good for him, and ASU.
OT: ASU OL Chip Sarafin comes out
when this is no longer worth mentioning.
Frankly, I could not care less what the man--or any person--prefers from a sexual standpoint.
The responses to these stories show that we have grown as a nation. If there's a divide among people's responses today, it's that some say "that's courageous and great" and others say "who cares about people's sexual preference?" Just a few years ago that divide was between "that's great / who cares" and "this is sick/wrong/unacceptable."
There's no question that we have grown as a nation. But unfortunately, I don't think those who think that this is "sick/wrong/unacceptable" are completely gone (I made the mistake of scrolling to the comments section on ESPN's article...serves me right for looking at ESPN).
But as all human equality movements go, there will be continued bumps in the road. I guess we can take solace in the fact that hopefully the worst is behind us. I applaud Chip for his courage.
I agree. That group is now being seen as the fringe crazies, though, rather than just one side of a reasonable two-sided argument. That's a major change since just a few years ago.
Completly gone. but it's another step towards normalizing diversity. so when someone else is struggling with their own truth, maybe they will struggle a little less by knowing they aren't the only ones and that they will find acceptance.
just really sick of the story, the on-going story, that is the sexual orientation of athletes. It means about as much to me as if they were "coming out" as vegetarians. This is a been there-done that thing for the media at this point.
Not at all. Vegetarians have never been a discriminated group in our country, been subject to hate crimes, I've never heard of a vegetarian being closeted because he's afraid to come out, etc. It's not at all the same.
it is the same, but it has made its way into the sports consciousness too much now. Am I happy for gay people that they can and should feel welcome in sports? Yes. Do I want to hear Brent Musberger say "and now Thomas comes in to the game to spell Williams in the backfield. As you know, Thomas the 6'1-220 pound homosexual running back from Memphis was highly touted coming out of high school." No. It is not a "need to know" aspect of a person's makeup for the purposes of sport.
This comment would be so appropriate in a world where such things happen. That is not this world. So don't worry.
college QBs girlfriend in the stands is acceptable? Or how hot Tom Brady's wife is?
To be fair, McCarron's girlfriend IS lovely to look at. I didn't care what Mussberger was saying so long as they kept cutting to her.
it wasn't, and that is why it was universally recognized as Jackassery.
but there is clearly a double standard for many...that is my point.
Frankly, *I* don't need to see any of it-but to say we are sick of hearing about who's gay, because it's irrelevant, and then be ok with the other sexualization is a pretty blatant and gross double standard.
a double standard because the scale is tilted very far in one direction, the ratio is not 1 to 1 here. You are kind of describing a world where it is taboo for a straight person to discuss sexuality at all while it is acceptable for a homosexual to discuss their sex life in very specific terms, are you not. What Musberger did with whats-her-name was certainly a little pathetic and old-man-gross but would you say it was "offensive" to gay people?
What about when Ian Johnson proposed to his girlfriend right after the Fiesta Bowl against Oklahoma? You think the reactions would have been different if that had been his boyfriend?
The issue isn't what is "offensive" to one group or another. The issue is that right now, we still live in a world where heterosexual relationships can be publicly displayed with essentially no negative reaction, whereas the same isn't true with homosexual relationships.
I personally find constant oogling over boobies demeaning and sexualizing of women devaluing. I have daughters and I think they have more value then what men think they look like. So I generally don't click on links that I know are going to discuss that....but society is ok with "boys being boys"..
So when a minority group has courage to say "this is me" and that proclamation is helpful to a group of people who are misunderstood and discriminated against, and then some douchbag says "I don't need to hear about THAT!"....I just say tough shit to that. deal with it. I deal with oogling over tits on a daily basis and I don't bitch about it (generally... I'm only bitching now to make a point)
Sounds like your issue is more with the prevelance of sex and outspoken sexuality in general.
I used my issue to make a point. clearly didn't make myself clear.
if you are tired of hearing about people (2 current male athletes? ?) coming out, don't spend time on it. at this point in time, there is a value to society for this man to say who he is, and just because a few people don't want to hear it, too bad. if you don't appreciate the topic, change the channel... Click a different thread, one you are more interested in.
I'm not sure which "homosexual" is discussing their sex life in specific terms? And if your example were the case, that would also be a double standard.
As far as your tilted scale argument, you are saying double standards are ok unless the ratio is close?? And as for Brent, or anyone gushing over female body parts, I don't know about Gay people, but plenty of women find it offensive (and from the sound of it, men did too).
I am saying is that you are never going to see a world where dialogue is completely balanced between heterosexuals and homosexuals because there is way more of one than the other.
Brent publicly ogling one of the MALE spectators (or players or coaching) on-air would be about the only time in history that he has been worth watching.
totally agree. brents display was a bad example. my apologies.
It's how he describes everything, and he owes his livelihood to it.
"You're lookin' live at historic Ryan Field for the 52nd clash between the renowned Duke Blue Devils and the storied Northwestern Wildcats." (in a voice conveying deep importance)
for your troubles.
Personal beliefs aside, who cares. Play football. It should be a non-issue. Frankly, the more homosexual athletes that come out in a big announcement type public way are making it easier for the opposing viewpoint to make noise. That's just my opinion.
but the fact that the first person, or persons, that make the announcement are thrust into the limelight. Yes, it SHOULD be a non-issue, but nowadays it is. In 10 yrs, it won't be. Loosely compared to Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier in baseball...it shouldn't have been as big of a deal because of the man's talent, but because of society it was. Its unfortunate, but its reality.
across all of society/occupations, taking a beach-head for all blacks in 1947. The sports world was on the leading edge.
Sadly, the sporting world today is a considerable laggard with respect to its attitude toward gays.
It's definitely a sports story. As a society story, it's more along the lines of one more (highly visible) road that finally is getting built.
And my comparison was, admittedly and stated, very loose. The way we are probably going to view it several years from now was more the comparison I was trying to make.
You're correct. I don't know because I'm not gay, nor am I an athlete. I just think the less of a big deal they make about it, the less of a big deal everyone else will, too. Maybe my thought process is wrong on that, but that's just what I think would change things for them. Coming out is what it is. The bigger deal made, the bigger the response.
