# Jets Dump Tebo



## Emacee (Dec 15, 2000)

Tivo spokesjock Tim Tebow has been dumped by the New York Jets. No more genuflecting on the sideline. The Jets drafted another quarterback and immediately put Tebow on waivers. So far, no other team is expressing interest. How long will the Tebow-Tivo gig last?


----------



## gonzotek (Sep 24, 2004)

Emacee said:


> Tivo spokesjock Tim Tebow has been dumped by the New York Jets. No more genuflecting on the sideline. The Jets drafted another quarterback and immediately put Tebow on waivers. So far, no other team is expressing interest. How long will the Tebow-Tivo gig last?


I'm guessing until his contract with TiVo runs out -- They just recently picked a new ad agency to 'revive the brand'. I asked about Tebow in the thread about that topic:
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=503105


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

I'm sure that the Cowboys will pick him up.


----------



## malayphred (Jan 29, 2007)

Maybe the CFL??


----------



## pteronaut (Dec 26, 2009)

malayphred said:


> Maybe the CFL??


Well, the Montreal Allouettes do hold rights to him in the CFL...


----------



## MeInDallas (Jul 31, 2011)

magnus said:


> I'm sure that the Cowboys will pick him up.


No way! Jerry Jones is smarter than that! 

(sarchastic remark)


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Guys, this is a Tivo forum, not a Tebo forum.


----------



## MJHoltorf (Dec 23, 2001)

At least his name still rhymes with Tivo.

So he's got that going for him.


----------



## 9300170 (Feb 21, 2003)

Hoping that TiVo sees the light and dumps that bigoted creep too.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

9300170 said:


> Hoping that TiVo sees the light and dumps that bigoted creep too.


Strange that people think he's a bigot. In what way?


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

malayphred said:


> Maybe the CFL??


Christian Football League


----------



## hairyblue (Feb 25, 2002)

I think Tivo made a mistake by picking Tebow as a spokesman. Sure the name works well for Tivo, but a spokeman's views on people will be looked at. 

I wasn't happy to have to look at his face on my Tivo.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

magnus said:


> Strange that people think he's a bigot. In what way?


From Merriam-Webster.
Definition of BIGOT: 
"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance."​Many would say his opinions of certain groups meets the above definition - I have no idea if he really is one or not but the fact that many people think he is makes him unacceptable as a commercial spokesman.


----------



## Loach (Jan 11, 2013)

atmuscarella said:


> From Merriam-Webster.
> Definition of BIGOT:
> "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance."​Many would say his opinions of certain groups meets the above definition - I have no idea if he really is one or not but the fact that many people think he is makes him unacceptable as a commercial spokesman.


Still haven't heard what these mysterious "opinions" are or who these nebulous "groups" are.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Loach said:


> Still haven't heard what these mysterious "opinions" are or who these nebulous "groups" are.


I don't follow this stuff to close but you could try Catholics or Gay people to start, seems to be some issues with both, however what is fact versus perception or rumor is hard to figure out. I certainly don't know and wouldn't accuse anyone of being a bigot based on the little I know about it however others may have followed his statements and actions closer and feel the label is deserved. In any event the controversy is enough to make him a bad spokesperson for TiVo.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

I really think he's been painted unfairly with a broad anti-gay, anti-catholic brush, just for being near people who espouse such beliefs.

He appeared at a series of benefits which amounted to something like "puppies for sick children", or something similarly good natured. It was however hosted by an organization that when not giving puppies to sick children, is also "Pro Family" (rabidly anti gay). This was right after the Chic-Filet business died down, and he got caught up in the "lets find people supporting organizations that are anti-gay" witchhunt.

Since then, any time he's been within 100 miles of an organization that isn't strongly pro-gay, it makes major (internet) news. Even when he cancels an appearance because the organization is anti-gay, he still gets painted as a bigot. I'm not aware of any actual evidence he himself has any gay opinion whatsoever. (*)

Similarly, his father is a bit of a religious loon, that rants against the entire christian faith (or catholic, I don't remember). And he's been painted with the same brush. Although again, I'm not sure he's ever expressed an opinion on the subject. (*)

* I could be wrong, but I've still not seen anything more concrete than guilt by association...


