Baltimore Ravens' Matt Birk rants against gay marriage based on 'Catholic values' - Last Word

Oct 1, 2012 Full story: www.metroweekly.com 153

Matt Birk of the Baltimore Ravens football team wrote publicly about his disdain for gay and lesbian marriage rights on Sunday, Sept. 30. His opinion piece appeared in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Calling marriage a "sacred institution," Birk claimed that, "as a Christian," he believed that man-woman marriage is "privileged and recognized" in order for children to be raised in stable homes.

Full Story

“NOW will ya give me”

Since: Sep 12

some fightin' room ? !

#64 Oct 2, 2012
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is talking about “little kids”. There IS an age that’s appropriate for sexual education, teens ALREADY get that in school, there isn’t any reason not to include SOME education for gay kids, so they know what to expect as they become adults, and so that they can direct their lives into more positive directions. I assume you’re against this entirely. Maybe you’d rather they went down some dark path, with absolutely no guidance.
Also, no one is talking about encouraging them to TRY anything. Sex-ed classes don’t encourage kids to “try” straight sex, either. There’s more to sex-ed than telling young people to have sex.
<quoted text>
Are you not hearing me? SOME OF THESE KIDS ARE GAY. Even YOUR kids might be gay. How are YOU going to educate them? Will YOU have any guidance for these kids? Do you care AT ALL what their lives will be like WITHOUT education of any kind?
<quoted text>
Oh, yes, build more walls, divide more people, segregate students who are different, make these kids feel even MORE like outsiders.
<quoted text>
Your education-free approach is the path to MORE Sanduskys. You want gays to hide in shame. Live by cover of darkness. You encourage people like that to deny who they are, to try to live lives that don’t suit them, and then their poorly-understood desires build up until they have no control. You point fingers of accusation at healthy, well-adjusted, OUT gay people, who are innocent of these crimes and would make the best role models for youths who are dealing with their own homosexuality; meanwhile, the closeted Sanduskys of the world learn to hide behind your standards of “normalcy”. You willingly blind yourself to the REAL problem, giving these predators the opportunities they need. All because you’re too ignorant to support open and honest education.
Your way of doing things has not helped the Roman Catholic Church, nor the Boy Scouts, it DAMN sure isn’t going to help any young people to find a proper path for their lives. It only puts them MORE at risk.
<quoted text>
What is the matter with YOU? Why is THAT where your mind goes?
This isn’t about sex or sexual context. This is about IDENTITY, and helping young kids WHO ARE ALREADY GAY learn to deal with that, learn to channel it in a healthy way, learn to set their lives on the right path.
You, apparently, don’t want that for them. I guess you think “Don’t be gay” would be all the education they need.
I’m not talking about teaching kids in single-digit age, this is more appropriate for teens. I’m not talking about encouraging them to HAVE sex, or to TRY anything, but to be aware of what to expect in life. But I’m getting the distinct feeling that you couldn’t care LESS what happens to gay kids at all, and that there’s no reaching you within the ossified echo-chamber of your own closed mind.
"teens ALREADY get that in school" ?! I attended a public elementary school in New York, a public jr. high school in the same district, and a high school in the same district (Commack High School South), and took Health class because it was required and we NEVER recieved any sex education of ANY kind whatsoever in those 3 public schools in New York that I attended.

They do that now ?!

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#65 Oct 2, 2012
TucksunJack wrote:
"teens ALREADY get that in school" ?! I attended a public elementary school in New York, a public jr. high school in the same district, and a high school in the same district (Commack High School South), and took Health class because it was required and we NEVER recieved any sex education of ANY kind whatsoever in those 3 public schools in New York that I attended.
They do that now ?!
So some schools call it "health" class. Did you learn about your body? Did you learn about reproduction, STD's, contraceptives? Did you do they egg-thing, where you have to care for it as if it were a baby? "Sex-Ed" does NOT mean "education on how to have sex". And, "Sex-Ed" may not be what a school calls its classes. It's just a generalized term that I'm using, to describe any education that teens receive, intended to prepare them for the sexual aspects of adulthood.

Maybe some schools don't provide any such education to their students. Maybe they (erroneously) believe that all parents will be automatically qualified, capable and motivated to provide that education to their children.

WHATEVER is taught in various schools, SILENCE is hardly going to be productive.

“NOW will ya give me”

Since: Sep 12

some fightin' room ? !

#66 Oct 2, 2012
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
So some schools call it "health" class. Did you learn about your body? Did you learn about reproduction, STD's, contraceptives? Did you do they egg-thing, where you have to care for it as if it were a baby? "Sex-Ed" does NOT mean "education on how to have sex". And, "Sex-Ed" may not be what a school calls its classes. It's just a generalized term that I'm using, to describe any education that teens receive, intended to prepare them for the sexual aspects of adulthood.
Maybe some schools don't provide any such education to their students. Maybe they (erroneously) believe that all parents will be automatically qualified, capable and motivated to provide that education to their children.
WHATEVER is taught in various schools, SILENCE is hardly going to be productive.
No, in Health class, we did not "learn about reproduction, STD's, contraceptives" nor did they do the "egg-thing, where you have to care for it as if it were a baby". Sex and STD's were NEVER MENTIONED in my health class in public shcool in Commack.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#67 Oct 2, 2012
TucksunJack wrote:
No, in Health class, we did not "learn about reproduction, STD's, contraceptives" nor did they do the "egg-thing, where you have to care for it as if it were a baby". Sex and STD's were NEVER MENTIONED in my health class in public shcool in Commack.
Well, sorry for you. They did it in my school.

“NOW will ya give me”

Since: Sep 12

some fightin' room ? !

#68 Oct 2, 2012
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, sorry for you. They did it in my school.
"Health Class" was a required class when you were a sophomore in New York. "Health Class" consisted of "heart health", "skin health", good hygiene, proper nutrition and exercise, the dangers of alcohol and illegal drugs, and I think that was about it. NOTHING sexual was ever taught in the Commack Public School District when I was a student thee from elementary school thru graduating high school (Commack High School South), including anything about reproduction, std's, contraception, etc.

In fact, boys were required to take a "shop class" (wood and metal), and girls were required to take Home Ec., but it was forbidden for boys to take Home Ec., and girls to take a shop class. This was in the 1970's, and I don't think the public school districts could get away with those rules nowadays.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#69 Oct 2, 2012
TucksunJack wrote:
"Health Class" was a required class when you were a sophomore in New York. "Health Class" consisted of "heart health", "skin health", good hygiene, proper nutrition and exercise, the dangers of alcohol and illegal drugs, and I think that was about it. NOTHING sexual was ever taught in the Commack Public School District when I was a student thee from elementary school thru graduating high school (Commack High School South), including anything about reproduction, std's, contraception, etc.
In fact, boys were required to take a "shop class" (wood and metal), and girls were required to take Home Ec., but it was forbidden for boys to take Home Ec., and girls to take a shop class. This was in the 1970's, and I don't think the public school districts could get away with those rules nowadays.
How interesting. But 40-year-old school policies are completely irrelevent to a discussion of modern education practices. My school taught sex-ed in the 80's, and many schools do it today.

However, you DO illustrate the point that following archaic teaching methods about homosexuality are becoming as outdated as "boys in shop, girls in home ec".

“NOW will ya give me”

Since: Sep 12

some fightin' room ? !

#70 Oct 2, 2012
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
How interesting. But 40-year-old school policies are completely irrelevent to a discussion of modern education practices. My school taught sex-ed in the 80's, and many schools do it today.
However, you DO illustrate the point that following archaic teaching methods about homosexuality are becoming as outdated as "boys in shop, girls in home ec".
I'm not saying sex education should not be taught in the public schools. I think it SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS starting no later than age 12.

But when I was in jr. high school and high school in the 1970's, sex education of any kind was NOT taught in the Commack School District. I wish it was, but it wasn't.

(We had to learn about gay sex the old-fashioned way. SUMMER CAMP !:))

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#71 Oct 2, 2012
TucksunJack wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not saying sex education should not be taught in the public schools. I think it SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS starting no later than age 12.
But when I was in jr. high school and high school in the 1970's, sex education of any kind was NOT taught in the Commack School District. I wish it was, but it wasn't.
(We had to learn about gay sex the old-fashioned way. SUMMER CAMP !:))
Yes it should be taught in schools b/c alot of parents won't talk 'the talk' to the kids!

“HHhhhoooowwwlll”

Since: Feb 08

Craigville

#72 Oct 2, 2012
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
And if you expand that to include the worldwide population, what happens to your bizarre argument?
Why would we expand it to include the worldwide population?
We are talking about the Marriage Amendment right here in Minnesota.
Narcissists

Pittsfield, MA

#73 Oct 2, 2012
Imprtnrd wrote:
<quoted text>Yes it should be taught in schools b/c alot of parents won't talk 'the talk' to the kids!
Nor should they HAVE too my little homofascist narcissist you.

Narcissism: Which by the way is a personality disorder.
1.Excessive or erotic interest in oneself and one's physical appearance.
2.Extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one's own talents and a craving for admiration.

Sound familiar?
It should

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#74 Oct 2, 2012
Narcissists wrote:
Nor should they HAVE too my little homofascist narcissist you.
Narcissism: Which by the way is a personality disorder.
1.Excessive or erotic interest in oneself and one's physical appearance.
2.Extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one's own talents and a craving for admiration.
Sound familiar?
It should
They might be EXPECTED to, if their children are gay. As parents, they have a responsibility to help these kids to find a path in life which suits them.

But few parents are going to know HOW to handle such a situation. It's VERY easy to imagine that MANY parents will BOTCH such an attempt, disastrously.

This is WHY we have educators who are trained in certain fields. It helps when a subject is taught by someone trained in the material, who will present it correctly and thoroughly. Parents don't always do that.

What would YOU tell YOUR kid, if he or she said they were gay? Would you simply call them "narcissistic", just for hoping for some guidance and understanding?

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#75 Oct 2, 2012
Junior Esquire wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a trip all right. I'm not talking about child abuse. I'm talking about a gay that enters into a fraudulent marriage in order to have children. You know, the part that happens before the kids happen.
Oh just like Newt Gingrich and his 3 marriages. Or the 50% of all marriages that end in divorce.

Your logic is flawed. SSM would discourage what you are whining about so why are you opposed to the best solution for the "problem" you're obsessed with now?

Did you take the blue acid at Woodstock?
Caligula

Pittsfield, MA

#76 Oct 2, 2012
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
They might be EXPECTED to, if their children are gay. As parents, they have a responsibility to help these kids to find a path in life which suits them.
But few parents are going to know HOW to handle such a situation. It's VERY easy to imagine that MANY parents will BOTCH such an attempt, disastrously.
This is WHY we have educators who are trained in certain fields. It helps when a subject is taught by someone trained in the material, who will present it correctly and thoroughly. Parents don't always do that.
What would YOU tell YOUR kid, if he or she said they were gay? Would you simply call them "narcissistic", just for hoping for some guidance and understanding?
It wasn't much of an issue until special rights were provided. And before ya go the bully route bullies in general have few discretions.
The major problem with homosexuality is when it was no longer considered a mental illness like narcissism. Isn't it amazing how narcissism and homosexuality go together.
This issue is dangerously similar in that if you don't educate properly by saying drugs are bad for you or alcohol is not bad for you.
Homosexual acts are really bad for you and why mislead our youth into thinking any other way. Liberals wish to accomodate and provide for a very dangerous unhealthy lifestyle. It IS a lifestyle and a choice, just like all other vice.

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#77 Oct 2, 2012
hate Stupidity wrote:
It is just like the Catholic Church to find a guy that makes a living tearing the limbs off people as a spokesperson. A sucker punching, body slamming guy - basically a hired gun - what a great moral compass to provide such a message!
When he says in his recorded piece, "for the sake of the children," - where have we heard that before? How does an organization claim that they are standing up for the rights of children when they failed to do it so miserably in so many abuse cases.
And how does that discourse regarding the right of children to know their own parents fit in? Children are being kept from birth mothers and birth fathers every day because of this country's homophobia. Just because he speaks in a beautiful and polished way does not make the words any less bigoted.
And it gets even better. Now the Church is threatening to withhold Communion from members who support marriage equality.

Looks like that whole "thought police" idea wasn't as crazy as it first appeared to be.

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#78 Oct 2, 2012
Doris wrote:
<quoted text>Why do little kids need to be told by adults what adult queers do and how the kids should at least consider trying it?
WHOA Nellie!
I never said school children should be encouraged to try homosexual or heterosexual activities. I said we need to be honest with them when it comes to sex education.

But you bring me back to the same point I've made before. There must be something very enticing to you about homosexuality for you to think that a child would be so attracted to it.

Let's see. Could it be the discrimination we face in employment? The possible loss of our jobs? The condemnation of the church and from some families as well?

The truth is what you DON'T want little Johnny and Susie to know about it the vile history of marriage laws people like you created and the horrors they created:

Forced sterilization.

Bans on inter racial marriages ( The same slogan was used then "Think of what will happen to those poor children".

Bastardy Laws

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#79 Oct 2, 2012
Lemon Lipstick wrote:
<quoted text>
Voted down every time.
Nope. Your ban didn't pass the first time in AZ.

Now show us where in the Constitution it says citizens can vote away civil rights that the Constitution guarantees.

And please note that every time SCOTUS has ruled on the fundamental right of all citizens to marry (12), the ability to procreate wasn't a per-requisite.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#80 Oct 2, 2012
Caligula wrote:
It wasn't much of an issue until special rights were provided. And before ya go the bully route bullies in general have few discretions.
The major problem with homosexuality is when it was no longer considered a mental illness like narcissism. Isn't it amazing how narcissism and homosexuality go together.
This issue is dangerously similar in that if you don't educate properly by saying drugs are bad for you or alcohol is not bad for you.
Homosexual acts are really bad for you and why mislead our youth into thinking any other way. Liberals wish to accomodate and provide for a very dangerous unhealthy lifestyle. It IS a lifestyle and a choice, just like all other vice.
So, you DON'T have any idea what you would say if your kid came to you and told you that they were gay, and you'd probably launch into some diatribe with the goal of destroying their self-esteem. It's good to find out how badly such education is needed. Some people would SERIOUSLY louse it up.

It's ALWAYS been an issue that gay youths can't relate to their parents, or speak to them about what troubles them. Maybe you THINK it hasn't, because you don't see it, but then, with your attitude it's highly unlikely that a gay teenager would choose YOU as a confidant.

There isn't anything "dangerous" about homosexual acts. I've been gay all my life and I'm perfectly healthy. There's danger in promiscuity, and there's danger in failure to protect yourself, but I wonder if you'd even get that far in a discussion with a young person.

Vices are things that are tempting to ANYONE. Could YOU fall "victim" to the "temptations" of homosexuality? I bet you couldn't, and that's because you're not gay. For people who ARE gay, the only other "choice" is lifelong celibacy, and I don't think you're going to win many converts to THAT approach.

It's too bad that you equate "self-esteem" with "narcissism", or that you think openness and honesty are "dangerous". It's a good thing people like you are the dwindling minority.
Blue Lipstick

Pittsfield, MA

#81 Oct 2, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Oh just like Newt Gingrich and his 3 marriages. Or the 50% of all marriages that end in divorce.
Your logic is flawed. SSM would discourage what you are whining about so why are you opposed to the best solution for the "problem" you're obsessed with now?
Did you take the blue acid at Woodstock?
Ah yes! There it is! The homosexual inferior complex disorder exposed. Homosexuals once again relying on the frailties, vice, and excesses of other human beings in an attempt to rationalize and give the appearance that their own perversions are normal, acceptable, and appropriate when they are not.

In fact, homosexual acts are deadly, degrading, humiliating, disgusting, unnatural, narcissistic, sodomizing, morally unsound, deviating, contrived, abnormal, wicked, dishonorable, mentally deranged, defective, and about a hundred or so other words that I wish not to go into at this time. Thank you.

“Evil has no substance of its own, but is only the defect, excess, perversion, or corruption of that which has substance.”
John Henry Newman

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#82 Oct 2, 2012
Lemon Lipstick wrote:
<quoted text>
Voted down every time.
Note to the idiots (and hanky code lipstick here) who voted brilliant and agree.

It WASN'T voted down every time. Az voted against the SSM ban the first time.

And 6 States as well as the Nations Capital all VOTED for SSM.

I gotta say if honesty matters when it comes to supporting a political party or a cause, I hope everyone notices how you rely on dishonesty.

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#83 Oct 2, 2012
Doris wrote:
<quoted text>I just don't think it's appropriate anymore for adult queers to be promoting and encouraging little kids to accept and try out the homosexual mindset/lifestyle.
Why must adult homosexuals always impose themselves and their concerns on other peoples' kids?
And yet you have no problem doing the same thing. What right do you have forcing your views on my sisters' children?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 29 min Pietro Armando 4,967
Black churchgoers break with leading Democrats ... (Apr '12) 41 min Fa-Foxy 1,891
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Brian_G 5,419
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 1 hr cpeter1313 2,818
Jindal defends January prayer rally at LSU campus 1 hr Cordwainer Trout 26
Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition 1 hr NorCal Native 1,195
The Thursday Night NE Jade Thread 2 hr Sidney 6
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 5 hr RevKen 26,658
How 2014 Was the Beginning of the End for the G... 5 hr Your blood we hope 21
More from around the web