Dbqgolfer

If i'm reading the explanation of the test correctly, this is the test that the US Citizen and Immigration Service already administers, and the initiative is to require the test for high school graduation. Seems reasonable to me.

That's not what the Lesbians used to tell my wife when they tried to pick her up at college. Their typical retort to a refused offer was, "What's the matter? Afraid you might like it if you tried it?" I have no reason to believe those lesbians were lying, but if you don't agree with them that it is a choice, take it up with them. Anyhow, I'm guessing that if Penn State had a do over and could choose between our Christian ex-coach and their Homosexual ex-coach, they wouldn't hesitate a second to choose Ron Brown. I'm done here, don't bother replying to me, because I'm not checking back. In all of the internet, I don't think a half dozen opinions have ever been changed, so let's not even try. This is not helpful to our point of view.

The big picture answer is that the government is already involved in marriage. That's who provides the licenses. This is about people wanting to change the definition of marriage that exists, and one that I believe to be best for a society, to a different one, that I believe isn't good for society. Junior asked why anti-gay marriage people think homosexuality is different than other sins. My answer is, I don't. Although I think the Lawrence decision (supreme court bestowing constitutional protection on gay sex) was wrong, I don't think the government should be knocking on doors to see who's having sex with who (assuming consenting adults), just like I don't think that the government should spend time seeing what people are reading or looking at (once again, consenting adults, no child porn etc). That of course doesn't mean that people can't speak out against such things. Christians have as much right to try to affect the culture as anyone else, even on public university campuses. As for the Okla bill submitted by Rep Todd Russ. All I can say is, I don't find things like that particularly helpful to my side. Or course that would be unconstitutional. As far as the other listed Oklahoma bills above. I don't really know much about "gay conversion therapy". Perhaps I'm making this too simple but, homosexuality is a sin, the only cure for sin is Christ (not that one doesn't sin once they are Christian.) I don't go to "lust conversion therapy". That's not to say that support groups for people struggling with particular sins aren't helpful. As far as allowing business to not provide services to gays, I know its not going to be popular, but I agree with this one. I don't believe a business should be forced to participate, or provide services for, an event that the owners disagree with. I don't think that "dbqgolfer bakery" should have to provide a cake for a gay wedding anymore than I think "carlfense bakery" should have to provide a cake for a party celebrating "Fox News: providing fair and balanced news for 10 years." And in response to BigRedBuster's photo of "Chevron", thanks, now I have to go to confession. (Just kidding, I'm not even Catholic, I'm LCMS Lutheran) I disagree with your stance. I will spend as much time as I have to speaking against these stances until minds are changed. But I respect the non-rancorous tone in which you made your stance clear. It is through reasonable conversation that we will come to, if not a change of heart, at least an understanding. Ditto

The big picture answer is that the government is already involved in marriage. That's who provides the licenses. This is about people wanting to change the definition of marriage that exists, and one that I believe to be best for a society, to a different one, that I believe isn't good for society. Junior asked why anti-gay marriage people think homosexuality is different than other sins. My answer is, I don't. Although I think the Lawrence decision (supreme court bestowing constitutional protection on gay sex) was wrong, I don't think the government should be knocking on doors to see who's having sex with who (assuming consenting adults), just like I don't think that the government should spend time seeing what people are reading or looking at (once again, consenting adults, no child porn etc). That of course doesn't mean that people can't speak out against such things. Christians have as much right to try to affect the culture as anyone else, even on public university campuses. As for the Okla bill submitted by Rep Todd Russ. All I can say is, I don't find things like that particularly helpful to my side. Or course that would be unconstitutional. As far as the other listed Oklahoma bills above. I don't really know much about "gay conversion therapy". Perhaps I'm making this too simple but, homosexuality is a sin, the only cure for sin is Christ (not that one doesn't sin once they are Christian.) I don't go to "lust conversion therapy". That's not to say that support groups for people struggling with particular sins aren't helpful. As far as allowing business to not provide services to gays, I know its not going to be popular, but I agree with this one. I don't believe a business should be forced to participate, or provide services for, an event that the owners disagree with. I don't think that "dbqgolfer bakery" should have to provide a cake for a gay wedding anymore than I think "carlfense bakery" should have to provide a cake for a party celebrating "Fox News: providing fair and balanced news for 10 years." And in response to BigRedBuster's photo of "Chevron", thanks, now I have to go to confession. (Just kidding, I'm not even Catholic, I'm LCMS Lutheran)

Sounds more like he will be able to express his faith in the same manner he did while at NU. Don't think it was much of a problem, and won't be a problem, as long as kid's playing time, position on depth chart etc. are in no way affected by how they accept his message.

