Jason Collins: first openly gay athlete in US Sports history

[sabach]

And just so we're clear, I'm fairly confident that if you told Jason Collins what you think about his behavior to his face, he wouldn't consider you a brother in any way, shape or form. I could be wrong.

I would suspect that you would be wrong. But what does it matter anyway.

 

[sabach]

I will say this, sabach. You seem open to the idea of the church (or your church) evolving on this issue. Am I wrong?

Well we are looking into ways that we can be more open and welcoming of homosexuals. However, I do not foresee ever changing our theology on the issue of homosexual acts being sin. I get that you cannot reconcile how we can be looking to be more open and welcoming while simultaneously holding that theological position, but if Father Daley at All Saints can do it, maybe we can. That's why I'm going to be meeting with him.

 

[IthacaMatt]

The part I bolded above is the key I think to reconciling how religions should be viewed according to how they stand on these things. Were those editorial decisions performed by revelation given under proper authority from God, or were they done by man? If we believe they were revealed changes to doctrine that's one thing and has its consequences. If we believe they are changes produced by man's choices, that's a completely different thing with different consequences.

I can understand the perspective of those that believe religion is a man-made construct, and as a man-made construct it is subject to whims and will of man. I get the argument. Personally, I believe that religion, and more specifically the faith I follow, is given of God and subject to His will. I believe that matters of commandment are received by revelation through the proper lines of authority of God in my church. Some day, my church may endorse marriage of men to men and women to women, and if it does so I will follow it because I believe it will have come from God, and not because people decided culturally that it should be so. It's God's right to reveal his commandments as He sees fit, and I trust the judgment there. If I have other ideas, well, I'm not the one that is an all-powerful, all-knowing being in that disagreement.

I have always viewed the Church's characterization and treatment of Paul and Peter as being ministers of the Gospel, not prophets in the traditional sense. If you are an Old Testament "purist" regarding what constitutes a prophet, then I'm not so sure that Paul and Peter fit that model, and I don't think the Catholic Church (the "one true church") even portrays them as "prophets", per se.

So by those defined terms, I would say that the New Testament, while containing many of the teachings of Jesus, is not a "complete set" of the writings of the times. Some interpretations of the meanings of events and relationships among people (e.g. role of Mary Magdalene, Gospel of Timothy, the Gnostics, Gospel of Judas, which represented the Sicari sect of the Jews who wanted to follow the example of the Maccabees and throw the Romans out of Jerusalem (which they accomplished, thirty some years later, BTW). Jesus was an Essene Jew, the serious, pious, ascetic sect. They were martyrs rather than the warriors, philosophically speaking, and by historical example with Matathias, the elder of the Maccabees and Judah's father. The elder had a group of 1000 people who were slaughtered because they refused to fight back against the Romans on the Sabbath.

The survivors decided that the rule against not doing any work on the Sabbath had to be revised to say, "unless it is to defend your own life". So, man changed God's rules, and for the better I might add, because it permitted their survival.

 

[IthacaMatt]

MCC - it works both ways. I believe that it is a lack of critical thinking that allows people to justify in their minds that it is acceptable to unfairly kill unborn children in the womb. IMO, people who support abortion are no less bigots to the unborn than those who think that homosexuals should be treated unfairly differerent than straights (a position that IMO is not supported by the Bible). At least homosexuals are allowed the chance to be born. As I have said before on this board, I long for the day when a smart scientist claims to have found the gene which causes homosexuality and that said gene can be determined in utero. You youself have claimed in this thread that homosexuality is in part caused by genetics. Will the left support a woman whose only reason to abort is that she doesn't want to bring a gay child into the world and raise it. MCO- honest question - what does your critical thinking say - should an unborn child with a genetic pre-disposition to being gay be allowed to be eliminated from this world solely because that child will be born gay?

Here's what wrong with this point of view. It's in your second sentence. "Lack of critical thinking ALLOWS PEOPLE to justify in their minds that it is acceptable to unfairly kill unborn children in the womb."

