NFL networks coverage of Michael Sam

[Dorkington]

Interesting how you left out the subtle belittling of Christians on this site. How perfectly that suits you.

 

Ah yes, Christians have it so rough in this country/on this site.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Dorkington

[Jauronimo]

Oh please, and what of the part of the book that literally calls homosexuality an abomination?

 

I love arguments that are predicated on holding Christians to some part of the Bible, in the most literal form, while others, which are incovenient for the argument, are left completely ignored.

 

Once again, I exist in this thread to destroy specious/stupid arguments, and this one deserves attention.

 

IF you want to use the Bible, use the whole thing.

I don't want to use the Bible. That's why I didn't introduce it in the first place. Once again, you exist in this thread because you're an attention whore and you've missed the point.

[OCinBuffalo]

All in all, if you figure that Bills fans are going to be a pretty fair representation of the general adult white male population, I'm proud to see that most people are on team normal and that the nutjobs are relatively few and outspoken. Just imagine how drastically different this dialogue would have looked like 30 years ago. Then again, imagine how ridiculous some of your comments are going to look 30 years from now. I think that when in doubt, you should try and align yourself with the right side of history.

Yes, nothing like a clown laying out the arguments for tyranny.

 

And then self-congratulating for being on the "right" side.

 

You really don't understand equality, or liberty, at all, do you? I can imagine 30 years ago just fine: the great Liberal politician Daniel Moynihan (NY Senator) would be calling you and those who subscribe to your views out as phonies, tyrants, children, the worst sort of names...becaue you deny both free speech, AND, freedom of religion. You know: the 2 major tenets upon which liberalism was founded? Bill Maher said it best the other night: liberals don't stand up for liberalism anymore.

 

Hmmmm....and what is the opposite of liberalism(not political party definition)....ah yes: totalitarianism.

 

Totalitarian....that is precisely what your post above reflects, and NOTHING else.

 

 

The horror! Imagine what that kid is learning from witnessing this clearly staged display of affection.

Why do I have to explain the difference between a spontaneous kiss in a pic, which was start/finished in an instant....

 

and the obviously contrived media event video, that was then promptly rolled out for clicks...like a youtube cat vid...

 

to a person who works in Hollywood?

 

Are you really that dim in your own field? Or, have I, yet again, caught you running the agenda?

 

I don't want to use the Bible. That's why I didn't introduce it in the first place. Once again, you exist in this thread because you're an attention whore and you've missed the point.

LOL!

 

How did I miss the point? YOU demanded he follow Christian precepts....but only the ones you like.

 

IF you demand that he follow Christianity, then abhoring homosexuality is his only recourse.

 

But, you are trying to have it both ways: Be like Jesus...but don't listen to him? Clown. You should know better than to try and get this by in a thread I am in.

 

You do know better.

 

Unlike most here, you also know better than to F with me....but go right ahead....I am always entertained by the inferior trying to wiggle out of what they walked into.

 

Puuuullllllleeeeeeaaase can we move on ?

1. There's plenty of other threads for you to move on to.

2. There's plenty of misguided people who need to understand they're being played, in this thread.

3. There's plenty of phonies for me to bash in this thread.

 

You aren't interested in 2 and 3? Seek life elsewhere....because I plan on doing nothing but bashing phonies for as long as is necessary.

[Jauronimo]

LOL!

 

How did I miss the point? YOU demanded he follow Christian precepts....but only the ones you like.

 

IF you demand that he follow Christianity, then abhoring homosexuality is his only recourse.

 

But, you are trying to have it both ways: Be like Jesus...but don't listen to him? Clown. You should know better than to try and get this by in a thread I am in.

 

You do know better.

 

Unlike most here, you also know better than to F with me....but go right ahead....I am always entertained by the inferior trying to wiggle out of what they walked into..

I asked (look up the word demand) him about loving thy neighbor AFTER he brought scripture into play, clown. If he would like to bring religion into the matter, then I would like to know, given the obvious contradictions in the source text, which he, or now you, believe to be central tenets of christianity. Hate them gays or love for all mankind? You miss the obvious point AGAIN.

[OCinBuffalo]

Acknowledging that a stereotype exists is not the equivalent of subscribing to it, but thanks for continuing to define obtuse for me. These examples are very helpful. A few more like this, and I think I'll get it.

Yeah...I made a bet with myself that this is exactly the response. How bad is it when I know what you're going to say and why, 3 posts ahead?

 

It wouldn't be that this predictability comes from the fact that you have an agenda, and that following that agenda...and not the facts....SEVERELY restricts your options in an argument, such that what you're going to say next becomes easily known, would it? That's why I can keep busting you up: what I'm saying is based on logic, the English language, real morality, and God(or not-God) forbid: decency.

