The Official 2014 NFL Draft Thread

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Two things:

1) How can you know whether he is at heart a good, kind, and caring individual. Shit - he might even disagree with you on that.

Conversation and observation. Talk with someone and observe their actions and interactions long enough, and you gain insight into who they are. Some, of course, are much easier to figure out, whereas others take a longer time.

What about the possibility of lying or fronting? Over a long enough timeline, inconsistencies will emerge that give you a much better idea of the veracity of a person's words and actions, both text-based and in person. (And indeed, certain skilled psychological profilers will ascertain these things quicker in person based on nonverbal communication).

Of course, one also has to realize that to gain a completely accurate picture, one must have access to both the physical and the textual. This isn't possible in most cases - either we know people mostly in the physical realm (real life) or the textual world (online). That being said, with enough exposure in one sphere or the other, we can have enough material and data to be able to fashion a picture that stands a very good chance of being accurate (in much the same way the laws of statistics and sampling operate, incidentally).

2) Sometimes you have to call people on their shit. If you let them get away with it then it just encourages them.

Disagreeing with somebody and presenting your case for disagreement is entirely different than a personal attack.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

A hundred years ago you'd have been wearing white sheets, lynching black people and talking about the travesty of them being treated equally.

While I still don't think Jon is a very swell individual on the social front, looking back on this comment I realize I was a bit out of line and offer my apologies.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Actually, I didn't mean that one as an insult at all. Actually didn't even really cross my mind -- given the way I was phrasing it -- that it would/could be perceived as one.

Looked like you were colorfully calling chadritt an idiot, I guess I was just giving you too much credit for creativity.

I meant exactly what I was saying there: I literally don't know how to explain something I see as THAT obvious to someone that doesn't find it obvious. If anything that's a shot at my own ability to explain something.

I'd probably be a more effective person in all sorts of ways if I could but I genuinely & seriously don't know how to get something across in cases like that.

Got it.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Conversation and observation. Talk with someone and observe their actions and interactions long enough, and you gain insight into who they are. Some, of course, are much easier to figure out, whereas others take a longer time.

What about the possibility of lying or fronting? Over a long enough timeline, inconsistencies will emerge that give you a much better idea of the veracity of a person's words and actions, both text-based and in person. (And indeed, certain skilled psychological profilers will ascertain these things quicker in person based on nonverbal communication).

Of course, one also has to realize that to gain a completely accurate picture, one must have access to both the physical and the textual. This isn't possible in most cases - either we know people mostly in the physical realm (real life) or the textual world (online). That being said, with enough exposure in one sphere or the other, we can have enough material and data to be able to fashion a picture that stands a very good chance of being accurate (in much the same way the laws of statistics and sampling operate, incidentally).



Disagreeing with somebody and presenting your case for disagreement is entirely different than a personal attack.

When an entire argument is built on a foundation of religion, it's rather hard to debate. I lost interest in debating religion long ago.

All I know is other people want to love each other and celebrate that love amongst themselves like most the population is allowed. And he want's to prevent this love and happiness, despite the fact that it has no impact on him. This is because he is a bad person.

I have yet to hear a single good reason for this mindset in over a decade of debate. It's either some simpering idiotic logic that's easily brushed aside or it's religion. What's the point in debating the latter.

[lungs]

As a bowler, I'm totally outraged that my fellow bowler Scott Norton's gay kiss on ESPN last year isn't being given its proper due.

[Julio Riddols]

Now has anyone seen AJ McCarrons chest tats? I don't know what to make of em, but they look terrible. And they're growing.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Looked like you were colorfully calling chadritt an idiot, I guess I was just giving you too much credit for creativity.

Nah, in that particular scenario if I'd been going to do that I'd likely have just done it outright. Or at least a helluva lot more clearly.

I really was lamenting a frustrating scenario (the whole I-honestly-don't-know-how-to-explain-this thing), something I put on par with stuff like trying to explain sound to a deaf person or a sunset to a blind person. I simply don't know how to do it.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by lungs

As a bowler, I'm totally outraged that my fellow bowler Scott Norton's gay kiss on ESPN last year isn't being given its proper due.

I'm not up on bowling parlance but is that picking up a 7-10 split?

SI

[lungs]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm not up on bowling parlance but is that picking up a 7-10 split?

SI

No, Scott Norton is openly gay bowler and after he won a televised tournament on ESPN he gave his partner a big smooch.

