The Inside Story of How the NFL's Plan for Its 1st Openly Gay Player Fell Apart

[woodbuck27]

You tell me woody, what are we talking about here?

Finding a Happy Place.

[mraynrand]

Public acknowledgment does not disclose any more information about sexual behavior for a same sex couple than it does for a hetero couple..

It's fundamentally different. I don't know why you don't see this. If there is no sexual activity between members of the same sex, there's nothing to talk about. They are just good friends. Homosexuality is defined by sexual activity; since sexual activity IS NOT the norm for same sex relationships, while is IS the norm for hetero relationships, the sexual activity defines the same sex relationship as being other than good friends. If, in the entire history of relationships, male/female relationships did not routinely involve sex and reproduction, then they would be on equal footing.

[woodbuck27]

It's fundamentally different. I don't know why you don't see this. If there is no sexual activity between members of the same sex, there's nothing to talk about. They are just good friends. Homosexuality is defined by sexual activity; since sexual activity IS NOT the norm for same sex relationships, while is IS the norm for hetero relationships, the sexual activity defines the same sex relationship as being other than good friends. If, in the entire history of relationships, male/female relationships did not routinely involve sex and reproduction, then they would be on equal footing.

Are you one of those people that automatically assumes that if two people of the opposite sex are customarily seen together or even living under the same roof then they have to be sexually active with one another?

If that type of person describes you!? YOU should be aware of this fact:

** A recent survey showed that around 85% of under-16s have not had sex.

** The number of college students in the USA who say they are virgins has doubled in recent years.

** Several studies have shown that celibacy is becoming more common, even among those with previous sexual experience.

Now lets look at this in terms of two or more males or two or more females residing together;sharing all of the financial responsibilities of that relationship.

** Don't you see the likelihood that these relationships don't include sex? That all of the parties in these relationships can be indeed living together with no pressure or desire to have sexual relations? Sexual relations often adds stress /tensions.

** Are you aware that waiting for sex until marriage is likely to enhance your chances of a happy/lasting marriage. Studies show that people who have pre-marital sex have an increased risk of getting divorced.

**Are you aware that people today are dating someone who also has the willpower and commitment to stay sexually abstinent. Such people desire a chance to live with a potential long term partner long before any serious consideration of marriage. Without pressure enjoy the companionship, financial advantages, the knowledge the familiarity that's valued if they elect a marriage?

Consider these advantages and reasons to choose a sex free relationship:

** Abstinance is a 100% protection against pregnancy and disease. There are over 20 different forms of STD's (infections).a scary number and some forms are deadly.

** Lots of people live together and truly care for one another; LOVE one another for who/what they are that excludes sex in their relationship.

** Many people have endured the trauma of a difficult breakup in a past relationship and therefore don't have the willingness to risk that pain again. That pain is often accompanied with regret, anger and just simply an upset life and a long period of turmoil. They desire or need a break from that.

[mraynrand]

Are you one of those people that automatically assumes that if two people of the opposite sex are customarily seen together or even living under the same roof then they have to be sexually active with one another?

Of course not. And that's the point.

[MJZiggy]

Did you really write this? If they aren't getting each other off, they're just good friends. Heteros don't need to engage in manual, anal, or any other kind of sex to have normal intercourse that biologically is geared towards reproduction of the species.

Actually, there are plenty of married folks who aren't having sex for one reason or another. Does that make them just good friends? This isn't about the sex, it's about the relationship. Reggie White used to regularly gush about his wife as does more recently Donald Driver. Players who are engaged or new parents are often interviewed about their significant others. PB is right. You don't hear about same sex relationships because there would be repercussions. You can think that if Cobb appeared at a game that the crowd would be fine with it, that's great and with the exception of a few homophobes, you might be right. But once you walk away from that stadium, it's a different story and that is the point. And to be fair, heteros don't NEED to engage in manual, anal or any other kind of sex, but they might. They might have a great Farrah old time every night. You don't know that. Just because "normal" intercourse is geared toward reproduction doesn't mean that people who have "differing" versions of a sex life does not make their relationship (which is really what it's about) less valid.

[mraynrand]

Actually, there are plenty of married folks who aren't having sex for one reason or another. Does that make them just good friends? This isn't about the sex, it's about the relationship. Reggie White used to regularly gush about his wife as does more recently Donald Driver. Players who are engaged or new parents are often interviewed about their significant others. PB is right. You don't hear about same sex relationships because there would be repercussions. You can think that if Cobb appeared at a game that the crowd would be fine with it, that's great and with the exception of a few homophobes, you might be right. But once you walk away from that stadium, it's a different story and that is the point. And to be fair, heteros don't NEED to engage in manual, anal or any other kind of sex, but they might. They might have a great Farrah old time every night. You don't know that. Just because "normal" intercourse is geared toward reproduction doesn't mean that people who have "differing" versions of a sex life does not make their relationship (which is really what it's about) less valid.

But you're constructing a false argument (cherry picking, innumeracy). I already pointed out what the norm is. So of course there are exceptions to the male-female couples, where sex and reproduction aren't part of the equation, just as there are the rare male-male and female-female couples where sex is involved. But because of basic biology and cultural norms that have existed from the dawn of time and history, everyone understands what the norm is, so that if you want to make an issue of same sex couples being different from 'just friends' you have to specify that sexual activity is taking place. So it is about the sex, for same sex relationships, because if there is no sex, there is no controversy, and there is nothing to talk about.

[mraynrand]

Are you one of those people that automatically assumes that if two people of the opposite sex are customarily seen together or even living under the same roof then they have to be sexually active with one another?

I originally read this backwards. Yes, if a guy and a gal are living together and are in a relationship, most people assume they are sexually active. For two men and two women, they have to tell you or show you they are in a relationship, otherwise people will assume they are just friends. This shouldn't be that difficult to understand. And yes, like I told Zig, there are the exceptions.

[pbmax]

It's fundamentally different. I don't know why you don't see this. If there is no sexual activity between members of the same sex, there's nothing to talk about. They are just good friends. Homosexuality is defined by sexual activity; since sexual activity IS NOT the norm for same sex relationships, while is IS the norm for hetero relationships, the sexual activity defines the same sex relationship as being other than good friends. If, in the entire history of relationships, male/female relationships did not routinely involve sex and reproduction, then they would be on equal footing.

Homosexuality is defined by attraction not an activity. I think the public can handle that.

[Kiwon]

"What can I get for you, hon?" - "I'll have Sports, hold the PC-social engineering agenda, sausage, hash browns, and wheat toast. Thank you!"

Actually as an 'openly' heterosexual male (can I still say "male"? It was my gender assigned to me at birth ), I eat yogurt and cereal in the morning and I WANT TO WATCH OR READ ABOUT SPORTS FREE FROM THE LEFT-WING MEDIA MADNESS!!!

I can remember when ESPN actually covered sports and left the moralizing to others (They haven't been the same since being purchased by ABC/Capital Cities and then by Disney). Now, every other day, there is biased, one-sided pro-LGBT story in the Sports outlets that is more indoctrination than news. They try to tell me how I'm supposed to think rather than simply informing me.

Well, guess what? The NFL can require its players to wear pink for a month of Sundays to promote breast cancer awareness but I'm still more concerned about colorectal cancer that kills more people each year in the U.S. than AIDS and breast cancer COMBINED. Why aren't rubber large intestines passed out to kids under 12 at the stadiums? Doesn't the NFL care about the #2 killer disease of Americans?

And speaking of colons and rectums, I DON'T CARE if there is an "openly" homosexual NFL player on a roster. The PC-Sports media tells me that I am supposed to care but I don't. If I want to educate myself in social or religious issues WHY WOULD I turn to Yahoo Sports or the NFL Network? And, yet, outlets like these regularly promote a common PC agenda.

(I mean, com'on, in 2014 we still need the 'Rooney Rule' to ensure minority head coaching candidates are interviewed? "We don't really want you to be our coach but we need you here to check a box off." Wink,wink. Nod,nod. How insulting or demeaning is that?)

If an "openly" homosexual NFL player is some sort of a measure of normalcy and somehow the way 'things ought to be' then these left-wing journalists shouldn't be afraid of engaging facts that run counter to their worldview.

Here's three facts you won't see discussed in detail:

1. Every supposed LGBTQQUIA has a biological father and a biological mother. Why imagine the chances of that!

2. Hilarious. 'Duck Dynasty' ad rates are going up - http://tv.yahoo.com/news/duck-dynast...170418429.html

3. Only 3.4-3.5% of the US population self-identifies as 'LGBT.'

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.ed...d-transgender/

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.ed...d-transgender/

Most of these journalists were raised in hetero-normative environments and didn't care one wit about LGBT issues until it became professionally necessary to do so either to get hired or keep their jobs. Further, there's not a one of them who would not be concerned if a cross-dresser immediately followed their 6-year old son or daughter into a bathroom.

Sports reporting without agenda, please. That’s what I want.

[woodbuck27]

Finding a Happy Place.

What do I mean by "Finding a Happy Place"?

I'll start with this quote:

" Any stigma, as the old saying is, will serve to beat a dogma." Philip Guedalla

To reduce stigmatization it's necessary to fully embrace the targeted individual or group in compassionate ways/manners to reveal the full agenda and stances of the stigmatizer (s).

To fully understand why so late in history the NFL hasn't already fully embraced and accepted the rights of GAY football players. One must certainly probe into any stigma that exists against GAYS in NFL locker rooms. It's necessary to probe into the exact reasons for such prejudice. Once understanding is fully documented and examined. It's then simply a matter of education. Any effort deemed necessary to remove homophobia from the NFL. To move forward to a perspective of:

IT's OK ... IT's ALL RIGHT as a general motto of full acceptance. That exceeding tolerance as the ultimate focus and goal. It can't be an endeavour to educate and assimilate every homophobic in the NFL today and on and on into the future. Time will take care of that as it generally does in term of any broader acceptance.

What's driving any effort to suppress 'A Gay or Gays' to come out publicly as NFL players who have chosen to enjoy life fully in a same sex (with emphasis on sexual Orientation and not sexual acts/activity) relationships?

That's not my place to define. I simply believe this.

Any negativity and suppression of any order is backwards and clearly wrong. If my position is correct than such suppression has to be formally and honestly addressed and removed. Any man who needs to admit his GAY lifestyle must be accommodated and his reasons for coming out appreciated from a standpoint of understanding.

Why?

For the simple reason of compassion for his overall health and quality of living which includes his choices including relationship (s).

What I would promote as I believe Chris Kluwe was attempting to do is that same sex "sexual orientation" relations, relationships and unions (marriages) should be accepted as well as the norm or any heterosexual relationship. Everyone should be given the same rights of promotion and a decent healthy life.

Everyone deserves to live in their Happy Place. That so much as we all should know depends on our, any other persons quality of health.

Disclosure of homosexuality or a same sex "GAY' lifestyle is now generally viewed, as a result of several professional studies as:

A more desirable option than a suppression of openness or a choice of secrecy.

Disclosure is seen as evidence of a healthy gay identity. Flipping that over, secrecy has come to be viewed as socially and psychologically problematic. That too often leads to such internal conflict that the negative consequences are many and even life threatening.

Common sense, compassion, respect for proper and universal human rights; "LOVING your neighbour - the GAY included ".

Demands clearly in terms of the primary focus of this thread. That the NFL does all it can to ensure "the GAY lifestyle or sexual orientation", isn't in any shape, manner or form stigmatized.

That nobel agenda is with all focus and strength seriously pursued to determine a general policy and forward direction in terms of any sexual orientation and relationship (s).

[woodbuck27]

I originally read this backwards. Yes, if a guy and a gal are living together and are in a relationship, most people assume they are sexually active. For two men and two women, they have to tell you or show you they are in a relationship, otherwise people will assume they are just friends. This shouldn't be that difficult to understand. And yes, like I told Zig, there are the exceptions.

" I originally read this backwards." mraynrand

Why would that impact your response differently 'M'?

" Yes, if a guy and a gal are living together and are in a relationship, most people assume they are sexually active." mraynrand

Then if that's the case or "most people assuming" that the couple are sexually active or sexually active together:

Is either a correct assumption?

I propose that such an assumption is meaningless in terms of the TRUTH; and that accepted in good order or manners as that TRUTH is private information. I believe that pbmax has taken this position in his attempt to get 'YOU' and SkinBasket possibly focused, on the real story.

The real story that this thread was introduced for and for discussion here @ Packerrats.

Instead of that this thread has been severely slapped and kicked with over the top too much reference to definition of the word homosexual and it then has to be about >>> SEX >>> about styles and acts of SEX.

Such focus on discussion is a clear perversion of what we need to focus on here or the primary issue outlined clearly in post #1 of this thread.

Please if you have any sense left get there.

I realize the challenge that offers you and SkinBasket. I'm sympathetic of that yet I ask you to focus on page one as I believe that 'YOU' and SkinBasket might offer something very positive.

That's in a proper FOCUS Boys.

[SkinBasket]

That barrier serves no purpose but a discriminatory one. Individuals who wish to remain private can always choose to do so. But that no one in a major professional sport has chosen differently means the barrier is very real and the cost of scaling it is high.

Alright, you and rand have discussed the topic of what defines a homosexual relationship, which we've already covered, and it seems you and others are somewhat unwilling to embrace the idea that a homosexual relationship necessarily involves sexual behavior between people of the same sex, instead coursing along the easier routes of the more sympathetic emotional and social relationships (which are not unique to homosexuals), so I won't rehash that.

Instead, you raise something here I'm curious about - this idea of a barrier, who's existence is proven by the lack of an openly gay NFL player. I'm interested to know what you think this barrier is, in a real sense. I'm guessing in this case it's a combination of peer pressure, employer pressure, fear of retaliation of some sort like loss of employment or harassment. Embarrassment perhaps? You claim it's a discriminatory barrier, so I'm interested to know how you would define said barrier and what makes it different than a barrier, proven by your own same standard, that has stopped NFL players from openly announcing the practice other sexual behaviors not considered biologically or socially normal. Fisting for example. Or wearing women's panties to bed. Or a proud proclaimer of heterosexual anal sex. Or even a guy who comes out and says his wife gives great blow jobs - although that may cause more locker room problems than announcing you're gay. In other words, if you are arguing this "barrier," which has suppressed an open announcement of homosexuality, and which exists solely due to the same sex nature of the sexual partner, rather than the definitive sexual nature of that relationship which makes it unique, then why don't we have NFL players who are open about non-gay sexual behavior which makes them unique?

[SkinBasket]

" Yes, if a guy and a gal are living together and are in a relationship, most people assume they are sexually active." mraynrand

Then if that's the case or "most people assuming" that the couple are sexually active or sexually active together:

Is either a correct assumption?

I propose that such an assumption is meaningless in terms of the TRUTH; and that accepted in good order or manners as that TRUTH is private information. I believe that pbmax has taken this position in his attempt to get 'YOU' and SkinBasket possibly focused, on the real story.

The real story that this thread was introduced for and for discussion here @ Packerrats.

Instead of that this thread has been severely slapped and kicked with over the top too much reference to definition of the word homosexual and it then has to be about >>> SEX >>> about styles and acts of SEX.

Such focus on discussion is a clear perversion of what we need to focus on here or the primary issue outlined clearly in post #1 of this thread.

Please if you have any sense left get there.

I realize the challenge that offers you and SkinBasket. I'm sympathetic of that yet I ask you to focus on page one as I believe that 'YOU' and SkinBasket might offer something very positive.

That's in a proper FOCUS Boys.

So you're telling us if a gay is not actively having sex, he's not homosexual?

Maybe if you weren't so FEARFUL of SEX, you wouldn't find yourself FOCUSING on objectifying the gays and demanding they self-reduce themselves to the SEXUAL behavior that makes them UNIQUE and whereby the topic of this thread.

[woodbuck27]

" ..."What can I get for you, hon?" - "I'll have Sports, hold the PC-social engineering agenda, sausage, hash browns, and wheat toast. Thank you!" ... : Kiwon

Good post there Kiwon.

Good to see you aboard the ship. All that writing has asked me to add something different:

Today here in lovely Honey Harbour, Ontario we have an overcast sky with snow flurries. The temperature is cold @ -7 Celcius (20 F) with wind at 17 km/h and gusts of 29 km/h.

Sunrise was @ 7:54 AM EST and Sunset will be @ 16:57 PM EST.

Have a wonderful day or evening in your corner of this great world.

Wishing you a rainbow
For sunlight after showers —
Miles and miles of peoples smiles
For golden happy hours —
Flowers at your doorway
For luck and laughter too,
And a host of good friends that never ends
Each day your whole life through !

GO PACK GO !

[pbmax]

Because no one talks about any sexual activities in the context of an NFL season. Not that I can remember. But families are part of the culture of NFL coverage, business and promotion every week, even in the offseason.

An out NFL player is not going to talk about sexual activity and more than a heterosexual player is going to talk about their sexual habits.

You may feel that some slight is visited on the player by not being able to talk openly about sexual activity because of the narrow terms you use to define homosexual. But public reticence on that subject is the norm for this situation, heterosexual or homosexual. There is no lack of other arenas where such a conversation can happen.

[woodbuck27]

So you're telling us if a gay is not actively having sex, he's not homosexual?

Maybe if you weren't so FEARFUL of SEX, you wouldn't find yourself FOCUSING on objectifying the gays and demanding they self-reduce themselves to the SEXUAL behavior that makes them UNIQUE and whereby the topic of this thread.

Read my post with some open mindedness not for some reason to nit and pick SkinBasket.

Try ... at least try for some decency and openness. That's rather nice to do Maan.

I don't put forward such effort to get bashed over the head with that by someone that's certainly no better than myself.

[bobblehead]

Are you one of those people that automatically assumes that if two people of the opposite sex are customarily seen together or even living under the same roof then they have to be sexually active with one another? .

Well, yes, unless they are married.

[bobblehead]

Why has this thread not been moved to Romper Room or FYI??? Can I start a thread about Obama now?

Red, you are the officer in charge of this, why haven't you bitched yet?

[MadtownPacker]

Thanks Bobble, I was letting it go for as long as possible.

[woodbuck27]

http://yourdailycap.ca/two-spirited-mean/

What does "Two-Spirited" mean?

Posted October 23, 2013

This is interesting from the stand point of how the Natives Americans view the their GAY population proportion and it's importance in regards to fair treatment.

" Traditionally, Aboriginal communities sought harmony within the community in order to function. But harmony did not mean homogeneity, it meant everyone had a role, everyone provided and everyone was dependent. This ideal of harmony serves as the foundation for modern day understandings of “balance” including the components necessary to ensure successful health and education. "

Fair treatment means fairness in the treatment of the whole.

GO PACK GO !