D521646

Have at er.. Free country and all.

I honestly hope AZ gets Smith and save ourselves from ourselves.

I think the Bills could literally go in any direction, frankly, and all speculation is a waste of time, but it is fun to read up what others are thinking.

With the Kolb signing, I still see Patterson at 8, but only a QB at 41 if their guy is sitting there, otherwise I think it's BPA that fills a need, and they grab a QB in the 3rd this year.

I/m going to say that I like the signing. I think Kolb had a tremendous amount of promise coming out of Philly. Even then his line in Philly was not good, or average, but when he went to AZ the line was God awful! I think with a good or above average Oline he can show us what everything thought he was going to become. That said, right now we can't say our Oline is as good as it was in previous seasons. We'll have to wait and see.

Didn't we know this already?

In a perfect world, like no other draft in recent memory I believe the Bills should trade back, but assuming they do not, my first three picks are as follows. 1. Bills select Corderelle Patterson WR: Logic is that no QB is worth the 8th pick here, and although I see a difference of opinion among Bills Nation on this, I think that most of us are coming to this realization. We need a superstar and this kid brings that to the table, and the consensus is undeniable. 2. Bills select EJ Manuel QB: Logic is that although Mayock has him rated as the second best QB in this class, glancing over what others are saying, it appears as though he’s a project QB. Of course this is a bit of a risk simply because of the gamesmanship involved with not tipping hands, but if Manuel doesn’t fall this far, the Bills will select their QB here, and if not Manuel, then Wilson, Nassib, Bray, will do fine, IMO. 3. Justin Pugh OG: He will likely be here, and if he is it would be a great bargain IMO. This kid is currently flying under the radar of most teams, but he’s solid and can start day one. I think Marrone is thinking run-first offense and Pugh will mow people down. Big strong athletic guy, and the Bills will know exactly how to use him. Tim-

one could also argue that Lovin would have been one of the first CB's signed if left to FA

Well yeah. Hey look I don't like the idea, but I bet dollars to donuts that the Bills brass have it as an option.

This opens up the possibility now to use Fredex as bait for trading back into the first round.

In a second. If he somehow makes to the 3rd round he'd be a solid pick up.

There was no single problem for the Bills last year. There were time that either the offense played well and the defense stunk, or the reverse was true. I don't remember a game, even the 6 the Bills won where both sides of the ball was playing off the charts. I think when teams and players speak about consistency they are talking about both defense and offense playing well at the same time. MD has had a lot to deal with, that's for sure, but he will bounce back, IMO.

There is no scientific consensus on the causal nature of homosexuality, period. And that is a fact! Admirable that you feel strongly enough about the issue and decided to offer opinions based off your own experiences with gays. I too know some gay people and they are friends, people I would trust with my children with, but it does not negate the fact that both sides on this issue deserve an equal opportunity to voice their concerns. Social issues are important, and their ramifications cannot be measured or predicted until much later, but who better to discuss them than we the people!!! As much as possible it’s important that we get making major changes to society, correct. Even if it turns out that normalizing homosexual behavior produces no measurable difference or negative outcome, the debate was one worthy of having. Cheers! Tim-

Part II I said that it is being revised. And if you think history isn’t always being revised, I have some swamp land in Florida for sale. If you think the gay rights lobby isn’t powerful, you’re sadly misinformed. An example of revision is Harvey Milk, and what kind of man he really was, the Stonewall riots, and of course let’s not forget, Alfred Kinsey. Redundancies aside, care to answer the question? What mechanism do you envision driving a desire for child rearing among homosexuals? Unlike heterosexuals, homosexuals cannot have children by mistake, or at least not with each other. So what drives it? Why? Sticks and stones. Well if gays can’t help being gay and neither can straights, I suppose we are slaves to our basic functions, are we not? Deciding to have children would certainly fit a high-order cognitive function, but without, and before medical breakthroughs, how do you suppose homosexuals navigated that high-order function? But it does have everything to do with the discussion. It demonstrates an evolution of their sexuality, one that highly correlates with statistical significance to environmental and political factors. As I said, up until the 90’s gays simply as a rule were not having babies. It was virtually none existent, so why the change? Actually, it’s kind of the definition of what a bigot is. If you’re wrong but continue to insist you’re right in spite of facts to the contrary, you’re a bigot. You haven’t specifically, but it does happen all too often in these heated debates. You may disagree with my bringing up these questions and insights, and you may question my degree of knowledge on the subject, but it matters little in the end. I am well-read on this subject, I am disciplined of mind an honest enough to point out the lack of data to form a conclusion one way or the other as to efficacy of homosexuality in society. It remains to be seen how acceptance of homosexuality in all its forms will have on societies in the long run. My guess is that it would all end up being just a symptom of our demise as a society or at least as we know it, but necessarily the only cause. We’ve been going downhill for a long time. Dumbing everything down to a point where nothing is wrong, and everyone is equally mediocre is where we’re heading, IMO. Tim-

Part I From an individual standpoint like with everything I cannot nor am I saying that every homosexual didn’t desire children. What I am saying is that as a community homosexuals considered child rearing as taboo. The data on gay families is relatively small and recent, want to know why? Because gays, even lesbians didn’t as a general rule have children together. Children born of gay women were seeded by straight men. The idea that gay women in committed relationships (which is also a relatively new concept in gay culture) had children together was unheard of. Only recently is the data old enough where teenager children of gay relationships are reporting data for the all too eager social scientists. A good write up by an openly gay man on the gay subculture of the 60’s and 70’s and how it has transformed can be read here: link An absurd deduction, and statement, yet you’re still unable to provide an articulated response to it. I’ll wait. But in the meantime, your apparent criticism of the statement is that we as humans may not only be wired to procreate, but you acknowledge that we are indeed wired to do so, but for some as of yet unknown reason, you are unwilling to tell us what other factors might be in play? I’ve read more anthropological accounts of homosexuality than I care to mention. As to you being a historian, may I respectfully question your credentials. Pardon me, but you do not write or respond like a historian would. You seem more emotionally involved to me than anything else. I already mentioned that there are examples of homosexual behavior in antiquity, but most of it is of a variety that the gay community rightfully is now distancing themselves from. Let’s say it’s not the kind that gay want to be associated with. In addition, the new narrative of the gay left is that homosexual behavior is not the same as having a homosexual orientation. The latter is a state of mind, and the former is a behavior. Do you see a potential problem with that theory? Hint: gay animals. LOL, really? I said that there are virtually no records of lesbianism in the historical record, and you say I’m wrong because our society was mostly patriarchal? Of course, being a historian yourself, I’m sure you can demonstrate the multitudes of recorded lesbianism that I seem to be so ignorant of? Fair enough, but I would have hoped that the syntax would not have been lost of you, but clearly it was. I never made that claim. I only said that the kind of homosexuality practiced by Romans, and Greeks was man boy love. It was a rite of passage for aristocracy, and in terms of the military mirrors the symptomatic nature of prison in contemporary life. You know, not so long ago even as recent as WWII our own US Navy was considered to have a significant occurrence of gay behavior. Were they all gay? Don’t know, and is precisely why I brought it up. The anthropological data, and the behavioral research on wild animals can only take you so far. Gay behavior as you’ve admitted does not necessarily make a gay orientation. Apparently! That's weird I cannot post the second portion of my reply without it looking funny and losing format?

The Distinction or difference or dissimilarity or division is that naturally occurring homosexuality can be had on both scales, BUT, from the pro-gay side it is natural only to our genes, and for the anti-gay side, it’s natural only to our environment. There aren’t too many people saying that homosexuality is a product of both our genes and our environment. Does that about clear it up for you? Tim-

We come in peace – Actually it is a fairly new phenomenon. You’re showing your ignorance on the subject matter. I’m listening. Oh, and why is it wrong? Are we to just take your word for it? Is the logic unsound in some way? I’m saying that it is highly suspect that a creature wired for same sex attraction, would ignore that intrinsic characteristic in order to make babies. I ask again; what mechanism do you suppose is at play here? Hmmm.. You seem quite sure that homosexuality has existed since the dawn of time, but of course you have absolutely no way of knowing that. Or did you mean since recorded time? There have been great efforts to revise the historical record about homosexuality including the Native American Indians, Ancient China, and various other cultures but when one actually looks at the anthropological data with a grain of skepticism they see things as not quite what pro-gay advocates what them to be. For instance, all through the 90’s the homosexual lobby was keen on the idea of showing that ancient Greeks, and Romans participated in homosexual behavior, and although that it true, the recent narrative is to form distinctions between the two. Know why? Because the homosexual behavior practiced back then was mostly for the aristocracy, and mostly male on young boy sex. Lesbian instances of homosexuality are virtually and I mean virtually none-existent in any culture and through all of ancient history. Seems odd that there were gay males but not gay females, and I understand why the gay lobby would want to remove themselves from being associated with what is considered pedophilia in Greece and Rome. In addition, in Sparta, and Athens, along with Rome, in the military there were no females around, and these men would be without female contact for years. Are men that have sex with men in prison gay, or are they straight but behaving gay? I never said it was factual, indeed I actually stated that it was my opinion, but you chose to quote me even saying it was my opinion, and claim I was making factual claims. That’s a bit odd? Would you like me to spell it out to you? Look up intrinsic and mechanism and then read the sentence again. It will all magically make sense to you. You know, I’m beginning to suspect you have a reading comprehension problem. I already said that in recent human times we can have kids without actually having sex. Did you miss that part? My question though is, how is our biological function affected by this relatively new way to have babies? Answer? It isn’t. Surely you see the difference between a medical reality as different from a biological function in humans? Ah, so your modus operand is to acknowledge that I destroy your argument, and then to just plain ignore it. Gotcha. I’m not trying to win. I’m only offering an alternative to the massive amount of misinformation out there from both sides of the argument. By irrational logic you mean a coherent concise understanding of the issues involved, I suppose you’re right. Although I understand the issues, and the arguments from both side of the issue, I do not claim to know the truth, but the questions I raise are legitimate questions, that are all too often met with remarks like “you’re a homophobe, or a bigot, or a racist, and hateful”. It generally indicates that the person I’m debating is not well informed, intellectually dishonest, or incapable of objective analysis, and it’s much easier to label someone as a homophobe than debate the merits of the opposing viewpoint. Cheers! Tim-

Actually no they are not natural, or normal, any more than any other anomalous trait in humans. In the definition of a pro-homosexual, anything could be natural and normal, the entire universe is natural and normal, but in discussions on science we tend to stray away from semantics when discussing ideas and principles that apply to standard variations. To apply a literal definition to every concept is completely unproductive. Even if homosexuality was naturally occurring, it could still be naturally occurring in our genes –or- our environment. Do you see the distinction? As far as environmental factors that contribute to homosexuality, I do not know. What I do know is that prior to the maturation of our prefrontal cortex we are young men and women are completely susceptible to a myriad of outside influences. THAT PART IS A FACT! Outside influence can come in many forms, and affect everyone in different ways, it’s what makes the whole issue of causality so complex. I’m not professing to know for a fact what is right and what is wrong, but I do have my suspicions, and my own anecdotes, and until I am met with compelling evidence to the contrary, I’ll stick to my opinions just fine. Tim-

I see you missed the point? Why would a homosexual orientation manifest into a desire to procreate? Although not definitive proof, it correlates well to the idea that heterosexuality is the normal evolutionarily tried and tested disposition of all humans – and every other species on Earth that has ever existed. It also correlates well to the idea that homosexuality is mostly if not entirely a product of one’s environment; which is my opinion. Can you give me an example of a scenario where homosexual same sex sexuality would have a feature built into it that would ignore its intrinsic mechanism (same sex attraction and no other) of sexual gratification, only to still procreate? Remember, before medical science gave them the ability to procreate without even needing to have sex with one another, in order for a homosexual man to procreate he would have needed to ignore his predilection for same sex, and copulate with a female. Evolution doesn’t know we have turkey basters now. The biological design of humans hasn’t evolved to know we have sperm and egg banks. Care to explain this phenomenon is a concise manner? Tim-

Didn't Michael Jasper play Guard a little in college?

Oh, well please tell me which part is filled with factual inaccuracies (As if that isn’t an oxymoron if I ever heard one) and bigotry. Remember that bigotry is the holding of one’s view point in spite of facts to the contrary. You don’t get to make up the facts, but you’re welcome to try, Marc. I’ll head you off at the pass before you even begin to present your standard narrative. 1. Because animals (what was it 1500 at last count) do the gay, it must be natural. Errrr, WRONG. 2. Twins studies show that being gay is genetic.. Errrr… WRONG they show the reverse. 3. Because I as a straight man am unable to change my adult sexuality, gays are equally unable. True, but I maintain that homosexuality is a manifestation of one’s environment that begins early in one’s life prior to the maturation of the prefrontal cortex. Look up what the PFC is and get back to me. 4. Gay kids who are younger siblings of older male brothers have shown a correlation to adult homosexuality. True, there is some actual science there, however, with small samples and study structure, is way too early for any reliable statistically significant data sets to come out. The truth is, with no BS, no agenda, no ideology, that, no one really knows for sure what causes homosexuality, but as a matter of intellectual honesty without the agenda and as a matter of the scientific method, one cannot simply see an anomaly and place it on equal footing to the standard baseline. This is what you’re attempting to do with saying that homosexuality is no more a product of one’s environment or a choice any more than heterosexuality. It’s clever, but only because most people don’t understand the use of circular reasoning. The fact is that in almost all species that have ever come and gone on this planet, with a tiny few exceptions, procreate with the male and female gender coming together to produce offspring. Evolution seems to have found this method to be the most efficient way to mix genes, to provide the best possible chances at diversity for species to survive. What does it mean? It means that heterosexuality IS the baseline; we as a species don’t have a choice in our predispositions to heterosexuality. Don’t you find it strange that all of a sudden gays want to have their own children in growing numbers? Back in the 70’s having kids was taboo in gay culture. In the 70’s before they got a consistent unified message and agenda, (We’re normal and do not harm anyone, would like to be married, and have kids too) gays were all over the spectrum, but one thing remained consistent. Gays themselves did not “think” they were born that way. To think that was also taboo. No, they loved that it was their own choice to be gay, and that they were different. It was a huge part of their culture in fact. It wasn’t until after the 80’s AIDS scare that responsible gays began coalescing the message of homosexuality. They knew that (Although completely wrong of society) stigmatism towards homosexual men being blamed for AIDS was at its height, and they needed to clean themselves up as a community. Not all did, but most of them understood that safer sex was needed, they knew that forming a strong political lobby was important, and many of them popped up, and some stayed to this day and a lot of them just faded away, but they were able to lobby congress, however, early on and to this day, most of their successes have come from the judiciary where usurping the will of the people was way easier and a lot less costly than lobbying congress or the people directly. Look, the history of the gay culture in America is well documented on both sides of the aisle, and it’s not like you can’t find out for yourself what and exactly how homosexual rights have gained in the last 40 years. It’s all there! If you’re going to argue with me about what are facts and opinion, then please do, just please know that you’re entitled to an opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts. If you think something is a fact, then please make sure that you say you think it is a fact, but you MUST be able to back it up, otherwise it’s an opinion. Clear? Tim- edited to remove incendiary language.

And why prey tell can’t the gay dudes do the same things? No one is saying the gay can’t kiss and hug their boyfriends, or talk about them at the water cooler, or set up charities with them, heck even start their own boyfriends and husbands clubs.. All the power to ya bro. As to football none of it matters. Who cares if you’re gay? Yeah I may not like the idea of two guys making out, or butt-sexing each other, and I would probably not associate with them outside of football, but it’s a free country and last time I checked butt sex was legal no matter what the gender of the one giving or receiving. It’s not my cup-of-tea. I have never had a desire to place my penis inside my wife’s butt, when, not even a centimeter below it, I have a perfectly functioning vagina that performs the role quite nicely. I do understand some people dig it, and I DON’T CARE that they do.. That’s wonderful, have at er..or him… As to being a bigot, or a homophobe, well these arguments are pure rhetorical in nature and only serve to marginalize the opposing viewpoint. An effective tool for the less disciplined of individuals, but doesn’t work on me. I have no axe to grind, I only know what my gut tells me about homosexuality, and I am pretty well adept at separating facts from fiction concerning the whole gay debate! Tim-

wow, 7 pages on the gay... I mean, I know it's the offseason and all, but really? As for me and my opinion. I'm not religious, nor am I a self-declared intellectual social scientist with scholars adorning my office walls, but homosexuality to me seems mostly a product of ones environment. I know, I know, lots of useless ill-conceived studies from these same social scientists say otherwise, but they're worth about as much as the paper on which they're written. To me, and almost all (But not all) gay people I've met all suffer from the same personality type, and that's both men and women. They're self-loathing, narcissists, even if they don't themselves realize it. Most (but not all) gays I've met also have some issue from their childhood that raises questions about their now adult affliction with homosexuality. Mommy issues, Daddy issues, molestation, self-esteem issues, you name it. You wanna be gay, fine, go be gay power to you and all, but stop for the love of Buddy Nix, with the in-your-face BS. Being gay shouldn't reflect in any way on how someone plays football, so why even make it an issue unless you're "seeking" attention, and somehow trying to tie your predilection for the gay to your football ability. New flash, being gay doesn't have anything to do with your athleticism or football intelligence, NOTHING at all to do with it. Wise up, and just go play football!

I thought the OP was a well organized opinion, and thanks for posting it. I am of the same general opinion, meaning, a QB reach is not the most important thing in this years draft (I know I'm going to catch it for that one) We can grab a project later, and utilize TJ this year as a serviceable QB, and instead plan to add weapons. It really does depend greatly on how Hackett and Maroon plan to play offense. Do they run-first? If they plan this, then it makes sense to grab Warmack at 8. Do they plan to pass-first? Then a WR, Patterson makes sense at 8. In the second, and third rounds you continue to draft depending on your intended offensive style. Grab your QB in the 4th or 5th round. Adding weapons around TJ will make him better, and regardless of whether the Bill suck in 2013, we'll be less swiss cheese come 2014, and we'll have more options. Of course knowing, or I should say planning to get better as a team in 2013 for a run in 2014 means that guys like Fred Jackson, Brad Smith are expendable in 2013 as possible trade bate to add picks in either 2013, -or- 2014. I love Freddie and would hate to see him go, but from a plan standpoint, it makes a lot of sense. There are a ton of teams that would love to add someone as well rounded as Freddie to their 2013 roster, same goes for Brad Smith. Now this all assumes that the plan is to get stronger in the trenches this year, so that we can allow for options next year. It doesn't mean we'll suck necessarily. Who the hell knows how well TJ will play? But either way we do know that by adding quality players around him this year, the chances of sucking this year go down exponentially, and the chances of being better next year go up exponentially along with this strategy.

Or layaway...