Michael Sams (Page 3)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2014-02-13 12:46 AM in reply to: 0 |
Member 1293 Pearland,Tx | Subject: RE: Michael Sams |
|
2014-02-13 12:57 AM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Michael Sams Originally posted by strykergt http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Olc5C4SXAYM Nice! Go Michael Sams! Tear it down!!! It will hurt no one. Edited by Left Brain 2014-02-13 1:00 AM |
2014-02-13 8:14 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Champion 15211 Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL | Subject: RE: Michael Sams Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by strykergt http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Olc5C4SXAYM Nice! Go Michael Sams! Tear it down!!! It will hurt no one. I have yet to hear anyone put it any better than that guy. Nicely done. |
2014-02-13 10:46 AM in reply to: crowny2 |
Champion 10550 Austin, Texas | Subject: RE: Michael Sams Originally posted by crowny2 Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by strykergt http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Olc5C4SXAYM Nice! Go Michael Sams! Tear it down!!! It will hurt no one. I have yet to hear anyone put it any better than that guy. Nicely done. So true - that was brilliantly said. And yet, today has made me very sad. Just when I think this country is making progress, along comes something to completely dishearten me. How in the world is this OK??? |
2014-02-13 10:56 AM in reply to: blueyedbikergirl |
Master 4452 | Subject: RE: Michael Sams Originally posted by blueyedbikergirl Originally posted by crowny2 Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by strykergt http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Olc5C4SXAYM Nice! Go Michael Sams! Tear it down!!! It will hurt no one. I have yet to hear anyone put it any better than that guy. Nicely done. So true - that was brilliantly said. And yet, today has made me very sad. Just when I think this country is making progress, along comes something to completely dishearten me. How in the world is this OK??? Sigh. |
2014-02-13 12:34 PM in reply to: crowny2 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Michael Sams Originally posted by crowny2 Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by strykergt http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Olc5C4SXAYM Nice! Go Michael Sams! Tear it down!!! It will hurt no one. I have yet to hear anyone put it any better than that guy. Nicely done. I agree, and I'll even point out that the beginning portion where he points out the comparisons is powerful stuff and I couldn't agree with it more. I have some differing opinions here and there about this topic that haven't really been discussed on BT (perhaps another thread some day), but no matter what NOBODY should be treated any different. We are ALL equals in the eye of our creator and we ALL have the right to pursue life liberty and happiness in this great country we call America. |
|
2014-02-13 12:48 PM in reply to: blueyedbikergirl |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Michael Sams Originally posted by blueyedbikergirl Originally posted by crowny2 Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by strykergt http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Olc5C4SXAYM Nice! Go Michael Sams! Tear it down!!! It will hurt no one. I have yet to hear anyone put it any better than that guy. Nicely done. So true - that was brilliantly said. And yet, today has made me very sad. Just when I think this country is making progress, along comes something to completely dishearten me. How in the world is this OK??? I didn't read the bill, so I'm basing this on the following text of the article: I'm not entirely sure what problem they're trying to fix, but I feel that a church has a legitimate right to not perform a same sex wedding if they don't want to and I'm guessing that most of you would probably agree with that. So, I guess I think of this as a completely different discussion than SSM in general because the state recognizing or permitting SSM is one thing, but allowing a church to determine who they marry doesn't seem that out of line to me. |
2014-02-13 12:53 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Michael Sams If he didn't make a big deal about being gay, then nobody else would either! Well, except, the aforementioned Kansas state legislature, and now the Tennessee legislature's `TURN THE GAYS AWAY!' bill. http://www.dailyhelmsman.com/state-senator-introduces-new-bill-coin... Indiana bans same-sex marriage and is considering outlawing civil unions, while Oklahoma has said it would ban all marriage if it is forced to recognize same-sex marriage. But, you know, if gay people didn't make a big deal about being gay, nobody else would, either. |
2014-02-13 1:03 PM in reply to: 0 |
Member 1293 Pearland,Tx | Subject: RE: Michael Sams http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/02/11/mississippi-s... Edited by strykergt 2014-02-13 1:03 PM |
2014-02-13 1:18 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Champion 5312 Calgary | Subject: RE: Michael Sams Originally posted by Left Brain So, Sams, the Missouri football player about to be a high draft choice in the NFL, has come out that he is gay. I've been listening all day to pundits and athletes giving their opinions about how it may effect locker rooms, team unity, and even fan reaction. I've always been of the opinion that this whole deal of "coming out" is ridiculous, because who cares? I think I'm starting to see it differently. I'm starting to think that if high profile gay athletes, and gay people in other high profile positions don't publically come out, we'll just be stuck where we are.....basically "don't ask don't tell"....which is starting to seem stupid to me because who wants to live like that? I don't want anyone to have to, and if it takes these people in the headlines to hurry that along......so be it. I'm STILL a Michael Sams fan!
glad you are coming around. |
2014-02-13 1:41 PM in reply to: strykergt |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Michael Sams Originally posted by strykergt http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/02/11/mississippi-s... "We're going to treat them like a human being first and foremost"....... I wonder how much thought that took? LOL |
|
2014-02-13 2:40 PM in reply to: mr2tony |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Michael Sams Originally posted by mr2tony If he didn't make a big deal about being gay, then nobody else would either! Well, except, the aforementioned Kansas state legislature, and now the Tennessee legislature's `TURN THE GAYS AWAY!' bill. http://www.dailyhelmsman.com/state-senator-introduces-new-bill-coin... Indiana bans same-sex marriage and is considering outlawing civil unions, while Oklahoma has said it would ban all marriage if it is forced to recognize same-sex marriage. But, you know, if gay people didn't make a big deal about being gay, nobody else would, either. One thing for sure that I can say is I've become a lot more Libertarian about this topic and many others, thanks in large part to my friends here on BT. I don't like either side using the legislature to push controversial issues and in many ways wish the government would just get the bleep out of the marriage business period (gay or straight). I'm sure I'm over simplifying it, but give anyone the right to form a legal partnership that's recognized by the State and Feds and call it good. I'm sure you'd have to exempt family members and such to avoid tax avoidance schemes. If churches or individuals still want to have marriage ceremonies that's fine, but the legal recognition of the partnership is what should matter to the State from a legal standpoint. No matter what, there are going to be people who are for traditional marriage and no matter what there are going to be people for marriage for all. One side can win an election and put in laws banning everything in one state and the next year a new regime can pass laws making it legal and on and on. Not even sure if I make sense, but I'm trying to search for a compromise here that everyone can live with. Please vote for me in 2016 |
2014-02-13 3:26 PM in reply to: strykergt |
Member 1293 Pearland,Tx | Subject: RE: Michael Sams |
2014-02-13 4:02 PM in reply to: mr2tony |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: Michael Sams Originally posted by mr2tony If he didn't make a big deal about being gay, then nobody else would either! Well, except, the aforementioned Kansas state legislature, and now the Tennessee legislature's `TURN THE GAYS AWAY!' bill. http://www.dailyhelmsman.com/state-senator-introduces-new-bill-coin... Indiana bans same-sex marriage and is considering outlawing civil unions, while Oklahoma has said it would ban all marriage if it is forced to recognize same-sex marriage. But, you know, if gay people didn't make a big deal about being gay, nobody else would, either. Weaksauce. Idaho outlawed civil unions for anybody years ago. |
2014-02-13 6:23 PM in reply to: strykergt |
Member 1293 Pearland,Tx | Subject: RE: Michael Sams |
2014-02-13 7:23 PM in reply to: strykergt |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Michael Sams Originally posted by strykergt http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/13/ted-cruz-gay-marriage-bill... I guess I'm just too dumb to understand why people can't marry whoever they want. Geez. |
|
2014-02-13 7:26 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Member 1293 Pearland,Tx | Subject: RE: Michael Sams Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by strykergt http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/13/ted-cruz-gay-marriage-bill... I guess I'm just too dumb to understand why people can't marry whoever they want. Geez. I agree LB i know a dude that just wants to enjoy the best of both worlds from one person |
2014-02-13 8:24 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Veteran 869 Stevens Point, Wisconsin | Subject: RE: Michael Sams Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by strykergt http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/13/ted-cruz-gay-marriage-bill... I guess I'm just too dumb to understand why people can't marry whoever they want. Geez. This is why we still need vocal people. Because the other side is just as vocal about these issues. |
2014-02-14 12:27 AM in reply to: mr2tony |
Master 2380 Beijing | Subject: RE: Michael Sams Originally posted by mr2tony Oklahoma has said it would ban all marriage if it is forced to recognize same-sex marriage.