We should be making a big deal (by supporting him, of course). Pretending to be "color-blind" isn't helpful.
I don't think I should do anything. I'm a fan of a different school in a different conference. Michigan doesn't play ASU, and won't unless the stars align for a Rose Bowl matchup. He can do whatever he wants and I will cheer for Michigan. I'm not pretending to be color-blind, I'm saying let him be who he says he is, and play some football.
But I think these guys want it to be a big deal so others in their position see it and feel comfortable doing the same. Would Chip have felt as comfortable coming out had Michael Sam not been a big story? It's hard to know, but it wouldn't be a surprise if Chip saw the positive reaction Sam got and decided he could do that too. And I'm sure others in his position will be more likely to come out now because of it.
for the football team you are a fan of. This time its ASU. even though your apathy is aparent, you are still part of society and the story has bigger implications to people not named afwolverine. you don't have to "do anything" except maybe give a teeny shit about other people.
Don't mistake my apathy to this as not caring about people. As a Christian, I stake my life on caring about people. It's pretty silly to think that I, AFWolverine, from my corner of the internet is going to make a difference in a collegiate athlete's decision to be public about his personal life. Frankly, making a bunch of posts on the internet, whether here or some other site, saying congrats to him, or anyone else is faux concern for their plight as gay athletes. If you want to make a difference for them or help their cuase, be involved in an orgranization that promotes them. We could talk about this on MGoBlog every day til the end of time, but it truly won't make a difference until you put your feet and hands where your typing goes.
Just not the people who are struggling with their own identity that this type of announcement benefits.
And for the record, as a human being (without my personal belief proclamation) I also care about people. Christians don't hold the ownership of caring about people..and FYI, my feet and hands are involved in this daily, thanks for your concern.
Regardless of whether you think anyone should make a big deal over a player coming out, the article clearly does not. If you read the article, it is clear that Sarafin's coming out is almost barely mentioned and added in an "oh, by the way" fashion, and focuses mostly on his interest in neurology and concussion saftey.
Congratulations to Mr. Sarafin for having the courage and determination to come out. Best of luck to him with the upcoming season.
does everyone have to make a public announcement about being gay? who gives a shit man. just play football and get an education. I'm about to make a public announcement about my sobriety! Would anyone really care? not to many would.
one of the very first people to BECOME sober, and publically announce it, yes...it would be a big deal and many would care.
You do realize that the chances of playing college ball are slim and playing in the nfl are slimmer. If you take into acount that homosexuals make up a small percentage of our population..you see where I'm going with this. The numbers would dictate there aren't going to be a plethera of gay college football or nfl players. Not because they're oppressed or enslaved but because the numbers say so.
and I think you and I are conceptually in violent agreement. Smaller numbers and percentages, in my opinion, make this an even bigger deal. But I'm having a little trouble understanding how you went from what I said before to what you said above...
There are 80,000 college players. Even if we assume that ONLY the 4% of the population who publicly identify themselves as gay are gay, that's 3,200 gay college players.
There are 1,696 NFL players. Again, even if we assume that (almost certainly low) 4% of the population is gay, that's 67.8 gay players (or 67 gay players and one gay slot receiver).
That deserves more than a +1 (as does your other post in this thread).
But both of you bigots cracking & supporting gay jokes deserve to be negged off this site.
You are both disgraceful & embarrassing to the Michigan community.
Overreact much? Lay off the java.
I thought it was a slot receiver joke
I will freely admit to joking about the shortness of slot receivers. Not so much about gay people.
And you think that's OK? Ross Douglas has been on campus for a year and a half now, and he just now came out as a slot receiver. It took Norfleet nearly as long (after parading himself as a DB for a week or two, likely to please his father). Even Gallon tried to hide his identity by lining himself up on the outside last year.
Let's try to be a little bit sensitive here.
I believe now that they find short to be too negative, and all slot recievers should be considered "Vertically Challenged" to be politically correct and show you great diversity.
I make jokes all the time about slot receivers. It's ok though, becasue I have couple friends that are slot receivers.
I'm on your side that people should be ridiculed for making homophobic remarks and jokes, but I genuinely think that was a joke at the expense of slot receivers.
where slot receivers, as well as wide receivers and tight ends, can be viewed and accepted as equals. Oh, that will be quite a momentous day for sure.
Once again, pushing the Slot Receiver Agenda.
If we accept slot receivers as football players, what's next? Will they want us to accept kickers? Think about the big picture here.
If a joke like the above doesn't involve some form of gay as a pejorative, then it's just a joke with gay people in it.
That's a good thing.
EDIT: I think some posts have been deleted, so the ordering is all mixed up. Note the "Reply to #57". #57 is not the above post. Also note that the post that seemingly is a response to this post is a reply to #47.
Re-read what he wrote. Also read his other posts in this thread.
Dude, that's not a gay joke.. that's a "slot recievers are short" joke...
Not sure thats even a joke, as slot recievers are... you know... short.
And to the people who think these 2.. TWO! young men have made a big deal over themselves coming out.. Are you saying that nobody would have blinked if they showed up with their boyfriends at the ESPYs or something?? There is an announcement to get out in front of the shit storm that WILL come. If in ten years after hundreds of athletes have followed suit guys are still calling press conferences (or the like) to come out.. then you would have a point.
We make hedrosexual jokes in that manner. We are equal. It was fine.
The selected population (college and NFL footballers) may yield a smaller percentage of homosexuals than the general public.
But it could just as well yield a larger percentage. What we should expect here is actually a really complicated question.
But even if only it's only one-tenth as likely that a football player is gay than a randomly selected man from the general population, that still means there are probably in the neighborhood of seven closeted gay NFL players. And I'd bet that it's way higher than that.
Your stats are bad. You need to use sample varience instead of population. What's the sample of college and pro gay athletes. You're including thousands of people who never went to college or played sports.
