Former Missouri Tigers defensive end and 2014 NFL draft entrant Michael Sam announced Sunday in interviews with ESPN and The New York Times that he is gay.
Chris Connelly of ESPN's Outside The Lines and The New York Times' John Branch were first to report the news of this landmark development:
"I understand how big this is," Sam said, per Connelly. "It's a big deal. No one has done this before. And it's kind of a nervous process, but I know what I want to be ... I want to be a football player in the NFL."
Sam says that his experiences at the Senior Bowl shaped his decision to make the announcement:
"I didn't realize how many people actually knew, and I was afraid that someone would tell or leak something out about me," he said. "I want to own my truth. ... No one else should tell my story but me."
He had already confided in a few close friends, Sam recalled, and had dated a fellow athlete who was not a football player -- so while coming out to his Mizzou teammates last year was a key moment, it came almost as an afterthought, during preseason training camp.
"Coaches just wanted to know a little about ourselves, our majors, where we're from, and something that no one knows about you," Sam said. "And I used that opportunity just to tell them that I was gay. And their reaction was like, 'Michael Sam finally told us.' "
Asked what that moment felt like, Sam said, "I was kind of scared, even though they already knew. Just to see their reaction was awesome. They supported me from Day One. I couldn't have better teammates. ... I'm telling you what: I wouldn't have the strength to do this today if I didn't know how much support they'd given me this past semester."
He took to Twitter once the interview aired to thank his supporters:
The NFL released a statement after the news broke (via ESPN):
Missouri football coach Gary Pinkel and director of athletics Mike Alden also released a statement via MUTigers.com.
Sam is an impressive, versatile athlete at 6'2" and 255 pounds and his skills figure to translate well to the pros. The reigning SEC Defensive Player of the Year has the potential to be an impact pass-rusher at either defensive end or outside linebacker.
With his ability to get after the quarterback (11.5 sacks in 2013), and sheer size and speed, Sam could be a decent contributor as a rookie in 2014. OptimumScouting.com's Mark Dulgerian provided his take from what he saw at the Senior Bowl, noting that Sam is best suited at the 4-3 defensive end position he played in college, per The Kansas City Star's Terez A. Paylor:
That seems to be where he’s more comfortable, getting into his rush moves and using his initial power instead of setting up defenders off the edge from a two-point stance. I didn’t see him much in pass coverage, but from what I know about him and what I saw (Monday) … that’s really not his strong suit, overall.
As steep as the learning curve can be in making the leap to the NFL, the adjustment on the field might be easier than what Sam faces in assimilating to whichever locker room and organization he walks into. Sexual orientation and homosexuality specifically has been a taboo issue in the NFL, as no active players have come out publicly in the history of the league.
Former Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo, who is an advocate for gay rights, had said this past offseason that as many as four players were considering coming out at the same time.
In an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper just days later in April, Ayanbadejo discussed the matter further, as reported by Pro Football Talk's Mike Florio:
[T]hese players, some of them are anonymous, some of them we know who they are, but their identity is super secret and nobody wants to reveal who they are, and some of them don’t want to reveal who they are, rightfully so because it’s entirely up to them what they are going to do. What we want to facilitate is getting them all together so they can lean on each other, so they can have a support group. And potentially it’s possible, it’s fathomable, that they could possibly do something together, break a story together.
The four players never came forward, but the group mentality that could make such a decision to go public a little easier is a sound tactic given the PR implications of making such an announcement.
That's something Sam seems undaunted by.
Although NBA center Jason Collins came out to the public as the first North American major sports athlete to do so, he was already an established presence in his sport and was at a late juncture in his career.
For a young player to do this ahead of the NFL draft is a bold move by Sam, but it's also a refreshing, transparent approach that suggests he is prepared to be honest and take control of his own situation. That's something NFL teams will undoubtedly appreciate.
Sam spoke about the draft process and how he hopes he'll be received in the locker room:
"I just want to go to the team who drafts me," he said, "because that team knows about me, knows that I'm gay, and also knows that I work hard. That's the team I want to go to."
Sam said that despite some comments from current players, he doesn't anticipate difficulty gaining acceptance in an NFL locker room.
"Hopefully it will be the same like my locker room," he said. "It's a workplace. if you've ever been in a Division I or pro locker room, it's a business place. You want to act professional."
Plus, all indications are that Sam has been a positive influence in the Tigers program as an upbeat player who helped make the day-to-day rigor of practices fun with his strong personality. Fellow defensive end Shane Ray elaborated on some of Sam's funny antics in an Oct. 10 report by Tod Palmer of The Kansas City Star:
Mike Sam is a singer. He creates a remix to any song and he sings it at practice repeatedly...Mike is our comedian and he gets us through practice...Practice is essentially a job. Every day, you go out there and you’re working, but you don’t want to go out there and just be going through the motions.
Pete Thamel and Thayer Evans of Sports Illustrated spoke with an NFL player personnel assistant on how this announcement will impact Sam:
"I don't think football is ready for it just yet. In the coming decade or two, it's going to be acceptable, but at this point in time it's still a man's man game. To call somebody a [gay slur] is still so commonplace. It'd chemically imbalance an NFL locker room and meeting room."
It's interesting to note that Sam did not speak with the media in a mass interview between preseason practice in August until he was preparing for his final game at Missouri, which was an AT&T Cotton Bowl win over Oklahoma State.
Sam discussed his passion for football after being just the 13th consensus All-American in Tigers program history and why he averted interviews for so long, per the Columbia Daily Tribune's David Morrison:
It honestly doesn't matter what star you're ranked. As long as you have a good motor, you can play football and love the game, I think you can be one of the top people in the nation. [...]
If you think I'm a shy person, you've got another thing coming. I was focusing on playing football and focusing on graduating. I think [talking to the media] was an outside distraction.
All indications are that Sam has made a significant impact on and off the field in his time in Columbia and has made strides as a player and as a person. Even though he will likely encounter scrutiny from various parties for this announcement, Sam appears to be eager to get to the next level and see where his potential and sensational athleticism can take him.
That should be enough to sway front offices that might be on the fence after Sam's public stance on his sexual orientation. It shows courage and is an indication that Sam is comfortable with who he is and isn't afraid to share it no matter what others think
Am I the only one who's sick of it all? Seriously gay is no longer the new black. I don't care at all, and am just tired to death of hearing about it already.
I have lesbian inlaws. They're good people. So it s a non issue for me. If one of the kids had turned out that way I don't care. My 12 gauge is nondiscriminatory and this would make it is easier to get past the "Rodney Test" (if Rodney doesn't try to bite your face off you're ok, if not well, here's directions to the nearest clinic, try not to bleed on the way out).
This is a pretty big deal, especially considering he's done this as a prospect draft candidate. A number sports people have come out, as far back as the 80's, but all that I know of, with exception of rugby union and league international Gareth Thomas, have done so after retiring from the sport. All the best and I'll be looking out for him on draft day.
Frazzled wrote:Am I the only one who's sick of it all? Seriously gay is no longer the new black. I don't care at all, and am just tired to death of hearing about it already.
I have lesbian inlaws. They're good people. So it s a non issue for me. If one of the kids had turned out that way I don't care. My 12 gauge is nondiscriminatory and this would make it is easier to get past the "Rodney Test" (if Rodney doesn't try to bite your face off you're ok, if not well, here's directions to the nearest clinic, try not to bleed on the way out).
The fact that bullying still occurs (see Jonathan Martin incident this year) in football teams and how rare openly gay athletes are; it stands as a rare example that you can be openly gay and a professional athlete
iproxtaco wrote:This is a pretty big deal, especially considering he's done this as a prospect draft candidate. A number sports people have come out, as far back as the 80's, but all that I know of, with exception of rugby union and league international Gareth Thomas, have done so after retiring from the sport. All the best and I'll be looking out for him on draft day.
Jason Collins (NBA player) can out last year but is currently a Free Agent
Male elite level athletes in pro team sports is incredibly rare for them to come out,and going on the number that come out after retiring I would say it is not through lack of gay players. This IS a problem. It shows that it is not accepted, and I think that there is a big problem with bullying and homophobia.
Also, if he makes it in to the NFL... Gay NFL player? Thats got to be worth some major $$$ in advertising to him and the team. how much more of a masculine gay icon could you get than an NFL player? That team will get allot of new supporters.
Relapse wrote: This ground was gone over in the 70's with professional football players talking the number of gays there were in the sport back then.
There's a difference between just being gay and in the NFL to being gay in the NFL AND advocating for better treatment of homosexuals not only in the NFL but in general.
Plus this is a good thing, since if super hard right starts refusing to watch football, maybe we will get better commercials than just: beerbeerbeersexyladiesbeerbeerberrmonstertrucksgunsshootingUSAUSAUSA
Plus this is a good thing, since if super hard right starts refusing to watch football, maybe we will get better commercials than just: beerbeerbeersexyladiesbeerbeerberrmonstertrucksgunsshootingUSAUSAUSA
I'm sorry you lost me there. Better commercials then that? Must involve bacon and smellovision.
Plus this is a good thing, since if super hard right starts refusing to watch football, maybe we will get better commercials than just: beerbeerbeersexyladiesbeerbeerberrmonstertrucksgunsshootingUSAUSAUSA
I'm sorry you lost me there. Better commercials then that? Must involve bacon and smellovision.
As much as I love bacon, I do think a change from the status quo of current football commerical staple of beer, sex and cars would make it easier to not get bored when watching a big game.
Then again Im not a super huge football fan.
And by that I mean Im an extremely bitter redskins fan
Relapse wrote: This ground was gone over in the 70's with professional football players talking the number of gays there were in the sport back then.
There's a difference between just being gay and in the NFL to being gay in the NFL AND advocating for better treatment of homosexuals not only in the NFL but in general.
Plus this is a good thing, since if super hard right starts refusing to watch football, maybe we will get better commercials than just: beerbeerbeersexyladiesbeerbeerberrmonstertrucksgunsshootingUSAUSAUSA
Don't really give a crap what type of hole people like to put it in, that's their business but I've very tired that people feel the need to parade their choice as though it were a confrontational exchange. If you're gay great, why the need to shout it from every mountain top and public platform? You typically don't see straight people making a big deal about their sexual preferences, you don't tend to see a straight football player going oh yeah I just won the superbowl I'm going to nail so much **** don't hate me just because I love women.
On a secondary note why do people even care what athletes say or do in their personal lives? They are people who throw a ball for a living why does that make them a role model? Hard work and dedication is admirable but you can find that in nearly every profession and walk of life, most of it being done all for a tiny fraction of what star athletes make. Maybe people should teach their kids to admire actual role models for a change, soldiers who live and die for their country, good cops that serve their communities, teachers, ministers and community leaders that actually contribute something to the future generation beyond a happy memory about how well some dude hiked or caught a ball in a game.
I always assumed it mattered for a couple of reasons.
It proves it's ok. I don't know about where you guys live, but "gay" is still used as an insult locally to me. If someone's role model is openly gay, then they will likely not use the term as an insult, nor will they allow others to use it. I will correct anyone who uses gay as an insult.
And athletes are basically celebrities. We as a culture have an obsession with Celebrities, and their business becomes ours.
It matters because it's something that society is still trying to get a grip on. There is so much hysteria out there about homosexuality, and so there is a need to force people to confront it, if only to get people used to the idea so they stop coming out with nonsense like this:
"Imagine if he's the guy next to me and, you know, I get dressed, naked, taking a shower, the whole nine, and it just so happens he looks at me. How am I supposed to respond?" "
From here.
The obvious answer being '...the same way you would if anyone else looks at you...?'
There's this bizarre idea amongst so many heterosexual guys that any gay man in the room with them would be totally unable to restrain themselves from leaping on them and going all Discovery Channel on them.
Didn't we have some fallout from a professional athlete supporting the same-sex marriage efforts in some states?
And straight athletes do shout their sexual preference from every mountain top and they put their "straightness" on display.
People focus on their hot girlfriends, their trophy-wife, their sexual prowess, etc. Whenever they make a public appearance with their women, they make a public declaration that they are straight. It's just that we are used to straight people being out in public with their straight partners doing straight things.
There's this bizarre idea amongst so many heterosexual guys that any gay man in the room with them would be totally unable to restrain themselves from leaping on them and going all Discovery Channel on them.
I always wonder if those same people would think "I saw this lady and she was smoking hot and barely dressed. What was I supposed to think and do?"
"I saw this lady, and she was smoking hot and barely dressed, and I thought 'heh... boobies!'... and then I remembered that I have awesome pecs. Seriously, look at these pecs!'
It seems strange to say this doesn't matter when we also had thread just days ago about people sending death threats to a five year old because there was a lesbian couple on the show she was in once.
There's this bizarre idea amongst so many heterosexual guys that any gay man in the room with them would be totally unable to restrain themselves from leaping on them and going all Discovery Channel on them.
In their defense popular culture has a tendency to hypersexualize homosexual characters, so there a ton of people whose only experience with gay men is a viewing a highly flamboyant pastiche.
I'm not saying it did, just that it's been done before.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: It seems strange to say this doesn't matter when we also had thread just days ago about people sending death threats to a five year old because there was a lesbian couple on the show she was in once.
insaniak wrote: "I saw this lady, and she was smoking hot and barely dressed, and I thought 'heh... boobies!'... and then I remembered that I have awesome pecs. Seriously, look at these pecs!'
Please.... I wouldn't even be tempted by that. I spend all my time at home oiled up and flexing in front of my mirror. Welcome to the sweet, sweet, gun show that is me.
iproxtaco wrote: This is a pretty big deal, especially considering he's done this as a prospect draft candidate. A number sports people have come out, as far back as the 80's, but all that I know of, with exception of rugby union and league international Gareth Thomas, have done so after retiring from the sport. All the best and I'll be looking out for him on draft day.
No, this isn't a big deal. He's a guy who has sex with men. That's all it is. He happens to play football and is good at it. Being gay is not the same as being black in the 1800's - 1950's. Not even in the same ball park. People have been gay thru out the ages,
You know what's big deal? If he got his boy friend pregnant!
Ahtman wrote: It seems strange to say this doesn't matter when we also had thread just days ago about people sending death threats to a five year old because there was a lesbian couple on the show she was in once.
Disney matters - the wife would take their cruise and make me go if she could.
5 years olds matter - they're cute. Its the time before they become annoying and a plague upon the rest of us.
Thug athletes six months out of their next arrest photos no matter. You wouldn't invite them to your barbeque unless it was a sting operation to serve outstanding warrants.
iproxtaco wrote: This is a pretty big deal, especially considering he's done this as a prospect draft candidate. A number sports people have come out, as far back as the 80's, but all that I know of, with exception of rugby union and league international Gareth Thomas, have done so after retiring from the sport. All the best and I'll be looking out for him on draft day.
No, this isn't a big deal. He's a guy who has sex with men. That's all it is. He happens to play football and is good at it. Being gay is not the same as being black in the 1800's - 1950's. Not even in the same ball park. People have been gay thru out the ages,
You know what's big deal? If he got his boy friend pregnant!
I echo insaniak's point. Just very recently there was a thread reporting that a five year old kid received death threats because a lesbian couple appeared on the Disney channel show she stars in. The United States is still not entirely comfortable with different genders and sexuality, especially in sports.
The fact that he's gay is not what makes it a big deal. The fact that he's shouting about from the rooftops, in the country he lives in, in his situation as a future member of the nations biggest sport, is what makes it a big deal.
Saying that a person can be gay, but only if they do it privately, is still discriminatory. Why shouldn't a gay person be able to openly life his life as he wants?
You can say its not a big deal for an NFL prospect to come out publicly, but it would be a big deal if he was outed by somebody else.
People keep saying it's not like being black, which is true, but lets not pretend our country is 100% okay with homosexuality.
Polonius wrote: Saying that a person can be gay, but only if they do it privately, is still discriminatory. Why shouldn't a gay person be able to openly life his life as he wants?
A person should be able to. Just as I should be able to say that I don't give a gak and am sick of hearing about it.
Polonius wrote: Saying that a person can be gay, but only if they do it privately, is still discriminatory. Why shouldn't a gay person be able to openly life his life as he wants?
A person should be able to. Just as I should be able to say that I don't give a gak and am sick of hearing about it.
You can, although part of my wonders why you are sick of hearing about it? It's a pretty tiny piece of information. IF you are truly a sort of pop culture vacuum, and dislike any news about the personal lives of others, then that's weird but consistent.
