Gay Team Mate in the Locker Room

In short Jefferson didn't write those words believing white,blacks,etc, were all created equal. It was written as a attack on nobility, or entitlement which the British monarchy was living in at the time. To believe anything different is just flat out wrong, sorry to burst your bubbles folks.

To believe anything different is just flat out wrong, sorry to burst your bubbles folks.

Since we're NOT created equal (according to you), who's higher on the food chain, whites or blacks?

Blacks or Hispanics?

Hispanics or Asians?

Asians or Middle Easterners?

Women or men?

White women or Hispanic men?


Who's "not equal?" Answer the question, nancy-boy, or shut your pie-hole.

@Axe - Can't see the forest through the trees huh axe? Sorry you have been clinging to this fantasy but it's a lie. The phrase was written as a slap on he British monarchy of the time. And it's at the core of why Britain had such disdain for the colonies. But fact is its a lie. And if you thought for a second our founding fathers thought they were in fact equal to everybody there would have never been slaves. Never had issues with homosexuals etc..... Even today if you think your life started on equal footing as say a Kennedy your crazy. It's a novel thought but it stops there. We are equal in the fact we are all flesh blood and bones but it stops there. The sooner folks get over that idea the sooner they will get off their back side and make something happen and not expect it because they feel they should have it, or are equal. You ever wonder why it's the have nots that cry about being equal? Think about that if the phrase was true, nobody would be crying about equality.

" All men are created equal "  This statement has nothing to do with a persons physical or worldly stature but how we are seen in God's eyes.  Everyone should be shown the same respect regardless of rich or poor, black, white or latino, christian, jew or muslim, etc, etc.  It didn't mean that when it was first written but it sure as hell should now.

Well, what gets me about this whole thing is the idea that people like me need to somehow be 'secure' in my sexuality.  I am secure in my sexuality. I'm secure that I like women and don't like to be hit on by men.  In fact, it bothers me to be hit on by men and naturally so.  I'm sure there are women out there that don't like to be hit on by men, women, or anyone, but who are secure in their sexuality as well.  People want to put us in the 'bigot'/homophobe category.  I have friends from college who have a homosexual preference. I also had frat brothers who were openly gay and who hit on me and I didn't like it at all.  I don't care that they liked men...but I did care that they didn't respect my sexuality.

Going further...in a locker room you are fuck****ing naked when taking a shower.  I would personally feel pretty uncomfortable knowing a homosexual might be eyeing me in lust.  Does it mean I would hate them or disrespect them as a person?  No, but I'm not going to agree with their lifestyle and especially with them making advances or oogling me or other men.  There is a degree of privacy even in locker rooms regardless of how you guys want to think it is 'un-evolved' thinking, and once that line of privacy is crossed there's no going back.  A person is not going to be trusted in a locker room if they feel the need to be sexually out in the open by those who have a level of privacy that doesn't want to deal with such things.  There is no reason to express your sexuality whether it be for men, women, or both, in a locker room, end of story.  Make friends and talk about it outside of the locker room.

And this really has nothing to do with whether or not men are 'created equal' or not.  Men are created equal in the sense that everyone has a right to live, speak, hear, touch, breathe, feed themselves, and work for a living regardless of sexual orientation, skin color, choice of religious beliefs, etc., although for Jefferson it was indeed propaganda.  I don't know how the argument went there, but whatever.

Axe - Can't see the forest through the trees huh axe?

Can't answer a simple question without running away like a coward, huh Alf?

If we're not created equal (YOUR words), then who is unequal?

Are blacks not equal to whites?

Are Hispanics better than Asians?

Are white women superior to Middle Eastern men?


Final attempt: put up or shut-up, sissy.

Can't answer a simple question without running away like a coward, huh Alf?

If we're not created equal (YOUR words), then who is unequal?

Are blacks not equal to whites?

Are Hispanics better than Asians?

Are white women superior to Middle Eastern men?

