The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread. Civil Discussion Only

Run into some old friends from another group or board? Want to do a little schmoozing, talk over old times? Or just some off topic stuff, then this is the place.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
BGM
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5948
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 11:39 am

Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread...

Post by BGM » Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:22 pm

Thank you for doing this.

Sent from my KFJWA using Tapatalk
0 x
"You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline. It helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a beer." - Frank Zappa

User avatar
Just Me
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6095
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 8:41 pm

Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread...

Post by Just Me » Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:38 pm

Valhalla wrote:To answer a need for spillover off-topic posts in the Vikings Talk forum, take it or leave it, thought I'd at least create the thread.

Be Nice!
Good job Valhalla! Wish I had thought of it...
0 x
I've told people a million times not to exaggerate!

User avatar
vikeinmontana
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 12:23 pm

Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread...

Post by vikeinmontana » Sun Jan 12, 2014 7:58 pm

nice work. that thread was getting crazy. I will say sometimes I'm sad that in 2014 people don't think that all people should be treated the same. I'm only 33 though. so hopefully in my lifetime I can see this...
0 x
i'm ready for a beer.

User avatar
Funkytown
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4044
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:26 pm
Location: Northeast, Iowa
Contact:

Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread...

Post by Funkytown » Mon Jan 13, 2014 1:08 am

Are we sure this shouldn't have been put in the Smack Shack? :D
0 x
Image

User avatar
NextQuestion
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2250
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:43 am
Location: Minneapolis

Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread...

Post by NextQuestion » Mon Jan 13, 2014 11:25 am

There was a post in the big thread saying what Priefer said wasn't just homophobic, but also anti-human. I think homophobia is a childish thing and hope that one day, much like racism/sexism/etc we can overcome it. Ponder this: some guys like to have intercourse with women in their behind. Does that make them secretly gay because they enjoy that?
0 x
Pull yr 84 jerseys out.

User avatar
Cliff
Site Admin
Posts: 8309
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:51 pm
Location: Kentucky

Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread...

Post by Cliff » Tue Jan 14, 2014 8:15 am

Here is an interesting article, I'm not sure if Marriage Redefinition is about Civil Rights. And then, as so many point out, one would almost need to let in Polygamous/Multiple Spouses Marriages.
If the argument is that marriage is a religious institution then it should be completely ripped out of government and replaced with non-religious civil unions. Religion and government shouldn’t mix.

I’m actually a little foggy on why Polygamous/Multiple spouse marriage would be a problem, especially if you’re arguing on the side of religion-based marriage. That arrangement is mostly religiously affiliated and one would think their right to marry falls under freedom of religion … unless you’re saying your specific religion doesn’t approve … in which case we’re back to why religion and government shouldn’t mix; which religion do you have the government follow?
States have long regulated Marriages through laws such as above. That's why I think this should be left as a responsibility of the State.
Many states actually still had laws banning interracial marriage until 1967 when the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. Should I assume you think states should be able to ban interracial marriage if they choose as well? If so I feel like we’re so far away from each other’s side that it would be quite difficult to find common ground.
Then too, one might need to start looking at the famous sorts of laws banning marriages between cousins; yet, this is very different from State to State.
Why would you need to look at that? Those bans aren’t a matter of restricting rights as much as protecting the unborn. The offspring from such unions can have serious health problems. Very different situations.
If not the fact that perhaps the Government should not be involved in Marriage at all, it is mainly to raise fees through licenses and to give some people say tax breaks.
This is pretty much where I fall. “Marriage” means something different depending on the religion (or lack thereof) of the person you ask and trying to narrowly define it under one specific religion’s term is preposterous and unfair. Mormons believe different than Baptists who believe something different than an atheist, etc, etc. The government shouldn’t be in the business of regulating love and relationships.
That all said, other people getting married how they want in general does not effect individual citizens, does not really affect me. However, if we start monkeying with the definition of family as has occurred in Scotland in some maternity literature and start calling mother and father, parent 1 and parent 2, redefining so much, this I don't care to see happen.
This doesn’t make any sense to me. The reason you’re worried about marriage isn’t because it has any inpact on you … but because you’re worried one day you might go to a hospital and it’ll say “Parent 1 and parent 2” rather than “mother and father” in some pamphlet? That seems shallow and pointless.
0 x
"Everyone has a plan 'til they get punched in the mouth." - Mike Tyson

User avatar
Cliff
Site Admin
Posts: 8309
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:51 pm
Location: Kentucky

Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread...

