Anti-Gay Backlash To Michael Sam Begins With Fears Of 'Raging Hormones,' End Of The 'Bromance'

The backlash to the announcement by University of Missouri defensive end and likely NFL draft pick Michael Sam that he is gay is troubling the usual suspects. Anti-gay author Michael Brown is out with a column criticizing Sam’s “selfish act” and suggesting that he should’ve stayed in the closet.

According to Brown, Sam’s “hormones might be raging for men the way the other players’ hormones rage for women,” which will make “the ‘bromance’ type of close relationships that many players enjoy” impossible since they won’t be “as physical and free with a homosexual teammate.”

But once they have made their announcement, how can everyone be expected to feel completely comfortable? And with the “bromance” type of close relationships that many players enjoy, would they be as physical and free with a homosexual teammate?

And since NFL players are hardly known for their sexual purity—with many notable exceptions—is it homophobic to think that Sam’s hormones might be raging for men the way the other players’ hormones rage for women?



Looked at from another angle, it was more of a selfish act, and not only in the sense that Sam is suddenly a national celebrity. (As of Feb. 10, a Google search for his name yielded more than 3 million hits. Just one week ago, his numbers would have been a fraction of this.) What I mean is that professional football is all about the team, and the focus must be on making a joint sacrifice in order to win rather than drawing attention to oneself.



Why can’t he just play the game, keep his private life private (as many public figures do), and when his career is over, if he wants to tell the whole world he’s gay, he can do so then?

Right on cue, Rush Limbaugh declared that Sam’s announcement is proof that heterosexuals are “under assault,” a claim he made during a rant against the gay “political agenda” that couples as a great example of heterosexual privilege.

The Media Research Center is upset that major broadcast networks “celebrated the announcement” and chided sports commentators for their alleged mistreatment of Tim Tebow in an article that seems to imply that Tebow is the first and only evangelical Christian ever to play for the NFL.

ESPN on Monday was a long parade of congratulatory guests, like columnist Kay Fagan, who used words like “authenticity” and “inclusion.” Fagan ended a rapturous column by saying of Sam, “His truth is now.” (Does homosexuality come with a separate truth? Or do you pay extra, like undercarriage coating?)

Ok, lets simmer down and wait for the backlash. It’ll come. It has to when personal life and philosophy and social issues intersect with the NFL. Here it comes … Er, no? But when Tim Tebow entered the draft he encountered a rain of hate from people worried for the sport, people who resented having to hear about the personal beliefs of “Saint Timmy,” as CBS’s Pete Prisco called him in April, 2010.

Pastor Ron Cantor took to Charisma to warn that Sam’s presence in the locker room “is going to make for an uncomfortable situation.”

Cantor asserts that the truly courageous people are those who are worried about having a gay teammate: “How ironic—in the past it was the homosexual who was afraid to come out. Now it’ll be the guy who doesn’t want to take a shower next to the homosexual who will be shunned and shamed—and he will be told to keep his mouth shut.”

Let me just be honest. If I had a job whereby I had to undress and shower several times a week with a roomful of very fit, attractive females—well, let’s just say I would struggle. And that clearly is the concern of heterosexual football players. It is a legitimate issue. I am not an expert, but if someone says to me that they are attracted to men and then are going to see them undressed on an almost daily basis, it is going to make for an uncomfortable situation. Right?

But don’t say it out loud—not unless you are willing to be skewered by the media elites. Oh, wait, too late. Jonathan Vilma of the New Orleans Saints already stated the obvious.

“I think that he would not be accepted as much as we think he would be accepted," Vilma said. "I don’t want people to just naturally assume, like, ‘Oh, we’re all homophobic.’ That’s really not the case. Imagine if he’s the guy next to me and, you know, I get dressed, [bare], taking a shower, the whole nine, and it just so happens he looks at me. How am I supposed to respond?”

Vilma made those completely honest and valid comments a few days ago—before Sam came out. For sure, he will be vilified and called immature. But come on, let’s be honest: No one expects adult men and women to take mass showers together on the job—for the obvious reasons. But Vilma is juvenile and uneducated for not wanting to shower next to an openly gay man?

I wonder if more NFL players will have the courage to speak up. How ironic—in the past it was the homosexual who was afraid to come out. Now it’ll be the guy who doesn’t want to take a shower next to the homosexual who will be shunned and shamed—and he will be told to keep his mouth shut.

God Helped Ralph Reed Discover Obama Was A Fraud Back In 1997, But He's Just Mentioning It Now

It looks as if right-wing grifter Ralph Reed has a new book coming out soon entitled "Awakening: How America Can Turn from Moral and Economic Destruction Back to Greatness."

In an effort to promote the book, Reed has filmed a series of short videos highlighting different aspects of the topics covered in his book, including one that purports to reveal with "real" Barack Obama, whom Reed met back in 1997 when they both served on a Harvard working group tasked with studying "civil engagement and social capital."

Reed says his participation in that working group was "a divine appointment" brought about so that he could meet Obama and discover that he was "the most liberal and the most out of the mainstream politician I had ever met in my career who could be considered viable at the ballot box."

In fact, Reed says, Obama knew this as well, which is why he has used his gift for language "to obscure rather than to reveal who he really was and what he really believed."

"It was really a fog machine," Reed says. "I knew it; unfortunately the rest of the country did not":

Interestingly, we have literally never heard any of this from Reed before. You'd think that if Reed has know this since 1997, he might have been making this case back when Obama was, say, running for the US Senate? Or maybe when he ran for President in back to back national elections?

How is it possible that Reed never brought this up until now? 

Perhaps his statement in the video that "I'm not going to give away the story because I want you to get the book" might offer a clue?

AFA Michigan Warns LGBT Nondiscrimination Ordinance 'Threatens' Women

Residents of Bay County, Michigan, are receiving robocalls from the state chapter of the American Family Association urging them to reject a proposed nondiscrimination ordinance that the group claims “threatens religious freedom and women’s privacy rights by giving special protections to individuals involved in homosexual behavior or cross-dressing.”

The Bay City Times has posted a recording of the robocall, in which AFA Michigan president Gary Glenn calls the LGBT-inclusive nondiscrimination ordinance a “discriminatory law.”

The ordinance would prohibit [pdf] the county government from discriminating on the basis of “race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, height, weight, marital status, physical or mental limitation, familial status, sexual orientation, or gender identity/expression.” It would not apply to private businesses, although Glenn has nevertheless fretted that it would require a Christian bookstore to “hire a man who comes to work wearing a dress.”

A public hearing on the ordinance is being held this afternoon. If it passes, Bay County will become the first in Michigan to adopt such an ordinance.

Center For Immigration Studies: Democrats 'Party of Minorities'

The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), which tries to style itself as the moderate think tank of the anti-immigrant movement, has undermined this image by embracing the theory, first put forward by a white nationalist thinker , that the Republican Party shouldn’t bother trying to win back Latino voters and should instead focus exclusively on turning out white voters. Not only is this strategy doomed to failure, its implicit assumption is that Republicans should turn out white voters by stirring up racial resentment against Latinos.

This has emerged as a popular message among anti-immigrant activists and politicians. Phyllis Schlafly and Michele Bachmann have both argued that Republicans should drop Latino outreach efforts because, in their minds, Latino immigrants are inherently unable to understand the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. CIS figures have likewise claimed that Latino immigrants have an inherent antipathy to the Republican Party because they lack “strong family values” and have large numbers of  “illegitimate” children .

CIS research director Steven Camarota repeated this theme in an interview yesterday on the Chuck Morse Speaks radio program, where he said that Democrats are “the party of minorities” and are backing immigration reform because they “would like all these folks to stay because they want votes once they become citizens.”

On the Democratic side, it’s coalition politics. The Democratic Party is the party that tends to draw a lot of support from Hispanics and Asians now as well, so they’re the party of minorities. And so, since a very large fraction – you know, about 80 percent of illegal immigrants, in particular – would be Hispanic, based on government statistics, and probably another ten, 12 percent are Asian, so the party would like all these folks to stay because they want votes once they become citizens. But just in the existing citizen population of people of recent immigrant origin, they’re hoping to draw a lot of support. So there’s a political reason there. So, if you had to sum it up in a bumper sticker, the Democrats are looking for votes and the Republicans are looking for cheap labor.

Carson: 'We Live In A Gestapo Age'

Last year, Ben Carson began claiming that he was being targeted by the IRS for publicly criticizing President Obama and he repeated that claim while appearing on a Newsmax broadcast the other day, asserting that not only has he been audited by the IRS, but his friends, family, and associates have all been targeted as well.

"We live in a Gestapo age," Carson said. "People don't realize it":

Virginia Congressional Candidate Bob Marshall's 5 Craziest Moments

Virginia Republican state delegate Bob Marshall is preparing a bid for the House seat currently held by retiring Rep. Frank Wolf, according to a Virginia-based conservative blog. This would set up a challenge to fellow right-wing state delegate and former Clinton-hunter Barbara Comstock.

Just in case you aren’t familiar with Marshall, here is a quick refresher on some of his most extreme positions:

1. Disabled Children Are God’s Punishment For Abortion

At a 2010 press conference attacking Planned Parenthood, Marshall said that “the number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically” because “when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children.” He called disabled children a “special punishment” from God on women who have had abortions.

It is no wonder that Marshall sponsored a personhood bill that would ban abortion in call cases along with some forms of birth control, one of several bills he proposed that would curtail abortion rights and contraception coverage.

