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

[woodbuck27]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1831178-the-inside-story-of-how-the-nfls-plan-for-a-1st-openly-gay-player-fell-apart

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Until it didn't.

The question now is: What happened? "


Please click on the LINK above for this story.

PACKERS !

[Old School]

So hoop dee do. If a player can play NFL caliber football, he's on the team, no problem. What he does in his private life is his business. I'm sick and tired of all the PC jackasses looking to cause a disruption to promote their agenda. It's football. I don't want to have social issues injected into my entertainment.

[sheepshead]

If no one in the NFL cares, then it's a non-issue isn't it? The problem is the activists pushing the agenda. We could go the next 100 years and not have to know who sleeps with whom. Like Dennis Miller said, I need a gay free day. It's all too much.

[pbmax]

So hoop dee do. If a player can play NFL caliber football, he's on the team, no problem. What he does in his private life is his business. I'm sick and tired of all the PC jackasses looking to cause a disruption to promote their agenda. It's football. I don't want to have social issues injected into my entertainment.


If no one in the NFL cares, then it's a non-issue isn't it? The problem is the activists pushing the agenda. We could go the next 100 years and not have to know who sleeps with whom. Like Dennis Miller said, I need a gay free day. It's all too much.

Unfortunately, all the evidence is on the other side. Clearly the NFL member teams care, because no current player is out and no team signed either player in the article. If NFL teams can convince themselves they don't want Tebow because of distractions, this would easily fit in the same rationale, regardless of actual motive.

[woodbuck27]

http://www.sportsgrid.com/nfl/teams-not-signing-kerry-rhodes-because-hes-gay/

NFL

So, This Article VERY Strongly Suggests That Kerry Rhodes Is Gay, And That’s Why Teams Aren’t Signing Him

by Matt Rudnitsky | 5:48 pm, November 20th, 2013

Comment woodbuck27:

What do you think of this article?

[Guiness]

Unfortunately, all the evidence is on the other side. Clearly the NFL member teams care, because no current player is out and no team signed either player in the article. If NFL teams can convince themselves they don't want Tebow because of distractions, this would easily fit in the same rationale, regardless of actual motive.

You got so much right there it's hard to follow up.

I'll just comment on the Bleacher Report title - 'inside story'? lol I guess this is what passes for journalism at that sight (for sore eyes). They didn't talk to the player or even know who he is, didn't talk to the team(s) that walked away and don't know who they are, and have a list of 5 possible reasons but they have no actual idea which, if any, of those is the right one. Officials from other teams told BR why the signing didn't happen - then they talked about Jackie Robinson and Jason Collins - now that's hard hitting journalism!

I know Woody, you read BR and this article did touch on a good subject, one I was wondering about after the reports this spring. But damn they drive me nuts!

[woodbuck27]

http://sandrarose.com/2013/11/gay-nfl-player-leaves-miami-dolphins-due-to-bullying/

Gay NFL Player Leaves Miami Dolphins Due to Bullying

Friday, November 1, 2013

" While the team avoided questions about the abusive relationship between Martin and some of his teammates, other team sources reveal Martin left because he is gay and his teammates don’t like him.

If Martin really is gay, the behavior of his teammates is an indicator of the NFL’s intolerance of gay players in the locker room."

Comment woodbuck27:

Is there any reality here and the HOT story now in the NFL and OT Johnathan Martin Vs whomever/whatever? Is this really about his sexual choice?

In this day and age I can hardly believe it if that's the case.

[Patler]

Unfortunately, all the evidence is on the other side. Clearly the NFL member teams care, because no current player is out and no team signed either player in the article. If NFL teams can convince themselves they don't want Tebow because of distractions, this would easily fit in the same rationale, regardless of actual motive.

Well sure they can convince themselves of it, just like they convince themselves of reasons to not have players who are overly vocal about politics or many other things. They have 60+ players to bring into harmony under difficult, pressure filled conditions, within relatively confined areas. Unless a player is uniquely talented, why take the player with a lot of extra baggage?

They need a player who is a solid player and says; "By the way, I'm gay." and then goes about his business as a football player. It will be next to impossible to break the ice with a guy who says, "I'M GAY!! and , oh, by the way, I play football."

[Guiness]

Well sure they can convince themselves of it, just like they convince themselves of reasons to not have players who are overly vocal about politics or many other things. They have 60+ players to bring into harmony under difficult, pressure filled conditions, within relatively confined areas. Unless a player is uniquely talented, why take the player with a lot of extra baggage?

They need a player who is a solid player and says; "By the way, I'm gay." and then goes about his business as a football player. It will be next to impossible to break the ice with a guy who says, "I'M GAY!! and , oh, by the way, I play football."

You'd think Kerry Rhodes fits the conditions for the first case. He played well last year, yet sits unemployed. He's be a solid upgrade for the Pack, and considering he had no job a couple of weeks into the season should've been cheap. He's 31 but played well last year.

[woodbuck27]

You got so much right there it's hard to follow up.

I'll just comment on the Bleacher Report title - 'inside story'? lol I guess this is what passes for journalism at that sight (for sore eyes). They didn't talk to the player or even know who he is, didn't talk to the team(s) that walked away and don't know who they are, and have a list of 5 possible reasons but they have no actual idea which, if any, of those is the right one. Officials from other teams told BR why the signing didn't happen - then they talked about Jackie Robinson and Jason Collins - now that's hard hitting journalism!

I know Woody, you read BR and this article did touch on a good subject, one I was wondering about after the reports this spring. But damn they drive me nuts!

Here's some dope on the author of the article this thread Guiness or Mike Freeman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Freeman_(columnist)

I don't 'just read' BR Guiness. I read a lot of shit on NFL football. :whist:

I posted this thread because I somehow stumbled on the Article RE: this thread and felt it would inform the forum on a HOT topic. A topic that by far shouldn't be HOT in this day and age. Is there anything and this issue related to the Miami Dolphins and the very HOT case of the Dolphins draft pick OT Johnathan Martin?

Good Lord.

Is football that manly!? The advertizers of NFL apparel are busting their ass's and blowing my mind with their silly commercials to peddle their womans line of NFL apparel. I'm wondering ... Does that include small panties? Am I even allowed to wonder that?

I'm so sick of that latest commercial....that runs over and over and over again.

Ohh Dear !

" Uptight !? .... Everything is all right."

That line from a song is playing in my head right now. Phil Collins is singing it.

For anyone who considers themselves homophobic. May I recommend the excellent HBO drama series of five seasons entitled 'SIX FEET UNDER'. Watching that series did wonders to assist me in dealing with my homophobia. Reference Michael C. Hall's character GAY Funeral Dierector David Fisher, the middle child in that Fisher family.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Feet_Under_(TV_series)

Yea the same Michael C. Hall that plays DEXTER ... Our beloved serial killer.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c0/Dexter_TV_Series_Title_Card.jpg

Michael C. Hall ROCKS as an actor.

[pbmax]

Well sure they can convince themselves of it, just like they convince themselves of reasons to not have players who are overly vocal about politics or many other things. They have 60+ players to bring into harmony under difficult, pressure filled conditions, within relatively confined areas. Unless a player is uniquely talented, why take the player with a lot of extra baggage?

They need a player who is a solid player and says; "By the way, I'm gay." and then goes about his business as a football player. It will be next to impossible to break the ice with a guy who says, "I'M GAY!! and , oh, by the way, I play football."

Well, this is almost a self enclosed lockout. The best players, the ones the teams would HAVE to accept or would be crazy to not sign as FA, have too much outside income to risk coming out first. You could never say it won't happen, but I think the incentives are strong to stay hidden.

So almost inevitably, the first out player will be more pedestrian, like Jason Collins was in basketball. Veterans with less to risk but very willing to continue their careers if possible. That player, by definition, is fungible. And can be replaced by a number of non-out or straight alternatives every year. A team has to want to do this because unlike the color barrier, there is no long term advantage accrued for going first.

Given the strong current (and successful) incentive to stay closeted, I am not sure how a team can judge accurately how the player might react to the inevitable publicity. A player choosing to do this is obviously thinking about more than football. But that is true of any barrier that is broken. Its also true of every player in the League who worries about their next contract. Teams do relinquish rights to these players to avoid distractions, but they also take the risk to sign them.

Employing closeted homosexual players and avoiding open ones is just dishonest and cowardly.

[Upnorth]

I really want things like this to just not matter. I'm not in favor of or opposed to gay players, I just don't care. I feel a bit sorry for the actual gay players who have not come out for their own reasons when there is an implied under current that they aren't brave enough. Making it a big deal will make it harder for it to happen.
Why do we care about this crap?

[Patler]

Well, this is almost a self enclosed lockout. The best players, the ones the teams would HAVE to accept or would be crazy to not sign as FA, have too much outside income to risk coming out first. You could never say it won't happen, but I think the incentives are strong to stay hidden.

So almost inevitably, the first out player will be more pedestrian, like Jason Collins was in basketball. Veterans with less to risk but very willing to continue their careers if possible. That player, by definition, is fungible. And can be replaced by a number of non-out or straight alternatives every year. A team has to want to do this because unlike the color barrier, there is no long term advantage accrued for going first.

Given the strong current (and successful) incentive to stay closeted, I am not sure how a team can judge accurately how the player might react to the inevitable publicity. A player choosing to do this is obviously thinking about more than football. But that is true of any barrier that is broken. Its also true of every player in the League who worries about their next contract. Teams do relinquish rights to these players to avoid distractions, but they also take the risk to sign them.

Employing closeted homosexual players and avoiding open ones is just dishonest and cowardly.

I disagree with your premise. There is a large class of players who fall between the "best players, the ones the teams would HAVE to accept or would be crazy to not sign as FA" and those who are totally fungible".

The error they are making is waiting until they are FAs to come out. A starter who recently signed a moderate extension should be the first to do it, and without great fanfare. Teams are full of those kinds of players, and I suspect some are gay.

[woodbuck27]

I really want things like this to just not matter. I'm not in favor of or opposed to gay players, I just don't care. I feel a bit sorry for the actual gay players who have not come out for their own reasons when there is an implied under current that they aren't brave enough. Making it a big deal will make it harder for it to happen.
Why do we care about this crap?

I agree with you Upnorth.

I care about this as much as I do in terms of having to use a public washroom. There's no sense in being annoid or paranoid over a fact of life that's been around since all of history. I'm no expert on this subject but simply suspect that's the case. A certain % of the population is statistically homosexual. A small portion of that group will enjoy playing football; and of that group an even fewer will have the talent to make an NFL roster.

This isn't and shouldn't be a big deal.

If I'm picking my roster and select a GAY to that roster. I did so to strengthen my roster over picking some inferior straight prospect. The whole roster simply needs to accept and buy into that.

Anyone or any group that cannot accept that is clearly wrong and acting with discrimination.

Secondly... and I'll focus this comment on anyone that's homophobic.

Today this issue of a persons sexuality shouldn't be an issue or a distraction in any football locker room. Anyone that must go that coarse has to grow up and get over himself. One educates two and two four. It should begin now and in a decade that issue will be laughed at.

Ed..........woodbuck27

[Upnorth]

I disagree with your premise. There is a large class of players who fall between the "best players, the ones the teams would HAVE to accept or would be crazy to not sign as FA" and those who are totally fungible".

The error they are making is waiting until they are FAs to come out. A starter who recently signed a moderate extension should be the first to do it, and without great fanfare. Teams are full of those kinds of players, and I suspect some are gay.

If it's a starter signed to a moderate extension we are a likely place to be. If it's a recentl signed FA the first won't be in GB

Woody that is a pretty modern opinion for such an old fart!

[woodbuck27]

If it's a starter signed to a moderate extension we are a likely place to be. If it's a recentl signed FA the first won't be in GB

Woody that is a pretty modern opinion for such an old fart!

Then in your opinion the Packers wouldn't go after S Kerry Rhodes (who's not seemingly admitting to being GAY) or any GAY that might wish to come out of the closet.

[Upnorth]

IMO the packers won't go for almost any FA. However an openly gay FA may go cheaper so on second thought maybe we are in the running.

[woodbuck27]

IMO the packers won't go for almost any FA. However an openly gay FA may go cheaper so on second thought maybe we are in the running.

I wish we had him and in proper condition and ready to go this weekend.

[SMBASS]

So hoop dee do. If a player can play NFL caliber football, he's on the team, no problem. What he does in his private life is his business. I'm sick and tired of all the PC jackasses looking to cause a disruption to promote their agenda. It's football. I don't want to have social issues injected into my entertainment.

+1 Don't really give a shit one way or the other what anyone does in their private life. Just tired of everyone making it an issue and having it shoved in my face 24/7. Does every player need to have a, "coming out" press conference so that they can declare their sexual preference regardless of what it is. Maybe all the future draft picks should have a stat line next to their 40 times, height, weight, etc., that lists their sexual orientation. Different designations for homo, hetero, bi, polygamist, sheep f'rs, etc.. Just STFU about it already.

[Guiness]

+1 Don't really give a shit one way or the other what anyone does in their private life. Just tired of everyone making it an issue and having it shoved in my face 24/7. Does every player need to have a, "coming out" press conference so that they can declare their sexual preference regardless of what it is. Maybe all the future draft picks should have a stat line next to their 40 times, height, weight, etc., that lists their sexual orientation. Different designations for homo, hetero, bi, polygamist, sheep f'rs, etc.. Just STFU about it already.

That is my general feeling as well, but there's a problem here - 2000 players in the NFL, and not one admitting to being gay, so obviously people associated with the NFL DO give a shit or it just would've happened. It is being prevented, the STFU doesn't work..."don't ask, don't tell" was a GD disaster.

[pbmax]

The error they are making is waiting until they are FAs to come out. A starter who recently signed a moderate extension should be the first to do it, and without great fanfare. Teams are full of those kinds of players, and I suspect some are gay.

There is certainly logic to that approach from a financial aspect in the immediate term. But I doubt the player sees it that way. I think they view coming out as a risk, to both the current and future contracts. To them it would also be a risk with teammates and coaches to drop that after signing. I suspect some teams in the article passed on the entire possibility just to avoid the issue. To have it dropped in their lap after a signing likely will not go over well. Some will see the logic, others will see duplicity.

I think the likeliest candidates will be older and wanting to start afresh, on honest terms, with a new deal (probably what they view as the last deal) so there is no surprise and some announced support from within the organization.

[channtheman]

I really want things like this to just not matter. I'm not in favor of or opposed to gay players, I just don't care. I feel a bit sorry for the actual gay players who have not come out for their own reasons when there is an implied under current that they aren't brave enough. Making it a big deal will make it harder for it to happen.
Why do we care about this crap?


I agree with this wholeheartedly. Those opposed and those for are the ones that have to make everything such a big fucking deal. I don't care if you're gay, black, white, yellow, straight. I just don't care. I just want to watch football in peace and eat a fucking chicken sandwich without being told I'm against gays cause I'm eating it.

[woodbuck27]

If it's a starter signed to a moderate extension we are a likely place to be. If it's a recentl signed FA the first won't be in GB

Woody that is a pretty modern opinion for such an old fart!

" Woody that is a pretty modern opinion for such an old fart! " Upnorth

Upon examination I feel I've been complimented. :smile: Thanks Upnorth.

I was referred back to this thread by Patler RE: Did Rodgers flirt with pro sports immortality last summer? thread started - Dec. 31, 2013.

This thread:

It's a rather calm and open and may I use the word 'liberal' discussion of the matter/topic.

