Is it okay to be a gay college athlete?

[knapplc]

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.

 

Society evolves over time, this is a truism. Human society has changed and adapted and changed back throughout time. We have gone through periods more permissive than the time we live in and less permissive, and both more permissive and less permissive societies will evolve from ours. It's just the way humans are.

[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).

 

 

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.

Yes, I knew this was coming...

 

I know you don't promote discrimination. I know there is no legal right to play football (hence the quotation marks). My original statement has nothing to do with sports. I still would have a problem with (as I'm guessing you would) excluding gay people from football just as I have a problem with excluding black people from baseball, regardless of the legality.

 

I agree with pretty much everything you say. People do have the right to hold whatever views they choose and can usually act on them as they please. However, their views are obviously not above criticism. I think giving people flak for hating gay people is not "unnecessary" because I feel a moral obligation to at the very least oppose views that promote inequality.

[lilred]

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.

Who is claiming that playing college football is a human right?

[knapplc]

I think giving people flak for hating gay people is not "unnecessary" because I feel a moral obligation to at the very least oppose views that promote inequality.

 

Bravo. There's hope for humanity while people still realize this.

[UGAHusker]

I think giving people flak for hating gay people is not "unnecessary" because I feel a moral obligation to at the very least oppose views that promote inequality.

 

Bravo. There's hope for humanity while people still realize this.

 

 

Does giving flak to someone for their personal beliefs not promote inequality? We are all allowed to think whatever we want; by downgrading someone else's beliefs are you not implying that their views are at least incorrect if not inferior i.e unequal?

[bigg10]

I think giving people flak for hating gay people is not "unnecessary" because I feel a moral obligation to at the very least oppose views that promote inequality.

 

Bravo. There's hope for humanity while people still realize this.

From the movie Waiting.

 

You see I don't, I don't work with any exact boundaries of the law because I wasn't consulted when the god damn laws were made. No, instead nameless, faceless politicians, the so called protectors of the moral majority decide what is right and what is wrong. I mean come on. I govern my life around my own personal code of ethics, and I suggest that you do the same. That way if, within the constructs of my own morality, I were to do something that is considered illegal, so be it. I feel no guilt whatsoever and furthermore, if I were to buckle under the social weight of the system by adhering to laws that I do not truly believe in then I would be extinguishing the very fire of patriotism and individuality

[knapplc]

I think giving people flak for hating gay people is not "unnecessary" because I feel a moral obligation to at the very least oppose views that promote inequality.

 

Bravo. There's hope for humanity while people still realize this.

 

 

Does giving flak to someone for their personal beliefs not promote inequality? We are all allowed to think whatever we want; by downgrading someone else's beliefs are you not implying that their views are at least incorrect if not inferior i.e unequal?

 

You're trying too hard.

[Haspula]

Doesn't matter if there gay or not

[bigg10]

I think giving people flak for hating gay people is not "unnecessary" because I feel a moral obligation to at the very least oppose views that promote inequality.

 

Bravo. There's hope for humanity while people still realize this.

 

 

Does giving flak to someone for their personal beliefs not promote inequality? We are all allowed to think whatever we want; by downgrading someone else's beliefs are you not implying that their views are at least incorrect if not inferior i.e unequal?

 

You're trying too hard.

No he has a point, see what I mean by an having an open mind.

[UGAHusker]

I think giving people flak for hating gay people is not "unnecessary" because I feel a moral obligation to at the very least oppose views that promote inequality.

 

Bravo. There's hope for humanity while people still realize this.

 

 

Does giving flak to someone for their personal beliefs not promote inequality? We are all allowed to think whatever we want; by downgrading someone else's beliefs are you not implying that their views are at least incorrect if not inferior i.e unequal?

 

You're trying too hard.

 

You're just being typical you, but at least you're doing it the best that you can!

[lilred]

I think giving people flak for hating gay people is not "unnecessary" because I feel a moral obligation to at the very least oppose views that promote inequality.

 

Bravo. There's hope for humanity while people still realize this.

 

 

Does giving flak to someone for their personal beliefs not promote inequality? We are all allowed to think whatever we want; by downgrading someone else's beliefs are you not implying that their views are at least incorrect if not inferior i.e unequal?

I think that's a fair question. I would say it does not also promote inequality because discriminating against gays doesn't seem (yes, key word, "seem") to be well justified. The only reasoning I've seen behind this kind of discrimination is "I don't like it" and "the Bible says so." Neither of these are legitimate. If someone holds an idea with some legitimate justification then I cannot so clearly oppose it. Of course I'd like to think my beliefs are coherent but I suppose it's impossible to know for sure.

[bigg10]

I think giving people flak for hating gay people is not "unnecessary" because I feel a moral obligation to at the very least oppose views that promote inequality.

 

Bravo. There's hope for humanity while people still realize this.

