Defensive end out of Missouri looks draftable btw he is gay.

[monkey]

I am jumping down a bit but there are many cases of homosexuality among other species. As of 1999, nearly 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, have been observed engaging in same-sex behaviors; and is very well documented in about 500 species.

Now maybe that I came out of an environment (science) where I knew many so people of that gay and lesbian persuasion and got to know them that I do not find them for one threatening, or different than anyone else. Just because someone comes out and is honest about it does not change the fact of who they are.

I know many people have a philosophical persuasion, be it religious or other that may influence their beliefs but I try to judge each person on a one to one basis. I find it more morally corrupt if someone marries just for money and convenience, but that is my value system, some may find that perfectly acceptable.

You're not seriously trying to engage in the great scientific straw man about so called "gay animals" are you really? My word, the "gay animal" myth has been exposed so many times...it's SUCH a fraud.

Animals also occasionally engage in behaviors such as killing their young (fillicide), and cannibalism, so does that make it "natural" and therefore moral, for us as humans to engage in those behaviors?
Please don't mistake animal behavior, which is driven by sensory input, and instinct with morality.
I realize that the "gay animal" myth is brought up as a counter to the natural law philosophy, but it's a straw man argument because it's a complete misunderstanding of what the natural law philosophy is advocating as moral behavior.

More to the point though, homosexuality does NOT exist in animals at all. Homosexual BEHAVIORS have been witnessed, for reasons other than procreation, (obviously) such as establishing dominance etc... BUT there is no such thing as a truly homosexual animal, one who willingly chooses to engage in sex with a member of the same gender instead of with an available member of the opposite sex.

You know why so called "gay zoos" have a difficult time staying open?

Apart from the fact that they don't make enough money, because aside from gay activist donations, no one is spending money to see gay animals, it is because, you have to keep the so called "gay animals" away from opposite gender members of their species, otherwise they try to engage in sex with them, quickly destroying the myth about them being "gay".
Take two "gay" male animals, put them in a cage together, and yes, they may exhibit behaviors that seem "gay", but throw a female of the species, one who is in heat and available into the same cage with those two "gay" males, and what you will soon see is a FIGHT, for the right to breed with the female. Those two "gay" males will hurt each other trying to get at the female.

Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, says that:
Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.

Even homosexual scientists such as Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to "isolated acts, not to homosexuality".

The idea of "gay" animals, is just a complete myth pushed by humans with an agenda.

[kalibane]

Hawktawk,

Since you mentioned it first I'm going to say, yes I think your generation and upgringing has greatly affected your take on this subject. You're searching for a political agenda.

Jason Collins was not signed because he was gay. He was signed because he's a big body who can bang, play decent post defense, will give up his body, give six hard fouls and be a leader in the locker room with no ego. Oh and he happens to have a history with the Nets coach being former teammates. These things don't produce a sexy stat line but they are the same things that kept him employed before he was out of the closet.

Sam came out of the closet because people were asking about it at the senior bowl. It wasn't a well kept secret and he wanted to control the narrative. IMO that's his right given it's his narrative. The publicity was coming whether he wanted it or not, there was no way 90 football players, plus whoever else knew at the University were going to keep that secret. At his news conference at the combine he comported himself well tried to deflect many of the questions about sexuatlity and focus on football.

This whole thread is beginning to make my head hurt. There is no middle ground. Even the whole Rolling Stone discussion is just so extreme. There was an editorial point behind the cover photo and it was not to make him a rock star. I wonder whether people would even have brought up "rock star" if it wasn't Rolling Stone who published the article making it an easy association. Argue it was ill-timed, or poor judgment but the whole point was that so many people have an image of terrorists as some jingoistic boogey man that can be stereotyped. The whole point was to break the stereotype, not to glamourize him. I'm not a huge fan of Rolling Stone, but man acting like you throw out the entire magazine because of a photo. I'd really like to know the percentage of people who were outraged by that cover even read the article.

There really shouldn't be anything to see here, but for some reason it's the longest thread on the forum. The fact that so much debate around the issue itself is proof enough why Sam simply living his life was not really an option.

[HumanCockroach]

I always find the "morality" excuse humorous above all others in regards to why someone feels entitled to judge someone elses sexuality. LOL. Morality? The same book used to base those moralities tells people to not judge others, so of course they need to judge others. LMAO. No matter, Sam can ask for his forgiveness of all his "sins" on his death bed, and be absolved of his life of "immoral" acts, no worries for him.... LOL

[monkey]

HC do you ever actually respond to what is said, or do you just get angry and try to shout people down?
I ask because, in your two posts since mine, you've not ONCE responded to ANY of the points I made.

My first post was about Sam's dishonesty in saying that all he wants to be known for is football. My second post, I took on your "gay animal" argument.
Your response? Moral outrage and an attack against the Bible, and people's beliefs in it.

Wow...talk about straw man arguments!

[HumanCockroach]

HC do you ever actually respond to what is said, or do you just get angry and try to shout people down?
I ask because, in your two posts since mine, you've not ONCE responded to ANY of the points I made.

My first post was about Sam's dishonesty in saying that all he wants to be known for is football. My second post, I took on your "gay animal" argument.
Your response? Moral outrage and an attack against the Bible, and people's beliefs in it.

Wow...talk about straw man arguments!

Lets be clear here, at no point did you "take on my gay animal argument" because before that sentence was typed, I didn't mention gay animals. Secondly, I am not "angry". I think ALL of this is stupid, ignorant, and ridiculous. I don't spend time ( well and I should say any longer, as I wasn't of this thought process when I was a young man) worrying about the "moralities", nor whether a person is "defective" nor a "deviant" , because I actually have found that spot in my life, where if someone isn't hurting me, or people I care about, I don't feel the need to judge them, or have a problem with them. As such, I am not going to go point by point on your post ( as for the do I ever respond question, um, seriously? How long have we been posting on the same board?).

In your first post you knew you would get grief, you said so yourself, and yet you are surprised when you do? You can't be serious Monkey.

To tell you the truth this topic is stupid to me, as it was ALREADY discussed on the PI and the SAME points were brought up by you and others ( including the gay non gay animal debate). Forgive me if I am not going to spend hours researching whether it is a flaw, choice or morally bankrupt. Because the thing is, if there wasn't folks like you, Sam would have never have HAD to say anything about it in the first place. I don't have issues with people living their lives how they want.

[monkey]

because I actually have found that spot in my life, where if someone isn't hurting me, or people I care about, I don't feel the need to judge them, or have a problem with them.
I don't have issues with people living their lives how they want.

And yet, in another thread you basically said that people who hear from God are crazy...interesting double standard.

I wasn't surprised I got grief, as I said, I expected it.
I was just pointing out that no one has responded to my assertion that it's dishonest to say that all you want to be known for is a football player, when you tell the entire world that you are the first openly homosexual football player.
You still haven't BTW...
Now, instead of responding to my point, you are essentially implying that I am a bigot.
I'm even less surprised by that!
This is how these "debates" always go, and why I should have just stayed out, which I will from this point on.

[kalibane]

Monkey that's been answered multiple times (before you posed it) and he answered it himself this weekend.

It has been widely reported that NFL teams had wind of the fact that he was gay that scouts had been asking around at the senior bowl etc. etc. Someone was going to break the story it wasn't a matter of if, it was a matter of when. Being the one to make the announcement on his own terms allows him to control the direction of the story as much as humanly possible.

That's it. That's all. He wants to be known for his football play, but the simple fact is as soon as it was known that he was gay and in the NFL it's a national story because people are so obsessed with other people's sexuality. And it was going to be known. I don't get why this is so hard to understand. If he was profiteering, why is he making the decision to not take endorsements?

The sooner it's out there the sooner it can be in the past.

[Oly]

You're not seriously trying to engage in the great scientific straw man about so called "gay animals" are you really? My word, the "gay animal" myth has been exposed so many times...it's SUCH a fraud.

[...]

Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, says that:
Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.

Even homosexual scientists such as Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to "isolated acts, not to homosexuality".

The idea of "gay" animals, is just a complete myth pushed by humans with an agenda.