You suggest that the derth of gay players is explained by statistics. I'm suggesting that from a statistical standpoint, we would expect to see far more gay players than we do. The null hypothesis doesn't hold, so you need another explanation. It can be a selection bias, a self-selection bias, a significant portion of players in the closet, or some other explanation, but statistics suggest it has to be SOMETHING.
Agreed. When I was in college a decade ago, our fraternity invited members of LGBTA to speak to our house and educate us (which we needed). One girl asked if there were any openly gay members of our fraternity, and there weren't. She said that statistically, it was likely that half a dozen or so of us were in the closet.
After the meeting we talked about it, and said things like "but we probably have fewer gay guys than the average because it's a fraternity and gay guys don't join fraternities, etc etc." Similar to the excuse above about fewer athletes being gay.
Well, of my fraternity brothers that I stay in touch with, 3 are openly gay. That's still below the average (our house was like 100 guys) but it's possible there are guys I don't know about. So we were wrong.
If anybody really thinks there have only been 2 gay players in college sports.....it's for these people that this news needs to be announced as a big deal.
If that's too in your face harsh, I apologize. But it shows that people don't understand how hard it is for gay athletes to "be themselves".
according to the CDC. it's more like 2%/ Unless of course you include bisexuals, transgender, and any other non-immutable proclivity that I overlooked. . .
Center for Disease Control gets their numbers from what?? 2% is laughable. I think the 4% quoted is even those who are "openly" gay. Many more not open.
the government invested a great deal of money into (where it could have been spent elsewhere) so I imagine it's pretty accurate.
Spending money as proof of validity? That's hilarious!
given a major reason why the study was done was to monitor the current spread of HIV/AIDS in the population which is, I'm sorry to say, increasing among the homosexual population in the last 5 years.
you're right, hilarious. . .
since you say that, then a roster of 100 players would mean there are 5-10 per team... but gay guys don't play football, right?
you told a news agency.
(I mean I'd care a little despite not knowing you because alcoholism sucks. But that's an aside).
I'm surprised ESPN didn't ask him to hold an on-air press conference.
"I'm taking my talents to the other side of the fence."
That would have been awesome if he did that, actually.
This reminded me of the Always Sunny episode where they guys are trying to decide whether to join the pro-choice or pro-life protestors.
Because no one has DONE it yet.
Sports have long been openly homophobic, and much of the sporting world still is. Look no further than Tony Dungy's comments a couple of weeks ago. Until a critical mass of players come out to publicly acknowledge that they are gay, and demonstrate that it really doesn't matter one damn bit, it will still be the subject of whisper campaigns, jokes, and (more importantly) discriminatory behavior.
Coming out publicly is the way you stand up and say "when you talk about gay players, you're not talking about some mysterious hypothetical sliver of the fraternity of players, or some fringe element. You're talking about me. I'm an above-average offensive lineman. I get along with my teammates. I do things The Right Way. And I'm gay. So when you talk about vague concepts like 'distraction' and 'chemistry,' you're talking about ME. And that's obviously ridiculous. Now watch me pancake block this sumbitch and tell me again why it matters who I kiss."
It's the same thing that happens with other immutable but non-apparent characteristics of the human condition, like mental health. For centuries, there was a stigma around mental health issues that made people feel they needed to hide those aspects of themselves for fear of public ridicule and scorn. If you were depressed, you didn't go to a doctor, you went to a bar. It still exists in some aspects of society (like with PTSD in the military culture), but we've gone a long way towards destigmatizing mental health issues. And it started with a few people stepping forward and saying publicly "Hi, I'm a public figure you know and like. I suffered from depression. If you suffer from depression, talk to somebody."
Very well stated, and I heard the undertones of your last paragraph to yesterday's story regarding a very funny man. Thank you for those thoughts.
please don't take the thread or comments down. I'm using it to make judgements on certain posters credibility and niceness.
it seems a portion of the thread was taken down by a mod. Not my doing, but considering how that thread was going, probably a good thing. But, I am impressed on how well, relatively speaking, this whole post is going. Some good discussion amidst the arguments.
I think the religion/politics thing was spiraling. Shocking.
Until everybody is the same, there will always be differences. Think about it.
Gay players will always be different than straight players, just like black players will be different than white players or dark-haired players will be different than redheads.
The issue is that many parts of the sporting world still believe that those differences are material to the roles of those players on a team. It's like it used to be with black football players; it was only a couple of decades ago that it was the common understanding that black quarterbacks couldn't lead football teams because they weren't smart enough. Now, that kind of thinking has been shoved to the fringes by the success of a number of successful black quarterbacks.
It's easy to condemn "those gay people" when you don't realize that they are all around you--your friends, family, heroes, villains, colleagues. The more people who come out, the more that people have to realize that their hatred applies not just to people that they don't know, but to people that they know and love (or hate, or feel ambivalent toward).
I'm looking forward to the day that we don't care who's queer or straight (except when looking for a date at a bar) and can move on to find a new group of individuals to hate.
And is it that huge of a deal if a gay guy finds you attractive at a bar? Just shrug it off and let him know you're not gay. I know from experience it's not that hard, and you may still get a free beer out if it. Women have been doing it to men for years and they still go out to bars.
Is this an example of the difference between tolerance and acceptance?
I agree with your post, but I think you misread his. You two are in agreement.
I think he meant you would only care if someone is queer or straight if you are looking at them as a potential date. If I was gay, I would care if the guy I wanted to hit on was gay, for example. If I see a hot girl at the bar, whether or not she's attracted to men has a lot of impact on our future as a couple. I think that's all he meant.
Some bad reading comprehension on my part.
No, I have no issue if men at a bar (or anywhere else) hit on me. I find it a compliment, actually. For some reason, more so even than when a woman seems to take an interest in me. I have no idea why that is. Any MgoPsychologists out there?
I hope this board can tolerate and accept me for the double poster that I am.
I don't really care if you are or not. But do you have to make a big announcement about it?
