"Tell me about the last time you saw another man's sack." (1 Viewer)

[larry_boy_44]

I just can't fathom worshiping a god and belonging to a religious organization that teaches that there's something totally wrong with someone's private sex life. The whole concept is laughable, really.If that's the ultimate true religion and I'm going to hell for not believing in it, so be it; I don't want to be a part of that club, if that's what it takes.

So what other parts of our "private lives" does that extend to?

Does your spouse get a say in your "private sex life"? How about your parents while you are still a minor?

I don't know... This whole line of thinking just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I just can't fathom worshiping a god and belonging to a religious organization that teaches that there's something totally wrong with someone's private sex life. The whole concept is laughable, really.If that's the ultimate true religion and I'm going to hell for not believing in it, so be it; I don't want to be a part of that club, if that's what it takes.

They are misrepresenting the teachings to allow themselves to be biased against people who are different. Their history of it cant be denied. Do they speak about non-virgin women who marry and how they could be killed in the town square? Or two different fabrics in their clothes? Or doing stuff on the sabbath? Nope.Did you hear them earlier saying that some slavery was different (because of their book) as opposed to other slavery? Why yes, yes hey did.They totally pick and choose based upon their own sensibilities. Its terrible.

Moral law <> Civil law <> ceremonial law

The civil laws for the nation of Israel (putting people to death), and the ceremonial laws (how to do certain things) no longer apply. They were just for the Jews in the Old Covenant. They were there to make a point.

God's moral laws (see: Ten Commandments, most of which actually predate the ten commandments to Abraham and Moses) never, ever stop applying. Don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, don't lust, don't fornicate or commit adultery, etc. are always applicable moral absolutes that never "end".

Either way, you really shouldn't comment on the Bible if you don't actually know what it says. It doesn't make you sound smart.

 

[larry_boy_44]

As for Jason Collins, where is the courage in coming out as a "current" player when the season and his career is now over? I'm sure he'll get a multi-million dollar book deal and be able to play the Chris Kluwe/Ayanbadejo gay victim card to try and bully some team into signing him.

Not much honor in lying to your girlfriend for 8 years hiding that you're gay. Or is he bi? So much for the born gay argument. It's really a sad, sad day for America. More rotting of the culture at its finest.

I could really care less that Jason Collins is a ***. I'm just sick of these types of stories. At some point, sports needs to return to being sports and not a political arena. Very tiresome.

When Bill Clinton was committing adultery in the White House and lying under oath, we were told to mind our own business. What 2 people do is their own business.

When people stump for queer marriage, they tell us what 2 people do in the privacy of their own home (or more often public bathroom) is their own business.

Then why do queers feel the need to come out and tell the world about their sexuality? The hypocrisy is stunning, even for liberals and that's saying something.

:back away slowly:

umm... yeah, not like this. Just... Not like this. You aren't helping at all. Not even a little.

 

[larry_boy_44]

As for Jason Collins, where is the courage in coming out as a "current" player when the season and his career is now over? I'm sure he'll get a multi-million dollar book deal and be able to play the Chris Kluwe/Ayanbadejo gay victim card to try and bully some team into signing him. Not much honor in lying to your girlfriend for 8 years hiding that you're gay. Or is he bi? So much for the born gay argument. It's really a sad, sad day for America. More rotting of the culture at its finest. I could really care less that Jason Collins is a ***. I'm just sick of these types of stories. At some point, sports needs to return to being sports and not a political arena. Very tiresome. When Bill Clinton was committing adultery in the White House and lying under oath, we were told to mind our own business. What 2 people do is their own business. When people stump for queer marriage, they tell us what 2 people do in the privacy of their own home (or more often public bathroom) is their own business. Then why do queers feel the need to come out and tell the world about their sexuality? The hypocrisy is stunning, even for liberals and that's saying something.

I sincerely hope that you find the courage to come to terms with your sexuality someday. Most of us won't judge you when you do come out or whatever you've gotta do. Good luck.

You realize that this kind of thing should not only be insulting to toad (as much as he deserves to be insulted, I know), but I would think to anyone who is actually gay, too.

Do we assume everyone who is in the KKK is actually a closeted black man? Is Al Qaeda actually a bunch of closeted Americans?

The whole idea is just silly to me. Is he an idiot? Yes. But that doesn't make him gay, just ignorant.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I just can't fathom worshiping a god and belonging to a religious organization that teaches that there's something totally wrong with someone's private sex life. The whole concept is laughable, really.If that's the ultimate true religion and I'm going to hell for not believing in it, so be it; I don't want to be a part of that club, if that's what it takes.

They are misrepresenting the teachings to allow themselves to be biased against people who are different. Their history of it cant be denied. Do they speak about non-virgin women who marry and how they could be killed in the town square? Or two different fabrics in their clothes? Or doing stuff on the sabbath? Nope.Did you hear them earlier saying that some slavery was different (because of their book) as opposed to other slavery? Why yes, yes hey did.They totally pick and choose based upon their own sensibilities. Its terrible.

Moral law <> Civil law <> ceremonial law

The civil laws for the nation of Israel (putting people to death), and the ceremonial laws (how to do certain things) no longer apply. They were just for the Jews in the Old Covenant. They were there to make a point.

God's moral laws (see: Ten Commandments, most of which actually predate the ten commandments to Abraham and Moses) never, ever stop applying. Don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, don't lust, don't fornicate or commit adultery, etc. are always applicable moral absolutes that never "end".

Either way, you really shouldn't comment on the Bible if you don't actually know what it says. It doesn't make you sound smart.

Thanks for proving the point.

 

[pollardsvision]

I haven't read any of this thread so apologies if I'm going over ground that's already been trodden, but dating a woman for 8 years, getting engaged, and then breaking it off a month after the nuptials is a really ####ty thing to do. This isn't the 1950's, if you're not married by 30 nobody's going to assume you're gay.

I dated a woman for two years, got engaged, and broke it off two months before the wedding day. Getting engaged to her was a ####ty thing to do. But marrying her would have been a WAY ####tier thing to do. We were a bad match and it would have been a bad marriage. I wish it didn't go down that way, but everyone makes mistakes when it comes to these things. If they didn't we wouldn't have any broken engagements or divorces, but we have a ton of them. Also, "nuptials" doesn't mean what you think it means.I don't think those situations are very similar.Knowing something in the relationship might not quite be right for 2 years (just assuming here) vs. knowing for 8 years that you aren't even attracted to your fiance's gender. Not really close. The former just happens. The latter is really just manipulative and malicious.No idea what it might be like living as a gay man, but as GPJ said, this isn't 1950. What might've been somewhat forgivable then just isn't now. There's no good reason to steal nearly a decade of a woman's life like that.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I haven't read any of this thread so apologies if I'm going over ground that's already been trodden, but dating a woman for 8 years, getting engaged, and then breaking it off a month after the nuptials is a really ####ty thing to do. This isn't the 1950's, if you're not married by 30 nobody's going to assume you're gay.

I dated a woman for two years, got engaged, and broke it off two months before the wedding day. Getting engaged to her was a ####ty thing to do. But marrying her would have been a WAY ####tier thing to do. We were a bad match and it would have been a bad marriage. I wish it didn't go down that way, but everyone makes mistakes when it comes to these things. If they didn't we wouldn't have any broken engagements or divorces, but we have a ton of them. Also, "nuptials" doesn't mean what you think it means.

I don't think those situations are very similar.Knowing something in the relationship might not quite be right for 2 years (just assuming here) vs. knowing for 8 years that you aren't even attracted to your fiance's gender. Not really close. The former just happens. The latter is really just manipulative and malicious.No idea what it might be like to living as a gay man, but as GPJ said, this isn't 1950. What might've been somewhat forgivable then just isn't now. There's no good reason to steal nearly a decade of a woman's life like that.

How do you know the bolded is true? Seems like you're making a lot of assumptions about other people's feelings and personal lives with zero evidence. Why do you think he "stole" a decade of a woman's life? Maybe he was incredibly nice to her and showered her with affection and was a great companion and conversation partner. Hell, maybe he was even good in the sack. We don't know. She chose to stay with him. Why don't you give her judgment any credence here? That seems like an attitude straight out the 1950s to me- it's like you're saying that women exist only to marry and rear children, and since he ultimately wasn't able to do that he stole" a decade of her life.

And sure, this isn't the 1950s. But the world of a black man 10 years ago is not the same as the world of the upper-middle class white man in 2013. There was (and still is) a huge stigma attached to homosexuality, so much so that I suspect that many homosexuals repress those feelings because they think they're unacceptable.

