Michael Sams coming out party

[Weegle777 78]

Sam wasn't even the best player on his team. Why are we even talking about this Guy?

[ClaytonAU 4,606]

Sam wasn't even the best player on his team. Why are we even talking about this Guy?

Because he's gay. It's the world we live in now.

[war eagle6 0]

Sam wasn't even the best player on his team. Why are we even talking about this Guy?

Because he's gay. It's the world we live in now.

Exactly^^ And if u go against the world u will be punished! But if u go against GOD u will surely DIE!! Which side are u on? I'm not on man's side that's for sure!

[AUwent 3,776]

^Well, Michael Sam's not dead yet, last time I checked.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

^Well, Michael Sam's not dead yet, last time I checked.

That would be a TERRIBLE reality TV show.

[Shire5k 19]

Stuff

Edited the quotes due to our conversation taking up a lot of space.

Here is my problem with people using the Bible as a way to justify arguments about homosexuality: God doesn't condemn them in the Ten Commandments, and Jesus never mentions them in his quotes. So, the parts of the Bible that condemn the act are in the Old Testament or in a letter from Paul to the people of Corinth. That a letter from a man to a group of people is a book in the Bible tells me all I need to know about the book: That it is a book written by people. People who, good intentions or not, wrote down their own beliefs.

Did Paul know his letter would end up being part of the Bible? That his words would be believed by many to be the literal word of God? I doubt it. Also, his words are subject to interpretation, due to the fact that they were not written in English. There are Bible scholars who believe he wasn't talking about the consensual love between two people of the same sex. These are people who study the book for a living.

My point is this: If you believe that God made everything just the way he wanted it, then he made gay people like they are on purpose. The Bible was written by people, and is not infallible. God himself did not mention homosexuality in the Ten Commandments, one of the few things from the book that literally came from him. Jesus never mentioned it, and he was literally God on Earth. So being against something that your God and Jesus never deigned worthy to mention, but because some guys 2000+ ago may or may not have been against is rather silly. Keeping two people who love each other from having the same rights as you based on those beliefs is even worse.

If you don't like homosexuality because you think it's icky, whatever. That's your deal. Just stop using texts that are wildly open to interpretation to try to back up those beliefs. Just remember that your interpretation and translation of the Bible isn't the only one. So how could you know that your version is the right one?

[Weegle777 78]

Do any of you know what sin is?

[Weegle777 78]

I haven't seen one post that makes any sense yet.

[ClaytonAU 4,606]

Stuff

Edited the quotes due to our conversation taking up a lot of space.

Here is my problem with people using the Bible as a way to justify arguments about homosexuality: God doesn't condemn them in the Ten Commandments, and Jesus never mentions them in his quotes. So, the parts of the Bible that condemn the act are in the Old Testament or in a letter from Paul to the people of Corinth. That a letter from a man to a group of people is a book in the Bible tells me all I need to know about the book: That it is a book written by people. People who, good intentions or not, wrote down their own beliefs.

Did Paul know his letter would end up being part of the Bible? That his words would be believed by many to be the literal word of God? I doubt it. Also, his words are subject to interpretation, due to the fact that they were not written in English. There are Bible scholars who believe he wasn't talking about the consensual love between two people of the same sex. These are people who study the book for a living.

My point is this: If you believe that God made everything just the way he wanted it, then he made gay people like they are on purpose. The Bible was written by people, and is not infallible. God himself did not mention homosexuality in the Ten Commandments, one of the few things from the book that literally came from him. Jesus never mentioned it, and he was literally God on Earth. So being against something that your God and Jesus never deigned worthy to mention, but because some guys 2000+ ago may or may not have been against is rather silly. Keeping two people who love each other from having the same rights as you based on those beliefs is even worse.

If you don't like homosexuality because you think it's icky, whatever. That's your deal. Just stop using texts that are wildly open to interpretation to try to back up those beliefs. Just remember that your interpretation and translation of the Bible isn't the only one. So how could you know that your version is the right one?

While I rarely get into these religious debates, I do have a question for you. Your argument states that because Jesus who was literally God on earth says nothing about homosexuality, then we shouldn't deem it unworthy. Jesus never mentions rape in his sermons, nor cannibalism. Does this mean that because Jesus never mentions it, that it's deemed worthy? The 10 Commandments also says nothing about cannibalism and rape, so does that make it okay? Not in my opinion, nor most others. Your argument on homosexuality being okay in the Bible is completely invalid if you go by your rule of "If Jesus didn't say it, then it's okay".

[Shire5k 19]

Stuff

Edited the quotes due to our conversation taking up a lot of space.

Here is my problem with people using the Bible as a way to justify arguments about homosexuality: God doesn't condemn them in the Ten Commandments, and Jesus never mentions them in his quotes. So, the parts of the Bible that condemn the act are in the Old Testament or in a letter from Paul to the people of Corinth. That a letter from a man to a group of people is a book in the Bible tells me all I need to know about the book: That it is a book written by people. People who, good intentions or not, wrote down their own beliefs.

