Michael Sam is out.

[stuckinny]

You can hate the sin but love the sinner! I think that is pretty well universal in all religions. ANd it isn't like religious people want people who cheat on taxes stoned in the streets now a days either! Jesus would have loved anyone proclaiming to be gay, just like he loved Judas who he knew would betray him. Would he have proclaimed that he was the only true way to heaven and they should try to live a clean life, sure, but when God let Eve eat of the apple he let us have free will! The choices we make are up to each of us.

 

There may be no specific reference to homosexuality in the new testament, but Paul makes alot of references to the church about Man and Wife, no mention of man and man! So my religious belief is it is the act is wrong. DO i know gay people..sure do, but i am not judging them, I will leave that up to a higher power

[D521646]

Juronimo –

Tim has been very clear on his position that homosexuality is a choice. He was more measured in his delivery this time around, but the message was there down to the same examples pulled from Tim's peculiar brand of science. I've already been through this process with Tim and he isn't interested in a discussion.

 

In a darker corner of the internet, you might find a website where Tim drops the pretense about having an honest and open discussion and lets his real feelings regarding homosexuality be known.

 

 

Oh you mean the only other time I ever delved into this discussion here and was attacked left, right and center by mostly ill-informed individuals calling me all sorts of rhetorical names that they themselves didn’t truly understand. If you have anything tangible to offer then please do so. You can cite your psychological studies and peer review to your blue in the face, but when you cite one that actually contains good methodology I’ll listen, until then you’re citing opinions of people’s opinion based on statistical data that was (cynically) manufactured to look the way it did. Now, perhaps benjamin will come in here and suggest for a moment that research in the psychology social science arena is real science, and he even attempted to make that argument, but I think he knows that he can’t really make that claim because it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. People change and science changes along with it was his best retort; a response I ignored as he was hoping I would drop it and I did, and am willing to do so again. Like I said, the issue used to be an important one to me and people I hung with, but now it is merely a passing amusement when I see people (Several in this very thread) jump to the side of the tolerant one’s citing misinformation propagated by an all too eager media.

 

 

Science doesn’t or shouldn’t care if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

 

 

Tim-

[dubs]

Tim has been very clear on his position that homosexuality is a choice. He was more measured in his delivery this time around, but the message was there down to the same examples pulled from Tim's peculiar brand of science. I've already been through this process with Tim and he isn't interested in a discussion.

 

 

Well, I missed it, but I believe you.

 

To me, it's a moot point. We live in a country where people should be able to live without fear or shame for who they are. This includes sexual orientation and religion. I am in the camp that is relatively sick of the social change campaigns, primarily because I think most of the country is supportive this principle already. However, the discussions about it are fascinating.

[Jauronimo]

Juronimo –

 

 

 

Oh you mean the only other time I ever delved into this discussion here and was attacked left, right and center by mostly ill-informed individuals calling me all sorts of rhetorical names that they themselves didn’t truly understand. If you have anything tangible to offer then please do so. You can cite your psychological studies and peer review to your blue in the face, but when you cite one that actually contains good methodology I’ll listen, until then you’re citing opinions of people’s opinion based on statistical data that was (cynically) manufactured to look the way it did. Now, perhaps benjamin will come in here and suggest for a moment that research in the psychology social science arena is real science, and he even attempted to make that argument, but I think he knows that he can’t really make that claim because it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. People change and science changes along with it was his best retort; a response I ignored as he was hoping I would drop it and I did, and am willing to do so again. Like I said, the issue used to be an important one to me and people I hung with, but now it is merely a passing amusement when I see people (Several in this very thread) jump to the side of the tolerant one’s citing misinformation propagated by an all too eager media.

 

 

 

Science doesn’t or shouldn’t care if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

 

 

 

Tim-

I'm not referring to psychological studies and I'm not sure whats going on with your fixation on the poster Benjamin.

 

The last time you attempted to set the record and world straight, I addressed each your arguments pertaining to genetics, evolution and twin studies in detail. Many others did as well. It was a futile exercise. After learning more about your worldview and politics, I get the impression that the only science you're interested in is that which supports your rather unflattering opinion of homosexuals, to put it gently.

[gobillsinytown]

This thread is going to be quite broad in its scope, so I'll focus on the player himself and why he decided to "come out".

I'm of two minds on this. I think his motivation could have been:

 

1. His sexuality was going to become an issue during the draft, since his teammates were aware of it, but not necessarily the scouting departments and GM's in the NFL. So he decided to get it out in the open now so that it wouldn't come as a surprise to any team thinking of drafting him. If this was his motivation, then it's definitely shows a lot of integrity on his part.

However, I have to play the devil's advocate here:

2. His motivation was more cynical in that by coming out now, he would virtually be assuring that someone drafts him, because the NFL would get a huge black eye if they don't draft an openly gay player.

 

Listening to his interview, I'm leaning towards #1. Either way, the draft is going to be very interesting this year. I watch it every year anyway, but I'll be paying particular attention on day two.

[D521646]

Dr. –

FYI, theres apparently a good chance I'll be banned by Beerball soon because of this thread. So if I go dark, pour one out for me.

 

Just delete ALL posts about religion, since that's where the entire controversy comes from.

 

 

 

Not for me it doesn't. Religion has nothing to do with it.

 

 

 

The difference between me and some of you is that I'm willing to admit that I could be wrong about the causal nature. To me, the science suggest that I'm right, for others who ignore the science involved in brain dynamics apparently it matters little, and to some extent maybe they're right. In the end it probably won't matter but if I can be prevented I think from a science point of view, we should explore that option to test whether it's a viable one. If people want to be gay, and if society accept gay marriage and all that coms along with a tolerance of homosexuality then so be it. Who am I to question their collective judgment, it doesn't affect my life or my marriage and I frankly don' care. But to simply say something is something without any real hard evidence that is, is ignorance defined.[/size]

 

Tim-

[NoSaint]

This thread is going to be quite broad in its scope, so I'll focus on the player himself and why he decided to "come out".

I'm of two minds on this. I think his motivation could have been:

 

1. His sexuality was going to become an issue during the draft, since his teammates were aware of it, but not necessarily the scouting departments and GM's in the NFL. So he decided to get it out in the open now so that it wouldn't come as a surprise to any team thinking of drafting him. If this was his motivation, then it's definitely shows a lot of integrity on his part.

However, I have to play the devil's advocate here:

2. His motivation was more cynical in that by coming out now, he would virtually be assuring that someone drafts him, because the NFL would get a huge black eye if they don't draft an openly gay player.

 

Listening to his interview, I'm leaning towards #1. Either way, the draft is going to be very interesting this year. I watch it every year anyway, but I'll be paying particular attention on day two.

 

how would #2 be accomplished? the league is going to mandate if no one takes him by round 5 that someone is forced to?

[Malazan]

Instead of the wingnuts wanting to burn everyone who doesn't live their life by their guidelines and laughable 'Morality', why isn't the conversation about burning the wingnuts?

[Bill from NYC]

 

 

I agreed with everything until you said the JR comparison was ludicrous? Why is it not the same? I was born in the 80's so I missed the Civil Rights movement.

 

Jackie Robinson had to gut it out sans a huge cadre of support. It isn't that way this time. In fact, I am thinking that a vast majority of football fans either don't care at all or support him.

Sam will be able to portray himself as a modern day Jackie Robinson. Good for him, but it just isn't the case imo.

 

As for my stance on the "issue," I am glad that he is entitled to announce what he does and how he feels. Good for him. What scares me is that in a 100% hypothetical scenario, if AJ McCarron announced that he is against gay marriage because of his religion, picket lines and boycotts would not surprise me.

My analogy might be bad, but my point is that I believe in people being able to express their views without being denigrated.

So, congrats to Sam. Is he Jackie Robinson? I don't think so.

[D521646]

Juronimo –

I'm not referring to psychological studies and I'm not sure whats going on with your fixation on the poster Benjamin.

 

The last time you attempted to set the record and world straight, I addressed each your arguments pertaining to genetics, evolution and twin studies in detail. Many others did as well. It was a futile exercise. After learning more about your worldview and politics, I get the impression that the only science you're interested in is that which supports your rather unflattering opinion of homosexuals, to put it gently.

 

 

Uh huh, yep, I remember now, and I addressed all of your points equally. Futility is in the eye of the beholder. But I am curious why you felt as though your opinions had more weight? And specifically, why you thought I wasn’t listening? If you are reasonable and honest in your debate I will also be so in kind. I think your memory of that exchange is devoid of the usual techniques employed by your side of the debate. You first start at attempting to shame your opponent with terms like intolerant, homophobic, bigot, hater, and then as has predictably happened already the insinuation that someone so opposed to homosexuality (which I am not but you’re all too blind to actually read what I’m suggesting and have become so programed to attack attack attack any alternative view) must themselves be gay. I have no use for this, and will respond with the same vitriol.

 

 

That all said, if you have anything other than psychological studies I’d be curious to read them. If you’re referring to hormonal causation, or inuterin, or brain studies of females and gay males, save yourself some time, although I find some of the research promising it’s still rather inconclusive. Now with regards to twin studies (A psychological study by the way) your interpretation of those studies and what they actually say is amusing. It demonstrates that you actually do not understand the subject very well, or if you do, your delivery was way off. I’d would be curious to hear you speak intelligently about genetics though, not to mention evolution and how it all seems (in your mind) to point to a genetic cause for homosexuality, or some evolutionary mechanism where homosexuality would be advantageous. I’m all ears.

