• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Women's Soccer Team Accused Of Snubbing Star Player For Christian Views

vegas giants said:
Flat out lie.

You equate the womwns soccer team with nazis.
Click to expand...

Your projection is a straw man. You are the one who believes in the strength of Nazis. You've said so on numerous occasions in this thread when you justify the make up of the women's team by their success.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
Donald Trump on line 1.....something about getting millions of people to vote for him after bragging about sexual conquests and hinting at banging his hot piece of ass daughter if things were different.

Do you think about any of this before you press the post button?
Click to expand...

Trump may be shunned in many circles but he's a far better cry than any alternative.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
The Eagles didnt need Tom Brady to win a Super Bowl. Are you implying that because of that fact, the Eagles coaching staff didnt do it right?
Click to expand...

Would Brady have made the task of the Eagles winning easier? Don't tell me at the beginning of the season, if the coaches had the chance to take Brady, they would've taken Foles or Wentz, instead??

I think the task of any coaches is to make winning as easy as possible. Now all the players could be gay or advocates of gays, but that's not going to make the winning any easier. In that regard, the US soccer coaches failed, horribly.
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
Would Brady have made the task of the Eagles winning easier? Don't tell me at the beginning of the season, if the coaches had the chance to take Brady, they would've taken Foles or Wentz, instead??

I think the task of any coaches is to make winning as easy as possible. Now all the players could be gay or advocates of gays, but that's not going to make the winning any easier. In that regard, the US soccer coaches failed, horribly.
Click to expand...

Except they won the world cup. Lol
 
cabse5 said:
Your projection is a straw man. You are the one who believes in the strength of Nazis. You've said so on numerous occasions in this thread when you justify the make up of the women's team by their success.
Click to expand...

You Godwined.....not me. Own it. Lol
 
vegas giants said:
Except they won the world cup. Lol
Click to expand...

The US didn't know that at the beginning. And girls...defense men...got hurt while the best rated defensive men was left off the team due to her anti-gay advocacy.

Are you saying the coaches were seers? Could the coaches see into the future??
 
vegas giants said:
You Godwined.....not me. Own it. Lol
Click to expand...
I own Godwining. I'm using your preoccupation with strength to illustrate you don't care about the makeup of the team and the justices of the picking of the team as long as the team wins.

The Nazis beat quite a few countries. England was one.
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
The US didn't know that at the beginning. And girls...defense men...got hurt while the best rated defensive men was left off the team due to her anti-gay advocacy.

Are you saying the coaches were seers? Could the coaches see into the future??
Click to expand...

She was unreliable. She was a quitter. She sat out games. Imagine if she did that again in the world cup. Not worth the risk. That is why they cut her
 
cabse5 said:
I own Godwining. I'm using your preoccupation with strength to illustrate you don't care about the makeup of the team and the justices of the picking of the team as long as the team wins.

The Nazis beat quite a few countries. England was one.
Click to expand...

The nazis have nothing to do with this thread. Its hilarious that you think they do and you equate the women's soccer team with nazis
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Hardly a strawman.

LGBT rights by country or territory - Wikipedia

Lots of countries make gay sex illegal.

The point is that right wing zealots wouldn't have voted for a gay man, but they'll vote for an adulterer. It's called hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

I'll vote for the person committed to what I think are the proper policies, period. If we refused to vote for adulterers, we'd have a hard time filling up 545 Congressional seats.
 
tres borrachos said:
There is nothing controversial about being in favor of gay marriage, either. Who one consenting adult chooses to love is also not political. Until the right made it political.

Did you ask the Republican Party for their permission when you chose your wife?
Click to expand...

When you overturn 1,000 or more years of the accepted definition of marriage and basically make it meaningless, since any two or more people could use the same argument gays used, then, yes, it is quite controversial as well as political. Many millions of people don't think of gay marriage as marriage anymore than they think of a grape as a watermelon.
 
veritas1 said:
When you overturn 1,000 or more years of the accepted definition of marriage and basically make it meaningless, since any two or more people could use the same argument gays used, then, yes, it is quite controversial as well as political. Many millions of people don't think of gay marriage as marriage anymore than they think of a grape as a watermelon.
Click to expand...