(In the interest of citing sources, here's yours: http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual ... imals_myth)

What you say is true for the banal reason that no human behavior can be isomorphically mapped on to other animals. We also can't say that other animals "miss" each other, because we don't know their internal mental states, even though members of some species enthusiastically greet conspecifics after long absences. Similarly, we shouldn't say that other animals are either homosexual or hetereosexual because those terms encompass the experience of longing and attraction that we can't definitively assess in other animals. That's why biologists writing about animal behavior talk about reproductive sexual contact or nonreproductive sexual contact for both same-sex and opposite-sex sexual behavior.

But now on to this:

More to the point though, homosexuality does NOT exist in animals at all. Homosexual BEHAVIORS have been witnessed, for reasons other than procreation, (obviously) such as establishing dominance etc... BUT there is no such thing as a truly homosexual animal, one who willingly chooses to engage in sex with a member of the same gender instead of with an available member of the opposite sex.

You know why so called "gay zoos" have a difficult time staying open?

Apart from the fact that they don't make enough money, because aside from gay activist donations, no one is spending money to see gay animals, it is because, you have to keep the so called "gay animals" away from opposite gender members of their species, otherwise they try to engage in sex with them, quickly destroying the myth about them being "gay".
Take two "gay" male animals, put them in a cage together, and yes, they may exhibit behaviors that seem "gay", but throw a female of the species, one who is in heat and available into the same cage with those two "gay" males, and what you will soon see is a FIGHT, for the right to breed with the female. Those two "gay" males will hurt each other trying to get at the female.

and this:

HC do you ever actually respond to what is said, or do you just get angry and try to shout people down?
I ask because, in your two posts since mine, you've not ONCE responded to ANY of the points I made.

You've made a few posts since mine without responding to it. Do you ever respond to what is said, or do you just get angry and try to shout people down? I ask because, in your two posts since mine, you've not ONCE responded to ANY of the points I made.

Rather than read the scientific literature on the topic (and I even found a good review article to get you going), you just pulled out a quote from Conservipedia. I find it a bit baffling that you're talking about the proper interpretation of animal behavior from the perspective of biology and yet you avoid actually talking about what biologists have to say on the topic. The fact that you're talking about the inheritance of complex behavior patterns while completing ignoring the importance of epigenetics, despite my comments on the topic, suggest to me that your interest in the scientific literature on the topic is purely tendentious.

But on to the question of how "gay" animals react when a sexually receptive member of the opposite sex is around: let's talk when you've read some of the literature. Again, the article I cited is a good place to start. The truth behind that literature is complex in that it supports neither a "it's all genetic" nor a "it's all a choice" position. Besides, even if all "gay" animals choose opposite sex partners if given the chance (which is false, but you haven't read the literature, so I'm not going to waste my time there), it is still the case that they engage in same-sex behavior. Call it homosexuality or same-sex behavior, it doesn't matter: it suggests that dudes f***ing dudes can result from biological urges and not from choice. You're trying to force sexual behavior into clean gay/straight distinctions, and that's my point with the "gay" animals: they suggest that nature doesn't come cleanly divided. Besides, humans form pair bonds differently than any animal. Even if there was no such thing as a purely homosexual human by birth, the fact that attraction can follow behavior suggests that early experience can shape early openness to same-sex relationships into a legitimate and stable orientation without that person ever making a conscious choice to be gay.

But something tells me that you're so uncomfortable with ambiguity and nuance in this topic that you'll just revert to an easy answer that lets you remain feeling morally superior.

Wow...talk about straw man arguments!

You mean like bringing up gay zoos?

[Oly]

I wasn't surprised I got grief, as I said, I expected it.
I was just pointing out that no one has responded to my assertion that it's dishonest to say that all you want to be known for is a football player, when you tell the entire world that you are the first openly homosexual football player.

Several others had. You are the one ignoring them.

Now, instead of responding to my point, you are essentially implying that I am a bigot.

I responded, including to your hope for a genetic cure. I wouldn't call you a bigot for opposing homosexuality. I would, however, for your comments that would make eugenicists proud.

