Page 3 of 28 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 825

Thread: The path for homosexuals in LDS theology

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by tooblue View Post
    The two countries aren't that different, except homosexuals right to marry was secured by law more than ten years ago. The result, and a preview of what is to come in the states: the loss of the religious voice in public discourse. Fewer marriages period, especially among homosexuals. More children raised in unconventional family circumstances. More social and behavioural issues as a result that the government is compelled to address through social programs and services, which coincides with the loss in the rights of parents in the raising of their children. Which results in higher taxes levied against the middle class, to pay for said programs. Which results in fewer middle class having children. Which results in fewer future tax payers to pay for social programs. Which results in governments raiding pensions and Retired savings plans ...

    All the above likely would've happened regardless, I guess. It is what it is.
    "Be a philosopher. A man can compromise to gain a point. It has become apparent that a man can, within limits, follow his inclinations within the arms of the Church if he does so discreetly." - The Walking Drum

    "And here’s what life comes down to—not how many years you live, but how many of those years are filled with bullshit that doesn’t amount to anything to satisfy the requirements of some dickhead you’ll never get the pleasure of punching in the face." – Adam Carolla

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    If I were a baker I'd sell wedding cakes to anyone. If I were a physician/fertility specialist I'd help anyone. But I think it's important to recognize that the question, What should the government be able to force you to do that violates a deeply-held religious conviction, and under what circumstances? is not easy to answer. If you think it is easy, you haven't really thought about it.
    The problem LA, is that if your religious conviction told you not to sell cakes to people of the color, the government would clearly have an issue with it. Times are changing. People are recognizing the rights of homosexual people, just like people of color. If the church is unwilling to bend, so be it, but people aren't going to be, and shouldn't have to, "play nice" as Dallin Oaks wants them to. And it is going to hurt members of the church financially.

    Look at it this way LA, there are plenty of southerners who still believe in segregation and are members of the Klu Klux Klan and that is their right. But those people are marginalized as a result of their beliefs.
    Last edited by Two Utes; 01-28-2015 at 08:49 AM.

  3. #63
    "Be a philosopher. A man can compromise to gain a point. It has become apparent that a man can, within limits, follow his inclinations within the arms of the Church if he does so discreetly." - The Walking Drum

    "And here’s what life comes down to—not how many years you live, but how many of those years are filled with bullshit that doesn’t amount to anything to satisfy the requirements of some dickhead you’ll never get the pleasure of punching in the face." – Adam Carolla

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by sancho View Post
    Gotta love the cynicism. Only a church could be so maligned for taking a stand in favor of anti-discrimination laws. The centerpiece of his argument doesn't even come from the news conference. It comes from some AP writer's opinion on what the LDS Church is seeking. He also includes the following quote:



    Again, I haven't read the original news conference, but isn't that what the Church is seeking by supporting anti-discrimination legislation?
    They are. But they also said it was contingent on people not being mean to the Mormon church for taking the positions they've taken about homosexuality and that is why they are getting hammered. But it certainly is easier to just believe it's more persecution.

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    If I were a baker I'd sell wedding cakes to anyone. If I were a physician/fertility specialist I'd help anyone. But I think it's important to recognize that the question, What should the government be able to force you to do that violates a deeply-held religious conviction, and under what circumstances? is not easy to answer. If you think it is easy, you haven't really thought about it.
    the problem is that any bigot can conjure up a sincerely held religious belief. Can you refuse to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple? Or rent an apartment? Once you enter the marketplace, you should not be allowed to discriminate. Religious institutions and their representatives should be exempt on first amendment grounds, i.e., not performing same sex services, but if you are offering economic services (including medical) you have to treat everybody the same. Otherwise the loophole swallows the rule. You only enforce non-discrimination laws against people who dont want to abide by them for whatever reason.
    Last edited by concerned; 01-28-2015 at 08:55 AM.