GO PACKERS ....GO PACK GO !

[gbgary]

when a high profile sports journalist has to wait until she's in her 50s to come out it'll be a long time before a football player does...if he intends to keep playing that is.

[MJZiggy]

What needed to happen is that several gay players, as they retired, needed to come out. After that happens a few times, people will start giving that "so what" response and then when someone does come out before he's ready to retire, folks will say that the NFL has had gay players for years. "So what?"

[woodbuck27]

What needed to happen is that several gay players, as they retired, needed to come out. After that happens a few times, people will start giving that "so what" response and then when someone does come out before he's ready to retire, folks will say that the NFL has had gay players for years. "So what?"

You place conditions on this issue based in a timeline!?

Come on MJ... Why are you disappointing me?

How long in your view MJZiggy must we :wait: for what has already been won?

You need some help here MJ. Your not getting it.

I'm always here to help. :-)

What needed to happen in terms of your American Constitution:

Is that any gay NFL players shouldn't ever have any problem or issue (with NFL Teams) and with coming out or declaring themselves openly as being sexually Gay.

Why? Because today that shouldn't be an issue. The fact it is defines an American society that needs to be more open minded and intelligent in it's response to 'every person's hard fought Freedom Of Rights'.

[MJZiggy]

You place conditions on this issue based in a timeline. Come on MJ...you disappoint me. How long in your view must we :wait: for what has already been won?

No your not getting it MJ.

What needed to happen in terms of your American Constitution:

Is that any gay NFL players shouldn't ever have any problem or issue (with NFL Teams) and with coming out or declaring themselves openly as being sexually Gay.

Why? Because today that shouldn't be an issue. The fact it is defines an American society that needs to be more open minded and intelligent in it's response to 'every person's hard fought Freedom Of Rights'.

Notice the use of the past tense, Woodbuck. Today it shouldn't be an issue. Problem is that if your article is to be believed, right or wrong, it still is.

[woodbuck27]

Notice the use of the past tense, Woodbuck. Today it shouldn't be an issue. Problem is that if your article is to be believed, right or wrong, it still is.

Here is your statement MJZiggy:

" What needed to happen is that several gay players, as they retired, needed to come out. After that happens a few times, people will start giving that "so what" response and then when someone does come out before he's ready to retire, folks will say that the NFL has had gay players for years. "So what?" .. " MJZiggy


Taking this portion of your statement out of the whole:

" What needed to happen is that several gay players, as they retired, needed to come out..... "

I made my repost to you and I stand now on my broader and clearly more accurate view than yours.

You'll get it...when? After you retire?

[gbgary]

You place conditions on this issue based in a timeline!?

Come on MJ... Why are you disappointing me?

How long in your view MJZiggy must we :wait: for what has already been won?

You need some help here MJ. Ygour not getting it.

I'm always here to help. :-)

What needed to happen in terms of your American Constitution:

Is that any gay NFL players shouldn't ever have any problem or issue (with NFL Teams) and with coming out or declaring themselves openly as being sexually Gay.

Why? Because today that shouldn't be an issue. The fact it is defines an American society that needs to be more open minded and intelligent in it's response to 'every person's hard fought Freedom Of Rights'.
don't bring nationalism into it. how many openly gay hockey players are there in canada or anywhere else? it's a human prejudice issue, a male team-sports issue...not an american issue.

[MJZiggy]

Here is your statement MJZiggy:

" What needed to happen is that several gay players, as they retired, needed to come out. After that happens a few times, people will start giving that "so what" response and then when someone does come out before he's ready to retire, folks will say that the NFL has had gay players for years. "So what?" .. " MJZiggy


Taking this portion of your statement out of the whole:

" What needed to happen is that several gay players, as they retired, needed to come out..... "

I made my repost to you and I stand now on my broader and clearly more accurate view than yours.

You'll get it...when? After you retire?

Needed. Past tense. Like 10 years ago. If that had happened, there would be no discussion about it now. It would be a non-issue. Quit being so defensive.

[woodbuck27]

don't bring nationalism into it. how many openly gay hockey players are there in canada or anywhere else? it's a human prejudice issue...not an american issue.

Canadian hockey players and Aaron Rodgers and NFL players and gay or not.

Make a better attempt et getting focused, member.

As difficult as that may be for you gbgary. At least attempt some clear focus and not some ridiculous diversion to Canada Vs the USA (America) and OUR way Vs YOURS.

Such is to entertain a debate with me where 'YOU' gbgary :idea: would be severely tested. You would need a great deal of help to even be marginally close to making some stupid point and that. Hopefully the membership is more as a whole intelligent.

I do NOT bring Nationalism into my post. I refer to your American Constitution. I do so with all respect and if you have an issue with that **FUCK OFF please ! Thank You. :-)

**I never go there with any member here but in your case and your debased way that's clearly appropriate and likely the 'only' thing you might understand. That's generally the 'only' demand your kind understands.

[mraynrand]

After skimming this thread, the obvious conclusion is that Tim Tebow is gay.

[woodbuck27]

Needed. Past tense. Like 10 years ago. If that had happened, there would be no discussion about it now. It would be a non-issue. Quit being so defensive.

I'm never defensive MJ. I need not be.

There's right and wrong and shades in between that need not be discussed in any elaborate sense.

[Patler]

don't bring nationalism into it. how many openly gay hockey players are there in canada or anywhere else? it's a human prejudice issue, a male team-sports issue...not an american issue.

Not a lot of openly gay players, but the NHL and hockey generally have made a commitment to acceptance of gay players. Read about Brenden Burke, and the work of NHL executives including his father and brother backing the "You Can Play Project". Many top NHL players have gotten behind the project with videos and such.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/play-behind-patrick-burke-bold-effort-using-nhl-143441932.html


There is a strong effort in the NHL and both USA Hockey and Hockey Canada to change the culture on the ice and in the locker rooms to make it accepting of gay players, much of it being the work of the Burkes.

Interesting to contrast that with the inaction of the NFL, even though Paul Tagliabue has a son who has been openly gay since before his father became Commissioner. While Paul Tagliabue has been very active in gay rights after retiring from the NFL, he didn't push the issue while commissioner, as far as I know.

[gbgary]

bla bla bla

you said "...american society needs to..." and I infered it's world-wide male-sports issue not solely an american one. what things should be and what they are are miles apart. we agree things should be different and such things shouldn't matter but sadly that isn't the case. you've gone off the deep end with your personal
attack but that's up to you. you have a happy new year.

[gbgary]

Not a lot of openly gay players, but the NHL and hockey generally have made a commitment to acceptance of gay players. Read about Brenden Burke, and the work of NHL executives including his father and brother backing the "You Can Play Project". Many top NHL players have gotten behind the project with videos and such.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/play-behind-patrick-burke-bold-effort-using-nhl-143441932.html


There is a strong effort in the NHL and both USA Hockey and Hockey Canada to change the culture on the ice and in the locker rooms to make it accepting of gay players, much of it being the work of the Burkes.

Interesting to contrast that with the inaction of the NFL, even though Paul Tagliabue has a son who has been openly gay since before his father became Commissioner. While Paul Tagliabue has been very active in gay rights after retiring from the NFL, he didn't push the issue while commissioner, as far as I know.

I don't track outed athletes but they are very few and far between in male team sports be it football, soccer, cricket, hockey, baseball, rugby, or whatever. any progress these institutions make is commendable and over due. I just don't see much happening for several years as these athletes keep quiet for whatever reason be it fear of personal, financial, or institutional backlash.

[woodbuck27]

you said "...american society needs to..." and I infered it's world-wide male-sports issue not solely an american one. what things should be and what they are are miles apart. we agree things should be different and such things shouldn't matter but sadly that isn't the case. you've gone off the deep end with your personal
attack but that's up to you. you have a happy new year.

See this gbgary...SEE POST #35. 'YOU gbgary' forged a post under my name.

Originally Posted by woodbuck27 View Post

Your BS gbgary not mine.

bla bla bla ... Your shit gbgary...

I don't act like such a adolescent gbgary.

Your clearly out of line doing so...'forging a post' and thereby disrespecting yourself.

I exercise a good deal more respect for myself. Are capable of such?

Personal attack..NO mister. You get simply what you clearly ask for.

[Patler]

I don't track outed athletes but they are very few and far between in male team sports be it football, soccer, cricket, hockey, baseball, rugby, or whatever. any progress these institutions make is commendable and over due. I just don't see much happening for several years as these athletes keep quiet for whatever reason be it fear of personal, financial, or institutional backlash.

Of course not, because things don't change overnight. However, I believe hockey is quite far ahead of the other major sports in changing their culture. As a result, there is not much surprise in the hockey world when a player does come out. Contrast that with the fanfare in the NBA last year, and the anticipation of a breakthrough yet to come in the NFL.

[woodbuck27]

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/3316/kerry-rhodes

Free agent S Kerry Rhodes had generated little interest from NFL teams since being released by the Cardinals in March. It's been reported that Kerry Rhodes turned down a one-year, $3 million contract offer from the Arizona Cardinals (Sept. 13, 2013). There has been interest in Rhodes; it just isn't mutual. Long a high-quality on-field performer Kerry Rhodes could be helping an NFL football team, but he seems intent on continuing his life away from the gridiron.

Kerry Rhodes worked out for the New York Giants on Tuesday Sept. 17, 2013 and nothing came of that and it's his last known visit to any NFL team.

Why one of the top safeties in all of football in the 2012 season has been out of the game may simply be described as a mystery.

** Kerry Rhodes Height: 6 ft 3 in (1.91 m) Weight: 212 lb (96 kg) :

** All-Pro (2006); NFC Interception Return yards leader (2010)

** Career NFL statistics as of Week 17, 2012 ...Tackles 608; Sacks 13.0 ; Interceptions 23 and Forced fumbles 8

Alert Ted Thompson:

Ted Thompson get this MAN into Green Bay for a try out.

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

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSLdLD2xr8UlUqS6SgJPBk7R4I4tsu2G lKuw4EhAI0ZxMJOCJJJ

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhuUGHt0E7Wgn_jRW0HTak5X-hgsxcmNNBT4v5jK1Tsl5ipILPug

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTX7lmpkZ4MrfRrY9ujNX0504R1Z8GXk 0R2LBzk6tszutOnyq92

His sista's love Kerry. His sista's say: Come Onn Packers !

Come On Ted ! Try Kerry out Ted. Come Onn !


GO PACKERS ! GO PACK GO !!

[SkinBasket]

What needed to happen is that several gay players, as they retired, needed to come out.

Why did they "need" to come out? Can't they just be gay without being an activist about it or telling a world that shouldn't, and for the most part doesn't, care anymore? Who are the people asking these questions? Usually they aren't people trying to intimidate or mock. The people desperately trying to "out" queers are the same who are incessantly pushing the gay agenda that's given this nation fag fatigue.

As others have already mentioned, the fans, the players, and the front offices don't want to hear about it. They want to watch, play, and manage football without having another sociopolitical issue forced on them turning the league into another terrible, soul-destroying season of Glee. People are tired of being told that if you don't actively support every aspect of the gay agenda, from marriage to equality in sports, to floats in parades and naked assholes dancing in the streets reinforcing all the negative stereotypes about them, to fake hate crimes meant to raise "social awareness," you're homophobic or otherwise hate the gays.

So until we start demanding that every player with something minorital about him reveal himself, maybe people should stop demanding that the fags do the same and just leave them the fuck alone to make their own decisions.

[woodbuck27]

Why did they "need" to come out? Can't they just be gay without being an activist about it or telling a world that shouldn't, and for the most part doesn't, care anymore? Who are the people asking these questions? Usually they aren't people trying to intimidate or mock. The people desperately trying to "out" queers are the same who are incessantly pushing the gay agenda that's given this nation fag fatigue.

As others have already mentioned, the fans, the players, and the front offices don't want to hear about it. They want to watch, play, and manage football without having another sociopolitical issue forced on them turning the league into another terrible, soul-destroying season of Glee. People are tired of being told that if you don't actively support every aspect of the gay agenda, from marriage to equality in sports, to floats in parades and naked assholes dancing in the streets reinforcing all the negative stereotypes about them, to fake hate crimes meant to raise "social awareness," you're homophobic or otherwise hate the gays.

So until we start demanding that every player with something minorital about him reveal himself, maybe people should stop demanding that the fags do the same and just leave them the fuck alone to make their own decisions.

Yes I agree but believe that's another kettle of fish issue.

[Pugger]

What needed to happen is that several gay players, as they retired, needed to come out. After that happens a few times, people will start giving that "so what" response and then when someone does come out before he's ready to retire, folks will say that the NFL has had gay players for years. "So what?"

What is truly sad is the fact that anyone has to 'come out' at all. Frankly, if it doesn't affect his performance on the gridiron it is nobody's damn business what they do in the privacy of their own home. I have several friends and acquaintances who are gay (both men and women). I don't understand the attraction but other than that I have no problem with any of them.

[pbmax]

Why did they "need" to come out? Can't they just be gay without being an activist about it or telling a world that shouldn't, and for the most part doesn't, care anymore?

Because it still carries a stigma whether people want to hear about it or not. The fact that some posters on this board say its fine and we don't need to hear anymore is not proof positive that acceptance has been achieved.

Patler just mentioned that the Hockey Associations are working toward making on out hockey player possible, if nothing else need be done, exactly what are they doing? There are folks inside and outside the NFL trying to make this possible, exactly what barriers are they working to take down if there are none?

I am pretty sure there is a cornerback for the 49ers (or was, the comment was last year) who recently informed us he wasn't down with the gays. He was asked about having a gay teammate. Now its possible he simply doesn't agree with the fashion trends, but its also possible he is really not happy about having a gay teammate. If its one guy, then there isn't much of a problem. But since no one wants to talk about it, how much support is there for his position on his team and in that org?

Could be very little, could be a lot. Hard to know if no one talks about it. These conversations need to happen.

If one athlete does come out, these conversations then have to happen. Teams will have meetings, reporters will have leverage to get statements from teams. Up to that point, it possible to imagine all is well for ANY position.

Is it ideal? Not really, because it will get confused with celebrity culture and coverage. Conclusions will be drawn about the whole from one part. But it still beats silence.

I think most gay players (most gay people probably) agree with you, that they would prefer just to be. But from the perspective of a gay player, I don't think that means all is well.

[mraynrand]

Because it still carries a stigma whether people want to hear about it or not. The fact that some posters on this board say its fine and we don't need to hear anymore is not proof positive that acceptance has been achieved.

That's the issue: can and will acceptance be achieved. I don't think so - not any time soon. That's the rub, so to speak. The gay activists don't want tolerance, they want acceptance and celebration. People who think gay behavior is a sin, I think, mostly are OK with tolerance, but don't want to be forced into acceptance. It used to be far worse for gays, in that they'd get beat up and shunned if discovered. The acceptance crowd is fighting today's battle through that lens, and is using that history, and the great push through the social institutions to gain total accommodation. Given the success they've had, I see no reason for them not to keep pushing. The goal is to turn those who think gay behavior is sinful into the pariahs that gays used to be. And the NFL would be a grand victory considering how anti-gay it's been, or at least is perceived to be.

[woodbuck27]

That's the issue: can and will acceptance be achieved. I don't think so - not any time soon. That's the rub, so to speak. The gay activists don't want tolerance, they want acceptance and celebration. People who think gay behavior is a sin, I think, mostly are OK with tolerance, but don't want to be forced into acceptance. It used to be far worse for gays, in that they'd get beat up and shunned if discovered. The acceptance crowd is fighting today's battle through that lens, and is using that history, and the great push through the social institutions to gain total accommodation. Given the success they've had, I see no reason for them not to keep pushing. The goal is to turn those who think gay behavior is sinful into the pariahs that gays used to be. And the NFL would be a grand victory considering how anti-gay it's been, or at least is perceived to be.

So much goes away if NFL teams simply employ a man/ woman irregardless of his/her sexuality.

It's just too simple that way.

[SkinBasket]

Because it still carries a stigma whether people want to hear about it or not. The fact that some posters on this board say its fine and we don't need to hear anymore is not proof positive that acceptance has been achieved.

So we should use sports to experiment with social engineering? Correction: we should pressure gay athletes to divulge their sexual behavior to the world to force a conversation about the place said sexual behavior has in sports - which just about everyone can agree on is "none?" Like gay "marriage" activists, you believe a public spectacle would invoke sympathy for people who want to be treated unspectacularly. Forced acknowledgement of what makes them different while demanding that same difference not be reason for attention.

Why don't we pressure gay teachers, policemen, soldiers, or to come out? Or straight interior designers? Why not pressure conservative actors to come out? After all, if these conversations involving intolerance "need" to happen, why focus solely on gay athletes? Are they, or the apathetic intolerance involved, more important than any other? Or is it simply "important" because it's another goal of an sociopolitical agenda that enjoys the support of a majority of the American media?

If the goal is for a man's sexuality to have no place in sports, then why focus on a man's sexuality in sports? What possible benefit is there from this conversation specifically that hasn't already been discussed and beaten to death and back in a broader setting? Who's mind is going to change, honestly, that hasn't already in a society that has been quite literally drenched past saturation with pro-homosexual messaging?

[pbmax]

That's the issue: can and will acceptance be achieved. I don't think so - not any time soon. That's the rub, so to speak. The gay activists don't want tolerance, they want acceptance and celebration. People who think gay behavior is a sin, I think, mostly are OK with tolerance, but don't want to be forced into acceptance. It used to be far worse for gays, in that they'd get beat up and shunned if discovered. The acceptance crowd is fighting today's battle through that lens, and is using that history, and the great push through the social institutions to gain total accommodation. Given the success they've had, I see no reason for them not to keep pushing. The goal is to turn those who think gay behavior is sinful into the pariahs that gays used to be. And the NFL would be a grand victory considering how anti-gay it's been, or at least is perceived to be.

We are not far removed from violence even if today it is far more singular.

I understand objections to acceptance based on sin, but Godly folk work with sinners all the time in peace. This is not quite there yet, but I do agree, no matter the public optics, it will take more time.

[mraynrand]

Skin, the NFL is the Silver Tuna of gay activism. Acceptance there will go a long, long way towards turning the tide and making tolerant, unaccepting people the pariahs. Society isn't there yet, based on the Duck Dynasty fiasco, but that will not stop the activists - they truly believe they are fighting a civil rights battle every bit as legitimate as racial and women's civil rights.

[SkinBasket]

So much goes away if NFL teams simply employ a man/ woman irregardless of his/her sexuality.

Maybe someone should pass a law that makes employment discrimination based on sexual orientation illegal.

Or would it be too simple that way?

[mraynrand]

We are not far removed from violence even if today it is far more singular.

I understand objections to acceptance based on sin, but Godly folk work with sinners all the time in peace.

Again, this is the issue - Godly people work with sinners in peace* because Godly people know we are all under the same indictment - we are all sinners. That's why the gay activists are pushing so hard - they DO NOT believe that gay behavior is sinful. That's why for them tolerance is not enough and will never be enough, even without any violence or any slurs.


*Note - this isn't really true either - Godly people tolerate sin, but not always peacefully

[pbmax]

So we should use sports to experiment with social engineering? Correction: we should pressure gay athletes to divulge their sexual behavior to the world to force a conversation about the place said sexual behavior has in sports - which just about everyone can agree on is "none?" Like gay "marriage" activists, you believe a public spectacle would invoke sympathy for people who want to be treated unspectacularly. Forced acknowledgement of what makes them different while demanding that same difference not be reason for attention.

Divulge sexual behavior? That is a strange way to look at it. Do you think of Jordy Nelson having sexual relations with his wife every time one of those ads for Wisconsin Tourism runs on TV?

If peoples opinions on sexual orientation were simply subjected to entropy, then naturally the system would return to a well dispersed state of people caring about what they want to care about. But as long as there are clinics taking money to pray away the gay, then I think there is energy in the system looking to organize the parts.

And if that is the case, then waiting for entropy to return is going to be a long time coming. There needs to be energy spent in resistance to return to balance.

[SkinBasket]

Skin, the NFL is the Silver Tuna of gay activism. Acceptance there will go a long, long way towards turning the tide and making intolerant people the pariahs. Society isn't there yet, based on the Duck Dynasty fiasco, but that will not stop the activists - they truly believe they are fighting a civil rights battle every bit as legitimate as racial and women's civil rights.

You mean intolerant people and tolerant people who refuse to actively celebrate other's sexual behavior.

I agree with you, that when you go through the motions of this debate, it boils down to an agenda driven campaign against a certain segment of the population rather than the noble pursuit or equality, love, and tolerance for a certain segment of the population. Otherwise a gay NFL player has no more value than a gay fishmonger.

[woodbuck27]

Skin, the NFL is the Silver Tuna of gay activism. Acceptance there will go a long, long way towards turning the tide and making intolerant people the pariahs. Society isn't there yet, based on the Duck Dynasty fiasco, but that will not stop the activists - they truly believe they are fighting a civil rights battle every bit as legitimate as racial and women's civil rights.

Based on a POLL I observed that basically deems that Aaron Rodgers is a lier (as a possible translation) and 'in TRUTH' Gay; that inspite of his TRUTH, that he's "not gay and really really likes women". That's such nonsense. Aaron Rodgers says he's not Gay or whatever has no bearing on any TRUTH.

That 50% of a certain population of POLL respondents deem that Aaron Rodgers is GAY as a contradiction of his statement is alarming to me. Thus I deem it invalid/absurd.

Where to go then:

It comes down to every effort towords making a person's sexual choice a passé...non issue. Too large a proportion of society are simply ignorant in terms of focusing on this as an issue worthy of any real discussion.

People have every right to believe whatever that will as long as no segment of society is denied it's basic rights.

[mraynrand]

You mean intolerant people and tolerant people who refuse to actively celebrate other's sexual behavior.

I agree with you, that when you go through the motions of this debate, it boils down to an agenda driven campaign against a certain segment of the population rather than the noble pursuit or equality, love, and tolerance for a certain segment of the population. Otherwise a gay NFL player has no more value than a gay fishmonger.

I edited my post to tolerant, un-accepting. But in response to your post, it's BOTH - the activists are against those who think gay behavior is wrong, regardless of tolerance and of course, they are also for the gay person. If millions watched the gay fishmonger on Sundays, and the fishmonger's co-workers were generally unaccepting of his fishmonger gayness, they would target the National Fishmonger League.

[mraynrand]

I feel you bang on there.

excuse me?

[pbmax]

Again, this is the issue - Godly people work with sinners in peace* because Godly people know we are all under the same indictment - we are all sinners. That's why the gay activists are pushing so hard - they DO NOT believe that gay behavior is sinful. That's why for them tolerance is not enough and will never be enough, even without any violence or any slurs.


*Note - this isn't really true either - Godly people tolerate sin, but not always peacefully

Not always true, but very frequently true in homogenous groups. I should distinguish between peaceful, meaning that the two groups can work side by side and not suffer recriminations or poor productivity, as opposed to happily, as you say some Godly folk will not be swayed that the orientation is anything but sin.

I don't think activists are looking to drive away the idea that the behavior is sinful (some may indeed want this to be the case) but they do not want that idea enshrined in law. I am sure there are those willing to fight on that ground, but I do not think that is the main thrust.

[SkinBasket]

Divulge sexual behavior? That is a strange way to look at it.

Have you seen a gay pride parade before? They don't exactly promote the emotional aspects of homosexuality. Additionally, that is what we're talking about - sexual behavior. Men can, and often do, feel and express love for each other without physical attraction or action.


But as long as there are clinics taking money to pray away the gay, then I think there is energy in the system looking to organize the parts.

And if that is the case, then waiting for entropy to return is going to be a long time coming. There needs to be energy spent in resistance to return to balance.

If you believe there is more time, effort, and money being spent trying to cure homos than is spent promoting homosexuality, you haven't turned on a television in the last 20 years.

[SkinBasket]

main thrust.

.

[woodbuck27]

Maybe someone should pass a law that makes employment discrimination based on sexual orientation illegal.

Or would it be too simple that way?

Then you would enter into a very difficult arena.

You'd be challenging POWER.

[woodbuck27]

excuse me?

I removed that sentence out of respect for the discussion. ;-)

[mraynrand]

I don't think activists are looking to drive away the idea that the behavior is sinful (some may indeed want this to be the case) but they do not want that idea enshrined in law. I am sure there are those willing to fight on that ground, but I do not think that is the main thrust.

What is law, but an expression of the values of the society? If gay behavior is no longer perceived as sinful (wrong), the law would simply reflect that. The battle is with the culture and values. Using the courts and the law is just a means to the end of changing the culture, and the activists are generally more effective in using the legal system. But they want to change the culture, and to do that, you need to collapse the pillars of resistance. They effectively neutered most churches, the military, and have captured popular culture. The institution of marriage is a popular target that is inexorably yielding so, as funny as it may seem, the NFL actually represents one of the last strongholds against acceptance and celebration. Eventually it will give way too.

[mraynrand]

Men can, and often do, feel and express love for each other without physical attraction or action.

if you were here, right now, I would hug you.

For less than three seconds.

[woodbuck27]

What is law, but an expression of the values of the society? If gay behavior is no longer perceived as sinful (wrong), the law would simply reflect that. The battle is with the culture and values. Using the courts and the law is just a means to the end of changing the culture, and the activists are generally more effective in using the legal system. But they want to change the culture, and to do that, you need to collapse the pillars of resistance. They effectively neutered most churches, the military, and have captured popular culture. The institution of marriage is a popular target that is inexorably yielding so, as funny as it may seem, the NFL actually represents one of the last strongholds against acceptance and celebration. Eventually it will give way too.

This thread is dangerously close to entering the area where it might be expunged.

[woodbuck27]

if you were here, right now, I would hug you.

For less than three seconds.

I'd shake Skinbasket's hand and say 'Right on Mate'.

[pbmax]

Have you seen a gay pride parade before? They don't exactly promote the emotional aspects of homosexuality. Additionally, that is what we're talking about - sexual behavior. Men can, and often do, feel and express love for each other without physical attraction or action.



If you believe there is more time, effort, and money being spent trying to cure homos than is spent promoting homosexuality, you haven't turned on a television in the last 20 years.

Well, I am wise enough not to expect the Mardi Gras celebration to be a perfect reflection of life in New Orleans. Many writers have noted that the parades are double-edged swords (there you go). There are always people willing to be publicly confrontational in groups, that is not unique to homosexuals.

And I think that if we tally the efforts to ignore, marginalize, suppress or deny homosexuals and balance it against more recent efforts working toward tolerance and acceptance, the balance sheet is still tilted in favor of suppression. Pray away the Gay is simply the silliest effort on that front (the commercial version, no problem with anyone praying for help, guidance or providence).

[mraynrand]

This thread is dangerously close to entering the area where it might be expunged.

only by the intolerant

[mraynrand]

And I think that if we tally the efforts to ignore, marginalize, suppress or deny homosexuals and balance it against more recent efforts working toward tolerance and acceptance, the balance sheet is still tilted in favor of suppression.

I'd like to see your balance sheet

[mraynrand]

Men can, and often do, feel and express love for each other without physical attraction or action.

Those aren't two pillows!

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-J4rubdTKMrY/UKVbHdoOucI/AAAAAAAAFuA/RwQCkwaWhO0/s1600/Planes+Trains+Automobiles+Pillows.jpg
Did you see that Bear's game? Hell of a game.

[pbmax]

What is law, but an expression of the values of the society? If gay behavior is no longer perceived as sinful (wrong), the law would simply reflect that. The battle is with the culture and values. Using the courts and the law is just a means to the end of changing the culture, and the activists are generally more effective in using the legal system. But they want to change the culture, and to do that, you need to collapse the pillars of resistance. They effectively neutered most churches, the military, and have captured popular culture. The institution of marriage is a popular target that is inexorably yielding so, as funny as it may seem, the NFL actually represents one of the last strongholds against acceptance and celebration. Eventually it will give way too.

Well, this is the crux of the matter. I do not believe values or behavior need be enshrined in law to remain valuable or sinful. Are there still laws on the books over adultery? There probably are considering some states rely on rules for carriages to govern their highways, but I doubt they are enforced.

Enshrinement in law is a step beyond values or beliefs. Informed by them, shaped by them, interpreted by them, but they cannot be one and the same.

[pbmax]

I'd like to see your balance sheet

A lot of it is redacted by request of the Catholic Church. But its still an interesting read.

[woodbuck27]

only by the intolerant

I'll post this:

I'm glad that those "I don't give a shit" posters have taken their "I don't give a shit" attitudes out of this discussion.

Made way for those here that "do give a shit".

[mraynrand]

A lot of it is redacted by request of the Catholic Church. But its still an interesting read.

If you investigate it, you might find that the Catholic Church didn't spend much time on the issue until challenged on it. But on your balance sheet will also have to be all the churches that accept gay behavior, and all of culture that has driven the issue for the past decades. And if we're going to go back in time, how far back do we get to go? How about Caligula's Rome? Maybe just concentrate on where we are right now and the trend?

[mraynrand]

Pray away the Gay is simply the silliest effort on that front (the commercial version).

Is that by Ronco?

[woodbuck27]

Well, this is the crux of the matter. I do not believe values or behavior need be enshrined in law to remain valuable or sinful. Are there still laws on the books over adultery? There probably are considering some states rely on rules for carriages to govern their highways, but I doubt they are enforced.

Enshrinement in law is a step beyond values or beliefs. Informed by them, shaped by them, interpreted by them, but they cannot be one and the same.

An impressive statement or declaration.

Was one of your relatives 'a Founding Father', pbmax?

[pbmax]

If you investigate it, you might find that the Catholic Church didn't spend much time on the issue until challenged on it. But on your balance sheet will also have to be all the churches that accept gay behavior, and all of culture that has driven the issue for the past decades. And if we're going to go back in time, how far back do we get to go? How about Caligula's Rome? Maybe just concentrate on where we are right now and the trend?

I agree that the here and now is the best measure. I do not know if I can articulate the target. Everything I write read like a Supreme Court Justice writing about pornography.

The trend is encouraging though. And despite the utter uselessness of the phrase, we'll know when we get there.

[mraynrand]

I agree that the here and now is the best measure. I do not know if I can articulate the target. Everything I write read like a Supreme Court Justice writing about pornography.

The trend is encouraging though. And despite the utter uselessness of the phrase, we'll know when we get there.

I'm trying to just stick to analysis where we are with respect to the issue in the NFL. If anyone wants to discuss the underlying issue of gay behavior right or wrong, that's for FYI.

