• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

I would imagine there are at least a few gay players in the NFL

And they're playing football, so I don't see the problem. It's doesn't matter if they're gay.
 
Gay men are not women.

Rinse. Repeat.

this was already addressed by pointing out the analogy is based on sexual desire and the fact we segregate locker rooms, bathroom facilities, and showers based on that. In stead of actually addressing this you seem to want to go in circles, which I have no interest in.

You're better off just admitting it's a double standard but a very trite and pointless concern
 
And they're playing football, so I don't see the problem. It's doesn't matter if they're gay.

Are you saying there is no social distinction between being gay and being openly gay? All one has to do with review just the past 10-20 years of history to see obvious consequences for the later
 
this was already addressed by pointing out the analogy is based on sexual desire and the fact we segregate locker rooms, bathroom facilities, and showers based on that. In stead of actually addressing this you seem to want to go in circles, which I have no interest in.

You're better off just admitting it's a double standard but a very trite and pointless concern

It's not a double standard because gay men are not women. You seem to want to ignore that fact.
 
Yes i was conceding that. No one knows whether his announcement made the difference in getting a contract or not. If this all-american linebacker is not signed, however, we will all know the reason why. Gonna be interesting

true. I was just pointing out that there isn't much similarity between the two. This guy is just starting out and was one of the best college players last year. Colins was a mediocre player at the end of his rather lackluster career. Pretty sure his age, declining performance and cost are why no one offered him a contract. But there were still those who claimed that the only reason Colins is unemployed is because he came out.
 
But the point people keep bringing up is that co-ed locker rooms would be completely unacceptable to current social norms and that there is a double standard here. Yes, it's indeed a rather pointless and trite concern, but that double standard doesn't simply go away due to acknowledging that homosexuals were likely there prior to coming out or that players are comfortable with this.

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.
 
Yep, it's a double standard?

So?

People were trying to justify it and explain it away with horrible arguments as opposed to simply going "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 agree. Like I said, I find the issue trite and unimportant. That doesn't change the arguments trying to ignore or excuse that double standard are horribly flawed
 
People were trying to justify it and explain it away with horrible arguments as opposed to simply going "so".

I agree. Like I said, I find the issue trite and unimportant. That doesn't change the arguments trying to ignore or excuse that double standard are horribly flawed

And any comments on my assertion that your claim of it simply being about sexual attraction to be incorrect...and that it's about a mixture of mutural sexual attraction along with generalized comfort?
 
And any comments on my assertion that your claim of it simply being about sexual attraction to be incorrect...and that it's about a mixture of mutural sexual attraction along with generalized comfort?

I think you're largely making a distinction without a difference, because the issue of attraction and comfort are inherently tied together in a locker room. And on the topic of such laws being only directed at pubescent children, I really find it doubtful considering that they are put in place long before than and maintained long after words. And being that such laws have their origins in the 1800's, I think it's safe to say they developed from the prudish morality of the day
 
The whole "coming out" thing is just strange to me. Does liking intercourse with men require an announcement from anyone? Does it serve a purpose? Is it anyone's business? Should anyone be concerned one way or the other? Isn't it the point that people should be able to keep their private lives private?

I don't remember Dirk Nowitzky "coming out" to tell people he liked black women before he married a black woman. I don't remember James Carville "coming out" before he married a staunch conservative. A gay man should have to announce he likes gay men to be with gay men. We all have the right to whatever in that regard.

I understand why Michael Sam did it. Someone was about go public with it, and he wanted to control the message, which he's done just fine. People need to mind their own business.

But overall, this constant crush of media pressure to "normalize" homosexuality is, if anything, beginning to turn straight people off more. It's not normal. Perfectly legal, and not of any great concern or business of mine, but it ain't normal. Buy a Biology book. The media seems hell-bent on it purely and solely for the purpose of needling heterosexuals, particularly those of a conservative or religious slant. There's nothing really substantive to it otherwise.

Meanwhile, there's this codependent need among some gays to be acknowledged as "courageous" and receive some sort of reality celebrity spotlight from it all. As if having sex with a man is akin to climbing Mount Everest or something. There's nothing admirable or courageous about being gay. Sorry.

Rant over.
 
you guys are beating around the Bush here: Obviously segregated locker rooms were initially geared towards what people saw as inappropriate contact between the opposite sexes due to sexual attraction and arousal. And his point that homosexuals being in the same shower and changing area is akin to having a mixed arrangement for men and women clearly has merit.

either address the argument or don't, but the attempt at naivety are just childish.

He's dancing, I'm not. But it has been fun to watch. ;)

As far as I'm concerned, either give them all (every gender and sexual orientation) one big communal locker room, all give them all individual facilities.... proclaiming that gays or lesbians only should have their own facilities is pretty ridiculous.
 
I think you're largely making a distinction without a difference, because the issue of attraction and comfort are inherently tied together in a locker room.

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. 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.

And on the topic of such laws being only directed at pubescent children

Not suggested it's directed AT them. Rather, that those are those are the ages when one is first typically exposed to a locker room made up only of peers. 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. Because of that, laws continue on beyond the younger age because it goes back to comfort and norms within society...when the majority of people are conditioned from an early age to understand boys and girls bathe and get dressed seperately, then as they get older it's more comfortable and "natural" within society to continue that function
 
The whole "coming out" thing is just strange to me. Does liking intercourse with men require an announcement from anyone?

Well, two things here....

First, the "coming out thing" I think has to do generally with the fact that many are putting forward a front at one point, and as such it's basically admitting to those around them that they've been being dishonest. Take your dating black women thing.

If you've just randomly started dating a black women, came home and said "hey pops, meet my new girlfriend" then it's no big deal.

However, if you were constantly sneaking around and dating a number of black women over the years but making a point to make sure your parents never found out about it because you thought they'd not approve and then you finally decide to be clean with them and sit down and go "Dad, I'm seeing a black women, and I have dated a number of them over the years" then it's a bigger thing because you're basically admitting that you've been putting up a front for a long time in fear of disapproval.


For many gay men, the whole notion of "coming out" is just finally going "lets throw it out on the table and then go from there"

Second, in terms of private lives private with regards to the NFL...it'd be nice if that's the case, but it's not. Whether your mom's a crack addict or a whore shouldn't matter, but go tell that to Dez Bryant. Guys are asked in interviews at the combine about their sex lives and girlfriends in part to see what kind of reactions they get out of them. NFL teams want to know everything they can about a person prior to make their selection, and that includes things that reasonably should probably be private.

Additionally, when it comes to homosexuality, it goes back to the notion in terms of "coming out". Not being open about your homosexuality is basically weaving an intricate lie. And if you have a professional organization trying to dig into your life and figure things out, an on going lie is going to ... at least ... give off some red flags of dishonesty. Something that generally is not a positive in the eyes of an employer if they can't seem to sort out WHY or about what you're being dishonest.

A gay man should have to announce he likes gay men to be with gay men. We all have the right to whatever in that regard.

I think it's less about a gay man announcing he likes gay men. I think it's more about a guy who people understand to be a straight man admitting he likes gay men.

It'd be like if you have somenoe in your group of friends that goes "I LOVE METALLICA! WOOOO MEGA DEATH! SABBOTH ROCKS. METTAAAAAAL!" all the time. Then 6 months later finally goes "nope, sorry...can't do this anymore. I actually can't stand metal. Guys, I'm a barbershop quartet guy. I've just been acting like I like metal music to fit in with you. Sorry, I know I should've just admitted to liking what I liked but I wanted to fit in with you and this group so I just kind of went along with it. But I just can't keep faking it anymore, and I hope you'll like me even though I don't listen to the same music".

Sure, the guy SHOULD've been able to just listen to his barbershop quartet music. But after acting one way for so long he felt the need to be hoenst with people before just doing "whatever in that regard". And I can kind of understand that.

I understand why Michael Sam did it. Someone was about go public with it, and he wanted to control the message, which he's done just fine. People need to mind their own business.

And with this sentiment, I do agree. I wish society...people on both sides...would not make such a big deal out of these thigns and just move on. The reality is that both sides seemingly love to get in others peoples business...whether it's to try and promote that business, or to try and tear down that business or the notion of it being promoted.
 
1507115_10151988151286275_1277953689_n.jpg
 
Has anyone in the seperate locker rooms camp figured out what to do for the bisexual players?
 
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.
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.
 

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.
 
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.
 
'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?
 
no one ever said social norms and reactions made sense

True enough.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom