You're right. Both your organization and Tony Dungy have the legal right to put forth your opinion. However, the Bible is clear about matters of sex. Whether you read the Old or the New Testement, God clearly limits sex to one man and one woman, bound together by marriage. Any sexual practive that deviates from that is sin. I'm sure that Tony would believe that premarital and extramarital sex are wrong as well. Thank you.

Isn't this Tony's second marriage. What does your bible say about that Brian?

Having actually read the bible - both old and new testaments, I can say that Brian's comment is pretty far off base - the Old Testament especially espouses polygamous marriages - Abraham and David had multiple wives, as did most Old Testament men. Lot was commanded by God to sleep with and impregnate his daughters. And there are quite a few other bizarre sexual things that happened in both testaments. In fact, neither book seems particularly interested in promoting the nuclear family above all other arrangements.

And it has been pointed out numerous times here the bible has next to nothing to say about gay people, and what little it does say was ambiguous at best. Rather than just spouting religious right talking points, Brian, maybe you should consider actually picking that book up and reading it yourself, like the rest of us have.

All of this is completely irrelevant anyway - because your mythology and your god and your rules mean nothing to me, Brian. I believe in different things than you do, and my beliefs are just as valid as yours here in America.

Dear Brian,

In order to reach the conclusion that "God clearly limits sex to one man and one woman, bound together by marriage" you'd have to overlook a lot of the text. To take just a few examples:

Abraham has one wife, Sarah, and two concubines, Hagar and Keturah (Genesis 16; 25:1?2).

Jacob has two wives, Leah and Rachel (Gen 29:15?30).

David has seven wives who are named (1 Sam 18:17?30; 25:38?43; 2 Sam 3:2?5) and more unnamed wives as well as concubines (2 Sam 5:13).

The point here isn't to get into a flame war. It's to suggest, gently, that the Old and New Testaments are legitimately open to different readings and that all faith traditions privilege some stories -- and interpretations of those stories -- over others.

Ellen: Don't forget, God also endorses sex between a soldier and a kidnapped woman. Not only endorses it, but explicitly outlines how to "properly" go about it - Deuteronomy 21:10-14, for those who are curious.

Frankly, the Bible has more to say about how to "properly" rape a woman, than it does to condemn homosexuality. So does that make it okay to rape someone, as long as you do it "right"?

The answer: a resounding NO. It's NEVER "okay" to rape, just like it's NEVER okay to discriminate based on someone's sexuality.

Biblical views on sexuality are obscenely outdated and irrelevant in today's (supposedly) educated society (and should never be enshrined in government, besides. That's a lovely step down the road to theocracy) Anyone who holds to them as contemporary and relevant needs to experience the kind of suffering that their antiquated views inflict upon other people. Maybe, just maybe, that would open their eyes.

Gawd you guys and girls are so funny. You make the most idiotic arguments. So WHAT if there were adulterers, fornicators, and men having more than one wife in the Bible. That doesn't mean that God condones it!! Does thou shall not commit adultry ring a bell?? Please stop trying to force your sexuality down our throats. I'm a single guy who pays more taxes than a married person. I don't like it but that's just the way it is. Deal with it!

I think what we are dealing here are dominionists...conservatives like to whine a lot about "moral relativism" and attach it to liberal thinking. It is rather obvious that these bible thumpers are certainly the American version of the Taliban, refusing to accept any biblical truth other than what they are ordered to believe. That means, since there are so many versions and denominations of Christianity in America, each with varying interpretations and understandings of scripture, that they don't respect the moral relativism of religious freedom.
And what better way to attack that basic founding concept than to demand constitutional amendments which reduce the rights of those who believe one way and elevate their beliefs, as they remind us constantly, to the SOLE source of legislation for ALL citizens.

You don't have to argue the bible at all with them - instead, it might make sense to assert that their religious beliefs infringe on yours, and thus they are advocating treason against the Constitution. Simply because one of these political dominionists wander in here and declare that they are the "Christians" doesn't mean squat. . .and they've done plenty to show they have no commitment to Christianity beyond using it as a political tool. You can call them "alleged" Christians, or self-appointed spokesmodels for God, but its time to stop letting them claim they have been appointed to declare wingnut sharia law over everyone.

This repeated crap about the "christian principles" the "founding fathers" used is a political ruse, propagated by a cabal of televangelist ministries and their lackey "conservative" churches whose goal include the overthrow of our government and the establishment of a "Christian" nation where only "acceptable" Christians may hold public office. In order to achieve that end, they must demonize segments of the population and drive a wedge among the majority of the American people, and in the process, amend constitutions to secure their claim to power.

Just ask them what Bible verse declares that all governments must proclaim that only "biblical families" may visit life partners in hospitals. Make them address the real issues in this legislation.

The $20,000 equipment donation changed my mind.

