The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Jason Collins is being treated like a hero by some. He is not.

I do not care what are the private lives of people in the public eye. I do not want to know whether they are heterosexuals, bisexuals, homosexuals, transexuals, or asexuals. I could care less about the sexual preferences of people in the public eye unless they become issues that affect negatively their ability to perform their professional or public duties. They probably could inform their families in view of their obligations to them but the public at large has no need to know.

I only care about the aspect of a private life which affects negatively the performance of one person's obligations and responsibilities in their public lives. If one private aspect interferes negatively with their duties, I want to know because it has an impact on the part of their lives which is paid by others to perform.

Whatever happens in the comfort of their bedrooms, it is THEIR business and they are responsible for those actions and the potential repercussions from them in health, family, society and other consequences.

However, if people decide to ADVERTISE their sexual preferences, THESE should become non-issues and non-events. They are what they are whether privately or publicly.

Coming out of the closet is not a heroic action. It is a non-event.

It is your life Jason. I did not care to know about it before and I do not care to know about it now either. If this is a marketing move to gain profit, sympathy or respect, it did not work out well with me.

You are NO HERO.

Redskin in Canada wrote:Jason Collins is being treated like a hero by some. He is not.

I do not care what are the private lives of people in the public eye. I do not want to know whether they are heterosexuals, bisexuals, homosexuals, transexuals, or asexuals. I could care less about the sexual preferences of people in the public eye unless they become issues that affect negatively their ability to perform their professional or public duties. They probably could inform their families in view of their obligations to them but the public at large has no need to know.

I only care about the aspect of a private life which affects negatively the performance of one person's obligations and responsibilities in their public lives. If one private aspect interferes negatively with their duties, I want to know because it has an impact on the part of their lives which is paid by others to perform.

Whatever happens in the comfort of their bedrooms, it is THEIR business and they are responsible for those actions and the potential repercussions from them in health, family, society and other consequences.

However, if people decide to ADVERTISE their sexual preferences, THESE should become non-issues and non-events. They are what they are whether privately or publicly.

Coming out of the closet is not a heroic action. It is a non-event.

It is your life Jason. I did not care to know about it before and I do not care to know about it now either. If this is a marketing move to gain profit, sympathy or respect, it did not work out well with me.

You are NO HERO.

Unfortunately, RiC, you are in the overwhelming minority w/r/t your views on a public individual's public revelation of his/her personal preferences. It is precisely because you are such a minority, that in fact the act of publicly revealing one's personal preferences, beliefs, etc. is an event. That this revelation is regarding a topic which the majority can not seem to reach your enlightened viewpoint with respect to, is what makes him a hero and the event news worthy. Unfortunately the heroism involved is not the byproduct of the act itself but rather in the world that is receiving it.

In other words, for him not to be a hero by the logic you've put forward, a lot more people would need to be able to see things the way you do (i.e. truly, to each his own). The advertisement of one's sexual preference SHOULD be a non-issue and a non-event. But that IS not reality.

I think what Collins did was brave and difficult. His column seemed to me to be about as genuine/honest/truthful as anything I've read from a player.

I think a lot of people would agree that this waiting and tiptoeing around hte issue has gotten very old. In a sense I agree with you, RiC, because I think we'll all be better off once this kind of thing is a nonissue. Unfortunately, whether a pro sports player is gay will only become a nonissue precisely when his/her coming out isn't a unique event. So, hopefully, what Collins did will encourage and incentivize other gay athletes currently playing to do the same.

Irn-Bru wrote:I think what Collins did was brave and difficult. His column seemed to me to be about as genuine/honest/truthful as anything I've read from a player.

I think a lot of people would agree that this waiting and tiptoeing around hte issue has gotten very old. In a sense I agree with you, RiC, because I think we'll all be better off once this kind of thing is a nonissue. Unfortunately, whether a pro sports player is gay will only become a nonissue precisely when his/her coming out isn't a unique event. So, hopefully, what Collins did will encourage and incentivize other gay athletes currently playing to do the same.

Very well put, and my feelings on the issue as well.

emoses14 wrote:The advertisement of one's sexual preference SHOULD be a non-issue and a non-event. But that IS not reality.

Who cares what religion, gender, race, or sexual preferences a person has?

REALLY?

So, if somebody is a shinto follower is it relevant to anything?

If a person is a woman, or even worse, a man, should it be a rule to get or not get a job?

A promotion is a job-performance event regardless of the colour of anybody's skin?

Should a lesbian care what the world thinks?

So, should a atheist (put whatever religion here) black (any skin colour here) lesbian (any other sexual preference here) be treated as a hero or any different than anybody else for THOSE reasons?

I think NOT.

Every person should be judged by the strength of their character and actions, and their conduct to others.

COMING OUT is not an action of courage just as acknowledging one's religious beliefs, gender or ethnic background.

Persecution of people based on religion, gender, race, or sexual preferences is a CRIME.

But my problem is that, all of the sudden, making their preferences public makes somebody a hero. Those are NON-EVENTS.

One of the problem with making such statements public is that now a harmless taunt in a basketball court by an opposing player becomes an act of hatred and even criminal prosecution.

On the flip side, I would argue that the PUBLICITY coming out of such action is a very welcome commercial marketing initiative. A player who was in the middle of a mediocre team with a mediocre sports life becomes the hero of many in society.

This reminds me of Tim Tebow in a way. A player who marketed his conservative religious beliefs to his own benefit. This is just a different cause.

BOTH mean NOTHING to me. No heros, no nothing. IRRELEVANT.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

emoses14 wrote:The advertisement of one's sexual preference SHOULD be a non-issue and a non-event. But that IS not reality.

Who cares what religion, gender, race, or sexual preferences a person has?

Not me, not you. However, I'm sure you're aware that a large number of (closed) minded people do. To them, if it's not in line with, or close enough to, what they think and feel then its stupid, wrong, un-american, [fill in jingoistic adjective here]

Redskin in Canada wrote:REALLY?

Yes, really.

Redskin in Canada wrote:So, if somebody is a shinto follower is it relevant to anything?

Well, that depends. Probably not, so long as you aren't Chinese. If you are Chinese, then the intertwined nature of Shinto with Japanese fundamentalism probably means identification as a Shinto follower is very relevant to a lot of things.

Redskin in Canada wrote:If a person is a woman, or even worse, a man, should it be a rule to get or not get a job?

No, unless the job is to have someone's baby or to donate sperm.

Redskin in Canada wrote:A promotion is a job-performance event regardless of the colour of anybody's skin?

This feels like a statement rather than a question, and it works for me as either always an event or never an event.

Redskin in Canada wrote:Should a lesbian care what the world thinks?

Hell yes. Given the number of individuals who wold do that lesbian harm, deny that lesbian certain civil rights, or treat her differently, solely based on the fact of her being a lesbian, she has no choice but to care.

Redskin in Canada wrote:So, should a atheist (put whatever religion here) black (any skin colour here) lesbian (any other sexual preference here) be treated as a hero or any different than anybody else for THOSE reasons?

I'll try to rephrase my original response a little in answering. They SHOULD NOT be treated differently or as a hero for any of those reasons. They should be signaled as a hero for standing up for those reasons in face of what being athiest, black, lesbian, etc. means vis a vis the rest of society, the world, etc. There is no intrinsic heroism in being any one thing, the heroism is the result of standing up for being that thing despite the negative perception, reaction, or treatment for simply being that thing. To publicly invite that level of scrutiny, negativity or otherwise shaming reaction so that other similarly situated people can look up to you is, by definition, heroic.

Redskin in Canada wrote:I think NOT.

Then you don't get out much.

Redskin in Canada wrote:Every person should be judged by the strength of their character and actions, and their conduct to others.

. I could not agree with you more. In fact, this is the world I'd like to think we're all striving towards. HOWEVER, this world does not exist, RiC, and that was my point in the prior post. We SHOULD live in a world where the lesbian doesn't have to care what anyone thinks, it doesn't matter if you're shinto, or black, or purple, or hindi, or muslim or gay. The FACT is that we do live in a world where it matters. That's my point. That's why it is an event and the man is a hero. Because we don't live in a normative world, we live in this one.

