benjamin

Marrone and Orton were not Buffalo. Good riddance, and I don't care that they're gone. Lance Diamond, however, was Buffalo. RIP.

It's an oxymoron: "embarrassing win" is like saying "jumbo shrimp."

There's something... caught... in my eye...

I didn't think the season started yet.

That video nails it. Beating your wife is very masculine and doesn't make people want to puke or get upset. Watching two people who love each other kiss is disgusting. Riiiight.

These kinds of snarky responses prove why it's a big deal. The idea that someone who is gay can't be a parent or grandparent is beyond stupid. Jackie Robinson was a big deal because people didn't want African Americans in baseball, and Obama was a big deal because we have not had as successful African American President. Michael Sam is a big deal (as was Derrick Gordon) because of the stereotypes we as a society often place upon homosexuals. Again, it's as if people on this board have not had a single frank conversation with a homosexual. (Or jeez, just watch Modern Family.) Many would like to have children, and many do. (Many heterosexuals don't have kids, too.) And there are lots of different ways that that can happen. In the words of 'old school' you need to "figure that out!"

I think there's a significant segment of the population that not only cares that he's gay, but is excited to see someone just like them be himself and have the chance to compete on the big stage. I wish him all the best.

If I don't have a problem with homosexuality, then I couldn't possibly mean it as an insult. I love my LGBT friends. Although there's a cadre of 'the lady doth protest too much' folks (e.g., Ted Haggard, Ken Mehlman, George Rekers, Michael Foley, Larry Craig, etc.), I'm saying something much milder. I'm not insinuating that you're gay because you think a lot about it and need to affirm your heterosexuality here.

a.) I love it when people who are 'repulsed' by gay sex clearly think a lot about it. b.) I'm pretty sure that heterosexual couples use all sorts of organs/parts too... is it less wrong when they do it?

I feel really dumb for getting into that conversation now I know who I was dealing with. Sorry folks! I'll go back to never posting! Ha ha.

The tl;dr of this post is: both biology and social conditions (nature and nurture) have a very difficult time assuring outcomes in regards to sexuality. I’m not going to pretend that I’m a geneticist, so apologies. I'm a social scientist (If you want my football cred, I was in the stands *and stayed* for the Frank Reich/Greatest Comeback!). For my money (and with the respect of the social science community), one of the best studies on sexuality (in the sense of the rigorous methodology and its reproducibility) was conducted by Bailey and Pillard. I don’t think it will sway Tim, since he doesn’t seem inclined to social science methods and outcomes, but for those of you who are finding these things interesting, here goes: Bailey and Pillard examined 167 pairs of brothers and 143 sisters in which at least one of the two defined themselves as homosexual. Some of these sibling pairs were identical/monozygotic twins (i.e., they share the same genes), some were fraternal/dizygotic (i.e., sharing some genes), and there were others who were adopted but raised together (sharing no genes). Twin studies are classic in the psychological literature because they allow for the closest thing to a control as you can get when it comes to biology/genes: 99.9% of Monozygotic twins have the exact same DNA! Neat. Now, if you were a biological determinist (strong ‘nature over nurture’ folk), you would have to hypothesize that identical twins both would identify as gay, right? 100% of the time? Maybe 90%? Bailey and Pillard found that only one out of every two identical twin pairs both identified as homosexual. 52/48%. Compare that with fraternal twins, where one twin pair out of every five pairs both identified as homosexual: 22%. Then there were the adoptive siblings, where there was only one out of every ten pairs (11%) that both identified as being homosexual. They followed it up with a study of just women and found similar, although lower results (48%, 16% and 6%). The uncomfortable truth here is that these studies (and their reproduced findings) don’t really make many people happy. The results indicate that there are social and biological components. The higher the percentage of shared genes, the greater the percentage of cases in which both siblings were homosexual. And yet, biology/genetics—at best—only assures the same outcome 50% of the time. (It’s not just with homosexuality, but all sorts of things--Parkinson’s for example--where the DNA can’t determine things.) So, if you’re still reading (and at this point it might just be Tim!), this leads to some uncomfortable thoughts on both sides. If you believe it’s all DNA, this study shows that biology & genetics can’t come close to guaranteeing sexual orientation. At the same time, if you believe that it’s a choice, well, biology does seem to tug one into a certain direction. Politics and religion aside, it’s enough to give anyone pause. Instead, I think we should be sure to guarantee safe working conditions, no discrimination in the workplace, and equal rights in all matters of the state. Sorry so long, folks!

It's always interesting when non-experts tell experts stuff. Science changes, yes, and new data is collected because (unlike rocks, chemistry, etc.) the social world changes and is pretty multifaceted. It sure is annoying when people think that the social sciences are therefore, soft or unreal. But only non-scientists so easily disregard thousands of studies and hundreds of thousands of research hours with the wave of a hand and such smug disregard. The Sociologists for Women in Society conference was just in Nashville this past weekend, you should go next year and tell them how a large part of what they do is potentially 'entirely manufactured.' I completely agree with this sentiment, by the way! I'd be a fool if I didn't!

Tim, I'm surprised you 'read it all,' because I linked you to a page with 14 policy statements and five advocacy letters on the APA site alone. If you truly did, then I bow to your expertise. I have three social science degrees, but I'm not a speed reader. I have a saying I tell my students: "Almost everyone thinks they are an above average driver, almost everyone thinks they're an above average writer, almost everyone thinks that they have an above average sense of humor, and almost everyone thinks that they have an above average intelligence but statistically that's impossible. We all have areas we can improve upon." Similarly, in the realm of self-assessment: you may *think* that you can reasonably gauge your scientific acumen on this point, but it fails at the first hurdle: Sexuality, Sex, and Gender are different things. I would say that good social science requires policy intervention, as there are often serious repercussions when politicians and everyday folk lack data to back their opinions and actions. Please take a look at what is going on in Russia right now when ill-informed people start thinking they know how to treat people and communities they don't understand.

Tim: I beg you, and anyone on here who is at all curious in the incidence and existence of homosexuality--to take a look at the American Psychological Association's various statements on Homosexuality, and the American Sociological Association's statement on same sex marriage. You can find a great deal of answers in social science research, and I would encourage anyone to rely on a sample size greater than your own limited experiences (as we say in the business, 'n>1').

I admire him, and the entire Mizzou team for having his back. Glad to see so much positivity on this thread. I'm proud of my Buffalo-raised ilk! I wish the guy all the best, and look forward to the day when it's not even worth mentioning. Go Buffalo. Go Bills.