Jump to content


Community Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by cle23

  1. 1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

    I’ve gone over it already, a few times, but you don’t want to hear it. You just want to circle back to your need for in your face conflict. I didn’t say it diminishes traditional marriage. I said that was the partial intent of those advocating for gay marriage. Once again, for the kids in the back, the purpose of language is to clarify communication. Using the same word to describe many different things does the exact opposite. A German Shepherd and a cocker spaniel are both dogs but we use different words to describe them. It simply helps society communicate more clearly. It doesn’t make either one less of a dog! 


    Right.  Dogs are still dogs though.  All of them.  No matter the breed, they are still dogs.  Marriage is marriage, no matter the "type" of marriage.  You can specify more if you'd like, but the very definition of marriage covers all the marriages that are available, so why make a different word for it?  Also, in the eyes of the law, they are all simply marriages.  


    Calling them all the same thing doesn't diminish the marriage of anyone.  I really don't understand how it "doesn't diminish traditional marriage" and yet you say that is the partial intent of people advocating for gay marriage is to diminish traditional marriage.  Every single person I've met, gay or straight, that supports gay marriage simply does so because they feel that everyone should have the same right and benefits.  I'm not gay, and I've been married for 12+ years now.  Not one one person's marriage has changed or diminished anything about mine in any way.


    None of this has anything to do with "in your face conflict."  It's a discussion, and I personally don't understand your position, as to me, it makes zero sense.  I haven't made any personal attacks or anything of the sort.  That's why I ask for clarification, because I feel like some of your statements are contradicting each other.  

  2. 23 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

    Again I say…oh brother. And yes if you use imprecise distinctions in the definition of words it waters down anything you’re trying to describe. That’s true for every type of word you use and has nothing to do with your bigotry nonsense.  And I still have no idea why this would be in any way offensive to gay men. I’m pretty sure they already know that they’re gay!! But we all know the real agenda is just what you stated…to minimize the significance of traditional marriage. 


    Please explain exactly how using the word marriage for everyone diminishes the significance for one group that is included in that very definition? Please add exact as possible. 


  3. On 7/6/2022 at 3:29 PM, Big Blitz said:

    Count me (shocker) as officially thinking this is not normal - and Mario Bros there is likely correct.  





    People (famous people are getting the headlines) do not die "unexpectedly" in their 20s 30s 40s or even 50s and 60s.  


    If they want to remove much suspicion of your experimental vaccine and 5 boosters they need to immediately let the Public know what is happening to these people.


    Did you really just attribute this guy's death to a COVID vaccine with literally no evidence that he was even vaccinated?  No where in that article does it say he was recently vaccinated, or vaccinated at all.  


    I lost both of my parents in 13 month to COVID.  The fact that people like you make it out as some giant joke shows you haven't seen it first hand.  The ER doctor for my mother explained to my brothers and I on why it is such an odd situation.  COVID itself is the same (different strands obviously) but each person's body's reaction to it is what causes such a wide range of problems.  Some people's bodies overreact to it and it causes serious inflammation, especially in the lungs.  Others' bodies don't and they are mostly fine.    I had it the week of Christmas and was basically just extremely tired for 2 days and then felt mostly fine.  My mother was on a BPAP for almost a week before they put her on a ventilator.  She's went up and down the next 2 weeks with the inflammation worsening and getting better until her body couldn't handle it anymore.


    COVID is "just a flu" for a lot of people, and for a lot of people it's a life or death situation.  I love how 99% of doctors can agree on the treatments and prevention, and then everyone who disagrees will latch onto the random Youtuber who "shows" it's all fake.  I can promise you from 1st hand experience that it is not fake,a nd not a joke.

  4. 1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

    Oh brother…that definition existed before we had gay marriage. It’s like when a new species is discovered…. they create a new word. Biologists don’t keep calling everything a dog. 


    Yes, the definition existed before, and it encompasses all "types" of marriage in it's very definition.  Why do we need to make it more complicated by making a separate word when this one covers it?

  5. 40 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

    Why? Because, there actually isn’t a word for two men joining in such a union. Or two women for that matter. The sole purpose of language is to help people communicate MORE specifically, not LESS specifically. That basic rule applies to every field of study and expertise. Why not this one too? It solves much of the current discourse and hurts absolutely nobody. 


    It doesn't solve anything, and it hurts in the sense of making a separate word for the sole purpose of exclusion.  There is no need for a separate word if the union (marriage) means the same thing.


