Him being gay doesn't automatically make him a pioneer with the best of intentions or a fame seeker. Which both sides seem to be arguing. None of us know enough about Sams to make claims on either side. So automatically denying that Sams is seeking fame because he is gay is just as wrong as claiming he is seeking fame because he is gay based off the little we know about him personally.

As a straight male one thing gays should understand is that its also an uncomfortable situation for us as well. Straight males don't want to have to think about homosexuality and that's natural part of our instincts. I don't believe its something that time will mend.

DrAlphaeus wrote:

playa2 wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:Freak show... spectacle... parade... shouting out... y'alls word choices are interesting.

I read the New York Times article having never heard of the dude before and the picture looked like he was sitting down clothed in business casual doing a pretty calm and conventional interview.

BRIGGS, playa, jrod: where are you getting these impressions from? Not from this young man I take it.

Dr check this out Michael Sams dancing at gay bar topless

http://www.tmz.com/2014/02/10/michael-sam-topless-dancing-gay-bar-club/?adid=tmzhero3

Wow playa, that's hot! Goddamn that's a whole lotta man! I'm mean... umm...

Young dude having fun dancing at da club showing off his physique to friendly folks... it gets recorded on a smartphone and TMZ gets a hold of it... Comes with the territory in the 21st century I guess. Looked like folks were having fun. So maybe the announcement is in part "look, I been living my life in the open so might as well let folks know how I live my life so they can clutch their pearls" Why hate on that?

Again, pro sports is very tolerant towards the nationally-televised gyrations of cheerleaders and dance teams, and if people don't like seeing buff brothers dance around, you might wanna give a heads up to Terry Crews or Flo Rida.

Not exactly empire-toppling stuff to my eyes.

Im not hating on the kid , I just responded to your comment about with the video.

Listen I haven't condemn the kid in any of my post, my point in starting this thread is he isn't the 1st gay pro ball player, and I see no need for a grand announcement.

newyorknewyork wrote:As a straight black male I will never understand the life style of gay person. I won't ever walk in there shoes or experience life how they experienced life. I don't know Sams and never heard about the guy until now. Him coming out to me does come off as agenda driven. Now it doesn't automatically mean the same agenda that Playa is stating. But his agenda could be the first person to openly come out before entering the league. Or his agenda could be to be a pioneer for future gays, good or bad they could learn from his mistakes or follow his lead.

Him being gay doesn't automatically make him a pioneer with the best of intentions or a fame seeker. Which both sides seem to be arguing. None of us know enough about Sams to make claims on either side. So automatically denying that Sams is seeking fame because he is gay is just as wrong as claiming he is seeking fame because he is gay based off the little we know about him personally.

As a straight male one thing gays should understand is that its also an uncomfortable situation for us as well. Straight males don't want to have to think about homosexuality and that's natural part of our instincts. I don't believe its something that time will mend.

People are more alike than they are different. You may not understand same sex attraction, that's fine... But you can understand someone having a crush on someone, wanting to date someone, maybe find a life partner... and certainly wanting to be free to live their life in a way that doesn't hurt others, and not wanting to be bashed in the skull solely because other people's perceptions and opinions. You can understand someone wanting to live their life in peace, right? I imagine any motivated person has multiple agendas: personal, professional, and political, and I'm sure there it's a combo here with Sam. So I don't think playa is totally off with the idea of an agenda. But I don't think it's some conspiracy to sue the crap out of the league.

I agree it will take time but a lot of straight dudes are already there. You have celebs like T-Pain and Fat Joe going on very un-PC rants about how wack it is that people can't deal with this issue.

playa2 wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

playa2 wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:Freak show... spectacle... parade... shouting out... y'alls word choices are interesting.

I read the New York Times article having never heard of the dude before and the picture looked like he was sitting down clothed in business casual doing a pretty calm and conventional interview.

BRIGGS, playa, jrod: where are you getting these impressions from? Not from this young man I take it.

Dr check this out Michael Sams dancing at gay bar topless

http://www.tmz.com/2014/02/10/michael-sam-topless-dancing-gay-bar-club/?adid=tmzhero3

Wow playa, that's hot! Goddamn that's a whole lotta man! I'm mean... umm...

Young dude having fun dancing at da club showing off his physique to friendly folks... it gets recorded on a smartphone and TMZ gets a hold of it... Comes with the territory in the 21st century I guess. Looked like folks were having fun. So maybe the announcement is in part "look, I been living my life in the open so might as well let folks know how I live my life so they can clutch their pearls" Why hate on that?

Again, pro sports is very tolerant towards the nationally-televised gyrations of cheerleaders and dance teams, and if people don't like seeing buff brothers dance around, you might wanna give a heads up to Terry Crews or Flo Rida.

Not exactly empire-toppling stuff to my eyes.

Im not hating on the kid , I just responded to your comment about with the video.

Listen I haven't condemn the kid in any of my post, my point in starting this thread is he isn't the 1st gay pro ball player, and I see no need for a grand announcement.

Is it grand because of the media coverage? Or grand because he's done something grand?

playa2 wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

playa2 wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:Freak show... spectacle... parade... shouting out... y'alls word choices are interesting.

I read the New York Times article having never heard of the dude before and the picture looked like he was sitting down clothed in business casual doing a pretty calm and conventional interview.

BRIGGS, playa, jrod: where are you getting these impressions from? Not from this young man I take it.

Dr check this out Michael Sams dancing at gay bar topless

http://www.tmz.com/2014/02/10/michael-sam-topless-dancing-gay-bar-club/?adid=tmzhero3

Wow playa, that's hot! Goddamn that's a whole lotta man! I'm mean... umm...

Young dude having fun dancing at da club showing off his physique to friendly folks... it gets recorded on a smartphone and TMZ gets a hold of it... Comes with the territory in the 21st century I guess. Looked like folks were having fun. So maybe the announcement is in part "look, I been living my life in the open so might as well let folks know how I live my life so they can clutch their pearls" Why hate on that?

Again, pro sports is very tolerant towards the nationally-televised gyrations of cheerleaders and dance teams, and if people don't like seeing buff brothers dance around, you might wanna give a heads up to Terry Crews or Flo Rida.

Not exactly empire-toppling stuff to my eyes.

Im not hating on the kid , I just responded to your comment about with the video.

Listen I haven't condemn the kid in any of my post, my point in starting this thread is he isn't the 1st gay pro ball player, and I see no need for a grand announcement.

And this is where I'm going to ruffle feathers with a race comparison. Of course there may have been "Negro" ballplayers before Jackie Robinson, but if it was because they passed, to what effect did that help end segregation? It didn't, because no one knew about it. You can't blame the player who passed I guess if they did what they had to do for themselves and their family, but what the hell must that feel like?!?

We are talking about US football, man... don't play coy. There haven't been any publicly OUT gay active baseball/basketball/football players have there? If I'm mistaken, please help me here. Hell, there have been more publicly *celibate* ball players. Wasn't that the knock against Twin? "Well, he ain't even gonna get another contract, he just gets to hang out with Obama now." Maybe y'all had a point, but it sure seems like a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

DrAlpetci wrote:

Nalod wrote:The morality of gay marriage is usually conflicted in the arena of religion.

Thats where things get real clouded up. When we go to the bible and start picking and choosing is when society gets confused.

We mostly talking about Civil Unions and discrimination.

If your basis is from a religious view, its a hard issue to reconcile.

Truth. Some will say they appeal to the authority of the centuries past, either out of tradition's sake or because those folks had God's pager number, pardon my facetiousness. Other arguments re: preservation of the species maybe made sense to small bands of nomads or a besieged nation, but don't really make sense on a planet with billions of people.

I think it is really because people think it's nasty. Homosexuality and transsexuality is seen by a segment of the population as deviant and disgusting. I'm interested in why... and argue that if your mind immediately goes to the Castro district or what people do behind closed doors, that's on you.

Ask yourself, what is a man's greatest fear. IMO it is any and everything that can debase what he perceives as part of his masculinity. We all have different standards of what that is but they all are rough approximations of one another because there are general themes: power, control, self-resiliency, etc. And I think that on this spectrum, the greatest threat to a man's masculinity is to be raped (hetero or homo) because it represents a loss of control and authority of oneself. So I think any and everything that involves male sex gets demonized. You notice how when the detractors talk about homosexuality, it's "God created Adam and Eve; not Adam and Steve!" instead of "God created Adam and Eve; not Amanda and Eve!"? They generally ignore the female element to the equation and I think that it is for the reason I just mentioned. Hell, most straight dudes will readily endorse two hot women ****ing, so clearly homosexuality in itself is not the ire here.

NardDogNation wrote:

Dagger wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

playa2 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

playa2 wrote:So if we just do the math,you will see they are demanding something from heterosexual community to APPROVE of and not just tolerate and get along with.

PLAYERS WERE GAY AND PLAYING IN THE LEAGUE ALREADY, WHY THE BIG ANNOUNCEMENT TO EVERYBODY OUTSIDE OF NFL SCOUTS AND HIS COLLEGE TEAMMATES ?

They want people to approve not just accept it, because teams already in the past had gay players.

Wake up people !

Yeah, they were gay and had the hide the fact from everyone including teammates, front office personnel, etc. You realize how hard that must be with a spotlight constantly on you? The question is, why should they have to?

You know how hard it would be for me a devoted married man to hide my mistress from my co-workers and boss and my community and relatives ?

You know why, it's not the norm.

You're out of your ****ing mind if you think marriage is natural. We're designed to be polygamists but realize the inherent shortcomings of that when building society. That is why we espouse monogamy. If it wasn't for that (and religion for others), it would be an all-you-can-****-buffet. As a male in his mid-20's that has no doubt been my aspiration albeit mitigated by a sense of decency. In any case, comparing the attention you'd receive in your average Joe life to that of a celebrity is ridiculous. The premise for your point is moot as a result.

I don't buy the whole polygamy is natural thing. Humans are jealous creatures, if we form a connection with something we generally don't want something else to take that thing that we desire away from us, even if it's temporary. Monogamy exists in nature as well as polygamy. Sure the concept of marriage is artificial, but the characteristic of staying with one mate is not. Sure, it would be nice to be a Mormon and have 5 wives I can pick and choose from on a daily basis, but the only reason that works is because the women believe from a religious standpoint that is how it should be, which curbs outward expression of jealous and possessive impulses in some cases. Although I'm willing to bet that the wives likely fight often.

I incorrectly used polygamy in the wrong context. I meant to use it in terms of a "**** buddy". "Fuck buddies" are what most healthy males want.

And our perception of norms for relationship and sexuality are limited by Puritanical ideals. Other cultures that existed and still exist today have practiced a much more diverse understanding of the two things. I forget the specific name of the tribe but somewhere out in Southeast Asia (the Philippines I think) exists a culture where there is no such thing as marriage and women are encouraged to have multiple partners. When she gets pregnant, it is the responsibility of her father and brothers to provide material wealth for the children even though the entire community is involved in the rearing. So I don't think we are innately jealous creatures when it comes to relationships. There are plenty of porn stars that are married and continue to be porn stars (e.g. Siri, Tera Patrick, Nina Hartley, Guage, etc.). Do their husbands just sit around in a pissy mood all day because of their wives' profession (which they were aware of before even getting married)?

I would say those husbands have a flexible concept of marriage and likely have multiple partners as well, or were willing to look past having an exclusive relationship for a hot wife and just saw it as a trade off knowing they'd never really "have her". Let's say you have a fack buddy that you really like, a really attractive young woman, but every time you call her up she is too busy facking other guys like a fack buddy should. Are you saying that wouldn't bother you at all, that some dude is porking your favorite fack buddy and you can't? I bet you wouldn't like it, doubly if you actually developed feelings for her outside of just fooking.

jrodmc wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

playa2 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

playa2 wrote:So if we just do the math,you will see they are demanding something from heterosexual community to APPROVE of and not just tolerate and get along with.

PLAYERS WERE GAY AND PLAYING IN THE LEAGUE ALREADY, WHY THE BIG ANNOUNCEMENT TO EVERYBODY OUTSIDE OF NFL SCOUTS AND HIS COLLEGE TEAMMATES ?

They want people to approve not just accept it, because teams already in the past had gay players.

Wake up people !

Yeah, they were gay and had the hide the fact from everyone including teammates, front office personnel, etc. You realize how hard that must be with a spotlight constantly on you? The question is, why should they have to?

You know how hard it would be for me a devoted married man to hide my mistress from my co-workers and boss and my community and relatives ?

You know why, it's not the norm.

You're out of your ****ing mind if you think marriage is natural. We're designed to be polygamists but realize the inherent shortcomings of that when building society. That is why we espouse monogamy. If it wasn't for that (and religion for others), it would be an all-you-can-****-buffet. As a male in his mid-20's that has no doubt been my aspiration albeit mitigated by a sense of decency. In any case, comparing the attention you'd receive in your average Joe life to that of a celebrity is ridiculous. The premise for your point is moot as a result.

Holeeeee Sheeit...The Pink Royal Ranger sure validates alot of "facts" for you, doesn't it? We're all designed and dancing to our DNA, really Mr. Dawkins? That "facts" are out there and settled that it's been proven that we're just computers made of meat, right?

WTF made us realize that there are inherent shortcomings in building a society out of polygamists?

Unreal.

Can you please offer up something more substantive besides your pee hardons from 20 years ago? Moot arguments indeed.

Next up: Nard will explain how watching reruns of Princess Leia's rack proves that:
1) a sense of decency is mitigated only by society building
2) monogamy is the result of our evolutionary ability to innately realize what's really good for everyone else is really best for us and our all-powerful DNA, which determines how much attention we pay to inherent shortcomings.
3) survival of the fittest and random mutations are exactly what every 20-something in the free world uses to realize design errors.
4) a fourth round draft pick qualifies as a celebrity, and obviously has to expose everything about all his preferences. Just in case. Avergage Joes should just shut up and be quiet.

The experiences I mentioned bare themselves out in discussions I've had with others involving their " coming of age", a Senior Seminar in "Human Sexuality" which was part of my major and just about everyone who has a phD next to their name from having studied the topic. You've been ranting and raving about people not having the right to change "words". I'd argue that you are not entitled to change facts considering that people smarter than you or I have been able to amass enough information to determine these facts as such.

BRIGGS wrote:Why do gay people have to make a spectacle of their sexuality? Ok lets throw a parade. Is there a possibility he can go play just be cool without the need to shout out to the world. In real life do you really car if someone is gay man or woman? I could care less--but what is annoying is that gay people need to categorize themselves as different at times AND put it on everyone else.

Why do Irish people make a spectacle of their genetics with the St Pattys Day parade? How about the Puerto Rican Day parade?