Question, tell me, one is he married?, Two I read where he worked with all the gay rights groups and got all the awards form them from them while at Ga., tell me he isn't . Cause that would be just like the IHL to do that to us. I hope I am worried for nothing.
New Prez,
- Thread starter eagle ron
- Start date
His being gay doesn't bother me in the least. Two other things do however.
1) He's from the SEC. Look at the bad schools around CUSA. They usually have someone from the SEC there. We all know how last year went. I hope he didn't pick up any bad practices from working on athletics for some SEC programs, because with us just happening to be on probation at the same point this guy comes in, gives me a very, very, bad feeling.
2) Any big money project on campus has his stamp of approval. I'm scared he'll come here and spend like crazy.
1) He's from the SEC. Look at the bad schools around CUSA. They usually have someone from the SEC there. We all know how last year went. I hope he didn't pick up any bad practices from working on athletics for some SEC programs, because with us just happening to be on probation at the same point this guy comes in, gives me a very, very, bad feeling.
2) Any big money project on campus has his stamp of approval. I'm scared he'll come here and spend like crazy.
Don't worry about things like his sexual orientation and if he is a liberal spender. He comes from a University the size of Ole Miss, State and USM put together. The University of Georgia has an inpeccable reputation, and is the oldest land grant university in the US. Don't worry about the academic side of what he will bring guys.
His sexual orientation is not a concern but if he is hell bent on promoting gay rights...well that is another story. Gay people can be gay without trying to promote bad behavior as a norm or even common. I have three boys going to school there. So this is a big concern of mine. I have taught my boys that marriage is a life long contract between a man and woman sanctioned by God. Marriage will never be applied to any other configuration of participants. Period. If gay people want to have some kind of binding legal contract between themselves, well they will have to call it something else. Marriage will always be between a man and a woman as it was intended. Tolerance and respect goes both ways and I expect and demand that gays tolerate my views as well.
Can anyone answer this question? What year did Georgia have the lawsuit over gender equity or it might have been over tittle 9 complaint.
calling their views bad behavior isn't exactly tolerant is it? and from what I understand the Gay rights groups would be perfectly happy with a "civil union" which gives them the same benefits as a marriage on taxes, health insurance and under tha family leave act. but perhaps i am wrong there
The guy was given the task of promoting diversity at GA. It was in his title.
He did has job and obviously did it well.
I seriously doubt that making USM a gayer university is part of his agenda.
He did has job and obviously did it well.
I seriously doubt that making USM a gayer university is part of his agenda.
Nope, calling a duck a duck is reality.I am sick and tired of the PC language. I can be nice and express my feelings in a less aggressive manner and tone but reality is what it is. Being gay is an abomination, it is rare and uncommon. It is bad behavior....put as nicely as it can be. Part of the reason for the "debate" is an attempt to excuse and make this particular behavior viewed as normal and "OK". Now transgender has been added to the list. Pedophilia, bestiality....whats next? Civil unions have been proposed and not accepted by the gay community in various states (Mass.). They want to co-opt the institution of marriage. I for one will never accept two men or two women as a "married" couple (or three or four...). To me and my family they will always be considered people engaging in bad behavior...online but in private we have other verbs to describe it.
No they dont have to abide by my views and I dont have to accept them as normal or anything other than what they are, and I am free to call a spade a spade. Tolerance does not include keeping my mouth shut. Tolerance is not treating them any differently than anyone else. I dont treat the two that I know any different but I dont treat them as special either. They have the same rights as I...and that includes the first amendment. Unless you happen to work in a politically sensitive environment ....then you get punished for views that are deemed insensitive to gay people..
http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2012/story/_/id/8908068/2013-super-bowl-chris-culliver-san-francisco-49ers-attend-sensitivity-training
This post was edited on 2/2 10:23 PM by 80's eagle
Do they have the right to marry in Mississippi? If not, then they don't have the same rights as you. This is my objection, believe that justice and law should be blind... Black/ Gold
Don't get hung up on my choice of words. If it is easier to understand my argument, we can substitute ability for right, or could say is marriage an option, you understand my argument I know..... Black/ Gold
Words have meaning. Marriage is not a right. Marriage is an institution sanctioned by God and recognized by the government as a binding contract between a man and woman. Gay people do have the ability to marry same as anyone else but they would have to follow the rules same as anyone else which include marrying the opposite sex.
This post was edited on 2/3 8:43 AM by 80's eagle
Your word choice was fine. People like you assume that marriage is some sort of right. It is not. It's a privilege. Any two people can live together as a couple. It's just a matter of being granted a marriage license by the state. Right now, the line is drawn defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. As it should be.It's unhealthy to create "families" of freaks to adopt children and bring them into these sick and twisted environments, and set them up for abuse. And where does it stop? If you let a couple of pedophiles get married, how are you going to tell the bestiality guy that he can't marry his beloved goat?