 

[Hang 10]

I haven't read any of this thread so apologies if I'm going over ground that's already been trodden, but dating a woman for 8 years, getting engaged, and then breaking it off a month after the nuptials is a really ####ty thing to do. This isn't the 1950's, if you're not married by 30 nobody's going to assume you're gay.

I dated a woman for two years, got engaged, and broke it off two months before the wedding day. Getting engaged to her was a ####ty thing to do. But marrying her would have been a WAY ####tier thing to do. We were a bad match and it would have been a bad marriage. I wish it didn't go down that way, but everyone makes mistakes when it comes to these things. If they didn't we wouldn't have any broken engagements or divorces, but we have a ton of them. Also, "nuptials" doesn't mean what you think it means.

I don't think those situations are very similar.Knowing something in the relationship might not quite be right for 2 years (just assuming here) vs. knowing for 8 years that you aren't even attracted to your fiance's gender. Not really close. The former just happens. The latter is really just manipulative and malicious.No idea what it might be like to living as a gay man, but as GPJ said, this isn't 1950. What might've been somewhat forgivable then just isn't now. There's no good reason to steal nearly a decade of a woman's life like that.

Hell, maybe he was even good in the sack.

 

[pollardsvision]

I haven't read any of this thread so apologies if I'm going over ground that's already been trodden, but dating a woman for 8 years, getting engaged, and then breaking it off a month after the nuptials is a really ####ty thing to do. This isn't the 1950's, if you're not married by 30 nobody's going to assume you're gay.

I dated a woman for two years, got engaged, and broke it off two months before the wedding day. Getting engaged to her was a ####ty thing to do. But marrying her would have been a WAY ####tier thing to do. We were a bad match and it would have been a bad marriage. I wish it didn't go down that way, but everyone makes mistakes when it comes to these things. If they didn't we wouldn't have any broken engagements or divorces, but we have a ton of them. Also, "nuptials" doesn't mean what you think it means.

I don't think those situations are very similar.Knowing something in the relationship might not quite be right for 2 years (just assuming here) vs. knowing for 8 years that you aren't even attracted to your fiance's gender. Not really close. The former just happens. The latter is really just manipulative and malicious.No idea what it might be like to living as a gay man, but as GPJ said, this isn't 1950. What might've been somewhat forgivable then just isn't now. There's no good reason to steal nearly a decade of a woman's life like that.

How do you know the bolded is true? Seems like you're making a lot of assumptions about other people's feelings and personal lives with zero evidence. Why do you think he "stole" a decade of a woman's life? Maybe he was incredibly nice to her and showered her with affection and was a great companion and conversation partner. Hell, maybe he was even good in the sack. We don't know. She chose to stay with him. Why don't you give her judgment any credence here? That seems like an attitude straight out the 1950s to me- it's like you're saying that women exist only to marry and rear children, and since he ultimately wasn't able to do that he stole" a decade of her life. And sure, this isn't the 1950s. But the world of a black man 10 years ago is not the same as the world of the upper-middle class white man in 2013. There was (and still is) a huge stigma attached to homosexuality, so much so that I suspect that many homosexuals repress those feelings because they think they're unacceptable.

Yes, I assume he knew he was gay a decade ago.I also assume his ex-fiance didn't want to spend her 20's making plans to spend the rest of her life married to a gay man, even if those 8 years were a lot of fun.If those things are incorrect, then obviously, I'm off base calling him a #### head.I don't think the 1st assumption has much chance of being wrong. The 2nd might be, but the real issue is that Collins made that decision for her. Maybe she would've done it anyway, but she never got to make the decision.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

I haven't read any of this thread so apologies if I'm going over ground that's already been trodden, but dating a woman for 8 years, getting engaged, and then breaking it off a month after the nuptials is a really ####ty thing to do. This isn't the 1950's, if you're not married by 30 nobody's going to assume you're gay.

I dated a woman for two years, got engaged, and broke it off two months before the wedding day. Getting engaged to her was a ####ty thing to do. But marrying her would have been a WAY ####tier thing to do. We were a bad match and it would have been a bad marriage. I wish it didn't go down that way, but everyone makes mistakes when it comes to these things. If they didn't we wouldn't have any broken engagements or divorces, but we have a ton of them.

Also, "nuptials" doesn't mean what you think it means.

Oh I understand "nuptials", I think it's this whole "before/after" thing that's got me really mixed up.

I think there's a difference between getting married to someone and not knowing things will work out, or ignoring that it's an ill-fated relationship, and entering into a relationship where your personal preferences would make a normal, happy relationship a complete impossibility. Dishonesty is one thing, but a charade of dishonesty for 8 years is brutal. And never telling her the truth about it is worse. If this woman was planning to have children, 8 years that leads to nothing really shortens her timeline.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I haven't read any of this thread so apologies if I'm going over ground that's already been trodden, but dating a woman for 8 years, getting engaged, and then breaking it off a month after the nuptials is a really ####ty thing to do. This isn't the 1950's, if you're not married by 30 nobody's going to assume you're gay.

I dated a woman for two years, got engaged, and broke it off two months before the wedding day. Getting engaged to her was a ####ty thing to do. But marrying her would have been a WAY ####tier thing to do. We were a bad match and it would have been a bad marriage. I wish it didn't go down that way, but everyone makes mistakes when it comes to these things. If they didn't we wouldn't have any broken engagements or divorces, but we have a ton of them. Also, "nuptials" doesn't mean what you think it means.

I don't think those situations are very similar.Knowing something in the relationship might not quite be right for 2 years (just assuming here) vs. knowing for 8 years that you aren't even attracted to your fiance's gender. Not really close. The former just happens. The latter is really just manipulative and malicious.No idea what it might be like to living as a gay man, but as GPJ said, this isn't 1950. What might've been somewhat forgivable then just isn't now. There's no good reason to steal nearly a decade of a woman's life like that.

How do you know the bolded is true? Seems like you're making a lot of assumptions about other people's feelings and personal lives with zero evidence. Why do you think he "stole" a decade of a woman's life? Maybe he was incredibly nice to her and showered her with affection and was a great companion and conversation partner. Hell, maybe he was even good in the sack. We don't know. She chose to stay with him. Why don't you give her judgment any credence here? That seems like an attitude straight out the 1950s to me- it's like you're saying that women exist only to marry and rear children, and since he ultimately wasn't able to do that he stole" a decade of her life. And sure, this isn't the 1950s. But the world of a black man 10 years ago is not the same as the world of the upper-middle class white man in 2013. There was (and still is) a huge stigma attached to homosexuality, so much so that I suspect that many homosexuals repress those feelings because they think they're unacceptable.

Yes, I assume he knew he was gay a decade ago.I also assume his ex-fiance didn't want to spend her 20's making plans to spend the rest of her life married to a gay man, even if those 8 years were a lot of fun.If those things are incorrect, then obviously, I'm off base calling him a #### head.I don't think the 1st assumption has much chance of being wrong. The 2nd might be, but the real issue is that Collins made that decision for her. Maybe she would've done it anyway, but she never got to make the decision.

I strongly suspect that the 1st assumption isn't as black and white as you seem to think it is. And I don't understand the statement that he "made that decision for her." What decision? She didn't have to get engaged to him. Yes, he proposed to someone that clearly was a bad match for him. But I don't understand how being engaged to a bad match due to his sexuality is so much worse then being engaged to a bad match due to other reasons, which happens all the time. And no, it's not OK to do it for any reason (I feel bad about what I put my ex-fiancee through all the time) but it hardly makes him a fundamentally bad person as you seem to think. Bottom line, you are making a lot of assumptions about two people's lives and feelings with no basis whatsoever. I don't understand why you would do that. if you read the article it seems pretty clear that he was planning in being a traditional husband and raising a traditional family with this woman. He wasn't stringing her along as a beard.

 

[pollardsvision]

I'm feeling fine with my assumptions.

Collins knew:

"I thought I had to live a certain way. I thought I needed to marry a woman and raise kids with her. I kept telling myself the sky was red, but I always knew it was blue."

Doesn't sound like this is how she would've liked to spend her 20's (though not completely clear, I'm still assuming a little):

"It's very emotional for me as a woman to have invested [eight] years in my dream to have a husband, soul mate, and best friend in him. So this is all hard to understand."

She may have said, but I didn't see her quoted anywhere saying "the sex was great, so I'm glad I was his unwitting beard for almost a decade".

 

[pollardsvision]

TobiasFunke, on 02 May 2013 - 11:19, said:

pollardsvision, on 02 May 2013 - 11:11, said:

TobiasFunke, on 02 May 2013 - 11:04, said:

pollardsvision, on 02 May 2013 - 10:57, said:

TobiasFunke, on 02 May 2013 - 09:12, said:

From 02 May 2013 - 00:20:I haven't read any of this thread so apologies if I'm going over ground that's already been trodden, but dating a woman for 8 years, getting engaged, and then breaking it off a month after the nuptials is a really ####ty thing to do. This isn't the 1950's, if you're not married by 30 nobody's going to assume you're gay.