As far as trends go, it is interesting to note that the Duck Dynasty controversy represents the dramatic change in the culture. The issue there was not whether gay behavior is right or wrong, the issue there was whether popular culture (not 'the law') was going to tolerate (not accept) the expression of the viewpoint that gay behavior is sinful (wrong). With the trend among 30 and under being 70-30 in favor of acceptance (not tolerance) of gay behavior, the future seems pretty certain - gay players will be known, accepted and celebrated in the NFL as in society at large.

[MadtownPacker]

I'd shake Skinbasket's hand and say 'Right on Mate'.
Might want to wear gloves foo!

[SkinBasket]

Well, I am wise enough not to expect the Mardi Gras celebration to be a perfect reflection of life in New Orleans. Many writers have noted that the parades are double-edged swords (there you go). There are always people willing to be publicly confrontational in groups, that is not unique to homosexuals.

And I think that if we tally the efforts to ignore, marginalize, suppress or deny homosexuals and balance it against more recent efforts working toward tolerance and acceptance, the balance sheet is still tilted in favor of suppression. Pray away the Gay is simply the silliest effort on that front (the commercial version, no problem with anyone praying for help, guidance or providence).

The point being that homosexuality is defined by the specific type of sexual behavior, as the name suggests. I'm not reducing homos to their sexuality, but that is their defined uniqueness. I'm not sure what is strange about that.

As far as your balance sheet goes, I'm struggling to think of even a collection of "anti-gay" efforts that would counter just one episode of Glee as far as influence on popular culture and opinion, not to mention the 402 other television shows that paint homos in a sympathetic, victimized, or otherwise protagonist role (whereas conservatives who would be their antagonist are usually painted as comically ignorant, backwards and square) the Bravo network, a vast majority of outspoken celebrity, academia, and political support, and the Rose Parade, among others. I think you're being more than a little disingenuous on that account.

Anyway, the original point being that pressuring a gay athlete to come out to fulfill the goals of a sociopolitical movement that has more than enough other spokespeople, champions, and pop culture influence seems wrong and degrading.

[mraynrand]

Anyway, the original point being that pressuring a gay athlete to come out to fulfill the goals of a sociopolitical movement that has more than enough other spokespeople, champions, and pop culture influence seems wrong and degrading.

for some reason this reminds me of Jim Caldwell, but I can't imagine why

[Tony Oday]

This just in there are straight people in the NFL, nobody talks about that! I'm sick of the gay agenda, you want tolive the gay lifestyle or are born to it rock on but I don't give a shit who you are banging as long as it is a consenting adult.

[pbmax]

Its strange that you choose to focus specifically on the sexual behavior as the defining characteristic. The attraction to the same sex might be the defining characteristic of the group, but it is not the defining characteristic of any individual. And that is the entire point. I doubt any of the people hoping for another athlete to emerge wants that athlete to detail, promote or otherwise advertise a specific sexual behavior or practice.

Just as Jordy Nelson's ad with his wife is not meant to be a testimony for heterosexual behavior, the appearance of a active, out professional athlete is not meant to be an advertisement for homosexual behavior.

I would hope that any person who chooses to do this does not do it to fulfill a sociopolitical movement. I hope they do it so the appearance of the object of their affection in Wisconsin Tourism ad, at a game, or in an interview is as run of the mill and unremarkable as the appearance of Mrs. Nelson in the ad.

[pbmax]

This just in there are straight people in the NFL, nobody talks about that!

No one talks about who Jay Cutler was dating, got married to? No one talks about Tony Romo and Jessica Simpson or whomever he eventually got married to?

No one ever talks about Rothliesberger's escapades and well-timed marriage? Is there no chance you know who Tom Brady is married to? The chances of you knowing who he USED to be dating must be terrible, right?

I don't see McCarthy and his wife on my TV every 15 minutes soliciting donations for the Children's Hospital at UW-Madison?

I have nearly lost track of how many articles I have read about Ryan Pickett's wife and family. How about Strahan and his divorce? Howie Long's wife and kids?

Really, no one talks about straight relationships in the NFL?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=D9nOzB4b62U#t=97

[gbgary]

I would hope that any person who chooses to do this does not do it to fulfill a sociopolitical movement.

maybe later on but the first few will definitely be of the sociopolitical variety. it can't be helped. the media, the movement, politicians, won't allow it to be anything else.

[mraynrand]

Its strange that you choose to focus specifically on the sexual behavior as the defining characteristic.

the sexual behavior is the issue. Otherwise you're just talking about close friends

[pbmax]

maybe later on but the first few will definitely of the sociopolitical variety. it can't be helped. the media, the movement, politicians, won't allow it be anything else.

Oh, it will be all tied together to the point that denying or proclaiming otherwise would be ineffectual.

But I hope it is not the sole reason. But there is no guarantee. Any sane person would harbor reservations.

[pbmax]

the sexual behavior is the issue. Otherwise you're just talking about close friends

The public acknowledgment is not simply about behavior. Its an effort to lead an open and honest life.

There is a natural tension between private and public realms, but this particular public realm remains unchartered.

[mraynrand]

The public acknowledgment is not simply about behavior. Its an effort to lead an open and honest life..

Yes, an open and honest life about behavior. Otherwise there is nothing to be 'open and honest' about. No one would care.

[pbmax]

Yes, an open and honest life about behavior. Otherwise there is nothing to be 'open and honest' about. No one would care.

I doubt no one would care, but the salaciousness the topic lends itself to no doubt helps with the fascination.

[mraynrand]

The NFL may be a tough nut to crack:


As [my teammates and I] sat down in our chairs, Mike Priefer, in one of the meanest voices I can ever recall hearing, said: ‘We should round up all the gays, send them to an island, and then nuke it until it glows.’ The room grew intensely quiet, and none of the players said a word for the rest of the meeting.


Former Vikings punter says he lost job due to stance on gay marriage
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/01/chris-kluwe-minnesota-vikings-mike-priefer/

Perhaps part excuse-making, but will be interesting to see if Kluwe ever punts again. I guess Tampa Bay won't be calling.

[pbmax]

The NFL may be a tough nut to crack:




Former Vikings punter says he lost job due to stance on gay marriage
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/01/chris-kluwe-minnesota-vikings-mike-priefer/

Perhaps part excuse-making, but will be interesting to see if Kluwe ever punts again. I guess Tampa Bay won't be calling.

I had a hard time buying that Priefer had that kind of pull, until I read in his article that the Pioneer Press said he was the only in house candidate with a chance.

Then on Twitter I discovered he interviewed with the Bears for the HC job last year. Harbaugh, Cowher and whatshisface have really improved the visibility of the ST Coordinator.

[gbgary]

as one commenter (jrz) on the article said:

Nonsense, he was released because he was due 1.45 million, whereas a rookie could be had for 450 thousand. Plus, they got a guy who could credibly handle kickoff duty if Walsh was injured (Kluwe's never hit a touchback when he's had to fill in). Kluwe can claim martyrdom all he wants, he was released because the Vikings found a cheaper, as-good-and-potentially-better replacement.

[pbmax]

as one commenter (jrz) on the article said:

Nonsense, he was released because he was due 1.45 million, whereas a rookie could be had for 450 thousand. Plus, they got a guy who could credibly handle kickoff duty if Walsh was injured (Kluwe's never hit a touchback when he's had to fill in). Kluwe can claim martyrdom all he wants, he was released because the Vikings found a cheaper, as-good-and-potentially-better replacement.

There are a ton of reasons he could have been released. But that doesn't change his coach's reaction.

Also, given the Vikings year, they may have wanted to spend that 5th round pick elsewhere. Are they cash strapped?

[mraynrand]

There are a ton of reasons he could have been released. But that doesn't change his coach's reaction.


UNBALANCED!!

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

[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.

[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

[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).

[woodbuck27]

I had a hard time buying that Priefer had that kind of pull, until I read in his article that the Pioneer Press said he was the only in house candidate with a chance.

Then on Twitter I discovered he interviewed with the Bears for the HC job last year. Harbaugh, Cowher and whatshisface have really improved the visibility of the ST Coordinator.

"Harbaugh, Cowher and ** whatshisface ** have really improved the visibility of the ST Coordinator." pbmax

** This fella? **

Brian Schneider - Special Teams Coach - Seattle Seahawks

[pbmax]

"Harbaugh, Cowher and ** whatshisface ** have really improved the visibility of the ST Coordinator." pbmax

** This fella? **

Brian Schneider - Special Teams Coach - Seattle Seahawks

Nope, I was thinking of Belichick. He started as a ST coach.

[woodbuck27]

the sexual behavior is the issue. Otherwise you're just talking about close friends

** Do you believe it's right in any way, shape, manner or form that a persons sexual choice or positive stance in a same sex marriage or equivalent, should suffer:

a) Any regret in the form of condemnation by the powers to be?

b) A loss of any freedom to viably secure work in his chosen field?

** Do you believe that any man should be applauded for condemning 'in any manner', a same sex relationship; based on his interpretations of whatever doctrine (s) he deems as his compass for his personal moral manner of living?

[woodbuck27]

The NFL may be a tough nut to crack:




Former Vikings punter says he lost job due to stance on gay marriage
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/01/chris-kluwe-minnesota-vikings-mike-priefer/

Perhaps part excuse-making, but will be interesting to see if Kluwe ever punts again. I guess Tampa Bay won't be calling.

Why won't Tampa Bay be calling Chris Kluwe's agent mraynrand?

[woodbuck27]

as one commenter (jrz) on the article said:

Nonsense, he was released because he was due 1.45 million, whereas a rookie could be had for 450 thousand. Plus, they got a guy who could credibly handle kickoff duty if Walsh was injured (Kluwe's never hit a touchback when he's had to fill in). Kluwe can claim martyrdom all he wants, he was released because the Vikings found a cheaper, as-good-and-potentially-better replacement.

RE: that ..... one commenter (jrz) uses clear propaganda to drive home the stake.

There Ladies and Gentleman is 'the Company Line'.

'Stick that wherever' and don't challenge it. If you do so we don't ever need this discussion.

Once again 'Freedoms become a matter for ** those in POWER* '.

** Their prejudices, greeds and petty fears amongst other insults towards the common person.

[mraynrand]

Why won't Tampa Bay be calling Chris Kluwe's agent mraynrand?

Frasier is Lovie's D-coor

[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.

[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.

[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.

[woodbuck27]

Frasier is Lovie's D-coor

WOW!

I havn't been doing any checks on things NFL since this AM.

Thanks.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Why did they "need" to come out? Can't they just be gay without being an activist about it or telling a world that shouldn't, and for the most part doesn't, care anymore?

It's important for gay people to come out of closet, it reduces stigmatization. Obviously people still do care very much about athletes being gay, otherwise more gay athletes would be out of closet.

[Harlan Huckleby]

That's the issue: can and will acceptance be achieved. I don't think so - not any time soon. That's the rub, so to speak. The gay activists don't want tolerance, they want acceptance and celebration.

Of course gays want full acceptance. It's directly analogous to interracial couples. Interracial couples used to be shunned, often condemned on religious grounds. Their kids were picked on.
After a few decades of hashing over the issue, most people have come around to accepting interracial families. Identical process has happened with gays, at a more accelerated pace.

There are winners and losers in all social changes. People who don't accept gays are fading away, just like the people who didn't want to let go of slavery, or people who were uncomfortable with women in the military.

The tipping point on gay acceptance passed about 5 years ago, it's a done deal.

Lombardi was a pioneer in acceptance of both gays and interracial couples
http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2013/5/7/4307998/vince-lombardi-packers-acceptance-gay-athletes

[woodbuck27]

The point being that homosexuality is defined by the specific type of sexual behavior, as the name suggests. I'm not reducing homos to their sexuality, but that is their defined uniqueness. I'm not sure what is strange about that.

As far as your balance sheet goes, I'm struggling to think of even a collection of "anti-gay" efforts that would counter just one episode of Glee as far as influence on popular culture and opinion, not to mention the 402 other television shows that paint homos in a sympathetic, victimized, or otherwise protagonist role (whereas conservatives who would be their antagonist are usually painted as comically ignorant, backwards and square) the Bravo network, a vast majority of outspoken celebrity, academia, and political support, and the Rose Parade, among others. I think you're being more than a little disingenuous on that account.

Anyway, the original point being that pressuring a gay athlete to come out to fulfill the goals of a sociopolitical movement that has more than enough other spokespeople, champions, and pop culture influence seems wrong and degrading.

" As far as your balance sheet goes, I'm struggling to think of even a collection of "anti-gay" efforts that would counter just one episode of Glee as far as influence on popular culture and opinion, not to mention the 402 other television shows that paint homos in a sympathetic, victimized, or otherwise protagonist role (whereas conservatives who would be their antagonist are usually painted as comically ignorant, backwards and square) the Bravo network, a vast majority of outspoken celebrity, academia, and political support, and the Rose Parade, among others." SkinBasket

WOW! :wink:

That's an 88 word sentence ! I didn't count the number '402'.

[woodbuck27]

It's important for gay people to come out of closet, it reduces stigmatization. Obviously people still do care very much about athletes being gay, otherwise more gay athletes would be out of closet.

" Obviously people still do care very much about athletes being gay..." H H

** Therein lies the rub.

Suddenly.....pausing to think..... !!!

A real experience I share with y'all.

Jheeesh, I did it again, or did I?

Is what I just wrote, **, demonstrative of my heterosexuality. NO...I'm OK there. Mae rubbed my back last night. It's OK to use that word 'rub'. Certainly OK... to use that word as I did.

A classic example of literary paranoia dealt with, and after some thought, easily dismissed.

Why should I ever care? I'm heterosexual so surely all that shouldn't matter to me. That's not my problem and thus why make it my concern?

In a society where marginalization is clearly alive and wielding it's bloody sword in a masterfully masked way?

Masked way... No ! Rather again, as it's always worked with the use of POWER.

' Power', improperly employed.

Why is so much that we might not ordinarily question as proper, 'even' in our writing; suddenly become open for interpretation in terms of it's gayness or gay vernacular !? Why should any time be lost to such thought/examination?

Now please, maybe!? take some time ......

Extend (or take that) to what Gay folk must endure, in the shadows of their daily struggles, to merely live and enjoy every advantage offered to the majority ?

Ohh wait, should I check again !? I must not error. I must be absolutely sure !

Just a wee while please.

Let me go into the attic and consult with my dusty edition of Gay Talk : A Dictionary of Gay Slang (Formerly The 'Queens' Vernacular) by: Bruce Rodgers.




There I did it again....I digressed Harlan Huckleby :wink:: I did so as simply an exercise in reality.

It's the manner and undeniable TRUTH in which " people ", " still do care very much " that's in contention.

It's about the NFL and bringing it up with the times.

About the NFL and open acceptance of same sex relationships.

About the NFL fully accepting same sex unions in any form of commitment without any negative repercussions.

It's about the NFL and any denial that it's not already there.

It's about that NFL and denial and obvious support for the openly gay side that's very aware this denial supports only one very clear NFL agenda:

No gay homosexual football players are allowed in NFL team locker rooms.

It's about an NFL that's homophobic and selfish in terms of the needed attention this issue deserves.

Obvious acceptance.

Allow the rest to take care of itself, as it will, in some order of time.

It's about the NFL embracing 'the so deemed distraction' in terms of the better good.

It's about the NFL focusing on the good of the game of football.

It's about the NFL catching up in this regard to where Pro hockey has been arriving/ has arrived and same sex relationship and 'NO' exclusion of such people at any level of participation in the NFL in terms of a career short or otherwise.

[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.

