Mizz's Sam

[OzarCaneSaw]

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.

If you think the Civil Rights movement was all about the law, or the "Civil Rights Act", you're lost. No, the two are not at all comparable.

 

[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

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.

Let’s try this again.

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...

This is a direct copy and paste, which was written by a forensic psychologist, her name is Karen Franklin.

This part of the article is in the introduction section.

“Victim accounts suggest that assailants possess tremendous rage and hatred; indeed, documentation of horrific levels of brutality has led *** activists to characterize the violence as political terrorism aimed at all *** men and lesbians .Other motives for antigay violence suggested in the literature include male bonding, proving heterosexuality, and purging secret homosexual desires .”

 

[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.

Let’s try this again.

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...

This is a direct copy and paste, which was written by a forensic psychologist, her name is Karen Franklin.

This part of the article is in the introduction section.

“Victim accounts suggest that assailants possess tremendous rage and hatred; indeed, documentation of horrific levels of brutality has led *** activists to characterize the violence as political terrorism aimed at all *** men and lesbians .Other motives for antigay violence suggested in the literature include male bonding, proving heterosexuality, and purging secret homosexual desires .”

You're quoting an article about violence towards ****, which has NOTHING to do with this discussion.

Furthermore, "hatred" towards homosexuality does not equal "hatred" towards homosexuals. Do you understand what I'm saying?

 

[DutchieFlair]

Only liberals think that civil rights are *** rights. Not surprising there.

 

[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.

If you think the Civil Rights movement was all about the law, or the "Civil Rights Act", you're lost. No, the two are not at all comparable.

Please point out where I did any of the following:

1) said the Civil Rights movement was all about the law;
2) said the Civil Rights movement was all about the Civil Rights Act; or
3) said the struggle faced during Civil Rights movement was the same as or equivalent to the what homosexuals now endure?

I made a statement about the law, you asked me to elaborate, and now take issue with context of that elaboration?

I took issue with a simple concept: you turned the recognition of a newly protected class into an affront and insult to an already existing protected class and the movement that achieved its recognition simply because, to you, the underlying reason for hatred was different. I even bolded the pertinent part of your statement that I took issue with you. My point was that regardless of your beliefs about "behavior," the law sees no difference.

Did I say the circumstances/history of blacks and LGBT individuals were analogous? No, because there is no question they aren't.

 

[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

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.

Let’s try this again.

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...

This is a direct copy and paste, which was written by a forensic psychologist, her name is Karen Franklin.

This part of the article is in the introduction section.

“Victim accounts suggest that assailants possess tremendous rage and hatred; indeed, documentation of horrific levels of brutality has led *** activists to characterize the violence as political terrorism aimed at all *** men and lesbians .Other motives for antigay violence suggested in the literature include male bonding, proving heterosexuality, and purging secret homosexual desires .”

You're quoting an article about violence towards ****, which has NOTHING to do with this discussion.

Furthermore, "hatred" towards homosexuality does not equal "hatred" towards homosexuals. Do you understand what I'm saying?

Did you not ask for a link which states the opinions of psychologists? Or am I mistaken?

In addition, you completely missed the portion of the article that states "suggested in the literature". She was giving context to her content. The literature she is referring to is an actual book : Stigma and Sexual Orientation: Understanding Prejudice against Lesbians, *** Men, and Bisexuals

Written by : Professor Herek who has a Ph.D. in social psychology

 

[Topgoon]

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

So when are you coming out, 581?

 

[Topgoon]

Fluck dat I'm in that locker room I'm not showering.................. that whole all *** men aren't attracted to you BULL I'll just say this you put me in a lockerroom full of cheerleaders while I may not be attracted to all of them I'd look at every cooch in there every teat and booty cheek I could gander at lol................. Eff that pc non sense just be real

you my friend, are an idiot

Butch, if you are a straight male, although it would appear not, tell me that if you were allowed to shower with the cheerleading team that you wouldn't be looking. Of course you would. You're lying if you say otherwise.

 

[Topgoon]

Dude's a sack machine.

*******?

 

[The Franchise]

Dude's a sack machine.

*******?

Yeah. That was the joke.

 

[The Franchise]

You can tell it's the offseason. Dudes arguing for 12 pages about a guy slathering his face in man goo.

 

[RickDerris]

[video=youtube;Olc5C4SXAYM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Olc5C4SXAYM[/video]

As long as Sam isn't also a marxist its no big deal .

 

[kendallcanes]

and white running backs

 

[Chuckles]

I'm all about causes and victims, just tell me what group is the coolest and I'm in.

Can we lock this pointless nonsense and get back to football?