(04-02-2014 04:13 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 12:24 PM)buryyourduke Wrote:  Plenty of gay people aren't part of the gay social agenda that demands everyone accept and embrace their lifestyle.

Jesus.

I hope you realize what an awful person you sound like.

This conservative blowback from a movement that is about equality is ridiculous. You make the word "agenda" sound like such an awful word, did MLK JR have an "agenda"? Was the Montgomery bus boycott an "agenda"? Did Sunsan B. Anthony have an "agenda"?

No one is demanding anyone to embrace anything. The only "agenda" is equal rights and protection under the law. If you do not wish to be friends with homosexuals that's 100% your prerogative, if you are against same sex marriage, you are an *******, plain and simple, no two ways about it, because if two men or two women wish to get married it's got nothing to do with you. Just the same as the heterosexual couple next door that are polyamorous has nothing to do with you. Just like the heterosexual couple around the corner that are Satanists have nothing to do with you. Just like the heterosexual "green card marriage" in the next neighborhood. There are plenty of marriages that I'm sure most people who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons would find disagreeable.

There are two "legitimate" reasons to oppose gay marriage:

1) You think it's gross.

Well if you're middle aged or older and/or more than slightly out of shape, I assure you most people don't want to think about you having sex either.

2) It's against your religion.

Fine. But what does your religion have to do with anyone else? What does your religion have to do with the laws of this country?


Again, if you oppose gay marriage, you're a selfish ******* who cannot recognize when something has nothing to do with you.

Several Civil Rights leaders are not happy that the Gay Rights folks are trying to compare their struggle to that of Civil Rights movement. They have a great point.

(04-02-2014 04:39 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 04:13 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 12:24 PM)buryyourduke Wrote:  Plenty of gay people aren't part of the gay social agenda that demands everyone accept and embrace their lifestyle.

Jesus.

I hope you realize what an awful person you sound like.

This conservative blowback from a movement that is about equality is ridiculous. You make the word "agenda" sound like such an awful word, did MLK JR have an "agenda"? Was the Montgomery bus boycott an "agenda"? Did Sunsan B. Anthony have an "agenda"?

No one is demanding anyone to embrace anything. The only "agenda" is equal rights and protection under the law. If you do not wish to be friends with homosexuals that's 100% your prerogative, if you are against same sex marriage, you are an *******, plain and simple, no two ways about it, because if two men or two women wish to get married it's got nothing to do with you. Just the same as the heterosexual couple next door that are polyamorous has nothing to do with you. Just like the heterosexual couple around the corner that are Satanists have nothing to do with you. Just like the heterosexual "green card marriage" in the next neighborhood. There are plenty of marriages that I'm sure most people who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons would find disagreeable.

There are two "legitimate" reasons to oppose gay marriage:

1) You think it's gross.

Well if you're middle aged or older and/or more than slightly out of shape, I assure you most people don't want to think about you having sex either.

2) It's against your religion.

Fine. But what does your religion have to do with anyone else? What does your religion have to do with the laws of this country?


Again, if you oppose gay marriage, you're a selfish ******* who cannot recognize when something has nothing to do with you.

Several Civil Rights leaders are not happy that the Gay Rights folks are trying to compare their struggle to that of Civil Rights movement. They have a great point.

Please explain.

Explain what? That I agree with the likes of Phil Davis, Charles Reese and Jesse Jackson, whom I rarely agree with, that the Gay Rights movement is not the same as the Civil Rights movement? That there is really no comparison between the two?

(04-02-2014 04:36 PM)buryyourduke Wrote:  Feel better? I'm actually for legal gay marriage, providing that ministers are granted the right to not marry homosexuals. If ministers of any religion choose to marry gay people, I have no problem with that. I also have no problem with legal polygamist marriage. I would actually prefer the government to be out of the marriage business altogether, but I digress.

Then please feel free to elaborate on this "gay social agenda" and demands of embrace...

(04-02-2014 04:13 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 12:24 PM)buryyourduke Wrote:  Plenty of gay people aren't part of the gay social agenda that demands everyone accept and embrace their lifestyle.

There are two "legitimate" reasons to oppose gay marriage:

1) You think it's gross
2) It's against your religion.


Again, if you oppose gay marriage, you're a selfish ******* who cannot recognize when something has nothing to do with you.

False.

My issue with gay "marriage" is one of traditional meanings.

