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

[PP2]

Well, boo-*******-hoo.
Words aren't oppressive. If you think they are, you're just overly sensitive and weak.

If you think everyone thinks certain words aren't oppressive, then why don't you go out and open your mouth at the first person you see and see where that gets you. Most likely the hospital.

More flimsy attempts to connect the `plight` of homosexuality with blacks.
Hilarious.

Just pointing out how similar your stance is to Jim Crow. It's eerie.

History is more complex than what can be crammed into a 30 minute History Channel special. Before you tell me I flunk history, you should try reading a few books instead of relying on television programs before claiming any expertise. I said it was an ingredient, which it was, and you tell me I am wrong and come back at me with the Treaty of Versailles (Weimar Republic 101) like you're some sort of historical genius that has to correct me.

Thanks, Professor. Were they having employment problems too or did you not get to "the simpleton's guide to German history part II" yet?

So they needed power BEFORE they could pass laws?
More historical brilliance. Where can I attend your DVD signing?

Who says I watch TV much less the history channel? Seems to me that's what you do. It must be such a struggle to sit for 30 minutes.

You did not say "ingredient," you said "main ingredient" which to me means a major component of the fall of the Weimar Republic, which is completely fictional.

The fall of the Weimar Republic was a completely political maneuver. It had nothing to do with anti-pornographic, anti-gay issues as you claim. All that came much later. In fact, Hitler's first move after coming to the chancellorship was to ruthlessly abolish his political opponents, including left-wing communists

Then he used the Reichstag Fire Decree to speed the consolidation of power for the Nazi Party, and terrorize millions of Germans through revoking their natural rights.

 

[Kontradiction]

I completely fail to understand the relationship between a grieving mother and a gay person thinking about what is "natural" and "unnatural." One is hysterical and overcome by emotion, and dealing with a traumatic loss, I doubt the other is.

They both have the same inability to think critically about something so personal to them.

You are assuming that gay people are not as capable as you are of engaging in critical thinking.

They may be, but it would be extremely difficult. Any personal matter that effects someone is difficult to think critically on. But, in response to your question, I would be right simply because of the ability to think critically while I doubt you would get many homosexual men and women that would readily admit, even after thinking about it, that the attraction they have to the same sex is unnatural.

Example: anything pertaining to the Patriots is much more of a personal matter to you than anything pertaining to the Titans. This does not mean any Titan fan is more right than you are about the Patriots just because anything Patriots isn't a personal matter to Titan fans.

Actually, this example plays right into my hands when you look around this forum and see how ridiculous some people sound and how many generally aren't able to think critically about the team they love so much.

Also, following your allegory, Jim Crow is therefore capable of critical thinking and thereby of sound judgment when he assigned segregation to black people, because being black is not a "personal matter" to him as it is to them, in that race/racism is a very sensitive and emotional issue to them, as it is to you.

Crow had a notorious hate for African Americans. So this is a horrible example that you probably should have thought through before posting. The issue was, indeed, very personal to him.

And since race is not a personal matter to me, by your definition, that makes me more right than you are when it comes to race issues since "I'm more capable of critical thinking."

Did I misread this, or are you now calling me a racist? Otherwise, what place does this have in the debate at hand?

 

[Uncle Meat]

Accepting the inevitability of death is fine and healthy. Humans can still find a way to transcend death.

No they can't.

For argument's sake, lets just assume that humans found a way to cure sickness and disease, also halting the aging process. Great, now I'm bored after 500 years, but that's beside the point. You aren't going to live forever without stepping in front of a bus at some point, or something similar. The body will always be vulnerable to blunt-force trauma. Also, if technology (or whatever miracle we are talking about) advanced that far, you gotta figure the doomsday device can also be created...just one button they press and it's good-night. That would just take one nut-case.

As far as uploading my consciousness onto a computer, please kill me right now instead. If we're talking about different planes of existence, let's just stop it.

 

[Kontradiction]

Not being passive aggressive. Just saying the analogy is stupid.

You are just stereotyping everybody in it in cartoonish ways.

