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

[woodbuck27]

I originally read this backwards. Yes, if a guy and a gal are living together and are in a relationship, most people assume they are sexually active. For two men and two women, they have to tell you or show you they are in a relationship, otherwise people will assume they are just friends. This shouldn't be that difficult to understand. And yes, like I told Zig, there are the exceptions.

" I originally read this backwards." mraynrand

Why would that impact your response differently 'M'?

" Yes, if a guy and a gal are living together and are in a relationship, most people assume they are sexually active." mraynrand

Then if that's the case or "most people assuming" that the couple are sexually active or sexually active together:

Is either a correct assumption?

I propose that such an assumption is meaningless in terms of the TRUTH; and that accepted in good order or manners as that TRUTH is private information. I believe that pbmax has taken this position in his attempt to get 'YOU' and SkinBasket possibly focused, on the real story.

The real story that this thread was introduced for and for discussion here @ Packerrats.

Instead of that this thread has been severely slapped and kicked with over the top too much reference to definition of the word homosexual and it then has to be about >>> SEX >>> about styles and acts of SEX.

Such focus on discussion is a clear perversion of what we need to focus on here or the primary issue outlined clearly in post #1 of this thread.

Please if you have any sense left get there.

I realize the challenge that offers you and SkinBasket. I'm sympathetic of that yet I ask you to focus on page one as I believe that 'YOU' and SkinBasket might offer something very positive.

That's in a proper FOCUS Boys.

[SkinBasket]

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.

Alright, you and rand have discussed the topic of what defines a homosexual relationship, which we've already covered, and it seems you and others are somewhat unwilling to embrace the idea that a homosexual relationship necessarily involves sexual behavior between people of the same sex, instead coursing along the easier routes of the more sympathetic emotional and social relationships (which are not unique to homosexuals), so I won't rehash that.

Instead, you raise something here I'm curious about - this idea of a barrier, who's existence is proven by the lack of an openly gay NFL player. I'm interested to know what you think this barrier is, in a real sense. I'm guessing in this case it's a combination of peer pressure, employer pressure, fear of retaliation of some sort like loss of employment or harassment. Embarrassment perhaps? You claim it's a discriminatory barrier, so I'm interested to know how you would define said barrier and what makes it different than a barrier, proven by your own same standard, that has stopped NFL players from openly announcing the practice other sexual behaviors not considered biologically or socially normal. Fisting for example. Or wearing women's panties to bed. Or a proud proclaimer of heterosexual anal sex. Or even a guy who comes out and says his wife gives great blow jobs - although that may cause more locker room problems than announcing you're gay. In other words, if you are arguing this "barrier," which has suppressed an open announcement of homosexuality, and which exists solely due to the same sex nature of the sexual partner, rather than the definitive sexual nature of that relationship which makes it unique, then why don't we have NFL players who are open about non-gay sexual behavior which makes them unique?

[SkinBasket]

" Yes, if a guy and a gal are living together and are in a relationship, most people assume they are sexually active." mraynrand

Then if that's the case or "most people assuming" that the couple are sexually active or sexually active together:

Is either a correct assumption?

I propose that such an assumption is meaningless in terms of the TRUTH; and that accepted in good order or manners as that TRUTH is private information. I believe that pbmax has taken this position in his attempt to get 'YOU' and SkinBasket possibly focused, on the real story.

The real story that this thread was introduced for and for discussion here @ Packerrats.

Instead of that this thread has been severely slapped and kicked with over the top too much reference to definition of the word homosexual and it then has to be about >>> SEX >>> about styles and acts of SEX.

Such focus on discussion is a clear perversion of what we need to focus on here or the primary issue outlined clearly in post #1 of this thread.

Please if you have any sense left get there.

I realize the challenge that offers you and SkinBasket. I'm sympathetic of that yet I ask you to focus on page one as I believe that 'YOU' and SkinBasket might offer something very positive.

That's in a proper FOCUS Boys.

So you're telling us if a gay is not actively having sex, he's not homosexual?

Maybe if you weren't so FEARFUL of SEX, you wouldn't find yourself FOCUSING on objectifying the gays and demanding they self-reduce themselves to the SEXUAL behavior that makes them UNIQUE and whereby the topic of this thread.

[woodbuck27]

" ..."What can I get for you, hon?" - "I'll have Sports, hold the PC-social engineering agenda, sausage, hash browns, and wheat toast. Thank you!" ... : Kiwon

Good post there Kiwon.

Good to see you aboard the ship. All that writing has asked me to add something different:

Today here in lovely Honey Harbour, Ontario we have an overcast sky with snow flurries. The temperature is cold @ -7 Celcius (20 F) with wind at 17 km/h and gusts of 29 km/h.

Sunrise was @ 7:54 AM EST and Sunset will be @ 16:57 PM EST.

Have a wonderful day or evening in your corner of this great world.

Wishing you a rainbow
For sunlight after showers —
Miles and miles of peoples smiles
For golden happy hours —
Flowers at your doorway
For luck and laughter too,
And a host of good friends that never ends
Each day your whole life through !

GO PACK GO !

[pbmax]

Because no one talks about any sexual activities in the context of an NFL season. Not that I can remember. But families are part of the culture of NFL coverage, business and promotion every week, even in the offseason.

An out NFL player is not going to talk about sexual activity and more than a heterosexual player is going to talk about their sexual habits.

You may feel that some slight is visited on the player by not being able to talk openly about sexual activity because of the narrow terms you use to define homosexual. But public reticence on that subject is the norm for this situation, heterosexual or homosexual. There is no lack of other arenas where such a conversation can happen.

[woodbuck27]

So you're telling us if a gay is not actively having sex, he's not homosexual?

Maybe if you weren't so FEARFUL of SEX, you wouldn't find yourself FOCUSING on objectifying the gays and demanding they self-reduce themselves to the SEXUAL behavior that makes them UNIQUE and whereby the topic of this thread.

