OT: The Thread About Nothing Part 190: Terrorists, Wild Trout, Microbeers, and Stuff

[devilsblood]

Clearly. But you're the one who set the constraints to that argument, so blame yourself.

I don't need to blame myself, either way, openly gay, or actually gay works just fine in my argument.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Martina Navratilova came out as an active player about 35 years ago...

Sheryl Swoopes apparently doesn't count for anything in this male dominated society either.. how discriminatory

And others..... Megan Rapinoe? Greg Louganis? Billy Jean? Billie Bean (only remembered him because his name sounds like Billy Jean) Johnny Weir? I'm sure we can come up with a lot more if we cared to think about it.


Frankly, in my mind the strangest part of this "story" has nothing to do with gay athletes or being gay, but with the simultaneous "search" that many well-known reporters and/or major US media outlets conducted in the last 3 or 4 months to scour the landscape and "find" said gay athletes.

If you consult GOOG, you'll see almost every major sports league has some odd Bloomberg or Reuters story on this in the last 3 or 4 months.

 

[Scott04]

Scott, do we think Collins is the first gay male pro athlete(4 major sports) or just first openly gay.

And your points which are fair, still ignore that all of my points have been counterarguments to the idea that Tebow is getting a raw deal while Collins was given a path softened with rose pedals. As if to say it is easier to be a gay athlete or even US citizen then it is to be a christian athlete or citizen. I argue that as straight false.

Sure acceptance of gay athletes is much higher today then ever before, but compared to christian athlete? Is this really debateable?

No one is saying he is the first gay male pro athlete. Especially because he is not. Plenty of other athletes have come out as being gay. But it was just about always after retiring. In the case of Robbie Rogers (soccer player), he retired when he came out. Jason Collins is known as the first openly gay ACTIVE athlete. That's the key to his notoriety.

And you still ignored my point that Tebow isn't getting a raw deal on account of his beliefs. Tebow isn't getting a raw deal in reality. If you mean in the sense that he likely won't land on an NFL team (at least, that's the current popular theory), its purely for an on-field reason. The criticism of Tebow as a Christian is an attempt as assassination of character and little more. No one claims it has an impact on his ability to play football or his ability to get a job. His religious beliefs don't impact his ability to get a job, especially because frankly speaking plenty of the decision makers of these organizations have similar beliefs, even if not as devout. His ability to get a job will be determined by what he can do on the field. People won't speculate its because of religion.

The sample size is too limited to decide if it will have any impact on Collins, or others in the same situation. That's one where time will tell. As the first openly gay ACTIVE player, we will see soon. The decision will all but definitely be made because of what he can do on the court. The problem is, regardless of what happens, people will speculate that was the result because of his orientation. People will assume he doesn't get a spot on his roster because he's gay/teams don't want to be viewed as making the move for non-basketball reasons. Or people will assume he gets a job because teams won't want to be viewed as discriminatory/bringing him on for non-basketball reasons. His talent level is right on that line where that will be the debate. A larger sample size will be the metric for whether or not this is an "issue" of acceptance.

You're still missing that no one is saying its equally accepted, or as easy to be accepted. But to deny that acceptance is much more common place is ignorant. To say any group is met with universal acceptance is ignorant as well. There is backlash to any group, as I said earlier. But the playing field is definitely becoming more level as time passes. The perspective you're trying to argue is one that can't be answered because this point in time doesn't have the data to confirm or deny any of it yet.

That's part of the point I'm trying to make. That "day" is essentially pretty much here, it's just that there is a certain segment of society that ideologically refuses to acknowledge or "let go" of the fact that that day is here. It is a false narrative to say that there is rampant anti-gay sentiment or rampant gay discrimination in America. Frankly, if people believe that, I dont think they have a relative grasp on the definition of "discrimination" as it applies to civil rights, either historically or in America OR even globally.

Well... I think its debatable to say if that day is here. The topic of same-sex marriage is still a hotly contested one, and a number of states are still clearly against it. And then throw in the whole Supreme Court matter on the subject. I fully agree that that "day" is rapidly approaching. I find the definition of "pretty much here" to be the debatable part. But its really all how one would definite the phrase that would explain my opinion vs. yours on it. In the grand scheme of things, a few years qualifies as "pretty much here," especially when you factor in the pace at which legislation moves. Its all a perspective thing though I guess.

 

[devilsblood]

That's part of the point I'm trying to make. That "day" is essentially pretty much here, it's just that there is a certain segment of society that ideologically refuses to acknowledge or "let go" of the fact that that day is here. It is a false narrative to say that there is rampant anti-gay sentiment or rampant gay discrimination in America. Frankly, if people believe that, I dont think they have a relative grasp on the definition of "discrimination" as it applies to civil rights, either historically or in America OR even globally.

My argument is against the idea that christians (namely Tebow) are suffering while gays (namely Collins) are given a free ride. Which was what I thought was the point when u made this:


Team Athlete Life ‏@TeamAthleteLife

Tim Tebow: "I'm a Christian."
Media: "Keep it to yourself."

Jason Collins: "I'm gay."
Media: "You're an inspiration!"

#idontunderstand

the tweet of the day.

 

[devilsblood]

Scott I don't think Tebow is getting a raw deal at all.

I'm arguing against that very notion.

 

[Scott04]

I forget who it was, but one woman athlete was noting how it is much easier to be a gay female athlete then it is a gay male athlete. Pretty famous contemporary.

Side note: My girlfriend rented her apartment to a gay female b-ball player who played for the liberty. And then she left a loaded weapon in the apt after she moved out. I think her dad made her get it, and then she forgot about it(hidden on the top shelf in the closet).

The notion of the gay female athlete isn't as much of a ground breaker because it has largely been a stereotype for a while. Because of that, it seems more "expected" for many. An openly gay male athlete is less "expected" especially when you factor in the uber macho persona that you sometimes see portrayed in male athletics. To some, it just can't compute that the two can be present simultaneously. That's where the shock comes into play. Brittney Griner came out as gay within the last week or so if I remember correctly. It made headlines, yes. But it wasn't as much of a hot topic issue because she wasn't as much the first of her kind. That's another reason why it may be perceived as "easier" being an openly gay female athlete than male. Mostly because its been done before without much social repercussion.

My argument is against the idea that christians (namely Tebow) are suffering while gays (namely Collins) are given a free ride. Which was what I thought was the point when u made this:


Team Athlete Life ‏@TeamAthleteLife

Tim Tebow: "I'm a Christian."
Media: "Keep it to yourself."

Jason Collins: "I'm gay."
Media: "You're an inspiration!"

#idontunderstand

the tweet of the day.

Part of it is context. It relates to the RG3 tweet that was posted. His tweet was about how in a land of freedom, our speech is repressed due to the criticism of not being politically correct. The tweet above is in relation to what RG3 said. One is not viewed as being as politically correct as the other and receives a certain response. Thats merely it.

Scott I don't think Tebow is getting a raw deal at all.

I'm arguing against that very notion.

But where is anyone saying he is getting one on account of his religious beliefs? That's why I keep responding to this. On this point, I think you're arguing against yourself.

 

[devilsblood]

What do u guys think of gay's in the lockerroom?

 

[Scott04]

What do u guys think of gay's in the lockerroom?

Why should it matter? The principles that come into play in that scenario are those of individual respect and common decency. That transcends sexual preference. The same issues that could result from this scenario are the same that could result from a locker room full of only straight people or only gay people or any combination of the two.

 

[devilsblood]

But where is anyone saying he is getting one on account of his religious beliefs? That's why I keep responding to this. On this point, I think you're arguing against yourself.

If that is not the point of the tweet, then you are right, I am missing the point.

But to me, it is clearly saying that the media is telling christians to keep quiet. It's almost verbatim.

 

[DatBoyJPP]

What do u guys think of gay's in the lockerroom?

Doesn't bother me. Scott and I have been in professional locker rooms while athletes were naked in them. I'm comfortable with myself and others that it doesn't affect me in the slightest

 

[devilsblood]

Why should it matter? The principles that come into play in that scenario are those of individual respect and common decency. That transcends sexual preference. The same issues that could result from this scenario are the same that could result from a locker room full of only straight people or only gay people or any combination of the two.

Honest question.

politics aside, further scenarios aside, your butt naked, gay dude next to you. You cool?

 

[DatBoyJPP]

Honest question.

politics aside, further scenarios aside, your butt naked, gay dude next to you. You cool?

Yup.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Tebow isn't getting a raw deal in reality. If you mean in the sense that he likely won't land on an NFL team (at least, that's the current popular theory), its purely for an on-field reason. The criticism of Tebow as a Christian is an attempt as assassination of character and little more. No one claims it has an impact on his ability to play football or his ability to get a job.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Tebow isnt an NFL starter, he might not even be 2nd-string worthy (debatable), but NFL teams carry 3 QBs (some carry 4), and even the Tebow-haters must admit he's at least good enough to be 3rd-string somewhere.

I think part of the reason nobody is picking him up is directly attributable to the media circus that that entails, and if you agree with that, that is most certainly a direct effect of the media firestorm related to his religion, though perhaps indirectly, it still became the root cause of that circus.

Well... I think its debatable to say if that day is here. The topic of same-sex marriage is still a hotly contested one, and a number of states are still clearly against it. And then throw in the whole Supreme Court matter on the subject.

Yes, but I reject "same-sex marriage" out of hand as a topic of discrimination. The vast majority of people who defend marriage harbor no resentment or malice against gay people, rather they, whether Jewish or Christian or Muslim etc...... have a religious belief that for hundreds (or thousands) of years has marriage as a religious ceremony between men and women.

In fact, I think the subject of gay marriage almost proves my point.

Why? Because when people want to talk about "discrimination against gays in 2013", this is pretty much "all they've got". I think that's pretty good evidence that gay people are pretty much accepted everywhere in America.

 

[Scott04]

If that is not the point of the tweet, then you are right, I am missing the point.

But to me, it is clearly saying that the media is telling christians to keep quiet. It's almost verbatim.

You quoted BG with my line

But you're reading into it too literally. Those are not direct quotes by any means. The point of it is political correctness. Saying something like "keep it to yourself" is not discriminatory against the majority. It is merely to the point of not making a story out of it. If you say the same thing against a minority in our politically correct society, you get torn to shreds. You can't say it anymore. Look at the response received by Mike Wallace, Chris Broussard, and others based on what they have said in the last two days. And this has nothing to do with whether or not they were right or wrong, condemning or supporting, stating their own opinions or disagreeing with someone else's.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Why should it matter? The principles that come into play in that scenario are those of individual respect and common decency. That transcends sexual preference. =

Doesn't bother me. Scott and I have been in professional locker rooms while athletes were naked in them.

Here's the thing, it IS 100% a double-standard.

If a gay male or gay female is allowed in a lockerroom with naked heterosexual men and women (which IS allowed), how is that any different from naked heterosexual men and women being mixed in the same lockerrooom (which is NOT allowed)?

 

[Scott04]

Honest question.

politics aside, further scenarios aside, your butt naked, gay dude next to you. You cool?

I am equally comfortable or uncomfortable with a straight guy next to me as a gay guy next to me. My comfort level is determined by the presence of a person/people in the given proximity than their sexual preferences. The guy standing next to me could be gay, but that doesn't mean he's going to be interested in me and/or do anything towards me. That's not how sexual preferences work. It may hurt my self-esteem if he isn't interested in me ( ) but his preference in no way affects my comfort level on the situation.

I'm sure sure I agree with this. Tebow isnt an NFL starter, he might not even be 2nd-string worthy (debatable), but NFL teams carry 3 QBs (some carry 4), and even the Tebow-haters must admit he's at least good enough to be 3rd-string somewhere.

I think part of the reason nobody is picking him up is directly attributable to the media circus that that entails, and if you agree with that, that is most certainly a direct effect of the media firestorm related to his religion, though perhaps indirectly, it still became the root cause of that circus.



Yes, but I reject "same-sex marriage" out of hand as a topic of discrimination. The vast majority of people who defend marriage harbor no resentment or malice against gay people, rather they, whether Jewish or Christian or Muslim etc...... have a religious belief that for hundreds (or thousands) of years has marriage as a religious ceremony between men and women.

In fact, I think the subject of gay marriage almost proves my point.

Why? Because when people want to talk about "discrimination against gays in 2013", this is pretty much "all they've got". I think that's pretty good evidence that gay people are pretty much accepted everywhere in America.

For Tebow, I think the big issue is that there is just too many factors involved. It is a media circus. It is an on-field concern. It is an off-field concern (but that's more of the 'locker room impact' or 'distraction' sense). Tebow-mania's creation was only partly (if at all) a result of his religious beliefs. I think the purpose for their introduction into this whole story was originally to give a picture of "who is Tim Tebow." How it grew from there is another story. I think the biggest factor for him not getting a spot comes down to ability though. Few think he's a "quarterback" and that's the issue. If recent reports are true that he doesn't want to change positions, that's the issue. The interest in him is there in other positions (again, if we believe recent reports), so that's why I feel the media circus is more of an underlying issue as opposed to a primary one.

In regards to the same sex marriage aspect of it, if we are talking in general terms, which we are, I do mostly agree that for many it is founded on a religious belief as opposed to a personal discrimination. Of course its a case by case basis, as there are plenty on both sides of the coin against it for religious reasons, against it for personal/discriminatory reasons, people that are against it for little reason at all and just don't feel right about it, etc. There are probably people in favor of it for a similar variety of reasons as well. But we can't debate case by case stuff, especially since that data just doesn't exist to fully represent everyone.

 

[Baggy Spandex]

Honest question.

politics aside, further scenarios aside, your butt naked, gay dude next to you. You cool?

Dude, gay not rapist.

 

[BenedictGomez]

If you say the same thing against a minority in our politically correct society, you get torn to shreds.

