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

[PP2]

Yes that would be bad for a gay teammate to do. Him discussing his sex life will gross out a very large majority of his teammates.

How do you know that?

A very large majority of his teammates are not going to be bible-thumping squeaky-clean WASPs like you.

If we follow what seems to be the standard these days for NFL players, they would be the kind of players who have already broken laws, abused, raped, and impregnated women, take drugs, and drive drunk.

So I really doubt they would be grossed out.

If him discussing his sex life grosses you out, then you are playing the wrong sport. Football isn't a nice sport.

 

[Ring 6]

The only poor arguments I've read is from you. I'm pretty consistent with my point of same sex intercourse with our organs made for procreation is unnatural. It's not what nature intended. Simple concept that you fail to grasp.

Lets assume you are correct.
This would mean that the only sex your have is intercourse for the purpose of procreation and you find all other types of sex, such as oral sex, unnatural and do not partake?

 

[Nunchucks]

Lets assume you are correct.
This would mean that the only sex your have is intercourse for the purpose of procreation and you find all other types of sex, such as oral sex, unnatural and do not partake?

Every sperm is sacred

 

[BradyFTW!]

So your claim that you would compete alongside of him only includes if he acts straight.

How do you know it would gross out his teammates.
We all understand that you find gay sex unappealing. So do I.
I am not sure why you feel threatened about other people not feeling that way.

The really weird thing is that we have a test case for this. All of his teammates knew that he was gay this past season, and they didn't care. Just like John Amaechi's teammates in the NBA didn't care when they all knew that he was gay. We have a lot of players not caring that their teammates are gay at the collegiate/professional, and no precedent that I'm aware of to the contrary.

 

[Ring 6]

The only poor arguments I've read is from you. I'm pretty consistent with my point of same sex intercourse with our organs made for procreation is unnatural. It's not what nature intended. Simple concept that you fail to grasp.

How do you explain that some straight women enjoy anal sex. Are they unnatural because of what they like to do with the opposite sex that they are attracted to?

 

[PP2]

The only poor arguments I've read is from you. I'm pretty consistent with my point of same sex intercourse with our organs made for procreation is unnatural. It's not what nature intended. Simple concept that you fail to grasp.

Did you ever graduate kindergarten?

It's only unnatural because it's not what nature intended?

If we follow that flawed logic, then we must also assume cars are unnatural because nature did not intend cars to be made. Cars are man-made.

Cars are destructive to nature, but they are okay by you, even though they must be "unnatural" by your definition.

Why can't you understand this very simple statement?

 

[Ring 6]

Every sperm is sacred

LOL, you made me think of Monty Python.

 

[PP2]

The really weird thing is that we have a test case for this. All of his teammates knew that he was gay this past season, and they didn't care. Just like John Amaechi's teammates in the NBA didn't care when they all knew that he was gay. We have a lot of players not caring that their teammates are gay at the collegiate/professional, and no precedent that I'm aware of to the contrary.

Oops.. that would disqualify booger's claim that "his teammates would be grossed out." Better not tell him, we don't want him to feel let down.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Oops.. that would disqualify booger's claim that "his teammates would be grossed out." Better not tell him, we don't want him to feel let down.

After reading the text exchanges between Jonathan Martin and Richie Incognito, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that these guys are pretty tough to gross out. I find reading about Jonathan Martin's chocolate pudding ****s grosser than even a vivid description of homosexual sex.

 

[PP2]

Lets assume you are correct.
This would mean that the only sex your have is intercourse for the purpose of procreation and you find all other types of sex, such as oral sex, unnatural and do not partake?

He probably only partakes in one aspect that is very unnatural, according to his definition that sex must only be associated with procreation.

 

[PP2]

How do you explain that some straight women enjoy anal sex. Are they unnatural because of what they like to do with the opposite sex that they are attracted to?

A good number of straight men have done the same.

This therefore make them "unnatural."

 

[Bella*chick]

The only poor arguments I've read is from you. I'm pretty consistent with my point of same sex intercourse with our organs made for procreation is unnatural. It's not what nature intended. Simple concept that you fail to grasp.

LOL, dude. You must SUCK in bed.

I can only imagine being married to you. NO UNNATURAL SEX ALLOWED. PROCREATION ONLY.

 

[Joker]

LOL, dude. You must SUCK in bed.

I can only imagine being married to you. NO UNNATURAL SEX ALLOWED. PROCREATION ONLY.

I'm willing to experiment.....

 

[fake punt]

LOL, dude. You must SUCK in bed.

I know, right?

Condon: Shall we engage in sexual intercourse?

Chick: <bending over and pulling up her skirt> Come and get it handsome.

Condon:

 

[PP2]

Why would you feel that what you think the point is would be the only thing that is relevant?

I feel that the underlying bigotry is the issue, and that is materializes as anti-gay.
You seem to think that it is limited to that.
Fine, but your view does not make my opinion IRRELEVANT and what you think the subject of the thread is does not mean everyone thinks that.
Feel free to discuss the topic as you see fit, but do not tell me what is relevant.

Like I said, I do not disagree with what you have said.

I never said your opinion was irrelevant.

I am only pointing out that the topic of this thread is bigotry as it applies to gay people, not bigotry as it applies to people in general. The two are no doubt related, but we are only discussing one of them.

 

[Bella*chick]

I'm willing to experiment.....

I could have guessed that about you. But then you have always been one of the very best things about this board.

Know what's funny? So many of these "It's unnatural" guys going around, so concerned about all that non-procreation butt action (I'm assuming man on woman anal action is a problem for these dudes because there is no chance of a fecal child) yet ironically they are all walking around with huge sticks up their asses and don't even realize it.

What would Freud say?

 

[Ring 6]

LOL, dude. You must SUCK in bed.

I can only imagine being married to you. NO UNNATURAL SEX ALLOWED. PROCREATION ONLY.

Anxiously anticipating the obligatory macho heman reply. opcorn:

 

[Ring 6]

Like I said, I do not disagree with what you have said.

I never said your opinion was irrelevant.

I am only pointing out that the topic of this thread is bigotry as it applies to gay people, not bigotry as it applies to people in general. The two are no doubt related, but we are only discussing one of them.

You have a very liberal use of 'we'.

And you did say it was irrelevant, thats how this part of the discussion started.

 

[Ring 6]

A good number of straight men have done the same.

This therefore make them "unnatural."

I used women in my example because their obvious response to yours would be that they are secretly homos.

 

[PP2]

I used women in my example because their obvious response to yours would be that they are secretly homos.

Interesting that they would see it that way.

It would then appear that they see homos everywhere.

That in itself is very revealing.