If that was directed at me, I meant the picture with Watson and the recruit, and I was joking.

I don't feel well after seeing that.

Question: Would those who have an issue with Ron Brown mentioning his position at the University of Nebraska before the Omaha City Council have the same issue with a professor or other coach/staff member at the University stating his/her position with the University before speaking in the same forum but in favor of the ordinance banning discrimination based upon sexual orientation?

Didn't Brown interview for the Stanford job several years ago, but didn't get it partly because of his views on homosexuality? With Tressel as university president, and Browns new job title as associate head coach, maybe he sees this as his opportunity to become a head coach once Bo moves on.

Looks like a great staff. Good mix of experience and youth. Can't wait til fall.

Thanks, always enjoy the discussion.

100 %. woo woo !!

Thanks for the conversation guys and gals. I was done posting in this thread until I saw this. This has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I think reading it, may have actually made me dumber. Which I sure some of you didn't think was possible. No where in this conversation did I quote my faith, scripture or say that gay people were gross. With that, may God bless you all. And for those who don't like that, may the great flying spaghetti monster rain meatballs upon you and your family. rude and presumptuous. no reason to believe he was responding to you. seemed to be just his/hers stream of conscious thought on the subject at large. this person gets it My apologies. I thought your post was directed at me, but as I go back and read through the thread, I had no reason to believe that. Sorry.

Thanks for the conversation guys and gals. I was done posting in this thread until I saw this. This has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I think reading it, may have actually made me dumber. Which I sure some of you didn't think was possible. No where in this conversation did I quote my faith, scripture or say that gay people were gross. With that, may God bless you all. And for those who don't like that, may the great flying spaghetti monster rain meatballs upon you and your family.

No

And doesn't that prove my point about how the constitution has traditionally been interpreted (originalism). An amendment to the constitution was required to be sure that slavery never happened again, and an amendment was required to ensure that women would always have the right to vote. If those things weren't inherently found in the constitution, I'm not sure how you can argue that gay marriage is. And to be clear, I'm not arguing that the constitution forbids gay marriage, I'm arguing that it doesn't demand it.

And that rule of law has always regulated marriage by minimun age, familial status (no brother/sister etc), number of participants (no polygamy), and gender (man/woman). The only thing that has changed here is some want to change those regulations without going through the regular legislative process.

On what evidence do you base your belief? I don't claim absolute authority. The big constitutional questions are almost always gray areas. As to your question, i think that it is self evident. If a group of citizens risk life, limb, property to form a new country and spend months & years hammering out the rules of how to govern the country (constitution), including ways to change those rules (amendment process), then it seems obvious to me that their intent is to have those rules followed as originally intended. As to your point about absolute authority, I went back through the thread and you are correct. You have not stated an absolute opinion on how you think the court should rule that could be interpreted as thinking you have absolute authority on the issue. I apologize.

You can believe and define marriage however you'd like. No one is going to force you to marry someone of the same sex . . . but it's pretty clear that you are in favor of forcing others to conform their behavior to your beliefs. Appealing to the founders is a sad little exercise. The biggest tragedy of the analytical framework that Scalia (not the founders) created is that it allows a legion of armchair internet judges to claim absolute authority. Originalism is one way of interpreting law. (I'd also add that Scalia works backwards from his desired outcome.) Correct. And it is the way I believe the founders intended. You disagree and argue your point eloquently, I respect that. I'm not sure how that makes me any more of an armchair internet judge claiming absolute authority than you.

