NFL getting political?

[Trogdor]

Formar Viking Matt Birk's opinion letter to the Star Trib.
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/c...1.html?refer=y

Viking's punter, Chris Kluwe's Response in PP.
http://blogs.twincities.com/outofbou...o-14-problems/

Regardless of what your view on gay marriage is, they're both worth a read.

[niterydr]

Kluwe Rocks!

[Trogdor]

I agree. I haven't seen an argument for banning gay marriage that didn't involve religion as a reason or falsely speculating that children of gay parents are somehow worse off.

If someone has one I'm open to hearing it.

[Trogdor]

The one thing I can fault Kluwe's argument for is part about the first amendment. The freedom of speech and religion limits government from passing laws as it pertains to religion. Unfortunately, it doesn't prevent people from using religion as an argument to pass a law. At best, it prevents law makers from favoring a religion, or promoting a religion.

[2Point3TSi]

Originally Posted by Trogdor

I agree. I haven't seen an argument for banning gay marriage that didn't involve religion as a reason or falsely speculating that children of gay parents are somehow worse off.

If someone has one I'm open to hearing it.

That's all the reason I need. If the Bible says man and a women that's the way it is.

[Trogdor]

Originally Posted by 2Point3TSi

That's all the reason I need. If the Bible says man and a women that's the way it is.

The bible says many things that are now seen as antiquated, and would be considered oppressive, or misogynistic. So, if you're going to use "the bible says so" as justification for an argument, you'd better be prepared to put your money where your mouth is be willing to accept all of other things that would come along with it.

Furthermore, that whole "shall not lye with another man" thing was actually referring to a practice known as Pederast. The social acceptance of this changed several times through out history. At some points it was normal and accepted rite of passage, at other times it was viewed as hazing or the modern day equivalents to rape. Hence why it was not condoned by the bible.

Finally, in order to justify Christianity as a argument for this law you would need to be able to argue that Christianity is the one true correct religion. I believe in God. Key word believe, not know. I know gravity exists. I know this because I can pick up anything on my desk and drop it. I believe in a higher power, but can not prove it.

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

[evotuner]

Rice Bobby, Pure Rice

[polishmafia]

Originally Posted by Trogdor

I know gravity exists. I know this because I can pick up anything on my desk and drop it. I believe in a higher power, but can not prove it.

Dropping something on your desk proves gravity exists. Correct.

Dropping something on your desk proves gravity exists - because God created gravity. Can you still prove gravity exists, or is it something you can not explain?

I will keep my own thoughts to myself, but I can definitely play Devil's advocate... Oh wait, that is something that doesn't exist. Or does it, since I can play it?

[Trogdor]

Originally Posted by polishmafia

Dropping something on your desk proves gravity exists. Correct.

Dropping something on your desk proves gravity exists - because God created gravity. Can you still prove gravity exists, or is it something you can not explain?

I will keep my own thoughts to myself, but I can definitely play Devil's advocate... Oh wait, that is something that doesn't exist. Or does it, since I can play it?

Aaah, but you're making an assumption that I don't necessarily agree with.

You're argument is that in order for gravity to exist, that God must have created it. This assumes that we know for a fact God exists. You would first need to prove the existence of God. In which case you've proven that God exists, the bible is real, a man should not lye with another man, that women should be good servants to their husbands, we shouldn't eat meat on Fridays, thqt some old white guy split an ocean with his hands, and that water can be chemically altered to make fermented grapes.

[Goat Blower]

This is a tired, wasted argument anyways. This law we're voting on does not allow gay marriage in MN, it will still be illegal. It just makes it more difficult for another liberal politician to rewrite our laws as they see fit in the future. I will be voting yes, and anybody that doesn't like it, or thinks I'm some kind of homophobe because of it, can kiss my ass. I get really tired of the name-calling, and it's only ever from the left, that should tell you a lot.

[Trogdor]

Not seeing any name calling here. We're just having a rational discussion about why we're voting one way or another.

And you're correct. Voting no does not some how legalize gay marriage. As you stated it would basically remain the same, and make it harder for a gay marriage amendment to be passed in the future. That said, voting yes is a vote to limit a human beings privileges (note I did not say right). Some people are okay with voting to take way someone else's privileges. I personally am not, with out further justification such as what I had originally asked someone to explain to me. And that is, without using religion or falsely accusing homosexuals of being bad parents, is there a reason they should not be allowed to marry? I'm open to hearing one.

Those of us voting no understand that this will not change whether or not homosexuals can get married. They still won't, either way. However, if you support reform for a certain position the why would you vote for a bill that would make you position less of a possibility in the future? Say you support the legalization of marijuana. It's currently illegal. If a bill for stronger penalties for possession comes up, you wouldnt support that, even though supporting it doesn't change the legality of marijuana.

[Kracka]

Originally Posted by Goat Blower

This law we're voting on does not allow gay marriage in MN, it will still be illegal..

Exactly, I don't even live in MN yet it seems like we're some of the few to actually understand this (based on what I read and see on Facebook, other media, etc.).

[2Point3TSi]

Originally Posted by Trogdor

The bible says many things that are now seen as antiquated, and would be considered oppressive, or misogynistic. So, if you're going to use "the bible says so" as justification for an argument, you'd better be prepared to put your money where your mouth is be willing to accept all of other things that would come along with it.

Furthermore, that whole "shall not lye with another man" thing was actually referring to a practice known as Pederast. The social acceptance of this changed several times through out history. At some points it was normal and accepted rite of passage, at other times it was viewed as hazing or the modern day equivalents to rape. Hence why it was not condoned by the bible.

Finally, in order to justify Christianity as a argument for this law you would need to be able to argue that Christianity is the one true correct religion. I believe in God. Key word believe, not know. I know gravity exists. I know this because I can pick up anything on my desk and drop it. I believe in a higher power, but can not prove it.

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

Pederast is a completely different thing all together. At no point was it ever considered ok. Multiple times was it stated marriage is for a man and women. (Matt 19:5; Mark 10:7-12; Eph 5:22-32; 1 Thess 4:4; Mal 2:14-16;Matt 5:32-33; Matt 19:4-6,9; Mark 10:11-12; Lk 16:18; Rom 7:2-3; 1 Cor 7:10-11). And as far as arguing that it is the one true religion I am not about arguing. I will defend my reasons for my faith but that's what makes it what it is. If there was concrete evidence then everyone would believe and there would be no reason for faith. Am I against gay marriage, yes. Am I going to mock, ridicule and persecute gays, no. I'll explain to them why it's wrong but you gotta let them make a decision. Good info though.

Furthermore if gay people want to be together there is nothing I can do about it. But don't taint the word marriage. Make it a different word or something to keep it from being associated with an actual marriage between a man and a women.

[Trogdor]

Originally Posted by 2Point3TSi

Furthermore if gay people want to be together there is nothing I can do about it. But don't taint the word marriage. Make it a different word or something to keep it from being associated with an actual marriage between a man and a women.

Fair enough. And because churches are private entities, I don't see anything wrong with an individual church or an entire sect preventing homosexuals from having a religious ceremony - or preventing their religious authorities from performing a marriage ceremony.

However, what I do see an issue with is preventing gay couples in a committed relationship from having the same rights that I, as a married person, have. This is more of a legal issue than it is one of spirituality and religious right/wrong. This presents problems is many different areas including; visitation rights, sharing of information, HIPPA, death (probate), parenting/custody, taxes, and many others.

And what if the word marriage were kept out of it? The idea of a civil union basically is giving gay couple a piece of paper from the state recognizing "This person gets all your shit when you die." I say that sarcastically, but again, there are many other rights that a civil union would allow to gay couples with out calling it a marriage.

[tpunx99GSX]

Just to speak on a couple laughable points. Yes we actually all know it doesnt make gay marriage legal, Dont undermine our intelligence by thinking we are all uneducated in the policies that are being put forth.
Second, Can we all agree that the state constitution is to GRANT rights, and not limit rights? So why are we even voting on this. I have a suspicion that if this passes you will see it immediately overturned by the state supreme court. and people will get all pissy how the supreme court is overstepping. The same exact thing happened when they tried this in California.
Third, and i have never understood this, why does it matter if gays are allowed to marry? Does it somehow affect you in some way shape or form? Its humorous to see the religious people get up in arms about the sanctity of marriage, when one in three male female marriages end in divorce. Maybe you should look to end divorces to protect the sanctity of marriage rather than enabling loving couples the same right given to you. Its not about churches being mandated to marry gay couples, its no where near that. Its granting rights under the state to marry couples using a judge. If a church chooses not to marry gays, so be it, they will find another person willing.
Finally, steve you are OUT OF YOUR MIND with this statement "I get really tired of the name-calling, and it's only ever from the left, that should tell you a lot." I find it absolutely laughable. And i havent seen one comment calling you a homophobe.

[A//// Guy]

Just to spice up this argument. Maybe we should outlaw divorce too.

It says in Matthew 5:32 (NIV)- "But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

I personally see the anti gay movement as similar to the racial movement of the 50s and 60s, maybe not as harsh but terrible things happen because of it all over the country.

[Kracka]

Please keep the religious mockery out of this thread, it's disrespectful to our religious members.

Originally Posted by Trogdor

And what if the word marriage were kept out of it? The idea of a civil union basically is giving gay couple a piece of paper from the state recognizing "This person gets all your shit when you die." I say that sarcastically, but again, there are many other rights that a civil union would allow to gay couples with out calling it a marriage.

This is what I've been saying for a few years now; allow them the same rights, but call it something other than marriage.

[A//// Guy]

WTF? I am religous, im catholic, why cant I list facts regarding the bible to argue points on gay marriage? Screw that.

[tpunx99GSX]

what do you have against the YMCA. hahaha
I laugh because this whole conversation is funny.
Oh, and I am very religious as well. I think ill be Buddhist this week.
No need to be so sensitif. If you truly believe then nothing we say can dissuade you of that. Its a very personal thing but i dont think an admin should be editing when someone is stating links that say bad things against any religion.

[Kracka]

Originally Posted by Scheides

Talk all you want about politics. Posts may be moderated, deleted, edited, or ignored by Admins.

^^^

Complain to Scheides if you don't agree with my actions, but I can already tell you exactly how that'll go. This is the politics section, not the religious section, let's leave it that way.