If it's from his personal collection, so be it. But if the Colts organization gave one shoelace to it, they're in for the long haul.

I'd collect a group of us together to demand that the Colts rethink their position in light of this information. And maybe adopt a policy regarding their tacit approval via donations. It's not too much to ask for an organization benefitting from all taxpayers the way they are.

While we're at it--who's up for picketing the Eric Miller rally Tuesday? My sign would say:

"What did I ever do to hurt YOU?"

Media coverage of SJR-7 has finally turning against passage of the amendment. The objections raised are the unintentional consequences to the heterosexual community:the loss of domestic violence protections and restrictions on private businesses. If we want SJR-7 to be defeated we need to hammer away on the harm it will do to straight people. It is sad that we have to resort to this but for the most part people don't care unless a law affects their lives.

If we focus on Tony Dudgy's actions we risk the chance of handing the media a much better news story. The media will play it out as our community attacking a hero and a man of deep faith. Frankly we cannot win that battle at this time. That is not to say we cannot call Mr. Dungy to account in the future time. He has a long history of using his position with the Colts to publicly proselytize and has expressed intolerant remarks in the past. He will do it again. Then will be the time to take Mr. Dungy to task for his participation in a hate group--IFI.

Personally, I think Tony missed wide right :)

I've gone round and round with this. I've been a Colts fan since they moved to Indy. I have a Colts license plate (or tag as they are called in some states) and tons of Colts shirts and sweatshirts (including my current favorite Super Bowl Champs gear).

One thing I have always liked about the Colts organization was their desire to do things "the right way". Sure, they have their problems (Dom Rhodes arrested for drinking and driving is the latest that comes to mind), but it seems the exception rather than the rule. Indy would never bring someone like Terrell Owens to play, regardless of their skilz.

I never really thought about the Christian connection with all of this because it was more of an action than a proclamation. That is the way it is supposed to be with Christians. I have nothing against Christianity. In fact, whether we buy into they whole thing or not, if we lived as Jesus said: "Love your neighbor as yourself", "Turn the other cheek", etc. the world would certainly be a different place to live in.

Having said all that, what is a Gay Colts fan to do? My license plate renewal is at the end of April. Do I keep that one or go with the "In God We Trust" plate? LOL.

Seriously. I've come to these conclusions.

1. Condemning the entire Colts organization for the words and actions of one of its members is no different than straight people thinking I spend every night in a wild sex orgy because I am gay (which, for the record I don't, nor would I want to). Sure you can be judged by the company you keep, but that is only one small part of the equation.

2. I didn't like it when the Dixie Chicks said their mind and were promptly crucified for it. I believed they had the right to speak their mind, therefore, I must allow Mr. Dungy the same right. I am certainly disappointed in the outcome, but it is still his right.

3. I still love football. I still live less than 30 miles from Indy. The Colts will still be here long after Dungy is gone. I suffered through the 3-13 seasons. No way I'm not gonna revel in a Super Bowl championship.

So I'm keeping the gear and the license plate. At the end of the day, regardless of amendments and statements of support, I will still be with my partner and we will still love each other. They can't take that away from us, even if she is a Dolphins fan (now, if she were a Patriots fan?:)

To be honest, we don't support ($) any professional sports teams that exact taxpayer monies to keep their franchise/business at the "profit margin they deem appropriate." Which isn't to say that my partner doesn't enjoy watching the games on TV; just that we don't support any team otherwise by buying gear, spending our money eating out etc.

That aside, we really do think it's important to acknowledge to ourselves and educate the public wherever bigotry slaps us in the face. Dungy's remarks and fundraising efforts on behalf of IFI were indicative not of a man simply stating his opinion and beliefs but of a man who was stating his bigoted opinion and beliefs, which do have negative real life consequences. The bigotry requires an appropriate educational type response to help others understand the difference.

At the same time, we do agree with Mark and others who remind us that the present time is not best time as the SJR7 battle takes priority.

However, that does not mean that there will not be a time in the near future (end of summer...beginning of new season?) to confront the bigotry. Which, btw, is why we agree with the suggestion that a published educational response is the appropriate way to go. And if that does become the effort, it will take time to find the right organization to handle the details and raise the funds needed.

Dear Mr. Dungy,

You have a right to your opinion and I honor that right. However, I should remind you that finally winning a Superbowl (that you couldn't lead your team to when you had the best record in the AFC) does not give you any type of special knowledge of just what is "God's side" in the complex issues of our world. Please be advised that the Bible that I assume you follow does not say "And God created Heaven and Earth and gave Tony Dungy special status to be on his side and to know his mysteries."

If I am wrong and you have the correct clarification of this, please let me know.

Until then, I would like to make a small suggestion that you do not mistake your awards and status as any type of designation to tell the rest of us just what is God's side in the complex matters of this world, including the issue of same-sex marriage.

How is that for a letter?