ESPN: First Actively Gay NFL Player

zeeman

Well-known member
Honest question. For folks complaining about things being "shoved down their throat" (pun not intended), like Pride Month, please expound. Is someone forcibly holding you down with your eyelids and earholes pried open against your will? You're not required to utilize Social Media, MSM outlets, Cable News platforms, etc. I assumed adults with any amount of self-awareness could enact some semblance of a proactive preparedness to handle the month-long barrage of rainbow flags. If you feel as though it somehow threatens your way of life, education, job, children, grandchildren, etc., then use the appropriate channels to voice your concerns (i.e. School Board meeting, State Rep, Local Business Owner, etc.). Go out and protest on the Courthouse steps! First World Problems are the worst.
So just change the channel? That’s fine, but to me it’s no different than some hetero stating on TV he prefers missionary position. Why the need is so strong to state your sexual preference. 90% or more people could care less if you’re gay or not. As for the other 10% WGAF 🤷🏿
 

zeeman

Well-known member
I don't share your opinion. You stated the following... "Who the f cares?" I stated someone who cared enough to start a thread on the topic, whether serious or as a troll. You clearly care enough to follow and comment in said thread. 🤷‍♂️
Welp, it is a debate forum 🤷🏿
 

utsherman

Well-known member
So just change the channel? That’s fine, but to me it’s no different than some hetero stating on TV he prefers missionary position. Why the need is so strong to state your sexual preference. 90% or more people could care less if you’re gay or not. As for the other 10% WGAF 🤷🏿
I don't disagree with your premise at all. But at the same time, it just doesn't seem to grate on me like some of the others have expressed on here. I was just curious as to there reasoning. I can talk to anyone, but don't need a dossier on said person beforehand so we can 'set boundaries'. If I believe they're full of sh*% after talking to them, so be it. Same goes for someone's impression of me.
 

zeeman

Well-known member
I know, right? That's what I tried to tell him. He was concerned about getting lost in all of the agenda driving narratives. People clearly care. To what degree and why? That's on them.
Somebody would’ve posted it, it was big news for a minute
 

IVCguy

Well-known member
I know, right? That's what I tried to tell him. He was concerned about getting lost in all of the agenda driving narratives. People clearly care. To what degree and why? That's on them.
This was a major culture war issue and my side 1) picked the wrong strategy (should have favored civil unions in the 1980's) 2) barely whimpered in protest as the SC redefined marriage. Almost every time gay marriage was put on the ballot, it was defeated - even in Ca. Then the SC invalidated the will of the people on that - favoring granting equal status to homosexuals in terms of marriage rights over what people voted for. People will be arguing the legal aspects of that 100 years from now. In addition, sodomy laws are hard to defend from a perspective of belief in absolute individual rights like privacy. I think when those laws were still in place, the leaders on my side of the issue wanted to retain them under the "don't give an inch to prevent the mile" theory, but they missed that the goal was marriage equality. By the time they realized what the real game was, they had lost the framing of the issue, and the SC, rightly or wrongly, decided to take this issue out of culture and settle it with law.

For most of US history we had a secular democracy existing along side a society dominated by Judeo-Christian values and morality. There is plenty of evidence (particularly in the Federalist Papers) indicating that the Constitution was written with the assumption that society would operate from those values/morality and that the radical freedoms granted to people had to be restrained by each individual's inner character and social mores.

We live in a very different society now. While those ascribing to Judeo-Christian values are a plurality, they are not a majority, and while we are a republic, as opposed to a pure democracy, majority opinion is still a very powerful force and tends to carry the day unless it is imposing on others' rights. So, our constitution has to be adapted to a more secular population. Since we are talking values and morality, these things work very well when they are the personal convictions of people. They do not work well when they are forced by government on people. As a general rule, our government doesn't do that, but every law that is passed by a legislative body or done by judicial fiat carries with it a moral element. A law says, "this is good and that is bad". So, in that sense, the adage that you can't legislate morality is false. Legislating morality is what legislation does. The question is: whose morality is being legislated?

So, I think we are experiencing some growing pains as our constitution is being adapted to a more secular society with different moral standards than our constitution was designed for. Plenty of people on my side of the homosexuality issue feel a sense of loss and hope for the country, fear that the TNF will become largely extinct, and that there will be a general slide into a moral morass.

