Is it okay to be a gay college athlete?

[bigg10]

Like I said it's a wonderful concept for people to be more open, infact history teaches us it's the "open" ones who question the norm and have moved us out of the stone age, but as a society those people are way out numbered, there by making it an unworkable concept as a society as a whole.

 

So, looking at the results of this terribly non-scientific poll, where only one person has come out and said they're against gay players on their team and 45-ish have said they're 100% OK with it or are OK with it with reservations, wouldn't you agree that the people who are outnumbered are NOT the gays and/or those who would support them, but those who wouldn't? Doesn't that mean your stance of kicking gay players off your team is unworkable, by your own logic?

First off a couple post up someone said they are against gays for religious reasons. But for sake of argument lets just say it's 1 to 45, that would equal 2 to every 100. So tomorrow Nebraksa decides it supports this idea, the next day you lose the Pelini brothers maybe because it's against their religion and they are the 2 out of 100, or there morals or what ever. Are you ok with that? But let's take it one step futher, because this is a slippery slope and go back to boobies, for sake of argument lets say 65% of people are for topless cheerleaders, so we as a society decide thats ok, so they allow it, but it ruins your sell out streak. Are you ok with that? Then what about transvestites? Are you ok with Bo showing up to games dressed like a chick, assuming that atleast 50% or more of society say they are ok with it? If you are open minded to accept one you should be open minded to except all, right?

You know the "rules" and "laws" are not written to go by what the majority wants.

[knapplc]

First off a couple post up someone said they are against gays for religious reasons. But for sake of argument lets just say it's 1 to 45, that would equal 2 to every 100. So tomorrow Nebraksa decides it supports this idea, the next day you lose the Pelini brothers maybe because it's against their religion and they are the 2 out of 100, or there morals or what ever. Are you ok with that? But let's take it one step futher, because this is a slippery slope and go back to boobies, for sake of argument lets say 65% of people are for topless cheerleaders, so we as a society decide thats ok, so they allow it, but it ruins your sell out streak. Are you ok with that? Then what about transvestites? Are you ok with Bo showing up to games dressed like a chick, assuming that atleast 50% or more of society say they are ok with it?

You know the "rules" and "laws" are not written to go by what the majority wants.

 

If any coach walks away from a position making several hundred thousand up to millions of dollars per year because of the gay players on the team, they're so boneheaded I wouldn't want them coaching here. The fact is that there are, right now, gay players on Nebraska's roster. With 120 kids playing at Nebraska between scholarship players and walk-ons, it's nearly inevitable. Same goes for Iowa, Illinois, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, blah blah blah blah blah. Both Pelini and Ferentz know this, and neither has walked away from his job. Are you OK with the idea of Kirk Ferentz coaching Iowa knowing there are likely gay players on the roster?

[UGAHusker]

First off a couple post up someone said they are against gays for religious reasons. But for sake of argument lets just say it's 1 to 45, that would equal 2 to every 100. So tomorrow Nebraksa decides it supports this idea, the next day you lose the Pelini brothers maybe because it's against their religion and they are the 2 out of 100, or there morals or what ever. Are you ok with that? But let's take it one step futher, because this is a slippery slope and go back to boobies, for sake of argument lets say 65% of people are for topless cheerleaders, so we as a society decide thats ok, so they allow it, but it ruins your sell out streak. Are you ok with that? Then what about transvestites? Are you ok with Bo showing up to games dressed like a chick, assuming that atleast 50% or more of society say they are ok with it?

You know the "rules" and "laws" are not written to go by what the majority wants.

 

If any coach walks away from a position making several hundred thousand up to millions of dollars per year because of the gay players on the team, they're so boneheaded I wouldn't want them coaching here. The fact is that there are, right now, gay players on Nebraska's roster. With 120 kids playing at Nebraska between scholarship players and walk-ons, it's nearly inevitable. Same goes for Iowa, Illinois, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, blah blah blah blah blah. Both Pelini and Ferentz know this, and neither has walked away from his job. Are you OK with the idea of Kirk Ferentz coaching Iowa knowing there are likely gay players on the roster?

 

Are you not okay with someone having a different opinion than you?

[bigg10]

First off a couple post up someone said they are against gays for religious reasons. But for sake of argument lets just say it's 1 to 45, that would equal 2 to every 100. So tomorrow Nebraksa decides it supports this idea, the next day you lose the Pelini brothers maybe because it's against their religion and they are the 2 out of 100, or there morals or what ever. Are you ok with that? But let's take it one step futher, because this is a slippery slope and go back to boobies, for sake of argument lets say 65% of people are for topless cheerleaders, so we as a society decide thats ok, so they allow it, but it ruins your sell out streak. Are you ok with that? Then what about transvestites? Are you ok with Bo showing up to games dressed like a chick, assuming that atleast 50% or more of society say they are ok with it?

You know the "rules" and "laws" are not written to go by what the majority wants.

 

If any coach walks away from a position making several hundred thousand up to millions of dollars per year because of the gay players on the team, they're so boneheaded I wouldn't want them coaching here. The fact is that there are, right now, gay players on Nebraska's roster. With 120 kids playing at Nebraska between scholarship players and walk-ons, it's nearly inevitable. Same goes for Iowa, Illinois, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, blah blah blah blah blah. Both Pelini and Ferentz know this, and neither has walked away from his job. Are you OK with the idea of Kirk Ferentz coaching Iowa knowing there are likely gay players on the roster?

Yes, i am not arguing that. The question was should it be made public and open. As I said I am a die hard beleiver in what happens else where is nobody's business. I dont care if KF or BO wants to do pole dances or dress up like a chick in his own house, hell they could be lovers for all I care, but to bring it to practice or a game is a different story.

[knapplc]

Yes, i am not arguing that. The question was should it be made public and open. As I said I am a die hard beleiver in what happens else where is nobody's business. I dont care if KF or BO wants to do pole dances or dress up like a chick in his own house, hell they could be lovers for all I care, but to bring it to practice or a game is a different story.

 

How would they bring it to a practice or a game?

[ADS]

Why does it matter if someone has a problem with gays or not? The beauty of this country is that you are allowed to discriminate against others (not talking about work settings or other similar scenarios) for whatever reason you want while also being able to like just about anything that you want to like for whatever reason. If someone has no problem with gays, great. If someone has a problem, who cares? If they have deep-seeded beliefs why not just let them go with that? Because one or two guys on a message board have a problem with an openly gay Husker won't be grounds for any disciplinary action whatsoever. At the same time, his dislike for that player due to his sexual orientation isn't (or at least shouldn't) rile anyone up to the point that they become upset that someone would think/feel that way. A lot of people dislike Taylor Martinez because he appears to be a smarmy, self-centered jerk. Although many disagree, I don't see the same kind of outcry protecting smarmy, self-centered jerks that I'm seeing here. What's the difference? Respect a person's right to discriminate.

Discriminate? Really? Thats a terrible choice in words. Discriminate is something far worse than judging someone. Discriminating is actually allowing someone not to do something based on their race/religon/sexualoreintation/etc. You can judge all you want, it's going to happen in today's society we all know that. But discriminating? No.

[Hunter94]

the risk/reward factor to allow a "coming out" is definitely negative......no good whatsoever involved in this.

[UGAHusker]

Why does it matter if someone has a problem with gays or not? The beauty of this country is that you are allowed to discriminate against others (not talking about work settings or other similar scenarios) for whatever reason you want while also being able to like just about anything that you want to like for whatever reason. If someone has no problem with gays, great. If someone has a problem, who cares? If they have deep-seeded beliefs why not just let them go with that? Because one or two guys on a message board have a problem with an openly gay Husker won't be grounds for any disciplinary action whatsoever. At the same time, his dislike for that player due to his sexual orientation isn't (or at least shouldn't) rile anyone up to the point that they become upset that someone would think/feel that way. A lot of people dislike Taylor Martinez because he appears to be a smarmy, self-centered jerk. Although many disagree, I don't see the same kind of outcry protecting smarmy, self-centered jerks that I'm seeing here. What's the difference? Respect a person's right to discriminate.

Discriminate? Really? Thats a terrible choice in words. Discriminate is something far worse than judging someone. Discriminating is actually allowing someone not to do something based on their race/religon/sexualoreintation/etc. You can judge all you want, it's going to happen in today's society we all know that. But discriminating? No.

 

Uhhh, yeah. If I start the UGAHusker social group and decide that nobody with last names starting with a "K" is going to be allowed in, who is can stop me? Nobody. Discrimination in this sense is perfectly legal.

[ADS]

Why does it matter if someone has a problem with gays or not? The beauty of this country is that you are allowed to discriminate against others (not talking about work settings or other similar scenarios) for whatever reason you want while also being able to like just about anything that you want to like for whatever reason. If someone has no problem with gays, great. If someone has a problem, who cares? If they have deep-seeded beliefs why not just let them go with that? Because one or two guys on a message board have a problem with an openly gay Husker won't be grounds for any disciplinary action whatsoever. At the same time, his dislike for that player due to his sexual orientation isn't (or at least shouldn't) rile anyone up to the point that they become upset that someone would think/feel that way. A lot of people dislike Taylor Martinez because he appears to be a smarmy, self-centered jerk. Although many disagree, I don't see the same kind of outcry protecting smarmy, self-centered jerks that I'm seeing here. What's the difference? Respect a person's right to discriminate.

Discriminate? Really? Thats a terrible choice in words. Discriminate is something far worse than judging someone. Discriminating is actually allowing someone not to do something based on their race/religon/sexualoreintation/etc. You can judge all you want, it's going to happen in today's society we all know that. But discriminating? No.

 

Uhhh, yeah. If I start the UGAHusker social group and decide that nobody with last names starting with a "K" is going to be allowed in, who is can stop me? Nobody. Discrimination in this sense is perfectly legal.

But is that socailly acceptable? Being gay is more socially acceptable than someone discriminating against other people. Even if it is as small as people with the last name thats starts with "K".

