Kluwe is tha man

[DenverBroncosJM]

Originally Posted by kdissette

i think religion in politics should be banned. christian people that force feed their segregation and control over people are the biggest thing holding back the human civilization from real advancement...it all boils down to greed and money in the end and the sad thing is this guy is an active politician and making choices for our country which just proves that America Inc. is on a one way trip down the toilet and its thanks to GOD and all the people that believe in a supernatural force that creates everything yet hates and ridicules all.

Separation of Church and State, we need it badly. Sorry going to put on my Mormon super suit.

[DenverBroncosJM]

Originally Posted by broncocalijohn

So now we are bigots...lol! This wasnt even an issue 20 years ago but now that it has been pushed to the forefront, we are now bigots. Amazing the love you show but want to call those that don't agree as bigots. While marriage at its current level has many getting divorced, that doesn't mean a child will be from a broken home. Some get divorced after the kids are gone or are old enough to adjust. I am from a divorced household and it took an adjustment but I was far from a broken home.
My claim of stats of not having a man in the home is backed. Check the records of juvenile hall and see that those boys did not have a father figure.
Read my post. I already stated I agree they have rights. I just don't think they have marriage rights.

Racism wasn't a big deal all that long ago either.

[Prodigal19]

Originally Posted by broncocalijohn

So now we are bigots...lol! This wasnt even an issue 20 years ago but now that it has been pushed to the forefront, we are now bigots. Amazing the love you show but want to call those that don't agree as bigots. While marriage at its current level has many getting divorced, that doesn't mean a child will be from a broken home. Some get divorced after the kids are gone or are old enough to adjust. I am from a divorced household and it took an adjustment but I was far from a broken home.
My claim of stats of not having a man in the home is backed. Check the records of juvenile hall and see that those boys did not have a father figure.
Read my post. I already stated I agree they have rights. I just don't think they have marriage rights.

You have to understand why you look like a bigot though. As society and ideas progress people usually progress with them. If you said back in the 1940s that you don't think there should be interracial marriage then you would probably be in the majority. But if you said that now you would obviously appear to be racist. Times have changed and people are realizing now that there is no reason that two people that love each other shouldn't be allowed to get married, even if they are gay.

The fact of the matter is that if gay marriage was legalized today you would not be affected at all. Your life would go on the same. At the same time millions of gay couples would be allowed to get married and be that much happier because of it. The fact that you would deny that to people just because your beliefs is an extremely selfish view and its no wounder that it is seen as bigoted.

This is why so many have changed their views over the past 20 years. If it doesn't hurt you and would help others then why not do it?

To address your argument against gay adoption, you would have to be crazy to think that a child would be better off in foster care than in the home of a gay couple.

[kdissette]

Originally Posted by Taco John

It's painful to me that people actually believe stuff like this. Christians are the problem with the world - said completely serious and with a straight face.

Yes im dead serious and mean every word of it. Not just christians...all religions impede the progress of humanity and teaches seperatism and makes people judge others that think different. Religion was created as an early form of govt to control masses of people. and how do you do that you say? through fear...the fear of being punished by a supernatural force...and how do you get people to believe you? you reward them...and you reward them by saying when they die they will get to go to some magical place as long as they stay subserviant in their real lives. its the perfect crime reward people when they die so you have to give them nothing and they cant argue. anyway enough about that its just stupid that anyone can justify hate of something or someone that isnt causing harm to them thats just plain evil.

[McDman]

Originally Posted by broncocalijohn

Maybe I value what marriage means to me and most of society. I am a conservative but I think gays should be able to visit each other in hospitals if they have choosen that person to represent them, buy homes together with loans in each others name (just like a business partnership) and other items. I just don't support gays as if they are man and woman. It is always best for children (and what normally leads after one gets married) to have a mother and a father. We know the stats and it is important. Like I said, live together, boink if they want but I don't agree on being equal in the eyes of marriage. I give them many rights as a citizen but just not the overall umbrella.

Oooooh, I see. Kinda of like in the 60s when we let blacks drink from water fountains, just not the white man's fountains. They're still getting their water, right?

They can eat at the same diners too, just out back. They still get the food and all.

[houghtam]

Here's a translation of what broncocalijohn said, in case you missed it:

"I am for small government in every case except when it comes to whom you can marry, reproductive rights for women, and pretty much any other government intrusion that fits my agenda."

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Originally Posted by broncocalijohn

Maybe I value what marriage means to me and most of society. I am a conservative but I think gays should be able to visit each other in hospitals if they have choosen that person to represent them, buy homes together with loans in each others name (just like a business partnership) and other items. I just don't support gays as if they are man and woman. It is always best for children (and what normally leads after one gets married) to have a mother and a father. We know the stats and it is important. Like I said, live together, boink if they want but I don't agree on being equal in the eyes of marriage. I give them many rights as a citizen but just not the overall umbrella.