If you are sick of hearing about it because you don't like that gay people aren't shamed into silence anymore, that's still intolerant.
Polonius wrote: Saying that a person can be gay, but only if they do it privately, is still discriminatory. Why shouldn't a gay person be able to openly life his life as he wants?
A person should be able to. Just as I should be able to say that I don't give a gak and am sick of hearing about it.
Ditto'd
Again, I don't care if you are or aren't, just stay the hell off my lawn. I am just tired of the constant "news" about it. Who gives a gak?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
You can, although part of my wonders why you are sick of hearing about it? It's a pretty tiny piece of information. IF you are truly a sort of pop culture vacuum, and dislike any news about the personal lives of others, then that's weird but consistent.
Its not weird. Being a guy, and giving a gak about all the losers on the front cover of the grocery rack mags is weird.
If you are sick of hearing about it because you don't like that gay people aren't shamed into silence anymore, that's still intolerant.
Thats a feigned attack. There are many who are ok with it, but don't want the PDA drama from anyone.
d-usa wrote: Are you guys just as sick of hearing about any other aspect of their private lives?
YES!
I don't care about the lives or thoughts of pop stars. I want to hear you sing (or not) I don't care about what slackjawed hollywood stars think. I want to see you act (or not). I don't care about sports stars. Most of them you wouldn't let into your house. Wasn't the entire front line of the Oakland Raiders only let out to play on weekend work release from their various cirminal sentences...
Do your job, and shut the feth up. And stay off my lawn.
Polonius wrote: You can, although part of my wonders why you are sick of hearing about it? It's a pretty tiny piece of information. IF you are truly a sort of pop culture vacuum, and dislike any news about the personal lives of others, then that's weird but consistent.
See, I think it's weird that you'd be interested in the personal lives of celebrities. I always thought that sort of thing was the wheelhouse of teenage girls. Who else cares? I'm barely interested in the personal lives of coworkers, much less people on the talkybox.
If you are sick of hearing about it because you don't like that gay people aren't shamed into silence anymore, that's still intolerant.
Thats a feigned attack. There are many who are ok with it, but don't want the PDA drama from anyone.
How is a person saying "I'm gay" either PDA or drama?
You sidestepped your point. You're attacking people who are not pbiased. just don't care.
But to answer your question, its the same group of people. There is a large portion of the populace don't aren't keen on seeing PDAs or of people airing their own laundry.
"I'm gay." Blah blah whatever. My first thought is not how epic this is, but what sponsorships or publicity is he trying to get?
In the words of the immortal bard: "Get a room."
Polonius wrote: You can, although part of my wonders why you are sick of hearing about it? It's a pretty tiny piece of information. IF you are truly a sort of pop culture vacuum, and dislike any news about the personal lives of others, then that's weird but consistent.
See, I think it's weird that you'd be interested in the personal lives of celebrities. I always thought that sort of thing was the wheelhouse of teenage girls. Who else cares? I'm barely interested in the personal lives of coworkers, much less people on the talkybox.
Exactly. On the positive Genghis Connie is utterly uninterested in this nonsense. Now the last manga development, thats serious!
See, I don't think that he is trying to get any kind of endorsement or anything like that. Sure, there will probably be some benefit that will most likely only end up cancelling out the backlash he will receive when One Million Moms ends up boycotting whatever company has anything to do with whatever team he ends up with.
But he probably just wants an even playing field and wants to make sure that the next guy that wins some kind of award in the NFL can say "I want to thank my husband" in the same way that guys right now can say "I want to thank my wife" or to make sure that guys can show up to a charity thing with their partner no matter what their gender may be.
There is a ton of tiny everyday stuff that straight athletes take for granted that would negatively affect a gay athlete. Want to go out on a simple date? Now you have a lot of stuff to worry about if you are gay and not straight. Local gossip rag sees you out on a date? Not a problem for a straight athlete, just another notch on his belt. Gay athlete? If you are not out then you have to work overtime to keep your private life a secret. Because now the networks are trying to beat each other to the punch to report your gayness. Straight people will attack you for being gay, gay people will attack you for being ashamed of being gay. It's a loss-loss.
Making a public announcement of being gay is not about shoving it down your throat. It's about gaining and keeping control of an aspect in their life that they would have to work very hard to keep a secret.
I imagine that a lot of gay athletes are just as tired of people trying to find out who they are dating and fething as you are about them "shoving their gay down your throat".
You sidestepped your point. You're attacking people who are not pbiased. just don't care.
Easy chief. I said "]If you are sick of hearing about it because you don't like that gay people aren't shamed into silence anymore, that's still intolerant" I"m attacking people that are are biased. If you feel like I'm attacking you, maybe it's because the first part applies. But if you really don't want to see gays shamed into silence, then why do you care if I find the act intolerant?
I know that every thinks that liberals are stupid, and maybe we are. But we're smart enough to know that often the people that protest the loudest about appearing intolerant are not simply the victims of poor perspective. They are actually intolerant. Part of that is common sense, part of that is looking at the history, and part of that is an understanding that tolerance for others is more involved then saying "I'm gonna stop beating you up."
I consider it a good thing that people can be open with their sexual orientation. So, having the first potentially open NFL player is news.
But to answer your question, its the same group of people. There is a large portion of the populace don't aren't keen on seeing PDAs or of people airing their own laundry.
"I'm gay." Blah blah whatever. My first thought is not how epic this is, but what sponsorships or publicity is he trying to get?
In the words of the immortal bard: "Get a room."
Again, get a room to do what? You keep acting like you're being forced to watch something horrific, when it was an interview in which a player said he was gay.
See, I think it's weird that you'd be interested in the personal lives of celebrities. I always thought that sort of thing was the wheelhouse of teenage girls. Who else cares? I'm barely interested in the personal lives of coworkers, much less people on the talkybox.
True, but do you pop into threads discussing all of those other celebrities announcing how sick you are of hearing about it?
Even if you are equally sick of them all, if its gay news that makes you actually protest, can you see how that looks intolerant?
Polonius wrote: True, but do you pop into threads discussing all of those other celebrities announcing how sick you are of hearing about it?
Even if you are equally sick of them all, if its gay news that makes you actually protest, can you see how that looks intolerant?
No. Most other "entertainment journalism" isn't hailed as politically or culturally important, and thus doesn't generate that intersection of Us Weekly and Politico interest. If you start trying to tell me that Justin Bieber's arrest record is culturally significant, I'm obliged to tell you that you're wrong and you shouldn't care about it, just as a decent neighbor. Same thing here.
Polonius wrote: True, but do you pop into threads discussing all of those other celebrities announcing how sick you are of hearing about it?
Even if you are equally sick of them all, if its gay news that makes you actually protest, can you see how that looks intolerant?
No. Most other "entertainment journalism" isn't hailed as politically or culturally important, and thus doesn't generate that intersection of Us Weekly and Politico interest. If you start trying to tell me that Justin Bieber's arrest record is culturally significant, I'm obliged to tell you that you're wrong and you shouldn't care about it, just as a decent neighbor. Same thing here.
So, you are offended that people are finding this culturally significant? That's the problem, not just that it's pop culture news?
I think you're either a man on island, or have some problem with gay acceptance. Because a gay man being accepted into NFL culture is culturally significant. It's not a huge deal, but I'm a pretty serious NFL fan and I find it interesting.
Polonius wrote: True, but do you pop into threads discussing all of those other celebrities announcing how sick you are of hearing about it?
Even if you are equally sick of them all, if its gay news that makes you actually protest, can you see how that looks intolerant?
No. Most other "entertainment journalism" isn't hailed as politically or culturally important, and thus doesn't generate that intersection of Us Weekly and Politico interest. If you start trying to tell me that Justin Bieber's arrest record is culturally significant, I'm obliged to tell you that you're wrong and you shouldn't care about it, just as a decent neighbor. Same thing here.
Agreed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you feel like I'm attacking you, maybe it's because the first part applies. But if you really don't want to see gays shamed into silence, then why do you care if I find the act intolerant?
You've lost me on that. Er...what?
And no I don't only comment on gay persons coming out. Thats an assumption on your part.
I just don't think its a big deal any more. To flip your argument, it may some of us have moved on into the "and?" crowd. Its like someone coming out because they have brown hair. And?
Polonius wrote: So, you are offended that people are finding this culturally significant? That's the problem, not just that it's pop culture news?
Not offended, no. Merely annoyed. About as annoyed as I usually am when people discuss celebrity personal news as though it has some sort of significance. You asked why I commented on this celebrity personal news story and not others, though.
I think you're either a man on island, or have some problem with gay acceptance.
Thanks for the theories.
Because a gay man being accepted into NFL culture is culturally significant. It's not a huge deal, but I'm a pretty serious NFL fan and I find it interesting.
I'm not sure how it can be both culturally significant and not a huge deal, for one. For another, I disagree. I don't think the internal culture of the NFL has much bearing at all on anything other than the internal culture of the NFL, and I very heavily doubt one dude who hasn't even been drafted yet is the new Jackie Robinson.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: I just don't think its a big deal any more. To flip your argument, it may some of us have moved on into the "and?" crowd. Its like someone coming out because they have brown hair. And?
I think you're hitting on something important here. The more people go, "And?" the less the issue can be used. I think some people are downright terrified of the slow onslaught of indifferent acceptance, because their relevance as social warriors starts to diminish when it just isn't a hot button issue anymore.
Because a gay man being accepted into NFL culture is culturally significant. It's not a huge deal, but I'm a pretty serious NFL fan and I find it interesting.
I'm not sure how it can be both culturally significant and not a huge deal, for one. For another, I disagree. I don't think the internal culture of the NFL has much bearing at all on anything other than the internal culture of the NFL, and I very heavily doubt one dude who hasn't even been drafted yet is the new Jackie Robinson.
The NFL is a huge part of our national culture. More people celebrate Super Bowl Sunday then celebrate St. Patrick's day. So what goes on in it, like or not, a factor in national conversations. More specifically, NFL culture filters down to college and prep football culture. Acceptance of a gay player at the NFL level is going to be a good role model for teams and players going forward at all levels.
I think there's room between "not worth discussing" and "the next Jackie Robinson." Plenty of culturally significant things aren't huge deals. Remember the half conversation we had about date rape when Robin Thicke's "Blurred Lines" was huge? No? yeah, that was culturally significant, but not a huge deal.
I've played sports, and I have gay friends. I've seen how there was tension between "sports culture" and gay acceptance. To me, personally, it's significant.
And no I don't only comment on gay persons coming out. Thats an assumption on your part.
I just don't think its a big deal any more. To flip your argument, it may some of us have moved on into the "and?" crowd. Its like someone coming out because they have brown hair. And?
I don't think you understand what coming out means.
But not everybody is as enlightened and tolerant as the people here. We know there were players on this guys own team that were homophobic. As long as a big chunk of the country, or more importantly, a big chunk of the people that are hiring him and working with him care, it's kind of a big deal that this guy came out publicly before the draft.
Polonius wrote: The NFL is a huge part of our national culture. More people celebrate Super Bowl Sunday then celebrate St. Patrick's day. So what goes on in it, like or not, a factor in national conversations. More specifically, NFL culture filters down to college and prep football culture. Acceptance of a gay player at the NFL level is going to be a good role model for teams and players going forward at all levels.
I think there's room between "not worth discussing" and "the next Jackie Robinson." Plenty of culturally significant things aren't huge deals. Remember the half conversation we had about date rape when Robin Thicke's "Blurred Lines" was huge? No? yeah, that was culturally significant, but not a huge deal.
I don't remember that, no, because, as may surprise you, I didn't give anyone moaning about that song a lot of credence as someone worth listening to.
I've played sports, and I have gay friends. I've seen how there was tension between "sports culture" and gay acceptance. To me, personally, it's significant.
I've played spots, and I can trump gay friends with gay family members, some of whom recently got married. I find it utterly insignificant. Do I win?
I view it a lot like the repeal of DADT. It's not the herald of some cultural shift. Nobody's opinion changed.
Frazzled wrote: Then the rest of the world needs to catch up already...
As an young urban professional in a neighborhood with both a hair salon for men and all male, all nude hot yoga, I say that a lot.
Look, I don't give a crap about this guys sexuality as a person. He's a player I'd never heard of, and unless he's drafted by the Browns or a division rival, I doubt I'll follow his career.
But the thing with with hype is that it's self fulfilling. When people make a big deal about something, you can't say it's not a big deal. People clearly care about this. My biggest hope is that he gets drafted normally, and there's never any further mention of his sexuality. That would be awesome.
I had a married friend recently come out publicly as bisexual. Even I kind of wondered why, as that's not something he's going to be pursuing. (or if he does, it would be quite private). He said he came out for two reasons: 1) he felt that he was living a lie publicly, and 2) he didn't want his son to ever hide who he was.
LGBT people have to come out. They don't all look a certain way, but for a lot of people, its hard to hide it. So they come out. Public figures tend to come out publicly.
Polonius wrote: The NFL is a huge part of our national culture. More people celebrate Super Bowl Sunday then celebrate St. Patrick's day. So what goes on in it, like or not, a factor in national conversations. More specifically, NFL culture filters down to college and prep football culture. Acceptance of a gay player at the NFL level is going to be a good role model for teams and players going forward at all levels.
I think there's room between "not worth discussing" and "the next Jackie Robinson." Plenty of culturally significant things aren't huge deals. Remember the half conversation we had about date rape when Robin Thicke's "Blurred Lines" was huge? No? yeah, that was culturally significant, but not a huge deal.
I don't remember that, no, because, as may surprise you, I didn't give anyone moaning about that song a lot of credence as someone worth listening to.
Lol, yeah, I felt the same way. But I think it was significant because we found out exactly where even the left stopped caring about rape culture: when its in a really good song. I know I don't care what the song is about, its a good jam.
So it was a very minor deal. But I think its a data point in our complicated national conversation about sexual assault. A very minor one, but significance is not nonvenomous with "big deal."
I've played spots, and I can trump gay friends with gay family members, some of whom recently got married. I find it utterly insignificant. Do I win?
I don't know if you win, but I'm certainly confused by your complete lack of interest.
I view it a lot like the repeal of DADT. It's not the herald of some cultural shift. Nobody's opinion changed.
DADT was a legal shift, and as long as service members were being booted under it, it was a meaningful one.
But it was. Military culture had simply stopped caring about orientation. Long wars and constant deployments tend to make competence and reliability a lot more important than anything else. So, from one perspective, changing the law to match the reality didn't show a change in military culture.
But, it did show a change in mass culture, as even 20 years ago popular sentiment was very different.
Polonius wrote: Saying that a person can be gay, but only if they do it privately, is still discriminatory. Why shouldn't a gay person be able to openly life his life as he wants?
You can say its not a big deal for an NFL prospect to come out publicly, but it would be a big deal if he was outed by somebody else.
People keep saying it's not like being black, which is true, but lets not pretend our country is 100% okay with homosexuality.
People in this country will never be 100% ok with gay people. You can't make someone be ok with such a topic. You have to accept it yourself. Being gay is not the same as being black. I'll explain. Being homosexual is actually a biological mistake. It's not normal. It sounds bad but our bodies are designed to have a male of the species reproduce with a female of our species. If for some reason there is no inclination in ones bodily to want to reproduce with a member of the opposit sex, there is something wrong with you. Not necessarily bad, but the fact is that you're going against what Mother Nature intended.
That being said, some people will never accept that, it will be unnatural to them and disgust them. That's normal behavior.
It's normal to have people of different color and races and ethnicity. It's technically not normal to hate someone for the color of their skin. It's a learned behavior to hate. But what a lot of people feel when approached on the subject of homosexuality is disgust because it's unnatural to the way our bodies are supposed to work.
Would you not feel disgust when you meet a mother and her son who are lovers? Should I call you a bigot because you do not agree with their behavior?
Would you not feel disgust when you meet a woman who admits to sexual intercourse and oral compilation with a dog? Are you a bigot for not accepting that behavior? Both of which are unnatural to us as humans.
Polonius wrote: Lol, yeah, I felt the same way. But I think it was significant because we found out exactly where even the left stopped caring about rape culture: when its in a really good song. I know I don't care what the song is about, its a good jam.
Well, it's good to see the left finally stop caring about one myth, I guess.
I don't know if you win, but I'm certainly confused by your complete lack of interest.
Why?
DADT was a legal shift, and as long as service members were being booted under it, it was a meaningful one.
I'm not sure I agree. An awful lot of those DADT discharges were easy outs.
But it was. Military culture had simply stopped caring about orientation. Long wars and constant deployments tend to make competence and reliability a lot more important than anything else. So, from one perspective, changing the law to match the reality didn't show a change in military culture.
I'd be careful there. It depends entirely on the community. "I'm a Tomcat guy, and you're a homo," was a semi-popular t-shirt slogan in ready rooms when the F-14's life cycle was spinning down in the mid-2000s. The guys behind that, and the "Hornet Eye For The Tomcat Guy" Fighter Fling stuff? I doubt their opinions have changed. Which is sort of my point.
People in this country will never be 100% ok with gay people. You can't make someone be ok with such a topic. You have to accept it yourself. Being gay is not the same as being black. I'll explain. Being homosexual is actually a biological mistake. It's not normal. It sounds bad but our bodies are designed to have a male of the species reproduce with a female of our species. If for some reason there is no inclination in ones bodily to want to reproduce with a member of the opposit sex, there is something wrong with you. Not necessarily bad, but the fact is that you're going against what Mother Nature intended.
That being said, some people will never accept that, it will be unnatural to them and disgust them. That's normal behavior.
It's normal to have people of different color and races and ethnicity. It's technically not normal to hate someone for the color of their skin. It's a learned behavior to hate. But what a lot of people feel when approached on the subject of homosexuality is disgust because it's unnatural to the way our bodies are supposed to work.
I"m not sure how much that I agree with, especialy with all of the "unnatural" things we do with our bodies. Sitting all day is not at all what our bodies are meant for. I'm not sure how many people are disgusted by plastic surgery. Or Body Building.
Honestly, the idea of monogamy is not the intent of nature.
I think this has way more to do with culture then it does with things being "unnatural."
Would you not feel disgust when you meet a mother and her son who are lovers? Should I call you a bigot because you do not agree with their behavior?
Yeah, at first, because that's a cultural taboo that I've never encountered. Incest has problems that homosexuality doesn't, notably in the areas of inbreeding and consent. But if the relationship started when both were adults, and they weren't reproducing, I guess I'd say go for it.
Would you not feel disgust when you meet a woman who admits to sexual intercourse and oral compilation with a dog? Are you a bigot for not accepting that behavior? Both of which are unnatural to us as humans.
There are huge problems with consent when it comes to animals.
This is the classic slippery slope argument that is pretty hackneyed by now, of course.
How quickly we forgot that it is often by the deeds of great men that people are freed, how often it takes a man willing to stand up and push the point of equality for it to happen.
For Civil Rights people like Jesse Owens, Jackie Robinson, all set the standard that you didn't have to be a young white man to succeed in sports, that you can be born different to others and succeed.
So stop rolling around crying because the people who are mistreated simply because of the way they are born use there accomplishments and status to help advocate equality.
"It is the responsibility of the great man, of the rich, of the powerful, of the one who stands above and before others to advocate for those under and behind them'" -Lydon B Johnson.
"Justice delayed is justice denied, and Injustice anywere is injustice everywere" -Martin Luther King Jr.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And I know people will come rushing out of the woodwork to shout about how "It's different! Black rights are different than gay rights!"
The discussion is not about gay right, black rights, asian rights. Its about HUMAN rights.
Everyone should be equal, regardless of age, sexuality, gender, race.
I find far to often the same people who cry "My rights end were your feelings begin!" are also very quick to shout "Your rights end were my HATREDS and BIGOTRY begins!"
So cut the crap of how you want the media and people to stop being so active about human rights. You all would be just as much up in arms if YOUR right to marry was denied, if YOUR right to adopt was denied, if YOUR right to fair treatment was denied. Why the feth do you think more Republicans are coming out in support of gays rights? Because people's sons and daughters are coming out now that it is accepted, people are realizing that Joe Bob and his "Best friends" who lived together for 30 years are gay.
The more people who come out, who take a stand against hatred and inequality the better, I bet quite a few of the people are this mans university dislike gay people and now that hes come out I bet quite a few are reviewing the way they look at gay people.
People in this country will never be 100% ok with gay people. You can't make someone be ok with such a topic. You have to accept it yourself. Being gay is not the same as being black. I'll explain. Being homosexual is actually a biological mistake. It's not normal. It sounds bad but our bodies are designed to have a male of the species reproduce with a female of our species. If for some reason there is no inclination in ones bodily to want to reproduce with a member of the opposit sex, there is something wrong with you. Not necessarily bad, but the fact is that you're going against what Mother Nature intended.
That being said, some people will never accept that, it will be unnatural to them and disgust them. That's normal behavior.
It's normal to have people of different color and races and ethnicity. It's technically not normal to hate someone for the color of their skin. It's a learned behavior to hate. But what a lot of people feel when approached on the subject of homosexuality is disgust because it's unnatural to the way our bodies are supposed to work.
I"m not sure how much that I agree with, especialy with all of the "unnatural" things we do with our bodies. Sitting all day is not at all what our bodies are meant for. I'm not sure how many people are disgusted by plastic surgery. Or Body Building.
Honestly, the idea of monogamy is not the intent of nature.
I think this has way more to do with culture then it does with things being "unnatural."
Would you not feel disgust when you meet a mother and her son who are lovers? Should I call you a bigot because you do not agree with their behavior?
Yeah, at first, because that's a cultural taboo that I've never encountered. Incest has problems that homosexuality doesn't, notably in the areas of inbreeding and consent. But if the relationship started when both were adults, and they weren't reproducing, I guess I'd say go for it.
Would you not feel disgust when you meet a woman who admits to sexual intercourse and oral compilation with a dog? Are you a bigot for not accepting that behavior? Both of which are unnatural to us as humans.
There are huge problems with consent when it comes to animals.
This is the classic slippery slope argument that is pretty hackneyed by now, of course.
You're problem with beastiality is the issue of the animal being forced into something? But you're ok with telling everyone they need to accept homosexuality as normal. By the way, monogamy and reproducing are not the same thing. You're examples are weak. Can human beings sit? Yes they can, so sitting is normal. Do humans get stronger? Yes they do and it's normal. I wouldn't call someone a bigot if he disagrees with a nose piercing.
Which is where the argument lies. If I find homosexual relationships abhorrent, I'm being considered a bigot. You cannot argue the fact here. Homosexuality goes against nature. Two men cannot reproduce. Our bodies are designed to find others of the opposite sex attractive for the purpose of procreation. If I have a penis, and you have a vagina I'm going to like you. We don't think in that way anymore but there used to be a drive to reproduce, spread our seed and we accepted it. In some primitive cultures it's still there. Certain traits are more appealing and more desirable to reproduce with.
Deep down inside, we have a genetic code that tells us to reproduce. When the wiring is jacked up, and we want sexual gratification with a member of the opposite sex, it is inherently unnatural. You can't argue that man. You can try to dance around it but you're only going to make yourself sound stupid. Homosexuality is unnatural.
It's ok to be disgusted by it. A person is ok to feel disgust by that. Where there should be an issue is if you discriminate for it. Deny a job, etc.
Alexzandvar wrote: How quickly we forgot that it is often by the deeds of great men that people are freed, how often it takes a man willing to stand up and push the point of equality for it to happen.
For Civil Rights people like Jesse Owens, Jackie Robinson, all set the standard that you didn't have to be a young white man to succeed in sports, that you can be born different to others and succeed.
So stop rolling around crying because the people who are mistreated simply because of the way they are born use there accomplishments and status to help advocate equality.
"It is the responsibility of the great man, of the rich, of the powerful, of the one who stands above and before others to advocate for those under and behind them'" -Lydon B Johnson.
"Justice delayed is justice denied, and Injustice anywere is injustice everywere" -Martin Luther King Jr.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And I know people will come rushing out of the woodwork to shout about how "It's different! Black rights are different than gay rights!"
The discussion is not about gay right, black rights, asian rights. Its about HUMAN rights.
Everyone should be equal, regardless of age, sexuality, gender, race.
I find far to often the same people who cry "My rights end were your feelings begin!" are also very quick to shout "Your rights end were my HATREDS and BIGOTRY begins!"
So cut the crap of how you want the media and people to stop being so active about human rights. You all would be just as much up in arms if YOUR right to marry was denied, if YOUR right to adopt was denied, if YOUR right to fair treatment was denied. Why the feth do you think more Republicans are coming out in support of gays rights? Because people's sons and daughters are coming out now that it is accepted, people are realizing that Joe Bob and his "Best friends" who lived together for 30 years are gay.
The more people who come out, who take a stand against hatred and inequality the better, I bet quite a few of the people are this mans university dislike gay people and now that hes come out I bet quite a few are reviewing the way they look at gay people.
Yes my disgust at the way people ignore the plight of gay rights advocates is just the same as a spoiled teenager pissed because her dad got her a ford instead of a BMW
Alexzandvar wrote: Yes my disgust at the way people ignore the plight of gay rights advocates is just the same as a spoiled teenager pissed because her dad got her a ford instead of a BMW
People in this country will never be 100% ok with gay people.
You can't make someone be ok with such a topic
Of course you can. People can change their opinions, willingly or involuntarily, through all manner of means.
. You have to accept it yourself. Being gay is not the same as being black. I'll explain. Being homosexual is actually a biological mistake.
No it isn't. A mistake infers there being a correct state to be. There isn't one.
There's a default state -- ie most people are heterosexually inclined -- but that's quite different from being the "correct" state.
It's not normal.
yes it is, happens in a vast array of species -- especially amongst Giraffes or somesuch IIRC.
I assume you mean that the modal sexual orientation is heterosexual possibly ?
It sounds bad but our bodies are designed to have a male of the species reproduce with a female of our species.
A lot of people don't think they're designed at all.
If for some reason there is no inclination in ones bodily to want to reproduce with a member of the opposit sex, there is something wrong with you. Not necessarily bad,
..see..? There's that choice of words again.
but the fact is that you're going against what Mother Nature intended.
..oh, you're being serious ?
That's not the way genetics/evolution works at all -- XX % of any species won't be blonde/tall/right handed or perhaps even have any interest in mating with members of the opposite sex.
That's the thing about nature, it's remarkably complex and pretty much tries to cover as many bases as possible " just in case" or through the sad mathematics of probability.
That being said, some people will never accept that, it will be unnatural to them and disgust them. That's normal behavior.
I agree that there's always likely to be some against gay rights.
Or inter racial marriage.
Or women voting.
Or vaccinations.
Thing is "normal behaviour" -- at least in our society -- is actually to have the intellect control and ( to an extent) repress or ignore "gut instinct" or our desires.
That's why for example you generally can't just kill someone who upsets you.
Or why people will risk their lives for people they don't know.
Or do any of the other myriad things we do daily to function in our society.
It's normal to have people of different color and races and ethnicity.
..hmm... I'd have to check the dates -- and frankly I can't be arsed -- but I think for the vast % of human beings existence we were much closer to being one homogenised/undivided mass of people rather than the array we have today.
It's technically not normal to hate someone for the color of their skin. It's a learned behavior to hate.
Largely agreed.
One would suggest there'll always be a slight "fear" of the different, but I think the expressions we are referring to here can be classified as learnt.
But what a lot of people feel when approached on the subject of homosexuality is disgust because it's unnatural to the way our bodies are supposed to work.
As attitudes have and are changing drastically almost a'fore our very eyes this would not appear to be the case.
And most people don't think it's unnatural either.
Would you not feel disgust when you meet a mother and her son who are lovers?
Without the labels how would one know ?
Should I call you a bigot because you do not agree with their behavior?
Would you not feel disgust when you meet a woman who admits to sexual intercourse and oral compilation with a dog? Are you a bigot for not accepting that behavior? Both of which are unnatural to us as humans.
I must confess to some confusion as to what "oral compilation with a dog" or whatever involves and as I'm at work I'm not even going to try and google that
One would suggest that whilst indeed most people would indeed be against such behaviour that there is a difference between species and the way we interact with them. And this isn't limited just to sexual matters
A restaurant was shut down after health authorities discovered that it was selling human meat, police in Nigeria said.
Anambra Police said that a restaurant has been closed after the authorities found that it has been selling dishes made with human flesh.
Police recovered at least two fresh human heads when they arrested 11 people at the restaurant, including the owner, six women and four men. Police said that they have received a tip about the restaurant.
Bloodied heads wrapped in cellophane sheets were found during the raid.
Officials have also seized two AK-47 guns, other weapons, dozens of rounds of ammunition and several mobile phones.
Local residents said that they were not surprised by the news. “We always saw weird people coming and going,” locals said.
A pastor, who was surprised to learn that he had been served human flesh, complained to the police.
“I ate at the restaurant and the bill was very high. The workers told me that I ate human flesh. I was shocked,” the pastor said.
Police said that roasted human head was on the menu at the restaurant.
I think most people would view cannibalism as being "wrong", just as we would don't generally spay children when we first take them home with us, throw sticks for family members to fetch -- young children aside perhaps -- or think it hilarious if a grown adult purrs and keeps trying to climb onto your keyboard preventing you from typing.
Nor do we hold animals to the same legal standards either. These days anyway. I can't see even Texas electrocuting an elephant or somesuch regardless of what its done.
Alexzandvar wrote: Yes my disgust at the way people ignore the plight of gay rights advocates is just the same as a spoiled teenager pissed because her dad got her a ford instead of a BMW
You sure sound like it.
Because a post that quote 2 people and has more words in it than a tweet is whining while your posts that amount to "I hate people get off my lawn" are so much more mature.
Thug athletes six months out of their next arrest photos no matter. You wouldn't invite them to your barbeque unless it was a sting operation to serve outstanding warrants.
So, is Sam a thug because he's an athlete, or because he's black?
Johnnytorrance wrote: Homosexuality goes against nature. Two men cannot reproduce. Our bodies are designed to find others of the opposite sex attractive for the purpose of procreation. If I have a penis, and you have a vagina I'm going to like you.
If your first consideration when looking at another person is whether or not you can reproduce, then you are strange.
Yes, though your question nicely illustrates why you should not only stay out of this thread, but why you probably only involved yourself in it because you read the word "gay" and took offense.
So, is Sam a thug because he's an athlete, or because he's black?
Athlete of course. Please don't inject race into this discussion. Is he even black?
Doesn't make your statement any better, your are condemning a very very large group of people based on the actions of a minority.
Please think before painting groups of people with a wide brush. There's a reason MLK marched with Union workers, with gay people, with all those who were oppressed, was because he understood that the fight against inequality is not just about fighting for "Better rights for you" Its about fighting for equal rights for all
People in this country will never be 100% ok with gay people. You can't make someone be ok with such a topic. You have to accept it yourself. Being gay is not the same as being black. I'll explain. Being homosexual is actually a biological mistake. It's not normal. It sounds bad but our bodies are designed to have a male of the species reproduce with a female of our species. If for some reason there is no inclination in ones bodily to want to reproduce with a member of the opposit sex, there is something wrong with you. Not necessarily bad, but the fact is that you're going against what Mother Nature intended.
That being said, some people will never accept that, it will be unnatural to them and disgust them. That's normal behavior.
It's normal to have people of different color and races and ethnicity. It's technically not normal to hate someone for the color of their skin. It's a learned behavior to hate. But what a lot of people feel when approached on the subject of homosexuality is disgust because it's unnatural to the way our bodies are supposed to work.
I"m not sure how much that I agree with, especialy with all of the "unnatural" things we do with our bodies. Sitting all day is not at all what our bodies are meant for. I'm not sure how many people are disgusted by plastic surgery. Or Body Building.
Honestly, the idea of monogamy is not the intent of nature.
I think this has way more to do with culture then it does with things being "unnatural."
Would you not feel disgust when you meet a mother and her son who are lovers? Should I call you a bigot because you do not agree with their behavior?
Yeah, at first, because that's a cultural taboo that I've never encountered. Incest has problems that homosexuality doesn't, notably in the areas of inbreeding and consent. But if the relationship started when both were adults, and they weren't reproducing, I guess I'd say go for it.
Would you not feel disgust when you meet a woman who admits to sexual intercourse and oral compilation with a dog? Are you a bigot for not accepting that behavior? Both of which are unnatural to us as humans.
There are huge problems with consent when it comes to animals.
This is the classic slippery slope argument that is pretty hackneyed by now, of course.
You're problem with beastiality is the issue of the animal being forced into something? But you're ok with telling everyone they need to accept homosexuality as normal. By the way, monogamy and reproducing are not the same thing. You're examples are weak. Can human beings sit? Yes they can, so sitting is normal. Do humans get stronger? Yes they do and it's normal. I wouldn't call someone a bigot if he disagrees with a nose piercing.
Which is where the argument lies. If I find homosexual relationships abhorrent, I'm being considered a bigot. You cannot argue the fact here. Homosexuality goes against nature. Two men cannot reproduce. Our bodies are designed to find others of the opposite sex attractive for the purpose of procreation. If I have a penis, and you have a vagina I'm going to like you. We don't think in that way anymore but there used to be a drive to reproduce, spread our seed and we accepted it. In some primitive cultures it's still there. Certain traits are more appealing and more desirable to reproduce with.
Deep down inside, we have a genetic code that tells us to reproduce. When the wiring is jacked up, and we want sexual gratification with a member of the opposite sex, it is inherently unnatural. You can't argue that man. You can try to dance around it but you're only going to make yourself sound stupid. Homosexuality is unnatural.
It's ok to be disgusted by it. A person is ok to feel disgust by that. Where there should be an issue is if you discriminate for it. Deny a job, etc.
You cannot make someone accept it. You can't.
Wait, homosexuality is unnatural.. then, please by all means tell me what it is, cause there's plenty of homosexual animals.
Also:
Nature.
The phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.
Homosexuality isn't exclusively human nor was it created by humans. Pretty sure that means it's all right with nature.
Now to be a bigot myself, I find homophobes disgusting.
As Soladrin says, everything that occurs on Earth is the product of natural processes and therefore is a part of nature. Termites build (relatively) massive buildings, ants farm lesser creatures as livestock, and some penguins are gay. Everything humanity does, there is a precedent for, in the natural world.
paulson games wrote: Don't really give a crap what type of hole people like to put it in, that's their business but I've very tired that people feel the need to parade their choice as though it were a confrontational exchange. If you're gay great, why the need to shout it from every mountain top and public platform? You typically don't see straight people making a big deal about their sexual preferences, you don't tend to see a straight football player going oh yeah I just won the superbowl I'm going to nail so much **** don't hate me just because I love women.
Erm, probably because people usually don't, in fact, hate straight guys for loving women. On the other hand, there are still national-level media commentators and politicians in many developed nations who will openly declare gay people to be anything from "icky" to "sinful" to "abominations in the eyes of God"; gay people are still regularly discriminated against, particularly in places which don't include gay people in their anti-discrimination employment laws; gay people are still the targets of individual abuse, verbal and physical.
This "ugh come on, like, just get over it already, I never make a bid deal out of the fact that I'm straight, guh" stuff might sound good in your head, but only if you deliberately and totally ignore the reality that being gay, no matter how much gay people might want it to be the case, is still NOT just as "normal" and unremarkable as being straight is because society as a whole hasn't reached that point yet.
On a secondary note why do people even care what athletes say or do in their personal lives? They are people who throw a ball for a living why does that make them a role model? Hard work and dedication is admirable but you can find that in nearly every profession and walk of life, most of it being done all for a tiny fraction of what star athletes make. Maybe people should teach their kids to admire actual role models for a change, soldiers who live and die for their country, good cops that serve their communities, teachers, ministers and community leaders that actually contribute something to the future generation beyond a happy memory about how well some dude hiked or caught a ball in a game.
So you don't see how a young gay guy, really into athletics, really talented at their particular favourite sport might look at the professional level of that sport and be put off when they see a culture that has a huge problem with their sexuality? You don't get how the story of a talented athlete who publicly came out and found their teammates to be open minded and supportive and that their sexuality wasn't actually an impediment to their career might reassure aforementioned young gay guy?
EDIT:
And PG, in this very thread is the perfect example of why being gay is still "a big deal", this massive steaming pile of abject nonsense:
Polonius wrote: Saying that a person can be gay, but only if they do it privately, is still discriminatory. Why shouldn't a gay person be able to openly life his life as he wants?
You can say its not a big deal for an NFL prospect to come out publicly, but it would be a big deal if he was outed by somebody else.
People keep saying it's not like being black, which is true, but lets not pretend our country is 100% okay with homosexuality.
People in this country will never be 100% ok with gay people. You can't make someone be ok with such a topic. You have to accept it yourself. Being gay is not the same as being black. I'll explain. Being homosexual is actually a biological mistake. It's not normal. It sounds bad but our bodies are designed to have a male of the species reproduce with a female of our species. If for some reason there is no inclination in ones bodily to want to reproduce with a member of the opposit sex, there is something wrong with you. Not necessarily bad, but the fact is that you're going against what Mother Nature intended.
That being said, some people will never accept that, it will be unnatural to them and disgust them. That's normal behavior.
It's normal to have people of different color and races and ethnicity. It's technically not normal to hate someone for the color of their skin. It's a learned behavior to hate. But what a lot of people feel when approached on the subject of homosexuality is disgust because it's unnatural to the way our bodies are supposed to work.
Would you not feel disgust when you meet a mother and her son who are lovers? Should I call you a bigot because you do not agree with their behavior?
Would you not feel disgust when you meet a woman who admits to sexual intercourse and oral compilation with a dog? Are you a bigot for not accepting that behavior? Both of which are unnatural to us as humans.
I can't actually address this quote properly without being banned, but I hope that by telling you that, you will be able to intuit exactly what I think of you and your "opinion" on this.
I'd save your fingers Yodhirn, the fact people can't see the clear link to how this is important in the same way Jackie Robinson was important to the black civil rights movement is silly.
Its always important when someone who has pull makes a stand for equality of course, but when they can claim the prestige of a person who is a excellent college athlete it puts things in perspective for people.
Perspective is everything, things are not as black and white as some would believe.
Yes, though your question nicely illustrates why you should not only stay out of this thread, but why you probably only involved yourself in it because you read the word "gay" and took offense.
I haven't taken offense at anything-thats you not me. I'm just annoyed. Coming out is an issue for the 90s. It ceased to be a biggie years ago.
Black white anything but green I wouldn't have noticed because thats not at issue.
So, is Sam a thug because he's an athlete, or because he's black?
Athlete of course. Please don't inject race into this discussion.
Is he even black?
Doesn't make your statement any better, your are condemning a very very large group of people based on the actions of a minority.
If you don't want to get fleas don't lay down with cats. Looking at the roster of charges against professional athletes, its clearly that viewing anything about them as something to emulate - if it ever existed-is long past.
People in this country will never be 100% ok with gay people. You can't make someone be ok with such a topic. You have to accept it yourself. Being gay is not the same as being black. I'll explain. Being homosexual is actually a biological mistake. It's not normal. It sounds bad but our bodies are designed to have a male of the species reproduce with a female of our species. If for some reason there is no inclination in ones bodily to want to reproduce with a member of the opposit sex, there is something wrong with you. Not necessarily bad, but the fact is that you're going against what Mother Nature intended.
That being said, some people will never accept that, it will be unnatural to them and disgust them. That's normal behavior.
It's normal to have people of different color and races and ethnicity. It's technically not normal to hate someone for the color of their skin. It's a learned behavior to hate. But what a lot of people feel when approached on the subject of homosexuality is disgust because it's unnatural to the way our bodies are supposed to work.
I"m not sure how much that I agree with, especialy with all of the "unnatural" things we do with our bodies. Sitting all day is not at all what our bodies are meant for. I'm not sure how many people are disgusted by plastic surgery. Or Body Building.
Honestly, the idea of monogamy is not the intent of nature.
I think this has way more to do with culture then it does with things being "unnatural."
Would you not feel disgust when you meet a mother and her son who are lovers? Should I call you a bigot because you do not agree with their behavior?
Yeah, at first, because that's a cultural taboo that I've never encountered. Incest has problems that homosexuality doesn't, notably in the areas of inbreeding and consent. But if the relationship started when both were adults, and they weren't reproducing, I guess I'd say go for it.
Would you not feel disgust when you meet a woman who admits to sexual intercourse and oral compilation with a dog? Are you a bigot for not accepting that behavior? Both of which are unnatural to us as humans.
There are huge problems with consent when it comes to animals.
This is the classic slippery slope argument that is pretty hackneyed by now, of course.
You're problem with beastiality is the issue of the animal being forced into something? But you're ok with telling everyone they need to accept homosexuality as normal. By the way, monogamy and reproducing are not the same thing. You're examples are weak. Can human beings sit? Yes they can, so sitting is normal. Do humans get stronger? Yes they do and it's normal. I wouldn't call someone a bigot if he disagrees with a nose piercing.
Which is where the argument lies. If I find homosexual relationships abhorrent, I'm being considered a bigot. You cannot argue the fact here. Homosexuality goes against nature. Two men cannot reproduce. Our bodies are designed to find others of the opposite sex attractive for the purpose of procreation. If I have a penis, and you have a vagina I'm going to like you. We don't think in that way anymore but there used to be a drive to reproduce, spread our seed and we accepted it. In some primitive cultures it's still there. Certain traits are more appealing and more desirable to reproduce with.
Deep down inside, we have a genetic code that tells us to reproduce. When the wiring is jacked up, and we want sexual gratification with a member of the opposite sex, it is inherently unnatural. You can't argue that man. You can try to dance around it but you're only going to make yourself sound stupid. Homosexuality is unnatural.
It's ok to be disgusted by it. A person is ok to feel disgust by that. Where there should be an issue is if you discriminate for it. Deny a job, etc.
You cannot make someone accept it. You can't.
Wait, homosexuality is unnatural.. then, please by all means tell me what it is, cause there's plenty of homosexual animals.
Also:
Nature.
The phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.
Homosexuality isn't exclusively human nor was it created by humans. Pretty sure that means it's all right with nature.
Now to be a bigot myself, I find homophobes disgusting.
I'm not a bigot, I don't discriminate or hold anyone higher than others. I don't judge. You're losing your own argument.
It's a simple question, and you cannot answer it without feeling stupid. Can two make have sex and create a baby?
You try to come off as if you're intelligent, as if you're so enlightened. Do dogs have homosexual encounters? Yes, but two male dogs cannot reproduce. The instinct to have sex is what drives them.
People are different than animals, you know this, we have intellect, we know what we are doing. But whether you like it or not. Homosexuality is not Natural. It's not the intended way for two creatures to procreate.
Regardless of your beliefs, or non beliefs. Some people think that we all have a reason, a purpose on this earth. But when you look back at all of history. Every creature on earth. The number one uniting common thing between all creatures is procreation.
Money and sex are usually the biggest issues we as humans have. In general. But up until a hundred years ago, many people simply came together in a union to start a family. Ask and 9 out of 10 people will still tell you it's a top 5 goal. Start or take care of their family.
Homosexuality is such a particular dilemma. You can't just force someone to accept it. Some people will naturally find it disgusting. Not just for religious reasons, but because it's unnatural to them. People have to accept it on their own.
Frazz that doesn't make any sense, surely if you're annoyed by something you are offended by it? If you were totally neutral to the situation (IE you genuinely did not care) then you wouldn't be annoyed, nor would you have posted in this thread.
People in this country will never be 100% ok with gay people. You can't make someone be ok with such a topic. You have to accept it yourself. Being gay is not the same as being black. I'll explain. Being homosexual is actually a biological mistake. It's not normal. It sounds bad but our bodies are designed to have a male of the species reproduce with a female of our species. If for some reason there is no inclination in ones bodily to want to reproduce with a member of the opposit sex, there is something wrong with you. Not necessarily bad, but the fact is that you're going against what Mother Nature intended.
That being said, some people will never accept that, it will be unnatural to them and disgust them. That's normal behavior.
It's normal to have people of different color and races and ethnicity. It's technically not normal to hate someone for the color of their skin. It's a learned behavior to hate. But what a lot of people feel when approached on the subject of homosexuality is disgust because it's unnatural to the way our bodies are supposed to work.
I"m not sure how much that I agree with, especialy with all of the "unnatural" things we do with our bodies. Sitting all day is not at all what our bodies are meant for. I'm not sure how many people are disgusted by plastic surgery. Or Body Building.
Honestly, the idea of monogamy is not the intent of nature.
I think this has way more to do with culture then it does with things being "unnatural."
Would you not feel disgust when you meet a mother and her son who are lovers? Should I call you a bigot because you do not agree with their behavior?
Yeah, at first, because that's a cultural taboo that I've never encountered. Incest has problems that homosexuality doesn't, notably in the areas of inbreeding and consent. But if the relationship started when both were adults, and they weren't reproducing, I guess I'd say go for it.
Would you not feel disgust when you meet a woman who admits to sexual intercourse and oral compilation with a dog? Are you a bigot for not accepting that behavior? Both of which are unnatural to us as humans.
There are huge problems with consent when it comes to animals.
This is the classic slippery slope argument that is pretty hackneyed by now, of course.
You're problem with beastiality is the issue of the animal being forced into something? But you're ok with telling everyone they need to accept homosexuality as normal. By the way, monogamy and reproducing are not the same thing. You're examples are weak. Can human beings sit? Yes they can, so sitting is normal. Do humans get stronger? Yes they do and it's normal. I wouldn't call someone a bigot if he disagrees with a nose piercing.
Which is where the argument lies. If I find homosexual relationships abhorrent, I'm being considered a bigot. You cannot argue the fact here. Homosexuality goes against nature. Two men cannot reproduce. Our bodies are designed to find others of the opposite sex attractive for the purpose of procreation. If I have a penis, and you have a vagina I'm going to like you. We don't think in that way anymore but there used to be a drive to reproduce, spread our seed and we accepted it. In some primitive cultures it's still there. Certain traits are more appealing and more desirable to reproduce with.
Deep down inside, we have a genetic code that tells us to reproduce. When the wiring is jacked up, and we want sexual gratification with a member of the opposite sex, it is inherently unnatural. You can't argue that man. You can try to dance around it but you're only going to make yourself sound stupid. Homosexuality is unnatural.
It's ok to be disgusted by it. A person is ok to feel disgust by that. Where there should be an issue is if you discriminate for it. Deny a job, etc.
You cannot make someone accept it. You can't.
Wait, homosexuality is unnatural.. then, please by all means tell me what it is, cause there's plenty of homosexual animals.
Also:
Nature.
The phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.
Homosexuality isn't exclusively human nor was it created by humans. Pretty sure that means it's all right with nature.
Now to be a bigot myself, I find homophobes disgusting.
I'm not a bigot, I don't discriminate or hold anyone higher than others. I don't judge. You're losing your own argument.
It's a simple question, and you cannot answer it without feeling stupid. Can two make have sex and create a baby?
You try to come off as if you're intelligent, as if you're so enlightened. Do dogs have homosexual encounters? Yes, but two male dogs cannot reproduce. The instinct to have sex is what drives them.
People are different than animals, you know this, we have intellect, we know what we are doing. But whether you like it or not. Homosexuality is not Natural. It's not the intended way for two creatures to procreate.
Regardless of your beliefs, or non beliefs. Some people think that we all have a reason, a purpose on this earth. But when you look back at all of history. Every creature on earth. The number one uniting common thing between all creatures is procreation.
Money and sex are usually the biggest issues we as humans have. In general. But up until a hundred years ago, many people simply came together in a union to start a family. Ask and 9 out of 10 people will still tell you it's a top 5 goal. Start or take care of their family.
Homosexuality is such a particular dilemma. You can't just force someone to accept it. Some people will naturally find it disgusting. Not just for religious reasons, but because it's unnatural to them. People have to accept it on their own.
I'm sorry.. what? I've just given you factual proof that homosexuality is in fact natural.
Secondly, so... we should accept homophobes but not homosexuals?
Nice standards there.
And people aren't different from animals, we are animals, nothing will ever change that.
Corpsesarefun wrote: Frazz that doesn't make any sense, surely if you're annoyed by something you are offended by it? If you were totally neutral to the situation (IE you genuinely did not care) then you wouldn't be annoyed, nor would you have posted in this thread.
Now that doesn't make sense.
I'm annoyed when my coffee gets cold. I'm not offended by it.
I'm annoyed when TV talks about Miley Cyris or Justine Bieber ad nauseum. I'm offended by people by people who besmirch the Great State of Texas.
I'm annoyed if the scale tells me something I don't want to hear. I'm offended by the lack of proper barbeque in California.