You dont need to agree with it. Just stay out of the way
 
veritas1 said:
She never demanded to be allowed to wear a different jersey. You guys apparently take the same position with soccer players as you do with bakers; bow to our demands or be punished. That's pretty much the routine now.
Click to expand...

She never demanded because the nature of soccer is that there are team colors. She chose to not play.

You guys seem to take the position... we are Christians.. so you must do everything we want.. and accept our bigotry and accept our discrimination and if you actual hold us responsible for our actions.. we whine and cry.
 
veritas1 said:
When you overturn 1,000 or more years of the accepted definition of marriage and basically make it meaningless, since any two or more people could use the same argument gays used, then, yes, it is quite controversial as well as political. Many millions of people don't think of gay marriage as marriage anymore than they think of a grape as a watermelon.
Click to expand...

So your marriage is meaningless because gay people get married? It would seem that you have a pretty weak marriage then.. just saying.

and marriage has been all sorts of things in history. Heck. people married their younger children to keep power in the family.
 
mrdeltoid said:
Don't worry, the left will never let a Christian or anybody else take away their victim voting block. It's the whole democrat platform. If you want border security you are "a racist against brown people", if you are against late term abortion" you're a misogynist and want to take a womans "reproductive rights". If you are against gay marriage in your church, you're a "homophobe and against gays". When Trump halted the travel from the countries of concern until they could be vetted better ( the list were used from the Obama administration's countries of concern) you were a bigot and hate all muslims. And so on, and so on. So let not your heart be troubled. The democrat victim voting block is alive and well. :roll:
Click to expand...

Guess what? Most liberals are white, and not victims of discrimination, but we fight for the victims. Just like most liberals dont' need welfare, food stamps, may have good insurance through work, but fight for those that don't.

That's what makes liberals good, we have empathy. As opposed to the selfish greed of conservatives that only fight for things for themselves, rights for themselves

So as usual, the right wing comment "liberals want free stuff" actually shows its just yet another projection ,as its the right that wants free stuff, but only for them
 
veritas1 said:
Except that there is nothing controversial about being against breast cancer. Therein lies the difference. Nobody is for breast cancer. However, lots of people take opposing sides on issues like homosexuality, guns and abortion. Those things are better left out of sports. Just play the game. Promote your politics in a different venue.
Click to expand...

And there shouldn't be anything controversial about being gay. Its who these people are.. they aren't hurting anyone.. and they are not forcing their choices onto you.

Your logic is like saying we should not have martin luther king day at the ball park because well.. or celebrate cinco de mayo.. at the football stadium.. because racists might get offended.
 
veritas1 said:
You are conflating two things. I said it doesn't dictate whether you have athletic prowess or not. I never said that it was necessarily something accepted by the vast majority of society. If you want to fight that battle, do it in another venue. I hear about marketing but they may be alienating as many people as they appeal to. The reason sports have caved in on all fronts to PC is that they fear the backlash from the people they depend on to air their games and sell advertising; the media. That's simply the long and short of it. It's dollars.
Click to expand...

Nope.. not conflating anything..

Yes its dollars... and the dollars are that gay people make up a good portion of the population.. and the racists.. that won't watch a soccer match because there is a rainbow on the number.. are much fewer than gay people.

Sports have come to grip with the fact that they have gay athletes and gay customers.. and there is money to be made here... while being a racist.. misogynistic company.. tends to not be that productive.

And that's because society has changed.. the racists and the bigots.. well they don't have the sway that they once did. A gay person can come out of the closet.,, and have less fear of being beat up, losing their job.. being arrested or even being killed.. than they did just a few decades ago.

and that's what irks you guys. You liked the time when you didn't have to see gay people.. and they knew their place to be quiet.. and now.. your bigotry and discrimination is not acceptable anyone and that makes you upset.

Its hard when you have been the bully.. and now you aren't.
 
veritas1 said:
The rainbow jersey is a statement of approval, plain and simple. I never once stated that wearing the rainbow jersey means you are gay. I never said that anywhere. Christians don't believe that. If Hinkle had caved in and worn the jersey, was she suddenly gay? No, it's a statement of support and approval, something with which not everyone agrees and which some, like Hinkle, have the courage to opt out of. No matter how you contort it, forcing the players to wear the jersey was simply an act of PC coercion no different than forcing them to wear something supporting some other cause like abortion on demand or anti-gun positions.
Click to expand...

Nah.. that's just you. Its really a statement of acceptance. Wearing a rainbow and going to the gay pride festival did not make me gay. Nor did it make gay hundreds of my employees that also went, many in support of other coworkers who are gay.

And sure you believe that wearing the jersey makes you gay.. that's your worry. At the very least it means you "approve"... approve of what? Consenting adults making their own choices?

Oh my.. how terrible.

Hinkle didn't have courage.. bigots aren't showing courage.

Courage is standing up for people and the right thing to do.. when everyone else is disparaging them.

I am reminded of a story of true courage. When a fellow stood up for a woman who was about to be stoned by a crowd for adultery. He stood up and protected that woman against the religious anger and hatred that they had. And pointed out to them.. that they had their own sins to worry about.. ..

That's was true courage.
 
veritas1 said:
When you overturn 1,000 or more years of the accepted definition of marriage and basically make it meaningless, since any two or more people could use the same argument gays used, then, yes, it is quite controversial as well as political. Many millions of people don't think of gay marriage as marriage anymore than they think of a grape as a watermelon.
Click to expand...

Your opinion on who other adults marry isn't relevant. I'll ask again - did you ask someone's approval when you married your wife?

Many millions of people eat dogs. So what?
 
Thingfish said:
whut ev, stick that under your pillow tonight and maybe you’ll get a quarter for your troubles from Trumpy Bear.
Click to expand...

There you go. Now you're speaking fluent Trumpanzee. You know, juvenile barbs delivered in illiterate tweet format.
 
jaeger19 said:
If you don't care about sexual preferences etc.. why would you be upset about wearing a rainbow that symbolizes gay pride? Do you not support and like your gay "friends".. (as you kind of tried to point out that you have gay friends).

You never say a support that celebrates sexual preference? You ever seen the Cheerleaders at a football or basketball game.. you don't think that's celebrating a sexual preference?

Please.
Click to expand...

The article said there was a decision to wear the rainbow jerseys in celebration of gay pride month, or week, not sure what the time frame. Celebration of anything that goes against Christianity, is by definition, going against ones religion. That's a civil rights violation. And no, I never considered cheerleaders as a celebration of any sexual preference. And I wasn't hinting that I have gay friends, I was saying my friends, don't care about your sexuality. Since you brought it up, my daughter is lesbian, and 2 of my friends happen to be gay. It has nothing to do with this anyway. I wouldn't force anybody to wear anything that celebrates my religion, and I shouldn't have to wear something that violates it either.
 
mrdeltoid said:
The article said there was a decision to wear the rainbow jerseys in celebration of gay pride month, or week, not sure what the time frame. Celebration of anything that goes against Christianity, is by definition, going against ones religion. That's a civil rights violation. And no, I never considered cheerleaders as a celebration of any sexual preference. And I wasn't hinting that I have gay friends, I was saying my friends, don't care about your sexuality. Since you brought it up, my daughter is lesbian, and 2 of my friends happen to be gay. It has nothing to do with this anyway. I wouldn't force anybody to wear anything that celebrates my religion, and I shouldn't have to wear something that violates it either.
Click to expand...

Then dont wear it. Quit.

But the team is not going to cater to every wish you have
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom