# The NF Cafe's Big Gay Thread



## Bioness (May 9, 2014)

> *Anti-gay North Carolina Republican candidate worked as drag queen at gay bar: report *
> 
> 
> Steve Wiles, a conservative candidate for North Carolina state Senate who has campaigned primarily on his support for the state?s gay marriage ban, worked for years as a cross-dressing emcee known as ?Miss Mona Sinclair? at a Winston-Salem gay bar, according to a local newspaper.
> ...



His Facebook Page 



His response to the situation



> since I'm already getting vulgar calls from both sides (The "christian" community AND the gay community) let me explain my views - I am for (and have fought for) equality for every American...with that being said, equality doesn't mean infringing on someone else's rights. Marriage is a religious institute; plain and simple. WITH THAT BEING SAID - I also think state control of the institution of marriage is unconstitutional and a reach.
> 
> I'm impressed by the way this story was used to present me to the conservative right as a gay advocate while at the same time presenting me as anti-gay to the gay community. THAT...is talent! I am a Christian...I try to live a life that reflects my beliefs...I rarely, if ever, hit that mark! Meanwhile, I've maintained life-long friendships with a few people from the "club" days. One person springs to mind, although I will not call names, who is a former Miss Gay America, NC USofA and has performed successfully all of his adult life - he is one of the most loving men I've EVER known...Loving and accepting of everyone around him. He would do ANYTHING for his friends....I respect that in a person. He knows (and always has known) of my conservative stand on issues like gay marriage; he accepts that although he doesn't agree with me.
> 
> To some, I'll be known as a hard worker or a loving son...to some, I'll be known as someone who has always stood up for what I thought was right at the time - even if it was wrong! To some, I'll be known as a person who will ALWAYS admit my short-comings and my faults. To some, I'll be thought of as anti-gay...and to a select few, I'll just be a "^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)." Know that no matter which group YOU fall into - I have no hard feelings toward you and respect, not only your opinion, but your right to have that opinion.



Other source:


----------



## Gunners (May 9, 2014)




----------



## sworder (May 9, 2014)

> and to a select few, I'll just be a "^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)."



this is where I'm at

he's a ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".), in the weird not entirely homosexual but still homosexual meaning because he's a hypocritical drag queen

the fact that he's republican is kinda humorous


----------



## Romanticide (May 9, 2014)

I'm not sure what to think about this.


----------



## Stunna (May 9, 2014)

Uncanny how often stuff like this happens.


----------



## Totally not a cat (May 9, 2014)

I find this amusing and saddening at the same time. Poor asshole. Pun potentially intended


----------



## Justice (May 9, 2014)




----------



## Pliskin (May 9, 2014)

It must be really depressing being gay and feeling like the republican party has any leeway to accept you.

This is by the way the biggest thing that puzzles me about the American two party system, the fact that there is a political correlation between completely separate things. Like, imagine I advise tax cuts but am, pro choice: how the fuck do I get my opinion to count in my vote?


----------



## BashFace (May 9, 2014)

I'm pretty sure this dude just believes in the sanctity of marriage and has nothing against gays or gay relations. His main focus is keeping marriage pure or original not keeping gays from being married and what better way to prove his point then with that.

I have a friend who's gay and hes against gay marriage and hates people misrepresenting homosexuals as pansy's. He hates how it's some worldwide thing for equality to allow gay people to get married but within realism that's not really equality. It does infringe on the sanctity of marriage which in turn effects *some* heterosexuals who's "rights, beliefs, morals, ethics" are being affected by a decision to make marriage allowable to people of the same sex. 

What about people who are straight, gay, transgender or whatever and they care about the sanctity of marriage. I'm not saying I support this point of view or standpoint but this is a quite common view shared as far as I know. 

Because realistically a small community shouldn't have an influence nationwide like this and it shouldn't affect so many people negatively. People shouldn't raise concern about the sanctity of marriage and be labeled as intolerant or homophobic. 

I'm not going to call this guy a ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) who hates gays because it doesn't seem like that's his point of view. 

Personally because I never plan on getting married do what you want with marriage.


----------



## CrazyAries (May 10, 2014)

BashFace said:


> I'm pretty sure this dude just believes in the sanctity of marriage and has nothing against gays or gay relations. His main focus is keeping marriage pure or original not keeping gays from being married and what better way to prove his point then with that.



If you look closely at Wiles’ statement, it is all over the place. It looks like this man is accepting of gays and gay couples (if he isn’t in fact gay himself), but he has to appeal to the right, hence the stance against gay marriage. At first, he even denied working at a gay bar.



> I have a friend who's gay and hes against gay marriage and hates people misrepresenting homosexuals as pansy's. He hates how it's some worldwide thing for equality to allow gay people to get married but within realism that's not really equality. It does infringe on the sanctity of marriage which in turn effects *some* heterosexuals who's "rights, beliefs, morals, ethics" are being affected by a decision to make marriage allowable to people of the same sex.
> 
> What about people who are straight, gay, transgender or whatever and they care about the sanctity of marriage. I'm not saying I support this point of view or standpoint but this is a quite common view shared as far as I know.



I don’t want to make assumptions about your friend, but has he talked about other implications about marriage equality? Does he feel that allowing gays to get married might strain a gay relationship if one partner wants to get married and the other does not? There are plenty of straight couples that have the very same disagreement.



> Because realistically a small community shouldn't have an influence nationwide like this and it shouldn't affect so many people negatively. People shouldn't raise concern about the sanctity of marriage and be labeled as intolerant or homophobic.
> 
> I'm not going to call this guy a ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) who hates gays because it doesn't seem like that's his point of view.
> 
> Personally because I never plan on getting married do what you want with marriage.



This issue has gained traction not just because of gays and lesbians but because of the overall increase in the number of people who accept homosexual individuals and think that extending marital rights is a civil rights issue. It is a civil rights issue, as marriage has been a legal institution. There are only religious components to certain wedding ceremonies.

I don’t get how some think that extending marital rights to gay couples in any way infringes on the marriages of straight couples. If anything, acceptance of homosexuality would prevent some sham marriages.


----------



## Pilaf (May 10, 2014)

BashFace said:


> I'm pretty sure this dude just believes in the sanctity of marriage and has nothing against gays or gay relations. His main focus is keeping marriage pure or original not keeping gays from being married and what better way to prove his point then with that.
> .




Ah... "the sanctity of marriage".

 That particular aroma of bullshit that lingers around these kinds of discussions like an STD that just won't go away. It's only slightly less popular than "The Founding Fathers established the United States as a Christian Nation" 

or 

"Nickleback isn't really that bad a band."


----------



## the_notorious_Z.É. (May 10, 2014)

Marriage is just a contract between two persons.


----------



## Mider T (May 10, 2014)

^It really isn't when you think about the benefits and consequences that come with it.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 10, 2014)

Wouldn't that be part of the contract...?


----------



## Mider T (May 10, 2014)

I...suppose.  My response was not really to what he said but what he was implying.


----------



## Zhariel (May 10, 2014)

Why is this always the case? Anti gay politicians caught with a dick in their mouth or something. Don't get me wrong, the irony is delicious, but it never seems to end.


----------



## Vasto Lorde King (May 10, 2014)

Bioness said:


> His Facebook Page
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LMAO Dat Guy is one fugly friend.


----------



## Vermin (May 10, 2014)

his response is just all over the place

but yeah, it always seems the serious anti-gay politicians are the ones who are taking it up the ass


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (May 10, 2014)

Oh the Irony .

Reminded me of Ted Haggard .


----------



## Bijuu Bomber (May 10, 2014)

This made me laugh a lot harder than I thought. Poor bastard.


----------



## LesExit (May 10, 2014)

I'm so confused...his opinions and statements were all over the place XD


----------



## olaf (May 10, 2014)

zyken said:


> his response is just all over the place
> 
> but yeah, it always seems the serious anti-gay politicians are the ones who are taking it up the ass


I bet they say 'no homo' before thay take the cock


----------



## Bioness (May 10, 2014)

zyken said:


> his response is just all over the place
> 
> but yeah, it always seems the serious anti-gay politicians are the ones who are taking it up the ass



In his defense, you can be a Drag Queen and identify as heterosexual, however because of the nature of Drag Queens it is crazy he would be against gay marriage.

Whatever, the hypocrite lost the race, hopefully he will disappear with shame.


----------



## Fiona (May 10, 2014)

*First Openly Gay Athlete Drafted in the NFL*



> Michael Sam, who could become the first openly gay athlete to play in the NFL, was selected in the seventh round of the draft by the St. Louis Rams on Saturday with the 249th overall pick.
> 
> Sam, who announced in February that he is gay, saw his draft stock drop following a disappointing showing at the scouting combine.
> 
> ...





Its about time. 

Good for him :33


----------



## Zaru (May 10, 2014)

I'm more surprised that it took this long for the first.

And it sounds like a joke but I'm wondering if any of those muscleheads in the NFL are afraid of getting physical with a homosexual opponent


----------



## Fiona (May 10, 2014)

Thor said:


> He sucks though.



Im watching CNN right now and he apparently was the Defensive MVP of the best conference in football. 

That doesnt sound like he sucks to me. 

Then again you are a religious troll so I am really not thinking that you mean that 

@ Zaru 


he will most likely get some flack and ridicule, but I would like to think that he will do well so he can shut everyone up


----------



## Zhariel (May 10, 2014)

I doubt most people will care about having a gay guy on their team. Depending on the team, some have played with murderers. Hell, one of them is an NFL analyst now.


----------



## Kagekatsu (May 10, 2014)

Fiona said:


> Im watching CNN right now and he apparently was the Defensive MVP of the best conference in football.
> 
> That doesnt sound like he sucks to me.


Eh, the SEC is _incredibly_ overrated by nearly every college football analyst and their fans are even worse. Also, success in college does not always equate to success in the NFL, see all the Heisman Trophy winners that crashed and burned when they made pro.

Still, many of the better players in the NFL tend to come from the later rounds of the draft. Though given its the Rams, don't expect Sam to be Super Bowl MVP anytime soon.


----------



## Garcher (May 10, 2014)

yes, he is a beacon for humanity because he is gay.


----------



## Totally not a cat (May 10, 2014)

Bioness said:


> In his defense, you can be a Drag Queen and identify as heterosexual, however because of the nature of Drag Queens it is crazy he would be against gay marriage.
> 
> Whatever, the hypocrite lost the race, hopefully he will disappear with shame.



Back to the drag life he goes.


----------



## Scud (May 10, 2014)

Zaru said:


> I'm more surprised that it took this long for the first.
> 
> And it sounds like a joke but I'm wondering if any of those muscleheads in the NFL are afraid of getting physical with a homosexual opponent


Just because he's the first openly gay player to be drafted doesn't mean that there hasn't been homosexuals playing in the league for decades. I don't think anybody actually cares.



Fiona said:


> Im watching CNN right now and he apparently was the Defensive MVP of the best conference in football.
> 
> That doesnt sound like he sucks to me.
> 
> Then again you are a religious troll so I am really not thinking that you mean that


Maybe you should go watch some of his playing or look up his stats rather than going purely on heresay. Michael Sam is overrated. He's undersized, slow, and weak for someone playing his position.

Anyway, good for him. Maybe now we can focus on the game and what all the draft picks mean for the various teams rather than the sexual orientation of a single player.


----------



## Risyth (May 10, 2014)

Oh, many people care. They shouldn't but they do. I remember the "shower" and "guy staring at my ass in the bathroom" comment from some months ago.


----------



## Bioness (May 10, 2014)

Graeme said:


> I doubt most people will care about having a gay guy on their team. Depending on the team, some have played with murderers. Hell, one of them is an NFL analyst now.



People don't, but hypermasculine football players would. They are some of the dumbest people if you have ever seen them talk in interviews, but hey people watch them for their physical skills, not their brains.


----------



## Zhariel (May 10, 2014)

Yeah, like Ray Lewis. People thought he gave amazing inspirational speeches. After he retired, his QB admitted that most of them didn't make any fucking sense.


also he killed a guy.


----------



## Risyth (May 10, 2014)

Oh, here it is:

[YOUTUBE]83rNZsEJcro[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Scud (May 10, 2014)

Graeme said:


> Yeah, like Ray Lewis. People thought he gave amazing inspirational speeches. After he retired, his QB admitted that most of them didn't make any fucking sense.
> 
> 
> also he killed a guy.


Yeah, but he's also Ray motherfuckin' Lewis so he got a "get out of jail, free" card.


----------



## Zhariel (May 10, 2014)




----------



## Bioness (May 10, 2014)

Graeme said:


> Yeah, like Ray Lewis. People thought he gave amazing inspirational speeches. After he retired, his QB admitted that most of them didn't make any fucking sense.
> 
> 
> also he killed a guy.



A lot of rich and powerful people have killed and gotten away with it.

This guy killed 2 people when he was driving on the wrong side and got slapped with a heavy....$175 fine.


----------



## Zhariel (May 10, 2014)

Bioness said:


> A lot of rich and powerful people have killed and gotten away with it.
> 
> This guy killed 2 people when he was driving on the wrong side and got slapped with a heavy....$175 fine.




_Cars move pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could kill someone._


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (May 10, 2014)

Thor said:


> He sucks though.



True he is over rated.



Fiona said:


> Im watching CNN right now and he apparently was the Defensive MVP of the best conference in football.
> 
> That doesnt sound like he sucks to me.



>Watching CNN for sports news
>lel
>Watching CNN for ANY news
>top lel

I guess you don't watch football because when this boy plays(if they even let him) will most likely get his shit pushed in(and not the way he wants either) by the 300 pound linemen he'll have to face. He isn't going against 175 pound college boys now he is up against men. If he is gay or not this does not matter. Kid sucks and probably got picked up for the free publicity that is guaranteed him anywhere he goes.


----------



## Deleted member 23 (May 10, 2014)

Bioness said:


> People don't, but hypermasculine football players would. They are some of the dumbest people if you have ever seen them talk in interviews, but hey people watch them for their physical skills, not their brains.


Well... you need brains to play football too.


Bioness said:


> A lot of rich and powerful people have killed and gotten away with it.
> 
> This guy killed 2 people when he was driving on the wrong side and got slapped with a heavy....$175 fine.



How this thread end up like this?

Also, him being drafted means nothing, lets see how he plays in the NFL.


----------



## Zhariel (May 10, 2014)

klad said:


> How this thread end up like this?.




We're comparing being gay in the nfl with being a murderer, and which is more accepted.


----------



## Risyth (May 10, 2014)

It's just that, even being a Christian myself, I still don't get that line of thinking or how someone can arrive to the conclusion that they're innately better than someone else.


----------



## Risyth (May 11, 2014)

You're telling me I'm not a Christian? Hilarious. Yes, keeping judging me so hypocritically compared to God's word--as if you've the right.

Christians are simply those who believe in Jesus' doctrines (stop casting stones), the Holy Trinity, and the Resurrection. Don't try to make the supplemental controversies into what determines my faith.

Homosexuality is the attraction to another of the same gender; nothing to do with the action. If homosexuality, intrinsically, itself is a sin, then those who are born with an attraction to the same sex are automatically reprobate. But that's damnation from even before birth. You actually believe that?


----------



## Risyth (May 11, 2014)

I already brought up that hypothetical. The point is you're looking down on them for being sinners, when, as you've just admitted above, you're no better. It's hypocritical and a sin for judging them so, in and of itself.

And I don't believe being a homosexual automatically makes one a sinner. It's more than that: isn't lusting itself a sin? So why are you trying to distinguish homosexuality in particular? Homosexuality is still the recognition of those lustful feelings, but merely for one of the same sex. It'd be no more of a sin, nor worth singling out and addressing more, than lusting itself--which everyone who hasn't  lived their life in isolation does or struggles not to do.


----------



## Potato (May 11, 2014)

stop feeding the troll

congrats to michael, best of luck in your future endeavors. hopefully current closeted football players will have the guts to come out. i think seeing an openly gay football player doing well would do wonders for the struggling closeted teens out there, would give them some hope.


----------



## Risyth (May 11, 2014)

I'm not going to call him a troll because he disagrees with me. 

Even if he didn't believe the points he's putting out, I'd still attempt to debunk them because I hate it when Christians forego Jesus' teachings to try and judge others for their beliefs or sexual attractions.


----------



## Sunuvmann (May 11, 2014)

Thor said:


> Lets say people are infact "born" gay/////EVERYONE is BORN a sinner. Your point?


The god you believe in is an asshole.

I mean really, what kind of douchebag god would condemn a child to eternal suffering for the crime of living in the middle of the fucking Amazon where nobody has ever heard of Jesus?

Who would want to believe in that kind of god?


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (May 11, 2014)

Risyth said:


> I'm not going to call him a troll because he disagrees with me.
> 
> Even if he didn't believe the points he's putting out, I'd still attempt to debunk them because I hate it when Christians forego Jesus' teachings to try and judge others for their beliefs or sexual attractions.



Consider these facts:

1.)Jesus is never quoted in the New Testament as having directly addressed rape, i*c*st, domestic violence or homosexual behavior. So are we supposed to believe all these practices are okay with Him? Read on....

2.)Gospel writer and apostle John tells us there are many teachings and deeds of Christ that are not included in their New Testament accounts (John 21:25).

3.)Christ is quoted at one point that God created people ?in the beginning? as male and female, and that marriage is the union of one man and one woman joined together as ?one flesh.? (Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9) Nothing is said about any other type of union.

4.)When He discussed sexual morality, Christ had a very high standard, clearly affirming long-standing Old Testament law. He told the woman caught in adultery to ?Go and sin no more.? (John 8:11) He warned people that not only the act of adultery was wrong, but even adulterous thoughts (Matthew 5:28). And he shamed the woman at the well (John 4:18) by pointing out to her that he knew she was living with a man who was not her husband.

5.)Christ used the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah as dramatic examples of God?s wrath (Matthew 10:15, Mark 6:11, Luke 10:12, and Luke 17:29). Throughout the Old Testament, prophets described these cities as being notorious for the practice of homosexuality. (Genesis 18:20, Genesis 19:4-5, Isaiah 3:9, Jeremiah 23:14, Ezekiel 16:46-59). Jesus certainly knew that this was how the comparison would be understood.

6.)Most important of all, Christ was God incarnate (in the flesh) here on earth. He was the long-expected Messiah, Emmanuel (which means "God with us"). This was revealed in Matthew 16:13- 20, Matthew 17:5-9, Mark 8:27-30, Luke 4:16-30, Luke 9:18-21,John 4:25-26, John 8:57-59 and elsewhere. As one with God, He was present from the beginning of creation (John 1: 1-13; Colossians 1:15-17; Ephesians 3:9 and elsewhere).

So, Jesus was God as the laws were handed down through Moses to Israel and eventually to the whole world. This Old Testament law clearly prohibited homosexuality (Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13; Deuteronomy 23:18 and elsewhere). The apostles understood this also, as shown by Paul?s writing in Romans 1:24-27, Peter?s in 2 Peter 2:4-22, and John?s in Revelation 22:15.

So--the apostles, who were taught by Christ, clearly understood that homosexuality was a sin as it has always been. When people say, ?Jesus said nothing about homosexuality,? they reveal that they really haven?t understood Scripture, or Who Christ was and is.

Maybe some of these points can lead you to a clearer understanding.

That being said live your life the way you want to and I'll live mine.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (May 11, 2014)

Sunuvmann said:


> The god you believe in is an asshole.
> 
> I mean really, what kind of douchebag god would condemn a child to eternal suffering for the crime of living in the middle of the fucking Amazon where nobody has ever heard of Jesus?
> 
> Who would want to believe in that kind of god?



Ah I don't believe that. I think God gives everyone a chance to know him and I think he provides mercy to certain conditions to stuff. Not that I know everything but I know he wouldn't do that.


----------



## Risyth (May 11, 2014)

JSJ, the "upstanding", Christian-extremist, pro-gun advocate. You've proven able to fill that niche well. No wonder I disagree with you on everything.

I follow the Word, not the teachings by Jesus you claim weren't in it but he said nonetheless. Besides, the only thing you posted of relevance was Gomorrah, and in that case, pretty much everyone in the town was a sinner, minus Lot's family, and they tried to _rape_ the angels who visited it.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (May 11, 2014)

Risyth said:


> JSJ, the "upstanding", Christian-extremist, pro-gun advocate. You've proven able to fill that niche well. No wonder I disagree with you on everything.
> 
> I follow the Word, not the teachings by Jesus you claim weren't in it but he said nonetheless. Besides, the only thing you posted of relevance was Gomorrah, and in that case, pretty much everyone in the town was a sinner, minus Lot's family, and they tried to _rape_ the angels who visited it.



I'm far from upstanding Risyth.

I was just clarify how you kept saying Christians forego his teachings when he says it is wrong. It seems like you where getting things mixed up.

Also The word is what Jesus said. So if you claim to not follow what he said do you not follow the word then? If you truly understood the word you'd understand what I just explained to you.


----------



## Sunuvmann (May 11, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Ah I don't believe that. I think God gives everyone a chance to know him and I think he provides mercy to certain conditions to stuff. Not that I know everything but I know he wouldn't do that.


Yes, well that is what it is implied Thor (and others) believe if they believe man to be born sinners.

Anyway, the idea of a god who takes attendance just comes off as petty and dickish and I would want none of it.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (May 11, 2014)

I love how this is becoming a gay debate thread too...

Can we get back on topic and let this die? No one is going to say they are wrong everyone knows my positions on the issue and I still love you all.

In closing the said gay player sucks dick(pun intended) and is a shit teir football player and the rams picked him up for free publicity. /thread


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (May 11, 2014)

Sunuvmann said:


> Yes, well that is what it is implied Thor (and others) believe if they believe man to be born sinners.
> 
> Anyway, the idea of a god who takes attendance just comes off as petty and dickish and I would want none of it.



Thor means well while it doesn't seem like it most of the time he just needs to word things more carefully. 

But God would never condemn someone without a chance at grace thats not like him.


----------



## BashFace (May 11, 2014)

Thor said:


> Dude would be out the league within a year, but the gaystapo would protest and sue the league for sexual orientation discrimination.



It shouldn't matter if hes "fucking shit"... 

Well maybe use a different choice of words but you know what I mean. 

Its like if your anti gay marriage then your homophobic... When you could just care about the sanctity of marriage. 

As I say heaps this isn't my opinion. I need to express this so Palif doesn't come on to quote me saying I wanna  marry and fuck robots or put lipstick on R2-D2.


----------



## Mider T (May 11, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> True he is over rated.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You of all people should not be criticizing people's news choices.


----------



## Risyth (May 11, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> I'm far from upstanding Risyth.
> 
> I was just clarify how you kept saying Christians forego his teachings when he says it is wrong. It seems like you where getting things mixed up.
> 
> Also The word is what Jesus said. So if you claim to not follow what he said do you not follow the word then? If you truly understood the word you'd understand what I just explained to you.



You said yourself that he never said anything about homosexuality, and especially not in a negative context. So what you're saying is that, despite this, he had to have (for whatever reason) said such negative things anyway, even though we didn't see them. 

But unlike you,  rather  by  we've  of Jesus'  instead of your opinions on what else he might have said--that fits your agenda. 

Your comparisons of homosexuality behavior to rape and domestic violence and  are base and just plain inaccurate: homosexuality involves merely a natural feeling of attraction towards another, while the latter two are conscious, violent decisions made on an unwilling person. And homosexual feelings are as lustful as heterosexual feelings, so you can't say the former is any more wrong.


----------



## Xiammes (May 11, 2014)

How dare you nazi armchair atheists call my god a shit, I hope he throws another great flood on you  

God is a dick, thats why people worship Jesus.

On the whole subject of people being born gay, I like to look at it like this, if people had a choice, why would they deliberately go on the path of ridicule and discrimination?


----------



## Risyth (May 11, 2014)

You took it to Thor before anyone here.


