No doubt. But now checking one or more “diversity” boxes trumps all. And I never said that LGBTQ was the “primary focus” of the programs . . .
Carl Nassib
- Thread starter jrl5019
- Start date
And in the good old days, seniority trumped all, which was equally as bad many times.
RAIDERS' CARL NASSIBNFL JERSEY FLYING OFF SHELVES... #1 Seller!!!
It's not Tom Brady, Patrick Mahomes or Aaron Rodgers ... no, the NFL player with the top-selling jersey over the last 24 hours is none other than Carl Nassib!!!
According to the ultra-popular fan gear website Fanatics, Nassib's #94 Las Vegas Raiders jersey has been flying off the shelves ever since the D-lineman announced Monday he's gay.
+1. I think some seem to be a little too "preoccupied" about the sex. 🤔
We have a big conference we go to in my industry. 4 days, out in Vegas, probably like a lot of people on this board, sort of a trade show if you will. It's a chance for vendors to entertain prospects/clients and so on. They also have a nice menu of educational classes for the people that attend and specifically, speakers panels. Of course the vendors want to get on these panels as it is great exposure etc. We were told, not so subtly, that for this years show at least, straight white men need not apply. Gay, female, trans, minority, will be the individuals up on stage this year. When filling out an application to be on the panel, there are specific areas to fill in your race and sexual identity. I am all for providing a voice in business for ALL people, but giving preferential treatment, in a business forum, to people of a certain race/sexual orientation is................ discriminatory, bigoted.......dare I say Racist?
I agree...and my experience is anecdotal while living in the not most enlightened part of the country, but I have not seen or heard ANY complaints about gay people in years. There are a lot of legal and religious issues to iron out but I see and hear zero negative comments. The only issues I hear about are a) the issue of men who have transed to women playing in sports designated for women only and 2) allowing kids to trans before the age of 16 and 3: allowing trans to be front line military given the special needs required by those transitioning or at what state their transition is in.
Just to be clear, you are fine with a public holiday that is based on the religious beliefs of Christians and the Christian themed decorations (manger, angels, etc). And you are fine with decorating the government office in that theme even though it only applies to Christians. But you have a problem with decorating the government office in a rainbow theme for pride month, even though the POTUS has declared June as Pride Month.
Is that all accurate?
Does this photo bother you?
Is it his sister?
Seriously though, nobody fights for incest rights. If they're consenting adults why should it bother us?
That wasn't my question, but just this past Christmas. My question was whether or not the poster I was discussing this with was okay with it.
Oh, such a thing has not been seen in these parts in at least a decade, maybe longer.
Rainbow is hard on the eyes, however, I am in favor of rainbow mangers. In case you were wondering.
"Attempts are simply being reported more" is likely a contributing factor but I think the alarming increase in recent years goes a lot deeper than that.
Kids need functional families, moral anchors, a sense of community, and a healthy reinforcing culture. Yet all those things are under attack even to the point of collapse in America 2021.
I don't think it's a coincidence that an increasing rate of suicide (and attempted suicide) within the teenage population, gay and otherwise, is being seen in this environment.
Also, again, my original point did not go to the normalization of homosexuality per se but rather to the mandated and bizarre celebration of homosexuality.
Final point, the questions I raised with Dem that made his head explode are all entirely legitimate. I give you credit for taking a shot at answering at least one of them coherently.
You want to walk into an NFL locker room after admitting you are gay?
If that is what you think then you have failed to understand the other side of the discussion.
Don't think so.
Doesn't bother me. Jerry won't respond though so I'm assuming he isn't ok with Drew kissing his wife on tv after winning the super bowl.
Yes, of course I've heard stories though I can't say I have any personal familiarity with such a case.
Listen, dude, I raised six kids, the youngest now being 27, and by lots of good luck and the love of a good woman, they all turned out to be happy, healthy, productive citizens now raising (so far) happy, healthy families of their own -- except for one daughter who's a contemplative sister at a Catholic monastery and has a different kind of "family."
Yet, there were any number of close calls on the way, any number of times the train could have jumped the rails, any number of times my own mistakes and flaws could have ended in disaster but, no credit to me, did not. The point being, anyone who gets to my stage in life and doesn't find himself frequently saying "there but for the grace of God go I" is a fool.
Therefore, my heart goes out to families and kids struggling with sexuality. With 23 (now going on 26) grandchildren of my own, I'm realistic enough to expect that somewhere at some time that struggle will be ours as well. If it happens, I will love the grandchild no less, and I will always be there for him or her. But I will not -- I can not -- surrender the moral principles at stake.
They're not my principles. They're the principles and wisdom of the ages. Our nation and culture are now engaged in a historic project to burn them down and find out whether a healthy civilization can be built in their ashes. The results so far do not look promising.
Let us get a few scientific issues and first principle concepts in order before we get any sillier than we've gotten.
In America, founded on individual freedom and responsibility and equal treatment under the law, gay people should have the exact same protections under the law as anyone else. No more, no less.
Gay is not normal. Period. Evolutionary biology teaches us (unless you're dense, or are generally an atheist, except for the next 50 seconds, when science can be really upsetting) that the species survives and adapts by natural selection of those characteristics that assist in reproductive success - size, strength, symmetry, attractiveness, and definitely a desire for the opposite sex.
All arguments should extend from these two principles.
Purely as an example: So, when you want to talk about "gay marriage", what are we saying? Are we saying that two people ought to live together with the tax breaks and benefits of being a couple? I don't even know that I can make an argument why the government (public) has a compelling interest in marriage without kids. Marriage with kids - sure, a good argument can be made for child tax breaks. But a straight couple just living together - what is the public interest?
When you talk about adoptive rights - what do the studies say about children reared in gay households? No idea - I'm suspecting it doesn't increase probability of being gay, but idk. Is it healthy? I'd guess it is less good than a straight couple. But if the straight couple does drugs and is violent, is that better than a gay couple who live their lives on the straight and narrow?
In America, founded on individual freedom and responsibility and equal treatment under the law, gay people should have the exact same protections under the law as anyone else. No more, no less.
Gay is not normal. Period. Evolutionary biology teaches us (unless you're dense, or are generally an atheist, except for the next 50 seconds, when science can be really upsetting) that the species survives and adapts by natural selection of those characteristics that assist in reproductive success - size, strength, symmetry, attractiveness, and definitely a desire for the opposite sex.
All arguments should extend from these two principles.
Purely as an example: So, when you want to talk about "gay marriage", what are we saying? Are we saying that two people ought to live together with the tax breaks and benefits of being a couple? I don't even know that I can make an argument why the government (public) has a compelling interest in marriage without kids. Marriage with kids - sure, a good argument can be made for child tax breaks. But a straight couple just living together - what is the public interest?
When you talk about adoptive rights - what do the studies say about children reared in gay households? No idea - I'm suspecting it doesn't increase probability of being gay, but idk. Is it healthy? I'd guess it is less good than a straight couple. But if the straight couple does drugs and is violent, is that better than a gay couple who live their lives on the straight and narrow?
You're a good man, Jerry. We don't always believe the same things, but we need more of guys like you.
Tons...TONS! half the people I work with are gay. many of the church volunteers I work with are gay. Most have done or are doing extremely well in their careers. Most don't do PDAs but have no problem with people knowing they are gay.
No explosion here, you run-of-the-mill d-bag. Just the same stupid sh!t I hear from fools like you every day. Are you a college grad, Jer?
Because that's even more shameful.
As if you're even remotely smart.
You are pretty much the definition of a midwit.
Laughable
I want Joy Behar to play a Michigan fan in the new movie Adam Sandlers movie- she was born for the role.
Well, they're obviously less ubiquitous than they were when we were young, but they're still fairly common. Except that they are typically accompanied (temporally, if not in the same location) by a Menorah, or some other decoration that helps the manger scene pass muster under the Establishment Clause, and also suggests a degree of ecumenical accommodation. As both a Christian and a firm believer in separation of shurch and state, that works for me. It would not bother me if they put up a Kwanzaa (sp?) decoration, as well. I might even support a Festivus decoration.
Word... but we cut Michigan State too much slack on this forum. They’re pretty bad, too.
I worked, for years, with a group of gay people that were very active in the "Old Stone Church". which is an iconic catholic church in downtown CLE. How they could be active in the church ten to 20 years ago, with the Church's stance of gays is beyond me. the priest accepted them and everybody else did to. The main couple moved to ATL and are now multi-millionaires as some of the best Architects in the nation.
I also outlined my experience with a small company in Toronto earlier in the thread.
I know everyone wants to categorize everyone into red pill blue pill people. But sexuality is an array and not a light switch. Most studies show that you will go gay if that is all that is available to you. History of experience with men only jails and the front lines in WW2, Korea, Vientnam to the gulf wars show this to be true.
I know people will say that isn't true...and gay people don't like the concept either because they don't want people to think sexuality is a choice, but that is the science of it.
Yeah, Dem, your head exploded all over the friggin' key board. The mess it made was reflected in your post which consisted entirely of juvenile gibberish deployed like a panicked squid shooting ink to obscure an inability to comprehend or answer a point.
In fact, based on your follow-up post above, juvenile gibberish appears to be your entire repertoire. I ain't gonna roll in the mud with you, dumfuk. It's beneath me. Come back when you grow up.
Whatever its origins, Christmas is now a totally secularized holiday, and a number of court rulings have reinforced that status.
So you're comparing the observance of a secularized public holiday with the celebration of a sexual orientation. Again: apples and oranges.
But ironically, the very existence of "Pride Month" makes my original point, which is that for some reason it is not enough now to simply respect the rights of gay people (as we should) and protect them under the law.
Now we're also required to celebrate gayness as a sexual orientiation. I find that bizarre and will decline to do so...regardless of presidential proclamations.
Not taking sides here on the subject matter, but perhaps the greatest simile ever used on this venerable board.
