That used to be straight too...and anecdotes are not studies
no, YOU'RE off topic
That used to be straight too...and anecdotes are not studies
and thank you for demonstrating my point. . .
You say studies (plural) and cite ONE study in the UK with no link, and then you give two examples of celebrities who identify themselves as bisexual.
Good job sciencing there, buddy.
"Younger Americans three times more likely than seniors to identify as LGBT"
with regard to the celebrities I mentioned as being bisexual, I do believe they identified themselves as lesbians when they married their significant others.
Even one of Harvey Milk's lieutenants was identified as gay and is now straight (with children).
feel free to keep trolling for more info if necessary.
"Younger Americans three times more likely than seniors to identify as LGBT"
so what conclusion do you draw from this?
are three times more likely to indentify as LGBT than seniors. . . .
I imagine the senior sample size is somewhat denuded from the AIDS epidemic of the 80's and 90's. But I don't exactly know by how much.
OK, but that doesn't support one side of the debate or the other, so what's your point?
that the assertion of homosexuality being an immutable circumstance is debatable. . .if there is a negative correlation between the age of a sample size and homosexual orientation, than it's reasonable to conclude that (at least some) people within the demographic can change their minds and choose to not be homosexual.
do you understand what a longitudinal study is? b/c this isn't one and thus your interpretation of this data set is very likely wrong.
I haven't been able to find any longitudinal studies done on this with respect to age.
the only way we'll know for sure if my interpretation is correct or not will be about 30 years from now and see if any of these young LGBT folks changed their mind. . .
I think some of them will . . .
I'm sure the same study could be done in the reverse, and in any case all that would tell you is that sexuality is more of a continuous spectrum that what one might initially think:
"Always straight, never felt any different" <----> "tried both ended up with this" <----> "tried both always seemed on the fence" <-------> "tried both ended up with that" <----> "Always gay, never felt any different"
Not to mention that there would be so many factors that one could attribute to the change (even in a longitudinal study - societal changes, environment, etc) that simply attributing any changes to "choice" would be incorrrect.
either way, none of those stops on the spectrum are inherently more immoral than the other.
How do you keep coming to the conclusion that these people were previously exclusively homosexual and are now exclusively straight? It seems that you are defining an entire group of people because two studies say that some of the older generation may not have been strictly gay and rather bisexual (which is a totally different thing) and just experimented with their sexuality and have now decided, for any number of reasons that were undisclosed in these studies, to settle down with someone of the opposite sex. How do you know they didn't just find true love and that person happened to be a member of the opposite sex?
It's not reasonable to conclude anything about a large group of historically repressed people based on a small sample in a poorly constructed long term study.
Double Post Noob!!!
Stop trying to shove your sobriety down our throats man
Because being openly gay still holds a stigma in some circles, particularly ones that encourage a bro-heavy, macho culture among it's fans and players. If Sarafin was a golfer, this would probably not be a big deal. If he was a UFC fighter, this would be a huge deal.
But football prides itself on team unity and sticking by your teammates, which tells me that being a gay football player probably doesn't mean as much to the players and coaches as much as the media and society, where it is still a foreign concept seeing as this guy is, like, the first active college player to come out.
Also, never compare anything to your sobriety ever again, because no one cares.
You make a great common sense observation. I would expect more challenges for gays in sports where a violent, macho, aggressive culture is prevalent.
While a student at Michigan, I dated a girl who was a figure skater and had competed nationally. She mentioned that in the skating world, many of the male skaters were gay.
I wouldn't be surprised if the number of gays in figure skating, gymnastics, ballet, the dance world, is much higher than in football, wrestling, ice hockey, rugby, etc.
I'll have to google search this, but if any of you happen to know of studes on this topic and have links, it'd be interesting to read.
My mother competed as an amateur skater and later was a professional skater with an ice show. When I showed an interest in skating at an early age, my parents steered me away from it. My pet theory is that they didn't want me around gay male skaters (no, they were not the most enlightened on these issues). I think it's similar to why other minority groups often seem to take up similar professions (e.g., orthodox Jews selling diamonds)--because there's more acceptance in those professions. If it's 1970, and you are gay but also an excellent athlete, what are you going to pursue--baseball (as an example) where you know that you'll never be able to come out, or ice skating, where you know that others will accept who you are?
We live in a heteronormative world: you are assumed straight unless you prove otherwise. As with any deviation in societal norms, it can be frustrating. Society will not change all on its own, and announcing to the world that you don't subscribe to a particular traditional value or that you aren't who the world assumes you are is just about the only control just one person can hope to have over the situation.
I'm glad you don't give a shit. And no, I'm not trying to be cute or sarcastic or anything. It truly is good that people find it to be a non-story. However, I do think there is a pretty reasonable response to your question. First off, "everyone" has not made an announcement about being gay. Not sure, but by my last count we have a total of two active football players (NCAA or NFL) that have made an announcement. The reason that this number is so low is because historically people have felt that they will not be accepted by society if it is know that they are gay. Times have certainly changed and society is much more accepting, but I think these public announcements are a neccessary part of that change. We will probably see a handful more of these announcements. Eventually they will no longer be that remarkable and the media will stop covering them.
Over under on replies before thread is locked?
so I'm going pretty high....maybe 72?
Good for him. My best friend's younger brother (also my friend) came out two summers ago. That was my first friend to come out. I always wondered how I'd react if a friend came out. I'm glad to say that it changed absolutely nothing. He still watches football, drinks beer, and hangs out like all the other dudes. Point being -- nothing changed, and it's not a big deal at all.
That doesn't hold in most cases. I had a friend who came out and immediately stopped watching sports and started wearing fishnet stockings and exclusively hanging out with girls. Point being, coming out is so you can be yourself and a lot changes.
But each to his own, I guess.
Seriously, though, good for him. This takes courage. And to the people wondering why he'd announce this - are you asking that because you're not comfortable thinking about this issue?
You sir win the Obvious is Obvious award!
Your first point is valid - I was under the impression the only reason guys attend ASU is for the hot girls. His school as absolutely no value to him any longer.
Wait - I bet it has hot guys too. Carry on.
This is also in the article, and in my opinion, worth sharing because it is nice to the support come from the staff and that they work to create an accepting culture. Many kudos to Todd Graham for standing behind his player:
"We are a brotherhood that is not defined by cultural and personal differences, but rather an individual's commitment to the Sun Devil Way," he said in a statement. "Chip is a fifth-year senior and a Scholar Baller, a graduate and a master's student. His commitment to service is unmatched and it is clear he is on his way to leading a successful life after his playing career, a goal that I have for every student-athlete. Diversity and acceptance are two of the pillars of our program, and he has full support from his teammates and the coaching staff."
Nobody should ever be forced to shower with someone who is gay. Unless they want to remain on the team, of course, in which case the Founders are mysteriously silent on the right to Freedom of the Showers.
If you've ever showered in a locker room then at some point you've showered/been naked with someone who is gay. I trust you survived the experience? It seems your issue is that if you know that someone is gay then you shouldn't have to shower with them, but why does your knowledge of someone else's sexual orientation suddenly make it different? Maybe everyone should be entitled to shower in privacy regardless of sexual orientation.
Re-reading my post, I think I sent it too quickly from my phone--my point was exactly the same as yours. I was trying to make fun of the idea of being "forced to shower" with someone else, and suggesting that someone who was horrified by this should feel free to quit the team, because they're not really being forced to do anything. I was certainly not suggesting that it was a problem that someone in the shower was gay--and have certainly showered in group settings with other men I knew were gay and did not care one bit.
Are you for real?
Then don't shower if you don't want to. That's your choice regardless of him being gay or not.
If it helps other athletes that are homosexual to feel less alone, supported and comfortable being themselves then that is a good thing. If it stops those who dislike homosexuality from treating homosexuals poorly then that is a good thing. I understand that. Makes sense. However, I don't understand why people who "come out" are immediately described as heroic, courageous and treated as role models. Maybe it took courage. Maybe it didn't. Maybe their motives were good. Maybe they were bad. Maybe a combination of both. Maybe there was no motive at all. In my opinion, sexual orientation is only a very small part of who someone is and shouldnt define that person. This is why I don't understand why being gay is celebrated like it is in some places. Why celebrate something that you are trying to make not matter anymore and not define you. Celebrating it sure makes it seem like it is a huge and defining part of who you are. He simply annunced and stated the fact that he is attracted to members of the same sex. We still don't know anything about the quality of his character. However, the media and others will paint him as a hero. I wish our defintion of "hero" or a "great person" wouldnt be so loose.
Sexuality is certainly a huge part of most people's indentities. You can't even go to a bar without people constantly flaunting their heterosexuality in your face.
Yea, I can see your point. I find it annoying when people flaunt their sexuality regardless of oreintation. That's beacuse I feel that it although some people use it to define them, It really shouldnt define them. Character is most important and not whether you prefer sex with a man, woman, tree, buckeye fan, whatever. Well...maybe buckeye fan...thats just unnacceptable.
a defining characteristic of a human being. It has nothing to do with the type of person you are.
It has everything to do with the type of person you are. It has nothing to do with the quality of your character, but we (maybe just me) spend a lot of time every day thinking about sex. We see someone we are attracted to and act accordingly. Whole schools of psychology are based on the idea or psychosexual development and what that means to a person qua person. The purpose of life seems to be reproduction, and species have evolved in such a way as to make sexuality a huge driving force. One's sexuality is a huge part of who they are.
This might be an unnecessary pedantic reply, because I think I know what you mean and agree with you. But sexuality is tremendously important to people.
I agree and I think most know that sex or sexuality is a big part of who they are. Whether you're male or female can obviously have a pretty big impact on your life. What I am struggling to understand is the idea of "Gay Pride". I live in the Boystown area of Chicago so that might have an impact on my experience. It seems counterproductive when homosexuals are so flamboyant and throw a parade to celebrate and draw attention to how different they are. At the same time they want to be treated as if they are no different than anyone else. It seems like it would be challenging to have it both ways. It seems like they would be more successful if they chose a different approach to aquriing support and eliminating descrimination. Maybe this can be done by focusing on character content instead of how much sex defines them.
People used to say that blacks shouldn't protest either, because that would just anger the whites and cause more problems. Just give it time, they said.
It sounds OK in principle, but change doesn't happen without some sort of agent.
I was just giving this thread a once-over at the end of the day to catch up on everything, and your post reminded me of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Letter from Birmingham Jail," in which he responds to criticisms that his methods were too confrontational, and that his best course of action would be to wait things out. It's one of my favorite pieces of writing ever, and if anyone makes a late perusal of this thread like I did and sees this, I highly recommend reading it. Link.
A particularly relevant passage, describing Kings frustration with the "white moderate":
...who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; ... Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
They want to be treated as being of equal value. But they're not saying they're identical.
And the point of a pride parade is that they're saying they're proud to be who they are despite having received any number of messages that who they are is shameful.
I imagine it would be frustrating to live in a world where society doesn't even acknowledge that you exist unless you make it "flamboyantly" clear. I see it as taking some control over heteronormative culture, which surely leaves those who are a bit behind the times uncomfortable.
They don't seem to be protesting anything. At least I've I've never seen a group of people protest anything in assless chaps before. It seems more like a celebtration. But I'm not saying they should't or anyone else shouldn't let them celebrate or even protest if they want to. They can do whatever they want. Other people have the right to get mad, but it's within the law. It's not hurting anyone else. I just want to better understand the point of it and havent found a good answer yet. So they want to be treated as being of equal value, despite their sexual preference and thus not be defined/judged based on that preference? A big part of it, where I live, seems to be wearing suggestive and skimpy clothing and behavior that would be considered innapropriate according to the values of the majority of society. I think you could make a similar observation with some blacks that may talk in a certain dialect/slang and sag their pants. While this doesn't define them or mean they are a bad person, it certainly makes it harder for them to be accepted, respected and valued by the majority and/or do things like get a job when they present themselves in a certain way. This might only apply to the area I live in. I don't want to apply my observations to the entore gay population. Thats not fair. But from what I observe, I think they could show their pride by educating others and bridging the gap instead of making it wider by emphasizing how different they are. We get that they are different. More people need to know how they are the same. I think they are more similar than they are different and they are doing a poor job of showing that where I live. Dont be proud just because you happen to be gay. you didn't do anythign to be proud of yet. Be proud to be a college graduate. Be proud to be a parent. Be proud that you positively affected your community. Have pride in the things you do not in the thing you randomly are.
I hate it when people flaunt their cultural tags. There's a guy at work who wears his hair short and parted on the side, polo shirts or oxfords, khaki pants pulled high and brown loafers. I mean, I'm okay with white, middle-aged men with no fashion sense, but do they really need to shove it in our face all the time?
In many places there is still lots of discrimination and even violence against homosexual teenagers. A significant percentage of homeless teens were thrown out of their homes for being gay. There is a reason people make, "It Gets Better" videos. Because for some it ain't all that good to begin with. Other people coming out helps them connect and feel more accepted. That is a good thing.
Just play ball dude.
To the confused 14 year old football player in bumble, Iowa who knows he's gay but hides his true self.
I think many are on the same page, that we'd love for when this kind of announcement isnt news, and for some of us, we're there (Great for him, now who cares!) but everyone's not there yet - as evidenced by some comments in this thread.