Yes, or the reverse, where you can generally say stupid racist things about white people and pay no price, but you cant do that to anyone else in America.

The below article is a great example. Imagine if someone wrote, "Lets hope XYZ murder was some black dude" = Career Over.

This author is clearly an example of the "race obsessed" and Civil Rights obsessed individuals I was previously referring to. The irony? These people who think such things are the real racists in America, yet they think they're righteous and morally superior to everyone else.


Lets hope the Boston Bomber is a White American

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/lets_hope_the_boston_marathon_bomber_is_a_white_american/

 

[devilsblood]

You quoted BG with my line

But you're reading into it too literally. Those are not direct quotes by any means. The point of it is political correctness. Saying something like "keep it to yourself" is not discriminatory against the majority. It is merely to the point of not making a story out of it. If you say the same thing against a minority in our politically correct society, you get torn to shreds. You can't say it anymore. Look at the response received by Mike Wallace, Chris Broussard, and others based on what they have said in the last two days. And this has nothing to do with whether or not they were right or wrong, condemning or supporting, stating their own opinions or disagreeing with someone else's.

I didn't see the tweet in context, I admit.

Maybe I'm taking it to literal.

HOWEVER

Does anyone here watch presidential debates? Do we not hear christian themes on a consistent basis? Why?


Because is it politically incorrect? No.

The mere suggestion that christian's are more oppressed then gay's is laughable. It's ridiculous to even compare the two. christians and gays? hard to believe. Maybe I'm missing the context that was making this very point and it is all actually over my head,

I dunno. 1 AM. I am out. good debate.

 

[DatBoyJPP]

My favorite is still from the view when all the panelists are laughing at a guy that had his penis cut off by a female (girlfriend/wife?). If that was the exact opposite story they would have screamed bloody murder

 

[BenedictGomez]

My favorite is still from the view when all the panelists are laughing at a guy that had his penis cut off by a female (girlfriend/wife?). If that was the exact opposite story they would have screamed bloody murder

That would be a double-standard too, and one I've never thought or heard of.


Teacher sex abuse is another one:

Male teacher has sex with 13 year old girl = anything from "lock him up and throw away the key" to "castrate him"
Female teacher has sex with 13 year old boy = Woah, that lucky kid!

It's moronic.

And with that, I'm off to bed too.

 

[Scott04]

I didn't see the tweet in context, I admit.

Maybe I'm taking it to literal.

HOWEVER

Does anyone here watch presidential debates? Do we not hear christian themes on a consistent basis? Why?

As I said before, because the goal of the presidential race is to get the most number of votes (electoral college not withstanding). How do you get the most number of votes? By appealing to the largest number of people. In the religious spectrum (considering all religions or those whom choose not to identify with one), which group has the overwhelmingly largest population in this country? Christianity. There's no real hidden logic behind it. Its all about the numbers in this case. They want as many votes as possible, appeal to the group that has the largest share of the votes. That's it.

Because is it politically incorrect? No.

The mere suggestion that christian's are more oppressed then gay's is laughable. It's ridiculous to even compare the two. christians and gays? hard to believe. Maybe I'm missing the context that was making this very point and it is all actually over my head,

I dunno. 1 AM. I am out. good debate.

No one said Christians are more oppressed. Everyone is saying that being gay is more accepted and that in the public eye at least, oppression/criticism towards gay individuals is decreasing. Its never a universal fact, as there are those that will hate other groups for whatever reason, or no reason at all. But the field is becoming more level just because of a greater acceptance, not because the criticism of Christians is so prevalent. The only connection between the two is that some of the public criticism of gay individuals and/or their rights has a religious connection. In the example of Chris Broussard, his statements about individuals being "sinners" was on account of his religious beliefs. While it was not one only condemning gay people (he also mentioned adulterers and other specific religious examples), it is a point of public discussion because it is a component to the debate of religion vs. public acceptance/perception.

 

[Jersey Man]

Only time I'd be uncomfortable with a gay man in a locker room is if he went out of his way to make it uncomfortable. Goes for any guy I guess as well.

 

[JimEIV]

I'm usually the person that makes people feel uncomfortable in lockerrrooms...

I think it's my Superman speedo but I can't be sure?

 

[MartyOwns]

My argument is against the idea that christians (namely Tebow) are suffering while gays (namely Collins) are given a free ride. Which was what I thought was the point when u made this:


Team Athlete Life ‏@TeamAthleteLife

Tim Tebow: "I'm a Christian."
Media: "Keep it to yourself."

Jason Collins: "I'm gay."
Media: "You're an inspiration!"

#idontunderstand

the tweet of the day.

being gay isnt a choice. being a christian is. a poor choice, unless youre a fan of genocide