiastically* practice polygamy if God *meant* for them to do otherwise? He could psych Abraham out of killing his son, but couldn't say to him or King David or Solomon the Wise "ay yo... one chick is enough, homie, trust."

You admit human society has evolved the "instituion" of marriage. It continues to evolve.

Personally I'd just make everything a civil union and people can call it whatever they want since "marriage" seems tied into religion, but that's just me.

Better question: read the Bible slightly closer, my friend. You can't quote the story's outcomes without mentioning the details. God said, you and Sara will have a son. Sarah say, eff that, take my slave girl and shack that; I need a son now! People in direct communication with the almighty obviously don't make them almighty bright, does it? Or even possibly obedient to the almighty, does it now? hmmmmmmm. Authority, we don't like that, do we?

Try the New Testament too, my friend DrA: Jesus quotes Genesis by pointing out why divorce is wrong: God made one man, one woman = one flesh. And just so you don't get confused -- Jesus = God.

Personally, I love it when everyone says "and I'd like to do what is right in my own eyes". Judges. Same sorry story, over and over again. Just change the date.

Somebody has to be the final authority for what the rules actually need and "ought" to be. But we don't quite like that idea, eh homie?

jrodmc wrote:

fishmike wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:Freak show... spectacle... parade... shouting out... y'alls word choices are interesting.

I read the New York Times article having never heard of the dude before and the picture looked like he was sitting down clothed in business casual doing a pretty calm and conventional interview.

BRIGGS, playa, jrod: where are you getting these impressions from? Not from this young man I take it.

exactly.. non of those things are happening here except in their heads.

To me its incredibly simple. I just want to know what is gained from denying these people the same rights hetero couples have. I dont care who is homophobic. I dont care who is raaaraa gay rights.

I want to know, if your a heterosexual man, what do you gain from voting against marriage equality? Im really curious...

That's just the point, fishmike. No one's talking about marriage equality; the gay agenda is to rework the actual meaning of the word, not to reach for any kind of equality. Redefining words normally hasn't had a great track record in human history. Changing marriage to mean whatever the **** you want it to mean might not matter to the enlightened twenty somethings among us, but it sure as hell worries old farts like me. I have young kids. I honestly fear them living in a world where the preference of the moment can determine everyone's values. Or else.

And if you disagree, you're an ignorant racist. Despite the fact no one on this board has even remotely shown why preference = race in this particular case.

The Greeks and Romans all held homosexuality up as purer and more noble than hetero relationships. Yet they didn't feel the need to redefine marriage. It was still accepted as it always had been.

So, next up:
1) why changing the meaning of words is always good,
2) why morality is never trancendant, it's always what's happened in the last 15 seconds.
3) why were inherently all just mindlessly mutating to a higher plain of societal consciousness.

No one's talking about marriage equality; the gay agenda is to rework the actual meaning of the word, not to reach for any kind of equality.

fishmike wrote:You couldnt be more wrong. Did you just make that up on the fly? The agenda is equal rights and an end to discrimination.

You couldn't be more slap happy to ignore terms and jump to consequences. What is marriage? What is race? What is a preference? Stop jumping through the media hoops like a trained puppy and think for a second.
Marriage has existed (without the stupid one-off asides to kingdoms, political alliances and biblical examples of the errors of polygamy) for one purpose: to regularize the ability to have and raise children in a social construct in a confident way. So that everyone in a society would know who's related to who, and who can call who by whatever name. It has always centered around child birth and child rearing and family relationships. Because the core of any society is when father and mother create the first society when a child is born into that family. It wasn't created or practiced to harness "love" or "friendships" or any other self-centered happy happy bull****t. Because it isn't about you, the individual, it's about family, which despite the current Clintonian bull****t, is the core of any society.

And if you disagree, you're an ignorant racist. Despite the fact no one on this board has even remotely shown why preference = race in this particular case.

fishmike wrote:I did give very specific examples of the effects of discriminataion, which you choose to ignore. Elephants and tables both have four legs, and both can be ignored.