----------



## Loach (Jan 11, 2013)

atmuscarella said:


> I don't follow this stuff to close but you could try Catholics or Gay people to start, seems to be some issues with both, however what is fact versus perception or rumor is hard to figure out. I certainly don't know and wouldn't accuse anyone of being a bigot based on the little I know about it however others may have followed his statements and actions closer and feel the label is deserved. In any event the controversy is enough to make him a bad spokesperson for TiVo.


If you don't follow this stuff that close then you shouldn't be chiming in with support for someone else's vague accusations.

I always thought he was an odd choice as a Tivo spokesman, but that's a far cry from calling him a bigot. IMO he was a good college QB that looked like a fish out of water as an NFL QB, and he seems like a pretty nice guy to me. I've never heard him (or seen him quoted) saying anything negative about anybody. But because he's a Christian who probably doesn't support gay marriage, he gets lumped in with Fred Phelps. Ridiculous. I guess anti-Christian bigotry is the only socially acceptable form of bigotry in this day and age.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Loach said:


> If you don't follow this stuff that close then you shouldn't be chiming in with support for someone else's vague accusations.


I think you need to re-read my posts, I didn't support anyone accusations, I answered a question. By the way accusing someone of being a bigot isn't vague. You or I may feel the justification for the accusation is vague, but the person making such an accusation is being very clear on what their perception of the person is.


----------



## Loach (Jan 11, 2013)

atmuscarella said:


> I think you need to re-read my posts, I didn't support anyone accusations, I answered a question. By the way accusing someone of being a bigot isn't vague. You or I may feel the justification for the accusation is vague, but the person making such an accusation is being very clear on what their perception of the person is.


Accusing someone of bigotry without explaining why one thinks so is vague.

You certainly implied support for the vague accusation by answering a question with further vagueness about "certain groups". Then followed it up with references to his purported views about Catholics and gays, without offering any support. I don't find that particularly helpful. It serves to spread further potential misconceptions about the man.


----------



## bantar (Apr 27, 2004)

Loach said:


> atmuscarella said:
> 
> 
> > I don't follow this stuff to close but you could try Catholics or Gay people to start, seems to be some issues with both, <snip> .
> ...


Hmmm. Tebow has unfavorable opinions on behaviors (of others) [your words, not mine] and he is branded a bigot. You have unfavorable opinions of Tebow. Yet, somehow, your opinions are valid, while his are bigoted???

And I'm just a poor confused Catholic boy that doesn't understand why this hatred of Tebow exists in the first place. Supposedly, I should know this [again, your words].


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Loach said:


> Accusing someone of bigotry without explaining why one thinks so is vague.
> 
> You certainly implied support for the vague accusation by answering a question with further vagueness about "certain groups". Then followed it up with references to his purported views about Catholics and gays, without offering any support. I don't find that particularly helpful. It serves to spread further potential misconceptions about the man.


I guess I am guilty of assuming people were not living in a vacuum and knew about all the issues and/or accusations surrounding Tim Tebow, it has been going on now for several years.

After all we are using computers and it doesn't take much to use Google to see the various opinions and accusations. While I tend to discount much of the hype around stuff like this posted on Internet sites or presented in 30 second sound bites, others don't and certainly can decided one way or the other what they believe to be true and not need to restate everything or post links to all the stuff they have read/viewed that led them to their opinion.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

bantar said:


> Hmmm. Tebo has unfavorable opinions on behaviors (of others) [your words, not mine] and he is branded a bigot. You have unfavorable opinions of Tebo. Yet, somehow, your opinions are valid, while his are bigoted.


The difference is he is expressing an opinion of one specific person not an entire group of people. You could call him judgmental, but not a bigot. Tebo, or at least the groups he associates with, are bigots toward the entire gay population.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

bantar said:


> Hmmm. Tebo has unfavorable opinions on behaviors (of others) [your words, not mine] and he is branded a bigot. You have unfavorable opinions of Tebo. Yet, somehow, your opinions are valid, while his are bigoted.
> 
> And I'm just a poor confused Catholic boy that doesn't understand why this hatred of Tebo exists in the first place. Supposedly, I should know this [again, your words].


I really wish people wouldn't put words in my mouth. I haven't called anyone anything in any of my posts.

However on a general note the reason I posted the definition of a bigot is because of posts like yours. If I say or even believe "Martians" (pick any group you like) are terrible/evil/etc. and that we shouldn't tolerate them - by definition that makes me a bigot.

So if for some reason a person believes Tebo (or anyone) thinks Catholic's or Gays are terrible/etc. and shouldn't be tolerated then again by definition they believe he is a bigot. What the relevant question for others becomes is if that persons beliefs are based in reality/fact or not. Which is why I am fairly sure some people have questioned the opinions posted - however there is nothing new to be posted here that the general Internet discussion of the last few years hasn't talked about so at this point people believe what ever they want to believe.


----------



## Loach (Jan 11, 2013)

Dan203 said:


> The difference is he is expressing an opinion of one specific person not an entire group of people. You could call him judgmental, but not a bigot. Tebo, or at least the groups he associates with, are bigots toward the entire gay population.


If you are referring to groups like Focus on the Family, which opposes gay marriage, then by your definition, at least half the population of the U.S. are bigots. By your definition, Barack Obama was a bigot until he "evolved" on the gay marriage issue.

Edit: and can we at least start spelling the guy's name right? It's Tebow.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Loach said:


> If you are referring to groups like Focus on the Family, which opposes gay marriage, then by your definition, at least half the population of the U.S. are bigots. By your definition, Barack Obama was a bigot until he "evolved" on the gay marriage issue.


Yep, all of them are bigots! Anyone who thinks that two consenting adults do not have the right to get married because of their sexuality is no different then the people who opposed interracial marriage in the 60s.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Tebow to the Pats!!

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/06/10/patriots-to-sign-tim-tebow/

Now Boston gets to deal with the hype and baggage.


----------



## Loach (Jan 11, 2013)

Dan203 said:


> Yep, all of them are bigots! Anyone who thinks that two consenting adults do not have the right to get married because of their sexuality is no different then the people who opposed interracial marriage in the 60s.


Although I disagree with your view, you are entitled to it. I presume you are also OK with 3 consenting adults getting married? I mean, if 3 consenting adults really love each other, why shouldn't they be able to get married? Wouldn't you agree that 2 is just an arbitrary number?

Interracial couples can produce children, by the way. Gay couples cannot. Every child has 1 mother and 1 father. That is a biological certainty.


----------



## Loach (Jan 11, 2013)

jsmeeker said:


> Tebow to the Pats!!
> 
> http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/06/10/patriots-to-sign-tim-tebow/
> 
> Now Boston gets to deal with the hype and baggage.


If they're smart (and they are) I would guess they're looking at him at another position. He might make a good fullback, H-Back or tight end.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Loach said:


> Although I disagree with your view, you are entitled to it. I presume you are also OK with 3 consenting adults getting married? I mean, if 3 consenting adults really love each other, why shouldn't they be able to get married? Wouldn't you agree that 2 is just an arbitrary number?


I don't personally care about plural marriage, but it would be a problem from a tax/legal perspective so I can understand why there is a 2 person limit.



Loach said:


> Interracial couples can produce children, by the way. Gay couples cannot. Every child has 1 mother and 1 father. That is a biological certainty.


Why does marriage have anything to do with children? There are straight couples who get married late in life, well after they are capable of having children, and that's OK. My wife and I got married and we have no intention of ever having children, and that was OK. There are couples that get married knowing full well that one or the other is infertile and that's OK. There are also millions of children born to couples who are not married, some who barely even know one another, and that's OK. Having children and getting married are two completely separate things, neither requiring the other to be valid.

Marriage is a contract that provides the two people involved certain tax/legal benefits. From that perspective there is absolutely no difference between a man/woman couple and a same sex couple. Any two consenting adults should be allowed to get married and afforded all the benefits that marriage provides.

