K-9 Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 The public is already going to go crazy, because some in the media keep saying, falsely, that he is a first round prospect. When he goes in the third or fourth, where he belongs, people are going to start foaming at the mouth. This is the first I've heard that ANYONE projected Sam going in the first round. He's a 3-5 round pick at the moment. Anybody in the media saying he's a first rounder is completely making it up. GO BILLS!!!
Captain Caveman Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) And there is the modern societal problem. There is no line of any kind. Last time I'm going to say this, because you keep ignoring it anyway. The line is, don't harm other people. If you can, you help them. --------------Line------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm not against rules and norms for the sake of being against them. Anyone who is is an idiot. I do, however, think that rules and norms should be questioned, to the following standard: Is this rule protecting people from harm? If so, it's probably a good rule. Otherwise, society should question it, and if appropriate get rid of it. There are lots of places where a rule / norm might harm one person / group and help another. There, judgements have to be made about what is best for everyone. In the case of homosexuality, I have yet to hear anyone make a convincing argument that allowing homosexuals equal rights, standing and respect is harming anyone. Edited February 12, 2014 by Captain Caveman
DC Tom Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 This is the first I've heard that ANYONE projected Sam going in the first round. He's a 3-5 round pick at the moment. Anybody in the media saying he's a first rounder is completely making it up. GO BILLS!!! Hardly matters. No matter where he's drafted, a certain number of people (in different groups) are going to jump up and down screaming because he was either drafted too high or fell too low...because he's gay. He'll always be thought of as "gay football player," not a "football player who's gay."
D521646 Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 I<j or whatever that is – I disagree with you. On a lot more than etymology, but for now, just etymology. I looked it up. Oxford English Dictionary (the one that traces the evolution of a word's meaning) disagrees with you. Oh, then why don’t you prove it with a link? There are now a whole host of meanings and specific “homophobias”, but the original meaning was exactly what I stated, and that is a FACT.. Tim-
Mark Vader Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 Looks like ole Sam wasn't so courageous as originally thought: http://t.foxsports.m...ut-before-draft I'm sure we "going" to come out after h draft.. It's the cynic in me I suppose but I doubt it. Tim- FOX Sports Lies! Oops, sorry I thought this was the PPP board. Umm, I was being a smart ass and if that is your attempt here we're good! Well I'm certainly glad you gave me your blessing.
Mark Vader Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 Some of the statements/opinions in this thread are incredibly disappointing. Everyone has different opinions. Some of them you will agree with, others you won't. Some of them you will find enlightening and others repulsive. So goes life. Honestly, this thread has gone much more smoothly than I would have expected. I saw far more hatred on this board during the Flutie-Johnson debate. I think most non-homophobes like myself wouldn't care. Just like most non-racists wouldn't care if their son married someone of another race. What if your child married a Patriots* fan?
Captain Caveman Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 I saw far more hatred on this board during the Flutie-Johnson debate. Goddamned Flutie.
Mark Vader Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 You don't have to put on the leather and fetish gear and lead the parade to support equality. That's true. Having said that, does there need to be a parade to support equality?
DC Tom Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 Some of the statements/opinions in this thread are incredibly disappointing. People are free to be gay. People are free to dislike people who are gay. People are free to disagree with people who dislike people who are gay. Life is a confluence of differing opinions and attitudes. Live with it. That's true. Having said that, does there need to be a parade to support equality? No one has a parade to support equality. People have parades to support inequality. Pride, in this particular case.
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 Kirby Jackson – Fair question(s) thanks for asking them. Although the answers require way more input than I have time to present, I will attempt to reach the main points. I would like sex Ed to include a module on homosexual sex and the added inherent dangers to it. Statistically gay men (Not gay women incidentally who are among the fewest incidence of Std’s) 1 in 4 gay men will contract HIV before age 30, and 100% of them will die before age 55. I mean, what? 100% of gay men will die before age 55? I guess I know some statistically impossible people. Even if that's not just funky grammar I'd like to see something to substantiate your statistics. The Department of Bad Ideas just corrected me here. I just wish television, media and any of the sort would stop force feeding us this stuff. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they should completely remove it from pop culture, I just don't want to be blindsided by it while the family and I watch television together. I don't know, maybe add a new category to the rating system. You already have R, PG, and G, add a GY or something for gay content so I can have a heads up. I would also like to see the politicians give them equal rights once and for all so we can move on to more serious topics every election period. Only if gay people get a SC rating for straight content so they don't have to watch icky things like Julia Roberts making out with Keanu. Though I guess that particular example grosses me out. I suppose you are also grossed out by the girl on girl action? Because a lot of straight dudes aren't... I do agree with you on the first half of your last statement, but it's no small matter to see couples denied visitation rights, taxation rights, estate tax rights or any of the other things you and I take for granted. What if your child married a Patriots* fan? See, that one is easy - you just decide to despise the son/daughter-in-law. What if your child became a Patriots fan? I mean, there is a serious test of "I want to raise my kids to be happy" vs. "I want my kids to share my values."
Justice Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 Not even a little bit true. That'll be when society has fully progressed to where it should be. If you don't think that the differences in the reactions to this story today compared to what they would've been say ten years ago isn't progress then I don't know what is. You got that right. One of my favorite sitcoms of all time (Three's Company) would never be on the air today.
Mark Vader Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 No one has a parade to support equality. People have parades to support inequality. Pride, in this particular case. I understand the reason why there is a pride parade, my question was why does there need to be a pride parade?
Awwufelloff Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 I honestly could care less if someone is gay or not gay. The thing that gets me is the locker room thing. I go to the gym 5-6 days a week and I can see how it might be rather weird for some people. I mean if your gay and your in a mens locker room with naked men everywhere with there dongs hanging out, that turns you on...I mean would you not stare at them just like I would stare at a naked women because that is attractive to me since I am straight. If its okay for gay men to be in a locker room with naked guys than I want to be in a coed locker room with naked girls. It goes both ways, but obviously a double standard is there.
GunnerBill Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 I<j or whatever that is – Oh, then why don’t you prove it with a link? There are now a whole host of meanings and specific “homophobias”, but the original meaning was exactly what I stated, and that is a FACT.. Tim- As an English born, English speaking, English language graduate (first class honours no less), residing in England I can assure you that you are incorrect. Not that I think you will take any notice. I honestly could care less if someone is gay or not gay. The thing that gets me is the locker room thing. I go to the gym 5-6 days a week and I can see how it might be rather weird for some people. I mean if your gay and your in a mens locker room with naked men everywhere with there dongs hanging out, that turns you on...I mean would you not stare at them just like I would stare at a naked women because that is attractive to me since I am straight. If its okay for gay men to be in a locker room with naked guys than I want to be in a coed locker room with naked girls. It goes both ways, but obviously a double standard is there. I think the issue is you sir. Staring at people you are attracted to is not reasonable behaviour, regardless of their gender or your sexual preference. There are no double standards here.
Captain Caveman Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 I honestly could care less if someone is gay or not gay. The thing that gets me is the locker room thing. I go to the gym 5-6 days a week and I can see how it might be rather weird for some people. I mean if your gay and your in a mens locker room with naked men everywhere with there dongs hanging out, that turns you on...I mean would you not stare at them just like I would stare at a naked women because that is attractive to me since I am straight. If its okay for gay men to be in a locker room with naked guys than I want to be in a coed locker room with naked girls. It goes both ways, but obviously a double standard is there. I've been in locker rooms with gay friendly teams sharing space. It's not sexual, it's not awkward, and anyone who was weirded out by it either went somewhere else or got over it real quick.
NoSaint Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 I honestly could care less if someone is gay or not gay. The thing that gets me is the locker room thing. I go to the gym 5-6 days a week and I can see how it might be rather weird for some people. I mean if your gay and your in a mens locker room with naked men everywhere with there dongs hanging out, that turns you on...I mean would you not stare at them just like I would stare at a naked women because that is attractive to me since I am straight. If its okay for gay men to be in a locker room with naked guys than I want to be in a coed locker room with naked girls. It goes both ways, but obviously a double standard is there. Being in a big ol crowd of naked straight guys is a little strange but becomes second nature. I bet if you grew up in coed locker rooms it too would be second nature and you wouldn't be a creeper staring at every woman. Or maybe you would. There are plenty of coed nude situations out there that aren't overbearingly awkward though, and I bet Sam won't be a creeper.
dave mcbride Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 I<j or whatever that is – Oh, then why don’t you prove it with a link? There are now a whole host of meanings and specific “homophobias”, but the original meaning was exactly what I stated, and that is a FACT.. Tim- I work for Oxford UP, and while you can't access the OED, i can. I can't paste the full etymology (historical and otherwise) here because of TSW's rules, but you are in fact wrong. The term came about in the 1960s, and the basic meaning is "an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people." It really has nothing to do with self loathing. I am 100 percent sure of this.
Awwufelloff Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) As an English born, English speaking, English language graduate (first class honours no less), residing in England I can assure you that you are incorrect. Not that I think you will take any notice. I think the issue is you sir. Staring at people you are attracted to is not reasonable behaviour, regardless of their gender or your sexual preference. There are no double standards here. You can't be serious? How is that not reasonable behavior? If I'm attracted to a female, I am going to look at them. Its embedded deep within our genealogy to want to stare at women we find attractive and reproduce. Why do you think men who view porn in the USA is at like 80%. Edited February 13, 2014 by Awwufelloff
GunnerBill Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 Looking and staring are not the same thing are they? I'm sure there are hetrosexual men who look at your "ding dong" in the locker room... you were suggesting homosexual men will stare at it (presumably because you think they will be attracted to you) and it would freak you out in some way. Staring at someone who is naked in a locker room is not in your genealogy, it's just creepy.
Awwufelloff Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 Looking and staring are not the same thing are they? I'm sure there are hetrosexual men who look at your "ding dong" in the locker room... you were suggesting homosexual men will stare at it (presumably because you think they will be attracted to you) and it would freak you out in some way. Staring at someone who is naked in a locker room is not in your genealogy, it's just creepy. If a gay guy is allowed in a locker room full of naked men than a straight man should be allowed in a locker room with females. That's my point, its a double standard and cannot be proved otherwise.
Recommended Posts