 

 

Does giving flak to someone for their personal beliefs not promote inequality? We are all allowed to think whatever we want; by downgrading someone else's beliefs are you not implying that their views are at least incorrect if not inferior i.e unequal?

I think that's a fair question. I would say it does not also promote inequality because discriminating against gays doesn't seem (yes, key word, "seem") to be well justified. The only reasoning I've seen behind this kind of discrimination is "I don't like it" and "the Bible says so." Neither of these are legitimate. If someone holds an idea with some legitimate justification then I cannot so clearly oppose it. Of course I'd like to think my beliefs are coherent but I suppose it's impossible to know for sure.

And we are right back to bare breast, transvestits ect.. Whats the argument against it? Since there is no reasonable argument against it, by your logic it should be ok?

[UGAHusker]

I think giving people flak for hating gay people is not "unnecessary" because I feel a moral obligation to at the very least oppose views that promote inequality.

 

Bravo. There's hope for humanity while people still realize this.

 

 

Does giving flak to someone for their personal beliefs not promote inequality? We are all allowed to think whatever we want; by downgrading someone else's beliefs are you not implying that their views are at least incorrect if not inferior i.e unequal?

I think that's a fair question. I would say it does not also promote inequality because discriminating against gays doesn't seem (yes, key word, "seem") to be well justified. The only reasoning I've seen behind this kind of discrimination is "I don't like it" and "the Bible says so." Neither of these are legitimate. If someone holds an idea with some legitimate justification then I cannot so clearly oppose it. Of course I'd like to think my beliefs are coherent but I suppose it's impossible to know for sure.

 

Egg zactly. "I don't like it" and "the Bible says so" seem pretty stupid to me as well, but if someone else defaults to those reasons, who is anyone to impy to them that their beliefs are incorrect. On social issues such as these, it is almost impossible to prove a position one way or another with "legitamite justification". What constitutes "legitamite justification" or plain legitamcy for that matter?

[HuskerNMO]

Let me ask a question, is it okay to be a racist college athlete? Should we allow players on the team that are openly anti-semitic, anti-black or anti-hispanic? People were say they were just born that way or were raised that way, that doesn't mean it isn't a choice. There's a choice in just about everything humans do, some choices may feel natural, but that doesn't make them right. In America it took until 2003 to strike down laws against sodomy nationwide via Lawrence v. Texas.

 

So when did you choose to be heterosexual?

 

Every single day I make that choice.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-05-23-Sex-survey-revelations-on-gay-identity_n.htm

 

Interesting study, 3.7% of Americans in the 18-44 year old group (37% of the us population, or 113.6 million people in the group) identified themselves as bisexual or homosexual (or 4.2 million out of the group in the 18-44 age bracket) , but 81% of that group admits to experiencing relations with a member of the opposite sex. That means that of the 4.2 million "gays", only 800,000 of them have stayed strictly with the opposite sex. Sounds like a LOT of choice to me, how about you?

 

I do think it's hypocritical in our society though that gay men are the most discriminated against. Many people think lesbians are awesome and want to watch that, yet are revolted by gay men. It's just a double standard setup by men in our society who should find more important things to worry about. People who claim religious reasons for not accepting homosexuality based on the bible but also hang out with alcoholics and other addicts are being hypocritical and selective in their interpretation of the bible and its teachings.

[lilred]

I think giving people flak for hating gay people is not "unnecessary" because I feel a moral obligation to at the very least oppose views that promote inequality.

 

Bravo. There's hope for humanity while people still realize this.

 

 

Does giving flak to someone for their personal beliefs not promote inequality? We are all allowed to think whatever we want; by downgrading someone else's beliefs are you not implying that their views are at least incorrect if not inferior i.e unequal?

I think that's a fair question. I would say it does not also promote inequality because discriminating against gays doesn't seem (yes, key word, "seem") to be well justified. The only reasoning I've seen behind this kind of discrimination is "I don't like it" and "the Bible says so." Neither of these are legitimate. If someone holds an idea with some legitimate justification then I cannot so clearly oppose it. Of course I'd like to think my beliefs are coherent but I suppose it's impossible to know for sure.

 

Egg zactly. "I don't like it" and "the Bible says so" seem pretty stupid to me as well, but if someone else defaults to those reasons, who is anyone to impy to them that their beliefs are incorrect. On social issues such as these, it is almost impossible to prove a position one way or another with "legitamite justification". What constitutes "legitamite justification" or plain legitamcy for that matter?

Good question. I would say in defaulting to those two statements it is a pretty clear cut case of illegitimate justification. Regarding the first statement, one person's preference should not necessarily be applied to everyone. Regarding the second statement, I'd say that is practically the definition of an unjustified belief. I think that if there's anything I know for sure, it's that dogmatic belief is never justified. I would demand better reasoning or dismiss their claim. But definitely, it's hard to say what exactly is legitimate justification.