 

Christ, I had what I was going to say next ready 3 days ago. How boring, for me.

 

Oh well, let's do as you ask....Obtuse:

Acknowledging that a sterotype exists...while propogating it, and also, denying that you are propogating it....

at the same time.

 

That's exactly what you are doing, and see? Predictably: Obtuse.

 

The ONLY thing you could possibly say to what I wrote was: "I'm only identifying a stereotype"....and hoping that I would let you slide on the "I'm propogating it" part.

 

NOPE! Try again.

 

I asked (look up the word demand) him about loving thy neighbor AFTER he brought scripture into play, clown. If he would like to bring religion into the matter, then I would like to know, given the obvious contradictions in the source text, which he, or now you, believe to be central tenets of christianity. Hate them gays or love for all mankind? You miss the obvious point AGAIN.

Yeah, I've missed the point so much so that your response exactly tracks my post word for word?

 

Sorry, not in this universe. Try again.

 

You are speaking of the contradicitons within Christianity now? Ah, so we've gone from "Be like Jesus(but ignore what he says about gays)" to..."Christianity is damn confusing and contradictory"...in 1 post?

 

Let me say that again: You went from demanding he "love his neighbor" which can only be taken as: assuming Christianity's virtue, such that behaving under it's tenets is preferable(especially when it comes to gay neighbors)....to now....demanding that he/I answer for Christianity's inconsistencies? Wait. which is it? Is "love thy neighbor" the goal, or, it is contradiction?

 

Yet....I've missed the point?

 

If me missing the point can cause this much disruption in your thinking from one post to the next...imagine what me hitting the point would do to you?

 

Like I said: you know better than to F with me.

Edited May 15, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[OCinBuffalo]

If you can support gay culture but not someone else's viewpoint or belief then that is incredibly ironic. Supporting a 1st Amendment issue but not the right to speak out against it. I'm not even sure if I could come up with something as ironic as that...anyone got any ideas?

 

Oh, I'm sure some of the aspiring totalitarians here could come up with plenty of irony, as I have already pointed out.

 

I don't think they can come up with any useful ideas/solutions to this problem however, their agenda restricts their cognition, as I have also already pointed out.

 

[Jauronimo]

Yeah, I've missed the point so much so that your response exactly tracks my post word for word?

 

Sorry, not in this universe. Try again.

 

You are speaking of the contradicitons within Christianity now? Ah, so we've gone from "Be like Jesus(but ignore what he says about gays)" to..."Christianity is damn confusing and contradictory"...in 1 post?

 

Let me say that again: You went from demanding he "love his neighbor" which can only be taken as: assuming Christianity's virtue, such that behaving under it's tenets is preferable(especially when it comes to gay neighbors)....to now....demanding that he/I answer for Christianity's inconsistencies? Wait. which is it? Is "love thy neighbor" the goal, or, it is contradiction?

 

Yet....I've missed the point?

 

If me missing the point can cause this much disruption in your thinking from one post to the next...imagine what me hitting the point would do to you?

 

Like I said: you know better than to F with me.

Its funny how you think I've changed my tune when you clearly failed to understand what I intended in the first place. Read between the lines.

 

Congratulations, you now understand the post to which you originally replied.

 

Go find where I demanded he live his life in accordance with a literal interpretation of the Bible, and don't you dare claim it was implied, for obvious reasons.

[Sisyphean Bills]

It's like he is the first gay man on the planet.

[OCinBuffalo]

Its funny how you think I've changed my tune when you clearly failed to understand what I intended in the first place. Read between the lines.

 

Congratulations, you now understand the post to which you originally replied.

 

Go find where I demanded he live his life in accordance with a literal interpretation of the Bible, and don't you dare claim it was implied, for obvious reasons.

Words mean things. You're using different words, that mean different things, now, than what you were using. That's the definition of "change".

 

Oh let's just haul that post out shall we?

Oh, you're nuttier than I thought.

 

Maybe you should find that part of the book that talks about compassion for all mankind. Not sure your views toward an estimated 10% of the population are all that Christian, brother Triple.

 

"Maybe you should find"? Yeah, in ALL connotation, that is know as: Demanding. Or, it could be: requiring? At the very least: Requiring for the sake of argument. Fair enough?

 

So for the sake of your, pathetic, argument, you are requiring that he have "compassion for ALL mankind" as opposed to not having it for "an estimated 10% of the population", or, only 90% of people. You are setting this requirement based on what exactly? The menu at Denny's? Mike Mayock's Mock Draft?

 

Or....is it: the Bible. Yes. It's the Bible. You are requiring that this guy follow the Bible.

 

I merely asked: what about the part of the Bible, which you say we should follow, that says gays=bad?

