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

[SkinBasket]

By the way..I'll add this:

Don't even imagine this is going to turn into some "Dick Swinging Contest" between you and I.

Friend, if you think this is any kind of contest, you're suffering from delusions of grandeur.

If you mean to say you think the tone of this conversation is somehow low brow and confrontational, might I suggest you stop attempting to threatenme. It might improve your disposition and make you look less of a wank.

[woodbuck27]

Please. The only thing you're concerned with is the "rights" of anyone who agrees with your beliefs. Your nobility is foolishness and your tolerance as hollow as your wacky threats, which hardly seem to be mannerly. But don't worry, I'm a charitable man, so if ever we do meet, I'll still drop a nickel in your cup. And no, that's not a gay thing.

PS: I'm guessing you're not going to answer any of the questions I've asked that might give any kind of meaning to your position, other than to keep repeating that you're position is superior because you are right. Must be nice to be infallible in your own mind.

Ahh SkinBasket you lose so predictably.

When your obsessions with your pornographic mind declines to meet some common sense.... post me.

[pbmax]

Was Randall Cobb's wife/girlfriend/hooker with him? Do you know he's not gay? If he is, but chooses not to tell you, does that make him less of a person? I'm assuming Mrs Nelson was included in the messege because she's presumably got titties, not because she's straight.

Why aren't you interested in knowing that fisters exist in the league? Why shouldn't asphyxial mastrubaters' right to exist in public be of such grave concern as you show for homosexuality? Again, you've chosen a sexual aspect of someone's life and decided we all need to know about it. Why just that one, and not others? After all, these men are not defined by their sexual behavior. That we both agree on.

At least we can get down to the nub of the problem, as it were.

Because I am no more concerned about someone's homosexuality than I am Jordy Nelson's heterosexuality. The do not reveal paradigm you appear to prefer only ignores one subset of all the groups you have mentioned.

Fisters, asphyxiators and the rest of the fetishizers don't have to hide their girlfriend or wife. Only their boyfriend or husband.

[mraynrand]

Can all of you take this conversation to a bathhouse? The rest of us are tired of seeing this thread show up on our screens.

I suggested taking the specific discussion of gay behavior and related issues to FYI, but the discussion of a gay NFL player coming out is a totally legitimate and relevant topic of conversation, especially since it centered around Aaron Rodgers. It's just a thread title that you have to ignore; I have a hard time believing that your seeing the thread title really damages your psyche so much that you can't take it any more than any other annoying thread. Stop clicking on it and posting in it, is my suggestion for you, much like I suggested for all the people who hated the threads with "Favre" in the title.

[woodbuck27]

At least we can get down to the nub of the problem, as it were.

Because I am no more concerned about someone's homosexuality than I am Jordy Nelson's heterosexuality. The do not reveal paradigm you appear to prefer only ignores one subset of all the groups you have mentioned.

Fisters, asphyxiators and the rest of the fetishizers don't have to hide their girlfriend or wife. Only their boyfriend or husband.

Originally Posted by SkinBasket

Was Randall Cobb's wife/girlfriend/hooker with him? Do you know he's not gay? If he is, but chooses not to tell you, does that make him less of a person? I'm assuming Mrs Nelson was included in the messege because she's presumably got titties, not because she's straight.

Why aren't you interested in knowing that fisters exist in the league? Why shouldn't asphyxial mastrubaters' right to exist in public be of such grave concern as you show for homosexuality? Again, you've chosen a sexual aspect of someone's life and decided we all need to know about it. Why just that one, and not others? After all, these men are not defined by their sexual behavior. That we both agree on.

Do we need "a Sex Ed. Thread" @ Packerrats?

Would that be Come On acceptable?

If so SkinBasket I nominate 'you' as the Professor 'the ALL Knowing Guru' of all things sexually bizarre, sick and perverted. The translation of which is based on one's personal view of normal to him/her. Did I leave any other ie a distinct entity out. If so I apologize.

[woodbuck27]

I suggested taking the specific discussion of gay behavior and related issues to FYI, but the discussion of a gay NFL player coming out is a totally legitimate and relevant topic of conversation, especially since it centered around Aaron Rodgers. It's just a thread title that you have to ignore; I have a hard time believing that your seeing the thread title really damages your psyche so much that you can't take it any more than any other annoying thread. Stop clicking on it and posting in it, is my suggestion for you, much like I suggested for all the people who hated the threads with "Favre" in the title.

"especially since it centered around Aaron Rodgers." mraynrand

Hey 'M' your mixing your GAY threads up?

Be careful.

[woodbuck27]

Friend, if you think this is any kind of contest, you're suffering from delusions of grandeur.

If you mean to say you think the tone of this conversation is somehow low brow and confrontational, might I suggest you stop attempting to threatenme. It might improve your disposition and make you look less of a wank.

Then 'you' understand 'ME'.

Goody !

By the way if defending a decent position or "a fact of life and me" threatens you?

Take a nerve pill. It'll make you less sensitive.

[SkinBasket]

you're suffering from delusions of grandeur

Then 'you' understand 'ME'.

Goody !

Yes. Yes, I do. I'm glad we could work that out.

[mraynrand]

Your somewhat naïve or is it simply green there 'M' but let's steer a course to something more obvious.

Isn't it clearly best to get a more professional opinion.

To LOVE your prostrate better.

Woodbuck: If a gay Packer player wants to promote prostrate health, there is no need to include his partner in the message. If by some crazy rare chance, a gay Packer had a gay partner contract prostate cancer, and the Packers wanted to use that person to warn men to check their prostates, they could have the two of them up there, and then let people speculate whether the friend was up there because he is getting poked by the Packer player, or is just a good friend. As Skin has been trying fruitlessly (pun intended) to explain to PBmax, the point is that it's only important to the gay community to have the friend be identified based on the sexual nature of the relationship. If people really cared about freedom and tolerance no one would want to know about the details of their relationship.*


*I know PB will want to respond with something regarding the nature of Jordy and his Wife's relationship being perfectly understood, so here is that response: Yes, of course it is. The vast majority of male-female relationships are entered into with the understanding that marriage and reproduction are desired and likely outcomes - that is and has been an essential biological and cultural fact since before history began. It is only in the last 40-50 years that anyone would have considered that a similar relationship would be attempted by members (ostensibly) of the same sex. Since that relationship is quite rare (homosexuals are 3% of the population, and homosexuals wanting to simulate a married heterosexual relationship only a fraction of the homosexual population) it seems misguided for people to be flummoxed that Jordy and his Wife enjoy the instant recognition of their relationship and not have the same immediate recognition extended to other relationships. But if that is the goal, then perhaps gay couples that want that recognition should wear rainbow wedding rings or something. I'm betting if 'ole Randall Cobb got up there on the Jumbotron with his gay partner with prostate cancer, and both were wearing rainbow rings (and maybe a rainbow flag flying in the background so it's obvious), the crowd wouldn't much care.

[mraynrand]

"especially since it centered around Aaron Rodgers." mraynrand

Hey 'M' your mixing your GAY threads up?

Be careful.

What? If you want to discuss the implications of an NFL player coming to as gay, that goes here. I'd say if you want to talk about gay behavior in general, that shoudl go in FYI. But it's all mixed together now; so be it. However, like everything else, including the topic at hand, some people seem unable to tolerate something that doesn't precisely fit what they want.

[SkinBasket]

At least we can get down to the nub of the problem, as it were.

Alright, lets nub away.

Because I am no more concerned about someone's homosexuality than I am Jordy Nelson's heterosexuality. The do not reveal paradigm you appear to prefer only ignores one subset of all the groups you have mentioned.

The trouble I have with this assertion is twofold. First, if you are not concerned with gay player X's homosexuality, then why is it monumentally important for them to announce exactly that publicly? If it's not important to you, and it's not important to me (and we pretend that we represent most people on either side of this debate), then who exactly is it important to? I've been asking why it's important, and to be honest I haven't really been impressed by the responses that it reduces stigma or changes public opinion regarding homosexuality when we are living in a homo saturated culture that seems to have little need of another spokesperson or activist.

Fisters, asphyxiators and the rest of the fetishizers don't have to hide their girlfriend or wife. Only their boyfriend or husband.

Because the boyfriend or husband reveals their sexual behavior, correct? Sexual behavior that not everyone celebrates, agrees with, or is tolerable of. Much like many of the other behaviors I listed.

[woodbuck27]

Woodbuck:

" If a gay Packer player wants to promote prostrate health, there is no need to include his partner in the message. " mraynrand

STOP IT ! STOP right there please.

I'm not going to run all over your post when the rest of it isn't even real or fair game in terms of anything I'm aware of.

What in blue blazes are you referring to ? GAY NFL players or GAY Packer players.

Do you know something or have the inside dibs on something even remotely related to the original topic embraced in this thread. Anything of the sort that us normally informed Packer fans are unaware of?

What NFL player or more specifically Green Bay Packer player has outed himself as being a member of the Gay society or the homosexual society?

Please make a list right here:

Name ... Team... Position... Personal Sexual Status (not cumpulsory)

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8
9.
10.

There's a start ... Fill your boots mraynrand.

As far as a prostrate exam and having a partner in any relationship. I would certainly consider it proper to include the partner in regards to any results and such prostrate exam. That 'only' seems appropriate to me. That's falling under the classification of considerate communication.

[mraynrand]

Woodbuck: If a gay Packer player wants to promote prostate health, there is no need to include his partner in the message.

STOP IT ! STOP right there please.

I'm not going to run all over your post when the rest of it isn't even real or fair game.

What in blue blazes are you referring to ? GAY NFL players or GAY Packer players.

Do you know something or have the inside dibs on something even remotely related to the original topic embraced in this thread. Anything of the sort that us normally informed Packer fans are unaware of?

What NFL player or more specifically Green Bay Packer player has outed himself as being a member of the Gay society or the homosexual society?

Please make a list right here:

Name ... Team... Position... Personal Sexual Status (not cumpulsory)
There's a start ... Fill your boots mraynrand.

Look ******, we are talking about the possibility of an NFL player coming out as gay, and the implications of that. In this specific case, it was Aaron Rodgers. What is so hard to understand about this? It's all hypotheticals, ******.




****** = derogatory expletive

[woodbuck27]

Look ******, we are talking about the possibility of an NFL player coming out as gay, and the implications of that. In this specific case, it was Aaron Rodgers. What is so hard to understand about this? It's all hypotheticals, ******.

****** = derogatory expletive

Questions Look mraynrand you ****** *******:

****** ******* 'expletive - withheld'; because you've heard it enough in your lifetime. It never did you any good. It won't now.

1. Where in my original post (copy below) is the name Aaron Rodgers as a possibility as the player or one of the players that was going to come out last summer?

2. Where in in the same #1 post is the name of any NFL player as the player or one of the players that was going to come out last summer?

Further in a thread introduced by Patler on the Topic of Aaron Rodgers decaring that " he's NOT Gay and really really likes woman" on the Jason Wilde Radio Show just last Tuesday is discussed.

If you need to play silly games and smear Aaron Rodgers take that bullshit over there please. Otherwise take that garbage to another thread somewhere else on Packerrats. Such bullshoit doesn't have to be discussed here. Your screwing up a thread.

This thread that has some relevancy to what's actually going on tight now in the NFL. Please focus you commentary on that and otherwise take your silly side show elsewhere.

Thank You.



Here is post #1 of this thread:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...yer-fell-apart

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

By Mike Freeman (NFL National Lead Writer) on November 20, 2013

" The team had decided yes. The player had decided the same. It was set. It was going to happen. An NFL player was going to publicly say he was gay and then play in the NFL.

What happened before that moment showed how parts of the NFL are progressive and ready for change. Then, ** what happened next showed how the sport is still in some ways fearful of it. . . .

Estimates of how many gay players are in the NFL range widely, but some of them, from people intimately familiar with the league, are far higher than might be assumed by the outside public.

Players and team executives give totals ranging from several dozen to several hundred. (There are about 2,000 players in the league.) One former general manager said he believes the number of gay players is 30-40.

** That period was, as one gay-rights advocate described it, "the spring of optimism for the NFL and gay rights." There was a feeling that the NFL was on the verge of crossing this significant barrier. There was great excitement. It was going to happen.

Until it didn't.

The question now is: What happened? "

Please click on the LINK above for this story.

PACKERS !

[mraynrand]

nonsense

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

[pbmax]

The trouble I have with this assertion is twofold. First, if you are not concerned with gay player X's homosexuality, then why is it monumentally important for them to announce exactly that publicly? If it's not important to you, and it's not important to me (and we pretend that we represent most people on either side of this debate), then who exactly is it important to? I've been asking why it's important, and to be honest I haven't really been impressed by the responses that it reduces stigma or changes public opinion regarding homosexuality when we are living in a homo saturated culture that seems to have little need of another spokesperson or activist.

Because the people involved should not be made invisible unless they choose to deflect public attention. I take it as a given that some proportion of homosexual couples would choose to lead public lives as some heterosexual couples do. Be it simply because they are accommodating (to a point) for the media in general, for charitable or altruistic reasons or to garner benefits or opportunities that might accrue to public figures in general.

Mrs. Nelson choose to participate in the tourism ad and the breast cancer awareness bit that aired during the game. Player X's husband or boyfriend has yet to appear. In fact, Player X has not even been identified beyond speculation. That this is true for 100% of the cases despite the fact that the odds of a gay player in the NFL are nearly certain, is evidence of a barrier.

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.

Because the boyfriend or husband reveals their sexual behavior, correct? Sexual behavior that not everyone celebrates, agrees with, or is tolerable of. Much like many of the other behaviors I listed.

Tell me, what behavior do you think is revealed by a same sex couple that is not participated in by a hetero couple?

[mraynrand]

Tell me, what behavior do you think is revealed by a same sex couple that is not participated in by a hetero couple?

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.

[pbmax]

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.

I was not supposing they were celibate. But is failing to have heterosexual intercourse grounds for public silence? What if the wife gives hubby a handy? Or something more adventurous?

What if Snake marries his girlfriend? Should she never be allowed to appear with him in public?

Inferring specific sexual acts from the relationship is guaranteed to lead you astray. Nothing is 100%.

No serious person, except on specific grounds for specific reasons conducts a public appearance by taking inventory of sexual behavior. Maybe if you choose to be interviewed on MTV, you can be guaranteed an off color question, but will it come up in the Packers media auditorium?

[mraynrand]

I was not supposing they were celibate. But is failing to have heterosexual intercourse grounds for public silence? What if the wife gives hubby a handy? Or something more adventurous?

What if Snake marries his girlfriend? Should she never be allowed to appear with him in public?

Inferring specific sexual acts from the relationship is guaranteed to lead you astray. Nothing is 100%.

No serious person, except on specific grounds for specific reasons conducts a public appearance by taking inventory of sexual behavior. Maybe if you choose to be interviewed on MTV, you can be guaranteed an off color question, but will it come up in the Packers media auditorium?

You should read my post further up. The assumptions are obvious; just because hets can do all sorts of other things doesn't change the general assumption of the relationship, specifically because those behaviors and consequences are biologically and culturally ancient. So too is homosexual sexual conduct, but it just isn't naturally inferred because it is naturally extremely rare, and culturally, a marital-style homosexual relationship is extremely rare.

The answer as to the public questions is to not ask, and let any couple decide what they wish to announce. In today's culture, they will be celebrated publicly; in today's NFL locker room, it won't go so easy for them. But that will change too, probably before football is eliminated all together for it's physical dangers.

[pbmax]

You should read my post further up. The assumptions are obvious; just because hets can do all sorts of other things doesn't change the general assumption of the relationship, specifically because those behaviors and consequences are biologically and culturally ancient. So too is homosexual sexual conduct, but it just isn't naturally inferred because it is naturally extremely rare, and culturally, a marital-style homosexual relationship is extremely rare.

The answer as to the public questions is to not ask, and let any couple decide what they wish to announce. In today's culture, they will be celebrated publicly; in today's NFL locker room, it won't go so easy for them. But that will change too, probably before football is eliminated all together for it's physical dangers.

But the difference between assumed behavior of any couple is important for the point made by Skin earlier. He refers to a public preference not to know details about asphyxiators and other fetishists (or perhaps more to his point, the lack of hope/pressure to have them come out). My point is that people do not know nearly as much as they think about couples of either stripe, and the link between a fetishist and a couple is wide and blurry.

Public acknowledgment does not disclose any more information about sexual behavior for a same sex couple than it does for a hetero couple. In fact, since hetero intercourse is ruled out, it might disclose less. But more to the point, most people do not want the details.

I am all for any public announcements being completely voluntary and the businesses involved can associate with them or not, whether they thinks its in their interest should be the determining factor. There will be celebrations but there will also be backlash and potential ugliness (possibly on both sides). It will take more than one to make it a non-event. But unless the roof falls in, I think it will eventually be a non-issue.