I dated a woman for two years, got engaged, and broke it off two months before the wedding day. Getting engaged to her was a ####ty thing to do. But marrying her would have been a WAY ####tier thing to do. We were a bad match and it would have been a bad marriage. I wish it didn't go down that way, but everyone makes mistakes when it comes to these things. If they didn't we wouldn't have any broken engagements or divorces, but we have a ton of them.Also, "nuptials" doesn't mean what you think it means.

I don't think those situations are very similar.Knowing something in the relationship might not quite be right for 2 years (just assuming here) vs. knowing for 8 years that you aren't even attracted to your fiance's gender. Not really close. The former just happens. The latter is really just manipulative and malicious.No idea what it might be like to living as a gay man, but as GPJ said, this isn't 1950. What might've been somewhat forgivable then just isn't now. There's no good reason to steal nearly a decade of a woman's life like that.

How do you know the bolded is true? Seems like you're making a lot of assumptions about other people's feelings and personal lives with zero evidence. Why do you think he "stole" a decade of a woman's life? Maybe he was incredibly nice to her and showered her with affection and was a great companion and conversation partner. Hell, maybe he was even good in the sack. We don't know. She chose to stay with him. Why don't you give her judgment any credence here? That seems like an attitude straight out the 1950s to me- it's like you're saying that women exist only to marry and rear children, and since he ultimately wasn't able to do that he stole" a decade of her life. And sure, this isn't the 1950s. But the world of a black man 10 years ago is not the same as the world of the upper-middle class white man in 2013. There was (and still is) a huge stigma attached to homosexuality, so much so that I suspect that many homosexuals repress those feelings because they think they're unacceptable.

Yes, I assume he knew he was gay a decade ago.I also assume his ex-fiance didn't want to spend her 20's making plans to spend the rest of her life married to a gay man, even if those 8 years were a lot of fun.If those things are incorrect, then obviously, I'm off base calling him a #### head.I don't think the 1st assumption has much chance of being wrong. The 2nd might be, but the real issue is that Collins made that decision for her. Maybe she would've done it anyway, but she never got to make the decision.

I strongly suspect that the 1st assumption isn't as black and white as you seem to think it is. And I don't understand the statement that he "made that decision for her." What decision? She didn't have to get engaged to him. Yes, he proposed to someone that clearly was a bad match for him. But I don't understand how being engaged to a bad match due to his sexuality is so much worse then being engaged to a bad match due to other reasons, which happens all the time. And no, it's not OK to do it for any reason (I feel bad about what I put my ex-fiancee through all the time) but it hardly makes him a fundamentally bad person as you seem to think.Bottom line, you are making a lot of assumptions about two people's lives and feelings with no basis whatsoever. I don't understand why you would do that. if you read the article it seems pretty clear that he was planning in being a traditional husband and raising a traditional family with this woman. He wasn't stringing her along as a beard.

Not suggesting there was anything easy about this or that Collins is a fundamentally bad person.Still, this action was a pretty horrible thing to do.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

FWIW, I think it's great that he came out.

I haven't read any of this thread so apologies if I'm going over ground that's already been trodden, but dating a woman for 8 years, getting engaged, and then breaking it off a month after the nuptials is a really ####ty thing to do. This isn't the 1950's, if you're not married by 30 nobody's going to assume you're gay.

I dated a woman for two years, got engaged, and broke it off two months before the wedding day. Getting engaged to her was a ####ty thing to do. But marrying her would have been a WAY ####tier thing to do. We were a bad match and it would have been a bad marriage. I wish it didn't go down that way, but everyone makes mistakes when it comes to these things. If they didn't we wouldn't have any broken engagements or divorces, but we have a ton of them. Also, "nuptials" doesn't mean what you think it means.

I don't think those situations are very similar.Knowing something in the relationship might not quite be right for 2 years (just assuming here) vs. knowing for 8 years that you aren't even attracted to your fiance's gender. Not really close. The former just happens. The latter is really just manipulative and malicious.No idea what it might be like to living as a gay man, but as GPJ said, this isn't 1950. What might've been somewhat forgivable then just isn't now. There's no good reason to steal nearly a decade of a woman's life like that.

How do you know the bolded is true? Seems like you're making a lot of assumptions about other people's feelings and personal lives with zero evidence. Why do you think he "stole" a decade of a woman's life? Maybe he was incredibly nice to her and showered her with affection and was a great companion and conversation partner. Hell, maybe he was even good in the sack. We don't know. She chose to stay with him. Why don't you give her judgment any credence here? That seems like an attitude straight out the 1950s to me- it's like you're saying that women exist only to marry and rear children, and since he ultimately wasn't able to do that he stole" a decade of her life. And sure, this isn't the 1950s. But the world of a black man 10 years ago is not the same as the world of the upper-middle class white man in 2013. There was (and still is) a huge stigma attached to homosexuality, so much so that I suspect that many homosexuals repress those feelings because they think they're unacceptable.

Yes, I assume he knew he was gay a decade ago.I also assume his ex-fiance didn't want to spend her 20's making plans to spend the rest of her life married to a gay man, even if those 8 years were a lot of fun.If those things are incorrect, then obviously, I'm off base calling him a #### head.I don't think the 1st assumption has much chance of being wrong. The 2nd might be, but the real issue is that Collins made that decision for her. Maybe she would've done it anyway, but she never got to make the decision.

I strongly suspect that the 1st assumption isn't as black and white as you seem to think it is.

Oh great, now you're making this a racial issue too.

Hiding something of that magnitude from a serious gf/partner/spouse is bad form IMO. If you're gay, or running drugs, or are actually married to someone else, these are things that someone should reveal in the course of their relationship.

I think it's great that Collins came out and from all accounts he seems like a good guy otherwise, I just don't see him as someone who's a paragon of moral virtue.

 

[mad sweeney]

I haven't read any of this thread so apologies if I'm going over ground that's already been trodden, but dating a woman for 8 years, getting engaged, and then breaking it off a month after the nuptials is a really ####ty thing to do. This isn't the 1950's, if you're not married by 30 nobody's going to assume you're gay.

I dated a woman for two years, got engaged, and broke it off two months before the wedding day. Getting engaged to her was a ####ty thing to do. But marrying her would have been a WAY ####tier thing to do. We were a bad match and it would have been a bad marriage. I wish it didn't go down that way, but everyone makes mistakes when it comes to these things. If they didn't we wouldn't have any broken engagements or divorces, but we have a ton of them. Also, "nuptials" doesn't mean what you think it means.I don't think those situations are very similar.Knowing something in the relationship might not quite be right for 2 years (just assuming here) vs. knowing for 8 years that you aren't even attracted to your fiance's gender. Not really close. The former just happens. The latter is really just manipulative and malicious.No idea what it might be like living as a gay man, but as GPJ said, this isn't 1950. What might've been somewhat forgivable then just isn't now. There's no good reason to steal nearly a decade of a woman's life like that.It is possible to someting brave and courageous while also doing something(s) that is ####ty along the way. My dad worked his ### off my whole life to raise 4 kids and support the family and raise us from podunk rural town trailer park to solid middle class folks with a 5 bedroom house. Then he had an affair and left my mom 6 months after she retired. Everything I have I owe to him but he did something really ####ty. Both things are separate and it's possible, though hard, to celebrate the good while also remembering the bad. I haven't seen anyone praise Collins entire life as heroic nor try to annoint him for the entirety of hs life. But it is still possible to hold him as a hero in some respects and still remember the bad. He owes a lot to that girl and it's up to him to make it right to her in whatever way he can. But that doesn't change what he's done now, which is (nominally) what we are talking about.

Thats' without actually going into the fact that this is a completely common occurrence among gays. Doesn't make it right, but it's a symptom of the growth process and is actually a study in how peer pressure affects gays. Though not gay myself, I've heard doznes of stories like that from guys that tried to force themselves to be "normal" and wreckage they left behind while doing so.

 

[Steve Tasker]

I just can't fathom worshiping a god and belonging to a religious organization that teaches that there's something totally wrong with someone's private sex life. The whole concept is laughable, really.If that's the ultimate true religion and I'm going to hell for not believing in it, so be it; I don't want to be a part of that club, if that's what it takes.

So what other parts of our "private lives" does that extend to?

Does your spouse get a say in your "private sex life"? How about your parents while you are still a minor?

I don't know... This whole line of thinking just doesn't make sense to me.