 

Your whole point was to hold this guy accountable as a Christian/point out the contradiction in his behavior, unfortunately for you: you used your own contradiciton to do that.

 

So, as I said: Try again.

Edited May 15, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[truth on hold]

In fairness when he came out his draft prospects were moderately high .... 4th - 5th round. So I don't think he did just to secure a draft spot. He said he wanted to control the story and not have to deal with runors, and i believe that. It was afterwards that his terrible combine made him slip into coin flip territory whether he'd get drafted at all.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack

[jimmy10]

In fairness when he came out his draft prospects were moderately high .... 4th - 5th round. So I don't think he did just to secure a draft spot. He said he wanted to control the story and not have to deal with runors, and i believe that. It was afterwards that his terrible combine made him slip into coin flip territory whether he'd get drafted at all.

 

I believe that as well. Scouts were sniffing around as scouts do and the story was bound to get out. He made the announcement so the story would get out on his own terms. For those who think it was a calculated move: Why would he have come out before the draft and not after, risking draft position and money?

[RuntheDamnBall]

I believe that as well. Scouts were sniffing around as scouts do and the story was bound to get out. He made the announcement so the story would get out on his own terms. For those who think it was a calculated move: Why would he have come out before the draft and not after, risking draft position and money?

I think that people will answer, "to get endorsement deals and such." I think it's a double-edged sword as the response here has obviously shown. He has turned a certain segment of the population in his favor, and another segment against him.

 

I still do think that being in control of the story is a fair desire on his part, and when it's getting around to the scouts and you're going to be asked in graphic detail about your personal life, you may as well stop hiding it and get it out of the way.

 

Those who are cynical are going to argue that it's always going to be in the way until he's out of the NFL (soon, they would argue).

 

I think we have no way of knowing that.

[Jauronimo]

Words mean things. You're using different words, that mean different things, now, than what you were using. That's the definition of "change".

 

Oh let's just haul that post out shall we?

 

 

"Maybe you should find"? Yeah, in ALL connotation, that is know as: Demanding. Or, it could be: requiring? At the very least: Requiring for the sake of argument.

 

So for the sake of your, pathetic, argument, you are requiring that he have "compassion for ALL mankind" as opposed to not having it for "an estimated 10% of the population", or, only 90% of people. You are setting this requirement based on what exactly? The menu at Denny's? Mike Mayock's Mock Draft?

 

Or....is it: the Bible. Yes. It's the Bible. You are requiring that this guy follow the Bible.

 

I merely asked: what about the part of the Bible, which you say we should follow, that says gays=bad?

 

Your whole point was to hold this guy accountable as a Christian/point out the contradiction in his behavior, unfortunately for you: you used your own contradiciton to do that.

 

So, as I said: Try again.

:lol: :lol:

 

Not fair enough. Not when you take that suggestion that and interpret it as demanding he live in accordance with literal interpretation of the bible. Words have meanings, remember? What part of invoking a central christian message implies demanding a literal !@#$ing interpretation, contradictions and all??? Your argument is in response to things that simply were not said. If you needed clarification on where I was going, you should have asked.

 

What about the contradictions in the Bible??? Not my problem. I didn't introduce the book as an authority. I don't live my life based on that text. I don't care. I do suggest that anyone invoking the Bible on such matters as this consider the relative weight of love thy neighbor vs. abominable gays and reconcile. Again, if you weren't so intent on being an attention whore perhaps you would have responded to what was written rather than what you hoped I meant.

 

Try again. Or don't.

[jimmy10]

 

I think that people will answer, "to get endorsement deals and such." I think it's a double-edged sword as the response here has obviously shown. He has turned a certain segment of the population in his favor, and another segment against him.

 

I still do think that being in control of the story is a fair desire on his part, and when it's getting around to the scouts and you're going to be asked in graphic detail about your personal life, you may as well stop hiding it and get it out of the way.

 

Those who are cynical are going to argue that it's always going to be in the way until he's out of the NFL (soon, they would argue).

 

I think we have no way of knowing that.

 

But the endorsement deals, etc, would be there if he came out before or after.

 

[shrugs] But you're right of course, no real way to know.

 

I know this has to be a big deal in order for it to one day not be a big deal. I look forward to that day. Judging someone for being in love with another consenting adult is just insane to me.

Edited May 15, 2014 by jimmyo

[RuntheDamnBall]

I for one am glad that there are freedom fighters out there to set right the wrongs of message-board totalitarians, absolutists to give us their opinions stated as fact, and people telling us how to think by arguing that we shouldn't tell them how to think.

 

If answers to "why someone is gay/bisexual" and "what is the best way to present oneself in society as a gay person" were crystal clear, I think there would be no research happening about the former, and no discussion here about the latter.

 

I'm going to wager that few people here have much in the way of real answers about either.