So ESPN has treaded in this territory before

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by jeff061

When an entire argument is built on a foundation of religion, it's rather hard to debate. I lost interest in debating religion long ago.

All I know is other people want to love each other and celebrate that love amongst themselves like most the population is allowed. And he want's to prevent this love and happiness, despite the fact that it has no impact on him. This is because he is a bad person.

I have yet to hear a single good reason for this mindset in over a decade of debate. It's either some simpering idiotic logic that's easily brushed aside or it's religion. What's the point in debating the latter.

Saying someone is a bad person because their belief system is the premise which creates a logical sequence that leads them to conclude gay marriage shouldn't be allowed, which is a single issue, is reductionist at absolute best, and at worst, to be quite blunt, makes you look like the same narrow-minded jackass I'm guessing you would say the religious right are.

One can vehemently disagree with someone on any number of issues and yet still find them to be good people. Conversely, one can agree with someone on just about everything and still hold the belief said someone is a bad person.

Conflating an individual's beliefs with the actual individual is a simplistic viewpoint - Certainly one's beliefs - political, religious, societal, professional, etc. - are *part* of who they are, but by no means their whole.

[Matthean]

Johnny Manziel's teammates with Cleveland Browns not ready to anoint him starting quarterback - ESPN

Might as well take a year to learn since he has no one to throw to.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Saying someone is a bad person because their belief system is the premise which creates a logical sequence that leads them to conclude gay marriage shouldn't be allowed, which is a single issue, is reductionist at absolute best, and at worst, to be quite blunt, makes you look like the same narrow-minded jackass I'm guessing you would say the religious right are.

One can vehemently disagree with someone on any number of issues and yet still find them to be good people. Conversely, one can agree with someone on just about everything and still hold the belief said someone is a bad person.

Conflating an individual's beliefs with the actual individual is a simplistic viewpoint - Certainly one's beliefs - political, religious, societal, professional, etc. - are *part* of who they are, but by no means their whole.

Not to borderline Godwin things.... but I'm going to do it anyways. Many Muslim suicide bombers and killers justify their attacks as being for the good and against evil based on their beliefs. Historically this can be applied to Christianity and Catholicism as well. I don't consider those good people. Maybe you do?

In short, do I see a difference between them and Jon? No. I don't.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by jeff061

In short, do I see a difference between them and Jon? No. I don't.

And, oddly enough, that doesn't bother me a great deal.

The unlikely parallels -- at least in some philosophical senses -- between at least some Muslim extremists and myself have been noted (quite possibly by me before anyone else mentioned it here) several years ago.

The primary difference -- aside from methodology obviously -- is that I'm right and they're typically wrong. That's a difference I consider extremely critical, as well as relevant.

[molson]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Not to borderline Godwin things.... but I'm going to do it anyways. Many Muslim suicide bombers and killers justify their attacks as being for the good and against evil based on their beliefs. Historically this can be applied to Christianity and Catholicism as well. I don't consider those good people. Maybe you do?

In short, do I see a difference between them and Jon? No. I don't.

How far does that go? Is 38% of the population (and Obama until about 2 years ago) no better than those terrorists?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Saying someone is a bad person because their belief system is the premise which creates a logical sequence that leads them to conclude gay marriage shouldn't be allowed, which is a single issue, is reductionist at absolute best, and at worst, to be quite blunt, makes you look like the same narrow-minded jackass I'm guessing you would say the religious right are.

One can vehemently disagree with someone on any number of issues and yet still find them to be good people. Conversely, one can agree with someone on just about everything and still hold the belief said someone is a bad person.

Conflating an individual's beliefs with the actual individual is a simplistic viewpoint - Certainly one's beliefs - political, religious, societal, professional, etc. - are *part* of who they are, but by no means their whole.

It finally hit me what it is with you lately - I feel like you've turned into a caricature of an overly-intellectual academic.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by molson

How far does that go? Is 38% of the population (and Obama until about 2 years ago) no better than those terrorists?

When we are drawing the line on what makes a good person? No, they are no better. I don't think they deserve the same punishment, but they are all inherently bad people and our species are worse off because of them.

It finally hit me what it is with you lately - I feel like you've turned into a caricature of an overly-intellectual academic.

Yes, I agree, he is trying really hard in his last two posts, wordsmithed things to comedic levels.

