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

[g8trjax]

Gubment doesn't have their boot on the NFL's neck, yet.

[108]

the gays, the blacks, the women, etc have never been the problem

the problem is in the hearts of men who discriminate based on such trivial matters

if you can't be comfortable with a gay man in your presence then its because you are not comfortable with yourself

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by 108

the gays, the blacks, the women, etc have never been the problem

the problem is in the hearts of men who discriminate based on such trivial matters

if you can't be comfortable with a gay man in your presence then its because you are not comfortable with yourself

The behavior, the inherent trait, and the inherent trait you name simply don't deserve to be strung together as though they are interchangeable.

[NoahBeanBizzel]

Originally Posted by mikehev

See my post above on Cannon. The emporer had nothing to do with selection of books. Cannon was a response to the items I mention above.

2 issues:

1-Validity of the Bible: it is valid.

2-homosexuals in the work force: I have no problem with them in the work-force, at all. That said, their lifestyle is a sin according to God. I have friends who are homosexual. Me not condoning homosexuality does not mean I am going to hate them. Quite the opposite, God commands me to love everyone.

BTW, I am a sinner, and there is a lot that I do and have done that God considers sin as well. Thankful for Christ and the cross.

In Him,
Mike
John 3:16

I thank God for people like you. You come at others with a level of Grace that's rare. I wish I had that mentality, as opposed to immediately being ready for a debate.

Take care.

[scamgtr]

Originally Posted by mikehev

See my post above on Cannon. The emporer had nothing to do with selection of books. Cannon was a response to the items I mention above.

2 issues:

1-Validity of the Bible: it is valid.

2-homosexuals in the work force: I have no problem with them in the work-force, at all. That said, their lifestyle is a sin according to God. I have friends who are homosexual. Me not condoning homosexuality does not mean I am going to hate them. Quite the opposite, God commands me to love everyone.

BTW, I am a sinner, and there is a lot that I do and have done that God considers sin as well. Thankful for Christ and the cross.

In Him,
Mike
John 3:16

First of all, my comments were not directed at you. It is merely my observations of faith. You are a very level headed poster in all respects. I rarely post, but I have read a lot of your posts over the years. I always know its you by your signature.

Regarding canon...2 points:
1. If it is gospel according to Apostle X, why disregard the others? Regarding the Council a few hundred years later, these people were supposed to know whose account was more accurate? That makes no sense. How would they know without corroborating evidence? How did they know which one of the apostles was a better witness or which one of them was making things up? Additionally, there are differing accounts of the same events in the four Gospels (e.g., the Baptism of Christ). This undermines the validity of each witnesses' testimony. To say that the persons that selected canon were given some kind of divine judgement to do so only reinforces suspicions to the contrary.

2. If the Bible is valid why would they need a bunch of humans to say so. The Word of God would stand on its own. Would the omnipotent and omniscient, Creator of the Universe need our stamp of approval?

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by UFreak

Did you read the quote? If so, it would be difficult not to be offended if you are gay or support gay rights. It was offensive. And he should have the freedom to say what he wants (as long as it is not putting others in danger), just like those who disagree with him should have the freedom to respond. I mean how dumb is this guy? He works in San Francisco!!! Freedom doesn't mean you should do stupid stuff. It means you're allowed to do stupid stuff. And when you do it, you pay. Just like in any other facet of life.

Uh, he is not exactly a road scholar. He gets paid to knock people heads off their shoulders. If you ask a guy like him such a question you should not be shocked at the answer. This is not a matter of people having the freedom of responding to him but rather people wanting bad things to happen to him as a result of his opinion and that is the difference.

[ArtVandelay]

Shocker that the people here would turn this into a religious conversation...

I always say that its a lot scarier to know there are people in this world that feel a certain way but you have no idea. I like when morons like Culliver out themselves so we know what we are dealing with.

from the Lance Armstrong school of lying:
"The derogatory comments I made yesterday were a reflection of thoughts in my head, but they are not how I feel," Culliver said in a statement released by the team. "It has taken me seeing them in print to realize that they are hurtful and ugly. Those discriminating feelings are truly not in my heart. Further, I apologize to those who I have hurt and offended, and I pledge to learn and grow from this experience."

[108]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

The behavior, the inherent trait, and the inherent trait you name simply don't deserve to be strung together as though they are interchangeable.

they do...they are all trivial discriminators regardless of one has been proven yet to be inherit or learned

if you aren't comfortable with them, then it says something about you

[NoahBeanBizzel]

[quote=scamgtr;6376929]First of all, my comments were not directed at you. It is merely my observations of faith. You are a very level headed poster in all respects. I rarely post, but I have read a lot of your posts over the years. I always know its you by your signature.

Regarding canon...2 points:
1. If it is gospel according to Apostle X, why disregard the others? Regarding the Council a few hundred years later, these people were supposed to know whose account was more accurate? That makes no sense. How would they know without corroborating evidence? How did they know which one of the apostles was a better witness or which one of them was making things up? Additionally, there are differing accounts of the same events in the four Gospels (e.g., the Baptism of Christ). This undermines the validity of each witnesses' testimony. To say that the persons that selected canon were given some kind of divine judgement to do so only reinforces suspicions to the contrary.

2. If the Bible is valid why would they need a bunch of humans to say so. The Word of God would stand on its own. Would the omnipotent and omniscient, Creator of the Universe need our stamp of approval?[/QUOTE]

You need people (called scribes back then, who we would consider to be modern-day journalists) to have an account of what took place, write it down, and give people something concrete. No book writes itself, and God gave these men divine inspiration to write exactly what He wanted in each of the books we read today. Whether you choose to believe in whether or not they had a divine source of discernment to put what we read today into existence is entirely up to you, but I and many others believe they did. Like any valid piece of history that we know of/read about today, somebody had to write down something; otherwise we would have no knowledge of anything prior to 1900.

Also, there really aren't conflicting accounts of what happened. Maybe slight variances in wording, but they all match up quite well with one another, so that's not necessarily true. If you look at the amount of prophesy in the Bible, it is amazing how much of it actually came to fruition.

Finally, slight variances in the words used to express a given point doesn't matter as much as the message itself. If I tell somebody, "I'm going to the Store", I could change the wording countless ways. I could say, "Hey, I've gotta go to the store." Or, "I've got to run to the store." Yet none of the examples I just gave would change the fact that I went to the store. That's why the proverbial, "The Bible is written by man, and it's been changed countless times over the years." rhetoric doesn't really hold up. While the words used may be slightly different, the core points are clearly the same, and have never been changed.

[whitelakegator]

Originally Posted by GatorAvatar

Guy didn't have to say that publicly. BTW, never heard of him anyways.

This. I have always believed if you make money off of your fame and your FANS then you are held to a different standard. Without your fans you are probably working as a 8-5'er and not making millions. So, keep your mouth shut and represent your brand.

If you make money off the general public you have a responsibility to them and yourself. No reason to preach hate whether it is religion, race, or orientation.

[108]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

This is sad, we are getting away from a free society. When a certain group of people are offended when someone is asked a question a gives their opinion then the person must be nailed to a cross. If the "public opinion" of San Fran is going to be that vindictive then he could bring his talents elsewhere.

actually its not sad at all

we as a society value that our citizens are treated equal and fairly

and when we have privileged athletes using a forum that we essentially give to them by paying their salaries, and they use it to express bigoted views, there will be a whole host of folks who disagree....including the private organization he works for who doesn't want their brand tainted (especially being SF)

it would have been one thing if he had said that he just disagreed with gay lifestyle, but he went all ignorant with it

nobody is saying he doesn't have the right to say something, but there are consequences to that right

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by 108

actually its not sad at all

we as a society value that our citizens are treated equal and fairly

and when we have privileged athletes using a forum that we essentially give to them by paying their salaries, and they use it to express bigoted views, there will be a whole host of folks who disagree....including the private organization he works for who doesn't want their brand tainted (especially being SF)

it would have been one thing if he had said that he just disagreed with gay lifestyle, but he went all ignorant with it

nobody is saying he doesn't have the right to say something, but there are consequences to that right

You don't pay his salary and he should be free to give his opinions no matter how stupid or shallow they should seem.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by 108

they do...they are all trivial discriminators regardless of one has been proven yet to be inherit or learned

if you aren't comfortable with them, then it says something about you

But I am comfortable around them, is what hasn't seeped through. I just don't approve of or involve myself in that part of what they do. People reach this sort of internal detente all the time on any number of behaviors. That is actually what tolerance means.