I prefer a balanced attack with power running game combined with play action pass. A mobile QB who can hurt you with his legs. (although not a lot of planned QB runs)

Pretty cut and dry. You can not use your favorite work of fiction , The Bible, as a guideline for any law. Period end of discussion. The 14th. This states that all laws MUST treat all citizens equally. Meaning you can not assign a qualifier to a group of people and set laws. Thus you can not limit marriage by sex. But you can limit it by numbers. If you dislike these foundations of our society, I welcome you to move to Russia, which really seems to meet more of the religious rightwing's sensibilities these days. And while I'm at it, the whole 'tradition' surrounding marriage is strictly about inheritance laws in patriarchal societies. Which is every civilization at this point. That's it. It was a structure put in place so people could be sure their wealth, or more importantly titles, passed. This is also why adultery tended a death sentence for women, and little repercussions for men. Now the religions have done a fine job of hijacking this and turning it into a 'sacrament' thus controlling the people, by controlling how property and wealth could move. So, because I believe marriage should stay defined the same as it has been since, I would argue, the beginning of civilization, and certainly, the same way our founders defined it, I'm I right wing religious nut who should move to Russia? I'm quite confident that since I am defining marriage the same was as the writers of the constitution did, I'm on pretty solid ground here. As I said earlier, my point in responding to the OP wasn't to argue the merits of the case, as I doubt we are changing each others mind, it is was just to state that I don't think the supreme court is wasting it's time with this issue. I also think there is a lot of socially liberal group think on this board, and my hope is from time to time to provide a different perspective in what I believe to be a thoughtful manor. And for what its worth, I do try to thoughtfully consider what those with whom I disagree with have to say. So, thanks for the spirited debate.

Well, if you follow the reasoning of T_O_Bull, Knapplc, Zoogies, tschu, Landlord of Memorial Stadium, and Dr. Mantis Toboggan, not only can they, but the constitution requires it. In fact, if you use their reasoning, almost all laws would be overturned, as every law "discriminates" against the people who want to act contrary to said law.

You have no idea what a 'foundation of our society' actually is. Your religion is not the basis for society. Our Constitution forbids using your religion as a basis of law. Our Constitution requires at all people are treated equally. Marriage existed centuries before your religion was invented. It does not belong to you, and the real world is tired of outdated mythology setting rules in the modern world.This! And this is exactly why Scalia shouldn't be a justice Actually, we should have 8 more justices just like Scalia.

You have no idea what a 'foundation of our society' actually is. Your religion is not the basis for society. Our Constitution forbids using your religion as a basis of law. Our Constitution requires at all people are treated equally. Marriage existed centuries before your religion was invented. It does not belong to you, and the real world is tired of outdated mythology setting rules in the modern world. Correct, marriage existed centuries before my religion existed, and was between one man, one woman centuries before my religion existed. The foundation I was talking about was marriage, not my religion. Our constitution did not preclude marriage being defined as between one man, one woman, as it was defined that way from the foundation of the country. Obviously you and I disagree on the merits of gay marriage, and I'm sure we won't change each others mind. My only point in my response to the OP is that this is not a waste of the Supreme Courts time.

1) How long have you been a member of Husker Nation? Whole life 2) What/who led you to The Nation? Born in it. 3) Where are you from originally? Nebraska 4) Where do you live now? Iowa 5) Favorite Husker memory? Going to first Husker game (1981 vs Iowa State). Gill, Rozier, Fryer were sophomores. 6) Worst Husker memory? Oklahoma game (I believe it was 1987 or 88). Had basically zero offense. 7) Number of home games attended? 2 (Most recent was 1983 vs. UCLA) 8) Number of away games attended? 2 (Most recent was this years Iowa game). 9) Favorite Husker memorabilia/apparel? Have some shirts and hats, like all about the same 10) Favorite place to watch a Husker game? Home 11) Favorite all time player? Turner Gill 12) WCO or Option? Option 13) Stevie Pederson or Billy Byrne? Billy Byrne 14) Lil Red or Herbie Husker? Herbie 15) Favorite Husker play? Frazier's 75 yard run against Florida. I know it meant nothing, but sure was fun to watch. 16) Favorite game-day beverage? Bud Light, or sipping on a Jack on the rocks 17) How did you find HuskerBoard? (referral source) If I remember correctly, it was when trying to find out who we were hiring after Callahan was fired.