Is it okay to be a gay college athlete?

[walksalone]

I could care less, let the kid play.

 

I get asked about the whole "gays in the military" thing all time (more so from Liberals, since everyone thinks I'm conservative).

 

Can you fight, then thats all that matters. If you have undying loyalty, that speaks volumes more than sexual preference ever could.

[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.

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."

 

What "rights" are you speaking of? The "right" to be a member of a Division 1-A college football team?

[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.

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?

Ok then I will go back again and ask. You are open minded, If 50% of society is pro topless cheerleaders, are you ok with it? The general theme here is sexuality, not just gays being open. I am saying as a whole society is not ready to move forward with sexuality in general. Why because as soon as you say 60% say it's ok for gays to be as open as they want at pratice or games, I am going to say well 60% also agree to topless cheerleaders, and whats the next guy going to argue that 60% say ........

[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.

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."

 

What "rights" are you speaking of? The "right" to be a member of a Division 1-A college football team?

No. When you take away someones rights as a citizen because of their lastname or whatever it might be is discrimination. And, it would be the same if we said no homosexuals could play college athletics just because they are gay.

[knapplc]

Ok then I will go back again and ask. You are open minded, If 50% of society is pro topless cheerleaders, are you ok with it? The general theme here is sexuality, not just gays being open. I am saying as a whole society is not ready to move forward with sexuality in general. Why because as soon as you say 60% say it's ok for gays to be as open as they want at pratice or games, I am going to say well 60% also agree to topless cheerleaders, and whats the next guy going to argue that 60% say ........

 

American society is definitely moving toward a more open-minded attitude towards sex. Look at how we were just 50 years ago: On I Love Lucy, Lucy and Desi slept in separate beds because society couldn't handle the idea of watching a couple in bed together on TV. Just thirty years later you've got Dynasty and Miami Vice depicting sex on prime-time TV in the 80s. Look at TV today - do you think it's more or less permissive than it was 20 years ago? Back in the early 80s Soap was a ground-breaking show for having a gay character. Twenty years later dozens of shows depict openly gay characters. It's normal these days. Nobody even bats an eyelash at it.

 

It's going to happen, I can guarantee you. And it won't rip a team apart, and it won't destroy a program.

[UGAHusker]

What "rights" are you talking about taking away? Coach has no women on the team; where is the ACLU calling for discrimination against women?

[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."

 

What "rights" are you speaking of? The "right" to be a member of a Division 1-A college football team?

Human rights. I'm speaking generally, but yes, the "right" to play football as well. I don't see how that would be any different than when we excluded black people from playing baseball. (When I said "you" above I don't literally mean you, UGAHusker).

[ADS]

What "rights" are you talking about taking away? Coach has no women on the team; where is the ACLU calling for discrimination against women?

Go back and read your statement about not allowing people with the last name satrting with "K" be in your social group. Women in sports has nothing to do with this. Katie Hnida and Natalie Randolph might have something to say about your above statement.

[knapplc]

UGA is about to eat you guys for breakfast. These rights of which you speak are not rights. Take it away, UGA.....

[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.

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."

 

What "rights" are you speaking of? The "right" to be a member of a Division 1-A college football team?

Human rights. I'm speaking generally, but yes, the "right" to play football as well. I don't see how that would be any different than when we excluded black people from playing baseball. (When I said "you" above I don't literally mean you, UGAHusker).

 

 

Unfortunately, the "right" to play college football doesn't exist.

 

My point isn't that I want to discriminate against these guys. My point is, is that it is, for the most part, allowed to happen. Giving people flak for having a problem with gay people is unnecessarry. Society is still going to evolve without them. At the end of the day, though, if people want to hold beliefs about anything they want, hostile, racist, discriminatory, whatever, they are allowed. In most cases, they can even act on these beliefs. Sorry. By-product of the "freedom" that we feel entitled to in this country.

[lilred]

I'm aware that playing football is not a "right." I don't claim to know the legality of discrimination in sports, but I would certainly oppose it. My original statement has nothing to do with sports.

[UGAHusker]

Somebody please find me the document that says that playing college football is a "human right". When this document is provided to me, I will post under the monicker "donkey lipssss" for the next 4 years.

[knapplc]

Unfortunately, the "right" to play college football doesn't exist.

 

Correct.

 

My point isn't that I want to discriminate against these guys. My point is, is that it is, for the most part, allowed to happen. Giving people flak for having a problem with gay people is unnecessarry. Society is still going to evolve without them. At the end of the day, though, if people want to hold beliefs about anything they want, hostile, racist, discriminatory, whatever, they are allowed. In most cases, they can even act on these beliefs. Sorry. By-product of the "freedom" that we feel entitled to in this country.

 

This is an internet message board. People can give people flak for anything, from the team/player they like to the coach they support to whatever. As long as they do it within the rules, that's exactly what this board is for.

 

You are also correct in that what a person believes is not subject to the law. The thoughts you harbor are your own, and nobody can take them away from you, whether those thoughts be racist, homicidal, homophobic, whatever.

 

It's when they act on those beliefs that they can end up in trouble. Not always, but it's a rare person who has the wherewithal to think and speak things but not act on those things. Those folks are often hypocrites, in my experience, but whatever. I'm probably more experienced than most in the field of discrimination.

[UGAHusker]

Unfortunately, the "right" to play college football doesn't exist.

 

Correct.

 

My point isn't that I want to discriminate against these guys. My point is, is that it is, for the most part, allowed to happen. Giving people flak for having a problem with gay people is unnecessarry. Society is still going to evolve without them. At the end of the day, though, if people want to hold beliefs about anything they want, hostile, racist, discriminatory, whatever, they are allowed. In most cases, they can even act on these beliefs. Sorry. By-product of the "freedom" that we feel entitled to in this country.

 

This is an internet message board. People can give people flak for anything, from the team/player they like to the coach they support to whatever. As long as they do it within the rules, that's exactly what this board is for.

 

You are also correct in that what a person believes is not subject to the law. The thoughts you harbor are your own, and nobody can take them away from you, whether those thoughts be racist, homicidal, homophobic, whatever.

 

It's when they act on those beliefs that they can end up in trouble. Not always, but it's a rare person who has the wherewithal to think and speak things but not act on those things. Those folks are often hypocrites, in my experience, but whatever. I'm probably more experienced than most in the field of discrimination.

 

Great!

 

And now that you have established that people can give flak for anything, I'll assume that those giving the ones who appear to have a problem with gays on the football team are just utilzing the board for its intended purpose. Personally, I live in a positive world; I'll leave y'all to the normative.

[bigg10]

Ok then I will go back again and ask. You are open minded, If 50% of society is pro topless cheerleaders, are you ok with it? The general theme here is sexuality, not just gays being open. I am saying as a whole society is not ready to move forward with sexuality in general. Why because as soon as you say 60% say it's ok for gays to be as open as they want at pratice or games, I am going to say well 60% also agree to topless cheerleaders, and whats the next guy going to argue that 60% say ........

 

American society is definitely moving toward a more open-minded attitude towards sex. Look at how we were just 50 years ago: On I Love Lucy, Lucy and Dezi slept in separate beds because society couldn't handle the idea of watching a couple in bed together on TV. Just thirty years later you've got Dynasty and Miami Vice depicting sex on prime-time TV in the 80s. Look at TV today - do you think it's more or less permissive than it was 20 years ago? Back in the early 80s Soap was a ground-breaking show for having a gay character. Twenty years later dozens of shows depict openly gay characters. It's normal these days. Nobody even bats an eyelash at it.

 

It's going to happen, I can guarantee you. And it won't rip a team apart, and it won't destroy a program.

I agree. Same goes for race and everything else. Like I said I think as a society we are becoming smarter. I would however take issue with thrusting an issue forward and the bad effects that could have (and was my whole argument). I say let them be gay, but keep it private. In a way I think we will never truely "arrive", why because people as a whole are not that bright. Your analogy of tv is a good one, look at smoking pot, same goes, the general public agrees with it, it's on tv, yet the laws are just starting to reflect that 40 to 50 years AFTER the 60's 70's. Interesting times we live in, we are progressing, not leaps and bounds, but leaps and bounds wouldnt work anyway. People resist change.

So yes my dad was worse than I am and my kids will be better than I am, thats how we progress, sometimes it seems slow and sometimes you have to wonder how so many could be so dumb, to that I say it's not that they are dumb, just that their "open" mind is on a different issue than yours.