Niners CB: "Openly GAY Players Would Not Be Welcomed On The Team"

[Zanso]

Originally Posted by mikehev

I take the Bible at face value. It is clear that we are all sinners (self included), that God loves mankind (gay and straight alike), that homosexuality is a sin, and that God through Christ redeems those who trust in Jesus.

There are few things in this world that should be taken at face value and I can promise you the bible is not one of them.

[ValdostaGatorFan]

Isn't there a Ravens player that's going to do a pro-gay PSA at the Superbowl?

[UFreak]

IBtm

Two things, Culliver should enjoy his last game in a Niners uniform. There is no way he is there next year.
And
What Some of you are saying is simply illegal. You cant not employ someone on basis of sexual orientation.

Socom, what? I mean, what? Good lord dude ...

This is such an odd circumstance. Because this guy did not come out voluntarily. Interesting that he may be thrust into becoming the Jackie Robinson of homosexuality.

[cstgator]

Originally Posted by Socom1

Whats wrong with someone believing that being gay is not alright with them and they do not want to associate?

I don't know, it's a bit insecure/homophobic, don't you think? I'm not enthralled with being around gay people as I find their personalities and behavior to be...awkward? But I wouldn't not do something just because gay people were present. Major insecurities there...Not surprising though, just another dumb and socially stupid millionaire athlete.

[cstgator]

Originally Posted by mikehev

I take the Bible at face value. It is clear that we are all sinners (self included), that God loves mankind (gay and straight alike), that homosexuality is a sin, and that God through Christ redeems those who trust in Jesus.

In Christ forever,
Mike
John 3:16

The fact that people take the Bible at face value in the year 2013 is one of the most frightening things in American society that I can think of. Are you serious dude? You know that the Bible has been rewritten throughout history, right? The Bible most used today is the King James Bible...of course this means it was written for a a king during the Renaissance (like when they convicted the Father of Science for heresy) And you don't think various things were "slightly altered" by politicians of the day and even the transcribers themselves? Jeez...

[UFreak]

Originally Posted by cstgator

I don't know, it's a bit insecure/homophobic, don't you think? I'm not enthralled with being around gay people as I find their personalities and behavior to be...awkward? But I wouldn't not do something just because gay people were present. Major insecurities there...Not surprising though, just another dumb and socially stupid millionaire athlete.

Moreover, would you stand against a segment of the population being employed in your place of business?I think that is the greater issue here.
One can have an opinion all they want as long as they are not discriminating in the legal sense.

[cstgator]

Originally Posted by UFreak

Moreover, would you stand against a segment of the population being employed in your place of business?I think that is the greater issue here.
One can have an opinion all they want as long as they are not discriminating in the legal sense.

Uh..no. Because that's unprofessional, insecure (to say it again), and totally ridiculous. And I work in the hospitality industry -- safe to say there's a fair amount of gay people in that industry. What kind of person would really take a "stand" at work against gay people? You kidding me?

[UFreak]

Originally Posted by cstgator

The fact that people take the Bible at face value in the year 2013 is one of the most frightening things in American society that I can think of. Are you serious dude? You know that the Bible has been rewritten throughout history, right? The Bible most used today is the King James Bible...of course this means it was written for a a king during the Renaissance (like when they convicted the Father of Science for heresy) And you don't think various things were "slightly altered" by politicians of the day and even the transcribers themselves? Jeez...

Though I agree with your previous comment and don't necessarily disagree with the thesis in this comment, I disagree with the sentiment. In defense of Mikhev's beliefs, I think he has the right to them and should not be made to feel lesser because of them.
Now if he says that a gay man should not be employed because of his sexual preference, then that is wrong and I can not defend that on any level or see it justified through religion.

[UFreak]

Originally Posted by cstgator

Uh..no. Because that's unprofessional, insecure (to say it again), and totally ridiculous. And I work in the hospitality industry -- safe to say there's a fair amount of gay people in that industry. What kind of person would really take a "stand" at work against gay people? You kidding me?

It's illegal

[GatorAvatar]

Originally Posted by Socom1

I am in the Military, and John Kerry, who will soon be Secretary of State discriminates against the military by claiming we are a bunch of dumbasses who can't make it elsewhere. What is that called, Bigotry, hate, envy, who knows.

Da fuq?

[GatorAvatar]

Originally Posted by oragator1

The inevitable apology:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2012...i-gay-comments

Hope he pays for those comments. The apology is insincere, probably forced by the 49ers.

[UFreak]

Originally Posted by GatorAvatar

Hope he pays for those comments. The apology is insincere, probably forced by the 49ers.

Betcha he's out of San Fran after this year.

[NoahBeanBizzel]

Originally Posted by cstgator

The fact that people take the Bible at face value in the year 2013 is one of the most frightening things in American society that I can think of. Are you serious dude? You know that the Bible has been rewritten throughout history, right? The Bible most used today is the King James Bible...of course this means it was written for a a king during the Renaissance (like when they convicted the Father of Science for heresy) And you don't think various things were "slightly altered" by politicians of the day and even the transcribers themselves? Jeez...

Most of the New Testament was written in Greek, and the Old Testament was probably more Hebrew than any other language, so the fact that people out there got together and decided to translate the Word into English, changes nothing about the validity and message of the Scriptures. You can't just call a history book-which is basically what the Bible is-a collection of lies, simply because it's been translated for those who don't speak Greek. That would be absurd.