Post by Cliff » Tue Jan 14, 2014 1:31 pm

I believe what the Constitution says "freedom OF religion", not "freedom FROM religion". Anyway, good luck if someone thinks the Government will get out of the Marriage Business. If the government does administer it, it should be done at the state or local level.
That’s exactly my point … freedom OF religion means that no single religious faith should be imposed on people. If Christians think that marriage should be between “one man and one woman” fine … but there’s no reason to impose that on people other than their Christian religious belief which should not be ingrained into the government.

I don’t expect the government to get out of the marriage business but that would be nice. In my opinion it’s the best solution to this issue.

Also, and this is just my own personal interpretation and could be wrong … but I think Freedom of Religion includes non-religious people. In other words, you are free to believe what you want without anybody else’s religion being imposed on you. So Freedom of Religion should consist of Freedom from religion if that’s what you believe to be right.
That may be so except "group" marriages along with polyamourous (multiple husbands)/polygamy (multiple wives) certainly does not have to be because of religion.
I’m not following you here. Can you elaborate?
If a State passes a law that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, the Supreme Court should strike it down. So yes, States should regulate their own laws.

The Supreme Court of the USA (SCOTUS) has also upheld Slavery in the past. The SCOTUS found that Slaves had no rights. So because the Supreme Court said this, we are to take it that they are correct??
Fair enough, though we’re both agreeing that states shouldn’t be able to pass unconstitutional laws, it sounds like. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court just ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional; specifically the section where states didn’t have to recognize same sex marriages from other states.

So, as long as marriage is legal in at least one state … anybody can go there and their home state still has to recognize the marriage. From there you’re just splitting hairs if you’re advocating states have their own marriage rules because what do they matter if you can just go to a neighboring state and your marriage is perfectly legal.
Mixed Marriages was not the redefinition of Marriage, was still one man and one woman.
Actually, it was a redefining of marriage considering it was against the law and they had to change (aka redefine) the law afterwards.
Marriage has been redefined in other ways too …many, many times … what you might consider “traditional” marriage today isn’t historically traditional. Laws actually defining marriage between “one man and one woman” didn’t come along until 1973 even though same sex marriages were denied before that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sarah-pra ... 81228.html
Let's look at U.S. law, since Mr. Peters is referring to marriage in this country. In the last 100 years marriage has changed immensely in the U.S., including the legalization of divorce as well as the use of birth control for married couples. We have even changed the gender roles by making women no longer the legal property of their husbands. In the 1800s certain states began to give married women the ability to own property in their own names until all American women were granted that right in 1900. Throughout the 20th century women gained more and more rights, such as being allowed to have credit in their own names, say no to sex with their husbands, and keep their last names if they wished. It wasn't until 1933 that women were granted citizenship separate from their husbands.

We had essentially already made marriage genderless through the elimination of certain rights and responsibilities for husbands versus for wives, but then a new movement started in 1973 as states began passing laws redefining marriage as being between a man and a woman. Since these, there have been yet more laws about this institution that didn't exist before, and I consider them to be against my cultural views that marriage is the union between two consenting adults, a definition that fits most of the iterations of marriage the U.S. has seen. State laws (and the now-invalid 1996 Defense of Marriage Act) that assign further restrictions based on sex don't fit my interpretation of what marriage in the U.S. looks like for my parents' and my generations.

I'm not positive if that is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. A whole string of people are listed as who were married and were first cousins including Albert Einstein.

If it is so sure and positive the offspring of such unions can have "serious health effects", then per the map shown, a lot of the population of the United States, Florida, California, New York and other states allow the marriages of 1st cousins.
I’m pretty positive that it is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that inbreeding INCREASES the likelihood of problems. Not ensures it;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding
Inbreeding may result in a far higher phenotypic expression of deleterious recessive genes within a population than would normally be expected.[7] As a result, first-generation inbred individuals are more likely to show physical and health defects, including:
• Reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability
• Increased genetic disorders
• Fluctuating facial asymmetry
• Lower birth rate
• Higher infant mortality
• Slower growth rate
• Smaller adult size
• Loss of immune system function
I'm sure since the United States was born, 99% of all marriages have been between 1 man and 1 woman. Even going back to the Bible, it was the Kings who mainly had multiple-wives if this situation existed.
Well … the bible isn’t exactly known for its historic accuracy … however, if that’s the book we’re going to use to make the rules …
In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry.

In Deuteronomy 21:15 "If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons...."
The redefinition of the family and marriage is nonetheless of import per percentages of the population or percentages of marriages. Most sources will say the LGBT community is only 2% or less of the population. Not sure if we need to start eliminating "mother" and "father" being used in schools for 2% of the population. This is where that could go.
So we’ve jumped from mother and father in some remote hospital pamphlet to bogus information being taught in schools? I can’t think of anybody, LGBT or not, that wants to go that way.

Nobody is advocating ignoring how human biology works. Same sex couples understand it takes a sperm and egg to make a baby. Unfortunately, many of the people who supply what is necessary to make a baby don’t have it in them to take care of the baby for whatever reason and in some cases, good same-sex families step in and adopt. These are still families.
0 x
"Everyone has a plan 'til they get punched in the mouth." - Mike Tyson

User avatar
BGM
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5948
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 11:39 am

Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread...

Post by BGM » Tue Jan 14, 2014 2:02 pm

Valhalla wrote: I believe what the Constitution says "freedom OF religion", not "freedom FROM religion".
Then which religion gets to decide the definition of marriage? Are you insisting on some kind of religious "majority rule"? It is not only freedom of religion, but also freedom from state sanctioning of any religion. If religions are allowed to dictate how the government defines marriage, where does that influence end?
Valhalla wrote: Anyway, good luck if someone thinks the Government will get out of the Marriage Business.

If the government does administer it, it should be done at the state or local level.
As long as laws continue to use the social construct of marriage, it needs to be defined in order to equitably apply the laws. And marriages are actually administered on the local level - where do you go to get a marriage license?
Valhalla wrote: Mixed Marriages was not the redefinition of Marriage, was still one man and one woman.
And yet, conservatives used the Bible to oppose interracial marriage, twisting it to fit their own view of what constituted a Biblically sound marriage.

Not anywhere, not even once, does the Bible specifically state that the only blessed marriage is between one man and one woman. In fact, the Old Testament is filled to the brim with polygamy. See the following:

a. Lamech had two wives - Genesis 4:19.

b. Esau had three wives - Genesis 26:34 & 28:9.

c. Jacob had four wives - Genesis 29:28 & 30:4-9.

d. Gideon had many wives - Judges 8:30.

e. Abijah had 14 wives - II Chronicles 13:21.

These polygamists (only a small sampling of the many found in the Bible) were not condemned by God for their multiple wives.

Which causes me to ask, why should the government define it as between one man and one woman?
Valhalla wrote: Even going back to the Bible, it was the Kings who mainly had multiple-wives if this situation existed.
Please see above. Additionally, there was the Old Testament law that required a brother to marry his widowed sister-in-law, regardless of his own marital state. Polygamy occurred without regard for social station.
Valhalla wrote: The redefinition of the family and marriage is nonetheless of import per percentages of the population or percentages of marriages. Most sources will say the LGBT community is only 2% or less of the population. Not sure if we need to start eliminating "mother" and "father" being used in schools for 2% of the population. This is where that could go.
So? Is there a breakdown in the family dynamic by referring to parents as parents, instead of defining them based on their gender? Or is this merely a point where society needs to reassess the roles it has traditionally given to each parent? With so many households where women are the primary earners and fathers have assumed more child-rearing duties, there is already a need to re-evaluate the staus quo.

I understand that change is difficult. However, we do not devalue traditions by moving forward.
0 x
"You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline. It helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a beer." - Frank Zappa

User avatar
Cliff
Site Admin
Posts: 8309
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:51 pm
Location: Kentucky

Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread...

Post by Cliff » Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:23 am

Valhalla wrote:One can read the first Amendment and total Constitution on this website:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

I'm hardly going to support Slavery because the Supreme Court of the US did not strike it down. If that's the way some people think, I think there is a large difference in what we believe.
You didn't feel the need to actually respond to the points anymore so I'm not really going to respond to this. Suffice to say I fall on the side of more rights and not less. If you think denying a group of people the right to get married falls on the same side as abolishing slavery we are quite far off.
0 x
"Everyone has a plan 'til they get punched in the mouth." - Mike Tyson

User avatar
Funkytown
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4044
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:26 pm
Location: Northeast, Iowa
Contact:

Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread...

Post by Funkytown » Thu Jan 16, 2014 11:03 am

Valhalla wrote:Good post BGM. Civil Discussion is always a plus.
Both BGM and Cliff did a great job with this discussion. They said it way better than I ever could have.

Good job, guys. Really. I'm impressed by (and very much appreciate) your intelligence and morality.
0 x
Image

User avatar
MrPurplenGold
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:46 pm

Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread...

Post by MrPurplenGold » Tue Feb 11, 2014 5:05 pm

BGM wrote: Then which religion gets to decide the definition of marriage? Are you insisting on some kind of religious "majority rule"? It is not only freedom of religion, but also freedom from state sanctioning of any religion. If religions are allowed to dictate how the government defines marriage, where does that influence end?
You take on the religion of the officials that you elect because they are the ones that make the laws. The only way to change is it to elect officials that are proponents of same sex marriage. If you live in a state where the majority has a particular set of beliefs the you are going to have to live under those set of beliefs. Fair or unfair that's how a democracy works, majority rules. This is not just with same sex marriage but abortion gun laws and many other issues as well
BGM wrote:

And yet, conservatives used the Bible to oppose interracial marriage, twisting it to fit their own view of what constituted a Biblically sound marriage.

Not anywhere, not even once, does the Bible specifically state that the only blessed marriage is between one man and one woman.
Biblically we're no longer under the rule of the old testament, we now fall under the new testament. Although the Bible does not specifically say it's between a man and a woman , which I would have to go through it to confirm that, it does consider homosexuality to be sexual immorality.
0 x

User avatar
Cliff
Site Admin
Posts: 8309
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:51 pm
Location: Kentucky

Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread. Civil Discussion Onl

Post by Cliff » Wed Feb 12, 2014 3:40 pm

The bible is “pick and choose” morality. I bet I can find at least 5 things from the New Testament that the average Christian doesn’t follow. The homosexuality stuff conveniently aligns with some people’s current views and so they cling to that.

For example, wasn't the Ten Commandments in the old testament ... but yet that is ok to cling to from the Old Testament ... why?

Even in your example of the New Testament supposedly being the rule now ... that is up for debate depending on which part you read;
17 Do not think that I have come to do away with or undo the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to do away with or undo but to complete and fulfill them.
18 For truly I tell you, until the sky and earth pass away and perish, not one smallest letter nor one little hook will pass from the Law until all things are accomplished.
0 x
"Everyone has a plan 'til they get punched in the mouth." - Mike Tyson

User avatar
MrPurplenGold
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:46 pm

Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread. Civil Discussion Onl

Post by MrPurplenGold » Wed Feb 12, 2014 4:40 pm

Cliff wrote:The bible is “pick and choose” morality. I bet I can find at least 5 things from the New Testament that the average Christian doesn’t follow. The homosexuality stuff conveniently aligns with some people’s current views and so they cling to that.

For example, wasn't the Ten Commandments in the old testament ... but yet that is ok to cling to from the Old Testament ... why?

Even in your example of the New Testament supposedly being the rule now ... that is up for debate depending on which part you read;
I agree with you that there are those that manipulate the bible to fit their own personal beliefs but I also believe it is not my place to judge; I can only answer for my sins and no one elses

As far as clinging to the old testament, some religions and denominations still believe in the old testament. Remember Jews don't believe Christ is the son of God and some other religions such as catholics focus more towards the old testament, while Baptists who focus more on the new testament stemming from John the Baptist.

I personally don't think it's up for debate. Jesus died as a sacrifice for our sins. He didn't get rid of sin, he completed it by washing us clean in his blood. Although he takes the burden of our sins the bible says there are things that are not good for you. Our bodies are temples for God, we house the holy spirit within it, and when we desecrate our bodies with sexual Immoralities, we are desecrating his temple. Now with that said heterosexual Immoralities are no worse than homosexuality because both are violations of his temple.

Either way you can pick verses that you believe support your morale beliefs just like i can do the same. I try not to use the bible to support my beliefs, I just try to have faith that God will use me to fulfill his will.
0 x

User avatar
Just Me
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6095
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 8:41 pm

Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread. Civil Discussion Onl

Post by Just Me » Tue Feb 18, 2014 8:28 am

Cliff wrote:The bible is “pick and choose” morality. I bet I can find at least 5 things from the New Testament that the average Christian doesn’t follow. The homosexuality stuff conveniently aligns with some people’s current views and so they cling to that.
This article is pretty long, but it addresses the allegations you have leveled. I happen to believe the Bible is not "pick and choose" morality and I believe an open-minded, honest reading of the Bible (as a whole) would reconcile many perceived conflicts. I don't expect everyone to accept what is in the Bible, nor do I expect them to convert to Christianity. I'd prefer not to discuss religion on a football board, but I find it difficult to see some of my core beliefs maligned without a solid basis for doing so.

I can find far more than 5 things from the New Testament that I haven't followed 100% of the time. How does that diminish the Bible or make it "pick and choose" morality. Followers of the Bible may choose the 'salad bar' of righteousness, but that doesn't mean their actions are correct...or without consequences. It simply means the followers are failing to live up to the tenets of their faith.
0 x
I've told people a million times not to exaggerate!

User avatar
Cliff
Site Admin
Posts: 8309
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:51 pm
Location: Kentucky

Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread. Civil Discussion Onl

Post by Cliff » Tue Feb 18, 2014 11:08 am

Just Me wrote: This article is pretty long, but it addresses the allegations you have leveled. I happen to believe the Bible is not "pick and choose" morality and I believe an open-minded, honest reading of the Bible (as a whole) would reconcile many perceived conflicts. I don't expect everyone to accept what is in the Bible, nor do I expect them to convert to Christianity.
That article doesn’t really deny that people are picking and choosing what out of the Old Testament they want. He simply says that the bible, in a roundabout way, says that it’s ok to do so. Even though in other parts it says you shouldn’t. But that gets back to one of the core problem with the bible; since it contradicts itself so much you can align what it says with whatever your personal morals are.

When slavery was still in fashion in the United States religion was used as reasoning for that. Then later religion was used against slavery during civil rights.

It’s all in how you choose to interrupt it which is what makes it “pick and choose” and ultimately worthless in regards to being a “good” person.
I'd prefer not to discuss religion on a football board, but I find it difficult to see some of my core beliefs maligned without a solid basis for doing so.
This section of the board is particularly for off topic conversation …

It’s your opinion that I don’t have a solid basis for doing so, it’s my opinion you don’t have a solid argument against what I said.
I can find far more than 5 things from the New Testament that I haven't followed 100% of the time. How does that diminish the Bible or make it "pick and choose" morality.
I’m not necessarily talking about “back sliding” and doing one of the “big 10” sins or something. They are things that nobody follows *any* of the time because they’re nonsense. The old testament is full of those kinds of things.
Followers of the Bible may choose the 'salad bar' of righteousness, but that doesn't mean their actions are correct...or without consequences. It simply means the followers are failing to live up to the tenets of their faith.
Again, the problem is there are different “tenets” depending on which sect of Christian you ask. One group has decided that the bible means one thing while someone else decides it means something else. Why? Because they used their own morality as a guide and the bible to supplement what they already thought. That's why even though they are reading the same book, what one group says will send you to hell isn’t even a blip on another group’s radar.

My grandmother, for example, believes women shouldn't cut their hair or wear pants and to my knowledge has never done so. There are biblical reasons for this … and yet most of the Christian population would disagree that it was even a “sin”.
0 x
"Everyone has a plan 'til they get punched in the mouth." - Mike Tyson

Post Reply