    Also, here is the Webster definition:


    Definition of marriage

    a: the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

    b: the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK

    c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

    2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effectedespecially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

    3: an intimate or close union, the marriage of painting and poetry— J. T. Shawcross



    So, this definition covers everyone.  Nothing in it that differentiates same sex or "traditional" marriage. 

  6. 30 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

    Because language is supposed be more, not less, descriptive. When you ask your significant other what’s for dinner….do you say, meat? I’m guessing not. We use language to better define our world…not make everything equal. No malice intended here at all, just some creative thinking. 


    I understand where you are coming from, but why make an effort make separate words for the same thing?  The whole point is for exclusion at that point.  There is a word for it already.  Just use it and be done with it.

    • Like (+1) 1
  7. 52 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

    The word means what it means. Not to me…but to the English language. It’s why we have language at all. A unique word for this form of Union would keep you from having to use two words (gay marriage) to describe it. Mine is not a religious point, but a linguistic one. 


    Most people don't call it gay marriage.  I personally know 2 couples that got "gay married."  Neither invited people to their "gay wedding", just to their wedding.


    Why make a new word for something that functions exactly the same for everyone?

  8. 1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

    Wouldn’t the liberal work solution be to change the name to something other than marriage? Or would that make too much sense? 


    If the word means so much to you, why shouldn't it mean something to gay people as well?  Also, no religious institutions are forced to perform gay marriages.  As long as marriage is a term used in the government's recognition of a union, and at this point why would they change it, then everyone union should be called marriage.

    • Thank you (+1) 1
  9. 2 hours ago, Rigotz said:


    I am not defending Watson here as I have no idea what happened or didn't happen, but nothing in that article says forced.  Again, all of these allegations are he said/ she said.  When you have 24+, obviously that lends itself to say that SOMETHING happened, but the details of the allegations are hard to confirm.  But saying she was teary eyed doesn't mean she was forced.  She may have been.  That's up to the investigators/police to determine.

  10. 51 minutes ago, Limeaid said:


    Panthers and Mayfield should try to get Alex Van Pelt on coaching staff.  

    Alex Van Pelt has supported Baker the full time and rebuilt his QB style to a NFL one.


    I tore both of my labrum shoveling snow and could barely get arm above my head. 

    In addition to torn labrium Baker Mayfield had a fractured shoulder socket.  

    That he was able to throw with any kind of accuracy is amazing.




    Jay Glazer


    Breaking: Baker Mayfield tells me in addition to his torn labrum he also fractured his humerus bone (shoulder) according to a scan this week. Baker said the fracture is preventing his rotator cuff from firing.





    It is very ironic that the Browns traded Texans for QB when Mayfield was injured in game vs Texans.


    Van Pelt is the Browns OC. How are the Panthers getting him?

  11. 8 minutes ago, thenorthremembers said:

    Cute story considering your old boy is on pace to take more vacation than any President in history.  




    Yes, but also not putting money into his own pocket while doing so.  Trump was shady even while vacationing, way over charging the SS for rooms while gone.


    Presidential vacation times have spiraled out of control in recent years, though most can still work while not in the WH.  

  12. 3 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

    For the same reasons?

    How much would you be pulling for Watson to help the Browns win if one of the accusers was a family member?


    Go back to when the trade happened, or even before the trade happened.  I didn't want the Browns to trade for Watson.  Still wished they hadn't.  It sounds like he is a sick dude.


    What does anything I said in the posts you quoted have to do with any of the victims? I have never defended Watson the person.


    Cleveland structured the new big money contracts with Garrett, Ward, Teller, and others in the same way.  The Bills did it with Allen.  The Chiefs did it with Mahomes.  With the salary cap exploding, most teams are using low cap numbers now to push the cap hits down the road, where the number will presumably be much higher.

    • Dislike 1
  13. 17 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:



    Ask the Browns fan base - would you want your owner to dole out a contract like that to a player like this?  Let alone acquire him.  


    The contract being set up to protect them in the event of a 1 year suspension is so freaking gross.  


    Again, this has been discussed a hundred times, the Browns structured ALL of their recent contracts like that.  Most teams do.  Kick the can down the road.  Josh Allen's contract had a salary of $920,000 last year.  $4.1 million this year.  Mahomes was $820,000 and then $990,000.  


    You can be upset/disgusted about the allegations, but stop trying to say that the contract was structed that was simply because of the accusations.