[108]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

You don't pay his salary and he should be free to give his opinions no matter how stupid or shallow they should seem.

he is free to

he did didn't he

and i watch the NFL, go to games sometimes, so I indirectly do help pay for his salary as it is a profit sharing league

what you are trying to say is that people shouldn't be free to disagree with people's opinions

[96Gatorcise]

Originally Posted by 108

the gays, the blacks, the women, etc have never been the problem

the problem is in the hearts of men who discriminate based on such trivial matters

if you can't be comfortable with a gay man in your presence then its because you are not comfortable with yourself

+1

I live in and work in area of Tampa that has a high concentration of homosexuals. You can not go anywhere without interaction on a daily basis.

If you are not comfortable, it is you not them.

One of the best massage therapists I know and a good friend of mine is gay and is openly gay. Meaning everyone knows and does not have a problem with it. He is not over the top but does not hide the fact that he is gay and I have had many of open conversations of life, relationships and daily happenings with him throughout the years

He is also a highly respected therapist in the professional athletic community of Tampa. He has a list of 100's of NFL, MLB and NHL clients that regularly fly him in to get worked on and has been for 10 years the yearly spring training LMT for the NY Yankees. I would not hesitate one second to getting a massage from him.


far too many people have a stereotype of someone who is "openly" gay. It is not the flamboyant queen that prances around.

Openly gay is just an acknowledgement that people know and there is no hiding it from others. Just like people do not hide they are straight.

As I said, I have clients, friends and acquaintances that I would consider openly gay and just don't care or even think about it because they are good people.

[108]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

But I am comfortable around them, is what hasn't seeped through. I just don't approve of or involve myself in that part of what they do. People reach this sort of internal detente all the time on any number of behaviors. That is actually what tolerance means.

that is completely fine and i have no problem with that

i disagree with bigotry, but its there, i don't participate in it, I disagree with it, but I don't say they don't have a right to do it

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by 108

he is free to

he did didn't he

and i watch the NFL, go to games sometimes, so I indirectly do help pay for his salary as it is a profit sharing league

what you are trying to say is that people shouldn't be free to disagree with people's opinions

Of course they should be free to disagree with him but not call for him to be punished. I initially replied to a poster that wanted bad things to happen to him as a result to what he said. That is not acceptable, but you should be free to disagree with him.

[ArtVandelay]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

You don't pay his salary and he should be free to give his opinions no matter how stupid or shallow they should seem.

He is free to give his opinions...We are free to call him a moron and a bigot...

Actions and words have consequences.

The people that defend him fall into 2 categories in my opinion:

1) They agree with what he is saying

or

2) They love to try to defend Freedom of Speech (even though this isn't a freedom of speech issue) People always feeling like their constitutional rights are being taken from them

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by ArtVandelay

He is free to give his opinions...We are free to call him a moron and a bigot...

Actions and words have consequences.

The people that defend him fall into 2 categories in my opinion:

1) They agree with what he is saying

or

2) They love to try to defend Freedom of Speech (even though this isn't a freedom of speech issue) People always feeling like their constitutional rights are being taken from them

Thought police

[108]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Of course they should be free to disagree with him but not call for him to be punished. I initially replied to a poster that wanted bad things to happen to him as a result to what he said. That is not acceptable, but you should be free to disagree with him.

i am not calling for that, and I think he has already learned his lesson about making his views public, but why shouldn't they be allowed to do that if that's what they feel?

free speech goes both ways here

NFL is a private organization and its fans are its bread and butter. I trust the team and the league will do whats in their best interest