In what ways did I stereotype gays and grieving mothers?

First of all, you hear all the time about people struggling with their homosexuality, feeling that there is something wrong with them...that could go on for years. They won't come out of the closet or even admit it to themselves right away usually, or so I imagine. Lots of people hide it, deny it, and even hate themselves for it. Some commit suicide. They fear the reaction from their friends, family, and society in general. That's not uncommon. All that time, they are thinking about it more critically than any straight person ever could, especially if they don't WANT to be gay 'cuz *******s won't like them anymore if they are.

Thinking critically about coming out of the closet is one thing, and is not what we have been discussing. But the specific question that was asked to me was whether or not I'm more capable of deciding if their lifestyle is unnatural than they are. Of course they don't want to think their lifestyle is unnatural and more than likely won't readily admit it. It was a faulty question to ask from the get go since one not effected personally by an issue one way or another is more apt to give a true answer than someone that is.

Are you saying that they are not capable of rational thought?

Now you're tossing out a red herring. I never said that.

Of course they consider whether their "lifestyle" is unnatural. That message has been broadcast to them for years all over the place, and that's why this very thread is happening. I'm positive that tons of gay people struggled with the question of whether or not being gay is unnatural before they can even admit that they are gay in the first place. Then they further ponder the issue before telling their mom and dad. There is a stigma placed on it.

A traumatized mother is completely different. Not all of them will be irrationally out for blood because of an accident. Maybe a lot of them will for a little bit before they could calm down and understand what happened, but the initial reaction would based on pure emotion of a sudden tragic event. She is in intense crisis. She would reflect on it later, and maybe still hate the person that killed her child...hopefully not. I doubt that she'd invite that person over for Thanksgiving dinner, though.

You've all but made my point for me. Gays would think and react on emotion to that question. Not the same emotion, mind you. But emotion nonetheless.

 

[Nunchucks]

No they can't.

For argument's sake, lets just assume that humans found a way to cure sickness and disease, also halting the aging process. Great, now I'm bored after 500 years, but that's beside the point. You aren't going to live forever without stepping in front of a bus at some point, or something similar. The body will always be vulnerable to blunt-force trauma. Also, if technology (or whatever miracle we are talking about) advanced that far, you gotta figure the doomsday device can also be created...just one button they press and it's good-night. That would just take one nut-case.

As far as uploading my consciousness onto a computer, please kill me right now instead. If we're talking about different planes of existence, let's just stop it.

Well, if you choose death, that is your own issue. All things being equal, I would say it is quite probable that medical science can keep our bodies from failing us....then it becomes a matter of choice or accident...

 

[PATS16N0]

If you think everyone thinks certain words aren't oppressive, then why don't you go out and open your mouth at the first person you see and see where that gets you. Most likely the hospital.

Oppressive and offensive is not the same thing. You're offensive.

You're not oppressive.

You don't have the right to not be offended. So sorry.

Just pointing out how similar your stance is to Jim Crow. It's eerie.

No, you're just doing what your.... variety of people do.

Who says I watch TV much less the history channel? Seems to me that's what you do. It must be such a struggle to sit for 30 minutes.

You did not say "ingredient," you said "main ingredient" which to me means a major component of the fall of the Weimar Republic, which is completely fictional.

The fall of the Weimar Republic was a completely political maneuver. It had nothing to do with anti-pornographic, anti-gay issues as you claim. All that came much later. In fact, Hitler's first move after coming to the chancellorship was to ruthlessly abolish his political opponents, including left-wing communists

Then he used the Reichstag Fire Decree to speed the consolidation of power for the Nazi Party, and terrorize millions of Germans through revoking their natural rights.

*slow clap*

 

[Nunchucks]

Words can certainly be used to oppress people. By ridiculing a person's core beliefs, you can make them feel small and insignificant. Then by calling them weak for allowing your words to affect their emotional state, you continue to demean them as a person.

This can have seriously damaging affects on a persons psyche. A perfectly normal and productive person destroyed because of your callous verbal treatment.

How wonderful, and all because they are weak minded. Maybe they deserve it.

Heck, people often kill themselves because of words....yeah, awesome point you have.

What do you suggest we do with all these worthless weak minded people?

 

[Uncle Meat]

In what ways did I stereotype gays and grieving mothers?

Thinking critically about coming out of the closet is one thing, and is not what we have been discussing. But the specific question that was asked to me was whether or not I'm more capable of deciding if their lifestyle is unnatural than they are. Of course they don't want to think their lifestyle is unnatural and more than likely won't readily admit it. It was a faulty question to ask from the get go since one not effected personally by an issue one way or another is more apt to give a true answer than someone that is.

Now you're tossing out a red herring. I never said that.

You've all but made my point for me. Gays would think and react on emotion to that question. Not the same emotion, mind you. But emotion nonetheless.

Your logic does not add up.

Perhaps you are just biased, not just in a better position to make a moral judgment because you can "see the forest from the trees" or something, if that's what you believe. And if you are biased, maybe I'M in a better position to judge your bias than you are because you are just so damned close to it, and that may make affect your conclusions.

See how that works? The reason you are being biased, and I know it but you don't is because "one not effected personally by an issue one way or another is more apt to give a true answer than someone that is." All neat and tied up in bow. Try that on for size.

Whatever happened to "to each his own?" No pun intended.

You act like there is actually a correct answer whether homosexuality is "unnatural." There isn't. All there is is you making a judgment...what do you base that judgment on is the question. Why are you making it is another question. I'm not gay either, but I seem to reach a different conclusion than you. Why is THAT?

All you are doing is rationalizing why you discriminate against people that think differently than you. Am I wrong? I don't think so, because you are like a woman whose child was killed in an accident. There is no one correct way to think, fella.

And your analogy is STILL stupid.

There is no way in hell that the "budding" homosexual doesn't think these things through, and they aren't "worse at it" than you are.

 

[Ring 6]

Your logic does not add up.

Perhaps you are just biased, not just in a better position to make a moral judgment because you can "see the forest from the trees" or something, if that's what you believe. And if you are biased, maybe I'M in a better position to judge your bias than you are because you are just so damned close to it, and that may make affect your conclusions.

See how that works? The reason you are being biased, and I know it but you don't is because "one not effected personally by an issue one way or another is more apt to give a true answer than someone that is." All neat and tied up in bow. Try that on for size.

Whatever happened to "to each his own?" No pun intended.

You act like there is actually a correct answer whether homosexuality is "unnatural." There isn't. All there is is you making a judgment...what do you base that judgment on is the question. Why are you making it is another question. I'm not gay either, but I seem to reach a different conclusion than you. Why is THAT?

All you are doing is rationalizing why you discriminate against people that think differently than you. Am I wrong? I don't think so, because you are like a woman whose child was killed in an accident. There is no one correct way to think, fella.

And your analogy is STILL stupid.

There is no way in hell that the "budding" homosexual doesn't think these things through, and they aren't "worse at it" than you are.

The very idea that someone cannot be objective about themselves is ridiculous.
The argument that gay people are abnormal (prone in unnatural acts) but can't admit it because they are gay is idiotic.

 

[BradyFTW!]

They both have the same inability to think critically about something so personal to them.

They may be, but it would be extremely difficult. Any personal matter that effects someone is difficult to think critically on. But, in response to your question, I would be right simply because of the ability to think critically while I doubt you would get many homosexual men and women that would readily admit, even after thinking about it, that the attraction they have to the same sex is unnatural.

That's ridiculous. So gay people are unable to have a valid opinion on homosexuality because it personally affects them? Are you willing to maintain that same position as it applies to you?

If a Jets fan comes in here and says that Belichick and Brady both suck, are we unable to give a valid critical response because, as Patriots fans, we're unable to think critically about something so personal to us?

If Andrea Dworkin manages to drag her bloated carcass out of the grave long enough to make an account here and declare that all men are rapists, is your response automatically invalidated because, as a man, this is too personal for you to think critically on the matter?

Of course not. Suggesting otherwise is asinine.

