Dabdumb called out by state senator (link)
- Thread starter Bleedgandb3334
- Start date
- Status
I don't like the word bigot or racist. However, at this point, if the Bible's ambiguous language is your justification to prevent two men or two women from getting married and limit the rights of individuals who were born attracted to the same sex, then you're just afraid of what's different. I still have yet to see a good argument against gay marriage.
I think it is dangerous to bully your way to legislation; however, I'm on board with this issue, 100%.
Dabo will come out fine from this, but I can't say he would if he coached anywhere other than the south. It's not a good look. Be Christian, but pick your battles.
I think it is dangerous to bully your way to legislation; however, I'm on board with this issue, 100%.
Dabo will come out fine from this, but I can't say he would if he coached anywhere other than the south. It's not a good look. Be Christian, but pick your battles.
I actually feel very dirty for saying this, but for once I have to completely agree with something that the Rev. Dildo is doing. Anything involving homosexuality is WRONG! Vile & disgusting! "BUT." Lets not forget that the Rev. never involves himself in anything, regardless of the situation, where the spotlight is not directly on him. He loves to play the Religion cards in recruiting, so this could very well be another attempt to make himself look good in the eyes of parents of recruits. The Baptismal service, In front of numerous cameras of course, seemed to have worked well for him.
Pretty sure Spurrier has similar beliefs as Dabo. Is he intolerant?
Dabo said recently that there were gay players on his Alabama title teams and it wasn't a problem. Doesn't sound like he is intolerant.
I'm not a Chrsitian, but the bible isn't ambigious about homosexuality. It is rather harsh. lol
You guys are so tolerant, that you even support abortion. Lot of aborted babies are gay people along with minorities and females.
Right. There's a lot of mixed messages in there and a long list of sinful behavior. In general, the Bible is pretty ambiguous.
it might be ambigious on other issues, not homosexuality though. It is a good thing that Christiians don't take the whole thing literally.
yeah, that *would* be too bad, if it were true. but, since you just completely made it up out of whole cloth, and it's something no Christian would ever do, then it's ok.
If you think the Bible's ambiguous on the issue, you may want to read it for yourself. Not being smart, just can't imagine reading it and thinking, hmmm...it's kinda ambiguous on the issue.
A lot of people who've never cracked a Bible in their lives seem to think they know an awful lot about it - based I assume on what they've heard from other people who want to make them feel better about the fact that they aren't doing what it says you should. The reasons why they are doing this are left as an exercise for the reader.
I know there are Egyptians Christians now, but were there any Egyptian Christians when they kept the jews as slaves?
Last edited:
Huh? What do you mean ambigious but not homosexuality? That damn bible has been translated so many different times...and there were books that did not make it in the King James Version....like the books of Mary...maybe Mary said homosexuality is a beautiful thing, who knows?
The Bible is also full of fiction...
I don't see Spurrier making a big speech about it. Either way, bad publicity for Clemson is welcome. I honestly could care less what he believes or what people do with their own lives. It doesn't affect me.
Because people supporting gay marriage aren't protesting to stop straight people from getting married. Amazing how some of you can't comprehend that. Not surprising on this board, though. And you have a problem with people not tolerating intolerance?? Geezus
lol. JTF, the next time you accurately characterize a social or political issue that you seem to think is so simple? It will be the first.
I find that people that support traditional marriage are much more tolerant of opposing views than are the supporters of gay rights. Gay rights activist don't believe you have the right to disagree with them. To disagree with them is to discriminate against them. It's the arrogance of the left that is so irritating to many of us.
Really...get a grip...no one has condoned a damn thing Hitler did...you are expounding and exaggerating...also I have never been to a church that condones adultery...BTW all sins are equal in the site of the Lord. Your post seems to reek of anger.
It is not up to me to judge others...but one thing for sure..if gays pair up and get married they should have to abide by the legal requirements of marriage. Split up would require going through court system
This is why you can't have a serious discussion with liberals. Who's your dad. Flag?
Ahh... generalizing is so easy. Since you started it, I think Republicans and Fox News do a fine job utilizing false rhetoric, fear, and exaggeration.
Last edited:
lol, that is what liberals are best at: pointing to other's bad behavior - real or imagined - to justify their own.
We could do this all day. I could just insert the word conservative in every one of your, "liberals always do this" claim and it would be just as true. That's a stupid way of discussing things.
Meh, Dabo should speak to whomever he wants - doesn't concern me.
But I love how this group "supports traditional marriage" as if traditional marriage is under attack and in danger of not existing. Are there those out there that are trying to stop marriage between a man and a woman? If there are groups out there trying to stop men and women from marrying each other, then count me in on the supporting traditional marriage crusade. Otherwise, this "supporting traditional marriage" merely seems like a front to discriminate against gay people. If gay marriages are legal, every "traditional marriage" will still be valid in the eyes of God and the law. Where's the issue? Because right now it just sounds like sour grapes that there's one less group that it is socially acceptable to discriminate against.
But I love how this group "supports traditional marriage" as if traditional marriage is under attack and in danger of not existing. Are there those out there that are trying to stop marriage between a man and a woman? If there are groups out there trying to stop men and women from marrying each other, then count me in on the supporting traditional marriage crusade. Otherwise, this "supporting traditional marriage" merely seems like a front to discriminate against gay people. If gay marriages are legal, every "traditional marriage" will still be valid in the eyes of God and the law. Where's the issue? Because right now it just sounds like sour grapes that there's one less group that it is socially acceptable to discriminate against.
uh, no, it wouldn't. that's what liberals try to convince themselves, and would like everyone to think but there are definitely things liberals do - childish, irrational, emotional things - the conservatives don't do. That's what makes them liberals. All liberalism is about mindless outrage over things they are too stupid to understand.
I'm not going to take the time to write out the long list of things the current Republican party believes and stands for because that would be unproductive and pointless, but I hope you are not simple enough to really think that liberals have the market cornered on childish, irrational, and emotional behavior. I roll my eyes at many liberals, but I'm sure you're aware that many people have made careers out of poking fun at Republicans. It's not that hard; they provide plenty of material.
Have fun in your world where everything is black or white, liberal or conservative, and smart or dumb.
For christ's sake, try removing yourself from the laughable self righteous bubble you live in. Conservatives have become the laughing stock of the blind leading the blind. Let's play a game why don't we? We will keep this on a transparent level pitting active Dems "liberals" vs Reps "conservative" politicians. Go find one quote from a current democrat that exemplifies their "childish, irrational, and emotional" behavior, and I will counter with a republican doing the same. At the end, we will see who portrays your description the best. This should be fun, as I love watching conservatives defend the machine.
Last edited:
And who exactly doesn't support traditional marriage? It sounds like what you are trying to say is that people who aren't tolerant of gay marriage, or much more tolerant in general. Talk about arrogance?? Gay rights activist don't care what you think, they care because they feel like they are being discriminated against and have been for a very long time.
Why not live and let live? Why deprive someone of their happiness? Let me guess....because the bible tells you so?? Sorry, but that song and dance thankfully doesn't carry the weight it once did. All I keep hearing from the "right" is about losing our "freedoms", except when it goes against something they don't agree with.
Sorry Todd but you simply don't get it. The issue is that marriage is a religious institution. to rewrite its definition is, in fact, "attacking" it and the religion that founded it. Gays and straight people that are willing to sacrifice someone else's beliefs simply because they want to be the beneficiary of a life insurance policy is vile. If people truly cared about equal rights they would stand up for religion on this one.
So keep marriage in church and have no more official government designation. Take away benefits from everyone and the problem is solved. Then its equal. Wow, that was easier than I thought.
You don't get it either. By the way, I think everyone should be entitled to those "benefits".
Actually, this has nothing to do with religion and has to do with all people being treated equally in the eyes of the law. Like it or not, the government, and its citizens, have a real interest in governing marriage - not in churches, but as it relates to society as a whole. Having codified laws related to these specialized contracts (which cover property distributions, inheritance, divorce, child custody, etc.) are necessary to keep the court system (and by extension our society) moving.
The actual problem comes with the fact that since the beginning, non-government, non-elected agencies/organizations (organized religion) have been allowed to determine who is eligible to the right to enter into this completely governmental marriage contract. You can't have that. Again, just because a gay couple is allowed to get a marriage license from the state to enter into a marriage contract (and that's all it is as it relates to the state, a contract that is governed by a specific set of laws) how does that take away from anyone else's religious marriage ceremony? It simply doesn't. No one is forcing churches to perform ceremonies for gay couples - even though some churches are doing it voluntarily - and the "definition" in the churches will never have to change.
And really, if including gay couples in the state's "definition" of marriage takes away from someone's religion, then I severely question their conviction and faith. What the state thinks should have no bearing on a person's religion if they have real faith - a state's laws have no bearing on God's law.
- Status