Our neighbors to the north in Canada show us where progressive-left governments go. A pastor was arrested up there a few weeks ago for having an outdoor service after the church was seized by the government under COVID mandates. They have "hate speech" laws that a person could violate the law for, say, having a moral objection to homosexuality. A pastor could be charged for something he teaches from the Bible.

I think my side senses that this is where the Left is taking us. Homosexuality is just one of the issues in the culture war that we have pretty much lost. But for most of those people, they don't take their moral cues from government or law. We have to remember that our government and law once said that it was legal and moral to own another human being. Government is very fallible in it's judgment. Judeo-Christian morality has a 5000 year history that it can be judged by. Leftist morality and philosophy has about 130 years of history, and, frankly, it is a pretty abysmal record, but it certainly has momentum right now.

But, to answer your question, this is why this matters.
 

zeeman

Well-known member
This was a major culture war issue and my side 1) picked the wrong strategy (should have favored civil unions in the 1980's) 2) barely whimpered in protest as the SC redefined marriage. Almost every time gay marriage was put on the ballot, it was defeated - even in Ca. Then the SC invalidated the will of the people on that - favoring granting equal status to homosexuals in terms of marriage rights over what people voted for. People will be arguing the legal aspects of that 100 years from now. In addition, sodomy laws are hard to defend from a perspective of belief in absolute individual rights like privacy. I think when those laws were still in place, the leaders on my side of the issue wanted to retain them under the "don't give an inch to prevent the mile" theory, but they missed that the goal was marriage equality. By the time they realized what the real game was, they had lost the framing of the issue, and the SC, rightly or wrongly, decided to take this issue out of culture and settle it with law.

For most of US history we had a secular democracy existing along side a society dominated by Judeo-Christian values and morality. There is plenty of evidence (particularly in the Federalist Papers) indicating that the Constitution was written with the assumption that society would operate from those values/morality and that the radical freedoms granted to people had to be restrained by each individual's inner character and social mores.

We live in a very different society now. While those ascribing to Judeo-Christian values are a plurality, they are not a majority, and while we are a republic, as opposed to a pure democracy, majority opinion is still a very powerful force and tends to carry the day unless it is imposing on others' rights. So, our constitution has to be adapted to a more secular population. Since we are talking values and morality, these things work very well when they are the personal convictions of people. They do not work well when they are forced by government on people. As a general rule, our government doesn't do that, but every law that is passed by a legislative body or done by judicial fiat carries with it a moral element. A law says, "this is good and that is bad". So, in that sense, the adage that you can't legislate morality is false. Legislating morality is what legislation does. The question is: whose morality is being legislated?

So, I think we are experiencing some growing pains as our constitution is being adapted to a more secular society with different moral standards than our constitution was designed for. Plenty of people on my side of the homosexuality issue feel a sense of loss and hope for the country, fear that the TNF will become largely extinct, and that there will be a general slide into a moral morass.

Our neighbors to the north in Canada show us where progressive-left governments go. A pastor was arrested up there a few weeks ago for having an outdoor service after the church was seized by the government under COVID mandates. They have "hate speech" laws that a person could violate the law for, say, having a moral objection to homosexuality. A pastor could be charged for something he teaches from the Bible.

I think my side senses that this is where the Left is taking us. Homosexuality is just one of the issues in the culture war that we have pretty much lost. But for most of those people, they don't take their moral cues from government or law. We have to remember that our government and law once said that it was legal and moral to own another human being. Government is very fallible in it's judgment. Judeo-Christian morality has a 5000 year history that it can be judged by. Leftist morality and philosophy has about 130 years of history, and, frankly, it is a pretty abysmal record, but it certainly has momentum right now.

But, to answer your question, this is why this matters.
Yeah, but will the Bengals win more than lose this year 🤷🏿
 

IVCguy

Well-known member
Yeah, but will the Bengals win more than lose this year 🤷🏿
I'm going with lose more. Depends on whether Joe stays healthy.

I get you. There is a level that this doesnt matter - and to some people. And that's ok. I'm not telling anyone they should care about it. Others do see it as a step toward societal/family breakdown.
 

zeeman

Well-known member
I'm going with lose more. Depends on whether Joe stays healthy.

I get you. There is a level that this doesnt matter - and to some people. And that's ok. I'm not telling anyone they should care about it. Others do see it as a step toward societal/family breakdown.
You didn’t get my meaning at all 😂 I was very impressed by the post and was bowing to your intellect 😂
 

ProV1

Well-known member
This was a major culture war issue and my side 1) picked the wrong strategy (should have favored civil unions in the 1980's) 2) barely whimpered in protest as the SC redefined marriage. Almost every time gay marriage was put on the ballot, it was defeated - even in Ca. Then the SC invalidated the will of the people on that - favoring granting equal status to homosexuals in terms of marriage rights over what people voted for. People will be arguing the legal aspects of that 100 years from now. In addition, sodomy laws are hard to defend from a perspective of belief in absolute individual rights like privacy. I think when those laws were still in place, the leaders on my side of the issue wanted to retain them under the "don't give an inch to prevent the mile" theory, but they missed that the goal was marriage equality. By the time they realized what the real game was, they had lost the framing of the issue, and the SC, rightly or wrongly, decided to take this issue out of culture and settle it with law.

For most of US history we had a secular democracy existing along side a society dominated by Judeo-Christian values and morality. There is plenty of evidence (particularly in the Federalist Papers) indicating that the Constitution was written with the assumption that society would operate from those values/morality and that the radical freedoms granted to people had to be restrained by each individual's inner character and social mores.

We live in a very different society now. While those ascribing to Judeo-Christian values are a plurality, they are not a majority, and while we are a republic, as opposed to a pure democracy, majority opinion is still a very powerful force and tends to carry the day unless it is imposing on others' rights. So, our constitution has to be adapted to a more secular population. Since we are talking values and morality, these things work very well when they are the personal convictions of people. They do not work well when they are forced by government on people. As a general rule, our government doesn't do that, but every law that is passed by a legislative body or done by judicial fiat carries with it a moral element. A law says, "this is good and that is bad". So, in that sense, the adage that you can't legislate morality is false. Legislating morality is what legislation does. The question is: whose morality is being legislated?

So, I think we are experiencing some growing pains as our constitution is being adapted to a more secular society with different moral standards than our constitution was designed for. Plenty of people on my side of the homosexuality issue feel a sense of loss and hope for the country, fear that the TNF will become largely extinct, and that there will be a general slide into a moral morass.

Our neighbors to the north in Canada show us where progressive-left governments go. A pastor was arrested up there a few weeks ago for having an outdoor service after the church was seized by the government under COVID mandates. They have "hate speech" laws that a person could violate the law for, say, having a moral objection to homosexuality. A pastor could be charged for something he teaches from the Bible.

I think my side senses that this is where the Left is taking us. Homosexuality is just one of the issues in the culture war that we have pretty much lost. But for most of those people, they don't take their moral cues from government or law. We have to remember that our government and law once said that it was legal and moral to own another human being. Government is very fallible in it's judgment. Judeo-Christian morality has a 5000 year history that it can be judged by. Leftist morality and philosophy has about 130 years of history, and, frankly, it is a pretty abysmal record, but it certainly has momentum right now.

But, to answer your question, this is why this matters.
A war against homosexuality. WTF.
 

IVCguy

Well-known member
Riding around on my lawn tractor (I have 3 acres to mow) is where I do a lot of my shallow, over-thought musing.

I found myself slaying grass yesterday, going over an aspect of this topic. It was something, I believe, IEW said a few days ago has stuck with me. Something along the lines of: "You really find out what you believe when your son or daughter is gay." I believe that is absolutely true.

My thought track was along the lines of how that homosexuality is an issue, a topic, but a homosexual is a person - and when you love that person, that definitely changes the game when dealing with the topic AND the person. But even with someone I don't personally know, the rhetoric may come across as hard on the topic, but it's hard for me to not be soft toward a person, especially if they are struggling, that is right in front of me.

A couple of imperfect analogies came to mind. The first is that I have firm and (the Left would say) harsh views on crime. In terms of policy, I would err on the "lock 'em up and throw away the key" side. But I have done some work in prisons and jails. The truth is that I have met some outstanding people in jail: good people who did something bad. Some of them were very bad people who later decided they wanted to be good. And, I would say the vast majority are bad people who, for whatever reason, can't or won't ever be good. I even have some pity on them because many of them, seemingly, never had a chance. I was born on first or second base and was able to work my way home. These people were born in the parking lot and never even got an at-bat. So, that's an example of how the tone related to the topic and an actual person representing the topic is different.

