Thread: Sam on gay players: 'A lot of us'

Originally Posted by FanInAZ

By the way, my view of the entire gay debate is based less on what the Bible says, & more to do with similarities that I've observed in both the gay & Autistic/Aspie communities. After all, their are a lot of gays in our community, & are many similarities in their stories with ours that have led me to make a lot of unorthodox conclusions about why they are the way the are. Their personalities & belief system about who they are as grounded in the intolerance that they've endured as ours, but that doesn't give them the right to be intolerant of others. I'll start a thread in the Political forum so I can start this conversation from scratch so it might have a chance to go in a constructive direction.

Why does it always have to be about you and autism/Asperger? How in gods name do you find a way to compare gay people and autistics? Mind bottling.

And you use so many blanket statements about "the gays" using your religious beliefs that it borders on bigotry. So much of what you post is so contradictory it's hard to wrap my mind around it.

Originally Posted by SR

Why does it always have to be about you and autism/Asperger? How in gods name do you find a way to compare gay people and autistics? Mind bottling.

It's starting to border on spamming.

Originally Posted by Valar Morghulis

I actually can't believe we are having conversations like these in 2015 - seriously, it frys my brain.

But anyway FanInAz - I agree with your point, if the service is not good, go elsewhere.

Why does the state need to intervene to legitimise discrimination

Because that's not really what it is all about, and it never really was. The target is and always has been to do as much damage as possible traditional religious and cultural practice, and has zip to do with "equal rights."

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Because that's not really what it is all about, and it never really was. The target is and always has been to do as much damage as possible traditional religious and cultural practice, and has zip to do with "equal rights."

Edit: based on North's reply it sounds like you were referring to the LGBT activists involved in the Chick-Fil-A scandal with this.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Because that's not really what it is all about, and it never really was. The target is and always has been to do as much damage as possible traditional religious and cultural practice, and has zip to do with "equal rights."

I dont agree with that at all. You dont see atheists who own businesses turning down gay people because of their specific belief structure. The problem for Christians is because of their beliefs and how strongly they feel about them it often puts them into conflict with individuals who go against said beliefs. The problem with that is it really does come off as segregation which would be no different than a christian denying a black person service because of their color. Now personally? Because there are other businesses that will provide service to gay people i find their grand standing to be tedious and petty. But that doesnt change the fact they have a validity in their argument of why they were denied service in the first place.

Originally Posted by SR

Why does it always have to be about you and autism/Asperger? How in gods name do you find a way to compare gay people and autistics? Mind bottling.

And you use so many blanket statements about "the gays" using your religious beliefs that it borders on bigotry. So much of what you post is so contradictory it's hard to wrap my mind around it.

1) Like you’ve told others on many occasions, if you don’t like my posts, you don’t have to read them.

2) Bigotry isn’t defined as “religion,” it’s defined as “hate.” If a religion is grounded in hate, like Westbro Baptist, then it would be appropriate to make the comparison. However, if a religion is not grounded in hate, then like mine, that it’s not appropriate. Accusing someone of bigotry just because they disagree with you is in & of itself an act of bigotry.

3) There’s a group of gay Autistics/Aspies at our monthly Autism/Aspie support group meeting, who are wanting us to spend time talking about gay specific issues, are trying to justify getting us being more focused on their issues by citing some statistic by some researcher that Autistics/Aspies are something like 5X more likely to be gay. So apparently, the gay Autistic/Aspie subsect is making this same connection that I am, but we draw different conclusions.

4) As I wrote in the post you’re replying to, I’m going to make my case of how I see this connection in a thread that I’ll start in the Political forum. I’m not finished with it yet, but I guess I can go ahead & post what I do have just so you can see that I don’t quote the Bible, or any Christian doctrine, while making my case. This isn’t about my religion; this is about how I have logically observered, analyzed & drawn conclusions about this subject. http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/...28#post2330428

Originally Posted by Valar Morghulis

Why does the state need to intervene to legitimise discrimination

Why does the state need to intervene to tell a private business who they must accept as customers?

Wasn't Affirmative Action legitimizing discrimination? Isn't every law or policy that demanded racial and gender "set-asides"?

You can't have it both ways (although liberals try).

Just like the bs about "you can't legislate morality". ALL legislation is *somebody's* morality they wish to impose on everyone else. It's only a question of who's morality wins out.

