Young woman booted from team for being straight

[Soutane]

I have defended the church countless times about that issue. The action of a few do not represent the whole group.

I NEVER said they did and they most certainly do not.

.I asked why you didn’t defend THESE homosexualists who just happen to wear the Roman collar?Why so selective?The Church needs no defense because of these priests’ sins.The Church is guilty of trying to cover it up and hope that the issue would go away and is paying for that culpability.A completely seperate issue and CRIME.THAT is what the Church is guilty of,not these "priests’"predatory homosexuality.

 

[Lujack]

Teen4Christ why are you so selective in your defense.Why don’t you defend the predatory homosexual clerics with as much vigour as you defend the other homosexualists?These are NOT babies and toddlers these “men” are molesting but teenage boys for the most part?Chickenhawks to use “gayspeak”.

Will you make a distinction between defending pedophiles and defending the coach? Teen4Christ and I are not arguing that dismissing a player for not being gay is okay, we are arguing that it didn’t happen. That’s a pretty big distinction.

 

[Soutane]

Will you make a distinction between defending pedophiles and defending the coach? Teen4Christ and I are not arguing that dismissing a player for not being gay is okay, we are arguing that it didn’t happen. That’s a pretty big distinction.

The woman was FIRED(allegedly)for the same offense several years agther team memberS had accused her of the same behaviour.How are you so prescient as to KNOW it didn’t happen?A pretty big distinction based on what?Wishful thinking?

I’m sure that Michael Jackson still has some supporters.Somewhere.

I’m NOT saying the woman is guilty.What I object to is the kneejerk liberal response of some posters who immediately argue “it didn’t happen”.Read the whole article-there are a prioi indications of similar behaviour on the coach’s part.It IS reasonable to conclude that where there is smoke there is a probable chance of fire.To conclude that "it didn’t happen"based on the information in the article is very naiive.

 

[Soutane]

Will you make a distinction between defending pedophiles and defending the coach? Teen4Christ and I are not arguing that dismissing a player for not being gay is okay, we are arguing that it didn’t happen. That’s a pretty big distinction.

They’re NOT pedophiles-they are predatory homosexuals.

 

[melensdad]

Teen4Christ and I are not arguing that dismissing a player for not being gay is okay, we are arguing that it didn’t happen.

Yet you have NO evidence to support that statement.

The woman was FIRED(allegedly)for the same offense several years ago.Other team memberS had accused her of the same behaviour.
…
I’m NOT saying the woman is guilty.What I object to is the kneejerk liberal response of some posters who immediately argue “it didn’t happen”.
…
To conclude that "it didn’t happen"based on the information in the article is very naiive.

Thank you for injecting some SANITY into this discussion

 

[CapIV]

By that logic, the priests who molested children were apart of the catholic agenda.

Ummm no it doesn’t.

When there were civil rights marches in the 60’s, no one denied that they were part of the “civil rights” movement. But no one who says that means “these people speak for all blacks”.

Saying that attacks on traditional sexuality are part of the “gay-agenda” is in no way incriminating all gays, but just the movement.

Gays who remain chaste are fully gay yet not part of the “gay-agenda”.

A black who did not march or protest during the 60’s, is still fully black, just did not participate in the “civil rights movement”.

 

[JPUSC]

That girl does look like a ‘girly girl’…I like.

Girls are supposed to be girls. I don’t know what that coach’s problem is.

 

[Lujack]

The woman was FIRED(allegedly)for the same offense several years agther team memberS had accused her of the same behaviour.How are you so prescient as to KNOW it didn’t happen?A pretty big distinction based on what?Wishful thinking?

I’m sure that Michael Jackson still has some supporters.Somewhere.

I’m NOT saying the woman is guilty.What I object to is the kneejerk liberal response of some posters who immediately argue “it didn’t happen”.Read the whole article-there are a prioi indications of similar behaviour on the coach’s part.It IS reasonable to conclude that where there is smoke there is a probable chance of fire.To conclude that "it didn’t happen"based on the information in the article is very naiive.

And I object to the kneejerk response that it did. From the very first post, there was no assumption of the possibility that the woman might be innocent. Of course, I have a more cynical perspective. Like I said, my own coach was accused of a crime he didn’t commit, and I’ve heard the way disgruntled people talk about coaches, so I have a dimmer view of players.

Its too early to pass any judgment on anybody here, that’s all I’m arguing. The facts will come out in court.

 

[Soutane]

And I object to the kneejerk response that it did. From the very first post, there was no assumption of the possibility that the woman might be innocent. Of course, I have a more cynical perspective. Like I said, my own coach was accused of a crime he didn’t commit, and I’ve heard the way disgruntled people talk about coaches, so I have a dimmer view of players.

Its too early to pass any judgment on anybody here, that’s all I’m arguing. The facts will come out in court.