All rights for some.

Some rights for all.

Strong take.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Flex Gunmetal

People like you try so hard to convince yourselves you aren't bigots, you neglect to realize your very words expose you as such.

This.

[houghtam]

I'm for millionaires paying more in taxes because if they don't it ruins the sanctity of the taxes I pay.

[kdissette]

Originally Posted by McDman

Oooooh, I see. Kinda of like in the 60s when we let blacks drink from water fountains, just not the white man's fountains. They're still getting their water, right?

They can eat at the same diners too, just out back. They still get the food and all.

touche

[peacepipe]

Is it me or isn't the real problem here is that a representative of the government is trying to suppress the freedom of speech of a US citizen?

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

Is it me or isn't the real problem here is that a representative of the government is trying to suppress the freedom of speech of a US citizen?

This.

If the Ravens want to discipline him, they have every right. Unfortunately for Burns, the Ravens came out and supported Ayanbadejo's right to freedom of speech.

Another outrage is that the guy is a democrat. Restriction of speech is not what that party supposedly stands for.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by houghtam

This.

If the Ravens want to discipline him, they have every right. Unfortunately for Burns, the Ravens came out and supported Ayanbadejo's right to freedom of speech.

Another outrage is that the guy is a democrat. Restriction of speech is not what that party supposedly stands for.

he's a dino,1st & formost he's a conservative.

[kdissette]

=
Another outrage is that the guy is a democrat. Restriction of speech is not what that party supposedly stands for.[/QUOTE]

dont think any party is different from the other they just blow different colored smoke up ur ass. america inc. doesnt answer to its lowly servants

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by kdissette

dont think any party is different from the other they just blow different colored smoke up ur ass. america inc. doesnt answer to its lowly servants

I did say supposedly.

But if you don't think either party is different, you're wrong.

[kdissette]

i like how they moved this thread even though its a football related matter....mods must be religious or something figures they try to sensor anything that strays from their point of view

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by kdissette

i like how they moved this thread even though its a football related matter....mods must be religious or something figures they try to sensor anything that strays from their point of view

Don't take it personally.

The mods on this site have a long history of moving trending threads to the back page. As far as I can tell, if there is ANY mention if God, long term weather trends, sex not contained in an avatar, drugs, any other country than the United States, the United States itself, or the colors red, white and blue in your post, it will get moved to the back page.

Also if you criticize their decisions, you get banned, so...watch out.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

Oh, and as for the OP, I thought Kluwe went a bit overboard in his word choice this time. He usually comes across very articulate in his writing but I'm not the biggest fan of cussing and it seemed to dominate his writing.

He fixed it for you.


http://blogs.twincities.com/outofbou...awing-at-yarn/

First off, let me say thank you to all the people that commented on my letter to Emmett C. Burns Jr. You all give me great hope for the human race; that one day we can rise up past the petty differences that divide us and realize we’re all in this together. Perhaps our children won’t look back on our stewardship with regret.

Secondly, I heard from quite a few sources (including my dad) that the letter would have been more powerful and delivered the message better without the swearing. That those who would refute the point could seize upon my colorful insults to dismiss the main thrust as little more than childish antics and egotistical displays of temper.

Bollocks.

The swearing is there for a reason. What Emmett C. Burns Jr. wrote, what I responded to, was far more disgusting and foul minded than any simple scatological reference or genital mashup. His words degrade the very essence of the English language with their barely hidden venom and intolerant hate; drag it screaming into the muck of iniquity by wrapping a mantle of seeming reasonableness around corruption and control; masquerade as discourse while screaming their very lie to any Heaven you care to name – I could go on.

My words? My words are a litmus test for those that would see the truth of a message rather than the package it’s delivered in. I won’t lie, it’s also because I personally find them entertaining to write and read (as do a large amount of other people), but those who would argue that my message means nothing simply because I’m referencing a portion of the male anatomy would never have accepted it anyway. They would have used other excuses, excuses like “Oh he’s just a punter”, or “What do you know, you just play football”, or “No one cares what you think you pillowbiter”.

No, my words are meant for those that might be on the fence, those that are initially drawn in due to shock, or laughter, or outrage, but then look at what lies beneath, the truth of the matter. Them I might reach, might offer a quick lightbulb flicker of “Ohhh, so that’s what’s wrong with that argument”. But those who don’t look, who don’t question, who happily treat the symptoms and not the disease – isn’t that the very problem with our politics today? No one is interested in what lies hidden in plain sight beneath what’s said; the glossy dung ball of intolerance and hate buffed to a lustrous gleam by rhetoric and catchphrases.

So here is my gift to you. The exact same letter, but without the oh so naughty words that only mean what we allow them to mean. What will your excuse be this time?