Did Paul know his letter would end up being part of the Bible? That his words would be believed by many to be the literal word of God? I doubt it. Also, his words are subject to interpretation, due to the fact that they were not written in English. There are Bible scholars who believe he wasn't talking about the consensual love between two people of the same sex. These are people who study the book for a living.

My point is this: If you believe that God made everything just the way he wanted it, then he made gay people like they are on purpose. The Bible was written by people, and is not infallible. God himself did not mention homosexuality in the Ten Commandments, one of the few things from the book that literally came from him. Jesus never mentioned it, and he was literally God on Earth. So being against something that your God and Jesus never deigned worthy to mention, but because some guys 2000+ ago may or may not have been against is rather silly. Keeping two people who love each other from having the same rights as you based on those beliefs is even worse.

If you don't like homosexuality because you think it's icky, whatever. That's your deal. Just stop using texts that are wildly open to interpretation to try to back up those beliefs. Just remember that your interpretation and translation of the Bible isn't the only one. So how could you know that your version is the right one?

While I rarely get into these religious debates, I do have a question for you. Your argument states that because Jesus who was literally God on earth says nothing about homosexuality, then we shouldn't deem it unworthy. Jesus never mentions rape in his sermons, nor cannibalism. Does this mean that because Jesus never mentions it, that it's deemed worthy? The 10 Commandments also says nothing about cannibalism and rape, so does that make it okay? Not in my opinion, nor most others. Your argument on homosexuality being okay in the Bible is completely invalid if you go by your rule of "If Jesus didn't say it, then it's okay".

Well let's get one thing straight, I don't believe any of it. All I'm asking is that people who base their problems with homosexuality on the Bible really examine it. Ask questions. Stop taking what someone (who wasn't God or Jesus) said thousands of years ago as gospel that applies to the here and now. The Bible says that I can beat my servant and as long as he doesn't die, I shouldn't be punished. Is that really applicable today? It's just hard for me to take people seriously when they quote one thing, but ignore other parts. It was said earlier that you either believe the Bible or you don't, that there's no in between. Well, live it then.

[homersapien 11,453]

My little brother has served a tour in Iraq and a tour in Afghanistan.

Please pass a message to your brother - my family and I sincerely appreciate his service to our country. We cherish our freedom and consider him the hero.

Football is a game, no matter how much they pay 'em. Sams being openly gay just tells me he enjoys sodomy. Again, not my idea of heroism.

Does "sodomy" - assuming you mean anal sex - include a man doing it to a woman?

Anxiously awaiting your response.

[ClaytonAU 4,606]

Stuff

Edited the quotes due to our conversation taking up a lot of space.

Here is my problem with people using the Bible as a way to justify arguments about homosexuality: God doesn't condemn them in the Ten Commandments, and Jesus never mentions them in his quotes. So, the parts of the Bible that condemn the act are in the Old Testament or in a letter from Paul to the people of Corinth. That a letter from a man to a group of people is a book in the Bible tells me all I need to know about the book: That it is a book written by people. People who, good intentions or not, wrote down their own beliefs.

Did Paul know his letter would end up being part of the Bible? That his words would be believed by many to be the literal word of God? I doubt it. Also, his words are subject to interpretation, due to the fact that they were not written in English. There are Bible scholars who believe he wasn't talking about the consensual love between two people of the same sex. These are people who study the book for a living.

My point is this: If you believe that God made everything just the way he wanted it, then he made gay people like they are on purpose. The Bible was written by people, and is not infallible. God himself did not mention homosexuality in the Ten Commandments, one of the few things from the book that literally came from him. Jesus never mentioned it, and he was literally God on Earth. So being against something that your God and Jesus never deigned worthy to mention, but because some guys 2000+ ago may or may not have been against is rather silly. Keeping two people who love each other from having the same rights as you based on those beliefs is even worse.

If you don't like homosexuality because you think it's icky, whatever. That's your deal. Just stop using texts that are wildly open to interpretation to try to back up those beliefs. Just remember that your interpretation and translation of the Bible isn't the only one. So how could you know that your version is the right one?

While I rarely get into these religious debates, I do have a question for you. Your argument states that because Jesus who was literally God on earth says nothing about homosexuality, then we shouldn't deem it unworthy. Jesus never mentions rape in his sermons, nor cannibalism. Does this mean that because Jesus never mentions it, that it's deemed worthy? The 10 Commandments also says nothing about cannibalism and rape, so does that make it okay? Not in my opinion, nor most others. Your argument on homosexuality being okay in the Bible is completely invalid if you go by your rule of "If Jesus didn't say it, then it's okay".