[bigg10]

This convo was about a couple dudes kissing after a game or what not, if thats ok, then you have to assume it's ok in the locker room as well, then what? How far are you willing to go? I understand you have an open mind on this subject, but I noticed not on the religion argument against it, sooner or later everyone reaches their limits on just how open minded they are. As I said if you are open minded about one thing, than you have to be open minded about all things presented to you, if not how can you say you are truely open minded on THIS subject , when you look at things like I mentioned, boobies,transvestites, religion ect,ect,ect. there is not a good reason for many of the ways we as a society "feel" about things but if you undid it all where would we be? Great concept, not workable.

[UGAHusker]

Why does it matter if someone has a problem with gays or not? The beauty of this country is that you are allowed to discriminate against others (not talking about work settings or other similar scenarios) for whatever reason you want while also being able to like just about anything that you want to like for whatever reason. If someone has no problem with gays, great. If someone has a problem, who cares? If they have deep-seeded beliefs why not just let them go with that? Because one or two guys on a message board have a problem with an openly gay Husker won't be grounds for any disciplinary action whatsoever. At the same time, his dislike for that player due to his sexual orientation isn't (or at least shouldn't) rile anyone up to the point that they become upset that someone would think/feel that way. A lot of people dislike Taylor Martinez because he appears to be a smarmy, self-centered jerk. Although many disagree, I don't see the same kind of outcry protecting smarmy, self-centered jerks that I'm seeing here. What's the difference? Respect a person's right to discriminate.

Discriminate? Really? Thats a terrible choice in words. Discriminate is something far worse than judging someone. Discriminating is actually allowing someone not to do something based on their race/religon/sexualoreintation/etc. You can judge all you want, it's going to happen in today's society we all know that. But discriminating? No.

 

Uhhh, yeah. If I start the UGAHusker social group and decide that nobody with last names starting with a "K" is going to be allowed in, who is can stop me? Nobody. Discrimination in this sense is perfectly legal.

But is that socailly acceptable? Being gay is more socially acceptable than someone discriminating against other people. Even if it is as small as people with the last name thats starts with "K".

 

I never said anything about discriminating being socially acceptable or not. All I said is that people can discriminate, hold prejudices, etc. against anyone, for any reason (again, except in select settings) to whatever extent they wish. If somone has a problem with gays (that you, interestingly enough, only find out due to a message board poll) and you don't how does that affect you?

 

Full disclosure, I voted for the top option. I could care less if Rex Burkhead gets all "sexy rexy" with Bruno.

[bigg10]

the risk/reward factor to allow a "coming out" is definitely negative......no good whatsoever involved in this.

Simply put, thats what I have been saying. Thanks

[knapplc]

This convo was about a couple dudes kissing after a game or what not, if thats ok, then you have to assume it's ok in the locker room as well, then what? How far are you willing to go? I understand you have an open mind on this subject, but I noticed not on the religion argument against it, sooner or later everyone reaches their limits on just how open minded they are. As I said if you are open minded about one thing, than you have to be open minded about all things presented to you, if not how can you say you are truely open minded on THIS subject , when you look at things like I mentioned, boobies,transvestites, religion ect,ect,ect. there is not a good reason for many of the ways we as a society "feel" about things but if you undid it all where would we be? Great concept, not workable.

Being open-minded doesn't mean dismissing reason, nor does it mean if you allow some things you have to allow all things. In everything there are limits.

 

Are you OK with a player kissing his girlfriend after practice? After the game?

[Street Novelist]

my my my...a bit homophobic, aren't we nuance? It's amazing what you can learn about people over the Internet.

[lilred]

Why does it matter if someone has a problem with gays or not? The beauty of this country is that you are allowed to discriminate against others (not talking about work settings or other similar scenarios) for whatever reason you want while also being able to like just about anything that you want to like for whatever reason. If someone has no problem with gays, great. If someone has a problem, who cares? If they have deep-seeded beliefs why not just let them go with that? Because one or two guys on a message board have a problem with an openly gay Husker won't be grounds for any disciplinary action whatsoever. At the same time, his dislike for that player due to his sexual orientation isn't (or at least shouldn't) rile anyone up to the point that they become upset that someone would think/feel that way. A lot of people dislike Taylor Martinez because he appears to be a smarmy, self-centered jerk. Although many disagree, I don't see the same kind of outcry protecting smarmy, self-centered jerks that I'm seeing here. What's the difference? Respect a person's right to discriminate.

Discriminate? Really? Thats a terrible choice in words. Discriminate is something far worse than judging someone. Discriminating is actually allowing someone not to do something based on their race/religon/sexualoreintation/etc. You can judge all you want, it's going to happen in today's society we all know that. But discriminating? No.

 

Uhhh, yeah. If I start the UGAHusker social group and decide that nobody with last names starting with a "K" is going to be allowed in, who is can stop me? Nobody. Discrimination in this sense is perfectly legal.

No one has any problem with this kind of "discrimination." What people have a problem with is when you say "No one with a last name starting with 'K' can have the same rights as me."