----------



## Hozukimaru (May 11, 2014)

Xiammes said:


> God is a dick, thats why people worship Jesus.



They're the same person. Indeed.


----------



## Risyth (May 11, 2014)

You'd better follow your own advice, bro.


----------



## Sherlōck (May 11, 2014)

You can't be a God unless you are a tyrant.

Anyway good for Micheal. I hope they picked him for his skill not for the publicity.


----------



## Mider T (May 11, 2014)

Life is such a drag for him.


----------



## Mider T (May 11, 2014)

Thor said:


> I just hate it being shoved in my face, day after day after day. The guy sucks. If he was a 1st pick.....even a 1st rounder it would maybe mean something....but he was like pick 300 or something....plus he sucks. Gayfirmitive action will be the only reason he lasts more than 1 season in the NFL.



You act like being a 1st round pick = success in the NFL always

And I'm starting to think you're in the closet.   All the rhetoric you spew must be you trying to suppress your urges to suck dick.


----------



## IchLiebe (May 11, 2014)

Risyth said:


> You said yourself that he never said anything about homosexuality, and especially not in a negative context. So what you're saying is that, despite this, he had to have (for whatever reason) said such negative things anyway, even though we didn't see them.
> 
> But unlike you,  rather  by  we've  of Jesus'  instead of your opinions on what else he might have said--that fits your agenda.
> 
> Your comparisons of homosexuality behavior to rape and domestic violence and  are base and just plain inaccurate: homosexuality involves merely a natural feeling of attraction towards another, while the latter two are conscious, violent decisions made on an unwilling person. And homosexual feelings are as lustful as heterosexual feelings, so you can't say the former is any more wrong.



According to the bible(which Im under the assumption you believe in) then all sins are equal, thus you are wrong...they are just as wrong.


I don't know which is more funny: The fact that you think that gays are in line with Jesus' teachings, or that your links were generalities that don't pertain to one group of people but people as a whole, Like for example: the first link where Jesus was like "Bro don't be mad, there always be haters in this world". 


Im an atheist kinda, I believe Aliens made us, and I am 100% homosexuality. Got a damn thing in the mail from the Human Health organization or some shit....I wrote them a damn good letter.


I know when I have a son....he is living in the woods from the time he is 5 to 16, I am not exposing him to the bullshit that the public wants everyone to believe is ok within everyone's mindset including the god almighty.


----------



## Risyth (May 11, 2014)

> According to the bible(which Im under the assumption you believe in) then all sins are equal, thus you are wrong...they are just as wrong.



Read the convo instead of that one post, then please be quiet. You don't understand my position at all and I don't care to explain it any further.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 11, 2014)

OK, so anyway. Yeah, it's a great indication of progress and now hopefully, the focus can be on his skills as a player in the NFL rather than his orientation. I know the organization has struggled and does continue to struggle with homophobia, hopefully he won't experience the worst of it during his time there. Although he will likely run into a degree of it.


----------



## Narcissus (May 11, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> But God would never condemn someone without a chance at grace thats not like him.



What hogwash. God specifically says he punishes children for the sins of their parents, and has a massive track record of killing people for things they weren't responsible for (meaning something they shouldn't need grace for in the first place).


----------



## Flynn (May 11, 2014)

I hate how these stories always lead themselves into discussions on the bearded baby

To be honest, I would have liked to see him go undrafted just to see people in the media be professionally outraged because that's what kind of gets me off. Though it was likely he would get drafted at some point when you started watching the first round of the draft. Almost every franchise used the draft to bolster their line of scrimmage through the defensive line as well as their secondary, in the wake of the realization that defense wins championships. Other than that, it was mostly wide receivers  being drafted while top prospect QB's fell from their projected number


----------



## IchLiebe (May 11, 2014)

Risyth said:


> Read the convo instead of that one post, then please be quiet. You don't understand my position at all and I don't care to explain it any further.



LoL, I understand your position.

If are a Christian who thinks that everything is alright and sin was only a part of the Old Testament because you can just ask for forgiveness instead of slaughtering animals for sacrifice.

You don't have to explain it any further, I can see that you are deluded and that you were influenced by Christianity as a child, and that you must have a higher power so that you can feel inferior and powerless because you wouldn't know what to do if you felt superior and powerful because other people make your choices.



First of all its a choice: There is no gay gene, and there is no scientific evidence to support that someone is born gay. It is the environment that they are raised in and a result of extreme perverted thoughts and the inability to control one's desires.

Second of all- Are you writing off the old testament- that is the basis of Christianity. Ever hear of Constantine? He did write the bible that we know today.

Third- Jesus was raised by people strict to the OT, to think that he would believe a union of such is alright is preposterous.


God=Jesus, Holy spirti, Jesus=God, Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit=God and Jesus, If God hate homosexuality...then the only logically conclusion that one can come to is that Jesus does aswell...but its a good thing that religion is illogical in every way.



Ohhhh I got a good question:

Why would you chance your salvation for homosexual desires? Wouldn't you be able to control your self? with "God's"  ""Help" of course and god willing...lol.

Look up the Enuma Elish

Enuma Elish is recorded on seven tablets, and the Genesis creation is completed in seven days.

In the Enuma Elish man is created in the 6th tablet, and in Genesis man is created on the 6th day.

The similarities are remarkable.



People time it around 18-17th Century BCE, while the story of Genesis is dated around 15th century BCE.


----------



## Risyth (May 11, 2014)

> If are a Christian who thinks that everything is alright and sin was only a part of the Old Testament because you can just ask for forgiveness instead of slaughtering animals for sacrifice.


Wrong. 

I swear, the *only* people on this forum are atheist-extremists or Christian-extremists. There just aren't *any* rational, open-minded people when it comes to talking about religion here. Being a Christian who isn't as far-right as you, it's "You're not a real Christian! You like homosexuals!" or "You're a religious fool; there's no God! Proof!" 

Pure idiocy all around. Pathetic, condescending attitudes based on personal beliefs, all around.


Feel free to try again, though. Reading comprehension is free.


--And LoL is "League of Legends," not "laugh out loud".


----------



## blacklusterseph004 (May 11, 2014)

> OK, so anyway. Yeah, it's a great indication of progress and now hopefully, the focus can be on his skills as a player in the NFL rather than his orientation.



This is the aspect I'm curious about. If he turns out to be a bad player or to negatively impact the team dynamics because of his personality, can a team release him without being slayed in the court of public opinion. I mean I see the NFL can be pretty cutthroat with players but when it comes to him, will they have to submit 5 pages context and qualifiers before anyone can say a negative word about his skill?


----------



## LesExit (May 11, 2014)

...woah...this thread....went places XD

Good for the guy I guess :3


----------



## Flynn (May 11, 2014)

blacklusterseph004 said:


> This is the aspect I'm curious about. If he turns out to be a bad player or to negatively impact the team dynamics because of his personality, can a team release him without being slayed in the court of public opinion. I mean I see the NFL can be pretty cutthroat with players but when it comes to him, will they have to submit 5 pages context and qualifiers before anyone can say a negative word about his skill?



Players can be cut from the roster at anytime, from preseason to the regular season and during. I don't know any instances where a franchise had to explain why they cut a guy


----------



## TheSweetFleshofDeath (May 11, 2014)

I don't really see the problem with someone being gay and being against gay marriage.  Personally, though I don't care about marriage so that may be part of it.


----------



## Sasaki Kojirō (May 11, 2014)

Wasn't he SEC defensive player of the year? How did he fall to the 7th round?

Edit- Oops it totally says that in the first post.  Well I'm kinda surprised then..


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (May 11, 2014)

Flynn said:


> Players can be cut from the roster at anytime, from preseason to the regular season and during. I don't know any instances where a franchise had to explain why they cut a guy



I think this situation is a bit different, even if he sucks they probably will keep him on the roster for the full season until he eventually fades away so they won't be lynched by the PC court of public opinion. Good luck to him, I guess.


----------



## GearsUp (May 11, 2014)

So he rocks off to dudes...I love how some people think that's any of their business. outside of rape, it ain't.

He still sucks though- at football I mean.


----------



## GearsUp (May 11, 2014)

Is southern republican hypocrisy in politics really surprising?


----------



## Sunuvmann (May 11, 2014)

Thor said:


> Why would the ancient Christians go on the path of ridicule, discrimination and certain death??? CHOICE


Because that's kinda what crazy cultists do.


----------



## GearsUp (May 11, 2014)

Yare yare.


----------



## Thor (May 11, 2014)

Narcissus said:


> What hogwash. *God specifically says he punishes children for the sins of their parents, and has a massive track record of killing people for things they weren't responsible for (meaning something they shouldn't need grace for in the first place)*.



Maybe Allah but not the Judeo-Christian God. Find the exact verse he says that.


----------



## Sunuvmann (May 11, 2014)

Thor said:


> Maybe Allah but not the Judeo-Christian God. Find the exact verse he says that.


    (Exodus 20:5)--"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"

    (Deuteronomy 5:9)--"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"

    (Exodus 34:6-7)--"Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; 7who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations."


----------



## Sunuvmann (May 11, 2014)

Sunuvmann said:


> (Exodus 20:5)--"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"
> 
> (Deuteronomy 5:9)--"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"
> 
> (Exodus 34:6-7)--"Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; 7who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations."


----------



## Narcissus (May 11, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> there is no scientific evidence to support that someone is born gay.


Completely false.



Furthermore, 

This among numerouse other forms of evidence, showing that your claim is a bare assertion.





Risyth said:


> "You're a religious fool; there's no God! Proof!"


Making a straw man of others' arguments does not accurately reflect the people here.

What it does do, however, is demonstrate that you are among the irrational people you're complaining about, and you are doing nothing to alleviate the supposed situation.





Sunuvmann said:


> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


To further add to this, God doesn't just say it either. He acts on it.

One of the most well known examples being when he kills David's newborn baby over the course of week as punishment for David's sin.


----------



## Rain (May 11, 2014)

Why is this relevant for anyone other than this guy (and his family i guess). 

The sole reason he is getting attention now is his sexual orientation. And that's wrong.


----------



## The Weeknd (May 11, 2014)

blacklusterseph004 said:


> This is the aspect I'm curious about. If he turns out to be a bad player or to negatively impact the team dynamics because of his personality, can a team release him without being slayed in the court of public opinion. I mean I see the NFL can be pretty cutthroat with players but when it comes to him, will they have to submit 5 pages context and qualifiers before anyone can say a negative word about his skill?





Risyth said:


> Wrong.
> 
> I swear, the *only* people on this forum are atheist-extremists or Christian-extremists. There just aren't *any* rational, open-minded people when it comes to talking about religion here. Being a Christian who isn't as far-right as you, it's "You're not a real Christian! You like homosexuals!" or "You're a religious fool; there's no God! Proof!"
> 
> ...





Thor said:


> Maybe Allah but not the Judeo-Christian God. Find the exact verse he says that.





Sunuvmann said:


> (Exodus 20:5)--"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"
> 
> (Deuteronomy 5:9)--"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"
> 
> (Exodus 34:6-7)--"Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; 7who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations."


Bro, Not tryin to start a fight, you dont have a clue on how the world works. I have seen sh*t you will NEVER SEE, I have lived threw thing you will NEVER live threw. I'll say what I think to anyone. As far as me coming to where ever you live and saying something to someone you know. I dont know them so why would I just walk up and say something that may or may not start a fight. Although if you would like to buy me a plane ticket from Iraq, I will take it and I'll say whatever you want me to; as long as I'm out of this place. Like I said before I'm not trying to fight with you, but you don't know everything nore do you know everyone. So you can't make statements like "you wont say things to people's faces.


----------



## Sunuvmann (May 11, 2014)

TittyNipple said:


> Bro, Not tryin to start a fight, you dont have a clue on how the world works. I have seen sh*t you will NEVER SEE, I have lived threw thing you will NEVER live threw. I'll say what I think to anyone. As far as me coming to where ever you live and saying something to someone you know. I dont know them so why would I just walk up and say something that may or may not start a fight. Although if you would like to buy me a plane ticket from Iraq, I will take it and I'll say whatever you want me to; as long as I'm out of this place. Like I said before I'm not trying to fight with you, but you don't know everything nore do you know everyone. So you can't make statements like "you wont say things to people's faces.


u wot          m8?


