Junior Wouldn't Object to a Gay Teammate

[Super_Barry11]

I've played softball since I was 6, and now play varsity fast-pitch in college. I've had many lesbian teammates, and it was never a problem for me or anyone else on the team. Not a big deal at all.

[rdiersin]

Originally Posted by johngalt

No - someone who refers to sexual orientation as a sin that is an "abomination before God" and yada yada yada while still professing to love all and follow in the footsteps of Christ is a hypocrite. That's what I have a huge problem with.

So are you saying that you can't love someone even though you may not agree with them? I love Jerry Falwell because he is human, I think, but I rarely agree with him. smith made his position very clear and it was not hypocritical if you read it rationally, and to equate him automatically with Falwell and the like is to simplistic.

[johngalt]

Originally Posted by rdiersin

So are you saying that you can't love someone even though you may not agree with them? I love Jerry Falwell because he is human, I think, but I rarely agree with him. smith made his position very clear and it was not hypocritical if you read it rationally, and to equate him automatically with Falwell and the like is to simplistic.

But the point is that to say that you agree or disagree with "that lifestyle" is preposterous. That's like saying that you disagree with someone being black or that someone is a woman. From my vantage point and that of many people (included scholars and scientists) around the world, sexual orientation is not simply a lifestyle choice. That's the issue I have.

When a person says "I don't agree with Billy's lifestyle, but he's a good kid," that sounds to me like how my grandmother always says, "That Michael Jordan was a good player even though he was black."

[RBA]

Just posting this so I can check the date on this message board. Is the year 2005 or 1905?

[smith288]

Originally Posted by johngalt

There's plenty of documented studies out there. Feel free to get with the 21st century and you'll find the evidence fairly easily.

Just because you say so.... Suppose I found a "documented study" on how homosexuals are a result of chemical imbalance just the same as depression and anxiety is brought forth, complete with facts stats and graphs. Would you deem that as getting with the 21st century or no because it doesnt align with your thinking?

Originally Posted by johngalt

Even if either of those scenarios was a "cause" - which they aren't - then the person's "sin" wouldn't really be their fault anyway now would it?

Says you... but you arent any more the authority on the subject than I am.

Its still a sin according to my faith. There is a great many individuals who suffer from a porn addiction and are Christian. Even folks who are into kiddie porn who suffer this problem. They know its a sin and they try mightily and struggle to shake the problem. Its a psychological problem yet its still a sin. The part of my faith is to take these people and help them overcome these problems.

You don't see where I am coming from because you have some built in mechanic to totally discount my spiritual nature to try to help those who suffer from these afflictions. I consider homosexuality to be an affliction and would love more homosexuals to hear the gospel in a more loving way rather than a "your sins are worse than mine" type of way. I dont agree with that approach and it hinders the commission God has commanded his followers. My sins are as bad as a homosexuals, only my goal isnt to flaunt my sins but to continually try to remove them.

If someone doesnt agree with that, then I will move on to someone else. if you have had different experiences with Christians who behave like that (and there is many who dont behave the way Christ would), then im sorry you have painted all of us with your broad brush.

Originally Posted by johngalt

Try and rationalize it however you want, but it still comes out the same vitriol we've heard from Falwell and others for years.

As much as you want me to take your bait, that bait is rotten and old. I will pass and only hope you open your heart to something other than yourself. We disagree on homosexuality but I, in no way, hate you nor will call you some name like you have done to me. Its not my nature and it represents me better.

[smith288]

Originally Posted by johngalt

But the point is that to say that you agree or disagree with "that lifestyle" is preposterous. That's like saying that you disagree with someone being black or that someone is a woman. From my vantage point and that of many people (included scholars and scientists) around the world, sexual orientation is not simply a lifestyle choice. That's the issue I have.

When a person says "I don't agree with Billy's lifestyle, but he's a good kid," that sounds to me like how my grandmother always says, "That Michael Jordan was a good player even though he was black."

No, its like saying "I like that Fred guy even though he does have tattoos all over his body."

We can still appreciate the person withouth agreeing with how they go about life. Its not that black and white.

[The Baumer]

Originally Posted by smith288

No, its like saying "I like that Fred guy even though he does have tattoos all over his body."

We can still appreciate the person withouth agreeing with how they go about life. Its not that black and white.

There is no use arguing over it, man. Come back to the main forum and enjoy some Reds baseball.

[johngalt]

Originally Posted by smith288

Just because you say so.... Suppose I found a "documented study" on how homosexuals are a result of chemical imbalance just the same as depression and anxiety is brought forth, complete with facts stats and graphs. Would you deem that as getting with the 21st century or no because it doesnt align with your thinking?

Look at the majority of studies and opinions on the matter and then get back to me and tell me I'm wrong.

My sins are as bad as a homosexuals, only my goal isnt to flaunt my sins but to continually try to remove them.

See, this is why you and I could never have a civil discussion on this - or pretty much anything else that has to do with faith and morals and ethics. To even say that homosexuality is a sin is just ludicrous. It is a complete perversion of the teachings you say you follow. Yet somehow I'm the one who's misrepresenting the Christian faith.

As much as you want me to take your bait, that bait is rotten and old. I will pass and only hope you open your heart to something other than yourself. We disagree on homosexuality but I, in no way, hate you nor will call you some name like you have done to me. Its not my nature and it represents me better.

No, you won't call me names. You'll just call homosexuals sinners who need healing and need to change their sinful lifestyle.

[johngalt]

Originally Posted by smith288

No, its like saying "I like that Fred guy even though he does have tattoos all over his body."

We can still appreciate the person withouth agreeing with how they go about life. Its not that black and white.

No, it's not like that at all. That's the point.

[MWM]

Haven't we had this discussion a few dozen times already?

[Redsland]

Originally Posted by Super_Barry11

I've played softball since I was 6, and now play varsity fast-pitch in college. I've had many lesbian teammates, and it was never a problem for me or anyone else on the team. Not a big deal at all.

Outstanding point, SB_11.

(Li'l ol' you play college fast-pitch? )

[The Baumer]

Originally Posted by MWM

Haven't we had this discussion a few dozen times already?

The word "homosexual" attracts these adament debators like chum to a great white shark. If you are confident in your own tolerance of gays and lesbians than why do you need to debate someone looking to argue?

[smith288]

Originally Posted by johngalt

Look at the majority of studies and opinions on the matter and then get back to me and tell me I'm wrong.

"How could anyone possibly know that Napoleon?" - Kip

Originally Posted by johngalt

See, this is why you and I could never have a civil discussion on this - or pretty much anything else that has to do with faith and morals and ethics. To even say that homosexuality is a sin is just ludicrous. It is a complete perversion of the teachings you say you follow. Yet somehow I'm the one who's misrepresenting the Christian faith.

Because you are misrepresenting the Christian faith, you can look at the famous scripture, It might make your nose and eyes bleed but do me a favor, look up Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13,15-16. This scripture makes it as clear a theft and coveting in how I and millions of other Christians, Jews and Muslims view homosexuality.

Paul said "who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death . . . " He was speaking of old Testament laws such as homosexuality which was punishable by death but it is no longer punishable by death as Jesus fullfilled the law and we are now under the law of Grace from God.

Thats how it is to be viewed by a Christian. A sin. Just like any sin but equal to the eyes of God. A Christians purpose is to spread the gospel and if you disagree, fine. Ill move on...methinks you arent though.

Originally Posted by johngalt

No, you won't call me names. You'll just call homosexuals sinners who need healing and need to change their sinful lifestyle.

I don't understand. You disagree with me. I fully respect your views yet you cannot respect mine? Is it THAT unfathomable to think that someone might disagree with you?

I understand a homosexual may perceive my beliefs to be negative and I understand that. I wont alter my faith just to save a few feelings along the way. I try to go through life with a purpose. You dont like my spiritual purpose. Whoopy. You aint the first and you wont be the last.

[WVRed]

Originally Posted by MWM

Haven't we had this discussion a few dozen times already?

After round 4,216,395, the score is still-

Liberal Tree Huggers-0
Conservative Bible Thumpers-0

Getting back to the subject, it seems I remember after the Marlins won the WS, that they said if they had a gay teammate that it would cause a lot of problems for them. Does anybody else remember that article?

[Mutaman]

Originally Posted by RedBloodedAmerican

Just posting this so I can check the date on this message board. Is the year 2005 or 1905?

I've been thinking the same thing myself a lot lately. Particularly when i read about somebody from the Cato or Heritage foundation calling social security "socialism".
I fully expect to see lynchings start up again soon.