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

[Zool]

The gay gene?

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

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

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

Animals eat shit. Proof that shit is delicious.

You are doing anything but helping the cause.

[hoosier]

But at least they knew that it was different than male-female relationships

I said that up until 40-50 years ago nobody tried to equate the two type of relationships, due to biological and cultural facts. Only modern graduate students were able to achieve a notion of equivalency.

People pretty much know that reproduction is more important to the propagation of the species than perversion. Again, except for the modern Left that tries to sell perversion as normalcy

Am I? The argument is that everyone knows the difference in result from putting the male reproductive organ into a female organ versus into a mouth or an anus. The consequences are dramatically different. In case you forgot, one propagates the species and one tends to give another difficulty pooping. It's not a category error to argue from this simple biological fact to the the second fact that human species tend to have placed a special importance on the reproductive act - whether as an evolutionary consequence or as an intentionally specified property of humans, one act propagates the species, the other does not. Pretty significant difference - you could say they are different categories, and one is an error (if the goal is to make offspring). I see absolutely no attempt in my post to make any moral argument.

"marriage" was established to give significance as a result of the significance and the specific nature of the act. See above. Marriage subsequently is tied directly to the reproductive act and it's consequences. Call it "Fshtyyllaggummalta" if you prefer, or call it marriage, it is conceptually and absolutely distinct from other forms of relationships. Thus the Greeks called their male-male relationships something else, did they not? They were significant for another reason, and identified as something different, were they not? You'd have to go to graduate school to not understand that. Thus calling a relationship between two beings that don't reproduce by the same term as those who do, is to deliberately confuse and conflate concepts. Someone called that "floating abstractions." But once you are stuck in the head with beings of reason and not real beings, it's hard to relate to the real world.

I suspect that the problem has to do with the fact that in the modern West marriage has always a foot in two worlds: it is both a religious and a civic institution. So you have defense-of-marriage conservatives fighting to save the integrity of their Christian tradition and gay-marriage proponents fighting to expand the domain of social and political recognition to include gay relationships. The simple fix would be for the State to get out of the marriage industry entirely and recognize only civil unions, which would then become the new standard for family health coverage, parental rights, inheritance and all that good stuff. And leave decisions about marriage entirely up to religious institutions. I am certain that the arguments for gay marriage would diminish immediately and be reduced to small factions of gays and lesbians trying to get their church or synagogue to change its outlook. But would the defense of marriage militants be satisfied?

[SkinBasket]

The simple fix would be for the State to get out of the marriage industry entirely and recognize only civil unions, which would then become the new standard for family health coverage, parental rights, inheritance and all that good stuff.

That's not getting government out of marriage. That's the government renaming it and retaining all of the problems involved with government being integrally ingrained in social affairs. So, no, that would not be a simple fix. All that solves is the queers mislabeling their union, which is solely a problem created by the gay marriage militants and their propaganda apparatus.

[woodbuck27]

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

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

Should I still take your advice?

I believed your post was sincere HowardRoark .

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

Now this:

I'm sitting here my head.

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

Your playing some stupid self satisfying game.

Whatever.

[SkinBasket]

Your playing some stupid self satisfying game.

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

[HowardRoark]

Your playing some stupid self satisfying game.

Whatever.

Are you an anti-self satisfying hate group?

Open your mind...

[Freak Out]

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

[Freak Out]

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

[HowardRoark]

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

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

[mraynrand]

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

Fuck off

[woodbuck27]

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

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

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

Am I being judgementle or confused!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[hoosier]

Nice Deliverance reference, Woodbuck.

[SkinBasket]

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

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

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

[call_me_ishmael]

It blows my mind how all of these "conservatives" want to keep to themselves and support individual rights - unless you're gay. Ridiculous. Hopefully with the new pope all of these catholic ass wipes realize how ridiculous the views of the church are.

The world is rapidly changing. Turns out organized religion is a massive crock of shit that only fools follow.

[Kiwon]

It blows my mind how all of these "conservatives" want to keep to themselves and support individual rights - unless you're gay. Ridiculous. Hopefully with the new pope all of these catholic ass wipes realize how ridiculous the views of the church are.

The world is rapidly changing. Turns out organized religion is a massive crock of shit that only fools follow.

At the risk of getting more vapid cliches, dare I ask just exactly which values you think smart people should adhere to?