Should Chris Culliver apologize?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Schumpeters-Ghost. Show Schumpeters-Ghost's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    You sound like a southern baptist. Not surprising.  Gay people don't get the same rights under the law if they aren't allowed to be married.

     

    It's a civil rights issue, dummy.




    You seem to be struggling with choices in life. 

    If you choose to pursue two mutually exclusive things - you have to give up one of them. 

    For example - if you choose to renounce your citizenship and move to Brazil - you can't also demand the be allowed to run for Mayor of Boston - because Boston doesn't allow citizens of San Paolo to run for Mayor of Boston.  (Yes, this is grossly discriminatory and arbitrary.  how horrifying!)

    Similarly, if you choose to pursue a life of happy gayness - then you have renounced your ability to pursue marriage.

    Liberals of course hate having to make choices (liberals are like children in that regard) - so they say well - let's just redefine marriage! 

    Let's allow Brazilians to become the mayor of Boston!

    This is "enlightened thinking" among the psuedo-intellectual class that run Massachusetts and brainwash people from K thru 12.

     

     

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from GEAUX-TIGRES. Show GEAUX-TIGRES's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    I have believed my entire life everything you've just said. Kudos to you.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from GEAUX-TIGRES. Show GEAUX-TIGRES's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    Got to tell ya. I agree again. You're on a roll.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    No he shouldn't apologize because he clearly doesn't mean it.  Does anyone think his views have actually changed?  I do not understand the obsession with trying to elicit an obviously insincere apology.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

     

    You seem to be struggling with choices in life. 

    If you choose to pursue two mutually exclusive things - you have to give up one of them. 

    For example - if you choose to renounce your citizenship and move to Brazil - you can't also demand the be allowed to run for Mayor of Boston - because Boston doesn't allow citizens of San Paolo to run for Mayor of Boston.  (Yes, this is grossly discriminatory and arbitrary.  how horrifying!)

    Similarly, if you choose to pursue a life of happy gayness - then you have renounced your ability to pursue marriage.

    Liberals of course hate having to make choices (liberals are like children in that regard) - so they say well - let's just redefine marriage! 

    Let's allow Brazilians to become the mayor of Boston!

    This is "enlightened thinking" among the psuedo-intellectual class that run Massachusetts and brainwash people from K thru 12.

     

     

     




     

    Please provide evidence that being gay is a choice (there is none).  Your Brazilian example is a non-sequitur because the person chose to give up their citizenship.  More importantly all of this is irrelevant to the fact that marriage is a legal institution as well as a religious one.  So all of your moral/religious or whatever arguments have no standing.  There is no legal argument against allowing gays to marry in the eyes of the state and all the legal benefits it entails.  No one is obligating your local church to marry gay people.  Amazing how conservatives whine about the founding fathers and separation of church and state except when it doesn't fit their agenda.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

      I don't know why people care so much about how another person feels for another in an intimate or personal way. 

     



    Mostly they don't junior. Because a society chooses to limit marriage to one man and one woman, that does not show they care who is shagging who per se.

     

    What's next, polygamy? Marry your favorite sheep?

     




    You sound like a southern baptist. Not surprising.  Gay people don't get the same rights under the law if they aren't allowed to be married.

     

    It's a civil rights issue, dummy.




    Gay people have exactly the same rights as everybody else. What right that others have are they being denied?

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

     

    Please provide evidence that being gay is a choice (there is none).

     



    Please provide evidence that a proclivity to homosexuality cannot be effected by choice.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

     There is no legal argument against allowing gays to marry in the eyes of the state and all the legal benefits it entails.



    There is no legal argument which prohibits states from disallowing gay marriage.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:



    Please provide evidence that a proclivity to homosexuality cannot be effected by choice.



    The burden of proof is on people that think it is a choice if they think that justifies denying marriage rights to gay couples (which the poster I was responding to clearly does via the Brazil example he gave).  The fact that homosexual behavior has been observed in thousands of species of animals already calls into question the notion that it is a choice since animals clearly lack the same level of cognitive ability as humans.  Your argument is akin to claiming someone's innocence needs to be proved in court as opposed to their guilt.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:



    There is no legal argument which prohibits states from disallowing gay marriage.



    There is this pesky thing called the Constitution.  Specifically the 14th amendment.  There are probably others, but I am not a legal scholar.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to bredbru's comment:

     


    that thought, along with insecurity about the existence of gay and bi men is placed in boys consciousness in a society such as ours. 

     

    on a different note, if that is how you "feel", now you know how women feel about the constant unwanted sexual attetnion.

     



     

    I already knew how women sometimes feel about unwanted sexual attention. And heterosexual men sometimes feel the same about such attention from women.

    Though it is rather ludicrous to try and compare such attention from a gender the recipient of such attention might welcome to one they would definitely not.

    It is simply outlandish opinion that any insecurity about gay men is  placed in boys consciousness by this society. It is simply that they would rather not be ogled by gay men.



    my friend there is this thing called socialization. its how any baby grows up to think (and even what's possible for it to think)and feel and behave hwo it does. cultural anthropology might be something to check into.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

    In response to HonkeyTonkman's comment:

     

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

     

    Homosexuals in Palestinian terriotories are routinely arrested, jailed, and/or murdered.

    To avoid this - Palestinian Homosexuals flee to Israel.

     

     

     

     

    Where they are routinely arrested,jailed or murdered.


     

     




     

     

    No - that's not what happens. 

    (side note:  a real curiosity that the liberals of massachusetts love Islamic terrorists and hate Israel)

    I realize that the anti-Semites on this board hate the fact that Palestinians live better in Israel than they do under the Palestinian Authority - but facts are stubborn things.