Changing marriage to mean whatever the **** you want it to mean might not matter to the enlightened twenty somethings among us, but it sure as hell worries old farts like me. I have young kids. I honestly fear them living in a world where the preference of the moment can determine everyone's values. Or else.

fishmike wrote:You fear a world where two people who love each other can live under the protection of the laws of the land? Do you equally fear divorce? Pretty sure the divorce rate is still around 50%. Oh.. and of ALL the babies in the US last year 40% were born to unwed mothers. Whatever your hetero sexual agenda is its failing. utterly. All I hear is fear.

Unless you change the meaning of the word.

It's okay. Do what is right in your own eyes.

You damn skippy I'm afraid of divorce; ever take a peek at those statistics? Do they bother you? It's been yahoo since 1974 (thank you, Ronald Reagan). And unwed mothers are supposed to convince me that homosexuality is just as good or just as effed up as heterosexuality? What's your point? Miley Cyrus is a ho, so gay is okay? Brilliant logic there.
What about abortion, does that bother you at all? Is that another one of your consequences that validates homosexuality? You want to count those bodies?

Again, fish, I am afraid to have my kids grow up in a world where words change to fit the whims of the moment because no one wants to bother with a trancendant morality that's for everyone, for all times. Hey, it's 2014, right? I wouldn't want to be the one who sets the rules, but you are okay with yourself doing it?

NardDogNation wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

jrodmc wrote:WTF made us realize that there are inherent shortcomings in building a society out of polygamists?

Good question. Related question, is why did people who were in direct communication with the Almighty Creator and founded the Abrahamic faiths *enthusiastically* practice polygamy if God *meant* for them to do otherwise? He could psych Abraham out of killing his son, but couldn't say to him or King David or Solomon the Wise "ay yo... one chick is enough, homie, trust."

You admit human society has evolved the "instituion" of marriage. It continues to evolve.

Personally I'd just make everything a civil union and people can call it whatever they want since "marriage" seems tied into religion, but that's just me.

Better question: read the Bible slightly closer, my friend. You can't quote the story's outcomes without mentioning the details. God said, you and Sara will have a son. Sarah say, eff that, take my slave girl and shack that; I need a son now! People in direct communication with the almighty obviously don't make them almighty bright, does it? Or even possibly obedient to the almighty, does it now? hmmmmmmm. Authority, we don't like that, do we?

Try the New Testament too, my friend DrA: Jesus quotes Genesis by pointing out why divorce is wrong: God made one man, one woman = one flesh. And just so you don't get confused -- Jesus = God.

Personally, I love it when everyone says "and I'd like to do what is right in my own eyes". Judges. Same sorry story, over and over again. Just change the date.

Somebody has to be the final authority for what the rules actually need and "ought" to be. But we don't quite like that idea, eh homie?

And so that final authority should be from a dude, who is writing about another dude who supposedly had direct conversations with God, several decades (if not centuries) after the fact? Gotcha.

No, you see, the final authority would be an all-powerful deity who provides some evidence of his existence in what he has created, and also managed to enter time/space, and get turned into hamburger meat so you would have the opportunity to either believe or reject him.
And he wrote a book. Which he came down to earth and quoted from.

If you're going to chat about morality and religion, try some of the actual source material.
What exactly is it that you're selling, again?

Unless of course you're only interested in what your last seminar taught you. Or that Phd guy who I'm sure only reads things that are a few seconds old, right?

Kids these days. Sheeesh.

gunsnewing wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

fishmike wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:Freak show... spectacle... parade... shouting out... y'alls word choices are interesting.

I read the New York Times article having never heard of the dude before and the picture looked like he was sitting down clothed in business casual doing a pretty calm and conventional interview.

BRIGGS, playa, jrod: where are you getting these impressions from? Not from this young man I take it.

exactly.. non of those things are happening here except in their heads.

To me its incredibly simple. I just want to know what is gained from denying these people the same rights hetero couples have. I dont care who is homophobic. I dont care who is raaaraa gay rights.

I want to know, if your a heterosexual man, what do you gain from voting against marriage equality? Im really curious...

That's just the point, fishmike. No one's talking about marriage equality; the gay agenda is to rework the actual meaning of the word, not to reach for any kind of equality. Redefining words normally hasn't had a great track record in human history. Changing marriage to mean whatever the **** you want it to mean might not matter to the enlightened twenty somethings among us, but it sure as hell worries old farts like me. I have young kids. I honestly fear them living in a world where the preference of the moment can determine everyone's values. Or else.