It depends on the metric you choose...there is no superior overall race, but some races are demonstrably more capable in some areas than others.

It depends on the metric you choose...there is no superior overall race, but some races are demonstrably more capable in some areas than others.

You could be right here. Some races could be more demonstrably more capable of accepting of homosexuals than others. I know that some religions are more accepting than others, that has been well-documented. (Christians score low on that scale). 

It depends on the metric you choose...there is no superior overall race, but some races are demonstrably more capable in some areas than others



I do agree with this, but then again the problem is that when you point this out it is racist... and that is because people are way to PC...  they care more about not offending people than commercing with people...  Look at our society, we formed segregational ghettos, one neighborhood can be overly jewish, another overly italian, another overly black, etc...  people fear saying something that will offend so they opt not to say something at all... and that is a huge problem...  I have no problem with claiming ignorance after the fact, how else i am to learn??

Is sexual preference a lifestyle choice or hard-wired in people?

Depending on the answer, will we be consistent about our treatment of other sexual preferences? Where do fetished fit in? Where is the line between acceptable and unacceptable? Is there a line?

Is girl-on-girl action hot and guy-on-guy action not? There's too much vagueness and opportunity for cherry-picking here.

Is girl-on-girl action hot and guy-on-guy action not? There's too much vagueness and opportunity for cherry-picking here.

---

 Of course there are opportunities for cherry-picking if it's girl-on-girl action......Duh!

First off I answered the question more than once not my fault you can't see that. But I must ask, what do the terms or phrases Sissy, or nancy boy have to do with anything? In other words is it supposed to be some sort of insult? Are you somehow mocking my sexuality by labeling me with feminine insults? I mean what's next Axe gonna call me F A G G O T? Of course in your eyes that would be ok because you support them so your type of bigotry like pittsteel is just fine.

First off I answered the question more than once not my fault you can't see that.

You didn't come close to answering it. You huffed and puffed your sparrow chest, then ran away like a scared little girl.

But I must ask, what do the terms or phrases Sissy, or nancy boy have to do with anything? In other words is it supposed to be some sort of insult? Are you somehow mocking my sexuality by labeling me with feminine insults?

Nope, just speaking a language you clearly understand. You act like a coward, so I treat you as one.

"Nope, just speaking a language you clearly understand. You act like a coward, so I treat you as one.".................So by throwing insults my way that are traditionally used towards homosexuals must mean you in turn think all homosexuals are cowards then. Because you could clearly just call me a coward but you go with nancy boy, sissy, etc... And I guess while doing your ignorant tantrum it was completely missed that I stated not all men are created equal. I never said not all races were equal did I? Nope, that's you trying to go there I never even hinted at that. I also made it clear that for example if you think your offspring would be on equal footing with say a Kennedy your kidding yourself. Simple fact is they wouldn't. You in your libretard ignorance jumped off that bridge and tried to make it about one race being superior to another. I never said that or implied that, that's on you. Just like Isay or implied homosexuals are cowards. Again that seems to be your train of thought here.

chill   ^^^ NANCY ^^^

^^^^^^^ not upset. The hypocrisy in his actions are funny though. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

..It's my iPad that posts in one giant paragraph. I usually use quotations broken up by a series of periods, to help seperate my post from the quote. I used to make my response in all caps but everybody thought I was yelling so I stopped that.

I take it then that you agreed with the rest of my post, as you only addressed this portion. Good on ya. 

I would much rather have a gay teammate who can make plays than a straight guy who can't.

If you have ever been on a team such as a high school football/college basketball/youth soccer/high school hockey/pro team, you have taken a shower with a gay dude. Chances are the gay dude didnt hit on you (so chances are he wasnt attracted to you because you are ugly/fat).

Studies have shown that about 10% of the people are gay...so there are about 5 gay men in every NFL locker room. I would assume that the other 48 kinda know who those 5 are.....so Im guessing Tiki Barber and Clinton Portis didnt fool anyone in NY and Washington. Neither did Troy Aikman in Dallas.