[molson]

I don't think there's many opinions alone that I'm willing to label someone good or bad for. I think actions are so much more important. IMO, the liberal with the "correct" opinions that does nothing to help anyone is a worse person than the conservative that actually helps others. Sure there's limits, if someone's pro-NAMBLA then I'll have a hard time thinking they're an objectively good person, but I'm not ready to apply that line of reasoning to an opinion that 38% of the population (and probably the majority of people over 50) think. And even in that extreme example, the pro-NAMBLA guy, if he doesn't actually act on those opinions, on contribute to that cause, but actually helps others - their impact on the world might still be more positive than the guy with the great thoughts that does nothing for anyone.

[molson]

Originally Posted by jeff061

When we are drawing the line on what makes a good person? No, they are no better. I don't think they deserve the same punishment, but they are all inherently bad people and our species are worse off because of them.

That seems pretty heavy but I appreciate the honest response. Do you have any older relatives or anything that have conservative views on gay marriage? It's just kind of weird to me that you couldn't find more redeeming value in people who maybe just didn't change their mind on in time on that one issue. Like, I assume you wouldn't think they were automatically bad people in 1980, when probably 95% of Americans were opposed to gay marriage. But just at some point, when culture changed, they became bad people when they didn't change with it? I guess that's not too different than racial progress, in that I can see viewing the guy in his 80s whose racial sensitivities are stuck in the 1950s as a bad person.....But even there, I'm comfortable just seeing it as ignorance in a person who may very well have other great qualities.

Edit: It's also interesting to me where the cutoff is. Obama was straight-up opposed to gay marriage in 2008, which I thought as being kind of odd at the time, and was surprised it wasn't a bigger deal. Just using presidential candidates to try to measure the timing of culture, I don't think a Democratic nominee could have been opposed to gay marriage in 2012. It happened pretty fast.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by molson

That seems pretty heavy but I appreciate the honest response. Do you have any older relatives or anything that have conservative views on gay marriage? It's just kind of weird to me that you couldn't find more redeeming value in people who maybe just didn't change their mind on in time on that one issue. Like, I assume you wouldn't think they were automatically bad people in 1980, when probably 95% of Americans were opposed to gay marriage. But just at some point, when culture changed, they became bad people when they didn't change with it? I guess that's not too different than racial progress, in that I can see viewing the guy in his 80s whose racial sensitivities are stuck in the 1950s as a bad person.....But even there, I'm comfortable just seeing it as ignorance in a person who may very well have other great qualities.

Edit: It's also interesting to me where the cutoff is. Obama was straight-up opposed to gay marriage in 2008, which I thought as being kind of odd at the time, and was surprised it wasn't a bigger deal. Just using presidential candidates to try to measure the timing of culture, I don't think a Democratic nominee could have been opposed to gay marriage in 2012. It happened pretty fast.

I wasn't very old in the 80's so I couldn't say. I find it hard to believe that there still wasn't a significant(not necessarily majority) amount of people that would be pro-gay rights. There was no movement(or marketing driven agenda as some like to say) at the time for people to speak out with. They didn't have the motivation or reason so they stayed quiet. Gays were actively persecuted, so they stayed quiet as well.

Rinse and repeat for the civil rights movement.

And no, I do not have anti-gay relatives or people in my life. I suspect it's due to my geographic location and the fact that I wasn't raised in religious circles. Just speculating, could also just be a complete coincidence.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't think there's many opinions alone that I'm willing to label someone good or bad for. I think actions are so much more important. IMO, the liberal with the "correct" opinions that does nothing to help anyone is a worse person than the conservative that actually helps others. Sure there's limits, if someone's pro-NAMBLA then I'll have a hard time thinking they're an objectively good person, but I'm not ready to apply that line of reasoning to an opinion that 38% of the population (and probably the majority of people over 50) think. And even in that extreme example, the pro-NAMBLA guy, if he doesn't actually act on those opinions, on contribute to that cause, but actually helps others - their impact on the world might still be more positive than the guy with the great thoughts that does nothing for anyone.

The bolded forms the crux of my own response re: suicide bombers, etc. Thoughts and beliefs are one thing, actions another. For example, we do not see Jon going out and killing gays.

Then there's the whole part about these specific types of actions transitioning the debate from an essential binary question to then crossing into multiple issues and on several levels.

For example: belief in whether or not gays should be allowed to marry is, regardless of the individual stances one can take on the spectrum, drills down to a yes/no binary.

Killing gays then brings in the question of whether said executions is justified, which not only further complicates the issue by bringing in another variable (killing), but a particular variable that will draw far more fierce and expected opposition on the basis of moral and legal grounds (Killing is legally justifiable in only very specific, limited circumstances for one), to say nothing of hypocrisy (One of the Ten Commandments being Thou shalt not kill).

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

His taste in women is pretty well established at this point (and is he ever picky, sheesh). I'm pretty sure you're gonna wind up disappointed.

Jokes aside, that's some hateful shit to be wishing on somebody but hey, if that's how you roll then knock yourself out I reckon.

It's not hateful to say it. Not like he said he hoped that your kids had cancer or something like that.

Ironically it seems rather unenlightened as it shows that his true opinion is that being gay is a huge. For someone who always has to act like a self righteous left winger that seems to show his true colors.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

It's not hateful to say it. Not like he said he hoped that your kids had cancer or something like that.

Given those two & only those two options, I'd prefer the latter.

It's not a sin of commission / willfully immoral act. Cancer doesn't risk consigning anyone's soul to an eternity in Hell.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Not to borderline Godwin things.... but I'm going to do it anyways. Many Muslim suicide bombers and killers justify their attacks as being for the good and against evil based on their beliefs. Historically this can be applied to Christianity and Catholicism as well. I don't consider those good people. Maybe you do?

In short, do I see a difference between them and Jon? No. I don't.

If you don't see a difference between being against something and killing someone because of it you are very delusional.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs3

Or Gronkowski. Or Curtis Martin. Easy to pick the risks that failed.

This is a home run swing. Let's see if they make contact.

I'm liking it more the more I watch clips, but I figure it's better to go in with low expectations.

I also hope I'm wrong on Garoppolo and Blackadar's right, but I'm worried much of his success was due to the offensive system he was in. Matt Waldman's take down of his pocket presence was pretty damning.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

If you don't see a difference between being against something and killing someone because of it you are very delusional.

I was making a black and white, good and bad comparison with a hyperbole to make a point. I certainly don't think Jon is as bad as a murderer but they both equally think they are justifiably right in their efforts to harm others.

[NobodyHere]

So is there anything about the actual NFL draft left in this thread?

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

So is there anything about the actual NFL draft left in this thread?

After round 1, I love what my Jags did!

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

So is there anything about the actual NFL draft left in this thread?

I hear this is called progress.

[nol]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Given those two & only those two options, I'd prefer the latter.

It's not a sin of commission / willfully immoral act. Cancer doesn't risk consigning anyone's soul to an eternity in Hell.

And this "sin of commission" part is the exact same logic one could use to explain why they're fine with someone being gay but not with them being a bigot.

From there it just boils down to something that will eventually be proven right or wrong (getting the funding for such an experiment would be trivial if anyone besides religious fundamentalists believed that being gay is a choice or that finding exactly what determines someone's sexuality is even remotely important next to something like cancer research).

Just as you like your chances of being right when compared to an Islamic fundamentalist, I'm feeling pretty good about my chances on this one.

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by nol

And this "sin of commission" part is the exact same logic one could use to explain why they're fine with someone being gay but not with them being a bigot.

From there it just boils down to something that will eventually be proven right or wrong (getting the funding for such an experiment would be trivial if anyone besides religious fundamentalists believed that being gay is a choice or that finding exactly what determines someone's sexuality is even remotely important next to something like cancer research).

Just as you like your chances of being right when compared to an Islamic fundamentalist, I'm feeling pretty good about my chances on this one.

First off, I think that anyone who classifies anyone else by religion, race, nationality, etc...is missing the point...we're all people that have hopes, dreams, loves and the like and when we are singled out, or single ourselves out, we buy into this false logic that there are better or moral or the opposite. Now I'm not saying we're all one with the universe or get around in a drum circle but dammit, people are people, and we deserve to treat each other in the way that we would be wanted to be treated ourselves. Being good doesn't mean telling others they are bad, it is through the acts of being caring and respectful and trying to bridge understanding that you get a better world, maybe that's naive, but it's how I attempt to live my life.

Second, back to the topic, I am head-scratching the Eagle's 1st rounder, I'm sad we missed out on Cooks. Howie Roseman was all about drafting BPA but then when it came to the actual draft, he drafted on need. That can bite you in the tail later. We'll see how it plays out.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And, oddly enough, that doesn't bother me a great deal.