[SkinBasket]

I doubt no one would care, but the salaciousness the topic lends itself to no doubt helps with the fascination.

Or does it help keep the gays silent? Because not many men want to stand up at Thanksgiving diner and announce, "Ma, I have meaningful and enjoyable sexual intercourse with men," much less in front of a worldwide news camera.

[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.

[pbmax]

Or does it help keep the gays silent? Because not many men want to stand up at Thanksgiving diner and announce, "Ma, I have meaningful and enjoyable sexual intercourse with men," much less in front of a worldwide news camera.

I suspect this is what the Duck Dynasty guy would fear. The idea that being gay is entirely about a specific sexual act. That being gay means simply preferring one kind of sex to another. Its reductive, to make the issue entirely about a distinction rather than a preference in relationships.

I doubt anyone who is gay sees it that narrowly. No adult (straight or gay) who is serious about choosing a partner bases the choice on sexual compatibility alone.

[SkinBasket]

Or does it help keep the gays silent? Because not many men want to stand up at Thanksgiving diner and announce, "Ma, I have meaningful and enjoyable sexual intercourse with men," much less in front of a worldwide news camera.

What I meant to say is that few people want to stand up and tell anyone, much less everyone, that they have sexual relations with anyone, same sex or not. I'm very articulate this morning.

[SkinBasket]

I suspect this is what the Duck Dynasty guy would fear. The idea that being gay is entirely about a specific sexual act. That being gay means simply preferring one kind of sex to another. Its reductive, to make the issue entirely about a distinction rather than a preference in relationships.

I doubt anyone who is gay sees it that narrowly. No adult (straight or gay) who is serious about choosing a partner bases the choice on sexual compatibility alone.

I already said I'm not reducing them to their sexuality, but it is exactly what makes them homosexual. Denying them their sexuality is denying them who they are and is making this issue about something it isn't, or not making this issue about what it is, if you prefer. The emotional aspects are not unique to queers. Men love many men during their lives: fathers, brothers, friends, teammates, fellow soldiers... It is the sexual aspect that defines homosexuality, and last time I checked, that's what we're discussing here. If you, or they, feel that is salacious, then that's not my issue, and is all the more reason that sports, among many other things, is not the arena in which to discuss sexuality publicly.

[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]

What I meant to say is that few people want to stand up and tell anyone, much less everyone, that they have sexual relations with anyone, same sex or not. I'm very articulate this morning.

A homosexual/homosexuals ... do NOT 'have to declare their sexuality'; unless it's of personal choice.

ie Maybe? hiding such creates an internal issue/problem, that such a revelation might as a result, and in return offer support of.

[woodbuck27]

The homos I've known have largely embraced those terms. Something about word reclamation, or somesuch nonsense. So I honor their wishes and use the terms openly and without reservation, and honestly do not use them in a derogatory manner ala Mr. Baldwin or to attempt to insult someone generally. I suppose you could call me a gay activist in that regard.

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

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

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

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

[mraynrand]

Of course gays want full acceptance. It's directly analogous to interracial couples. Interracial couples used to be shunned, often condemned on religious grounds. Their kids were picked on.
After a few decades of hashing over the issue, most people have come around to accepting interracial families. Identical process has happened with gays, at a more accelerated pace.

There are winners and losers in all social changes. People who don't accept gays are fading away, just like the people who didn't want to let go of slavery, or people who were uncomfortable with women in the military.

The tipping point on gay acceptance passed about 5 years ago, it's a done deal.

Lombardi was a pioneer in acceptance of both gays and interracial couples
http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2013/5/7/4307998/vince-lombardi-packers-acceptance-gay-athletes

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

[pbmax]

I already said I'm not reducing them to their sexuality, but it is exactly what makes them homosexual. Denying them their sexuality is denying them who they are and is making this issue about something it isn't, or not making this issue about what it is, if you prefer. The emotional aspects are not unique to queers. Men love many men during their lives: fathers, brothers, friends, teammates, fellow soldiers... It is the sexual aspect that defines homosexuality, and last time I checked, that's what we're discussing here. If you, or they, feel that is salacious, then that's not my issue, and is all the more reason that sports, among many other things, is not the arena in which to discuss sexuality publicly.

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

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

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

[woodbuck27]

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

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

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

I suspect your correct.

[SkinBasket]

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


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

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

noun
noun: homosexual; plural noun: homosexuals

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


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

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

[woodbuck27]

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

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

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

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

:rs: :-D

[SkinBasket]

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

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

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

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

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

[woodbuck27]

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

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

Have a super day.... later..

[pbmax]

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

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

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

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

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

[woodbuck27]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[hoosier]

The NFL may be a tough nut to crack:




Former Vikings punter says he lost job due to stance on gay marriage
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/01/chris-kluwe-minnesota-vikings-mike-priefer/

Perhaps part excuse-making, but will be interesting to see if Kluwe ever punts again. I guess Tampa Bay won't be calling.

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

[mraynrand]

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

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

[hoosier]

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

In his rebuttal of Kluwe's accusation, Priefer defended himself as a family man who has dedicated himself to raising his kids the right way. It sounds like one of his kids has been disseminating his love for gays on social media. http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2014/01/homophobic_vikings_coach_mike_priefers_son_enjoys_ calling_people_gay_on_twitter.php, Maybe the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree. :-)

[mraynrand]

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

In his rebuttal of Kluwe's accusation, Priefer defended himself as a family man who has dedicated himself to raising his kids the right way. It sounds like one of his kids has been disseminating his love for gays on social media. http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2014/01/homophobic_vikings_coach_mike_priefers_son_enjoys_ calling_people_gay_on_twitter.php, Maybe the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree. :-)


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

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

I'd like to see some reasonably responsible sourcing.

[SkinBasket]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[hoosier]

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

[mraynrand]

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

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

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

[SkinBasket]

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

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


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

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

[mraynrand]

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

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

[pbmax]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[mraynrand]

Phil Robertson is still trying to solve the login puzzle of "which body part you should love the most".

is he?

[pbmax]

is he?

Well, in the interview he was for others. I am certain he has chosen for himself.

[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.

[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]

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

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

I'd like to see some reasonably responsible sourcing.

Wow aren't you a real beauty.

Surrender quando i ragazzi ancora in inferiorità numerica, la saggezza si ritira prima della cavalleria ridere all'orizzonte.

:rs:

[Harlan Huckleby]

The discussion was not about gay behavior right or wrong but about whether the culture will allow someone who believes gay behavior is wrong to voice that view.

It will be increasingly uncool for people to hold-on to bigoted views towards gays. Them's the breaks, nothing you can do about it. Sure, it is still legal to talk about interracial couples in disparaging ways, but the culture now rejects this position. Gay acceptance is approaching that level. You and Duck Man have lost the battle, even if reactionary sentiment will drag on for a decade or so, especially in the South. The under-40 crowd broadly, solidly accepts gays, finds older people odd on this issue.

I'm disturbed by the gossip about Josh Sitton being gay. I accept that he just likes to take a wide stance.

http://jerseyal.com/GBP/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/packer-lineman-josh-sitton.jpeg

[woodbuck27]

It will be increasingly uncool for people to hold-on to bigoted views towards gays. Them's the breaks, nothing you can do about it. Sure, it is still legal to talk about interracial couples in disparaging ways, but the culture now rejects this position. Gay acceptance is approaching that level. You and Duck Man have lost the battle, even if reactionary sentiment will drag on for a decade or so, especially in the South. The under-40 crowd broadly, solidly accepts gays, finds older people odd on this issue.

I'm disturbed by the gossip about Josh Sitton being gay. I accept that he just likes to take a wide stance.

http://jerseyal.com/GBP/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/packer-lineman-josh-sitton.jpeg

Ohh my goodness Josh Sitton.

Huck: May I first a resolution for Packerrats to celebrate this Packer's possible pain. By sending Josh a dozen pairs of:

http://img1.etsystatic.com/038/0/5324223/il_340x270.534390235_fzc7.jpg

Tie Dyed Tidy's...By Hanes.

[woodbuck27]

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

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQiM7DekJEIsbsDRGVhCdwSPMwKKkPWa FH53ptHa1JXelUwjawz

Celebrating homosexuality from the mountaintops.

[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?

[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?

[woodbuck27]

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

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

Is the debate about:

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRCgGwLdnLGj7bDMYBYbIsFwQ7-0DhZZEJ39D4FA8NLplNwzNusGg

or about:

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRLOMdT2mzp4cNucUYyaB14VmMI4mou-7UB0wW28JGFP8uWZACX

HANDS OFF !!

or BOTH?

[red]

i think its all about the fear that some people have that a group of gays are gonna someday bust through their front door and all start butt fucking each other in the middle of the family room while their family is trying to have their nightly bible study

[MJZiggy]

i think its all about the fear that some people have that a group of gays are gonna someday bust through their front door and all start butt fucking each other in the middle of the family room while their family is trying to have their nightly bible study

See that's the difference. While I realize (because I live in a place where gay marriage is legal) that this isn't going to actually happen, it would be more interesting than what is happening in my living room at present...

[mraynrand]

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

this is untrue

[MJZiggy]

So if a person gives an account of what he claims another person said (in any setting) it's not creditable or believable as something he tells us about himself?

(Credible means believable. They are synonyms.)

[mraynrand]

i think its all about the fear that some people have that a group of gays are gonna someday bust through their front door and all start butt fucking each other in the middle of the family room while their family is trying to have their nightly bible study

You've hit the nail on the head, so to speak. Every evangelical I've ever talked to has this recurring nightmare. Problem solved at last! Now if only we could classify this in the DSM and force Obamacare to pay for the treatment!

[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.

[mraynrand]

It will be increasingly uncool for people to hold-on to bigoted views towards gays.

or even non-bigoted views. Only the views of the anointed will be acceptable.

[red]

See that's the difference. While I realize (because I live in a place where gay marriage is legal) that this isn't going to actually happen, it would be more interesting than what is happening in my living room at present...

LOL

[Teamcheez1]

It will be increasingly uncool for people to hold-on to bigoted views towards gays.

Yes. We must all learn to embrace the gay lifestyle in all it's entirety. Tolerance isn't enough. If you don't wholly accept it, you must be banished.
All of society should realize that a very small percentage of our population should define the norms accepted by all (according to the Hollywood left and the press). Forget the other 95+ %.

By the way, Kluwe should not only have been kept on the roster, but his salary doubled for speaking out politically on the issues. Any employee of a company should be able to speak out regardless of the content of the speech (not!).

[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.

[woodbuck27]

(Credible means believable. They are synonyms.)

Excuse me....I'll try again:

If a person gives an account of what he claims another person said (in any setting):

It's not believable (ceredible).

While something he tells us about himself is believable (credible)?

Is it a normal course of living to mistrust everything and everyone; with the exception depended on the source?

!!! PLEASE IGNORE THIS !!!

That question is off topic and delves into what is deemed truthful or not.

[Guiness]

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.

The bigger issue I have is that 10% number...baseless speculation as far as anything I've ever seen, it's a number that seems to get thrown out there when it's needed. Lies, damn lies and statistics.

I know some people that are openly gay, and I'm sure there are others I know that are, but I'm not aware of it. Would I pretend to be able to put a percentage on it? No chance.

[woodbuck27]

The bigger issue I have is that 10% number...baseless speculation as far as anything I've ever seen, it's a number that seems to get thrown out there when it's needed. Lies, damn lies and statistics.

I know some people that are openly gay, and I'm sure there are others I know that are, but I'm not aware of it. Would I pretend to be able to put a percentage on it? No chance.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx

October 8, 2002

What Percentage of the Population Is Gay?

by Jennifer Robison, Contributing Editor

[Harlan Huckleby]

i think its all about the fear that some people have that a group of gays are gonna someday bust through their front door and all start butt fucking each other in the middle of the family room while their family is trying to have their nightly bible study

Doesn't help that this is a typical plot line in gay porn.

Why can't they just stick to pizza delivery guys interrupting lonely people taking a shower?

[Harlan Huckleby]

The bigger issue I have is that 10% number...baseless speculation as far as anything


If you count college women, that figure might be 20%

[woodbuck27]

Nope, I was thinking of Belichick. He started as a ST coach.

Yes throughout the late 1970's and until 1984 Bill Belichick worked as a ST's Coach amongst other duties in the Detroit Lions, Denver Broncos and NY GIANTS Organizations; until he became DC with the GIANTS 1985-90, and from there Please see the LINK below for more on this remarkable Head Coach:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Belichick#Early_coaching_positions

[woodbuck27]

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

I'm going to tie this other source to your LINK hoosire:

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24396810/vikings-to-conduct-independent-review-of-chris-kluwe-allegations


Eye On Football

Vikings to conduct independent review of Chris Kluwe allegations

By John Breech | CBSSports.com ... January 3, 2014 4:01 pm ET

Comment woodbuck27:

Talk about a rush to put out a fire. Such a big deal when likely in the end 'spit' would have done just fine.

[mraynrand]

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.

Hope I didn't piss ya off too much Zig. You might be surprised how many genetics experts just make crap up about all this.

A plausible evolutionary explanation is that ostensible homosexual attraction is a linked trait to something else that is absolutely essential for survival, say sexual attraction in general. The other possibility is that it is completely epigenetic, meaning it is not encoded genetically, but that the expression of genes that give the propensity for same sex attraction is triggered by environmental factors (those could be anything but it's a really fanciful way of saying "I don't know what causes the predisposition")

As far as I can tell there are three causes of apparent homosexual behavior, based on the simple fact that humans are a two sex species:

1) intersexual development: homo sapiens either develop as male or female, but sometimes develop intersexual traits, and sometimes that's subtle, so that the person is more or less indistinguishable as a specific sex. So someone who looks male may be tilted toward female development and someone female tilted toward male development, etc. So the 'same sex' attraction that intersexuals feel is perfectly natural
2) Trauma - there are all sorts of developmental and experiential trauma that can lead to ego-identity confusion and/or make a person of one sex less attracted to the other sex, and gravitate towards the same sex. Most people probably know a divorced woman who is now gay as a result of an abusive husband, for example. Children who have parents with confused sexual roles can also be affected (Sorry, that's probably not the correct way to say that).
3) Experimentation - This is more common in women than men, but people do get influenced by society - sometimes accidentally and harmlessly and sometimes dangerously and purposefully- to 'explore their sexuality,' and they do just that, without having any homosexual inclination at all.

Ultimately though, in any of the cases, the decision to express any of these feelings in a sexual way, regardless of their genesis, is a voluntary act, presumably by agents with free will, with all the implications that entails.

[smuggler]

Kerry Rhodes being gay isn't the problem. It's that he sexually harasses every single one of his teammates. lol

[Guiness]

If you count college women, that figure might be 20%

Have that many wet dreams, do you?

[mraynrand]

Vikings to conduct independent review of Chris Kluwe allegations

That's a good idea; absolutely should include an outside source to be objective and credible

[Guiness]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx

October 8, 2002

What Percentage of the Population Is Gay?

by Jennifer Robison, Contributing Editor

Lots of statistics in that article. Best line from TFA
In fact, roughly a quarter of the public thinks more than 25% of men and 25% of women are homosexual.

I read that more than a few times, and I'm not sure just what it is trying to say.

What does it matter what 25% of the population thinks of the rest of the population's sexuality?

[mraynrand]

Why can't they just stick to pizza delivery guys interrupting lonely people taking a shower?

It's good to know you take showers, but do you use soap?

[Tony Oday]

So can we move this thread? It isnt football anymore.

