Page 20 of 22 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 220

Thread: All-American college football player Michael Sam says he is gay

  1. #191
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 06:57 PM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,198

    Re: All-American college football player Michael Sam says he is gay

    Has anyone in the seperate locker rooms camp figured out what to do for the bisexual players?
    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



  2. #192
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    Re: All-American college football player Michael Sam says he is gay

    Quote Originally Posted by Thorgasm View Post
    Has anyone in the seperate locker rooms camp figured out what to do for the bisexual players?
    Tape a picture of Tyra Banks on the back of the head of the dude you're screwin'.

  3. #193
    King Conspiratard
    Dr. Chuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-14 @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    12,895

    Re: All-American college football player Michael Sam says he is gay

    [QUOTE=Zyphlin;1062913371]Again, in terms of comfort though...it's the level of ease in terms of that comfort mixed with the level of additional responsability you put on the business and/or government entity to provide accomodations.

    An assumption can be made by a woman that a woman walking into the girls locker room is probably not sexually attracted to her. It may be a wrong assumption, but it's a reasonable assumption based on the majorities within society. [quote]

    Well, I doubt there was even much concern around homosexuality in the late 1800's when these laws first developed.

    The same assumption can not be made when a man walks into the locker room.As such, a larger amount of controversy/distraction would occur with the other sex present, thus harming the notion of comfort far more.
    how is it any different when the person removes that doubt of attraction by being open about their homosexuality?

    Rather, that those are those are the ages when one is first typically exposed to a locker room made up only of peers.
    Maybe we had different upbringings, but gender segragated bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers, are something I was introduced when I first went to school and the Y.

    And given the way society views sexual interaction at a young age, keeping them seperate is believed to be beneficial. However, by doing so, it essentially ingrains a conditioning as to what is "normal" (Boys and Girls get naked, shower, and dress seperately) which naturally...like many other things we learn consiously or subconsiously as children...play out as adults.
    that seems a rather extreme case of speculation on your end and I have never heard it claimed that such rules had their origins in targeting one limited age group.

  4. #194
    King Conspiratard
    Dr. Chuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-14 @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    12,895

    Re: All-American college football player Michael Sam says he is gay

    Quote Originally Posted by zgoldsmith23 View Post
    no one ever said social norms and reactions made sense

  5. #195
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: All-American college football player Michael Sam says he is gay

    Quote Originally Posted by zgoldsmith23 View Post
    It's unfortunate that it's the case...but yeah, in general, the distraction is less with most of those and/or far more valuable football/business wise. Take that as a sign of condemnation upon our media, society, or football...but it's the reality.

    Let's go through.

    The first person (not pictured) would be Donte Stallworth. This is a situation where really the blame lies more so the public and the media if you want to place blame somewhere. I lived in one of the cities that Dante Stallworth played post his Manslaughter conviction. There was little, if any, media attentiong really given to him being on the team. There wasn't much, if any, distraction there because people just didn't seem to either 1) know or 2) care.

    Ray Lewis after 1999 was a 1st round pick, coming off of 3 pro bowl appearances and 3 all pro-selections and was quickly being regarded as one of, if not the, best defensive player in football. The murder allegations were absolutely a distraction (go look at stories put out about their super bowl that year and trying to avoid questions from the media about it), but in this case there was a reasonable argument to the Ravens that the risk of distraction was worth the reward of an all-pro player. Mind you, this was also at a time where media coverage of the NFL and news in general was FAR less constant than it is today.

    Roethlisburger is another situation where the team, rightly or wrongly, saw that the reward was worth the risk of a distraction. You're talking about a former 1st round pick, rookie of the year, pro-bowler, two time super bowl champion QB who was the fase of their franchise. Again, a team is likely to risk more regarding distractions if you have a history of those results. Ultimately, the controversy surrounding it cost Roethlisberger 4 games.

    With Riley Cooper you basically have a perfect example of how this works. When it first broke that this happened talk of being suspended from the team and other things came out as it was a major news story with people asking questions and focus being shed on it. Shockingly, once things died down he pretty much reentered the team. The controversy was largely short lived. By the time of opening day...and trust me I was paying attention to the Eagles by then...it was barely a topic.

    As to Mike Vick, I've already spoken to him. The guy had the athetlic and skill to be a near MVP candidate, but the best he could do was get on as a 3rd string QB behind a long established starter and a promising young drafted QB on one of the most stable teams in all the league because of all the media baggage that came along with him.

    Am I saying it's right? No. But John Stewart kind of kills his own point.

    Go back in the Daily Show archieve....how many segments did John Stewart do about Dante Stallworth's DUI killing? Heck, how many did he devote to Riley Cooper? Or even Ben Roethlisberger?

    And how many has he focused already on Michael Sam?

    Ask yourself, and be honest...

    Is Michael Sam going to get more media coverage over the next year than Riley Cooper did? Is he going to get more coverage than Donte Stallworth did? Or even than Ben Roethlisberger did?

    If the answer is "yes"...then the comparisons fall flat as anything other than a condemnation towards the public or the media as to what they spend time focusing on.

    If anything, Stewart's suggestion actually backs up the notion that this is about the distraction rather than the gayness.

    Unless you're suggesting the NFL somehow approves of drunkedly killing people? Or that they approve of drug fighting and gambling rings? Or that they approve of rape? I think it's reasonable to suggest that the NFL and most teams don't actually approve of those things...but yet those people still got a job.

    On the flip side, I'm pretty sure the NFL and most teams don't have any issue with an outspoken christian. And yet, Tim Tebow can't sniff a job.

    The reality is, right or wrong, our media and our public is going to mindlessly pound the drums of this story till kingdom come because it transcends politicsl into social and political issues. That's not the case with a guy getting drunk and running down a pedestrian. And as such, there's going to be a lot more media distractions for the former than there is for the latter. And when it comes down to football decisions, that makes it a bigger negative.

    Now, as I said above...all things are a notion of risk and reward. The risk of the distractions associated with Sam may make drafting him in the 2nd or 3rd round a poor gamble for some teams...but the reward of getting him in the 5th may make it worth while. For others it may take him off the board entirely. But I definitely think there's enough talent there that a team is defintiely going to take a gamble on him...it'll just be someone like New England, San Francisco, Baltimore, etc. Somewhere that has a pretty established and solid organizational structure in place.

  6. #196
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: All-American college football player Michael Sam says he is gay

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    how is it any different when the person removes that doubt of attraction by being open about their homosexuality?
    Once that's known, there's not. But this goes back to my stance that things are always about a balancing act of multiple priorities. The reality is that homosexuals make up a minority of the population, and even of that minority not all of them are public about it. Additionally, even the ones that are public about it, it's still incredibly possible for someone who just meets them to have no clue they're a homosexual. So the vast majority of the times yo'ure not going to know. The amount of times you ARE going to know are not abundant enough in terms of their umbrage against the notion of comfort to warrant the intrusion towards business/tax payer funds in mandating additional accomodations be create OR actively discriminating against people from concievably using a facility based on their sexual orientation.

    Maybe we had different upbringings, but gender segragated bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers, are something I was introduced when I first went to school and the Y.
    Same here. Which is kind of my point. As children we're indoctrinated into the notion that Boys bathe, got to the bathroom, and change seprately from girls and vise versa. I believe part of this is because there, typically, is the potential for mutural attraction between those two sexes and society in general frowns upon sexualized situations for our youth. So the situations in which they'd be exposed in such a way are kept seperate. As we age, this basic understanding just keeps on because that's what we've always experienced.

    that seems a rather extreme case of speculation on your end and I have never heard it claimed that such rules had their origins in targeting one limited age group.
    Oh, I'm sure that's not the ONLY reason. And I'm sure part of it had to do with the notion of decency within social norms. There was a time where a guy seeing the mid drift of a women would've been thought to be scandalous. Then again, have you seen some of the bikini's worn at beaches today? That part of the cultural norm has been changing over time. The "WHYS" we have them split I think can change and shift over time...but I think for many it simply goes back to the fact that from a very young age almost all of us are generally taught boys go to the bathroom/shower/dress in this room and girls do it in this room and you shouldn't go into the others rooms. And when you grow up thinking that way then it just tends to stick.

  7. #197
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    Re: All-American college football player Michael Sam says he is gay

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    'The Missouri defensive end could become the first openly gay player in the NFL.

    Missouri All-American Michael Sam says he is gay, and the defensive end could become the first openly homosexual player in the NFL.

    In interviews with ESPN, The New York Times and Outsports, Sam says he came out to his teammates and coaches at Missouri in August.

    Sam says: “I am an openly, proud gay man.”'


    All-American Michael Sam says he is gay - latimes.com



    Gutsy guy. I hope this does not in any way hurt his career or his life.

    But it is about time someone in the NFL came out...so big kudos to him...it must not have been an easy decision.
    Who cares if he is gay....

    I'm extremely disappointed by those who think his sexuality is a factor by giving outspoken support....

    What makes him so special - because hes gay?

    Are those progressive brownie points or something?

  8. #198
    Antichrist
    zgoldsmith23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TN
    Last Seen
    11-06-17 @ 12:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,692

    Re: All-American college football player Michael Sam says he is gay

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    no one ever said social norms and reactions made sense
    True enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    It's unfortunate that it's the case...but yeah, in general, the distraction is less with most of those and/or far more valuable football/business wise. Take that as a sign of condemnation upon our media, society, or football...but it's the reality.

    Let's go through.

    The first person (not pictured) would be Donte Stallworth. This is a situation where really the blame lies more so the public and the media if you want to place blame somewhere. I lived in one of the cities that Dante Stallworth played post his Manslaughter conviction. There was little, if any, media attentiong really given to him being on the team. There wasn't much, if any, distraction there because people just didn't seem to either 1) know or 2) care.

    Ray Lewis after 1999 was a 1st round pick, coming off of 3 pro bowl appearances and 3 all pro-selections and was quickly being regarded as one of, if not the, best defensive player in football. The murder allegations were absolutely a distraction (go look at stories put out about their super bowl that year and trying to avoid questions from the media about it), but in this case there was a reasonable argument to the Ravens that the risk of distraction was worth the reward of an all-pro player. Mind you, this was also at a time where media coverage of the NFL and news in general was FAR less constant than it is today.

    Roethlisburger is another situation where the team, rightly or wrongly, saw that the reward was worth the risk of a distraction. You're talking about a former 1st round pick, rookie of the year, pro-bowler, two time super bowl champion QB who was the fase of their franchise. Again, a team is likely to risk more regarding distractions if you have a history of those results. Ultimately, the controversy surrounding it cost Roethlisberger 4 games.

    With Riley Cooper you basically have a perfect example of how this works. When it first broke that this happened talk of being suspended from the team and other things came out as it was a major news story with people asking questions and focus being shed on it. Shockingly, once things died down he pretty much reentered the team. The controversy was largely short lived. By the time of opening day...and trust me I was paying attention to the Eagles by then...it was barely a topic.

    As to Mike Vick, I've already spoken to him. The guy had the athetlic and skill to be a near MVP candidate, but the best he could do was get on as a 3rd string QB behind a long established starter and a promising young drafted QB on one of the most stable teams in all the league because of all the media baggage that came along with him.

    Am I saying it's right? No. But John Stewart kind of kills his own point.

    Go back in the Daily Show archieve....how many segments did John Stewart do about Dante Stallworth's DUI killing? Heck, how many did he devote to Riley Cooper? Or even Ben Roethlisberger?

    And how many has he focused already on Michael Sam?

    Ask yourself, and be honest...

    Is Michael Sam going to get more media coverage over the next year than Riley Cooper did? Is he going to get more coverage than Donte Stallworth did? Or even than Ben Roethlisberger did?

    If the answer is "yes"...then the comparisons fall flat as anything other than a condemnation towards the public or the media as to what they spend time focusing on.

    If anything, Stewart's suggestion actually backs up the notion that this is about the distraction rather than the gayness.

    Unless you're suggesting the NFL somehow approves of drunkedly killing people? Or that they approve of drug fighting and gambling rings? Or that they approve of rape? I think it's reasonable to suggest that the NFL and most teams don't actually approve of those things...but yet those people still got a job.

    On the flip side, I'm pretty sure the NFL and most teams don't have any issue with an outspoken christian. And yet, Tim Tebow can't sniff a job.

    The reality is, right or wrong, our media and our public is going to mindlessly pound the drums of this story till kingdom come because it transcends politicsl into social and political issues. That's not the case with a guy getting drunk and running down a pedestrian. And as such, there's going to be a lot more media distractions for the former than there is for the latter. And when it comes down to football decisions, that makes it a bigger negative.

