Nebraskans, don’t cower before the “enlightened”. They are not your betters

[Wonder Monds Fan]

Maybe you need new friends.

I didn't say they were my friends, just people I know from classes.

[Wonder Monds Fan]

I love Christians, but I hate their religion. See how awesomely tolerant that is of me.

Thank you for your tolerance of us.

[RedPhoenix]

Thank you for your tolerance of us.

Very magnanimous of me, I know.

[ChitownHusker]

there's almost a double standard here in terms of threads.

A. It is the only RB thread on the first page.

B. It was the poster's very first post. By the way, welcome to HuskerMax!

[ChitownHusker]

Very magnanimous of me, I know.

It's understanding that makes it possible for people like me to tolerate a person such as yourself.

[RedPhoenix]

It's understanding that makes it possible for people like me to tolerate a person such as yourself.

I see you've joined me in the magnanimous suite. Welcome. Let us look down on everyone together.

[utsker]

Can somebody tell me what the first post was about?

[RedPhoenix]

Can somebody tell me what the first post was about?

Support Ron Brown or you aren't a real: Christian, Fan, Nebraskan.

Oh, and everyone who disagrees is smug.

[ColoREDo]

It's understanding that makes it possible for people like me to tolerate a person such as yourself.

Let them eat sausage.

[AKIDAD]

Can somebody tell me what the first post was about?

Deny Christianity and tell anybody who believes, that what they believe is stupid. Other wise you are labeled a hate mongering moron.

Oh, and everyone else is just wrong.

[RedPhoenix]

Deny Christianity and tell anybody who believes, that what they believe is stupid. Other wise you are labeled a hate mongering moron.

Oh, and everyone else is just wrong.

You should smile when you say that. Remember, I love Christians. It's just those stupid beliefs and lifestyle I have a problem with.

[Huskers57]

.

[huskernut]

Huskernut, this is what drives me up the wall. Ron Brown is not discriminating against gays and he is not saying that city governments should either, because there are already federal and state laws on the books that ban discrimination based on, among other things, sex. Period. That should be the end of the matter right there, but the whole LGBT community regards it as an entitlement to more specifically spell out a protection for them that is, for all intents, already there.

In short, they're being superfluous. It's as if a state senator walked into the chambers and introduced a law saying, "It is illegal to speed in a residential or school zone during the daytime." It's redundant, because laws are already on the books regarding the subject, whether day or night. Is it just me, or are some missing this simple point of law?

Whether it is superfluous or not, Ron Brown isn't opposing it because it is superfluous. He didn't say that at all. That's a legal point that certainly wasn't what prompted him to drive to Omaha.

I'm on record on this board going back a long time praising and defending Ron Brown, even though I am agnostic. I recognize he is a man of great character, and a great teacher, even though I completely disagree with him on this point. My view of college is where different people get to advocate for their own points of view, and that is fine for him to do.

I was also pleased by his letter and his comment in a related article where he made it clear he wouldn't discriminate against a gay player, and that he has decided not to continue making himself the story. If he sticks with that plan: steps away from the national spotlight but continues his personal character work with individuals and religuous groups, I will be very happy. That can be very good for our team and our university.

This isn't a Nebraska vs. the coasts story at all like the original post suggested. I know many, many Nebraskans who are good people (and great Husker fans!) who are for gay marriage, or are gay themselves. And even more who think is wrong to discriminate against gays in the workplace. On this point, Ron Brown certainly doesn't speak for Nebraskans as a whole.

And frankly, I would rather our football team be about football, not about being pro or anti-gay or anything political.

[YellowDent#2]

You should smile when you say that. Remember, I love Christians. It's just those stupid beliefs and lifestyle I have a problem with.

RP/God of Huskermax, you might do well to discern between "Christians...and those stupid beliefs and lifestyle" you speak of. I can't for the life of me find where one could be separated from the other. It appears to me that you are giving an uninformed opinion based on nothing more than a biased understanding of the subject. But that's just me, I could be wrong...as you are indeed the God of HuskerMax and sit in the judgement seat.

And oh, by the way, this is my take from scripture as to the whole gender issue: Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." There you go, male gender and female gender. That wasn't so hard. Giddyup.

[ColoREDo]

RP/God of Huskermax, you might do well to discern between "Christians...and those stupid beliefs and lifestyle" you speak of. I can't for the life of me find where one could be separated from the other. It appears to me that you are giving an uninformed opinion based on nothing more than a biased understanding of the subject. But that's just me, I could be wrong...as you are indeed the God of HuskerMax and sit in the judgement seat.

Is his understanding of the subject any more biased than your own?

[RedPhoenix]

RP/God of Huskermax, you might do well to discern between "Christians...and those stupid beliefs and lifestyle" you speak of. I can't for the life of me find where one could be separated from the other.

Tell me you see the irony of your statement.

It appears to me that you are giving an uninformed opinion based on nothing more than a biased understanding of the subject. But that's just me, I could be wrong...as you are indeed the God of HuskerMax and sit in the judgement seat.

tell me you see the irony of your statement.

And oh, by the way, this is my take from scripture as to the whole gender issue: Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." There you go, male gender and female gender. That wasn't so hard. Giddyup.

He took a rib from Adam to make eve, so essentially his first go at procreation was via man on man action.

[Pops]

people better be careful who they marry....I believe there are women that like...
In 1778 Thomas Jefferson wrote a law in Virginia which contained a punishment of castration for men who engage in sodomy,^[1] however, what was intended by Jefferson as a liberalization of the sodomy laws in Virginia at that time was rejected by the Virginia Legislature, which continued to prescribe death as the maximum penalty for the crime of sodomy in that state.^[2]
Prior to 1962, sodomy was a felony in every state, punished by a lengthy term of imprisonment and/or hard labor. In that year, the Model Penal Code (MPC) — developed by the American Law Institute to promote uniformity among the states as they modernized their statutes — struck a compromise that removed consensual sodomy from its criminal code while making it a crime to solicitfor sodomy. In 1962 Illinois adopted the recommendations of the Model Penal Code and thus became the first state to remove criminal penalties for consensual sodomy from its criminal code,^[3]almost a decade before any other state.^{[citation needed]} Over the years, many of the states that did not repeal their sodomy laws had enacted legislation reducing the penalty. At the time of theLawrence decision in 2003, the penalty for violating a sodomy law varied very widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction among those states retaining their sodomy laws. The harshest penalties were inIdaho, where a person convicted of sodomy could earn a life sentence. Michigan followed, with a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment while repeat offenders got life. This was later invalidated in the case of Michigan Organization for Human Rights v. Kelly (1987).^{[citation needed]}
By 2002, 36 states had repealed their sodomy laws or their courts had overturned them. By the time of the 2003 Supreme Court decision, the laws in most states were no longer enforced or were enforced very selectively. The continued existence of these rarely enforced laws on the statute books, however, was often cited as justification for discrimination against gay men and lesbians.
On June 26, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision in Lawrence v. Texas struck down the Texas same-sex sodomy law, ruling that this private sexual conduct is protected by the liberty rights implicit in the due process clause of the United States Constitution. This decision invalidated all state sodomy laws insofar as they applied to noncommercial conduct in private between consenting civilians and reversed the Court's 1986 ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick that upheld Georgia's sodomy law.
Before that 2003 ruling, 27 states, the District of Columbia, and 4 territories had repealed their sodomy laws by legislative action, 9 states had had them overturned or invalidated by state courtaction, 4 states still had same-sex sodomy laws, and 10 states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. military had laws applying to all regardless of gender. In 2005 Puerto Rico repealed its sodomy law, and in 2006 Missouri repealed its law against "homosexual conduct." Three states have yet to repeal such laws: Oklahoma, Kansas^[4][5] and Texas.

3 states have laws ......Dont mess with Texas...lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_..._United_States

[Paramus]

I guess I have a view on this issue like so many others, so why don't I chime in. I kind of agree with Mr. Chatlain, that our 1st priority as Christians is to love the Lord our God 1st, and our neighbors as well. Perhaps RB loves homexsexuals and all of his Hindu and Muslims neighbors as he should according to the bible, but according to media reports, he did not come off that way at the Omaha City Council meeting. If what was reported was accurate, he gave the impression he condemned homosexuality and homosexuals at the same time. If that is true, then RB must believe that being homosexual is a choice. Many people feel that it is a choice. I tend to think otherwise. A long time ago I worked in a fancy restaurant where all of the waiters were male and all were gay. Before the restaurant opened, the waiters would gather around one table polishing silverware and folding napkins and they would cackle and gossip like a bunch of women. I was dumbfounded by it. They were all men but they were completely feminine in their behavior. They were not acting. I could not believe they chose to be that way. Therefore, based on my experience, I find it hard to believe homosexuality is a choice.

However, in defense of RB, I think I see his point. Based upon his absolute devotion to God's word in the bible, there is no doubt in his mind that homosexuality is a sin....just as stealing, murder, adultery, lying, forniction, and all other sins outlined in the bible. So I think RB was telling the city council that protecting homosexuals from discrimination is the same as passing an ordinance that protects thieves, murderers, adulterers and fornicatiors from discrimination, and I think that is a valid point.

If in RB's opinion homsexuality is a choice..... and is a sin equal to theft, murder, rape, etc, then I can understand his willingness to see that there should be no law passed which protects it or endorses it.

Anyway, Christians realize that that all people, gay or straight, have fallen short of God's standard, and we all need to repent and believe that Christ was sufficient to pay the price for our sins. However, the more society endorses sinful behavior, the harder it will become for people to realize they are wrong, and I am sure RB wants to prevent that from happening. As the bible says, "what does it profit a man to gain the whole world yet lose his own soul"..... So as the same sex lobby intently pursues its rights to live their lifesyle, they may be missing out on the eternal rewards that RB is gathering every day. Life on this earth is but a snap of a finger or a blink of an eye compared to eternity, so why would somone be so concerned about establishing rights on earth that offend God and deny themselves eternal prosperity?......Rights that they can only enjoy for a short time while here on earth. I guess it's because they don't believe in God or eternal life. How unfortunate, but it's been that way since the fall of man in that Garden. The God of this world is very cunning and very active when it comes to keeping people from knowing the truth....and the hard part about knowing the truth is that you can only come to the realization of it by having the faith of a child. I don't know why the creator designed things this way, but all I can do is accept it and be thankful he offered me (and everyone else) the chance for redemption and the chance to have a personal relationship with him.

[YellowDent#2]

That was beautiful, Paramus. Yours and the original post were worth the price of my membership dues alone. GBR!

[RedPhoenix]

I understand Ron Browns opinion and how he came to form it. He's still wrong.