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

[mraynrand]

Hold it......Cobb is gay too?

This has not been confirmed. Please wait until he's on the Jumbotron with his gay partner talking about prostate exams.

[mraynrand]

Skin, I am guessing that NFL locker rooms are not great environments for gay acceptance. That's the barrier. Although in today's environment, I could see the fear of exposure being worse than the actual environment after coming out. As far as the public, sure there would be people dismayed to see Randall with his partner on the jumbotron begging you to self examine your testicles and have a doctor probe your prostate gland, but even the less tolerant would probably just say "Oh, that's nice that Randy has a butt buddy." Mostly, fans in the stadium and at home would not care, but jersey sales might dip a bit.

[SkinBasket]

Skin, I am guessing that NFL locker rooms are not great environments for gay acceptance. That's the barrier.

That's the most obvious one I was guessing as well, but am curious as to what pb feels they are, since he feels this is a societal issue rather than an NFL specific issue. I don't think he's interested in telling me though. Or he got tired of all the probing. Probing. Proooooooooooooobing. Pro. Bing? Probing.

[SkinBasket]

Randall Cobb says get your prostate examined. First, start with a simple visual check for swelling or distention in the general area.

Looks good!

Next, a manual digital exam is in order.

Hmmmmm.... Mmmmmmm.... Yeah.... Okay, wait..... A little deeper. Just hang in there partner. This is for your own good. Hoooah! All clear!

Your first bowel movement after the exam may be difficult, painful, for unusually large due to impaction.

Plop.

Butt don't let the stigma of having another man check your prostate keep you in the shadows of fear.

Have your prostate checked, preferably by your gay partner, since gay advocates seem to think you'd be good at that for some reason.

[Kiwon]

Randall Cobb says get your prostate examined. First, start with a simple visual check for swelling or distention in the general area.



Next, a manual digital exam is in order.



Your first bowel movement after the exam may be difficult, painful, for unusually large due to impaction.



Butt don't let the stigma of having another man check your prostate keep you in the shadows of fear.

Ah......an early frontrunner for post-of-the year! Hilarious!

Skin should write PSAs for the guberment.

[mraynrand]

That wasn't hard to find. Here's a pretty in depth analysis of at least the christian and roman perspective. Again, perhaps there were unions, but it was well understood that they were very different relationships. Still, what lesson exactly should modern man learn from Roman same sex tolerance or encouragement?

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2...rch-history-50

First, it is highly implausible that homosexual unions either in antiquity or in the Middle Ages would have been blessed by a religion that promoted ascetic devotion to the kingdom of God rather than that condition which contemporary Americans understand as the healthy expression of erotic drives. In that sense the book is, as Boswell himself admits, counterintuitive in its very premise.

[SkinBasket]

Nothing like stealing something, twisting it beyond recognition, then claiming, by virtue of the distortion you've caused, ownership over the original object.

Kind of like sneaking into a church, stealing a crucifix, tossing Jesus off it, and rounding off the base to make a mighty fine, double handled ass ram named the CruciFix®. Then when the church complains I stole their cross, I can just tell them they don't get to tell me what I can and can't do with that cross shaped ass ram just because I took it from them. It's an ass ram now, and just because I took it from them and named it the same as their beloved holy symbol, does not mean they own it, because I'm a person too, and you have to tolerate my behavior while I show no tolerance for your beliefs that are offended by me shoving a defiled crucifix up my partners colon.

[mraynrand]

Nonsense, you overgeneralize and lump everything together to suit the needs of your argument. In Athenian society, to take one counter-example, pederasty was considered socially superior to heterosexual unions. The relation between man and boy was considered a relationship of spiritual mentorship and cultivation of virtue, in contrast to the masses who were mere machines or animals destined to the repetitive stupidity of producing and reproducing themselves.

But at least they knew that it was different than male-female relationships

Of course they are different, the historical contexts are completely different. Nobody said otherwise. I only introduced the non-Christian, non-modern examples to refute your reductive claims about the universality of hetero-only unions.

I said that up until 40-50 years ago nobody tried to equate the two type of relationships, due to biological and cultural facts. Only modern graduate students were able to achieve a notion of equivalency.

Reproduction may be synonymous with human nature but so is perversion. But you're twisting the argument. My point was that human nature does not require the limitation of the range of socially accepted sexual relations to hetero couples, that limitation is only found in certain traditions.

People pretty much know that reproduction is more important to the propagation of the species than perversion. Again, except for the modern Left that tries to sell perversion as normalcy

You are leaping from a (weak) historical argument to a moral argument. That is called a category error. Just because it makes good moral sense (to you) doesn't mean that history agrees.

Am I? The argument is that everyone knows the difference in result from putting the male reproductive organ into a female organ versus into a mouth or an anus. The consequences are dramatically different. In case you forgot, one propagates the species and one tends to give another difficulty pooping. It's not a category error to argue from this simple biological fact to the the second fact that human species tend to have placed a special importance on the reproductive act - whether as an evolutionary consequence or as an intentionally specified property of humans, one act propagates the species, the other does not. Pretty significant difference - you could say they are different categories, and one is an error (if the goal is to make offspring). I see absolutely no attempt in my post to make any moral argument.

Right, you assume that the be all, end all of marriage is procreation, so you cannot understand why anyone would try to throw non-procreative permutations into the mix. In other words, you are begging the question. If marriage means exactly and only what it is defined to mean by Christianity then logically you would have to accept that "marriage" as institution is not universal to the history of humanity.

"marriage" was established to give significance as a result of the significance and the specific nature of the act. See above. Marriage subsequently is tied directly to the reproductive act and it's consequences. Call it "Fshtyyllaggummalta" if you prefer, or call it marriage, it is conceptually and absolutely distinct from other forms of relationships. Thus the Greeks called their male-male relationships something else, did they not? They were significant for another reason, and identified as something different, were they not? You'd have to go to graduate school to not understand that. Thus calling a relationship between two beings that don't reproduce by the same term as those who do, is to deliberately confuse and conflate concepts. Someone called that "floating abstractions." But once you are stuck in the head with beings of reason and not real beings, it's hard to relate to the real world.

[hoosier]

But at least they knew that it was different than male-female relationships

I said that up until 40-50 years ago nobody tried to equate the two type of relationships, due to biological and cultural facts. Only modern graduate students were able to achieve a notion of equivalency.

People pretty much know that reproduction is more important to the propagation of the species than perversion. Again, except for the modern Left that tries to sell perversion as normalcy

Am I? The argument is that everyone knows the difference in result from putting the male reproductive organ into a female organ versus into a mouth or an anus. The consequences are dramatically different. In case you forgot, one propagates the species and one tends to give another difficulty pooping. It's not a category error to argue from this simple biological fact to the the second fact that human species tend to have placed a special importance on the reproductive act - whether as an evolutionary consequence or as an intentionally specified property of humans, one act propagates the species, the other does not. Pretty significant difference - you could say they are different categories, and one is an error (if the goal is to make offspring). I see absolutely no attempt in my post to make any moral argument.

"marriage" was established to give significance as a result of the significance and the specific nature of the act. See above. Marriage subsequently is tied directly to the reproductive act and it's consequences. Call it "Fshtyyllaggummalta" if you prefer, or call it marriage, it is conceptually and absolutely distinct from other forms of relationships. Thus the Greeks called their male-male relationships something else, did they not? They were significant for another reason, and identified as something different, were they not? You'd have to go to graduate school to not understand that. Thus calling a relationship between two beings that don't reproduce by the same term as those who do, is to deliberately confuse and conflate concepts. Someone called that "floating abstractions." But once you are stuck in the head with beings of reason and not real beings, it's hard to relate to the real world.

I suspect that the problem has to do with the fact that in the modern West marriage has always a foot in two worlds: it is both a religious and a civic institution. So you have defense-of-marriage conservatives fighting to save the integrity of their Christian tradition and gay-marriage proponents fighting to expand the domain of social and political recognition to include gay relationships. The simple fix would be for the State to get out of the marriage industry entirely and recognize only civil unions, which would then become the new standard for family health coverage, parental rights, inheritance and all that good stuff. And leave decisions about marriage entirely up to religious institutions. I am certain that the arguments for gay marriage would diminish immediately and be reduced to small factions of gays and lesbians trying to get their church or synagogue to change its outlook. But would the defense of marriage militants be satisfied?

[SkinBasket]

The simple fix would be for the State to get out of the marriage industry entirely and recognize only civil unions, which would then become the new standard for family health coverage, parental rights, inheritance and all that good stuff.

That's not getting government out of marriage. That's the government renaming it and retaining all of the problems involved with government being integrally ingrained in social affairs. So, no, that would not be a simple fix. All that solves is the queers mislabeling their union, which is solely a problem created by the gay marriage militants and their propaganda apparatus.

[Freak Out]

Leave it to some fags to get the circle jerk back together.

[mraynrand]

Leave it to some fags to get the circle jerk back together.

Fuck off

[hoosier]

Nice Deliverance reference, Woodbuck.

[woodbuck27]

Nice Deliverance reference, Woodbuck.

That movie was something else with a 94% Rating.

I liked the scenery and the white water canoeing. I've done a lot of that back in the day (s). Some of those trips into the remote back woods with a bunch of outdoor freaks and wildlife junkies. some wonderful fun filled and exciting times. That movie placed a new meaning on stay away from the fricken locals if you can help it.

I saw JAWS again for the maybe 10th time just recently. I just checked to see how it compares to Deliverence in terms of a rating.

JAWS gets a whopping 98% Rating. WOW!

[call_me_ishmael]

It blows my mind how all of these "conservatives" want to keep to themselves and support individual rights - unless you're gay. Ridiculous. Hopefully with the new pope all of these catholic ass wipes realize how ridiculous the views of the church are.

The world is rapidly changing. Turns out organized religion is a massive crock of shit that only fools follow.

[Kiwon]

It blows my mind how all of these "conservatives" want to keep to themselves and support individual rights - unless you're gay. Ridiculous. Hopefully with the new pope all of these catholic ass wipes realize how ridiculous the views of the church are.

The world is rapidly changing. Turns out organized religion is a massive crock of shit that only fools follow.

At the risk of getting more vapid cliches, dare I ask just exactly which values you think smart people should adhere to?

[SkinBasket]

It blows my mind how all of these "conservatives" want to keep to themselves and support individual rights - unless you're gay. Ridiculous. Hopefully with the new pope all of these catholic ass wipes realize how ridiculous the views of the church are.

The world is rapidly changing. Turns out organized religion is a massive crock of shit that only fools follow.

BLAM! Intolerance in the name of tolerance strikes again!

Also, what "individual rights" of gays are being suppressed by "conservatives?" Or do you feel that someone's sexual behavior entitles them to additional "rights?" You were kind of a vague, so it's hard to get a feel for.

[Zool]

BLAM! Intolerance in the name of tolerance strikes again!

Also, what "individual rights" of gays are being suppressed by "conservatives?" Or do you feel that someone's sexual behavior entitles them to additional "rights?" You were kind of a vague, so it's hard to get a feel for.

I assume he was talking about marriage? It's a pretty broad brush statement so hard to say exactly. Typically Christians are conservative so I suppose one could make that leap if they choose. But as you've said many times in FYI, my Utopian ideal of no political parties makes me hate both sides of this idiotic argument.

[SkinBasket]

I assume he was talking about marriage? It's a pretty broad brush statement so hard to say exactly. Typically Christians are conservative so I suppose one could make that leap if they choose. But as you've said many times in FYI, my Utopian ideal of no political parties makes me hate both sides of this idiotic argument.

That's what I was guessing given the nature of the discussion, but I'm not sure where anyone has been granted to "right" to marriage. Maybe he has a different copy of the Constitution than I do. Or maybe he found it in the General Welfare Clause.

[SkinBasket]

Typically Christians are conservative so I suppose one could make that leap if they choose.

I'm not buying that these days. It might be true that people who identify as Christian may still skew slightly conservative, and certainly certain segments are firmly conservative due to their religious beliefs, but I don't think "Christians" are the conservative well they used to be. I would expect a pretty even political smattering across the Christian spectrum if I wasn't too lazy to look it up. Especially if you count black people, which apparently we have been forced to do by our Federal slave masters. Ishmeal also seems to forget that there are many a "devout" Catholic democrat as well, but then again, that's kind of exactly the problem with ignorant stereotyping I guess.