OK, let's parse your sentence, and maybe we will each understand the other's point of view better.

"Lack of critical thinking" - you feel that "PEOPLE" could only chose to abort a baby, if they lack critical thinking. So to you, there is no other rational outcome other than if you get pregnant, you have that child. But doesn't a child have a right to be loved? Doesn't a child have a right to the best possible upbringing? Should having a child consign someone to a lifetime of poverty for both the mother and the child?

It's not "PEOPLE" who decide whether or not to abort a baby. It's the mother. It's not PEOPLE. It's a very personal decision, and it's not easy for a single one of these young mothers. I've known young girls who got abortions. It's never an EASY thing. Who are you kidding with that kind of rhetoric, like these people don't even care. They care. They may not love the person who knocked them up. It may have been a really bad decision. The person might be really young, like 14 or 15. Should these HS girls be forced to essentially have their parents raise their kids while the finish school? Is that the best environment for a baby to grow up in?

You know, sometimes it's UNFAIR that society feels that they have the right to decide what's best for everyone else. What part of "FREEDOM" do conservative anti-abortionists not understand? Just because your church says it's a sin, doesn't mean because this country is supposedly built on freedom, not what someone's church thinks is the most moral behavior, or even a moral imperative. The Muslims have "moral imperatives" that require the killing of an adulterous wife by beheading in the public square for shaming her husband. How did you feel when that guy did that in Buffalo a couple years ago? Is that your America? Because that's what you stand for, when you substitute ANY church's judgment of morality for the actual ing law of the land.

People who are against abortion should read their goddamn precious constitution sometime. A woman has legal rights. A fetus does not. The history of the kings of the last 1000 years support that proposition. So take your morality and apply that to your own life, not the life of others. The Constitution made it pretty damn clear that the state shall not endorse any religion or adopt its dogma as the law of the land.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I have always viewed the Church's characterization and treatment of Paul and Peter as being ministers of the Gospel, not prophets in the traditional sense. If you are an Old Testament "purist" regarding what constitutes a prophet, then I'm not so sure that Paul and Peter fit that model, and I don't think the Catholic Church (the "one true church") even portrays them as "prophets", per se.

So by those defined terms, I would say that the New Testament, while containing many of the teachings of Jesus, is not a "complete set" of the writings of the times. Some interpretations of the meanings of events and relationships among people (e.g. role of Mary Magdalene, Gospel of Timothy, the Gnostics, Gospel of Judas, which represented the Sicari sect of the Jews who wanted to follow the example of the Maccabees and throw the Romans out of Jerusalem (which they accomplished, thirty some years later, BTW). Jesus was an Essene Jew, the serious, pious, ascetic sect. They were martyrs rather than the warriors, philosophically speaking, and by historical example with Matathias, the elder of the Maccabees and Judah's father. The elder had a group of 1000 people who were slaughtered because they refused to fight back against the Romans on the Sabbath.

The survivors decided that the rule against not doing any work on the Sabbath had to be revised to say, "unless it is to defend your own life". So, man changed God's rules, and for the better I might add, because it permitted their survival.

I appreciate the time you put into that post. Short response is that I'm not Catholic and don't subscribe to Catholic doctrine. I actually have some rock solid work things I need to do, so I'll see about responding later.

 

[ImperialOrange]

People who are against abortion should read their goddamn precious constitution sometime. A woman has legal rights. A fetus does not. The history of the kings of the last 1000 years support that proposition. So take your morality and apply that to your own life, not the life of others. The Constitution made it pretty damn clear that the state shall not endorse any religion or adopt its dogma as the law of the land.

What about when said fetus has distinguishable female or male parts at 13 weeks?

 

[sabach]

Here's what wrong with this point of view. It's in your second sentence. "Lack of critical thinking ALLOWS PEOPLE to justify in their minds that it is acceptable to unfairly kill unborn children in the womb."

OK, let's parse your sentence, and maybe we will each understand the other's point of view better.

