[coloradojack]

vicocala, on 16 January 2011 - 11:47 AM, said:

... I am also against bad hetrosexual behaviors such as adultry.

Which would make you pro gay marriage. That is very enlightened.

[vicocala]

BigSlick, on 16 January 2011 - 11:56 AM, said:

Why would anyone be against homosexuality? Unless someone is trying to force you to have gay sex with them it doesn't effect you in the least. I believe this country's morality has always been "in pot" (whatever that means) because too many people like you only believe in equality and freedom for people who are the same as you, and that's between you and your God.

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

I'm not judging he has judged himself. To call a sin a sin isn't judging. We are all sinners, the point is that homosexuality has become an "accepted practice" because of the media. Homosexuality is wrong because (1) Sex was designed for human procreation (2) If everyone was a homosexual, we, as a species would of died out long ago.

"Too many people like you only believe in equality and freedom for people like you" now that is judging. I never said any such thing, that is only your interpretation of "people like me".

coloradojack, on 16 January 2011 - 12:07 PM, said:

Which would make you pro gay marriage. That is very enlightened.

LOL, I figured I would get this on this board (or inside of 128 for that matter). See my last post. It is sad that so many have been brainwashed into this being acceptable. What next? Incest? Beastiality?

[GreenMountainSoxFan]

vicocala, on 16 January 2011 - 12:25 PM, said:

I'm not judging he has judged himself. To call a sin a sin isn't judging. We are all sinners, the point is that homosexuality has become an "accepted practice" because of the media. Homosexuality is wrong because (1) Sex was designed for human procreation (2) If everyone was a homosexual, we, as a species would of died out long ago.

"Too many people like you only believe in equality and freedom for people like you" now that is judging. I never said any such thing, that is only your interpretation of "people like me".



LOL, I figured I would get this on this board (or inside of 128 for that matter). See my last post. It is sad that so many have been brainwashed into this being acceptable. What next? Incest? Beastiality?

Can a mod split this into a PI thread please? The original thread was interesting but it would be nice to contain the predictable diversion into bigotry. Really vicocala? Incest and Bestiality? Classy.

[coloradojack]

vicocala, on 16 January 2011 - 12:25 PM, said:

LOL, I figured I would get this on this board (or inside of 128 for that matter). See my last post. It is sad that so many have been brainwashed into this being acceptable. What next? Incest? Beastiality?

What is sad to me is that you have to go through life with these assinine thoughts in your head.

[vicocala]

GreenMountainSoxFan, on 16 January 2011 - 12:37 PM, said:

Can a mod split this into a PI thread please? The original thread was interesting but it would be nice to contain the predictable diversion into bigotry. Really vicocala? Incest and Bestiality? Classy.

Really, and to turn it into a PI thread because you disagree? How classy is that? Bigotry, classic liberal response, name calling. I have no problem with his sexual preferences personally, what I would have a problem with would be if he were to use his position to promote deviant lifestyles.

coloradojack, on 16 January 2011 - 12:37 PM, said:

What is sad to me is that you have to go through life with these assinine thoughts in your head.

To each his own.

[BigSlick]

vicocala, on 16 January 2011 - 12:47 PM, said:

To each his own. Unless they are gay, because that makes them deviants

Say what you you really mean next time.

[vicocala]

If it wasn't deviant, why would he have to come out at all?

I'm done with the subject, I made my point of view you all made yours.

[BigSlick]

vicocala, on 16 January 2011 - 01:41 PM, said:

If it wasn't deviant, why would he have to come out at all?

Because of bigots like you that make homosexuals feel ostracized.

[rominer]

vicocala, on 16 January 2011 - 12:47 PM, said:

I have no problem with his sexual preferences personally, what I would have a problem with would be if he were to use his position to promote deviant lifestyles.

Which, in fact, he has shown no inclination whatsoever to do, so what's the issue?

Meanwhile…I understand believing that homosexuality is a sin. I understand taking a conservative approach to morality, and not wanting to bend one's conception of right and wrong to the whims of society.

That's all well and good. But then, even in that context it makes no sense the degree to which people choose to focus on this particular sin (or any other non-violent sexual sin) out of all the many sins that exist in a vast sea of human evil.

In all seriousness, I have to think that Bart Scott threatening to end Wes Welker's football career is a more serious offense (or at least, if he in any way follows through on that threat, then it will be) than Steve Buckley being gay. If it's not, then I really don't understand why not.

[GreenMountainSoxFan]

vicocala, on 16 January 2011 - 12:47 PM, said:

Really, and to turn it into a PI thread because you disagree? How classy is that?

The thread (or this part of it) belongs in PI after you changed it from a discussion of Buckley coming out to a general condemnation of homosexuality. PI is the place for political/cultural commentary, particularly of the sweeping generalization and thought-free variety. Just look at any thread in there for confirmation.

[The Ghost of Ned Martin]

All of this talk of homosexuality is threatening my marriage.

Please stop.

[vicocala]

GreenMountainSoxFan, on 16 January 2011 - 02:29 PM, said:

The thread (or this part of it) belongs in PI after you changed it from a discussion of Buckley coming out to a general condemnation of homosexuality. PI is the place for political/cultural commentary, particularly of the sweeping generalization and thought-free variety. Just look at any thread in there for confirmation.

Thought free? Rominer, I thought your reply was good. And I agree those threats have no business in sports, or anywhere else for that matter. I think the whole thread should be in PI for that matter, what does Buckley coming out do with the Red Sox on the field? I just didn't see any reason to send it there strictly on my viewpoint.

[rominer]

vicocala, on 16 January 2011 - 05:52 PM, said:

Thought free? Rominer, I thought your reply was good. And I agree those threats have no business in sports, or anywhere else for that matter. I think the whole thread should be in PI for that matter, what does Buckley coming out do with the Red Sox on the field? I just didn't see any reason to send it there strictly on my viewpoint.

The first post in the thread admitted that maybe the thread belonged somewhere else. And it clearly does. Maybe PI, maybe not – but obviously not "On The Field." Even if we were talking about a Red Sox player rather than a Red Sox writer, it would at least belong in "Off The Field."

Where your viewpoint takes it to PI and others don't, though, is in explicitly addressing the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality itself. Discussion of how this will affect Buckley in the locker room, or on WEEI where sexual innuendo and off-color gay jokes are the norm, is relevant (and maybe interesting) off the field sports discussion, independent of anyone's own views on homosexuality.

"Homosexuality is a sin," though, is irrelevant to sports. That doesn't mean that it's an opinion that can't be expressed – but it does belong in PI. So, if that's the discussion we're going to have now, the thread ought to be moved to PI rather than just "Off the Field."

That said, I understand that one's religious beliefs might lead to the conclusion (or even compel the conclusion) that homosexuality is a sin. I can respect that, though, only to the extent that:

1. It's sincere, and not hypocritical. And here's where, sin or no sin, the "homosexuality is a sin" crowd loses me.

2. There's a recognition that whatever any higher power may have to say about homosexuality, that higher power is not the highest power – or, really, even a power at all – with respect to the laws of the land. "Homosexuality is a sin" is a valid viewpoint. "Homosexuality is a sin according my personal religious beliefs, therefore it should be broadly illegal in this country" is not. Not even debatable.

I don't mean to suggest that you were espousing the latter. But it's an important point of discussion…should this thread end up in PI.

[Sox Sweep Again]

vicocala, on 16 January 2011 - 01:41 PM, said:

If it wasn't deviant, why would he have to come out at all?

I'm done with the subject, I made my point of view you all made yours.

Oh calm down. Who cares if it's "deviant"? Quite a bit of sexual behavior is "deviant" and I couldn't give a rat's ass how someone likes to get their rocks off.

It's none of your business.

[acr]

Buckley needs to recruit some of his gay friends to give the Jets AIDS

[rominer]

acr, on 16 January 2011 - 08:44 PM, said:

Buckley needs to recruit some of his gay friends to give the Jets AIDS

If Antonio Cromartie doesn't have AIDS yet, I would imagine he's never going to get it.

[vicocala]

rominer, on 16 January 2011 - 09:16 PM, said:

If Antonio Cromartie doesn't have AIDS yet, I would imagine he's never going to get it.

Thank you for your reply Rominer, I understand where you are coming from. BTW I sent an apology to GMB, I feel I should of PM'ed instead of making that post. I'm not trying to show anyone up just stating my opinion about the media in general. I got baited and went for the bait. I haven't posted here much for a long time and need to remember to keep a thick skin and not over reply. So I do apologize publically as well.

[Hail Cesar]

rominer, on 16 January 2011 - 09:16 PM, said:

If Antonio Cromartie doesn't have AIDS yet, I would imagine he's never going to get it.

Cromartie is a sexual ninja. Much like Steve Buckley.

See how I brought everything back on topic?