     



    you cannot mitigate genocide and apartheid of a state, because there is less prejudice toward non heterosexual people in israel.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Schumpeters-Ghost. Show Schumpeters-Ghost's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to ricky12684's comment:

     

    No - that's not what happens. 

    (side note:  a real curiosity that the liberals of massachusetts love Islamic terrorists and hate Israel)

    you're living in a box buddy. this isn't a liberal/conservative thing and those labels have vastly different meanings to different people. i hope you realize there are many pro-israeli's who call themselves liberal.. like alan dershowitz.

    and incase you didn't know "semite's" include arabs. so when your simple mind speaks in general terms and lumps all muslims together as terrorists you are being anti-semetic and just plain ignorant.

    I realize that the anti-Semites on this board hate the fact that Palestinians live better in Israel than they do under the Palestinian Authority - but facts are stubborn things. 

    you also need to realize that "palestine" is occupied by israel. the palestinian authority has no real authority, they live under the israeli authority... but i don't expect you to understand that. 

    i know i know it's much easier to think in black and white. name should be simpleton's-ghost




     

    [/QUOTE]


     

     

    Now I am accused of being too "black and white" - this comes from someone who desperately wants the Palestinans to continue to execute homosexuals while simultaneously arguing that homosexuals are oppressed by a defensive back on the 49ers.

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Schumpeters-Ghost. Show Schumpeters-Ghost's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

     

     

    You seem to be struggling with choices in life. 

    If you choose to pursue two mutually exclusive things - you have to give up one of them. 

    For example - if you choose to renounce your citizenship and move to Brazil - you can't also demand the be allowed to run for Mayor of Boston - because Boston doesn't allow citizens of San Paolo to run for Mayor of Boston.  (Yes, this is grossly discriminatory and arbitrary.  how horrifying!)

    Similarly, if you choose to pursue a life of happy gayness - then you have renounced your ability to pursue marriage.

    Liberals of course hate having to make choices (liberals are like children in that regard) - so they say well - let's just redefine marriage! 

    Let's allow Brazilians to become the mayor of Boston!

    This is "enlightened thinking" among the psuedo-intellectual class that run Massachusetts and brainwash people from K thru 12.

     

     

     

     




     

    Please provide evidence that being gay is a choice (there is none).  Your Brazilian example is a non-sequitur because the person chose to give up their citizenship.  More importantly all of this is irrelevant to the fact that marriage is a legal institution as well as a religious one.  So all of your moral/religious or whatever arguments have no standing.  There is no legal argument against allowing gays to marry in the eyes of the state and all the legal benefits it entails.  No one is obligating your local church to marry gay people.  Amazing how conservatives whine about the founding fathers and separation of church and state except when it doesn't fit their agenda.




     

    You must really hate Christians to have this kind of melt down.  I didn't make an argument based on religious authority - just logic.  When two things are mutually exclusive - you can't have them both.

     

    Child.

     

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from dreighver. Show dreighver's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

     

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

     

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

     

     

    You seem to be struggling with choices in life. 

    If you choose to pursue two mutually exclusive things - you have to give up one of them. 

    For example - if you choose to renounce your citizenship and move to Brazil - you can't also demand the be allowed to run for Mayor of Boston - because Boston doesn't allow citizens of San Paolo to run for Mayor of Boston.  (Yes, this is grossly discriminatory and arbitrary.  how horrifying!)

    Similarly, if you choose to pursue a life of happy gayness - then you have renounced your ability to pursue marriage.

    Liberals of course hate having to make choices (liberals are like children in that regard) - so they say well - let's just redefine marriage! 

    Let's allow Brazilians to become the mayor of Boston!

    This is "enlightened thinking" among the psuedo-intellectual class that run Massachusetts and brainwash people from K thru 12.

     

     

     

     




     

    Please provide evidence that being gay is a choice (there is none).  Your Brazilian example is a non-sequitur because the person chose to give up their citizenship.  More importantly all of this is irrelevant to the fact that marriage is a legal institution as well as a religious one.  So all of your moral/religious or whatever arguments have no standing.  There is no legal argument against allowing gays to marry in the eyes of the state and all the legal benefits it entails.  No one is obligating your local church to marry gay people.  Amazing how conservatives whine about the founding fathers and separation of church and state except when it doesn't fit their agenda.

     




     

     

    You must really hate Christians to have this kind of melt down.  I didn't make an argument based on religious authority - just logic.  When two things are mutually exclusive - you can't have them both.

     

    Child.

     

     



    When two things are mutually exclusive...? Wha... what!? Marriage and being gay may be 'mutually exclusive' in your mind, but that doesn't make it true.

     

    People used to think (and still do) that interracial marriage was/is a sin. Is it right for them to say that marriage and the bonding of those of different races is 'mutually exclusive'. Or being black and having civil rights is 'mutually exclusive'?

    Simply put, there are many legal benefits of marriage and to deny those to a group of persons based on an uncontrollable condition is discriminatory and shameful. And that's not even considering the human-rights aspect of the issue.

    I just wrote a book claiming that those under 6'0" tall may not marry those over 6'0". I suppose we shall now make this public policy! 

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    Personally, after watching Cole trying to cover Boldin, I kind of miss Randall Gay . . . 

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat. Show TexasPat's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

         Enough is enough!! This is getting as tiresome as the Mantai Te'o fiasco. Can't we at least be free of political correctness during SB week??

         This is ridiculous: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/01/31/terrell-suggs-says-ravens-would-welcome-a-gay-teammate/     

         Let's move on.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share