I'm not really sure how to answer your first question, to be honest, cause I'm not sure what you're asking? Short answer is that I'm generally ok with people doing whatever they choose to do in their private lives (private lives, not just sex lives) so long as it doesn't harm others without their consent. Obviously "harm" is a loose term.

Of course your spouse/sexual partner has a say in your sex life? I'm not condoning rape (see above). I am in favor of consenting adults doing whatever they please in the bedroom so long as it doesn't harm others without their consent.

Of course parents should have some semblance of control over their minor child's private sex life. Their minor child is generally not capable ot making adequate adult decisions, and it's the parents' job to look out for their child's well-being.

What line of thinking are you having trouble with?

 

[badmojo1006]

I haven't read any of this thread so apologies if I'm going over ground that's already been trodden, but dating a woman for 8 years, getting engaged, and then breaking it off a month after the nuptials is a really ####ty thing to do. This isn't the 1950's, if you're not married by 30 nobody's going to assume you're gay.

I dated a woman for two years, got engaged, and broke it off two months before the wedding day. Getting engaged to her was a ####ty thing to do. But marrying her would have been a WAY ####tier thing to do. We were a bad match and it would have been a bad marriage. I wish it didn't go down that way, but everyone makes mistakes when it comes to these things. If they didn't we wouldn't have any broken engagements or divorces, but we have a ton of them. Also, "nuptials" doesn't mean what you think it means.I don't think those situations are very similar.Knowing something in the relationship might not quite be right for 2 years (just assuming here) vs. knowing for 8 years that you aren't even attracted to your fiance's gender. Not really close. The former just happens. The latter is really just manipulative and malicious.No idea what it might be like living as a gay man, but as GPJ said, this isn't 1950. What might've been somewhat forgivable then just isn't now. There's no good reason to steal nearly a decade of a woman's life like that.My ex and I were married for 16 years, together for 20. We had a good life together. The marriage was good for 15 out of those 16 years. If she had told me that she was gay before we got married, we probably wouldn't have, and I who knows what my life would have been.

 

[Steve Tasker]

I sincerely hope that you find the courage to come to terms with your sexuality someday. Most of us won't judge you when you do come out or whatever you've gotta do. Good luck.

You realize that this kind of thing should not only be insulting to toad (as much as he deserves to be insulted, I know), but I would think to anyone who is actually gay, too.

Do we assume everyone who is in the KKK is actually a closeted black man? Is Al Qaeda actually a bunch of closeted Americans?

The whole idea is just silly to me. Is he an idiot? Yes. But that doesn't make him gay, just ignorant.

My comment wasn't meant to be an insult, because there's nothing wrong with being gay.

Often, the ones who rally the hardest against gay people are the ones who are, in fact, gay and fighting it. I really hope that if he is struggling with it, he knows that it's not the end of the world and that we'll be here to offer support if/when he comes to terms with it. :shrug;

 

[TobiasFunke]

FWIW, I think it's great that he came out.

I haven't read any of this thread so apologies if I'm going over ground that's already been trodden, but dating a woman for 8 years, getting engaged, and then breaking it off a month after the nuptials is a really ####ty thing to do. This isn't the 1950's, if you're not married by 30 nobody's going to assume you're gay.

I dated a woman for two years, got engaged, and broke it off two months before the wedding day. Getting engaged to her was a ####ty thing to do. But marrying her would have been a WAY ####tier thing to do. We were a bad match and it would have been a bad marriage. I wish it didn't go down that way, but everyone makes mistakes when it comes to these things. If they didn't we wouldn't have any broken engagements or divorces, but we have a ton of them. Also, "nuptials" doesn't mean what you think it means.

I don't think those situations are very similar.Knowing something in the relationship might not quite be right for 2 years (just assuming here) vs. knowing for 8 years that you aren't even attracted to your fiance's gender. Not really close. The former just happens. The latter is really just manipulative and malicious.No idea what it might be like to living as a gay man, but as GPJ said, this isn't 1950. What might've been somewhat forgivable then just isn't now. There's no good reason to steal nearly a decade of a woman's life like that.

How do you know the bolded is true? Seems like you're making a lot of assumptions about other people's feelings and personal lives with zero evidence. Why do you think he "stole" a decade of a woman's life? Maybe he was incredibly nice to her and showered her with affection and was a great companion and conversation partner. Hell, maybe he was even good in the sack. We don't know. She chose to stay with him. Why don't you give her judgment any credence here? That seems like an attitude straight out the 1950s to me- it's like you're saying that women exist only to marry and rear children, and since he ultimately wasn't able to do that he stole" a decade of her life. And sure, this isn't the 1950s. But the world of a black man 10 years ago is not the same as the world of the upper-middle class white man in 2013. There was (and still is) a huge stigma attached to homosexuality, so much so that I suspect that many homosexuals repress those feelings because they think they're unacceptable.

Yes, I assume he knew he was gay a decade ago.I also assume his ex-fiance didn't want to spend her 20's making plans to spend the rest of her life married to a gay man, even if those 8 years were a lot of fun.If those things are incorrect, then obviously, I'm off base calling him a #### head.I don't think the 1st assumption has much chance of being wrong. The 2nd might be, but the real issue is that Collins made that decision for her. Maybe she would've done it anyway, but she never got to make the decision.

I strongly suspect that the 1st assumption isn't as black and white as you seem to think it is.

Oh great, now you're making this a racial issue too. Hiding something of that magnitude from a serious gf/partner/spouse is bad form IMO. If you're gay, or running drugs, or are actually married to someone else, these are things that someone should reveal in the course of their relationship. I think it's great that Collins came out and from all accounts he seems like a good guy otherwise, I just don't see him as someone who's a paragon of moral virtue.

I agree with you and pollard that he was hiding something from her. I just don't think it was as simple to him as you make it sound. I'm sure he had strong feelings for this woman. Stuff gets cloudy sometimes. When I was engaged to the woman I didn't marry I think I knew deep down that the woman wasn't the one for me and that the marriage would probably end badly. But that got muddled by a bunch of other stuff, including what I thought I was supposed to do at that age, what my friends were doing at that age, superficial stuff that I thought made us a decent match, and in my case the fact that I really enjoyed ####ing her. I'm guessing Collins was in a similar place, with the likely exception of that last item. And like I said, I don't think that excuses it, in my case or his. I regret it all the time. But I don't think it makes me a bad person (a bunch of other stuff makes me a bad person). And I don't think it makes him a bad person either, based on what I know. And yeah, maybe he's not a paragon of moral virtue, but I don't think anyone's saying he is. Courageous/heroic and virtuous are two different things. We don't need to look further than MLK to prove that.

 

[pollardsvision]

Agreed, Tobias and Sweeney.

 

[Toad_1234]

I sincerely hope that you find the courage to come to terms with your sexuality someday. Most of us won't judge you when you do come out or whatever you've gotta do. Good luck.

You realize that this kind of thing should not only be insulting to toad (as much as he deserves to be insulted, I know), but I would think to anyone who is actually gay, too.

Do we assume everyone who is in the KKK is actually a closeted black man? Is Al Qaeda actually a bunch of closeted Americans?

The whole idea is just silly to me. Is he an idiot? Yes. But that doesn't make him gay, just ignorant.

My comment wasn't meant to be an insult, because there's nothing wrong with being gay.

Often, the ones who rally the hardest against gay people are the ones who are, in fact, gay and fighting it. I really hope that if he is struggling with it, he knows that it's not the end of the world and that we'll be here to offer support if/when he comes to terms with it. :shrug;

I realize that when you don't have a leg to stand on, people must change the conversation/attack the messenger since they can't adequately defend the message. I've been married for well over a decade and I don't crusade against gay people. When that San Francisco offense lineman was arrested for attacking his boyfriend, I didn't think anything of it. I don't think anyone did. I don't agree with homosexuality on moral grounds and I don't want to hear about it.

Sorry if that upsets your little liberal apple cart.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I just can't fathom worshiping a god and belonging to a religious organization that teaches that there's something totally wrong with someone's private sex life. The whole concept is laughable, really.If that's the ultimate true religion and I'm going to hell for not believing in it, so be it; I don't want to be a part of that club, if that's what it takes.

So what other parts of our "private lives" does that extend to?

Does your spouse get a say in your "private sex life"? How about your parents while you are still a minor?

I don't know... This whole line of thinking just doesn't make sense to me.

I'm not really sure how to answer your first question, to be honest, cause I'm not sure what you're asking? Short answer is that I'm generally ok with people doing whatever they choose to do in their private lives (private lives, not just sex lives) so long as it doesn't harm others without their consent. Obviously "harm" is a loose term.