[mraynrand]

What does it matter what 25% of the population thinks of the rest of the population's sexuality?

I think it's a measure of cultural saturation of the gay 'issue' (for lack of a better word). Like Skin was saying, the gay message is everywhere, and it's almost all roses and no thorns (easy, Harlan)

[smuggler]

I mean, their new punter outperformed his numbers from last year in every way. So...

[pbmax]

I mean, their new punter outperformed his numbers from last year in every way. So...

True, and you would hope for that if you took him in the fifth and he wasn't BJ Sander.

The question, unanswerable unless someone put it in writing, is why choose that year to use a fifth pick on a punter instead of a QB, LB or CB?

Yes, they saved cap money, but if not in cap danger was it worth losing to opportunity to get a different player? For punters, fifth is a pretty glitzy round, but its not unheard of and the Vikings might operate that way.

More easily answerable might be the quotes ascribed to the coach. The kicker has backed his coach's character and said he never heard the language Kluwe mentioned. But there would be others in that room.

[woodbuck27]

So can we move this thread? It isnt football anymore.

Do you feel threatened?

It'll be OK. :-|

[woodbuck27]

I mean, their new punter outperformed his numbers from last year in every way. So...

That's got little to do in terms of "who said what or didn't".

[woodbuck27]

Hope I didn't piss ya off too much Zig. You might be surprised how many genetics experts just make crap up about all this.

A plausible evolutionary explanation is that ostensible homosexual attraction is a linked trait to something else that is absolutely essential for survival, say sexual attraction in general. The other possibility is that it is completely epigenetic, meaning it is not encoded genetically, but that the expression of genes that give the propensity for same sex attraction is triggered by environmental factors (those could be anything but it's a really fanciful way of saying "I don't know what causes the predisposition")

As far as I can tell there are three causes of apparent homosexual behavior, based on the simple fact that humans are a two sex species:

1) intersexual development: homo sapiens either develop as male or female, but sometimes develop intersexual traits, and sometimes that's subtle, so that the person is more or less indistinguishable as a specific sex. So someone who looks male may be tilted toward female development and someone female tilted toward male development, etc. So the 'same sex' attraction that intersexuals feel is perfectly natural
2) Trauma - there are all sorts of developmental and experiential trauma that can lead to ego-identity confusion and/or make a person of one sex less attracted to the other sex, and gravitate towards the same sex. Most people probably know a divorced woman who is now gay as a result of an abusive husband, for example. Children who have parents with confused sexual roles can also be affected (Sorry, that's probably not the correct way to say that).
3) Experimentation - This is more common in women than men, but people do get influenced by society - sometimes accidentally and harmlessly and sometimes dangerously and purposefully- to 'explore their sexuality,' and they do just that, without having any homosexual inclination at all.

Ultimately though, in any of the cases, the decision to express any of these feelings in a sexual way, regardless of their genesis, is a voluntary act, presumably by agents with free will, with all the implications that entails.

We're still going down the garden path here, Eh! I'll try to re-focus this.

No clear evidence exists that most homosexual behaviour is biologically caused or determined. Evidence has been found that 'homosexuality' may be influenced by pathological development of the hypothalamus or other brain structures. It's "really all in their head", isn't an inaccurate phrase.

Psychological counseling might redirect their lives in a different focus. Many men are confused over this sexual persuasion to the same sex which conflicts with their morality.

Homosexuals as commonly defined or 'primary homosexuals' are statistically rare.

The majority of individuals labelled homosexuals are more properly labelled as bisexual's. This majority of 'Male GAYS' like women and men. Their relationships with both sex's may or may not be sexual.

When a GAY Male says that he loves women. He's likely informing the public or us of his TRUTH.

Think Aaron Rodgers even as 50% of the population are correct and he is GAY.

I personally have no interest in Aaron Rodgers personal sexual ways. Whether he's straight or GAY doesn't confuse me. RE: His skills as the QB of my team.

GO Aaron GO ! GO PACKERS...GO PACK GO !

[Harlan Huckleby]

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.

Good for you, but as you know, I often eat breakfast with black people at "The Curve", so you can't expect me to be overly impressed with your slumming stories.

[woodbuck27]

Good for you, but as you know, I often eat breakfast with black people at "The Curve", so you can't expect me to be overly impressed with your slumming stories.

Yea ....so there... Yea just that...take that...Yea.

[mraynrand]

Good for you, but as you know, I often eat breakfast with black people at "The Curve", so you can't expect me to be overly impressed with your slumming stories.

Sure, but were those "Primary Blacks?" Apparently, they are rare.

[woodbuck27]

Sure, but were those "Primary Blacks?" Apparently, they are rare.

Now you know that premise is invalid.... won't hold water.

Please don't get your cookie crumbled. I hate to see you drug outta here screaming and in tears. :cry:

Don't get completely foolish on us.

[SkinBasket]

Actually you know statistically that nuking every homosexual on the planet would not solve the problem, nor would rounding them up on an island.

Nor has gay "marriage" solved the "problem," whatever the problem is. Other than allowing people differing viewpoints to express those views without fear of public shaming, retribution, and the attempted destruction of their lives. And I'm not talking about the gays. The intolerance shown to those who refuse to celebrate gaydom is a pervasive problem with our society. See Phil Robertson or that guy who owns Chick-fil-A or that anti-gay CB from SF as a couple of our most recent examples. Tolerance has no meaning these days other than a sociopolitical bludgeon of self-righteousness.

Again, trying to pressure an NFL player to announce his sexual behavior simply so activists can say, "See, look there! There's a gay and he plays football!" is dehumanizing - stripping a man down to where he likes to stick his penis, which would seem to be at odds with the desired outcome.

[woodbuck27]

Nor has gay "marriage" solved the "problem," whatever the problem is. Other than allowing people differing viewpoints to express those views without fear of public shaming, retribution, and the attempted destruction of their lives. And I'm not talking about the gays. The intolerance shown to those who refuse to celebrate gaydom is a pervasive problem with our society. See Phil Robertson or that guy who owns Chick-fil-A or that anti-gay CB from SF as a couple of our most recent examples. Tolerance has no meaning these days other than a sociopolitical bludgeon of self-righteousness.

That's all about ignorance bred fear >>> feeding>>> some ego driven low self esteem macho bullshit too often disguised by some over zealous religious paper shield.

[smuggler]

The question, unanswerable unless someone put it in writing, is why choose that year to use a fifth pick on a punter instead of a QB, LB or CB?


I think the answer to that question is simple. It's more likely to improve your team by taking one of the best punters in the draft than the 13th ranked QB in the draft. Most 5th round picks are lottery tickets that do not hit. Usually (lol BJ Sander) punters taken in the draft are pretty good.

[Guiness]

I think the answer to that question is simple. It's more likely to improve your team by taking one of the best punters in the draft than the 13th ranked QB in the draft. Most 5th round picks are lottery tickets that do not hit. Usually (lol BJ Sander) punters taken in the draft are pretty good.

Agreed. If they just wanted to get rid of Kluwe, they would've brought in some punters and had a competition, the way the Pack did with Crosby.

They spent a draft choice, they saw a player they wanted.

[SkinBasket]

That's all about ignorance bred fear >>> feeding>>> some ego driven low self esteem macho bullshit too often disguised by some over zealous religious paper shield.

I'm sure this means something very deep inside your head. Outside... not so much.

[Zool]

Again, trying to pressure an NFL player to announce his sexual behavior simply so activists can say, "See, look there! There's a gay and he plays football!" is dehumanizing - stripping a man down to where he likes to stick his penis, which would seem to be at odds with the desired outcome.

This is, I think, the basis of Skin's side of this....discussion? (I don't know what to call what's happening in this thread)

I agree with this. Stop trying to point out gay people and just let them live their lives.

[Guiness]

This is, I think, the basis of Skin's side of this....discussion? (I don't know what to call what's happening in this thread)

I agree with this. Stop trying to point out gay people and just let them live their lives.

I agree with the basis of your comment, but "don't ask, don't tell" didn't exactly work out well so you have to be careful there.

[Zool]

I agree with the basis of your comment, but "don't ask, don't tell" didn't exactly work out well so you have to be careful there.

Instead of don't ask don't tell, maybe don't worry about it?

[SkinBasket]

Instead of don't ask don't tell, maybe don't worry about it?

You mean to tell me that these guys should be worried about football and not about who likes to put their cock in the meat sock? That's very intolerant of you. Without divulging that to the world, how can they ever be happy?

One golden day, players will be able to tell us, without FEAR, all about their sexual lives. Who likes to fuck hookers bareback. Who likes a good footjob. Who isn't afraid of a little stinky pinky if it's what the lady likes. Who likes the feeling of stockings, hairy legs, or baby oil. Who likes to give, or receive, a gentle spank and who likes to choke their bitch... but just a little bit. Who likes hanging themselves in a closet and who needs to have the lights off to get a boner. Who likes black chicks (or dudes) and who likes white. Who dips into Chinese waters and who braves the Mexican gulfs. Who likes to bring a vibrating cock ring to the table every now and again, and who brings a fucking treasure chest of dildos, whips, claps, gags, and cuffs. Who likes a little whipping cream and who likes a full on banana insertion. Who likes to pull a little hair and who likes a nice anal cranal. Toe suckers, finger lickers, fisters, biters, slappers, erotic massagers, high heel lovers, eye pokers, deep throaters, scat eaters, and big cushion pushers unite! The NFL's Sexual Revolution is coming, because it's is very, very important to reduce stigmas, propagate agendas, raise awareness, and let the world know exactly what you like to do with your man bits, and what kind of sexual relationship you are engaged in!!!

[Guiness]

Instead of don't ask don't tell, maybe don't worry about it?

Obviously. I was just pointing out that quasi-ignoring it while admitting it is there is a bad idea too.

[mraynrand]

Can't you just reference Rex Ryan and cover it all?

[woodbuck27]

Nor has gay "marriage" solved the "problem," whatever the problem is. Other than allowing people differing viewpoints to express those views without fear of public shaming, retribution, and the attempted destruction of their lives. And I'm not talking about the gays. The intolerance shown to those who refuse to celebrate gaydom is a pervasive problem with our society. See Phil Robertson or that guy who owns Chick-fil-A or that anti-gay CB from SF as a couple of our most recent examples. Tolerance has no meaning these days other than a sociopolitical bludgeon of self-righteousness.

Again, trying to pressure an NFL player to announce his sexual behavior simply so activists can say, "See, look there! There's a gay and he plays football!" is dehumanizing - stripping a man down to where he likes to stick his penis, which would seem to be at odds with the desired outcome.

" stripping a man down to where he likes to stick his penis, which would seem to be at odds with the desired outcome." skinbasket

OK I can't stand it anymore...

Since when is the quality and success of a personal relationship 'of any status'; based to any degree on the quality of that relationship's privacy in the bedroom...that relationship sexual status'?

A successful relationship is affirmed (or measured) in terms of every aspect of living as a couple. SEX isn't the most important aspect. It's down the list.

[pbmax]

In the middle of the third quarter yesterday, Jordy Nelson and his wife showed up on the JumboTron to warn everyone about the dangers of breast cancer and how its probably a good idea to catch it early rather than assume you will never get it. They never mentioned males getting breast cancer as they were really just sucking up to women to get them to buy pink Packer clothing and pretend a significant amount of money was going to research.

They were fully clothed and never discussed their sex lives in the whole 30 second spot, and even though I suspect they prefer missionary, I did not really care. Why was I not curious? Because its mundane, routine and boring. Also it was only tangentially related to the sales task at hand.

If you believe there will soon be a Packer up there with a male partner discussing how it might be a good idea to get that prostate checked out then you are delusional. Those prostate research supporting truck nuts with a Packers G for the ring are not going to sell themselves you know.

Someone will need to publicly announce, wait for the media whirlwind to pass and then watch it become far less important over time.

Then your beloved silence can fall.

[woodbuck27]

This is, I think, the basis of Skin's side of this....discussion? (I don't know what to call what's happening in this thread)

I agree with this. Stop trying to point out gay people and just let them live their lives.

Yes. That would absolutely be a proof of the GAY Lifestyle and acceptance.

[woodbuck27]

I'm sure this means something very deep inside your head. Outside... not so much.

It's not deep man.

It's not complicated if you would simply try harder to read it ... interpret it.

Maybe you can't deal with the message? Maybe the core of you doesn't accept the GAY lifestyle? You realize that acceptance is a certain course of life now that we all must embrace. I include the most dedicated and daily faithful 'in Christ'. They don't hold the great Pass Card on interpretation of 'just how to live'.

This sort of person has missed the boat and loving GAYs when he/she fails to acknowledge Christ's 'only' desire of his flock.

To 'love one another' doesn't have limitations or self perceived reservations. LOVING in terms of a Christian belief and persuasion means:

LOVE: ALL IN ... FOR ALL ... WITH ALL.

It doesn't mean " Don't love anyone that has sex like that."

[woodbuck27]

Instead of don't ask don't tell, maybe don't worry about it?

Yes where I come from that falls under the category:

To each his/her own.

It's simply not our business how others live unless a part of that is intended to harm us.

Harming us is open to all sorts of interpretations and then back to the individual and certain prejudice may rule the day.

How do the people living in the present reach those that are ignorant in their past?

You simply allow those people to wrestle with their own struggles. It's not your/my business.

To get all absorbed in going there is a waste of time. You cannot change others. That's up to those others.

It's their personal business.

[mraynrand]

If you believe there will soon be a Packer up there with a male partner discussing how it might be a good idea to get that prostate checked out then you are delusional.

Why on earth would they do that in any case?

[woodbuck27]

Why on earth would they do that in any case?

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

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

To LOVE your prostrate better.

[SkinBasket]

It's not deep man.

It's not complicated if you would simply try harder to read it ... interpret it.

I ain't interpreting shit, especially yours. How about you communicate in a manner that doesn't require a decoder ring? You obviously have no interest in an actual exchange of ideas.


OK I can't stand it anymore...

Since when is the quality and success of a personal relationship 'of any status'; based to any degree on the quality of that relationship's privacy in the bedroom...that relationship sexual status'?

A successful relationship is affirmed (or measured) in terms of every aspect of living as a couple. SEX isn't the most important aspect. It's down the list.

No one said any of this. If you'd take your head out your ass and actually follow along instead of regurgitating incoherent bits and pieces of whatever you find laying around, you would know that, and you would understood the difference between your misguided and patronistic desire to define a man as a homosexual while also branding anyone who doesn't support said behavior as intolerant and hateful, and an actual intellectually honest desire to have men who are homosexual generally treated like men who are heterosexual. Conflating love with tolerance and acceptance, and hate with disapproval or indifference is not only stupid, it's annoyingly self-righteous and belligerent. Your intolerance blinds you to differing opinion and your public sound chamber encourages your ignorance. In the end, you want to stereotype and pigeon-hole gays so they can stand testament to your hyperbolic crusade championing where a guy puts his cock. Without your trophy queer, your noble cause lacks the same moral weight. And so you decide what the gays should do and you decide how everyone should react. Because you have the holy light of tolerance enshrouding you, striking down anyone who might dare disagree.

[SkinBasket]

If you believe there will soon be a Packer up there with a male partner discussing how it might be a good idea to get that prostate checked out then you are delusional.

And why would it have to be a couple fags promoting prostates? Because it would make sense because they like butt sex? You mention the Jordy and his wife again being used for advertising, again. Has it crossed your mind that advertising is about connecting with as large an audience as possible... like maybe the 90-95% heterosexual audience instead of some evil cabal to keep fags off the jumbotron?


