re: Yahoo article on Alfred Blue comments

Now that I apologized for my joke, I do have a serious comment:

Blue's comment was not one of hatefulness or intended harm, but one of ignorance. He never said he had any sort of hate for homosexuals, but merely associated being gay with being a sissy.

From where does this misconception come?

We all know that there are exceptions, as I know some homosexual men who could kick my arse (I know a few homosexual women who probably could also). However, a large percentage of gay men who are openly gay portray themselves as very effiminate and sissy.

With such self-portrayal, is it Blue's fault for thinking this way about homosexual men? Whether wrong or right, this is not an uncommon perception of gay men. I would say the gay community owns at least some of the blame for this perception. Why do they allow the effiminate gays to be representative of their lifestyle. If I were a gay man, it would piss me off for other gays to act that way, just as it pisses me off when other southerners continue to add amunition to the incorrect perception of us.
Perhaps more masculine gay men should come out to do away with this perception. Perhaps more athletes coming out would help. I don't know, but I do think the gay community has perpetuated this perception.
I have never understood unnaturally effiminate gay men anyway. If you are trying to attract other gay men, why act like a woman? If a man is attracted to this effiminate type, he should just find a woman who enjoys anal.
In short, Blue wasn't hating on anyone just because he can look at another man's hairy arse and find love (thanks Sam Kennison), he just doesn't want a sissy on his team. His mistake was his generalization, but thanks to the gay community, every gay he knows of may be a sissy.

quote:

---

Would heterosexual females feel "comfortable" if a straight dude was in the shower with them in the girls shower after a game...say Cecil Collins?(okay that is not fair) Lets say an average straight male. A male may not want to copulate with every female in the shower but you would have to agree that the vast majority of the females would feel uncomfortabl,as the dude cut glaces at their ladyparts.... Same with gays being in a shower with other straight dudes. Uncomfortableness would be the result.

I personally feel that gays have the right to pursue happiness like everyone else but not in the shower with other straight men. (kid in a candy shop) comon.

---

Now you are talking about something valid. I believe things like this would be the biggest problem (with most level headed people). Bunch of football players in the locker room, showers, changing clothes, etc and one of your teammates is gay. If I took a shower around a bunch of women, I'd notice the good looking ones, and those thoughts would enter into my mind. same if I played tackle football with women. At some point you end up on the ground wrapped around each other. Now take a straight man and a gay man in the same situation...it could get really awkward. I could see that causing issues.

quote:

---

I applaud Blue for responding as he did (and hope he doesn’t walk it back). And I suspect it’s the way most players feel about the issue but most don’t have the intestinal fortitude to say so. Homosexuality is unnatural (the parts don’t correspond and they don’t reproduce), unhealthy, and ungodly. It has been, is, and always will be sexual perversion.

As far the reference to a “make believe carpenter in the sky” (I assume this was a reference to Jesus). If that a person “Jesus” lived in Israel 2000 years ago, I don’t think anyone denies this. He is attested to not only in Scripture but also in extra-biblical documents of the time. If that this Jesus was raised from the dead is being questioned, there are cogent, sound, and robust arguments to be made (for another day and board I’m sure).

My point: trying to equate the lack of proof for a gay gene to the ‘lack of proof’ for Jesus is mistaken.

---

People like you and White Tiger do put huge dents into the theory of Darwinism.

quote:

---

People like you and White Tiger do put huge dents into the theory of Darwinism

---

Theory of Darwinsim? What, pray, is that? Darwin did not prove that men came from "lower" beings. If it matters to the pseudo-intellectuals, I will concede that point, despite the fact that no evidence exists that any such thing occurred. Further, it has been established that Neanderthals were not precursors of homo sapiens.

DNA is the molecule that links all living things, plant and animal. One may argue that DNA is a random phenomenon, but that seems a desperate assertion. DNA explains evolution, such as it may be, but evolution cannot explain DNA. Homosexual behavior, whether among men or beasts, does not further the interest of the species. What is so difficult to understand about that?