As a Christian and mostly political libertarian, I think the gays targeted small florists, bakers, photographers, etc. with the little Christian fish symbol in their ad and said "we need legal test cases so let's go there." I think the businesses, stupidly, played right into their hands by being honest in refusing their business instead of saying they were already booked or had previous commitments.

Cakes and flowers are not religious (cakes are asexual and most flowers are bisexual). Why should they care what type of wedding they are used for? Photography is a different case since the actual photographer must be there for the whole occasion.

However, even businesses that rejected gay business but then redirected customers to businesses with no such objections were still sued, proving it wasn't about the wedding but the legal challenge. Oddly, businesses were sued in states where gay marriage, itself, was still illegal.

I'd love to see how some of the same businesses would respond if some Mormon polygamists wanted their services and what the Left's reaction would be if they then went to court to sue the business - even gay-owned businesses - to participate.

Originally Posted by OrangeHoof

As a Christian and mostly political libertarian, I think the gays targeted small florists, bakers, photographers, etc. with the little Christian fish symbol in their ad and said "we need legal test cases so let's go there." I think the businesses, stupidly, played right into their hands by being honest in refusing their business instead of saying they were already booked or had previous commitments.

I would agree with this assessment.

Originally Posted by OrangeHoof

You can't have it both ways (although liberals try).

It's a shame you added this, it totally took the emphasis off your otherwise fair comments

Originally Posted by Northman

I would agree with this assessment.

I am also inclined to agree

Originally Posted by Valar Morghulis

It's a shame you added this, it totally took the emphasis off your otherwise fair comments

As you stated in a post shortly after you started coming here, liberalism in America is significantly different that over in Britain (you can explain the differences better than I can). So I believe his little side comment was directed at American liberals, who do want it both way, rather than you. If it weren't true, I wouldn't bothered posting in this thread at all. The fact is, there is a double standard when it comes to the liberals not wanting Christians to legislate our morality, but its perfectly OK for them to legislate theirs.

The same can be said about the religious right's, "teach abstinence only, but don't Johnny has 2 dads." Nevertheless, more & more Christians, like myself, are abandoning this concept. Its not that we believe that students should be taught that "Johnny has 2 dads," but that the preaching of abstinence is the job of parents & the Church, not the public schools. Aside from the parts that relate directly to teaching student about human anatomy, sex education (especially safe sex vs. abstinence) is the job of parents as well. However, the Church should, during their services directed at teens, address this issue as well. The Tea Party is being run largely by those who are still want to do things the old way when it comes to all of these issues.

So I guess a summation of everything that I've tried to say in this thread is that I, as a Christian, has learned my lesson about forcing ones belief system down other people's throat. It's time for American liberals to start doing the same. Sam is the latest example of American lefty wing hypocrisy. That's not to say that the right wing isn't just as hypocritical, but the OP in this thread is about Sam.

This is just a miniature P and R thread. Nothing more and nothing less. Statistics will tell you that Sam is correct. Common sense will tell you as well that others exist.

Originally Posted by King87

This is just a miniature P and R thread. Nothing more and nothing less. Statistics will tell you that Sam is correct. Common sense will tell you as well that others exist.

I don't question his stats, I question his insinuation that the real reason that he got cut might have been because he's gay. He gets 1 sack by beating a 3th or 4th sring OL (who probably didn't make the opening day roster of any NFL team), to get his hands on a 3rd string QB (who might not make the opening day roster of any team this year) & that's considered proof that he's an NFL caliber DL? Seriously, what else did he do during those 4 preseason games to justify the notion that he's an NFL caliber player?

Originally Posted by FanInAZ

I don't question his stats, I question his insinuation that the real reason that he got cut might have been because he's gay. He gets 1 sack by beating a 3th or 4th sring OL (who probably didn't make the opening day roster of any NFL team), to get his hands on a 3rd string QB (who might not make the opening day roster of any team this year) & that's considered proof that he's an NFL caliber DL? Seriously, what else did he do during those 4 preseason games to justify the notion that he's an NFL caliber player?

The same could be said about Tebow in regards to talent determining where he places in the NFL, but leave it to the media and everyone else with an opinion to come up with some kind of agenda as to why they're not in the NFL.