People who oppose same sex marriage do so either because of religious beliefs or because they think it's icky. Either way it's bigotry!


----------



## Loach (Jan 11, 2013)

Dan203 said:


> Why does marriage have anything to do with children? There are straight couples who get married late in life, well after they are capable of having children, and that's OK. My wife and I got married and we have no intention of ever having children, and that was OK. There are couples that get married knowing full well that one or the other is infertile and that's OK. There are also millions of children born to couples who are not married, some who barely even know one another, and that's OK. Having children and getting married are two completely separate things, neither requiring the other to be valid.
> 
> Marriage is a contract that provides the two people involved certain tax/legal benefits. From that perspective there is absolutely no difference between a man/woman couple and a same sex couple. Any two consenting adults should be allowed to get married and afforded all the benefits that marriage provides.
> 
> People who oppose same sex marriage do so either because of religious beliefs or because they think it's icky. Either way it's bigotry!


We'll have to disagree that millions of children born outside of marriage is "OK". Studies have shown that children of married couples have generally better outcomes in many different areas, including poverty and substance abuse. The state's interest in promoting marriage is for the benefit of children.

So gay people who oppose gay marriage are bigots too? Bigoted against themselves presumably?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Loach said:


> We'll have to disagree that millions of children born outside of marriage is "OK". Studies have shown that children of married couples have generally better outcomes in many different areas, including poverty and substance abuse.


I'm not saying it always turns out OK for the child, but in the eyes of the law it's OK.



Loach said:


> So gay people who oppose gay marriage are bigots too? Bigoted against themselves presumably?


Yep, if such a person exists then he/she is also be a bigot. There is no logical reason to oppose gay marriage. Only religious/hate related reasons.

Marriage is a legal contract, nothing more. Any two consenting adults should be able to enter into that contract and be afforded all the benefits that come along with it. Limiting it to two people of the opposite sex is simply unfair.


----------



## Loach (Jan 11, 2013)

Dan203 said:


> I'm not saying it always turns out OK for the child, but in the eyes of the law it's OK.
> 
> Yep, if such a person exists then he/she is also be a bigot. There is no logical reason to oppose gay marriage. Only religious/hate related reasons.
> 
> Marriage is a legal contract, nothing more. Any two consenting adults should be able to enter into that contract and be afforded all the benefits that come along with it. Limiting it to two people of the opposite sex is simply unfair.


The logical reason for opposition is that the rights of children should trump the right to children. And children do best with a mother and father.

Anyway, my involvement in this thread was not really intended to ignite a debate about gay marriage, but rather to flush out the true rationale of the Tebow-haters. I think I've accomplished that. People hate Tebow because he holds Christian religious views. Hatred of Christianity is at the root of Tebow-hatred.


----------



## StevesWeb (Dec 26, 2008)

Gotta love that martyr card.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

Loach said:


> And children do best with a mother and father.


That refrain loses more and more credibility over time. The people in the media it's loaned from either don't cite sources, or they've twisted studies to make a false comparison. While actual studies like ACHESS show no substantive difference among children raised by loving parents who are genuinely happy to have them, regardless of who the parents are.



Loach said:


> Studies have shown that children of married couples have generally better outcomes in many different areas, including poverty and substance abuse.


Sounds like a good case to support more couples getting married.  :up:


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Loach said:


> The logical reason for opposition is that the rights of children should trump the right to children. And children do best with a mother and father.


Again what do children have to do with marriage? Plenty of hetrosexual couples get married, and reap all the benefits that entails, with no intention of having children. And plenty of homosexual couples that are not married either have or adopt children. The ONLY thing marriage does is provide certain tax/legal rights, none of which have anything to do with children.


----------



## Davisadm (Jan 19, 2008)

Back to the subject of Tim Tebo...

Tim Teb has been sighed with the New England Patriots.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

It's Tebow fer cryin' out loud, even if you don't like him give him the courtesy of a correct name spelling.


