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

[PATS16N0]

How are things in the 1950's?

Low crime rates, stable families, economic prosperity.
Not bad.

Nice response, though. I'm sure you couldn't do any better.

 

[resdubwhite]

Low crime rates, stable families, economic prosperity.
Not bad.

Nice response, though. I'm sure you couldn't do any better.

I could call you a bigot!

 

[PATS16N0]

I could call you a bigot!

And I'd lose endless amounts of sleep over it.

 

[resdubwhite]

And I'd lose endless amounts of sleep over it.

Just so I have this clear. Because he's gay. You don't want him here. No matter how good he is.

Is that what you are saying in your first comment?

 

[Sicilian]

stable families

Where the women-folk stayed in the kitchen like they belong, and black fellas stayed away from our women! AMIRITE!?

 

[PATS16N0]

Just so I have this clear. Because he's gay. You don't want him here. No matter how good he is.

Is that what you are saying in your first comment?

I don't want his activism here.
Edelman might be gay but we don't know anything about it because he doesn't advocate for his sexual preferences in a public forum.

 

[resdubwhite]

I don't want his activism here.
Edelman might be gay but we don't know anything about it because he doesn't advocate for his sexual preferences in a public forum.

Whats wrong with Gay activism? And I can assure you, if he becomes a patriot he lives by one rule. The Patriot way.
THe chance of a sideshow are minimal at best.

 

[Elijah T.]

I don't want his activism here.
Edelman might be gay but we don't know anything about it because he doesn't advocate for his sexual preferences in a public forum.

Edelman's gay??

 

[Jackson 2]

Edelman's gay??

Isn't everyone over 21 who isn't yet married?

 

[Jackson 2]

I don't want his activism here.
Edelman might be gay but we don't know anything about it because he doesn't advocate for his sexual preferences in a public forum.

Wrong. Do a little research and you'll find ample evidence that Edelman indeed has advocated for his sexual preferences in public in the company of "hot" women (lucky SOB, by the way.) But that's. OK, right? PS. And, no, I'm not referring to the bogus groping charge from a couple of years ago.

 

[Shockt327]

How are things in the 1950's?

Low crime rates, stable families, economic prosperity.
Not bad.

Nice response, though. I'm sure you couldn't do any better.

Hey, the 50s are also "not bad" because you can hang black people from a tree if they don't mind their own business and no one will bat an eye-lash. Guess we should start doing the same thing with these queers, too!

 

[Kontradiction]

Hey, the 50s are also "not bad" because you can hang black people from a tree if they don't mind their own business and no one will bat an eye-lash. Guess we should start doing the same thing with these queers, too!

The hell does that have to do with anything in this thread? In what way is that even remotely relevant? This is an example of a huge problem in this country right now. Nobody knows how to debate political issues. Prime example right here.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I don't want his activism here.
Edelman might be gay but we don't know anything about it because he doesn't advocate for his sexual preferences in a public forum.

What, in your book, constitutes "advocating for his sexual preferences in a public forum"? Because if publicly stating that he's gay because he knows the story is going to get out anyway fits the bill, then the word that you're looking for to describe you is homophobic.

 

[Kontradiction]

Wrong. Do a little research and you'll find ample evidence that Edelman indeed has advocated for his sexual preferences in public in the company of "hot" women (lucky SOB, by the way.) But that's. OK, right? PS. And, no, I'm not referring to the bogus groping charge from a couple of years ago.

My basic opinion on this is I'm okay with anyone's sexual preference. If Michael Sam is gay, cool. Good for him. I don't think it should stop him from getting the kind of job that he wants in the future (which is, apparently, professional football). But, while I'm okay with it, I don't think it's natural at all. So in the light of Edelman advocating his sexual preference for "hot" women in public, most will look at that and not bat an eyelash because it's more natural for a man to have a sexual desire toward a woman than it is for a man to have a sexual desire toward another man. Hope that made sense. If not, let me know. It's been one long day.

 

[Jackson 2]

The hell does that have to do with anything in this thread? In what way is that even remotely relevant? This is an example of a huge problem in this country right now. Nobody knows how to debate political issues. Prime example right here.

Want a prime example? Go to post #19.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Low crime rates, stable families, economic prosperity.
Not bad.

Nice response, though. I'm sure you couldn't do any better.

Crime rates are lower now than they were in the 1950s. Economic productivity is way up today too; the difference is that the rest of the developed world is no longer a bombed out, post-war hellhole. More humans live outside of poverty, by percentage, than at any other time in human history. By any objective, global measure, we're living in an economic golden age.

So to clarify your point, the 1950s were great if you were a white, heterosexual, American man. Since you're a bigot and all, it stands to reason that you don't care that it was a pretty ****ty time for everyone else, but that doesn't make it any less true.

 

[patchick]

I don't want his activism here.

FYI, Sam has specifically said that he does NOT want to be an activist, that's not his personality or priority, he just wants to play football. (Deciding to tell your own story before others attempt to tell it for you is not "activism.")

Next objection?

 

[BradyFTW!]

FYI, Sam has specifically said that he does NOT want to be an activist, that's not his personality or priority, he just wants to play football. (Deciding to tell your own story before others attempt to tell it for you is not "activism.")

Next objection?

"I don't want his activism" and "I don't want him being an influence to children" are just statements that homophobic people use because they know it's no longer acceptable to say "I don't like how people are allowed to be openly gay".

 

[PATS16N0]

Crime rates are lower now than they were in the 1950s. As for the rest, the 1950s were great if you were a white, heterosexual, American man. Since you're a bigot and all, it stands to reason that you probably don't care that it was a pretty ****ty time for everyone else, but the fact still remains that that's the case.

So you hate America up until the 1960's?

 

[PATS16N0]

"I don't want his activism" and "I don't want him being an influence to children" are just statements that homophobic people use because they know it's no longer acceptable to say "I don't like how people are allowed to be openly gay".

For the record, I don't care if people call me a "homophobe." If that's the term you want to use, have at it.

It isn't going to frighten me into adopting your belief system.