Read my post with some open mindedness not for some reason to nit and pick SkinBasket.

Try ... at least try for some decency and openness. That's rather nice to do Maan. :-D

I don't put forward such effort to get bashed over the head with that by someone that's certainly no better than myself.

[bobblehead]

Are you one of those people that automatically assumes that if two people of the opposite sex are customarily seen together or even living under the same roof then they have to be sexually active with one another? .

Well, yes, unless they are married.

[bobblehead]

Why has this thread not been moved to Romper Room or FYI??? Can I start a thread about Obama now?

Red, you are the officer in charge of this, why haven't you bitched yet?

[MadtownPacker]

Thanks Bobble, I was letting it go for as long as possible.

[woodbuck27]

http://yourdailycap.ca/two-spirited-mean/

What does "Two-Spirited" mean?

Posted October 23, 2013

This is interesting from the stand point of how the Natives Americans view the their GAY population proportion and it's importance in regards to fair treatment.

" Traditionally, Aboriginal communities sought harmony within the community in order to function. But harmony did not mean homogeneity, it meant everyone had a role, everyone provided and everyone was dependent. This ideal of harmony serves as the foundation for modern day understandings of “balance” including the components necessary to ensure successful health and education. "

Fair treatment means fairness in the treatment of the whole.

GO PACK GO !

[woodbuck27]

Thanks Bobble, I was letting it go for as long as possible.

Thank You mad.

PACKERS !

[HowardRoark]

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

[SkinBasket]

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

Hard to tell if you've tried following the "Out the Gays" crowd. According to Woody, you're not gay unless you're currently having sex with another man and if you challenge him to define his position, he'll threaten to beat you up. According to pb, having sexual relations with another man does not hake you a homosexual, it's just one aspect of homosexuality, which is just like sexuality, but with a homo, but that does not define homosexuality, which is at once of grave importance to tell everyone about and of the highest priority to normalize. To be fair, his position is backed by thinking rather than violence. And according to ziggy, everyone who doesn't believe gays should be paraded in front of the media to satisfy an agenda and then rewarded with whatever they want because they are people too, should shut the fuck up in the name of tolerance. I may have detected some thinly veiled threats in her posts.

[SkinBasket]

You may feel that some slight is visited on the player by not being able to talk openly about sexual activity because of the narrow terms you use to define homosexual.

Homosexual is a rather narrowly defined term because it describes a specific sexual behavior. Again, your telling me that being a homosexual does not define the entirety of the person, which I wholly agree with, while at the same time demanding they be recognized solely for that aspect of their personage. There are other aspects to people's lives that are found in relatively the same small proportion of the population that are not generally accepted, yet this is the one that is singled out as being of paramount importance. I'm still left wondering why, other than the promotional value a queer offers as a partner to an NFL player, which you seem rather convinced of.

[mraynrand]

Homosexuality is defined by attraction not an activity. I think the public can handle that.

There's an enormous difference between attraction and action. It is the action that makes all the difference, just as it is with fornication and adultery. People can have the attraction and the lust to engage in these activities, but until they do, there is nothing publicly to judge.

And even if you simply stipulate attraction, the numbers still drive the fundamental difference: homosexual attraction is the rare exception just as a sexless man/woman relationship is the exception/rarity.

[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]

Because no one talks about any sexual activities in the context of an NFL season. Not that I can remember.


What about Travis Henry?

Plus, people are always saying the Packers are getting fucked by the refs. What planet are you living on?

[mraynrand]

Why aren't rubber large intestines passed out to kids under 12 at the stadiums?

They might think they are something else. Alert Randall Cobb!

[HowardRoark]

Hard to tell if you've tried following the "Out the Gays" crowd. According to Woody, you're not gay unless you're currently having sex with another man and if you challenge him to define his position, he'll threaten to beat you up. According to pb, having sexual relations with another man does not hake you a homosexual, it's just one aspect of homosexuality, which is just like sexuality, but with a homo, but that does not define homosexuality, which is at once of grave importance to tell everyone about and of the highest priority to normalize. To be fair, his position is backed by thinking rather than violence. And according to ziggy, everyone who doesn't believe gays should be paraded in front of the media to satisfy an agenda and then rewarded with whatever they want because they are people too, should shut the fuck up in the name of tolerance. I may have detected some thinly veiled threats in her posts.

That ain’t the only thing I think is thinly veiled with ziggy.

It’s hard to follow all these threads these days with Woody becoming the Bridget Anne Kelley of Packerrats…..but I always thought the main thing that is important is two people who “love” each other is what is paramount in all of these matters. Gay marriage, etc.

Over the past few months I have realized that my identity is asexual. I have met other people who are asexual as well and we love each other deeply. What we have found really quite hateful is the lack of respect and rights that we have in today’s White-Male America. Why can’t my asexual lovers have the same rights as a typical Christian breeder couple?

[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.

[mraynrand]

Over the past few months I have realized that my identity is asexual. I have met other people who are asexual as well and we love each other deeply. What we have found really quite hateful is the lack of respect and rights that we have in today’s White-Male America. Why can’t my asexual lovers have the same rights as a typical Christian breeder couple?

Sounds like you need a Political Action Committee and some lobbyists. And your own colored ribbon.

[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.


http://static.foxsports.com/content/fscom/img/2013/10/14/101313-NFL-Green-Bay-Packers-Randall-Cobb-TV-Pi_2013101400252613_660_320.JPG
Looks good!

Next, a manual digital exam is in order.


http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site569/2013/1016/20131016__1-randall%20cobb%20injured_400.jpg
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.


http://jerseyal.com/GBP/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/randall-cobb.jpeg
Plop.

