you are looking at it the wrong way. Yes I realize there was one black player in the major leagues althought there were negro teams playing baseball and those players, like robinson faced hatred and fear by white americans because of them being different.
Well since news stations and sports stations and newspapers reported on it...its a story. Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
...right, and that constitutes "the rest of the world"?...you really should choose your words more wisely. ...and NO ONE said it was "not a story"...for the umpteenth time, the question and the crux of this thread is why it should be a story.
This guy loved fucking ducks & one day he was caught & the guy said "why didn't you tell anyone that you loved fucking ducks?" And he replied, "nobody asked me".
not for nothing, but a gay person currently resides in the white house... and no this absolutely shouldn't be a story... not by him, not by anyone else... he is what he is... it shouldn't have a bearing whatsoever on anything... can he play or not? will be play well in the NFL or not?
Technically, sexual orientation is not a protected class, so no legal definition of discrimination can exist based on personal lifestyle choices. Now you go find the "gay gene" and prove to me that scientifically that it isn't a choice, and I'll stand corrected. From protected classes to understanding the differences between rights and privileges, these are major stories the world of media need to address. Look, I reject all the tolerance and diversity crap. We have always been a melting pot, but diversity sensitivity is the inhibitor to almagation. And tolerance fly's in the face of my basic rights. My religion, and the overwhelming consensus of the people on this planet believe that sodomy is a sin and anathema to society. How about the LGBT community be tolerant of the majority's beliefs? In all modern societies, a persons actions do not define that person. If I'm a sinner, I am not the walking incarnate of that sin. Even a murderer is not the embodiment of murder, he/she is a person that has committed a grave crime. We put the person on trial for the act, not the act itself. But look at the gay community, they have pulled the most amazing con on society....they have morphed both the act with the individual. To be gay is both action and individual. Therefore if you reject gayness, you are a bigot, they do not allow you to separate the act/lifestyle from the person. This is the point of clarification everyone here is making, and where I think Al is not connecting. I hope this makes sense to folks.
...yup, and as I like to say, unfortunately, we have become "The United States of the Offended". ...also, the media decides what is newsworthy, not us and they decide what to spoon feed us. And the media's motivation is to make money and blatant sensationalism such as this is what spawns blind interest in these stories...but then again, so does The National Inquirer. ...as far as you referencing whether being gay is a choice vs something that gay people are somehow predisposed with at birth, I'd also like to see evidence of this "gay gene"...in fact, I'd like to take it a step further and ask another question; If the difference between homoseuality and heterosexuality is truly a genetic difference, how in the hell do we account for people who are "bisexual"?
Ron I have long felt this way & have stood by that. I do not nor will I ever believe that one is BORN gay. I may have told this story before but it bares repeating. I had a VERY good friend growing up, played ball together & double dated several times. As what often happens as we got older we grew apart. Fast forward 20 years I get off the train at 14th st & Union square and there's this guy flaring his arms like he's swating flies & screaming (I mean screatching) my name. You guessed it, it was my friend. I had to ask & I was blunt "What the fuck happened to you?" His response, "About 10 years ago I got drunk one night, experimented & here I am." In other words, he DECIDED what he preferred. I asked him if he was happy, he said he was & that was all that mattered. It was his CHOICE. Gay gene.....my ass. (no pun intended)
where is the "gay" gene...is there a straight gene im not aware of? What your friend may feel is what came natural to him Rick, but throughout his life society told him he was like women and he was fearful of allowing himself to feel what came natural to him. Being drunk he lost his fear of having to do what society told him to do. There are scientist who believe there IS something in genetics that one can be born gay... http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...finally-unlocked-puzzle-of-why-people-are-gay
Came NATURAL to him? and it took him 30 years to find it out? Are you really serious? C'mon, you're kidding right? Al please you've really got to let this go. there is no straight gene, there is no gay gene. There are just human gene's & we as HUMANS decide on our on lives. Like my friend did. He experimented & made a conscience decision that he liked men more then woman. Was 40 year old Mark born with an annoying lisp or did he decide one day that he just wanted to sound like he had a fucking speech immpediment. Oh wait I know it just took Mark 40 years to have what came natural to him, a lisp. Seriously Al, I have known MANY gay people in my lifetime, lived in the east village for several years & NEWSFLASH! not one of them ever thought they were born gay. On the contrary. All the stories I heard was like my childhood friend. They DECIDED who they wanted to be with & who made them happy. Whether it was with there own sex or both, bottom line was they DECIDED. Sorry my friend I really hate to burst this bubble you've been living in or was led to believe but it is what it is. Now..........how about them Yankees?
...then I'll ask once again, how do you explain or account for bi-sexuals ? ...and yes, there is real evidence of a "straight gene"...they are called your parents.
...lol...you really should take the time to read your own "evidence". "The hereditary link of homosexuality has long been established, but scientists knew it was not a strictly genetic link, because there are many pairs of identical twins who have differing sexualities. Scientists from the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis say homosexuality seems to have an epigenetic, not a genetic link." ...please, for your own sake, just stop.
so you take my words and spin it around...prove me wrong. prove the article I posted wrong. never in the history of the world has genes mutated from the original state I take it...really...if that was the case shouldn't we all be amoebas? and why not quote more of the paragraph...its called reading more than what you just want to read.... ""These epi-marks protect fathers and mothers from excess or underexposure to testosterone — when they carry over to opposite-sex offspring, it can cause the masculinization of females or the feminization of males," Rice says, which can lead to a child becoming gay. Rice notes that these markers are "highly variable" and that only strong epi-marks will result in a homosexual offspring" So in other words there are scientists who believe that it is not strictly a CHOICE that there is reason to believe that the mixture of traits from the father and mother can enhance the possibility of a gay child.
...what are you babbling about now?...do you even know at this point? ...what did I supposedly "spin around"? ...now, can you or your googling explain or account for bi-sexuals or not?...yes or no? If you can, prove it...if not, it blows your whole theory out of the water.
...lol...you want me to disprove a theory?....and the article is in fact a "theory"...do you understand the different between "theory" and "proof"? ...now are you going to answer my question or not?
so bi sexuals is your answer to its impossible to be born gay... how are you proving your point other than...because I say so bullshit. love how you deal with absolutes yet you can not prove there isn't a link in combination of genes and inherent traits that could allow for an individual to be born one sex yet emotionally believe they should have been born the other. nope impossible...they just decided hey I like xx over xy or xy over xx. it has to be. so be it then
...and you can't prove there IS a genetic correlation...all you have is your opinion and a link to a theory, and that's it. ...and sorry, but I don't need an "answer" because it was you who insisted there was "proof" of genetic predisposition of someone being born gay. The onus is on you, and again, your proof is nothing but a theory...learn the difference. ...are you finally going to answer the simple question or not?...IF, according to you, there is a gene that predisposes homosexuality, how do you explain or account for bisexuality?
