Online Now 899

The Barnyard

The place for Gamecock football and recruiting talk, plus off-topic subjects.

On this Board 36
Record: 738 (6/16/2013)

Online now 879
Record: 9625 (10/8/2011)

Boards ▾

Palmetto Proving Grounds

The place for Gamecock talk, news and information

The Barnyard

The place for Gamecock football and recruiting talk, plus off-topic subjects.

The McGuire Room

The place for Gamecock basketball talk, news and information

The Sarge

The ultimate online destination for the latest scoop on Carolina's national power baseball program.

GCI Archives

Everything from Gamecock Insider Tony Morrell, in case you missed it.

Spurnotes Archives

The place to read all past editions of Spurnotes

Video Archive

Hall of Fame

The best of the best

Ticket Exchange

Buy and sell your Gamecock tickets here.

Test Forum

Feedback for TBS and 247Sports.

Reply

I hate to bring up an old topic, but

  • dodgerblue-42 said...

    I believe that homosexuality is a sin because I believe that the Bible is the Word of God.

    Do you believe that the Bible has stayed word for word through human existence? Just curious...

    "I used to walk up a hill to and from school in my days", says every Clemson student ever.

    jbaker8537

  • jbaker7033 said...

    Do you believe that the Bible has stayed word for word through human existence? Just curious...

    I'm not sure where you're going with that ...but I think we would all be better off not challenging each other's religious convictions and interpretations...not really a road we should venture down

    maxcy124sc90

  • maxcy124sc90 said...

    I'm not sure where you're going with that ...but I think we would all be better off not challenging each other's religious convictions and interpretations...not really a road we should venture down

    I'm just asking a yes or no question. I thought this was a political conversation... Then religion was brought into it. Besides, all this Amendment 1 crap stemmed from religion, correct? I mean, who knew there was more to the Amendment past making gay marriage illegal? Only excuse I've heard that said it was wrong is because the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. Road has been ventured down, now I'm just trying to get directions.

    This post was edited by jbaker8537 on 5/10/2012 at 2:58 PM

    "I used to walk up a hill to and from school in my days", says every Clemson student ever.

    jbaker8537

  • maxcy124sc90 said...

    I'm not sure where you're going with that ...but I think we would all be better off not challenging each other's religious convictions and interpretations...not really a road we should venture down

    Did you post a reply when DodgerBlue42 challenged mine first(yes, I know that sounds like 1st grade!). Didn't see it.

    Does that apply to Liberal Christians like me, Muslims, Hindus, etc.?

    This post was edited by 81 Alumnus on 5/10/2012 at 3:01 PM

    signature image

    81 Alumnus

  • jbaker7033 said...

    I'm just asking a yes or no question. I thought this was a political conversation... Then religion was brought into it. Besides, all this Amendment 1 crap stemmed from religion, correct? I mean, who knew there was more to the Amendment past making gay marriage illegal? Only excuse I've heard that said it was wrong is because the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. Road has been ventured down, now I'm just trying to get directions.

    i love the logic of using one interpretation of scripture to deny people civil rights and when that's criticized, the criticism is called "intolerant."

    This post was edited by 81 Alumnus on 5/10/2012 at 3:02 PM

    signature image

    81 Alumnus

  • 81 Alumnus said...

    i love the logic of using one interpretation of scripture to deny people civil rights and when that's criticizes, the criticism is called "intolerant."

    What are you trying to do to my marriage? I just told you my wife and I love each other more now. Are you trying to ruin that?

    signature image

    You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#

    CockAtLaw

  • maxcy124sc90 said...

    I'm not sure where you're going with that ...but I think we would all be better off not challenging each other's religious convictions and interpretations...not really a road we should venture down

    In so much as homosexual marriage is concerned, I completely agree. I think that if you're going to restrict people's rights, there needs to be a societal benefit to doing so. I can't see any at all in this case. I've yet to see anyone point to any benefits at all except that Christians believe homosexuality to be immoral and it suits their sensibilities to deny homosexuals the right to marry (and, indeed, have it be called 'marriage').

    EarthyTechnoPop

  • jbaker7033 said...

    I'm just asking a yes or no question. I thought this was a political conversation... Then religion was brought into it. Besides, all this Amendment 1 crap stemmed from religion, correct? I mean, who knew there was more to the Amendment past making gay marriage illegal? Only excuse I've heard that said it was wrong is because the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. Road has been ventured down, now I'm just trying to get directions.

    It is a political conversation, but when some people base their politics on their religion, it is difficult to separate the two.

    This is why, as I said earlier, maybe we should remove "marriage" from the law completely. Only recognize domestic partnerships (2 people, doesn't matter who). This way, "marriage" can stay purely theological. My guess is that church leaders are concerned that doing so would mean that over time, marriage would not become a phase in the average person's life. Right now, it's school, marriage, kids, etc. What would happen if "marriage" were replaced with "domestic partnership?"

    signature image

    You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#

    CockAtLaw

  • EarthyTechnoPop said...

    In so much as homosexual marriage is concerned, I completely agree. I think that if you're going to restrict people's rights, there needs to be a societal benefit to doing so. I can't see any at all in this case. I've yet to see anyone point to any benefits at all except that Christians believe homosexuality to be immoral and it suits their sensibilities to deny homosexuals the right to marry (and, indeed, have it be called 'marriage').

    A lot of folks, including me, desire to maintain our traditional values as a nation as much as anything. I think letting each state decide on this issue is probably best within our federalist system. Let the chips fall where they may. There are certainly valid arguments on both sides and therefore, letting individuals states decide is a good avenue in my opinion.

    maxcy124sc90

  • EarthyTechnoPop said...

    In so much as homosexual marriage is concerned, I completely agree. I think that if you're going to restrict people's rights, there needs to be a societal benefit to doing so. I can't see any at all in this case. I've yet to see anyone point to any benefits at all except that Christians believe homosexuality to be immoral and it suits their sensibilities to deny homosexuals the right to marry (and, indeed, have it be called 'marriage').

    Bingo. What's sad is God wants happiness in all people. Wouldn't it be going against God's wishes to deny someone of something that would make them happy? Or is it ok bc the Christian's decided it wasn't right and it doesn't matter now? Just trying to figure out who the go to guy is around here...

    "I used to walk up a hill to and from school in my days", says every Clemson student ever.

    jbaker8537

  • CockAtLaw said...

    It is a political conversation, but when some people base their politics on their religion, it is difficult to separate the two.

    This is why, as I said earlier, maybe we should remove "marriage" from the law completely. Only recognize domestic partnerships (2 people, doesn't matter who). This way, "marriage" can stay purely theological. My guess is that church leaders are concerned that doing so would mean that over time, marriage would not become a phase in the average person's life. Right now, it's school, marriage, kids, etc. What would happen if "marriage" were replaced with "domestic partnership?"

    Uh, that idea would go as far as a flea fart dude.

    "I used to walk up a hill to and from school in my days", says every Clemson student ever.

    jbaker8537

  • EarthyTechnoPop said...

    In so much as homosexual marriage is concerned, I completely agree. I think that if you're going to restrict people's rights, there needs to be a societal benefit to doing so. I can't see any at all in this case. I've yet to see anyone point to any benefits at all except that Christians believe homosexuality to be immoral and it suits their sensibilities to deny homosexuals the right to marry (and, indeed, have it be called 'marriage').

    This pretty much sums up where I stand.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule." - Friedrich Nietzsche

    joetheogre ●

  • jbaker7033 said...

    Uh, that idea would go as far as a flea fart dude.

    I read somewhere that farts killed the dinosaurs. That could be powerful stuff.

    signature image

    You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#

    CockAtLaw

  • CockAtLaw said...

    I read somewhere that farts killed the dinosaurs. That could be powerful stuff.

    Do you think there are gay fleas?

    "I used to walk up a hill to and from school in my days", says every Clemson student ever.

    jbaker8537

  • maxcy124sc90 said...

    There are certainly valid arguments on both sides and therefore, letting individuals states decide is a good avenue in my opinion.

    What is the valid argument to deny homosexuals the right to marry? What benefit does society gain by preventing them to do so?

    EarthyTechnoPop

  • EarthyTechnoPop said...

    What is the valid argument to deny homosexuals the right to marry? What benefit does society gain by preventing them to do so?

    If you don't let gay people marry, then they won't have gay kids and infiltrate our society. Duh.

    signature image

    You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#

    CockAtLaw

  • jbaker7033 said...

    Do you think there are gay fleas?

    I don't know. I'm sure it's happened by accident before because i sure as heck can't tell a male flea from a female flea; I don't know how they would. That would be awkward.

    signature image

    You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#

    CockAtLaw

  • But seriously, we are all missing the point here. If we allowed gay weddings, how fabulous would they be?

    signature image

    You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#

    CockAtLaw

  • I've seen studies about beetles that turn gay when there is not enough females around.

    signature image

    follow me on twitter and instagram @palmettozia **** I'm not an insider, I just live here ****

    3pt0

  • 3.0 said...

    I've seen studies about beatles that turn gay when there is not enough females around.

    I don't know how they'd study that ... they always had hordes of females following them ...

    attachment

    EarthyTechnoPop

  • 3.0 said...

    I've seen studies about beetles that turn gay when there is not enough females around.

    I'll bet it was Ringo. With that kind of name, it's so obvious.

    signature image

    You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#

    CockAtLaw

  • maxcy124sc90 said...

    A lot of folks, including me, desire to maintain our traditional values as a nation as much as anything. I think letting each state decide on this issue is probably best within our federalist system. Let the chips fall where they may. There are certainly valid arguments on both sides and therefore, letting individuals states decide is a good avenue in my opinion.

    Let each state decide?

    So you DISAGREE with the last GOP platform and the stated position of the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, Willard Romney, that there should be a FEDERAL constitutional amendment banning gays from being married or entering civil unions?

    Cool.

    This post was edited by 81 Alumnus on 5/10/2012 at 3:31 PM

    signature image

    81 Alumnus

  • EarthyTechnoPop said...

    I don't know how they'd study that ... they always had hordes of females following them ...

    upvote for getting the beatles joke first. I promise I didn't see it when I posted mine.

    signature image

    You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#

    CockAtLaw

  • 81 Alumnus said...

    Let each state decide?

    So you disagree with the last GOP platform and the stated position of the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, Willard Romney, that there should be a FEDERAL constitutional amendment banning gays from being married or entering civil unions?

    Cool.

    And the Romney campaign position that came out today that they will actively campaign for a national amendment measure to highlight the differences between he and Obama.

    I would appreciate it if you answered my question as to why you are trying to ruin my marriage. TIA

    signature image

    You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#

    CockAtLaw

  • CockAtLaw said...

    And the Romney campaign position that came out today that they will actively campaign for a national amendment measure to highlight the differences between he and Obama.

    I would appreciate it if you answered my question as to why you are trying to ruin my marriage. TIA

    Nyaah, nyaah! I refuse to answer questions aimed at me on account of I'm so precious.

    signature image

    81 Alumnus

South Carolina
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports