Mizz's Sam

[Ukcanes1]

We're born a skin color and that's fact. We don't know if people are born *** and there are arguments on both sides of the fence w/ that.
I don't understand why homosexuality gets compared to black-white-skin color stuff because they aren't the same.

The analogy of black/white can be used because someone does not "choose" to be black, it's either you are or you are not. Very similar to you "choosing" to be heterosexual or you "choosing" to be left handed. You really don't "choose", you are just born. Majority of the scientific community agrees this to be the case.

And just for arguments sake, what if homosexuality was a "choice"? Why should anyone be attacked or ridiculed for their "choice"? Does it affect you or yours?

So the majority of the scientific community agrees people are born ***? Interdasting.
Our anatomy would seem to disagree with that but what the **** do I know.

Nope they shouldn't be attacked or ridiculed. Like Pac said "only God can judge me."

 

[L A M P]

It's sad when cogent arguments are lost on those who can't think analytically. ilovelamp reeks of homophobia. and what he doesn't understand is his homophobia is no different from racism; the same bigotry and hate that he so ardently opposes (when it's convenient for HIM), he displays towards those different than he is. Homophobia and racism come from the same part of an ignorant, typically under educated, persons brain. It makes u look incredibly foolish as a black man to be acting the same way the confederates did. It's embarrassing actually.

The only thing cogent about your argument is that you are very bad at using analogies.

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

I would disagree as I understood exactly what he was trying to compare. It's ok to admit you didn't understand his analogy. Which part was insanely idiotic or incoherent?

What's interesting is that psychologist who have studied rage and hatred against homosexuality found that motives for antigay sentiment include male bonding, proving heterosexuality, and purging secret homosexual desires.

I didn't see a response to the question though:

Does that apply to you? Are you a black person who thinks homosexuality is disgusting? Not balls in your face, just homosexuality in general?

It's hard to go back & forth from being serious to trolling so excuse me for missing the question. My last response was a quote from Billy Madison.. Didn't realize it would be taken literally. I was just pointing out he keeps repeating nonsense. I understand fully where he was trying to go but that doesn't mean it was a good analogy. Agree to disagree. As for the psychology part, are you simply stating random findings? I must have missed the rage & hatred for homosexuals ITT. Not black, uneducated or a homophobe.. Sorry to disappoint. It's hard to answer the bold honestly. Not sure it can be excluded. Do I hate *** couples? Absolutely not. Do I have *** friends? Yes I do. Does it bother me to hang out with them? Not at all. Can it become a little weird to see them being intimate? Yep, I've felt uncomfortable before. Regardless, I just don't see how any of that makes me a bigot.

 

[niner]

I thought this was the football board? You ****s take this to the wez. We don't care about this convo on the Miami hurricane football board

Someone cared enough to start a thread to discuss what is going on in the sports world.

If you don't care about the conversation, why would you open the thread and make a post in it? Personally, when a thread doesn't interest me, I don't open it much less post in it.

Does the conversation make you feel uncomfortable?

 

[niner]

It's sad when cogent arguments are lost on those who can't think analytically. ilovelamp reeks of homophobia. and what he doesn't understand is his homophobia is no different from racism; the same bigotry and hate that he so ardently opposes (when it's convenient for HIM), he displays towards those different than he is. Homophobia and racism come from the same part of an ignorant, typically under educated, persons brain. It makes u look incredibly foolish as a black man to be acting the same way the confederates did. It's embarrassing actually.

The only thing cogent about your argument is that you are very bad at using analogies.

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

I would disagree as I understood exactly what he was trying to compare. It's ok to admit you didn't understand his analogy. Which part was insanely idiotic or incoherent?

What's interesting is that psychologist who have studied rage and hatred against homosexuality found that motives for antigay sentiment include male bonding, proving heterosexuality, and purging secret homosexual desires.

