Dagger wrote:

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.

If those husbands (and wives) have such a flexible interpretation of marriage, what gives you the impression that they'd be "jealous" in spite of it all?

As for me, it's a catch-22. I spent most of my dating life as Mr.Relationship but I changed dramatically about two years ago. Today, the idea of being committed to any one woman nauseates me, which is how I came to embrace the idea of **** buddies. So to answer your question, I'd be more than cool with someone I'm ****ing to be ****ing someone else as well. I haven't and don't intend to develop an emotional connection with anyone, so I could care less (speaking from experience on this point). The only thing I ask is that she makes sure to never give me an STD.

DrAlphaeus wrote:

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

Good question. Related question, is why did people who were in direct communication with the Almighty Creator and founded the Abrahamic faiths *enthusiastically* practice polygamy if God *meant* for them to do otherwise? He could psych Abraham out of killing his son, but couldn't say to him or King David or Solomon the Wise "ay yo... one chick is enough, homie, trust."

You admit human society has evolved the "instituion" of marriage. It continues to evolve.

Personally I'd just make everything a civil union and people can call it whatever they want since "marriage" seems tied into religion, but that's just me.

As an agnostic/deist, I can't understand why we all aren't fighting for civil unions. I'd never want a religious marriage of any sort. Hopefully that could better help safeguard future assets and earnings because divorces have become ridiculously biased against males/better earners.

The fall of the great societies Playa describes had economic shortfalls not just immoral ones.

Ignorance breeds fear.

DrAlphaeus wrote:Also since we are talking about Rome and I was that nerd taking Latin in high school, "matrimony" comes from "mater" — Latin for mother. It implies that the purpose of Roman marriage was between for the producing of legitimate offspring between Roman citizens. Since I don't want to corrupt any definitions: should we make sure that marriage is only between fertile individuals? And the Romans had slaves... as did the Israelites... humans decided that laws permitting slavery should go. Marriage (in this country anyway) has transformed from a way for elders to create political alliances to ones of romance.

I'm tired of people pretending this stuff has been written in stone since time immemorial. Know your damn history.

Great post.

I'll also add that I always hear opponents of gay marriage going on and on about allowing gay marriage somehow eroding the moral fabric of society and poisoning the well against "traditional marriage". I rarely hear complaints however about shows like The Bachelor which boil down love, marriage, and finding ones "soulmate" to a 12 episode, highly produced reality show where some dude basically has his way with a harem of woman as he narrows down the pool to the one he is supposedly in love with. WTF!? How is something like not causing just as much irreparable damage to our impressionable youth (who I often hear as the beneficiaries of keeping all these traditions traditional)? How about Joe Millionaire? Which portrayed woman as clueless gold diggers and made it seem like a manual laborer was not worthy of marriage? Or "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire", etc etc?

I'll say it again why on earth do I care if two people who love each other want to go get married so they can enjoy they myriad of legal protections and benefits afforded to straight people? And is t is commendable that two people want to commit to each other for life? Isn't THAT morally comendable and a good lesson for kids? Now why is all this swept away in favor of these bogus arguments about the erosion of tradition, etc etc. if a church wants to deny gay people a marriage so be it. That's their right. But what the heck is so sacred about going to city hall and walking out 5 minutes later with a spouse?

10 years from now we won't even be talking about this. You my even have married football and basketball players playing on the same team. Things are changing. I really have no feelings either way. Just be a good person and treat all people right and kind.

H1AND1 wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:Also since we are talking about Rome and I was that nerd taking Latin in high school, "matrimony" comes from "mater" — Latin for mother. It implies that the purpose of Roman marriage was between for the producing of legitimate offspring between Roman citizens. Since I don't want to corrupt any definitions: should we make sure that marriage is only between fertile individuals? And the Romans had slaves... as did the Israelites... humans decided that laws permitting slavery should go. Marriage (in this country anyway) has transformed from a way for elders to create political alliances to ones of romance.