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by sancho View Post
    Gotta love the cynicism. Only a church could be so maligned for taking a stand in favor of anti-discrimination laws. The centerpiece of his argument doesn't even come from the news conference. It comes from some AP writer's opinion on what the LDS Church is seeking. He also includes the following quote:



    Again, I haven't read the original news conference, but isn't that what the Church is seeking by supporting anti-discrimination legislation?
    Fake LDS Newsroom said it best

    See how we did that? We hold a press conference on gays, and now we're the victim. That's not as easy as we make it look. #Fairness4all
    "Be a philosopher. A man can compromise to gain a point. It has become apparent that a man can, within limits, follow his inclinations within the arms of the Church if he does so discreetly." - The Walking Drum

    "And here’s what life comes down to—not how many years you live, but how many of those years are filled with bullshit that doesn’t amount to anything to satisfy the requirements of some dickhead you’ll never get the pleasure of punching in the face." – Adam Carolla

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by sancho View Post
    Maybe it is as easy as they make it look. I think they can hold any press conference on any subject, and people will line up to criticize it. It's not very different from political parties. It doesn't matter what President Obama says tomorrow in a press conference, Fox News will be sure to oppose it.

    Read the Rosenthal thing again. It's pretty far over the top in terms of what actually happened. The Church announced support of anti-discrimination law, and he responds with a mostly off-topic rant. I'm not keyed in on Utah politics, but I'm guessing this legislation now has a decent chance of passing. Is anyone happy about that, or are they too worried that the Church also wants respect for religious freedom?
    Yep. It is all persecution.

  8. #68
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    15,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Two Utes View Post
    Look at it this way LA, there are plenty of southerners who still believe in segregation and are members of the Klu Klux Klan and that is their right. But those people are marginalized as a result of their beliefs.
    I think that is where we are headed if people equate sexual orientation with race -- a debatable equation. The only way to avoid completely the marginalization you predict would be for the church to start marrying same-sex couples in the LDS temples. Isn't that so? I don't see that happening, ever. So the church is trying to preserve some space for itself in civil society, when so many people want to marginalize LDS believers as bigots.

    Jonathan Chait, not exactly a right-wing writer, had this to say in a New York Magazine piece yesterday:

    But it would be a mistake to categorize today’s p.c. culture as only an academic phenomenon. Political correctness is a style of politics in which the more radical members of the left attempt to regulate political discourse by defining opposing views as bigoted and illegitimate. Two decades ago, the only communities where the left could exert such hegemonic control lay within academia, which gave it an influence on intellectual life far out of proportion to its numeric size.Today’s political correctness flourishes most consequentially on social media,where it enjoys a frisson of cool and vast new cultural reach. And since social media is also now the milieu that hosts most political debate, the new p.c. has attained an influence over mainstream journalism and commentary beyond that of the old.

    In a short period of time, the p.c.movement has assumed a towering presence in the psychic space of politically active people in general and the left in particular. “All over social media,there dwell armies of unpaid but widely read commentators, ready to launch hashtag campaigns and circulate Change.org petitions in response to the slightest of identity-politics missteps,” Rebecca Traister wrote recently in The New Republic.
    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ng-to-say.html

    So yes, Mormons will be swimming upstream on these issues for some time to come.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    I think that is where we are headed if people equate sexual orientation with race -- a debatable equation. The only way to avoid completely the marginalization you predict would be for the church to start marrying same-sex couples in the LDS temples. Isn't that so? I don't see that happening, ever. So the church is trying to preserve some space for itself in civil society, when so many people want to marginalize LDS believers as bigots.

    Jonathan Chait, not exactly a right-wing writer, had this to say in a New York Magazine piece yesterday:



    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ng-to-say.html

    So yes, Mormons will be swimming upstream on these issues for some time to come.
    The fact that you think it's up for debate is part of the problem LA.

    Honest question, have you spent any time talking to someone who is gay?

  10. #70
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    15,953
    Quote Originally Posted by concerned View Post
    the problem is that any bigot can conjure up a sincerely held religious belief. Can you refuse to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple? Or rent an apartment? Once you enter the marketplace, you should not be allowed to discriminate. Religious institutions and their representatives should be exempt on first amendment grounds, i.e., not performing same sex services, but if you are offering economic services (including medical) you have to treat everybody the same. Otherwise the loophole swallows the rule. You only enforce non-discrimination laws against people who dont want to abide by them for whatever reason.
    You've pinpointed a key part of the issue -- the use of religion to justify invidious discrimination --"treating a class of persons unequally in a manner that is malicious, hostile, or damaging." The federal civil rights laws outlaw such discrimination based on race, gender, religious beliefs, etc., but not sexual orientation (yet). The Unruh Act in CA adds sexual orientation to the list. So that's the law. In the fertility doctors' case, the physicians explained to the woman their discomfort with doing the procedure and referred her to another physician who had no reservations and who provided the services -- successfully. I don't think the doctors' actions were malicious, hostile or damaging. Yet the upshot of the Supreme Court's interpretation of Unruh (a 7-0 decision) is that the physicians had no choice but to provide the services. I see your side of the argument, and NW Ute's side. Can you guys see the other side -- how that outcome is disturbing to many people of good will?

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  11. #71
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    15,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Diehard Ute View Post
    The fact that you think it's up for debate is part of the problem LA.

    Honest question, have you spent any time talking to someone who is gay?
    Diehard, you know me personally but we've never discussed issues like this one. I don't live in a bubble. I've lived in L.A. for 32 years and have practiced law in large law firms that entire time. I've worked in the entertainment industry and so has my wife. I have a gay colleague right now who works with me every day. I fought for the firm to hire because she is such an excellent lawyer. She and her partner have been to my home for parties. She and I have agreed to disagree on these issues. My law firm receives awards every year for its approach to LGBT issues. We have probably a dozen gay attorneys in the firm in various offices. Two of them are my friends. I just finished a term on my firm's executive committee. So please stop.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    Diehard, you know me personally but we've never discussed issues like this one. I don't live in a bubble. I've lived in L.A. for 32 years and have practiced law in large law firms that entire time. I've worked in the entertainment industry and so has my wife. I have a gay colleague right now who works with me every day. I fought for the firm to hire because she is such an excellent lawyer. She and her partner have been to my home for parties. She and I have agreed to disagree on these issues. My law firm receives awards every year for its approach to LGBT issues. We have probably a dozen gay attorneys in the firm in various offices. Two of them are my friends. I just finished a term on my firm's executive committee. So please stop.
    Then I fail to see how you could ever post that such a thing is up for debate. I'm certain all those you know would scoff at such a suggestion

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Two Utes View Post
    The problem LA, is that if your religious conviction told you not to sell cakes to people of the color, the government would clearly have an issue with it. Times are changing. People are recognizing the rights of homosexual people, just like people of color. If the church is unwilling to bend, so be it, but people aren't going to be, and shouldn't have to, "play nice" as Dallin Oaks wants them to. And it is going to hurt members of the church financially.

    Look at it this way LA, there are plenty of southerners who still believe in segregation and are members of the Klu Klux Klan and that is their right. But those people are marginalized as a result of their beliefs.
    Lol. a comparison between the LDS church and the KKK.

    At least we all are keeping this debate within a reasonable realm.

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Two Utes View Post
    They are. But they also said it was contingent on people not being mean to the Mormon church for taking the positions they've taken about homosexuality and that is why they are getting hammered. But it certainly is easier to just believe it's more persecution.
    There was not one thing in there saying that anything was "contingent" on anything else.

    Good grief.........

  15. #75
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    15,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Diehard Ute View Post
    Then I fail to see how you could ever post that such a thing is up for debate. I'm certain all those you know would scoff at such a suggestion
    This is one of the problems I see in this issue generally. One side has decided that a key aspect of the debate is settled and beyond further discussion: Opposition to same-sex marriage is the same as opposition to interracial marriage. If one side accepts that as a truth, set in stone, then talking these matters over reasonably and rationally is pretty hard.

    Ryan Anderson is one of several scholars who have discussed the issue of whether opposition to interracial marriage is the same as opposition to same-sex marriage. Here's an article he wrote on the subject. I think you'll see he's a rational guy:

    Abstract
    Whatever one’s views of marriage and however the state defines it, there is no compelling state interest in forcing all citizens to facilitate, participate in, or celebrate a same-sex relationship as a marriage. Believing that marriage is the union of man and woman is a reasonable position held by many. Bans on interracial marriage, by contrast, were grossly unreasonable. Protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience does not restrict anyone’s freedom to enter into whatever romantic partnerships he or she wishes. Americans should remain free to speak and act in the public square based on their belief that marriage is the union of a man and woman without fear of government penalty. No one should demand that government coerce others into celebrating their relationships.
    Anyway, agree of disagree, but don't tell me the debate is over.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    This is one of the problems I see in this issue generally. One side has decided that a key aspect of the debate is settled and beyond further discussion: Opposition to same-sex marriage is the same as opposition to interracial marriage. If one side accepts that as a truth, set in stone, then talking these matters over reasonably and rationally is pretty hard.

    Ryan Anderson is one of several scholars who have discussed the issue of whether opposition to interracial marriage is the same as opposition to same-sex marriage. Here's an article he wrote on the subject. I think you'll see he's a rational guy:



    Anyway, agree of disagree, but don't tell me the debate is over.
    But your statement wasn't that marriage between races and between gays was debatable.

    You said that "I think that is where we are headed if people equate sexual orientation with race -- a debatable equation."

    Now if you were meaning that in terms of marriage there may be more of a debate. But I took that to mean saying sexual orientation and race aren't the same thing in general, which to me goes back to the idea that people choose their orientation.

    My stance is based on race and orientation both being non choices and that is not up for debate, perhaps you were just referring to marriage, which wasn't clear.

  17. #77
    Malleus Cougarorum Solon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Lost in the Flood.
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    Diehard, you know me personally but we've never discussed issues like this one. I don't live in a bubble. I've lived in L.A. for 32 years and have practiced law in large law firms that entire time. I've worked in the entertainment industry and so has my wife. I have a gay colleague right now who works with me every day. I fought for the firm to hire because she is such an excellent lawyer. She and her partner have been to my home for parties. She and I have agreed to disagree on these issues. My law firm receives awards every year for its approach to LGBT issues. We have probably a dozen gay attorneys in the firm in various offices. Two of them are my friends. I just finished a term on my firm's executive committee. So please stop.
    I will vouch for LA Ute: whatever stance he has on this issue (or any others) is the result of principled thought & his faith. His opinion is a valuable one.
    σοφῷ ἀνδρὶ Ἑλλὰς πάντα.
    -- Flavius Philostratus, Life of Apollonius 1.35.2.

  18. #78
    Handsome Boy Graduate mpfunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah
    Posts
    1,495
    The press conference was disappointing. So basically, the church should be allowed to discriminate and needs legal protection to discriminate. However, we are good people, because we think that homosexuals should be allowed to have jobs and places to live. Also, we even let a women speak, see we don't oppress women either. #fairness4all
    So I said to David Eckstein, "You promised me, Eckstein, that if I followed you, you would walk with me always. But I noticed that during the most trying periods of my life, there have only been one set of prints in the sand. Why, when I have needed you most, have you not been there for me?" David Eckstein replied, "Because my little legs had gotten tired, and you were carrying me." And I looked down and saw that I was still carrying David Eckstein.
    --fjm.com

  19. #79
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    15,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Diehard Ute View Post
    But your statement wasn't that marriage between races and between gays was debatable.

    You said that "I think that is where we are headed if people equate sexual orientation with race -- a debatable equation."

    Now if you were meaning that in terms of marriage there may be more of a debate. But I took that to mean saying sexual orientation and race aren't the same thing in general, which to me goes back to the idea that people choose their orientation.

    My stance is based on race and orientation both being non choices and that is not up for debate, perhaps you were just referring to marriage, which wasn't clear.
    I just meant in the context of marriage.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  20. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    I just meant in the context of marriage.
    Then debate away my friend.

  21. #81
    I've got my opinions on this, but growing up my family felt an incessant need to argue both sides of the argument for arguments sake. So here goes:

    We've just talked about one instance where a professional person has moral or personal reservations, there are likely many more. For example:

    You are a fertility doctor and Warren Jeff's protege walks in with three women just a day north of 18 and they request that you inseminate each of them (er... the women). You see no signs of abuse or coercion of these women, and no material reason to believe that the children as a result of this procedure will be harmed physically or mentally. However, familiar with his clan and being opposed to polygamy in general you have reservations about performing the procedure. Should you be required to perform the procedure, particularly if you could refer them, at no inconvenience to them, to another doctor in your office who holds no such reservations?

    On another note - and this isn't me trying to justify bigotry - but I personally would prefer to know if someone harbored bad feelings towards me or what I was doing rather than force them to do business with me, or worse a medical procedure. I'd prefer to not give them my business and be referred to someone who is motivated to do their very best, or at least not harbor reservations that may affect their thinking and performance for me.

    Since this board is lousy (I'm kidding) with attorneys, have any of you declined a client for personal or moral reasons? What about if there was a conflict of interest? Could it be considered a conflict of interest to require a doctor to perform a procedure against his wishes, particularly one that isn't life threatening?

  22. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death View Post
    You are probably right. I mean I bet the amount of unwed mothers in America will increase a lot when Gays can marry in America.
    There has been a precipitous drop in marriages period. Which means the amount of unwed mothers in Canada has increased ... along with an increase in unwed fathers, and a decrease in good people regardless their sexuality choosing to have children. And the correlative effect is: higher taxes to pay for more social programs and the unhealthy evolution of the nanny state. It is what it is. I am living in YOUR future.

  23. #83
    Can I Leave Home?
    http://jfcy1.blogspot.ca/2012/11/can-i-leave-home.html

    The law and your rights at home, work, and school
    http://kidshelpphone.ca/Teens/InfoBo...nd-school.aspx

    Leaving school-aged children home alone could become illegal if court convicts Winnipeg mother
    http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01...#__federated=1

    And in the US:

    Are you considering emancipation? Emancipation is a legal process that grants teenagers independence from their parents or guardians.
    http://www.wikihow.com/Get-Emancipated-as-a-Teen

    Maryland family under investigation for letting their kids walk home alone
    http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/20/living...-under-attack/
    Last edited by tooblue; 01-28-2015 at 11:11 AM.

  24. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Diehard Ute View Post
    Then debate away my friend.
    Unfortunately, as LA has previously eluded to, the debate is done. He or any one who thinks like he does is a bigot. That is how this will play out in the US. It's inevitable. There is no going back.

  25. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by concerned View Post
    the problem is that any bigot can conjure up a sincerely held religious belief. Can you refuse to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple? Or rent an apartment? Once you enter the marketplace, you should not be allowed to discriminate. Religious institutions and their representatives should be exempt on first amendment grounds, i.e., not performing same sex services, but if you are offering economic services (including medical) you have to treat everybody the same. Otherwise the loophole swallows the rule. You only enforce non-discrimination laws against people who dont want to abide by them for whatever reason.
    Therefore, a doctor can be compelled to perform an abortion regardless, his or her convictions.

  26. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by tooblue View Post
    Therefore, a doctor can be compelled to perform an abortion regardless, his or her convictions.

    No. He or she cant perform abortions for some and not oihers based on status. He or she can stay out of the procedure altogether, obviously.
    Last edited by concerned; 01-28-2015 at 11:31 AM.

  27. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by concerned View Post
    No. He or she cant perform abortions for some and not oihers based on status. He or she can stay out of the procedure altogether, obviously.
    And therefore his or her right to pursue medicine as a life career choice is prohibited then. I just want to make that clear.

  28. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by tooblue View Post
    And therefore his or her right to pursue medicine as a life career choice is prohibited then. I just want to make that clear.
    Lol, toolblue is killing this thread, as usual. keep fighting the good fight, so that all those aspiring abortion docs don't have their dreams shattered by gay marriage.

    I never thought traditional marriage fans would be standing arm in arm with those poor abortion doctors, demanding the right to abort fetuses according to the dictates of their conscience.

    Really, really amazing work, toolblue.

  29. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by tooblue View Post
    And therefore his or her right to pursue medicine as a life career choice is prohibited then. I just want to make that clear.
    What? that is quite a non-sequiter. it doesnt even make any sense at all. He or she can practice medicine by performing abortions or not.

  30. #90
    Our children's children will look at at our generation and shake their heads at our bigotry for homosexuals, just as we look back at our grandparents with disgust for their racism.
    “Children and dogs are as necessary to the welfare of the country as Wall Street and the railroads.” -- Harry S. Truman

    "You never soar so high as when you stoop down to help a child or an animal." -- Jewish Proverb

    "Three-time Pro Bowler Eric Weddle the most versatile, and maybe most intelligent, safety in the game." -- SI, 9/7/15, p. 107.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •