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

[woodbuck27]

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.

OK I understand. Personally I have little to no experience in terms of Gay friends /acquaintance (s).

In that regard now I'm less ignorant. Thank You Man.

It's not at all like some 'white fella' using the word 'nigger' and directed at a black man.

As I understand that the word 'nigger' is only carte blanche for 'a black on black' communication.

[mraynrand]

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

As I said before, I'm just analyzing the environment with respect the gays in the NFL. If you'd like to discuss the comparisons between gay behavior and skin color choice, take it to FYI and I'de be happy to do that.

[pbmax]

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.

Few people come home to talk to Mom about what sex acts they are performing with their significant other. Maybe around the Basket dinner table things are different, but I strongly suspect that is not the norm.

Heterosexuals generally don't need to come home and define the differences between their girlfriend and sister or mother by number, frequency and type of sex act performed together. Most everyone understands this, few people need it spelled out for them. People also understand the difference between family, comrades in arms and your significant other.

Choosing to focus entirely on the sexual acts is your choice and not a celebration of differences.

[woodbuck27]

Few people come home to talk to Mom about what sex acts they are performing with their significant other. Maybe around the Basket dinner table things are different, but I strongly suspect that is not the norm.

Heterosexuals generally don't need to come home and define the differences between their girlfriend and sister or mother by number, frequency and type of sex act performed together. Most everyone understands this, few people need it spelled out for them. People also understand the difference between family, comrades in arms and your significant other.

Choosing to focus entirely on the sexual acts is your choice and not a celebration of differences.

I suspect your correct.

[SkinBasket]

Choosing to focus entirely on the sexual acts is your choice and not a celebration of differences.

ho·mo·sex·u·al
ˌhōməˈsekSHo͞oəl/
adjective
adjective: homosexual

1.
(of a person) sexually attracted to people of one's own sex.
involving or characterized by sexual attraction between people of the same sex.
"homosexual desire"

noun
noun: homosexual; plural noun: homosexuals

1.
a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.
synonyms: gay, lesbian; More

This isn't a talking point you can try using to falsely pigeonhole my position while avoiding the multitude of logical holes in your own. It is the definition of the word at the crux of this discussion. I'm not sure how you purport a position on acceptance of homosexuals in the NFL while simultaneously denying homosexuals their defining trait... because the act of gay sex is "salacious?"

You can't, with any kind of intellectual honesty, pick and choose which parts of the homo you're going to accept, tolerate, or have a discussion with (Unless you're another homo and looking for a quick fling ) while denying the singular trait that defines them as homosexual. You also can't conflate what defines them as a homosexual with what defines them as a person to refute someone else's position and still expect to be taken seriously in a discussion about homosexuality.

[woodbuck27]

This isn't a talking point you can try using to falsely pigeonhole my position while avoiding the multitude of logical holes in your own. It is the definition of the word at the crux of this discussion. I'm not sure how you purport a position on acceptance of homosexuals in the NFL while simultaneously denying homosexuals their defining trait... because the act of gay sex is "salacious?"

You can't, with any kind of intellectual honesty, pick and choose which parts of the homo you're going to accept, tolerate, or have a discussion with (Unless you're another homo and looking for a quick fling ) while denying the singular trait that defines them as homosexual. You also can't conflate what defines them as a homosexual with what defines them as a person to refute someone else's position and still expect to be taken seriously in a discussion about homosexuality.

pbmax will handle you there I'm sure and I don't want to interfere in any of that.

I'm sure but there are certain holes in your stance that pbmax will point out to you.

[SkinBasket]

OK I understand. Personally I have little to no experience in terms of Gay friends /acquaintance (s).

In that regard now I'm less ignorant. Thank You Man.

It's not at all like some 'white fella' using the word 'nigger' and directed at a black man.

As I understand that the word 'nigger' is only carte blanche for 'a black on black' communication.

There were a couple fags I'd smoke with and occasion a bar or two with, but it was the lesbians I got on famously with. Except for one. She was a real fuckface. As a person, not as a queer. She projected her own anxiety about her perceived judgement by others into uncalled for personal attacks on people's appearances. And she was the least attractive of the lot, at least from a heterosexual male's perspective. Judging from her dating life, the homos felt the same. None of them was black though, so I can't speak to your nigger issues.

[woodbuck27]

There were a couple fags I'd smoke with and occasion a bar or two with, but it was the lesbians I got on famously with. Except for one. She was a real fuckface. As a person, not as a queer. She projected her own anxiety about her perceived judgement by others into uncalled for personal attacks on people's appearances. And she was the least attractive of the lot, at least from a heterosexual male's perspective. Judging from her dating life, the homos felt the same. None of them was black though, so I can't speak to your nigger issues.

OK.. I've got to break to use time to watch some of the scads of HD TV programming I've been recording of late. To free up some space to record the big win over the 49ers on Sunday.

Have a super day.... later..

[pbmax]

This isn't a talking point you can try using to falsely pigeonhole my position while avoiding the multitude of logical holes in your own. It is the definition of the word at the crux of this discussion. I'm not sure how you purport a position on acceptance of homosexuals in the NFL while simultaneously denying homosexuals their defining trait... because the act of gay sex is "salacious?"

You can't, with any kind of intellectual honesty, pick and choose which parts of the homo you're going to accept, tolerate, or have a discussion with (Unless you're another homo and looking for a quick fling ) while denying the singular trait that defines them as homosexual. You also can't conflate what defines them as a homosexual with what defines them as a person to refute someone else's position and still expect to be taken seriously in a discussion about homosexuality.

We are not talking about what defines homosexuality, there is general agreement on that. We are talking about a person and why or why not a person might choose to admit publicly they are in a same sex relationship.

Why you are focused on the sex acts of the person is not something I can fairly be expected to resolve. No one announces a relationship (of either variety) to family or the public to initiate a dialogue on what specific sex acts are now being performed.

I think a person in this situation would prefer not to have to dance around or ignore a central relationship in their life even if they would prefer to keep a discussion of their preferred sexual positions private.

[woodbuck27]

We are not talking about what defines homosexuality, there is general agreement on that. We are talking about a person and why or why not a person might choose to admit publicly they are in a same sex relationship.

Why you are focused on the sex acts of the person is not something I can fairly be expected to resolve. No one announces a relationship (of either variety) to family or the public to initiate a dialogue on what specific sex acts are now being performed.

I think a person in this situation would prefer not to have to dance around or ignore a central relationship in their life even if they would prefer to keep a discussion of their preferred sexual positions private.

corner >>> paint >>> jump or re-focus !

An interpersonal relationship isn't defined by any one thing. It's certainly not defined by the sexual act between the consenting partners. Such causes 'friction' or other specific problems :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpersonal_relationship

[hoosier]

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.

Unless Kluwe has Ryan Braun syndrome it is hard to imagine him inventing such a specific narrative and attributing to a specific person, in front of alleged witnesses no less, if it didn't really happen. Could this be the vendetta of a former player against a coach? Sure, but given the detailed recollection it seems unlikely.

[mraynrand]

Unless Kluwe has Ryan Braun syndrome it is hard to imagine him inventing such a specific narrative and attributing to a specific person, in front of alleged witnesses no less, if it didn't really happen. Could this be the vendetta of a former player against a coach? Sure, but given the detailed recollection it seems unlikely.

I'm not surprised that you aren't more skeptical, given the subject matter, but I would like to see some corroboration, since in my experience, the human species seems especially excellent at fabricating events favorable to their individual or group cause(s) out of whole cloth.

[hoosier]

Corroboration may be hard to come by if the other guys in the room are still on the team or see themselves as having something to lose by taking Kluwe's side.

In his rebuttal of Kluwe's accusation, Priefer defended himself as a family man who has dedicated himself to raising his kids the right way. It sounds like one of his kids has been disseminating his love for gays on social media. http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2...on_twitter.php, Maybe the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree.

[mraynrand]

Corroboration may be hard to come by if the other guys in the room are still on the team or see themselves as having something to lose by taking Kluwe's side.

In his rebuttal of Kluwe's accusation, Priefer defended himself as a family man who has dedicated himself to raising his kids the right way. It sounds like one of his kids has been disseminating his love for gays on social media. http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2...on_twitter.php, Maybe the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree.

Ahh, so you're relying on kids on twitter. That's solid sourcing. You'll fit right in with modern 'journalists'

I noted that the site you linked has the guy's alleged statement in quotes. See what I mean? You're perfectly comfortable with gossip so long as it fits your POV. quod volumus facile credimus some would say!

I'd like to see some reasonably responsible sourcing.

[SkinBasket]

We are not talking about what defines homosexuality, there is general agreement on that. We are talking about a person and why or why not a person might choose to admit publicly they are in a same sex relationship.

Why you are focused on the sex acts of the person is not something I can fairly be expected to resolve. No one announces a relationship (of either variety) to family or the public to initiate a dialogue on what specific sex acts are now being performed.

I think a person in this situation would prefer not to have to dance around or ignore a central relationship in their life even if they would prefer to keep a discussion of their preferred sexual positions private.

I don't think there is general agreement on what defines homosexuality, since you keep denying that a person's sexual behavior is exactly what defines the term. Not what kind of person they are, or what feelings they have, or what sexual positions they prefer.

When I read what you're writing what I'm getting is that you want someone to be simultaneously recognized and ignored for their sexual orientation. You want what makes them unique to be central to how they're defined (by coming out publicly) while denying what it is that defines them (that homosexual men have have sexual relationships with other men). It's so important that you would have someone of societal importance (which is why I'm assuming you think it's important an NFL player comes out instead of a teacher or a firefighter) declare they have sex with other men, but that same singular fact is supposedly so unimportant that it should be below mentioning (which it is to most people).

So you guys can keep saying I'm focused on the "sex acts," but without said sexual relationship, they WOULD NOT BE HOMOSEXUAL and there would be no discussion, which raises the question: If their homosexual relationship is so unimportant in defining who they are, which is true, then why is it important that they declare it publicly?

[hoosier]

Relying, no. As I said before, I'm not convinced of anything yet. But unlike you, I do find the allegations credible--which is not the same as saying that I'm convinced they are accurate.

[mraynrand]

Relying, no. As I said before, I'm not convinced of anything yet. But unlike you, I do find the allegations credible--which is not the same as saying that I'm convinced they are accurate.

That's my point. The single source is a disgruntled, fired employee. Would you find such allegations credible in your own workplace?

Should a 'journalist' publish such uncorroborated allegations? Should they publish them with quote marks?

[SkinBasket]

It's important for gay people to come out of closet, it reduces stigmatization.

I think this is a quote right out of a 1979 freshman human growth class. Newflash: gays are everywhere! Openly, and ridiculously over-represented in popular culture. No one is crossing the street to avoid them. No one is murdering them. Hell, even harassment claims have more often than not turned out to be hoaxes perpetrated by homos to maintain their victim status in the last few years. What stigma are you referring to? For bonus points, name a stigma or a perceived stereotype that isn't perpetuated by the gay community.

Obviously people still do care very much about athletes being gay, otherwise more gay athletes would be out of closet.

Who are these "people?" Did you see them on a PBS special? Why do you assume that the natural social state for a homo is that everyone knows they're a homo? Why don't you want fags to have the same expectations to privacy as the rest of us? Why do you hate gays?

[mraynrand]

What stigma are you referring to? For bonus points, name a stigma or a perceived stereotype that isn't perpetuated by the gay community.

This is what I was referring to with the Duck Dynasty issue. The discussion was not about gay behavior right or wrong but about whether the culture will allow someone who believes gay behavior is wrong to voice that view. If it weren't for the popularity of the show (Read $$$), that cultural right would be completely gone. For all practical purposes, it is gone. Even kids calling each other gay apparently will be shunned and scorned (as indicated above), like kids wielding gun-shaped pop tarts. That's the culture the NFL is operating in - they will collapse in short order and celebrate homosexuality from the mountaintops.

[pbmax]

I don't think there is general agreement on what defines homosexuality, since you keep denying that a person's sexual behavior is exactly what defines the term. Not what kind of person they are, or what feelings they have, or what sexual positions they prefer.

When I read what you're writing what I'm getting is that you want someone to be simultaneously recognized and ignored for their sexual orientation. You want what makes them unique to be central to how they're defined (by coming out publicly) while denying what it is that defines them (that homosexual men have have sexual relationships with other men). It's so important that you would have someone of societal importance (which is why I'm assuming you think it's important an NFL player comes out instead of a teacher or a firefighter) declare they have sex with other men, but that same singular fact is supposedly so unimportant that it should be below mentioning (which it is to most people).

So you guys can keep saying I'm focused on the "sex acts," but without said sexual relationship, they WOULD NOT BE HOMOSEXUAL and there would be no discussion, which raises the question: If their homosexual relationship is so unimportant in defining who they are, which is true, then why is it important that they declare it publicly?

Because until the last 20 years, it was rarely acknowledged publicly. And in some fields, not teaching and firefighting, its still never mentioned despite ongoing fascination with the home life of every professional athlete. Please see above posts for laundry lists of family members we have met.

With silence, with few public figures or no personal familiarity to a same sex relationship, people are left to impute whatever motivations and designs tickle their fancy. Even after 20 years of public acknowledgments, Phil Robertson is still trying to solve the login puzzle of "which body part you should love the most".

Eventually, these relationships won't cause a stir. But after 20 years of public outings it still hasn't reached every field, despite the fact that homosexuals are in every field.