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


http://25.media.tumblr.com/1b74ef792ed163003ebace8e91b16e39/tumblr_mnc65lWi2Y1rj43zqo1_500.jpg
Have your prostate checked, preferably by your gay partner, since gay advocates seem to think you'd be good at that for some reason.

[MJZiggy]

But you're constructing a false argument (cherry picking, innumeracy). I already pointed out what the norm is. So of course there are exceptions to the male-female couples, where sex and reproduction aren't part of the equation, just as there are the rare male-male and female-female couples where sex is involved. But because of basic biology and cultural norms that have existed from the dawn of time and history, everyone understands what the norm is, so that if you want to make an issue of same sex couples being different from 'just friends' you have to specify that sexual activity is taking place. So it is about the sex, for same sex relationships, because if there is no sex, there is no controversy, and there is nothing to talk about.Just because it's not "the norm" doesn't mean you have to say anything. This isn't about the norm, or sexual behavior. I don't need to know if a husband's viagra is working, or if a player is getting laid. It's none of my business and none of yours either. But if a player is out and has a boyfriend or husband, which appears from the initial discussion could very well be the case, then you're working very hard to stigmatize that relationship (which again, is none of your business). And if that stigma and fear were to disappear, it would not be an issue. It is not my problem. I think people can marry whichever consenting adult they like. It appears to be your problem which I don't understand because again, it's none of your business. If a player is gay and wants to talk about his loved one, that should still be his business. The problem with your problem is that it's causing heartache and a trampling of rights for a whole class of people. You can be with the one you're attracted to and in love with. They should have that same right.

[MJZiggy]

Well, yes, unless they are married.Nice...

[woodbuck27]

Hard to tell if you've tried following the "Out the Gays" crowd. According to Woody, you're not gay unless you're currently having sex with another man and if you challenge him to define his position, he'll threaten to beat you up. According to pb, having sexual relations with another man does not hake you a homosexual, it's just one aspect of homosexuality, which is just like sexuality, but with a homo, but that does not define homosexuality, which is at once of grave importance to tell everyone about and of the highest priority to normalize. To be fair, his position is backed by thinking rather than violence. And according to ziggy, everyone who doesn't believe gays should be paraded in front of the media to satisfy an agenda and then rewarded with whatever they want because they are people too, should shut the fuck up in the name of tolerance. I may have detected some thinly veiled threats in her posts.

jheesssh Skinbasket I'm not into beating anyone up. Merely defending myself if need be. I'm far far removed from any cowardice and you attacked my Irish.

Damn as to beating you up!? What !? Beat you up naaaaww ! I can't even tug on your nose.

[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.

:grin: :grin: :grin:

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

Skin should write PSAs for the guberment. :tup:

[woodbuck27]

My main issue with a digital prostrate exam has to do with my female Doc who seems to grind her finger up there for such a time as her panting seems too obvious. The weakness I feel when she fails to yank up my pants for me.

[Kiwon]

My main issue with a digital prostrate exam has to do with my female Doc who seems to grind her finger up there for such a time as her panting seems too obvious. The weakness I feel when she fails to yank up my pants for me.

Ha! TMI, Woody!

[MJZiggy]

That ain’t the only thing I think is thinly veiled with ziggy.



Oh do tell...

[hoosier]

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.

Not quite. Same sex unions were pretty common in non-European and pre-Christian cultures, including Greece, Rome, China and Mesopotamia. There are even same-sex union traditions in early Christianity. The strict equation of marriage with one man-one woman came later, around the 4th century AD.

[woodbuck27]

That ain’t the only thing I think is thinly veiled with ziggy.

It’s hard to follow all these threads these days with Woody becoming the Bridget Anne Kelley of Packerrats…..but I always thought the main thing that is important is two people who “love” each other is what is paramount in all of these matters. Gay marriage, etc.

Over the past few months I have realized that my identity is asexual. I have met other people who are asexual as well and we love each other deeply. What we have found really quite hateful is the lack of respect and rights that we have in today’s White-Male America. Why can’t my asexual lovers have the same rights as a typical Christian breeder couple?



Hi HowardRoark:

I always thought the main thing that is important is two people who “love” each other is what is paramount in all of these matters HowardRoark

Please see post #250 this thread....where I try to support anyone in your position as an asexual or one of the three minority variations of sexual orientation and including also homosexuality and bisexuality.

Write of support in terms of generalized public acceptance. How that support essentially impacts any relationship in terms of it's openness and resultant zero or diminished anxiety due to controlling the negatives brought on with any stigmatization.

Most importantly that support resulting in enhanced overall health.

Here's something for you to read from a Canadian perspective.

http://www.ellecanada.com/living/a-sexomatic-dealing-with-asexuality/a/25071

[woodbuck27]

Just because it's not "the norm" doesn't mean you have to say anything. This isn't about the norm, or sexual behavior. I don't need to know if a husband's viagra is working, or if a player is getting laid. It's none of my business and none of yours either. But if a player is out and has a boyfriend or husband, which appears from the initial discussion could very well be the case, then you're working very hard to stigmatize that relationship (which again, is none of your business). And if that stigma and fear were to disappear, it would not be an issue. It is not my problem. I think people can marry whichever consenting adult they like. It appears to be your problem which I don't understand because again, it's none of your business. If a player is gay and wants to talk about his loved one, that should still be his business. The problem with your problem is that it's causing heartache and a trampling of rights for a whole class of people. You can be with the one you're attracted to and in love with. They should have that same right.

Exactly.

nailed it MJ.

[HowardRoark]

Hi HowardRoark:

I always thought the main thing that is important is two people who “love” each other is what is paramount in all of these matters HowardRoark

Please see post #250 this thread....where I try to support anyone in your position as an asexual or one of the three minority variations of sexual orientation and including also homosexuality and bisexuality.