This is how these "debates" always go, and why I should have just stayed out, which I will from this point on.

Convenient. Back out after wishing for a genetic cure but before bothering to read the research on the topic.

That said, I agree that it is how these things always go, and everyone leaves internet debates with renewed belief in the stupidity of internet debates.

[monkey]

Oly, I didn't see your responses while I was typing. I didn't intentionally overlook your response to my post, I missed it inadvertently.
Having said that, I am not going to comment any further, except to say that, it my timing on declaring that I would no longer be posting here was decidedly INCONVENIENT given your response to it.
I'm not ignoring you, I just refuse to bother. Clearly we're both too entrenched in our opinions on this topic, so really what's the point?

For the record, I don't give a CRAP what Sam does in his personal life. I never have cared about his being a homosexual, I don't know him, his life won't affect mine in ANY way.
My ONLY concern was what I perceived to be dishonesty with his response, which Kalibane presented a legitimately decent response to (Which I also hadn't seen, before I posted...I type slowly)
I believe that people are using the "gay" agenda to attack people's freedom of religion in this country, via, the so called "gay marriage" debate.

[Hawktawk]

OK now for the Michael Sam combine #s. 40 yd dash official 4.91 with 3 false starts.Thats a number more in line with the DT's than D ends. 17 reps at 225 lbs,second worst at the combine among linemen. Best performance relative to the competition was the broad jump at 9'6". Vertical 25.5 4th worst among all linemen.

All this for a guy who is a tweener at only 260 lbs. A scout today called him situational player at best. Gil Brandt said on NFL network the other day that Sam isn't among his top 300 players this year and he has no idea how he was voted SEC co-defensive player of the year.

So we know he is gay. Does he still look draftable?

[NorthHawk]

If you go strictly on measureables, he isn't.
However, the game films have more weight than the Combine and there are lots of players who play better than their stats.
All that to say who knows?

[kalibane]

I hat when guys like Gil Brandt, make stupid comments. He still has his scouting pedigree but 1. he's looking for NFL players. 2. There is a reason he hasn't been in an NFL front office for decades (the game has passed him by). Sam's production on the field earned him the Co-Defensive player of the year not his pro potential. Just like Tebow deserved to win the Heisman as clearly the best college football player in the country even though his skill set isn't there to be an NFL caliber QB. The two things have nothing to do with one another.

I'm no NFL scout but I'll say this about Sam. He ain't helping himself. Only 17 in the bench press is awful for a D-Lineman. He's stiff and terrible in coverage so LB is completely out (I saw some tape of him trying to back peddle and turn his hips against TEs and it was embarrassing). If he doesn't have speed on to be a situational speed rusher it might be tough for him to get drafted. Overall he's just not looking like he has any truly special skills. But then remember how many of the Seahawks players weren't NFL caliber. It's going to come down to his game tape and if any scouts out there see something there that they like (or if he has a great pro day).

Like I said from the beginning. If he can play someone will find a place for him. If he can't ... oh well.

[Hawktawk]

I hat when guys like Gil Brandt, make stupid comments. He still has his scouting pedigree but 1. he's looking for NFL players. 2. There is a reason he hasn't been in an NFL front office for decades (the game has passed him by). Sam's production on the field earned him the Co-Defensive player of the year not his pro potential. Just like Tebow deserved to win the Heisman as clearly the best college football player in the country even though his skill set isn't there to be an NFL caliber QB. The two things have nothing to do with one another.

I'm no NFL scout but I'll say this about Sam. He ain't helping himself. Only 17 in the bench press is awful for a D-Lineman. He's stiff and terrible in coverage so LB is completely out (I saw some tape of him trying to back peddle and turn his hips against TEs and it was embarrassing). If he doesn't have speed on to be a situational speed rusher it might be tough for him to get drafted. Overall he's just not looking like he has any truly special skills. But then remember how many of the Seahawks players weren't NFL caliber. It's going to come down to his game tape and if any scouts out there see something there that they like (or if he has a great pro day).

Like I said from the beginning. If he can play someone will find a place for him. If he can't ... oh well.

The game may or may not have passed Gil by but it has sure passed by his successor Jerry Jones....Gil couldn't possibly do any worse than that.
One of the things Brandt said that I found interesting was that 9 of Sams 11.5 sacks came in 3 games mostly against mediocre competition, also that he was relatively invisible later in the season despite not facing double teams.

Now Kal I'm trying not to look for a political agenda:-) but it sounds like we both agree the guy is a marginal talent at best at the next level. So will it be fair if the league is persecuted for not finding him a roster spot? Because I think there will be an element of that.

[HumanCockroach]

So IMHO that would answer the only question that matters, can the guy play, and help a team win. Which IMHO is where the focus should actually be, not on irrelevant, inconsequential personal preferences. I hope he does get drafted to be honest, I don't look forward to the other side of the penny claiming prejudice any more than those that have an issue with it.

[kalibane]

Honestly I don't know if he's a marginal talent or not. I haven't seen the game tape. According to most people Richard Sherman and Kam Chancellor were marginal talents so what does that really mean? All I can agree to is that his measurables don't look good and you won't see me complaining if he doesn't get drafted.

Also I can say that someone will make a stink about it (most likely someone that doesn't know crap about football) which won't be fair. But we will also see people try to use the poverty pimps who would be outraged if Sam doesn't get drafted to make it seem like legitimate instances of gay discrimination are just as hollow.

I just hope I don't have to hear about some massive liberal agenda on this forum because Perez Hilton has a blog and a loud mouth.

[burrrton]

But we will also see people try to use the poverty pimps who would be outraged if Sam doesn't get drafted to make it seem like legitimate instances of gay discrimination are just as hollow.

I can't tell if I'm reading that sentence correctly, but it seems to be entirely expected that people would become numb to, even dismissive of, accusations of discrimination when there are people making entire careers out of blaming discrimination for everything up to and including their burnt toast.

And I had to google Perez Hilton.

IOW, I'm inclined to agree that there are too many people who probably don't take real cases of discrimination seriously, but I'd put the blame about 90/10 on that for all the d-bags that make false or exaggerated accusations, and that includes *me*, who is a rather consistent supporter of SSM.

[edit]

Terrible wordsmithing on the last paragraph there- I meant that I was an example of the former group (who are arguably over-inclined to dismiss accusations), not the latter (d-bags), whether you think the latter fits or not.

[Oly]

This just confirms just about everyone's impression that he is not a good prospect. Of course, a middling 40 time and "tight hips" dropped the best CB in the game to the 5th round, so I have to be careful about saying anything too definitive, but he certainly doesn't seem like someone I want on the Hawks.

I think that, physically, his only position is ILB in a 3-4. Who knows if he has the instincts to read-and-react in that position, but I can't see him as a DE or OLB in the NFL. But, who knows, perhaps with the right coaching and weight room staff, he can turn his motor into an NFL career.

I'm rooting for him, but on another team.

[NorthHawk]

This just confirms just about everyone's impression that he is not a good prospect. Of course, a middling 40 time and "tight hips" dropped the best CB in the game to the 5th round, so I have to be careful about saying anything too definitive, but he certainly doesn't seem like someone I want on the Hawks.

I think that, physically, his only position is ILB in a 3-4. Who knows if he has the instincts to read-and-react in that position, but I can't see him as a DE or OLB in the NFL. But, who knows, perhaps with the right coaching and weight room staff, he can turn his motor into an NFL career.

I'm rooting for him, but on another team.

According to the analysts on NFL Network, he isn't a LB and he needs to play with his hand in the dirt. Just a situational pass rusher. On the other hand, every team is looking for a guy who can rush the passer. He's said to be a tweener, but the again so are Wake and Dumerville as DE's. It's up to him to show he has the ability to get to the passer in whichever teams TC he ends up at.

I doubt he fits here because he doesn't seem to have the length that PC seems to covet nor the speed.

[Zorn76]

Combine numbers aren't everything but, yeah, his stats so far are forecasting that he may not be drafted after all.

[briwas101]

So maybe his best chance is to leave the combine and tell everyone he's gonna be a Niner?