Dear Emmett C. Burns Jr.,
I find it inconceivable that you are an elected official of the United States government. Your vitriolic hatred and bigotry make me ashamed and disgusted to think that you are in any way responsible for shaping policy at any level. The views you espouse neglect to consider several fundamental key points, which I will outline in great detail (you may want to hire an intern to help you with the longer words):

1. As I suspect you have not read the Constitution, I would like to remind you that the very first, the VERY FIRST Amendment in this founding document deals with the freedom of speech, particularly the abridgment of said freedom. By using your position as an elected official (when referring to your constituents so as to implicitly threaten the Ravens organization) to state that the Ravens should “inhibit such expressions from your employees”, more specifically Brendon Ayanbadejo, not only are you clearly violating the First Amendment, you also come across as a BEAUTIFULLY UNIQUE SPARKLEPONY. What on earth would possess you to be so mind-bogglingly stupid? It baffles me that a man such as yourself, a man who relies on that same First Amendment to pursue your own religious studies without fear of persecution from the state, could somehow justify stifling another person’s right to speech. To call that hypocritical would be to do a disservice to the word. SAD PUPPY DOG EYES hypocritical starts to approach it a little bit.

2. “Many of your fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment, and excitement.” DISAPPOINTED LEMUR FACE WITH SOLITARY TEAR TRICKLING DOWN TO CHIN. Did you seriously just say that, as someone who’s “deeply involved in government task forces on the legacy of slavery in Maryland”? Have you not heard of Kenny Washington? Jackie Robinson? As recently as 1962 the NFL still had segregation, which was only done away with by brave athletes and coaches daring to speak their mind and do the right thing, and you’re going to say that political views have “no place in a sport”? I can’t even begin to fathom the cognitive dissonance that must be coursing through your rapidly addled mind right now; the mental gymnastics your brain has to tortuously contort itself through to make such a preposterous statement are surely worthy of an Olympic gold medal (the Russian judge gives you a ten for “beautiful oppressionism”).

3. This is more a personal quibble of mine, but why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the fact that other people want a chance to live their lives and be happy, even though they may believe in something different than you, or act different than you? How does gay marriage, in any way shape or form, affect your life? If gay marriage becomes legal, are you worried that all of a sudden you’ll start thinking about DANCING CHUBTOAD? “ALACK AND ALAS MY TOP HAT HAS FALLEN. Gay marriage just passed. Gotta get me some of that DELICIOUS STATE FAIR HOTDOG!” Will all of your friends suddenly turn gay and refuse to come to your Sunday Ticket grill-outs? (unlikely, gay people enjoy watching football too)
I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero affect on your life. They won’t come into your house and steal your children. They won’t magically turn you into a lustful FROLICKING OSTRICH. They won’t even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90% of our population, rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children. You know what having these rights will make gays? Full fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that entails. Do the civil rights struggles of the past 200 years mean absolutely nothing to you?

In closing, I would like to say that I hope this letter, in some small way, causes you to reflect upon the magnitude of the colossal foot in mouth SLIDE WHISTLE TO E FLAT you so brazenly unleashed on a man whose only crime was speaking out for something he believed in. Best of luck in the next election; I’m fairly certain you might need it.

Sincerely,
Chris Kluwe

p.s. I’ve also been vocal as hell about the issue of gay marriage so you can take your “I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing” and shove it in your close-minded, totally lacking in empathy piehole and choke on it. UNFORTUNATELY PHALLIC HEDGE SCULPTURE.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by DaFace

He fixed it for you.


http://blogs.twincities.com/outofbou...awing-at-yarn/

That guy's a freaking genius.

[Flex Gunmetal]

Originally Posted by broncocalijohn

So now we are bigots...lol! This wasnt even an issue 20 years ago but now that it has been pushed to the forefront, we are now bigots. Amazing the love you show but want to call those that don't agree as bigots. While marriage at its current level has many getting divorced, that doesn't mean a child will be from a broken home. Some get divorced after the kids are gone or are old enough to adjust. I am from a divorced household and it took an adjustment but I was far from a broken home.
My claim of stats of not having a man in the home is backed. Check the records of juvenile hall and see that those boys did not have a father figure.
Read my post. I already stated I agree they have rights. I just don't think they have marriage rights.

Not sure if srs.
What term would you prefer I use to describe those that prefer others be denied rights based on their sexual preference, regardless of whether or not the attainment of said rights has any affect on the lives of others?
As for the rest of your post, lol.