Of course your spouse/sexual partner has a say in your sex life? I'm not condoning rape (see above). I am in favor of consenting adults doing whatever they please in the bedroom so long as it doesn't harm others without their consent.

Of course parents should have some semblance of control over their minor child's private sex life. Their minor child is generally not capable ot making adequate adult decisions, and it's the parents' job to look out for their child's well-being.

What line of thinking are you having trouble with?

oh, I wasn't referring to the sex you had with your spouse. What right does your spouse have to tell you not to sleep with other people?

Here's the thing, and I realize I didn't make this point very well, we all for different reason give control over different parts of our "personal lives" for different reasons. If the Bible is true, God asks us to keep ourselves pure for specific reasons (generally emotional). Why? Because society on the whole is better when parents are together, in pairs, raising the kids they had together.

All this divorce and kids out of wedlock and all of that is bad for society, its bad for the kids, its emotionally damaging to the adults. God told us to flee sexual sins because of that. To not fornicate or commit adultery to stay away from those things. Because, overall, we'd be better off that way.

That doesn't mean you have to do it, it just means that we'd be better. We still have choices and options and can do what we want. That is what God is telling us in the Bible. He's giving us a way to get back into communion with Him (via the Gospel of Jesus Christ) and He is telling us the best way for us to live our lives the way that He (as our Creator) intended us to.

Assuming it is true, it isn't about control it is about helping us be our best.

And even if it isn't entirely true and is man made, it isn't entirely about control. By and large the things the Bible suggests are positive morals.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I sincerely hope that you find the courage to come to terms with your sexuality someday. Most of us won't judge you when you do come out or whatever you've gotta do. Good luck.

You realize that this kind of thing should not only be insulting to toad (as much as he deserves to be insulted, I know), but I would think to anyone who is actually gay, too.

Do we assume everyone who is in the KKK is actually a closeted black man? Is Al Qaeda actually a bunch of closeted Americans?

The whole idea is just silly to me. Is he an idiot? Yes. But that doesn't make him gay, just ignorant.

My comment wasn't meant to be an insult, because there's nothing wrong with being gay.

Often, the ones who rally the hardest against gay people are the ones who are, in fact, gay and fighting it. I really hope that if he is struggling with it, he knows that it's not the end of the world and that we'll be here to offer support if/when he comes to terms with it. :shrug;

I know that we all like to think this kind of statement is true (and its repeated about a lot of different things), but I just don't think its actually the case.

Like I said before, do you assume that every member of the KKK is a closeted black man?

That every misogynist is a closeted woman? (I'd say this one might be true just to make this kind of awful person angry, but I wouldn't want to insult women that way)

Just because you "hate" something or speak out against it, doesn't mean you secretly do it or want to do it or desire it. Its ridiculous and counter-productive to say otherwise.

 

[mad sweeney]

I sincerely hope that you find the courage to come to terms with your sexuality someday. Most of us won't judge you when you do come out or whatever you've gotta do. Good luck.

You realize that this kind of thing should not only be insulting to toad (as much as he deserves to be insulted, I know), but I would think to anyone who is actually gay, too. Do we assume everyone who is in the KKK is actually a closeted black man? Is Al Qaeda actually a bunch of closeted Americans? The whole idea is just silly to me. Is he an idiot? Yes. But that doesn't make him gay, just ignorant.

My comment wasn't meant to be an insult, because there's nothing wrong with being gay. Often, the ones who rally the hardest against gay people are the ones who are, in fact, gay and fighting it. I really hope that if he is struggling with it, he knows that it's not the end of the world and that we'll be here to offer support if/when he comes to terms with it. :shrug;

I realize that when you don't have a leg to stand on, people must change the conversation/attack the messenger since they can't adequately defend the message. I've been married for well over a decade and I don't crusade against gay people. When that San Francisco offense lineman was arrested for attacking his boyfriend, I didn't think anything of it. I don't think anyone did. I don't agree with homosexuality on moral grounds and I don't want to hear about it. Sorry if that upsets your little liberal apple cart.

This guy reminds me of the fake conservative alias Tim created.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I sincerely hope that you find the courage to come to terms with your sexuality someday. Most of us won't judge you when you do come out or whatever you've gotta do. Good luck.

You realize that this kind of thing should not only be insulting to toad (as much as he deserves to be insulted, I know), but I would think to anyone who is actually gay, too.

Do we assume everyone who is in the KKK is actually a closeted black man? Is Al Qaeda actually a bunch of closeted Americans?

The whole idea is just silly to me. Is he an idiot? Yes. But that doesn't make him gay, just ignorant.

My comment wasn't meant to be an insult, because there's nothing wrong with being gay.

Often, the ones who rally the hardest against gay people are the ones who are, in fact, gay and fighting it. I really hope that if he is struggling with it, he knows that it's not the end of the world and that we'll be here to offer support if/when he comes to terms with it. :shrug;

I know that we all like to think this kind of statement is true (and its repeated about a lot of different things), but I just don't think its actually the case.

Like I said before, do you assume that every member of the KKK is a closeted black man?

That every misogynist is a closeted woman? (I'd say this one might be true just to make this kind of awful person angry, but I wouldn't want to insult women that way)

Just because you "hate" something or speak out against it, doesn't mean you secretly do it or want to do it or desire it. Its ridiculous and counter-productive to say otherwise.

Let's not mention the fact the very same people that advocate for gay rights are also the first ones to use homosexuality as an insult to others who don't agree with them.

 

[Steve Tasker]

oh, I wasn't referring to the sex you had with your spouse. What right does your spouse have to tell you not to sleep with other people?

Here's the thing, and I realize I didn't make this point very well, we all for different reason give control over different parts of our "personal lives" for different reasons. If the Bible is true, God asks us to keep ourselves pure for specific reasons (generally emotional). Why? Because society on the whole is better when parents are together, in pairs, raising the kids they had together.

All this divorce and kids out of wedlock and all of that is bad for society, its bad for the kids, its emotionally damaging to the adults. God told us to flee sexual sins because of that. To not fornicate or commit adultery to stay away from those things. Because, overall, we'd be better off that way.

That doesn't mean you have to do it, it just means that we'd be better. We still have choices and options and can do what we want. That is what God is telling us in the Bible. He's giving us a way to get back into communion with Him (via the Gospel of Jesus Christ) and He is telling us the best way for us to live our lives the way that He (as our Creator) intended us to.

Assuming it is true, it isn't about control it is about helping us be our best.

And even if it isn't entirely true and is man made, it isn't entirely about control. By and large the things the Bible suggests are positive morals.

I don't really think your spouse has a right tell you not to sleep with other people. That said, most people enter into their marriage with either an explicit or implicit agreement that they won't sleep around. It's a matter of respect and honesty between the two parties, and it can cost someone a lot of $$$ in the eyes of the state should that agreement be broken. So the spouse may have a legal right to force you to not sleep around with the threat of divorce, but at a human rights level, I don't think the spouse has that right.

You keep saying "if the Bible is true", and that's fine because I know that's what you believe, but Biblical arguments don't really hold any weight at all with me. I'm not a religion-hater (far, far from it, actually), but citing the Bible as a legitimate source doesn't pass muster with me.

I agree that divorce can be harmful to the kids, no dispute there. But I also feel that couples "staying together for the kids" can be harmful as well in certain circumstances. I'm not really sure what that has to do with the discussion here, though.

Simply, I don't agree with your final point that "we'd be better off" not (eta: wording) fornicating. When all parties have consented, there's nothing wrong with any of those things. The problem is the way that people go about it. Too often, a person puts their selfish wants ahead of the well-being of their children or innocent spouse. And that's wrong, and harms innocents. But the physical act of sex between consenting adults isn't morally wrong or abhorrent, IMO.

 

[badmojo1006]

I sincerely hope that you find the courage to come to terms with your sexuality someday. Most of us won't judge you when you do come out or whatever you've gotta do. Good luck.

You realize that this kind of thing should not only be insulting to toad (as much as he deserves to be insulted, I know), but I would think to anyone who is actually gay, too. Do we assume everyone who is in the KKK is actually a closeted black man? Is Al Qaeda actually a bunch of closeted Americans? The whole idea is just silly to me. Is he an idiot? Yes. But that doesn't make him gay, just ignorant.

My comment wasn't meant to be an insult, because there's nothing wrong with being gay. Often, the ones who rally the hardest against gay people are the ones who are, in fact, gay and fighting it. I really hope that if he is struggling with it, he knows that it's not the end of the world and that we'll be here to offer support if/when he comes to terms with it. :shrug;

I realize that when you don't have a leg to stand on, people must change the conversation/attack the messenger since they can't adequately defend the message. I've been married for well over a decade and I don't crusade against gay people. When that San Francisco offense lineman was arrested for attacking his boyfriend, I didn't think anything of it. I don't think anyone did. I don't agree with homosexuality on moral grounds and I don't want to hear about it. Sorry if that upsets your little liberal apple cart.