Look, I've got 2 sons at home. They're impressionable. Do you think I want them seeing you double post on the Internet? Next thing you know, they'll think it's OK to be a Double Poster. Not in my house it's not.
is debatable. . .
as some studies have suggested that the percentage of people who identify themselves as homosexual decrease as they get older.
from the office of national statistics (United Kingdom)
for anecdotal evidence simply look to celebrities. Anne Heche and Julie Cypher to name two. . .
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.
Very proud to be a Sun Devil today.
Good for the kid and his coach. Some people will say "Sigh, just play ball dude" because they don't see the value in respectful, public declarations like this. They typically think sexuality is something to be kept private, and they see such declarations as an unnecessary imposition of sexuality into something that purportedly has nothing to do with it, like football.
Those people fail to factor in what it's like to be a part of a large social group of men, be it a football team, a fraternity, the military of what have you, where mutual deprecation as a form of bonding, coupled with machismo, inevitably leads to an uncomfortable environment for whomever happens to be different.
These public declarations can serve as a counter, simply by heightening everyone's awareness that certain comments or actions can actually hurt and alienate certain of their friends that they never knew would be hurt by them.
I have a legitimate question...
Does he still change and shower with the team?
They don't let straight woman shower and change with the male athletes and vice versa.
I've often wondered about that after each one of these announcements...
...still shower with gay women, as far as I know. So, I'd say the answer to your question is a definite yes.
We can imagine in world in which there are straight men's showers, gay men's showers, straight women's showers, lesbian showers, male-to-female showers, female-to-male showers, etc. But that's a lot of showers to have to build just because a gay man might see a straight man's wang.
Why is that question legitimate? Do you honestly not know the answer?
Gay athletes have showered with straight athletes since the invention of showers.
Have you ever been in a team/gym shower room with other athletes or members of the same sex? If so, guess what? You've been in a shower room with a gay person.
Did they try to rape you? Did you feel emasculated? Did you feel abused? No, you didn't.
You're kidding right?
And yeah I am aware I've been in the locker room with plenty of gay guys.. I have gay friends..
How is it any different than men and woman showering and changing together? You don't think most women wouldn't be comfortable with guys there when they are changing or showering? That's a valid question. It's more or less the same thing. You even bring up being raped is absurd.
It's not a valid question. It's a misdirection brought up because the asker thinks gay people are icky.
Although I am supportive of him and pleased with how his coaches have handled this, the following paragraph thrown in at the end of the story tells me all I really need to know to judge this young man's character:
"The 6-foot-6, 320-pound lineman graduated last spring with a bachelor's degree in biomedical engineering and currently is enrolled in ASU's graduate program for biomedical engineering. He has been involved in research for football-related concussions, and has been active in the community with youth sports and the Tillman Scholars program."
We are NOT discussing whether Jesus Christ could hit a curveball. A couple of conversations to thet effect have been deleted.
I was really curious about the curveball theory.
Theory? Are you trying to bring this up again?
He could've scored more goals than Wayne Gretzky! He was way cool!
Forget whether he can hit a curveball. Can he play O-line?
I love SalvatoreQuattro's comments:
Intolerance of any type leads to conflict. Tolerance to me is not the accepting (of) a stance, but rather respecting a person's right to believe what they want to believe without punishing them for it. Until we as a society grasp this, injustice and conflict will still plague us.
We as a society still have a long way to go, but I think it is a fine thing for this athlete to make this announcement. I actually think it would be fine if he hadn't, but I support his right to do so.
Some comments and thoughts of my own. I would add to SalvatoreQuattro's definition of tolerance, "respecting a person's right to act on their beliefs." In the case of homosexuality, tolerating the action goes beyond respecting their right to believe as they choose.
There also needs to be different terminology. Specifically, "Homophobia" is used as a pejorative label for anyone who doesn't accept homosexuality, who believes it is wrong. It is possible to believe that many things are wrong without fearing them or choosing them personally. You can respect the right of someone else to believe what they want and simultaneously believe that they are wrong.
We have examples of this all over.
- Politically, someone can either believe that Obama is a good president or a bad president. Another person can disagree, but respect the first person's right to their own political beliefs.
- Religiously, someone can believe there is no god, one God, or many Gods. Another person can disagree, but respect the first person's right to their own religious beliefs.
- In sports, someone can believe that Ohio State is the best sports team in the Big 10. Someone else (namely me!) can disagree, but respect the first person's right to their own belief.
- Even as a Michigan fan, someone can believe that Morris should be the starting QB. I may personally believe they are a "moran," but respect their right to their belief.
Somehow, this doesn't carry over to our views on homosexuality. I'd like to see a society that respects the right of different views and beliefs, without judging and despising those with whom you disagree.
The case of homophobia is different from your other examples.
Lets use Obama. Like you suggest, people can believe he is a good or bad president and still be civil. But some people believe that he was not born in America. Those people are just wrong. It is not a matter of opinion. It is fact. It can, and has, been verified. There are no opinions.
The answer to, "Is he a good president?" is subjective, so either opinion is worthy. The answer to, "Was he born in America?" is yes. Objective fact. No grey area. No opinion. Someone who believes a falsehood does not hold a valid opinion.
Homophobes are much more akin to Birthers than Republicans/Democrats.
This isn't an attack on you. But if you feel that a subset of people are "wrong", then you cannot possibly fully consider them equals. Right is better than wrong, after all.
I get your point, but I respectfully and civilly disagree.
Your use of the term "Homophobe" is clearly pejorative, and short circuits civil or intelligent discussion. By classing "Homophobe" with "Birther," the implication is that they both have a screw loose, wear a tinfoil hat, etc.
The Obama example isn't the best illustration. Maybe another would be better? I can believe that alcoholics make a bad choice, or a wrong choice. Same thing with those who smoke weed regularly. . . my "opinion" is that repeated use can affect your brain cells eventually.
Now, believing that these subsets (those who drink alcohol or smoke marijuana to excess) are "wrong" does not necessarily imply that they are not fully considered equals. Even "equal" is a slippery term. If equal means "equal" rights, opportunities, etc., well yes, they are fully equal. But obviously, every last one of us are "different." The fact that we all differ in various ways means that from that perspective, we're not "equal." Not being equal (in talent, background, gender, sexual choices or preferences, etc.) doesn't imply that they shouldn't have the same rights and ability to freely choose as they see fit.