I'm annoyed this sort of thing is still news. I'm offended when I get into an argument with some who starts quoting Old Testament to me.
Homosexuals will only have true equality when a gay person announces "I'm gay!" and society responds "So what? Why should we care?"
So, in the name of equality, I encourage everyone here to not give a feth either way about the sexuality of other people whom you're not personally romantically involved or interested in.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Homosexuals will only have true equality when a gay person announces "I'm gay!" and society responds "So what? Why should we care?"
So, in the name of equality, I encourage everyone here to not give a feth either way about the sexuality of other people whom you're not personally romantically involved or interested in.
Being able to pretend it doesn't matter is an ideological, and flawed, privilege of the majority, whether dealing with ethnic minorities or homosexuals.
I remember a Daily Show segment where they had a white panel and a black panel (about 7 each iirc) and the white panel said they thought people should stop talking about race whereas the black panel felt that race issues weren't discussed enough; there is a disconnect here, obliviously.
Ahtman wrote: I remember a Daily Show segment where they had a white panel and a black panel (about 7 each iirc) and the white panel said they thought people should stop talking about race whereas the black panel felt that race issues weren't discussed enough; there is a disconnect here, obliviously.
When you're the group that can only lose in a discussion, you tend to not want to have it.
Ahtman wrote: I remember a Daily Show segment where they had a white panel and a black panel (about 7 each iirc) and the white panel said they thought people should stop talking about race whereas the black panel felt that race issues weren't discussed enough; there is a disconnect here, obliviously.
When you're the group that can only lose in a discussion, you tend to not want to have it.
Ahtman wrote: I remember a Daily Show segment where they had a white panel and a black panel (about 7 each iirc) and the white panel said they thought people should stop talking about race whereas the black panel felt that race issues weren't discussed enough; there is a disconnect here, obliviously.
When you're the group that can only lose in a discussion, you tend to not want to have it.
How am I in a group that can only lose in this discussion? Whether or not someone is gay means literally nothing of an impact to me. Maybe thats why I am annoyed. Your gay! OK. cool. Maybe if that impacted me negatively I'd care. But it don't so I won't.
I challenge someone to find something I can lose here.
Sadly people frequently do form opinions about other people based on their appearance, to include skin color. These opinions can be positive or negative. You can chalk it up to media hype or an unjust judicial system, but the simple fact is young black men, especially with tattoos, baggy clothes, and a "loud" personality are perceived by many people to be criminals. I really doubt anyone (aside from a deeply devoted racists) would meet a young black man who spoke well, had good manners, and wore something other than athletic apparel or jeans that sit below the buttocks and come to the conclusion that this young man was a criminal or "threatening" based on his appearance.
There is a strong disconnect on issues of race and it exists on both sides. Far too many (in this case too many being any number greater than zero) blacks attempt to use their skin color to justify or get away with reprehensible and inappropriate behavior. I don't care what skin color the individual may or may not be. If you are covered in crude tattoos, shout constantly, insult women, swear continuously, and just generally act like an illiterate, uncultured cretin I am going to dislike you. It has absolutely nothing to do with skin color. I have encountered whites, Hispanics, and blacks who all act in such a manner. Aside from impressionable youth, middle class Americans typically dislike the "gangster" culture.
Ahtman wrote: I remember a Daily Show segment where they had a white panel and a black panel (about 7 each iirc) and the white panel said they thought people should stop talking about race whereas the black panel felt that race issues weren't discussed enough; there is a disconnect here, obliviously.
When you're the group that can only lose in a discussion, you tend to not want to have it.
huh?
The point is that ignoring the issue does not help resolve it and that trying to sweep it under the rug makes you look like a fool. I know this will send you on a tirade about Bengazhi buuuuuuuuuut It seems to be until gay people have all the SAME rights as straight people do, such as free right to marry the issues DOES need to be pushed and there DOES need to be a discussion.
This is like when that supreme court judge announced that the fight against racism is over (it isn't) and that it was right to strike down parts of the voter protection act. Racism is still an issue, gay rights is still an issue, transgender rights is an issue. If you reallllllllly want all the discussing over it to end then go to the next gay rights rally in your town, donate to a gay rights advocacy charity, and I assure you when gay people finally all have the same rights as straight people there will be a lot less discussion and thus annoyance.
Ahtman wrote: Being able to pretend it doesn't matter is an ideological, and flawed, privilege of the majority, whether dealing with ethnic minorities or homosexuals.
Thats absolutely not what I said. You're missing the point.
I said Society should not care about people's sexuality. We should not care either way about the sexuality of people with whom we have no personal *romantic interest* or **involvement**. (see below for what I consider to be exceptions to this).
However, when people are given crap for their sexuality - discriminated against, bullied, ostracised, then yes we should be concerned - about them being discriminated against. If society is discriminating against and bullying a group of people for their sexuality, then it clearly does care about their sexuality - it disapproves.
What I'm saying is that Society should not care about sexuality.. That means no discrimination. And no celebration either. There should be complete indifference to people's sexual orientation - everyone should be treated equally.
Equality does not mean you're treated as being special just because your skin colour or sexual orientation is uncommon. It means when you announce "I'm gay!" or "I'm black!", people respond with a shrug of their shoulders and "So what?"
I do not care about another person's sexuality. I DO however care when people are discriminated against and treated unfairly because of their sexuality. I think whats happening in Russia with the lynching and demonisation of gay people and the moral panic over so called "gay propaganda" is abhorrent.
(*If you like a person, but they turn out to be sexually incompatible e.g. a lesbian woman, and you're a straight man, then the only justified response is disappointment.*
*However, if you marry a gay person without knowing, and they later reveal the truth causing you to seperate then you have every right to be angry because you have been lied to and betrayed. Especially when theres kids involved*).
Ahtman wrote: Being able to pretend it doesn't matter is an ideological, and flawed, privilege of the majority, whether dealing with ethnic minorities or homosexuals.
Thats absolutely not what I said. You're missing the point.
I said Society should not care about people's sexuality. We should not care either way about the sexuality of people with whom we have no personal *romantic interest* or **involvement**. (see below for what I consider to be exceptions to this).
However, when people are given crap for their sexuality - discriminated against, bullied, ostracised, then yes we should be concerned - about them being discriminated against. If society is discriminating against and bullying a group of people for their sexuality, then it clearly does care about their sexuality - it disapproves.
What I'm saying is that Society should not care about sexuality.. That means no discrimination. And no celebration either. There should be complete indifference to people's sexual orientation - everyone should be treated equally.
Equality does not mean you're treated as being special just because your skin colour or sexual orientation is uncommon. It means when you announce "I'm gay!" or "I'm black!", people respond with a shrug of their shoulders and "So what?"
(*If you like a person, but they turn out to be sexually incompatible e.g. a lesbian woman, and you're a straight man, then the only justified response is disappointment.*
*However, if you marry a gay person without knowing, and they later reveal the truth causing you to seperate then you have every right to be angry because you have been lied to and betrayed. Especially when theres kids involved*).
Unfortunately the way things "should work" rarely has any connection to the real world. In the real world people are killed for their sexuality.
Ahtman wrote: Being able to pretend it doesn't matter is an ideological, and flawed, privilege of the majority, whether dealing with ethnic minorities or homosexuals.
Thats absolutely not what I said.
If you can find the text where I said "Shadow Captain said" that would be lovely, outside that it seems I may have hit a nerve without aiming for one.
We should
What we should do and what we actually do are radically different, so conflating them doesn't really help anyone when it comes to working on social and cultural issues.
Ahtman wrote: I remember a Daily Show segment where they had a white panel and a black panel (about 7 each iirc) and the white panel said they thought people should stop talking about race whereas the black panel felt that race issues weren't discussed enough; there is a disconnect here, obliviously.
When you're the group that can only lose in a discussion, you tend to not want to have it.
huh?
Generalizing, any serious discussion about race relations in the US would probably result in some concessions by white people, be they political, economic, or moral.
It's like when the boss wants to put off meeting about a raise. Put off the conversation completely!
Ahtman wrote: Being able to pretend it doesn't matter is an ideological, and flawed, privilege of the majority, whether dealing with ethnic minorities or homosexuals.
Thats absolutely not what I said.
If you can find the text where I said "Shadow Captain said" that would be lovely, outside that it seems I may have hit a nerve without aiming for one.
Well you did call my opinion an ideologically flawed privilege of the majority. I disagree. Am I not allowed to voice my disagreement? Are you insinuating that I'm somehow homophobic for not caring about a person's sexuality?
We should
What we should do and what we actually do are radically different, so conflating them doesn't really help anyone when it comes to working on social and cultural issues.
I'm not conflating them. I'm expressing my opinion about what I think would be the fairest approach and mindset with which to deal with homosexuality - a Libertarian approach. We should not care either way. We SHOULD care about discrimination.
At no point did I say this is how society behaves right now, I'm saying this is how Society should behave.
Then why would you think I am referencing you? You keep coming back to "you called my" or "I didn't say" but I never mentioned your name, or any ones name for that matter. I made a comment against the thinking that pretending to ignore a problem makes it go away; as if pretending a house isn't on fire will put out the flames.
I challenge someone to find something I can lose here.
Judging from the
I'm annoyed if the scale tells me something I don't want to hear.
line, I'm gonna go ahead and say anywhere between 10-20 Lbs
You got me on that one. Hey I'm working on it. I'm trying to get my leg press weight back to my old college days at 300+lbs. Hopefully will hit that by November.
Ahtman wrote: I remember a Daily Show segment where they had a white panel and a black panel (about 7 each iirc) and the white panel said they thought people should stop talking about race whereas the black panel felt that race issues weren't discussed enough; there is a disconnect here, obliviously.
When you're the group that can only lose in a discussion, you tend to not want to have it.
huh?
The point is that ignoring the issue does not help resolve it and that trying to sweep it under the rug makes you look like a fool. I know this will send you on a tirade about Bengazhi buuuuuuuuuut It seems to be until gay people have all the SAME rights as straight people do, such as free right to marry the issues DOES need to be pushed and there DOES need to be a discussion.
This is like when that supreme court judge announced that the fight against racism is over (it isn't) and that it was right to strike down parts of the voter protection act. Racism is still an issue, gay rights is still an issue, transgender rights is an issue. If you reallllllllly want all the discussing over it to end then go to the next gay rights rally in your town, donate to a gay rights advocacy charity, and I assure you when gay people finally all have the same rights as straight people there will be a lot less discussion and thus annoyance.
Dude... chill.
I'm all in favor of gays having the same rights.
o.O
I think folks are being misunderstood. Being "tired" of talking about it, is not the same thing as being against these things. Same goes for racial relations.
*shrugs*
Pro-tip: Find yourself a flamboyant gay male friend. Go bar hoping with him... trust me, chicks gravitate to him.
Ahtman wrote: I remember a Daily Show segment where they had a white panel and a black panel (about 7 each iirc) and the white panel said they thought people should stop talking about race whereas the black panel felt that race issues weren't discussed enough; there is a disconnect here, obliviously.
When you're the group that can only lose in a discussion, you tend to not want to have it.
huh?
Generalizing, any serious discussion about race relations in the US would probably result in some concessions by white people, be they political, economic, or moral.
It's like when the boss wants to put off meeting about a raise. Put off the conversation completely!
Then why would you think I am referencing you? You keep coming back to "you called my" or "I didn't say" but I never mentioned your name, or any ones name for that matter. I made a comment against the thinking that pretending to ignore a problem makes it go away; as if pretending a house isn't on fire will put out the flames.
A generic statement was made. He took offense (rightly) at it.
I think he and Polonius should have a duel wearing clown suits. Water guns at 10 paces. The winner gets the title of Mauleed for a day. the loser has to shout :Blame the victim!" while slamming red bull and grey goose. Oh wait, maybe thats the winner. I'm so confused.
A generic statement was made. He took offense (rightly) at it.
I think he and Polonius should have a duel wearing clown suits. Water guns at 10 paces. The winner gets the title of Mauleed for a day. the loser has to shout :Blame the victim!" while slamming red bull and grey goose. Oh wait, maybe thats the winner. I'm so confused.
A generic statement was made. He took offense (rightly) at it.
I think he and Polonius should have a duel wearing clown suits. Water guns at 10 paces. The winner gets the title of Mauleed for a day. the loser has to shout :Blame the victim!" while slamming red bull and grey goose. Oh wait, maybe thats the winner. I'm so confused.
Mauleed? That's some oldschool dakka right there.
Yes, the Great Boodgeyman of Fluff Players, Patron Saint of RAW and WAAC gamers everywhere. He was so dreamy...
Yep. Its something when I have kids, minis, and underwear that are older hen some of the people I am arguing with. I have models that may be older than their parents...
Johnnytorrance wrote: But whether you like it or not. Homosexuality is not Natural. It's not the intended way for two creatures to procreate.
Well, you've convinced me. On the basis that a relationship is intended solely for the purpose of producing children, when I'm elected my government will immediately outlaw relationships involving the following people:
- Homosexuals
- People using contraception
- People engaging in any form of non-vaginal sexual activity
- Women who have had medical hysterectomies
- Women who have had ovarian cancer, ovarian cysts, or any of the other myriad ovarian afflictions that affect childbirth
- Men with low sperm counts
- People who want to adopt instead of having their own children
- Anyone who wants to 'wait' until they are married
- Anyone not interested in sex
- Women over 50.
Relationships will be monitored to ensure that everyone involved is, in fact, having sex, and is doing it the right way.
Additionally, following on from the 'well, I don't like it, so it must be wrong' principle, relationships will also be banned if they involve:
- Men
- Women over 5'6"
- Women over 85kg
- Women under 45kg
- Blondes, or women with bleached hair
- Anyone interested in bondage or S&M
- Bogans
- Asian women at whatever age it is when they go overnight from looking like anime chicks to looking like the witch from Spirited Away. (Curiously, Michelle Yeoh seems to be immune to this phenomenon, so a relationship with her would be deemed acceptable.)
Johnnytorrance wrote: But whether you like it or not. Homosexuality is not Natural. It's not the intended way for two creatures to procreate.
Dolphins have homosexual sex , is homosexuality still not natural? On a different note I'm sure the whole sex for only procreation idea got thrown out when eve took a bite of that apple and what a better world we live in now.
If society only had sex for procreation there would be a lot more room in the front of mens' pants and kleenex sales would skyrocket.
Dolphins also regularly rape things, they probably aren't the best example to use unless you're going for the slippery slope "IF HOMOSEXUALITY IS OK THEN SO IS RAPE" line of thought (which I sincerely hope nobody in the world is).
Actually, they're perfectly fine to use because whilst raping would be natural, it would also be completely wrong due to something we call "lack of consent".
It's very interesting how people will make the claim that homosexuality is bad and that it's immoral (Implying choice) and then go on in the very same argument to then shoot down there previous claim by saying that homosexual people are born that way, and it makes them "broken" or "unnatural".
The best way to sum up the entire gay rights debate is that picture of a new's article were people are protesting interracial marriage, and the protesters they interviewed made just as silly claims as the anti gay marriage people do today.
Frazzled wrote: Libertarians have this argument down. If it doesn't impact YOU, leave THEM alone.
It has become a very big conflict in the Republican Party with how it's become a thunder dome between the Religious Libertarians who want restrictions on marriage rights, The Libertarians who just don't like government, Establishment Republicans, and Religious Establishment Republicans.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: If a religious "Libertarian" wants restrictions on marriage rights, hes not a Libertarian.
People are more complicated than single pet issues, there's a reason the label blue dog democrats exists (Conservative Democrats). Often times people just go with the party they have the most in common because it's almost impossible to have a set of views that perfectly align with a single party.
A religious libertarian would be someone who feels the government should get out of economics, but be more hard on social issues (In support of things like banning gay marriage or gay adoption).
Alexzandvar wrote: A religious libertarian would be someone who feels the government should get out of economics, but be more hard on social issues (In support of things like banning gay marriage or gay adoption).
Alexzandvar wrote: A religious libertarian would be someone who feels the government should get out of economics, but be more hard on social issues (In support of things like banning gay marriage or gay adoption).
You are describing a Conservative.
Two of my fellow students that I share a dorm hall with describe themselves as religious libertarians and that's what their views are so I just thought that well, that's what they are.
and Conservative (and liberal) has such a huge definition that I don't think its very good to lump people together that way.
