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

[supafly]

Former Missouri defensive player and now NFL DROY Sheldon Richardson sticks up for then-roommate Michael Sam, and says that he's all business on the field as a "killer."

Unfortunately, Sam's own father has horrible things to say about his son's coming out, including the thought that HOF defensive player Deacon Jones is "turning over in his grave" at the thought of having an openly gay player in the league.

Sam?s father struggles with his son?s revelation | ProFootballTalk

 

[PATS16N0]

I'm not going to patronize anybody posting in this thread but I think if one uses a historical lense and investigates the many empires and societies over the past few thousand years, you'll find societies where homosexuality is considered the choice of the upperclass and educated castes and conversely societies wherein homosexuality is brutally dealt with and forced underground.

Consider Alexander the Great and Macedonia. He had many wives including queens of conquered lands but his lover was a man he grew up with, Hephaestion.

The great Greeks of Socrates and Aristotle et al were known for their young boyfriends and open homosexuality.

The Romans Patricians were famous for boy and girl love along with mixed orgiastic sexual lifestyles.

The Dark Ages and the rise of the provincial Christian based governments marked a drastic rise in intolerance not only for homosexuals but just about anyone or anything NOT conforming to the rigid liturgy of the time.

It's all relative. The fact remains that homosexuality is as much a facet of human existence as blond hair or black hair, blue eyes or brown. It is my opinion that our country is saturated with NIMBY syndrome and this leads to these virulent conflicts over something that essentially is not going to change, nor should it, as long as there are human beings on this planet.

I agree with most of your post and any point of contention on my part would be nitpicking, but I think everything you've said should be taken as a warning to the seemingly unhinged American left.

I can think of no society that ever dropped the hammer on quiet homosexuality, and homosexuals had it relatively good in this country 15 years ago. Yes, people used (and continue to use) "***" as insulting slang, and they call people and things they don't like "gay," but contrary to the delusions of the diversity-police, this is not oppression.

Now they're pushing the envelope. Gay this, gay that, gay sitcoms, gay athletes, gay "rights" (an intellectual absurdity), gay marriage.

A significant segment of America's homosexual population wants to demand acceptance from the majority while simultaneously acting in a way that is unacceptable - a way they know is unacceptable.

It's antagonistic.

Mark my words, eventually people are going to push back.

Maybe it'll take an economic calamity, maybe it'll take whatever, but it is going to happen, and when the pendulum swings, the "we're like slaves" crowd amid the homosexual community will probably look back and think 1995 America wasn't as horribly oppressive as their political performances made it out to be.

One of the main ingredients to the fall of the Weimar Republic was a small minority enforcing immorality and decadence on a majority that utterly rejected it. This included pornography, decadent forms of art and entertainment, adultery, and homosexuality. A political party inevitably took center stage and shouted to the people that they would put an end to it.

I like women, but I don't have sex with them in the streets to make a spectacle out of myself. I find it amusing that BradyFTW liked your post, seems to understand your post, and at the same time doesn't seem to think homosexuals should regulate or restrain their behavior in any way.

Let's give it twenty years and see how that works out for them in the end.

 

[SB39]

Right on; starting is a little rough, but I promise you won't regret it if you do go that route.

Yeah, I've heard the first 1,750 pages are a bit slow but after that, it's all downhill. :rocker:

 

[Ring 6]

lol.

Just out of curiosity, do you actually have a pro-gay discussion playbook you turn to?



If so, which page is it that suggests bringing blacks into the conversation to generate sympathy for the cause? I assume near page #1 because your ilk seems to go to it early every single time.

Today you think you are better than a gay person. I have no doubt when it wasn't so socially unacceptable you felt the same way about black people.
What will you day when you find out your grandchild is gay and embarrassed by your hatred?

 

[vyrago]

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.

And yet, you're breezy. Just what does that mean to you?

 

[varjao]

it can't be worse than drafting Ras Island with the #33 and Tavon Wilson in the 2nd round.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

General Comment: Good for him! Gutsy and maybe even media-savvy. I wish him well.

General Draft Comment: He seems to be projected around the third or fourth round. There are 32 teams, each with its own locker room culture and its own set of on-field priorities at this time. I think that, if he is a legitimate third or fourth round pick, that he will still be picked then if he fits the 2014 draft profile of a team. Not all locker rooms are populated by troglodytes (as an example of the latter, see "Dolphins, Miami"). Nor, are all fan bases populated by narrow-minded idiots (see "Jets, New Jersey"); in fact, I think there could well be a franchise or two that would view picking him as a "positive" in building their fan base.

Pats-specific Draft Comment: If BB thinks he can help the team where it needs help and that he is at the right "value for money" point, the Pats will take him. After Spygate, Tebow, Haynesworth, Hernandez, etc., the media and locker-room effects are non-issues, especially with a locker room leader like Tom Brady.

 

[Kontradiction]

of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.

A significant percentage of the population is gay. Saying that it's unnatural because it's not in agreement with the majority fails on a lot of levels. For example, the majority of the world's population is not white. Does that mean white people are unnatural?

I never made the population argument and wouldn't do so because it's a weak argument. This response is why I asked PP2 if he was sure he wanted to pursue this because, again, I've chosen my words very carefully.

Men cannot procreate with other men and women cannot procreate with other women.:

So gays area unnatural because they can't procreate? Well, if that's the case, what about the fact that, since I don't want to have a kid, I exclusively have protected sex. Does that make my sexual lifestyle unnatural?

No offense, but this is weak. Unless there's some sort of malfunction of your reproductive organs, you could procreate if you chose to. Now you're arguing on choice when homosexuality is not a choice.

Homosexuality is more of an exception than it is natural:


Aside from the fact that you're using the term natural to define natural, that's still a weird line to draw. As I said before, if being a minority characteristic makes something unnatural, then being white is unnatural. So is being tall. So is having blue eyes. So is having green eyes. So is being extremely athletic.

Again, I never argued the population aspect of it and would not since it's a failure of an argument. I argued your definition of natural. So, taking your definition of natural, I can point out a few things...

1. Artifacts, for example, exist in nature but are not natural.

2. Animals such as bears, whales, tigers, and lions have no natural enemies or predators. Yet bears, lions, and tigers are frequently killed by humans and whales by sharks. Because this exists in nature does not mean it's natural.

Homosexuality is another aspect of that since, based on genetic makeup alone, men being attracted women is natural while men being attracted to other men and vice versa is not.

In fact, if something being unusual makes it unnatural, the NFL players are by definition unnatural. Every single one of them.

No, they're not. Without even touching on what a history of slavery to their ancestors has done to their genetic makeup, athletes train to get that way. Being able to run a fast 40 yard dash and lift more weight than most of their peers isn't unnatural, but a product of conditioning.

And please don't think I condemn that lifestyle.:

Right on, I understand the distinction. I don't think you're condemning the lifestyle at all; just taking issue with the claim that it's unnatural.

Just figured I should get that out there.

 

[PP2]

I can think of no society that ever dropped the hammer on quiet homosexuality, and homosexuals had it relatively good in this country 15 years ago. Yes, people used (and continue to use) "***" as insulting slang, and they call people and things they don't like "gay," but contrary to the delusions of the diversity-police, this is not oppression.

It is downright oppressive a term as the N word is, as well as "******ed," and just because it's in common usage doesn't mean it's appropriate.

Now they're pushing the envelope. Gay this, gay that, gay sitcoms, gay athletes, gay "rights" (an intellectual absurdity), gay marriage.

Funny, I don't see it that way, but then again I'm not threatened by it as you are.

A significant segment of America's homosexual population wants to demand acceptance from the majority while simultaneously acting in a way that is unacceptable - a way they know is unacceptable.

It's antagonistic.

Mark my words, eventually people are going to push back.

Maybe it'll take an economic calamity, maybe it'll take whatever, but it is going to happen, and when the pendulum swings, the "we're like slaves" crowd amid the homosexual community will probably look back and think 1995 America wasn't as horribly oppressive as their political performances made it out to be.

Jim Crow thought like this with the rise of the Civil Rights movement. He warned them that their actions were unacceptable and that they had to go back home, and when the activists refused, he took guns, baseball bats, and water hoses to them, and look where he ended up.

One of the main ingredients to the fall of the Weimar Republic was a small minority enforcing immorality and decadence on a majority that utterly rejected it. This included pornography, decadent forms of art and entertainment, adultery, and homosexuality. A political party inevitably took center stage and shouted to the people that they would put an end to it.

You continually flunk history, so perhaps its best you just give up on trying to use history as an example to support your bigotry.

The rise of the reich exploited the deep frustration of the population who were facing dire economic hardship from the stranglehold that the Treaty of Versailles put on the German economy. The German people were told that the Jewish people were responsible for this. It was a very effective fear and terror campaign. This is why the Marshall Plan for the end of WWII was the exact opposite of the Versailles Treaty.

Also those anti-pornography, decadence, etc. laws were not passed until after Hitler came into power. Nice try, though.

 

[Kontradiction]

Your post actually made me laugh out loud. Dialogue straight out of a bad Van Damme B movie.

I'm happy to debate that with you but do yourself a favor and leave the caveman chest-beating rhetoric behind.

No chest beating here. I'm just absolutely confident in my stance and, thinking long term, I don't see how you have a shot at even remotely winning a debate about this. Your angry tone in both posts directed at me is just the beginning. For starters, you're more than welcome to try to pick apart the post I just made to BradyFTW.

 

[condon84]

How is this even a debate that homosexuality is natural in a sense that it's how nature intended?

Every species' job is to procreate. Can humans of the same sex procreate? If they can't, how is two men or women having sex natural in how nature intended for our sexual organs and the reason we have them?

 

[PP2]

No chest beating here. I'm just absolutely confident in my stance and, thinking long term, I don't see how you have a shot at even remotely winning a debate about this. Your angry tone in both posts directed at me is just the beginning. For starters, you're more than welcome to try to pick apart the post I just made to BradyFTW.

Like I said, your post was hilarious to me. I keep thinking Van Damme actually did say "I chose my words carefully" in one of his terrible B movies.

That's nice that you think you're very confident. You've made your argument that you think the act of homosexuality is "unnatural."

My question is: Gay people do not think their actions are "unnatural," so which one of you is right?

 

[PP2]

How is this even a debate that homosexuality is natural in a sense that it's how nature intended?

Every species' job is to procreate. Can same humans of the same sex procreate? If they can't, how is two men or women having sex natural in how nature intended for our sexual organs and the reason we have them?

To deem the ability to procreate as being superior to anything else is ridiculous. What about those who do not choose to procreate, or who simply can't? Are they any inferior?

Also, if procreation is the ultimate function, did nature then intend for us to have an overpopulated world?

 

[condon84]

To deem the ability to procreate as being superior to anything else is ridiculous. What about those who do not choose to procreate, or who simply can't? Are they any inferior?

Also, if procreation is the ultimate function, did nature then intend for us to have an overpopulated world?

I'm not saying anyone is superior or inferior though. I'm just stripping it down to the basic core of a species' function: procreation.

If there's a natural disaster and the only two survivors are two men or two women, will our species continue?

If not, how is it natural for same sex intercourse when the reason for intercourse is to procreate?

 

[Boogs]

What is natural. It's simple, men's and woman's body's appear physically designed for one another. Like a battery, positive and negative match up.

 

[PP2]

I'm not saying anyone is superior or inferior though. I'm just stripping it down to the basic core of a species' function: procreation.

If there's a natural disaster and the only two survivors are two men or two women, will our species continue?

If not, how is it natural for same sex intercourse when the reason for intercourse is to procreate?

So you are saying that two straight men deserted on an island, and failing to be able to procreate to continue our species, must then be considered "unnatural"?

 

[varjao]

I see a condom talking about procreation

Edit -> ahh it's condon, too bad. i'll keep the joke anyway

 

[Uncle Meat]

I have gay friends, and I also have friends that would never be friends with gay people. It's all the same to me because I give neither group special consideration. It's not like I have to take sides, even though lots of people want you to. It's not that important of an issue in the larger picture.

The whole "tolerance movement" leads to strange behavior, like people celebrating and applauding things that they don't even like just to fit in and avoid being called names. If somebody is gay, that's fine...that's not going to be the deciding factor if I like him or not. If I like him, that doesn't mean that I have to be thrilled if he likes to stick his penis in another man's ass. In fact, I find that repulsive. I tolerate that if it's done away from me, but I don't approve of it. I don't exactly disapprove either if such things make them happy...I just don't care to know about it. They shouldn't need my approval anyway, and that's the point. They ain't gonna get it.

If you live your life where you need the approval of people about things that are none of their business anyway, then you are in for a world of hurt. And tolerance isn't approval either, since tolerance suggests you are putting up with something you don't like...that's the definition, actually.

I don't make a judgment call as to whether that's right or wrong, but I don't like it. I also don't like it when people take a hard-line stance against homosexuality as well. People can **** off when they do that, too.

 

[meatface]

I agree with most of your post and any point of contention on my part would be nitpicking, but I think everything you've said should be taken as a warning to the seemingly unhinged American left.

I can think of no society that ever dropped the hammer on quiet homosexuality, and homosexuals had it relatively good in this country 15 years ago. Yes, people used (and continue to use) "***" as insulting slang, and they call people and things they don't like "gay," but contrary to the delusions of the diversity-police, this is not oppression.

Now they're pushing the envelope. Gay this, gay that, gay sitcoms, gay athletes, gay "rights" (an intellectual absurdity), gay marriage.

A significant segment of America's homosexual population wants to demand acceptance from the majority while simultaneously acting in a way that is unacceptable - a way they know is unacceptable.

It's antagonistic.

Mark my words, eventually people are going to push back.

Maybe it'll take an economic calamity, maybe it'll take whatever, but it is going to happen, and when the pendulum swings, the "we're like slaves" crowd amid the homosexual community will probably look back and think 1995 America wasn't as horribly oppressive as their political performances made it out to be.

One of the main ingredients to the fall of the Weimar Republic was a small minority enforcing immorality and decadence on a majority that utterly rejected it. This included pornography, decadent forms of art and entertainment, adultery, and homosexuality. A political party inevitably took center stage and shouted to the people that they would put an end to it.

I like women, but I don't have sex with them in the streets to make a spectacle out of myself. I find it amusing that BradyFTW liked your post, seems to understand your post, and at the same time doesn't seem to think homosexuals should regulate or restrain their behavior in any way.

Let's give it twenty years and see how that works out for them in the end.

You sir are a homophobic person with a very poor understanding of history both in relation to the Weimar republic and the rise of Nazism and really everything surrounding people asking to be treated like people. You would be one of the people saying that Jackie Robinson shouldn't play with white players or Martin Luther King JR should shut up because segregation was what people wanted and it was better than being enslaved so he should be thankful and not ask for anything more. You also seem to be arguing a pro nazi position so its not exactly hard to see why you believe these things.

 

[Kontradiction]

Like I said, your post was hilarious to me. I keep thinking Van Damme actually did say "I chose my words carefully" in one of his terrible B movies.

That's nice that you think you're very confident. You've made your argument that you think the act of homosexuality is "unnatural."

My question is: Gay people do not think their actions are "unnatural," so which one of you is right?

Your argument is centered around the fact that gay people don't think that their actions are unnatural? Really? Of course they don't. Gay people would not be able to think critically about the topic of whether or not their actions are unnatural in much the same way a grieving mother would not be able to think critically about whether or not a driver that ran over their child completely by accident should then deserve to die themselves.