Dungy's gay-marriage comments draw support, criticism

[Nixon's Head]

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) - Tony Dungy is a deeply religious man who puts his faith first in his life, even above family and football. So his support of a proposed gay-marriage ban likely surprised few.

What was surprising is the Indianapolis Colts' quiet coach shared his position publicly, sparking discussion about the impact of the Super Bowl winner's comments.

Dungy caused a stir Tuesday when he accepted the "Friend of Family" award from the conservative Indiana Family Institute.

The coach told the audience he supported the group's efforts to amend the Indiana constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

"I appreciate the stance they're taking, and I embrace that stance," Dungy told the crowd of about 700 people.

Dungy said his comments should not be considered gay bashing.

"We're not trying to downgrade anyone else. But we're trying to promote the family — family values the Lord's way," Dungy said.

Colts president Bill Polian was at NFL meetings in Phoenix on Thursday and was unavailable for comment.

"Coach Dungy's feelings on the importance of marriage and family are well known to the overwhelming majority of American sports fans," said Myra Borshoff Cook, a spokeswoman for Colts owner Jim Irsay. "He, of course, is free to speak to any group he wishes. The club does not take positions in political issues in which it is not directly involved."

Supporters of the proposed ban hailed the endorsement.

"That was sort of a double for us," said Curt Smith, president of the institute, which is associated with but independent of James Dobson's "Focus on the Family" group.

Smith said he was unaware Dungy, who received the award because of his pro-family ethic, not for his views on public policy, would address the issue.

The resolution's sponsor, Sen. Brandt Hershman, R-Monticello, said Dungy's endorsement made the proposal more credible.

"I certainly appreciate him being able to step forward and speak out strongly in his beliefs," Hershman said. "I don't think that anybody should criticize him for exercising his First Amendment right to speak as a private citizen in support of some deeply held beliefs."

Some in the gay community disagreed.

Bil Browning, who runs bilerico.com, a blog that focuses on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues, wrote: "When the head coach publicly states that part of the Colts fan base should be second-class citizens, you can't expect those same fans to support the team."

Dan Funk, executive director of the Interfaith Coalition on Non-Discrimination, a network of 21 congregations, invited Dungy to meet with members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender communities.

"All types of families from across Indiana are Colts fans," he said. "We would like coach Dungy to meet with our families so he can better understand the negative impact (the resolution) will have on countless Hoosier families."

Dungy is not the first public figure to draw fire for anti-gay comments.

Former NBA star Tim Hardaway apologized twice after responding to a question about his reaction to a gay teammate by saying "I hate gay people." Actor Isaiah Washington, of the hit television show "Grey's Anatomy," sought counseling after using a gay slur when he referred to another cast member. Author-columnist Ann Coulter was chastised for repeating the slur when referring to Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards during a speech to a conservative group.

The NFL sought to distance itself from the matter.

"Coach Dungy is speaking for himself and expressing his views, which he is fully entitled to do," league officials said in a statement. "No doubt there are people in our league that have a different view. We respect the right of employees to have and express their views and don't regulate the political or religious views of team or league employees."

David Morton, principal of the Indianapolis-based sports marketing group Sunrise Sports Group, doesn't believe Dungy will suffer any lasting backlash from his comments.

"Tony's position on this or any other political issue should be as one person's opinion and one person's opinion only," Morton said. "It's not as Tony Dungy, head coach of the Indianapolis Colts. It's not the Indianapolis Colts, because I doubt if he asked Bill Polian or (Colts owner) Jim Irsay or anyone else what they thought.

"He's never tried to take advantage of his position on the pulpit," Morton said. "He spoke from the heart, and honestly, and I don't think you can ask anyone to do anything else."

Source (http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/stories/2007/03/23/statenews.nw-649551.sto).

[MTVike]

Dungy was our defensive coordinator for a while.

I wish he was now our head coach.

Funny, how when I was growing up, this sort of topic would have never made the news, never been considered for it.

Gay people don't get "married", they partner. Marriage means the union between a man and a woman, common sense tells you that.