Alexzandvar wrote: A religious libertarian would be someone who feels the government should get out of economics, but be more hard on social issues (In support of things like banning gay marriage or gay adoption).
You are describing a Conservative.
Two of my fellow students that I share a dorm hall with describe themselves as religious libertarians and that's what their views are so I just thought that well, that's what they are.
and Conservative (and liberal) has such a huge definition that I don't think its very good to lump people together that way.
They don't understand the term libertarian then. The libertarian party has been wholly and staunchly for gay rights since long before it became "cool".
Alexzandvar wrote: A religious libertarian would be someone who feels the government should get out of economics, but be more hard on social issues (In support of things like banning gay marriage or gay adoption).
You are describing a Conservative.
Two of my fellow students that I share a dorm hall with describe themselves as religious libertarians and that's what their views are so I just thought that well, that's what they are.
and Conservative (and liberal) has such a huge definition that I don't think its very good to lump people together that way.
They don't understand the term libertarian then. The libertarian party has been wholly and staunchly for gay rights since long before it became "cool".
As I said before, people choose party alignment based on how many of their values fit the party, not because EVERY single value fits the party. This is the biggest reason why as I have said the republican party is now a thunderdome with several ideological groups political attack adding each other to death for control of the party.
There are democrats who don't like Obamacare and don't like "assault weapons bans", they are still democrats because a majority of their values line up with the party even though some pet ones conflict.
Alexzandvar wrote: A religious libertarian would be someone who feels the government should get out of economics, but be more hard on social issues (In support of things like banning gay marriage or gay adoption).
You are describing a Conservative.
Two of my fellow students that I share a dorm hall with describe themselves as religious libertarians and that's what their views are so I just thought that well, that's what they are.
and Conservative (and liberal) has such a huge definition that I don't think its very good to lump people together that way.
They don't understand the term libertarian then. The libertarian party has been wholly and staunchly for gay rights since long before it became "cool".
As I said before, people choose party alignment based on how many of their values fit the party, not because EVERY single value fits the party. This is the biggest reason why as I have said the republican party is now a thunderdome with several ideological groups political attack adding each other to death for control of the party.
There are democrats who don't like Obamacare and don't like "assault weapons bans", they are still democrats because a majority of their values line up with the party even though some pet ones conflict.
Libertarians, members of the party or not, believe in personal liberty first and foremost. If you believe in anything less than personal liberty for all people you're not a libertarian. Please note the use of lower case "l", I am not speaking about party beliefs in this statement but the root beliefs of a libertarian.
How can Libertarians be for social issues but want to leave the economy to itself?
The economy and businesses drive a lot of these social issues. Unless poverty is a social issue that libertarians aren't interested in changing? Not just speaking about being homosexual or not, obviously.
Johnnytorrance wrote: But whether you like it or not. Homosexuality is not Natural. It's not the intended way for two creatures to procreate.
Well, you've convinced me. On the basis that a relationship is intended solely for the purpose of producing children, when I'm elected my government will immediately outlaw relationships involving the following people:
- Homosexuals
- People using contraception
- People engaging in any form of non-vaginal sexual activity
- Women who have had medical hysterectomies
- Women who have had ovarian cancer, ovarian cysts, or any of the other myriad ovarian afflictions that affect childbirth
- Men with low sperm counts
- People who want to adopt instead of having their own children
- Anyone who wants to 'wait' until they are married
- Anyone not interested in sex
- Women over 50.
Relationships will be monitored to ensure that everyone involved is, in fact, having sex, and is doing it the right way.
Additionally, following on from the 'well, I don't like it, so it must be wrong' principle, relationships will also be banned if they involve:
- Men
- Women over 5'6"
- Women over 85kg
- Women under 45kg
- Blondes, or women with bleached hair
- Anyone interested in bondage or S&M
- Bogans
- Asian women at whatever age it is when they go overnight from looking like anime chicks to looking like the witch from Spirited Away. (Curiously, Michelle Yeoh seems to be immune to this phenomenon, so a relationship with her would be deemed acceptable.)
Did I miss anything out?
You're stupid. I by no means bashing homosexuals. I'm in the military and I've worked with several. Don't care about what they do on their own time just like I don't care what you do on yours.
My point is that telling me I'm a bigot because I find the act disgusting is idiotic. I don't have to like the act of homosexuality. I don't have to approve of it, I don't have to have those views shoved down my throat.
The guy plays football, he's gay. Big deal. Are gay people not good enough to play football? It's not a big deal man. If I played with him on his team I'm sure he'd appreciate me more for making him feel like a ball player, than the gay guy in my locker room.
Medium of Death wrote: How can Libertarians be for social issues but want to leave the economy to itself?
The economy and businesses drive a lot of these social issues. Unless poverty is a social issue that libertarians aren't interested in changing? Not just speaking about being homosexual or not, obviously.
They aren't for or against social issues in as many words. They are for personal liberty and against any restrictions to personal liberty that are not necessary. Gay rights being one of the more prominent and more glamorous of the issues currently debated in an upside down American political landscape.
Alexzandvar wrote: A religious libertarian would be someone who feels the government should get out of economics, but be more hard on social issues (In support of things like banning gay marriage or gay adoption).
You are describing a Conservative.
Two of my fellow students that I share a dorm hall with describe themselves as religious libertarians and that's what their views are so I just thought that well, that's what they are.
and Conservative (and liberal) has such a huge definition that I don't think its very good to lump people together that way.
They don't understand the term libertarian then. The libertarian party has been wholly and staunchly for gay rights since long before it became "cool".
As I said before, people choose party alignment based on how many of their values fit the party, not because EVERY single value fits the party. This is the biggest reason why as I have said the republican party is now a thunderdome with several ideological groups political attack adding each other to death for control of the party.
There are democrats who don't like Obamacare and don't like "assault weapons bans", they are still democrats because a majority of their values line up with the party even though some pet ones conflict.
Libertarians, members of the party or not, believe in personal liberty first and foremost. If you believe in anything less than personal liberty for all people you're not a libertarian. Please note the use of lower case "l", I am not speaking about party beliefs in this statement but the root beliefs of a libertarian.
We are getting into literal "No true Scotsman" territory here. I would say that if you went person to person in most political parties you would find some basic conflicting things that would not allow them to be by definition a liberal or a conservative or a libertarian.
People are more complicated than one or two word labels. Some libertarians believe in liberty for corporations strongly some believe in liberty for specific people strongly and some yes do believe in liberty in general strongly (This assumes were going on the same definition of liberty here)
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: If a religious "Libertarian" wants restrictions on marriage rights, hes not a Libertarian.
A religious libertarian would be someone who feels the government should get out of economics, but be more hard on social issues (In support of things like banning gay marriage or gay adoption).
No, thats a Conservative.
freedictionary.com wrote:lib·er·tar·i·an 1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
2. One who believes in free will.
Your example satisfies neither definition.
A truly liberterian "Religious Libertarian" might not like or agree with homosexuality, but he respects the rights and liberties of homosexuals and does not seek to have their liberties restricted by law.
This is my attitude to most drugs. I don't like or agree with their use, but I accept and respect the liberty of other people to use them if they wish to so long as they do not harm other people (e.g. their children, driving under the influence, becoming violent under the influence),
You're stupid. I by no means bashing homosexuals. I'm in the military and I've worked with several. Don't care about what they do on their own time just like I don't care what you do on yours.
My point is that telling me I'm a bigot because I find the act disgusting is idiotic. I don't have to like the act of homosexuality. I don't have to approve of it, I don't have to have those views shoved down my throat.
The guy plays football, he's gay. Big deal. Are gay people not good enough to play football? It's not a big deal man. If I played with him on his team I'm sure he'd appreciate me more for making him feel like a ball player, than the gay guy in my locker room.
I can only hope this is a case of elaborate satire.
Medium of Death wrote: How can Libertarians be for social issues but want to leave the economy to itself?
The economy and businesses drive a lot of these social issues. Unless poverty is a social issue that libertarians aren't interested in changing? Not just speaking about being homosexual or not, obviously.
They aren't for or against social issues in as many words. They are for personal liberty and against any restrictions to personal liberty that are not necessary. Gay rights being one of the more prominent and more glamorous of the issues currently debated in an upside down American political landscape.
That's my point, libertarian to libertarian you will find that people don't agree on whats necessary a whole lot. As in, a religious libertarian would think it would be necessary to not allow gay rights!
You're stupid. I by no means bashing homosexuals. I'm in the military and I've worked with several. Don't care about what they do on their own time just like I don't care what you do on yours.
My point is that telling me I'm a bigot because I find the act disgusting is idiotic. I don't have to like the act of homosexuality. I don't have to approve of it, I don't have to have those views shoved down my throat.
The guy plays football, he's gay. Big deal. Are gay people not good enough to play football? It's not a big deal man. If I played with him on his team I'm sure he'd appreciate me more for making him feel like a ball player, than the gay guy in my locker room.
I can only hope this is a case of elaborate satire.
I particularly enjoyed the part where he called a Mod stupid.
Johnnytorrance wrote: But whether you like it or not. Homosexuality is not Natural. It's not the intended way for two creatures to procreate.
Well, you've convinced me. On the basis that a relationship is intended solely for the purpose of producing children, when I'm elected my government will immediately outlaw relationships involving the following people:
- Homosexuals
- People using contraception
- People engaging in any form of non-vaginal sexual activity
- Women who have had medical hysterectomies
- Women who have had ovarian cancer, ovarian cysts, or any of the other myriad ovarian afflictions that affect childbirth
- Men with low sperm counts
- People who want to adopt instead of having their own children
- Anyone who wants to 'wait' until they are married
- Anyone not interested in sex
- Women over 50.
Relationships will be monitored to ensure that everyone involved is, in fact, having sex, and is doing it the right way.
Additionally, following on from the 'well, I don't like it, so it must be wrong' principle, relationships will also be banned if they involve:
- Men
- Women over 5'6"
- Women over 85kg
- Women under 45kg
- Blondes, or women with bleached hair
- Anyone interested in bondage or S&M
- Bogans
- Asian women at whatever age it is when they go overnight from looking like anime chicks to looking like the witch from Spirited Away. (Curiously, Michelle Yeoh seems to be immune to this phenomenon, so a relationship with her would be deemed acceptable.)
Did I miss anything out?
You're stupid. I by no means bashing homosexuals. I'm in the military and I've worked with several. Don't care about what they do on their own time just like I don't care what you do on yours.
My point is that telling me I'm a bigot because I find the act disgusting is idiotic. I don't have to like the act of homosexuality. I don't have to approve of it, I don't have to have those views shoved down my throat.
The guy plays football, he's gay. Big deal. Are gay people not good enough to play football? It's not a big deal man. If I played with him on his team I'm sure he'd appreciate me more for making him feel like a ball player, than the gay guy in my locker room.
I may ask, why do you find homosexual disgusting because they are gay when they have zero control over their sexuality? A gay man can no more stop being gay than a black man can stop being black, so I would say your issues reach a fair bit deeper than just idle disgust if your willing to condemn a minority who can't change how they were born.
Medium of Death wrote: How can Libertarians be for social issues but want to leave the economy to itself?
The economy and businesses drive a lot of these social issues. Unless poverty is a social issue that libertarians aren't interested in changing? Not just speaking about being homosexual or not, obviously.
djones520 wrote:The Libertarians aren't for social issues. They are the closest thing to organized Anarchy. They just want the government to butt the hell out.
OverwatchCNC wrote:
They aren't for or against social issues in as many words. They are for personal liberty and against any restrictions to personal liberty that are not necessary. Gay rights being one of the more prominent and more glamorous of the issues currently debated in an upside down American political landscape.
Ah thanks for the clarification, was just a bit perplexed by another poster's explanation. It's not really that big of a thing in the UK as far as I am aware. Certainly wouldn't vote for them if they were!
Alexzandvar wrote: A religious libertarian would be someone who feels the government should get out of economics, but be more hard on social issues (In support of things like banning gay marriage or gay adoption).
You are describing a Conservative.
Two of my fellow students that I share a dorm hall with describe themselves as religious libertarians and that's what their views are so I just thought that well, that's what they are.
and Conservative (and liberal) has such a huge definition that I don't think its very good to lump people together that way.
They can call themselves whatever they like. That doesn't make it true.
Broadly speaking,
Conservatism = economically liberal (low tax, small Government) BUT socially authoritarian (restrictions on homosexuals, marriage, drugs).
"Liberal" or "Left Wing" = economically authoritarian (high taxes, big and powerful Governments, high public spending) BUT socially liberal (relaxed attitudes to drugs, homosexuality, marriage).
Libertarian = economically liberal AND socially liberal.
A true Libertarian believes that the State should be as small as possible, and not interfere in the economy, social issues, and in people's lives.
Alexzandvar wrote: A religious libertarian would be someone who feels the government should get out of economics, but be more hard on social issues (In support of things like banning gay marriage or gay adoption).
You are describing a Conservative.
Two of my fellow students that I share a dorm hall with describe themselves as religious libertarians and that's what their views are so I just thought that well, that's what they are.
and Conservative (and liberal) has such a huge definition that I don't think its very good to lump people together that way.
They can call themselves whatever they like. That doesn't make it true.
Broadly speaking,
Conservatism = economically liberal (low tax, small Government) BUT socially authoritarian (restrictions on homosexuals, marriage, drugs).
"Liberal" or "Left Wing" = economically authoritarian (high taxes, big and powerful Governments, high public spending) BUT socially liberal (relaxed attitudes to drugs, homosexuality, marriage).
Libertarian = economically liberal AND socially liberal.
A true Libertarian believes that the State should be as small as possible, and not interfere in the economy, social issues, and in people's lives.
My earlier posts address how that if you apply those basic laws to all people who claim said alignments you will find they are unable to meet the definition exactly.
DNA changes through natural mutation of genes (evolution).
Ergo Homosexuality developed as a natural process.
Its a behaviour that is by no means unique to the human race. Its been observed in many other species. And I expect there would be a high probability of it existing in other extraterrestrial sentient species, should any exist.
The argument that Homosexuality is unnatural is inherently religious. i.e. You think its unnatural because "God" tells you it is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alpharius wrote: I'm sure this won't come as a surprise to many, but this thread is generating a lot of warnings so...
Alexzandvar wrote: A religious libertarian would be someone who feels the government should get out of economics, but be more hard on social issues (In support of things like banning gay marriage or gay adoption).
You are describing a Conservative.
Two of my fellow students that I share a dorm hall with describe themselves as religious libertarians and that's what their views are so I just thought that well, that's what they are.
and Conservative (and liberal) has such a huge definition that I don't think its very good to lump people together that way.
They can call themselves whatever they like. That doesn't make it true.
Broadly speaking,
Conservatism = economically liberal (low tax, small Government) BUT socially authoritarian (restrictions on homosexuals, marriage, drugs).
"Liberal" or "Left Wing" = economically authoritarian (high taxes, big and powerful Governments, high public spending) BUT socially liberal (relaxed attitudes to drugs, homosexuality, marriage).
Libertarian = economically liberal AND socially liberal.
A true Libertarian believes that the State should be as small as possible, and not interfere in the economy, social issues, and in people's lives.
Which is of course nonsensical, since negative freedoms have no value if people cannot exercise them in practice because the systems of positive freedoms which enabled them to have been eradicated in the name of "small government".
Which is of course nonsensical, since negative freedoms have no value if people cannot exercise them in practice because the systems of positive freedoms which enabled them to have been eradicated in the name of "small government".
And that is "of course" based on the asumption that said systems will be eradicated in the name of small government.
Small Government =/= No Government.
When I said "a true Libertarian believes the State should be as small as possible", I do not mean that Police, Law Courts and other insitutions that protect people's rights and mediate between competing rights should and would be abolished.
Are you arguing that personal liberty is impossible without a big and powerful State?
Corpsesarefun wrote: How exactly do you propose to maintain police departments and courts without taxes?
Low taxes =/= no taxes.
Your next Straw Man?
Anyway, I'm not proposing anything. This was a debate over the definition of "libertarian". Not the Libertarian Party manifesto for the 2015 general election. Why the feth are we arguing about this?
Which is of course nonsensical, since negative freedoms have no value if people cannot exercise them in practice because the systems of positive freedoms which enabled them to have been eradicated in the name of "small government".
And that is "of course" based on the asumption that said systems will be eradicated in the name of small government.
Small Government =/= No Government.
When I said "a true Libertarian believes the State should be as small as possible", I do not mean that Police, Law Courts and other insitutions that protect people's rights and mediate between competing rights should and would be abolished.
Are you arguing that personal liberty is impossible without a big and powerful State?
He has a point that if you factor in all the things the government does to keep us free and, well, alive you end up with a "big" government.
Sure personal liberty is great, but human sacrifice towards a greater goal, or rather sacrifice for the betterment of others is a part of who we are as humans. Sometimes we must give up some freedoms so that we may stay safe and avoid chaos, and sometimes we must campaign to protect our freedoms.
Freedom isn't binary, you have varying amounts of it person to person, country to country. Some people are more comfortable with large amounts, some with less.
Ironically, we are NOT spending enough on social issues such are Police, law courts, and other institutions (especially education), many of the symptoms of todays society such as lack of a proper living minimum wage, rising prices and lack of economic mobility come from us allowing corporations to much freedom.
Corpsesarefun wrote: That wasn't a strawman, I was genuinely curious as I don't know much about the specifics of libertarian policies.
I have heard some complete gak from libertarians/individuals who self identify as libertarian. One such individual is adamantly against all social programs and is completely ignorant of the economic concept of public goods. As such he firmly believes everything should be privatized and that capitalism can solve everything. I would hope that a rational libertarian would recognize that the government is necessary to some extent. I agree that the government interference is too great in several areas, but it is also necessary in some cases. Extremism in any direction on the political spectrum is usually flawed.
Isn't there anything more formal? I'd rather read a widely accepted book of policies/doctrine than some guys blog.
As someone else said, Libertarianism is non-existent in the UK so I'd be interested in learning more.
Read the works of Thomas Jefferson, Americas most powerful libertarian.
He was a crazy man, that's for sure, but no more crazy then the rest of the people who while they didn't share his views, stood up against an empire with him!
trexmeyer wrote: I have heard some complete gak from libertarians/individuals who self identify as libertarian.
As discussed previously, identifying yourself as a libertarian does not make you a libertarian. For instance, if you're for small government and low taxes but you're against gay rights you're not libertarian, you're conservative.
One such individual is adamantly against all social programs
I'm not. IMO there should be a minimum level of welfare to ensure people don't starve.
As such he firmly believes everything should be privatized and that capitalism can solve everything.
He sounds like an idiot.
The concept of a privatised Police Force, in which the legal powers to arrest and prosecute and convict people lies with private Corporations TERRIFIES me. The Criminal Justice System needs to be held accountable, and the best way to do that is as a public insitution(s) accountable to Parliament and Local Authorities.
Essential services, such as the Emergency Services, Military, Criminal Justice system are obviously necessary.
I would hope that a rational libertarian would recognize that the government is necessary to some extent.
They do. Libertarians are not Anarchists.
I agree that the government interference is too great in several areas, but it is also necessary in some cases.
I agree.
Extremism in any direction on the political spectrum is usually flawed.
Isn't there anything more formal? I'd rather read a widely accepted book of policies/doctrine than some guys blog.
As someone else said, Libertarianism is non-existent in the UK so I'd be interested in learning more.
No, theres not. Libertarianism is more of a principle than a well defined political movement and party. IIRC there is a UK Libertarian Party but its tiny and by no means represents all libertarians.
Monster Rain wrote: If all your political movement has for literature is a bunch of half-asses blogs you need to rethink your life.
Unless it's about Reptilians. Then it's all true.
I think this answers your rather rude remark.
Alexzandvar wrote: Libertarianism IS a political movement and it is not a new one, see my post about Thomas Jefferson.
Do you really need to get personal? I'm not exactly a card carrying, Libertarian Party member, spokesman for all things Libertarian.
My affiliation with libertarianism only extends as far as agreeing with libertarian principles that people should be free to live their lives as they see fit with the minimum of social and economic interference from incompetent politicans and Governments who think they know best in all matters and should have the right to dictate their opinions to other people.
And you've clearly not bothered to actually look at the list of blogs. It includes MEPs (Daniel Hannan), think tanks (Adam Smith Institute and Institute of Economic Affairs ) and pressure groups (Taxpayers Alliance). Theres nothing half assed about those.
Monster Rain wrote: If all your political movement has for literature is a bunch of half-asses blogs you need to rethink your life.
Unless it's about Reptilians. Then it's all true.
They also have Ayn Rand.
Libertarianism falls apart because it's an ideal, and ideals almost never hold up to the real world. Plus, it attracts a lot of fringe elements.
In theory? Damn near everybody is pretty libertarian. I mean, personal freedom is great! In practice? Everybody is willing to give up freedoms for comfort.
In fairness, Ayn Rand was the founder of Objectivism, not strictly speaking a Libertarian, although a lot of Libertarians have sadly embraced her as a kindred spirit. I say sadly, because she was an awful person and terrible philosopher. And I say those things speaking as a man named after one of her characters, before my parents finished growing up and stopped admiring Rand.
Well I personally don't know anything about her, her works or her philosophy. I've never read her books, and from the little I've heard of her I have a negative impression of her.
Inb4 someone attacks me for "agreeing" with her and everything she stands for.
I don't see how disliking a controversial philosopher who said a lot of provocative things are part of her "Shtick" as it were calls ones manhood into question.
Ayn Rand was a nut case, but then again, history is just a tale of nut cases doing nutty things we would never do and changing the world.
What it comes down to is what nut cases we are willing to admit we liked.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Well I personally don't know anything about her, her works or her philosophy. I've never read her books, and from the little I've heard of her I have a negative impression of her.
Inb4 someone attacks me for "agreeing" with her and everything she stands for.
I won't attack you for it, but not giving a feth about anything but yourself is objectivism in a nutshell. I have horribly violated their philosophy by explaining this much to you. Helping is not objectivist.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Well I personally don't know anything about her, her works or her philosophy. I've never read her books, and from the little I've heard of her I have a negative impression of her.
Inb4 someone attacks me for "agreeing" with her and everything she stands for.
I won't attack you for it, but not giving a feth about anything but yourself is objectivism in a nutshell. I have horribly violated their philosophy by explaining this much to you. Helping is not objectivist.
And since when did libertarianism = not giving a feth about anyone but yourself?
Not wanting a Government to dictate your life and take a majority stake in your lifetime income does not mean you don't care about anybody else. It means you don't want the Government to do the caring on your behalf whether you like it or not.
A libertarian is still free to donate to charitable causes that he/she agrees with. They just don't want the Government to take their money by force and give it to "fake" charities that the Government agrees with.
Objectivism sounds abhorrent. Its a good thing I'm not Objectivist.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Well I personally don't know anything about her, her works or her philosophy. I've never read her books, and from the little I've heard of her I have a negative impression of her.
Inb4 someone attacks me for "agreeing" with her and everything she stands for.
I won't attack you for it, but not giving a feth about anything but yourself is objectivism in a nutshell. I have horribly violated their philosophy by explaining this much to you. Helping is not objectivist.
And since when did libertarianism = not giving a feth about anyone but yourself?
Not wanting a Government to dictate your life and take a majority stake in your lifetime income does not mean you don't care about anybody else. It means you don't want the Government to do the caring on your behalf whether you like it or not.
The reason government exists is because people are by nature kinda jerks. We hate to admit it, but it's interesting to note how you go through the day were you subtly favor yourself over others. The government is there to make sure we don't just kill each other when confronted as we did in the cave man days. Or hell, when you could duel people only 300 years ago
"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." -Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
And yes I agree Ayn Rand's objectivsm is not libertarianism but merely a radical version of it.
Alexzandvar wrote: The reason government exists is because people are by nature kinda jerks. We hate to admit it, but it's interesting to note how you go through the day were you subtly favor yourself over others. The government is there to make sure we don't just kill each other when confronted as we did in the cave man days. Or hell, when you could duel people only 300 years ago
"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." -Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
I agree. You do realise that this is a Straw Man don't you? Or at best irrelevant... Because I never said "Lets abolish all Government". Libertarianism is not Anarchism.
And yes I agree Ayn Rand's objectivsm is not libertarianism but merely a radical version of it.
Alexzandvar wrote: The reason government exists is because people are by nature kinda jerks. We hate to admit it, but it's interesting to note how you go through the day were you subtly favor yourself over others. The government is there to make sure we don't just kill each other when confronted as we did in the cave man days. Or hell, when you could duel people only 300 years ago
"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." -Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
I agree. You do realise that this is a Straw Man don't you? Or at best irrelevant... Because I never said "Lets abolish all Government". Libertarianism is not Anarchism.
And yes I agree Ayn Rand's objectivsm is not libertarianism but merely a radical version of it.
Like I said, I know almost nothing about her.
I know, I was not trying to build a straw man, simply, point out that the government does need to step in to make sure everyone gives there fair share towards a better society.
I know, I was not trying to build a straw man, simply, point out that the government does need to step in to make sure everyone gives there fair share towards a better society.
You've gone from "making sure we all don't kill each other" to "making sure everyone gives their fair share to a better society".
Thats quite a leap. And quite a sinister choice of words. I take it you think this Government should use force to make sure everyone gives their "fair share"?
Who defines what a fair share is? Who decides what that better society will look like? What happens when people disagree?
I know, I was not trying to build a straw man, simply, point out that the government does need to step in to make sure everyone gives there fair share towards a better society.
You've gone from "making sure we all don't kill each other" to "making sure everyone gives their fair share to a better society".
Thats quite a leap. And quite a sinister choice of words. I take it you think this Government should use force to make sure everyone gives their "fair share"?
Who defines what a fair share is? Who decides what that better society will look like? What happens when people disagree?
See my quote about taxes. We live in a partly socialist country/society, the entire system of taking taxes from every tier of the economic bracket with more coming from those who earn more and less coming from those who earn less and then the government invests that In adressing issues and helping people.
It shouldn't be shameful to admit. You get in trouble if you don't pay your taxes, we already make people pay, but yes you are correct we are constantly redefining what a fair share exactly.
Your a smart guy, don't put yourself on the level of those who sacrifice themselves on the altar about how much they hate socialism but love social security or their medicaid benefits. Just because a good things comes from out side your method of thinking doesn't mean its inherently evil.
Its why I don't insult you or suggest your dumb for being a libertarian, I recognize people are allowed to be politically diverse and it's what make the free world the free world. The entire system of innocent until proven guilty is libertarian thing, one of the founding principals of civilization is a libertarian ideal.
Alexzandvar wrote: I don't see how disliking a controversial philosopher who said a lot of provocative things are part of her "Shtick" as it were calls ones manhood into question.
Ayn Rand was a nut case, but then again, history is just a tale of nut cases doing nutty things we would never do and changing the world.
What it comes down to is what nut cases we are willing to admit we liked.
I guess were back to that thing were a major athlete coming out is just totally not a big deal because as we know, people like Jesse Own and Jackie Robinson are naught but fairy tales and are totally not athletes of note that happened to be minorities and used their athletic status to help further the cause of civil rights.
Mannahnin wrote: In fairness, Ayn Rand was the founder of Objectivism, not strictly speaking a Libertarian, although a lot of Libertarians have sadly embraced her as a kindred spirit. I say sadly, because she was an awful person and terrible philosopher. And I say those things speaking as a man named after one of her characters, before my parents finished growing up and stopped admiring Rand.
That's kind of my point though: while no political movement in the US has what I'd call a coherent message, they all at least have a structure. Libretarianism has neither, and while you can sum up their ideal in one sentence "as little government as absolutely necessary," the devil, as always, is in the details.
Objectivism is just a radical form of Libertarianism. And the reason people are jumping on board the Ron Paul bitcoin train is living life in fear and mistrust of the government out of your own paranoia is the rule rather than the exception amongst many.
I won't attack you for it, but not giving a feth about anything but yourself is objectivism in a nutshell. I have horribly violated their philosophy by explaining this much to you. Helping is not objectivist.
And since when did libertarianism = not giving a feth about anyone but yourself?
Not wanting a Government to dictate your life and take a majority stake in your lifetime income does not mean you don't care about anybody else. It means you don't want the Government to do the caring on your behalf whether you like it or not.
A libertarian is still free to donate to charitable causes that he/she agrees with. They just don't want the Government to take their money by force and give it to "fake" charities that the Government agrees with.
Objectivism sounds abhorrent. Its a good thing I'm not Objectivist.
Pop the brakes there- I didn't say a thing about Libertarianism. My summary was purely and specifically about objectivism.
Frazzled wrote: Libertarians have this argument down. If it doesn't impact YOU, leave THEM alone.
It has become a very big conflict in the Republican Party with how it's become a thunder dome between the Religious Libertarians who want restrictions on marriage rights, The Libertarians who just don't like government, Establishment Republicans, and Religious Establishment Republicans.
No matter who wins we lose!
Religious Libertarians? What are you talking about? The ones you're describing are religious conservatives. Libertarians don't foist laws on other people. Not like Democrats or Republicans.
Alexzandvar wrote: A religious libertarian would be someone who feels the government should get out of economics, but be more hard on social issues (In support of things like banning gay marriage or gay adoption).
You are describing a Conservative.
Two of my fellow students that I share a dorm hall with describe themselves as religious libertarians and that's what their views are so I just thought that well, that's what they are.
and Conservative (and liberal) has such a huge definition that I don't think its very good to lump people together that way.
Polonius wrote: That's kind of my point though: while no political movement in the US has what I'd call a coherent message, they all at least have a structure. Libretarianism has neither, and while you can sum up their ideal in one sentence "as little government as absolutely necessary," the devil, as always, is in the details.
Do you mean other than the various libertarian parties, or what?
Pro-tip, insulting another poster, especially a mod, espcially the beloved Inasniak, is not wise. There is a Rule #1 here.
Oh to be a Mod again, to walk with a cane and top hat, performing a nice rendition of "singing in the rain" while Pushing the BIG RED BUTTON and banning random posters for no real reason.
Surely conservatives are a broader group of people that want less economic government whereas libertarians are a subset of that group that also wants less social government?
That's my point, libertarian to libertarian you will find that people don't agree on whats necessary a whole lot. As in, a religious libertarian would think it would be necessary to not allow gay rights!
You Democrats are so cute.
No. A LIbertarian can be religious. But a Libertarian would explicitly leave alone people in the bedroom, unless they are harming others. Thats the whole point of Libertarianism, individual freedom from DA MAN telling him what to do.
Again you're describing a religious conservative.
If you're going to make statements about a party you apparently know little about, educate yourself college boy! Thats what that thar higher edumacasion is fer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote: In fairness, Ayn Rand was the founder of Objectivism, not strictly speaking a Libertarian, although a lot of Libertarians have sadly embraced her as a kindred spirit. I say sadly, because she was an awful person and terrible philosopher. And I say those things speaking as a man named after one of her characters, before my parents finished growing up and stopped admiring Rand.
Polonius wrote: That's kind of my point though: while no political movement in the US has what I'd call a coherent message, they all at least have a structure. Libretarianism has neither, and while you can sum up their ideal in one sentence "as little government as absolutely necessary," the devil, as always, is in the details.
Do you mean other than the various libertarian parties, or what?
I think the fact that tere are various libertarian parties helps prove my point.
Maybe I just went to a college with a few too many rich-kid libertarians who wouldn't shut up about it. It's not an ideology I really find practical.
I think it says more you would regard someone who doesn't like in abject fear and hate that the government is always two steps away from turning in a tyrannical super evil empire that hates America and loves "Socialism" or "Facism" or what ever pet word people are using to describe the ideology of people they dislike as being a "leftie" (Someone opposite from you on the political spectrum) and not you know, a sane person who would rather live in trust than in fear
Corpsesarefun wrote: Surely conservatives are a broader group of people that want less economic government whereas libertarians are a subset of that group that also wants less social government?
I think you're getting there. A lot of Libertarians (like myself) are Bill of Rights advocates. Whenever possible government should be small and should not interfere with other people's rights and freedoms. That does not mean to say anarchy, or that social costs from your activiites should not be accounted for. On the contrary, if your acts impact others then you should pay for your trespass.
Frazzeled your addressing points I made pages ago in building on the point your missing on that people are more complicated than party and ideological labels.
Corpsesarefun wrote: Surely conservatives are a broader group of people that want less economic government whereas libertarians are a subset of that group that also wants less social government?
I think you're getting there. A lot of Libertarians (like myself) are Bill of Rights advocates. Whenever possible government should be small and should not interfere with other people's rights and freedoms. That does not mean to say anarchy, or that social costs from your activiites should not be accounted for. On the contrary, if your acts impact others then you should pay for your trespass.
