The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

"The NBA’s Jason Collins says he’s gay, making him the first openly homosexual athlete in a major American team sport." -CNN

It happened. We've all been saying it was coming soon.

Question:

There are like 1000 gay WNBA players. How is that not a "major American team sport"?

If you want to say: "in a *popular* league in a major team sport" then, yes. But, he is not the first, technically.

1) WNBA is NOT a major sport.

2) The players in WNBA are not gay, they are lesbians.  Male - gay, female - lesbian, homosexual - either. 

Semantics.  Nobody watches the WNBA.

Technically, he will only become the first openly homosexual athlete in a major American team sport...if he signs a new contract with a team. He's currently a free agent, which means he's actually unemployed at the moment.  He's a 34-year old end-of-the-bench scrub player, so he might not get a new contract either.

Mike Wallace said something dumb on Twitter about this and now is backpedaling and apologizing.  Great...not one snap and I already don't like the guy.

Actually I agree with Mike Wallace.  I don't get why a dude would want another dude. 

What Wallace tweeted was, "I'm not bashing anybody don't have anything against anyone I just don't understand it. All these beautiful women in the world and guys wanna mess with other guys SMH..."

I support legalizing homosexual marriage, equal rights etc.  But I agree with your wide receiver. 

I really don't get why this is such a big deal.....I don't give a frosty fuck if an NBA player likes to smoke the sausage......that is his prerogative and frankly none of my damn business. As long as he does his job on the court I could care less what they hell he does off of it. Just because he is gay doesn't make him any less of a professional athlete. I just don't get the obsession with outing every athlete and celebrity on the planet. What is the point and honestly who really cares who is gay and who isn't. I simply do not care if you're white, black, Asian, Mexican, gay, straight, bi, man, or woman. People are just that.....people. I do not understand why we have to label everything and make such a big deal out of it.

Just my two cents!!!!!!

It a big deal cause it is new.  Today it is no big deal for a MLB team to sign a black second baseman.  In 1947 it was. 

You're quoting him incorrectly.  He didn't write that all in one string.  He wrote:
"All these beautiful women in the world and guys wanna mess with other guys SMH...."

Then he took some flak and he wrote this a few minutes later:

"I'm not bashing anybody don't have anything against anyone I just don't understand it."

In a time like this, it's just a stupid comment to make. 

I agree the timing wasn't great, and if he was an elected official, it might matter.  But like I don't judge basketball players on who they are hitting, but how well they can hit a jump shot, I don't judge a WR on their tweeting, but their ability to a catch a football.  His tweet is a non-story. 

I agree with Mike Wallace. It's twitter where people post random thoughts. I don't think he needed to write an editorial explaining his thoughts.

And with the actual meaning of the whole announcement ... I find it rather anti-climatic.  I think the gay thing is overblown anymore.  There are gays on most tv shows and pretty much everywhere else. I don't think anyone really cares about an athlete or soldier being gay except for the dude showering with him and most them couldn't care less.

Is it really new though.....People have been coming out openly for a couple of decades now...it is not like it is taboo anymore and this isn't 1947. I highly doubt this is the first male gay athlete. It is only a big deal because we allow it to be. To each their own but I am in the who cares camp!!!!!

In that homosexual  marriage is not universal permitted and continuing anti-gay sentiment through out the country, his coming out is a big deal.  

It's almost like people can't have opinions anymore in this country. Whether Wallace likes gays, dislikes gays, or is indifferent to gays. Why do people care so much? It's only one persons perspective. The thing I don't understand is why people that live that lifestyle feel the need to advertize it to the world. Seems to me that it's more for attention than anything else. If you don't want someone to criticize or disagree with your life choices, don't tell the whole world your personal business .

Why is that?  ... Is he getting married? The two things have nothing to do with the other. I can love my gay friends but not feel that homosexual marriage is a right because of my understanding and definition of marriage.  I love my dogs but would never consent to them marrying someone and no I'm not saying gays are the equivalent to dogs. I'm just saying I can feel one way about a certain person and still feel differently on another without hating them.

The fact people try and link anti-gay marriage stances with gay bashing hurts their cause more than it helps.

Not supporting gay marriage is bigotry.  End of story.  You can say you love gays all you want, but you aren't treating them equally. 

You can have an opinion.  But then, I can also have an opinion about you.  And when your job depends on me being your fan, don't go on a public forum and say stupid shit that embarrasses your fanbase and forces your employer to apologize for you.

No one would know who Wallace was if he were not an athlete. Because of his status, his thoughts and opinions reach more people than some asshole postulating on a random internet site somewhere.
Celebrities and athletes know they have a captive audience to speak to.

I don't think Wallace is a bad guy.  He realized pretty quickly that he made an error, backpeddaling within minutes and then outright apologizing shortly thereafter (perhaps from involvement from the team.)  But this is big issue for people.  People are mistreated because of intolerance, so you can't just take it lightly.  His statements come across as flippant, as if people choose this difficult life when they could just have beautiful women, instead.  Having dealt with people in my family who have gone through terrible things because of being gay, Wallace taking a really proud moment for that movement and diminishing it really rubbed me the wrong way.

However, I am very pleased, overall, with the response.  Many athletes earned my respect with their outspoken support for bravery.  The league, as well.  If anything, I think it's a big deal how small of a deal it is.

I couldn't agree more.

(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/129964/EPHESIANS-TIM-TEBOW-BIBLE-EYE-BLACK.jpg)
(http://crossfitfaith.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/prov356_tebow.jpg)
(http://i.azcentral.com/i/sized/0/6/6/e298/j350/PHP4B634D10CD660.jpg)

No.  It just reveals who the bigots are.  It's basic, inalienable human rights pure and simple.  And making any equation, whatsoever, between dogs and humans does not help your case in any way.  It just makes you look REALLY, REALLY horrible or, at the very least, completely unable to understand the basic concepts that this nation was founded on.  Homosexuals only want the same rights as you and your spouse.  That's it.  It is literally un-American to believe otherwise.  There really is no grey area on this one, and opponents of equal rights are no different than those who opposed segregation of schools or interracial marriage.  This may actually be the simplest and easiest rights battle in the last 50 years...as long as you actually believe in the tenants on which this nation was founded.

It's the same song and dance as it always is.  The religious fundamentalists reach for their holy book to try to prevent equality.

I think this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASF0rzfSvEc) sums it up perfectly.  (Watch the whole video to understand.)

Yep,That video is from here where I live,not too far from my house...unfortunately...The ordinance got tabled,then pushed back,then forced into a "taskforce".The taskforce handpicked by city council,filled with their shills that will give them the result they want.Our city is known for doing this with everything...We want to raise taxes,we'll form a taskforce to see what they think...Yep they said raise taxes is our only option...

http://www.ky3.com/news/ky3-committee-makes-choices-for-panel-to-discuss-springfield-discrimination-ordinance-20121210,0,7682219.story (http://www.ky3.com/news/ky3-committee-makes-choices-for-panel-to-discuss-springfield-discrimination-ordinance-20121210,0,7682219.story)

They have till June 30th to submit a report,to discuss how to move forward with the issue...

Sorry,for the mini rant....

I was happy to hear an athlete in one of the major sports came out saying he was gay, pleasantly surprised...I have no clue who he is,but I applaud him for doing it...

and that my kind sir is why nothing will change or at best, be do resistant to change.  The first line out of your mouth is name calling and gets worse from there which will put anyone on the defensive. I guess I should return the compliment by calling you a faggot loving douche and see how well you listen to anything I have to say.

If people were actually concerned about changing anything or anyone they don't start by name calling and pointing out differences. It starts at where people agree and work from there.  Even in the military it started by proving they were already there and it wasn't a big deal. They are just like everyone else etc. it wasn't I'm a flamer and you will be forced to watch me "fill in the blank" because this is America and I can do whatever I like."

By the way that's the first time ever I've heard "freedom of homosexuality" as a reason for us fighting for independence. I guess we fought for equal rights for women and blacks too and the next 200 years didn't happen?

I have to agree with Dave, opposing equal rights because of an inherent trait is a bigoted stance. Just because your chosen religion dictates that stance, doesn't make it less so. It's exactly the same as opposing interracial marriage and then getting offended at being called a racist.

The "you hurt my feelings by calling me a bad name, so i'm going to be even more bigoted just out of spite" stance is also a bit childish. I have no doubt that you're a fair, responsible and moral individual by your own definition. But on this issue you're on the wrong side of morality. Just as humanity has stopped strictly following much of the Bible's teachings on behavior and punishment, it's time to drop the Leviticus style of thinking about gay marriage. People are people independently of what their sexual orientation is. They have the same rights  to form a family of their choosing without government penalties to do so.

It would be nice if that was the only case but the truth is the contract/agreement of marriage has a several thousand year old history of tradition between a man and a woman without the Bible.

Funny how attacking Christians so quickly for being hate mongering "Bible thumpers"  is not bigotry but the mere mention of having a different perspective of marriage is?

That's not it at all Fau. It doesn't hurt my feelings at all but it does put the average person on the defensive ... as it should. 

I've met you, Dave and Stroke .... arguably three of the most liberal people on here. If I had confronted you and said you are all going to burn in hell forever unless you accept Jesus Christ you would have 1) thought me crazy and 2) probably verbally attacked me back and never allowed me in your presence again. As it is I think we all met on common ground and as such have gotten to know more about each other that we wouldn't have if done the other way.

Homosexuality has been found in recorded history going back beyond ancient Greece and you can find parallels in just about every vertebrate species. It's not a new or unnatural phenomenon. We as a species clearly evolved with homosexuality being found in about 10% of the population. And there are valid evolutionary theories as to how this happened and how it fits into a model of special selection.