And if you disagree, you're an ignorant racist. Despite the fact no one on this board has even remotely shown why preference = race in this particular case.

The Greeks and Romans all held homosexuality up as purer and more noble than hetero relationships. Yet they didn't feel the need to redefine marriage. It was still accepted as it always had been.

So, next up:
1) why changing the meaning of words is always good,
2) why morality is never trancendant, it's always what's happened in the last 15 seconds.
3) why were inherently all just mindlessly mutating to a higher plain of societal consciousness.

No one's talking about marriage equality; the gay agenda is to rework the actual meaning of the word, not to reach for any kind of equality.

fishmike wrote:You couldnt be more wrong. Did you just make that up on the fly? The agenda is equal rights and an end to discrimination.

You couldn't be more slap happy to ignore terms and jump to consequences. What is marriage? What is race? What is a preference? Stop jumping through the media hoops like a trained puppy and think for a second.
Marriage has existed (without the stupid one-off asides to kingdoms, political alliances and biblical examples of the errors of polygamy) for one purpose: to regularize the ability to have and raise children in a social construct in a confident way. So that everyone in a society would know who's related to who, and who can call who by whatever name. It has always centered around child birth and child rearing and family relationships. Because the core of any society is when father and mother create the first society when a child is born into that family. It wasn't created or practiced to harness "love" or "friendships" or any other self-centered happy happy bull****t. Because it isn't about you, the individual, it's about family, which despite the current Clintonian bull****t, is the core of any society.

And if you disagree, you're an ignorant racist. Despite the fact no one on this board has even remotely shown why preference = race in this particular case.

fishmike wrote:I did give very specific examples of the effects of discriminataion, which you choose to ignore. Elephants and tables both have four legs, and both can be ignored.

Again, you really don't get this do you? Discrimination is a bad after effect. It's a CONSEQUENCE. The same consequence or effect doesn't make the original cases equal. Do you see that now?
Case 1: Drunken binge
Case 2: Sudden brain aneurysm
Effect: Car crashes head on into someone else and someone dies.
See how the Cases are not equivalent, even though the effect is the same?

Changing marriage to mean whatever the **** you want it to mean might not matter to the enlightened twenty somethings among us, but it sure as hell worries old farts like me. I have young kids. I honestly fear them living in a world where the preference of the moment can determine everyone's values. Or else.

fishmike wrote:You fear a world where two people who love each other can live under the protection of the laws of the land? Do you equally fear divorce? Pretty sure the divorce rate is still around 50%. Oh.. and of ALL the babies in the US last year 40% were born to unwed mothers. Whatever your hetero sexual agenda is its failing. utterly. All I hear is fear.

Define your terms again fish. Love. Is love sex? The laws of the land were written for the original intent of marriage. If two men or two women want to live together, then change the laws for civil union to give the same tax breaks a married couple gets. But if all this is about making sure two people who "love" each other get all the same benefits as a married couple, it's about just those two people's happiness, right? It's not about children or family or society, right? It's about what they can get for themselves. And that's not what marriage is for.

Unless you change the meaning of the word.

It's okay. Do what is right in your own eyes.

You damn skippy I'm afraid of divorce; ever take a peek at those statistics? Do they bother you? It's been yahoo since 1974 (thank you, Ronald Reagan). And unwed mothers are supposed to convince me that homosexuality is just as good or just as effed up as heterosexuality? What's your point? Miley Cyrus is a ho, so gay is okay? Brilliant logic there.
What about abortion, does that bother you at all? Is that another one of your consequences that validates homosexuality? You want to count those bodies?

Again, fish, I am afraid to have my kids grow up in a world where words change to fit the whims of the moment because no one wants to bother with a trancendant morality that's for everyone, for all times. Hey, it's 2014, right? I wouldn't want to be the one who sets the rules, but you are okay with yourself doing it?

Marriage definitely makes sense when you remove the religious aspec. Good post. Gonna finish reading it

Good good point about gay marriage not really benifiting society in a positive way.

I guess you have to protect and teach children like you do with anything else

you make a good case for your argument anxious to see some rebuttals

Me personally I used to feel being gay was unnatural. It's just didn't make sense like man & woman does but I just say let them be. The amount of distress they give you is a lot less than the distress they feel in a society where they are looked at as being abnormal.

At least stance my stance until there is proof that you are either born gay or you were influenced and altered by society at a young age

So marriage has to benefit society now? So you're telling me that we were for the better because Kim Kardashian and Khris Humphries shacked up? What about the army of whores and airheads that appear in shows like the Bachelor? We benefit somehow from one of them getting married to some certified douchebag?

What happens if someone is infertile? That means they can't get married? What happens if someone, with enough humility, realizes that they'd be a ****ty parent. Are they not allowed to get married? Should we, as a society, be forcing that person to get married?

What happens if all your children become adults and no longer need you, does that mean your marriage should be dissolved?

I think the idea of marriage as strictly a baby-making operation is the epitome of a straw man argument made by people to validate their bigotry (I'm not talking about you specifically).

NardDogNation wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

fishmike wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:Freak show... spectacle... parade... shouting out... y'alls word choices are interesting.

I read the New York Times article having never heard of the dude before and the picture looked like he was sitting down clothed in business casual doing a pretty calm and conventional interview.

BRIGGS, playa, jrod: where are you getting these impressions from? Not from this young man I take it.

exactly.. non of those things are happening here except in their heads.

To me its incredibly simple. I just want to know what is gained from denying these people the same rights hetero couples have. I dont care who is homophobic. I dont care who is raaaraa gay rights.

I want to know, if your a heterosexual man, what do you gain from voting against marriage equality? Im really curious...

That's just the point, fishmike. No one's talking about marriage equality; the gay agenda is to rework the actual meaning of the word, not to reach for any kind of equality. Redefining words normally hasn't had a great track record in human history. Changing marriage to mean whatever the **** you want it to mean might not matter to the enlightened twenty somethings among us, but it sure as hell worries old farts like me. I have young kids. I honestly fear them living in a world where the preference of the moment can determine everyone's values. Or else.

And if you disagree, you're an ignorant racist. Despite the fact no one on this board has even remotely shown why preference = race in this particular case.

The Greeks and Romans all held homosexuality up as purer and more noble than hetero relationships. Yet they didn't feel the need to redefine marriage. It was still accepted as it always had been.

So, next up:
1) why changing the meaning of words is always good,
2) why morality is never trancendant, it's always what's happened in the last 15 seconds.
3) why were inherently all just mindlessly mutating to a higher plain of societal consciousness.

No one's talking about marriage equality; the gay agenda is to rework the actual meaning of the word, not to reach for any kind of equality.

fishmike wrote:You couldnt be more wrong. Did you just make that up on the fly? The agenda is equal rights and an end to discrimination.

You couldn't be more slap happy to ignore terms and jump to consequences. What is marriage? What is race? What is a preference? Stop jumping through the media hoops like a trained puppy and think for a second.
Marriage has existed (without the stupid one-off asides to kingdoms, political alliances and biblical examples of the errors of polygamy) for one purpose: to regularize the ability to have and raise children in a social construct in a confident way. So that everyone in a society would know who's related to who, and who can call who by whatever name. It has always centered around child birth and child rearing and family relationships. Because the core of any society is when father and mother create the first society when a child is born into that family. It wasn't created or practiced to harness "love" or "friendships" or any other self-centered happy happy bull****t. Because it isn't about you, the individual, it's about family, which despite the current Clintonian bull****t, is the core of any society.

And if you disagree, you're an ignorant racist. Despite the fact no one on this board has even remotely shown why preference = race in this particular case.

fishmike wrote:I did give very specific examples of the effects of discriminataion, which you choose to ignore. Elephants and tables both have four legs, and both can be ignored.

Again, you really don't get this do you? Discrimination is a bad after effect. It's a CONSEQUENCE. The same consequence or effect doesn't make the original cases equal. Do you see that now?
Case 1: Drunken binge
Case 2: Sudden brain aneurysm
Effect: Car crashes head on into someone else and someone dies.
See how the Cases are not equivalent, even though the effect is the same?

Changing marriage to mean whatever the **** you want it to mean might not matter to the enlightened twenty somethings among us, but it sure as hell worries old farts like me. I have young kids. I honestly fear them living in a world where the preference of the moment can determine everyone's values. Or else.

fishmike wrote:You fear a world where two people who love each other can live under the protection of the laws of the land? Do you equally fear divorce? Pretty sure the divorce rate is still around 50%. Oh.. and of ALL the babies in the US last year 40% were born to unwed mothers. Whatever your hetero sexual agenda is its failing. utterly. All I hear is fear.

Define your terms again fish. Love. Is love sex? The laws of the land were written for the original intent of marriage. If two men or two women want to live together, then change the laws for civil union to give the same tax breaks a married couple gets. But if all this is about making sure two people who "love" each other get all the same benefits as a married couple, it's about just those two people's happiness, right? It's not about children or family or society, right? It's about what they can get for themselves. And that's not what marriage is for.

Unless you change the meaning of the word.

It's okay. Do what is right in your own eyes.

You damn skippy I'm afraid of divorce; ever take a peek at those statistics? Do they bother you? It's been yahoo since 1974 (thank you, Ronald Reagan). And unwed mothers are supposed to convince me that homosexuality is just as good or just as effed up as heterosexuality? What's your point? Miley Cyrus is a ho, so gay is okay? Brilliant logic there.
What about abortion, does that bother you at all? Is that another one of your consequences that validates homosexuality? You want to count those bodies?

Again, fish, I am afraid to have my kids grow up in a world where words change to fit the whims of the moment because no one wants to bother with a trancendant morality that's for everyone, for all times. Hey, it's 2014, right? I wouldn't want to be the one who sets the rules, but you are okay with yourself doing it?

Marriage definitely makes sense when you remove the religious aspec. Good post. Gonna finish reading it

Good good point about gay marriage not really benifiting society in a positive way.

I guess you have to protect and teach children like you do with anything else

you make a good case for your argument anxious to see some rebuttals

Me personally I used to feel being gay was unnatural. It's just didn't make sense like man & woman does but I just say let them be. The amount of distress they give you is a lot less than the distress they feel in a society where they are looked at as being abnormal.

At least stance my stance until there is proof that you are either born gay or you were influenced and altered by society at a young age

NardDogNation wrote:So marriage has to benefit society now? So you're telling me that we were for the better because Kim Kardashian and Khris Humphries shacked up? What about the army of whores and airheads that appear in shows like the Bachelor? We benefit somehow from one of them getting married to some certified douchebag?

NardDogNation wrote:What happens if someone is infertile? That means they can't get married? What happens if someone, with enough humility, realizes that they'd be a ****ty parent. Are they not allowed to get married? Should we, as a society, be forcing that person to get married?

NardDogNation wrote:
What happens if all your children become adults and no longer need you, does that mean your marriage should be dissolved?

NardDogNation wrote:
I think the idea of marriage as strictly a baby-making operation is the epitome of a straw man argument made by people to validate their bigotry (I'm not talking about you specifically).

Don't be afraid of institutions. Despite the Groucho Marx jokes, some of them are actually pretty useful.

jrodmc wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:So marriage has to benefit society now? So you're telling me that we were for the better because Kim Kardashian and Khris Humphries shacked up? What about the army of whores and airheads that appear in shows like the Bachelor? We benefit somehow from one of them getting married to some certified douchebag?

Again, you're arguing from the consequent to invalidate case. That doesn't hold water boss. How about AIDS? Does that invalidate homosexuality? What about the statistics on homosexual promiscuity, does that invalidate that sexual preference? You're special pleading gets tiresome after awhile.

NardDogNation wrote:What happens if someone is infertile? That means they can't get married? What happens if someone, with enough humility, realizes that they'd be a ****ty parent. Are they not allowed to get married? Should we, as a society, be forcing that person to get married?

Again, special pleading. So abort all children because someone gets raped, or because maybe some children are not wanted. See how that works?

NardDogNation wrote:What happens if all your children become adults and no longer need you, does that mean your marriage should be dissolved?