But you DID pass judgement-you said you were argueing that it didn’t happen-a LOT different than saying it MIGHT not have happened.
I NEVER said that it DID happen.My arguement was hardly kneejerk;it was cogent and based upon the facts as presented.

Please DO NOT put words in my mouth .I said it could be true and that based solely on the information that the article provided it was LIKELY true.What I object to is uncritical liberal fuzzy thinking and kneejerk responses based on the best case scenario of absolute naiievity and at worst the usual leftist agenda.

 

[Nepenthe]

Some (read ‘most’) people around here have some frighteningly limited ideas of what girls and boy ‘should be’.

Anecdotally, my very best friend when I first came to a Texas public school was a drop-dead beautiful (in the androgynous sense) boy named Kelly, and I was a tough brainiac named Shannon (then and likely still a pretty ‘masculine’ name in the South), and we were inseparable, often called upon by teachers as ‘you two girls’ or ‘you two boys’ interchangeably, and it didn’t bother us one bit.

Mostly because we were both absolute monsters in gym class. I was the fastest runner around, and Kelly a football wizard, and either of us could remain the last player on our side in the most vicious dodgeball matches, hehe. In short, we’d make pretty poor choices for those inclined to make enemies.

Just doing our bit, at such a tender age, to dispel foolish notions of gender differences, and with complete equanimity, as I still do, and expect Kelly probably still does.

As for the young woman in question, I seriously doubt her entire team other than her was entirely comprised of young lesbians. Nice try for getting major attention from the press, but, meh, I don’t think so. More likely, she just didn’t make the cut, and wanted to whine as loudly and publicly as possible, particularly by slurring (if not outright slandering) her former teammates. Yecch. It reads like a bad cheerleader ‘young adult’ novel.

 

[Soutane]

Some (read ‘most’) people around here have some frighteningly limited ideas of what girls and boy ‘should be’.

Anecdotally, my very best friend when I first came to a
Texas public school was a drop-dead beautiful (in the androgynous sense) boy named Kelly, and I was a tough brainiac named Shannon (then and likely still a pretty ‘masculine’ name in the South), and we were inseparable, often called upon by teachers as ‘you two girls’ or ‘you two boys’ interchangeably, and it didn’t bother us one bit.

Mostly because we were both absolute monsters in gym class. I was the fastest runner around, and Kelly a football wizard, and either of us could remain the last player on our side in the most vicious dodgeball matches, hehe.

Just doing our bit, at such a tender age, to dispel foolish notions of gender differences, and with complete equanimity, as I still do, and expect Kelly probably still does.

Foolish notions of gender differences.

Really.

Saying that someones beliefs or more generally opinions are frightfully limited is just an attempt to marginalize that person and his arguement and is a cheap and discredited debating trick.You’ll have to do MUCH better than that.

Aside from your comments being completely non-sequitorial and irrelevant to the issue under discussion I believe YOUR agenda is showing.

I have to leave very shortly but I would be delighted to continue this discussion next week.

 

[JPUSC]

Some (read ‘most’) people around here have some frighteningly limited ideas of what girls and boy ‘should be’.

Anecdotally, my very best friend when I first came to a Texas public school was a drop-dead beautiful (in the androgynous sense) boy named Kelly, and I was a tough brainiac named Shannon (then and likely still a pretty ‘masculine’ name in the South), and we were inseparable, often called upon by teachers as ‘you two girls’ or ‘you two boys’ interchangeably, and it didn’t bother us one bit.

Mostly because we were both absolute monsters in gym class. I was the fastest runner around, and Kelly a football wizard, and either of us could remain the last player on our side in the most vicious dodgeball matches, hehe. In short, we’d make pretty poor choices for those inclined to make enemies.

Just doing our bit, at such a tender age, to dispel foolish notions of gender differences, and with complete equanimity, as I still do, and expect Kelly probably still does.

As for the young woman in question, I seriously doubt her entire team other than her was entirely comprised of young lesbians. Nice try for getting major attention from the press, but, meh, I don’t think so. More likely, she just didn’t make the cut, and wanted to whine as loudly and publicly as possible, particularly by slurring (if not outright slandering) her former teammates. Yecch. It reads like a bad cheerleader ‘young adult’ novel.

I think most guys would be offended being called “drop-dead beautiful”.

 

[Nepenthe]

I never said ‘foolish’. I said ‘limited’. Kindly read more closely.

And if you can find anything like an ‘agenda’ among all that anecdote, good luck, other than the concept that both men and women are well able to be more than Barbies and Kens. That I fully support, and always shall.

And as an aside, well, Kelly WAS beautiful, long pale-blonde hair, porcelain skinned and ideal in feature, angelic in form and so wisely gentle in nature. But never once did he show any sort of vanity - we were simply happy to have found such close friends. There was no puppy-love between us even, just joyful friendship.