This guy reminds me of the fake conservative alias Tim created.

Yeah I was trying to figure out what alias this was because this is waaay overboard

 

[TobiasFunke]

I sincerely hope that you find the courage to come to terms with your sexuality someday. Most of us won't judge you when you do come out or whatever you've gotta do. Good luck.

You realize that this kind of thing should not only be insulting to toad (as much as he deserves to be insulted, I know), but I would think to anyone who is actually gay, too. Do we assume everyone who is in the KKK is actually a closeted black man? Is Al Qaeda actually a bunch of closeted Americans? The whole idea is just silly to me. Is he an idiot? Yes. But that doesn't make him gay, just ignorant.

My comment wasn't meant to be an insult, because there's nothing wrong with being gay. Often, the ones who rally the hardest against gay people are the ones who are, in fact, gay and fighting it. I really hope that if he is struggling with it, he knows that it's not the end of the world and that we'll be here to offer support if/when he comes to terms with it. :shrug;

I realize that when you don't have a leg to stand on, people must change the conversation/attack the messenger since they can't adequately defend the message. I've been married for well over a decade and I don't crusade against gay people. When that San Francisco offense lineman was arrested for attacking his boyfriend, I didn't think anything of it. I don't think anyone did. I don't agree with homosexuality on moral grounds and I don't want to hear about it. Sorry if that upsets your little liberal apple cart.

This guy reminds me of the fake conservative alias Tim created.

Pretty good stuff. Weird that people are responding to him. Or maybe the responses are part of the fun? Gotta keep a dialogue going to get pure message board gold like this.

 

[UniAlias]

I have no desire to get involved in this debate, just want to state that the world would be a better place if there were more people like Tasker in it. I would have difficulty arguing with such narrow minded people without losing my cool, but Steve is a class act all around.

 

[rct]

I sincerely hope that you find the courage to come to terms with your sexuality someday. Most of us won't judge you when you do come out or whatever you've gotta do. Good luck.

You realize that this kind of thing should not only be insulting to toad (as much as he deserves to be insulted, I know), but I would think to anyone who is actually gay, too.

Do we assume everyone who is in the KKK is actually a closeted black man? Is Al Qaeda actually a bunch of closeted Americans?

The whole idea is just silly to me. Is he an idiot? Yes. But that doesn't make him gay, just ignorant.

My comment wasn't meant to be an insult, because there's nothing wrong with being gay.

Often, the ones who rally the hardest against gay people are the ones who are, in fact, gay and fighting it. I really hope that if he is struggling with it, he knows that it's not the end of the world and that we'll be here to offer support if/when he comes to terms with it. :shrug;

I know that we all like to think this kind of statement is true (and its repeated about a lot of different things), but I just don't think its actually the case.

Like I said before, do you assume that every member of the KKK is a closeted black man?

That every misogynist is a closeted woman? (I'd say this one might be true just to make this kind of awful person angry, but I wouldn't want to insult women that way)

Just because you "hate" something or speak out against it, doesn't mean you secretly do it or want to do it or desire it. Its ridiculous and counter-productive to say otherwise.

No and I don't assume that every dog is a closeted cat and that makes as much sense as your analogies.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I sincerely hope that you find the courage to come to terms with your sexuality someday. Most of us won't judge you when you do come out or whatever you've gotta do. Good luck.

You realize that this kind of thing should not only be insulting to toad (as much as he deserves to be insulted, I know), but I would think to anyone who is actually gay, too. Do we assume everyone who is in the KKK is actually a closeted black man? Is Al Qaeda actually a bunch of closeted Americans? The whole idea is just silly to me. Is he an idiot? Yes. But that doesn't make him gay, just ignorant.

My comment wasn't meant to be an insult, because there's nothing wrong with being gay. Often, the ones who rally the hardest against gay people are the ones who are, in fact, gay and fighting it. I really hope that if he is struggling with it, he knows that it's not the end of the world and that we'll be here to offer support if/when he comes to terms with it. :shrug;

I realize that when you don't have a leg to stand on, people must change the conversation/attack the messenger since they can't adequately defend the message. I've been married for well over a decade and I don't crusade against gay people. When that San Francisco offense lineman was arrested for attacking his boyfriend, I didn't think anything of it. I don't think anyone did. I don't agree with homosexuality on moral grounds and I don't want to hear about it. Sorry if that upsets your little liberal apple cart.

This guy reminds me of the fake conservative alias Tim created.

Pretty good stuff. Weird that people are responding to him. Or maybe the responses are part of the fun? Gotta keep a dialogue going to get pure message board gold like this.

I'm not sure where I see the "message board gold" you're talking about. What's wrong with his posts other than they don't agree with yours? Why the personal attacks?

 

[TobiasFunke]

I sincerely hope that you find the courage to come to terms with your sexuality someday. Most of us won't judge you when you do come out or whatever you've gotta do. Good luck.

You realize that this kind of thing should not only be insulting to toad (as much as he deserves to be insulted, I know), but I would think to anyone who is actually gay, too. Do we assume everyone who is in the KKK is actually a closeted black man? Is Al Qaeda actually a bunch of closeted Americans? The whole idea is just silly to me. Is he an idiot? Yes. But that doesn't make him gay, just ignorant.

My comment wasn't meant to be an insult, because there's nothing wrong with being gay. Often, the ones who rally the hardest against gay people are the ones who are, in fact, gay and fighting it. I really hope that if he is struggling with it, he knows that it's not the end of the world and that we'll be here to offer support if/when he comes to terms with it. :shrug;

I realize that when you don't have a leg to stand on, people must change the conversation/attack the messenger since they can't adequately defend the message. I've been married for well over a decade and I don't crusade against gay people. When that San Francisco offense lineman was arrested for attacking his boyfriend, I didn't think anything of it. I don't think anyone did. I don't agree with homosexuality on moral grounds and I don't want to hear about it. Sorry if that upsets your little liberal apple cart.

This guy reminds me of the fake conservative alias Tim created.

Pretty good stuff. Weird that people are responding to him. Or maybe the responses are part of the fun? Gotta keep a dialogue going to get pure message board gold like this.

I'm not sure where I see the "message board gold" you're talking about. What's wrong with his posts other than they don't agree with yours? Why the personal attacks?

They're hilariously over the top. Can you really not see that? He tied it to Bill Clinton's sex scandal, for Chrissakes. That's complete nonsense. Isn't that a good enough tell for you?

I'm gonna assume you can see that, and you're also in on the joke. It's better that way.

And I'm not sure where I personally attacked anyone.

 

[Steve Tasker]

I have no desire to get involved in this debate, just want to state that the world would be a better place if there were more people like Tasker in it. I would have difficulty arguing with such narrow minded people without losing my cool, but Steve is a class act all around.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I sincerely hope that you find the courage to come to terms with your sexuality someday. Most of us won't judge you when you do come out or whatever you've gotta do. Good luck.

You realize that this kind of thing should not only be insulting to toad (as much as he deserves to be insulted, I know), but I would think to anyone who is actually gay, too. Do we assume everyone who is in the KKK is actually a closeted black man? Is Al Qaeda actually a bunch of closeted Americans? The whole idea is just silly to me. Is he an idiot? Yes. But that doesn't make him gay, just ignorant.

My comment wasn't meant to be an insult, because there's nothing wrong with being gay. Often, the ones who rally the hardest against gay people are the ones who are, in fact, gay and fighting it. I really hope that if he is struggling with it, he knows that it's not the end of the world and that we'll be here to offer support if/when he comes to terms with it. :shrug;

I realize that when you don't have a leg to stand on, people must change the conversation/attack the messenger since they can't adequately defend the message. I've been married for well over a decade and I don't crusade against gay people. When that San Francisco offense lineman was arrested for attacking his boyfriend, I didn't think anything of it. I don't think anyone did. I don't agree with homosexuality on moral grounds and I don't want to hear about it. Sorry if that upsets your little liberal apple cart.

This guy reminds me of the fake conservative alias Tim created.

Pretty good stuff. Weird that people are responding to him. Or maybe the responses are part of the fun? Gotta keep a dialogue going to get pure message board gold like this.

I'm not sure where I see the "message board gold" you're talking about. What's wrong with his posts other than they don't agree with yours? Why the personal attacks?

They're hilariously over the top. Can you really not see that? I'm gonna assume you can see that and you're also in on the joke. It's better that way.

And I'm not sure where I personally attacked anyone.

