McCall

Mizzou's Michael Sam comes out

Recommended Posts

This thread has gotten WAY to out of hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm Christian/Catholic and I look at it this way...it doesn't matter if it is a sin because our job is to build up and support. Our job isn't to judge, I believe that is God's job.

The problem is that neo-Christian radical leaders (Westboro Baptist, Hispanics, Bible Belt Southeast U.S., etc) tend to believe that God went all Joan-of-Arc on them, and told those leaders to harass, torture, humiliate and make it as painful as possible for homosexual people to live freely in this world, and to pass these insights of hate to their parishioners.
I don't even know why I'm wasting my time responding to this. You know you're effectively, by throwing people(including me) under the bus like that, you're doing the exact thing you're condemning. Now, please respond, as you didn't in the Gear Grinder thread when I called you out before.

Personal experience with my friend's parents (friends were 1st-gen Latino-Americans while parents were true immigrants) would say otherwise. The way I see religion being preached by immigrants, especially in such a heavily-concentrated area such as Southern California, make me tend to believe that those parents are in-root with opposing any rights for gays because of the whole "marriage is between a man and woman and Jesus will hate you if you think otherwise" thing. At least 1st-gen Latinos and beyond are embracing gays and lean towards religious tolerance for all, but not necessarily their parents.

As for the Southeast, I don't know that much information on them, but they tend to hold on to more traditional religious identities than, say, someone from the west coast or New England.

Now the Westboro Baptists...

Exactly.

You're throwing a massive group of people under the bus with no real legitimate points to bring to the table. You're taking a complete shot in the dark on something you know hardly anything about. If you were to call out with some facts, that's one thing, but too stereotype with no prior knowledge really is starting to drive everyone crazy. Of course, I'm not speaking for the community, that's just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*sighs*

Look, I've repeated my views on the Bible plenty of times here. I understand the points Vet and illawauk are trying to make but in light of their comments I feel the need to point out that being a religious person in a homosexual relationship doesn't make one a self-hating lunatic on the verge of killing themselves. It's tragic that such cases do exist, but the causes of them are a bit more complex then "they're religious and they're attracted to guys."

Based on people I knew and just politics / religion in general I had incorrectly assumed that members of the LGBT community would have overwhelmingly leaned left politically and against religion.

Oh definitely. Sorry if I came across as overly harsh, it's just a gear grinder of mine.

Most members of the LGBT community do lean left, but that's out of necessity in some cases. I have a friend in the States who's gay, and who has said he'd vote Republican if that party would distance itself from the religious right. And that totally makes sense. Why would who you're attracted to sexually effect what your thoughts are on, say, tax policy? In a lot of ways it also speaks poorly of some right wing parties. Not just in terms of promoting bigotry, but by alienating a potential base of support in the name of clinging to outdated modes of thought.

A person's sexuality doesn't define them, yet the expectation is that if you're gay or bi or transgendered you must think a certain way about issues that in no way relate to who you love.

Just throwing this in here... http://www.logcabin.org/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has gotten WAY to out of hand.

This thread concerns a prominent and divisive social issue. Even on a pretty progressive forum, it's inevitable that such a thread would get out of hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm Christian/Catholic and I look at it this way...it doesn't matter if it is a sin because our job is to build up and support. Our job isn't to judge, I believe that is God's job.

The problem is that neo-Christian radical leaders (Westboro Baptist, Hispanics, Bible Belt Southeast U.S., etc) tend to believe that God went all Joan-of-Arc on them, and told those leaders to harass, torture, humiliate and make it as painful as possible for homosexual people to live freely in this world, and to pass these insights of hate to their parishioners.
I don't even know why I'm wasting my time responding to this. You know you're effectively, by throwing people(including me) under the bus like that, you're doing the exact thing you're condemning. Now, please respond, as you didn't in the Gear Grinder thread when I called you out before.
Personal experience with my friend's parents (friends were 1st-gen Latino-Americans while parents were true immigrants) would say otherwise. The way I see religion being preached by immigrants, especially in such a heavily-concentrated area such as Southern California, make me tend to believe that those parents are in-root with opposing any rights for gays because of the whole "marriage is between a man and woman and Jesus will hate you if you think otherwise" thing. At least 1st-gen Latinos and beyond are embracing gays and lean towards religious tolerance for all, but not necessarily their parents.

As for the Southeast, I don't know that much information on them, but they tend to hold on to more traditional religious identities than, say, someone from the west coast or New England.

Now the Westboro Baptists...

In a sense, you've condridicted yourself. You say Hispanics are all the way you've described your friends parents. But then you said that most 1st Gen Latinos are open. So what you mean is some are against gays. Like you mean some Southerns are the same way. Now I will say that some Southern churches tend to be on the "Enlightenment" side, but most don't go out and denounce homosexuality. Except the lunkheads at Westboro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*sighs*

Look, I've repeated my views on the Bible plenty of times here. I understand the points Vet and illawauk are trying to make but in light of their comments I feel the need to point out that being a religious person in a homosexual relationship doesn't make one a self-hating lunatic on the verge of killing themselves. It's tragic that such cases do exist, but the causes of them are a bit more complex then "they're religious and they're attracted to guys."

Based on people I knew and just politics / religion in general I had incorrectly assumed that members of the LGBT community would have overwhelmingly leaned left politically and against religion.

Oh definitely. Sorry if I came across as overly harsh, it's just a gear grinder of mine.

Most members of the LGBT community do lean left, but that's out of necessity in some cases. I have a friend in the States who's gay, and who has said he'd vote Republican if that party would distance itself from the religious right. And that totally makes sense. Why would who you're attracted to sexually effect what your thoughts are on, say, tax policy? In a lot of ways it also speaks poorly of some right wing parties. Not just in terms of promoting bigotry, but by alienating a potential base of support in the name of clinging to outdated modes of thought.

A person's sexuality doesn't define them, yet the expectation is that if you're gay or bi or transgendered you must think a certain way about issues that in no way relate to who you love.

Just throwing this in here... http://www.logcabin.org/

I like their logo, but I'd make the roof blue and the "logs" red so it better mimics our flag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to share some personal experiences with all of you, but I delete the post as I am not ready and for that I am sorry.

Edited by nuordr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*sighs*

Look, I've repeated my views on the Bible plenty of times here. I understand the points Vet and illawauk are trying to make but in light of their comments I feel the need to point out that being a religious person in a homosexual relationship doesn't make one a self-hating lunatic on the verge of killing themselves. It's tragic that such cases do exist, but the causes of them are a bit more complex then "they're religious and they're attracted to guys."

Based on people I knew and just politics / religion in general I had incorrectly assumed that members of the LGBT community would have overwhelmingly leaned left politically and against religion.

Oh definitely. Sorry if I came across as overly harsh, it's just a gear grinder of mine.

Most members of the LGBT community do lean left, but that's out of necessity in some cases. I have a friend in the States who's gay, and who has said he'd vote Republican if that party would distance itself from the religious right. And that totally makes sense. Why would who you're attracted to sexually effect what your thoughts are on, say, tax policy? In a lot of ways it also speaks poorly of some right wing parties. Not just in terms of promoting bigotry, but by alienating a potential base of support in the name of clinging to outdated modes of thought.

A person's sexuality doesn't define them, yet the expectation is that if you're gay or bi or transgendered you must think a certain way about issues that in no way relate to who you love.

Just throwing this in here... http://www.logcabin.org/

I like their logo, but I'd make the roof blue and the "logs" red so it better mimics our flag.

Of course it has to come back to the logo :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll also have to indulge me a bit, as I find the idea that I'm something someone can be against a bit disgusting and infuriating; I take it a bit personally, even.

The man said that he believes being gay is wrong. He didn't say he's against you. Just because he may not agree with everything you do doesn't mean he's against you.

Silly Mockba. He's not against you, just what you are. Why on earth would you take his prejudice against you and make it personal?

That's not what I said. I said he's against some things Mockba does.

He's against a fundamental part of Mockba's being. It'd be like me cracking on you for being *plays the odds* white.

I don't even know what "plays the odds" white means.

You say he's against a fundamental part of Mockba's being, because you believe homosexuality is by birth. Those who think that homosexuality is not by birth see it not as a "fundamental part of his being" but as actions or a lifestyle. We could talk all day about whether homosexuality is by birth, but that's not the point here. The point here is intention based on perception of what the truth is.

Do some people hate homosexual individuals because they are homosexual? Yes,. And of course, that is a horrible wrong.

But you can't assume that someone hates a homosexual person just because that person thinks homosexuality is wrong. We ALL do things that others (and even we ourselves) believe are wrong. If everyone hated me because they don't approve of some of the things I do, I would have no loved ones or friends at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those who think that homosexuality is not by birth see it not as a "fundamental part of his being" but as actions or a lifestyle.

And we have a name for those people - Wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll also have to indulge me a bit, as I find the idea that I'm something someone can be against a bit disgusting and infuriating; I take it a bit personally, even.

The man said that he believes being gay is wrong. He didn't say he's against you. Just because he may not agree with everything you do doesn't mean he's against you.

Silly Mockba. He's not against you, just what you are. Why on earth would you take his prejudice against you and make it personal?

That's not what I said. I said he's against some things Mockba does.

He's against a fundamental part of Mockba's being. It'd be like me cracking on you for being *plays the odds* white.

I don't even know what "plays the odds" white means.

You say he's against a fundamental part of Mockba's being, because you believe homosexuality is by birth. Those who think that homosexuality is not by birth see it not as a "fundamental part of his being" but as actions or a lifestyle. We could talk all day about whether homosexuality is by birth, but that's not the point here. The point here is intention based on perception of what the truth is.

Do some people hate homosexual individuals because they are homosexual? Yes,. And of course, that is a horrible wrong.

But you can't assume that someone hates a homosexual person just because that person thinks homosexuality is wrong. We ALL do things that others (and even we ourselves) believe are wrong. If everyone hated me because they don't approve of some of the things I do, I would have no loved ones or friends at all.

It means I'm assuming you're white.

And willful ignorance, which is what the "homosexuality is not by birth" crowd traffics in, is flat out unforgivable. You can debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. You can't dispute demonstrated, observed, science.

Of course there's a high intersection between "homosexuality is not by birth" and "the Earth is roughly 10,000 years old", so really I guess I shouldn't be too surprised by the denial of science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say he's against a fundamental part of Mockba's being, because you believe homosexuality is by birth. Those who think that homosexuality is not by birth see it not as a "fundamental part of his being" but as actions or a lifestyle.

Those people will henceforth be referred to as "idiots."

Fake EDIT- Goth beat me to it, with a much more restrained word, but I make no apologies.

We could talk all day about whether homosexuality is by birth, but that's not the point here.

Oh, it's very much the point here. See, it's no longer acceptable to discriminate based on innate traits such as skin colour. By claiming that homosexuality is a choice they can justify their bigotry because in their minds they're not hating someone based on an innate trait.

Now as for it being a choice vs it being something you're born with? I'll spell it out very clearly for you OldRamsFan. It is not choice. I didn't choose to be attracted to men as well as women. It's just what happened when I hit puberty. If the first person account of someone in the LGBT community isn't enough for you, then you're a lost, hopeless soul.

The only choice I made was to deny half of who I was to appease people like you and nuordr. It's honestly the biggest regret of my life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll also have to indulge me a bit, as I find the idea that I'm something someone can be against a bit disgusting and infuriating; I take it a bit personally, even.

The man said that he believes being gay is wrong. He didn't say he's against you. Just because he may not agree with everything you do doesn't mean he's against you.

Silly Mockba. He's not against you, just what you are. Why on earth would you take his prejudice against you and make it personal?

That's not what I said. I said he's against some things Mockba does.

He's against a fundamental part of Mockba's being. It'd be like me cracking on you for being *plays the odds* white.

I don't even know what "plays the odds" white means.

You say he's against a fundamental part of Mockba's being, because you believe homosexuality is by birth. Those who think that homosexuality is not by birth see it not as a "fundamental part of his being" but as actions or a lifestyle. We could talk all day about whether homosexuality is by birth, but that's not the point here. The point here is intention based on perception of what the truth is.

Do some people hate homosexual individuals because they are homosexual? Yes,. And of course, that is a horrible wrong.

But you can't assume that someone hates a homosexual person just because that person thinks homosexuality is wrong. We ALL do things that others (and even we ourselves) believe are wrong. If everyone hated me because they don't approve of some of the things I do, I would have no loved ones or friends at all.

And willful ignorance, which is what the "homosexuality is not by birth" crowd traffics in, is flat out unforgivable. You can debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. You can't dispute demonstrated, observed, science.

You can't make that statement because you do not know all the theories out there. It's not just "by birth" vs. "by choice". I know of at least one more theory, but it would be scoffed at here, so I I'm not going to explain it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm Christian/Catholic and I look at it this way...it doesn't matter if it is a sin because our job is to build up and support. Our job isn't to judge, I believe that is God's job.

The problem is that neo-Christian radical leaders (Westboro Baptist, Hispanics, Bible Belt Southeast U.S., etc) tend to believe that God went all Joan-of-Arc on them, and told those leaders to harass, torture, humiliate and make it as painful as possible for homosexual people to live freely in this world, and to pass these insights of hate to their parishioners.
Yup, that's exactly right. I know I'm taking this way too personal, but as a Southern Baptist living in the South it's really frustrating to have my views lumped in with Westboro all the time. They are lunatics in every sense of the word.

It seems as if many of you are unaware of why some Christians are anti-gay. It comes from Genesis 19, when Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed after men demanded to have sex with two of Lot's guests - so basically a gang rape. Long story short, Lot says no, they rape the guests anyways. An angel comes to Lot and says to get out of there because the city was going to be destroyed for their many sins. The city gets burned to a crisp.

Many interpret the sin as the gay sex. I think it means the gang rape and the "other sins", which if you read other historical texts you can learn Sodom (I think it's where we got the word sodomy from...don't hold me to that though) made Vegas look tame.

But go ahead and say you're so enlightened while marginalizing my point of view and lifestyle, which is no different than people marginalizing people who just happen to love someone who has the same chromosome structure. Obviously I'm just a robot who believes the exact same things some people in Kansas whom I've never met believe or exactly what my parents believe. Actually, there are many Southern Baptists who aren't homophobes and don't think "the gays" will burn in Hell - including myself. (Edited for clarity)

****************

Back on topic, good for Michael Sam. I can't imagine feeling like I couldn't tell my family something that was such a major part of my life. I hope he gets a fair shot at an NFL roster and performs to the best of his ability. If him being gay is such a distraction, then so are felons and guys with baby momma drama, and we know there are plenty of those in the NFL to go around.

Edited by Thad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say he's against a fundamental part of Mockba's being, because you believe homosexuality is by birth. Those who think that homosexuality is not by birth see it not as a "fundamental part of his being" but as actions or a lifestyle.

Those people will henceforth be referred to as "idiots."

Fake EDIT- Goth beat me to it, with a much more restrained word, but I make no apologies.

We could talk all day about whether homosexuality is by birth, but that's not the point here.

Oh, it's very much the point here. See, it's no longer acceptable to discriminate based on innate traits such as skin colour. By claiming that homosexuality is a choice they can justify their bigotry because in their minds they're not hating someone based on an innate trait.

Now as for it being a choice vs it being something you're born with? I'll spell it out very clearly for you OldRamsFan. It is not choice. I didn't choose to be attracted to men as well as women. It's just what happened when I hit puberty. If the first person account of someone in the LGBT community isn't enough for you, then you're a lost, hopeless soul.

The only choice I made was to deny half of who I was to appease people like you and nuordr. It's honestly the biggest regret of my life.

Whoa, hold the phone. You need to stop assuming. Have I said even once in these forums whether I believe homosexuality is by birth or by choice?

Why so angry? I don't have anything against you and I never asked you to appease me. I am simply asking the people who preach tolerance to be a little tolerant of differing opinions themselves..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say he's against a fundamental part of Mockba's being, because you believe homosexuality is by birth. Those who think that homosexuality is not by birth see it not as a "fundamental part of his being" but as actions or a lifestyle.

Those people will henceforth be referred to as "idiots."

Fake EDIT- Goth beat me to it, with a much more restrained word, but I make no apologies.

We could talk all day about whether homosexuality is by birth, but that's not the point here.

Oh, it's very much the point here. See, it's no longer acceptable to discriminate based on innate traits such as skin colour. By claiming that homosexuality is a choice they can justify their bigotry because in their minds they're not hating someone based on an innate trait.

Now as for it being a choice vs it being something you're born with? I'll spell it out very clearly for you OldRamsFan. It is not choice. I didn't choose to be attracted to men as well as women. It's just what happened when I hit puberty. If the first person account of someone in the LGBT community isn't enough for you, then you're a lost, hopeless soul.

The only choice I made was to deny half of who I was to appease people like you and nuordr. It's honestly the biggest regret of my life.

Whoa, hold the phone. You need to stop assuming. Have I said even once in these forums whether I believe homosexuality is by birth or by choice?

Why so angry? I don't have anything against you and I never asked you to appease me. I am simply asking the people who preach tolerance to be a little tolerant of differing opinions themselves..

It is hard to be tolerant of people who hide behind a couple of verses of the Bible to justify their ignorance and/or bigotry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I'm taking this way too personal, but as a Southern Baptist living in the South it's really frustrating to have my views lumped in with Westboro all the time. They are lunatics in every sense of the word.

I wouldn't say you're taking it personally. I know I'd hate it if a group I belonged to was associated with crazy people like that.

It seems as if many of you are unaware of why some Christians are anti-gay. It comes from Genesis 19, when Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed after men demanded to have sex with two of Lot's guests - so basically a gang rape. Long story short, Lot says no, they rape the guests anyways. An angel comes to Lot and says to get out of there because the city was going to be destroyed for their many sins. The city gets burned to a crisp.

Many interpret the sin as the gay sex. I think it means the gang rape and the "other sins", which if you read other historical texts you can learn Sodom (I think it's where we got the word sodomy from...don't hold me to that though) made Vegas look tame.

It's not the story of Sodom and Gomorrah that has some using religion to justify hate. I mean it's in there, yeah, but as you said you could interpret that story in a non-homophobic way.

No, the problem is Leviticus. I had written something on this up earlier but decided not to post it, because I'd be repeating myself from other threads regarding what I believe the nature of the Bible is. Long story short, I don't believe Leviticus has any baring on how believers (of which I am one) should live their lives. Leviticus is a holdover. A set of rules written to govern a society that lived in a very hostile environment thousands of years ago. In that ancient context Leviticus makes much more sense. It has no baring on life in the 21st century though. It was never written to apply to anyone other then a group of Israelites trying to survive in the desert thousands of years ago.

But go ahead and say you're so enlightened while marginalizing my point of view and lifestyle, which is no different than people marginalizing people who just happen to love someone who has the same chromosome structure. Obviously I'm just a robot who believes the exact same things some people in Kansas whom I've never met believe or exactly what my parents believe. Actually, there are many Southern Baptists who aren't homophobes and don't think "the gays" will burn in Hell - including myself. (Edited for clarity)

I do find it odd and unfortunate that southern Christians are lumped in with nutjobs from Kansas. Which isn't a state that springs to mind when I think "southern United States."

Anyway don't take dabadefence1990 personally. He takes the term "Captain Broadstroke" to a whole new level.

Back on topic, good for Michael Sam. I can't imagine feeling like I couldn't tell my family something that was such a major part of my life. I hope he gets a fair shot at an NFL roster and performs to the best of his ability. If him being gay is such a distraction, then so are felons and guys with baby momma drama, and we know there are plenty of those in the NFL to go around.

I think it's something that a NFL locker room needs to experience first hand. Sam will be the first openly gay man playing in the NFL. These are uncharted waters. Players won't know quite how to deal with it. Give it a week, a few at the most though. Once he hits the field and gives it his all, just like the guy next to him, it'll be a non-issue and everyone will wonder what all the fuse was about (I say, clinging to a shred of hope for the innate goodness of humanity).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't make that statement because you do not know all the theories out there. It's not just "by birth" vs. "by choice". I know of at least one more theory, but it would be scoffed at here, so I I'm not going to explain it.

You just had someone who's a member of the LGBT community tell you that, based on personal experience, it is not a choice. What more do you need?

And what other choices are there besides "birth" or "choice"? Alien mind probes? Fluoride in the drinking water? Hypnotism via Bravo?

You say he's against a fundamental part of Mockba's being, because you believe homosexuality is by birth. Those who think that homosexuality is not by birth see it not as a "fundamental part of his being" but as actions or a lifestyle.

Those people will henceforth be referred to as "idiots."

Fake EDIT- Goth beat me to it, with a much more restrained word, but I make no apologies.

We could talk all day about whether homosexuality is by birth, but that's not the point here.

Oh, it's very much the point here. See, it's no longer acceptable to discriminate based on innate traits such as skin colour. By claiming that homosexuality is a choice they can justify their bigotry because in their minds they're not hating someone based on an innate trait.

Now as for it being a choice vs it being something you're born with? I'll spell it out very clearly for you OldRamsFan. It is not choice. I didn't choose to be attracted to men as well as women. It's just what happened when I hit puberty. If the first person account of someone in the LGBT community isn't enough for you, then you're a lost, hopeless soul.

The only choice I made was to deny half of who I was to appease people like you and nuordr. It's honestly the biggest regret of my life.

Whoa, hold the phone. You need to stop assuming. Have I said even once in these forums whether I believe homosexuality is by birth or by choice?

People who have accepted the fact that homosexuality is something you're born with generally do not defend the actions of the uninformed who claim it's a choice, as you have with nuordr.

Why so angry? I don't have anything against you and I never asked you to appease me.

I said "people like you."

EDIT- You're right, I have been making a lot of assumption regarding your opinions here. Thing is, I'm just basing those assumptions on what you've written. If myself (and others) are off base you'd do yourself a lot of favours in this discussion by explaining what you believe.

And as for being angry? I tend to get angry when people say they hate me. I'm not overly fond of National Socialists either.

I am simply asking the people who preach tolerance to be a little tolerant of differing opinions themselves..

Again, I ask you this question (it would be nice if I could get an answer). Do you believe that a black man should respect the opinions of a Klansman? No. So why should a member of the LGBT community respect the opinions of a homophobe? I'm not intolerant of Christianity or religion. Lord knows I've spent enough time defending faith on these forums in spite of the truly idiotic who claim to be faithful.

What I'm intolerant of is the one thing it is ok to be intolerant of. Intolerance. I don't care what colour your skin is, what sex you identify as, who you're attracted to, what your gender is, or what deity you pray to, if you even pray to one at all. I don't care if you're a liberal or a conservative, a socialist or a libertarian, what your income is, or what job you have. If you're a bigot though? I have no use for you.

Edited by Ice_Cap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread:

2E71cEW.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.