If you want legal equality that is cool. Stories of partners unable to visit hospitals and other things makes this a necessity.

However the word "marriage" has a traditional/religious/cultural meaning that is ancient. By insisting on the word "marriage" you seek to use force of law to change a word that has religious meaning. This is bound to cause religious controversy. Why was "civil union" not enough? I posit that some are looking beyond getting legal equality and seeking to poke the eye of those who oppose them due to religion.

The basis of this is the fact that government got itself into regulating a religious concept.

The solution would be for government to recognize only civil union...no matter who you are and ditch the "marriage" word leaving it for the churches to argue with themselves over.

(04-02-2014 04:53 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  Explain what? That I agree with the likes of Phil Davis, Charles Reese and Jesse Jackson, whom I rarely agree with, that the Gay Rights movement is not the same as the Civil Rights movement? That there is really no comparison between the two?

To say they are the same is disingenuous, the struggle of the homosexual, while pretty ******* terrible, is not comparable to the struggle of African Americans, to say that they are not analogous to any extent, is moronic.

(04-02-2014 04:31 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 04:24 PM)knucklehead Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 04:15 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 04:07 PM)knucklehead Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 02:53 PM)CajunExpress Wrote:  I think I know why the Romans decided to do away with the first Christians. I always thought I knew, but after watching Liberty fans, christian fans inject themselves into every single thread, it may be the Romans just plain got tired of them.

Most of us came here to talk SPORTS and Possible inclusion in the SBC. SBC Posters have injected the religious, political, axe grinding talk. Unfortunately us LU folks (yea me too) too often take the bait and respond.

I for one will commit that if LU doesn't get an invite to the SBC by June first, AND someone else becomes the 12th, I'll no longer post here. Happy?

I still find it strange that 7/8ths of the members here have been very kind and accepting of us being here and yet 1/8th of you just won't let your issues with Christians / LU go.

I wish we could just keep this discussion about athletics and take all the constant repeated debate team junk to the smack board.

For those trying to convince either side you are right:

Quote:Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

So I suppose it would be better to just say no to Liberty with no elaboration?

How about elaboration on items that pertain to picking a 12th member? I guess my point is that all the religious / political points about LU on both sides to the point that is all seems like a really bad rerun of Matlock or something.

As much as you wish it weren't the case, conferences strive to have like minded similar institutions and Liberty is not like minded or similar to the rest of the conference.

You trying to keep the discussion framed around sports simply isn't going to work, a conference is every bit as much(probably more so) a collection of Universities as it is a collection of sports teams.

The entire reason that LU's candidacy is controversial is because LIBERTY has chosen, of its own volition, to discriminate in its athletic hiring. If Liberty wasn't making politics/religion central to its' athletic endeavors, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And if LU somehow snags a bid, these discussions won't end. Nor will they be limited to this forum. The volume will, if anything, get much louder.

(04-02-2014 04:56 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 04:13 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 12:24 PM)buryyourduke Wrote:  Plenty of gay people aren't part of the gay social agenda that demands everyone accept and embrace their lifestyle.

There are two "legitimate" reasons to oppose gay marriage:

1) You think it's gross
2) It's against your religion.


Again, if you oppose gay marriage, you're a selfish ******* who cannot recognize when something has nothing to do with you.

False.

My issue with gay "marriage" is one of traditional meanings.

If you want legal equality that is cool. Stories of partners unable to visit hospitals and other things makes this a necessity.

However the word "marriage" has a traditional/religious/cultural meaning that is ancient. By insisting on the word "marriage" you seek to use force of law to change a word that has religious meaning. This is bound to cause religious controversy. Why was "civil union" not enough? I posit that some are looking beyond getting legal equality and seeking to poke the eye of those who oppose them due to religion.

The basis of this is the fact that government got itself into regulating a religious concept.

The solution would be for government to recognize only civil union...no matter who you are and ditch the "marriage" word leaving it for the churches to argue with themselves over.

Its not practical to get rid of marriages and enact civil unions. Over 11,000 Federal Laws use marriage. Literally 100k local and state laws do. All those laws aren't getting changed.

And lets face facts. Few on the anti-Gay marriage side actually supported civil unions when they were an option. And I'm sorry, I have no faith that the anti-Gays would not try, repeatedly, to downgrade Gay civil unions.

That ship has sailed. Marriage equality will be legal in all 50 states within 2 years.

(04-02-2014 04:53 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  Explain what? That I agree with the likes of Phil Davis, Charles Reese and Jesse Jackson, whom I rarely agree with, that the Gay Rights movement is not the same as the Civil Rights movement? That there is really no comparison between the two?

They aren't exactly the same but they are based upon the same principles.

1) That discrimination to the point of banning someone from employment based upon their personal characteristics is wrong (and yea, most feel that issues such as who you fall in love with is personal characteristics)

2) That bans, proscriptions, or discrimination based upon the person someone falls in love with (such as Loving v Virginia) is not acceptable

3) That demonization of those that exist outside the mainstream is wrong. And that majority votes on basic civil rights are wrong as that civil rights accrue to the person and shouldn't be up to a popularity contest.

(04-02-2014 03:11 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 01:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The first time we go, we'll go to ensure that we have the same rights to express ourselves that we would at other SBC universities. It will be a bit more visible as a result. We don't believe your protestations that Gays are welcome to attend LU home football games wearing the same clothing allowed at other schools. So we'll test it. Maybe nothing happens. I'm willing to invest a weekend in testing it out. I'm also not alone.

Will we get arrested? Doubtful. Probably just thrown out for refusing to cover our rainbow colored shirts. Or shoved into some corner of the stadium where we will blocked from being seen by anyone by LU security. Our attendance won't be a surprise. We'll notify the USA President and Karl Benson's office (and even send them a shirt - they should be in favor Sports for All?) prior to attending the game to let them know what we are up to. We won't whine to the Sun Belt if something happens. We'll whine to the NCAA. Which is probably where the issue of discriminatory practices belongs. We'll ask them to bar any institution that discriminates in athletic employment on the basis of religion or sexual orientation from the organization. And if you think you have trouble with the Sun Belt, a grouping of largely conservative institutions in an area more amenable to LU's worldview, I'd like for you to consider how LU is going to be viewed outside of the Belt (think how the B1G, ACC, and PAC12 reps might vote on such a proposal).

Yes, we have an agenda. Its called equal access. Equal access as students, fans, coaches, employees, and staff.

Again, LU could get rid of their idiotic rules barring Gays and Jews from employment. They could drop the penalty for being Gay from their student handbook. They could either convince Staver to stop advocating garbage or find a new Law School Dean. And guess what? They'd still be a very conservative and very fundamentalist school.

So you are just going to show up wearing rainbow shirts with Sports For All on them? That's it? And you think you will get thrown out? You might get stuck into a corner with all of the other visiting fans. I'm not sure how Liberty doles out their tickets to visitors and where they sit but most schools put them in a corner end zone. But if you just show up like that and cheer for your team you will be fine.
No banners? No bull horns? Man you are going to be awfully surprised when nothing happens.

Yes, I do think we will be thrown out. If not, fine, we've established that Gay people don't have to cram themselves back in the closet to attend conference games. No bullhorns, no banners (as those are usually banned for everyone. Again, the goal isn't to do things we wouldn't do at our own school.

I'm old enough to know a snow job when I see one. I see one at LU. I have to go with the facts. While there have been reports by some 'supposedly' Gay persons at LU, I've never met one, and the policies in place proscribing Gay people from really existing on campus speak for themselves. We have two cases of openly Gay people being on the LU campus. One resulted in arrests. LU's employment policies speak for themselves. And Mat Staver continues to speak for LU. On the other hand, we have a 'not out' Gay student at LU who was basically tossed from the dorms and then subsequently left LU. Again, what has LU done to change its policies? Nothing. What have they done to rein in Mat Staver? Nothing. He went on national radio last week to compare Michelle Obama to Hitler (!) Really? When your administration continuously does stuff like that, LU's credibility of 'weve changed' is really compromised. Don't tell me you've changed. Show me you've changed.

We'll buy tickets through the LU office. The visiting stands always suck. I always just buy tickets in the main viewing areas. Its not like Sun Belt tickets are really expensive.

(04-02-2014 04:54 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 04:36 PM)buryyourduke Wrote:  Feel better? I'm actually for legal gay marriage, providing that ministers are granted the right to not marry homosexuals. If ministers of any religion choose to marry gay people, I have no problem with that. I also have no problem with legal polygamist marriage. I would actually prefer the government to be out of the marriage business altogether, but I digress.