The other analogy is cheating husbands. Just my opinion, but a man who breaks his vow of fidelity ain't worth a damn - while he is doing it. He has a morality problem, an honesty problem, and a character problem. That said, how many friends and acquaintances do I have who are, or have been, cheaters? Not a small number. I don't morally condemn my cheaters when we discuss their circumstances. I have never had a cheating husband say that what they did was right. Quite a few have excuses and flimsy justifications, but no one professes that their cheating is virtuous. It seems to me that it is more important who a man is, not what he was. I doubt any of us want to be defined by our worst act, so we should try to help people correct their failures and accept who they are and not hang who they were around their neck for life. While I may not be a cheating husband or a homosexual, I have had other moral failings, so that seems to necessitate that I extend the same grace to them that I have had need of from others at various times.

Anyway, these ideas affect my views on homosexuality and how I approach homosexuals. The trick is to make sure that I do not leave the impression that my kindness and care for the person means that I am compromising on the principles of morality and reason that undergird my views on the topic OR that my firm rhetoric means that I exclude them from being a person worthy of my care and concern. FWIW
 

I enjoy wrestling

Well-known member
Riding around on my lawn tractor (I have 3 acres to mow) is where I do a lot of my shallow, over-thought musing.

I found myself slaying grass yesterday, going over an aspect of this topic. It was something, I believe, IEW said a few days ago has stuck with me. Something along the lines of: "You really find out what you believe when your son or daughter is gay." I believe that is absolutely true.

My thought track was along the lines of how that homosexuality is an issue, a topic, but a homosexual is a person - and when you love that person, that definitely changes the game when dealing with the topic AND the person. But even with someone I don't personally know, the rhetoric may come across as hard on the topic, but it's hard for me to not be soft toward a person, especially if they are struggling, that is right in front of me.

A couple of imperfect analogies came to mind. The first is that I have firm and (the Left would say) harsh views on crime. In terms of policy, I would err on the "lock 'em up and throw away the key" side. But I have done some work in prisons and jails. The truth is that I have met some outstanding people in jail: good people who did something bad. Some of them were very bad people who later decided they wanted to be good. And, I would say the vast majority are bad people who, for whatever reason, can't or won't ever be good. I even have some pity on them because many of them, seemingly, never had a chance. I was born on first or second base and was able to work my way home. These people were born in the parking lot and never even got an at-bat. So, that's an example of how the tone related to the topic and an actual person representing the topic is different.

The other analogy is cheating husbands. Just my opinion, but a man who breaks his vow of fidelity ain't worth a damn - while he is doing it. He has a morality problem, an honesty problem, and a character problem. That said, how many friends and acquaintances do I have who are, or have been, cheaters? Not a small number. I don't morally condemn my cheaters when we discuss their circumstances. I have never had a cheating husband say that what they did was right. Quite a few have excuses and flimsy justifications, but no one professes that their cheating is virtuous. It seems to me that it is more important who a man is, not what he was. I doubt any of us want to be defined by our worst act, so we should try to help people correct their failures and accept who they are and not hang who they were around their neck for life. While I may not be a cheating husband or a homosexual, I have had other moral failings, so that seems to necessitate that I extend the same grace to them that I have had need of from others at various times.

Anyway, these ideas affect my views on homosexuality and how I approach homosexuals. The trick is to make sure that I do not leave the impression that my kindness and care for the person means that I am compromising on the principles of morality and reason that undergird my views on the topic OR that my firm rhetoric means that I exclude them from being a person worthy of my care and concern. FWIW
Nice words, imo The usury for political gain is abhorrent. God will always be God. I softened to the point of letting him figure it out. I'm not in agreement with the lifestyle. But love goes a long ways in dealing with all issues. Love doesn't mean yes on every issue. I'm against those that use being gay for any type of gain.

Don Lemon or
 

ProV1

Well-known member
Riding around on my lawn tractor (I have 3 acres to mow) is where I do a lot of my shallow, over-thought musing.

I found myself slaying grass yesterday, going over an aspect of this topic. It was something, I believe, IEW said a few days ago has stuck with me. Something along the lines of: "You really find out what you believe when your son or daughter is gay." I believe that is absolutely true.

