POLL: Who's your Favorite Women's World Cup Soccer Player?

[g8r.tom]

In your mind it is impossible because you have the opinion that one person's beliefs are correct and any other that has differing beliefs is wrong and hateful. If you can't see that, then you are the problem. Playing soccer together doesn't require that you either suck dong or you don't ... it requires that you play your assignment and work hard as a team. Its people like you who are exclusive and hyperbolic. I don't agree with same sex marriage but I also will not stop 2 consenting adults from being together when and however they want ... and furthermore, I will definitely not walk away from a soccer match with them unless they require me to denounce my beliefs.

Well said.

 

[g8tr72]

 

[soflagator]

Not unique to women soccer players, but disgraceful behavior nonetheless.

I really don't get this insistence on non-ghetto people acting ghetto, or why it's accepted and even glorified. It has to be the worst fad in human history.

 

[T REX]

An open letter to Jaelene Hinkle

Boom!

 

[g8r.tom]

a lone island of staunchly archaic religious conviction in a vast sea of queers

she sounds very tolerant. she is entitled to her view. so are Christians. sometimes when those views are opposed, civility is the mature thing to do. not label the other side as hate.

 

[g8tr72]

An open letter to Jaelene Hinkle

Boom!

:eyeroll:

Which group is for tolerance again?

The author said Hinkle was "a lone island of staunchly archaic religious conviction in a vast sea of queers. Women’s soccer really isn’t for people like you."

I guess freedom of religion and freedom of expression only applies to certain beliefs.

One other line that caught me eye....

Why, then, were you unwilling to answer questions about it? If this is your stance, why won’t you defend it to members of the media?

This question is simply laughable.

On a related note, one of Hinkle's favorite quotes is "If you live for people's acceptance, you'll die from their rejection." Looks like someone has their priorities right.

 

[Durty South Swamp]

tolerance only applies, when you agree with the position ~ trex

 

[ThreatMatrix]

Lol. Those believers think all the LGBT are gonna burn in hell. True love and tolerance. Lol. Gtfo.

Wrong.
Those “believers” aren’t lighting the fire, they’re expressing the consequences.
But what do you care? Does it hurt your feelings? You don’t believe it so what difference does it make to you?
(Just to set you straight they may burn in Hell but it won’t be for the sin. If that were true we’d all burn in Hell. Don’t speak about things you don’t have the first clue about.)

In any case it’s not a religious argument. It’s a societal and political issue. Contrary to what the liberal press would like you to believe AIDS is a homosexual problem. Once somebody identifies themselves as gay they are 99% of the time taking up the liberal flag no questions asked. Abortion sure, men can be women and vis versa, yep. Guns should be outlawed, check. Cops are bad, definitely. Open borders, of course. Socialism, awesome. They shut their brains off based on their genital desires and march in lockstep. Do what you want, believe what you want but when you try to shove it down my throat (no pun intended) and insist I celebrate ur perversion you can go f yourself.

 

[Durty South Swamp]

its heating up...

 

[ThreatMatrix]

And... for the record. Intolerance isn’t a bad thing. There are lots of things I don’t tolerate. Pissing on my welcome mat, fondling my daughter, hitting woman. Being “tolerant” doesn’t make bad things good.

 

[T REX]

tolerance only applies, when you agree with the position ~ trex

Why would you tolerate people who want to take away your rights? LOL. That doesn't make any sense.

Look at all the haters. Coming out of the woodwork. Hilarious.

 

[T REX]

Wrong.
Those “believers” aren’t lighting the fire, they’re expressing the consequences.
But what do you care? Does it hurt your feelings? You don’t believe it so what difference does it make to you?
(Just to set you straight they may burn in Hell but it won’t be for the sin. If that were true we’d all burn in Hell. Don’t speak about things you don’t have the first clue about.)

In any case it’s not a religious argument. It’s a societal and political issue. Contrary to what the liberal press would like you to believe AIDS is a homosexual problem. Once somebody identifies themselves as gay they are 99% of the time taking up the liberal flag no questions asked. Abortion sure, men can be women and vis versa, yep. Guns should be outlawed, check. Cops are bad, definitely. Open borders, of course. Socialism, awesome. They shut their brains off based on their genital desires and march in lockstep. Do what you want, believe what you want but when you try to shove it down my throat (no pun intended) and insist I celebrate ur perversion you can go f yourself.

 

[Durty South Swamp]

Why would you tolerate people who want to take away your rights? LOL. That doesn't make any sense.

Look at all the haters. Coming out of the woodwork. Hilarious.

you dont tolerate what you dont like, we get it. welcome to the actual real world where everyone lives. that's the big secret. there is no such thing as universal tolerance. thank you for providing us an example of this fact.

also, no one is taking away anyone's rights. there is no "right" to be married, there is no "right" to force someone to create something for you. these are all privileges and examples of agreements for mutual benefit.

 

[g8r.tom]

Why would you tolerate people who want to take away your rights? LOL. That doesn't make any sense.

Look at all the haters. Coming out of the woodwork. Hilarious.

What rights were being taking away?

Your the only one smugly throwing the word hate around.

 

[Durty South Swamp]

What rights were being taking away?

Your the only one smugly throwing the word hate around.

the only one that seems to hate the other side is trex unfortunately. he thinks because hes got a gay friend or cousin or whatever, it somehow makes him morally virtuous in this discussion.

 

[g8tr72]

Why would you tolerate people who want to take away your rights? LOL. That doesn't make any sense.

Look at all the haters. Coming out of the woodwork. Hilarious.

That dislike is quite courageous.

Care to actually address the content of my post?

I actually thought of your unwillingness to discuss this subject with civility in the Politics forum when I read this quote from your "Boom" article.

Why, then, were you unwilling to answer questions about it? If this is your stance, why won’t you defend it to members of the media?

 

[g8tr72]

Why would you tolerate people who want to take away your rights? LOL. That doesn't make any sense.

So you now sympathize with the pro-gun crowd?

 

[T REX]

you dont tolerate what you dont like, we get it. welcome to the actual real world where everyone lives. that's the big secret. there is no such thing as universal tolerance. thank you for providing us an example of this fact.

also, no one is taking away anyone's rights. there is no "right" to be married, there is no "right" to force someone to create something for you. these are all privileges and examples of agreements for mutual benefit.

Obergefell v. Hodges, is a landmark civil rights case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

 

[T REX]

So you now sympathize with the pro-gun crowd?

I am pro-2nd Amendment and have said as much many times.

Oh...that's cute. you think I'm a liberal. LOL. Funny stuff.

 

[Durty South Swamp]

Obergefell v. Hodges, is a landmark civil rights case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

courts make rulings that are incorrect all the time, the scotus has made rulings, then years later reversed them. unless the right to marriage is listed in the bill of rights, it aint one.

And its pretty simple to understand why... it takes two people mutually agreeing to marry in order for it to occur. If marriage was truly a "right." I could just marry someone tomorrow... but i cant, because i need their consent. If i need anothers consent in order to keep from violating their rights, it isnt a right. further if two are married and one wants a divorce, they can have it, protest by the other be damned. If marriage was a right, and one divorced another who was not in agreement with the act, then by definition, the first person violated the second person's "right."

Except none of that occurs... because marriage isnt a right.