 

[Soutane]

I never said ‘foolish’. I said ‘limited’. Kindly read more closely.

And if you can find anything like an ‘agenda’ among all that anecdote, good luck, other than the concept that both men and women are well able to be more than Barbies and Kens. That I fully support, and always shall.

YOU read more closely-I was referring and I quote to your stated"FOOLISH NOTIONS OF GENDER DIFFERENCE".If you’re going to upbraid someone and do not wish to appear “foolish” yourself at least quote yourself accurately.Your agenda is a decidedly unCatholic one in that there are no gender differences and if there are they do not matter.Correct?

Please don’t strawman me with the throwaway line about Barbies and Kens.I didn’t say that and you know it.

Your relationship or lack of one with “Kelly” is completely extraneous to this discussion which is NOT all about YOU.

I’ll be back next week if you’d like to continue.Ta-ta.

 

[Nepenthe]

Ah yes, I did refer to such as ‘foolish’ later in the post. My apologies. I thought, however, that my point had been already successfully made. Little girls don’t always want to wear pink or play the ‘princess in distress’. any more than little boys want to build monster trucks and tear up other peoples’ lawns.

Imposing roles like that is rather silly at such an age, and often destructive and just begging for future rebellion. So, perhaps, in that place, the words ‘foolish’ and ‘notions’ were les mots justes.

 

[Nepenthe]

Pardon the double-post here, but let’s get back to what the thread was about in the first place. Young woman doesn’t get what whe wants - it could be alleged that the coach cut her when advances were refused, or that she didn’t fit in with her (highly unlikely) entirely lesbian teammates - young woman throws a hissyfit.

I see no case so far, except that of a whiny teenager making an idiot (and possibly a REAL criminal) of herself. There are simply not enough legally established facts for any other conclusion.

No story, or at least sure not much.

 

[Layman]

“Little girls don’t always want to wear pink or play the ‘princess in distress’. any more than little boys want to build monster trucks and tear up other peoples’ lawns.”

Thank God, most do.

It is fascinating to watch my nieces gravitate to the pink-and-sparkly section of the toy shop. Even the ones you’d think were tomboys.

What’s poisonous about modern culture is that it tries to assert that gender means nothing; that boys should be made to play with dollies and girls with trucks, to fit some unconsidered socialist egalitarian agenda.

The real agenda: to destroy anything a man might cling to: religion, race, nationality, masculinity, family, so as to turn him no more than a consuming creature.

Or as Marx would say: to leave no relation except the cash-relation.

Right before the Hun invades and wipes out our decadent culture, I fear.

I wonder what it’s like for a young girl to have to put up with a predatory lesbian in a position of power? A man I suppose could give a pederast a swift boot in the ***.

 

[goofyjim]

How many times has a homosexual been dropped from a team or prevented simply because they were homosexual. It would most likely be more than the number of times tat this particular scenario has, assuming of course that discrimination played a factor here, which, again, I severely doubt.

 

[Lujack]

“Little girls don’t always want to wear pink or play the ‘princess in distress’. any more than little boys want to build monster trucks and tear up other peoples’ lawns.”

Thank God, most do.

It is fascinating to watch my nieces gravitate to the pink-and-sparkly section of the toy shop. Even the ones you’d think were tomboys.

What’s poisonous about modern culture is that it tries to assert that gender means nothing; that boys should be made to play with dollies and girls with trucks, to fit some unconsidered socialist egalitarian agenda.

The real agenda: to destroy anything a man might cling to: religion, race, nationality, masculinity, family, so as to turn him no more than a consuming creature.

Or as Marx would say: to leave no relation except the cash-relation.

Right before the Hun invades and wipes out our decadent culture, I fear.

I wonder what it’s like for a young girl to have to put up with a predatory lesbian in a position of power? A man I suppose could give a pederast a swift boot in the ***.

Somehow you got this from an argument that says that basically, some girls are more masculine than most and some boys are feminine than most? Look, one of my best friends was a girls softball player, and a huge sports fan. She could lift with guys on the football team and talk sports as long as the day. Another one of my best friends was a pretty, well, effeminate guy.

I have a problem, though, when people imply that these two people were somehow wrong for acting the way they did; why shouldn’t Jordan be a dedicated athlete, and why shouldn’t Joe have the interests that he did? They were both strong Catholics, and never hurt anybody. There’s nothing wrong with a guy being more interested in fashion and a girl being interested in athletics. That’s the way people are. And that’s coming from your stereotypical football player, so there.

 

[estesbob]

By that logic, the priests who molested children were apart of the catholic agenda.

The priest scandal involved almost exclusively homosexual rape of post pubsecent boys . It highlighted the extreme danger of allowing homosexuals to become Priests.