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

[Clippers of Nfl]

The problem with sexuality has nothing to do with football. Nothing to do with marriage. But everything to do with the fact that sexuality is like a pendulum. Very few people on this planet are 100% straight and 100% gay.

 

Most of you will deny it but at some point - you may have had curiosities - tendencies - man crushes - you may have used alcohol as an excuse why you may have accidentally "played" with your buddy that one time in college or grade school...

 

Wt heck???

 

I have to disagree with you. I've had zero curiosity, man crush, etc. That's gay right there! Lol.

[Kellyto83TD]

Nope, I don't support it at all.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Kellyto83TD

[Adam]

http://www.nfl.com/n...-saying-hes-gay

 

If it was a Bill would it change your opinion of him?

Wouldn't matter in the least

[D521646]

So homosexuality isn't natural because they represent a minority in the population? I suppose dwarfism and albinism aren't natural either? Your "baseline" argument is absolutely ridiculous. While you're embarrassing yourself, please explain which environmental factors contribute to homosexuality?

 

 

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-

[Jauronimo]

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-

Well, you didn't disappoint. Nothing is natural occurring or normal. I might have seen a distinction had you made one.

[DrDawkinstein]

Homosexuality has been found in hundreds of species.

 

The only thing that is exclusive to humans is homophobia.

[We Come In Peace]

I see you missed the point?

Nope. You make your point VERY clear with the phrasing you chose:

 

Don’t you find it strange that all of a sudden gays want to have their own children in growing numbers?

 

What's strange is your inability to deduce that it's not new for gay and lesbian couples to want their own children. What is new is the majority of society being accepting of such non-traditional families.

 

As for the rest of your nonsense in this post:

 

Why would a homosexual orientation manifest into a desire to procreate?

You're already making a false assumption that it's their sexual orientation that is manifesting into a desire to procreate. That's an assumption and it's wrong.

 

 

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.

Except... it doesn't correlate since homosexuality has existed in homosapiens since the beginning of time. If homosexuality is only the result of environmental and societal factors then it would be a relatively new development for our species.

 

But it isn't.

 

So, you're wrong again.

 

 

It also correlates well to the idea that homosexuality is mostly if not entirely a product of one’s environment; which is my opinion.

 

It is your opinion and you have a right to it. But it doesn't mean it's factual.

 

 

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?

If you learn how to properly convey your thoughts, maybe I could. But this sentence is gibberish. Stop trying to use big words you don't understand.

 

 

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.

Now you're just showing how foolish you really are. Adoption as a formal institution has been around for over a century. Adoption as an informal institution has been around as long as people have been. There are more ways than one to start a family.

 

 

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.

Great point. Meaningless, but great.

 

 

 

Care to explain this phenomenon is a concise manner?

 

Tim-

Considering the phenomenon you're referencing is entirely a product of your irrational logic and fantasy, no. But you can't either so I guess we both lose.

[Matt in KC]

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....?

[We Come In Peace]

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....?

Because it makes them question their own sexuality in uncomfortable ways.

 

I’ll stick to my opinions just fine.

Nothing more dangerous in this world than a fool with a cause.

[Clippers of Nfl]

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.

I honestly think a lot of the forum members here are not really speaking their true mind Rob. So in a way I find that pathetic.

 

How can 98.9% of fans on this forum be ok with it? I find that very hard to believe.

 

I'm not going to lie....what gay guys do behind closed doors doesnt bother me. Do what you want Tom Brady!

But honestly I dont want 2 guys making out at Disneyland. I'm not ok with that. I dont think I will ever be either. Put religion aside (I know what some may be thinking), I dont like it. Sorry. This is personal. I will never be in favor of gay bashing or bullying another human being either.

 

As far as football is concerned.... I dont think it's a good idea. I think there would be at least some form of discrimination towards the player.

[We Come In Peace]

As far as football is concerned.... I dont think it's a good idea. I think there would be at least some form of discrimination towards the player.

So, in your mind it's better for that player(s) to suffer in silence and continue the current system of discrimination and bigotry that exists in regards to gays in the NFL rather than break through and make the league better for the gay players who follow in his footsteps?

 

You're advocating, in essence, that it would have been better off if Jackie Robinson had declined Branch Rickey's contract offer and played in the Negro League instead because it'd be easier for him. That's a great message to send.

[Clippers of Nfl]

So, in your mind it's better for that player(s) to suffer in silence and continue the current system of discrimination and bigotry that exists in regards to gays in the NFL rather than break through and make the league better for the gay players who follow in his footsteps?

 

You're advocating, in essence, that it would have been better off if Jackie Robinson had declined Branch Rickey's contract offer and played in the Negro League instead because it'd be easier for him. That's a great message to send.