"Lack of critical thinking" - you feel that "PEOPLE" could only chose to abort a baby, if they lack critical thinking. So to you, there is no other rational outcome other than if you get pregnant, you have that child. But doesn't a child have a right to be loved? Doesn't a child have a right to the best possible upbringing? Should having a child consign someone to a lifetime of poverty for both the mother and the child?

It's not "PEOPLE" who decide whether or not to abort a baby. It's the mother. It's not PEOPLE. It's a very personal decision, and it's not easy for a single one of these young mothers. I've known young girls who got abortions. It's never an EASY thing. Who are you kidding with that kind of rhetoric, like these people don't even care. They care. They may not love the person who knocked them up. It may have been a really bad decision. The person might be really young, like 14 or 15. Should these HS girls be forced to essentially have their parents raise their kids while the finish school? Is that the best environment for a baby to grow up in?

You know, sometimes it's UNFAIR that society feels that they have the right to decide what's best for everyone else. What part of "FREEDOM" do conservative anti-abortionists not understand? Just because your church says it's a sin, doesn't mean because this country is supposedly built on freedom, not what someone's church thinks is the most moral behavior, or even a moral imperative. The Muslims have "moral imperatives" that require the killing of an adulterous wife by beheading in the public square for shaming her husband. How did you feel when that guy did that in Buffalo a couple years ago? Is that your America? Because that's what you stand for, when you substitute ANY church's judgment of morality for the actual law of the land.

People who are against abortion should read their goddamn precious constitution sometime. A woman has legal rights. A fetus does not. The history of the kings of the last 1000 years support that proposition. So take your morality and apply that to your own life, not the life of others. The Constitution made it pretty damn clear that the state shall not endorse any religion or adopt its dogma as the law of the land.

Thirty-eight states have some form of fetal homicide law many of which apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy. So for you to say a fetus does not have legal rights is patently incorrect. Try killing a pregnant woman in one of those states and see how many counts of homicide you are charged with.
I get your argument on freedom and people should have the right to do whatever they want as long as it does not affect someone else. But abortion is not a victimless issue. There is a unborn child that has the right to live and this is a right that a majority of the states in the U.S. uphold and enforce so long as the one trying to take away that right is not the mother of that child.
Not one argument you make as to why it should be okay to kill an unborn child cannot also be used to justify the killing of children outside of the womb. I presume you do not think it is okay to kill two year olds. If so, who gave you the right to decide what a mother should be able to do with her child if she decides that it is better for her two year old kid to die then to have to continue to live in an unloving home or one with poverty? You know the Bible also says its wrong to kill two year olds. Should we take infanticide laws off the books because to keep them would be an endorsement of religion?
My use of the word people was not meant to be insensitive to those women who are confronted with an unwanted pregnancy who I know are going through a very difficult time. To the extent that my post inferred that I think that women who have abortions do not care, I apologize. The "people" I was referring to were "people" who support the right to abortion. The same way you used the word "people" in your statement "people who are against abortion should read their goddamn precious constitution sometime."
And with reference to the Muslim who killed his wife - that is not the America that I stand for and my objection to abortion is not the equivalent of supporting this type of act and you know it. But, since the Bible says that this type of killing is also wrong, in your world should we allow husbands to kill their wives so as not to violate the Establishment Clause?

 

[KingOtis]

What about when said fetus has distinguishable female or male parts at 13 weeks?

Yet no lungs.

 

[ImperialOrange]

Yet no lungs.

But still technically a female by definition thus fitting the womans rights criteria, no?

 

[KingOtis]

But still technically a female by definition thus fitting the womans rights criteria, no?

The youngest premie on record that survived was 21 weeks old. Most premies are born around 25 weeks or later and could not survive without the assistance of modern medicine.

 

[Todd Gack]

This thread has officially jumped the shark. But for the anti-choice crowd -- those of you who believe you're ethically obligated to sustain life at the expense of your own (which the law says you're not) -- I hope you're on a kidney registry. People need them -- and to not be would be hypocritical of you.

 

[ImperialOrange]

The youngest premie on record that survived was 21 weeks old. Most premies are born around 25 weeks or later and could not survive without the assistance of modern medicine.

So 21 weeks is the magic number for you? Honeslty wasn't trying to argue you just trying to establish a baseline from the other poster that went off. I'm not sure there is a 100% correct answer honestly so therefore is hard to make laws accordingly. Sabach did bring up an interesting point though with murder charges as it pertains to killing a woman with child. Is the difference between murder and not murder simply what the mother wants?

 

[ImperialOrange]

This thread has officially jumped the shark. But for the anti-choice crowd -- those of you who believe you're ethically obligated to sustain life at the expense of your own (which the law says you're not) -- I hope you're on a kidney registry. People need them -- and to not be would be hypocritical of you.

Thread jumped it a long time ago. Honestly came back and was surprised it wasn't locked or moved to the OT board. FWIW I'm in the bone marrow donor database, where does that put me in terms of hypocrite vs not?

 

[sabach]

So 21 weeks is the magic number for you? Honeslty wasn't trying to argue you just trying to establish a baseline from the other poster that went off. I'm not sure there is a 100% correct answer honestly so therefore is hard to make laws accordingly. Sabach did bring up an interesting point though with murder charges as it pertains to killing a woman with child. Is the difference between murder and not murder simply what the mother wants?

In a word yes. Woman is walking into an abortion clinic, before she gets in, she is beaten by a man with a baseball bat who causes a miscarriage. That man, in a majority of the states in the Union, is charged with an assault on the woman as well as a homicide (in some states, murder) of the fetus. However, had the mother made it into the clinic and had the abortion, no criminality whatsoever. So yes, the legal protection of the fetus is directly determined not by the inherent right of the fetus but rather by the actor who seeks to end that right to life.
Here is a link with regards to the state statutes on fetal homicide.
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

 

[KingOtis]

So 21 weeks is the magic number for you? Honeslty wasn't trying to argue you just trying to establish a baseline from the other poster that went off. I'm not sure there is a 100% correct answer honestly so therefore is hard to make laws accordingly. Sabach did bring up an interesting point though with murder charges as it pertains to killing a woman with child. Is the difference between murder and not murder simply what the mother wants?

The current limit is my magic number, unless the health of the mother is in danger. 24 weeks is plenty of time to make the decision. From personal experience, I do not think 21 weeks is enough time due to the importance of the 20-week ultrasound.

On the flip side, there was a Catholic hospital in Utah that was responsible for the deaths of two twins in utero. During the malpractice case, they tried to argue that the twins were not human beings.

What the mother wants is obviously part of the definition. The fetus is also dependent upon the mother for survival. In a criminal case where someone murders a pregnant woman, I think the definition is more social than scientific.

 

[ImperialOrange]

In a word yes. Woman is walking into an abortion clinic, before she gets in, she is beaten by a man with a baseball bat who causes a miscarriage. That man, in a majority of the states in the Union, is charged with an assault on the woman as well as a homicide (in some states, murder) of the fetus. However, had the mother made it into the clinic and had the abortion, no criminality whatsoever. So yes, the legal protection of the fetus is directly determined not by the inherent right of the fetus but rather by the actor who seeks to end that right to life.
Here is a link with regards to the state statutes on fetal homicide.
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

Interesting stuff as it pertains to my home state of PA. "Unborn child is defined as in § 3203, to mean an individual organism of the species Homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth." So in PA it's from day 1 on but there are still abortion clinics. I'm honestly not sure how that works with laws against harming unborn children yet allowing abortions?

 

[KingOtis]

So yes, the legal protection of the fetus is directly determined not by the inherent right of the fetus but rather by the actor who seeks to end that right to life.

Try telling that to a woman.

BTW, in your baseball bat analogy, if the mother survives and opts for a civil suit against the attacker, her lawyers will have a hard time convincing a jury that she deserves monetary compensation on behalf of the fetus. (That doesn't mean she isn't entitled to compensation for other reasons).