I don't want you to feel like i'm attacking your religion specifically, because I'm not. You could be a worshiper of Thor and if Thor was opposed to gay marriage it would be exactly the same. I am criticizing the rationale of how you arrived at your position. If you want to provide a non-religious justification for opposing gay marriage I'm open to criticizing that as well. But if your justification is based in your religious viewpoint, then I think it's fair to look at where that justification comes from.

You can't be against something because of religion and then be upset when people criticize the root cause of your position.

For the record, i have very religious conservative friends that do in fact think that i am going to literally burn in hell forever because i do not accept Christianity as valid. And that's ok. They are entitled to their belief system. Far be it for me to tell them what they can and can't do with their lives. We are still friends and I still get invited to social events. However, if they used their beliefs to justify something that is immoral, i don't think religion is a good enough reason to hide behind. And I've told them so.

You can have faith, you can be religious, you can be the most devout person on the planet. Good for you. I'll be the last person on earth to tell you otherwise.  However, it's not an excuse or a justification for an immoral stance, in the slightest.

I don't deny that.  What I am saying is that they didn't recognize hosexuals in marriage.

If I'm arguing and my only position is "because the Bible tells me so" then it's ok to write me off as however you percive that. That's not a great place to start for me considering you do not have that same value so how could I ever expect you to understand.  What I'm saying is that people shouldn't attack me as a a hate mongering predjudice bigot or a horrible, horrible, person just becuause I don't support a "contract" that has quite frankly never been generally been allowed in the written history of time.



 

This contract exists currently between heterosexuals ..male and female ..that sexual orientation is a inherent trait. It's not a choice. I referenced earlier the existence of homosexuality in nearly all veritibrated species. That on it's own is proof of the evolutionary origins of sexual orientation. That being the case, it becomes no different than skin color or eye color.

Restricting marriage benefits based on skin color is unthinkable today. It was the rule 50 years ago. Restricting marriage benefits based on sexual orientation is the rule today. It will be unthinkable 50 years from now because as we understand how it works it becomes increasingly immoral to deny people the same rights that others have.

IF and a big IF .. marriage was never a government function and was performed purely at churches as a matter of doctrine and faith and carried no government benefits. Then the freedom of religion trumps any calls for inclusion gay couples may have in that religion.  That isn't the case though, Government provides recognition, over 1000 specific benefits and privileges based on marriage. That is why a ban on gay marriage is wrong and immoral.

CF, are you making an argument against allowing homosexuality, or against the government to recognizing marriage between homosexuals?

Those are two very different things, and if you've consented to permitting the former, it seems silly and pointless to ban the latter.  When homosexuals can legally have sex, live together, and raise children (either through insemination or adoption), it is a rather transparent attack on their civil rights to prevent them from getting a marriage license.

The absurdity of claiming that such actions "protect marriage" (in a nation with a 50% divorce rate) is just icing on the cake.

Spider those are all separate issues. I don't have time to go in depth on each of these but I'll try to summarize.

1)  homosexuality is wrong according to the Bible so I will do everything in my power to refrain from condoning or participating. Not hard to do.
2) marriage is an agreement and later became an actual contract between a man and a woman. To want to protect that goes in agreement with tradition, history and the Church.
3) I love my homosexual friends just I love my friends who cheat on their wives/ girlfriends. I can never condone it but they are my friends.
4) Christian marriages are no better than non-christian marriages. Why? Because they do not follow Christian values and as such, divorce. Regardless of where you spend Sundays/holidays if you live by the world's standards you will suffer the world's consequences. It's unavoidable. 
Used to we as a society accepted Christian values. Today they are pushed into the corner because they are uncool prejudice, biggotted, or whatever label they come with. It's funny that people act like liberalism is a new "enlightened" "intelligent" concept when in fact it has destroyed many societies prior to us.

To respond:

1) homosexuality is constitutionally protected, and when the Constitution and the Bible disagree, the United States government is required to side with the Constitution
2) preventing homosexuals from marrying (but continuing to allow homosexual cohabitation and parenthood) does nothing to protect heterosexual marriages; in point of fact, the existence of no-fault divorce does immeasurably more to damage them
3) to say that you "love" someone at the same time you are negatively judging them is somewhat hollow; compare to "I love the sisters and daughters of America, even if they are mentally incapable of thinking logically like men"
4) This sentence doesn't seem to make sense.  Did you make a typo?
5) As a society, we "accepted Christian values"... except for the ones that we specifically rejected.  Ones like "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery," and "You shall have no other gods before me."  The Constitution seems to be at odds with at least two of the Ten Commandments, to say nothing of the Old Testament as a whole.

And before you say something like "Old Testament doesn't count, New Testament supercedes," please consider that the entirety of Biblical objection to homosexuality is based on the Old Testament.  So unless we're also going to outlaw shellfish and clothing with more than one type of fiber...

From my Catholic upbringing I think homosexuality is wrong.  That said, I think homosexuals should be allowed to marry and/or benefit from the freedoms and priviledges that we all have.  I look at it from the perseprective that just as I wouldn't push my other religious beliefs on people of different religions, or lack of religion, nor would I make a big deal out of whether someone is gay.  Therefore, I don't think someone should call me a bigot because I don't believe in homosexuality.  Live and let live.

No one is calling anyone a bigot because they disapprove of a lifestyle.

Disapprove of same-sex marriage all you like; it's when you try to force your beliefs on others (by outlawing same-sex marriage for others who do want them) that charges of bigotry are levied.

As the saying goes, if you don't approve of same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex.

Really? Please elaborate.

Sure they are!  Look at Wallace being hammered by the media simply becasue he says he doesn't understand why a man would want to be with a man when there are so many beautiful women around.  He didn't even say he was against gay marriage, nor that he even disapproved of the lifesyle.  In this PC crazed world if you happen to disagree with whatever stance some loud minority crowd is trying to shove down your throat you are made out the bad guy.

^^^^^ What he said!!!!  ;) ;D

You should run a litmus test on the statement to see if it holds up as being inoffensive.. lets try an example:

he says (and i'm quoting you because for our purposes it works fine)

is this bigoted ? (yes / no)

replace man/woman with white/black and correcting for gender to remove homosexuality as a factor


is this bigoted ? (yes / no)

if your answers don't match in both cases yes/yes or no/no .. please explain why

How could it be bigoted if his preference is to be with someone of his own race or with the opposite sex? There is no way he could understand any different.

Is heterosexuality or homosexuality abnormal?

Neither is abnormal from a biological or evolutionary standpoint.

Just a note, this is a fact. It's not an opinion.

CF, I fall short of attacking you on these topics but you have to understand this defense is not excusable. For a written history of time blacks were not allowed to vote  or marry in the United States either. You have to come with something better i think if you want to get any respect toward your position.

In many areas they cannot so you really need to address that before discussing marriage.

Context matters.

Is it racist to tweet statistics on the black vote for black candidates?  Not particularly.
Is it racist to tweet them the day Obama wins the election?  It sure doesn't help.
Wallace's timing was poor, to say the least.

That all being said, I don't believe in any such thing as bigotry when it comes to one's personal preference in mates.  Whether you're a Hispanic man who exclusively dates Asian women or a white woman who only dates within her race, I say: whatever floats your boat.  I believe Wallace's statements were meant to apply to his own personal preferences, but it was dumb to tweet that right after the first player in a major pro sport comes out.  The timing implies malice, even though I don't think that was the intent.

Terrible example Fau and I think you understand that. While I do appreciate black women and have had encounters with them, personally I prefer white women. Now, If I am attracted to white women more and do not "understand" why other people prefer black women I am not a bigot. I just do not feel the same way. I said nothing against the practice.

I don't agree with this litmus test; dating preferences should not be examined for political correctness.  To wit:

"he doesn't understand why a white man would want to be with a white woman when there are so many beautiful Asian women around."
"he doesn't understand why a black man would want to be with a white woman when there are so many beautiful black women around."
"he doesn't understand why a Hispanic woman would want to be with a Hispanic man when there are so many beautiful Hispanic women around."

Are we to categorize those in order of offensiveness?

While I agree it was dumb, you are completely contradictory in the second part of your statement. People can shout semantics all they want but I know your arguments well enough to call this out to see what you mean. If it implied malice, he meant it. If people infer malice, it is on them for reading too much into his statement.

I think you've hit on something with your statement.

Had Wallace said, "I could never be gay because there are just too many hot women around," that would be a non-story.  It's when one questions why others do what they do that you start to tread into the dangerous area.

So yeah, if you said something like, "I don't understand why anyone would want to date black women," that would probably not be good.

And you in your response as well.

Well, "the timing infers malice" makes no sense, as the timing can't infer anything at all.

I guess if you prefer the sentence reworded as "malice is inferred from his timing," consider it done.

I beg to differ


ab·nor·mal
[ab-nawr-muhl]
adjective
1. not normal, average, typical, or usual; deviating from a standard

I wouldn't call 10% average, typical, or usual. If 10% of the population gets cancer. Are cancer cells normal or abnormal cells? The biological purpose of sex is survival of the species. Therefore, biologically homosexuality serves no purpose.

You say that as if biological functionality should be an important factor.

What is the biological function of an infertile person?  Of braces?  Of hairspray?  Of music?

None.  But they are also abnormal. 

Im glad someone hit on the "normal" aspect. While I agree "normal" is a relative term I hardly believe homosexuality would be considered the norm. Interacting with them may be a normal occurrence for most people but that's completely different.

Upon further reflection, I'm going to have to retract the following statement:


If someone disapproves of the "desegregated college lifestyle" or the "interracial marriage lifestyle" or the "voting woman lifestyle," I think they likely will be called a bigot, and rightly so.

So then, it's a matter of degrees:

- it is politically acceptable to choose to date exclusively within your own race (or outside of it)
- it is politically acceptable to date whichever sex you prefer
- it is politically acceptable to choose not to vote
- it is not politically acceptable to try to control who other consenting adults date
- it is not politically acceptable to attempt to prevent qualified "undesirables" from voting

What percentage of the earth's population are Pacific Islanders?  How about the U.S. population?

I daresay both are well under 1%.  How should our legislation reflect this?

Homosexual is not "normal", but neither is believing that Jesus walked on water. 

Fau Teixeira brought up the biological standpoint, as noted below. The absurd "fact" not based on fact, that homosexuality is not abnormal from a biological standpoint. The purpose of sex is reproduction and survival of the species. Biologically, homosexuality has no purpose and therefore abnormal.



As already noted by Hoodie, infertility is an abnormal condition.

None of those have anything to do with the topic.

You appear to be saying that we should base legislation on reinforcing biological functionality.  Is this correct?

I think we're also getting sidetracked.  Any argument for biological functionality speaks to homosexuality itself, not the legal recognizance of a marriage contract.  And since few politicians are brave enough to suggest re-criminalizing homosexuality, all the talk of biological functionality is a smokescreen.  The "functionless" sex will continue among homosexuals (and millions of contraceptive-using heterosexuals) regardless of whether or not the government recognizes the legal status of a homosexual relationship.

That is the question at hand: whether the government should grant legally-recognized status to an existing relationship.  If you want to make the argument that the government makes (or should make) that determination based on biological functionality, then:

a) childless marriages should not be permitted to exist
b) lesbians who are artificially inseminated should be permitted to marry

I'm on my phone so a full reply will wait. But briefly...

Homosexuality is normal from a population standpoint. Evolutionary biology is practiced at a population level not an individual level.

A good example of this is a queen bee only accounts for 0.0001% of a hive but every hive has one. Abnormal? I think not.

Again, Fau brought up the "homosexuality is not abnormal from a biological standpoint". That has been refuted. As far as legislation, I don't care either way.  The point of this thread is about some dude in the NBA that says he's gay. Why did he do this? Why should anyone care? I don't hate or dislike gay people. However, to me homosexuality is abnormal,strange,sick,and I don't agree with it.

Someone said earlier something about this being "a proud moment for the movement". I'm not religious, but if this was some dude coming out saying that he was a born again christian, I'm sure he would be flamed and ridiculed like Tebow has been for his beliefs. At least be equal in your treatment of people. Like I said, If you don't want someone to criticize or disagree with your life choices, don't tell the whole world your personal business. This "movement" wants  attention more than anything, otherwise they would drop the 24/7 publicity push and quietly go about their personal business.

No sir, you are wrong! The natural function of sex is reproduction. Aside from propagation of the species, nature has no use for sex, hence homosexuality is naturally abnormal. Males are programed to spread their genes as far as possible. Spreading genes doesn't work too well for homosexuality. In fact, I may be mistaken, but judging from the higher infection rates among homosexuals, the only thing that is spread through homosexuality is STDs.

And by "flamed and ridiculed," you mean "a player who's been in the league for over 3 years, never started a complete season, yet has led the league in jersey sales."

If only other players could be so persecuted!

We're not discussing his stats or jersey sales, you are changing the subject again. Tebow's religious beliefs and public promotion of those beliefs is no different than some gay guy in the NBA promoting and advertising his abnormal sexual lifestyle. I'm sure that I can pull up plenty of quotes of people ridiculing and berating Tebow for it. Yet, this unknown gay guy is some "kind of hero in the movement" to these same people. Seems like some kind of agenda driven double standard to me.

In your World when would you "allow" people to voice their opinions??  The timing DOES NOT imply malice, it is the PC media world that wants to grab a headline that implies what he said, without actually stating what he said, or offering to ask him what he meant.

This is categorically false.

That is not a good example, it is a terrible example.

you are wrong.. i suspect it's through ignorance of the subject, which is nothing to be ashamed of.

If you have the willingness, check out this italian study http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002282#s3

That tackles exactly the misconception you have that homosexuality is a evolutionary negative.

it wasn't an example, it was a litmus test, if you don't feel like the test held up then you have your original answer.

The point is, for all the "ridiculing" and "berating" that you claim Tebow received, he was the most popular player in the league.  So whatever persecution he supposedly received for his beliefs was easily overwhelmed by the tsunami of devotion he received from Christians (not least because Christians seem to love the idea of being the persecuted minority even when they are, in fact, the overwhelming majority).

In contrast, you claim that Collins is being lionized and propped up by the media, yet the idea that a gay player (who had never started a full season!) would lead the league in jersey sales, at any time in the foreseeable future, is so laughable as to be absurd.

When was anyone "prevented" from voicing their opinion?

You are allowed to say (nearly) whatever stupid things you want to at any time, and the First Amendment ensures that you will not be jailed for doing so.  It does not, however, ensure that other people will not criticize you for your statements... because the First Amendment also protects their right to criticize you.

Like I said, if you decide to spontaneously question whether women voters choose their preferred candidates based on gender immediately after the first female president is elected, you will likely experience a similar effect.

Timing matters.

Considering more than 1 in 3 believe I'd say you were very wrong. How common does something have to be to be considered normal?

You are mistaking the words normal and common.  They are not interchangeable.

So you mean I've just had sex for the fun of it all these years and was doing it for the wrong reason?

In answer to CF, i think belief in the supernatural is normal for humans. It's not even under dispute, if you look at the worldwide belief systems, that would back it up.

In our evolutionary past, a set of traits that result in humans believing in a higher power has benefited survival in some way. That's fine. Humans are pattern seekers as a species. That's evidenced by the widespread belief in a supernatural or by he preponderance of conspiracy theories. There's nothing abnormal about that.

and yes, common doesn't mean normal

it's normal for any human population to contain ~10% homosexuality .. it's abnormal if it doesn't
it's not common for a human to be homosexual ... but it's normal

I would say you are mistaken.  From Merriam Webster -

nor·mal adjective \ˈnȯr-məl\

Synonyms
average, common, commonplace, cut-and-dried (also cut-and-dry), everyday, garden-variety, ordinary, prosaic, routine, run-of-the-mill, standard, standard-issue, unexceptional, unremarkable, usual, workaday

Perhaps if you replaced "normal" (and "abnormal") with "natural" (and "unnatural") in Fau's statement... Would that make the distinction more reasonable to you?

Not to be a dick, but that's not how a dictionary works.  You can't just replace synonyms in any context and have them mean the same thing.  "Standard Issue" and "Normal" don't mean the same thing except for in certain circumstances.  It doesn't even matter...arguing the dictionary is just a distraction.

Exactly. Once again you say timing matters.  So, I'll ask you again WHEN would you allow Wallace to state his opinions???

Normal has multiple definitions.  

The normal curve has a synonym of Gaussian curve not common curve.  

But the whole "does homosexuality exist in other species" is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion of whether it ought be considered accepted human behavior.  

There is a whole range of human behavior that does not exist in other species that is quite acceptable (such as posting on message boards dedicated to sports teams) and there is common practices among other species that our society do not approve of for humans such as rape, infantcide, & cannibalism.  Each of which occurs much more commonly in nature than homosexuality.  

Presuming that we substitute "suggest" for "allow," the day before would have been preferable.  Or whenever this story leaves the media cycle, I guess.

As I said later, upon further reflection, when you're telling others what they should be doing, you tread in dangerous waters (regardless of timing).  Had Wallace said, verbatim, "All these beautiful white women in the world and guys want to mess with black women SMH," this would have been just as big of a story, maybe even bigger.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/05/01/church-cancels-leroy-butler-speech-over-jason-collins-tweet/#comments

Apparently congratulating Collins is not acceptable. 

Well if sex isn't nature's biological function to reproduce, then perhaps you two biology scientists can provide everyone with your biased opinion of the natural function of human intercourse. Please, for the sake of us laymen here, just provide nature's reason for sexual intercourse in simple terms. You know, the one we all learned in 7th grade.

We are not talking about jersey sales or popularity. We are talking about 2 people that have come out, advertized, and promoted 2 different personal beliefs. One is ridiculed and his personal belief is called "made up". One is "the pride of the movement". Kind of a double standard.

"I breathe when I sleep" is not the same thing as "I sleep when I breathe."

Intercourse is the mechanism for reproduction.  That does not mean that reproduction is the only function of intercourse.

There is a biological reason why humans (and dolphins) do not have clear, obvious biological indicators of fertility windows (i.e. "heat") like almost every other mammal.  Suffice it to say that it encourages non-reproductive sex.

No, not at all. Sex is great regardless.  It takes male & female (sperm & egg) to make a reproduce, that happens by use of male & female sex organs. Without reproduction, the species would die out. Also, there can be real health problems associated with anal sex, and the rectum is the human corridor for defecation rather than sexuality. A vagina becomes naturally lubricated for sexual behavior, but the rectum doesn't have a means of lubrication or protection, whether by evolution or creation.

So basically, you're having a discussion about public perception and reaction that somehow excludes... popularity?  OK...

Well, I guess if you intentionally exclude Tebow's legion of devoted fans, you're right: by definition, "no one" likes him or praises him or defends him.  As long as you eliminate all of his supporters (which are arguably more numerous than any other player in the league), all that remains are people who denigrate him and criticize him.

Not sure what point that proves, but there you have it.

If a member of this forum talked about this gay NBA player  like I've seen members of this forum talk about Tebow's beliefs then that forum member would be called a bigot, bully, insensitive, and homophobic. Like I said, double standard.

^^^I'll second that.

I don't understand the comparison to Tebow.  Can someone please clarify for me?  I don't see the relevance.

We have not reached the we must reference Tebow x number of times quota yet.

Those who complain about Collins "advertising his lifestyle to the world" and who advocate not to "tell the whole world your personal business" seem to sing a different tune when that lifestyle or personal business happens to be in service of Christ.

If a member of this forum talked about this gay NBA player like I've seen members of this forum talk about Obama (or Bush), I imagine you would see the same thing.

The fact that you chose that as an example encapsulates the crux of the discussion:  you seem to believe that, just like choosing to be a Christian or choosing to be a liberal or choosing to be a Patriots fan, homosexuals make the choice to be gay.  And so you can't understand why some choices are criticized while other choices inexplicably (to you) get a "free pass."

If you think that criticizing someone's religious choices is equivalent to criticizing their sexuality, then no wonder you perceive a double standard.

Here's the deal. I can give you evidence, i can give you ideas .. i can provide you with explanations and with rationale and logic .. but i can't put that all together and think for you.

The world doesn't operate at a 7th grade level. What you learned in the 7th grade is a broad stroke of how nature works, you learned the equivalent of painting a barn where nature is actually a fine oil painting hanging in a museum.

The study i liked before is based on observation and fact. It's been peer reviewed, accepted for publication and then had it's findings analyzed by dozens of contemporary scientists. It still holds up.

Not everything in life can be or should be simplified for the layman. If you want to argue about an adult topic with adults, then adult reasoning and adult logic and an adult level of knowledge is required. Sarcasm and appealing to ignorance won't cut it.

Fau, that's the thing:

You can link complicated studies with nuanced conclusions that have all sorts of caveats and technical exceptions...  or you can just say, "Because God made it that way," which any 7th grader can understand.

And before people object to more "religion-bashing," this is directly relevant: the vast majority of anti-homosexual arguments (from a civil rights perspective) are grounded in religion; religions that exist expressly to provide simplified answers to complicated questions of the unknown.

My question is, why come out openly and flaunt your sexuality?  To me, your sexual preferences should be kept private and in the bedroom whether you're gay or straight.

^ bullshit.  You talk about your wife all the time.

Tebow is open about his Christianity. So much that people constantly make fun of him for it. He's been called lots of things and pretty much no joke has been sparred about him. Heck, even Saturday night live did a skit with Jesus and Tebow mocking both of them. I've heard the fact he is open about it makes it ok. So does this mean we can make fag jokes now about Jason?

How much tolerance would there be for someone referring to Jason as being a pole smoker? For instance. The pole smoker isn't get picked up by anybody. His career was over way before he brought this this announcement.  That's the same as calling Tebow a Jesus Freak or whatever derogatory term that has been used. 

But I never discuss what happens in the bedroom and if anyone asks, I get very upset about it.

Well neither has Jason Collins so I don't think anyone really gets your point. He did no more than you do but you seem to have issues with him doing it.

There's a few things that are muddled up here. And i think you're making an apples to oranges comparison.

Tolerance for being gay is the same as tolerance for being short or for being left handed.

Religion isn't an inherent trait, it's an opinion or a world view if you'd prefer. A christian has the same right to tolerance as a scientologist or a mormon, or a muslim, or a worshiper of Shiva.

Intolerance of a person for who he is is bigotry. intolerance of a person for what they believe is rude in our society but doesn't rise to the same level.

I purposefully kept religion out of this conversation because it isn't comparable to what we're discussing. I don't find it necessary to criticize your religion or anyone else's I won't tell you what your religion should be. That's up to you.

If gay marriage is against your religion then i support your right, under the 1st amendment of the constitution to not get gay married. 100% in your corner on this. You should never be forced to get gay married ever.

If Collins were on the podium talking about how he liked to reach around when he was blowing a dude, I would understand your point, but that's not really on the table.

As for Tebow, Christianity is a belief.  Homosexuality is not.  It is a trait.  They aren't even remotely comparable.

Because you won't see me getting up on a podium in front of the media saying, "Hey, I'm openly straight!!  There's my wife!!" 

I just have issues with people flaunting their sexuality in front of the public eye.  Especially a public figure.  We pay money to watch him play basketball, not to flaunt his sexuality.

The fact that everyone just assumes everyone is straight combined with the fact that he's the 1st major athlete that's come out is what makes his coming out in the public eye noteworthy.

And to be fair .. 'we' didn't pay anything for him to write an article for sports illustrated.

I guess you can do everything but answer the question. What is natures biological reason for human sexual intercourse? Simple question.
 


You linked one obscure study, good for you. Does that study dispute the fact that natures reason for human sexual intercourse is propagation of the species? Do you dispute that also? Do you dispute the fact that the function of the human anus is for removal of waste?

Ok, forget the 7th grade biology class. Show me credible college level biology or medical curriculum that says that human sexuality is not for the primary function of reproduction. 

If we're talking about human nature, the reason for intercourse is lust...

No not human nature. The biological reason why the human body functions sexually. Let's just keep tippy toeing around the actual biological reason until you all convince yourselves that the human genitalia was designed for homosexual cock in the ass sex . This is actually funny watching people dodge actual scientific facts to justify their position.