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
well 80's, based on your definition, there should be NO marriage recognized by the government under separation of church and state. and Since your definition of marriage is secular, your argument to "make" gays follow the same rules is specious.
Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental
institution irrespective of religious affiliation, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction. The government only recognizes the legal aspects of the contract not the religious beginnings. Nothing specious about it. My definition of marriage is what has guided man kind for thousands of years. It is not new or negotiable.
institution irrespective of religious affiliation, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction. The government only recognizes the legal aspects of the contract not the religious beginnings. Nothing specious about it. My definition of marriage is what has guided man kind for thousands of years. It is not new or negotiable.
Personally I don't think government should be in control of who can or can't marry. Period. There should be civil arrangements for any two people living in the same shelter for any who want them whether gay,straight, or other. The government has absolutely no business sticking their nose in this matter.
Whether you want to go then get "married" at a church is a different matter. Whoever does the non-governmental no-legal side of things can decide who they want or don't want to marry.
Whether you want to go then get "married" at a church is a different matter. Whoever does the non-governmental no-legal side of things can decide who they want or don't want to marry.
Thats called dating. Marriage is a contract, thus government participates on the confirmation of of the contract, legally validating the contract and when the contract is broken and needs mitigating.
Look over the "marriage contract" ie- what is said at the ceremony. Which by the way can change as there is no set standard for what needs to be said. The government only got involved because there needs to be a way to solve legal issues such in a divorce who gets what. That should be separate from the marriage who for Christians should be validated by god not by the government.
There is absolutely nothing in the marriage ceromony that tells me the government needs to be involved. Maybe they should be prosecuting friends when they agree to stick out together through good and bad?
There is absolutely nothing in the marriage ceromony that tells me the government needs to be involved. Maybe they should be prosecuting friends when they agree to stick out together through good and bad?
The marriage contract is issued by the state or controlling authority through the process of receiving a marriage license. The vows taken at the ceremony is simply a display for friends and family of the participates. Friends do not apply for a friendship license therefore do not enter into a binding contract. Your reaching desperately.
And what is the contract for? Purposes of love? nope. Purposes of morality? nope. It's to have a legal framework for divorce and taxes. That has no need to be involved in marriage at all. Any group of people should be able to form a framework on how to divide up money when they break apart, die, or whatever.
What about two older ladies living together to help each other. They should be able to have the same legal framework that married couples have that is currently available only to married couples. The same thing for any other types of living arrangements.
As for this quote "Friends do not apply for a friendship license therefore do not enter into a binding contract. Your reaching desperately."
Exact same thing for marriage. There needs not be a marriage license. It's not the governments business. The government is in this case is legislating morality for no other reason than they can. There does not HAVE to be a marriage license. Therefore they are poking their noses into moral issues they have no business being in.
Any two adults can hire a lawyer to create a contract between them. It's just not called a marriage. What's your point?
Nope can't get the tax status's and legal arrangements that a marriage couple has. They still have to fill individual tax returns. Also there's end of life issues that only married people are currently able to have.
It wouldn't matter to me if the government did allow people to do this, though it would be a good thing to have. The government has no business telling people who they can marry. They used to use it to ban interracial marriages and at times marriages between people of different religions (even different sects of Christianity). Not to draw equivalences between that in the discussion at hand, but to point out its not about gays only. They never should have been able to tell people who they can marry at any point.
On what grounds do you think the government gets this authority
The government is not church so it can't decide who I can marry based on religious grounds.
The government is not an enforcer of morality. Otherwise Porn would be illegal.
The government does not have to have a marriage contract. Therefore it doesn't need to decide.
The government does not decide what I can and can't do unless (the biggie) it can hurt someone else.
Oh and to be clear. I am completely against the government legalizing gay marriage. They just shouldn't have the authority over it period. It would be like asking me do you think the government should legalize or make illegal dogs wearing tutu's. It doesn't hurt anyone, there's no need for them to get involved, so they should stay out of it.
This post was edited on 2/3 11:24 PM by Eagleyed
What's your opinion on adults marrying children? Or people marrying animals? Where do you draw the line?
There was in the past. The more people accept deviant behavior, the more deviant it gets. Again, who gets to draw the line, and how they know where to draw it?
The slippery slope argument, really?
Plus when was the government the decider of what behavior should be allowed and not allowed.
Under that argument the government should ban junk food. Because as you know once you start not taking care of your body cigarettes are next (which should also be banned according to you. Because that will lead to pot which will lead to cocaine.
I never by the slippery slope. It either needs to be banned or be allowed. Never banned because it may allow something else to be allowed. That just crazy.
Well, I don't buy your belief that same sex relationships are harmless. Who made you the decider of what's right and wrong? And you're putting words into my mouth. I didn't say that it should be banned because of what it might lead to. At least stick to the subject.