I didn't see a response to the question though:

Does that apply to you? Are you a black person who thinks homosexuality is disgusting? Not balls in your face, just homosexuality in general?

It's hard to go back & forth from being serious to trolling so excuse me for missing the question. My last response was a quote from Billy Madison.. Didn't realize it would be taken literally. I was just pointing out he keeps repeating nonsense. I understand fully where he was trying to go but that doesn't mean it was a good analogy. Agree to disagree. As for the psychology part, are you simply stating random findings? I must have missed the rage & hatred for homosexuals ITT. Not black, uneducated or a homophobe.. Sorry to disappoint. It's hard to answer the bold honestly. Not sure it can be excluded. Do I hate *** couples? Absolutely not. Do I have *** friends? Yes I do. Does it bother me to hang out with them? Not at all. Can it become a little weird to see them being intimate? Yep, I've felt uncomfortable before. Regardless, I just don't see how any of that makes me a bigot.

I see, so you were just trying to be funny, no problem, I get it now.

To answer your question on the studies, it's not random. Take some time to read this article, its one of many that have been published.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/roots/franklin.html

 

[GrozDozer]

If someone said we had a *** on our roster, who would be your guys' first guest?

AJ Highsmith. Looked like he was trying to hug and kiss dudes while on the field last year.

 

[OzarCaneSaw]

White people in the south in the 1960s found black people drinking from the same water fountain as them to be "gross" and "awful". Was that an acceptable position? I mean after all, the white people weren't black, so it's "natural" for them to be "disgusted" by them. Right?

So anal penetration (mano e mano) is comparable to drinking from the same water fountain? Do you actually belive what you are saying? I'm a bigot because *** *** is gross to me? Like, for real?

You seriously cannot be this ignorant? The analogy he is using is to compare how "whites" used to hate on "blacks" simply because they were different than they were, i.e. being black instead of white. The comparison would be "straight" people hating on "***" people simply because they are different than them. i.e. being *** instead of straight.

Not true whatsoever. There was not any particular behavior that elicited hatred towards blacks by bigoted whites. They hated them just because of the color of their skin. W/r/t homosexuality, those who oppose the behavior (or find the behavior "gross" or "awful") are not exhibiting hatred against anyone but rather disagreement with certain behavior. To compare the two is disingenuous and an affront to the Civil Rights movement.

 

[OzarCaneSaw]

It's sad when cogent arguments are lost on those who can't think analytically. ilovelamp reeks of homophobia. and what he doesn't understand is his homophobia is no different from racism; the same bigotry and hate that he so ardently opposes (when it's convenient for HIM), he displays towards those different than he is. Homophobia and racism come from the same part of an ignorant, typically under educated, persons brain. It makes u look incredibly foolish as a black man to be acting the same way the confederates did. It's embarrassing actually.

The only thing cogent about your argument is that you are very bad at using analogies.

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

I would disagree as I understood exactly what he was trying to compare. It's ok to admit you didn't understand his analogy. Which part was insanely idiotic or incoherent?

What's interesting is that psychologist who have studied rage and hatred against homosexuality found that motives for antigay sentiment include male bonding, proving heterosexuality, and purging secret homosexual desires.

I didn't see a response to the question though:

Does that apply to you? Are you a black person who thinks homosexuality is disgusting? Not balls in your face, just homosexuality in general?

So, are you actually saying that psychologists who study rage/hatred against homosexuality believe that those who exhibit that sort of response to that behavior are in fact *** themselves? Seriously? You got a link of any sort for these studies?

Keep in mind, you can't have homosexual desires without being a homosexual. It's the way you are after all...

 

[Scoot Scoot]

White people in the south in the 1960s found black people drinking from the same water fountain as them to be "gross" and "awful". Was that an acceptable position? I mean after all, the white people weren't black, so it's "natural" for them to be "disgusted" by them. Right?

So anal penetration (mano e mano) is comparable to drinking from the same water fountain? Do you actually belive what you are saying? I'm a bigot because *** *** is gross to me? Like, for real?

You seriously cannot be this ignorant? The analogy he is using is to compare how "whites" used to hate on "blacks" simply because they were different than they were, i.e. being black instead of white. The comparison would be "straight" people hating on "***" people simply because they are different than them. i.e. being *** instead of straight.

Not true whatsoever. There was not any particular behavior that elicited hatred towards blacks by bigoted whites. They hated them just because of the color of their skin. W/r/t homosexuality, those who oppose the behavior (or find the behavior "gross" or "awful") are not exhibiting hatred against anyone but rather disagreement with certain behavior. To compare the two is disingenuous and an affront to the Civil Rights movement.

The law would disagree with you, fwiw.

 

[niner]

It's sad when cogent arguments are lost on those who can't think analytically. ilovelamp reeks of homophobia. and what he doesn't understand is his homophobia is no different from racism; the same bigotry and hate that he so ardently opposes (when it's convenient for HIM), he displays towards those different than he is. Homophobia and racism come from the same part of an ignorant, typically under educated, persons brain. It makes u look incredibly foolish as a black man to be acting the same way the confederates did. It's embarrassing actually.

The only thing cogent about your argument is that you are very bad at using analogies.

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

I would disagree as I understood exactly what he was trying to compare. It's ok to admit you didn't understand his analogy. Which part was insanely idiotic or incoherent?

What's interesting is that psychologist who have studied rage and hatred against homosexuality found that motives for antigay sentiment include male bonding, proving heterosexuality, and purging secret homosexual desires.

I didn't see a response to the question though:

Does that apply to you? Are you a black person who thinks homosexuality is disgusting? Not balls in your face, just homosexuality in general?

So, are you actually saying that psychologists who study rage/hatred against homosexuality believe that those who exhibit that sort of response to that behavior are in fact *** themselves? Seriously? You got a link of any sort for these studies?

Keep in mind, you can't have homosexual desires without being a homosexual. It's the way you are after all...

I'll let you catch up to the thread so you can see the link. Once you are done reading it, come back, post your opinion.

 

[NVA CANE]

You wanna be *** be ***, you wanna be straight be straight. Either way keep it in the privacy of your home. Don't force anyone to accept either lifestyle and move on. And the *** issue is not equivalent to what black people went through in this country, the discrimination they faced and continue to face, or the struggle they had to go through to overcome that discrimination and outright hatred.

 

[OzarCaneSaw]

White people in the south in the 1960s found black people drinking from the same water fountain as them to be "gross" and "awful". Was that an acceptable position? I mean after all, the white people weren't black, so it's "natural" for them to be "disgusted" by them. Right?

So anal penetration (mano e mano) is comparable to drinking from the same water fountain? Do you actually belive what you are saying? I'm a bigot because *** *** is gross to me? Like, for real?

You seriously cannot be this ignorant? The analogy he is using is to compare how "whites" used to hate on "blacks" simply because they were different than they were, i.e. being black instead of white. The comparison would be "straight" people hating on "***" people simply because they are different than them. i.e. being *** instead of straight.

Not true whatsoever. There was not any particular behavior that elicited hatred towards blacks by bigoted whites. They hated them just because of the color of their skin. W/r/t homosexuality, those who oppose the behavior (or find the behavior "gross" or "awful") are not exhibiting hatred against anyone but rather disagreement with certain behavior. To compare the two is disingenuous and an affront to the Civil Rights movement.

The law would disagree with you, fwiw.

Do explain. Keep in mind, we're not talking discrimination. We're talking about hatred of someone based upon color of their skin and hatred/disgust of certain behavior.

/this should be interesting.

 

[niner]

OzarCaneSaw - did you locate the link you were in search of?

Here it is, just in case it was missed.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/roots/franklin.html

 

[Scoot Scoot]

So anal penetration (mano e mano) is comparable to drinking from the same water fountain? Do you actually belive what you are saying? I'm a bigot because *** *** is gross to me? Like, for real?

You seriously cannot be this ignorant? The analogy he is using is to compare how "whites" used to hate on "blacks" simply because they were different than they were, i.e. being black instead of white. The comparison would be "straight" people hating on "***" people simply because they are different than them. i.e. being *** instead of straight.

Not true whatsoever. There was not any particular behavior that elicited hatred towards blacks by bigoted whites. They hated them just because of the color of their skin. W/r/t homosexuality, those who oppose the behavior (or find the behavior "gross" or "awful") are not exhibiting hatred against anyone but rather disagreement with certain behavior. To compare the two is disingenuous and an affront to the Civil Rights movement.

The law would disagree with you, fwiw.

Do explain. Keep in mind, we're not talking discrimination. We're talking about hatred of someone based upon color of their skin and hatred/disgust of certain behavior.

/this should be interesting.

Both have equal protection under the law. That was my point. I don't know how you make the leap to "an affront to the Civil Rights movement" when the very Act that provided protection to African-Americans following the Civil Rights movement is the same one that now provides protection to sexual orientation. So you're assertion that comparison of the two is disingenuous and an affront is refuted by the law, regardless of the individual's reason for the hatred.

Also keep in mind that I did not make the original analogy.

 

[AntwanJ306]

Both have equal protection under the law. That was my point. I don't know how you make the leap to "an affront to the Civil Rights movement" when the very Act that provided protection to African-Americans following the Civil Rights movement is the same one that now provides protection to sexual orientation. So you're assertion that comparison of the two is disingenuous and an affront is refuted by the law, regardless of the individual's reason for the hatred.

Also keep in mind that I did not make the original analogy.

Say what? Could you provide the link which shows that the Civil Rights Act list of protected groups now includes sexual orientation?

 

[TheProgram]

As much as many of you don't care about his sexual orientation, a football player doing this is a big deal. I guarantee he is not coming out because he just needs everyone to know that he likes guys. He is doing it because it truly can make a difference for other people in the future. A *** kid growing up may love the sport of football, but because there were never any *** players in the NFL, that kid may think that he doesn't belong and shouldn't play the sport. But now, a *** kid can say "Michael Sam is *** and playing football, so why cant I?"



It may sound cheesy, but its the truth. I think its pretty cool that Sam did this and I hope that more *** players come out so we can truly get to a point where being *** or straight truly doesn't matter. Football is football

Canes581, you have a brain and are rational. Be careful around here. Those are 2 very dangerous things to have on this board. If a guy can play ball, I could give a **** less about what he does in the bedroom, what kind of "character" he has, and all the other bull**** fake intangibles people like to throw around.

 

[TheProgram]

You seriously cannot be this ignorant? The analogy he is using is to compare how "whites" used to hate on "blacks" simply because they were different than they were, i.e. being black instead of white. The comparison would be "straight" people hating on "***" people simply because they are different than them. i.e. being *** instead of straight.

Not true whatsoever. There was not any particular behavior that elicited hatred towards blacks by bigoted whites. They hated them just because of the color of their skin. W/r/t homosexuality, those who oppose the behavior (or find the behavior "gross" or "awful") are not exhibiting hatred against anyone but rather disagreement with certain behavior. To compare the two is disingenuous and an affront to the Civil Rights movement.

The law would disagree with you, fwiw.

Do explain. Keep in mind, we're not talking discrimination. We're talking about hatred of someone based upon color of their skin and hatred/disgust of certain behavior.

/this should be interesting.

Both have equal protection under the law. That was my point. I don't know how you make the leap to "an affront to the Civil Rights movement" when the very Act that provided protection to African-Americans following the Civil Rights movement is the same one that now provides protection to sexual orientation. So you're assertion that comparison of the two is disingenuous and an affront is refuted by the law, regardless of the individual's reason for the hatred.

Also keep in mind that I did not make the original analogy.

Pat4redick: Well said. As for the legal question, the 14th Amendment offers equal protection under the law.

 

[Scoot Scoot]

Both have equal protection under the law. That was my point. I don't know how you make the leap to "an affront to the Civil Rights movement" when the very Act that provided protection to African-Americans following the Civil Rights movement is the same one that now provides protection to sexual orientation. So you're assertion that comparison of the two is disingenuous and an affront is refuted by the law, regardless of the individual's reason for the hatred.

Also keep in mind that I did not make the original analogy.

Say what? Could you provide the link which shows that the Civil Rights Act list of protected groups now includes sexual orientation?

http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/otherprotections.cfm

As interpreted by the federal courts, it is a form of *** discrimination -- applies to employment, housing, etc.

 

[Scoot Scoot]

Not true whatsoever. There was not any particular behavior that elicited hatred towards blacks by bigoted whites. They hated them just because of the color of their skin. W/r/t homosexuality, those who oppose the behavior (or find the behavior "gross" or "awful") are not exhibiting hatred against anyone but rather disagreement with certain behavior. To compare the two is disingenuous and an affront to the Civil Rights movement.

The law would disagree with you, fwiw.

Do explain. Keep in mind, we're not talking discrimination. We're talking about hatred of someone based upon color of their skin and hatred/disgust of certain behavior.

/this should be interesting.

Both have equal protection under the law. That was my point. I don't know how you make the leap to "an affront to the Civil Rights movement" when the very Act that provided protection to African-Americans following the Civil Rights movement is the same one that now provides protection to sexual orientation. So you're assertion that comparison of the two is disingenuous and an affront is refuted by the law, regardless of the individual's reason for the hatred.

Also keep in mind that I did not make the original analogy.

Pat4redick: Well said. As for the legal question, the 14th Amendment offers equal protection under the law.

Thank you. And you're absolutely right. There are a number of protections provided for sexual orientation, I was just pointing out it's also interpreted in the Civil Rights Act now as well.

 

[OzarCaneSaw]

It's sad when cogent arguments are lost on those who can't think analytically. ilovelamp reeks of homophobia. and what he doesn't understand is his homophobia is no different from racism; the same bigotry and hate that he so ardently opposes (when it's convenient for HIM), he displays towards those different than he is. Homophobia and racism come from the same part of an ignorant, typically under educated, persons brain. It makes u look incredibly foolish as a black man to be acting the same way the confederates did. It's embarrassing actually.

The only thing cogent about your argument is that you are very bad at using analogies.

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

I would disagree as I understood exactly what he was trying to compare. It's ok to admit you didn't understand his analogy. Which part was insanely idiotic or incoherent?

What's interesting is that psychologist who have studied rage and hatred against homosexuality found that motives for antigay sentiment include male bonding, proving heterosexuality, and purging secret homosexual desires.

I didn't see a response to the question though:

Does that apply to you? Are you a black person who thinks homosexuality is disgusting? Not balls in your face, just homosexuality in general?

So, are you actually saying that psychologists who study rage/hatred against homosexuality believe that those who exhibit that sort of response to that behavior are in fact *** themselves? Seriously? You got a link of any sort for these studies?

Keep in mind, you can't have homosexual desires without being a homosexual. It's the way you are after all...

I'll let you catch up to the thread so you can see the link. Once you are done reading it, come back, post your opinion.

Are you referring to the PBS/Frontline link? The one that talks about assaults on *** people? How does that jive with what you wrote?

 

[OzarCaneSaw]

OzarCaneSaw - did you locate the link you were in search of?

Here it is, just in case it was missed.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/roots/franklin.html

Yeah, you're conflating violence towards **** with "hatred" of **** with "hatred" of behavior. You've muddied the waters terribly. No, I didn't read the entire article once I saw it had ZERO to do with this conversation.