Yeah, you're going to have to help me out here. Not trying to be a #### here, but I don't see where anything about this post is over the top:

I realize that when you don't have a leg to stand on, people must change the conversation/attack the messenger since they can't adequately defend the message. I've been married for well over a decade and I don't crusade against gay people. When that San Francisco offense lineman was arrested for attacking his boyfriend, I didn't think anything of it. I don't think anyone did. I don't agree with homosexuality on moral grounds and I don't want to hear about it.


Sorry if that upsets your little liberal apple cart.

Was it the "liberal apple cart"?

 

[TobiasFunke]

I sincerely hope that you find the courage to come to terms with your sexuality someday. Most of us won't judge you when you do come out or whatever you've gotta do. Good luck.

You realize that this kind of thing should not only be insulting to toad (as much as he deserves to be insulted, I know), but I would think to anyone who is actually gay, too. Do we assume everyone who is in the KKK is actually a closeted black man? Is Al Qaeda actually a bunch of closeted Americans? The whole idea is just silly to me. Is he an idiot? Yes. But that doesn't make him gay, just ignorant.

My comment wasn't meant to be an insult, because there's nothing wrong with being gay. Often, the ones who rally the hardest against gay people are the ones who are, in fact, gay and fighting it. I really hope that if he is struggling with it, he knows that it's not the end of the world and that we'll be here to offer support if/when he comes to terms with it. :shrug;

I realize that when you don't have a leg to stand on, people must change the conversation/attack the messenger since they can't adequately defend the message. I've been married for well over a decade and I don't crusade against gay people. When that San Francisco offense lineman was arrested for attacking his boyfriend, I didn't think anything of it. I don't think anyone did. I don't agree with homosexuality on moral grounds and I don't want to hear about it. Sorry if that upsets your little liberal apple cart.

This guy reminds me of the fake conservative alias Tim created.

Pretty good stuff. Weird that people are responding to him. Or maybe the responses are part of the fun? Gotta keep a dialogue going to get pure message board gold like this.

I'm not sure where I see the "message board gold" you're talking about. What's wrong with his posts other than they don't agree with yours? Why the personal attacks?

They're hilariously over the top. Can you really not see that? I'm gonna assume you can see that and you're also in on the joke. It's better that way.

And I'm not sure where I personally attacked anyone.

Yeah, you're going to have to help me out here. Not trying to be a #### here, but I don't see where anything about this post is over the top:

>

I realize that when you don't have a leg to stand on, people must change the conversation/attack the messenger since they can't adequately defend the message. I've been married for well over a decade and I don't crusade against gay people. When that San Francisco offense lineman was arrested for attacking his boyfriend, I didn't think anything of it. I don't think anyone did. I don't agree with homosexuality on moral grounds and I don't want to hear about it.


Sorry if that upsets your little liberal apple cart.

Was it the "liberal apple cart"?

That certainly helps, but for the really good stuff you really have to go back to his earlier post.

 

[Kal El]

Those of us in here who identify ourselves as Christian really shouldn't be surprised by the reaction we get for daring to stand up for our beliefs. Granted, it takes courage to stand up for an unpopular viewpoint, but we were told several times by Jesus that the world would hate us for our beliefs and association with Jesus.

That being said, whether a person is straight, gay, or has this thing for toasters, we are all equal in the eyes of God. We're all loved by Him, and despite our efforts, nothing we do will make Him love us less.

ETA: Misspelled "despite."

 

[TobiasFunke]

Those of us in here who identify ourselves as Christian really shouldn't be surprised by the reaction we get for daring to stand up for our beliefs. Granted, it takes courage to stand up for an unpopular viewpoint, but we were told several times by Jesus that the world would hate us for our beliefs and association with Jesus.

That being said, whether a person is straight, gay, or has this thing for toasters, we are all equal in the eyes of God. We're all loved by Him, and despite our efforts, nothing we do will make Him love us less.

ETA: Misspelled "despite."

Nobody is "standing up for their beliefs," my friend, and there's nothing courageous about it. They're anonymously posting on a message board that they disapprove of something other people do and feel. I don't know what that is, but it's sure as heck not courage.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Those of us in here who identify ourselves as Christian really shouldn't be surprised by the reaction we get for daring to stand up for our beliefs. Granted, it takes courage to stand up for an unpopular viewpoint, but we were told several times by Jesus that the world would hate us for our beliefs and association with Jesus.

That being said, whether a person is straight, gay, or has this thing for toasters, we are all equal in the eyes of God. We're all loved by Him, and despite our efforts, nothing we do will make Him love us less.

ETA: Misspelled "despite."

Not really a practicing Christian, but I agree with your post.

The problem I have from the left, though, is not that they attack Christianity every chance they get, it's that they don't go after Islam with the same ferocity when it's a thousand times worse as a religion.

Frankly, I think they don't have the balls. It's almost like the bully in the schoolyard - pick on the harmless ones because they are the easiest and won't fight back too much. You don't go after the guy who will chop your head off if you make fun of him because, after all, that would involve you putting some skin in the game.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Those of us in here who identify ourselves as Christian really shouldn't be surprised by the reaction we get for daring to stand up for our beliefs. Granted, it takes courage to stand up for an unpopular viewpoint, but we were told several times by Jesus that the world would hate us for our beliefs and association with Jesus.

That being said, whether a person is straight, gay, or has this thing for toasters, we are all equal in the eyes of God. We're all loved by Him, and despite our efforts, nothing we do will make Him love us less.

ETA: Misspelled "despite."

Nobody is "standing up for your beliefs," my friend, and there's nothing courageous about it. They're anonymously posting on a message board that they disapprove of something other people do and feel. I don't know what that is, but it's sure as heck not courage.

By "real courage" do you mean coming out as gay after your career is over and you need something to keep it going? To me, real courage would have been coming out when you're just getting into the league, or even at the height of your career. He's got nothing to lose now, so where is the "courage"?

 

[Kal El]

Those of us in here who identify ourselves as Christian really shouldn't be surprised by the reaction we get for daring to stand up for our beliefs. Granted, it takes courage to stand up for an unpopular viewpoint, but we were told several times by Jesus that the world would hate us for our beliefs and association with Jesus.

That being said, whether a person is straight, gay, or has this thing for toasters, we are all equal in the eyes of God. We're all loved by Him, and despite our efforts, nothing we do will make Him love us less.

ETA: Misspelled "despite."

Nobody is "standing up for your beliefs," my friend, and there's nothing courageous about it. They're anonymously posting on a message board that they disapprove of something other people do and feel. I don't know what that is, but it's sure as heck not courage.

By "real courage" do you mean coming out as gay after your career is over and you need something to keep it going? To me, real courage would have been coming out when you're just getting into the league, or even at the height of your career. He's got nothing to lose now, so where is the "courage"?

The "courage" is because he's daring to tell the truth about his sexuality, because all of those bible-thumping backwoods Christians will hate him for it, so we should show that we're more civilized than those rednecks, and accept him for who he is. At least that's the vibe I'm getting from the media.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Those of us in here who identify ourselves as Christian really shouldn't be surprised by the reaction we get for daring to stand up for our beliefs. Granted, it takes courage to stand up for an unpopular viewpoint, but we were told several times by Jesus that the world would hate us for our beliefs and association with Jesus.

That being said, whether a person is straight, gay, or has this thing for toasters, we are all equal in the eyes of God. We're all loved by Him, and despite our efforts, nothing we do will make Him love us less.

ETA: Misspelled "despite."

Not really a practicing Christian, but I agree with your post.

The problem I have from the left, though, is not that they attack Christianity every chance they get, it's that they don't go after Islam with the same ferocity when it's a thousand times worse as a religion.

Frankly, I think they don't have the balls. It's almost like the bully in the schoolyard - pick on the harmless ones because they are the easiest and won't fight back too much. You don't go after the guy who will chop your head off if you make fun of him because, after all, that would involve you putting some skin in the game.

People are voluntarily posting about their beliefs and their faith. They're bringing the conversation to the thread, not vice versa. The reason there's no comments about Muslims or other faiths here (there are a couple, but whatever) is that those people aren't posting here. If they were, I would happily point out that their faith's position on this issue is bigoted and wrong and that they really should question it.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Those of us in here who identify ourselves as Christian really shouldn't be surprised by the reaction we get for daring to stand up for our beliefs. Granted, it takes courage to stand up for an unpopular viewpoint, but we were told several times by Jesus that the world would hate us for our beliefs and association with Jesus. That being said, whether a person is straight, gay, or has this thing for toasters, we are all equal in the eyes of God. We're all loved by Him, and despite our efforts, nothing we do will make Him love us less. ETA: Misspelled "despite."

Not really a practicing Christian, but I agree with your post. The problem I have from the left, though, is not that they attack Christianity every chance they get, it's that they don't go after Islam with the same ferocity when it's a thousand times worse as a religion. Frankly, I think they don't have the balls. It's almost like the bully in the schoolyard - pick on the harmless ones because they are the easiest and won't fight back too much. You don't go after the guy who will chop your head off if you make fun of him because, after all, that would involve you putting some skin in the game.

I wouldn't speak for everyone on the left, but I only have an issue with Christianity when it is used as a justification for social policy that I don't agree with. People can think whatever they want is a sin, just don't use that individual belief to deny others liberty. Islam has a worse track record for this, obviously, but it has zero bearing on US social policy.

 

[Kal El]

Those of us in here who identify ourselves as Christian really shouldn't be surprised by the reaction we get for daring to stand up for our beliefs. Granted, it takes courage to stand up for an unpopular viewpoint, but we were told several times by Jesus that the world would hate us for our beliefs and association with Jesus.

That being said, whether a person is straight, gay, or has this thing for toasters, we are all equal in the eyes of God. We're all loved by Him, and despite our efforts, nothing we do will make Him love us less.

ETA: Misspelled "despite."

Not really a practicing Christian, but I agree with your post.

The problem I have from the left, though, is not that they attack Christianity every chance they get, it's that they don't go after Islam with the same ferocity when it's a thousand times worse as a religion.

Frankly, I think they don't have the balls. It's almost like the bully in the schoolyard - pick on the harmless ones because they are the easiest and won't fight back too much. You don't go after the guy who will chop your head off if you make fun of him because, after all, that would involve you putting some skin in the game.

They still think we're just as uncivilized as the followers of Islam, if not more so.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Those of us in here who identify ourselves as Christian really shouldn't be surprised by the reaction we get for daring to stand up for our beliefs. Granted, it takes courage to stand up for an unpopular viewpoint, but we were told several times by Jesus that the world would hate us for our beliefs and association with Jesus.

That being said, whether a person is straight, gay, or has this thing for toasters, we are all equal in the eyes of God. We're all loved by Him, and despite our efforts, nothing we do will make Him love us less.

ETA: Misspelled "despite."

Nobody is "standing up for your beliefs," my friend, and there's nothing courageous about it. They're anonymously posting on a message board that they disapprove of something other people do and feel. I don't know what that is, but it's sure as heck not courage.

By "real courage" do you mean coming out as gay after your career is over and you need something to keep it going? To me, real courage would have been coming out when you're just getting into the league, or even at the height of your career. He's got nothing to lose now, so where is the "courage"?

The "courage" is because he's daring to tell the truth about his sexuality, because all of those bible-thumping backwoods Christians will hate him for it, so we should show that we're more civilized than those rednecks, and accept him for who he is. At least that's the vibe I'm getting from the media.

Really?

Where exactly have you seen that reaction other than from, say, Westbero Baptist?

All I've seen is an endless stream of congratulations and an instant demonizing of anyone who dares say anything that isn't 100% congratulatory.

 

[Eephus]

Those of us in here who identify ourselves as Christian really shouldn't be surprised by the reaction we get for daring to stand up for our beliefs. Granted, it takes courage to stand up for an unpopular viewpoint, but we were told several times by Jesus that the world would hate us for our beliefs and association with Jesus.

That being said, whether a person is straight, gay, or has this thing for toasters, we are all equal in the eyes of God. We're all loved by Him, and despite our efforts, nothing we do will make Him love us less.

ETA: Misspelled "despite."

Not really a practicing Christian, but I agree with your post.

The problem I have from the left, though, is not that they attack Christianity every chance they get, it's that they don't go after Islam with the same ferocity when it's a thousand times worse as a religion.

Frankly, I think they don't have the balls. It's almost like the bully in the schoolyard - pick on the harmless ones because they are the easiest and won't fight back too much. You don't go after the guy who will chop your head off if you make fun of him because, after all, that would involve you putting some skin in the game.

They still think we're just as uncivilized as the followers of Islam, if not more so.

Who is they?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Those of us in here who identify ourselves as Christian really shouldn't be surprised by the reaction we get for daring to stand up for our beliefs. Granted, it takes courage to stand up for an unpopular viewpoint, but we were told several times by Jesus that the world would hate us for our beliefs and association with Jesus.

That being said, whether a person is straight, gay, or has this thing for toasters, we are all equal in the eyes of God. We're all loved by Him, and despite our efforts, nothing we do will make Him love us less.

ETA: Misspelled "despite."

Nobody is "standing up for your beliefs," my friend, and there's nothing courageous about it. They're anonymously posting on a message board that they disapprove of something other people do and feel. I don't know what that is, but it's sure as heck not courage.

By "real courage" do you mean coming out as gay after your career is over and you need something to keep it going? To me, real courage would have been coming out when you're just getting into the league, or even at the height of your career. He's got nothing to lose now, so where is the "courage"?

What the hell are you talking about? It was Kal El's choice of words, not mine. Why are you asking me what I meant when he said it? And why is the phrase "real courage" in quotes when that phrase doesn't appear in my post or his?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Here's a nice read that I think is applicable given the recent turn this thread has taken.

 

[Kal El]

Those of us in here who identify ourselves as Christian really shouldn't be surprised by the reaction we get for daring to stand up for our beliefs. Granted, it takes courage to stand up for an unpopular viewpoint, but we were told several times by Jesus that the world would hate us for our beliefs and association with Jesus.

That being said, whether a person is straight, gay, or has this thing for toasters, we are all equal in the eyes of God. We're all loved by Him, and despite our efforts, nothing we do will make Him love us less.

ETA: Misspelled "despite."

Nobody is "standing up for your beliefs," my friend, and there's nothing courageous about it. They're anonymously posting on a message board that they disapprove of something other people do and feel. I don't know what that is, but it's sure as heck not courage.

By "real courage" do you mean coming out as gay after your career is over and you need something to keep it going? To me, real courage would have been coming out when you're just getting into the league, or even at the height of your career. He's got nothing to lose now, so where is the "courage"?

The "courage" is because he's daring to tell the truth about his sexuality, because all of those bible-thumping backwoods Christians will hate him for it, so we should show that we're more civilized than those rednecks, and accept him for who he is. At least that's the vibe I'm getting from the media.

Really?

Where exactly have you seen that reaction other than from, say, Westbero Baptist?

All I've seen is an endless stream of congratulations and an instant demonizing of anyone who dares say anything that isn't 100% congratulatory.

Why should we be demonizing anyone? The man has made his own choice, and it should be left at that, I feel. Why is someone's sexuality such a big deal in the first place? Hey everyone, I love women! See, nobody cares.

 

[dgreen]

Here's a nice read that I think is applicable given the recent turn this thread has taken.

Yeah, that's the article you posted earlier (with a quote) that led to the discussion of "fighting back". Then that led to basically discussing to who started it all and then things went in 50 different directions.

Christians might say the Gays started it with their parades and push for marriage. Gays might say Christians started it with their inconsistent treatment of homosexuality compared to other sins.

To me, it really doesn't matter who started it. Both sides really need to do a better job of understanding each other.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Those of us in here who identify ourselves as Christian really shouldn't be surprised by the reaction we get for daring to stand up for our beliefs. Granted, it takes courage to stand up for an unpopular viewpoint, but we were told several times by Jesus that the world would hate us for our beliefs and association with Jesus.

That being said, whether a person is straight, gay, or has this thing for toasters, we are all equal in the eyes of God. We're all loved by Him, and despite our efforts, nothing we do will make Him love us less.

ETA: Misspelled "despite."

Nobody is "standing up for your beliefs," my friend, and there's nothing courageous about it. They're anonymously posting on a message board that they disapprove of something other people do and feel. I don't know what that is, but it's sure as heck not courage.

By "real courage" do you mean coming out as gay after your career is over and you need something to keep it going? To me, real courage would have been coming out when you're just getting into the league, or even at the height of your career. He's got nothing to lose now, so where is the "courage"?

The "courage" is because he's daring to tell the truth about his sexuality, because all of those bible-thumping backwoods Christians will hate him for it, so we should show that we're more civilized than those rednecks, and accept him for who he is. At least that's the vibe I'm getting from the media.

Really?

Where exactly have you seen that reaction other than from, say, Westbero Baptist?

All I've seen is an endless stream of congratulations and an instant demonizing of anyone who dares say anything that isn't 100% congratulatory.

Why should we be demonizing anyone? The man has made his own choice, and it should be left at that, I feel. Why is someone's sexuality such a big deal in the first place? Hey everyone, I love women! See, nobody cares.

So you don't think it is courageous at all then, right?