So gays are trying to get legal recognition for a deviant lifestyle, which it is, by definition.

I'm not judging, if that's your deal, OK. I feel sorry for you, just like anyone I work with that is off the beam. Don't try to legitimize your deviance politicizing it...you don't merit "equal" rights in the same way women or ethnic groups should have and did.

I'm married. You are not.

[ryr8828]

Dungy was our defensive coordinator for a while.

I wish he was now our head coach.

Funny, how when I was growing up, this sort of topic would have never made the news, never been considered for it.

Gay people don't get "married", they partner. Marriage means the union between a man and a woman, common sense tells you that.

So gays are trying to get legal recognition for a deviant lifestyle, which it is, by definition.

I'm not judging, if that's your deal, OK. I feel sorry for you, just like anyone I work with that is off the beam. Don't try to legitimize your deviance politicizing it...you don't merit "equal" rights in the same way women or ethnic groups should have and did.

I'm married. You are not.

I couldn't agree more. I'm glad Dungy has the moral courage to speak his mind on the issue.

[LSU]

In the grand scheme of things, it matters to me not whether or not what they can do is considered marriage. However, the ability to have the same rights as a married couple (including insurance, taxes, power of attorney, parenthood, etc) should be extended to someone willing to be a lifelong partner. And in the same respects, the process to unbecome partners, i.e., divorce, should be the same. Not just a break up so to speak.

[pnkpanther]

If the church doesnt want to do it fine, too you it's deviant, too them is normal, it's not for us to judge (i believe thats somewhere in the bible) what consenting adults do in their bedroom and with their lives. Many of these gay relationships last longer then your average marriage, and yet not recognized, we just see them as "couple of queers"

I'm not saying you have to like it, or your church as to do it, but they had recognizable union by the state. call it a civil union, call it marriage..big whoop

some of the higher divorce rates are in the god fearing bible belt, divorce rates are high, drunken marriages happen constantly, what are we trying to protect?

i realize lot of people think we can be like leave it to beaver, but thats just not going to happen.

Homosexuals have been around throughout time, it's been in every ancient culture, it happens in countries where it's illegal and they're prosecuted, it should be clear these people arent "chosing" it, it's how God made them. If God made them that way, I think he's ok with them getting married.

You'll see mention of gay sex in bible, but nothing of same gender marriage, it's all how you read it


1 Samuel 18:1

..the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own sou


1 Samuel 18:2

"From that day, Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house

1 Samuel 18:3-4
"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt (ie, he was nude in front of him)

1 Samuel 20:41

"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most

2 Samuel 1:26

"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."


-now consider at these times, men and women were never just friends, at that time it was taboo. yeah that's right..

bible on ruth and naomi

"Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me."

it also mentions in another chapter ruth clave unto her....

and in earlier chapter

Genesis 2:24: " Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

[pnkpanther]

the bible isnt very fond of women, should we discriminate against them too


"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."--1 Tim. 2:11-14

[LSU]

I don't like basing laws on supposed "common sense" and "deviation."

Thing of such things throughout time that have been "common sense" or thought to "deviate from the norm."

Things like certain people's color make them inferior.
Certain people's gender makes them inferior.
Races should not mix in marriage.


So why don't homosexuals merit equal right?

Is it because it's assumed by some to be a choice? Obviously you can't choose to be black or white or male or female (oh , wait. Transexuals and Michael Jackson blow that out of the water).

So, it's a social norm?

Couldn't sexism and racism also be considered a 'social norm.'

50 years ago, this conversation probably doesn't take place because segregation kept things right (not my thoughts, thoughts of the time). What will 50 years from now bring in terms of norms?

[pnkpanther]

50 years ago, this conversation probably doesn't take place because segregation kept things right (not my thoughts, thoughts of the time). What will 50 years from now bring in terms of norms?

50 years ago they were debating interracial marriages and many of the arguments used then are being used now


bible, family values, etc

[*NZ*]

Dungy was our defensive coordinator for a while.

I wish he was now our head coach.

Funny, how when I was growing up, this sort of topic would have never made the news, never been considered for it.

Gay people don't get "married", they partner. Marriage means the union between a man and a woman, common sense tells you that.

So gays are trying to get legal recognition for a deviant lifestyle, which it is, by definition.

I'm not judging, if that's your deal, OK. I feel sorry for you, just like anyone I work with that is off the beam. Don't try to legitimize your deviance politicizing it...you don't merit "equal" rights in the same way women or ethnic groups should have and did.

I'm married. You are not.

who's definition? And please don't say the bible's, after all those passages previously posted.

[Vegas]

Pnky, you are using quite a selective interpretation of those passages of
Sripture, but let's just say for a moment that you are 100% correct. It proves absolutely nothing. They are historical records. There are many, many references to people sinning in the Bible. It only stands to reason as the Bible stresses that everyone is a sinner. IF you are correct and the historical record shows that homosexuality did indeed happen, it doesn't change the fact that the Bible expressly teaches that homosexuality is wrong.

[pnkpanther]

Pnky, you are using quite a selective interpretation of those passages of
Sripture, but let's just say for a moment that you are 100% correct. It proves absolutely nothing. They are historical records. There are many, many references to people sinning in the Bible. It only stands to reason as the Bible stresses that everyone is a sinner. IF you are correct and the historical record shows that homosexuality did indeed happen, it doesn't change the fact that the Bible expressly teaches that homosexuality is wrong.

not by everyones intrepratation

I think the bible is full of human bias. I can post several examples in the bible how the bible expressly says women are inferior, but we've decided nots the case.

the bible supports slavery

Exodus 21:2,4
'In the seventh year he will leave a free man. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and children will belong to the master, and he will depart alone.'

but we dont

why have a strict rigid interpretation on one aspect of the bible, but not the other?

The bible teaches love, acceptance, not to judge, but yet we feel we can judge homosexuals as deviants. I see that as hypocritical. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you're right, but it's not for either of us decide.

Christians always tell me things happen for a reason, it's all god's plan. I believe homosexuality fits in God's plan, his design. You can argue free choice all you want, but for homosexuals, the choice is 1, Accept who they are 2, deny who they are. YOM mentioned one of his friends who's gay, but christian, so he wont act on it,the guy sounded a lone, depressed, and full of pain cause he couldnt be who he was, i dont know whole story, but this was YOM's proof that being gay is choice. Would you chose to be unhappy? suffer depression? Homosexuals have commited suicide over fear of coming out...to me thats no choice at all. YOu didnt chose to be straight, you are, I didnt chose, I am.

I've seen picture's my aunt as a child, every picture of her in a dress (which isnt many) she's balling, she hated it. My grandma would buy her dolls and girl toys, but she wanted to play with her trucks and horse trailers. that was at age 4. More and more studies are being done with event of home movies, and volunteers, straight and gay have signed up, bringing in old videos and pictures, and many homosexuals exihibit homosexual behaviors at a young age and vice versa

I realize Vegas you wont change, probably set in your ways. You probably have a lot of misconceptions of gay people and gay relationships. But I tihnk bible is open to interperatation on this issue, yes, there is plenty of versus's saying gay sex is wrong. But Jesus's sermon on mount defines marrying a women who's divorced as adultrey (well, the women commits adultrey, men are free of this, you'll see a lot of male superior bias throughout bible), and many people are on their second wives and i dont consider it adultry or them sinners.

And i dont know bible as well as you, or well as I used too, but i interpert it's teachings different, and it doesnt fully fit in.

[ryr8828]

I think you use a lot of Old Testament scripture to bolster your opinion.

Christian = believer in Christ.

Jews don't believe in Christ yet they follow the Old Testament to a fault. They deny the New Testament.

Jesus loved all sinners, yes. He did not pronounce their actions as correct, only that they would be forgiven if they asked for it from their heart.

Refusing to agree that homosexuality is normal and not a sin is not judging.
Refusing to agree that homosexuality should be endorsed is not judging, nor is it hypocrisy.

[Vegas]

Homosexuality fits God's plan and design? There's no way you can get that from the rules in the Bible. Absolutely no way.

The Bible expressly says that murder is wrong. I don't think that anyone disputes that. But yet the Bible gives several examples of murderers in the historical record. That doesn't change the fact that murder is wrong.

[pnkpanther]

Homosexuality fits God's plan and design? There's no way you can get that from the rules in the Bible. Absolutely no way.

The Bible expressly says that murder is wrong. I don't think that anyone disputes that. But yet the Bible gives several examples of murderers in the historical record. That doesn't change the fact that murder is wrong.

i dont think all of God's plan is in the bible

When an 8 year old dies for no reason, and christians console themselves it's part of God's plan, should i look up bible why it happens?

Yes i use the old testament, as do many christians, we use gensis (which has a lot of similaritys to eastern pagan religion beliefts BTW) to define where we came from and so on.

I'm saying that mans bias was put in the bible about homosexuality. They found it "icky" so they put it in. I know many gay Christians who will never repent their sin of being gay, they're proud of who they are, if thats keeps them out of heaven, send me right down to hell with them. Of course i dont believe in heaven/hell but thats another story....

[pnkpanther]

I think you use a lot of Old Testament scripture to bolster your opinion.

Christian = believer in Christ.

Jews don't believe in Christ yet they follow the Old Testament to a fault. They deny the New Testament.

Jesus loved all sinners, yes. He did not pronounce their actions as correct, only that they would be forgiven if they asked for it from their heart.

Refusing to agree that homosexuality is normal and not a sin is not judging.
Refusing to agree that homosexuality should be endorsed is not judging, nor is it hypocrisy.

I'm aware, i think the vast majority of Christians are very good people. I think the christian church does a great amount of good. I know what being a christian is. I'm not saying you have to endorse homosexuality, but i certainitly dont think we need to legislate it's opposition or refuse to publicly recognize it.

[pnkpanther]

i'll give you a new testament passage on women


1 Corinthians 11:7
But for a man it is not right to have his head covered, since he is the image of God and reflects God's glory; but a woman is the reflection of man's glory.

again, bible saying women are inferior


i can find more....

probably more exmaples of womens inferiority then of anti homosexuality

[Vegas]

I'm aware, i think the vast majority of Christians are very good people. I think the christian church does a great amount of good. I know what being a christian is. I'm not saying you have to endorse homosexuality, but i certainitly dont think we need to legislate it's opposition or refuse to publicly recognize it.

Most Christians (and indeed most Americans) don't "endorse" homosexuality. And they don't want to change the longstanding definition of marriage. That's hardly the extreme position you keep claiming it is.

[pnkpanther]

Most Christians (and indeed most Americans) don't "endorse" homosexuality. And they don't want to change the longstanding definition of marriage. That's hardly the extreme position you keep claiming it is.


i think it's an attitude that will change...at one time most americans didnt endorse interracial marriage. I've heard stories of southern churches that still refuse to do the ceremony, although they may not be true. Liberals and conservatives both use untrue horror stories to show their point....

and right now Christian right wants to make it consitutional ammendment to ban gay marriage. which i say is pretty strong statement

[Vegas]

and right now Christian right wants to make it consitutional ammendment to ban gay marriage. which i say is pretty strong statement

The converse of that is that the liberals want to redefine marriage and that's an even stronger statement.

[pnkpanther]

The converse of that is that the liberals want to redefine marriage and that's an even stronger statement.

equally bold

one giving a right, one denying one

I believe in respecting ones choice and recognizing their lifestyle


Of course I have a bit of bias from my family history

[Vegas]

equally bold

one giving a right, one denying one

I believe in respecting ones choice and recognizing their lifestyle


Of course I have a bit of bias from my family history

Equally bold? I don't think so. Trying to force the change of the centuries old definition of marriage is the bold thing without question.

[pnkpanther]

Equally bold? I don't think so. Trying to force the change of the centuries old definition of marriage is the bold thing without question.

how about calling it a civil union?

just recongize gay's long relationships under law, tax benefits, insurance benefits, etc.

is it really so wrong to accept that man loves a man or women loves a women?

[Vegas]

how about calling it a civil union?

just recongize gay's long relationships under law, tax benefits, insurance benefits, etc.

is it really so wrong to accept that man loves a man or women loves a women?

That has a far better chance of getting enacted into law. It polls far better than gay marriage. I would still have to oppose it on moral grounds. That doesn't make me a homophobe or anything. I have worked with several gay people and had no issues with mutual respect.

[pnkpanther]

That has a far better chance of getting enacted into law. It polls far better than gay marriage. I would still have to oppose it on moral grounds. That doesn't make me a homophobe or anything. I have worked with several gay people and had no issues with mutual respect.


I think most people are homophobic too some extent, i get creeped out when i see two guys kiss. It's ok

I dont expect everyone to like it, but i think it'll happen and not too distant future...

i also dont think our lives will be effected at all by it or society

[LSU]

I would still have to oppose it on moral grounds. That doesn't make me a homophobe or anything.


I don't understand. Why would you "have" to oppose it. Isn't the opposition/acceptance still a choice?

[Bang]

I havent thought about gay marriage a whole lot, but I did consider if I lost my job when I was single, I could have married one of my drinking buddies for alot less money than paying for COBRA. I suppose this could be a scenario regardless of the partner's gender, but it does make it 50% more likely.

There's sure to be other what if's that same sex marriages would present. I could also point out some very good logical reasons why gays would be dumb to even want this. I suppose they want to have the best of both worlds.

[LSU]

I havent thought about gay marriage a whole lot, but I did consider if I lost my job when I was single, I could have married one of my drinking buddies for alot less money than paying for COBRA. I suppose this could be a scenario regardless of the partner's gender, but it does make it 50% more likely.

There's sure to be other what if's that same sex marriages would present. I could also point out some very good logical reasons why gays would be dumb to even want this. I suppose they want to have the best of both worlds.


Is the COBRA worth the costs of divorce once you had another job? And would your buddy then try to stiff you for 50% of your shit? Not to mention the stigma associated with being (even if pretending) homosexual.

That's quite an undertaking.

[LSU]

Is the COBRA worth the costs of divorce once you had another job? And would your buddy then try to stiff you for 50% of your shit? Not to mention the stigma associated with being (even if pretending) homosexual.

That's quite an undertaking.



However, now that I think about it, if the 'marriage' isn't consummated, you can annul, eh?

[MTVike]

So Slu, what is the incidence of homsexuality among fish?

And do you think true homosexuality exits among other mammals? Or is the act just an outlet for a frustrated hetero animal?

[Bang]

So Slu, what is the incidence of homsexuality among fish?

And do you think true homosexuality exits among other mammals? Or is the act just an outlet for a frustrated hetero animal?

I think I saw a discovery show that said dolphins also can sodomize each other, and it usually happened in groups.

[MTVike]

I think I saw a discovery show that said dolphins also can sodomize each other, and it usually happened in groups.

In the absence of suitable mates? That's what I'm curious about.

Homeosexuality is obviously not adaptive, so I wonder if lower life forms have latitude to engage in it, or whether it's really more of a human phenomenon.

[Bang]

In the absence of suitable mates? That's what I'm curious about.

Homeosexuality is obviously not adaptive, so I wonder if lower life forms have latitude to engage in it, or whether it's really more of a human phenomenon.

As I recall, it was a form of aggression to ward off potential suitors to the harem of females. Dolphins are very aggressive sexually.

[pnkpanther]

In the absence of suitable mates? That's what I'm curious about.

Homeosexuality is obviously not adaptive, so I wonder if lower life forms have latitude to engage in it, or whether it's really more of a human phenomenon.

it happens in several species of birds i know

several types of fish are able to switch their sex

majority of Clown fish's (little nemo) are born male (i believe its all actually, but might be mistaken), and changing to female as they mate. Typically the larger/more dominant one will be the female.

It does exisit in nature

[ryr8828]

it happens in several species of birds i know

several types of fish are able to switch their sex

majority of Clown fish's (little nemo) are born male (i believe its all actually, but might be mistaken), and changing to female as they mate. Typically the larger/more dominant one will be the female.

It does exisit in nature

Those things have nothing at all to do with the discussion in this thread.

You're really grasping at straws.

[pnkpanther]

Those things have nothing at all to do with the discussion in this thread.

You're really grasping at straws.

did you see the questions that i responded too?


or this post

So Slu, what is the incidence of homsexuality among fish?

And do you think true homosexuality exits among other mammals? Or is the act just an outlet for a frustrated hetero animal?

so answering a question brought up, is not in line with discussion of the thread?

i'm really curious

[IBC]

Yes, what courage it takes for Tony to say this. Him and the courageous Tim Hardaway should join forces and display their courage. To stand up to the homosexual agenda takes a tone of bravery, just like blamingg welfare moms and Mexicans for our countries ills. After all, its not corporations that are robbing you blind, it is homos, single mothers, and Latinos.

[LSU]

So Slu, what is the incidence of homsexuality among fish?

And do you think true homosexuality exits among other mammals? Or is the act just an outlet for a frustrated hetero animal?


Among fish? No idea.

Among other mammals? Yes. Do I have studies and information to back it up? No.

But in a Christian sort of way, the rest of the animal kingdom wouldn't matter because evolution didn't happen, no?

[LSU]

it happens in several species of birds i know

several types of fish are able to switch their sex

majority of Clown fish's (little nemo) are born male (i believe its all actually, but might be mistaken), and changing to female as they mate. Typically the larger/more dominant one will be the female.

It does exisit in nature




That's hermaphroditism, not homosexuality...at least in regards to the fish.

[pnkpanther]

That's hermaphroditism, not homosexuality...at least in regards to the fish.


i know......

[i_hate_righties]

i'll give you a new testament passage on women


1 Corinthians 11:7
But for a man it is not right to have his head covered, since he is the image of God and reflects God's glory; but a woman is the reflection of man's glory.

again, bible saying women are inferior


i can find more....

probably more exmaples of womens inferiority then of anti homosexuality

Corinthians was written By St. Paul to the church at Corinth...He was writing them on some rules and regulations because the church was getting out of hand, women were prostituting themselves and involved in adultery...Paul was instructing them to be more modest.....

That being said, I think that anyone who doesnt get the main message of the bible, because yes, people murdered, people were adulterous, people had homosexual relationships, worshipped idols and had slaves...the message was to love one another and to not pass judgement on each other, but we are human and we fuck up and thats why Christ (according to christians) came here in the first place, to reconcile us to God...So calling someones relationship be it homosexual or heterosexual, deviant, especially when invoking the bible or the name of god is wrong IMO......Do homosexuals engage in deviant behavior? yes they do, when they meet up in forest preserves for a quickie with someone they dont even know....just as heterosexuals engage in the same deviant behavior....People, no matter what their sexual orientation is, who are involved in a committed relationship should all have EQUAL rights under the law....Including marriage, insurance rights, the right to adopt a child, etc.

[i_hate_righties]

In the absence of suitable mates? That's what I'm curious about.

Homeosexuality is obviously not adaptive, so I wonder if lower life forms have latitude to engage in it, or whether it's really more of a human phenomenon.



Author Bruce Bahemihl, in his book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and natural diversity, has catalogued over 200 vertebrate species in which same-sex genital contact regularly occurs. In some species, homosexuality is not very common - around 1 to 10 per cent of all mating. In others, such a bonobos, homosexual mating occurs as often as heterosexual mating. In some species only males participate, in others only females, in still others both sexes. Sometimes homosexuality is associated with pair bonds that last for years, and in others with short-term courtships. This broad occurrence of homosexuality among vertebrates raises the possibility that if it has a genetic basis at all, it has some broad adaptive significance, and is not an aberrant condition just a few species happen to be stuck with.

In humans, moreover, homosexuality is much too common for it to be considered a genetic aberration. Real genetic diseases are really rare, and their frequency inevitably depends on their severity. A disease that is uniformly lethal must arise anew each generation, so its frequency is equal to the mutation rate, say one in 1 million. A disease that causes only a 10 per cent drop in offspring production (fitness) is 10 times more common than a lethal disease - about one in 100,000. Similarly, a mere 1 per cent drop in fitness leads to a frequency of one in 10,000. If homosexuality has a frequency of 1 in 10, the fitness loss could be no more than 0.001 per cent, which is completely undetectable. A "common genetic disease" is a contradiction in terms, and homosexuality is three to four orders of magnitude more common than true genetic diseases such as Huntington's disease.

[swordfish]

I never did understand comparing animals to people. Has anyone ever watched Mutual of Omahas Wild Kingdom? Frogs sex organs can change under a stressful environment and eventually lead to them mating with a same sex frog and having offspring. Can humans do this? Other animals eat their offspring. Does this mean that its OK? Anyone can draw ignorant conclusions by comparing animals to man. I don't think that any of us can say for a fact that homosexuality is genetic, learned, or otherwise. We can say that some of you guys think its cool to raise your child in a deviant manner (Whether its supporting homosexuality, lying, cheating, stealing etc). The way I look at it is this. If your homosexual and you raise your kid to be homosexual then eventually your bloodline ends. In a few generations we won't have to worry about those supposed "bad genes". I think this will be one case of natural selection that the government won't be able to stop with subsidized tax monies. If it is not genetic then your creating a self fulfilling prophecy by teaching that its moral. It's all good, more women for us.

Fight the Good Fight

[LSU]

It's all good, more women for us.





Not if I raise my daughter to be a bull dyke. That's one less for you.

[Roy Munson]

Not if I raise my daughter to be a bull dyke. That's one less for you.
You must force her to play softball then.

[Roy Munson]

In the grand scheme of things, it matters to me not whether or not what they can do is considered marriage. However, the ability to have the same rights as a married couple (including insurance, taxes, power of attorney, parenthood, etc) should be extended to someone willing to be a lifelong partner. And in the same respects, the process to unbecome partners, i.e., divorce, should be the same. Not just a break up so to speak.
Actually, they're given some of these rights now without having to be married, yet I couldn't add my wife to my insurance until the marriage took place even though we lived together for 6 months after college.

[LSU]

Actually, they're given some of these rights now without having to be married, yet I couldn't add my wife to my insurance until the marriage took place even though we lived together for 6 months after college.


That's something I don't agree with.

[Roy Munson]

That's something I don't agree with.
if we don't give them the rights they deserve through marriage, they'll sue large corporations until they're accepted to the point of having more rights than straight couples.

[ryr8828]

I never did understand comparing animals to people. Has anyone ever watched Mutual of Omahas Wild Kingdom? Frogs sex organs can change under a stressful environment and eventually lead to them mating with a same sex frog and having offspring. Can humans do this? Other animals eat their offspring. Does this mean that its OK? Anyone can draw ignorant conclusions by comparing animals to man. I don't think that any of us can say for a fact that homosexuality is genetic, learned, or otherwise. We can say that some of you guys think its cool to raise your child in a deviant manner (Whether its supporting homosexuality, lying, cheating, stealing etc). The way I look at it is this. If your homosexual and you raise your kid to be homosexual then eventually your bloodline ends. In a few generations we won't have to worry about those supposed "bad genes". I think this will be one case of natural selection that the government won't be able to stop with subsidized tax monies. If it is not genetic then your creating a self fulfilling prophecy by teaching that its moral. It's all good, more women for us.

Fight the Good Fight

Hello there. I have a feeling I know you in a real life setting.

[swordfish]

Who is against allowing civil unions which yield rights that married couples receive? The thought of redefining the union called marriage is what is disgusting. Homosexuals want insurance and monetary credit and things, I do not see what is unreasonable about this. It is the redefinition of common practice that I see offensive. I see it the same way as rewriting history, skewing the truth so that our children will accept and "embrace" it. I personally know homosexuals and like them as people. I will not condone the behavior but it is not my place to force them to live another way. I accept the fact that everyone has a wide range of problems that seem to stem from negative influences. Hate, fear, and ignorance seem to really cause a wide division among intelligent people.