 

 

The problem for psychology is not in the discipline if practiced honestly, it is in the ethics of setting a proper study. One where we can control for all possible variables, and assign weight to the correlations. It really can’t be done, so instead we have researchers claiming they can do it without all the need for this really important stuff, looking for grants, skin in the game, pick your poison, dude. I’ve never read a study by EITHER side that controls well enough to draw even proper correlations on where to go next, let alone a conclusive statement about the causal nature of homosexuality. Our friend benjamin would I hope admit this truism.

 

 

There, can we now go back to talking about sports.

 

 

Tim-

[stuckinny]

if the 49rs' were run like the bills..they would take him in the 1st and really regionalize their team in the GLBT region!

[gobillsinytown]

how would #2 be accomplished? the league is going to mandate if no one takes him by round 5 that someone is forced to?

 

I would think that the league could bring some form of pressure. Again, this isn't my line of thinking. I'm hoping that it will be less of a deal by the draft than it is now. If I were an NFL GM, I wouldn't care whether a player is gay or not. For me, it would be whether the guy can play or not. If he can play and help my team win, I'll draft him.

[VanCity]

if the 49rs' were run like the bills..they would take him in the 1st and really regionalize their team in the GLBT region!

 

Though this may be true, the Giants or Jets would probably be higher up the list. NYC has a far, far larger gay populous than San Fran despite the Bay Area's stereotypes.

[Numark]

Juronimo –

 

 

 

Uh huh, yep, I remember now, and I addressed all of your points equally. Futility is in the eye of the beholder. But I am curious why you felt as though your opinions had more weight? And specifically, why you thought I wasn’t listening? If you are reasonable and honest in your debate I will also be so in kind. I think your memory of that exchange is devoid of the usual techniques employed by your side of the debate. You first start at attempting to shame your opponent with terms like intolerant, homophobic, bigot, hater, and then as has predictably happened already the insinuation that someone so opposed to homosexuality (which I am not but you’re all too blind to actually read what I’m suggesting and have become so programed to attack attack attack any alternative view) must themselves be gay. I have no use for this, and will respond with the same vitriol.

 

 

 

That all said, if you have anything other than psychological studies I’d be curious to read them. If you’re referring to hormonal causation, or inuterin, or brain studies of females and gay males, save yourself some time, although I find some of the research promising it’s still rather inconclusive. Now with regards to twin studies (A psychological study by the way) your interpretation of those studies and what they actually say is amusing. It demonstrates that you actually do not understand the subject very well, or if you do, your delivery was way off. I’d would be curious to hear you speak intelligently about genetics though, not to mention evolution and how it all seems (in your mind) to point to a genetic cause for homosexuality, or some evolutionary mechanism where homosexuality would be advantageous. I’m all ears.

 

 

 

The problem for psychology is not in the discipline if practiced honestly, it is in the ethics of setting a proper study. One where we can control for all possible variables, and assign weight to the correlations. It really can’t be done, so instead we have researchers claiming they can do it without all the need for this really important stuff, looking for grants, skin in the game, pick your poison, dude. I’ve never read a study by EITHER side that controls well enough to draw even proper correlations on where to go next, let alone a conclusive statement about the causal nature of homosexuality. Our friend benjamin would I hope admit this truism.

 

 

 

There, can we now go back to talking about sports.

 

 

 

Tim-

 

why cant people post psychological studies. If you know what you are talking then you should be able to look at a study/research from any discipline. Good methodology and research and statistics can be great from any field. Or it can be manipulated, biased, and false. That isn't a problem with just psychology. I wish you could understand something so simple. There is nothing inherent in the statistics or methodology in all psych research that makes it wrong. Just like there isn't something special about the numbers and research in non-psych research that makes it immune to any of those problems. As someone with a background in statistics and research, what you are saying is ridiculous. The problems you mention is with human error (accidental or on purpose), which is present in all research.

[D521646]

Huh? As someone with a background in statistics and research you have a problem with me stating that controlling for variables, and assigning weight to them has nothing to do with it? come one now?

 

Tim-

[Numark]

Huh? As someone with a background in statistics and research you have a problem with me stating that controlling for variables, and assigning weight to them has nothing to do with it? come one now?

 

Tim-

 

 

No i have a problem with this thought process you have:

 

I'm a big believer in neuroscience and neuropsychology as there's very little one can do to manipulate the data. In other words, one cannot "misinterpret" the datasets or correlations. The same cannot be said of the "light" science we can psychology. If your in the field please do not take offense, but let' face it, when psychologists enter the realm of social matters, the do NOT have a good track record.

 

That statement is just not true. You can manipulate that data just as much as psychology. You can misinterpret the datasets or correlations in any field. You could fit any number/research/data to fit a biased opinion regardless of the field that research is in. I know thats true because I know I could do it. Im not saying one field doesnt have more bs research than the other, but I'm just letting oyu know both fields can have great or terrible research. To discount an entire research field like you have said over and over, is extremely ignorant. And before you said you don't do that, here is an example

 

 

That all said, if you have anything other than psychological studies I’d be curious to read them.

[Jauronimo]

Juronimo –

 

 

 

Uh huh, yep, I remember now, and I addressed all of your points equally. Futility is in the eye of the beholder. But I am curious why you felt as though your opinions had more weight? And specifically, why you thought I wasn’t listening? If you are reasonable and honest in your debate I will also be so in kind. I think your memory of that exchange is devoid of the usual techniques employed by your side of the debate. You first start at attempting to shame your opponent with terms like intolerant, homophobic, bigot, hater, and then as has predictably happened already the insinuation that someone so opposed to homosexuality (which I am not but you’re all too blind to actually read what I’m suggesting and have become so programed to attack attack attack any alternative view) must themselves be gay. I have no use for this, and will respond with the same vitriol.

 

 

 

That all said, if you have anything other than psychological studies I’d be curious to read them. If you’re referring to hormonal causation, or inuterin, or brain studies of females and gay males, save yourself some time, although I find some of the research promising it’s still rather inconclusive. Now with regards to twin studies (A psychological study by the way) your interpretation of those studies and what they actually say is amusing. It demonstrates that you actually do not understand the subject very well, or if you do, your delivery was way off. I’d would be curious to hear you speak intelligently about genetics though, not to mention evolution and how it all seems (in your mind) to point to a genetic cause for homosexuality, or some evolutionary mechanism where homosexuality would be advantageous. I’m all ears.

 

 

 

The problem for psychology is not in the discipline if practiced honestly, it is in the ethics of setting a proper study. One where we can control for all possible variables, and assign weight to the correlations. It really can’t be done, so instead we have researchers claiming they can do it without all the need for this really important stuff, looking for grants, skin in the game, pick your poison, dude. I’ve never read a study by EITHER side that controls well enough to draw even proper correlations on where to go next, let alone a conclusive statement about the causal nature of homosexuality. Our friend benjamin would I hope admit this truism.

 

 

 

There, can we now go back to talking about sports.

 

 

 

Tim-

On the last bolded point we can agree.

 

The first bolded statement would be easier to believe if I hadn't stumbled across your work on another website and wasn't staring at page upon page of evidence to the contrary. But I won't introduce any of that without your blessing.

[JustinMychal]

I really expected to sign in and see a bunch of people bashing him with they're homophobic remarks but Im pleasantly surprised. I admire you all and I am extremely proud to say Im a bills fan

[Mickey]

It took courage for this young man to come out, especially on the eve of the draft, a critical step in his career. I volunteer at a local youth center which includes safe spaces for LGBT youth and I can tell you that the things they have to endure on a daily basis are criminal. The fact that things are better now compared to the past is more an indictment of just how bad things were than a statement of modern day progress.

 

I know some of you "disagree" with homosexuality but at the same time seem to respect people who are gay and I think that is a welcome discussion but at the same time, I think agreeing or disagreeing is not the issue. People are going to be gay whether you disagree with that or not just as people are going to be evangelical christians regardless of whether or not others agree with that set of beliefs. The difference is that you can't be legally fired from your job for your religious beliefs, beliefs by the way that are most certainly a product of choice not genetics. You can't be denied a job based on your religious beliefs. Your beliefs are protected even though some people might find them repugnant.

 

The real issue is not what this person or that person agrees with or disagrees with, the issue is whether or not people who are gay are going to be treated fairly which means getting jobs they are qualified for without having to keep something as basic as their sexual orientation a secret.

 

If you think the almighty says homosexuality is wrong, fine, go for it. I think the exact opposite about the almighty and that's my right. But if you think that your belief warrants discrimination against LGBT folks in the workplace or in any other realm of civil life, then yours is a position I find untenable and, even on religious grounds, indefensible.

[NoSaint]

 

On the last bolded point we can agree.

 

The first bolded statement would be easier to believe if I hadn't stumbled across your work on another website and wasn't staring at page upon page of evidence to the contrary. But I won't introduce any of that without your blessing.

 

I do believe I've found it as well. That or it's QUITE the coincidence. Impressive, Tim.