BRING IT. I would love to get marriage out of government. |
2014-02-14 9:06 AM in reply to: moondawg14 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Michael Sams Originally posted by moondawg14 Originally posted by mr2tony Oklahoma has said it would ban all marriage if it is forced to recognize same-sex marriage. BRING IT. I would love to get marriage out of government. I'm cool with that too. |
2014-02-14 9:51 AM in reply to: strykergt |
Expert 3126 Boise, ID | Subject: RE: Michael Sams Originally posted by strykergt http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/13/ted-cruz-gay-marriage-bill... I think the main issue here is state's rights vs. federal government mandates. Which generally, I am in favor of states retaining their rights and the feds keeping their noses out of things. Simple solution to all this is to simplify the tax code. Flat percentage for everyone would go a long way to eliminating the fight over who can marry who. When you financially reward people for being married, there is always going to be a fight over "if they can marry such and such why can't I marry such and such, it's not fair. Like was said, get the government out of marriage and the fight stops. People who want to be married in church will get married in church, people who want an alternative ceremony of some sort will have it and it shouldn't bother anyone either way. |
|
2014-02-14 10:05 AM in reply to: Aarondb4 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Michael Sams Originally posted by Aarondb4 Originally posted by strykergt http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/13/ted-cruz-gay-marriage-bill... I think the main issue here is state's rights vs. federal government mandates. Which generally, I am in favor of states retaining their rights and the feds keeping their noses out of things. Simple solution to all this is to simplify the tax code. Flat percentage for everyone would go a long way to eliminating the fight over who can marry who. When you financially reward people for being married, there is always going to be a fight over "if they can marry such and such why can't I marry such and such, it's not fair. Like was said, get the government out of marriage and the fight stops. People who want to be married in church will get married in church, people who want an alternative ceremony of some sort will have it and it shouldn't bother anyone either way. ditto. I think you hit on a great point that often gets sidestepped. Obviously in America anyone can live with or hang out with whoever they want. It really boils down to the state recognition of "marriage" which is utilized as the foundation for most of our laws. Hospital visitation, property rights, inheritance, you name it, it all circles around the government recognition of the "marriage". I think there always has to be some sort of government recognition of the "marriage", "partnership" or whatever you want to call it due to all of the legal implications that come along with it. However, for the financial stuff you are 100% correct. If there's no financial incentive to be married then that's one less thing for the government to be meddling with. |
2014-02-14 10:11 AM in reply to: 0 |
Veteran 869 Stevens Point, Wisconsin | Subject: RE: Michael Sams Originally posted by Aarondb4 Originally posted by strykergt http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/13/ted-cruz-gay-marriage-bill... I think the main issue here is state's rights vs. federal government mandates. Which generally, I am in favor of states retaining their rights and the feds keeping their noses out of things. Simple solution to all this is to simplify the tax code. Flat percentage for everyone would go a long way to eliminating the fight over who can marry who. When you financially reward people for being married, there is always going to be a fight over "if they can marry such and such why can't I marry such and such, it's not fair. Like was said, get the government out of marriage and the fight stops. People who want to be married in church will get married in church, people who want an alternative ceremony of some sort will have it and it shouldn't bother anyone either way. This is much more then states rights vs federal government. To me its a civil rights issue - and no state should be able to discriminate. That's exactly what these laws are discriminatory. I doubt if we had the tax code that you mentioned (which would be great - I'm all for a flat tax) the fight would even be close to finished. People are against gay marriage because of their religious beliefs. You may say get your government out of marriage, and I say get your religion out of my government. Tax breaks are not the only reason that we want to get married. Edited by Justin86 2014-02-14 10:12 AM |
2014-02-14 10:19 AM in reply to: Hook'em |
Extreme Veteran 611 Casa Grande, Az. | Subject: RE: Michael Sams Originally posted by Hook'em http://espn.go.com/nfl/draft2014/story/_/id/10455131/michael-sam-sr-says-was-terribly-misquoted His dad states he was terribly misquoted....Originally posted by Left Brain Based upon Michael Sam's story of growing up, I'm assuming dear ol' dad was not the Ward Cleaver type. I heard the comments from Sam's father tonight. What a complete jackarse. |
2014-02-17 9:44 AM in reply to: blueyedbikergirl |
Expert 1215 Austin, TX | Subject: RE: Michael Sams Originally posted by blueyedbikergirl Just when I think this country is making progress, along comes something to completely dishearten me. How in the world is this OK??? I lived in Kansas for a year (this was 20+ years ago). Many there like to boast they are the belt buckle of the Bible Belt. I found out from a co-worker when I lived there that I apparently was washing my car in the wrong part of town. Evidently I was washing my car in the black part of town. I had not noticed when I was washing my car. I still washed it in the same place after I was "enlightened". I live in Austin now which is much more open minded about things. My son, who is straight, belonged to a LBGT club in high school whose main message was acceptance. He joined to support a friend who was bi. My son did just graduate last year, so this is recent. But I think people are slowly becoming more accepting of life choices. |
|
| ||||
|
| |||
|
|