And this gay NBA player made a CHOICE to go public with his abnormal and unnatural lifestyle for no reason. That make him fair game for whatever he exposed himself to. There is no good reason for gay people to advertise and publicise their way of life. I cannot for the life of me see why anyone would care who is gay or who is straight. Seems to me it's just for attention and to push a political agenda /

Let's be realistic here... The "reproductive process" aspect of intercourse is used 1-2 times in a person's lifetime. 3-4, if a young couple wants a larger family. Now, compare that number with the hundreds, even thousands of times we use intercourse for pure pleasure. If I wanted to beat you with your own whip, I might say that reproduction, not pleasure, is the "abnormal" use of our genitalia. The norm is just straight sex...or not straight sex, depending on which way you swing.

You're assuming the sex with the same partner. Nature doesn't know monogamy. A male is driven by the biological instinct to spread his seed to as many female partners as possible in order to ensure that his bloodline and legacy survive.
These days there are many more children born to different partners than you know of. Marino ring a bell? What about this guy. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/18/desmond-hatchett-30-kids_n_1528850.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D162381 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/18/desmond-hatchett-30-kids_n_1528850.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D162381)

I didn't answer your original question because it was a stupid question. On a bunch of different levels. Not to mention the asshole manner in which you asked it.

There is no such thing as "nature's biological reason" .. i don't even know what that means.
If you're trying to ask if reproduction is one of the multiple goals of intercourse, then yes. obviously. sex can make babies. obviously babies aren't the only reason to have sex. Here's another link to a Psychology trade magazine discussing the reasons people have sex: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/insight-therapy/201204/why-do-we-have-sex . And as clearly psychology is a valid medical field, i'm sure this will be sufficient to meet your requirement.

So now I've linked one fairly well known study, and a article from a psychology trade publication which by the way at my latest count is infinity percent more than you have.

So lets recap. I've made a statement, I've backed it up with reason, logic and data. You are free to provide any of those to rebut what I've said. But don't waste my time with sarcasm, muddy circular logic or irrationality.

Again .. you're wrong .. do you just pull facts out of your ass and slop them down without even knowing if they are true or not.

Nature absolutely knows monogamy.

1 - Swans
2 - Albatross
3 - Bald Eagles
4 - Turtle Doves
5 - black vultures
6 - prarie voles
7 - wolves

and that's just from a pretty fast and sloppy google search.

Yeah, I know, I'm an asshole and I'm wasting your time. You getting irritated is very telling. If you want to believe that two males having anal sex is normal and natural, that's your business. I would venture to guess that most would disagree with you. Anyhow, if you feel your time is being wasted, no one is forcing you to reply. You seem to just want to argue to push your pro homosexual agenda anyhow.

You do know that in this thread we're talking about human beings right? We are discussing homosexuality in humans. I don't recall ever mentioning any animals whatsoever. Regardless, you can try to pick apart my posts and spin things however you want to make yourself feel better. If you gotta be right . Ok, Fau you are 100% right about everything. Do you feel better now?

my bad.. you were obviously talking about the nature that doesn't include animals and about the nature that's only humans .. i should have known that you'd be way more nuanced once called out on your crap .. good job

100% correct .. finally .. you and i agree on something.

I think we have our monthly winning post for the I just pulled something out of my ass award. While it is true that most men I know have sought out as many female partners as possible, it is absolutely untrue that they were doing so in the  name of impregnating them. Especially impregnating them all. I also find it hilarous that in your argument for what is normal and what is not you gave an example of a man with 30 kids as normal behavior. Is your last name Duggar by any chance?

At least the Duggar family is able to take care of their kids on their own without my tax dollars. The same can't be said for people like the Octomom

So you admit that males seek to sleep with as many females as possible. Why do you think that they do that? Couldn't be natural instinct could it? And why do you think they don't want to impregnate them? Did cavemen care if they impregnated every woman that they had sex with? Hmm, I wonder if the rules and penalties of society  have anything to do with it?


No, I gave a man with 30 kids as an example of human natural instinct to reproduce.

Come on Stinky, use your head for a minute. The use of birth control is simple enough to understand that not every sexual encounter is for the purpose of reproduction.

stinkyfish, on the one hand, you are arguing that the biological point of sex is reproduction.

But that's not really why people have sex, is it?  Biologically, we have a sex drive, not a reproductive drive; the biological reward of sex is at orgasm, not at conception.  "Natural instinct" makes males want to have sex as much as possible, not have children as much as possible.  And from the male standpoint (biologically speaking), vaginal, anal, or oral sex all pretty much wind up with the same result.

In fact, if the only natural purpose of sex is reproduction, why do heterosexual anal and oral sex exist?  Could it be because the real biological driver behind sex is orgasm, and that the mechanism (and/or results) are happy side effects?  Without sex drives, reproduction would fall off of a cliff.  Let's not mistake the cart for the horse.

First division I college basketball player comes out and it barely makes a beep on everyones radar.

PROGRESS!