metzelaars_lives Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 What? He's not? Oh you guys are so cute together. Hey guess what? He is the first openly gay NFL player ON THE PLANET. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 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?? I think you are dead wrong about "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". It's so presumptuous, I'm surprised that you would even put that thought down on paper. But it's a common attack theme these days. When someone says what they think, if it's not completely aligned with PC pop culture, attack them as saying its a euphemism for being a racists, sexist, homophobe, whatever... I can't speak for everyone, but speaking for myself I can say that I have no problem with homosexuality at all AND I think this Michael Sam thing is annoying, obnoxious, and frankly a non-issue. 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". totally agree! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 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". Words in mouth. Didn't get warm fuzziness over anything. During the cake thing, I called my brother and said and I quote, "Oh my God that was the gayest thing I've ever seen." All I'm arguing is that it is/was an iconic moment in American sports history. That's all. And also, nobody got suspended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 (edited) :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. Oh horsecrap. You really think you can wiggle out of this? If I am the attention whore you say I am, then you know that's not going to happen. So, yet another contradiction in your "thinking". "Maybe you should do X"? ALWAYS means exactly what you intended it to mean: unequivocation. You want him to unequivocally follow the Bible...the parts you like...and ignore the parts you don't. And you just said that very thing again: 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. How the F is any observant Christian supposed to do what you are asking? Answer: they cannot. That's why this is a F'ing setup and that's why your argument is phony. It's contradictory, and silly, but, mostly: it's phony. Yes you most certainly did introduce the Bible based on authority: Why the F else would you "suggest"(Pfft. Whatever) that he live by it? Do you do this at work? You: "Hey you should buy this stock over here...because I just randomly picked up a Chinese takeout menu off the street. I'm not suggesting the menu is authoritative, but, you should buy the stock because of this, anyway". Please. Stop wasting my time with your obfuscation, that is what you said, because that is what you meant. Edited May 15, 2014 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Words in mouth. Didn't get warm fuzziness over anything. During the cake thing, I called my brother and said and I quote, "Oh my God that was the gayest thing I've ever seen." All I'm arguing is that it is/was an iconic moment in American sports history. That's all. And also, nobody got suspended. I wasn't suggesting you were one of the people getting the warm fuzziness, just explaining my POV as someone bothered by the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 I think you are dead wrong about "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". It's so presumptuous, I'm surprised that you would even put that thought down on paper. But it's a common attack theme these days. When someone says what they think, if it's not completely aligned with PC pop culture, attack them as saying its a euphemism for being a racists, sexist, homophobe, whatever... I can't speak for everyone, but speaking for myself I can say that I have no problem with homosexuality at all AND I think this Michael Sam thing is annoying, obnoxious, and frankly a non-issue. totally agree! OK we'll have to agree to disagree then. If you can't see why this is a news story then I don't know what to tell ya. Clearly it is newsworthy as we are still talking about it. Clearly news shows and magazines gauge what their readers are interested in and wouldn't keep promoting this story if the interest wasn't there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Words in mouth. Didn't get warm fuzziness over anything. During the cake thing, I called my brother and said and I quote, "Oh my God that was the gayest thing I've ever seen." All I'm arguing is that it is/was an iconic moment in American sports history. That's all. And also, nobody got suspended. Conflicting reports about suspension. I think that a suspension is out of line. A fine really isn't -- only in so much as the Dolphins have had an image problem and if they are trying to make potential player signees and draftees feel welcome in their house, they're within their rights to fine. Teams hand out fines for being late for meetings, etc, so a fine for a minor infraction or black mark on the team isn't outside of their jurisdiction. How the F is any observant Christian supposed to do what you are asking? Answer: they cannot. That's why this is a F'ing setup and that's why your argument is phony. It's contradictory, and silly, but, mostly: it's phony. Most of the observant Christians I know do just that; they weigh Christ's call to love more heavily than they do old testament theses about relations between men/men, men/women, master/slave, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 (edited) OK we'll have to agree to disagree then. If you can't see why this is a news story then I don't know what to tell ya. Clearly it is newsworthy as we are still talking about it. Clearly news shows and magazines gauge what their readers are interested in and wouldn't keep promoting this story if the interest wasn't there. Ok. My issue is more about the degree of this (and frankly mostly everything in the news these days). I do think it's a story, but a small story. It's a nice story. My issue with how this has played out over the last couple months is twofold. 1) The media going completely overboard on this. 2) The moral grandstanders looking down their nose at people and telling everyone how they should feel about it. Edited May 15, 2014 by dubs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Conflicting reports about suspension. I think that a suspension is out of line. A fine really isn't -- only in so much as the Dolphins have had an image problem and if they are trying to make potential player signees and draftees feel welcome in their house, they're within their rights to fine. Teams hand out fines for being late for meetings, etc, so a fine for a minor infraction or black mark on the team isn't outside of their jurisdiction. Most of the observant Christians I know do just that; they weigh Christ's call to love more heavily than they do old testament theses about relations between men/men, men/women, master/slave, etc. And here's another one for my jump to conclusions mat about what people are thinking. When the poster you alluded to brings JC into the argument, he believes that Michael Sam is making a choice. And when someone believes that, they have achieved elite nutjob status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 And here's another one for my jump to conclusions mat about what people are thinking. When the poster you alluded to brings JC into the argument, he believes that Michael Sam is making a choice. And when someone believes that, they have achieved elite nutjob status. haha...nice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 So we can judge other people as an "ist" and we can call people crazy, homophones, closeted men, nut jobs etc. But we cannot be intollerent of the media, hype and ridiculousness of this story? The guy is gay. So what, stop wasting time over it because there is nothing about it that matters. Worry about the important things and focus on making a difference like hash tagging scauses. That way you can really feel powderpuff about the important things Make this story go away. Its patheticm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 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? No. But it stands to reason that anyone who scouts football players based on sexual orientation shouldn't be a scout. And should be beaten on general principle for being an idiot. But you're missing my point. I'm not arguing that Sam shouldn't have come out (I've said before: I'm happy for him that he could. It sucks pretending to be someone you're not all your life.) I am saying that this massive production and spectacle over it puts him in the position of being a "gay man who's a football player" and not a "football player who's gay." Because of this entire carnival-freak atmosphere the media insists on creating based on nothing more than what the man chooses to do with his penis, everything he ever does will be judged now through the filter of him being a gay man. Let me repeat that: everything he ever does will be judged now through the filter of him being a gay man. How on earth is that not discriminatory? It reduces him to nothing more than a novelty act. People are comparing him to Jackie Robinson...news flash: Jackie Robinson was hated as a "the first" black man to play baseball (which he wasn't, but that's beside the point), but recognized for his skills (hitting .311 over a ten year career). He wasn't reduced to the equivalent of a trained monkey act (racial overtone ENTIRELY intended) by people saying "Hey, look at the black man! He's playing baseball! And he's black!" Frankly, while I couldn't care less if Sam is gay or not, and I'm happy for him that he doesn't have to hide who he is...I'm regretful that society feels its necessary to put him on display like a circus freak, and disappointed that he's indulging it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 (edited) 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. Ah, another mind reader. It's impossible for someone to not care, truly? It's impossible for someone to objectively view this as "not news"? Or, it's impossible for someone to have the same acumen at identifying phony "contrivance" as you, and respond to it, by saying "I don't care, because this is not news, this is contrived crap"? No. According to you: Everyone who comes to the same conclusion as you did, but you, are doing so because deep down, it bothers them? Do ya see what I'm doing in this thread yet? I'm not here because I hate gays. I'm here because I hate idiocy. What else should we call an argument, predicated on the ability to read minds, and, the contradiction that only you are able to see contrivance, where everybody else only sees "danger! FEAR!"....besides idiocy? Sorry, but I don't see another conclusion. 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?? Wrong. The polling is clear...of course, depending on who is doing it, and what kind of questions they pose. If they give you 2 choices: 1. "Gay Marriage" 2. "Gay people living as second class citizens" (Ahem, I'm looking at you: CBS and NBC) Then we learn nothing. If those are my only two choices? I choose the second. The next thing I do? Pick up rifle and rebel against the people who gave me ONLY those two choices...because I am living in Wonderland, not the USA, and the leaders there need to go. In fact, there's defensible, 50+% support for what I would call "solving the problem", not gay marriage. MOST people support some sort of solution to the problem that both respects religious freedom, AND, protects the rights of ALL, not just gay people. MOST people know that in 2014, we are perfectly capable of coming up with a workable solution, that achieves the goals...which is what they support. However, as in this thread: many people are not "problem solvers", like me. No. They are "problem extenders", because...EDIT: a list of stuff, which I cut out, because I don't want people crying PPP tears. (Largely because that list is dead on accurate, and therefore it twists panties) I think it's clear to anyone capable of paying attention, that problem extenders work at ESPN. Edited May 15, 2014 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 No. But it stands to reason that anyone who scouts football players based on sexual orientation shouldn't be a scout. And should be beaten on general principle for being an idiot. But you're missing my point. I'm not arguing that Sam shouldn't have come out (I've said before: I'm happy for him that he could. It sucks pretending to be someone you're not all your life.) I am saying that this massive production and spectacle over it puts him in the position of being a "gay man who's a football player" and not a "football player who's gay." Because of this entire carnival-freak atmosphere the media insists on creating based on nothing more than what the man chooses to do with his penis, everything he ever does will be judged now through the filter of him being a gay man. Let me repeat that: everything he ever does will be judged now through the filter of him being a gay man. How on earth is that not discriminatory? It reduces him to nothing more than a novelty act. People are comparing him to Jackie Robinson...news flash: Jackie Robinson was