Enough is enough...

[PatriotsReign]

Re: enough is enough....

I hate to sh.i.t in your ham sandwich, but the BB vs Dungy comparison is a bit of a stretch.

Has Dungy done ANYTHING to gays to be accused of intolerance... other than say he thinks homosexuality is wrong. People are entitled to their opinions are they not? Maybe he has done something else and I don't know of it... hey, clue me in. If that's all he is guilty of though, give it a rest!

Saying homosexuality is wrong is the same as saying being black is wrong...it's the way people are born. That in itself is BLATANT bigotry & intolerance.

Even if it were a choice (which it is not), how is choosing homosexuality any different than choosing Christianity? Who's to say which is right & which is wrong...certainly not Dungy!

 

[PatriotsReign]

When did Dungy say homosexuality was wrong publicly? I don't doubt he did, I just don't remember that. Then again, I never read his book.

Frankly, I don't understand why I even have to know that. I don't know a darn thing about BB's personal beliefs. Maybe he doesn't even have any. Should I? I mean, He's a football coach and that's good enough for me. I like the little bit I hear about him here and there off the field, and I'm glad he's not publicly yapping about what he believes in, or that he's a Christian. After all, he's not running for office.

I also disagree that BB's divorce is an argument for the "evil" side. is this 1950? People get divorced. Over half of married couples actually. If divorce and infidelity mean they're evil, well, then an awful lot of people are evil. I'd prefer to think of it as flawed.

I also VASTLY prefer BB's way of dealing with players with the media and I'm sure the players do too. I love how he never tells them what his private conversations with the players are. They always ask, and he says "That's between me and the player." I really like that. He never publicly calls anyone out.

Thank you Bella!! "Infidelity"?? C'mon...ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!!!!

Who TF cares if someone's marriage doesn't work out or if one person has an affair? That's not even important...TO ANYONE!!

Even if someone thinks another person having an affair IS important, it's still NOT IMPORTANT!!

The only people who judge others for having an affair are snoopy, nosy, pompous, judgemental, religious zealots who have nothing better to do with their time.

maybe I should have been more honest about how I really feel

 

[PatriotsReign]

I remember when Tony Dungy's son died. There was a classy thread here where people expressed their condolences and empathized with him and his family on losing a child. Where are all those classy posters now ?

Just because people supported Dungy when his son died doesn't mean they like him. That's just the right thing to do.

There is no correlation between supporting Dungy and supporting his religious/political views...none what-so-ever.

 

[PatriotsReign]

Re: enough is enough....

From the original post: "b. One is lead by a HC who is the poster child for intolerance, even though he is a minority himself. A man who lets his own religious beliefs dictate what he thinks OTHERS should believe."

That sounds like the poster's bashing Dungy's religion to me...I could be wrong.

Considering the whole post was about football, the quoted line above sticks out like a sore thumb.

Intolerance of any kind SHOULD be BASHED!! Whether it is a personal view or the view of a religious group. Whether you believe it or not, it is accepted fact that people are born gay...just as you are born white or black. No religion has the right to judge that.

So that is why most of us are jumping on this stance.

 

[PatriotsReign]

Sorry, but that's a load of nonsense. Everyone believes that EVERYONE else should believe what they believe (regarding fundamental beliefs). If this weren't true, they wouldn't believe it. The only question is the extent to which you are willing to try imposing your belief(s) upon others. Ken is online pissing and moaning about Dungy's 'beliefs' because he disagrees with them and it is Ken's belief that Dungy shouldn't be saying what he is. Ken is, therefore, being a hypocrite on the subject and trying to use the 'public' argument as an excuse.

This is why stuff like this belongs in a different forum.

I am a deeply spiritual person and could care less what others believe. I think all TRULY spiritual people don't care what others believe. Trouble is, there aren't many truly spiritual people who are religious!

 

[AzPatsFan]

Re: enough is enough....

And some of you are wearing your religious bigotry on your posting sleeves. Dungy spoke out against a way of life, if he doesn't want people to criticize his way of life, he should keep quiet. He put himself in a public forum as a public figure, it is perfectly acceptable to criticize him as such.

Pluralism is everything this man is against, so don't bring it up as if the "left wing, politically correct agenda" is hindering its existence in this country.

This is neither the time nor place. Suffice it to say... Baloney!

Left Wing States are universally closed societies, imposing a smothering orthodoxy where ever tried. Show me a single counter example. All the European states, inlcuding those with temporay left governments were plurally founded. In Asia where democracy exists, it was was imposed by democracies after subjugation, and then took root. Yet all the genuine democracies extant in the world were created with both theist and non-theist input and sentiments.

Unless you believe in the reality of Night equals Day, and Up equals Down; and then for you, a "People's Democracy" is not a foul totalitarian autocracy.

 

[upstater1]

Re: enough is enough....

This is neither the time nor place. Suffice it to say... Baloney!

Left Wing States are universally closed societies, imposing a smothering orthodoxy where ever tried. Show me a single counter example. All the European states, inlcuding those with temporay left governments were plurally founded. In Asia where democracy exists, it was was imposed by democracies after subjugation, and then took root. Yet all the genuine democracies extant in the world were created with both theist and non-theist input and sentiments.

Unless you believe in the reality of Night equals Day, and Up equals Down; and then for you, a "People's Democracy" is not a foul totalitarian autocracy.

Can you name a country you call a left-wing state? Seems to me you may be mixing up liberalism, pluralism, multiculturalism (all left-wing ideals) with totalitarian states such as the Soviet Union. I mean, look at Sweden with their 70% tax rate. Socialists to the core. But even they are far far far far far left of American left-wingers and liberals.

 

[bradmahn]

Re: enough is enough....

This is neither the time nor place. Suffice it to say... Baloney!

Left Wing States are universally closed societies, imposing a smothering orthodoxy where ever tried. Show me a single counter example. All the European states, inlcuding those with temporay left governments were plurally founded. In Asia where democracy exists, it was was imposed by democracies after subjugation, and then took root. Yet all the genuine democracies extant in the world were created with both theist and non-theist input and sentiments.

Unless you believe in the reality of Night equals Day, and Up equals Down; and then for you, a "People's Democracy" is not a foul totalitarian autocracy.

And theocracies favor equality and pluralism? Fascist, right wing governments are free societies that promote democracy as well, no?

 

[Pats726]

Everyone believes that EVERYONE else should believe what they believe (regarding fundamental beliefs).

No...I don't believe that is true...

 

[Deus Irae]

Nah, you seem to have glossed over the links that prove the groups Dungy associates himself with (and wife sits on the board) go far beyond proselytizing. I gave a link that showed this group was in with Ted Haggard's gang. I have no problem with his beliefs (although I would argue that being anti-gay in a Christian context has nothing to do with Christianity since it comes from a misreading of the bible). But the group he fundraises for wants to end civil unions (this isn't gay marriage we're talking about) and prevent hate-crime bills protecting gay people. That goes far beyond proselytizing. Don't you agree?

No. In this country, raising/donating money are considered speech activities.

Furthermore, "Civil Unions" IS gay marriage. It's simply under a different name. This is a favorite tactic of politicians.


And, furthermore, this stuff doesn't belong on this forum. As usual, sadly, people can't keep this crap in the political forum where it belongs.

 

[upstater1]

No. In this country, raising/donating money are considered speech activities.

Furthermore, "Civil Unions" IS gay marriage. It's simply under a different name. This is a favorite tactic of politicians.

And, furthermore, this stuff doesn't belong on this forum. As usual, sadly, people can't keep this crap in the political forum where it belongs.

Uh, you're confused. Even a lot of right wingers who are against gay marriage distinguish between it and civil unions, because there's a difference. A civil union gives many of the legal benefits of marriage to a couple. A marriage is entirely different since it's a whole other legal category with more responsibilities. Two completely different things. I can name for you a dozen conservatives who make the distinction clear, Mitt Romney for one. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9086489/

By the way, you're also confusing things about the so-called "speech activities." I don't think ken or myself are trying to criminalize what Dungy is doing or prevent him from doing what he's doing. We're just pointing out that he's engaged in eliminating the rights and protections of others (by supporting a group that wants to do away with an Indiana hate-crime bill and civil unions). As I said earlier, as far as free speech goes, I agree the ACLU should defend the Ku Klux Klan, but that doesn't mean I should respect the content of the Klan's free speech. Two very different things. Of course Dungy should be allowed to support this group. No question.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

Re: enough is enough....

Saying homosexuality is wrong is the same as saying being black is wrong...it's the way people are born. That in itself is BLATANT bigotry & intolerance.

First, you would have to prove beyond doubt that people are born gay. While many scientist support such a claim, other do not. Let's assume we accept your first premise, that people are born with an attraction to the same sex.

Being born with that tendency and actually having gay sex are not the same. The second is an ACTION, not a physical trait. You can't change the color of your skin, but you can control your actions.