LSU some bull dykes as you call them have had a traumatic experience with an older male relative or friend. They project the pain onto all males.

[LSU]

LSU some bull dykes as you call them have had a traumatic experience with an older male relative or friend. They project the pain onto all males.


Stay away from my daughter, then.

[*NZ*]

Stay away from my daughter, then.

http://www.orlyowl.com/osnap.jpg

[IBC]

An internet classic

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

[hannitykillspuppies]

Pnky, you are using quite a selective interpretation of those passages of
Sripture, but let's just say for a moment that you are 100% correct. It proves absolutely nothing. They are historical records. There are many, many references to people sinning in the Bible. It only stands to reason as the Bible stresses that everyone is a sinner. IF you are correct and the historical record shows that homosexuality did indeed happen, it doesn't change the fact that the Bible expressly teaches that homosexuality is wrong.



you always bring up interpretation when the passages don't suit you. what makes your interpretation right and others' wrong?

[Vegas]

you always bring up interpretation when the passages don't suit you. what makes your interpretation right and others' wrong?

I wasn't the one trying to interpret passages to suit my purpose. I wasn't interpreting anything in this conversation.

[hannitykillspuppies]

I wasn't the one trying to interpret passages to suit my purpose. I wasn't interpreting anything in this conversation.



you're right you weren't. but everytime pnk interprets them you claim his interpretation is wrong or off base.

[Vegas]

you're right you weren't. but everytime pnk interprets them you claim his interpretation is wrong or off base.

I believe the only time I have done anything remotely similar to what you're describing is when I clarify translation issues.

[swordfish]

Stay away from my daughter, then.

Your son is the cute one.

[LSU]

Your son is the cute one.



It must be the illegitimate one.


I rule.

[swordfish]

*Applause*

See how easily this thread went off topic.

Who is against civil unions instead of redefining marriage?

Tell me why.

[LSU]

*Applause*

See how easily this thread went off topic.

Who is against civil unions instead of redefining marriage?

Tell me why.



If one committed relationship garners more benefits than another committed relationship, then I have a problem. If all things are equal (aside from what it's called), then no problem.

[Iron Jaw]

I think you use a lot of Old Testament scripture to bolster your opinion.

Christian = believer in Christ.

Jews don't believe in Christ yet they follow the Old Testament to a fault. They deny the New Testament.

Jesus loved all sinners, yes. He did not pronounce their actions as correct, only that they would be forgiven if they asked for it from their heart.

Refusing to agree that homosexuality is normal and not a sin is not judging.
Refusing to agree that homosexuality should be endorsed is not judging, nor is it hypocrisy.


When Jesus encountered the angry mob preparing to stone the adultress under Jewish law, he ended it quickly when he advised those without sin to cast the first stone. All humans have faults and have sinned under the strict restrictions of Jewish law, thus, noone could cast the stone. Hate the sin - not the sinner, otherwise, we'd have to hate ourselves as well.

But Jesus did not tell the adultress that he accepted her lifestyle and that adultry was a good thing. He forgave her and told her to sin no more.

That is what the New Testament is about - forgiveness, and ackowledgement that all humans are sinners. That was the reason for Jesus coming to this world in the first place.

One of the problems I have with the promotion of the homosexual Bishop in the Episcopal Church is he says his lifestyle is a correct one, despite the fact the Bible specifically says that homosexuality is a sin in more than one passage. The most direct is from St. Paul in the New Testament: The Apostle Paul, writing by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declares that homosexuality "shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (I Corinthians 6:9; 10). Now Paul does not single out the homosexual as a special offender. He includes fornicators, idolators, adulterers, thieves, covetous persons, drunkards, revilers and extortioners.

However, since the Bible also allows for forgiveness, if the Bishop admits the lifestyle is a sin - just as a Priest or Bishop who was an adulterer should do, then he can be considered for the position in the church he so desires, as every human, including priests and bishops are sinners. But to advocate the lifestyle when the very religion that he is preaching and proclaiming goes against it, is not correct and the primary reason I would not allow him in the position. The decision is causing a huge rift in the Anglican Church worldwide and causing a serious split.