For the record, Andy has already made it pretty clear that he's heterosexual. I am too, and I'm willing to bet that most people on this thread arguing that homosexuality is natural are, as well. We're able to be every bit as objective about this as you are.

 

[Kontradiction]

Homosexuals could procreate if they chose to have unprotected sex with members of the opposite sex. But they don't do that. Instead, they engage in different sexual behaviors that more or less preclude reproduction.

That's just the thing. A homosexual man or woman is not going to engage in unprotected sex with members of the opposite sex because there is no attraction there. Since one of the primary functions of sex is for procreation purposes (and I understand we're the only species that does it for fun), that's exactly what makes their sexual attraction and lifestyle so unnatural.

Similarly, I could procreate if I chose to have unprotected sex with members of the opposite sex. But I don't do that. Instead, I engage in different sexual behaviors (protected sex) that more or less preclude reproduction.

So what's the difference? If you're using reproduction as the benchmark, then they're no more unnatural than I am.

Sure it is. You're protecting yourself because of two reasons:

1. To ensure unplanned child birth does not happen.

2. To protect yourself against disease.

In that light, you're still attracted to members of the opposite sex. The reason that you're attracted to them is because of your natural genetic makeup. You're capable of procreating with them if you so wish, but you don't do it for those two reasons above. That's not unnatural. Being attracted to a member of the same sex is for a number of reasons, with the inability to reproduce being the biggest of them.

And again, if someone has a genetic mutation that renders them unable to reproduce, does that make them unnatural? Most XXY women cannot bear children, but some can. Is your position that the ones that can't bear children are unnatural, while the ones that can bear children are natural?

Because if your position is that homosexuality is unnatural in the same way that protected sex is unnatural and some (but not all) XXY mutations are unnatural, then I'll agree while also pointing out that the term has been rendered completely meaningless.

Since reproduction is intended by nature as a means to ensure that a species lives on and exists, wouldn't you agree that the inability to reproduce is, in and of itself, unnatural?

So I guess you're switching to the "not man-made" definition of natural. Well, homosexuality isn't man-made either. Homosexuality exists in lots of other species.

No, I'm not. I'm going with the definition that you provided and I expanded on. Artifacts were just used to point out that just because something exists in nature doesn't mean that it's natural. Same with an apex predator not having any natural enemies yet still being killed by species further down the food chain. Much like homosexuality, these examples are merely exceptions to the rule. They occur, yes. But because they occur does not make them natural.

So the difference between you and Bo Jackson is purely one of conditioning? That's an interesting position.

If you're trying to get me to admit that it's just a difference in genetics, there is no evidence of that. Look up the research of Yannis Pitsiladis in a study about Jamaican sprinters. Conditioning is only one of many reasons of the difference between myself and Bo Jackson. How this is at all relevant to the discussion of whether homosexuality is unnatural is beyond me.

 

[BradyFTW!]

That's just the thing. A homosexual man or woman is not going to engage in unprotected sex with members of the opposite sex because there is no attraction there. Since one of the primary functions of sex is for procreation purposes (and I understand we're the only species that does it for fun), that's exactly what makes their sexual attraction and lifestyle so unnatural.

I'm not going to engage in unprotexted sex with members of the opposite sex either. In order for that to change, I would have to change my sexual lifestyle. Yes, I'm capable of doing that. Gay people are capable of doing that too. Does that make my lifestyle unnatural?

I also enjoy getting blowjobs from women. Is that unnatural?

And no, humans are far from the only species that has sex for fun. For further reading, start here:

Bonobo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sure it is. You're protecting yourself because of two reasons:

1. To ensure unplanned child birth does not happen.

2. To protect yourself against disease.

I don't care about diseases. I'm in a committed relationship and we're both clean. I just don't want to have children.

In that light, you're still attracted to members of the opposite sex. The reason that you're attracted to them is because of your natural genetic makeup.

Citation needed. At the very least, you're going to have to give some indication that this is more true for straight people than it is for gay people's attraction to members of their own sex.

You're capable of procreating with them if you so wish, but you don't do it for those two reasons above. That's not unnatural. Being attracted to a member of the same sex is for a number of reasons, with the inability to reproduce being the biggest of them.

Please list those reasons. And again, if being attracted to someone that is unable to reproduce with you is unnatural, then clearly attraction to barren or post-menopausal women is unnatural too, yes? If I know that a woman cannot bear my child, and I still want to have sex with her, then my attraction to her is unnatural by your definition.

Since reproduction is intended by nature as a means to ensure that a species lives on and exists, wouldn't you agree that the inability to reproduce is, in and of itself, unnatural?

No, I wouldn't. There's a great deal of evidence in nature showing that there there are a ton of different strategies for furthering your own genetic line, and many of them not only don't require that you reproduce, but in fact demand self-sacrifice, which precludes you from reproducing.

Adoption is a very real phenomenon, that occurs both in the wild and in human civilization. It is a huge investment of scarce resources, and it does not facilitate the passing on of the parent's genes. Is adoption unnatural?

If you really believe the above quoted point, then you must think that anyone who has chosen not to reproduce is making a biologically unnatural lifestyle choice. In which case, again, the term has no meaning.

No, I'm not. I'm going with the definition that you provided and I expanded on. Artifacts were just used to point out that just because something exists in nature doesn't mean that it's natural. Same with an apex predator not having any natural enemies yet still being killed by species further down the food chain.

Apex predators are killed all the time in the wild, with or without human intervention. Are you now claiming that it's unnatural anytime an apex predator is killed by another animal? I guess that makes it unnatural when a lion sustains mortal injuries while hunting (which happens quite often)?

I also find it weird that you think humans killing animals that would otherwise kill them is "unnatural". If killing your predators in self-defense is unnatural, then what's the point of even making the distinction?

You seem to think that 'the wild' is a highly structured place where all creatures adhere to very specific roles and act only out of clear biological imperatives. If that's the case, I'd suggest you expose yourself more to the wild. Specifically, I'd suggest you look into some of the findings that Jane Goodall and company have made from studying wild chimpanzee communities for the better part of a century. As it turns out, nature is wild, and is pretty much chaotic, in a way that you don't seem to have accepted. A lot of the crazy **** that humans do that you'd probably claim is 'unnatural' predates human existence.

Much like homosexuality, these examples are merely exceptions to the rule. They occur, yes. But because they occur does not make them natural.

What rule?

 

[Uncle Meat]

The very idea that someone cannot be objective about themselves is ridiculous.
The argument that gay people are abnormal (prone in unnatural acts) but can't admit it because they are gay is idiotic.

Kontradiction is aptly named.

Perhaps he feels the need to ask other people what he should think or believe every time he has an intensely personal issue in his life because he knows he's can't trust his own thought process. Not just ask for advice, either....just that the other guy must be flat-out right because it's not him.

Somehow, I don't think that he does that.

 

[PP2]

They both have the same inability to think critically about something so personal to them.

Again, what makes you qualified to judge that?

Also, it's a poor allegory- do you really expect gay people to act like grieving mothers?

They may be, but it would be extremely difficult. Any personal matter that effects someone is difficult to think critically on. But, in response to your question, I would be right simply because of the ability to think critically while I doubt you would get many homosexual men and women that would readily admit, even after thinking about it, that the attraction they have to the same sex is unnatural.

Again you are making a broad assumption.

How would you know gay people feel that their attractions are unnatural? Did you ask them?

What qualifies you to make such a culture-centric judgment?

Actually, this example plays right into my hands when you look around this forum and see how ridiculous some people sound and how many generally aren't able to think critically about the team they love so much.

Really? Would you consider yourself to be one of those individuals? I didn't think so. Also you are discounting the ability of people to be both emotional and critical thinkers, at different time. Every healthy person has a wide range of emotions. Is it not possible for critical thinkers to be emotional at times, and emotional people to engage in critical thinking?

Sure there are fans who lose their heads in the game threads and jump off cliffs, but that isn't representative of the majority of the posters in this forum, a lot of who don't chose to post in the game threads because of that.

Crow had a notorious hate for African Americans. So this is a horrible example that you probably should have thought through before posting. The issue was, indeed, very personal to him.

Not so. The issue only became personal to Jim Crow when the blacks rose against him, and "broke his laws and rules." As long as there were no dissentients, Jim Crow was happy and tolerant.

Did I misread this, or are you now calling me a racist? Otherwise, what place does this have in the debate at hand?

I am applying your perverted philosophy that "thinking critically" gives you the right to judge what is "natural" and what is "unnatural" to Jim Crow, to show that if your philosophy were to make sense, then Jim Crow had the right to consider blacks "unnatural" to the point that they could not share the same bathroom as he did, because he was engaged in critical thinking in that he believed segregation was natural and appropriate, and so was not upset by it. And since blacks considered segregation a personal matter, that means, according to you, that anyone who can think critically, has the right to pass judgment on them.

 

[PP2]

Oppressive and offensive is not the same thing. You're offensive.

You're not oppressive.

You don't have the right to not be offended. So sorry.

No, you're just doing what your.... variety of people do.

*slow clap*

Really? That the best you can do?

 

[BradyFTW!]

Really? That the best you can do?

He can also post page after page of borderline naked guys to prove how straight he is, while maintaining that he's totally right because Elrond and Darth Vader say so.

 

[PATS16N0]

He can also post page after page of borderline naked guys to prove how straight he is, while maintaining that he's totally right because Elrond and Darth Vader say so.

This is a funny post! I laughed.

I invoked fictional, as well as historical characters, simply to demonstrate the type of people and personalities that your fantasy-society is not compatible with. Serious people cannot tolerate outright depravity in their city streets in that manner.

If we want to allow that, let no American ever pass moral judgement on a man like Caligula, because we've revealed ourselves to be the same.

This is the unspoken truth of your fantasy-ideology and the core of why I will always oppose your vision for "civilization" (the destruction of civilization as I see it).

I am not Caligula.

I have something called self-discipline and self-respect.

Natural. Unnatural. Psychological. The rest is all just details.

 

[BradyFTW!]

This is a funny post! I laughed.

I invoked fictional, as well as historical characters, simply to demonstrate the type of people and personalities that your fantasy-society is not compatible with. Serious people cannot tolerate outright depravity in their city streets in that manner.

If we want to allow that, let no American ever pass moral judgement on a man like Caligula, because we've revealed ourselves to be the same.

This is the unspoken truth of your fantasy-ideology and the core of why I will always oppose your vision for "civilization" (the destruction of civilization as I see it).

I am not Caligula.

I have something called self-discipline and self-respect.

Natural. Unnatural. Psychological. The rest is all just details.

You brave, brave man.

Seriously, though, if you want to talk about natural, it's not natural for a straight man to be so obsessed with hating homosexuality. Your obsession betrays you, and for you sake I hope that you one day learn not to hate yourself for the urges that you so obviously have. All the projection in the world won't help you learn to accept yourself.

 

[PATS16N0]

You brave, brave man.

Seriously, though, if you want to talk about natural, it's not natural for a straight man to be so obsessed with hating homosexuality. Your obsession betrays you, and for you sake I hope that you one day learn not to hate yourself for the urges that you so obviously have. All the projection in the world won't help you learn to accept yourself.

You're just inventing things. You're adding to my posts things that aren't actually there with sentences like "for a straight man to be so obsessed with hating homosexuals."

You're just not that clever a propagandist so it isn't effective.

I said earlier in the thread that your ilk are often dishonest in the way you represent things, and you just keep following that cliche.

 

[BradyFTW!]

You're just inventing things. You're adding to my posts things that aren't actually there with sentences like "for a straight man to be so obsessed with hating homosexuals."

I said earlier in the thread that your ilk are often dishonest in the way you represent things, and you just keep following that cliche.

Just a hunch, I freely admit that I could be wrong. I doubt it, though. I bet that you'd be right at home on this list:

Top 10 Anti-Gay Politicians Caught Being Gay: Anti-Gay Activists Out of The Closet