Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by egn22, Jan 16, 2014.
I've read he's good in coverage and against the run. If he comes as cheap as Will Allen did, why not?
His sexual orientation being a reason he hasn't picked up a minimum vet deal is not right.
I could care less his orientation if he is willing to show up on the field and fight for his team.
He has skills and would be a cost effective hire on the cheap. It is unfortunate if that is the true reason he hasn't picked up with a team.
Race/Religion/Orientation shouldn't matter when a team is your family.
I would rather have Kerry Rhodes being bisexual than some thug on a team getting DUI's and whatnot.
It shouldn't matter, however, it does to NFL Owners and GMs.
what about Nick Collins?
No, it's human nature.
There is a show called Restaurant Impossible where an expert comes in to help the Restaurant owners correct their problems. Many of the owners are average, middle class white guys, but they also find something to blame besides themselves. Despite the expert pointing out all of the things that they are doing wrong (filthy conditions, 10 page menu, bad food, ugly outdated decor, health code violations, bad treatment of employes, etc.., the owners almost always blame the economy for their failure.
Otay. What kind of peanut butter does he eat? Since we are in people's personal lives.
Man I have a good one for that.
You said it in your first post, He's gay so the NFL wont touch him... sadly
Perfect oppurtunity for Jerry to come off as one of the better owners in the league and give the guy a chance. Regardless if he makes the team.
Would symbolize America's team, allowing anyone in America to be on the team.
Surprised the media outlets haven't run with this yet even former punter Chris Kluwe mentioned Rhodes being blacklisted
No kidding lol
And that, sadly, is what people determined to make sexual orientation the "new" racism fail to understand.
If your propensity is to be attracted by people of the same sex, how is that different from heterosexual attraction?
I'm heterosexual. I'm a married man. But if you put me in a room of hot naked women with perfectly shaped bodies, you think I'm not going to look? You think I'm not going to get excited?
Even the most moral, faithful, married man will likely give into thoughts of lust and attraction. That's why they don't put themselves in that situation. It's not a matter of self-will or just endure it. If the nature of sexual attraction is as powerful as our society says it is (which is the justification behind homosexuality, i.e., they're just that way) then why would we be surprised if a homosexual found a heterosexual attractive? Why would/should we be surprised if a heterosexual were uncomfortable undressing and being nude before someone who might find him physically and sexually attractive?
People have a right not to make themselves - as much as possible - sexual objects to other people. That's why many women dress appropriately so they don't accentuate their features. That's why some women won't be in certain situations with men. And vice versa.
It's the nature of sexual attraction. But somehow we want to ignore this natural dynamic when it comes to sexual orientation. And it's this way because sex - at least in this present culture - is the highest form of self expression. So it's of little surprise that we toss aside common sense merely to promote sexual equality in every situation.