Someone will need to publicly announce, wait for the media whirlwind to pass and then watch it become far less important over time.

Need. There's that language again. Media whirlwind? And who's going to be the driving force behind that whirlwind? Because it's not going to be your massive shadow network of national gay hating groups. Again, the only people this is important to is the very ones who claim it's not important. But go ahead and serve up your sacrificial gay football player to months of talk about his sexuality because... why again? Oh, that's right, the "silence." And by "silence" you mean a name. Because we know there are gay players. The only difference is I don't need to know their name or have them serve as a token symbol for other people's purposes.

[woodbuck27]

I ain't interpreting shit, especially yours. How about you communicate in a manner that doesn't require a decoder ring? You obviously have no interest in an actual exchange of ideas.



No one said any of this. If you'd take your head out your ass and actually follow along instead of regurgitating incoherent bits and pieces of whatever you find laying around, you would know that, and you would understood the difference between your misguided and patronistic desire to define a man as a homosexual while also branding anyone who doesn't support said behavior as intolerant and hateful, and an actual intellectually honest desire to have men who are homosexual generally treated like men who are heterosexual. Conflating love with tolerance and acceptance, and hate with disapproval or indifference is not only stupid, it's annoyingly self-righteous and belligerent. Your intolerance blinds you to differing opinion and your public sound chamber encourages your ignorance. In the end, you want to stereotype and pigeon-hole gays so they can stand testament to your hyperbolic crusade championing where a guy puts his cock. Without your trophy queer, your noble cause lacks the same moral weight. And so you decide what the gays should do and you decide how everyone should react. Because you have the holy light of tolerance enshrouding you, striking down anyone who might dare disagree.

WOW! Your manners really suck you down.

This tiatribe against me hardly is based on who I am or whatsoever how I express my views here. Where do I label anyone here as anything? Frankly I don't care what you stand for mister. Your stances would hardly agree with anything sane or reasonably rational, when you express with such extreme anger.

** Good manners and some order of restraint in trying to understand anyone. **

** Is there a common sense merit in that?

That describes me in all I've ever stood for Skinbasket. I've always aimed to be that person. I've been known generally as a fair person. Tolerant of the views and opinions of others, because that's mannerly and the 'only' way not to burn the bridge (s) needed to communicate. Live in a healthy environment of open mindedness and working for the ultimate TRUTH in results founded in simple compassion and decency.

Your forms of English language usage (cursing and derogatory slams/slurs) hardly meets common standards of decency. You may start out seemingly rational but soon that will deteriorate into one big rant of angry proportions.

I actually can't take you serious as that's just an act to cover up your real issues. I feel genuinely bad for you SkinBasket your life must be difficult.

Chin up ! :!:

This is a question just for you. That "just maybe? 'YOU' need ask yourself".

How do you live with such intense anger?

I cannot possibly seriously respond 'specifically to your post above'; to anyone in your state.

For me to do so would be a clear "self abuse".

I'd wish you a nice day but that's hardly possible in the state your so obviously in. Maybe you'll feel better after taking some medication.

I'm on your side as a human being. Life does offer it's challenges.

The answers for me ends in an...

AMEN !

PS: Are you depressed? If you are I recommend getting help ASAP.

[Teamcheez1]

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

[woodbuck27]

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

You do have the option of ignoring this thread. That will work.

Also... I'm of the opinion that the direction this thread is in or has turned to is beyond any use and topics "football".

Have a nice day. :-)

[woodbuck27]

" Can all of you take this conversation to a bathhouse? The rest of us are tired of seeing this thread show up on our screens." Teamcheez1


You do have the option of ignoring this thread. That will work.

Also... I'm of the opinion that the direction this thread is in or has turned to is beyond any use and topics "football".

Have a nice day. :-)

Does this thread belong here any longer?

It's beginning to resemble an episode of:

"The Walking Dead".

It's drawing flys. :?

[SkinBasket]

WOW! Your manners really suck you down.

blah blah blah

You, sir, are as cowardly as you are insincerely repetitive in your "contributions" to this discussion. You hide behind your demented claim of "manners" and "decency" just like you hide behind your equally perverted claims of "tolerance." Those are not insults, they are assessments. Based on your posts, not on any mental condition I would childishly and ignorantly try to attribute to you. No one is angry. You confuse the conviction of logic for anger because you have no intellectual sense of purpose or direction, and you find your feet quickly slipping on the crumbling footing on which you stand, so you panic and mistake confidence for aggression.

Does that meet your fucking manners requirement? Can you bend your mind back to the topic without throwing a hissy fit, or will you simply continue to toss labels around to avoid having to analyze your own flawed thinking? Just wondering, because you really haven't addressed the shortcomings, or even the most basic purpose, of your position.

[pbmax]

And why would it have to be a couple fags promoting prostates? Because it would make sense because they like butt sex? You mention the Jordy and his wife again being used for advertising, again. Has it crossed your mind that advertising is about connecting with as large an audience as possible... like maybe the 90-95% heterosexual audience instead of some evil cabal to keep fags off the jumbotron?



Need. There's that language again. Media whirlwind? And who's going to be the driving force behind that whirlwind? Because it's not going to be your massive shadow network of national gay hating groups. Again, the only people this is important to is the very ones who claim it's not important. But go ahead and serve up your sacrificial gay football player to months of talk about his sexuality because... why again? Oh, that's right, the "silence." And by "silence" you mean a name. Because we know there are gay players. The only difference is I don't need to know their name or have them serve as a token symbol for other people's purposes.

The audience was 90-95 percent white. Should they not have put Randall Cobb up there to sell the Packer Pro Shop?

If you choose to include family members to promote whatever the Packers are selling, then all families should be eligible to be awkward on camera. But it won't happen for a gay player's family until someone publicly acknowledges that such a thing exists. Even if the presence of gay men would clearly help sell Packer Truck Nuts for prostate research.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Going back to Kluwe, I think he's an attention whore. He lost his podium on which to speak due to not being on an NFL roster and now he's needing a way to be relevant to a topic that means a lot to him.

Personally, I think he simply got cut because over the last 4 years of his career he was an avg to below avg punter (ranked 15, 21,13, 22 in avg yds for those years) and given he had 9 games in a dome each year he should have frankly been much better (8 home, 1 at Det). As everyone knows, you can get cut at any time from an NFL roster for really any reason. The Vikes cut Longwell the same way by drafting someone when it was clear they could do better at the position. His well-written article on Deadspin glosses over that he wasn't a very good punter. Sure he can bring up that he's the best punter in Vikings history, but that's not much to brag about given that Vikings punters haven't been all that great in the past and that compared to the rest of the league he was decidedly average at best. Of course people are going to present themselves in the best light possible when going over how they feel they have been wronged. Doesn't mean it's the complete truth.

Living up here in MN, I guess I kinda got tired of his schtick a long time ago so I may see him differently than others.

[woodbuck27]

You, sir, are as cowardly as you are insincerely repetitive in your "contributions" to this discussion. You hide behind your demented claim of "manners" and "decency" just like you hide behind your equally perverted claims of "tolerance." Those are not insults, they are assessments. Based on your posts, not on any mental condition I would childishly and ignorantly try to attribute to you. No one is angry. You confuse the conviction of logic for anger because you have no intellectual sense of purpose or direction, and you find your feet quickly slipping on the crumbling footing on which you stand, so you panic and mistake confidence for aggression.

Does that meet your fucking manners requirement? Can you bend your mind back to the topic without throwing a hissy fit, or will you simply continue to toss labels around to avoid having to analyze your own flawed thinking? Just wondering, because you really haven't addressed the shortcomings, or even the most basic purpose, of your position.

If you ever came to my face I'd demonstrate just how cowardly I am mate.

You might get an alarming surprize.

Do I have to kick your ass here again? :whist: I find that about as satisfying as crushing an ant beneath my feet.

** " you hide behind your equally perverted claims of "tolerance.".. " SkinBasket

Since when is a tolerant fair approach towards other people's freedoms and lives a perverted position? Clearly that's where I stand on the basic topic of GAY Rights and related to the NFL present day acceptance of such.

Spin your web of deceit SkinBasket. Your game has always been old. Your bravado hollow.

Do you need to be slammed to satisfy some personal masochistic need? I cannot engage you in that. I'm too kind. I'm no psychologist as much as I do recognize your pain.

" you find your feet quickly slipping on the crumbling footing on which you stand.." SkinBasket

Your being really tricky there SkinBasket. Are you serious. You can't be. If you are you have all my sincerest sympathy.

You make a mockery of yourself in this contradiction of what I AM.

If there's one thing I'm very sure of it's my position regarding the rights of all men and women. I'm firmly convinced, that my fairness is a correct stance. I totally respected and learned from people that life blessed me with. People that were guided in their daily lives with a focus on decency.

Do you know what decency means SkinBasket? Can you relate to that?

You can go on posting nonsense in an undignified manner. I'm more tolerant :whaa: than some posters here that would simply laugh at you. I won't allow you to run off with your common bullshit. I feel terrible for you SkinBasket.

Don't go on slamming me in terms of the tolerance I wish all people had. That's going to get you nothing but the back of my hand Mate.

[woodbuck27]

You, sir, are as cowardly as you are insincerely repetitive in your "contributions" to this discussion. You hide behind your demented claim of "manners" and "decency" just like you hide behind your equally perverted claims of "tolerance." Those are not insults, they are assessments. Based on your posts, not on any mental condition I would childishly and ignorantly try to attribute to you. No one is angry. You confuse the conviction of logic for anger because you have no intellectual sense of purpose or direction, and you find your feet quickly slipping on the crumbling footing on which you stand, so you panic and mistake confidence for aggression.

Does that meet your fucking manners requirement? Can you bend your mind back to the topic without throwing a hissy fit, or will you simply continue to toss labels around to avoid having to analyze your own flawed thinking? Just wondering, because you really haven't addressed the shortcomings, or even the most basic purpose, of your position.

By the way..I'll add this:

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

I don't entertain such as that would be beneath my standard of sincere confidence in terms of the levels I've often observed you crashing to.

I don't waste my time.

[Guiness]

Going back to Kluwe, I think he's an attention whore. He lost his podium on which to speak due to not being on an NFL roster and now he's needing a way to be relevant to a topic that means a lot to him.

Personally, I think he simply got cut because over the last 4 years of his career he was an avg to below avg punter (ranked 15, 21,13, 22 in avg yds for those years) and given he had 9 games in a dome each year he should have frankly been much better (8 home, 1 at Det). As everyone knows, you can get cut at any time from an NFL roster for really any reason. The Vikes cut Longwell the same way by drafting someone when it was clear they could do better at the position. His well-written article on Deadspin glosses over that he wasn't a very good punter. Sure he can bring up that he's the best punter in Vikings history, but that's not much to brag about given that Vikings punters haven't been all that great in the past and that compared to the rest of the league he was decidedly average at best. Of course people are going to present themselves in the best light possible when going over how they feel they have been wronged. Doesn't mean it's the complete truth.

Living up here in MN, I guess I kinda got tired of his schtick a long time ago so I may see him differently than others.

As mentioned earlier, I think you're right that they just wanted a punter upgrade...you don't spent a draft pick on one unless you see a player you think is Pro Bowl worthy. However, I wouldn't write off his comments about Priefer too quickly.

He's got a lawyer and there's going to be an investigation - I'm not sure what they can investigate, sounds like a 'he said he said' thing, but I guess some others might have overheard it.

[woodbuck27]

Going back to Kluwe, I think he's an attention whore. He lost his podium on which to speak due to not being on an NFL roster and now he's needing a way to be relevant to a topic that means a lot to him.

Personally, I think he simply got cut because over the last 4 years of his career he was an avg to below avg punter (ranked 15, 21,13, 22 in avg yds for those years) and given he had 9 games in a dome each year he should have frankly been much better (8 home, 1 at Det). As everyone knows, you can get cut at any time from an NFL roster for really any reason. The Vikes cut Longwell the same way by drafting someone when it was clear they could do better at the position. His well-written article on Deadspin glosses over that he wasn't a very good punter. Sure he can bring up that he's the best punter in Vikings history, but that's not much to brag about given that Vikings punters haven't been all that great in the past and that compared to the rest of the league he was decidedly average at best. Of course people are going to present themselves in the best light possible when going over how they feel they have been wronged. Doesn't mean it's the complete truth.

Living up here in MN, I guess I kinda got tired of his schtick a long time ago so I may see him differently than others.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/chris-kluwe-former-viking-says-he-was-fired-for-supporting-same-sex-marriages/

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10232522/chris-kluwe-former-member-minnesota-vikings-says-was-cut-due-views

http://www.dothanfirst.com/story/extra-points-kluwe-burns-his-nfl-bridge/d/story/VN0_fVFeOESOoWJlNvW3DQ


The issue isn't any longer about **Chris Kluwe and punting competency. Was he decent enough or not in that regard.

This is a story regarding the TRUTH behind certain claims on behalf of Chris Kluwe against people employed in or formerly employed in (former Viking HC Leslie Frazier) the Minnesots Viking Organization.

This is a story of Chris Kluwe's whistle blowing that might have left him unemployable for any NFL team. At the same time may have as a result curtailed the career aspirations or potential of one of those accused or Viking ST's coordinator Mike Priefer.

This story is about claims of intolerance.

This story is about Chris Kluwe's claims of discrimination, non-support and bigotry in regards to his position (views) on "same sex marriage". That he was a victim of homophobic remarks by the Minnesota Vikings Mike Priefer.

It's about positions he claims were made by people in the Viking organization that gave him opposition to his views in an improper manner. It's about a claim of "non-support from his Head Coach (Leslie Frazier) which contradicted the Minnesota Viking Team Owner's position of support for him. A Claim of the shocking bigotry on behalf of the Vikings ST Coach Mike Priefer .

" He (Chris Kluwe ) says in 2012, Vikings owner Zygi Wilf supported his activism, but head coach Leslie Fraiser asked him to stop and special teams coach Mike Priefer became openly hostile. In his letter, Kluwe calls Fraiser a coward and Priefer a bigot. " From LINK

** Chris Kluwe is a married father with two daughters. Kluwe and his wife 'Isabel' had their first daughter in July 2008, and their second in 2010.

GO PACK GO !

[Cheesehead Craig]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/chris-kluwe-former-viking-says-he-was-fired-for-supporting-same-sex-marriages/

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10232522/chris-kluwe-former-member-minnesota-vikings-says-was-cut-due-views

http://www.dothanfirst.com/story/extra-points-kluwe-burns-his-nfl-bridge/d/story/VN0_fVFeOESOoWJlNvW3DQ


The issue isn't any longer about **Chris Kluwe and punting competency. Was he decent enough or not in that regard.

This story is about claims of intolerance.

This story is about Chris Kluwe's claims of discrimination, non-support and bigotry in regards to his position (views) on "same sex marriage". That he was a victim of homophobic remarks by Vikings special teams coordinator Mike Priefer.

It's about positions he claims were made by people in the Viking organization that gave him opposition to his views in an improper manner. It's about a claim of "non-support from his Head Coach (Leslie Frazier) which contradicted the Minnesota Viking Team Owner's position of support for him. A Claim of the shocking bigotry on behalf of the Vikings ST Coach Mike Priefer .

" He (Chris Kluwe ) says in 2012, Vikings owner Zygi Wilf supported his activism, but head coach Leslie Fraiser asked him to stop and special teams coach Mike Priefer became openly hostile. In his letter, Kluwe calls Fraiser a coward and Priefer a bigot. " From LINK

** Chris Kluwe is a married father with two daughters. Kluwe and his wife 'Isabel' had their first daughter in July 2008, and their second in 2010.

GO PACK GO !

I'm aware of what the issue is about Woody. I just feel there is more to his motives than he claims. Getting cooberation on his stories of what happened now, so many months ago is going to be difficult. Like others have said here, getting some witness to come forward and agree with everything would certainly change things. It very much is a "he said - he said" situation at this time in regards to the ST coach.

Frasier was under no obligation to agree with Wilf. Wilf can look at it as yes, he's helping promote a cause he agrees with but also it's getting the Vikings franchise more exposure and that's good for business. Wilf didn't have to keep answering questions about him, so it was less of a hassle to him and better for the overall image of the team. Frasier is trying to run an entire football team and has to now deal with many questions about his punter of all people. He was asked quite a bit about it as I heard many radio snippets about it up here. Having to put so much time and energy dealing with the one person (a punter at that) is not the best use of time for a coach and I can totally see why he would just want the situation to go away as easily as possible.

[SkinBasket]

The audience was 90-95 percent white. Should they not have put Randall Cobb up there to sell the Packer Pro Shop?

If you choose to include family members to promote whatever the Packers are selling, then all families should be eligible to be awkward on camera. But it won't happen for a gay player's family until someone publicly acknowledges that such a thing exists. Even if the presence of gay men would clearly help sell Packer Truck Nuts for prostate research.

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

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

[SkinBasket]

If there's one thing I'm very sure of it's my position regarding the rights of all men and women. I'm firmly convinced, that my fairness is a correct stance.

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

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

[woodbuck27]

I'm aware of what the issue is about Woody. I just feel there is more to his motives than he claims. Getting cooberation on his stories of what happened now, so many months ago is going to be difficult. Like others have said here, getting some witness to come forward and agree with everything would certainly change things. It very much is a "he said - he said" situation at this time in regards to the ST coach.

Frasier was under no obligation to agree with Wilf. Wilf can look at it as yes, he's helping promote a cause he agrees with but also it's getting the Vikings franchise more exposure and that's good for business. Wilf didn't have to keep answering questions about him, so it was less of a hassle to him and better for the overall image of the team. Frasier is trying to run an entire football team and has to now deal with many questions about his punter of all people. He was asked quite a bit about it as I heard many radio snippets about it up here. Having to put so much time and energy dealing with the one person (a punter at that) is not the best use of time for a coach and I can totally see why he would just want the situation to go away as easily as possible.


Hi:

I'm not in any position to try to determine who said what or I choose a neutral position in this as you accurately put it:

He said ... He said.

I've a pretty good idea where this will go in the end. My position there may border on cynicism. I hope I'm surprized in terms of where I feel this case deserves to arrive.

As an NFL fan I'm interested in seeing where this specific Chris Kluwe case ends up. I hope it progresses or somehow aids a finding of an NFL formal position and equal rights for all.

[SkinBasket]

By the way..I'll add this:

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

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

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

[woodbuck27]

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

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

Ahh SkinBasket you lose so predictably.

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

[pbmax]

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

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

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

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

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

[mraynrand]

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

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

[woodbuck27]

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

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

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

Originally Posted by SkinBasket


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

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


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

Would that be :clap: Come On :clap: acceptable?

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

[woodbuck27]

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

"especially since it centered around Aaron Rodgers." mraynrand

Hey 'M' your mixing your GAY threads up?

Be careful. :idea:

[woodbuck27]

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

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

Then 'you' understand 'ME'.

Goody ! :clap:

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

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

[SkinBasket]

you're suffering from delusions of grandeur


Then 'you' understand 'ME'.

Goody ! :clap:

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

[mraynrand]

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

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

To LOVE your prostrate better.

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


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

[mraynrand]

"especially since it centered around Aaron Rodgers." mraynrand

Hey 'M' your mixing your GAY threads up?

Be careful. :idea:

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

[SkinBasket]

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

Alright, lets nub away.


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

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



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

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

[woodbuck27]

Woodbuck:

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

STOP IT ! STOP right there please.

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

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

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

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

Please make a list right here:

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

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

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

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

[mraynrand]

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

STOP IT ! STOP right there please.

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

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

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

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

Please make a list right here:

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

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




****** = derogatory expletive

[woodbuck27]

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

****** = derogatory expletive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank You.



Here is post #1 of this thread:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until it didn't.

The question now is: What happened? "

Please click on the LINK above for this story.

PACKERS !

[mraynrand]

nonsense

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

[pbmax]

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

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

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

That barrier serves no purpose but a discriminatory one. Individuals who wish to remain private can always choose to do so. But that no one in a major professional sport has chosen differently means the barrier is very real and the cost of scaling it is high.




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

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

[mraynrand]

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

Did you really write this? If they aren't getting each other off, they're just good friends. Heteros don't need to engage in manual, anal, or any other kind of sex to have normal intercourse that biologically is geared towards reproduction of the species.

[pbmax]

Did you really write this? If they aren't getting each other off, they're just good friends. Heteros don't need to engage in manual, anal, or any other kind of sex to have normal intercourse that biologically is geared towards reproduction of the species.

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

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

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

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

[mraynrand]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[pbmax]

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

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

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

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

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

[woodbuck27]

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

Finding a Happy Place.

[mraynrand]

Public acknowledgment does not disclose any more information about sexual behavior for a same sex couple than it does for a hetero couple..

It's fundamentally different. I don't know why you don't see this. If there is no sexual activity between members of the same sex, there's nothing to talk about. They are just good friends. Homosexuality is defined by sexual activity; since sexual activity IS NOT the norm for same sex relationships, while is IS the norm for hetero relationships, the sexual activity defines the same sex relationship as being other than good friends. If, in the entire history of relationships, male/female relationships did not routinely involve sex and reproduction, then they would be on equal footing.

[woodbuck27]

It's fundamentally different. I don't know why you don't see this. If there is no sexual activity between members of the same sex, there's nothing to talk about. They are just good friends. Homosexuality is defined by sexual activity; since sexual activity IS NOT the norm for same sex relationships, while is IS the norm for hetero relationships, the sexual activity defines the same sex relationship as being other than good friends. If, in the entire history of relationships, male/female relationships did not routinely involve sex and reproduction, then they would be on equal footing.

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?

If that type of person describes you!? YOU should be aware of this fact:

** A recent survey showed that around 85% of under-16s have not had sex.

** The number of college students in the USA who say they are virgins has doubled in recent years.

** Several studies have shown that celibacy is becoming more common, even among those with previous sexual experience.

Now lets look at this in terms of two or more males or two or more females residing together;sharing all of the financial responsibilities of that relationship.

** Don't you see the likelihood that these relationships don't include sex? That all of the parties in these relationships can be indeed living together with no pressure or desire to have sexual relations? Sexual relations often adds stress /tensions.

** Are you aware that waiting for sex until marriage is likely to enhance your chances of a happy/lasting marriage. Studies show that people who have pre-marital sex have an increased risk of getting divorced.

**Are you aware that people today are dating someone who also has the willpower and commitment to stay sexually abstinent. Such people desire a chance to live with a potential long term partner long before any serious consideration of marriage. Without pressure enjoy the companionship, financial advantages, the knowledge the familiarity that's valued if they elect a marriage?

Consider these advantages and reasons to choose a sex free relationship:

** Abstinance is a 100% protection against pregnancy and disease. There are over 20 different forms of STD's (infections).a scary number and some forms are deadly.

** Lots of people live together and truly care for one another; LOVE one another for who/what they are that excludes sex in their relationship.

** Many people have endured the trauma of a difficult breakup in a past relationship and therefore don't have the willingness to risk that pain again. That pain is often accompanied with regret, anger and just simply an upset life and a long period of turmoil. They desire or need a break from that.

[mraynrand]

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?


Of course not. And that's the point.

[MJZiggy]

Did you really write this? If they aren't getting each other off, they're just good friends. Heteros don't need to engage in manual, anal, or any other kind of sex to have normal intercourse that biologically is geared towards reproduction of the species.

Actually, there are plenty of married folks who aren't having sex for one reason or another. Does that make them just good friends? This isn't about the sex, it's about the relationship. Reggie White used to regularly gush about his wife as does more recently Donald Driver. Players who are engaged or new parents are often interviewed about their significant others. PB is right. You don't hear about same sex relationships because there would be repercussions. You can think that if Cobb appeared at a game that the crowd would be fine with it, that's great and with the exception of a few homophobes, you might be right. But once you walk away from that stadium, it's a different story and that is the point. And to be fair, heteros don't NEED to engage in manual, anal or any other kind of sex, but they might. They might have a great Farrah old time every night. You don't know that. Just because "normal" intercourse is geared toward reproduction doesn't mean that people who have "differing" versions of a sex life does not make their relationship (which is really what it's about) less valid.

[mraynrand]

Actually, there are plenty of married folks who aren't having sex for one reason or another. Does that make them just good friends? This isn't about the sex, it's about the relationship. Reggie White used to regularly gush about his wife as does more recently Donald Driver. Players who are engaged or new parents are often interviewed about their significant others. PB is right. You don't hear about same sex relationships because there would be repercussions. You can think that if Cobb appeared at a game that the crowd would be fine with it, that's great and with the exception of a few homophobes, you might be right. But once you walk away from that stadium, it's a different story and that is the point. And to be fair, heteros don't NEED to engage in manual, anal or any other kind of sex, but they might. They might have a great Farrah old time every night. You don't know that. Just because "normal" intercourse is geared toward reproduction doesn't mean that people who have "differing" versions of a sex life does not make their relationship (which is really what it's about) less valid.

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.

[mraynrand]

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?

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.

[pbmax]

It's fundamentally different. I don't know why you don't see this. If there is no sexual activity between members of the same sex, there's nothing to talk about. They are just good friends. Homosexuality is defined by sexual activity; since sexual activity IS NOT the norm for same sex relationships, while is IS the norm for hetero relationships, the sexual activity defines the same sex relationship as being other than good friends. If, in the entire history of relationships, male/female relationships did not routinely involve sex and reproduction, then they would be on equal footing.

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

[Kiwon]

"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!"

Actually as an 'openly' heterosexual male (can I still say "male"? It was my gender assigned to me at birth :roll:), I eat yogurt and cereal in the morning and I WANT TO WATCH OR READ ABOUT SPORTS FREE FROM THE LEFT-WING MEDIA MADNESS!!!

I can remember when ESPN actually covered sports and left the moralizing to others (They haven't been the same since being purchased by ABC/Capital Cities and then by Disney). Now, every other day, there is biased, one-sided pro-LGBT story in the Sports outlets that is more indoctrination than news. They try to tell me how I'm supposed to think rather than simply informing me.

Well, guess what? The NFL can require its players to wear pink for a month of Sundays to promote breast cancer awareness but I'm still more concerned about colorectal cancer that kills more people each year in the U.S. than AIDS and breast cancer COMBINED. Why aren't rubber large intestines passed out to kids under 12 at the stadiums? Doesn't the NFL care about the #2 killer disease of Americans?

And speaking of colons and rectums, I DON'T CARE if there is an "openly" homosexual NFL player on a roster. The PC-Sports media tells me that I am supposed to care but I don't. If I want to educate myself in social or religious issues WHY WOULD I turn to Yahoo Sports or the NFL Network? And, yet, outlets like these regularly promote a common PC agenda.

(I mean, com'on, in 2014 we still need the 'Rooney Rule' to ensure minority head coaching candidates are interviewed? "We don't really want you to be our coach but we need you here to check a box off." Wink,wink. Nod,nod. How insulting or demeaning is that?)

If an "openly" homosexual NFL player is some sort of a measure of normalcy and somehow the way 'things ought to be' then these left-wing journalists shouldn't be afraid of engaging facts that run counter to their worldview.

Here's three facts you won't see discussed in detail:

1. Every supposed LGBTQQUIA has a biological father and a biological mother. Why imagine the chances of that!

2. Hilarious. 'Duck Dynasty' ad rates are going up - http://tv.yahoo.com/news/duck-dynasty-advertisers-paying-big-bucks-despite-controversy-170418429.html

3. Only 3.4-3.5% of the US population self-identifies as 'LGBT.'

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-demographics-studies/how-many-people-are-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender/

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-demographics-studies/how-many-people-are-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender/

Most of these journalists were raised in hetero-normative environments and didn't care one wit about LGBT issues until it became professionally necessary to do so either to get hired or keep their jobs. Further, there's not a one of them who would not be concerned if a cross-dresser immediately followed their 6-year old son or daughter into a bathroom.

Sports reporting without agenda, please. That’s what I want.

[woodbuck27]

Finding a Happy Place.

What do I mean by "Finding a Happy Place"?

I'll start with this quote:

" Any stigma, as the old saying is, will serve to beat a dogma." Philip Guedalla

To reduce stigmatization it's necessary to fully embrace the targeted individual or group in compassionate ways/manners to reveal the full agenda and stances of the stigmatizer (s).

To fully understand why so late in history the NFL hasn't already fully embraced and accepted the rights of GAY football players. One must certainly probe into any stigma that exists against GAYS in NFL locker rooms. It's necessary to probe into the exact reasons for such prejudice. Once understanding is fully documented and examined. It's then simply a matter of education. Any effort deemed necessary to remove homophobia from the NFL. To move forward to a perspective of:

IT's OK ... IT's ALL RIGHT as a general motto of full acceptance. That exceeding tolerance as the ultimate focus and goal. It can't be an endeavour to educate and assimilate every homophobic in the NFL today and on and on into the future. Time will take care of that as it generally does in term of any broader acceptance.

What's driving any effort to suppress 'A Gay or Gays' to come out publicly as NFL players who have chosen to enjoy life fully in a same sex (with emphasis on sexual Orientation and not sexual acts/activity) relationships?

That's not my place to define. I simply believe this.

Any negativity and suppression of any order is backwards and clearly wrong. If my position is correct than such suppression has to be formally and honestly addressed and removed. Any man who needs to admit his GAY lifestyle must be accommodated and his reasons for coming out appreciated from a standpoint of understanding.

Why?

For the simple reason of compassion for his overall health and quality of living which includes his choices including relationship (s).

What I would promote as I believe Chris Kluwe was attempting to do is that same sex "sexual orientation" relations, relationships and unions (marriages) should be accepted as well as the norm or any heterosexual relationship. Everyone should be given the same rights of promotion and a decent healthy life.

Everyone deserves to live in their Happy Place. That so much as we all should know depends on our, any other persons quality of health.

Disclosure of homosexuality or a same sex "GAY' lifestyle is now generally viewed, as a result of several professional studies as:

A more desirable option than a suppression of openness or a choice of secrecy.

Disclosure is seen as evidence of a healthy gay identity. Flipping that over, secrecy has come to be viewed as socially and psychologically problematic. That too often leads to such internal conflict that the negative consequences are many and even life threatening.

Common sense, compassion, respect for proper and universal human rights; "LOVING your neighbour - the GAY included ".

Demands clearly in terms of the primary focus of this thread. That the NFL does all it can to ensure "the GAY lifestyle or sexual orientation", isn't in any shape, manner or form stigmatized.

That nobel agenda is with all focus and strength seriously pursued to determine a general policy and forward direction in terms of any sexual orientation and relationship (s).