    Now, as I said above...all things are a notion of risk and reward. The risk of the distractions associated with Sam may make drafting him in the 2nd or 3rd round a poor gamble for some teams...but the reward of getting him in the 5th may make it worth while. For others it may take him off the board entirely. But I definitely think there's enough talent there that a team is defintiely going to take a gamble on him...it'll just be someone like New England, San Francisco, Baltimore, etc. Somewhere that has a pretty established and solid organizational structure in place.
    I'd love to go through and dissect this, but I don't have the time. But, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said "The reality is, right or wrong, our media and our public is going to mindlessly pound the drums of this story till kingdom come because it transcends politicsl into social and political issues. That's not the case with a guy getting drunk and running down a pedestrian. And as such, there's going to be a lot more media distractions for the former than there is for the latter. And when it comes down to football decisions, that makes it a bigger negative." Indeed it does. And, I think almost all Americans would agree those actions are wrong, but there's a divide in America that argues whether or not homosexuality is wrong and that's what we're witnessing.
    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    I've never denied my own hackish tendencies
    Quote Originally Posted by Pin dÁr View Post
    scientific by itself isn't enough of course.
    Quote Originally Posted by blaxshep View Post
    Not all Nazis were bad people

  9. #199
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: All-American college football player Michael Sam says he is gay

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Yep, it's a double standard?

    So?

    We have many double standards within our society. This isn't an argument that, with me, is going to hold any water to be quite honest.

    I would say this...

    I would have a larger issue with one straight guy in a locker room full of homosexual males. Just like I'd be more worried about one heterosexual woman in a locker room full of heterosexual males. Or a hetero man in a locker room full of hetereosexual women, though less so. The larger the group the less I'm inclined to worry about it.

    However, let me offer a counter point to your notion of sexual attraction.

    I'd suggest, typically, the issue is the notion of mutural sexual attraction. Locker room segregation begins typically at a young age, one where we generally discourage kids to be engaging in sexual activity with each other. Shoving two people who are likely to potentially reciprocate attraction together in a location where they become exposed is basically throwing gasoline on a potential fire. However, in a situation where that attraction is only realistically even possible in one direction then the changes of problems are significantly less.

    As we get older, the segregation generally continues in large part because it's a social norm and more along the lines of comfort. And I'd argue that the seperation of locker rooms is as much about comfort as it is attraction. The reality is that if a man walks into a womans locker room there's really no way for the woman not to know it's a man, and socially this has been ingrained to make for an akward and uncomfortable situation. If a lesbian woman walks in however, unless a woman knows she's a lesbian, there's no immediete expectation of an akward situation making the comfort level far different. Even with knowing she's a lesbian, for many there is a level of difference between being seen by someone who you have the potential of being attracted to as opposed to someone you don't....regardless of whether they may be attracted to you or not.

    Finally, it comes down to being rather realistic.

    When it comes to homosexuality in locker rooms our generalized options are:

    1. Get the government involve to mandate seperate locker rooms for each, and cause the government and private sector to spend money to create facilities that would be relatively sparsely used as opposed to their established ones

    2. Actively ban gays from being allowed to use current facilities while providing them nothing new

    3. Allow them to function within the locker room of their gender, where their body parts are most similar and where they most visually "fit in".

    To me, number 1 is a situation where the cure is worth than the problem. We don't need regulations about this nor do we need to be making businesses and the government spend more money in the name of a few peoples sensabilities. Number 2 is entirely unreasonable...discriminating against people due to their sexuality from being able to participate in anything that utilizes a locker room is just beyond ridiculous. So you go with number 3.
    Most homosexual activists want #1 in a big way, especially the spending money part. Because spending money is power. And power is the real objective.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  10. #200
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 06:57 PM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,198

    Re: All-American college football player Michael Sam says he is gay

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    Who cares if he is gay....

    I'm extremely disappointed by those who think his sexuality is a factor by giving outspoken support....

    What makes him so special - because hes gay?
    In case you weren't aware, gay people are gaining acceptance. The fact that some folks don't accept them is what makes them special. The sooner they are accepted, the sooner they won't be treated special.
    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



Page 20 of 22 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •