The Miami Dolphins are inept collectively at Social Media

I like the Leviticus tattoos. Mostly because Leviticus bans tattoos.

 

I respect that I just got co fused by you saying if it was genetics it would affect your vote

 

Because being gay isn't contagious. They're still different people with different experiences everyday. Friends aren't stuck together 24/7. My friends weren't with me when I was hooking up with a girl during high school.

 

Tattoos are for white people.

 

There are a lot of Pacific Islanders who disagree.

 

I guess you seen the photo floating around the internet of some wanker with Leviticus 18:22 tattooed on his arm, and then the caption points out how the dude is either oblivious to or ignoring the later verse that bans tattoos.

 

There is nothing you are going to experience in your day to day life that is going to turn you gay unless you're already wired that way. If you disagree, then tell me what sort of environmental experiences would make a person who'd otherwise be straight, become gay.

 

Just joking with you

 

Attending a Catholic church

 

You walked into that one lol

 

I know some Pacific Islanders with no sense of humor.

Just kidding. They generally have a great sense of humor. Just don't get them angry.

 

There are studies that show a person can turn gay based on experiences in life and how they react or handle such things. The same holds true for people who were gay but become straight. My coworker was lesbian for 20 some years. After finding God and praying, believing and having a spiritual relationship with him she became straight.

I found this interesting:

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2013/06/identical-twin-studies-prove-homosexuality-is-not-genetic/

 

Staying on topic though, I'm not faulting Sam for acting the way he did. He was in his home and it's his right to do what he pleases in his home. Power to him.. My beef is with the knee jerk reaction of the Dolphins organization responding to Don Jones.. Jones was tweeting about the whole love fest that was airing, from the crying to kissing, caressing to smearing of the cake and licking it off another human. Yeah, "OMG..horrible" sums it up well. The pro gay community wants you to believe Jones was being "anti-gay" and many believe he is a bigot now. No one knows whats in his heart. I haven't heard him make any such statement that suggests that. Take for instance the very first post in this thread.

No, he wasn't tweeting about Sam being drafted. I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that but "what difference does it make?" right. Thats the narrative that was was being pushed and the spineless organization I have loved for so long jumped on the bandwagon because they were scared. Gun shy if you will. What a crock of ****..

 

WADR, we're going to need a link that is not from a religious web site and actually has real info like, what organization did the study and what were the specific results.

 

That's odd coming from you. Why the sudden interest in facts?

 

Nothing against Sam but seeing the instant rash of reality tv shows, ad campaigns, and other bull**** that's already happening makes me very happy Miami didn't draft him.

Our team has plenty of distractions already.

 

He has become the Jerry Springer act of the NFL.

 

The article sites specific information and where the information was gained.

 

He volunteered for it

 

In Kinsey's studies years ago, he determined that few people are 100% gay or 100% straight. There are varying degrees all across the spectrum. Not everyone acts out on their sexual attractions but they are still there. The ones who do not, perhaps one could say that was partially determined by their environment. I have known people who went from straight relationships, then to gay relationships, then later back to a straight relationship. They were apparently IMO more in love with the individual person rather than attracted to one gender as a whole. I have one particular cousin who is 100% gay. He's never had sex with a woman in his life from what he's said. He said he wouldn't have minded trying it back when he was younger, out of curiosity, but he just could not respond physically, if you get my drift, when being in an intimate situation with a woman. He has lived with one same sex partner for at least 30 years, and they are very happy together. So I have seen both sides of the spectrum in various people I've known.
The bottom line to me is everyone has a right to happy fulfilling relationship. I do not believe it's a choice, but even if there is some choice involved, there is nothing wrong with people being in a same sex relationship if that's what makes them happy. The sexual orientation, preference, whatever you want to call it, of other people, should be a 100% non issue. It is hard enough to find true love in this world. If for some people that entails finding it from a same sex relationship, good for them. I am not bothered by it. Rather, I am happy for them.

 

I agree with everything except with thinking its ok. I have a lesbian friend and her gf is cool enough. I also have a member in my family who is a lesbian and I love her to pieces. I also have a gay friend who I know has zero attraction to women. I don't agree with their life style and they don't agree with my opinion of it but we all have mutual love and respect and its never an issue. They sometimes ask questions about my opinion of gay marriage etc (I never bring it up) and they listen but it never ends in a bad way. The lesbian couple I know are actually pretty conservative.