 

In my perfect world, people are free to express what they need to to convey their identity, but that identity does not overshadow what someone actually does / achieves -- whether it is the self-promotion of that identity or the opinion of outsiders.

[metzelaars_lives]

Yes, nothing like a clown laying out the arguments for tyranny.

 

And then self-congratulating for being on the "right" side.

 

You really don't understand equality, or liberty, at all, do you? I can imagine 30 years ago just fine: the great Liberal politician Daniel Moynihan (NY Senator) would be calling you and those who subscribe to your views out as phonies, tyrants, children, the worst sort of names...becaue you deny both free speech, AND, freedom of religion. You know: the 2 major tenets upon which liberalism was founded? Bill Maher said it best the other night: liberals don't stand up for liberalism anymore.

 

Hmmmm....and what is the opposite of liberalism(not political party definition)....ah yes: totalitarianism.

 

Totalitarian....that is precisely what your post above reflects, and NOTHING else.

 

 

Why do I have to explain the difference between a spontaneous kiss in a pic, which was start/finished in an instant....

 

and the obviously contrived media event video, that was then promptly rolled out for clicks...like a youtube cat vid...

 

to a person who works in Hollywood?

 

Are you really that dim in your own field? Or, have I, yet again, caught you running the agenda?

 

 

LOL!

 

How did I miss the point? YOU demanded he follow Christian precepts....but only the ones you like.

 

IF you demand that he follow Christianity, then abhoring homosexuality is his only recourse.

 

But, you are trying to have it both ways: Be like Jesus...but don't listen to him? Clown. You should know better than to try and get this by in a thread I am in.

 

You do know better.

 

Unlike most here, you also know better than to F with me....but go right ahead....I am always entertained by the inferior trying to wiggle out of what they walked into.

 

 

1. There's plenty of other threads for you to move on to.

2. There's plenty of misguided people who need to understand they're being played, in this thread.

3. There's plenty of phonies for me to bash in this thread.

 

You aren't interested in 2 and 3? Seek life elsewhere....because I plan on doing nothing but bashing phonies for as long as is necessary.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Two things. Number one, when did I say the Michael Sam thing wasn't contrived? Of course it was. If I could use one adjective to describe it, I would probably use "contrived." I said that the cake thing was over the top several times already. My argument throughout this thread is that people who are insisting that "they could care less" and "why is this news?" are really masking the fact that this whole thing really bothers them. And number two, of course I'm on the right side of history. More than half of Americans now support gay marriage. Clearly there is a trend toward tolerance. We live in a democracy. The politicians views and, subsequently, the laws eventually come around to what the people believe in. Look at marijuana legalization here in Colorado. That wouldn't have magically happened 15 yeas ago when far less than half the people supported such a measure. Are you arguing that 30 years from now there's even a remote chance that gay people will have less rights in the United States??

Edited May 15, 2014 by metzelaars_lives

[DC Tom]

If answers to "why someone is gay/bisexual" and "what is the best way to present oneself in society as a gay person" were crystal clear, I think there would be no research happening about the former, and no discussion here about the latter.

 

I'll take that second one: present oneself as if it doesn't matter, as a personal trait irrespective of what you accomplish. In lieu of a long explanation, I'll just say: Re: Matt Bomer.

[RuntheDamnBall]

I'll take that second one: present oneself as if it doesn't matter, as a personal trait irrespective of what you accomplish. In lieu of a long explanation, I'll just say: Re: Matt Bomer.

That's fine. Does it also stand to reason that NFL scouts get an education where they are informed that they shouldn't ask about sexual orientation?

[KOKBILLS]

It's like he is the first gay man on the planet.

 

What? He's not?

[Rob's House]

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Two things. Number one, when did I say the Michael Sam thing wasn't contrived? Of course it was. If I could use one adjective to describe it, I would probably use "contrived." I said that the cake thing was over the top several times already. My argument throughout this thread is that people who are insisting that "they could care less" and "why is this news?" are really masking the fact that this whole thing really bothers them. And number two, of course I'm on the right side of history. More than half of Americans now support gay marriage. We live in a democracy. The politicians views and, subsequently, the laws eventually come around to what the people believe in. Look at marijuana legalization here in Colorado. That wouldn't have magically happened 15 yeas ago when far less than half the people supported such a measure. Are you arguing that 30 years from now gay people will have less rights in the United States??

 

This whole thing really bothers me. Not the part about a gay guy playing football, but the part where everyone grandstands and takes the opportunity to show what a great person they are because they get the warm fuzziness over it. I hate pretentious and disingenuous bull ****. The problem is that pop-culture media always takes these things (anything that involves an -ism) too far. Case in point: Player suspended for tweeting "OMG" and "horrible".