The unlikely parallels -- at least in some philosophical senses -- between at least some Muslim extremists and myself have been noted (quite possibly by me before anyone else mentioned it here) several years ago.

The primary difference -- aside from methodology obviously -- is that I'm right and they're typically wrong. That's a difference I consider extremely critical, as well as relevant.

...and he's modest too!

[stevew]

Still wondering if anyone will make Jimmy Graham a contract offer. Would be interesting to finally see a franchise player move for the first time in a generation or so(Galloway?)

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by stevew

Still wondering if anyone will make Jimmy Graham a contract offer. Would be interesting to finally see a franchise player move for the first time in a generation or so(Galloway?)

I just don't think Jimmy Graham is worth two first-round picks plus a ten million dollar a year average deal.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Given those two & only those two options, I'd prefer the latter.

Do you tell your kid that when you tuck him in at night?

[Logan]

Originally Posted by molson

That seems pretty heavy but I appreciate the honest response. Do you have any older relatives or anything that have conservative views on gay marriage? It's just kind of weird to me that you couldn't find more redeeming value in people who maybe just didn't change their mind on in time on that one issue. Like, I assume you wouldn't think they were automatically bad people in 1980, when probably 95% of Americans were opposed to gay marriage. But just at some point, when culture changed, they became bad people when they didn't change with it? I guess that's not too different than racial progress, in that I can see viewing the guy in his 80s whose racial sensitivities are stuck in the 1950s as a bad person.....But even there, I'm comfortable just seeing it as ignorance in a person who may very well have other great qualities.

I think if you were able to break down that 38% figure (or higher for older people), a good number of people would present stubborn arguments just like they would for any other opinion that they've held for years..."gays have never been able to marry, why change it now?", "why aren't civil unions enough?" "it just doesn't seem right to me" etc. Those aren't really arguments and it's easy to classify those people as being set in their ways and not having those opinions come from hatred.

It's the kind of shit my uncle would probably say. My uncle wouldn't classify homosexuality as "unacceptable immoral behavior". That would make him a bad person to me.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Disagreeing with somebody and presenting your case for disagreement is entirely different than a personal attack.

Jon's position is, by its very nature, a personal attack.

[panerd]

One of the things being lost in all the outrage is the number of people who claim to have been watching the kiss (or claim their kids or little brothers were watching). I am a bit skeptical that the actual rating matches up with the number of people who claim to have been watching during late 7th round coverage on Saturday afternoon.

[mrtourette]

Yeah I'd certainly tapped out by then.

[mrtourette]

I wonder how many people have gone looking for and watched it after hearing about it :P

[Honolulu_Blue]

I watched almost the entire draft, but missed the seventh round because I went out to dinner. So, not only did I miss the Lions draft their kicker of the future, Nate Freese!, but I missed the "kiss" as well. I finally caught a clip of it and... huh. That little peck on the lips is what's got everyone in such a tizzy? This is as ridiculous, if not more so, than the frenzy caused by Janet Jackson's nano-second nipple slip.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I watched almost the entire draft, but missed the seventh round because I went out to dinner. So, not only did I miss the Lions draft their kicker of the future, Nate Freese!, but I missed the "kiss" as well. I finally caught a clip of it and... huh. That little peck on the lips is what's got everyone in such a tizzy? This is as ridiculous, if not more so, than the frenzy caused by Janet Jackson's nano-second nipple slip.

Janet Jackson is exactly what I was thinking about when I typed my message. Not only was it a split second boob it was during a Janet Jackson halftime show. I know at the Super Bowl we were at we all found about it the next day because who watches the Janet Jackson halftime show?

I also agree with mrtourette it seems like almost nobody was likely watching the 7th round live so they actually had to go looking for it to be outraged.

EDIT: I will agree it was reshown quite a bit by ESPN but that usually isn't the story of the confused/scared/shocked 9 year old father/son claim.

[Logan]

I was watching the 7th round because I was looking to see if Sam ended up getting drafted.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by panerd

One of the things being lost in all the outrage is the number of people who claim to have been watching the kiss (or claim their kids or little brothers were watching). I am a bit skeptical that the actual rating matches up with the number of people who claim to have been watching during late 7th round coverage on Saturday afternoon.

It's funny you say that because I watched almost NONE of the draft. Wife and I were just lying around on the couch that afternoon and I saw on Twitter that he hadn't been drafted and I misread it thinking the draft was over. So I clicked over to ESPN to see news about it (I thought there would be huge blowback if he wasn't drafted at all). 10 minutes later, he was picked. Then they did the remote shot of the reaction at the gay bar and we were like...really? That's your go-to shot? Then they showed his reaction and then THE KISS. We both felt a little weird about it and showing it over and over didn't help. But I'm a middle aged suburban dad - I just don't see that...ever. So it's my problem and certainly not anyone elses. At the same time I was so happy for the kid and the celebration and emotion transcended any stupid initial squeamishness on my part.

[SteveMax58]

Apologies for contributing to the thread derailment in advance (so spoilering this if you have no interest)....

Spoiler

I think a lot of people are missing the crux of Jon's opinion on homosexuality in general. To the point that they are saying "you are so wrong it doesnt matter why". I think there are very few topics that I would label somebody who holds a view a "bad person" without having more substantive action behind it. We should be a free society, and able to debate our thoughts & viewpoints, regardless of how they were formed, without having to be "bad people" for it. Its how we get to be "better people". But the outright rejection & insult to a person is not only unlikely to make the insulted reconsider their viewpoint, but it also doesn't make the insulter a "better person" for turning 1 more person off to their "belief system".

It seems to me that the real disagreement from Jon stems from the singular argument of "choosing" to be gay (and pick your objection...naturalistic, religious text, etc.) vs "born" gay (and pick your argument here..."gay" gene, we're all born bisexual & some repress it less, etc.). IDK if Jon would even agree with that contrast but I also think this further breaks into a "free will" vs "no free will" philosophical argument.

Now, not everybody fits into nice buckets of logic. For every person that believes in a religion, you'll find those that object to homosexuality & those who do not. Over time, that has moved from a vast majority on the former to a solid majority on the latter (same is true for general population). But for those of us that have no objections to even being gay, it is an evolution of collective thought that makes/has made it apparent to be unobjectionable.

That doesn't mean every person has the same reasons, or even logical reasons for that matter, for having arrived at the conclusion that simply "being gay is not, in & of itself, a willful violation of anything that should be upheld". Some of us may agree with that statement because we do not believe in free will, religion, sanctity of reproduction, or perhaps a combination of those & maybe some other reasons.

And while Jon's opinion may not be the majority opinion, and he may not even be open to reconsidering that opinion, his only action of simply expressing a dissenting view does not logically warrant being a holistically bad person...especially when one could use similar arguments for homosexuality as for being "any" type of person.

[Lathum]

I was at a bar with a buddy having dinner and it was on.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Subby

It's funny you say that because I watched almost NONE of the draft. Wife and I were just lying around on the couch that afternoon and I saw on Twitter that he hadn't been drafted and I misread it thinking the draft was over. So I clicked over to ESPN to see news about it (I thought there would be huge blowback if he wasn't drafted at all). 10 minutes later, he was picked. Then they did the remote shot of the reaction at the gay bar and we were like...really? That's your go-to shot? Then they showed his reaction and then THE KISS. We both felt a little weird about it and showing it over and over didn't help. But I'm a middle aged suburban dad - I just don't see that...ever. So it's my problem and certainly not anyone elses. At the same time I was so happy for the kid and the celebration and emotion transcended any stupid initial squeamishness on my part.

Do I think the kissing and caressing went a little overboard? Sure. But then I'm not one all that into public displays of affection to begin with. But who am I to judge the actions of two consenting adults? It was their moment to celebrate.

[Logan]

If there's a book telling you that, if you only have two choices, you'd rather your son have cancer than be gay...I'm sorry, but you need a new fucking book.

Like maybe one written by any parent who has lost their kid to pediatric cancer and would do anything for another hour with them. Hell, even a blog of Facebook post would do. I'd be happy to refer you to some so you can get some perspective on life.

Talk about offensive.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I was at a bar with a buddy having dinner and it was on.

Were you guys inspired to kiss each other immediately after watching it? Because, you know, that how it works, the gayness.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Were you guys inspired to kiss each other immediately after watching it? Because, you know, that how it works, the gayness.

I hope saldana answers this...

[Marmel]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Given those two & only those two options, I'd prefer the latter.

It's not a sin of commission / willfully immoral act. Cancer doesn't risk consigning anyone's soul to an eternity in Hell.

That right there is one of the most offensive things I have ever seen anybody say or write. I can't even imagine what kind of deranged person would think that, let alone share that with anybody. You are one fucked up person!