If I follow your theory to it's logical conclusion, then if science finds evidence that people who are sexually attracted to their siblings (or animals or dead people) are BORN THAT WAY, I guess others shouldn't be allowed to critcize their actions (assuming they act on that attraction) because hey, they can't help it.

Dungy thinks same-sex intercourse is wrong. He condemns the act. If someone struggled with homosexuality, but was trying to avoid acting on it, Dungy would undoubtedly support helping them.

We can disagree on whether or not is it wrong to have sex with a person of the same sex, but I can't see a logical link between being born black, white, etc and have gay sex. They are not the same.

Even if it were a choice (which it is not), how is choosing homosexuality any different than choosing Christianity? Who's to say which is right & which is wrong...certainly not Dungy!

I suppose there is no difference, choose as you like. Doesn't mean everyone has to agree it's ok to live that kind of lifestyle. Dungy just gave his opinion on it.

You guys have the right to bash him for that if you want, but I think it is illogical to do so.

 

[bradmahn]

Re: enough is enough....

First, you would have to prove beyond doubt that people are born gay. While many scientist support such a claim, other do not. Let's assume we accept your first premise, that people are born with an attraction to the same sex.

Being born with that tendency and actually having gay sex are not the same. The second is an ACTION, not a physical trait. You can't change the color of your skin, but you can control your actions.

Dungy thinks same-sex intercourse is wrong. He condemns the act. If someone struggled with homosexuality, but was trying to avoid acting on it, Dungy would undoubtedly support helping them.

We can disagree on whether or not is it wrong to have sex with a person of the same sex, but I can't see a logical link between being born black, white, etc and have gay sex. They are not the same.



I suppose there is no difference, choose as you like. Doesn't mean everyone has to agree it's ok to live that kind of lifestyle. Dungy just gave his opinion on it.

You guys have the right to bash him for that if you want, but I think it is illogical to do so.

Homosexuality is not defined by having sex with someone from the same sex (that is known as "having sex with someone from the same sex"). Homosexuality is being attracted to someone of the same sex.

 

[Deus Irae]

Uh, you're confused. Even a lot of right wingers who are against gay marriage distinguish between it and civil unions, because there's a difference. A civil union gives many of the legal benefits of marriage to a couple. A marriage is entirely different since it's a whole other legal category with more responsibilities. Two completely different things. I can name for you a dozen conservatives who make the distinction clear, Mitt Romney for one. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9086489/

No, I'm not confused. Politicians and activists are simply repacking the word "marriage" as "civil unions". Arguing that the current redefinition isn't yet conferring the same rights is a different argument. Marital rights aren't identical throughout the nation either.

By the way, you're also confusing things about the so-called "speech activities." I don't think ken or myself are trying to criminalize what Dungy is doing or prevent him from doing what he's doing. We're just pointing out that he's engaged in eliminating the rights and protections of others (by supporting a group that wants to do away with an Indiana hate-crime bill and civil unions). As I said earlier, as far as free speech goes, I agree the ACLU should defend the Ku Klux Klan, but that doesn't mean I should respect the content of the Klan's free speech. Two very different things. Of course Dungy should be allowed to support this group. No question.

No, I'm not confusing anything. I'm tired of people bashing a man IN THE FOOTBALL FORUM because his religious beliefs don't echo their idiotic agendas. This crap doesn't belong in this forum and you people are being hypocrites. Somehow, Dungy shouldn't be saying (because he's a public figure) what he's saying in a forum where it's perfectly legitimate, but it's acceptable for you people to be crying about it on a forum where such commentary is supposedly not allowed.

 

[upstater1]

No, I'm not confused. Politicians and activists are simply repacking the word "marriage" as "civil unions". Arguing that the current redefinition isn't yet conferring the same rights is a different argument. Marital rights aren't identical throughout the nation either.

No, I'm not confusing anything. I'm tired of people bashing a man IN THE FOOTBALL FORUM because his religious beliefs don't echo their idiotic agendas. This crap doesn't belong in this forum and you people are being hypocrites. Somehow, Dungy shouldn't be saying (because he's a public figure) what he's saying in a forum where it's perfectly legitimate, but it's acceptable for you people to be crying about it on a forum where such commentary is supposedly not allowed.

Again, you're confused. I never said he shouldn't be speaking in a pulbic forum. That was pretty clear in the quote above.

If conservatives like Romney who are against gay marriage can see the difference between marriage and civil unions, then obviously its not only the liberal activists who see the difference. Also, I'd note that this group Dungy is affiliated with opposes any rights bestowed to same sex partners, any rights whatsoever.

 

[Deus Irae]

Again, you're confused. I never said he shouldn't be speaking in a pulbic forum. That was pretty clear in the quote above.

If conservatives like Romney who are against gay marriage can see the difference between marriage and civil unions, then obviously its not only the liberal activists who see the difference. Also, I'd note that this group Dungy is affiliated with opposes any rights bestowed to same sex partners, any rights whatsoever.

My initial response, which you jumped into, was not to you, but to Ken. His position is what I have referred to from the beginning. It's erroneous and it's hypocrisy, to put it politely:

That may be true as it reflect people's PERSONAL beliefs, HOWEVER the founding fathers WISELY made it very plain how important keeping the political arena a SECULAR battlleground was to the health of the nation.

Again, my problem with Dungy's religious belief has NOTHING to do with his personal and private thoughts. I would fight for his right to have those, even if I fiercely disagree with them. They have to do with his PUBLIC PRONOUNCEMENTS. And even if he wouldn't PERSONALLY discriminate against a homosexual, his PUBLIC PRONOUNCEMENTS and his PUBLIC noteriety give PERMISSION to those who would.

Look, I really don't care that many people here are politically clueless (and not just on one side of the aisle). I do care that they take that nonsense to the political board, though.

 

[PatriotsReign]

Re: enough is enough....

First, you would have to prove beyond doubt that people are born gay. While many scientist support such a claim, other do not. Let's assume we accept your first premise, that people are born with an attraction to the same sex.

Being born with that tendency and actually having gay sex are not the same. The second is an ACTION, not a physical trait. You can't change the color of your skin, but you can control your actions.

If I follow your theory to it's logical conclusion, then if science finds evidence that people who are sexually attracted to their siblings (or animals or dead people) are BORN THAT WAY, I guess others shouldn't be allowed to critcize their actions (assuming they act on that attraction) because hey, they can't help it.

Dungy thinks same-sex intercourse is wrong. He condemns the act. If someone struggled with homosexuality, but was trying to avoid acting on it, Dungy would undoubtedly support helping them.

We can disagree on whether or not is it wrong to have sex with a person of the same sex, but I can't see a logical link between being born black, white, etc and have gay sex. They are not the same.



I suppose there is no difference, choose as you like. Doesn't mean everyone has to agree it's ok to live that kind of lifestyle. Dungy just gave his opinion on it.

You guys have the right to bash him for that if you want, but I think it is illogical to do so.

No more illogical than to criticize someone for being gay.

Anyone can choose whether to criticize someone for the way they are (gay) but you can't choose who you're attracted to. And yes, you are born with a particular natural attraction. It is certainly not a choice. And who would ever not act on their attraction?

If you're attracted to women, would you date men? Would you answer that please?

 

[SoxPatsFaninIndy]

Wow, this really escalated........

 

[FrontSeven]

Re: enough is enough....

Ken,

That was a great post.

Dungy is a passive aggressive pinhead who has shown his true colors by running his mouth in the media on many different subjects, from BB to whining about the refs.

I mean, can you imagine the Colts whining about the refs? WTF? Double WTF?

And then there is the biggest choker in history who was handed a superbowl in much the same fashion as Big Ben Toothlessburger was handed a superbowl. Thank you refs. Thank you NFL for sending the Pats across the country twice on a short week. Great scheduling.

You had me with the "passive aggressive" Dungy thing. Good point.

You lost me with the "biggest choker" thing. It never ceases to amaze me how fans reduce obviously great players to rubble when it suits them, and then cry about "it's a team game and takes a team effort" when their favorite guy loses.

You don't get to that level being a choke artist. You don't win SBs by luck alone. Other teams' fans accused the Pats of that for years, and the accusation is as lame now as it was then.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

Re: enough is enough....

No more illogical than to criticize someone for being gay.

Anyone can choose whether to criticize someone for the way they are (gay) but you can't choose who you're attracted to. And yes, you are born with a particular natural attraction. It is certainly not a choice. And who would ever not act on their attraction?

If you're attracted to women, would you date men? Would you answer that please?

Possibly, I guess it would depend on a lot of factors:

On one hand:
My perception of Nature's guidence: procreation, complementary equipment, etc
Societal norms and the friction of opposing them
The set of morals I was raised with

On the other hand:
My own desires in the pursuit of happyness
What feels natural to me


I could make a case for either choice in all honesty.

Either way, I wouldn't want someone else afraid to say "I don't agree with your choice" if they so pleased.