Then please feel free to elaborate on this "gay social agenda" and demands of embrace...

The problem is when rather than endorsing a policy of individual liberty, the LGBT lobby wishes to silence Christians who believe homosexuality is sinful. If a pastor doesn't want to marry two homosexuals, then he/she shouldn't have to. If a wedding planner doesn't wish to plan a gay wedding, they shouldn't have to. That's individual liberty, as much as the liberty for two people to marry regardless of their gender, and an actual concept of tolerance.

(04-02-2014 04:56 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 04:13 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 12:24 PM)buryyourduke Wrote:  Plenty of gay people aren't part of the gay social agenda that demands everyone accept and embrace their lifestyle.

There are two "legitimate" reasons to oppose gay marriage:

1) You think it's gross
2) It's against your religion.


Again, if you oppose gay marriage, you're a selfish ******* who cannot recognize when something has nothing to do with you.

False.

My issue with gay "marriage" is one of traditional meanings.

If you want legal equality that is cool. Stories of partners unable to visit hospitals and other things makes this a necessity.

However the word "marriage" has a traditional/religious/cultural meaning that is ancient. By insisting on the word "marriage" you seek to use force of law to change a word that has religious meaning. This is bound to cause religious controversy. Why was "civil union" not enough? I posit that some are looking beyond getting legal equality and seeking to poke the eye of those who oppose them due to religion.

The basis of this is the fact that government got itself into regulating a religious concept.

The solution would be for government to recognize only civil union...no matter who you are and ditch the "marriage" word leaving it for the churches to argue with themselves over.

I don't disagree with anything you said other than your ridiculous assertion that they want to "poke the eye" of those who oppose(to be clear, I'm not saying no one feels that way, but that is far from the point of the movement)

The fact of the matter is, so long as heterosexual couples are granted "marriages" and homosexual couples are granted "civil unions" that is not equal. I'm 100% on board with decreasing the government's role in marriage, have the government grant civil unions to any two consenting adults and allow churches to decide on an individual basis who they will or won't marry.

If such a proposal were ever presented, there'd be opposition from both sides, but I feel confident that it wouldn't be the homosexuals and gay rights advocates that prevent it from passing. The overwhelming opposition would be those with an attitude of "why should we change what our relationship is legally referred as to accommodate them?" Even though I'm sure that the overwhelming majority of gay rights opponents would not be effected as they likely had both a marriage licence as well as a wedding performed by a religious officiant and attend a church that would not be performing gay marriages. Even more hypocritical, the majority of those who oppose gay marriage are members of a party that has smaller government as a fundamental belief which this sort of restructuring would absolutely qualify as.

Wrong, Tom. This doesn't happen now in the Big South or other affiliate conferences for Liberty's Oly sports...think NorPac FH, in which we share a conference with BERKELEY. Speaking of Cal... They came all the way out here for a FH game - BERKELEY at Liberty. And gues what...no marches, no protésts, no demonstrating. It was Cal/LU in a FH game, that was all. If BERKELEY can play here without any problems, what makes you think that schools from the SUN BELT, the most "churched" region of this whole darn country, would be any different?

(04-02-2014 05:11 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Yes, I do think we will be thrown out. If not, fine, we've established that Gay people don't have to cram themselves back in the closet to attend conference games. No bullhorns, no banners (as those are usually banned for everyone. Again, the goal isn't to do things we wouldn't do at our own campus.

We'll buy tickets through the LU office. The visiting stands always suck. I always just buy tickets in the main viewing areas. Its not like Sun Belt tickets are really expensive.

Well you are in for a pleasant surprise. Unless you want to get thrown out, in which case you will be sorely disappointed.
Heck, you could probably get your groups tickets bought for you by some of the folks on this board.
Of course your stated goal has already been established, but do what you wanna do.

(04-02-2014 05:09 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 04:53 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  Explain what? That I agree with the likes of Phil Davis, Charles Reese and Jesse Jackson, whom I rarely agree with, that the Gay Rights movement is not the same as the Civil Rights movement? That there is really no comparison between the two?

They aren't exactly the same but they are based upon the same principles.

1) That discrimination to the point of banning someone from employment based upon their personal characteristics is wrong (and yea, most feel that issues such as who you fall in love with is personal characteristics)

2) That bans, proscriptions, or discrimination based upon the person someone falls in love with (such as Loving v Virginia) is not acceptable

3) That demonization of those that exist outside the mainstream is wrong. And that majority votes on basic civil rights are wrong as that civil rights accrue to the person and shouldn't be up to a popularity contest.

All of which is a far cry from what the Civil Rights leaders were struggling for and against.

(04-02-2014 05:13 PM)buryyourduke Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 04:54 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 04:36 PM)buryyourduke Wrote:  Feel better? I'm actually for legal gay marriage, providing that ministers are granted the right to not marry homosexuals. If ministers of any religion choose to marry gay people, I have no problem with that. I also have no problem with legal polygamist marriage. I would actually prefer the government to be out of the marriage business altogether, but I digress.

Then please feel free to elaborate on this "gay social agenda" and demands of embrace...

The problem is when rather than endorsing a policy of individual liberty, the LGBT lobby wishes to silence Christians who believe homosexuality is sinful. If a pastor doesn't want to marry two homosexuals, then he/she shouldn't have to. If a wedding planner doesn't wish to plan a gay wedding, they shouldn't have to. That's individual liberty, as much as the liberty for two people to marry regardless of their gender, and an actual concept of tolerance.

I think you've been drinking the conservative kool aid. Who's attempting to censor what a religious leader can or can't preach to his congregation? Who's trying to force ministers to marry gay couples if they choose not to? I'd be 100% opposed to either as both are a clear violation of freedom of religion and separation of church and state.

I will disagree with you on the wedding planner issue, as a business owner you may not discriminate on the basis of race, age, gender, etc. why is sexual orientation different? How is it an attack on someone's "religious liberty" to have them plan a gay wedding? Furthermore, who is going to try to legally strong arm someone into planning their wedding? You know, arguably the biggest day of your life? You really think that there's going to be an issue of gay couples seeking out anti gay wedding planners who would be doing the job begrudgingly? As if planning a wedding isn't stressful enough as it is...

(04-02-2014 05:27 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 05:09 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 04:53 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  Explain what? That I agree with the likes of Phil Davis, Charles Reese and Jesse Jackson, whom I rarely agree with, that the Gay Rights movement is not the same as the Civil Rights movement? That there is really no comparison between the two?

They aren't exactly the same but they are based upon the same principles.

1) That discrimination to the point of banning someone from employment based upon their personal characteristics is wrong (and yea, most feel that issues such as who you fall in love with is personal characteristics)

2) That bans, proscriptions, or discrimination based upon the person someone falls in love with (such as Loving v Virginia) is not acceptable

3) That demonization of those that exist outside the mainstream is wrong. And that majority votes on basic civil rights are wrong as that civil rights accrue to the person and shouldn't be up to a popularity contest.

All of which is a far cry from what the Civil Rights leaders were struggling for and against.

Feel free to compare and contrast elaborating on how the two have no similarities... I'll wait.

(04-02-2014 05:14 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  I don't disagree with anything you said other than

You are correct, it will not happen. But this would have been the proper response. Get the government out of the religious marriage discussion entirely and have it stick only to the matters of law. But we don't usually think of how government should work....only how it can best work to promote our particular agenda.

(04-02-2014 05:21 PM)Campaign4Liberty Wrote:  Wrong, Tom. This doesn't happen now in the Big South or other affiliate conferences for Liberty's Oly sports...think NorPac FH, in which we share a conference with BERKELEY. Speaking of Cal... They came all the way out here for a FH game - BERKELEY at Liberty. And gues what...no marches, no protésts, no demonstrating. It was Cal/LU in a FH game, that was all. If BERKELEY can play here without any problems, what makes you think that schools from the SUN BELT, the most "churched" region of this whole darn country, would be any different?

How many people did they take to the game? Very few.

FBS ain't field hockey.

The Big South is filled with many discriminatory schools as well. Although none are as discriminatory as LU.

I certainly think it's possible that a gay couple could attend a Liberty football game without incident, I'm also not willing to brush the idea of an incident aside so cavalierly.

For those Liberty fans who think that Tom's concerns are invalid, you truly believe that two men could enter the stadium holding hands or have a quick kiss as one of them gets up to run to the concession stand, something I'm sure goes on between heterosexual couples all the time in your stadium, without incident? Without threat? Without complaints to event staff?

Like I said, I'll say it's possible, but I have my doubts.