Libertarians, the "Get off My Lawn" Party.
So to say "they are not libertarians, they are conservatives" is a bit strange... Is there not a more specific name for the more authoritarian conservatives?
Corpsesarefun wrote: Surely conservatives are a broader group of people that want less economic government whereas libertarians are a subset of that group that also wants less social government?
I think you're getting there. A lot of Libertarians (like myself) are Bill of Rights advocates. Whenever possible government should be small and should not interfere with other people's rights and freedoms. That does not mean to say anarchy, or that social costs from your activiites should not be accounted for. On the contrary, if your acts impact others then you should pay for your trespass.
Libertarians, the "Get off My Lawn" Party.
I think your confusing Libertarianism with classical liberalism.
Libertarianism operates on the very basis that government is bad when ever it gets involved in something and that a free market and society free of government regulations will fix the issue.
Classical liberalism is the idea the government should "get off my lawn" and let me live my life how I should, and that humans are good natured enough to not need government to tell us how to operate regardless of government being "bad" or "good" and that there does need to be some government to help ensure freedom through protection against invaders and or rebellion.
I would say your more close to a classical liberal in your suggestion it's the governments job to keep out of our lives but still work towards the safe keeping of them.
Corpsesarefun wrote: Surely conservatives are a broader group of people that want less economic government whereas libertarians are a subset of that group that also wants less social government?
I think you're getting there. A lot of Libertarians (like myself) are Bill of Rights advocates. Whenever possible government should be small and should not interfere with other people's rights and freedoms. That does not mean to say anarchy, or that social costs from your activiites should not be accounted for. On the contrary, if your acts impact others then you should pay for your trespass.
Libertarians, the "Get off My Lawn" Party.
I think your confusing Libertarianism with classical liberalism.
Libertarianism operates on the very basis that government is bad when ever it gets involved in something and that a free market and society free of government regulations will fix the issue.
Classical liberalism is the idea the government should "get off my lawn" and let me live my life how I should, and that humans are good natured enough to not need government to tell us how to operate regardless of government being "bad" or "good" and that there does need to be some government to help ensure freedom through protection against invaders and or rebellion.
I would say your more close to a classical liberal in your suggestion it's the governments job to keep out of our lives but still work towards the safe keeping of them.
those are basically the same thing. Because modern liberalism is different (and more prevelent), libertarianism has a different name.
Not all libretarians are hostile to government, especially if they want to have any impact.
Polonius wrote: I think the fact that tere are various libertarian parties helps prove my point.
I'm not sure what your point is, beyond that libertarians don't have monolithic Democrat/Republican style political organizations. I think that's something that most libertarians would regard as ideal.
Polonius wrote: I think the fact that tere are various libertarian parties helps prove my point.
I'm not sure what your point is, beyond that libertarians don't have monolithic Democrat/Republican style political organizations. I think that's something that most libertarians would regard as ideal.
I think that's going to limit the overall influence they have. But it's not exactly something I'm worried about.
Seaward the only reason millennial are drawing towards it is that we live in an age were it's hip and cool to constantly whine and cry about the government and then not really do or suggest anything to fit it.
"Less government" is not a solution, it's just as ignorant to claim that the solution to ending world hunger is "more food" or the solution to building the best race car is "bigger engine"
Polonius wrote: I think that's going to limit the overall influence they have. But it's not exactly something I'm worried about.
Very little question of that, though that's hardly the only reason.
Politico has an interesting article out about the amount of Millenials drawing towards libertarianism, though.
I think every generation is fascinated by third parties. I know I voted Libertarian in 2000, because I didn't see my vote as mattering.
Some of that I rooted in the growing aspects of police state america, which grows regardless of which party is in power. Some is the disgust most young people have with the GOPs social conservativism and the Dems love of welfare spending.
The rub is always what happens when all these young people start working and owning property.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alexzandvar wrote: "Less government" is not a solution, it's just as ignorant to claim that the solution to ending world hunger is "more food" or the solution to building the best race car is "bigger engine"
One day, a candidate is going to start giving concrete examples of regulations, agencies, and laws that are actually hindering things, and propose specific solutions.
Polonius wrote: I think every generation is fascinated by third parties. I know I voted Libertarian in 2000, because I didn't see my vote as mattering.
Some of that I rooted in the growing aspects of police state america, which grows regardless of which party is in power. Some is the disgust most young people have with the GOPs social conservativism and the Dems love of welfare spending.
The rub is always what happens when all these young people start working and owning property.
Hopefully they're like me. I went from the big parties in 00/04 to libertarians as I got older.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: One day, a candidate is going to start giving concrete examples of regulations, agencies, and laws that are actually hindering things, and propose specific solutions.
Polonius wrote: I think every generation is fascinated by third parties. I know I voted Libertarian in 2000, because I didn't see my vote as mattering.
Some of that I rooted in the growing aspects of police state america, which grows regardless of which party is in power. Some is the disgust most young people have with the GOPs social conservativism and the Dems love of welfare spending.
The rub is always what happens when all these young people start working and owning property.
Hopefully they're like me. I went from the big parties in 00/04 to libertarians as I got older.
I've become increasingly apolitical. I still have opinions on my issues, but I really don't see my involvment in politics as having much effect. But I'm a white, upper middle class male. We tend to do pretty well under any system in the US.
Alexzandvar wrote: Frazzeled your addressing points I made pages ago in building on the point your missing on that people are more complicated than party and ideological labels.
Horse gak. You're basing your knowledge base on room mates. If you're going to argue the point get educated on the point first. And don't blah blah me boy. I have children, minis, and underwear older than you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Go Texans!!!
I didn't know you turned masochist on us Kronk. Oh well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maybe I just went to a college with a few too many rich-kid libertarians who wouldn't shut up about it. It's not an ideology I really find practical.
Understandable. Nothing pure works. There always have to be shades here.
Never confuse "people" with the person you're talking to.
There are plenty of reasons, but at its base is that every person sees themselves as acting more consistently with their own ideals then they are. It's human nature.
I've learned to never try to argue with a person about what their ideals really are. Ideals are like compliments or appetizers: just accept them, without arguing or questioning.
I view my self as a Federalist, an advocate of Federal power, reach and governance.
I would not deny a man call himself a Federalist because he has more intense or less views than I, or claim that just because one person who claims such a categorization believes a few things counter to that, that he is not a true federalist.
Sam Sr., who described himself as "old-school," told the newspaper the idea of a gay player in the NFL bothers him, even when that person could be his own son.
He told the newspaper that late Hall of Famer Deacon Jones, the leader of the Rams' Fearsome Foursome who is credited with terming the word sack, "is turning over in his grave."
He told the newspaper, however, that he loves his son and hopes he makes it into the NFL.
Certainly ups the "human interest ante" a little bit for me.
Alexzandvar wrote: Seaward the only reason millennial are drawing towards it is that we live in an age were it's hip and cool to constantly whine and cry about the government and then not really do or suggest anything to fit it.
"Less government" is not a solution, it's just as ignorant to claim that the solution to ending world hunger is "more food" or the solution to building the best race car is "bigger engine"
No. The reason more millennials are turning to libertarian ideals is because many of them voted for President Obama and the hope/change machine in 2008 and got burned because they ended up electing Bush 2.0. When you vote and work to actively change the government, as you claim they don't do, in an election with potentially historic ramifications and practically none of the change comes to pass people tend to get jaded and upset. I for one am glad they took that and turned to something new, completely outside the unchangeable climate and culture of the two main parties. Less government is not the only solution put forth by libertarians.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alexzandvar wrote: I view my self as a Federalist, an advocate of Federal power, reach and governance.
I would not deny a man call himself a Federalist because he has more intense or less views than I, or claim that just because one person who claims such a categorization believes a few things counter to that, that he is not a true federalist.
He's actually a really good player. He might do well at Arizona.
Most projections I've seen has him going in the 3rd or 4th; although he is a bit undersized at 6'2" as a pure DE but moving him to a 3-4 OLB is a gamble as his coverage ability is completely unknown. Still 11.5 Sacks, 19 TFL is impressive in the SEC
Most projections I've seen has him going in the 3rd or 4th; although he is a bit undersized at 6'2" as a pure DE but moving him to a 3-4 OLB is a gamble as his coverage ability is completely unknown. Still 11.5 Sacks, 19 TFL is impressive in the SEC
He actually did quite poorly playing OLB at the Senior Bowl, so what little knowledge of his coverage ability is not positive. Still, if his combine numbers are good someone will pick him up on the chance he can put on weight, or develop coverage skills.
The unfortunate thing about his announcement is that he has attracted more scouting attention than he would have otherwise received, dropping his draft ranking because he's in an awkward position, physically, given his skill set.
Alexzandvar wrote: Seaward the only reason millennial are drawing towards it is that we live in an age were it's hip and cool to constantly whine and cry about the government and then not really do or suggest anything to fit it.
"Less government" is not a solution, it's just as ignorant to claim that the solution to ending world hunger is "more food" or the solution to building the best race car is "bigger engine"
No. The reason more millennials are turning to libertarian ideals is because many of them voted for President Obama and the hope/change machine in 2008 and got burned because they ended up electing Bush 2.0. When you vote and work to actively change the government, as you claim they don't do, in an election with potentially historic ramifications and practically none of the change comes to pass people tend to get jaded and upset. I for one am glad they took that and turned to something new, completely outside the unchangeable climate and culture of the two main parties. Less government is not the only solution put forth by libertarians.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alexzandvar wrote: I view my self as a Federalist, an advocate of Federal power, reach and governance.
I would not deny a man call himself a Federalist because he has more intense or less views than I, or claim that just because one person who claims such a categorization believes a few things counter to that, that he is not a true federalist.
The election of 1800 called...
The label of Federalist is one of ideals not one of party alignment, I like establishment Republicans like Nixon and Eisenhower, and Democratic Presidents like FDR and Lydon B. Johnson.
And I did not suggest that less government was the only thing Libertarians believed in, but that holding that idea at all in a general sense is hard to justify because its just such a widely damning statement to suggest that government cannot help people outside of "certain designated areas" which vary person to person it seems.
And I addressed that bitterness you seem to hold yourself, that it is hip and cool with the kids to be against government because Obama isn't the second coming of democratic christ, like they believed in their wide eyed naivety.
If you are a Libertarian not because you find your deals in line with other libertarians but because you feel that a knee jerk reaction to one president getting elected on a platform he wasn't sure he could deliver on is needed then you are in for a rough ride come the next few presidential cycles.
Most projections I've seen has him going in the 3rd or 4th; although he is a bit undersized at 6'2" as a pure DE but moving him to a 3-4 OLB is a gamble as his coverage ability is completely unknown. Still 11.5 Sacks, 19 TFL is impressive in the SEC
He actually did quite poorly playing OLB at the Senior Bowl, so what little knowledge of his coverage ability is not positive. Still, if his combine numbers are good someone will pick him up on the chance he can put on weight, or develop coverage skills.
The unfortunate thing about his announcement is that he has attracted more scouting attention than he would have otherwise received, dropping his draft ranking because he's in an awkward position, physically, given his skill set.
OTOH, he may have set himself up to be selected by a team that values his actual skills as a pass rusher. If he's playing the long game, a career as a passing downs DE and special teams guy can last a long time, especially at third day pick money.
From what I've read, I think he'd do better as a dedicated backup/platoon member, rather then a starter. 10 years of backup money is better then a few years of mid round draft pick money. Then, if he has an explosive year, he can sign to a team based on his performance.
Also, teams that need backups as opposed to starters tend to be better run teams, with a better team culture, which is something that he needs. He'd probably do better as a backup in Seattle, New England, or San Fran then as a starter in Jacksonville.
Most projections I've seen has him going in the 3rd or 4th; although he is a bit undersized at 6'2" as a pure DE but moving him to a 3-4 OLB is a gamble as his coverage ability is completely unknown. Still 11.5 Sacks, 19 TFL is impressive in the SEC
He actually did quite poorly playing OLB at the Senior Bowl, so what little knowledge of his coverage ability is not positive. Still, if his combine numbers are good someone will pick him up on the chance he can put on weight, or develop coverage skills.
The unfortunate thing about his announcement is that he has attracted more scouting attention than he would have otherwise received, dropping his draft ranking because he's in an awkward position, physically, given his skill set.
OTOH, he may have set himself up to be selected by a team that values his actual skills as a pass rusher. If he's playing the long game, a career as a passing downs DE and special teams guy can last a long time, especially at third day pick money.
From what I've read, I think he'd do better as a dedicated backup/platoon member, rather then a starter. 10 years of backup money is better then a few years of mid round draft pick money. Then, if he has an explosive year, he can sign to a team based on his performance.
Also, teams that need backups as opposed to starters tend to be better run teams, with a better team culture, which is something that he needs. He'd probably do better as a backup in Seattle, New England, or San Fran then as a starter in Jacksonville.
Aw man... a backup on that 49er defense? That's be sick...
Also, there are a few Mizzou starters on that team as well.
He's actually a really good player. He might do well at Arizona.
Most projections I've seen has him going in the 3rd or 4th; although he is a bit undersized at 6'2" as a pure DE but moving him to a 3-4 OLB is a gamble as his coverage ability is completely unknown. Still 11.5 Sacks, 19 TFL is impressive in the SEC
Part of what made him so successful was Kony Ealy. Sam is fast, Ealy is massive. Teams doubled up on him and left Sam to used his ridiculous burst speed. If that sort of pairing can be replicated, or he can find a team that has some DE's but little depth and pop him in when up against scrambling Q's like Wilson and Kaepernick, I think he could be very successful.
I want Seattle to take him, but we've already got about thirty DE's.
Most projections I've seen has him going in the 3rd or 4th; although he is a bit undersized at 6'2" as a pure DE but moving him to a 3-4 OLB is a gamble as his coverage ability is completely unknown. Still 11.5 Sacks, 19 TFL is impressive in the SEC
The problem is that 9 of his sacks came against bad, bad teams in Arkansas State, Vandy, and Florida. I'd honestly be more concerned that he "only" had 48 tackles, and is far from the best DE in the SEC. Clowney, Nkemdiche, Rasco, are all probably better. I don't see why he can't transition to a James Harrison type in the NFL though.
Sadly, I think there are only 3-4 teams that can take the risk of drafting him, with the Seahawks, 49ers, And patriots heading that list. I'd have included my bengals on there because I think they have the locker room leadership to do so, but I'm not convinced very catholic cincinnati would be the right fit.
I applaud him for pointing out the blatant hypocrisy that is rampant in sports. I'll go even further and say that every group of athletes I have been around has always had at least one, usually more, individual that was verbally and emotionally abusive to women. Why is that tolerated at all levels of sport and being homosexual is somehow taboo? Personally, I don't want to hear anything about anyone's sexual preferences or adventures regardless of whether or not it is heterosexual, homosexual, or something considered "deviant" by society.
One day, a candidate is going to start giving concrete examples of regulations, agencies, and laws that are actually hindering things, and propose specific solutions.
I'd be interested to see it.
Gary Johnson.
He's a good example, especially since Ron has always been seen as a "fringe" guy with some pretty loose ideas. Gary on the other hand was one of the most respected and well liked governors in recent history. And has real experience bringing libertarian ideology into real world government. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson
It really isn't hard to find out about the Libertarian party either. FWIW it is the third largest party in American politics.
Economically conservative, Socially liberal is the simplest explanation. I'm a card carrying member, been one my entire adult life.
To the OP:
I think it's great that he came out publicly on his terms. And that is the best reason to be interested in this story. I recognize the effect this has on the gay-rights movement, but I see this as an important example of a man taking control of a situation.
OTOH, he may have set himself up to be selected by a team that values his actual skills as a pass rusher. If he's playing the long game, a career as a passing downs DE and special teams guy can last a long time, especially at third day pick money.
Even as a passing downs DE you would want the guy to be solid in coverage in order to avoid telegraphing the play to the opposition, and being weak in coverage generally means being weak in all special teams that aren't block attempts. That said, he is clearly a great athlete and more than capable of learning the skills he needs in order to be successful.
But you're correct, teams with good programs would be the best fits for him both due to his statement and his need for development.
buuuuuuuuuut It seems to be until gay people have all the SAME rights as straight people do, such as free right to marry the issues DOES need to be pushed and there DOES need to be a discussion.