You said that "the more people accept deviant behavior, the more deviant it gets. Again, who gets to draw the line, and how they know where to draw it?" In response to why should the government have the power to marry people. I would assume that was a response to why they should have the power too but, if it isn't, ok.
You would have to prove one of three things and I'd be against it with you.
1) If you could prove to me that same homosexual relationships harm people. (Other than the people involved). Otherwise eating doughnuts would have to be banned.
2) Or that having someone give marriage vows without the legal contract is bad for people (which is already legal mind you)
3) Or you would have to prove to me that allowing people to get same laws, (tax, medical, and others) that married people have is bad.
I'm not the decider of right and wrong. Neither should the government be. If it hurts others it should be illegal. If it doesn't hurt others it should be legal. For the most part that's how it already is. With this being one of the few exceptions.
And to make myself clear. I don't think the government should give marriage certificates to gays. I don't think they have the authority or need to be handing out marriage certificates in the first place.
I'm enjoying the debate. I'll see what you have for tomorrow. I'm sleepy for now. Have a nice night.
#1 is easy. It's harmful to society as a whole. The left has turned homosexuality into something "cute" that they love to celebrate. The media and entertainment industry has turned it into "normal" behavior that we should laugh at and put up on a pedestal. The more its celebrated by the mainstream, the more confused children are going to want to choose that lifestyle. Yes. I said choose. I firmly believe that it's a cry for attention from emotionally confused children. This is detrimental to society. These people can't reproduce. If we continue to encourage them and treat them as though they're normal, how are we going to sustain ourselves as a viable species as their numbers continue to grow?
And not only that, but its harmful to children. You let them marry, what comes next? They can't produce their own offspring, so they go out and get someone else's. that seems nice at first, but that is a horrible environment for children. They have to witness that disgusting behavior, get teased constantly, and go through all kinds of horrors growing up. And then there's the strong likelihood of sexual abuse. I personally know three people that grew up in that kind of home, and all three are seriously f'd up adults now. If you ban them from being within 100 feet of children, then I'd be more inclined to let them marry each other to their heart's content. Don't see that happening, though.
Welcome to my side.
And not only that, but its harmful to children. You let them marry, what comes next? They can't produce their own offspring, so they go out and get someone else's. that seems nice at first, but that is a horrible environment for children. They have to witness that disgusting behavior, get teased constantly, and go through all kinds of horrors growing up. And then there's the strong likelihood of sexual abuse. I personally know three people that grew up in that kind of home, and all three are seriously f'd up adults now. If you ban them from being within 100 feet of children, then I'd be more inclined to let them marry each other to their heart's content. Don't see that happening, though.
Welcome to my side.
The government and laws are involved in nearly every relationship you can have under the guise of a civil society, and contracts are an excellent way of holding people accountable for their promises and actions through documentation and enforcement. It is necessary, despite your obvious wish to live in Utopia. Not every one is good. If fact, if you look at societies that have weak governments and weak legal structure, namely in Africa, you find that the most immoral people in the culture dominate the rest. Survival of the fittest and most aggressive. The government legislates morality all the time, a vast majority of laws have a basis in morality. Is it not immoral to kill someone in cold blood? Yes, it is and it is illegal. Is it not immoral to steal another persons property? Yes, it is and it is illegal. Is it not immoral for a man to knock a woman up and run off when the baby is born? Yes it is. Even though it is not illegal the government can track that man down and force him to pay child support for 18 years, a way of forcing a person to be morally responsible. Is it immoral for a contractor to accept a down payment on agreed upon work and never even start the job in the time frame agreed to? Yes, it is and with a contract he can be held accountable for his immorality. Immorality is the reason for government in the first place. If everybody was moral and just, we would live in Utopia....but people are people, which makes government and contracts necessary from a judicial standpoint.
Can't believe it, but ole Eagleyed and I are finally in agreement on an issue....I must be slipping...Black/Gold
You would have to prove to me its harmful as a society as a whole. You can't just state it as if its self-evident.
Your whole second paragraph is a slippery slope argument. So no point and even talking about it. Something should either be legal or not legal. It should never be banned because it might lead to something else that in and of its self can be decided whether it should be legal or not legal (in your argument gay adoption).
As for 80's Eagle. Almost all your laws you state are illegal because they hurt people. I fail to see how giving any two people that want a legal rights agreement that is the same as married couple can hurt anyone.
Your only argument that is not necessarily hurting someone is a guy having sex with a lady and then running off and not supporting the child. The law states that people have a legal responsibility to take care of their children. This is because a child without parents supporting them is hurt. Therefore a third party is hurt by their acts requiring a law. It just doesn't happen immediately.
This post was edited on 2/13 2:32 AM by Eagleyed
Latest posts
-
Southern Miss vs. Coastal Carolina Game 2 Live Game Thread.....- Latest: Heath Hinton
-
-