 

If you don't agree with it, then simply don't participate in it. They are apparently happy and that's the bottom line. If you love them, be happy that they are happy. That's not ok? Why should anyone else's relationship require your or anyone else's approval? I am going to assume you do not support gay marriage, and most likely this lack of support is rooted in what your bible says. I won't belabor it here by expressing my views on anything written in the old testament of your bible. I've already made that pretty clear in previous posts.

 

No it doesn't. It lists the name of the scientist and that's it. Even his credentials are vague.

 

Suspending him for free speech, when he is echoing a fairly popular religious and political view, seems very unfair to me.

 

Ehh, ok.. I don't agree with it nor do I partake in it. That part is already covered. I have my beliefs, everyone else has theirs. Fair enough? I never ask a gay person why they choose to engage in their behavior but if I say I don't agree I'm bombarded with opinions on how I should feel or why I'm wrong or I'm questioned in why someone needs my approval. Why do so many people feel like they do need my approval? The don't.. Now its to the point where someone can be fined for expressing their displeasure with certain behavior.

 

Alright.. I posted it because I found it interesting. If you have no ambition to check it out that's up to you.

 

As long as there are those pot stirrers then they will be used as the example of poor behavior regardless of whether it's society en mass acting that way. You see some huge back lash. I don't.

 

Freedom of speech protects you from the government only.

Nothing protects you from the consequences of your speech from private citizens or corporations.

 

They suspended him for embarrassing speech, most likely after being warned.

 

If you mean Don Jones, relative to an employer having the option to discipline their employee for comments related to someone in the same industry I couldn't disagree more.

But if you owned a company selling, let's say aluminum siding, and there were two dozen construction companies who were the other players in the industry and with whom you did business, I suppose you'd gladly keep an employee whose beliefs meant he publicly disapproved of the lifestyle of several of the purchasers in your industry space. You'd be defending his right to say things that offend them, even if it was making a lot of those other industry peers, vendors and purchasers have a bad image of you and your company.

And if that got in the way of how well your company did, as a result, you'd be fine with that, I assume… because Freedom of Speech, right?

Businesses have the right to get rid of people whose behavior is negatively impacting the brand image, especially in an entertainment brand dependent on people LIKING your brand in order for you to make any money. Now, if that behavior is something like choosing to worship a certain God, then yeah it's right that it's protected and they aren't fireable, but when the behavior in question is one that is out of step with much of society and even the direction lawmakers have been moving, then you're not gonna get much backup on the political side.

No one is saying Don Jones has to like homosexuality. Nor even be comfortable with it. No one is even saying he can't express his feelings about it. What people are saying is, if he wants to make a public stand on his feelings about it, then expect not to be part of the VERY public brand of your employer who DOES care about not looking anti-homosexual.

 

One other thought… given some rumors about Hickey (who has strong ties to Christian evangelicals) being potentially less-than-friendly towards the homosexuality issue, I think it's an amazing irony to have him be the one who reprimands Don Jones for this.

Delicious.

 

This isn't about me nor my ambition.

You claimed the article had specifics when it didn't. Rectify that before you start questioning me.

 

Not always. States are free to expand those laws. See cases on shopping centers, grocery stores, etc

 

Except Don Jones made no expression and no public stand of his feelings on homosexuality. He commented on a drawn out cake licking love fest between two humans during the draft.

 

I posted a site for people to read and consider. If you want further information on the content Im sure you're smart enough to figure out how to find it yourself.

 

Its a politically correct pr move.

 

Look, you can pretend I was rude to you all you want so you can feel justified in insulting me, but you said:

And the article does no such thing. Either you lied or you didn't read your effing link. That article wasn't interesting because it's false and you know it.

 

You didn't like the link because it came from a religious website. The specific organization that did the study (Dr. Neil Whitehead) is is listed

and the results are in the article. If you aren't satisfied with the overview of the article and want his specific research I'm sure you can find it.

I did find it interesting, you didn't, whatever. Who cares?

 

Do you realize that you are constantly in these little pissing matches with someone almost on a daily basis??

The first step is recognizing you have a problem.