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

[lurker1965]

If we're talking about sex, then gay people can have sex just fine. If we're talking about reproduction, which I assume we are, then everything that I brought up is 100% relevant.

And again, you're failing at the very simple task that I put out there for you: define natural. Or, for that matter, define unnatural. You can't claim that something isn't natural until you've defined the term.

If your definition of unnatural is "anything that harms the reproductive prospects of an individual", then once again, we're back to everything that I cited above.

If someone chooses not to reproduce, is that unnatural?
If someone is unable to give birth due to a genetic mutation, is that unnatural?
Is birth control unnatural?

Because if you're willing to clarify your position to mean "homosexuality is exactly as unnatural as using birth control or choosing not to have children", then sure, I'll co-sign on that. It's a meaningless statement, though.

Again you refuse to answer one simple question.

My ex-wife remarries. Is it "natural" for her new hubby to kill my kids? I remind you that bears (for one example) will kill unattended cubs if they know they are not the father - yes it occurs in nature.

Yes, Birth Control is unnatural. That is often a pill. A man made pill. As for other methods, how often are they used in nature? Jeez louise, at least use your own definition when trying to defend your definition.

Yes, chastity is unnatural. Name me an animal (not man) that is willingly chaste. Yes, male lions driven out of the pride by other male lions are chaste, but if given the chance will mate.

Yes, mutations occur in nature. Are they natural or are they aberrations? Are all your "hundreds" like this? Can you think about them and at least apply your own definition to them to see if you would disqualify them?

You are tedious, but I'll answer any and all of your questions in a PM if, an only if, you answer my ONE question. ("Hundreds" for one - I'm offering you a deal here.) Frankly I do not feel like wading through 30 pages to find your reply, he said in post 341.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Again you refuse to answer one simple question.

My ex-wife remarries. Is it "natural" for her new hubby to kill my kids. I remind you that bears (for one example) will kill unattended cubs if they know they are not the father - yes it occurs in nature.

Yes, Birth Control is unnatural. That is often a pill. A man made pill.

You are tedious, but I'll answer any and all of your questions in a PM if, an only if you grow stones and answer my ONE question. ("Hundreds" for one - I'm offering you a deal here.) Frankly I do not feel like wading through 30 pages to find your reply.

I answered your question here. Would've answered it earlier, but I didn't see it. If you already posted it, then I must've missed it.

To be clear, are you stating that anything man-made is unnatural? Because in that case, it's unnatural to wear clothes. The natural thing to do is just be naked all the time. Again, I think I'd rather be unnatural. Conversely, there are lots of documented cases of cannibalism and necrophilia in nature. If that's natural, I'm a-okay with being unnatural.

If the conclusion that you're driving at is that 'natural' vs. 'unnatural' is a completely meaningless judgment, since we all act in profoundly unnatural ways 24 hours per day, then I'm fine with that. I don't particularly care how anyone defines natural - all that really matters is ultimately acknowledging that homosexuality is no more unnatural (however you choose to define it) than dozens of other things that we all do, see, and are undisturbed by in our day-to-day lives.

 

[WhoaDirty]

What the liberal fascist thought police are going to have to understand is that not everyone, and not every culture, is compatible with this:

I suspect that for every picture like the above that was posted, someone could probably find a picture of heterosexuals acting equally outrageous, like the one below. Is there really a difference between the two, other than the sexuality of those pictured?



I'm not so sure that Sam would be all that much of a distraction once he was actually contributing to the team. Maybe it was different in SD, but I hardly heard anything non-football related about Manti Te'o after he was drafted.

 

[Ring 6]

Again you refuse to answer one simple question.

My ex-wife remarries. Is it "natural" for her new hubby to kill my kids? I remind you that bears (for one example) will kill unattended cubs if they know they are not the father - yes it occurs in nature.

If this is an accurate explanation then that is the natural instinct of a bear. it would appear that it is not the natural instinct of a human. I have no idea what this has to do with the topic. Are you saying nothing is a natural occurrence unless every creature who ever lived does it?

Are you really trying to equate a human being being attracted to the same sex with killing children?

 

[Uncle Meat]

I just answered the question that you're claiming I refused to answer. Look up.

To be clear, are you stating that anything man-made is unnatural? Because in that case, it's unnatural to wear clothes. The natural thing to do is just be naked all the time. Playing football is 100% unnatural, too. It's entirely man-made. Again, I think I'd rather be unnatural.

If the conclusion that you're driving at is that 'natural' vs. 'unnatural' is a completely meaningless judgment, since we all act in profoundly unnatural ways 24 hours per day, then I'm fine with that. I don't particularly care how anyone defines natural - all that really matters is ultimately acknowledging that homosexuality is no more unnatural than dozens of other things that we all do, see, and are undisturbed by in our day-to-day lives.

Why split hairs with these guys?

The bottom line is there is no such thing as "unnatural" in this world if it happens. That's all there is to it.

Going on a kill-crazy rampage, eating feces, jumping out of airplanes, sacrificing your life for somebody else, watching a Gilligan's Island marathon...these things are all natural given the right set of circumstances. Why? Because those things happen. That's called reality. EVERYTHING about it is natural.

Somebody doesn't like something or if they can't understand it, then they call reality unnatural. That's not in line with the way things operate.

 

[Kontradiction]

************, this thing has certainly grown into a monster since my last reply earlier.

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.

You make my point for me. For one, I'm not biased on the issue. For another, someone with a natural bias, especially one that's as deep seeded as a homosexuals views on their own sexuality, shouldn't be trusted to give an honest evaluation of themselves. Are they capable of it? Sure. But what person would readily admit that their lifestyle is unnatural, even if they HAVE thought it through and do think that it's unnatural? Not to many people would be honest enough to admit that when asked directly.

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.

Of course there isn't a correct answer. It's all theory and scientists and biologists are still studying why homosexuality comes to be. After thousands of years, they still can't figure it out. That said, that doesn't preclude it from being debated.

I'm not gay either, but I seem to reach a different conclusion than you. Why is THAT?

Because you're adhering very strictly to the side of the political coin you favor.

All you are doing is rationalizing why you discriminate against people that think differently than you. Am I wrong?

Sure are. And that's two red herrings for you. I didn't discriminate against anyone. If I did, I would have condemned Sam's lifestyle instead of basically saying "who cares?". I would have also said that I don't think Sam should be able to pursue his career in the NFL instead of stating that I think he should and that his sexual identity shouldn't preclude him from any career field. So this statement is utter crap. Calling someone's lifestyle unnatural doesn't mean that you are against it, as I certainly am not. Further, calling someone's lifestyle unnatural =/= discrimination.

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.

This and the posts below are the last I'll touch on this because it's distracting from the topic as a whole. Homosexuality and whether or not it is natural is a very, very deep seeded issue. Again, people with deep seeded issues that effect them personally aren't necessarily going to be the best equipped to think critically on the same topic. It's much the same as a grieving mother, which you even readily admitted yourself would be fundamentally incapable of thinking critically in the situation that I outlined.

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?

When it's a deep seeded issue, yes. Again, how many people would readily admit, when asked, that their lifestyle is unnatural even if they gave it deep thought and even if it were proven that it is?

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?

Terrible example. The Patriots aren't as deep seeded to us as homosexuality is to a gay man or woman.

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?

No, because not all men are rapists. Another bad example.

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.

I've asked people around me for advice multiple times when an issue has effected me deeply on a personal level simply because I knew I wasn't thinking rationally. So I'm not sure what point you're attempting to make here. Looks like you're just trying to flamebait.

You guys can feel free to have the last word on the secondary debate about my example. I'm moving on.

 

[BradyFTW!]

No, because not all men are rapists. Another bad example.

Actually, according to Andrea Dworkin (and her school of second wave troll feminists), all men who have engaged in penetrative heterosexual sex are rapists, since all penetrative sex is rape. We will never acknowledge it because it's too deep-seated of an issue for us to consider rationally.

She made the same claim about our inability to defend our position that you're making about homosexuals, and she was every bit as wrong as you are.

 

[mgteich]

Agreed.

SD got a good deal within Manti was drafted lower than his talent would have suggested. I suspect that someone will get a good value by drafting Sam.

The distractions are in the media and message boards.

I'm not so sure that Sam would be all that much of a distraction once he was actually contributing to the team. Maybe it was different in SD, but I hardly heard anything non-football related about Manti Te'o after he was drafted.

 

[PP2]

I think you missed my point.
The issue is feeling it is OK to pass judgment, and in this case the target it gay people.
ignorance transcends a single target.

That is irrelevant to what is being discussed in this thread.

 

[PP2]

To invoke Godwin, ants commit genocide.

Are you talking about Godwin's law?

I am not familiar with his declaration that ants commit genocide.

 

[Kontradiction]

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?

Not at all. It just means that you aren't ready to reproduce yet, which is fine. You still have the ability to do so, though, should you wish. That's not unnatural at all.

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

Not sure who tried to make the point that blowjobs or oral sex is unnatural, but I don't agree. I enjoy getting blowjobs from women as well. I also enjoy eating *****. I would not enjoy getting a blowjob from a man or giving one. That would be unnatural to me and it would be against what nature intended. Our reproductive organs are totally incompatible with one another where a woman's reproductive organs are perfectly compatible with a man's.

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

Bonobo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for the read. Actually read through that at work after I got warned by my company's administrator for my participation in this thread and told to reply to it when I get home.

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.

I've listed these reasons starting from reproduction to the function of the genitalia and it's incompatibility with the same sex. As for your analogy, it's probably the most solid one you've laid out. To answer it, no. It's not unnatural to be physically attracted to her. But physical attraction to a woman comes down to facial features, height, and a number of other scenarios. The bottom line would be that, if you were looking for a natural heir or a child of your own (not adopted), you more than likely would not stay with a woman that could not conceive.

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.

You may want to link this because I haven't seen "evidence" per se. What I've seen are a ton of theories.

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?

Aye, and the fact stands that gays would not be able to adopt without naturally and sexually compatible men and women reproducing. Without reproduction, none of us would be here.

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.

Since reproduction is essential for maintaining human life, the inability to reproduce is unnatural. That's the case in homosexuals or women and men who have some sort of genetic mutation. The choice is also unnatural, but I'm not for limiting choices. While I don't think it's natural to not want to have children, I would support the person's choice to not reproduce. In the end, it's their life.

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?

I didn't say that. That was an example I was making to show that not everything that happens in nature is natural.

Again, what makes you qualified to judge that?

You have to be qualified to understand that most people with such a deep seeded issue probably wouldn't readily admit that their lifestyle is unnatural, even after deep thought.

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

The example flew completely over your head. Either way, I'm done with that secondary debate.

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?

I've had gay friends and co-workers that I've had the same conversation with. Didn't dive into it as much as I am on here because I was aware of how deep seeded the issue was and how much my thoughts would have offended or hurt them. Again, why would they admit it even after thought. Most people don't want to admit or be aware that something they do is unnatural.

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?

In general, people are incapable of thinking critically when emotion has taken control. That's why people have "cooling off" periods after something heated or traumatic and often change their minds about something they said or did or something they were going to do.

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.

Why do you think Jim Crow wrote those laws? He had a deep seeded personal issue against African Americans. A person that does not have a personal issue against an entire race does not write those laws.

This is certainly one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard. Are you aware that there is plenty of homosexuality going on in non-human species? Is that somehow unnatural?

I've already stated that I'm aware that homosexuality is common in non-human species. You may want to try reading the thread.

PC Police went wild on this thread.

Eh, by and large I'm not seeing that a whole lot. Just a lot of people that feel strongly about the issue and a disagreement on what is natural and what isn't. I'm largely ignoring the people calling me a homophobe.

 

[PP2]

For one, I'm not biased on the issue. For another, someone with a natural bias, especially one that's as deep seeded as a homosexuals views on their own sexuality, shouldn't be trusted to give an honest evaluation of themselves.

That is a Kontradiction if I ever saw one.

You are biased on the issue. You are biased in that you think gay people shouldn't be trusted to give a honest evaluation of themselves. You continually group gay people with grieving mothers, and that alone defies comprehension.

You guys can feel free to have the last word on the secondary debate about my example. I'm moving on.

By all means, but nobody asked you to come into this debate, and nobody is asking you to leave.

 

[Kontradiction]

Actually, according to Andrea Dworkin (and her school of second wave troll feminists), all men who have engaged in penetrative heterosexual sex are rapists, since all penetrative sex is rape. We will never acknowledge it because it's too deep-seated of an issue for us to consider rationally.

She made the same claim about our inability to defend our position that you're making about homosexuals, and she was every bit as wrong as you are.

She fails instantaneously because her definition of rape does not fit with the true definition of rape.

rape
1 [reyp] Show IPA
noun
1.the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.

2.any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.

3.statutory rape.

4.an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.

5.Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.

Even after you get past the definition of rape, men are able to think critically on that matter because not all men are rapists. Her definition was terrible and wrong.

 

[Kontradiction]

That is a Kontradiction if I ever saw one.

You are biased on the issue. You are biased in that you think gay people shouldn't be trusted to give a honest evaluation of themselves.

Anybody with that deep seeded of an issue shouldn't be trusted to give an honest evaluation of said issue. Again, not many people will readily admit, when asked, that something about them or their lifestyle is unnatural. Most people don't want to admit that, even if they've thought about it again and again. And what you just described is not a bias. You may want to study that definition.

By all means, but nobody asked you to come into this debate, and nobody is asking you to leave.

The secondary debate that sprouted about my example is what I'm not participating in anymore. I will still gladly participate in the topic at hand.

 

[PP2]

You have to be qualified to understand that most people with such a deep seeded issue probably wouldn't readily admit that their lifestyle is unnatural, even after deep thought.

So I'm not qualified but you are qualified to state that people you know nothing about have "deep-seeded" issues? Got it. I'm not going to even bother asking what "qualifies" you, because it probably comes from the same place that the bizarre gay people and grieving mother comparison comes from.

The example flew completely over your head. Either way, I'm done with that secondary debate.

It made zero sense, so no wonder it flew over my head.

I've had gay friends and co-workers that I've had the same conversation with. Didn't dive into it as much as I am on here because I was aware of how deep seeded the issue was and how much my thoughts would have offended or hurt them. Again, why would they admit it even after thought. Most people don't want to admit or be aware that something they do is unnatural.

Again you are speaking of something you know nothing about. You are not gay (I assume) so you are passing judgment on something you know nothing about. It may be unnatural to you but who are you to say that it is unnatural to them? Just because you claim to have spoke to a few people doesn't make it representative of gay people as a whole. Who knows how much of them feel like what they do is natural? You don't know, I don't know. The difference between you and me is the arrogance in your statement that you think you know.

In general, people are incapable of thinking critically when emotion has taken control. That's why people have "cooling off" periods after something heated or traumatic and often change their minds about something they said or did or something they were going to do.

You are assuming gay people are continually emotional about their orientation. That is ridiculous.

Why do you think Jim Crow wrote those laws? He had a deep seeded personal issue against African Americans. A person that does not have a personal issue against an entire race does not write those laws.

He wrote those laws to keep the dissentients in their places. Otherwise he had no problem with them.

 

[Ring 6]

That is irrelevant to what is being discussed in this thread.

From my perspective it is extremely relevant

 

[PP2]

Anybody with that deep seeded of an issue shouldn't be trusted to give an honest evaluation of said issue. Again, not many people will readily admit, when asked, that something about them or their lifestyle is unnatural. Most people don't want to admit that, even if they've thought about it again and again. And what you just described is not a bias. You may want to study that definition.

This again requires the assumption on your part that the issue is a "deep-seated" one with most gay people. How do you know that they are not comfortable with their identity? How do you know they don't love it? You don't, because you can't prove it.

You are making broad assumptions that are not backed by any statistics or research.


You keep using the word "unnatural" but what you don't understand is that your use of the definition of the word "natural" is wrong. "Natural" is "something that is existing in or caused by nature, or something not made by humankind." "Natural" is not a matter of perspective.

Sex was not made by humankind. It is a natural function.

Therefore homosexual sex is natural, because it was not manmade, correct?

Therefore homosexuality is not unnatural, because there is nothing unnatural about it, correct?

 

[condon84]

Eh, by and large I'm not seeing that a whole lot. Just a lot of people that feel strongly about the issue and a disagreement on what is natural and what isn't. I'm largely ignoring the people calling me a homophobe.

By and large, people who disagree that same sex intercourse is unnatural in the context of how nature intended our sex organs to be used for procreation are either gay themselves and do not want to admit their lifestyle is unnatural, or are too PC conscience that they cannot accept an argument that goes against PC line of thinking. I'm willing to bet most of the posters arguing are the latter. But I could be wrong.

However, I've read a lot of arbitrary arguments and nonsensical comparisons the past 20 or so pages to conclude that yes, the PC Police went pretty wild. Although there was a poster on the other end of the spectrum who also went overboard posting all those wild homo photos.

That being said, the great thing about this country is that people have the right to their opinion and whatever lifestyle they choose to live. And that's completely cool with me.

It could be worse. They could be a Jets fan.

 

[fnordcircle]

Quick, someone tell bonobos that their lesbian activities of rubbing their big weird vaginas together isn't natural.

 

[Boogs]

This again requires the assumption on your part that the issue is a "deep-seated" one with most gay people. How do you know that they are not comfortable with their identity? How do you know they don't love it? You don't, because you can't prove it.

You are making broad assumptions that are not backed by any statistics or research.


You keep using the word "unnatural" but what you don't understand is that your use of the definition of the word "natural" is wrong. "Natural" is "something that is existing in or caused by nature, or something not made by humankind." "Natural" is not a matter of perspective.

Sex was not made by humankind. It is a natural function.

Therefore homosexual sex is natural, because it was not manmade, correct?

Therefore homosexuality is not unnatural, because there is nothing unnatural about it, correct?

If you're taking away the use of "unnatural" to describe homosexual behavior, you could instead use the words disordered or dysfunctional sexual behavior. Because function is altered for unintended purposes.