hated as a "the first" black man to play baseball (which he wasn't, but that's beside the point), but recognized for his skills (hitting .311 over a ten year career). He wasn't reduced to the equivalent of a trained monkey act (racial overtone ENTIRELY intended) by people saying "Hey, look at the black man! He's playing baseball! And he's black!" Frankly, while I couldn't care less if Sam is gay or not, and I'm happy for him that he doesn't have to hide who he is...I'm regretful that society feels its necessary to put him on display like a circus freak, and disappointed that he's indulging it. OK, that's all very sane and rational, except for the part where you reduce Jackie Robinson to his batting average when everyone who really follows baseball knows how limited that stat is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Oh horsecrap. You really think you can wiggle out of this? If I am the attention whore you say I am, then you know that's not going to happen. So, yet another contradiction in your "thinking". "Maybe you should do X"? ALWAYS means exactly what you intended it to mean: unequivocation. You want him to unequivocally follow the Bible...the parts you like...and ignore the parts you don't. And you just said that very thing again: How the F is any observant Christian supposed to do what you are asking? Answer: they cannot. That's why this is a F'ing setup and that's why your argument is phony. It's contradictory, and silly, but, mostly: it's phony. Yes you most certainly did introduce the Bible based on authority: Why the F else would you "suggest"(Pfft. Whatever) that he live by it? Do you do this at work? You: "Hey you should buy this stock over here...because I just randomly picked up a Chinese takeout menu off the street. I'm not suggesting the menu is authoritative, but, you should buy the stock because of this, anyway". Please. Stop wasting my time with your obfuscation, that is what you said, because that is what you meant. :lol: How are christians supposed to read the text and reconcile the contradictions? That's the crux of your argument? As they see fit, clown. As they would handle any other situation that requires critical thinking. Wow, you are lost. Your argument rests on a reconciliation of the two issues which still fits into some fundamental interpretation of the text, whereas, I don't care if taking my suggestion makes someone a less than "observant" christian, as defined by you. Which is why, as usual, you're debating yourself, clown. Look up introduce vs. respond. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 In fact, there's defensible, 50+% support for what I would call "solving the problem", not gay marriage. MOST people support some sort of solution to the problem that both respects religious freedom, AND, protects the rights of ALL, not just gay people. MOST people know that in 2014, we are perfectly capable of coming up with a workable solution, that achieves the goals...which is what they support. Honest question here: Where do people's feelings, which they are 100% in control of according to you, end -- and their religious freedoms, which need to be respected, begin? Because I'm honestly not seeing where one couple's gay marriage creates a problem for someone else's religious freedom except in the case of a church being forced to recognize such a union (which the state will not ever enforce, and which in the occasions that a church's position is challenged only results in a dialogue to be had among the members of that church). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Most of the observant Christians I know do just that; they weigh Christ's call to love more heavily than they do old testament theses about relations between men/men, men/women, master/slave, etc. Then you need to familiarize yourself with the Bible, because, when you complete that task, you'd know that Jesus, referring to gays as an "abomination" resides in the New Testament, not the Old. And, I used the word "observant" (actually, I edited my post, and purposely threw "observant" in there ) on purpose. (I love it when a plan comes together) That some Christians are "allowed" (by whom exactly, you?) to "observe" the Bible with an emphasis on the Golden Rule, with others taking a more literal approach...is precisely what "religious freedom" is all about. Your pals are free to interpret it the way they want. Exactly as free as others are to interpret it the way they want. The trouble here is when we decide that your pals are superior, and are entitled to be left alone, while the other Christians deserve to be called bigots, for merely following their conscience. See? It's that pesky Constitution thing again. If only we could get rid of it...like so many leftist professors want to do.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LB3 Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 I generally only like white cake with chocolate frosting. There are times though, when I'm feeling a little sexy, that I'll get down with some red velvet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 :lol: How are christians supposed to read the text and reconcile the contradictions? That's the crux of your argument? As they see fit, clown. As they would handle any other situation that requires critical thinking. Wow, you are lost. Your argument rests on a reconciliation of the two issues which still fits into some fundamental interpretation of the text, whereas, I don't care if taking my suggestion makes someone a less than "observant" christian, as defined by you. Which is why, as usual, you're debating yourself, clown. Look up introduce vs. respond. :lol: Ah, and now, as I've described above, you've stepped in it. (Once again, I love it when a plan comes together. And, It's not like I didn't remind you not to F with me) The crux of the issue is: you belive you are allowed to "suggest" how other people are supposed to interpret the Bible. Thus, you have the power to take away their relgious freedom...because you've decided their interpretation isn't up to your standard. QED You believe that the more "observant" Christian's beliefs are inferior. As such, you have the right to denigrate them, and take away their rights to their beliefs. Your entire argument rests on: "You should listen to the part of the Bible, I JUDGE, to be acceptable, and ignore the parts I don't like". Whenever you get done talking, that is the unavoidable premise upon which you've built your argument, and, it's just as unavoidable as it is absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts