Is football ready for Gay Player?

[Richmond Cowboy]

But we disagree with the Bible on most other sexual mores. The Bible condemned the following behaviors which we generally allow:

* intercourse during menstruation
* celibacy
* exogamy (marriage with non-Jews)
* naming sexual organs
* nudity (under certain conditions)
* masturbation (some Christians still condemn this)
* birth control (some Christians still forbid this)
* And the bible regarded semen and menstrual blood as unclean, which most of us do not

So you're saying these are codemned by the bible?:

:moon: :jerk:

 

[Alexander]

You proved my point.

And what was that? I must have missed it.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I will say it again.


If this discussion goes any further into religion it will be closed.

I wouldn't have even sent this out. I would have just moved it. This has little if anything to do with Cowboys Football.

A good discussion, in it's own way but not what I would call relavent to DC Football.

Heck, you've moved threads that I have posted with more content. Just move it.

 

[Mike 1967]

how does the issue of gay rights have anything to do with the bible? the bible was scripture written A LOOOONG time ago. it is not relevant in this discussion.

What does the age of something have to do with it ?

You can argue that the Bible is not True because it never was True...but you cannot argue that the Bible is not True simply because it is old.

Truth by it's very nature does not change. It is what it is. Regardless of how old IT is.

 

[WV Cowboy]

No, that is your own stilted, shiftless and unmoving opinion. There are Christian churches who do accept gay members.

No, to say that they are Christian would indicate that they are following Christ.

If you are truly following the teachings of Christ you would not condone the act of homosexuality.

So they are not truly "Christian" churches.

A Christian would love the sinner, but not the sin.

 

[Big D]

From a stricly physical / medical standpoint.....one could debate that the lifestyle is dangerous.

Because from a physical /medical standpoint, it is clear that a males "member" was made to go into a females "member". And it is clear that the males "member" was not made to go into a males anus. And it logically and medically follows that one "act" is much "safer" than the other.
QUOTE]


But , but ,but.. scientists say its 'natural'

 

[Mike 1967]

From a stricly physical / medical standpoint.....one could debate that the lifestyle is dangerous.

Because from a physical /medical standpoint, it is clear that a males "member" was made to go into a females "member". And it is clear that the males "member" was not made to go into a males anus. And it logically and medically follows that one "act" is much "safer" than the other.
QUOTE]


But , but ,but.. scientists say its 'natural'

Scientists say what is natural ?

 

[WoodysGirl]

*Closed*

Two warnings should have been enough...