I'm tired of people pretending this stuff has been written in stone since time immemorial. Know your damn history.

Great post.

I'll also add that I always hear opponents of gay marriage going on and on about allowing gay marriage somehow eroding the moral fabric of society and poisoning the well against "traditional marriage". I rarely hear complaints however about shows like The Bachelor which boil down love, marriage, and finding ones "soulmate" to a 12 episode, highly produced reality show where some dude basically has his way with a harem of woman as he narrows down the pool to the one he is supposedly in love with. WTF!? How is something like not causing just as much irreparable damage to our impressionable youth (who I often hear as the beneficiaries of keeping all these traditions traditional)? How about Joe Millionaire? Which portrayed woman as clueless gold diggers and made it seem like a manual laborer was not worthy of marriage? Or "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire", etc etc?

I'll say it again why on earth do I care if two people who love each other want to go get married so they can enjoy they myriad of legal protections and benefits afforded to straight people? And is t is commendable that two people want to commit to each other for life? Isn't THAT morally comendable and a good lesson for kids? Now why is all this swept away in favor of these bogus arguments about the erosion of tradition, etc etc. if a church wants to deny gay people a marriage so be it. That's their right. But what the heck is so sacred about going to city hall and walking out 5 minutes later with a spouse?

Word. I haven't watch a lot of those shows but read this article about the current season of The Bachelor and how weird it is:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/02/04/the_bachelor_clare_sleeps_with_juan_pablo_exposes_the_show_s_weird_sexual.html

fishmike wrote:

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.

how is this for an agenda: I want to live my life as who I am and not pretend a life of lies to fit in.

Thats all I hear... that and a lot of noise coming from people NOT named Michael Sams.

That may very well be his agenda. I don't know enough about him to make a definitive stance.

Nalod wrote:

playa2 wrote:I will wait and revisit this on draft day
But I will leave with these comments.

#1 No one is homophobic LOL
#2 Many of you never grew up in a moral society, so you don't have a freaking clue on what would be deem moral.
#3 If you didn't know the true purpose of the male and female, then you don't even comprehend how you got here.

#4 Where purpose is not known , abuse is inevitable.

#5 to argue with a theorist is like banging ones head on cement. You've won before the first blow but they'll never admit to logic.

jrodmc wrote:

fishmike 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.

exactly.. non of those things are happening here except in their heads.

To me its incredibly simple. I just want to know what is gained from denying these people the same rights hetero couples have. I dont care who is homophobic. I dont care who is raaaraa gay rights.

I want to know, if your a heterosexual man, what do you gain from voting against marriage equality? Im really curious...

That's just the point, fishmike. No one's talking about marriage equality; the gay agenda is to rework the actual meaning of the word, not to reach for any kind of equality. Redefining words normally hasn't had a great track record in human history. Changing marriage to mean whatever the **** you want it to mean might not matter to the enlightened twenty somethings among us, but it sure as hell worries old farts like me. I have young kids. I honestly fear them living in a world where the preference of the moment can determine everyone's values. Or else.

And if you disagree, you're an ignorant racist. Despite the fact no one on this board has even remotely shown why preference = race in this particular case.

The Greeks and Romans all held homosexuality up as purer and more noble than hetero relationships. Yet they didn't feel the need to redefine marriage. It was still accepted as it always had been.

So, next up:
1) why changing the meaning of words is always good,
2) why morality is never trancendant, it's always what's happened in the last 15 seconds.
3) why were inherently all just mindlessly mutating to a higher plain of societal consciousness.

No one's talking about marriage equality; the gay agenda is to rework the actual meaning of the word, not to reach for any kind of equality.

And if you disagree, you're an ignorant racist. Despite the fact no one on this board has even remotely shown why preference = race in this particular case.

Changing marriage to mean whatever the **** you want it to mean might not matter to the enlightened twenty somethings among us, but it sure as hell worries old farts like me. I have young kids. I honestly fear them living in a world where the preference of the moment can determine everyone's values. Or else.