MERGED: Michael Sam to be First Openly Gay Player - Okay w/ Phins drafting him? | Page 22 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

MERGED: Michael Sam to be First Openly Gay Player - Okay w/ Phins drafting him?

SkapePhin said:
Question for those so outspokenly opposed to homosexuals, are you OK with the abundance of photos of scantily clad women that clog this forum in every thread?

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.

Heck, that's a commandment! Yet no one seems to care. There certainly aren't protests and boycotts over it...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

To be fair, that's one the sillier commandments. I mean, what could be a more textbook definition of the Thought Police than that. :lol:

Anyway, I think the only commandment most people care about is the 11th commandment: "Thou shalt only care about the commandments thou chooses to care about. Ignore the rest. YOLO."
 
DolfanDuBbZ~ said:
Also after the election in 1948, the dixiecrats moved back to the democratic party. But the South for the majority of the modern age was democrat. Republicans back then were in the North and midwest. So I generously provided you with information to combat your ignorance in that area. Again You are very Welcome.
Click to expand...

Strom joined what party after the 1964 civil right act?
 
To be PC the NFL should require every team to have at least 1 gay player. Kinda like a gay Rooney rule :lol:
 
DolfanDuBbZ~ said:
The only victim here, is Sam. You and others already have him as a poster child for being a victim.

Go back to basics of the argument. He is being held up as a hero, and being glorified as a Jackie Robinson. Sad, very sad and a disservice to the legacy of Mr. Robinson.

The PC and liberal agenda was all played out during the Martin fiasco. It was there for all to see. Now you can see the same talking heads talking up this guy. HLN, the channel of Nancy Grace, were talking about him and his bravery and his football prospects. HLN...seriously? MSNBC....can't wait to see Madcow tonight.

Your arm chair psych 101 courses might work with the hood rats, but not here. Its childish and silly, and is done when you can't debate with logic, and fall back to pure emotion. Sad really, or pathetic to say the least.

You in one of your first posts, made Sam out to be a victim. Out of pure air, you made him to be a victim. At that point no name calling. Just opinions were being used. And you still keep going with your inability to debate with logic. You and wal***** are serious babies.
Click to expand...

Yes, because no one cares about the legacy of Jackie Robinson like a person who uses the term "hood rats." :lol:
 
xXwarXx said:
That's what the tea baggers do..

Somehow a story about a kid who is the first draft pick to come out of the closet in professional sports, is all about them.

Somehow these d bags turned this story into how there "belief system" aka Hate is on trial, and how they are victims of a "liberal agenda and PC". somehow these bunch of cowards have literally convinced themselves they are being screwed over here.

Yet this won't effect there lives one bit, won't effect there freedoms or there beliefs or there rights.

It's what people with self hate do, make themselves into victims, make people who have no effect on there lives, into enemies. It's pathetic to say the least...
Click to expand...

Easy there Chief, don't confuse the Tea Party with the Religious Right. Although there is definitely some cross over in politics, the Tea Party is, or at least was, strictly a fiscal responsibility/lower taxes advocate group. The affiliation with the Religious Right is more of a media creation by just lumping everyone on the right into one big box of nut jobs. It has worked magnificently to discredit the Tea Party movement...pretty much crushed it.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
 
phishxhead said:
Preposterous. From your example earlier, GLAAD was definitely trying to silence the duck guy for some rather innocuous comments.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you're wrong again. Free speech doesn't mean you have the right to a television show.
 
JTC111 said:
Yes, and when the non-Southern Democrats voted in support of various civil rights laws, they bolted to the Republican Party who took up the racist agenda as a means to win southern states. Why do you insist on leaving out the end of that story?


It is. And so is your use of the word "Your."
Click to expand...

The grammar police now? Really?

Here is the basic premise of why I brought up the dixiecrats. xxwarxx was talking about animal sex, and I pointed out that the south, which he equated to Republican states. Was a democrat stomping ground until the 60s or so. The Civil Rights era got brought up, for what I don't know. But it somehow did, and you are not getting a debate out of me on that topic. How it ended up there, IDK. But Goldwater did get alot of southern democrats to come over to the Republican party. Nixon did employ the southern strategy, and not much after that. Reagan won what 48 states? W. carried the hispanic vote.
 
SkapePhin said:
Question for those so outspokenly opposed to homosexuals, are you OK with the abundance of photos of scantily clad women that clog this forum in every thread?

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.

Heck, that's a commandment! Yet no one seems to care. There certainly aren't protests and boycotts over it...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I asked in Sunday School once why we as Christians should be so up in arms about gay rights/marriage given that it wasn't even in the top ten and really isn't mentioned that much specifically. They came back with the multiple references to avoiding sexual immorality in the Bible but I then asked, "...doesn't that include fornication and adultery and aren't they fairly prevalent here in this church just like everywhere else? Why is it that we aren't focusing on that rather than judging others?" It didn't go over well. People need to read their Bibles and let it guide them rather than deciding their course and backing it up with scriptures out of context.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
 
JTC111 said:
Sorry, you're wrong again. Free speech doesn't mean you have the right to a television show.
Click to expand...

That's not the point and not what you said. You said no one is trying to silence those that opposed the gay agenda. There clearly are. If you are a public figure just try putting something remotely non-gay supporting on twitter and see what happens.
 
xXwarXx said:
"elitist liberals"...

Your daddy teach you these words?
Click to expand...

Good one. What do you refer to big government liberals that believe they are smarter and more capable of making decisions than everyone else as? Is there a more PC term I need to use?
 
phishxhead said:
That's not the point and not what you said. You said no one is trying to silence those that opposed the gay agenda. There clearly are. If you are a public figure just try putting something remotely non-gay supporting on twitter and see what happens.
Click to expand...

Silence them how? Are they physically holding their hands over the mouths of those whose speech they find objectionable? You want consequence-free free speech. There's no constitutional amendment that guarantees that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom