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

[Triumph]

What are you talking about? Your avatar? What do you think it stands for then?

Molon labe has been repeated by many later generals and politicians in order to express an army's or nation's determination not to surrender. The motto ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ is on the emblem of the Greek First Army Corps, and is also the motto of United States Special Operations Command Central (SOCCENT).[6] The expression "Come and take it" was a slogan in the Texas Revolution

 

[primetime]

Back to the source material

Forty-four of 51 NFL players surveyed say teammates' sexual orientation doesn't matter - ESPN

ESPN.com's NFL Nation and ESPN The Magazine combined on an anonymous survey last week off the news of Sam coming out as the first openly gay NFL prospect. Fifty-one players, almost an entire team roster, responded to four true-false questions. Although the survey showed that most players aren't concerned with another's sexual orientation, it also made clear the concerns that players would have with learning how to relate to an openly gay teammate.

Forty-four players said a teammate's sexual orientation didn't matter to them, and 39 said they would be comfortable showering around a gay teammate.

 

[primetime]

You know what you're doing. And it's kind of childish. Nothing I wrote was confusing. I explained that some heterosexual males engage in various (CONSENSUAL) sex acts with other males during their incarceration and some do not. I showed this example to illustrate the complexity of human sexuality. Given this complexity it should not shock that there are differing views on the subject. I then asked if it was improper for religious types to attach a morality judgment to this type of behavior from heterosexual males. Are they bigots if they do? I then presented a logical sequitur (should the public, in this age of enlightenment, accept three people marrying?) which you, of course, glossed over. Finally, I tried to explain why the religious types do what they do. I explained their belief that that a world with morality (however you define it) banished from the public square (leave it in your homes and speak about it in only in whispers) is untenable. To all this you feigned ignorance or lack of understanding. Whatever.

Human sexuality is extraordinarily complex and exists on a wide spectrum. There's nothing wrong with anyone engaging in any sort of sexual act as long as both people consent and are capable of consenting. You chose an extremely poor example to make your argument, though, since sexual activity in prison is very often non-consensual.

And then you proceeded to a slippery slope argument, which is not a logical sequitur, but there would technically be nothing wrong with 3 people marrying other than it would require a rewrite of the entire tax and law system and would require that polygamy was gender-neutral and power-neutral (that is, it was not the radical Mormon polygamy with a single man exercising absolute power over a number of wives). Given that polygamy is quite common in the Bible (and monogamy was a concept more commonly associated with the Hellenic and Roman world), I'm not certain why religious people would condemn this.

And there's no current group of polygamists who are ostracized, bullied, or assaulted - with good reason, as it isn't an inherent part of identity, per se, so it's not an equivalent argument, and there are good reasons the public may not support this without it coming from a bigoted place - the fundamental differences in the tax and law system would be enough. Though I also think monogamy exists because it has evolutionary roots, as well, so I don't think either system is natural or unnatural (after all, both polygamy and monogamy have appeared separately in vastly different cultures across the globe).

As for the rest of the conversation, I think, in general, it's possible to internalize an opinion or feeling without having it externalized, but there's always the possibility - what happens when you're deciding whether to give a job to a transgendered individual, for instance? I'm not sure you can put this aside. It's certainly possible this never comes up, that you never interact with a trans person at all, but this is far less likely if your prejudice is against people of a different skin color or creed. I question people who don't want to overcome their feelings of discomfort or distaste for a group of people based on something about their identity that causes no harm to anyone.

This probably came across as rambling. For that I apologize.

 

[Boogs]

Back to the source material

Forty-four of 51 NFL players surveyed say teammates' sexual orientation doesn't matter - ESPN

I know I would feel uncomfortable showering next to an openly gay teammate. But the most important thing to chemistry in the lockeroom is having a good teammate to the guys that are different than you. Sounds like Michael Sam has been one at Mizzou.

 

[Ring 6]

Then it is you who missed the point. I would never tell someone something about them is "gross" or "creepy", and not realize that I'm being hurtful. You may not believe me, but I'm really not THAT dense.

If I say I don't understand something, does that make me hateful?

I'm comparing what you said you would say to a gay friend and comparing to a minority. Why even say it?

Of course you know that not understanding isn't hateful, but that is not what this thread has been about. The thread has been about disapproving.

 

[PP2]

Molon labe has been repeated by many later generals and politicians in order to express an army's or nation's determination not to surrender. The motto ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ is on the emblem of the Greek First Army Corps, and is also the motto of United States Special Operations Command Central (SOCCENT).[6] The expression "Come and take it" was a slogan in the Texas Revolution

That saying did originate with King Leonidas, though.

And that is a Spartan helmet you have in your avatar.

 

[PP2]

Human sexuality is extraordinarily complex and exists on a wide spectrum. There's nothing wrong with anyone engaging in any sort of sexual act as long as both people consent and are capable of consenting. You chose an extremely poor example to make your argument, though, since sexual activity in prison is very often non-consensual.

And then you proceeded to a slippery slope argument, which is not a logical sequitur, but there would technically be nothing wrong with 3 people marrying other than it would require a rewrite of the entire tax and law system and would require that polygamy was gender-neutral and power-neutral (that is, it was not the radical Mormon polygamy with a single man exercising absolute power over a number of wives). Given that polygamy is quite common in the Bible (and monogamy was a concept more commonly associated with the Hellenic and Roman world), I'm not certain why religious people would condemn this.

And there's no current group of polygamists who are ostracized, bullied, or assaulted - with good reason, as it isn't an inherent part of identity, per se, so it's not an equivalent argument, and there are good reasons the public may not support this without it coming from a bigoted place - the fundamental differences in the tax and law system would be enough. Though I also think monogamy exists because it has evolutionary roots, as well, so I don't think either system is natural or unnatural (after all, both polygamy and monogamy have appeared separately in vastly different cultures across the globe).

As for the rest of the conversation, I think, in general, it's possible to internalize an opinion or feeling without having it externalized, but there's always the possibility - what happens when you're deciding whether to give a job to a transgendered individual, for instance? I'm not sure you can put this aside. It's certainly possible this never comes up, that you never interact with a trans person at all, but this is far less likely if your prejudice is against people of a different skin color or creed. I question people who don't want to overcome their feelings of discomfort or distaste for a group of people based on something about their identity that causes no harm to anyone.

This probably came across as rambling. For that I apologize.

It didn't come across as rambling to me. I found it interesting.

That last statement is exactly where I am coming from, even if I am overdoing it.

 

[Mountain_Commando]

I'm comparing what you said you would say to a gay friend and comparing to a minority. Why even say it?

Of course you know that not understanding isn't hateful, but that is not what this thread has been about. The thread has been about disapproving.

This thread has been about more than a dozen things now. The discussion between you and me was that discrimination is wrong, disagreement isn't. By now, you seem to agree, so we'll leave it at that.

And to leave no doubts to my stance whatsoever, you can read what I directly said to fnord in the previous page (not to a hypothetical gay friend).

 

[Ring 6]

You know what you're doing. And it's kind of childish. Nothing I wrote was confusing.

I have no idea what you think you know, but your posts are almost impossible to decipher.

I explained that some heterosexual males engage in various (CONSENSUAL) sex acts with other males during their incarceration and some do not.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation.
I am talking about a gay person having the right live their life the way they want to and not be expected to conform to someone elses idea of right. How prisoners having sex is pertinent to that escapes me.

I showed this example to illustrate the complexity of human sexuality.

I have not disputed that. Its a factor in my position.

Given this complexity it should not shock that there are differing views on the subject.

It does not shock me at all. I simply think it is incorrect for someone to expect others to conform to their view, (i.e. communicating that gay people have psychological issues, and should live a life of abstinence while thinking straight thoughts in hope of being cured). You seem to be saying you disagree with me?

I then asked if it was improper for religious types to attach a morality judgment to this type of behavior from heterosexual males. Are they bigots if they do?

If they believe that their definition of morality should apply to other who disagree with it, then yes that is bigotry, pretty much by the book definition.

I then presented a logical sequitur (should the public, in this age of enlightenment, accept three people marrying?) which you, of course, glossed over.

I didn't gloss over it, I answered it honestly.
I'm not sure what the point of the question is either. I would assume, like bigamy, it is not legal.

Finally, I tried to explain why the religious types do what they do. I explained their belief that that a world with morality (however you define it) banished from the public square (leave it in your homes and speak about it in only in whispers) is untenable. To all this you feigned ignorance or lack of understanding. Whatever.

I didn't feign anything, you post was unintelligible.
If you are saying that religious people have a right to dictate what other people do because it conflicts with their idea of morality, I simply disagree.
My right to approve of what you do does not supercede your right to do what you feel is right (being within the law nothwithstanding). Of that I think there is no logical debate.

If you wish to discuss this you may try calming down a bit. No one is trying to trick you, or pretend to not understand you or avoid what you say. It should be obvious that I have no problem communicating my opinions on this topic, so you don't have to act so defensive and paranoid.

 

[Ring 6]

This thread has been about more than a dozen things now. The discussion between you and me was that discrimination is wrong, disagreement isn't. By now, you seem to agree, so we'll leave it at that.

And to leave no doubts to my stance whatsoever, you can read what I directly said to fnord in the previous page (not to a hypothetical gay friend).

I took your comments as trying to represent the other side of the argument, and responded to the appearance that you had watered it down.
Apparently I misunderstood.

 

[PP2]

I know I would feel uncomfortable showering next to an openly gay teammate.

Why? What do you think would happen?

 

[Miguel]

Going to move this thread out of the main forum since there is very little football talk going on.

 

[Boogs]

Why? What do you think would happen?

I don't think anything would happen. It just would be odd to me.

 

[simpletruth]

Wow. This thread is amazing. I am astounded so many people argued over the concept of natural/unnatural. As that is completely irrelevant. It has no bearing whatsoever on LGBT rights.

The perversion some have with any homosexual feeling the need to announce their sexuality is disturbing. The distorted view that heterosexuals don't announce theirs is intellectually dishonest.

I have long argued with my gay friends/acquaintances that the entire community being activists for LGBT rights has taken the wrong approach to the attainment of their rights.

Debating orientation/preference and natural/unnatural plays into the hands of the bigot as it lends credibility and relevance to their bigotry by giving any effort to convince them they are wrong. It suggests to the bigot that their stance matters. That the homosexual must be due to orientation and a natural state of being, for them to deserve the protection of the law and activists for their rights.

That is not the case. Choosing to be a homosexual as one prefers that sexual pleasure to heterosexual intercourse and even considering it all to be unnatural would STILL rise to the level of a protected class of citizen that is in need of activists fighting for equal rights.

A human being in America today, deserves equal protection under the law and the constitution. Lifestyle choices and preferences that bring no harm to society, community nor individual should be protected.

Feeling one's sensitive sensibilities are harmed is not a valid reason to require one to be protected from others they feel are cause of that harm. Moral, ethical, and religious beliefs do not rise to the level of cause to oppress, degrade, segregate, ostracize, and/or refuse housing/employment/commerce, to those that offend said beliefs.

American society is on the path to being secular as the founders wrote it to be, even though they were unable to attain their own vision.

Bigotry is fully allowed in our free society to exist as long is it is not cause to bring harm to those the bigot takes issue with. The path America is clearly on is one where the bigot will likely be the one being isolated in their view of the world and have many that show their own intolerance of the bigots beliefs. We are trending to bigots being the ones to feel the need to hide in the closet and not openly come out about who they really are.

I find that poetically ironic.

 

[mb6592]

Human sexuality is extraordinarily complex and exists on a wide spectrum. There's nothing wrong with anyone engaging in any sort of sexual act as long as both people consent and are capable of consenting. You chose an extremely poor example to make your argument, though, since sexual activity in prison is very often non-consensual.

And then you proceeded to a slippery slope argument, which is not a logical sequitur, but there would technically be nothing wrong with 3 people marrying other than it would require a rewrite of the entire tax and law system and would require that polygamy was gender-neutral and power-neutral (that is, it was not the radical Mormon polygamy with a single man exercising absolute power over a number of wives). Given that polygamy is quite common in the Bible (and monogamy was a concept more commonly associated with the Hellenic and Roman world), I'm not certain why religious people would condemn this.

And there's no current group of polygamists who are ostracized, bullied, or assaulted - with good reason, as it isn't an inherent part of identity, per se, so it's not an equivalent argument, and there are good reasons the public may not support this without it coming from a bigoted place - the fundamental differences in the tax and law system would be enough. Though I also think monogamy exists because it has evolutionary roots, as well, so I don't think either system is natural or unnatural (after all, both polygamy and monogamy have appeared separately in vastly different cultures across the globe).

As for the rest of the conversation, I think, in general, it's possible to internalize an opinion or feeling without having it externalized, but there's always the possibility - what happens when you're deciding whether to give a job to a transgendered individual, for instance? I'm not sure you can put this aside. It's certainly possible this never comes up, that you never interact with a trans person at all, but this is far less likely if your prejudice is against people of a different skin color or creed. I question people who don't want to overcome their feelings of discomfort or distaste for a group of people based on something about their identity that causes no harm to anyone.

This probably came across as rambling. For that I apologize.

You chose an extremely poor example to make your argument, though, since sexual activity in prison is very often non-consensual.

How the f--k do you know that most sexual activity in prison is non consensual? Where do you get your data from, the movies?

Other than it would require a rewrite of the entire tax system

So what? Isn't this a civil right we're talking about?

must be gender-neutral and power-neutral

Is that how most relationships are now? Or will this requirement only pertain to 3 person marriages?

All your BS aside this whole debate centers on you (and Andy & PP2 & others) insisting morality be stricken from the public square. Others feel society wouldn't survive the ensuing decadence. I know, I know. It's fun to live without morality. All kinds of sex can be fun, thrown in drugs, booze some hot trannies (I mean some of them put the women to shame, if only they could hide that bulge) and, ****, it's no wonder your side is winning the argument. The point is, we really don't know why we're here or what the f-ck we're suppose to be doing. If we're ultimately food for the worms, then you couldn't be more right - have at it - whatever your desires or proclivities. But others are more circumspect, scared, unsure... That you cannot tolerate them is your problem (is that how that works?).

 

[PP2]

Wow. This thread is amazing. I am astounded so many people argued over the concept of natural/unnatural. As that is completely irrelevant. It has no bearing whatsoever on LGBT rights.

The perversion some have with any homosexual feeling the need to announce their sexuality is disturbing. The distorted view that heterosexuals don't announce theirs is intellectually dishonest.

I have long argued with my gay friends/acquaintances that the entire community being activists for LGBT rights has taken the wrong approach to the attainment of their rights.

Debating orientation/preference and natural/unnatural plays into the hands of the bigot as it lends credibility and relevance to their bigotry by giving any effort to convince them they are wrong. It suggests to the bigot that their stance matters. That the homosexual must be due to orientation and a natural state of being, for them to deserve the protection of the law and activists for their rights.

That is not the case. Choosing to be a homosexual as one prefers that sexual pleasure to heterosexual intercourse and even considering it all to be unnatural would STILL rise to the level of a protected class of citizen that is in need of activists fighting for equal rights.

A human being in America today, deserves equal protection under the law and the constitution. Lifestyle choices and preferences that bring no harm to society, community nor individual should be protected.

Feeling one's sensitive sensibilities are harmed is not a valid reason to require one to be protected from others they feel are cause of that harm. Moral, ethical, and religious beliefs do not rise to the level of cause to oppress, degrade, segregate, ostracize, and/or refuse housing/employment/commerce, to those that offend said beliefs.

American society is on the path to being secular as the founders wrote it to be, even though they were unable to attain their own vision.

Bigotry is fully allowed in our free society to exist as long is it is not cause to bring harm to those the bigot takes issue with. The path America is clearly on is one where the bigot will likely be the one being isolated in their view of the world and have many that show their own intolerance of the bigots beliefs. We are trending to bigots being the ones to feel the need to hide in the closet and not openly come out about who they really are.

I find that poetically ironic.

Sorry that you came to the discussion pretty late. It's been banished to the subforums where it'll die a slow, painful death. We'll all move on to the next thing to argue about.

 

[PP2]

All your BS aside this whole debate centers on you (and Andy & PP2 & others) insisting morality be stricken from the public square. Others feel society wouldn't survive the ensuing decadence. I know, I know. It's fun to live without morality. All kinds of sex can be fun, thrown in drugs, booze some hot trannies (I mean some of them put the women to shame, if only they could hide that bulge) and, ****, it's no wonder your side is winning the argument. The point is, we really don't know why we're here or what the f-ck we're suppose to be doing. If we're ultimately food for the worms, then you couldn't be more right - have at it - whatever your desires or proclivities. But others are more circumspect, scared, unsure... That you cannot tolerate them is your problem (is that how that works?).

What does morality have to do with bigotry? I completely fail to follow your logic.

We are not discussing morality, only the simple act of respecting that people are just different, and even that doesn't give us the right to judge them. Like you said we're all food for the worms so why waste time with that?

 

[PP2]

I don't think anything would happen. It just would be odd to me.

You said it would be uncomfortable, now you're saying it's odd. It seems like you may not be sure of why.

I mean.. if you say nothing's gonna happen, then what are you afraid of?

 

[simpletruth]

Sorry that you came to the discussion pretty late. It's been banished to the subforums where it'll die a slow, painful death. We'll all move on to the next thing to argue about.

LOL

I realize I did, but oh well. It is when I was here. If no one sees my comment then that is as it is going to be. You did, so there is that.

Who knows who else will read it.

I have clarity on the issue, even more so than my homosexual friends. The truth of it is very simple.

The complexity of it is just the same as dealing with racists, it is born in their paradigm and objection and has nothing to do with what is right and protected by the founders constitution, declaration of independence and bill of rights.

 

[thenepatsrule]

Any reason the MODS haven't moved this thread to another sub-forum?

Thank you MODS!!!!!!!!!!!!