My thought track was along the lines of how that homosexuality is an issue, a topic, but a homosexual is a person - and when you love that person, that definitely changes the game when dealing with the topic AND the person. But even with someone I don't personally know, the rhetoric may come across as hard on the topic, but it's hard for me to not be soft toward a person, especially if they are struggling, that is right in front of me.

A couple of imperfect analogies came to mind. The first is that I have firm and (the Left would say) harsh views on crime. In terms of policy, I would err on the "lock 'em up and throw away the key" side. But I have done some work in prisons and jails. The truth is that I have met some outstanding people in jail: good people who did something bad. Some of them were very bad people who later decided they wanted to be good. And, I would say the vast majority are bad people who, for whatever reason, can't or won't ever be good. I even have some pity on them because many of them, seemingly, never had a chance. I was born on first or second base and was able to work my way home. These people were born in the parking lot and never even got an at-bat. So, that's an example of how the tone related to the topic and an actual person representing the topic is different.

The other analogy is cheating husbands. Just my opinion, but a man who breaks his vow of fidelity ain't worth a damn - while he is doing it. He has a morality problem, an honesty problem, and a character problem. That said, how many friends and acquaintances do I have who are, or have been, cheaters? Not a small number. I don't morally condemn my cheaters when we discuss their circumstances. I have never had a cheating husband say that what they did was right. Quite a few have excuses and flimsy justifications, but no one professes that their cheating is virtuous. It seems to me that it is more important who a man is, not what he was. I doubt any of us want to be defined by our worst act, so we should try to help people correct their failures and accept who they are and not hang who they were around their neck for life. While I may not be a cheating husband or a homosexual, I have had other moral failings, so that seems to necessitate that I extend the same grace to them that I have had need of from others at various times.

Anyway, these ideas affect my views on homosexuality and how I approach homosexuals. The trick is to make sure that I do not leave the impression that my kindness and care for the person means that I am compromising on the principles of morality and reason that undergird my views on the topic OR that my firm rhetoric means that I exclude them from being a person worthy of my care and concern. FWIW
After reading your many detailed posts on the subject, it seems to me that you have a much bigger issue with male homosexuals than female. Am I right and if so why is that? Would gay girls have the same problems as men in Berlin? Are you secretly turned on by lesbians?
 

Omar

Well-known member
BTW, he made the Raiders roster. I’m glad there’s not much attention on him bc of him being gay, but I also know the only reason he’s not being publicly celebrated in the media is bc he’s a Republican.

Either way, good for him for not using his sexuality as a crutch or leverage to make the team.
 

OldSoulon

Well-known member
BTW, he made the Raiders roster. I’m glad there’s not much attention on him bc of him being gay, but I also know the only reason he’s not being publicly celebrated in the media is bc he’s a Republican.

Either way, good for him for not using his sexuality as a crutch or leverage to make the team.
Why bother even mentioning his sexuality?

Just play balls.
 

m14brian

Well-known member
LGB is deviant behavior.

Humans don't care, we want what we want.. consequences rarely matter in our wants.

Very few people contemplate or ask the question of why monogamy?
Human base nature is promiscuity. We chose to be monogamous; one man, one woman.
But why?
It is primarily for parental investment in our offspring. Families are formed as a need to provide a stable environment for children.
Families are the base foundation of a stable and productive society.
As an example look at the societies that engage in polygamy. These tend to be rife with conflict and civil war. The explanation as to why is very obvious.
LGB lifestyles are antithetical to families. If LBG behavior was the norm, that society would cease to exist.
This is the whole reason such behavior has been condemned for 1000s of years.

LGB is of course not even close to being a majority lifestyle in the US, but just look at the instability their activism is causing.
Politicians using LGB issues to grandstand and push agendas.
Dividing citizens over education. ie teaching the merits of LGB to young children.
 

MoeBiden

Active member
After reading your many detailed posts on the subject, it seems to me that you have a much bigger issue with male homosexuals than female. Am I right and if so why is that? Would gay girls have the same problems as men in Berlin? Are you secretly turned on by lesbians?

On the rare occasion when someone gets on here with an apparently good faith comment that was both well written and coherent, and this is what you come up with? Maybe you need a break, man.
 

I enjoy wrestling

Well-known member
On the rare occasion when someone gets on here with an apparently good faith comment that was both well written and coherent, and this is what you come up with? Maybe you need a break, man.
Thumbs up my friend. We don't agee on much, but is refreshing when we do. Hagd
 
.
Top