----------



## blacklusterseph004 (May 11, 2014)

> The sole reason he is getting attention now is his sexual orientation. And that's wrong.



This what intrigues me about the media machine that surrounds the sport and why I mentioned what I did in my first post. This is kind of analogous to Tebow who came out of college with all sorts of footballing acheivements but when he hit the NFL, then according to the people of consequence and supposed students of the game, he simply was not good enough for the position he aspired to play. Despite that he had a massive fan following for being a good 'ol boy and his throng were ready to go after anyone they preceived didn't like him regardless of how rational the analysis of his skill (or lack there of) sounded. That lead to that amusing period where analysts while trying to justify why Tebow currently does not have a job in the NFL, were forced to constantly have to qualify everything they were about to say with what a nice guy they thought Tebow was.

Similarly here, by early assessment, the football people don't really gauge that this guy will be relevant due to his physical attributes and aspects of his skillset. Despite that he already has endorsements while being a lowly draft pick, getting opportunity ahead of over 200 players that the football league have deemed to be more neccessary to their success than him. Granted, this is how the world works, but how the public narrative plays out should be interesting to see since we have a similie yet polar opposite situation to draw reference from just a few years ago.




> Why is this relevant for anyone other than this guy (and his family i guess).



Well, whether we like it or not, he is representative of a portion of society that feel (and in some cases have been/are being) marginalized, so that supersedes the game. It may be unfortunate for him since by the little I have heard of him speak, it seems he wants to be taken simply as a football player and for his skill to count for something, but the media and the public however have decreed that he will be more than that, regardless of his feelings on the matter, so here we are.


----------



## Sunuvmann (May 11, 2014)

TittyNipple said:


> u are 1 ****ing cheeky **** mate i swear i am goin 2 wreck u i swear on my mums life and i no u are scared lil bitch gettin your mates to send me messages saying dont meet up coz u r sum big bastard with muscles lol ****in sad mate really sad jus shows what a scared lil gay boy u are and whats all this crap ur mates sendin me about sum bodybuildin website that 1 of your faverite places to look at men u lil ****in gay boy fone me if u got da balls cheeky prick see if u can step up lil queer


Not sure if playing along with my joke or a legit wanker...


----------



## Sunuvmann (May 11, 2014)

>3 pound balls

I think you might need to see a doctor about that. You might have testicular cancer dude...


----------



## Hand Banana (May 11, 2014)

Anyhoot the guy comes from one of the toughest division of the NCAA, but he comes from a team made up of almost 5 star caliber. 3 being the lowest. Bombed the combines so bad he made 7th round draft. Most likely he'll either be cut or make the team's practice squad if he shows some sort of progress. He's on a team who roster can be up to 82 players with possibility of 20 people he has to compete with.. The only thing he has going for him is the publicity he brings to the team and that will probably be his best position.


----------



## Risyth (May 11, 2014)

> The only thing he has going for him is the publicity he brings to the team and that will probably be his best position.



That's probably why we weren't talking about the sports, per se.


----------



## aiyanah (May 11, 2014)

this finally happened
took long enough


----------



## Black Superman (May 11, 2014)

You got to be a certain type of self loathing to get behind the party that hates your guys openly. I can understand being financially conservative but that's where it should end, logically. Unfortunately, there's a lot of money to be gained in being a sellout in american politics. Ask Clarence Thomas.


----------



## Capt. Autismo (May 11, 2014)

Well he has the perfect cover.


----------



## Fiona (May 11, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> First of all its a choice: There is no gay gene, and there is no scientific evidence to support that someone is born gay. It is the environment that they are raised in and a result of extreme perverted thoughts and the inability to control one's desires.




[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Megaharrison (May 11, 2014)

Graeme said:


> We're comparing being gay in the nfl with being a murderer, and which is more accepted.



The sad thing is being a murderer is easily more accepted in the NFL and other sports organizations like the NBA. They're full of violent thugs, degenerates, criminals, and genuine idiots. But people make a hoopla over the gay one.

Anyway you nibblets need to stfu with the flaming while I'm busy.


----------



## Hand Banana (May 11, 2014)

Mega scares me when he goes Jewper saiyajin. And that's coming from a triple OG.


----------



## Thor (May 11, 2014)

I don't see the difference between a murderer and a homosexual. That's my opinion.


----------



## Sunuvmann (May 11, 2014)

Thor said:


> I don't see the difference between a murderer and a homosexual. That's my opinion.


What constitutes being a murderer: Making another person cease to exist.
What constitutes being a homosexual: Being attracted to people of the same sex instead of a different

Its a pretty clear fucking difference!

Your opinion is a fucking stupid one. I shouldn't have to explain it to you but the result of someone being a murderer is someone died. The result of someone being a homosexual? Nothing. Maybe a happy person getting on with their life content with being who they are.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (May 11, 2014)

Mega while you're active, can you please ban Thor here for his homophobia?


----------



## Zhariel (May 11, 2014)

Thor said:


> I don't see the difference between a murderer and a homosexual. That's my opinion.




This s why the story is a big deal, because there's tons of shit lords like this.


----------



## Fiona (May 11, 2014)

Thor said:


> I don't see the difference between a murderer and a homosexual. That's my opinion.



You are either extremely stupid or just really bad at trolling.


----------



## EJ (May 11, 2014)

TittyNipple said:


> I've been at the top of the mountain. I've looked the devil straight in his eyes brother. I've walked through the valley of death dude.



This is how I read your post.


----------



## Mider T (May 11, 2014)

Real talk.


----------



## Deleted member 23 (May 12, 2014)

Thor said:


> I don't see the difference between a murderer and a homosexual. That's my opinion.


GOAT poster Thor never disappoints.


SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Mega while you're active, can you please ban Thor here for his homophobia?


He can't ban him for something like that. And it's not homophobia.


Mider T said:


> Real talk.


Best thread yet?

So sad I missed the shit storm. So very sad


----------



## Deleted member 23 (May 12, 2014)

*93 Percent Of Straight Men In This Study Said They've Cuddled With Another Guy*



> Yes, straight men sleep together.
> 
> That?s according to a new study out of Britain on the changing social habits of heterosexual males. Published in the journal of Men and Masculinities in March, the study revealed that 98 percent of the study?s participants -- all white, college-age male athletes -- have shared a bed with another guy. In addition, 93 percent also reported having spooned or cuddled with another man.
> 
> ...



Gay


----------



## SLB (May 12, 2014)

small ass sample size


----------



## Savior (May 12, 2014)

Good for them. I guess I'm part of that 7%.


----------



## Deleted member 23 (May 12, 2014)

*Slushie thrown on anti-gay demonstrator*



> As a 24 Hour News 8 camera was rolling, a woman dumped a slushie on a demonstrator holding an anti-gay sign.
> 
> It happened Mother?s Day afternoon at the intersection of 44th Street and Ivanrest Avenue SW in Grandville.
> 
> ...




What's with all the hate on the anti-gay?


----------



## Mider T (May 12, 2014)

I have not, outside of being a child.


----------



## Gino (May 12, 2014)

Perfect waste of a slushie.


----------



## Linkofone (May 12, 2014)

Such a waste.


----------



## Fiona (May 12, 2014)

Why waste a slushie on such a piece of crap


----------



## Thor (May 12, 2014)

Disgusting behavior.....I would expect no less from a degenerate gay rights supporter.


----------



## Gunners (May 12, 2014)

The research sample is based on an inaccurate assumption, the assumption that because they're athletes (embodying masculinity) they are a good reflective of the majority of men. From what I've seen, athletes/jocks are more oversexualised and animalistic, to the point that it doesn't matter if they're dealing with a man, woman, dog, lamp post, kettle, cone etc. Give them enough liquor and they will hump just about anything.


----------



## Totally not a cat (May 12, 2014)

People cuddle, big fucking deal.


----------



## Wolfarus (May 12, 2014)

Totally not a cat said:


> People cuddle, big fucking deal.



Pretty much this. While i can say that i've never "cuddled" with another guy since i was a kid, i don't see an issue if it happens with other people.

Would -i- be comfy doing it? no. But i'm not going to slander,insult or otherwise ridicule another guy for doing it.


----------



## BurningVegeta (May 12, 2014)

Cuddle a guy? I hug... that doesn't count though, cause' you know why? I'm a MAN.


----------



## Wolfarus (May 12, 2014)

Thor said:


> Disgusting behavior.....I would expect no less from a degenerate gay rights supporter.



"I am NOT a TROLL. I really believe EVERYTHING I post. Stop REPORTING ME"



And don't really see how this is news to begin with, but oh well. +1 post.

unless it was a grape or cherry-flavored slushie


----------



## Totally not a cat (May 12, 2014)

What flavor was the slushie? <Important question

EDIT

*Spoiler*: __ 









Seems like cherry or strawberry to me.
As much as I sympathize with the girl, throwing slushies at people is not right. Throwing slushies in general is bad


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (May 12, 2014)

in other not news I stubbed my toe today


----------



## Fiona (May 12, 2014)

Wolfarus said:


> And don't really see how this is news to begin with, but oh well. +1 post.
> 
> unless it was a grape or cherry-flavored slushie



Its just a transparent attempt to try and get a gay rights bashing going. 

They are making it sound all dramatic and heinous when all that really happened is that some dick got a drink poured on him for being a dick.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (May 12, 2014)




----------



## Deleted member 23 (May 12, 2014)

This is exactly what I was thinking.


----------



## Fiona (May 12, 2014)

ITT all the guys of the forum come in and either make fun or deny that they have ever cuddled with another guy. 


As if there is anything wrong with it other than "Thats gay "


----------



## Wolfarus (May 12, 2014)

Fiona said:


> ITT all the guys of the forum come in and either make fun or deny that they have ever cuddled with another guy.
> 
> 
> As if there is anything wrong with it other than "Thats gay "



And you blanket me up in that statement 

That ever-so-slightly rustles my jimmies.


----------



## Fiona (May 12, 2014)

Wolfarus said:


> And you blanket me up in that statement
> 
> That ever-so-slightly rustles my jimmies.



You know what I mean  

Its just funny how different guys and girls handle certain situations.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 12, 2014)

Is klad failing to make a point here? Yes he is.


----------



## Mider T (May 12, 2014)

Well that's because girls are bisexuals, while (some) guys aren't.


----------



## Deleted member 23 (May 12, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Is klad failing to make a point here? Yes he is.



What point is that? Tell me because I certainly don't know.


----------



## Fiona (May 12, 2014)

klad said:


> What point is that? *Tell me because I certainly don't know.*



That is fairly obvious.


----------



## SLB (May 12, 2014)

well klad it almost seemed like you perpetuating a victimization of sorts on anti-gay individuals.


----------



## Revolution (May 12, 2014)

> Slushie thrown on anti-gay demonstrator





> some shit thrown on demonstrator



Every protest ever!


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (May 12, 2014)

> Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 16 (8 members and 8 guests)
> Nightbringer, Wolfarus, Mintaka, Fiona+, shiner, klad



we're all just sitting here waiting for something to happen


----------



## Mintaka (May 12, 2014)

Klad said:
			
		

> What point is that? *Tell me because I certainly don't know.*


  That victimizing like you are isn't working.  Oh noes!  Bigots are being called out on their bigotry, this is terrible.

Yeah pouring a slurpee on somebody isn't really in good taste, but the guy was being a prick.


----------



## BashFace (May 12, 2014)

> Sunday, 24 Hour News 8 received a photo of a woman at that intersection holding a sign that read “*Thank your mom today for not being gay.*” 24 Hour News 8 was also sent a photo of a man holding a sign that said “*Thank your mom if you’re not a bigot!* ‘Judge not…’”
> Two people hold opposing signs and stand near the street on 44th Street at Ivanrest Avenue SW in Grandville.



This was the only bit I liked, the wasting of a slushie was disgraceful. Unless of course as mentioned it was cherry flavor, but if it was strawberry flavor shame on you.



> The two women then engaged in a confrontation. Slushie-thrower Jessica Prince using profanity and rude gestures.


----------



## Fran (May 12, 2014)

I have cuddled with several men.
And will cuddle with several more.


----------



## Vasto Lorde King (May 12, 2014)

Weird. I can understand this if they were kids tough. Maby those guys were like really fucking desperate.


----------



## Deputy Myself (May 12, 2014)

I know from personal experience guys tend to be better cuddlers than girls

all the insecurity in this thread
you're all missing out


----------



## Pilaf (May 12, 2014)

It must be really tough to be a white straight Christian in this country.


----------



## Deputy Myself (May 12, 2014)

who the fuck drinks slushies


----------



## Zhariel (May 12, 2014)

When I was a kid, I had a green slushie. I guess it was green apple? Haven't found one since. It's truly my holy grail.


----------



## Pilaf (May 12, 2014)

Deputy Myself said:


> who the fuck drinks slushies



I do, mother fucker. And I ain't about to throw one on an n'wah either. Shit costs like tree fiddy.


----------



## Fiona (May 12, 2014)

Deputy Myself said:


> who the fuck drinks slushies



Whoa whoa whoa 


WHO_* DOESN'T*_?


----------



## Deputy Myself (May 12, 2014)

pigs in human clothing


----------



## Nordstrom (May 12, 2014)

Not surprised. I did it once. There was one bed, my friend didn't mind and there was no way I was sleeping on the floor (and I wouldn't kick him from HIS bed). He gave a shit because he was wasted, and wasted or not, I couldn't care less.


----------



## Zhariel (May 12, 2014)

I've done it, wasn't a big deal. I'm a straight guy... you can hug me, sit next to me, lay next to me. It's fine.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (May 12, 2014)

>some butthurt cunt pours a slushy on some bigoted cunt 
>news


----------



## Pilaf (May 12, 2014)

Clearly anti-gay people are being oppressed and gay rights has been exposed as a bunch of slushie throwers. Back to the drawing board, guys.


----------



## iJutsu (May 12, 2014)

So slushie confirmed as gay?


----------



## navy (May 12, 2014)

Fran said:


> I have cuddled with several men.
> And will cuddle with several more.





Deputy Myself said:


> I know from personal experience guys tend to be better cuddlers than girls
> 
> all the insecurity in this thread
> you're all missing out





Sleipnyr said:


> Not surprised. I did it once. There was one bed, my friend didn't mind and there was no way I was sleeping on the floor (and I wouldn't kick him from HIS bed). He gave a shit because he was wasted, and wasted or not, I couldn't care less.





Graeme said:


> I've done it, wasn't a big deal. I'm a straight guy... you can hug me, sit next to me, lay next to me. It's fine.



Gay.

I'm trying to imagine a time where I would even have the chance of cuddling with a guy. Nope never happened. Gay study is gay study.


----------



## Deputy Myself (May 12, 2014)

navy said:


> I'm trying to imagine a time where I would even have the chance of cuddling with a guy.


 that's because you don't have any friends


----------



## ThunderCunt (May 12, 2014)

Yeah, big fucking deal.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (May 12, 2014)

White middle-class Rugby Union playing Durham University students have massive homosexualist tendencies?

Shome mishtake shurely.


----------



## Louis-954 (May 12, 2014)

Interesting; I never would have thought.


----------



## navy (May 12, 2014)

Deputy Myself said:


> that's because you don't have any friends



Something you want to tell us?


----------



## Sherlōck (May 12, 2014)

Sleeping with another man in same bed? Did few times. 

Most of the time was in weeding when every relative you know or never even seen before  comes to the house & you have no place to sleep.


----------



## Saishin (May 12, 2014)




----------



## Stunna (May 12, 2014)

< indiscriminate cuddler/sleeper


----------



## Garfield (May 12, 2014)

lol I don't even like cuddling with girls and I'm straight


----------



## Hyperion1O1 (May 12, 2014)

Cuddle? Hell no


----------



## Sablés (May 12, 2014)

Cuddle?

[YOUTUBE]P2fmZ2C2CdA[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Deputy Myself (May 12, 2014)

actually this thread should be trashed. It's not newsworthy and the replies are getting dumber by the minute


----------



## Raiden (May 12, 2014)

It's not a "phenomena" at all. Straight men don't care...?


----------



## RAGING BONER (May 12, 2014)

the only man who ever tried to hug me was my dad before i pushed him away and told him to check his hetero card.

and wtf is cuddling...is that what you do with a small dog?


----------



## ThunderCunt (May 12, 2014)

RAGING BONER said:


> the only man who ever tried to hug me was my dad before i pushed him away and told him to check his hetero card.
> 
> and wtf is cuddling...is that what you do with a small dog?


>such  username
>much context to OP
>very reply
>top lel


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (May 12, 2014)

This thread 

[YOUTUBE]VAnRV2fWHiU[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (May 12, 2014)

Mider T said:


> You of all people should not be criticizing people's news choices.



When it comes to CNN fro sports news? Yeah I can.



Risyth said:


> You said yourself that he never said anything about homosexuality, and especially not in a negative context. So what you're saying is that, despite this, he had to have (for whatever reason) said such negative things anyway, even though we didn't see them.
> 
> But unlike you,  rather  by  we've  of Jesus'  instead of your opinions on what else he might have said--that fits your agenda.
> 
> Your comparisons of homosexuality behavior to rape and domestic violence and  are base and just plain inaccurate: homosexuality involves merely a natural feeling of attraction towards another, while the latter two are conscious, violent decisions made on an unwilling person. And homosexual feelings are as lustful as heterosexual feelings, so you can't say the former is any more wrong.



What? I'm not comparing homosexuality with rape and other stuff. Your links have nothing to do with what I said at all. Just because Jesus might have or might not of said something doesn't mean its not wrong. 

Again I just provided stuff for you because it seemed like you didn't understand the Bible so I posted that list for you. I'm not here to argue with you because you'll think the way you want to think. So as I said before live your life and I'll live mine.


----------



## Bioness (May 12, 2014)

I've cuddled with straight  men, nothing sexual, it is really not a big deal.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (May 12, 2014)

Moody said:


> small ass sample size



I know right? I love these study because they say "93% of all guys do this" when in turn they ask 20 fucking guys and then make it a big deal like all guys do it you better be more accepting or some shit.

I'd be like me asking 20 guys, "Do you jack off?" 

Wow! According to this study 99% of all guys jack off! Wow! Such data! Much Results!


----------



## KuzuRyuSen (May 12, 2014)

Its called bromance. I know, its cheesy, but its never homosexual.


----------



## Lord Yu (May 12, 2014)

Never shared a bed with a dude other than my dad.  This whole thing seems pretty gay. I've had sleepovers and stuff but no one ever shared a bed much less spooning. WTF?


----------



## Xiammes (May 12, 2014)

Athletes are the gayest straight men around, even in highschool we were having sleepovers. Though I can't say I've ever cuddled with a man, but I know like half of the team did.


----------



## Vermin (May 12, 2014)

i immediately thought of glee when i read the title


----------



## ClandestineSchemer (May 12, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> I know right? I love these study because they say "93% of all guys do this" when in turn they ask 20 fucking guys and then make it a big deal like all guys do it you better be more accepting or some shit.
> 
> I'd be like me asking 20 guys, "Do you jack off?"
> 
> Wow! According to this study 99% of all guys jack off! Wow! Such data! Much Results!




Its not just that.

The study was also limited at a select group and then applied the results on all men.
To borrow your colorful metaphor, it would be like asking 20 guys with porn site memberships, if they jack off and then declaring it true for all men.


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (May 12, 2014)

Where the fuck are all these dudes cuddling at? What type of sleepovers are you guys having? I was an athlete in high school and most athletes are the type of guys to make fun of other guys and call them gay for very minor contact with other dudes. Characterizing athletes as "more gay" than other men might work with the newer generation of kids but I don't buy it. I had sleepovers when I was younger and the rule was "sleep on the couch or sleep on the floor" never would I sleep in the same bed with a buddy of mine.

I swear man, a lot of dudes today were raised on soy milk or something.



Bioness said:


> I've cuddled with straight  men, nothing sexual, it is really not a big deal.



Break down this scenario for me.


----------



## Ennoea (May 12, 2014)

So I imagine you all follow the Bible strictly right??


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (May 12, 2014)

Narcissus said:


> What hogwash. God specifically says he punishes children for the sins of their parents, and has a massive track record of killing people for things they weren't responsible for (meaning something they shouldn't need grace for in the first place).



Le your neg rep just wanted to come back and correct this.

Punishes them, key word, He doesn't damn them to hell for not knowing him.


----------



## dummy plug (May 12, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> I know right? I love these study because they say "93% of all guys do this" when in turn they ask 20 fucking guys and then make it a big deal like all guys do it you better be more accepting or some shit.
> 
> I'd be like me asking 20 guys, "Do you jack off?"
> 
> Wow! According to this study 99% of all guys jack off! Wow! Such data! Much Results!



pretty much, its almost a joke...one will never get the exact result since its impossible to study/interview all straight men in the world(even athletes for that matter) so "studies" like this one has to be taken with a grain of salt but 40 people? cmon


----------



## LesExit (May 12, 2014)

I've never seen two guys cuddling before. I have in a seemingly jokingly way, but they legitimate cuddling. Though girls seem to literally be all over each other all the time, or many of the ones I know. I remember I went to this sleepover one time and literally I went to the bathroom and when I cam back all the girls were basically in a pile with their limbs all tangled up...and I just burst out laughing cause they weren't like that a minute ago. Theres girls at my school that are supposedly straight who kiss their friends who are girls. ...I'm kinda awkward in general,  so while I love cuddling...I usually avoid it unless it's with someone I'm super comfortable with XD

I don't see why guys shouldn't be able to show this type of affection towards another though. I admit it might look strange to me at first glance because most don't seem too compared to girls. Though if guys start being more open about it, hopefully my own children won't even blink an eye at it


----------



## Garfield (May 12, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> I know right? I love these study because they say "93% of all guys do this" when in turn they ask 20 fucking guys and then make it a big deal like all guys do it you better be more accepting or some shit.
> 
> I'd be like me asking 20 guys, "Do you jack off?"
> 
> Wow! According to this study 99% of all guys jack off! Wow! Such data! Much Results!


Ok, I'm not gonna comment upon whether this sample size is good enough or not because I didn't read the study, but I hate all you people who jump on this "LOL SMALL SAMPLE SIZE" bandwagon and don't understand probabilities and simple things like the .

Even with a "small" sample size --small being subjective-- one can be quite sure (as in more than say 60%) about certain results you know. Especially when you're narrowing down to -as in the article- student athletes and shit.

srsly stfu


----------



## Deputy Myself (May 12, 2014)

if you're a guy who doesn't cuddle his mates you need to find better mates


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (May 12, 2014)

adee said:


> Ok, I'm not gonna comment upon whether this sample size is good enough or not because I didn't read the study, but I hate all you people who jump on this "LOL SMALL SAMPLE SIZE" bandwagon and don't understand probabilities and simple things like the .
> 
> Even with a "small" sample size --small being subjective-- one can be quite sure (as in more than say 60%) about certain results you know. Especially when you're narrowing down to -as in the article- student athletes and shit.
> 
> srsly stfu



So because somebody might have the same birthday it makes the study right? Being born on a certain day has nothing to do with this.


----------



## Garfield (May 12, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> So because somebody might have the same birthday it makes the study right? Being born on a certain day has nothing to do with this.


lol you misinterpreted completely. It means that a statement that says: "group x has a likelihood of property a because px sample of it where p<<1 was sampled strongly showed the characteristic" does NOT mean that if you see a pattern in px, ALL of x will have the property.

It means that with *some likelihood* one can confidently say that given a larger sample from x, a significant portion of it may display this property.

You have to pay attention to the likelihood part. It's just like saying: With some likelihood, since you've seen from 10 coin tosses that tails came up 9 times, that this coin is NOT fair. This statement in no way guarantees that this coin is unfair, it just says that due to conclusions from the small sample size, there's a high likelihood of such a case happening. In fact in real world we can literally use this fact because even for such a "small" sample size, the observation was pretty one sided.

EDIT: I should add though that even now I'm kinda simplifying this a lot.


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (May 12, 2014)

Yeah, I did it . Friends and brother ... No big deal .


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (May 12, 2014)

That's weird. Yeah you're kinda gay if you do that.


----------



## Vermin (May 12, 2014)

cuddling  ≠ you want to fuck his brains out

swear the replies in the thread are getting worse and worse


----------



## Hand Banana (May 12, 2014)

Normality said:


> That's weird. Yeah you're kinda gay if you do that.



How can you be kinda gay? You're either gay or not. There is no such as in between. Bi-sexual just means you're gay, but still like the opposite sex, but you're still gay.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (May 12, 2014)

adee said:


> Ok, I'm not gonna comment upon whether this sample size is good enough or not because I didn't read the study, but I hate all you people who jump on this "LOL SMALL SAMPLE SIZE" bandwagon and don't understand probabilities and simple things like the .
> 
> Even with a "small" sample size --small being subjective-- one can be quite sure (as in more than say 60%) about certain results you know. Especially when you're narrowing down to -as in the article- student athletes and shit.
> 
> srsly stfu



The birthday problem only applies if its a randomly chosen set of people, in this case not only is it a small sample size but they chose from a subset of people.  They took just athletes and tried to apply the findings to ALL straight men.

First not all athletes are straight, and even if they were I fail to see how a subset of people grouped by their participation in a sport is an accurate group to represent the sexuality of every other man.  Participation in a sport has nothing to do with your sexuality.


----------



## Sunuvmann (May 12, 2014)

I legitimately can't say I remember having done so.

Unless dads count as 'other men'

In which case sure.


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (May 12, 2014)

adee said:


> lol you misinterpreted completely. It means that a statement that says: "group x has a likelihood of property a because px sample of it where p<<1 was sampled strongly showed the characteristic" does NOT mean that if you see a pattern in px, ALL of x will have the property.
> 
> It means that with *some likelihood* one can confidently say that given a larger sample from x, a significant portion of it may display this property.
> 
> ...



The problem with the article is the title, though. It is a small sample size, which of course can create problems, but it also drew from a very specific and rather homogenous demographic that would have it's own culture but the title makes this sound like a generalized conclusion. It's not just a problem of sample size, it's a matter of highly selective sampling. I'll go through the variables there were held constant in order of importance. 

-All white (the least important facet, but given the fact that many other racial and ethnic demographics are more anti-gay...)
-All college age (youth culture can play a factor, and attitudes towards homosexuality are different)
-Presumably all college (there is such a thing as college culture, and it's generally more permissive)
-All British (explicitly identified as less tabooed on the subject in the article)
-All athletes (and male athletics have a particular culture that involves a lot of intense, and physical, male bonding) 

That's a lot of variables that would all tend _towards_ rather than _against_ weak taboos against same-sex physical bonding amongst men. It strikes me as if it was basically ignorant of how the chosen demographic would radically overrepresent acceptance of such displays or that it did so on purpose.


----------



## Deleted member 23 (May 12, 2014)

Fiona said:


> That is fairly obvious.





Moody said:


> well klad it almost seemed like you perpetuating a victimization of sorts on anti-gay individuals.





Mintaka said:


> That victimizing like you are isn't working.  Oh noes!  Bigots are being called out on their bigotry, this is terrible.
> 
> Yeah pouring a slurpee on somebody isn't really in good taste, but the guy was being a prick.



I just thought it would be interesting to post this story.

How deluded are you people?


----------



## Garfield (May 12, 2014)

Tsukiyomi said:


> The birthday problem only applies if its a randomly chosen set of people, in this case not only is it a small sample size but they chose from a subset of people.  They took just athletes and tried to apply the findings to ALL straight men.
> 
> First not all athletes are straight, and even if they were I fail to see how a subset of people grouped by their participation in a sport is an accurate group to represent the sexuality of every other man.  Participation in a sport has nothing to do with your sexuality.


If you read the article, that's not what it is about at all. After my post I went and actually went through (quickly) the full article. What they are actually arguing is that males seem to be becoming less homophobic and more ok with physical contact with other males, something which mostly only females were ok with so far.

@Subtle obscurantist: same thing^


----------



## Garfield (May 12, 2014)

I'm in a university, so I was able to access the study, lemme know if you guys can access it, and if you not would you like to actually read it before opinionating :3


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (May 12, 2014)

I edited my previous post. Also, no, I can't access the study.


----------



## Saishin (May 12, 2014)

*Nintendo apologises for lack of virtual equality*



> Gamming company pledges to allow same-sex marriages in future versions of latest life-simulator game after backlash from fans and gay rights campaigners
> 
> Nintendo has apologised and pledged to be more inclusive after being criticised for not recognising same-sex relationships in English language editions of a life-simulator video game. The publisher said that while it was too late to change the current game, it was committed to building virtual equality into future versions if they're produced.
> 
> ...


----------



## ninjaneko (May 12, 2014)

[YOUTUBE]VFakkNq7vIk[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Linkofone (May 12, 2014)

...

...

...

...

And they won't let me play card games on my Wii U. I'm going to talk to Nintendu of America about that too.


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (May 12, 2014)

Really, are you insecure enough that if a friend hugs you or sleeps over your body or in the same bad you will think you're gay ? Gay is another men being your object of sex desires and shit . This is just friendly, I've cuddled with men friends(Once or twice I think) and women friends (A whole fucking lot) .

With the girls I felt attracted(By most of them) and by men ? Didn't even cross my mind being gay .

Being gay is not about hugging your male friends, is he being your sexual desire .


----------



## Wesley (May 12, 2014)

Just tell them what they want to hear until they go away.  If they want money, tell them to fuck off and die.


----------



## Garfield (May 12, 2014)

You guys do realize right that the conclusion of the article is: From studying student athletes, generally perceived as very masculine people, they've seen a strong positive trend in the fact that extended physical contact doesn't seem to be perceived as homosexual anymore.

They are not talking about sexuality of participants in any way...

I mean even considering this is Huffington Post, the article wasn't misleading. It's kinda saying the same thing the study said. You guys just didn't read the OP I think. In which case you're wasting my time


----------



## Zaru (May 12, 2014)

Well this about sums it up


----------



## Capt. Autismo (May 12, 2014)

It is just a game.


----------



## SLB (May 12, 2014)

Well they're going to be making the addition so it's all good.


----------



## Saishin (May 12, 2014)

Personally I don't see it as a problem,even if there are no gay characters in most of the videogames I don't mind that at all,in the end who cares if you can't marry a gay character it's just a game  but oh well in the same time it could be interesting


----------



## Parallax (May 12, 2014)

Bioness said:


> People don't, but hypermasculine football players would. They are some of the dumbest people if you have ever seen them talk in interviews, but hey people watch them for their physical skills, not their brains.



no this isn't true

Football players (as well as NBA and other sports) for decades have talked how they knew players in their teams were closeted gays and it's a non issue for a lot of them.  For them it's about production and if you can play and not much else.  You're gonna have your idiots of course but you are frankly wrong on this point

over generalization is fun :33


----------



## ClandestineSchemer (May 12, 2014)

adee said:


> You guys do realize right that the conclusion of the article is: From studying student athletes, generally perceived as very masculine people, they've seen a strong positive trend in the fact that extended physical contact doesn't seem to be perceived as homosexual anymore.
> 
> They are not talking about sexuality of participants in any way...
> 
> I mean even considering this is Huffington Post, the article wasn't misleading. It's kinda saying the same thing the study said. You guys just didn't read the OP I think. In which case you're wasting my time




None of that changes, that the sample group was bad. 
It doesn't matter what they are trying to prove, but the method they are using.

The study tries to conclude the shift in perception of all straight males, regarding physical contact between males.
The use of only 40 men from a very specific group, is just not a true representation of the whole straight male population.

Besides the posters were mostly making gay jokes and were not referring to the studies true intent.


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (May 12, 2014)

This is so trivial it's unbelievable. I think this is why I get along better with older gay dudes/lesbians than younger ones. They were gay when there was danger involved and when it wasn't cool, so they're more realistic about what they expect from societies.

This is no different than fat women wanting a fat Disney princess, just trivial. When you find yourself fighting for same sex couples in Nintendo video games, your life has very little actual purpose.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (May 12, 2014)

ClandestineSchemer said:


> None of that changes, that the sample group was bad.
> It doesn't matter what they are trying to prove, but the method they are using.
> Besides they were mostly making gay jokes and were not referring to the studies true intent.



This. Thank you very much I wrestled in Highschool we did all kinds of shit like smacked each others ass and showered and shit together but we never cuddled with each other.


----------



## Garfield (May 12, 2014)

ClandestineSchemer said:


> None of that changes, that the sample group was bad.
> It doesn't matter what they are trying to prove, but the method they are using.
> 
> The study tries to conclude the shift in perception of all straight males, regarding physical contact between males.
> ...


Ok lemme ask you a simple question: Is there no conclusion you can draw whatsoever by asking 5 people some question? 

If your answer is "No you can't", I'm gonna assume you've never actually learned probability and research methodology and are just saying shit on internet. 

edit: My post was towards JSJ, SubtleObs and Tsukiyomi


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (May 12, 2014)

adee said:


> Ok lemme ask you a simple question: Is there no conclusion you can draw whatsoever by asking 5 people some question?
> 
> If your answer is "No you can't", I'm gonna assume you've never actually learned probability and research methodology and are just saying shit on internet.
> 
> edit: My post was towards JSJ, SubtleObs and Tsukiyomi



But you really can't. If I ask 5 people what kind of cars do they like and each one says a different type what does that prove? 

If you can do that with 5 people what can you prove?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (May 12, 2014)

adee said:


> Ok lemme ask you a simple question: Is there no conclusion you can draw whatsoever by asking 5 people some question?
> 
> If your answer is "No you can't", I'm gonna assume you've never actually learned probability and research methodology and are just saying shit on internet.
> 
> edit: My post was towards JSJ, SubtleObs and Tsukiyomi



Depends on the question and the group of people, the only thing you're guaranteed to be able to conclude from asking 5 people something is "this is what these 5 people say they believe on this subject".

As I pointed out above they didn't use a random sample of the population, they chose a narrow subset of people based on preconceived notions that these people were more masculine than people outside of this group.

How far exactly are you saying the results of this study can be applied to the general population to conclude anything?

I'd also like to point out that things such as perceptions of masculinity vary from culture to culture so that further narrows the applicability of this study.


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (May 12, 2014)

You are saying this was directed at me?





adee said:


> You guys do realize right that the conclusion of the article is: From studying student athletes, generally perceived as very masculine people, they've seen a strong positive trend in the fact that extended physical contact doesn't seem to be perceived as homosexual anymore.
> 
> They are not talking about sexuality of participants in any way...
> 
> I mean even considering this is Huffington Post, the article wasn't misleading. It's kinda saying the same thing the study said. You guys just didn't read the OP I think. In which case you're wasting my time



I read the OP. I also specialize in statistics. I also never implied that this was about sexuality itself, but about taboos revolving around same-sex physical contact, which comports with the discussion the article raises. I also never stated that the sample size was inherently a problem, but the way the article titled the study and presented it. Although generally speaking, the more homogenous the group you sample, the more you will want to expand your sample to include a wider variety of said groups with different demographics features. If, for instance, your sample was based solely on a single sports team (and until I read the study I won't say anything like that), you could very easily be referring to a _unique_ culture. When you are trying to study demographics pertaining to certain subcultures, you will want to be sure to expand variables within that subculture as widely as possible. And the conclusions you draw still won't necessarily tell you clearly about what you are trying to study outside of that cultural context. Now frankly, I would imagine that the same findings do in fact hold for other highly masculine in-groups like male prisons or the army, but in order for it to be particularly good research, it has to acknowledge that a specific cultural abnormality can happen.


----------



## ClandestineSchemer (May 12, 2014)

adee said:


> Ok lemme ask you a simple question: Is there no conclusion you can draw whatsoever by asking 5 people some question?
> 
> If your answer is "No you can't", I'm gonna assume you've never actually learned probability and research methodology and are just saying shit on internet.
> 
> edit: My post was towards JSJ, SubtleObs and Tsukiyomi



I'm sincerely confused.

You have quoted me, but your edit implies, that you don't want my response.
So which is it?





Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> But you really can't. If I ask 5 people what kind of cars do they like and each one says a different type what does that prove?
> 
> If you can do that with 5 people what can you prove?




That is false, by the way.
You can use five people as long as they are representative of the population, the study is inquiring about.


----------



## Capt. Autismo (May 12, 2014)

98% of straight men love tickle fights with men.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (May 12, 2014)

ClandestineSchemer said:


> That is false, by the way.
> You can use five people as long as they are representative of the population, the study is inquiring about.



Ok then why do people complain about a small sample size then?


----------



## Garfield (May 12, 2014)

ClandestineSchemer said:


> Besides the posters were mostly making gay jokes and were not referring to the studies true intent.



My edit was an answer to this question. My posts before the one to Clandestine were to Subtle, etc. I wasn't asking the question to you three lol. Especially considering I already knew Subtle is involved with probability studies in some way.


----------



## IchLiebe (May 12, 2014)

SAT scores aren't relevant in the draft or NFL.


Just a publicity act to make being gay more acceptable...disgusting..


----------



## Capt. Autismo (May 12, 2014)

MartyMcFly1 said:


> This is no different than fat women wanting a fat Disney princess.



Come on who does not want a fat disney princess. Cinderella could have been way better.


----------



## Garfield (May 12, 2014)

SubtleObscurantist said:


> You are saying this was directed at me?
> 
> I read the OP. I also specialize in statistics. I also never implied that this was about sexuality itself, but about taboos revolving around same-sex physical contact, which comports with the discussion the article raises. I also never stated that the sample size was inherently a problem, but the way the article titled the study and presented it. Although generally speaking, the more homogenous the group you sample, the more you will want to expand your sample to include a wider variety of said groups with different demographics features. If, for instance, your sample was based solely on a single sports team (and until I read the study I won't say anything like that), you could very easily be referring to a _unique_ culture. When you are trying to study demographics pertaining to certain subcultures, you will want to be sure to expand variables within that subculture as widely as possible. And the conclusions you draw still won't necessarily tell you clearly about what you are trying to study outside of that cultural context. Now frankly, I would imagine that the same findings do in fact hold for other highly masculine in-groups like male prisons or the army, but in order for it to be particularly good research, it has to acknowledge that a specific cultural abnormality can happen.


yeah, when you read the study, you'll find the authors actually have addressed some of the specifics you mention, and you're right. They are concluding right for the most part. They're aren't using words like "All males are less inclined to homosexual allegory when in context of extended physical contact" or whatever. They're just saying, that in the parameters of their study, their findings suggest that within certain subcultures at least, this association is now less likely.


----------



## Byrd (May 12, 2014)

This thread and comments...


bottom-line: Who cares


----------



## baconbits (May 12, 2014)

This:



Parallax said:


> no this isn't true
> 
> Football players (as well as NBA and other sports) for decades have talked how they knew players in their teams were closeted gays and it's a non issue for a lot of them.  For them it's about production and if you can play and not much else.  You're gonna have your idiots of course but you are frankly wrong on this point
> 
> over generalization is fun :33



I think everyone needs to calm down.  We really don't know how good this guy is until he plays - look at all the low draft choices that do go on to have great NFL careers.  He comes from a good conference but he may have to develop his physical skills more.  Beyond that we all ought to wish him well and hope he stays healthy, as we would for any other draft pick.  

...Besides the guys the Bears draft: they can all get hurt.


----------



## Garfield (May 12, 2014)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Depends on the question and the group of people, the only thing you're guaranteed to be able to conclude from asking 5 people something is "this is what these 5 people say they believe on this subject".
> 
> As I pointed out above they didn't use a random sample of the population, they chose a narrow subset of people based on preconceived notions that these people were more masculine than people outside of this group.
> 
> ...



That particular post wasn't to you Tsu ;_; sorry for confusion.

If you want I'll send you a copy of the actual article as well. You can see my post above to see what their actual conclusion is. They're not saying all human males from world over are such and such. They're agreeing that this is a relatively constricted study.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (May 12, 2014)

[YOUTUBE]4qNDon9_82U[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## LesExit (May 12, 2014)

Awww no gay relationships D: thats unfortunate. I think for life simulators like this, it makes perfect sense that people would want to be able to have homosexual relationships. It's not something I'd cry over, but I always get sad when theres games where you can date people and I can't date a girl as a girl . Usually if I'm lucky the customization is good so I can make a guy character and make him look more girlish XD Well the response to this from NIntendo seems good. I'd say within 10 years, stuff like this really won't be an issue anymore...just gotta wait a bit.


----------



## Wesley (May 12, 2014)

Death to straight people!


----------



## ClandestineSchemer (May 12, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Ok then why do people complain about a small sample size then?



Because from the information in the article, leads to the conclusion, that the sample size is not representative.
You were wrong there, because Adee was asking, whether you can use 5 people at all. 

Also from Adee's recent posts, it seems the journalists didn't know the fuck they were doing and were the ones who generalized the study.


----------



## Garfield (May 12, 2014)

ClandestineSchemer said:


> Because from the information in the article, leads to the conclusion, that the sample size is not representative.
> You were wrong there, because Adee was asking, whether you can use 5 people at all.
> 
> Also from Adee's recent posts, it seems the journalists didn't know the fuck they were doing and were the ones who generalized the study.


Ok, I am glad I cleared up something lol. Now you see why I was kinda frustrated with last 3 pages, sorry.


----------



## LesExit (May 12, 2014)

OMG! It's so waaaarm out today...now I want a slushie myself


----------



## Pliskin (May 12, 2014)

MartyMcFly1 said:


> I think this is why I get along better with older gay dudes/lesbians than younger ones. They were gay when there was danger involved and when it wasn't cool, so they're more realistic about what they expect from societies.



Yeah,back when it was still a mental disorder and we used to castrate or lobotomize them, those were the days .

Those uppity new age homosexuals not knowing to fear society anymore ..


----------



## LesExit (May 12, 2014)

Wesley said:


> Death to straight people!


....:0 ....woooah.
um...


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (May 12, 2014)

Pliskin said:


> Yeah,back when it was still a mental disorder and we used to castrate or lobotomize them, those were the days .
> 
> Those uppity new age homosexuals not knowing to fear society anymore ..



Nice try, but it's pathetic, shortsighted and shows that you didn't really read what I said. Nowadays people just love to frame things in such a victimizing way.

I just think older gay guys and lesbians are less likely to be upset about trivial things such as being included in a Nintendo game, that's all I meant. Not that they should be afraid of society.


----------



## Hand Banana (May 12, 2014)

That's cause you take this internet shit way too serious. Relax.


----------



## Nep Nep (May 12, 2014)

I sure as hell couldn't cuddle with another man, I have no problem with gays but I can't do it myself in any way.  

Just thinking about the distinctive smell of a males body makes me sick.  

-shudders-   

It's kind of annoying how they imply homophobia is the cause of men not cuddling... no it's because I don't like men that way.  

Both genders have a very different scent to their bodies, personally the scent of males makes me sick in such close quarters as cuddling. 

A hug? Fine but that's it..


----------



## PrimalRage (May 12, 2014)

EDIT: whoops wrong thread.


----------



## PrimalRage (May 12, 2014)

/sigh

Guys are really trapped within a societal box of being a "man". While girls have made strides and have more leeway to act how they want, guys are pressed into a corner and lol insecure to the extreme on anything that might distort their image of masculinity. Which includes acting in anyway affectionate and/or gay. Thus this spectacle we have here.

News flash, if girls can be affectionate with other girls and still be straight (no most girls are not bi), why do you think guys can't?


----------



## Hand Banana (May 12, 2014)

Because Primal... 

Females have emotions.

Real men have testosterone.

Bitches can get touchy feely, but only time a man should touch another man is when he is bring the pain.


----------



## Capt. Autismo (May 12, 2014)

I got what you meant MMF.


----------



## eHav (May 12, 2014)

why does everyone have to bend over for the gay agenda? what if i complain i cant play a black guy on a game with no black guys? dont like the idea dont buy the fucking game. there, everything works out


----------



## Capt. Autismo (May 12, 2014)

eHav said:


> why does everyone have to bend over for the gay agenda? what if i complain i cant play a black guy on a game with no black guys? dont like the idea dont buy the fucking game. there, everything works out



Speaking of that I noticed Pokemon has been putting a lot more black people in there game than they ever did before.


----------



## Scud (May 12, 2014)

Killua1st said:


> Speaking of that I noticed Pokemon has been putting a lot more black people in there game than they ever did before.


Game Freak is going to catch shit next, because you can only catch male or female pokemon in their games. What about all the ones that don't identify with a specific gender!? That's discrimination!


*Spoiler*: __


----------



## Megaharrison (May 12, 2014)

Everything needs to meet the PC quota.


----------



## Capt. Autismo (May 12, 2014)

Scud said:


> What about all the ones that don't identify with a specific gender!? That's discrimination!
> 
> 
> *Spoiler*: __



That is what they have ditto for.


----------



## Megaharrison (May 12, 2014)

Also there were too many gay news threads so I merged them all together.


[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-0FKH6ph3M[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (May 12, 2014)

PrimalRage said:


> /sigh
> 
> Guys are really trapped within a societal box of being a "man". While girls have made strides and have more leeway to act how they want, guys are pressed into a corner and lol insecure to the extreme on anything that might distort their image of masculinity. Which includes acting in anyway affectionate and/or gay. Thus this spectacle we have here.
> 
> News flash, if girls can be affectionate with other girls and still be straight (no most girls are not bi), why do you think guys can't?



Because males =/= females?

If you're a bloke aching to be affectionate with other blokes and restraining yourself because of gender norms you're a ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) NQAT.


----------



## EJ (May 12, 2014)

A lot of the black characters I saw in the Pokemon game is racist. 

Like they had one black girl looking like a slave, and the other one was a basketball player


----------



## SLB (May 12, 2014)

MartyMcFly1 said:


> Nice try, but it's pathetic, shortsighted and shows that you didn't really read what I said. Nowadays people just love to frame things in such a victimizing way.
> 
> I just think older gay guys and lesbians are less likely to be upset about trivial things such as being included in a Nintendo game, that's all I meant. Not that they should be afraid of society.



Is it trivial? Probably. But it does help both parties in the long run. gay people will be represented in most mediums in the future, and this paints nintendo in a good light as they're rectifying the mistake.

But it does seem silly in contrast to what a lot of people around the world are really fighting for with regards to equality. 

I don't like the way this was brought up either, but the end result is pretty good all around.


----------



## Capt. Autismo (May 12, 2014)

Megaharrison said:


> Also there were too many gay news threads so I merged them all together.
> 
> 
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-0FKH6ph3M[/YOUTUBE]



Thanks Mega now I am confused.


----------



## SLB (May 12, 2014)

fucking scared the shit out of me, mega. thought my post went wired itself to another thread or some shit


----------



## Capt. Autismo (May 12, 2014)

Flow said:


> A lot of the black characters I saw in the Pokemon game is racist.
> 
> Like they had one black girl looking like a slave, and the other one was a basketball player



I know it is pretty funny.


----------



## Capt. Autismo (May 12, 2014)

I love the name you made for it big gay thread.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (May 12, 2014)

Killua1st said:


> Thanks Mega now I am confused.



I know now I'm all messed up!

You made it worse!


----------



## Gino (May 12, 2014)

>Straight
>cuddling with another man
>Pick on-

you know where I'm going with this.


----------



## EJ (May 12, 2014)

Yeah too many guys are obsessed with masculinity it seems. You don't have to try and impress anyone, just be yourself. 

Man, I thought this was the convo thread.


----------



## Linkofone (May 12, 2014)

Brilliant. Brilliant.


----------



## Totally not a cat (May 12, 2014)

MartyMcFly1 said:


> Where the fuck are all these dudes cuddling at? What type of sleepovers are you guys having? I was an athlete in high school and most athletes are the type of guys to make fun of other guys and call them gay for very minor contact with other dudes. Characterizing athletes as "more gay" than other men might work with the newer generation of kids but I don't buy it. I had sleepovers when I was younger and the rule was "sleep on the couch or sleep on the floor" never would I sleep in the same bed with a buddy of mine.
> 
> I swear man, a lot of dudes today were raised on soy milk or something.
> 
> ...



It's not a big deal, I've cuddle with straight men before, also girls.
 Mostly family and friends. It doesn't really mean anything and it's very comfortable.


----------



## Narcissus (May 12, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Punishes them, key word
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Then you concede that God punishes people for the sins of others. Which, as shown in the example with David's son, refuted your claim that God gives everyone a chance to know him. Because a newborn baby could not possibly know him.





> He doesn't damn them to hell for not knowing him.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Which you also admit that you don't know. You're stating a baseless opinion.

Hence you haven't corrected anything. Moreover, assuming you were right about God not damning people to hell for ignorance, by extension, if anyone told them of God and they didn't believe due to the lack of evidence, they would then be sent to hell. Where as before they would've been fine.

Prehaps this is why you should keep your faith to yourself.


----------



## Thor (May 12, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> SAT scores aren't relevant in the draft or NFL.
> 
> 
> Just a publicity act to make being gay more acceptable...disgusting..



Pos repped.


----------



## Deleted member 23 (May 12, 2014)

Megaharrison said:


> Also there were too many gay news threads so I merged them all together.



Now I'm all confused about which post addresses what topic.
This thread is a few comments away from being locked.


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (May 12, 2014)

adee said:


> yeah, when you read the study, you'll find the authors actually have addressed some of the specifics you mention, and you're right. They are concluding right for the most part. They're aren't using words like "All males are less inclined to homosexual allegory when in context of extended physical contact" or whatever. They're just saying, that in the parameters of their study, their findings suggest that within certain subcultures at least, this association is now less likely.



Ugh, but as I've read it, and looked into some of the relevant studies that it pre-references 

First, there is no baseline. Which is to say, this sampling was not at all akin to prior sampling from which the conclusion that hetero-masculinity was more aversive is drawn. It's entirely possible that this sub-culture was always like this, and I'd say it's even plausible given how the very existence of taboos against same-sex intimacy noted as more common in groups that revolve around masculinity is premised on it's desire to offset perceived homosexuality. That greater concern over perceived homosexuality in some contexts could logically follow from the the greater degrees of intimacy in other contexts. Popular perceptions of male sports teams often do involve the idea that that sweaty men are all over each other, sharing a lot of close physical experiences, and while I am not quoting a study here, I don't believe that perception is new. Heck, it quotes a study as far back as 1999 that says that this behavior is common amongst British youth and the references to research in the 80's suggesting that homohysteria are common are notably lacking in their empirical content. 

Also, after reading the study, this group is even more homogenous than I first thought. I think that even in a restrained form, this research overshoots it's mark. And I do have some background in psychology, so I'm drawing upon experience in this area that suggests to me that gender identity research is plagued by the projects and frameworks of an earlier era where empiricism was atrocious. I have noted some issues with the sampling here, but these are issues, and not a sweeping criticism of the whole project. But the problem is, and this can be seen even by searching out (as I did for an overview) some of the earlier studies cited as evidence for the pre-existing framework that is supposedly being placed, the baseline against which such studies are being compared has a history of severe ideological biases which would have made it impossible to suggest that hyper masculine subcultures were not plagued with rampant homophobia. Notice how throughout the article, the older theories of sweeping masculinities are being replaced by multiple masculinities, but they are doing so in response to new evidence. Ordinarily, if you incorporate new evidence that contradicts prior evidence and you wish to replace an older theory, you start by looking to repudiate or replicate older research (difficult as that can be). What you don't do is start with the presumption that the old theory is incomplete or wrong and then suggest that the prevalence of trends under a new theory is a sign of some sort of social progress, because if you do that, you are undermining the validity of your methodology altogether. If new theories don't mark an increase in knowledge, but rather a change in trends, then their validity as _predictors_ rather than _causes_ becomes hopelessly muddled.

As a bi-woman who is extremely gender transgressive and even experienced what some might call a mild case gender dysphoria as a child, this area of research has long interested me, but what I'm looking at here is now a very effective research project at identifying trends. For this research to be of much value, you need not only expanded sample size, but wildly expanded heterogeneity in the sample, and you need a firmer baseline which means that the project has to address the validity of previous research. Many other fields of psychology have become quite adept at this, so that when paradigms shift wildly in a particular field, such as developmental psychology, they first either repudiate or replicate earlier research rather than racing forward. It risks a lack of scientific rigor. 

tl;dr for everyone else, gender and sexual identity needs to shape up it's act as a discipline before studies like these can be taken too seriously.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (May 12, 2014)

Narcissus said:


> Then you concede that God punishes people for the sins of others. Which, as shown in the example with David's son, refuted your claim that God gives everyone a chance to know him. Because a newborn baby could not possibly know him.Which you also admit that you don't know. You're stating a baseless opinion.



There are good reasons biblically and theologically for believing that God saves all who die who do not reach a stage of *moral understanding and accountability*. 

First, we'll point to the grace, goodness and mercy of God.

"God is love (1 John 4:8) and desires that all be saved (1 Timothy 2:4). God is love and His concern for children is evident in Matthew 18:14 where Jesus says, 'Your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost.'"

Unlike *adults who choose rebellion and reject God*, children are incapable of "this kind of conscious rejection of God" and God is gracious to receive them, they argue.

Other evidence provided includes:
•The Old Testament account of David and Bathsheba when their baby boy dies. David "confessed his confidence that he would see the child again and he comforted his wife Bathsheba," indicating that David believed his son was with God.
•The distinction between original sin and actual sins. Everyone is guilty of original sin but only persons who know to do right but does not do it are accountable for actual sins.
•Luke 18:15-17. Jesus affirmed that the kingdom of God belonged to little children. In addition to stating that saving faith is a childlike faith, Jesus also "seems to be affirming the reality of children populating heaven."
•Revelation 7:9. Scripture affirms that the number of saved souls is very great, the theologians say. "Since most of the world has been and is still non-Christian, might it be the untold multitude who have died prematurely or in infancy comprise a majority of those in heaven?"
•Some in Scripture are said to be chosen or sanctified from the womb, the lastly argue. This repudiates the view that only baptized babies go to heaven.

It is important for us to remember that anyone who is saved is saved because of the grace of God, the saving work of Jesus Christ and the undeserved and unmerited work of the Holy Spirit ... When it comes to those incapable of volitional, willful acts of sin, we can rest assured God will, indeed, do right. Precious little ones are the objects of His saving mercy and grace.




> Hence you haven't corrected anything. Moreover, assuming you were right about God not damning people to hell for ignorance, by extension, if anyone told them of God and they didn't believe due to the lack of evidence, they would then be sent to hell. Where as before they would've been fine.
> 
> Prehaps this is why you should keep your faith to yourself.



Yes but Adults know the difference between Good and Bad.

Prehaps this is why you should look more into this "false God" that you hate so much? There is so much you do not understand.


----------



## Hozukimaru (May 12, 2014)

> Yes but Adults know the difference between Good and Bad.



I'm starting to doubt this.


----------



## Cthulhu-versailles (May 12, 2014)

lol. ------------------------ reminds me of that south park episode about being trapped in the closet. then again, i dind't read anything beyond the bold =/ not sure if the man is actually gay or not...though i don't care either way


----------



## Mider T (May 13, 2014)

lol purge.  PURGE!


----------



## Fiona (May 13, 2014)

Guys are so stupid  

You even slightly brush another guys hand and suddenly you feel the need to shout from Mount Everest itself that you are not gay and you love women. 

Homophobia in guys is a hilarious thing to watch I must admit


----------



## PrimalRage (May 13, 2014)

erictheking said:


> Because males =/= females?
> 
> If you're a bloke aching to be affectionate with other blokes and restraining yourself because of gender norms you're a ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) NQAT.



Did you know male friends in India hold hands in public. Like they walk down the street and stuff and their totally not embarrassed. You know why... because there's no dumb stigma on being affectionate in public. Not because, "oh males and females are different". No duh, that _doesn't_ mean both don't like showing physical affections. 

It's the cultural norms at work, not biology behavior.



			
				Hand Banana said:
			
		

> Because Primal...
> 
> Females have emotions.
> 
> ...



They both have emotions. Yes men tend to have more aggressive emotions because of testosterone, but being emotionally constipated most of the time doesn't mean they never feel affectionate for their fellow bros. They're just awkward as hell since society is stupid.


----------



## Hand Banana (May 13, 2014)

Fiona said:


> Guys are so stupid
> 
> You even slightly brush another guys hand and suddenly you feel the need to shout from Mount Everest itself that you are not gay and you love women.
> 
> Homophobia in guys is a hilarious thing to watch I must admit



Girls are such capitalistic whores. The moment you brush hands with another women you two get on a webcam and try to profit from it.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (May 13, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> Girls are such capitalistic whores. The moment you brush hands with another women you two get on a webcam and try to profit from it.



FEMINISM! 

I also miss all the good stuff. Mega why you do this?


----------



## Narcissus (May 13, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> "God is love (1 John 4:8) and desires that all be saved (1 Timothy 2:4). God is love and His concern for children is evident in Matthew 18:14 where Jesus says, 'Your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost.'"


Which talks about desire and will, not action. Hence it does not provide proof in the way you're trying to use it.

It is much the same as when people claim God is omnipotent and omniscient, but in action we see God fail to accomplish or know something.





> ?The Old Testament account of David and Bathsheba when their baby boy dies. David "confessed his confidence that he would see the child again and he comforted his wife Bathsheba," indicating that David believed his son was with God.


First and foremost, that story demonstrates God's cruelty in that he punishes people for the crimes of others with death.

Further, you are trying to use a human's belief as evidence, when that person is completely unreliable. He lacks the knowledge, and is in a state of emotional grief over his son's death.

The rest of your bullets did not refute what I said. God specifically shows that he does not give everyone the attempt to know him. Nor have you shown that he saves all of these people.

Also, you have someone spun this discussion from ignorance of God's existence to whether or not children go to hell.





> When it comes to those incapable of volitional, willful acts of sin, we can rest assured God will, indeed, do right.


No, we can't. Especially when you stated that you don't know. You are trying to pass your opinion as fact.





> Yes but Adults know the difference between Good and Bad.


Has nothing to do with what I said. If God were to allow people to go to heaven if they didn't know of him, you're telling those people abut him condemns them to hell if they don't believe due to the lack of proof. Where as before they we going to be fine.





> Prehaps this is why you should look more into this "false God" that you hate so much?


Your fallacious guesses into my motives also have nothing to do with this discussion.

You have not supported what you have said and have contradicted yourself time and again.


----------



## Fiona (May 13, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> Girls are such capitalistic whores. The moment you brush hands with another women you two get on a webcam and try to profit from it.



This made me laugh pretty hard not gonna lie 

Your sarcasm is always welcome.

But seriously the Homophobia in guys is just ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with being gay in the first place, let alone something that merits such a reaction.


----------



## Gunners (May 13, 2014)

I think it is a case of men being more consistent, to be truthful. 

Cuddling under the sheets, holding hands, and so forth are acts most men deem intimate. They're things I wouldn't do with another man, but at the same time, they're also things I wouldn't do with a woman unless I am romantically involved with her. 

I think it is a lack of consistency that causes people to remove the romantic level of intimacy away from the act. If I saw my girlfriend walking hand in hand with another male, or found out that she was cuddling another man under the bed sheets, there is no way I would believe the two were not romantically intimate, because ( assuming the woman is a heterosexual) they do not typically behave that way around other men. However, with other women the dynamic shifts completely.


----------