It's bcause of viewpoints like yours that hundreds of non-straight kids feel they cannot express who they really are (at best) or resort to committing suicide (at worst) every year.
You don't choose to be gay. Period. It is not a choice. And stop saying that it is the action of gay sex that is morally wrong. How is having gay sex morally different than homosexual sex? Is it morally wrong for a heterosexual couple to not have sex?
I can't understand how these people can be so hateful while claiming to come from a position of morality. At least we live in a time where they feel like they have to disguise it with thinly veiled rhetoric that a child could see through. I was born in the morning, but I wasn't born yesterday morning. Homosexuality isn't a choice. It does not fall under the realm of morality. Consensual gay sex is not a sin. End of discussion.
At this point, I will self-moderate myself, and cease comments on homosexuality and morality, other than to say that I'm glad ASU football player felt able to express himself publicly.
Also, I'm glad that the season is about to begin, when all off topic discussions will be curtailed, and we can be united in our love of Michigan football.
The comparison to birthers was not meant as an insult. I just found it fitting because Obama was your first example, and I don't believe homophobes fit into your example for the reasons I stated above.
I suppose I did use homophobe as a pejorative. I suppose I could have worded it differently. But in all honesty, I cannot think of a single anti-gay person that doesn't believe he is superior to a homosexual, and because of this, I think homophobe ought to be a pejorative.
In fact, your comparison of homosexuality to alcoholism seems to want to paint homosexuality as a character flaw or at least a bad life choice.
I know you don't want to reply, and I'll stop here as well. Just wanted to clarify.
To be clear, that the action is wrong is exactly the position of the overwhelming majority of Christians. We believe sodomy--in all of its forms, regardless of whether it is heterosexual or homosexual sex--is wrong. Now, you can call me a bigot if you want, that is fine. Our view is that the only legitimate form of sex is intercourse within the confines of marriage, as it is traditionally understood.
So the answer to your question as to how it is different...we believe our bodies are gifts endowed by our Creator. We reject the notion that our genitalia is something to play with for sexual gratification. It is not a toy. We believe the will of our Creator, ultimately, is procreation. Ergo, sodomy is illegitimate, in all of its forms.
I love all people, gay or straight. I truly do. But I do believe sodomy is a sin, consistent with Scripture.
Adultery is also a sexual sin. It might be even more serious, as God put it in the Top 10.
You have not, though, nor will you ever, see an anti-adultery group, or Westboro Baptists with signs that say "God hates cheaters". People don't get this worked up about heterosexual cheating like they do about gay couples who want to marry and presumably never cheat.
You have the right to believe that sodomy is a sin. But you also should be outraged that I kind of desire my neighbor's lawnmower. You don't. No one does. So why do we forget some sins and really hang onto a few others.
That is a good question, because, in my view, adultery is a horrible, horrible sin. I truly hope, however, that you don't throw orthodox Christians like myself in with the Westboro Baptist Church. I don't believe "God Hates Fags," and I don't believe all gay people will go to hell. Some may, but some will go to heaven. Same goes for straight people, white people, black people, etc.
To further your point, divorce is another classic example. I believe divorce is a sin, and we should make divorce for-fault, with exceptions (adultery, domestic abuse, felony, child endangerment, etc). Virtually no Christian will go there. But I do, because it is a sin in my view.
I believe it is a problem that other sin is not discussed, and too much of a focus is placed on homosexuality/sodomy. I understand that being gay has an overwhelming--if not outright--genetic component to it. And being gay is not a sin. A wide array of sexual acts are, some of which gay (and straight) individuals may partake in.
As a Christian, I don't demonize any group of people, and I hope I don't come off as anti-gay, as I am not and that is not my intent at all. And I am aware this is not the best place to discuss such issues, so I apologize.
I just used Westboro because of their famous God Hates Fags campaign. But it could be any group. But not one has come up to picket me for coveting my neighbor's property or banging my neighbor's wife.
If we agree that Westboro is a pretty extreme group, the question is, why does the issue of homosexuality produce such extreme reactions, while other sins don't? I don't know the answer, but it is an interesting question. It's not like God considered sodomy as one of the ten most important prohibitions.
Homosexuality produces such extreme reactions because there is a movement explicitly to promote it. It may look like hypocrisy to you that straight Christians are willing to demonize gays for their sinful sexual behavior while ignoring their own. That's because it is hypocrisy.
America is a nation of cafeteria Christians, picking and choosing what they like and don't like. "I have urges so I need to watch porn." Well, this is idolatry, actually one of the Ten Commandments. I think this comes back to the fact that, even though American culture has accepted idolatry (to continue this example), there is no concerted effort to get the Church to back down for its belief that idolatry is a sin. People just don't care that they are personally sinning. The same applies for lying, in many instances.
Ultimately, the goal for many is for the Church to completely back down on its views, accept gay marriage and accept homosexuality -- which is naturally associated with sodomy. It is fine in a free society for people to challenge the Church to change its position. At the same time, this is where the extreme reaction comes into play.
Christians would do well to focus on the Ten Commandments, I agree with you there. At the same time, all sin -- including homosexual and heterosexual sodomy -- should be discouraged.
What is your basis for stating the view of the "overwhelming majority" of Christians? Perhaps the overwhelming majority Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians (of which I was once a member) in the US believe what you posit, but Christianity is a very large religion, with a great diversity of views, and the majority of which choose not to take a narrow-minded, literalistic reading of a collection of books that itself reflects a broad diversity of views.
That Evangelicals are seen in this country as the "norm" for Christianity is unfortunate, and colloquial. Many Christians are enlightened enough to not give a flying fuck with whom people share their bits and pieces.
Won't somebody please think of the homophobes :'(
that is my favorite line I hear from those who are prejudiced. Please be tolerant to my intolerance...wait what...
"Do to others as you would have done to you."
Generally, if we treated others as we would want to be treated the world would be a much better place. Also, everybody should have the ability to do anything so long as their actions do not infringe upon the rights of others.
