Active Player Coming Out of the Closet - are you okay with that?

[MRW]

Why is it inflammatory? Does it somehow denigrate people?

 

And FWIW, I did a quick yahoo search just out of curiosity and the numbers I found were closer to 40-50%. I'm at work and don't have the time or inclination to search medical journals. Either way, I think it's safe to say the number is disproportionate to the population at large.

Sexual abuse leading to homosexuality is a common argument put forth by anti-gay groups, and it is used as an attempt to counter gay people's accounts of why they are gay (in other words, it's another front in the "is homosexuality innate/natural" argument). There may well be a lot of questions to explore on the issue, but for better or worse it's a minefield.

[Floridabillsfan1]

I dislike people I work with but I wouldn't tell them because it would hurt my career. My point is some things should be left not said when it involves business .

[NDBUFFCUSEFAN]

I dislike people I work with but I wouldn't tell them because it would hurt my career. My point is some things should be left not said when it involves business .

Why should players have to hide their sexuality? If they begin to live openly gay it will be all over ESPN, SI, TMZ ect... At least this way they can control how it starts.

[Shoutbox]

Funny how this so offends you two. I even qualified it by stating that it was unconfirmed and just something I heard, yet you decide to give a snide response anyway. I'll remember not to waste my time conversing with you.

 

BTW, can you provide a link to these exclusive scientific journals you've cited, Dr. Miller? Thanks in advance dude.

 

If you actually care about this subject and on science in general, then drive down to your local community or university library this weekend and ask the librarians for help. Nature and Science are the gold standard, but any journal that publishes research in evolutionary biology or psychology will suffice. Keywords like "homosexuality in nature" or "origins of sexual selection" might be useful. If you're too lazy for that, try e-mailing professors throughout the country who are experts on this subject.

 

Basically, go do your own !@#$ing homework. I could care less if you don't believe anything I type. Don't listen to me. Listen to scientists. The scientists are on my side, which is the side that believes homosexuality in a human is determined by the time they are born. And the idea that childhood molestation (or narcissism, low self-esteem, the media, etc..) causes homosexuality later in life is !@#$ing comical to a non-Christian scientist or to anyone with an IQ above 100.

[D521646]

Part I

 

Prove to the board that gays had no desire to have families of their own until the 1970s.

 

I'll wait.

 

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

 

Just for reference, this was your original statement: "Why would a homosexual orientation manifest into a desire to procreate?"

 

It's an absurd question and even a more absurd deduction. And your response is to swim upstream against logic. You're stating that the only reason people procreate is because we're genetically wired to reproduce. It's a factor, but certainly not the only factor at play.

 

So again, your argument is unfounded, illogical, and incorrect

 

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?

 

It's nice that you can so easily dismiss over 2,000 years of historical records as being "revised" by the pro gay rights movement. Kind of makes it difficult to offer the proof you seek to contradict your claim. But in reality, we are forced to rely upon facts. As a historian myself, I can assure you that there is evidence of homosexuality throughout the entire history of the human species. Pick up some primary source documents and do some reading.

 

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.

 

Woefully ignorant of history and the human experience, not to mention the fact that humanity has existed in a largely patriarchal society and the ramifications from that when it comes to recorded history. But please, continue to demonstrate your ignorance

 

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?

 

This is a clear cut example of inappropriate generalization. Just because it's possible for straight men to engage in homosexual acts and still be straight doesn't mean that everyone performing homosexual acts is actually straight.

 

Logic 101. Step your game up.

 

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?

Edited March 29, 2013 by D521646

[Rob's House]

If you actually care about this subject and on science in general, then drive down to your local community or university library this weekend and ask the librarians for help. Nature and Science are the gold standard, but any journal that publishes research in evolutionary biology or psychology will suffice. Keywords like "homosexuality in nature" or "origins of sexual selection" might be useful. If you're too lazy for that, try e-mailing professors throughout the country who are experts on this subject.

 

Basically, go do your own !@#$ing homework. I could care less if you don't believe anything I type. Don't listen to me. Listen to scientists. The scientists are on my side, which is the side that believes homosexuality in a human is determined by the time they are born. And the idea that childhood molestation (or narcissism, low self-esteem, the media, etc..) causes homosexuality later in life is !@#$ing comical to a non-Christian scientist or to anyone with an IQ above 100.

Thanks for the tip, but I just don't care enough about the subject to spend that much time on it. You seem to be really interested and really passionate about this topic. Seems a little strange coming from the one poster who professes to romance the ladies more than all others, but I'm not sure what conclusions to draw from that. And thanks for clearing up the whole nature v nurture debate for us. I didn't realize the consensus was in on that one, but then my IQ is a bit lacking. But hey, that's why I have guys like you to defer to.

[D521646]

Part II

 

 

Considering I quoted you directly, word for word, it's not odd. I said you have a right to your opinion but it doesn't make it fact. Amazing you could find a way to argue this point, but since you're the one claiming that all of history has been retouched by the all powerful gay rights lobby, then I guess it probably shouldn't amaze me

 

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.

 

You want an example of a scenario where "homosexual same sex sexuality" (redundant much) would have a feature built into it that would ignore its naturally occurring attraction to members of the same sex in order to procreate? Because if so, that's just gobbily gook.

 

And I'm being kind. Your mastery of the language needs work if you think that's a coherent question or even a complete statement.

 

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?

 

Based on your writing skills and diminished capacity for coherent thought and reason, I don't find that hard to believe.

 

Sticks and stones.

 

And yet you're making the supposition that we are all slaves to our base functions. Besides having no point in this discussion, it paints a startlingly ignorant portrait of how you believe human beings make decisions.

 

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?

 

For the record, your statement was this: "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." Which again, has nothing to do with the discussion whatsoever. Hence my reply: "Great point. Meaningless, but great."

 

Clearly we can add sarcasm to the long list of things you fail to understand.

 

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?

 

I haven't leveled a single one of those charges against you.

 

I don't need to because you've done a wonderful job of showing your own ignorance on the topic. You don't have to be a bigot to be wrong.

 

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-

[Shoutbox]

Thanks for the tip, but I just don't care enough about the subject to spend that much time on it. You seem to be really interested and really passionate about this topic. Seems a little strange coming from the one poster who professes to romance the ladies more than all others, but I'm not sure what conclusions to draw from that. And thanks for clearing up the whole nature v nurture debate for us. I didn't realize the consensus was in on that one, but then my IQ is a bit lacking. But hey, that's why I have guys like you to defer to.

 

A "maybe you're gay" insinuation...how utterly juvenile.

 

It's the off-season. In the absence of interesting Bills talk, I choose to spend my time defending gay people because I know several, and they are good people who didn't choose their sexual orientation, and they deserve defense against ignorance and bigotry like any other human being does.

 

The nature vs. nurture debate - with specific regards to sexual orientation - most definitely does have a scientific consensus in favor of "nature" (which includes the prenatal environment of the mother's womb).

 

Again...don't take it from me. Take it from credible scientists. But if you don't want to search scientific journals or read scientific textbooks or e-mail scientists or even use google/wikipedia, then what else can I say?

[Marv's Neighbor]

This is not news, it's been around for a long time.

 

I remember Jerry Smith, TE for the Redskins in the 70's. As i recall, he was the first NFL guy to die of AIDS. That was in the 80's, well before all the Meds we have today. Point being, "coming out" or whatever people chose to call it, is personal and I'm sure whomever it may be, could care less if we are OK with it, or not.

[D521646]

A "maybe you're gay" insinuation...how utterly juvenile.

 

It's the off-season. In the absence of interesting Bills talk, I choose to spend my time defending gay people because I know several, and they are good people who didn't choose their sexual orientation, and they deserve defense against ignorance and bigotry like any other human being does.

 

The nature vs. nurture debate - with specific regards to sexual orientation - most definitely does have a scientific consensus in favor of "nature" (which includes the prenatal environment of the mother's womb).

 

Again...don't take it from me. Take it from credible scientists. But if you don't want to search scientific journals or read scientific textbooks or e-mail scientists or even use google/wikipedia, then what else can I say?

 

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-

[Shoutbox]

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-

 

But there is very much a strong scientific consensus on the idea that homosexuality is determined in a human before birth, even if the exact mechanism by which sexual preference occurs is still unknown (and by the way, if you read everything I've posted so far, I never stated there was a consensus on the EXACT cause of homosexuality).

 

Of course there are no "facts" for this type of science in the same way that one can prove F = m * a, but once again...like a broken record...please do your own searches of scientific journals if you don't believe me...any post-natal scientific theory for homosexual preference origins gets quickly refuted, rebuked, or plain old ignored (i.e. poorly cited).

[Coach Tuesday]

 

 

Excellent response Stealth. No spin. Not like the rest of these guys who've responded but totally ignored my question above. I grew up in a different era than most here apparently. I am probably the oldest guy on the forum. IMO, schools and the media have brain-washed our youngins rather effectively. This thread is certainly a monument of that. My generation see's it differently. I wont say we are right...and you are wrong. There is no right and wrong here I suppose. BUT...if I had a gay child (and I have 3 hetero's) I definitely would be way too embarrassed to let anyone know. But thats just me. I find the whole deal absolutely disgusting, and even worse...the NFL no-name that is using his status to promote / defend /whatever his sick lifestyle. Well if that isn't crossing the line then there is no such thing as crossing the line.

 

My last post in this thread, so go back to your X box, or whatever they are. I wont respond. I'm done on this topic which the moderators get an "F" for putting it on the Stadium wall. Its off the charts off the wall material.

 

I am glad your generation's way of thinking will soon be exiting the Earth.

 

 

Thanks for the tip, but I just don't care enough about the subject to spend that much time on it. You seem to be really interested and really passionate about this topic. Seems a little strange coming from the one poster who professes to romance the ladies more than all others, but I'm not sure what conclusions to draw from that. And thanks for clearing up the whole nature v nurture debate for us. I didn't realize the consensus was in on that one, but then my IQ is a bit lacking. But hey, that's why I have guys like you to defer to.

 

Yet you are the one with a profile pic of Nick Cage in his underwear...

[mchammer]

I wonder if the player in question is as gay as this thread. I'm all for gay people being treated like everyone else, but this militant pro-gay steam some of you are spewing sounds more like the "look at me! Look at me! See how open minded I am!" grandstanding I'm used to seeing from pathetic tools dealing with white guilt who have to be even more outraged than the black guy to prove you're "one of the good one's." Someone in this thread even went so far as to denigrate as juvenile and ignorant the belief that gay sex is "icky". I got news for you tough guy: Butt sex IS "icky". Swimming around in someone else's **** is kind of gross - and that's true of heterosexual butt love too.

 

The point is, can't we just agree that gay people shouldn't be ridiculed for their sexuality without being fags about it.

1+ Best point I've read on this stupid thread

[BuffBill]

So, let's say for the sake of argument, as has been suggested in recent posts:

 

1. Being gay is a choice

2. Anal sex is icky and unnatural

3. Gay people are self-loathing, narcissists and/or have daddy issues

4. Gay people do or don't want to raise children

5. the player thinking of coming out is pushing an agenda or just wants the spotlight for whatever reason

 

Even assuming all of those things, shouldn't gay players still be allowed to be open? Shouldn't we encourage them to be open about who they are?

 

After all, we support heterosexual players regardless of whether

1. they chose to be hetero- or not

2. they engage in anal, oral, nostril, or whatever kind of sex

3. they are self-loathing, narcissists and/or have daddy issues

4. they do or don't want to have or raise children

5. other players sought the spotlight or acted sexually irresponsibly

 

What are the dissenters saying? Gay people should not be open in football or elsewhere? Because....?

Nostril Sex? Damn I am getting old. Never heard of that, guess that is snotty sex?

[Jauronimo]

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-

What scales? What the hell are you talking about? No part of this rambling includes anything even resembling a point.

 

Had you any knowledge of genetics you'd know that the environment plays a strong role in actual genotypic expression. Look up any source concerning the supposed gay gene and you'll see theories regarding a complex interplay between the fetus' genetics and conditions in the womb. In summary, many people are saying exactly that.

 

Your baseline, naturally occurring but non-natural, narcissism theory is nothing short of ridiculous.

[Maury Ballstein]

 

 

 

Yet you are the one with a profile pic of Nick Cage in his underwear...

 

You know how i know your gay? You listen to coldplay.

[Phil Hansen Forever]

I would have no problem with it. However, if I was an NFL player, I would certainly have concern. First the issue of AIDS and blood born pathogens. The NFL is a dirty business and people bleed. HIV is carried in blood and can be easily transmitted. That doesn't mean every gay person has HIV/AIDS, but it does call into question these issues.

[NoSaint]

I would have no problem with it. However, if I was an NFL player, I would certainly have concern. First the issue of AIDS and blood born pathogens. The NFL is a dirty business and people bleed. HIV is carried in blood and can be easily transmitted. That doesn't mean every gay person has HIV/AIDS, but it does call into question these issues.

 

no, no it really doesnt. no more than blood issues should already be addressed.

 

further, GUYS ARE ALREADY PLAYING AND HAVING THE GAY SEX! them coming out does not change the health standards of the league.

[ChevyVanMiller]

I thought this was interesting: Soccer player retired after coming out because he said it would have been "impossible" to be a pro footballer and be openly gay. Hope that doesn't happen to whatever NFL player(s) come out.

 

http://espnfc.com/news/story/_/id/1391576/robbie-rogers:-coming-out-in-football-'impossible,%22-report-says?cc=5901

Edited March 29, 2013 by ChevyVanMiller

[NoSaint]

I thought this was interesting: Soccer player retired after coming out because he says it would have been "impossible" to be a pro footballer and be openly gay. Hope that doesn't happen to whatever NFL player(s) come out.

 

http://espnfc.com/news/story/_/id/1391576/robbie-rogers:-coming-out-in-football-'impossible,%22-report-says?cc=5901

 

nothing actually "happened" to him did it? he pre-emptively retired to avoid any issues, no?

 

 

that said, id imagine soccer in europe could be a different beast - you see how seriously they take that stuff and how out of control things can get.

Edited March 29, 2013 by NoSaint