 

[syrabillslican]

Kerry Rhodes is rumored to be one of them. There were vacation photos of he and a mysterious man looking very happy together not long ago, and I believe the "mystery guy" actually came right out and confirmed it was a romantic getaway. Good for him, if so. No reason to hide it.

And very encouraged by Jason Collins coming out. Hopefully it'll trigger a tidal wave of acceptance.

This is so damn creepy. I thought this was a sports forum.

 

[KingOtis]

Interesting stuff as it pertains to my home state of PA. "Unborn child is defined as in § 3203, to mean an individual organism of the species Homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth." So in PA it's from day 1 on but there are still abortion clinics. I'm honestly not sure how that works with laws against harming unborn children yet allowing abortions?

Because it's not the same thing. The fetus is still dependent upon the mother. It's part of her body.

 

[sabach]

Interesting stuff as it pertains to my home state of PA. "Unborn child is defined as in § 3203, to mean an individual organism of the species Homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth." So in PA it's from day 1 on but there are still abortion clinics. I'm honestly not sure how that works with laws against harming unborn children yet allowing abortions?

Plain and simple - all of these laws have exceptions for abortion. In other words, it is the public policy of most of the states of the union that fetuses have a right to life and that this right is to be protected by the state and punishable as a crime for those who violate it. Yet, if the mother is the one who wants to violate it, no problem.

 

[sabach]

Try telling that to a woman.

BTW, in your baseball bat analogy, if the mother survives and opts for a civil suit against the attacker, her lawyers will have a hard time convincing a jury that she deserves monetary compensation on behalf of the fetus. (That doesn't mean she isn't entitled to compensation for other reasons).

No kidding. Wrongful death suits are almost always dependent on pecuniary loss, and in New York they are entirely dependent on that loss. A fetus killed in the womb would have no such loss. What is your point?

 

[ImperialOrange]

The current limit is my magic number, unless the health of the mother is in danger. 24 weeks is plenty of time to make the decision. From personal experience, I do not think 21 weeks is enough time due to the importance of the 20-week ultrasound.

On the flip side, there was a Catholic hospital in Utah that was responsible for the deaths of two twins in utero. During the malpractice case, they tried to argue that the twins were not human beings.

What the mother wants is obviously part of the definition. The fetus is also dependent upon the mother for survival. In a criminal case where someone murders a pregnant woman, I think the definition is more social than scientific.

So is 24 weeks the current national limit or is it a state by state thing?

No idea about that Utah case but curious on what the outcome was as it pertains to what the twins were considered.

What if the baby isn't a risk to the mothers health, she doesn't want it, but the father does?

 

[sabach]

So is 24 weeks the current national limit or is it a state by state thing?

No idea about that Utah case but curious on what the outcome was as it pertains to what the twins were considered.

What if the baby isn't a risk to the mothers health, she doesn't want it, but the father does?

Based on Roe v. Wade, the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution is currently interpreted to allow states the right to outlaw abortion in the third trimester (after 24 weeks) but not before. The 14th amendment is also interpreted to allow states the right to outlaw killing fetuses at any time after conception as long as the mother is not the one doing the act.

Father's have no rights whatsoever.

 

[NKR1978]

This thread has officially jumped the shark.

I'm just waiting for gun control to rear its head in this thread which would then pivot to a discussion about Doug Marrone and the zone vs. man debate, and we will have a Syracusefan.com grand slam with the possibility of the universe collapsing on itself.

 

[sabach]

I'm just waiting for gun control to rear its head in this thread which would then pivot to a discussion about Doug Marrone and the zone vs. man debate, and we will have a Syracusefan.com grand slam with the possibility of the universe collapsing on itself.

Maybe a little conference re-alignment added in as well. I've probably kept this thread going more than anyone and it's 5:10 p.m. on Friday - I'm out of here. I do appreciate the opportunity to discuss these matters with everyone. We may not always agree but that is what makes it worthwhile.