Write of support in terms of generalized public acceptance. How that support essentially impacts any relationship in terms of it's openness and resultant zero or diminished anxiety due to controlling the negatives brought on with any stigmatization.

Most importantly that support resulting in enhanced overall health.

Here's something for you to read from a Canadian perspective.

http://www.ellecanada.com/living/a-sexomatic-dealing-with-asexuality/a/25071

I didn't see anything addressing me and my asexual lover wanting to marry each other and get all the cool rights of married people.

Some haters here might just define us as roommates.....I dream of the day we can beyond that sort of bigoted thought.

Was it the green, red or black text?

[mraynrand]

Not quite. Same sex unions were pretty common in non-European and pre-Christian cultures, including Greece, Rome, China and Mesopotamia. There are even same-sex union traditions in early Christianity. The strict equation of marriage with one man-one woman came later, around the 4th century AD.

I've seen this a common attempt to justify and normalize today's behavior. But conditions are not the same and understanding of what such relationships meant were very different.

I read about this when a Yalie Boswell tried to make these same claims about the catholic church twenty years ago. My recollection is that he completely misunderstood the church, but I'll look for something on it. I know for pretty sure that the Greek in Roman unions were in no way an attempt to equate them with oppose sex unions, but don't know about China and Meso. The 'modern' view is decidedly distinct.

[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/2007/01/gay-marriage-reimagining-church-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.

[woodbuck27]

I didn't see anything addressing me and my asexual lover wanting to marry each other and get all the cool rights of married people.

Some haters here might just define us as roommates.....I dream of the day we can beyond that sort of bigoted thought.

Was it the green, red or black text?

If you identify a hater here in terms related to any hurt on you or your standards. Place that member on ignore (using that option afforded to you here) as that certainly works. The hater doesn't dictate to and consequently control you. You ignore or control 'the perceived hater'.

You know that. :-) That's simply a reminder.

I certainly recommend that you have 'no fear' and that you and your loved one:

Make every effort to get actively involved in any necessary pro-active group that represents the majority of your best interests.

Good Luck.

[mraynrand]

If you identify a hater here in terms related to any hurt on you or your standards. Place that member on ignore (using that option afforded to you here) as that certainly works. The hater doesn't dictate to and consequently control you. You ignore or control 'the perceived hater'.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Concrete_pouring_0020.jpg

[HowardRoark]

If you identify a hater here in terms related to any hurt on you or your standards. Place that member on ignore (using that option afforded to you here) as that certainly works. The hater doesn't dictate to and consequently control you. You ignore or control 'the perceived hater'.

You know that. :-) That's simply a reminder.

I certainly recommend that you have 'no fear' and that you and your loved one:

Make every effort to get actively involved in any necessary pro-active group that represents the majority of your best interests.

Good Luck.

Oh, I'm sorry Woodman....I think I was high on stacking my Lo-T pills and Viagra when I posted that earlier stuff.

I like women and like to have sex with them and get married to them and whatnot. I also believe that Homosexual stuff is wrong because I'm a Christian. I don't get hung up it or anything, but I guess those are just my standards.

Should I still take your advice?

[hoosier]

I've seen this a common attempt to justify and normalize today's behavior. But conditions are not the same and understanding of what such relationships meant were very different.

I read about this when a Yalie Boswell tried to make these same claims about the catholic church twenty years ago. My recollection is that he completely misunderstood the church, but I'll look for something on it. I know for pretty sure that the Greek in Roman unions were in no way an attempt to equate them with oppose sex unions, but don't know about China and Meso. The 'modern' view is decidedly distinct.

You're the one who is talking about norms, not me. My only point was that the religious institutionalization of marriage as one man-one woman is not as universal as you like to claim. You could have written that one man-one woman is the standard that the Christian tradition in the West has always adhered to and there would have been little problem with that. But you didn't. You reached even further and tried to assert that the restriction of marriage to monogamous heterosexual relations is a timeless practice, and that the inclusion of non-heterosexual relations in such an institution is only a recent invention. It's not enough for you that one man-one woman be the hallmark of certain traditions, you need it to be synonymous with human nature. But cultural history says that it isn't.

[mraynrand]

You're the one who is talking about norms, not me. My only point was that the religious institutionalization of marriage as one man-one woman is not as universal as you like to claim. You could have written that one man-one woman is the standard that the Christian tradition in the West has always adhered to and there would have been little problem with that. But you didn't. You reached even further and tried to assert that the restriction of marriage to monogamous heterosexual relations is a timeless practice, and that the inclusion of non-heterosexual relations in such an institution is only a recent invention. It's not enough for you that one man-one woman be the hallmark of certain traditions, you need it to be synonymous with human nature. But cultural history says that it isn't.

It's certainly the dominant cultural norm though history. Your other examples were not considered equivalent in form or standing to male-female unions and are completely different than the modern push in the past 40-50 years to normalize same sex unions into something equivalent (in form and standing) to heterosexual unions. That should be obvious, but you kinda have to go to graduate school in the social sciences these days to effectively have the obvious taught out of you, it seems. I think reproduction is pretty synonymous with human nature, since without it, you don't have any humans to have a nature. And last time I checked ya kinda need man-woman coupling to get that accomplished.

You don't need religious institutionalization of marriage norms to know that relationships between men and women are fundamentally different than those between men and between women. Why should it come as a surprise that society would institutionalize - recognize and promote - this important and essential difference? Unless you went to graduate school, that is....

BTW, in the post you responded to, I used "biological and cultural" fact. you introduced religion into the conversation. That's a significant part of the cultural aspect, but it certainly depends on the obvious biological differences (you know, man-women reproduction).

[hoosier]

It's certainly the dominant cultural norm though history. Your other examples were not considered equivalent in form or standing to male-female unions....

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.


...and are completely different than the modern push in the past 40-50 years to normalize same sex unions into something equivalent (in form and standing) to heterosexual unions.

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 think reproduction is pretty synonymous with human nature, since without it, you don't have any humans to have a nature. And last time I checked ya kinda need man-woman coupling to get that accomplished.

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.


You don't need religious institutionalization of marriage norms to know that relationships between men and women are fundamentally different than those between men and between women. Why should it come as a surprise that society would institutionalize - recognize and promote - this important and essential difference?

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.


BTW, in the post you responded to, I used "biological and cultural" fact. you introduced religion into the conversation. That's a significant part of the cultural aspect, but it certainly depends on the obvious biological differences (you know, man-women reproduction).

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.

[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.

[Rodgers12]

I think reproduction is pretty synonymous with human nature, since without it, you don't have any humans to have a nature. And last time I checked ya kinda need man-woman coupling to get that accomplished.



I think you should check your facts again b/c the facts have been updated.

Nowadays, a man needs not fuck a woman to procreate. There's cloning and a bunch of artificial reproduction stuff scientists took right out of Huxley's Brave New World.

For the record:

I support homosexuality and gay rights.

Homosexuality is a genetic phenomenon, not a paranormal activity.

David had sexual relations with Jonathon, so you bible bubbling brooks can shut it.

[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.

[mraynrand]

Homosexuality is a genetic phenomenon, not a paranormal activity.

which genes? Please elaborate.

[Kiwon]

David had sexual relations with Jonathon, so you bible bubbling brooks can shut it.

So the self-described "extreme liberal" and "Marxist" wants to educate Christians on their holy book? Yeah, it's such a stupid thing to do I can confirm that you are a liberal.

Well, pagan twit, what is your evidence for your unfounded assertion? Might it be:

1 Samuel 18:1 - "Now it came about when he had finished speaking to Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as himself."

1 Samuel 18:3 - "Then Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself."

1 Samuel 20:17 - "Jonathan made David vow again because of his love for him, because he loved him as he loved his own life."

What? No mention of butt plugs and rimming? No matter, in 2014's version of America, "love" between members of the same sex HAS TO BE sexual, right? It can't be brotherly, can it, because the historic, cultural, and linguistic contexts mean nothing.

It's one thing to be an "extreme liberal." I can respect that. What I don't respect is intellectual laziness as you vainly set about to reshape the world according to your fantasies.

Next time, junior, get an education before you start toying with God's Word. - http://biblehub.com/hebrew/157.htm

[Rodgers12]

So the self-described "extreme liberal" and "Marxist" wants to educate Christians on their holy book? Yeah, it's such a stupid thing to do I can confirm that you are a liberal.

Well, pagan twit, what is your evidence for your unfounded assertion? Might it be:

1 Samuel 18:1 - "Now it came about when he had finished speaking to Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as himself."

1 Samuel 18:3 - "Then Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself."

1 Samuel 20:17 - "Jonathan made David vow again because of his love for him, because he loved him as he loved his own life."

What? No mention of butt plugs and rimming? No matter, in 2014's version of America, "love" between members of the same sex HAS TO BE sexual, right? It can't be brotherly, can it, because the historic, cultural, and linguistic contexts mean nothing.

It's one thing to be an "extreme liberal." I can respect that. What I don't respect is intellectual laziness as you vainly set about to reshape the world according to your fantasies.

Next time, junior, get an education before you start toying with God's Word. - http://biblehub.com/hebrew/157.htm

David himself admitted it: "Jonathon's love to me was more wonderful than the love of women."

David was a guy who banged Uriah's whore while the latter was away at war. Only a gay dude would find making "love" to man more "wonderful" than making "love" to a woman.

[Rodgers12]

which genes? Please elaborate.

The gay gene?

Homosexuality is profound in not just homo sapiens but all sorts of animals throughout the animal kingdom.

Bigots and conservatives argue that homosexuality is a choice. Man's big brain allows him to make choices, and some chose the homosexual lifestyle.

Animals don't have choices. They survive via instincts. The fact that some beasts practice homosexuality is proof that the gay gene does exist.

[SkinBasket]

Animals don't have choices. They survive via instincts.

You don't get out of the city very much do ya?

Are you typing out of choice or instinct, because either way you're making some poor decisions.

[Zool]

The gay gene?

Homosexuality is profound in not just homo sapiens but all sorts of animals throughout the animal kingdom.

Bigots and conservatives argue that homosexuality is a choice. Man's big brain allows him to make choices, and some chose the homosexual lifestyle.

Animals don't have choices. They survive via instincts. The fact that some beasts practice homosexuality is proof that the gay gene does exist.

Animals eat shit. Proof that shit is delicious.

You are doing anything but helping the cause.

[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.

[woodbuck27]

Oh, I'm sorry Woodman....I think I was high on stacking my Lo-T pills and Viagra when I posted that earlier stuff.

I like women and like to have sex with them and get married to them and whatnot. I also believe that Homosexual stuff is wrong because I'm a Christian. I don't get hung up it or anything, but I guess those are just my standards.

Should I still take your advice?

I believed your post was sincere HowardRoark .

Your response to me first post to you (this thread) supported that.

Now this:

I'm sitting here :whaa: my head.

WOW. I was trying to be sincere in offering you support.

Your playing some stupid self satisfying game.

Whatever.

[SkinBasket]

Your playing some stupid self satisfying game.

That's rather judgmental. And I think you mean "You're."

[HowardRoark]

Your playing some stupid self satisfying game.

Whatever.

Are you an anti-self satisfying hate group?

Open your mind...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv-34w8kGPM

[Freak Out]

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

[Freak Out]

Howie....how the fuck you been? Ready for some beers?

[HowardRoark]

Howie....how the fuck you been? Ready for some beers?

My nephew is too busy flying in Abu Dhabi.......so he can't send it:

http://justbeer.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/midnight-sun-berserker.gif

[mraynrand]

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

Fuck off

[woodbuck27]

That's rather judgmental. And I think you mean "You're."

Thank YOU. I do mean You're. . . as in..You are.... .

You 'of course' would never judge. The certain hypocrite in "YOU", SkinBasket, isn't easily disguised

Am I being judgementle or confused!

Are you going to answer for me? You don't have "a place" and that.

Try butting out of this. This is between HowardRoark and I just now...Thanks. :-D

I project we may be able to handle any misunderstanding ourselves.

************************************************** **************

No. I was mistaken. Shame on me if I ever went there when the posters intent is so very obvious.

I just discovered HowardRoark's post #306 and it's merely worth ignoring.

If your in a canoe in the Tallulah Gorge on the Chattooga River and you hear squeals in the woods above you. Do "YOU" put the canoe ashore and climb up the bank to investigate the squeals?

It's a worthless contribution to what this tread was intended for.

[hoosier]

Nice Deliverance reference, Woodbuck.

[SkinBasket]

Am I being judgementle or confused!
...
...
...
It's a worthless contribution to what this tread was intended for.

That post licked balls from top to bottom. Old, sweaty, confused, judgmental balls.

You should stop being so hateful and intolerant. It's really devaluing your contribution to this thread.

[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.

[HowardRoark]

Not to mention that by orders of magnitude, Christianity is growing fastest in Africa and South America.....so this yo-yo is now an anti-brown skinned person hate group.

But I suppose that doesn't fit his narraative that he has been spoon fed that it's all the idiots in the suburbs driving their Chevrolets to church every Sunday morning hating gay people.

[mraynrand]

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.

Baptist blacks are highly conservative. Still, they all voted for Obama, because after careful dissection of all the issues, they felt Obama most accurately reflected their core values. Half of Catholics voted for Obama. That's because they feel that abortion - though opposed by the church - is a woman's right that the State should not take away, and that contraceptives are a right that the State should provide. Wait, was I talking about conservative Catholics? I'm confused.

[mraynrand]

But I suppose that doesn't fit his narraative that he has been spoon fed that it's all the idiots in the suburbs driving their Chevrolets to church every Sunday morning hating gay people.

I thought it was Dodge RAM trucks and Ford F150s in non-Austin Texas.

[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!

[SkinBasket]

You know, it just occurred to me yesterday that I was married by a gay minister. He often smelled like stale bread, but otherwise was a swell chap.

[SkinBasket]

So gay-outters, when can the world change now there is an openly gay football player being paraded in front of world by CNN, ESPN, the first "lady" and every left wing rag in the nation? Do we have to wait until he's drafted, or until he secures a roster spot (if he doesn't, I can only imagine the reasons that will be foisted upon us from some political corners), or is it like Obamacare, where we have to wait for something considered positive to happen to find out, like 2017? Just wondering when this long dreamed of goal starts affecting all the change you think has to happen to our obviously gay hating society.

Also, I haven't noticed the massive "religious right wing" outcry. Did I miss something?

[Kiwon]

So gay-outters, when can the world change now there is an openly gay football player being paraded in front of world by CNN, ESPN, the first "lady" and every left wing rag in the nation? Do we have to wait until he's drafted, or until he secures a roster spot (if he doesn't, I can only imagine the reasons that will be foisted upon us from some political corners), or is it like Obamacare, where we have to wait for something considered positive to happen to find out, like 2017? Just wondering when this long dreamed of goal starts affecting all the change you think has to happen to our obviously gay hating society.

Also, I haven't noticed the massive "religious right wing" outcry. Did I miss something?

Personally, I'm collecting those small New Testaments given out by the Gideons as ammo. Then in "flash mob" fashion we Christians will launch our own version of the "Knockout" game on every L and G and T we see. We need to discuss among ourselves whether the B should also be targeted as well. They have the idea half correct given that they sin in the normal way by lusting over the opposite sex. I say, if you are going to sin then at least do it the "right" way. There is still hope for them.

So we should start with the LGT first and see if the QQUIA get the message. Hopefully, our movement will spread and the country will return to its homophobic roots and peace will reign in the land once again.

[digitaldean]

He was rated as a 3rd to 5th round pick at best. We'll see how he plays out at the combine and by whoever drafts Sam. If the Packers pick him, I'll cheer for his playing ability, but that's all.

I am sick and tired of the constant harping about this by ESPN, CNN and Michelle Obama. This guy ain't Rosa Parks or Jackie Robinson, for God's sake. Also, I'm pretty sickened by the comments I've read in ESPN's comments section of people criticizing Sam's father for having a tough time dealing with this. If one of my kids came out, especially after the upbringing I've tried to instill, then I'd be pretty disheartened also. (especially when he didn't have the guts to say to his dad's face, he had to text him instead) It'd hit me hard because of my personal religious beliefs on the matter. It is my job as a father to point out to my kid what our faith states on the matter. Then it is up to them. God gives us all free will. Accept or reject, there are consequences with both. They can live their life in their own way, but they have to live with what they choose. I still won't love them any more or less because of it since I'll do anything / anytime for my kids. Any parent worth their salt would unconditionally love their children.

That being said, I still find it hypocritical how so many on the left portray the dad as a bigot. In not accepting homosexuality, he isn't one. But to those that keep screaming for freedom of beliefs and lifestyle, it is the criticism of people who don't accept that lifestyle as hypocritical. Be tolerant of everything, accept the PC ways that are shoved down the throat of Christians every single day. Sorry, Homey don't play that here.

So if people want to label me as a "religious right wing nut job", then go ahead and label away, even though it undercuts your "free speech" mantra. I don't hate anyone who is gay or accepts LGBT stances, because if I did, I'd be undercutting myself also.

</rant>

[mraynrand]

Any parent worth their salt would unconditionally love their children.