Well let's get one thing straight, I don't believe any of it. All I'm asking is that people who base their problems with homosexuality on the Bible really examine it. Ask questions. Stop taking what someone (who wasn't God or Jesus) said thousands of years ago as gospel that applies to the here and now. The Bible says that I can beat my servant and as long as he doesn't die, I shouldn't be punished. Is that really applicable today? It's just hard for me to take people seriously when they quote one thing, but ignore other parts. It was said earlier that you either believe the Bible or you don't, that there's no in between. Well, live it then.

You don't believe any of it meaning your Atheist or Agnostic?

[homersapien 11,453]

First, whether you are a Christian or not; agnostic or not, we all have some standard by which we measure right and wrong. Your ultimate understanding of reality is obviously determines what your standard will be. For the secularist that values human reason and autonomy above all else then the standard of morality will be a sliding scale of subjectivism, some form of "live and let live." For the Christian, the highest value is God. He and his revealed wisdom through the Bible are the final standard of morality.

1. There is always a "sliding scale" regardless of the basis of the value myth in question.

2. God's standard is purely a function of the human mind, which is really what us "secularists" are declaring.

What is responsible for that natural instinct is a different question.

[homersapien 11,453]

Well, if it walks the walk...

You are entirely free to believe what you want to believe and say what you want to say, just as I am fully free to call you out on how abhorrent those beliefs are. I'm not telling you you can't believe them, I'm just telling you I think you are wrong.

I think it's hilarious you conservatives think that disagreement means we are trying to silence you. I think it stems from you guys trying to silence us for years, so you just think that's the way things work.

I will never understand your thought process. If you say something, and we call it bigoted, you have 3 options: You can change what you say, you can ignore that we called it that, or you can give us evidence to the contrary to make us change our minds. That's how debate works. But somehow, conservatives have twisted that around into debate means that you get to yell at us but we can't yell back.

Because I feel that living a homosexual lifestyle is wrong doesn't mean I'm bigoted. I had several good friends while at AUburn that were a part of AGLA. we had several discussions about homosexuality, religion, and politics. I maintained my opinion that it was an improper and disordered lifestyle while they disagreed with me, never once did they call me a bigot or homophobic. I think drug abuse and prostitution are wrong (allegedly victimless) but that doesn't mean I hate those persons, I only dislike what they're doing/living. So, we can agree to disagree but my opinion in itself doesn't make me a bigot just a those who approve of a certain lifestyle aren't necessarily more intelligent and the like.

But the way you phrase it - as "living the homosexual lifestyle" - vs being a homosexual betrays a prejudice to the truth. A certain amount of people are homosexual, not "living the lifestyle".

And why should it even matter to anyone not threatened by it?

[Shire5k 19]

Stuff

Edited the quotes due to our conversation taking up a lot of space.

Here is my problem with people using the Bible as a way to justify arguments about homosexuality: God doesn't condemn them in the Ten Commandments, and Jesus never mentions them in his quotes. So, the parts of the Bible that condemn the act are in the Old Testament or in a letter from Paul to the people of Corinth. That a letter from a man to a group of people is a book in the Bible tells me all I need to know about the book: That it is a book written by people. People who, good intentions or not, wrote down their own beliefs.

Did Paul know his letter would end up being part of the Bible? That his words would be believed by many to be the literal word of God? I doubt it. Also, his words are subject to interpretation, due to the fact that they were not written in English. There are Bible scholars who believe he wasn't talking about the consensual love between two people of the same sex. These are people who study the book for a living.

My point is this: If you believe that God made everything just the way he wanted it, then he made gay people like they are on purpose. The Bible was written by people, and is not infallible. God himself did not mention homosexuality in the Ten Commandments, one of the few things from the book that literally came from him. Jesus never mentioned it, and he was literally God on Earth. So being against something that your God and Jesus never deigned worthy to mention, but because some guys 2000+ ago may or may not have been against is rather silly. Keeping two people who love each other from having the same rights as you based on those beliefs is even worse.

If you don't like homosexuality because you think it's icky, whatever. That's your deal. Just stop using texts that are wildly open to interpretation to try to back up those beliefs. Just remember that your interpretation and translation of the Bible isn't the only one. So how could you know that your version is the right one?

While I rarely get into these religious debates, I do have a question for you. Your argument states that because Jesus who was literally God on earth says nothing about homosexuality, then we shouldn't deem it unworthy. Jesus never mentions rape in his sermons, nor cannibalism. Does this mean that because Jesus never mentions it, that it's deemed worthy? The 10 Commandments also says nothing about cannibalism and rape, so does that make it okay? Not in my opinion, nor most others. Your argument on homosexuality being okay in the Bible is completely invalid if you go by your rule of "If Jesus didn't say it, then it's okay".

Well let's get one thing straight, I don't believe any of it. All I'm asking is that people who base their problems with homosexuality on the Bible really examine it. Ask questions. Stop taking what someone (who wasn't God or Jesus) said thousands of years ago as gospel that applies to the here and now. The Bible says that I can beat my servant and as long as he doesn't die, I shouldn't be punished. Is that really applicable today? It's just hard for me to take people seriously when they quote one thing, but ignore other parts. It was said earlier that you either believe the Bible or you don't, that there's no in between. Well, live it then.

You don't believe any of it meaning your Atheist or Agnostic?

Agnostic. I don't know if there's something out there somewhere, but if there is I don't think any religion has come close to explaining what it is.

[homersapien 11,453]

But there are many cases in which there are greek or Hebrew words that have multiple meaningslso, there are other formal translations that use different words (ASV for instance). I take it it is your assertion that they are also divinely inspired?

Different Christians might state it a little differently, but orthodox Christianity has held to the original manuscripts being divinely inspired, not the translations.

You are right that different translations use different words in a lot of cases. Like I said, it is complicated. This doesn't even address the issue of which manuscripts do we even use for our English translations. There are literally thousands of fragments of copies of copies of the originals and Bible scholars have to decide which of those are accurate before they even try to translate them!

But, this is why we call it the Christian "faith." By faith we believe that God gets his Word to his people somehow... and sometimes even in spite of us!

But people who use the bible to determine that homosexuals do not have the right to marry who they want to (for example), do so on the basis of "chapter and verse".

WWJD?

[McLoofus 35,182]

But the way you phrase it - as "living the homosexual lifestyle" - vs being a homosexual betrays a prejudice to the truth. A certain amount of people are homosexual, not "living the lifestyle".

And why should it even matter to anyone not threatened by it?

Bingo. This notion that so many have that homosexuality is a choice is awfully confounding. As if somebody would choose to put up with all of this bullsh**.

[aujeff11 6,243]

I could care less talking about religion bc I think there is better mediums to talk about religion than here. I don't like how espn televised all that crap on TV . No other 7th rounder got the attention that sam received. If Sam wants to be a football player, he needs to act like a football player and espn needs to treat him like one. If he wants to be a pioneer for gay integration in football, keep doing what he is doing.

[McLoofus 35,182]

I could care less talking about religion bc I think there is better mediums to talk about religion than here. I don't like how espn televised all that crap on TV . No other 7th rounder got the attention that sam received. If Sam wants to be a football player, he needs to act like a football player and espn needs to treat him like one. If he wants to be a pioneer for gay integration in football, keep doing what he is doing.

I'm sure he would love to just be the former- as he was for 4 years at Missouri- but as the bigotry in this thread alone has shown, there is a need for the latter.

Actually, that's not completely accurate. "Gay" is already "integrated in football". It's folks outside the locker room making it an issue, not Michael Sam.

[NoALtiger 3,873]

I actually spit my drink out laughing at this idiot when he smashed that cake over his significant whatever's face. Some of you are looking at this all wrong, that was some of the funniest crap I've ever seen on live tv in my life. Big tough football player wearing a flaming hot pink shirt crying all over the place and acting like that with that little petite dude hanging all over him? Ha, comedic gold! Take it for what it is, Sam has every right to live his life as he wants just as all of us do. I'm just gonna sit back and enjoy some more classic moments from this circus. I'm pulling for the Rams and maybe he can help them win a couple games. That is all.

[aujeff11 6,243]

No...gay is not integrated into nfl football yet.... Not one nfl player has ever came out until Sam....also, if he wants to be known as a football player.....he could've just kept his business to himself. No one begged him to come out....mere months before the draft...I don't even care that he is gay, but don't tell me he just wants to be a football player when he is making out with some dude on live television .

[war eagle6 0]

All these "captain save a homo" on this board please answer this question, have either of u ever seen a gay animal? If you're honest about it, that alone should tell u it's unnatural! Also, U non believers can scream to the mountain tops til u turn blue in the face about it being no GOD, but neither one of us created ourselves! If it were possible, I most definantly wouldn't be commenting on a message board, and neither would any of u!!

[Weegle777 78]

The whole ESPN thing covering this circus was for nothing but the shock value of it and to drive clicks, controversy, and arguments just like what is happening in this thread. ESPN couldn't care less about Sam and his life. They are the sports TMZ. All about the shock.

[homersapien 11,453]

All these "captain save a homo" on this board please answer this question, have either of u ever seen a gay animal? If you're honest about it, that alone should tell u it's unnatural! Also, U non believers can scream to the mountain tops til u turn blue in the face about it being no GOD, but neither one of us created ourselves! If it were possible, I most definantly wouldn't be commenting on a message board, and neither would any of u!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

[Weegle777 78]

Since Sam's girlfriend is a grandson of a Mafia boss, they might find him at the bottom of a lake with cement boots.