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

[woodbuck27]

the sexual behavior is the issue. Otherwise you're just talking about close friends

** Do you believe it's right in any way, shape, manner or form that a persons sexual choice or positive stance in a same sex marriage or equivalent, should suffer:

a) Any regret in the form of condemnation by the powers to be?

b) A loss of any freedom to viably secure work in his chosen field?

** Do you believe that any man should be applauded for condemning 'in any manner', a same sex relationship; based on his interpretations of whatever doctrine (s) he deems as his compass for his personal moral manner of living?

[woodbuck27]

The NFL may be a tough nut to crack:




Former Vikings punter says he lost job due to stance on gay marriage
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/01/chri...-mike-priefer/

Perhaps part excuse-making, but will be interesting to see if Kluwe ever punts again. I guess Tampa Bay won't be calling.

Why won't Tampa Bay be calling Chris Kluwe's agent mraynrand?

[woodbuck27]

as one commenter (jrz) on the article said:

Nonsense, he was released because he was due 1.45 million, whereas a rookie could be had for 450 thousand. Plus, they got a guy who could credibly handle kickoff duty if Walsh was injured (Kluwe's never hit a touchback when he's had to fill in). Kluwe can claim martyrdom all he wants, he was released because the Vikings found a cheaper, as-good-and-potentially-better replacement.

RE: that ..... one commenter (jrz) uses clear propaganda to drive home the stake.

There Ladies and Gentleman is 'the Company Line'.

'Stick that wherever' and don't challenge it. If you do so we don't ever need this discussion.

Once again 'Freedoms become a matter for ** those in POWER* '.

** Their prejudices, greeds and petty fears amongst other insults towards the common person.

[mraynrand]

Why won't Tampa Bay be calling Chris Kluwe's agent mraynrand?

Frasier is Lovie's D-coor

[woodbuck27]

is it really credible?







Is that what needs to be done to make it a "non-issue?" I suppose if there is no opposition then it's a non-issue. Make sure everyone thinks exactly the same. But that's what I've been saying all along, the next generation is on board and the push is to silence people opposed and turn them into the pariahs. Tolerance is not the objective.

" Tolerance is not the objective." mraynrand

Tolerance is based in opinion that's too often based in lifestyle or a certain familial / environmental upbringing.

The objective is a clear environment in the NFL, based on simple FREEDOMS of choice; ie one's sexuality as a non-issue nor non-threatening in any manner.

[woodbuck27]

Or a statement from anyone else. However the Deadspin piece is pretty detailed. Interesting timing on the topic. And as you all have moved forward in this discussion while I was busy earning a living...My statement was in response to another statement. What they needed to do to get to the point that a current player could come out without a single wave being made about it is what I was referring to...context is key. Also, I'm not sure anyone here is saying that any needs to or should be forced to come out. What folks are saying is that if they choose to, it shouldn't be to the detriment of their careers. In order for that to happen, someone somewhere would have to make the first step and that is why it is a topic of conversation. Gay players cannot live their lives the same as straight ones as Max mentioned. You don't see the cameras cut to a player's BF in the stands cheering him on. Because no player can admit to having a boyfriend without worrying about losing millions of dollars. If you're sick of hearing about it and want the media to shut up about it already, then make sure that gay marriage is legal everywhere and it instantly becomes a non-issue because there would be nothing left to say. Simple solution. That Chris Kluwe could make a credible case that he was fired for just talking about gay rights without actually even BEING gay tells you that the league is not as enlightened as you like to think it is. It's not about acceptance, but equal treatment under the law.

YES.

[mraynrand]

I said nothing about everyone thinking the same.

I never said you did. If you followed the thread, I laid out the general agenda of the activist push, which is pretty obvious: to turn people opposed into pariah. And so long as a large percentage are opposed to gay marriage, just making it legal won't end the opposition. That's the point I made to PB - law can force people to x and y, but they will resist if culture is not there. The agenda pushers are currently forcing the issue through the law, but in the next generation, they won't need to. The 30% will be the minority and you can be sure their views will not be tolerated.

The point of my post, which you totally ignored was your assumption that Kluwe is credible, even though you admit there is zero corroboration. But that's where we are right now - the agenda trumps the desire to find the truth.

[woodbuck27]

Frasier is Lovie's D-coor

WOW!

I havn't been doing any checks on things NFL since this AM.

Thanks.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Why did they "need" to come out? Can't they just be gay without being an activist about it or telling a world that shouldn't, and for the most part doesn't, care anymore?

It's important for gay people to come out of closet, it reduces stigmatization. Obviously people still do care very much about athletes being gay, otherwise more gay athletes would be out of closet.

[Harlan Huckleby]

That's the issue: can and will acceptance be achieved. I don't think so - not any time soon. That's the rub, so to speak. The gay activists don't want tolerance, they want acceptance and celebration.

Of course gays want full acceptance. It's directly analogous to interracial couples. Interracial couples used to be shunned, often condemned on religious grounds. Their kids were picked on.
After a few decades of hashing over the issue, most people have come around to accepting interracial families. Identical process has happened with gays, at a more accelerated pace.

There are winners and losers in all social changes. People who don't accept gays are fading away, just like the people who didn't want to let go of slavery, or people who were uncomfortable with women in the military.

The tipping point on gay acceptance passed about 5 years ago, it's a done deal.

Lombardi was a pioneer in acceptance of both gays and interracial couples
http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/20...e-gay-athletes

[woodbuck27]

The point being that homosexuality is defined by the specific type of sexual behavior, as the name suggests. I'm not reducing homos to their sexuality, but that is their defined uniqueness. I'm not sure what is strange about that.

As far as your balance sheet goes, I'm struggling to think of even a collection of "anti-gay" efforts that would counter just one episode of Glee as far as influence on popular culture and opinion, not to mention the 402 other television shows that paint homos in a sympathetic, victimized, or otherwise protagonist role (whereas conservatives who would be their antagonist are usually painted as comically ignorant, backwards and square) the Bravo network, a vast majority of outspoken celebrity, academia, and political support, and the Rose Parade, among others. I think you're being more than a little disingenuous on that account.

Anyway, the original point being that pressuring a gay athlete to come out to fulfill the goals of a sociopolitical movement that has more than enough other spokespeople, champions, and pop culture influence seems wrong and degrading.

" As far as your balance sheet goes, I'm struggling to think of even a collection of "anti-gay" efforts that would counter just one episode of Glee as far as influence on popular culture and opinion, not to mention the 402 other television shows that paint homos in a sympathetic, victimized, or otherwise protagonist role (whereas conservatives who would be their antagonist are usually painted as comically ignorant, backwards and square) the Bravo network, a vast majority of outspoken celebrity, academia, and political support, and the Rose Parade, among others." SkinBasket

WOW!

That's an 88 word sentence ! I didn't count the number '402'.

[woodbuck27]

It's important for gay people to come out of closet, it reduces stigmatization. Obviously people still do care very much about athletes being gay, otherwise more gay athletes would be out of closet.

" Obviously people still do care very much about athletes being gay..." H H

** Therein lies the rub.

Suddenly.....pausing to think..... !!!

A real experience I share with y'all.

Jheeesh, I did it again, or did I?

Is what I just wrote, **, demonstrative of my heterosexuality. NO...I'm OK there. Mae rubbed my back last night. It's OK to use that word 'rub'. Certainly OK... to use that word as I did.

A classic example of literary paranoia dealt with, and after some thought, easily dismissed.

Why should I ever care? I'm heterosexual so surely all that shouldn't matter to me. That's not my problem and thus why make it my concern?

In a society where marginalization is clearly alive and wielding it's bloody sword in a masterfully masked way?

Masked way... No ! Rather again, as it's always worked with the use of POWER.

' Power', improperly employed.

Why is so much that we might not ordinarily question as proper, 'even' in our writing; suddenly become open for interpretation in terms of it's gayness or gay vernacular !? Why should any time be lost to such thought/examination?

Now please, maybe!? take some time ......

Extend (or take that) to what Gay folk must endure, in the shadows of their daily struggles, to merely live and enjoy every advantage offered to the majority ?

Ohh wait, should I check again !? I must not error. I must be absolutely sure !

Just a wee while please.

Let me go into the attic and consult with my dusty edition of Gay Talk : A Dictionary of Gay Slang (Formerly The 'Queens' Vernacular) by: Bruce Rodgers.




There I did it again....I digressed Harlan Huckleby : I did so as simply an exercise in reality.

It's the manner and undeniable TRUTH in which " people ", " still do care very much " that's in contention.

It's about the NFL and bringing it up with the times.

About the NFL and open acceptance of same sex relationships.

About the NFL fully accepting same sex unions in any form of commitment without any negative repercussions.

It's about the NFL and any denial that it's not already there.

It's about that NFL and denial and obvious support for the openly gay side that's very aware this denial supports only one very clear NFL agenda:

No gay homosexual football players are allowed in NFL team locker rooms.

It's about an NFL that's homophobic and selfish in terms of the needed attention this issue deserves.

Obvious acceptance.

Allow the rest to take care of itself, as it will, in some order of time.

It's about the NFL embracing 'the so deemed distraction' in terms of the better good.

It's about the NFL focusing on the good of the game of football.

It's about the NFL catching up in this regard to where Pro hockey has been arriving/ has arrived and same sex relationship and 'NO' exclusion of such people at any level of participation in the NFL in terms of a career short or otherwise.

[SkinBasket]

If you're sick of hearing about it and want the media to shut up about it already, then make sure that gay marriage is legal everywhere and it instantly becomes a non-issue because there would be nothing left to say. Simple solution.

So is nuking all the fags. Other than the logistic issue of getting them all to fit on an island without it flipping over, anyway. This above is the perfect example of intolerance in the name of tolerance that seems to dominate half our society these days, and it's absolutely amazing to watch how casually and with how little self awareness it's done.

On a practical level, I don't think gay "marriage" has any bearing on a player coming out. If you haven't noticed, it's legal in 18 states and our nation's suck hole, with no corresponding outtage of queers in the NFL.

[SkinBasket]

I doubt no one would care, but the salaciousness the topic lends itself to no doubt helps with the fascination.

Or does it help keep the gays silent? Because not many men want to stand up at Thanksgiving diner and announce, "Ma, I have meaningful and enjoyable sexual intercourse with men," much less in front of a worldwide news camera.

[woodbuck27]

So is nuking all the fags. Other than the logistic issue of getting them all to fit on an island without it flipping over, anyway. This above is the perfect example of intolerance in the name of tolerance that seems to dominate half our society these days, and it's absolutely amazing to watch how casually and with how little self awareness it's done.

On a practical level, I don't think gay "marriage" has any bearing on a player coming out. If you haven't noticed, it's legal in 18 states and our nation's suck hole, with no corresponding outtage of queers in the NFL.

What's a fag?

What's a queer (s)?

Is the usage of such lending to acceptance of homosexuality?

A real support for anything even bordering on homosexuality and "Freedom of Rights and Choice" ?

I ask that without any dialog in reference to " the GAYNESS in the GAY " lifestyle.

[pbmax]

Or does it help keep the gays silent? Because not many men want to stand up at Thanksgiving diner and announce, "Ma, I have meaningful and enjoyable sexual intercourse with men," much less in front of a worldwide news camera.

I suspect this is what the Duck Dynasty guy would fear. The idea that being gay is entirely about a specific sexual act. That being gay means simply preferring one kind of sex to another. Its reductive, to make the issue entirely about a distinction rather than a preference in relationships.

I doubt anyone who is gay sees it that narrowly. No adult (straight or gay) who is serious about choosing a partner bases the choice on sexual compatibility alone.

[SkinBasket]

Or does it help keep the gays silent? Because not many men want to stand up at Thanksgiving diner and announce, "Ma, I have meaningful and enjoyable sexual intercourse with men," much less in front of a worldwide news camera.

What I meant to say is that few people want to stand up and tell anyone, much less everyone, that they have sexual relations with anyone, same sex or not. I'm very articulate this morning.

[SkinBasket]

I suspect this is what the Duck Dynasty guy would fear. The idea that being gay is entirely about a specific sexual act. That being gay means simply preferring one kind of sex to another. Its reductive, to make the issue entirely about a distinction rather than a preference in relationships.

I doubt anyone who is gay sees it that narrowly. No adult (straight or gay) who is serious about choosing a partner bases the choice on sexual compatibility alone.

I already said I'm not reducing them to their sexuality, but it is exactly what makes them homosexual. Denying them their sexuality is denying them who they are and is making this issue about something it isn't, or not making this issue about what it is, if you prefer. The emotional aspects are not unique to queers. Men love many men during their lives: fathers, brothers, friends, teammates, fellow soldiers... It is the sexual aspect that defines homosexuality, and last time I checked, that's what we're discussing here. If you, or they, feel that is salacious, then that's not my issue, and is all the more reason that sports, among many other things, is not the arena in which to discuss sexuality publicly.

[SkinBasket]

What's a fag?

What's a queer (s)?

Is the usage of such lending to acceptance of homosexuality?

A real support for anything even bordering on homosexuality and "Freedom of Rights and Choice" ?

I ask that without any dialog in reference to " the GAYNESS in the GAY " lifestyle.

The homos I've known have largely embraced those terms. Something about word reclamation, or somesuch nonsense. So I honor their wishes and use the terms openly and without reservation, and honestly do not use them in a derogatory manner ala Mr. Baldwin or to attempt to insult someone generally. I suppose you could call me a gay activist in that regard.

[woodbuck27]

What I meant to say is that few people want to stand up and tell anyone, much less everyone, that they have sexual relations with anyone, same sex or not. I'm very articulate this morning.

A homosexual/homosexuals ... do NOT 'have to declare their sexuality'; unless it's of personal choice.

ie Maybe? hiding such creates an internal issue/problem, that such a revelation might as a result, and in return offer support of.