If the guy can handle the pressure, then let him face it. I'm actually trying to protect the player from the humiliation and possible body harm.

 

That's all I'm saying.

[NoSaint]

 

If the guy can handle the pressure, then let him face it. I'm actually trying to protect the player from the humiliation and possible body harm.

 

That's all I'm saying.

 

frankly, im guessing the ones humilated wont be those that come out, and im guessing after a short period of "OMG someone did it" things will die down pretty quick. they will be mocked in the way vince wilfork is, and not go through near what jackie robinson over the long haul.

Edited March 28, 2013 by NoSaint

[We Come In Peace]

If the guy can handle the pressure, then let him face it. I'm actually trying to protect the player from the humiliation and possible body harm.

 

That's all I'm saying.

That's very noble of you, but you're the one assuming it's humiliating to be true to who you really are.

 

frankly, im guessing the ones humilated wont be those that come out, and im guessing after a short period of "OMG someone did it" things will die down pretty quick. they will be mocked in the way vince wilfork is, and not go through near what jackie robinson over the long haul.

Not to mention the incredible amount of advertising dollars that will be available to the first player who comes out. We're talking BIG money. HUGE.

[Snopple]

What does this player hope to gain by proclaiming to the world that he’s gay? As long as we’re talking about consenting adults, I don’t care who sleeps with who. But there had got to be something seriously wrong with people who feel the need to lead with their sexual orientation. And demand acceptance and inclusion based on that orientation. If they would just keep their mouths shut and their sex lives private, nobody would care what they do.

 

Pope Frances is right. Same-sex marriage is of the devil. It is demonic in origon. Buffalo’s late, great mayor, Jimmy Griffen, hit the nail on the head when he said, “They’re not gay, they’re fruits.”

[We Come In Peace]

What does this player hope to gain by proclaiming to the world that he’s gay? As long as we’re talking about consenting adults, I don’t care who sleeps with who.

Oh, you don't? Awesome!

 

...Pope Frances is right. Same-sex marriage is of the devil. It is demonic in origon.

...Hey! Wait a minute....

[Matt in KC]

Pope Frances is right. Same-sex marriage is of the devil. It is demonic in origon.

I hope the gay catholics in Oregon move to another state!

 

Buffalo’s late, great mayor, Jimmy Griffen, hit the nail on the head when he said, “They’re not gay, they’re fruits.”

Huh? What does that even mean? I can understand understand "fruit" etc. as a euphemism for gay, but have no idea what that quote means Edited March 28, 2013 by Matt in KC

[D521646]

We come in peace –

What's strange is your inability to deduce that it's not new for gay and lesbian couples to want their own children. What is new is the majority of society being accepting of such non-traditional families.

 

Actually it is a fairly new phenomenon. You’re showing your ignorance on the subject matter.

 

As for the rest of your nonsense in this post:

 

I’m listening.

 

You're already making a false assumption that it's their sexual orientation that is manifesting into a desire to procreate. That's an assumption and it's wrong.

 

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?

 

Except... it doesn't correlate since homosexuality has existed in homosapiens since the beginning of time. If homosexuality is only the result of environmental and societal factors then it would be a relatively new development for our species.

 

But it isn't.

 

So, you're wrong again.

 

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?

 

It is your opinion and you have a right to it. But it doesn't mean it's factual.

 

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?

 

If you learn how to properly convey your thoughts, maybe I could. But this sentence is gibberish. Stop trying to use big words you don't understand.

 

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.

 

Now you're just showing how foolish you really are. Adoption as a formal institution has been around for over a century. Adoption as an informal institution has been around as long as people have been. There are more ways than one to start a family.

 

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?

 

Great point. Meaningless, but great.

 

Ah, so your modus operand is to acknowledge that I destroy your argument, and then to just plain ignore it. Gotcha.

 

Considering the phenomenon you're referencing is entirely a product of your irrational logic and fantasy, no. But you can't either so I guess we both lose.

 

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-

[kickedface]

it doesn't change the game then i don't care. but if it becomes a big deal where they have to do a pride month thing in the nfl i'd really be pissed off then. i already hate everyone wear pink adding a month of rainbows would just add to the lameness.

[jaybee]

So, the gay parade marches on.

 

So all you gay lovers, if your child is a homosexual and gets married to his / her lover, you'd be totally comfortable at the wedding reception then?

 

I know you'll all say no problem...He'd make me proud, move on society, I raised him right etc....BUT you cant tell me you wouldn't be a little uncomfortable. Sure, you will say you are fine with it.....but me thinx not.

 

jb