Collegiate Times

"The personal greatness of any individual can be assessed by his or her ability to stand on the right side of history."

Other article content aside this may be the dumbest thing I have read today. George Washington owned slaves, is he not great because he didn't anticipate we'd be against slavery in our society a century later? Judging people based on what the future generations hold as right and wrong is an unfair standard that no one in history could stand up to. That comment that you just casually through out is horribly incorrect.

Your lifestyle choice is sin and that is why you will not win in the end. If on the other hand you repent and give your life to the Lord then you will find true peace and joy with Him. Then you will indeed win and no one will be able to be against you for the Lord will be with you. Persisting in sin though only provides short term success. I really can't blame you too much, our society is very tolerant and encouraging of sin of all sorts. We enable far too much and we've slid to the point that people celebrate and take pride in their sin. I wish you well Jason in overcoming your temptations it is a tremendous struggle that man cannot win but trust me when you give your life over to Christ it does get better.

I would only hope that lgbt voters remember this when they go to the polls. Regarding George Washington (and Thomas Jefferson), they were wealthy "nobleman" and this was not unusual for such men of those times. Even Gen. Grant's wife owned slaves, and she lived in Holly Springs, Mississippi during the Civil War, where she was a slave owner. This does not excuse their behavior, and certainly takes diminishes some of their greatness. Historians around the world have typically shied away from reporting this truth (as they frequently do with other such history that can potentially tarnish their countries). The United States has a long history of racism and hopefully, (back to the GOP and Romney)2012 voters will remember this anti-gay, bigoted behavior as they cast their ballots.

Really Anonymous? I have a question for you, then. What should I do about people who wear mixed fabrics (Leviticus 19:19)? You can't pick and choose, pal.

It sounds too much like "If you disagree with me, you are guilty of hatred and bigotry".

That's not at all what I'm saying, at no point did I suggest that you pick and choose. The truth is that at the time God gave that command to the Israelites fabrics made of mixed materials were inferior to garments made out of just one material. Deuteronomy 22:11 elaborates on this point when God says that, "Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woolen and linen together." What it outlines there are two distinct kinds of fabrics, those made from plant cellulose fibers and those made from animal protein fibers. You wouldn't mix wool and cotton for example but linen and cotton would be fine because they are like one another. On the other hand of course silk and wool are both made from animals and go well together. Then when you get into synthetic fibers it really depends on how it was made and what kind of fibers the synthetic materials are similar to. Hope you enjoyed the Bible lesson.

That's ridiculous Susan you can't judge people in the past by today's standards. They didn't have the same notions of right and wrong that we have today. If a 100+ years from now we as a society decide, long after we're dead, that eating meat is the same as genocide, do we deserve to have those claims leveled against us? No, its not on us to anticipate what the future may hold as right and wrong.

So, Anonymous, why should this small thing be any different from the rest of the stuff in the bible if it applied "at the time God gave that command", eh?

If you like I'll go dig up the scriptures about how much you should sell a slave for, and how one should stone their children to death.

Take a reality lesson. What other people do in their bedrooms is their business and not yours. Also, don't you have a closet to go pray in? Shoo.

I'm not saying that either, we seem to have a communications issue. You pointed out the verse like it was silly and I explained the wisdom behind it and how it still works today. I never suggested directly or even implied that we write off God's word because of the time in which it was given. Instead of trying to find gotcha moments with the scripture I'd encourage you to simply read the book. It might help you in ways you would have never suspected.

Yep, our communication issue rests on "what business is it of yours what people do in their bedroom". How about answering that instead of hiding behind a book that was great for leading a bunch of people through the desert (hey, you have to be careful what you eat and how you cut the pork)?

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

No our communication issue rests on you trying to make this into something it isn't. I'm going to say that you probably haven't read the Bible or at least you haven't read it recently because in your comments you seem to only have a grasp on a few talking points. I would love for you to read the book and see for yourself that it has much more to offer then you are suggesting here. The joy and peace God brings to my life is tremendous and I want everyone to know that feeling, which is why I would encourage not only you but everyone to read the Bible.

I figured you'd step away from the issue. I know how much peace being a decent human being has brought to me and countless thousands of others, and I also know how much grief and strife that following rules set down in ancient times and then modifying them to fit your own preferences has wrought upon others. Numbers 25:6-8, Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Luke 16:18 (stoning anyone you know yet? with the divorce rate of this country, it's your duty you know), Leviticus 11:10-12. Shall I keep going or are you going to answer this simple question that I ask now for the third time: WHAT BUSINESS IS IT OF YOURS WHO SOMEONE LOVES?

@Anon and on

I would like to pose a question to you: " If you were to die
today, where would you be tomorrow ?

@Jireh: That is absolutely not germane to this discussion. At the risk of fighting a war on two fronts I shall ask you something that is relevant to the discussion: What business is it of yours whom and how other people chose to love?

This is what I'm talking about with you only seeming to know talking points. In the New Testament Christ brings the truth of God and overturns some of the ancient Hebrew laws Moses gave the Isrealites because they were being misused or no longer applicable or Christ had a better method. Which is why Christians can eat pork without committing a sin and remember the famous line, "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone." Which not only spoke about people's attitudes towards others' sins but also spoke out literally against the practice of stoning. This is part of why you should read the book, correcting these misconceptions will help you better evaluate your relationship with God.

The Lord charges us with the task loving one another and spreading his word, but love does not mean enabling destructive behavior. Now we are an enabling society, so that does seem a bit jarring with today's sensibilities but I care about the well being of you Anon and Jason which is why I'm advocating to you and anyone else to have a strong relationship with God. That may mean facing a harsh truth that some love is sinful but I would do you no kindness if I stood back allowed you to persist in an activity that will ultimately harm you. Now you or Jason are no more evil or vile than myself but if you aren't connecting with God then you can't be forgiven and saved, not only in this life but in the next. That's why I'm here, for the sake and well being of those reading to hear the truth and turn away from sin. It is a tragedy to us all when someone turns away from God and suffers needlessly as a result.

@Anonymous: you know it's funny because the typical response to these "talking points" is to fall back to "Jesus changed all that." So, God can change his mind? Or else was he mistaken in the first place? Should I also bring up the 6th day man, or the children of Cain, or how it would be 32 animals per square foot in the ark? Either way, your argument is over because it doesn't concern you in the least what other people do, and you can't answer otherwise.

/*drops microphone*

Well that's a shame that you feel the need to leave, I would have liked for you to have listened to me and take some of what I said to heart. I can only pray that you will in time come to understand what I tried to communicate to you here. You were all set for an attack but that wasn't why I was here and I think that's the root of our miscommunication issues. I wish you luck in your endeavors and may the Lord set you on the right path.

For something relevant: Google First Scandal. When you get there, go to the top of the page and click on "Welcome University..." Please note: this website you reach will be deleted on November 1, 2012.

You so vehemently oppose Mr. Romney like most other college students. I am all for LBGT equality, but the lack of empirical evidence supporting your claims is just silly. Let's just rage against the "disgusting" conservative because he's not like us and happens to have differing views. Isn't that what America is about, being able to disagree? What if we lived in a place like Sub-Saharan Africa where horrendous violence against LGBT individuals is endemic?

It's interesting how you use the word bigotry in the title because one might consider your attitude towards the people whose opinions differ from your own as bigotry. I don't think people who disagree with gay marriage necessarily have hatred or bigotry towards gay people. While I'm sure you can pull up some wild and crazy non-denominational church preacher who uses the old fire and brimstone technique to make outlandish claims of hate towards gay people, I think you have to realize that is not a majority. To some extent, you have to consider the practicality of gay marriage. Gay people can't reproduce with their partner so to what extent does such a acknowledging and encouraging a relationship with the benefits of a marriage contract serve society at large? There's nothing to prevent gay people from having gay relationships (therefore there is tolerance and not bigotry). So what is the meaning of the kind of marriage that you're fighting for beyond words on paper and spousal legal benefits? Those same benefits could be afforded simply by making a contract indicating them without going through a marriage, could they not? So why specifically marriage (which realistically is more about your religious faith than it is the laws of man) rights when two same sex people are conjoined by paper the same legal rights they could afford themselves through creation of a contract just without the title of marriage?

This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.

The simple concept at play that absolutely allows us to judge past norms by today's (and future) standards is whether all people are afforded equal protection under the law and equal protection from the law (i.e. liberty). That's what we say our country is founded on. What we truly need is for the government to get out of marriage entirely. It has no business there. This whole issue would not exist if the government had never chosen to "subsidize" marriage by granting a slew of benefits that are only unlocked when a couple weds. These benefits are unwarranted, and if they were to go away, we would once again have equality.

This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.

"Those same benefits could be afforded simply by making a contract indicating them without going through a marriage, could they not?"

No, they could not. That's the point of the Defense of Marriage act, to stop same-sex couples from receiving marriage rights of any kind. It's a Federal civil rights issue, and being contested on religious grounds, hence the bigotry claims.

Those simple "words on paper" are laws that have tremendous impacts on people's lives. It's not the best source, but look at the Wikipedia impact section about the Defense of Marriage Act to see how it limits the rights of homosexual couples.

Additionally, why is procreation a requirement for marriage? Following your logic, should we outlaw Dual-Income, No Kids (DINK) marriages?

"This whole issue would not exist if the government had never chosen to "subsidize" marriage by granting a slew of benefits that are only unlocked when a couple weds."

FYI, this issue has existed in a different form for a long time. These "benefits" trace back to Emperor Augustus, who ruled Ancient Rome before Christ. They were intended to increase marriage and procreation amongst the upper class, and cut down on adultery.

What Bull!! I;m gay and in no way do people who don't agree with gay marrigae hateful or bigots! My own family and many friends don't agree and in no way are they haters or bigot! The only one full of hate and who is a bigot is this punk whiney student who does not believe we can all think different! This writer should be kicked off the paper staff!

For the people who want to quote the Bible about what is sin and how it should be incorporated into our laws:

What exactly makes your holy book the authority on the way things work? If someone advocated rules that are in the Qu'ran, are you going to be okay with it? How about a Scientology manual?

Tell you what Bible boy, lets have a 1 source ban debate.that's where you pick one source I can't use, and I pick one source you can't use.

I know my pick

I'm picking up some anger from these last two Anons and that is not an attitude that I would advocate. An angry heart is a closed heart and you must be open to the Lord to feel his love. The Bible is a great source of truth but it also has hope and love. If you read it open to receiving God's truth and love, you would understand this conversation here with greater clarity. Beyond this meaningless exchange though, you would also find meaning, a sense of inner peace, redemption and salvation. I'm sure you have a Bible somewhere, give it a read.

This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.

I totally detest the tone of your opinion. Seems the only hatred and bigotry is from your kind, not from the Christian community or anyone else who disagrees with LGBT's.

Right and wrong have only changed in the pollution of your mind. The Ten Commandments were chiseled premanantly.

I disagree with Christians and don't believe Christians should be allowed to marry. It's bad for children after all to be raised in that kind of a sinful household.

This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.

This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.

This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.

This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.

This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.

This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.

This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.

This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.

whyoch <a href="http://www.timberlandschuhede.eu/25-womens-timberland-roll-top-stiefel/" title="Frauen Timberland Roll Top Stiefel">Frauen Timberland Roll Top Stiefel</a>