InItToWinIt

This is only a good idea, if and only if, it is used for training purposes only and kept confidential from the public. Otherwise, it sounds too much like Oceania...

I'm not sure why anybody would be surprised... From ALSA.org: “Adult stem cell research is important and should be done alongside embryonic stem cell research as both will provide valuable insights. Only through exploration of all types of stem cell research will scientists find the most efficient and effective ways to treat diseases.” The Catholic Church says... From usccb.org: "Sometimes it is wrongly said that the Catholic Church opposes stem cell research. In fact, the Church supports ethically responsible stem cell research, while opposing any research that exploits or destroys human embryos. Because the Church opposes deliberately destroying innocent human life at any stage, for research or any other purpose, it opposes embryonic stem cell research as currently conducted. However, when scientists proposed avenues for possibly obtaining embryonic stem cells or their pluripotent equivalent without creating or harming embryos, Catholic leaders were among the first to welcome this idea." So you can now see, the Catholic Church is in no way shape or form against finding a cure for ALS. They are against taking away the lives of innocent human beings... As mentioned above there are dozens of acceptable charities, but ALS.org is not in compliance with Catholic (really all, not just Christian, but that's a debate for another time) morality.

Anybody see this article? At least for Catholics who do the challenge, try donating to another ALS charity... ALSA.org is a huge supporter of embyonic stem cell research. The Moral Problem with the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge UPDATED! As for the whole thing, I love the awareness its raising and hope the money goes toward ALS and ALS only!

May seem random but this was a hot NKY high schooler's debate on Twitter this year... LeBron James vs Floyd Mayweather. Who wins?

What a shame to hear he is leaving. Booher has done a great job at Holmes. Good luck to Jason and his family in whatever they do.... As for the job, I would assume Listerman is interested. Remember he was forced out of coaching at CovCath and could have remained as a teacher but traded the blue for red so that he could continue coaching. If he did get it it would be so strange to see two CovCath Listerman Legends coaching at (arguably) their 2 biggest rivals (Highlands and Holmes).

Fair enough. I must ask, what religions discriminate against gays?

I think we for the most part we agree. Since homosexuality and heterosexuality are supposed it be equal, why is it a big deal that he's an openly gay athlete?

Sorry if it comes off that way. I'm really not. I just think celebrating it makes the issue grow. If we keep promoting how it needs to be equal, it will always be considered something less. Again, I'm not a homophobe and don't mean to come off that way. I don't treat people any differently or judge them based on their sexual orientation. I just think the way we promote homosexuality will never make it considered equal.

I guess that's where we disagree. I think in order to make it equal, we should act as if they already are. As long as we promote homosexuality it will not be considered equal to heterosexuality. Does that make any sense? What I mean is I think celebrating it will convince more people that both lifestyles are not equal; it will instead make people always think homosexuality is not the same.

I wouldn't say complain, but yes, I see the similarities between that and this, and I say the same thing: If one group is trying to establish "equality" then why should the celebrate the difference?

I apologize if my last post wasn't clear. What I meant (in my 4th and 5th paragraphs) was IF homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality then it SHOUDLN'T require proclamation (since heterosexualty does not require proclamation). I then went a step further (since my hypothetical 'IF' clause is incorrect; and apparently in today's culture homosexuality does require public proclamation) in paragraph 5 and said I do realize that it did take courage for Sam and that it what is wrong with the culture - that is the problem - that our culture discriminates against gays in multiple ways. I agree - we as a culture (I'm just generalizing, not calling anyone out) need to stop "judging, firing, beating, killing and mocking gay people." What I am saying is that I do not know if a parade is the best way to establish the equality as it may just further anger the people who mistreat gays and may not be the most effective way. I myself am not smart enough to know what we should do in order to change the culture to be less judgemental. But I think that proudly sharing one is a homosexual is not the correct way to establish equality (since heterosexuals, the group which they wish to be equal, does not proudly share that they were born that way). As I said, I am only human and do not have an effective solution at this point in my life. However, all I was saying that IMHO in order to establish "equality," we should not promote/celebrate one lifestyle over something it is supposed to be equal too. I apologize as I misread the last paragraph, sir. Honest mistake.

I don't think many gay Americans are imprisoned or killed for being gay. I've been in a high school football locker room but not with someone who said he was gay so I cannot answer that question. Not treated the same, you are right. Gays are celebrated and being homosexual is promoted. I'm not being homophobic or hateful. All I'm saying is there is no parade in Cincy to celebrate straight people. I guess my real problem with this entire thing is that his coming out had to take courage. If being homosexual is equivalent to heterosexual, it shouldn't be something that takes courage to proclaim. I'm not belittling that it took courage - I realize that. I understand taking a stand against the majority is difficult. But I guess it goes back to the previous paragraph - it shouldn't have to take courage. Regarding the sins part of the paragraph, you and I cannot judge if any sins are "worse" than others. It is not our place and we do not have authority to "compare" sins.

Interesting, but if being a homosexual is equal to being a heterosexual, why do no heterosexuals express pride in their lifestyle? I guess the problem is the social stigma.

Interesting... I don't have twitter but I am surprised to hear that. I'm expecting tons of backlash for this but this is why I posted: to see if I'm the only one.

Putting this in CI because I know it's a sensitive topic. Does anyone else think this is a little over the top? No I am not a homophobe or have any problem with a man/women being gay. But as far as I know the thing gays in America are fighting for is "equality." I don't remember a straight man winning a courage award for telling the world he likes women. If gays want to be equal why is there an award? I don't know a single straight man who is "proud" of it. Again, I am not a homophobe, I just think as long as we promote homosexual attraction it will never be the same as heterosexual attraction since the latter is not celebrated.

Incorrect as well. Not sure if you are just serious/playing devil's advocate/making light of various people's beliefs but dogs do not have free will, therefore they cannot choose between good and evil, meaning they have no means to heaven. :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

Incorrect, atheists can go to heaven too.

Doing business with a country that has low human rights makes them "un-Christian?" That's ridiculous. Does that make the consumers Un-Christian too? I own a pair of Nike shoes, made by a factory worker who works 20 hours a day for 10 cents per hour. Does that make me un-Christian?

Who cares. All of the athletes worked hard to win their tournament (with teams that qualify from allover the state) and they deserve to be recognized. 20 years from now are the CCH guys gonna be saying "Man that's bull how NewCath was mentioned in the State Championship Enquirer Article." ? Doubt it.

I wish I knew the answer. I personally would not be. As you can probably tell by my posts I am all for spreading the Word of God, but I try (and I know I'm not perfect) to do it respectfully and politely. Punching someone because of their religion, or lack of, has no place in society. IMO This. :thumb:

True, but why would someone answer God's call not openly? At least someone who is running for public office. I agree with the open minded/closed mind distinction, although I would assume atheists and agnostics reading this do not like to be categorized as so. There are always exceptions. :thumb: From a political standpoint I agree, but as I've said before my faith is more important to me than politics so I'd rather vote for someone who promotes religious values. Perhaps I'm being a bit picky but I think a good leader needs to have good character - and for me a defining part of a man's character is his relationship with God. JMO

When you say "believe" what do you exactly mean? Is it just to know that God exists and leave it at that? In order to get to Heaven one must not only believe and be a member of a church but the way one acts, thinks, and treats others will have a bearing on whether or not he or she gets to heaven. Otherwise you could get baptized, commit suicide, and instantly be "saved."

That never happened. http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

It does not make them unfit, sure. But this thread is would you vote for them, to which I say no. With Agnostics and Atheists, look at it this way: I ask you "Do you want to go to the Reds game on Sunday night?" Monday comes, no answer. Tuesday comes, no answer. Fast forward to Sunday afternoon (game is at 8:05), no answer. Sunday night at 7:30, no answer. Finally its Sunday night at 8:30, game has started, you never agreed to go with me, so game is on and you never agreed to go, so you therefore answered "No" to my initial question. Now look at it with God: God asks a man "Do you believe in me?" He's 10 years old, and refuses to acknowledge the question. 20 years old, refuses to acknowledge his belief in God. Fast forward to 70 years old, refuses to acknowledge any belief/disbelief in God. Fast forward to deathbed, refuses to acknowledge belief/disbelief in God. Well, the man dies and never acknowledged God, therefore he never declared belief during life on Earth, meaning he did not believe. Would that not be an atheist? JMO

I guess that makes sense. I do believe that the rules of the Catholic Church (since it can be traced back to Christ [God] himself) are not man made or are inspired by the Holy Spirit, but I also believe that other churches do hold parts of Truth. Not the fullness, but parts of Truth. And since you CAN get to heaven without a church, I respect and understand your point. My point was that the only way we KNOW that gets you to heaven is what was discussed above.