I have to disagree. If my kid turned into an serial murderer, etc. etc. I don't really think I'd much love him anymore.

[mraynrand]

I saw that the NFL network had a 'football life' episode following the career of the Washington TE Jerry Smith, who died of AIDS at 43, and how he lived in the shadows during his time in the NFL. It pretty much answered the questions about Lombardi - Lombardi basically shut down any locker room crap directed at gays; David Maraniss (Lombardi biographer) said that Vince's brother was gay, and that was part of the equation, but I suspect that Vince was generally opposed to any crap like that in his locker room.

The program was obviously sympathetic to the player, and wasn't openly hostile to 'homophobes' but any opposition to gay lifestyle was pretty much presented as a negative. There of course was no presentation of any coherent opposition to his lifestyle, except perhaps in the presentation of the AIDS epidemic, and it was strongly suggested that his absence from the HOF was due to bigotry.

[mraynrand]

So gay-outters, when can the world change now there is an openly gay football player being paraded in front of world by CNN, ESPN, the first "lady" and every left wing rag in the nation? Do we have to wait until he's drafted, or until he secures a roster spot (if he doesn't, I can only imagine the reasons that will be foisted upon us from some political corners), or is it like Obamacare, where we have to wait for something considered positive to happen to find out, like 2017? Just wondering when this long dreamed of goal starts affecting all the change you think has to happen to our obviously gay hating society.

Also, I haven't noticed the massive "religious right wing" outcry. Did I miss something?

I noticed he got a standing ovation at a basketball game:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J97zRC6O13M

Let the oppression end!

Michelle Carmichael" "We are all CoMo Sexuals"

[SkinBasket]

Amazing how vitally, massively important this was to several people on this board (and our entire society apparently), and now that it's becoming a reality right before their eyes, they have nothing to say about it. It's almost like it doesn't matter. Hmmmmmmmmm....

In related news...


A San Diego State running back left the NFL Combine on Sunday in Indianapolis without running the forty, showing off his vertical leap, or pushing 225 pounds above his chest. His reason? God told him to depart.

"(God) told me to sit down, be quiet, and enjoy the peace," Adam Muema told the San Diego Union-Tribune. The prosepct believes that God speaks to him through numbers, and that exiting the combine would make it likely that the Seattle Seahawks, his "dream" desitination, would select him in the draft. "Can't go wrong with God," Muema reasoned.

Before divine intervention, analysts projected Muema as a late-round pick. He rushed for almost five yards a carry for the Aztecs, scoring fifteen touchdowns and accumulating 1,244 yards on the ground.

You know I have to wonder... This guy is being labeled a whack-a-doo for believing in and adhering to his personal relationship with God. I have to wonder, but not too hard, what the reaction would be if he were skipping the combine to protest the obviously overt and intentional anti-gayness that dominates the NFL... according to some anyway.

[mraynrand]

You know I have to wonder... This guy is being labeled a whack-a-doo for believing in and adhering to his personal relationship with God. I have to wonder, but not too hard, what the reaction would be if he were skipping the combine to protest the obviously overt and intentional anti-gayness that dominates the NFL... according to some anyway.

You've already seen the answer. Derision for the former, a standing ovation for the latter.

3/4 young people support gay marriage. 3/4 think religion is hateful and bigoted. The future is set.

[mraynrand]

Arizona passes a law to protect religious rights (and gay rights actually) in the face of suits against people who choose not to engage in practices with which they disagree, and the NFL (as well as many other groups) threaten boycott. McBain and Flakey oppose the law too. I suspect they haven't read it, don't understand it, but are bowing to economic terrorism. If you really care for an in depth analysis (not likely in this culture), here you go:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/issue-analysis-arizona-bill-does-not-give-businesses-license-to-discriminate-against-gays-115093/

[Kiwon]

Arizona passes a law to protect religious rights (and gay rights actually) in the face of suits against people who choose not to engage in practices with which they disagree, and the NFL (as well as many other groups) threaten boycott. McBain and Flakey oppose the law too. I suspect they haven't read it, don't understand it, but are bowing to economic terrorism. If you really care for an in depth analysis (not likely in this culture), here you go:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/issue-analysis-arizona-bill-does-not-give-businesses-license-to-discriminate-against-gays-115093/

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

Burke was anticipating officials like Attorney General Eric Holder who is calling for state attorneys general to consider not defending amendments in state constitutions that define marriage traditionally. So states' top law enforcement officers are encouraged to ignore their state's constitution that they swore to protect and upheld.

Nice. Welcome to Zimbabwe.

[woodbuck27]

So gay-outters, when can the world change now there is an openly gay football player being paraded in front of world by CNN, ESPN, the first "lady" and every left wing rag in the nation? Do we have to wait until he's drafted, or until he secures a roster spot (if he doesn't, I can only imagine the reasons that will be foisted upon us from some political corners), or is it like Obamacare, where we have to wait for something considered positive to happen to find out, like 2017? Just wondering when this long dreamed of goal starts affecting all the change you think has to happen to our obviously gay hating society.

Also, I haven't noticed the massive "religious right wing" outcry. Did I miss something?

" I haven't noticed the massive "religious right wing" outcry. Did I miss something? " Skinbasket

Shock factor!??

What are you going to do when they come for you?

[SkinBasket]

" I haven't noticed the massive "religious right wing" outcry. Did I miss something? " Skinbasket

Shock factor!??

What are you going to do when they come for you?

Confused by what you're shocked by. Maybe that you were totally wrong? Otherwise, I'm sure you'll present some examples from the "religious right wing," whatever that really means, other than being a convenient political bromide for leftists and progressives who can't defend their own beliefs so turn to labeling and attacking others.

[woodbuck27]

Amazing how vitally, massively important this was to several people on this board (and our entire society apparently), and now that it's becoming a reality right before their eyes, they have nothing to say about it. It's almost like it doesn't matter. Hmmmmmmmmm....

In related news...



You know I have to wonder... This guy is being labeled a whack-a-doo for believing in and adhering to his personal relationship with God. I have to wonder, but not too hard, what the reaction would be if he were skipping the combine to protest the obviously overt and intentional anti-gayness that dominates the NFL... according to some anyway.

Why should it matter.

The fella gets drafted and try's to make the teams roster just the same as any other new NFL prospect.

End of story.

[SkinBasket]

Why should it matter.

The fella gets drafted and try's to make the teams roster just the same as any other new NFL prospect.

End of story.

Glad to see you've changed your mind.

[woodbuck27]

Glad to see you've changed your mind.

Actually that's always been my position. I'm Pro Choice and selection of a sexual partner.

If I was ever homophobic living nearby Montreal, Canada certainly acted as a deterrant and that nonsence.

It's never going to be if you can't beat em join em thing ; but certainly it makes zero sence to not accept the GAY lifestyle as it's upfront here to stay.

18.4% — The proportion of all same-sex couples who resided in Montréal in 2006.

21.2% — The proportion of all same-sex couples who resided in Toronto in 2006.

10.3% — The proportion of all same-sex couples who resided in Vancouver in 2006.

[SkinBasket]

Actually that's always been my position.

Except you want it to "not matter" via everyone agreeing with your position supporting the fallacy known as "gay rights," whereas I want it not to matter because no one cares, which is true equality. You want re-education and the violation of religious freedoms and principles to eliminate what you see as intolerance from your left eye dominant perspective. I simply want apathy, which to a large extent, already exists outside of the gay activist circles.

[woodbuck27]

Except you want it to "not matter" via everyone agreeing with your position supporting the fallacy known as "gay rights," whereas I want it not to matter because no one cares, which is true equality. You want re-education and the violation of religious freedoms and principles to eliminate what you see as intolerance from your left eye dominant perspective. I simply want apathy, which to a large extent, already exists outside of the gay activist circles.

Hopefully apathy comes after educating.

[woodbuck27]

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/homosexual-activists-aim-to-destroy-the-family-impose-totalitarianism-gay-p

Homosexual activists aim to ‘destroy the family’, impose ‘totalitarianism’: gay pro-family activist

by Hilary White, Rome Correspondent

Thu Feb 27, 2014 18:41 EST

ROME - " February 27, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – “I am a homosexual, but I’m against ‘gay marriage,’” a French pro-family activist told an Italian Catholic opinion paper earlier this month.

Jean-Pier-Delaume Myard, spokesman for Manif Pour Tous, told La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana that the “sole purpose” of the homosexualist “gay rights” movement is “destroying the family.”

[SkinBasket]

So... A gay Frenchman and an Italian Catholic walk into a bar?

Not seeing how this has anything to do with gay football players.

[SkinBasket]

Hopefully apathy comes after educating.

Apathy and acceptance already exist save for you activists, who will settle for nothing less than enthusiastic celebration. See gay football player as exhibit 1A.

Your "educating" is nothing more than illogical, intolerant, ignorant (and mostly incoherent) propaganda that folds in on itself upon any kind of objective inspection. See this thread as exhibit 2A.

It's great you're not afraid of fags anymore, but don't transpose your past sins on the rest of us to try to ease your conscience.

[woodbuck27]

Apathy and acceptance already exist save for you activists, who will settle for nothing less than enthusiastic celebration. See gay football player as exhibit 1A.

Your "educating" is nothing more than illogical, intolerant, ignorant (and mostly incoherent) propaganda that folds in on itself upon any kind of objective inspection. See this thread as exhibit 2A.

It's great you're not afraid of fags anymore, but don't transpose your past sins on the rest of us to try to ease your conscience.

Afraid of what?

If fear is a sin...I'm clear there. I don't frighten easily.

[SkinBasket]

If fear is a sin...I'm clear there. I don't frighten easily.


If I was ever homophobic living nearby Montreal, Canada certainly acted as a deterrant and that nonsence.

The construction of your second statement above strongly suggests you were homophobic and were deterred by a mob of "upfront" queers living in Montreal. Otherwise, you wouldn't have known deterrence, only acceptance. It's in the past woody. It's okay to let it out. Jesus can't help you if you're whispering pridefully to the devil instead of praying humbly for forgiveness.

[Zool]

Jesus can't help you if you're whispering pridefully to the devil instead of praying humbly for forgiveness.

I've been saying this for years. You are a misunderstood genius.

[woodbuck27]

The construction of your second statement above strongly suggests you were homophobic and were deterred by a mob of "upfront" queers living in Montreal. Otherwise, you wouldn't have known deterrence, only acceptance. It's in the past woody. It's okay to let it out. Jesus can't help you if you're whispering pridefully to the devil instead of praying humbly for forgiveness.

Read the word "if" please.

The word "if" is used in this sense.

If or maybe ....deep in my subconscious I was ever homophobic and not readily aware of that as a fact.

I don't have any reason to be homophobic Skinbasket. I know that Jesus asks me to love all and that certainly offers me a challenge. I've no issues with any known to me non heterosexuals.

I'll swing on my vine and they theirs.

[SkinBasket]

Oh, good. Do you also call into the Dr. Ruth radio show because you have "a friend" with a small penis who needs help with his sex life?

[woodbuck27]

Oh, good. Do you also call into the Dr. Ruth radio show because you have "a friend" with a small penis who needs help with his sex life?

Does a small penis equate to some problems and a persons sex life?

I've never called into any radio talk show. I do enjoy listening in when I can while back home in the Maritimes and current events are discussed on all topics including sports.

[mraynrand]

http://s56.photobucket.com/user/skinbasket/media/sombrerodick.jpg.html