Does that change the definition of the word? does that mean your children grow up and don't get married and start families of their own? What is your point, that marriage shouldn't exist because babies grow up? Seriously?

NardDogNation wrote:I think the idea of marriage as strictly a baby-making operation is the epitome of a straw man argument made by people to validate their bigotry (I'm not talking about you specifically).

Think again, and this time think about what marriage has historically been for. And don't repeat the same exceptions I mention above. Look at it this way, if you want sex, or friendship, or tax breaks or even if you just like kids, you don't need marriage. You just need yourself and your own likes and desires. Staying in a committed relationship that builds a family as a functioning part of society requires you to place yourself and your own needs at it's requirements, not the other way around.

Don't be afraid of institutions. Despite the Groucho Marx jokes, some of them are actually pretty useful.

...and this is why I think religions can be dangerous for some; it can numb critical thinking abilities and can suspend logic, as it clearly has done with you....permanently. None of your responses were even remotely tangent to what I was saying. You can believe what you want to believe because you're clearly not interested in the reality of things.

jrodmc wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

fishmike wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:Freak show... spectacle... parade... shouting out... y'alls word choices are interesting.

I read the New York Times article having never heard of the dude before and the picture looked like he was sitting down clothed in business casual doing a pretty calm and conventional interview.

BRIGGS, playa, jrod: where are you getting these impressions from? Not from this young man I take it.

exactly.. non of those things are happening here except in their heads.

To me its incredibly simple. I just want to know what is gained from denying these people the same rights hetero couples have. I dont care who is homophobic. I dont care who is raaaraa gay rights.

I want to know, if your a heterosexual man, what do you gain from voting against marriage equality? Im really curious...

That's just the point, fishmike. No one's talking about marriage equality; the gay agenda is to rework the actual meaning of the word, not to reach for any kind of equality. Redefining words normally hasn't had a great track record in human history. Changing marriage to mean whatever the **** you want it to mean might not matter to the enlightened twenty somethings among us, but it sure as hell worries old farts like me. I have young kids. I honestly fear them living in a world where the preference of the moment can determine everyone's values. Or else.

And if you disagree, you're an ignorant racist. Despite the fact no one on this board has even remotely shown why preference = race in this particular case.

The Greeks and Romans all held homosexuality up as purer and more noble than hetero relationships. Yet they didn't feel the need to redefine marriage. It was still accepted as it always had been.

So, next up:
1) why changing the meaning of words is always good,
2) why morality is never trancendant, it's always what's happened in the last 15 seconds.
3) why were inherently all just mindlessly mutating to a higher plain of societal consciousness.

No one's talking about marriage equality; the gay agenda is to rework the actual meaning of the word, not to reach for any kind of equality.

fishmike wrote:You couldnt be more wrong. Did you just make that up on the fly? The agenda is equal rights and an end to discrimination.

You couldn't be more slap happy to ignore terms and jump to consequences. What is marriage? What is race? What is a preference? Stop jumping through the media hoops like a trained puppy and think for a second.
Marriage has existed (without the stupid one-off asides to kingdoms, political alliances and biblical examples of the errors of polygamy) for one purpose: to regularize the ability to have and raise children in a social construct in a confident way. So that everyone in a society would know who's related to who, and who can call who by whatever name. It has always centered around child birth and child rearing and family relationships. Because the core of any society is when father and mother create the first society when a child is born into that family. It wasn't created or practiced to harness "love" or "friendships" or any other self-centered happy happy bull****t. Because it isn't about you, the individual, it's about family, which despite the current Clintonian bull****t, is the core of any society.

And if you disagree, you're an ignorant racist. Despite the fact no one on this board has even remotely shown why preference = race in this particular case.

fishmike wrote:I did give very specific examples of the effects of discriminataion, which you choose to ignore. Elephants and tables both have four legs, and both can be ignored.

Again, you really don't get this do you? Discrimination is a bad after effect. It's a CONSEQUENCE. The same consequence or effect doesn't make the original cases equal. Do you see that now?
Case 1: Drunken binge
Case 2: Sudden brain aneurysm
Effect: Car crashes head on into someone else and someone dies.
See how the Cases are not equivalent, even though the effect is the same?

Changing marriage to mean whatever the **** you want it to mean might not matter to the enlightened twenty somethings among us, but it sure as hell worries old farts like me. I have young kids. I honestly fear them living in a world where the preference of the moment can determine everyone's values. Or else.

fishmike wrote:You fear a world where two people who love each other can live under the protection of the laws of the land? Do you equally fear divorce? Pretty sure the divorce rate is still around 50%. Oh.. and of ALL the babies in the US last year 40% were born to unwed mothers. Whatever your hetero sexual agenda is its failing. utterly. All I hear is fear.

Define your terms again fish. Love. Is love sex? The laws of the land were written for the original intent of marriage. If two men or two women want to live together, then change the laws for civil union to give the same tax breaks a married couple gets. But if all this is about making sure two people who "love" each other get all the same benefits as a married couple, it's about just those two people's happiness, right? It's not about children or family or society, right? It's about what they can get for themselves. And that's not what marriage is for.

Unless you change the meaning of the word.

It's okay. Do what is right in your own eyes.

You damn skippy I'm afraid of divorce; ever take a peek at those statistics? Do they bother you? It's been yahoo since 1974 (thank you, Ronald Reagan). And unwed mothers are supposed to convince me that homosexuality is just as good or just as effed up as heterosexuality? What's your point? Miley Cyrus is a ho, so gay is okay? Brilliant logic there.
What about abortion, does that bother you at all? Is that another one of your consequences that validates homosexuality? You want to count those bodies?

Again, fish, I am afraid to have my kids grow up in a world where words change to fit the whims of the moment because no one wants to bother with a trancendant morality that's for everyone, for all times. Hey, it's 2014, right? I wouldn't want to be the one who sets the rules, but you are okay with yourself doing it?

First and foremost God is real. If God wasn't real then he was made up by man. Meaning there would be a time period in mans history where there was no God in existence. There is no documented time period in mans history that God wasn't in existence.

Second, Gods law that is eternal and unchanging is LOVE. God created a lot of rules, regulations, ordinances, instructions, guidlines to follow throughout the bible. Everything from what to eat Whatever divides the hoof and is cloven-footed, chewing the cud (Leviticus 11:3), whatever has fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, those you shall eat. (verse 9), sex, taxes etc etc etc. Every single guidline has its purpose to keep the order in society. More proof of his existence in my eyes as why would man(without Gods influence) create laws on what was good to eat or not eat during this time frame? How would they know the affects of any food to call it good or bad? Or laws of marriage, as Jrodmc stated kept the order of society for centuries. There is no way for them during this time period to know the negative affects of these actions on society to put these laws into place.

Now again the law that is eternal and unchanging is LOVE. But the rules, regulations, ordinances, instructions are changeable based on where man kind was at in there development. Notice how God at first in the bible stated to be fruitful and multiple allowing siblings to have sex with each other to fill the earth. Then later on put out the law that siblings were no longer allowed to have sex with each other. As in the beginning this was necessary for the earth to be filled but after the earth was filled it was no longer necessary so in order to keep society in order God decided to update his instructions. This was heavily taught by Jesus as the Scribes and Pharisees would often follow the laws as well as create there own laws to benefit themselves. But wouldn't follow Gods eternal law of LOVE.

Mark 3:1-6
3 Another time Jesus went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. 2 Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. 3 Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Stand up in front of everyone.”

4 Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent.

5 He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. 6 Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.

Clearly Jesus was stating that allowing a man to die just to follow Gods law of not doing any work on the Sabbath wasn't Gods will. Which clarifies that Gods law of LOVE overrides everything.

Third, I don't know what causes an individual to be gay. But I don't think we are at the part of mans development that passes judgement. If being Gay is wrong, I don't believe that it will lead to individuals burning in hell for eternity. There will be a time period where God lifts the curse from the earth and heaven will come down to earth and we will live under Jesus rule to be shown the proper way to live. If being homosexual is against Gods will then most likely the thought processes that goes with being homosexual will be removed. If homosexuality is a natural part of life then the thought process of being against homosexuals will be removed. The last 2 sentences were just my opinion though not biblical fact.