So Michael Sam Is Gay, Who Cares? Can He Rush The QB?

[fake punt]

You forgot the other part of the definition that
The makeup of a man is to be attracted to a woman. Never mind the shape of the genitalia, as lurker already pointed that out. But for purely procreation purposes. Men can only naturally procreate with women. Men cannot procreate with other men and women cannot procreate with other women. Homosexuality is more of an exception than it is natural. And please don't think I condemn that lifestyle. I don't. Being gay is not a choice and, again, it should not hold Sam back from pursuing his career. But it's not natural.

This is certainly one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard. Are you aware that there is plenty of homosexuality going on in non-human species? Is that somehow unnatural?

 

[BradyFTW!]

You are equally as homosexual as BradyFTW.

I dunno, I'm both
1) straight, and
2) not obsessed with homosexuality.

He can claim one of those, at best.

 

[Ring 6]

I dunno, I'm both
1) straight, and
2) not obsessed with homosexuality.

He can claim one of those, at best.

I know, I was responding to him saying you were gay, and figured that was a good perspective for him to see.

 

[Ring 6]

This is certainly one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard. Are you aware that there is plenty of homosexuality going on in non-human species? Is that somehow unnatural?

Should I stop masturbating because it will not create children? If not, then what the hell is wrong with finding pleasure with another of the same sex if that's my desire?

You're an idiot.

The 'everyone who isn't like me is wrong' crowd has the market cornered on calling people names in this discussion, so you may want to just stick to the fact and let the self-evident conclusion stand on its own.

 

[fake punt]

The 'everyone who isn't like me is wrong' crowd has the market cornered on calling people names in this discussion, so you may want to just stick to the fact and let the self-evident conclusion stand on its own.

There is no basis for accommodating homophobes. Racists were accommodated before and during Jackie Robinson. They were wrong, as the homophobes are now. I will call homophobes names now, as I will call racists names now. They all suffer from essentially the same delusions. They are all pathetic people whose cowardice does tremendous damage to humankind.

 

[BradyFTW!]

There is no basis for accommodating homophobes. Racists were accommodated before and during Jackie Robinson. They were wrong, as the homophobes are now. I will call homophobes names now, as I will call racists names now. They all suffer from essentially the same delusions. They are all pathetic people whose cowardice does tremendous damage to humankind.

I don't think that Kontra is homophobic. He just has some pretty arbitrary (IMO) views on what's natural and what's unnatural. Even then, he seems to basically agree that it doesn't really matter and isn't worth judging someone's lifestyle over.

 

[PP2]

Actually, I disagree with you here.

The subject is whether it is right to pass judgment on PEOPLE and feel that they are responsible to only act in a way you approve.

Gay is just the type of person we are using in the example.
If you are intolerant of people due to them being gay, you are intolerant of people, its just a matter of which people are higher or lower on your pecking order.

Quite the contrary, I am speaking in the context of this thread which addresses whether or not it is right to pass judgment on gay people (in the sense of thinking one has the right to decide what is natural and unnatural) such as Michael Sam, which is why we are discussing this in the first place.

This thread is not about passing judgment on people in general.

 

[Uncle Meat]

People have the right to pass judgment on whoever they want in this country. It's a free country, or so I'm told...even if I'm not so sure about that. But it's a slippery slope if it should be policy for people to think certain ways or reflect certain attitudes.

I'm not talking about anybody in this thread, but anybody has the right to hate anybody they want for no good reason. That's one necessary side effect of the principles this country was founded on. People could hate homosexuals until the cows come home. But it should be understood that this a reflection on the hater, not a reflection on the group being hated in this case. It's THEIR problem....THEY have a problem.

They have a problem because they chose to upset themselves about things they cannot change, things that they fear because they don't understand them, in my opinion. I'm talking about things that consulting adults freely choose to do behind closed doors. I don't know what empty hole could be in a person's life if he chooses to upset himself over that when it doesn't harm anybody. People like that are ****ed up.

But "haters gonna hate" as the annoying phrase goes.

I've never seen many people have an epiphany and change their way of thinking on a message board. Mostly it's a pissing contest when disagreements happen. But here, the people opposed to homosexuality clearly have a problem. All I can say is that serves them right. They really DESERVE to have a problem. Good luck with your problem, fellas.

 

[fake punt]

I don't think that Kontra is homophobic. He just has some pretty arbitrary (IMO) views on what's natural and what's unnatural. Even then, he seems to basically agree that it doesn't really matter and isn't worth judging someone's lifestyle over.

Yes, thank you for pointing that out. I have edited my post accordingly.

 

[resdubwhite]

People have the right to pass judgment on whoever they want in this country. It's a free country, or so I'm told..

Oh most definitely..

But isn't passing judgement on people you don't know a really really really douchey thing to do.

unless of course you're a judge. Then it would be your job.

 

[Uncle Meat]

Oh most definitely..

But isn't passing judgement on people you don't know a really really really douchey thing to do.

unless of course you're a judge. Then it would be your job.

Don't be foolish. Most judges are douches too.

But yeah, I agree.

 

[Ring 6]

Quite the contrary, I am speaking in the context of this thread which addresses whether or not it is right to pass judgment on gay people (in the sense of thinking one has the right to decide what is natural and unnatural) such as Michael Sam, which is why we are discussing this in the first place.

This thread is not about passing judgment on people in general.

I think you missed my point.
The issue is feeling it is OK to pass judgment, and in this case the target it gay people.
ignorance transcends a single target.

 

[eagle eye]

Generally those who think its wrong to be gay are the dumb god-fearing christian types.

Whats funny is that the ones that hate on the dumb god-fearing christian types are normally the dumb non-religious types.

I could go on. Its a never ending circle!

Mike and Sam, sounds more bi to me than gay.

I love Tom Brady, does that make me gay?

 

[Uncle Meat]

Generally those who think its wrong to be gay are the dumb god-fearing christian types.

Whats funny is that the ones that hate on the dumb god-fearing christian types are normally the dumb non-religious types.

I could go on. Its a never ending circle!

Mike and Sam, sounds more bi to me than gay.

I love Tom Brady, does that make me gay?

I don't know if you're gay or not...

but this post is kinda gay.

 

[condon84]

PC Police went wild on this thread.

 

[lurker1965]

Something that is found throughout nature cannot be unnatural. Scientists have found homosexuality in hundreds of species.

It occurs in nature so it cannot be unnatural. It violates nobody's rights so it cannot be immoral. It may upset someone's religious principles but who cares we don't live in a theocracy.

Not just you, but where is this nonsense coming from?

To invoke Godwin, ants commit genocide. Therefore genocide is natural. Hitler was just being natural, so all you Jews can stop your gay bashing!

Yeah, I'm calling Godwin on myself. Change Hitler for Stalin, though and point stands.

 

[lurker1965]

The post that you quoted asked you to define 'natural'. You did not define 'natural'. Please do. After all, how can you claim that something is unnatural if you can't clarify what natural is?

In the post you quoted you do not tell me if my ex-wife's new husband can kill my kids since that would be emulating a common occurrence in nature. After all how can you stick with "everything in nature is natural behavior" if you can not claim that is natural?

Hey, just one example. I could hit you with the ants and genocide thing. (The Hutsi's were just acting natural in Rwanda.)

 

[BradyFTW!]

Not just you, but where is this nonsense coming from?

To invoke Godwin, ants commit genocide. Therefore genocide is natural. Hitler was just being natural, so all you Jews can stop your gay bashing!

Yeah, I'm calling Godwin on myself. Change Hitler for Stalin, though and point stands.

Side note: my perspective is that pretty much everything that humans do is 'natural'. For all of the crap that we get for living out of balance with nature, we're acting out of the same motivations and instincts that any other animal does. In short, we're doing exactly what any animal would do, if it had the capacity to conquer virtually all limitations (to date) on lifespan and population.

Go and remove all of a deer population's predators from its habitat. Do you think that the deer will understand that it has a natural role and that there is a natural balanced state that it must maintain? Will it moderate its consumption and reproduction accordingly? Of course not: they keep consuming and keep reproducing and keep pushing onward until they run up against a limitation that they can't overcome.

We're in essentially the same position. The only difference is that we haven't run up against a limitation that we can't push through (yet).

 

[BradyFTW!]

In the post you quoted you do not tell me if my ex-wife's new husband can kill my kids since that would be emulating a common occurrence in nature. After all how can you stick with "everything in nature is natural behavior" if you can not claim that is natural?

Hey, just one example. I could hit you with the ants and genocide thing. (The Hutsi's were just acting natural in Rwanda.)

Sure, you could make a pretty compelling case that it's totally natural to want to kill your ex-wife's kids by another man, so that she'll have your kids instead. It's rooted in the desire to pass on your own genetics, and according to the people who insist that homosexuality is unnatural in this thread, that's pretty much the one motivation that defines 'natural'.

That's actually a fantastic example for why equating "natural" (by any definition) with "good" or even "acceptable" is a really, really bad idea.

One of the most effective reproductive strategies in existence is to just rape as many women as humanly possible. If that's 'natural', I'd rather be unnatural.

 

[Uncle Meat]

Like I say, if it happens, then it's natural.

Can you imagine a scientist saying that something that actually happens is not natural? No, because that would be impossible in the logical world.

A scientist with bias isn't a scientist at all.

And a religious person has beliefs, not facts.

Moral judgment calls are not facts, either.

Therefore, any argument that says homosexuality isn't a natural occurrence is not based on scientific logic You simply cannot discredit ANYTHING as being unnatural if it happens.

You can't pick and choose about these things.