----------



## hairyblue (Feb 25, 2002)

How about Christians can marry who they want and love and if you are not Christian you can not write laws to stop them. It doesn't have anything to do with you. If marrying the opposite sex is against your religion, then YOU don't do it. Don't right laws to stop people in love from getting married.

Or something like that.

This is America, Tebow should be able to marry who he loves.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

hairyblue said:


> How about Christians can marry who they want and love and if you are not Christian you can not write laws to stop them. It doesn't have anything to do with you. If marrying the opposite sex is against your religion, then YOU don't do it. Don't right laws to stop people in love from getting married.
> 
> Or something like that.
> 
> This is America, Tebow should be able to marry who he loves.


Tim Tebow is gay? Wow.

Awesome! :up:


----------



## Loach (Jan 11, 2013)

Dan203 said:


> Again what do children have to do with marriage? Plenty of hetrosexual couples get married, and reap all the benefits that entails, with no intention of having children. And plenty of homosexual couples that are not married either have or adopt children. The ONLY thing marriage does is provide certain tax/legal rights, none of which have anything to do with children.


What do children have to do with marriage? I guess nothing if you live your life like an alley cat. The legal and tax rights of marriage that are built into the federal code were written specifically for the purpose of protecting children and easing the financial burden on their parents. To say marriage has nothing to do with children is laughable.

Let me know when a same-sex couple gives birth to their first biological child.


----------



## Loach (Jan 11, 2013)

hairyblue said:


> How about Christians can marry who they want and love and if you are not Christian you can not write laws to stop them. It doesn't have anything to do with you. If marrying the opposite sex is against your religion, then YOU don't do it. Don't right laws to stop people in love from getting married.
> 
> Or something like that.
> 
> This is America, Tebow should be able to marry who he loves.


Actually, gay marriage is legal in all 50 states. There is not a law on the books anywhere that will prevent you from having whatever marriage ceremony you want. The media talks about gay marriage "bans" because they like to make it sound like people are getting thrown in jail or something. But there are simply no gay marriage bans. There are just states that recognize gay marriage, and states that don't.


----------



## Loach (Jan 11, 2013)

BigJimOutlaw said:


> That refrain loses more and more credibility over time. The people in the media it's loaned from either don't cite sources, or they've twisted studies to make a false comparison. While actual studies like ACHESS show no substantive difference among children raised by loving parents who are genuinely happy to have them, regardless of who the parents are.


Here's an article with plenty of sources for you. I'm sure the gay marriage crowd will discount it all though, because all they care about is their mushy emotional arguments about "love" and "fairness".



BigJimOutlaw said:


> That refrain loses more and more Sounds like a good case to support more couples getting married.  :up:


Yep, it's a great case for more heterosexual couples to get married.


----------



## Davisadm (Jan 19, 2008)

Back to the subject of Tim Tebow

Tim Tebow has been signed with the New England Patriots.

Tim Tebow arrives

New team


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Loach said:


> Let me know when a same-sex couple gives birth to their first biological child.


That's such a BS argument! There are millions of hetrosexual couples that can't have biological children either, and yet they are allowed to get married. Why is that OK? Because their parts fit together? Because your book says it's OK? 

Oh and FYI....
http://news.yahoo.com/oregon-scientists-embryos-2-women-1-man-170407156.html
Soon it will be possible for a lesbian couple to have a biological child. When that happens will you change your stance on them getting married? I'm guessing not.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

Loach said:


> Here's an article with plenty of sources for you. I'm sure the gay marriage crowd will discount it all though, because all they care about is their mushy emotional arguments about "love" and "fairness".


When I said the media bigots twist studies to make false comparisons, I was referring quite specifically to groups like Focus on the Family. And so now you have given me a link to a FOTF affiliate. And that link proves my exact point. So thank you.

The studies don't need gay marriage supporters to discount them. They discount themselves. Well actually, only one of the studies linked to in that article is even working. And even though the FOTF article cherry-picks sentences from the study, they/you ignore the fact that the study admits outright that it did little to no examination of actual SS couples, and no married SS couples at all because the study is so old it pre-dates SSM. LOL.

So thank you again for proving my point that they, and you as their proxy, twist inapplicable studies to fit an agenda.

For those unaware, FOTF founder James Dobson claims gays will destroy the earth, gay marriage will lead to donkey-man marriage, and that women wait for their husbands to assume leadership. So clearly he's a down-the-middle sociological scholar with no agenda, whose groups can and should be cited in all credible discussions.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

Loach said:


> Although I disagree with your view, you are entitled to it. I presume you are also OK with 3 consenting adults getting married? I mean, if 3 consenting adults really love each other, why shouldn't they be able to get married? Wouldn't you agree that 2 is just an arbitrary number?
> 
> Interracial couples can produce children, by the way. Gay couples cannot. Every child has 1 mother and 1 father. That is a biological certainty.


And why not consenting cousins? As a society, where is the line drawn? What does this set of values show to our children?

Aren't there laws on the books that don't allow cousins etc. to marry? What if they don't want to have kids? Should we as a society be bigots and prevent them from marrying then?

Should we stop there? What about brothers and sisters? I know, everyone is thinking that's gross. Why is that anymore gross than what you are saying should be acceptable now?


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

BigJimOutlaw said:


> For those unaware, FOTF founder James Dobson claims gays will destroy the earth, gay marriage will lead to donkey-man marriage, and that women wait for their husbands to assume leadership. So clearly he's a down-the-middle sociological scholar with no agenda, whose groups can and should be cited in all credible discussions.


And just like the atheist that needs to stand up for their right to not believe.... A man (or woman) will eventually want to have their right to marry a donkey.


----------



## jakerock (Dec 9, 2002)

Good grief.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

magnus said:


> And just like the atheist that needs to stand up for their right to not believe.... A man (or woman) will eventually want to have their right to marry a donkey.


All such stories only mean is that there are weirdos everywhere.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

magnus said:


> And why not consenting cousins? As a society, where is the line drawn? What does this set of values show to our children?
> 
> Aren't there laws on the books that don't allow cousins etc. to marry? What if they don't want to have kids? Should we as a society be bigots and prevent them from marrying then?
> 
> Should we stop there? What about brothers and sisters? I know, everyone is thinking that's gross. Why is that anymore gross than what you are saying should be acceptable now?


There is a reason why immediate family memebers can't get married. The lack of genetic diversity can cause serious birth defects in any offspring. In this particular case it really is all about the children.



magnus said:


> A man (or woman) will eventually want to have their right to marry a donkey.


I am so sick of hearing this argument! A marriage between two consenting adult humans is NOT the same thing as a human marrying an animal. Allowing the former does not mean we ever have to allow the latter.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> There is a reason why immediate family memebers can't get married. The lack of genetic diversity can cause serious birth defects in any offspring. In this particular case it really is all about the children.:


But if that's he case then why do YOU have the right to be a bigot and not let them marry each other? Again, what if they don't want to have children? Who are they hurting then?

If you're willing to say one thing is okay then why not the other? If the argument is that it's not your place to say who consenting adults can choose to marry then its not your place. Period.

And seriously, why not polygamy? If we don't see any moral problems with these other things then why can't a person marry more than one person? It seems that we're only able to accept so much at one time but eventually even something like that will be accepted in our society.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I actually have no problem with family members getting married if they're both consenting adults. Live and let live.

I don't have any problem with polygamy either, but in that case I can see where it would be an issue from a management perspective for the government. Also the potential for abuse would be much higher.

My only moral objection to any of this is that there is an entire class of people being discriminiated against because of religious bigotry.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> My only moral objection to any of this is that there is an entire class of people being discriminiated against because of religious bigotry.


I think that folks have other problems with this besides just the religious views.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

magnus said:


> I think that folks have other problems with this besides just the religious views.


Like what? It's "icky"? What do you, or anyone else, care what two consenting adults do with their lives?


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> Like what? It's "icky"? What do you, or anyone else, care what two consenting adults do with their lives?


I care about what my children see as acceptable values for our society. I can't say what other people think about it but can only provide my opinion.

I don't like shows on TV that depict things like this as normal acceptable behavior. This would include more than just gay and lesbian behavior. Our society has become more and more inundated with this and many other things as the norm.

I could not stand president Clinton because not only was he a liar but he made a mockery of what is supposed to be the greatest job of influence in America.

Yes, those are my opinions and its a free country. So, I'm allowed to have my opinions on the subject and you're not going to be able to change my mind any more than I'm going to be able to change yours. But I do have to wonder, where do we draw the line on what is acceptable as a society and when is it okay to stand up for morality (and not be labeled a bigot)?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

magnus said:


> Yes, those are my opinions and its a free country. So, I'm allowed to have my opinions on the subject and you're not going to be able to change my mind any more than I'm going to be able to change yours. But I do have to wonder, where do we draw the line on what is acceptable as a society and when is it okay to stand up for morality (and not be labeled a bigot)?


If you don't think homosexual relationships are a good idea don't have one. Outside of religious dogma there is zero reasons for you, I, or anyone else to care if another person is in love with someone of the same sex or if they can get married under the eyes of the law.

On the bigot thing while I don't believe not supporting gay marriage alone makes one a bigot, a bigot would have that view.


----------



## MeInDallas (Jul 31, 2011)

I'm always surprised at how threads like these go on and on and on and on.


----------



## Loach (Jan 11, 2013)

MeInDallas said:


> I'm always surprised at how threads like these go on and on and on and on.


Yep, and they resolve nothing because people care more about winning the argument about their entrenched views than in actually considering anything anyone else writes.

Of course, in a properly moderated forum this thread would have been locked a long time ago as it has turned into a political discussion, which is clearly prohibited in this section of the forum. Not that I didn't contribute to that tangent. Just sayin'.


----------



## Loach (Jan 11, 2013)

BigJimOutlaw said:


> When I said the media bigots twist studies to make false comparisons, I was referring quite specifically to groups like Focus on the Family. And so now you have given me a link to a FOTF affiliate. And that link proves my exact point. So thank you.
> 
> The studies don't need gay marriage supporters to discount them. They discount themselves. Well actually, only one of the studies linked to in that article is even working. And even though the FOTF article cherry-picks sentences from the study, they/you ignore the fact that the study admits outright that it did little to no examination of actual SS couples, and no married SS couples at all because the study is so old it pre-dates SSM. LOL.
> 
> ...


The studies are applicable in that they find advantages for children who benefit from having a married mother and father. A same-sex marriage can never provide that.

As for your last paragraph, it's basically inaccurate and somewhat unintelligible leftist talking points about James Dobson and FOTF.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

Loach said:


> The studies are applicable in that they find advantages for children who benefit from having a married mother and father. A same-sex marriage can never provide that.
> 
> As for your last paragraph, it's basically inaccurate and somewhat unintelligible leftist talking points about James Dobson and FOTF.


LOL, no. You can't credibly claim it's applicable when it doesn't even study what we are talking about. Especially when it's so old it pre-dates what we are talking about.

There is also nothing inaccurate about the quotes, as much as I'm sure you wish otherwise. So feigning dismissal due to left-wing agenda lacks credibility too.


----------



## Davisadm (Jan 19, 2008)

*Back to the subject of Tim Tebow (The title of this thread)*

Tim Tebow has been signed with the New England Patriots.

Tim Tebow arrives

New team


----------



## stahta01 (Dec 23, 2001)

Davisadm said:


> *Back to the subject of Tim Tebow (The title of this thread)*


+1

Tim S.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

atmuscarella said:


> If you don't think homosexual relationships are a good idea don't have one. Outside of religious dogma there is zero reasons for you, I, or anyone else to care if another person is in love with someone of the same sex or if they can get married under the eyes of the law.


+1


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

stahta01 said:


> +1
> 
> Tim S.


Yep, I'm glad to hear that he got on a team. I wish him luck. However, I don't like the patriots.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> +1


I made my point about it and why I do not think the concept of marriage should apply. You guys act like its frivolous and just brush it aside and only talk about it in terms that make you feel like you're on the moral high ground. So be it, agree to disagree and move on.


----------