Can't we all just get along?
it's a shame that we live in a world that cares about sexual preference. this should not be news.
Decades of group theory arguments in the mass media will kind of do that to a person. I'm fatigued and jaded, so sue me. If this makes him happy and gives him a sense of relief, then I'm really happy for him.
I think people are individuals, not groups, and that the sooner we stop caring so damn much about people's sexual preferences, ice cream preferences, and automobile preferences, etc. maybe the sooner we can continue on with our lives and focus on far more important things, like understanding the probability that Michigan might run a 41 buck sweep counter out of the Delaware Wing-T on a 3rd an 8 inside the opponent red zone.
But if you throw in bacon preferences, you've crossed the line. Bacon makes everything better.
Nice to see the community handled this announcement a bit better than Michael Sam's. Hopefully in the near future athletes won't feel the need to come out publicly because it will just be accepted.
Good luck to Sarafin and ASU this year.
Glad to see the thread civil, and I can definitely think of at least "1" reason that's the case. Much, much better than the Michael Sam threads.
Who knew Arizona State had a biomedical engineering program? Or grad students?
(stolen from Reddit)
The thing that I don't like about topics like this is that they become heated and result in a lot of hate towards particlar thoughts/beliefs regarding homosexuality as well as the particular individuals they involve. "Religion" is the main reason why this is such a big deal in the first place, so to say "no religion" should mean that these things should probably not be brought up on the board in the first place only because it restricts comments to one particular viewpoint and prohibits others from expressing themselves.
That being said, despite the fact that I am a proclaimed Christian and have my own views on the subject of homosexuality, one thing I can say for sure is that I am proud of him for allowing himself to come to terms with his homosexuality in that he is not afraid of the decisions he makes and what people think of those decisions. I truly believe that if you make decisions that are regretful and are morally against them yourself, you should do everything in your power to correct those behaviors. If you like the decisions you make and find them moral and just, it is sad to think that you would be forced to contain those beliefs/life choices within yourself and "hide" from the world - So many negative consequences come from that, and I imagine that must be an extremely tough world to live in.
I respect and love those who are real about who they are, and I truly wish those who do not agree with his life choice would still love him for being real about himself and love him for who he is as an individual. Unfortunately, this is not the case most of the time. And that's truly sad and hateful, which is not what "we" are called to be.
I will only go this far in the discussion since this is not a board for "religious discussions," but I do wish those who see this from the other extreme realize that those who have differing opinions on "homosexuality" are not terrible people just like those who practice homosexuality are not terrible people - When it's an issue of hatred towards a particular individual, then it becomes inhumane and unjust regardless of the viewpoint.
I, too, wish for a day where these things don't have to be a huge media event any longer.
This is fine sentiment and all. It's actually made me realize something.
You mention people not agreeing with Sarafin's "life choice."
I think people who claim to not understand or be morally or religiously against homosexuality just really refuse to accept that it is not a choice. They don't get it - IT'S NOT A CHOICE! For a person that is anything but straight (homosexual, bisexual, asexual, anywhere in between on the spectrum), when you say "I love you despite your choice" it is the ultimate slap in the face.
This comes down to a science vs. religion issue, so I won't get into that debate, other than saying if you don't accept that it isn't a choice, you are just wrong. Period. Sexual orientation is not a choice. It is something you're born with. Some might even say "God meant for it." Which I would think blows up all the religious arguments, but it seems to be ignored.
I have learned over time that you are correct about homosexuality not being a choice. The actions are choices, and that is where my moral beliefs kick in. This is where I wanted to stop the discussion because of the boards standards.
All I can add is that I have made an insurmountable amount of immoral choices in my lifetime, so I have no judgment towards sexually active homosexuals. And I will not pretend to understand homosexuality because of the scientifical aspect of it; I am not a homosexual, so there's no way for me to grasp what it's like to be homosexual or to feel a sexual attraction towards another man. And this is the case for every heterosexual male or female regardless of your viewpoints on homosexuality.
I apologize if I stepped overboard the religious discussion, I just wanted to clear that up. This is all I will say from here on out about this. This is such a sensitive topic, and rightfully so. I wish extremists from both sides could choose love over hatred.
Well yeah... Look, it's as much a choice as your hair color. They all accept and love gingers as people but disagree with their choice to express their hair color choice by not constantly dying it their entire lives. The worst of it is they are not open to change their viewpoints due to any amount of evidence. Honestly, what would one need to see in order to be convinced that homosexuality is a choice?
Look, it's as much a choice as your hair color. They all accept and love gingers as people but disagree with their choice to express their hair color choice by not constantly dying it their entire lives.
This is a great analogy. We don't accept persecution based on looks (hair color). But when somone says "I accept homosexuality, but I view homosexual acts as immoral" it's the same as saying "If you don't dye that red hair blond your entire life, then you're committing immoral acts. How dare you not hide your actual, natural, self."
And then saying "hey I'm immoral too - I've drank and had sex before marriage" as if admitting to doing those things gives you the authority to proclaim that having consensual non-heterosexual sex is immoral. Come on. "I'm not judging, but gay sex is immoral! But it's not my place to judge!"
I wrote and erased a paragraph four times to avoid breaking a rule, so let me just say I'm glad America is becoming a more accepting and educated society.
MGoBender, I was curious about your assertion. (IT'S NOT A CHOICE.) If you google search, "Is homosexuality genetic" you will get more than 3,000,000 hits.
The first link about a gay gene is from the Telegraph in London. The money quote:
Being homosexual is only partly due to gay gene, research finds
What does wikipedia, the friend of today's college students everywhere, have to say about biology and sexual orientation? Here's the key sentence:
A simple and singular determinant for sexual orientation has not been conclusively demonstrated; various studies point to different, even conflicting positions, but scientists hypothesize that a combination of genetic, hormonal and social factors determine sexual orientation.
I could go through more of the links, but here's the thing. The scientific research is inconclusive. If anything, it indicates that less than 50% of "homosexuality" is genetically predetermined. MGoBender, you undercut your own position when you state your position so strongly, as if it were "fact."
There are some in the gay community who actually are concerned about the idea that there is a clear and indisputable gene marker for homosexuality. If there was a so-called "gay gene," women could choose to be tested for it and to abort, just as they do for a variety of reasons, from gender to Down Syndrome, Cystic Fibrosis, Spina Bifida, and Muscular Distrophy.
Obviously, you very strongly believe in the position that homosexuality is not a choice. I would simply ask that you honor scientific studies, and the fact that your belief is not clearly conclusive.
As a former biochemist, I ask you to cite your empirical evidence that points to sexual preference as to being a choice, since you are so sure it is a choice.
Since I am not in the field of human sexuality, I have no clue of the top impact peer reviewed journals.
All i know is from my POV as a straight man, I did not choose to be straight. I was attracted to females since I started growing through puberty. I am willing to bet several of my friends who are homosexual would say the exact same thing. IT IS NOT A CHOICE. My other friend who is transitioning male to female would also say the same thing about her gender.
A: I don't "believe" that it's not a choice. That implies that I'm taking some leap of faith. I know it's not a choice. I've talked to people who've done everything they can to "be straight." But they weren't, no matter how much they wanted to be straight, they simply were not sexually attracted to the opposite sex.
B: FROM THE LINK YOU SUPPLIED, BY THE SCIENTIST CONDUCTING THE STUDY:
Dr Bailey said: “Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice. Our findings suggest there may be genes at play – we found evidence for two sets that affect whether a man is gay or straight.
All that research says is that it's not strictly genetic. You are also operating on the assumption that it's a black & white issue: gay or straight. That's not how it works. It's more of a spectrum with many sexual orientations in between. When you accept that, the fact that your evidence cites 40% hereditary connection strengthens my position that it's not a choice.
Also from that article:
He said: 'The thing that’s consistent across all of them is that they all point to sexual orientation being something fundamental to a person rather than the lifestyle choice some opponents of equality repeatedly suggest.’
These fucking bigots can't even read.
Kapitan Howard, when you're open to real dialogue, I"m game. But when your post begins, These fucking bigots, well, it is a challenge to respond. Nonetheless, I'll go down this road a bit.
- In the statement "these fucking bigots," you seem to class all who hold a different position in the same group: "fucking bigots" May I suggest that there is more nuance? That not all who take a different position are fucking bigots? You just can't class all who you don't like together. There are many very offensive examples of this. To put all people into one class is overly simplistic and very rarely accurate.
- In the statement, "these fucking bigots," the use of the word "fucking" immediately insults and marginalizes those in the group you oppose. Put the shoe on the other foot. If someone put a post about a group you supported beginning "These fucking . . . (fill in the blank)," how would you feel? How would you respond? Would that be appropriate?
- In the statement "these fucking bigots," your assumption is that all who take a different position are bigots. Merriam-Webster defines bigot as a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people. Ummh, I've gone to pains in other posts to state that I don't dislike gay people at all. Let alone strongly or unfairly. I support gay marriage in society, support equal pay and equal opportunity regardless of sexual preference, made clear that I don't hate homosexuals, despise them, or feel the need to change them, and I've been clear that I have gay friends, and gays who attend my church. Some gays I like, some I don't. Some straight people I like, some I don't. Liking or disliking someone on the basis of their sexual preferences doesn't work very well. It is true that I believe that homosexuality is morally wrong. However, these are my own personal beliefs, which are irrelevant to you, and which I don't want to impose on homosexuals. I don't feel I am better or superior or more holy than someone who is gay. When you decide to label anyone who disagrees with you as a "fucking bigot," you are acting in a narrow-minded, closed minded, judgemental way. I can deal with that, Kapitan Howard. But is that really what you want to do?
As for my post regarding whether or not homosexuality is a choice, it was ill-advised on my part to open that can of worms. What I was trying to say is that it is pretty complicated, and that it isn't clearly the case that there is a gene determining whether or not someone is gay. Between environment, number of older brothers, dynamics in the home, genetics, there are tons of factors involved in why someone is gay, and someone else is not. I suspect that in some cases, choice is involved. In other cases, not so much. I'm not a scientist, nor have I studied homosexuality, so I'm not competent and my opinion doesn't matter much.
What's clear is that you're really passionate about this topic, and that I've deeply angered and offended you. I'm sorry that is the case, and really, I should have known better . . . this is a bad forum to address deep topics like this. I take a lot of the blame, because I know my beliefs are very offensive to some, and as such, I really should just keep my mouth shut.
Is going for a cheap one liner really the only option towards a guy who really adds value to the community in general? I get it, I really do, but it seems like the post above this one is the right way to go about replying.
100% just my personal opinion as a guy who really likes spending time around here.
As a "proclaimed Christian" it is actually incumbent on you to come to terms with the implications of your faith for the way you view and treat other people. Your labeling homosexuality a "decision" and a "life choice" that he has to come to terms with, not because it is part of who he is as a person, but because he is making supposedly difficult "choices", reflects a lack of understanding of homosexuality, and a need to insert unverifiable matters of faith into the resultant void. Chip Sarafin's being a homosexual is a threat to exactly nobody; your proclamation of a faith, or an interpretation of a faith, that redefines characteristics of others as "choices" that don't fit within your definition of morality is one step away from being a serious threat to Chip and people like him. You view this as a religious discussion; that's actually pretty scary.
The reason I stated this as a "religious discussion" is because religion defined the culture in which this country was founded for which still influences our nation to this day, which resulted in a particular known judgment towards homosexuals. It is because this nation was first a Christian nation that homosexuality has been such a hidden topic for so many years. Over time those viewpoints have been challenged and we are now seeing a rise in acceptance of homosexuality.
That is why this is a religious topic, because if it wasn't for conservative religion this would never have been the hot button issue it is today. Not all Christians or religions see homosexual behavior as immoral, just as not all non-religious people view it as moral. But the fact is that Christianity has always been a reason for why this is now newsworthy because of the culture it helped define, which is what I meant by a religious topic. I didn't mean anything by that other than I just wanted to help make aware the fact that the issue really shouldn't be whether or not we agree with the life he lives but that we should commend him for being real with who he is.
