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

[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.

[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.

[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.

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:



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.

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?