2. Ban Gay Service Members From The National Guard

Marshall reacted to the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell by proposing legislation to prohibit “active homosexuals” from serving in the Virginia National Guard, warning that the end of the anti-gay ban would “jeopardize our alliances,” ruin the military and possibly lead to a military draft. Marshall said that if he were in the military he wouldn’t trust gay service members because they might give him a sexually transmitted infection or harass him: “It’s a distraction when I’m on the battlefield and I have to concentrate on the guy 600 yards away, am I worrying about this guy whose got eyes on me?”

3. Anti-Gay Crusade

Marshall has staunchly defended of Virginia’s unconstitutional sodomy law, successfully pushed to block the appointment of an openly gay judge and attempted to stop the Richmond Federal Reserve Bank from flying a rainbow flag, warning that LGBT equality “undermines the American economy.”

He also complained that anti-gay activists are being treated in the same way as Dred Scott.

4. Health Care Reform Is Like Rape

In an attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act, Marshall demanded that Virginia exempt itself from the individual health insurance mandate, warning that health care reform represented “criminal activity” akin to the work of “mobsters.”

“This is a fight over whether you are a citizen or you are a serf,” he said. “It’s not your wallet that they want, it’s your soul, it’s your family.” But Marshall didn’t stop there: “Indeed, the individual mandate is not voluntary commercial intercourse; it is forcible economic rape.”

Marshall has also said that health care reform would “euthanize seniors” and “kill capitalism.”

5. Creating A New Currency

Marshall, fearing an economic collapse, called on Virginia to consider creating its own currency due to the likelihood of “a major breakdown of the Federal Reserve System. He said that economic doom may be one result of the 2009 stimulus package, which he said is “as much a chain as ankle bracelets were as to African-Americans in the 1860s in this state...it is a chain of death that we’re not going to escape.”

Rep. Southerland 'Shocked' And 'Insulted' By Obama Speech Supporting Religious Freedom

President Obama can do nothing right in the eyes of the GOP, it seems: Even the president’s National Prayer Breakfast speech defending religious freedom has stoked the ire of one Republican congressman.

Rep. Steve Southerland (R-FL) told Family Research Council president Tony Perkins on Washington Watch last week that he was “stunned” and “shocked” by the president’s speech and was angry that Obama would “insult those who really believe” in the freedom of religion — like him.

Southerland argued that Obama is trying to “trivialize our deeply held beliefs by making statements that are so contrary to his actions and those of his administration.” “It’s the ultimate disrespect,” he said.

Conservative Columnist Offers 'Random Thoughts' On Unattractive Women, Tolerance Of Immigrants

Conservative columnist Thomas Sowell, a senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution who also has a regular gig at the Washington Times, takes to WorldNetDaily today to offer his “random thoughts” on various things that bother him, from tolerance of immigrants to attractive women who don’t dress well.

Sowell writes that he’s reminded of the ancient Greeks when he sees “Western nations take tolerance to the extreme,” particularly when it comes to immigrants. He also “bothers” him when he sees a “good-looking” Berkeley-educated woman “who could be truly beautiful if she only took the trouble” end up losing her husband to “another woman, who had not gone to Berkeley.”

Sowell also has “random thoughts” on the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the Affordable Care Act (“government all but owns us now”) and the current Republican Party, which he claims is not enough like Reagan (we assume he’s not referring to Reagan’s support of immigration reform).

Random thoughts on the passing scene:

It is amazing how many people still fall for the argument that, if life is unfair, the answer is to turn more money and power over to politicians. Since life has always been unfair, for thousands of years and in countries around the world, where does that lead us?

I am so old that I can remember when sex was private. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” applied to everybody.

The ancient Greeks understood that carrying any principle to extremes was dangerous. Yet, thousands of years later, some Western nations take tolerance to the extreme of tolerating intolerance among immigrants to their own societies. Some even make it illegal – a “hate crime” – to warn against intolerant foreigners who would like nothing better than to slit the throats of their hosts, but who will settle for planting a few bombs here and there.

How do the clever Beltway Republicans and their consultants explain how Ronald Reagan won two consecutive landslide election victories, doing the opposite of what they say is the only way for Republicans to win elections?

I don’t know why it bothers me when I see a good-looking woman who could be truly beautiful if she only took the trouble. But I can recall a woman like that who was educated at Berkeley, and who apparently thought attention to her appearance was not hip. Unfortunately, her husband met another woman, who had not gone to Berkeley, and who did not have this inhibition – or many other inhibitions.

With his decision declaring Obamacare constitutional, Chief Justice John Roberts turned what F.A. Hayek called “The Road to Serfdom” into a super highway. The government all but owns us now, and can order us to do pretty much whatever it wants us to do.
 

Perkins: Gay Marriage Turns Kids Gay, Hurts US In Global Economic Competition

On Friday’s edition of Washington Watch, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins got into a debate with a caller over marriage equality, during which Perkins said that gay marriage will turn children into gay, super-sexualized beings who won’t be able to compete in the global economy. Instead of offering credible answers to the caller’s questions, Perkins brushed them aside and repeatedly moved on to his next dubious argument against same-sex marriage.

The debate started when the caller contested Perkins’ use of the term “natural marriage,” since the definition of marriage has changed throughout history and has included relationships such as polygamy.

Perkins responded that it doesn’t matter that polygamy has been considered “natural” throughout different cultures and history “because same-sex marriage has never existed for the last ten years at best,” and then switched gears to claim that same-sex marriage will jeopardize the country’s prospects “on giving birth to the next generation.”

When the caller replied that people don’t choose to be gay and therefore marriage equality won’t impact America’s fertility rate, Perkins argued that the debate isn’t really about marriage but rather public school classes that teach “kids how to engage in homosexual behavior”…which he said will turn kids gay and harm America’s economic competitiveness with other nations.

Perkins’ jarring arguments aren’t anything new. He has claimed that same-sex relationships are part of a government “population control” plot, and leads an organization that wants to “export” gay people from the US “because we believe homosexuality is destructive to society.”

Perkins: There’s actually more of a historical basis for polygamy than there’s ever been for same-sex marriage because same-sex marriage has never existed for the last ten years at best.

Caller: Well it is a new thing I’ll grant you that, I understand that the phrasing ‘natural marriage’ is great, it fits really great on a bumper sticker, but I just don’t think it means anything and I’m trying to understand what that’s supposed to mean.

Perkins: How do you plan on giving birth to the next generation?

Caller: That’s the thing, how many same-sex marriages are there out there? What is it, 2 percent, 3 percent of the total number of marriages? I don’t think that we’re going to have to worry about the next generation.

Perkins: But if it’s normative and it’s normal then we would say we would want more of it if it’s beneficial.

Caller: Well no, I don’t think that’s it at all. People don’t suddenly one day decide to become gay, you’re either gay or you’re not. I’ve never met anyone who just scratched their head and went, ‘you know what I think I’m into guys now’ or ‘I think I’m into girls now,’ it just doesn’t happen.

Perkins: …Okay. What does that have to do with marriage? What does that have to do with redefining marriage, redefining the curriculum in our schools?

Caller: Well you’re saying that we have to worry about the next generation, I’m saying that there is a very small portion of the population, probably less than 10 percent, that are gay. I think that the next generation is going to come along whether we want it to or not, it’s not about—

Perkins: No, because what happens when you change and you say heterosexual marriage is the same as homosexual marriage, then you change the curriculum in your schools and you have kids, as a natural part of growing up and developing, they’re curious and they don’t know, and we’re exposing them to even more sexuality and overt sexual messages and we’re telling them, ‘hey experiment.’ And that is what leads, in many cases, to children going down a particular path, is early childhood sexual exposure, sometimes it’s traumatic. And by normalizing that and mainstreaming that, what you will do is you will have more children going down that path and that’s why they want to get this message into our schools.

Caller: I understand your argument but is there any data to support that?

Perkins: What do you mean any data to support it?

Caller: You are saying if you expose children to homosexuality you will have more homosexuals.

Perkins: Well if you sexualize a culture — I can tell you the data is very clear on what’s happened in the last 30 to 40 years where we have inundated young people, children, with sexual messages and they become sexually active. So when you take and mix into that homosexuality and other forms of sexuality into that, yes they are going to move down that path, they are going to engage in what you tell them about. That is why it’s problematic, that is why parents are upset about what is happening in Hawaii and other states that are teaching their kids how to engage in homosexual behavior, or heterosexual for that matter. I don’t want my kids that are 11, 12 and 13 years-old taught how to put on a condom or taught about how to engage in sexual behavior with someone who has HIV in a safe fashion. That is not what the schools should be about. They should be about teaching our kids to read, to write, to engage in science. How do we ever expect to compete globally when we’re fixated on teaching our kids about sex?

Rios: Gay Rights 'War Between People Who Love This Country' And Those Who Want to 'Destroy' It

The American Family Association’s Sandy Rios is, to say the least, upset about Attorney General Eric Holder’s recent decision to extend  many rights in the justice system to same-sex married couples. In fact, Rios tells the AFA’s OneNewsNow today, we are now in “a war between people who love this country and want to protect and preserve it and their children and future generations, and those who literally want to undermine and destroy its laws, its nature, [and to] fundamentally transform it."

Rios adds the executive branch "is out of control" by refusing to enforce laws passed by Congress and then granting rights to homosexuals.

"This is a fight over the survival of the country," she shares. "This is a war between people who love this country and want to protect and preserve it and their children and future generations, and those who literally want to undermine and destroy its laws, its nature, [and to] fundamentally transform it."

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious