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

[pbmax]

UNBALANCED!!

(seriously though, you wonder at the amount of embellishment)

Yes, corroboration would be nice.

[MJZiggy]

Yes, corroboration would be nice.

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.

[mraynrand]

That Chris Kluwe could make a credible case that he was fired for just talking about gay rights ...

is it really credible?

Yes, corroboration would be nice.

Or a statement from anyone else.

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

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.

[MJZiggy]

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.

I said nothing about everyone thinking the same. I said let 'em get married to who they want (provided who they want is a consenting adult) and everyone will stop discussing whether gay people should be able to get married. You don't have to dance at the wedding (though having been at a gay pride parade or two in my life, and one of them in New Orleans no less, the parties I've been to have always been worth dancing at). You're right. The younger generation is on board, and gay marriage will eventually be legal everywhere and even NFL players will be able to be open about who they're dating no matter who it is (provided it's a consenting adult).

[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.

[MJZiggy]

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.

Actually, I think the only ones that they are trying to make into pariahs are those who exude hatred. You can think what you want without repercussion. Law can force people to allow gay marriage. And what they learn once it's legal, that it's not about them. In those states where it has been legal for years, you just don't hear the opposition, because those people opposed realize that all those things they feared just don't happen.

Perhaps I used the wrong word in "credible." I assumed nothing, or I wouldn't have agreed that their is not corroboration ("admit is an interesting choice of words--I'm not fighting here, but expressing my views as are you) Let's go for believable. It most certainly could easily be as he outlined. I don't think we, without having been there or hearing 20 people with a lot to lose corroborate his accounting, we will never know the truth.

[woodbuck27]

Actually, I think the only ones that they are trying to make into pariahs are those who exude hatred. You can think what you want without repercussion. Law can force people to allow gay marriage. And what they learn once it's legal, that it's not about them. In those states where it has been legal for years, you just don't hear the opposition, because those people opposed realize that all those things they feared just don't happen.

Perhaps I used the wrong word in "credible." I assumed nothing, or I wouldn't have agreed that their is not corroboration ("admit is an interesting choice of words--I'm not fighting here, but expressing my views as are you) Let's go for believable. It most certainly could easily be as he outlined. I don't think we, without having been there or hearing 20 people with a lot to lose corroborate his accounting, we will never know the truth.

Is this generally true?

If a person gives an account of what he claims another person said (in any setting) it's not believable compared to something he tells us about himself that is believable?

[mraynrand]

Actually, I think the only ones that they are trying to make into pariahs are those who exude hatred.

this is untrue

[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.

[Rodgers12]

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.

+1

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[MJZiggy]

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.

Actually you know statistically that nuking every homosexual on the planet would not solve the problem, nor would rounding them up on an island. We know that homosexuality is not a hereditary condition as homosexuals do not reproduce, yet represent approximately 10 percent of the population. So nuking them all only delays your problem by a generation--and dumping the problem on our kids is not a valid solution. But your hatred and hyperbole are duly noted. As to the other part, I believe the phrase you're looking for is "hate the sin, not the sinner." The fact is that gays do not have equal standing in this country. DOMA was deemed unconstitutional as was don't ask don't tell because they infringed on people's rights. If the NFL were populated only by players from states in the northeast corner of the country, issues of coming out wouldn't be an issue, but that is not the case and players cannot be who they are. This is why gay marriage most certainly has a bearing on players coming out. You said that it's legal in 18 states, and, as I said, if the NFL were limited to those 18 states, it wouldn't be much of an issue because most straight people in those states understand that it has no impact on them in the least.

[woodbuck27]

Actually you know statistically that nuking every homosexual on the planet would not solve the problem, nor would rounding them up on an island. We know that homosexuality is not a hereditary condition as homosexuals do not reproduce, yet represent approximately 10 percent of the population. So nuking them all only delays your problem by a generation--and dumping the problem on our kids is not a valid solution. But your hatred and hyperbole are duly noted. As to the other part, I believe the phrase you're looking for is "hate the sin, not the sinner." The fact is that gays do not have equal standing in this country. DOMA was deemed unconstitutional as was don't ask don't tell because they infringed on people's rights. If the NFL were populated only by players from states in the northeast corner of the country, issues of coming out wouldn't be an issue, but that is not the case and players cannot be who they are. This is why gay marriage most certainly has a bearing on players coming out. You said that it's legal in 18 states, and, as I said, if the NFL were limited to those 18 states, it wouldn't be much of an issue because most straight people in those states understand that it has no impact on them in the least.

" Actually you know statistically that nuking every homosexual on the planet would not solve the problem, nor would rounding them up on an island. We know that homosexuality is not a hereditary condition as homosexuals do not reproduce, yet represent approximately 10 percent of the population. So nuking them all only delays your problem by a generation--and dumping the problem on our kids is not a valid solution. " MJZiggy

Is there any foundation for those that hate also being selfish?

Do the selfish often act thinking about the best interests of their children?

[mraynrand]

Actually you know statistically that nuking every homosexual on the planet would not solve the problem, nor would rounding them up on an island. We know that homosexuality is not a hereditary condition as homosexuals do not reproduce, yet represent approximately 10 percent of the population. So nuking them all only delays your problem by a generation

Holy shitty genetic speculation batman! God only knows the advocates don't want an honest discussion about genetic determinism versus free will, but this? Even Margaret Sanger wouldn't swallow this hogwash.

[MJZiggy]

Holy shitty genetic speculation batman! God only knows the advocates don't want an honest discussion about genetic determinism versus free will, but this? Even Margaret Sanger wouldn't swallow this hogwash.

Then explain again how a trait that is not hereditary, found in people who most often do not reproduce (and among those who do, the trait is not necessarily passed on) is steadily present in the general population. If you try to tell me that people choose it, thus choosing a life of being discriminated against, beaten and in some cultures legally murdered, you will have to explain to me why someone would make that choice--particularly since so many straight men have declared to me that other men are gross and therefore gays couldn't possibly be attracted to them.