    • Disagree 5
  14. 1 hour ago, YoloinOhio said:

    The defense for Watson is grasping at straws because of what his lawyer and Watson have already admitted so they’ve turned to “whataboutisms” instead … what about the owners?? (who aren’t accused of the same thing and aren’t impacted by the same type of discipline anyway so it’s comparing apples and avocados) …what about last year?? (even though he refused to play because he wanted traded). People really think we are all stupid by throwing this stuff out there as some kind of defense. 


    Dan Snyder was accused of sexual assault, 6 times I believe.  The NFL Personal Conduct Policy calls for HARSHER punishments for owners.  And so far absolutely nothing has happened to him, at all.


    Last year, the Texans refused to play him as well, even if he had wanted to.  

    • Disagree 2
    • Dislike 1
  15. 1 hour ago, YoloinOhio said:




    Where the NFL is going to have issues, and where I'm sure Watson's attorneys will focus, is the lack of discipline that the NFL imposed on owners accused of the same or very similar things.  Granted Watson's accusation totals are higher, but Dan Snyder has several accusations as well and the NFL has done literally nothing.  Kraft had some issues.  And the NFL did absolutely nothing.  And NFL's own policy states that owner's should be held to a higher standard than even the players.

    • Disagree 1
  16. 42 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

    Once again your statement is that denying communion is political because they praise something that is decidedly anti Catholic. If they publicly praise people who are satanic would that be political also? The argument about abortion to anyone who is not a political hack of the highest order is not political but a discussion about the rights of the mother vs the rights of the baby. As I stated this is not a political argument, which is why both liberal and conservative Catholics in general are pleased with the outcome 


    And again,  it is political because this is the only issue they stand like this against.  Do they ask every person who enters what their beliefs are? Are they questioned in regards to their pasts? 


    What happened to a vast majority of the Catholic priests accused of child sexual assault? Nothing.  In fact, many were promoted or simply moved elsewhere after the accusations where they could just simply start over on a new group of kids.  


    If they single out 2 politicians as suggested, and no one else, that is 100% political. 

    • Haha (+1) 1
  17. 3 hours ago, B-Man said:


    Let's be clear as to what this meant to start with.  


    "The law did not allow non-citizens to vote in state or federal elections." "The law allowed legal residents, including those with green cards, to vote in municipal elections starting in 2023."


    No one was voting in the Presidential election as a non citizen.  And everyone was here legally.


    • Vomit 1
    • Haha (+1) 1
  18. 21 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

    You believe the Catholic church trying to stand up for the unborn is 100% political? Your entire statement is written as if you believe you understand the Catholic Church but you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. 


    My original comment was in regards to someone saying they were fine with the Catholic Church denying people like Biden and Pelosi communion.  I said at that point, it would obviously be political.  You can't pick out one point and make that your rallying cry, and then ignore all other things.  And I think the church should accept people with varying backgrounds as people change and improve all the time, but what makes their stance on this different from all the other people they serve who have dark backgrounds?


    The Catholic Church has no business being high and mighty in regards to the unborn when they (not all obviously) actively engaged in sexual abuse on tens of thousands of living, breathing children, and the higher ups knew and covered it up.


    My whole premise is they can do and feel as they like within the law, but when they start injecting themselves into politics, by definition, that changes their tax exempt status.

  19. 19 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

    The state of grace one needs to be in before receiving communion existed long before the IRS existed. I continue to believe you are wrong on your position. We'll see if anyone cares to make this challenge in court. 


    Again, that's fine.  They can have whatever position they want on it, but that doesn't change the tax exempt status they currently enjoy, and whether or not they should still receive it.  


    It's like freedom of speech.  You can say/do almost anything you want, but that does not mean that there can't be consequences.  Just that the government can't arrest you for it.  Same thing applies here.  They can hold that position, it's not illegal.  But they should lose tax exempt status if they want to dip their foot into politics and make political statements.


    How is it ok to deny communion for this situation and then freely give it out otherwise, to a pile of other people who have done or stood for worse?

  20. 2 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

    I'd argue this is in direct conflict with 1A -  "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"


    This is direct off the IRS religious tax exempt status:


    To qualify for tax-exempt status, the organization must meet the following requirements (covered in greater detail throughout this publication):


    - the organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific or other charitable purposes;

    - no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation;

    - the organization may not intervene in political campaigns;


    Denying communion based off of politics seems to be in conflict with 1, and at least probably with 2.


    Also, no one is denying them the free exercise of.  Revoking tax exempt status has nothing to do with stopping them from exercising their beliefs.

  • Create New...