[manchambo]

Originally Posted by broncocalijohn

So now we are bigots...lol! This wasnt even an issue 20 years ago but now that it has been pushed to the forefront, we are now bigots. Amazing the love you show but want to call those that don't agree as bigots. While marriage at its current level has many getting divorced, that doesn't mean a child will be from a broken home. Some get divorced after the kids are gone or are old enough to adjust. I am from a divorced household and it took an adjustment but I was far from a broken home.
My claim of stats of not having a man in the home is backed. Check the records of juvenile hall and see that those boys did not have a father figure.
Read my post. I already stated I agree they have rights. I just don't think they have marriage rights.

You are bigoted because you single out one group you find distasteful on which to impose your view of the purported sanctity of marriage. People routinely get remarried after divorce, a clear act of adultery under the bible, much clearer indeed than the purported sinfulness of committed gay relationships. Heterosexuals routinely get married in Vegas under circumstances that make an utter mockery of the sanctity of marriage, and those marriages are recognized as valid in every state. There is a reality show watched by millions where people compete to marry someone under the most crass conditions imaginable. And, of course, adultery and divorce in heterosexual marriages are as common, if not more common, than real committed relationships.

You don't say a word, much less take any action, to stop any of these obvious and rampant threats to the sanctity of marriage. There is not anywhere in the US a ballot initiative or proposed amendment to stop divorce or remarriage that is clearly biblically improper. Instead, you choose the group against whom you have personal animus (or at least about which you have strong disgust) and impose your views of propriety only on them. You have not chosen their sin to focus on, while ignoring so many others, based on any biblical principle, objective moral philosophy, or logically consistent rationale. That is quintessential bigotry.

[Flex Gunmetal]

Originally Posted by manchambo

You are bigoted because you single out one group you find distasteful on which to impose your view of the purported sanctity of marriage. People routinely get remarried after divorce, a clear act of adultery under the bible, much clearer indeed than the purported sinfulness of committed gay relationships. Heterosexuals routinely get married in Vegas under circumstances that make an utter mockery of the sanctity of marriage, and those marriages are recognized as valid in every state. There is a reality show watched by millions where people compete to marry someone under the most crass conditions imaginable. And, of course, adultery and divorce in heterosexual marriages are as common, if not more common, than real committed relationships.

You don't say a word, much less take any action, to stop any of these obvious and rampant threats to the sanctity of marriage. There is not anywhere in the US a ballot initiative or proposed amendment to stop divorce or remarriage that is clearly biblically improper. Instead, you choose the group against whom you have personal animus (or at least about which you have strong disgust) and impose your views of propriety only on them. You have not chosen their sin to focus on, while ignoring so many others, based on any biblical principle, objective moral philosophy, or logically consistent rationale. That is quintessential bigotry.

Fatality.

[broncocalijohn]

Originally Posted by McDman

Oooooh, I see. Kinda of like in the 60s when we let blacks drink from water fountains, just not the white man's fountains. They're still getting their water, right?

They can eat at the same diners too, just out back. They still get the food and all.

Lol, once again labeling gays with a race. Yeah, because when I said they can buy homes together, I was saying only in gay areas. Of course when I said they should be able to be at their bedside in a hospital of course that was only gay hospitals.
Nice try. Next time make sure you get it connected together...first.

Over 50% easy don't agree on gay marriages. Those are democrats too.

[broncocalijohn]

Originally Posted by manchambo

You are bigoted because you single out one group you find distasteful on which to impose your view of the purported sanctity of marriage. People routinely get remarried after divorce, a clear act of adultery under the bible, much clearer indeed than the purported sinfulness of committed gay relationships. Heterosexuals routinely get married in Vegas under circumstances that make an utter mockery of the sanctity of marriage, and those marriages are recognized as valid in every state. There is a reality show watched by millions where people compete to marry someone under the most crass conditions imaginable. And, of course, adultery and divorce in heterosexual marriages are as common, if not more common, than real committed relationships.

You don't say a word, much less take any action, to stop any of these obvious and rampant threats to the sanctity of marriage. There is not anywhere in the US a ballot initiative or proposed amendment to stop divorce or remarriage that is clearly biblically improper. Instead, you choose the group against whom you have personal animus (or at least about which you have strong disgust) and impose your views of propriety only on them. You have not chosen their sin to focus on, while ignoring so many others, based on any biblical principle, objective moral philosophy, or logically consistent rationale. That is quintessential bigotry.

I guess I am a bigot because transgenders can't marry if they aren't a specified sex. Brothers, sister, cousins can't marry and I am against that. I must be a bigot of Bro/Sis love. I am a hater, what can I say.

[broncocalijohn]

Originally Posted by Flex Gunmetal

Not sure if srs.
What term would you prefer I use to describe those that prefer others be denied rights based on their sexual preference, regardless of whether or not the attainment of said rights has any affect on the lives of others?
As for the rest of your post, lol.

Let me know when you find stats that say having a non father figure does wonders for the kids. I won't hold my breath. WHile you are doing the research, look up for Juvenile Hall. Those kids rarely have a father figure in their life.