Redskin in Canada wrote:COMING OUT is not an action of courage just as acknowledging one's religious beliefs, gender or ethnic background.

You're lumping too many things together here. First off, one's gender and many types of ethnic backgrounds do not need to be acknowledged because it is self evident. That doesn't undercut (in fact it often augments it) the possible negativity such a person deals with, but you'd never see someone come out as black, for instance. When there isn't stigma attached with being gay, or whatever other stigma attaching thing you want to talk about, then you WILL BE RIGHT, identifying as such will not be courageous, not be an event. It'll just simply be identification. Look around, RiC, that ain't the case. I"M OVERJOYED that it is for you. Your acceptance of all walks of life is fantastic, but don't play dumb in believing that it is that way for everyone.

Redskin in Canada wrote:Persecution of people based on religion, gender, race, or sexual preferences is a CRIME.

But my problem is that, all of the sudden, making their preferences public makes somebody a hero. Those are NON-EVENTS.

Persecution by a state actor is a crime, if it is proven. Discrimination on these basis in certain circumstances is a crime, if proven. However, I believe you'd agree that State actor persecution and the criminalization of limited instances of discrimination do not cover the gamut of negative or unfair treatment towards certain groups. AND NO, the point is not that everyone should be treated as though they are a king/queen (no pun intended), but it is that there is a baseline level of human decency and equality that should be afforded to all that isn't to certain groups for no reason other than their affiliation with that group.

Redskin in Canada wrote:One of the problem with making such statements public is that now a harmless taunt in a basketball court by an opposing player becomes an act of hatred and even criminal prosecution.

I'm not gonna pretend that it isn't a bit annoying that certain words used 10 years ago are now all of sudden proof of your being homophobic/insensitive/not pc/etc. BUT it is ludicrous to say that the reason they aren't is because of such public statements. The reason that they are seen as "an act of hatred" is because in addition to be used on a basketball court, harmlessly, they have been used on a basketball court by player 1, who then follows player 2 home, using said taunt again and again, and then, with the help of his friends, player 1 proceeds to assault player 2. Its a slippery slope and I'm not saying that the use of any word BY ITSELF is grounds for prosecution. Words have meaning, sometimes those meanings are more ominous than other times. So i understasnd both sides of the "certain words are dangerous, don't use them" and "I'm using this word in a non-offensive way" argument. This is a longer point that is tangential to your OP, so I'll save it for some other time

Redskin in Canada wrote:On the flip side, I would argue that the PUBLICITY coming out of such action is a very welcome commercial marketing initiative. A player who was in the middle of a mediocre team with a mediocre sports life becomes the hero of many in society.

This reminds me of Tim Tebow in a way. A player who marketed his conservative religious beliefs to his own benefit. This is just a different cause.

There's truth here. But I didn't take your original point to be this. Here's where I get to be a piece of work and draw a distinction between Collins and Tebow, and the difference is majority acceptance. Collins revelation is one that the majority of folks still seem to take issue with and Tebow's was one that the majority of folks seem not to take issue with. I find a lot more credibility in your publicity charge with respect to Tebow (Disclaimer: I'm looking at him strictly as a manipulator in this context RiC brought up. Not saying his beliefs were a publicity stunt) than Collins. The potential negative backlash to be faced by Tebow is a 3 on a scale of 1 to 10, and about a 7 for Collins. So the cost benefit analysis for Tebow's pronouncement is a net plus, while collins' is a net minus. The bounce collins will receive from this is not going to put much in the way of money in his pocket at this point in his career. It will up visibility and how he is lauded, sure. Put my point a slightly different way. Collins' announcement also potentially puts his life in danger. Please do not tell me that there aren't zealots out there who believe that gays should be killed. When was the last time a god-fearing Christian was killed because of his believe in Christ? It can't just be a monetary cost benefit analysis if this is the point you want to make, I don't think.

Redskin in Canada wrote:BOTH mean NOTHING to me. No heros, no nothing. IRRELEVANT.

Again, but that all of US felt the same way, you'd not only be right, but you would have no need to start this thread in the first place because it wouldn't have occurred to you that it needed to be written. Probably because the story would have been buried in the local sports section of whatever paper the reporter writing it worked for. Or, for SI, it might have been a blurb in those first couple of pages, rather than a featured cover story.

Not bashing here, just a thought, but people do realize that if everyone became homosexual it would mean the extinction of the human race right?

I wish I was eloquent enough to avoid having to restrict this post to:

^THIS

or

^WHAT HE SAID

I love it.. people who disagree are close minded and bigots.

Awesome.

emoses14 wrote:

Redskin in Canada wrote:So, should a atheist (put whatever religion here) black (any skin colour here) lesbian (any other sexual preference here) be treated as a hero or any different than anybody else for THOSE reasons?

I'll try to rephrase my original response a little in answering. They SHOULD NOT be treated differently or as a hero for any of those reasons. They should be signaled as a hero for standing up for those reasons in face of what being athiest, black, lesbian, etc. means vis a vis the rest of society, the world, etc. There is no intrinsic heroism in being any one thing, the heroism is the result of standing up for being that thing despite the negative perception, reaction, or treatment for simply being that thing. To publicly invite that level of scrutiny, negativity or otherwise shaming reaction so that other similarly situated people can look up to you is, by definition, heroic.

You obviously have a worse opinion of society than I do.

I do not feel that "society" is condemning Collins, or any other homosexual. It is NOT doing it since the LAW is on the side of NON-DISCRIMINATION based on gender, religion, ethnic background, or sexual orientation.

Will there ALWAYS be prejudice EVERYWHERE? Hell, yeah!

But COMING OUT now does not represent any life-threatening situation by SOCIETY. Hell, people have even been killed by crazy fanatics for cheering for the opposite sports team in a stadium!

My point is:

the so called RISK due to COMING OUT is no greater than the risk of death that an undocumented farm worker faces when coming to the USA from Mexico or Central American just because he is ... Mexican or Central American, or the danger of being hunted in a hate crime by a supremacist group because a person is black or jewish, or the danger a white person endures just for being white in a violent East LA neighbourhood.

My point is that the right to choose an homosexual life is protected by society. Are there risks involved by such public declaration? Are there grounds to fear a witch-hunt of Collins?

NOT FROM SOCIETY IN MY VIEW. No more than many other individual citizens are vulnerable to be attacked for many other reasons and circumstances by criminals.

I get your point but such an argument would have had weight 20 or even 10 years ago. At that time, this action would have represented courage. Today, it is a NON-EVENT and even possibly a self-promotion.

Redskin in Canada wrote:My point is:

the so called RISK due to COMING OUT is no greater than the risk of death that an undocumented farm worker faces when coming to the USA from Mexico or Central American just because he is ... Mexican or Central American, or the danger of being hunted in a hate crime by a supremacist group because a person is black or jewish, or the danger a white person endures just for being white in a violent East LA neighbourhood.

I hear you. You know I have a great deal of sympathy for those who take the risk of being "undocumented." They are real heroes, IMHO.

My point is that the right to choose an homosexual life is protected by society. Are there risks involved by such public declaration? Are there grounds to fear a witch-hunt of Collins?

NOT FROM SOCIETY IN MY VIEW. No more than many other individual citizens are vulnerable to be attacked for many other reasons and circumstances by criminals.

Understood. Homosexual pro ball players are probably not facing any financial or physical lashback for coming out. In fact not only would their basic rights be protected, but I suspect public support would largely be in their favor — not to mention teammates, coaches, owners, analysts, the pro team's organization, etc.

I get your point but such an argument would have had weight 20 or even 10 years ago. At that time, this action would have represented courage. Today, it is a NON-EVENT and even possibly a self-promotion.

Here is where I disagree. I don't think Collins is under the illusion that he risks life or limb by coming out. No gay player is likely to be in real danger for coming out.

But I don't think that's what this is about. This isn't about fundamental rights or protection from discrimination. This is about being able to live without keeping secrets — not hiding something close to one's heart from teammates, fans, and the media. These pro athletes who are gay are all working at dissembling this fact.

Suppose a player doesn't come out but lives his lifestyle as though he has. The media circus would be far worse than the attention that has surrounded Collins. And Collins will likely attract the most attention out of all the athletes who from now on are open about their sexuality. Each will be less and less of a story until . . . we reach the stage you are talking about.

I do not think we are already there, as you seem to think. In that respect, I do see Collins' column as brave and worthy of attention. "Hero" might be a strong word, and I'd certainly never put him on the level of the heroes you bring up, but this announcement has its place in the world, too, and that place isn't/shouldn't be "total obscurity" given the way things are right now.

too bad he's a bum who won't get picked up next year.. I was curious to see what happens when somebody has to play defense on him or box him out.. you know, basketball stuff

defensive player be like.. shoooooot coach, what you want me to do?? i had to let him get the dunk he was trying to back me down!!!

Let's be honest and say that someone had to do it. There are people within our society who are simply revolted by the idea of having to tolerate the existence of gay people. Some of those people tend to be in sports where you are closer to your teammates than sometimes your own family. It does take courage for a gay person to "come out" as it can totally flip their world upside down. 50 years from now this won't be a big issue (hopefully); however, in our society today, people are still getting used to the fact that there is no viable reason why a homosexual should have to hide their identity for the fear of being ostracized for their inborn nature. Homosexuals have been around for a very long time and they deserve the same courtesy and respect as any other person in this world.

Cappster wrote:Let's be honest and say that someone had to do it. There are people within our society who are simply revolted by the idea of having to tolerate the existence of gay people. Some of those people tend to be in sports where you are closer to your teammates than sometimes your own family. It does take courage for a gay person to "come out" as it can totally flip their world upside down. 50 years from now this won't be a big issue (hopefully); however, in our society today, people are still getting used to the fact that there is no viable reason why a homosexual should have to hide their identity for the fear of being ostracized for their inborn nature. Homosexuals have been around for a very long time and they deserve the same courtesy and respect as any other person in this world.

I agree that all people are created equally and are deserving of respect regardless of age, sex, location, religion, sexuality, etc.

**General thoughts below; not in reply to any one comment **

There are three homosexual men at my work that I'm friends with. They are extremely kind at heart and I wish more people possessed their kind nature (homosexual or heterosexual).

I don't agree with their lifestyle none the less. Yes, its possible to love someone with all your heart and still disagree with how they live.

Sure, you can say its none of my business how they live, and they know I'm a Christian. So I just let them decide, if ever, to bring that topic up with me. Its my duty to love all people even if I disagree with what they do.

However, what disturbs me is people's ability to blind themselves to the true nature of their actions. Being proud of someone who is coming out or even being nice to someone because they are homosexual is no different than reverse racism...just in a sexist context.

I see so many people treating homosexuals differently so as to be agreeable with them "nice", but people don't realize that unbeknownst to them, they have a attitude of superiority over homosexuals. Kind of like a "oh that poor homosexual, lets be nice to them because they are in need of support". To "support" someone means you view them as unable to do something alone.

This is self-righteous, self-serving, and covertly derogative to homosexuals. If I were a homosexual, I'd be offended by the attention. Merely giving attention to this is an acknowledgement that it is "abnormal".

There is an obvious physical design in the sexual anatomy of the human body created for a specific purpose. There are opposite ends that "match" the other's.

Sexuality aside, it generally considered "unsafe" to use a product in a way other than intended; how it was created to function.

Again, not attacking homosexuals here, or anyone at that; just wanting to bring something to light.

I know this isn't popular opinion and will offend some people. Though I apologize for any hurt feelings...here I stand, because I have the balls to stand for what I believe in even though I will be hated for it.

Any comments on this one?

Irn-Bru wrote:I hear you. You know I have a great deal of sympathy for those who take the risk of being "undocumented." They are real heroes, IMHO.

I do not feel that they are heroes either but courage ... no doubt.

Understood. Homosexual pro ball players are probably not facing any financial or physical lashback for coming out. In fact not only would their basic rights be protected, but I suspect public support would largely be in their favor — not to mention teammates, coaches, owners, analysts, the pro team's organization, etc.

Agreed

Here is where I disagree. I don't think Collins is under the illusion that he risks life or limb by coming out. No gay player is likely to be in real danger for coming out.

I agree completely. Where is the disagreement?

But I don't think that's what this is about. This isn't about fundamental rights or protection from discrimination. This is about being able to live without keeping secrets — not hiding something close to one's heart from teammates, fans, and the media. These pro athletes who are gay are all working at dissembling this fact.

He does not have to HIDE or ADVERTISE anything. How about just LIVING his ife as he choses? That is why it is a NON-EVENT.

Suppose a player doesn't come out but lives his lifestyle as though he has. The media circus would be far worse than the attention that has surrounded Collins. And Collins will likely attract the most attention out of all the athletes who from now on are open about their sexuality. Each will be less and less of a story until . . . we reach the stage you are talking about.

If his private life becomes public knowledge, it does. Nothing wrong with acknowledging who he is if his privacy is invaded. He could sue and acknowledge if he wished to.

I do not think we are already there, as you seem to think. In that respect, I do see Collins' column as brave and worthy of attention. "Hero" might be a strong word, and I'd certainly never put him on the level of the heroes you bring up, but this announcement has its place in the world, too, and that place isn't/shouldn't be "total obscurity" given the way things are right now.

So, in the end, it isnot about fear of discrimination or harm. It is about timing. And we only argue if thiswas good or bad timing.

My argument is that if we REALLY are against discrimination of any kind in a way that a person's right underlaw are protected, this is a NON-EVENT.

HTTRRG3ALMO wrote:I see so many people treating homosexuals differently so as to be agreeable with them "nice", but people don't realize that unbeknownst to them, they have a attitude of superiority over homosexuals. Kind of like a "oh that poor homosexual, lets be nice to them because they are in need of support". To "support" someone means you view them as unable to do something alone.

Some people weigh one way, others go in the opposite direction.

My point is: a person who respects the law and the choices of others should regard their lives as PRIVATE and if they decide to come out on their own, it is a NON-EVENT.

I will not treat anybody differently one way or another due to their sexual orientation. I will treat them for what they are as persons. And I assure you that, just like in other parts of society, there will some fine gay and lesbian persons, there will some awful ones, and there will many in between.

This coming out was for public consumption. There were others who knew first hand (no pun intended) that he was gay.

HTTRRG3ALMO wrote:

Cappster wrote:Let's be honest and say that someone had to do it. There are people within our society who are simply revolted by the idea of having to tolerate the existence of gay people. Some of those people tend to be in sports where you are closer to your teammates than sometimes your own family. It does take courage for a gay person to "come out" as it can totally flip their world upside down. 50 years from now this won't be a big issue (hopefully); however, in our society today, people are still getting used to the fact that there is no viable reason why a homosexual should have to hide their identity for the fear of being ostracized for their inborn nature. Homosexuals have been around for a very long time and they deserve the same courtesy and respect as any other person in this world.

I agree that all people are created equally and are deserving of respect regardless of age, sex, location, religion, sexuality, etc.

**General thoughts below; not in reply to any one comment **

There are three homosexual men at my work that I'm friends with. They are extremely kind at heart and I wish more people possessed their kind nature (homosexual or heterosexual).

I don't agree with their lifestyle none the less. Yes, its possible to love someone with all your heart and still disagree with how they live.

Sure, you can say its none of my business how they live, and they know I'm a Christian. So I just let them decide, if ever, to bring that topic up with me. Its my duty to love all people even if I disagree with what they do.

However, what disturbs me is people's ability to blind themselves to the true nature of their actions. Being proud of someone who is coming out or even being nice to someone because they are homosexual is no different than reverse racism...just in a sexist context.

I see so many people treating homosexuals differently so as to be agreeable with them "nice", but people don't realize that unbeknownst to them, they have a attitude of superiority over homosexuals. Kind of like a "oh that poor homosexual, lets be nice to them because they are in need of support". To "support" someone means you view them as unable to do something alone.

This is self-righteous, self-serving, and covertly derogative to homosexuals. If I were a homosexual, I'd be offended by the attention. Merely giving attention to this is an acknowledgement that it is "abnormal".

There is an obvious physical design in the sexual anatomy of the human body created for a specific purpose. There are opposite ends that "match" the other's.

Sexuality aside, it generally considered "unsafe" to use a product in a way other than intended; how it was created to function.

Again, not attacking homosexuals here, or anyone at that; just wanting to bring something to light.

I know this isn't popular opinion and will offend some people. Though I apologize for any hurt feelings...here I stand, because I have the balls to stand for what I believe in even though I will be hated for it.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but I truly hope they are your own feelings and not just, because a book told you that you need to believe a certain way. I am not sure what you mean by "people being blind to the true nature of their actions." If it is their inborn nature, they should be able to express themselves freely without fear of alienating people who are unjustly homophobic.

I have a few homosexual friends, but I feel like the difference between you and I is that I don't view their lifestyle as being a sin. They are who they are and yes, there are other species of animals that have exhibited homosexual behavior. I mean, by your logic, the penis can only go in one hole, the vagina, to justify us being inline with nature/god/whoever. I am pretty sure the majority of us have stuck it in the other two port holes that were not "designed" for penial penetration. I am not trying to be graphic, but I am trying to show that using the argument "that doesn't go there" is not a strong argument whatsoever.

Supporting a person/player/whoever coming out as being gay doesn't mean they cannot do it by themselves. It does, however, mean that we can empathize with the cultural hurdles they will have to clear for no longer hiding and declaring who they are.

Cappster wrote:Supporting a person/player/whoever coming out as being gay doesn't mean they cannot do it by themselves. It does, however, mean that we can empathize with the cultural hurdles they will have to clear for no longer hiding and declaring who they are.

Some people do not get it.

Nobody HAS to empathise ...

All that is needed is to respect other people's choices and lives.

And there is no need to bring a righteous religious or anti-religious argument in this discussion as it only distracts from the main issue:

The true test of non-discrimination is to regard this situation as a NON-EVENT, which the media is glamorizing because it makes (and sells) "news".

langleyparkjoe wrote:Any comments on this one?

Too easy?

Redskin in Canada wrote:

Cappster wrote:Supporting a person/player/whoever coming out as being gay doesn't mean they cannot do it by themselves. It does, however, mean that we can empathize with the cultural hurdles they will have to clear for no longer hiding and declaring who they are.

Some people do not get it.

Nobody HAS to empathise ...

All that is needed is to respect other people's choices and lives.

And there is no need to bring a righteous religious or anti-religious argument in this discussion as it only distracts from the main issue:

The true test of non-discrimination is to regard this situation as a NON-EVENT, which the media is glamorizing because it makes (and sells) "news".

And one day it will be a nonevent as it will be a cultural norm, but today is not that day. Just like the other minority groups that had to breakdown barriers, homosexuals will part of the majority daily culture. I agree with the sentiment that all we have to do is to accept another persons choice in how they want to live their life. Unfortunately, many Americans do not accept and do not want to tolerate the homosexual lifestyle and the main basis for their belief system is based upon religion. The two, in most cases, are synonymous with one another and people use their religious beliefs to justify their disapproval of homosexuals.

What puzzles me is this: if this is a NON EVENT, why is it worthy of a thread?

The sad thing is that we still live in a society where this topic seems to merit even a passing second of discussion, even when that discussion is initiated by somebody who started the discussion by telling us all that it's not worthy of discussion.

I'm not sure what we're discussing here. This is yet more clear proof that you can put 10 Redskins fan into a room and hear 10 different opinions about a topic on which you'd think a consensus had already been reached.

I hereby charge RiC with the crime of rabble rousing, and general trouble making. Punishable by raspberry blowing:

UK Skins Fan wrote:What puzzles me is this: if this is a NON EVENT, why is it worthy of a thread?

Because the media has made a "news" bonanza out of it. It is a reaction to the extent of printed and tv media coverage. I am sure these may not be front page sports news in the UK but in the US, it is.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

UK Skins Fan wrote:What puzzles me is this: if this is a NON EVENT, why is it worthy of a thread?

Because the media has made a "news" bonanza out of it. It is a reaction to the extent of printed and tv media coverage. I am sure these may not be front page sports news in the UK but in the US, it is.

Plus our president hyped it up even more with the telephone love stuff.



Nice job mr president, way to stay on top of things (so to speak)