Baltimore Ravens' Matt Birk rants aga...

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

There are 153 comments on the www.metroweekly.com story from Oct 1, 2012, titled Baltimore Ravens' Matt Birk rants against gay marriage based on 'Catholic values' - Last Word. In it, www.metroweekly.com reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.metroweekly.com.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#104 Oct 2, 2012
Red Lipstick wrote:
50-50 percent for ssm is a pipe dream and flat out lie. Voted down and goin down in Maine.
It may just go down in Maine as you say.

But back to your "it's been voted down every time claim".
" Arizona is currently the only state to have rejected a same-sex marriage ban in the United States."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_s...

Now let's look at the rest of history. The GLBT community has seen a dramatic increase in support over the last 48 years. True we faced losses at the ballot box and in court. But we also succeeded in many of them as well. You say "it's been voted down every time".

Yet 6 States now have SSM. If it was always voted down how did that happen?

You can try to claim Courts and "activist judges" forced the States to change their laws but that too would be a lie.

In every State that has SSM it was voted on by the Legislature; the duly elected representatives of "the will of the people".

Why?

Because heterosexuals rejected your ideology of bigotry. Because they supported the U.S. Constitution and not a bunch of unelected money grubbing non profits and their stooges like you.

Each win we've had, your team has run back to those very same "activist judges" and tried to get the vote changed. And we've done the same thing.

Your side is losing and knows it. If you were so confident that what you stand for is right, why are you trying to get exemptions to laws that make signatures on petitions open to the public? The religious right has been pushing for special rights since this all began. The GLBT community wants the law to apply to everyone fairly. You don't.

Oh sure you say it's because people might face a backlash. But it does strike me as pretty odd that someone would want to hide their beliefs if they are so morally right.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#105 Oct 2, 2012
40for60 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you mean the story that includes this quote from Matt Birk?." Birk is specifically trying to get voters to pass an amendment in Minnesota that will change that state's constitution to read: "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota."
You mean that story?
Try a little honesty, you may actually like it.
Thank you. That was what I was trying for. Honesty.

Now where did Birk mention HIV/AIDS and the CDC?
The Worlds Biggest Lie

Pittsfield, MA

#106 Oct 2, 2012
There are those in society that don't need to get tested like myself, as my wife and I have been together faithfully for 24 years.
Insults and innuendos to come.
The Worlds Biggest Lie

Pittsfield, MA

#107 Oct 2, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>It may just go down in Maine as you say.
But back to your "it's been voted down every time claim".
" Arizona is currently the only state to have rejected a same-sex marriage ban in the United States."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_s...
Now let's look at the rest of history. The GLBT community has seen a dramatic increase in support over the last 48 years. True we faced losses at the ballot box and in court. But we also succeeded in many of them as well. You say "it's been voted down every time".
Yet 6 States now have SSM. If it was always voted down how did that happen?
You can try to claim Courts and "activist judges" forced the States to change their laws but that too would be a lie.
In every State that has SSM it was voted on by the Legislature; the duly elected representatives of "the will of the people".
Why?
Because heterosexuals rejected your ideology of bigotry. Because they supported the U.S. Constitution and not a bunch of unelected money grubbing non profits and their stooges like you.
Each win we've had, your team has run back to those very same "activist judges" and tried to get the vote changed. And we've done the same thing.
Your side is losing and knows it. If you were so confident that what you stand for is right, why are you trying to get exemptions to laws that make signatures on petitions open to the public? The religious right has been pushing for special rights since this all began. The GLBT community wants the law to apply to everyone fairly. You don't.
Oh sure you say it's because people might face a backlash. But it does strike me as pretty odd that someone would want to hide their beliefs if they are so morally right.
Voting to disallow same sex entirely is irrelevent. The facts are each time this went for a popular vote to allow it has gone down everytime and for good reason. This IS a health crisis that should be nowhere's near a childs eyey or ears.
Again, voted down every time.

“HHhhhoooowwwlll”

Since: Feb 08

Craigville

#108 Oct 2, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you seem intent on proving that a sexual orientation is harmful because of diseases you associate with it, shall we discuss the reasonability of banning heterosexual marriage because the number of diseases associated with it?
I am successfully proving that homosexuality is an inherently dangerous lifestyle, to argue that point with wishful thinking just won’t cut it. Be honest about it, especially to those who may be experimenting with the whole idea during a very impressionable time of their lives.
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not disputing some statistic you dug up from the CDC. But the fact remains that until there is mandatory universal testing for HIV, the groups that are more likely to get tested are obviously the ones who will probably show the highest rate of cases.
It would be more like the ones who purposely put themselves at risk should be tested more often, and you have a problem with this? You would like everyone tested just to see if the numbers would even out?
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>In any case you are off topic when it comes to this thread. You use HIV for your own personal political agenda. HIV is a disease. It isn't caused by sex. But because you lack any valid reason that supports a SSM ban you resort to scare tactics.
I believe sexual orientation is a choice, rather than a birth rite. There are other studies out there confirming that at certain age levels, many kids are not sure of their sexual orientation, some go Hetero, some go Homo, some bi, but they need to be told the TRUTH about the path they may chose.
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>
Finally, if people commit to a monogamous marriage then that would reduce the rate of HIV infection in any sub group of the population.
You have any proof of this? No you don’t, it’s just another meaningless projection not based on anything tangible. The homosexual community has proven to be more promiscuous than their hetero counterparts, why would a word,‘marriage’ change this?
DNF wrote:
<quoted text> Your whole idea is reminiscent of the Middle ages when they killed cats because they thought cats caused the Black Plague.
Killing cats? That’s the best you can come up with? Your argument was weak, but really loses luster with the cat killing scam
DNF wrote:
<quoted text> Oh and one last thing. How often do you go get tested for STD's?
My guess is you don't because you don't want to accept the responsibility that comes with being tested.
I wouldn’t mind getting tested, especially if I purposely put myself in a situation where an STD is probable.
Not responsible?
You don’t know jack about me, except I won’t be played a fool by a group of people who would call their deviancy ‘normal’
Junior Esquire

United States

#109 Oct 2, 2012
Two thread titles-

"Minn. Vikings Punter Chris Kluwe Discusses His Pro-Gay Letter"

"Baltimore Ravens' Matt Birk rants against gay marriage based on 'Catholic values'"

So if Chris Kluwe writes a glowing letter in support of gay marriage, the thread headline labels it a "Discussion".

Yet when Matt Birk writes a letter that opposes gay marriage, the thread headline labels it a "Rant".

“NOW will ya give me”

Since: Sep 12

some fightin' room ? !

#110 Oct 2, 2012
Junior Esquire wrote:
Two thread titles-
"Minn. Vikings Punter Chris Kluwe Discusses His Pro-Gay Letter"
"Baltimore Ravens' Matt Birk rants against gay marriage based on 'Catholic values'"
So if Chris Kluwe writes a glowing letter in support of gay marriage, the thread headline labels it a "Discussion".
Yet when Matt Birk writes a letter that opposes gay marriage, the thread headline labels it a "Rant".
The Vatican copyrighted the word "rant" so it's theirs alone.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#111 Oct 3, 2012
40for60 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would we expand it to include the worldwide population?
We are talking about the Marriage Amendment right here in Minnesota.
You would expand it in order to show how idiotic the argument is...

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#112 Oct 3, 2012
Junior Esquire wrote:
Two thread titles-
"Minn. Vikings Punter Chris Kluwe Discusses His Pro-Gay Letter"
"Baltimore Ravens' Matt Birk rants against gay marriage based on 'Catholic values'"
So if Chris Kluwe writes a glowing letter in support of gay marriage, the thread headline labels it a "Discussion".
Yet when Matt Birk writes a letter that opposes gay marriage, the thread headline labels it a "Rant".
No, Dear. Kluwe ranted, in a nice, expletive filled way.

The difference here is that one of them wants to harm families, and legally ensure that certain families and certain children are less secure, and the other does not.

Harming law-abiding tax-paying families based on your own personal biases is never the right thing to so.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#113 Oct 3, 2012
40for60 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am successfully proving that homosexuality is an inherently dangerous lifestyle, to argue that point with wishful thinking just won’t cut it. Be honest about it, especially to those who may be experimenting with the whole idea during a very impressionable time of their lives.
...
And, of course you are lying through your teeth because there is no such thing as a specific "gay lifestyle". I mean, GEESH, what in the heck would it be? Is there a particular "straight lifestyle" that every straight person chooses?

Gay folks live all of the SAME ones that everyone else does - the good and the bad. And the lifestyle we are discussing the most right now is the married lifestyle.

You are going to need to explain why Catholics believe it is a healthy one, but ONLY if you are attracted to the opposite gender. If God has created you with only the attraction to the same gender, then magically, it's an evil lifestyle.

Makes no sense when you think about it. It's not like we can CHOOSE to be attracted to a particular gender. Or that there is ANY conceivable harm that can come simply from natural attractions to adults of either gender.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#114 Oct 3, 2012
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
There are those in society that don't need to get tested like myself, as my wife and I have been together faithfully for 24 years.
Insults and innuendos to come.
And, of course the same would be said of ANY monogamous couple, gay or straight.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#115 Oct 3, 2012
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
<quoted text>
Voting to disallow same sex entirely is irrelevent. The facts are each time this went for a popular vote to allow it has gone down everytime and for good reason. This IS a health crisis that should be nowhere's near a childs eyey or ears.
Again, voted down every time.
Marriage is NOT a health crises. And there are still voters today that would vote against interracial marriage. That doesn't make their votes right, or moral.

That's why basic civil rights should never be put to a vote. But, with the trends in public opinion changing so fast on the topic, even you have to acknowledge that this particular claim won't last forever.

Now, are you one of these folks who actually believe that monogamy and marriage actually increase the incidence of STD's? That seems to be what you are saying.

Please provide stats if you have any.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#116 Oct 3, 2012
Junior Esquire wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like something "Lacez" would say.
The MAIN purpose of marriage is and always has been to provide a stable home for raising children.
So the next gay post is going to say: well, what about the couple that can't have children?
Then i'm going tp reply: Yes, what about it? We're not talking about exceptions, we're talking about the rule.
BTW, "stable" doesn't mean like in the Groundhog Day sense, it means: 1 man + 1 woman.
What about the tens of thousands of gay couples that are raising children? Why should those children be denied equal rights because some else doesn't like their parents?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#117 Oct 3, 2012
Junior Esquire wrote:
<quoted text>
A lot of homosexual men marry women, quite often to have children. Then when the last child is grown, they proclaim: "I have come to the conclusion that I am gay, and I can no longer live a lie." and expect the wife and kids to engage him in a group hug while singing kum ba yah.
Then the devastated wife and kids watch from the window as he drives off to complete his metamorpohsis into a true homosexual.
Yep!! And ending the stigma against gay folks and legalizing marriage equality would do a LOT to stop that from happening, wouldn't it?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#118 Oct 3, 2012
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
<quoted text>
Voting to disallow same sex entirely is irrelevent. The facts are each time this went for a popular vote to allow it has gone down everytime and for good reason. This IS a health crisis that should be nowhere's near a childs eyey or ears.
Again, voted down every time.
LOL!!! I LOVE the "health crisis" whine!! Please DO explain to us how denying marriage equality from same-sex couples will do ANYTHING to assist in combating this imaginary "health crisis" you're whining about.

This oughta be good!

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#119 Oct 3, 2012
40for60 wrote:
<quoted text>....I believe sexual orientation is a choice, rather than a birth rite. There are other studies out there confirming that at certain age levels, many kids are not sure of their sexual orientation, some go Hetero, some go Homo, some bi, but they need to be told the TRUTH about the path they may chose.
Poodle... I got news for you. If you believe you can CHOOSE to be gay or straight, you're not gay OR straight. You're a self-repressing bisexual.

Both gay people AND straight people are fully aware that there's no such thing as "choosing" which gender you're sexually attracted to.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#120 Oct 3, 2012
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
There are those in society that don't need to get tested like myself, as my wife and I have been together faithfully for 24 years.
Insults and innuendos to come.
That's terrific. I congratulate you and your wife. I don't know why you'd expect me to hurl insults at you about that.

I'm just sick of people like you using a disease or a religion to justify your bigotry.

If we start down the path of denying marriage to a group because they have a higher rate of infection to certain diseases we're back on track to bringing back forced sterilizations "for the greater good".

We don't deny blacks marriage because of sickle cell or Jewish people because of Tay-Sacks.

Yes I know those are ethnic groups. My point is still valid. We don't prohibit marriage to heterosexuals with life threatening diseases.

That would be like saying all heterosexuals are sick freaks because a lot of straight people attend the Folsum Street fair and Southern Decadence.
wow!

El Paso, TX

#121 Oct 3, 2012
Junior Esquire wrote:
<quoted text>A lot of homosexual men marry women, quite often to have children. Then when the last child is grown, they proclaim: "I have come to the conclusion that I am gay, and I can no longer live a lie." and expect the wife and kids to engage him in a group hug while singing kum ba yah.
Then the devastated wife and kids watch from the window as he drives off to complete his metamorpohsis into a true homosexual.
True. I saw this exact scenario play out. Now, his ex-wife hates him only slightly less than his kids do.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#122 Oct 3, 2012
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
<quoted text>
Voting to disallow same sex entirely is irrelevent. The facts are each time this went for a popular vote to allow it has gone down everytime and for good reason. This IS a health crisis that should be nowhere's near a childs eyey or ears.
Again, voted down every time.
I'm sorry but you are mistaken. When the SSM ban was first on the ballot in Arizona it failed.

And I STRONGLY disagree with you about teaching very small children about AIDS. Health safety should begin as soon as a child can begin to understand it.

But I'd be happy to hear at what age you think it's appropriate to teach a child to be careful around blood and other hazardous materials. Frankly I'm glad even the youngest of my nieces and nephews learned at around age 4 what to do if Uncle David cut his finger.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#123 Oct 3, 2012
Junior Esquire wrote:
Two thread titles-
"Minn. Vikings Punter Chris Kluwe Discusses His Pro-Gay Letter"
"Baltimore Ravens' Matt Birk rants against gay marriage based on 'Catholic values'"
So if Chris Kluwe writes a glowing letter in support of gay marriage, the thread headline labels it a "Discussion".
Yet when Matt Birk writes a letter that opposes gay marriage, the thread headline labels it a "Rant".
Here's a tissue for your issue.

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.

NFL Football Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Buddy Ryan Praised For A Defense, the 46, that ... 1 hr Taint Praise 7
NFL Idiots Live In Fantasy World 7 hr Luck of the Drew 2
News Developing young talent key for future of Colts... Thu Irsayitisntso 1
News NFL 'absolutely' trying to reach out and help '... Thu Tokin 1
News WATCH: Jason Pierre-Paul shows mangled hand in ... Thu Tom Coughinup 1
NFL Acess Proves Cam Newton Was Not MVP Last Year Thu Bradylust 2
Nate Burleson's Top Five QBs Is Close to Accurate Wed Bates Close 1
More from around the web