You can't just say thousands of people who saw, wrote down, and translated actual events are giving us manipulated teachings. Now, if you have proof of politicians "of the day" who did in fact distort what actually happened, I'd like to see it.

[NoahBeanBizzel]

Now as far as Culliver's comments:

"I don't do the gay guys man," said Culliver, whose Niners play the Baltimore Ravens on Sunday. "I don't do that. No, we don't got no gay people on the team, they gotta get up out of here if they do.

"Can't be with that sweet stuff. Nah…can't be…in the locker room man. Nah."

Yup. That's bigotry. Very unfortunate to see comments like those made. We have a long way to go, man.

Living in Baltimore now, I met a lot of people who are gay. I've actually had a lot of good discussion with many of them, I've had friends who have engaged in homosexual activity, and those from that community would tell you that I don't harbor any resentment toward them at all. We also had a gay uncle. But it's something I just don't agree with. Just like I don't agree with comments like those above.

[oragator1]

Originally Posted by NoahBeanBizzel

Most of the New Testament was written in Greek, and the Old Testament was probably more Hebrew than any other language, so the fact that people out there got together and decided to translate the Word into English, changes nothing about the validity and message of the Scriptures. You can't just call a history book-which is basically what the Bible is-a collection of lies, simply because it's been translated for those who don't speak Greek. That would be absurd.

You can't just say thousands of people who saw, wrote down, and translated actual events are giving us manipulated teachings. Now, if you have proof of politicians "of the day" who did in fact distort what actually happened, I'd like to see it.

Much of the new testament was written a generation or more after Jesus' death, in some cases second hand. And in other cases historical references are now ignored (666 in Greek spells Nero for example, hair risks would argue that book was a cautionary tale). Books that were not following the desired message were cut out in the early centuries as well, such as the book of Judas, books that didn't portray Jesus as the son of God etc. I have zero problem with people having faith as their central tenet, but as a history major, to call the book a history book is a stretch, even if it was written with the best of intentions.

[RayGator]

Moving from SwampGas to the Too Hot forum.

Shouldn't be a surprise.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by UFFL

Change "gay" with "black" and maybe it's more apparent

Pretty sure, seeing as he is black, seeing as black people have rejected the comparison any time it is put on the ballot, such as their overwhelming yes vote on Prop 8, nothing would be apparent. Read his quote, he describes gay as something you 'do'. Maybe if you substitute gay for nose picking, it would be apparent.

[UFreak]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

Maybe if you substitute gay for nose picking, it would be apparent.

Booooooooo

[NoahBeanBizzel]

Originally Posted by oragator1

Much of the new testament was written a generation or more after Jesus' death, in some cases second hand. And in other cases historical references are now ignored (666 in Greek spells Nero for example, hair risks would argue that book was a cautionary tale). Books that were not following the desired message were cut out in the early centuries as well, such as the book of Judas, books that didn't portray Jesus as the son of God etc. I have zero problem with people having faith as their central tenet, but as a history major, to call the book a history book is a stretch, even if it was written with the best of intentions.

Maybe fifty or sixty years? Some maybe a little longer? So, if I wanted to investigate the process of slavery, look at jounal entries of actual slaves, and investigate the evidence and validity of what really happened over a hundred years ago, then go on to write a book about it, that would make it less valid? How about if I flew over to Europe and did the same thing with the Holocaust? Would that mean that my findings were any less valid? Because a lot of people have done that, and nobody questions the validity of their research.

By the way, Mathew and John were eye-witnesses to pretty much everything Jesus did during his three-year ministry, Luke knew many people who were a part of His ministry, and the same thing could be said about John Mark. The book of Acts was written using eye-witness accounts of the actual events. In fact, it was the second part of Luke's Gospel. The rest of the New testament was a composition of letters Paul and a couple others wrote mostly to encourage others; not necessarily life-changing events recorded in the Gospels. So, to say that calling it a history book would be a stretch, says a lot more about what you would prefer to interpret as truth, than any knowledge you have of the actual events recorded themselves.

The early Church also decided that the New Testament would be composed of the books that matched up with who Jesus was, which is why books like the Gospel of Thomas, Judas, etc...may have been seen as books that didn't really hold true to what actually happened, or accurately depict who Christ was, and that's why they weren't put in there.

[elrongator]

I study and attempt to practice God's will as best as I can using a bible and the companionship of fellow Christians. I do not, however, take it as a direct and verbatim transcript of the word of God as many do.
The reason for this is because the tools of transcription are, by the very nature of being through the hands of men, inaccurate at least and outright biased at worst.

People who use the bible as their basis for castigating homosexuality and condemning all homosexuals are failing to practice some of the very basic tenets of the words of Jesus.
Unfortunately, organized religion is different than faith and has been, and probably always will be, manipulated by those with power for their own very secular purposes.

Again, I thank God often for the fact that we separate the running of our state activities from our religious practices as the only way to preserve freedom for all.

Culliver made some very bigoted, very stupid comments. He's a huge douche bag that lacked both the intelligence to avoid stepping on his own feet before shoving them squarely into his big dumb mouth, and the conviction and eloquence to even stand by his earlier words.
So now he's a liar as well.
To support his ignorance as freedom of expression is equally as intolerant and shouldn't be celebrated or defended any more than someone spewing garbage supporting racial segregation and inequality in the work place should be.
I'm done with this thread as I avoid Too Hot based on the mostly low brow ape like slinging of right wing rhetoric that seems to permeate here at all times.
Enjoy being de-evolved together here in peace for those to whom that applies.