I meant to stop before but I felt like I was being misunderstood, so I apologize if my statements offended anyone. Again, my main point is to bring unity to the idea that no matter what beliefs we have regarding homosexuality, we need to feel compassion for those who feel they need to live in a dark hole to protect themselves from "haters" and acknowledge that this is a very bold and embraceable motion.
Mods, feel free to delete my comments if needed.
we can all all laugh about it now.
Because it's fun to laugh about those things that advanced societies agree to finally throw upon the "scrap heap of bad ideas" like human sacrifice, vicarious redemption, lawn jarts, three-wheeled cars, the LP player in the glove compartment, and the notion that homsexuals should be somehow spared from the peerless, soul-crushing, wealth-destroying experience known as marriage, and it's best friend, divorce. Yep, we can laugh about all of that now.
Its pretty cool to see it from a Phoenix point of view. He's getting a lot of community support, but Phoenix is pretty liberal (minus our crazy sherrif and the old fashion snowbirds). Someday, it won't even be news worthy story - sexual orientation will be no big deal and then true progress will have been made.
My own take is so uncomplicated it's hardly worth repeating: don't hate. Having a take on an issue is cheap and easy. The point of discussing your take is to put your take on trial; if you're going in expecting to change others' opinions more than your own, you're doing it wrong.
The best way to really understand where you're coming from, where you sound like you're coming from, and where you shouldn't come from, is to understand a completely different way of thinking.
I've been supremely lucky to have discussed this particular issue--specifically, an out gay man on a major FBS roster--with a former college football player who profoundly disagrees with me.
He's a man who came from a terrible background, where 99% of the choices given him were bad and easy, and there was just one lifeline, one path from darkness to righteousness, one institution that was down there with him to offer a hand up, and the patience to keep offering it when he turned it down the first eight times. It's not an institution I would ever subscribe to but for that guy Christianity's rigid road was the difference between a life drowned in gangland, and a four-year starter at Michigan who's still in the NFL, and uses his fortune to put an extraordinary amount of good into the world that tried its best to throw him away.
He's learned not to discuss his views on teammate homosexuality in public, yes because any 140 characters extracted from his take will come off as narrow-minded at least and quite likely as bigoted, and that turns away fans. But it doesn't come from hatred, nor from an unwillingness to understand other people or accept other peoples' natures; it comes from seeing one code of morality, specifically a dogmatic Christian code, as absolute, and all deviation from it as temptation. This man faced temptations, and many times he chose the *only* other path. He remembers those who didn't take that path, and can't scorn them because so many are dead or good as. He mourns them and their choices. He sees everything a person is and does as this choice: the good, and the not.
Put aside who hates whom and who's trying to push whose definitions on each other and look at the players: many are profoundly, dogmatically religious Christian, because football and Christianity are two institutions in this country with such an appetite for talent that they'll scour the darkest places for human gems. But this sample grants them, as best we know, small if any immunity from the 4% of people who gay. There are 112 men coming down that tunnel. What are the odds?
Whatever arguments over a specific "gay gene" are semantic; it's practically undeniable at this point, given only the staggering number of people who identify as such, and homosexuality's incredible persistence through human history despite such ardent efforts against (they used to kill you for it!), that the gay trait is innate, and as far as innate human traits go, pretty normal.
So odds are an extremely close cross-section of men who play high-level college football are going to be more openly dogmatically religious than the norm, and at least someone on that field is, and can't help but be, gay. The odds are somebody is going to get trampled on.
We've been over this before in a hundred different skins: in this society, the will of the majority is less important than right of the individual to follow his nature, so long as that nature isn't harmful. It's not so hard to look at those two sides—the religious and the gay—and decide which should put his thing aside for the other.
It is hard to summon the requisite gratitude for him when he does. Being wrong for the right reasons doesn't make being wrong feel any better. Having it your way for centuries and then having to live with it going the other way is a hard thing to do, and those who do it with at least a measure of grace, however fumbled or misjustified, deserve gratitude for their forbearance, not scorn for their narrow-mindedness.
At this point in history the upset victory is so assured that pressing perfect agreement out of those who believe in a universal, religiously defined moral code, is merely running up the score. Either kneel the clock out (i.e. pump a fist at the passage of another inevitable yet still remarkable step forward, and move on), or else avail yourself of the generally intelligent, generally well-meaning people who disagree with you, and you may discover some incredible value in a different type of thinking.
This post is why I'm so glad the moderators let this thread go. It probably was a close call and I probably am one of the posters that made it a close call - I tried to be carefull in defending my stance but I know I was vocal.
This post has literally mellowed me out. As a young-ish straight guy who's become very passionate about gay rights as the modern day civil rights fight, it's often baffled me how anyone can still oppose equality for all. This post gave me a bit of perspective. I'm still very anti-religion in the sense that I don't feel I need a book or set of rules to live a moral life (especially when so many people who follow those rules seem to follow only those that are important to them - which is fine!). But, I kinda get it. I mean, I kinda don't since I subscribe to the religion of logic above all and just because a book some doods wrote millenia ago say owning slaves is cool doesn't mean it is. We've come a long way to see that The Book was wrong on that one.
And we've come a long way to recognize equality based on sexual orientation. In 10 years we can look back and probably say that same-sex marriage will be legal across the land. That will be great, but if people stop vocally supporting it then it continues to be delayed and some family out there suffers.
We all agreed to make a concerted effort to leave up threads on this topic (see this, this and this, only including the latter two for ease of viewing). I saw that some of the stuff that derailed the Michael Sam threads got deleted, that'll be the new normal going forward on [athlete/coach/university person] comes out topics instead of aiming to be all inclusive.
I think you each did an excellent job with that decision and deserve to have your paycheck doubled
Do you believe in God? I am curious because of the paragraph that you wrote basically stating that being gay is genetic/.
ASU's coach is a christian, for what it's worth. He goes to my church, albeit a different campus.