Vikings Message Board.Com

King James wrote: If you like men sticking each other in the butt then that's your choice. To each it's own. I stand by my stance homosexuality is a choice. You might as well calm down because you're not going to do anything but cuss and lash out more insults. As for homosexuals, I try my best to avoid them. Why would I provoke one who has done NOTHING to me. If they stay outta my way then I stay out of theirs. They get in my way then we have a problem.

Except for the fact that your ilk has done everything in it's power to make sure the government is enforcing your bigoted views on everyone because you find it "icky". Why can't you leave others be?

King James wrote: I wish I would've seen this before you PM'ed me. All I have to say is, Are you mad bro? Am I uneducated because I believe Homosexuality is a choice? There is no PROVEN fact that homosexuality isn't or is a choice.

There actually IS plenty of proof. You need to do more research.

Here's an article that I googled in 5 seconds to start you off on your journey to education on this issue:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/homos ... 85079.html

In any case, this has devolved into a political thread. It probably shouldn't even be in Vikings Talk because at its heart, its a political issue. It is deeply rooted in the boundaries between how much free speech under the 1st Amendment a professional football player is allowed to partake in without repercussions from their employer. I happen to believe in free speech in as far as its a self-regulating concept - if one person speaks out, there shouldn't be any reason that another person could take an opposite stance and speak out as well. The observer can make up their minds based on both arguments.

I don't believe an employer should have the right to fire an employee based upon their stance on a political issue: it's also extremely hard to prove or disprove that an employee had been fired based on their beliefs unless there is recorded evidence either way. In that context, all you can do is listen to both sides, and using your own personal experiences, determine which side you believe.

I find it very easy to believe that the Vikings organization DID attempt to rein in Chris Kluwe's various activities. I can recall, quite often, that the coaches would weigh in on what he'd say publicly. However, they didn't usually take an opposing stance, or any stance at all: they would say vague things like "He won't listen to me". They were always very careful to hide their own personal opinions (unlike Adrian Peterson, who had no problem stating his opinion on marriage equality when asked by a reporter). When you're not open to open debate, then it makes it look like you're against the idea of voicing your opinion in general.

When the Vikings went and drafted a punter I hadn't actually even heard about (I mean, I don't exactly scout punters for a draft unless the team doesn't currently have one...and Kluwe had been there for years and had done an acceptable enough job statistically...and it wasn't like he was "over the hill" in his early 30's). I've definitely found that fans that, when prodded, disagreed with Chris Kluwe's political stances often were able to find more reasons to poo-poo his stats and look for reasons to get him off the team. They were usually the ones that would groan and complain on discussion forums whenever their team's punter would be featured anywhere for most reasons, but would be totally mum or positive when another player was featured publicly. You notice that and then you notice those same people getting really excited come draft time when the team drafts a punter, and you can't help but wonder if there were folks in the Vikings front office and coaching staff that acted the same way. It's kind of like passive-aggressiveness by people who have certain beliefs but know that they would be considered intolerant if they actually voiced those beliefs.

So basically, it's not that hard to see that certain members of the organization had their personal reasons to look for an excuse to get rid of the guy. My personal reason to keep or replace a guy would be if it guaranteed that the team won more games. This is a team that stuck with some pretty bad quarterbacks and some pretty bad defensive players...but felt that it was critical to replace a punter? That stinks to me, personally. But there's no way to prove it unless it's recorded somewhere, and I bet it wasn't. I have a hard time believing that Priefer, Frazier, and Spielman were so stupid as to leave any real solid evidence that was so obvious that Kluwe would have a legal case against them. They went to such great extents to hide their opinions about these things from the public in interviews, pressers, radio shows...you'd think that at least once they'd say something substantive, but they kept that stuff really close to the chest.

So, all you CAN have on this issue is an opinion unless Kluwe drops some real evidence. In any case, I have no problems with what anyone finds out either way...I don't consider Priefer a legit head coach candidate, Frazier is gone, and I can't really find a lot of fault with Spielman for trying to find a cheaper punter through the draft when his coaches ask him to. That's his job. And if his secretaries stop getting angry calls from "outraged" fans that can't feel content tweeting mean stuff at Kluwe through twitter or posting angry comments on his Facebook page...then that means Spielman's employees' jobs are easier. Personally, considering the steaming mess this team has become over the past 10 years, I have no problem whatsoever when it means one more part of that mess is gone.

And I LIKED Frazier when he was promoted. And when he was hired as an assistant. I had high hopes for him the whole way and didn't even give up on him until this past year. And for a little while, I really believed Priefer was responsible for the Vikings greatly improved special teams...until I wised up and realized that maybe, just maybe, Blair Walsh was just a good kicker who had an off year in college and that the Vikings were consistently plugging some very talented athletes into their return game in order to make it look better (guys that most teams would avoid burning out on special teams).

maembe wrote: Except for the fact that your ilk has done everything in it's power to make sure the government is enforcing your bigoted views on everyone because you find it "icky". Why can't you leave others be?

I really don't care to be honestly. If you care so much go take the fight to the court room This topic was about Chris Kluwe and his accusation of the team cutting him because of his views on gay rights. I'm not trying to stop gay people from being gay. If that's what they wanna do then cool. I'm not for it though.

Rus wrote: There actually IS plenty of proof. You need to do more research.

Here's an article that I googled in 5 seconds to start you off on your journey to education on this issue:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/homos ... 85079.html

In any case, this has devolved into a political thread. It probably shouldn't even be in Vikings Talk because at its heart, its a political issue. It is deeply rooted in the boundaries between how much free speech under the 1st Amendment a professional football player is allowed to partake in without repercussions from their employer. I happen to believe in free speech in as far as its a self-regulating concept - if one person speaks out, there shouldn't be any reason that another person could take an opposite stance and speak out as well. The observer can make up their minds based on both arguments.

I don't believe an employer should have the right to fire an employee based upon their stance on a political issue: it's also extremely hard to prove or disprove that an employee had been fired based on their beliefs unless there is recorded evidence either way. In that context, all you can do is listen to both sides, and using your own personal experiences, determine which side you believe.

I find it very easy to believe that the Vikings organization DID attempt to rein in Chris Kluwe's various activities. I can recall, quite often, that the coaches would weigh in on what he'd say publicly. However, they didn't usually take an opposing stance, or any stance at all: they would say vague things like "He won't listen to me". They were always very careful to hide their own personal opinions (unlike Adrian Peterson, who had no problem stating his opinion on marriage equality when asked by a reporter). When you're not open to open debate, then it makes it look like you're against the idea of voicing your opinion in general.

When the Vikings went and drafted a punter I hadn't actually even heard about (I mean, I don't exactly scout punters for a draft unless the team doesn't currently have one...and Kluwe had been there for years and had done an acceptable enough job statistically...and it wasn't like he was "over the hill" in his early 30's). I've definitely found that fans that, when prodded, disagreed with Chris Kluwe's political stances often were able to find more reasons to poo-poo his stats and look for reasons to get him off the team. They were usually the ones that would groan and complain on discussion forums whenever their team's punter would be featured anywhere for most reasons, but would be totally mum or positive when another player was featured publicly. You notice that and then you notice those same people getting really excited come draft time when the team drafts a punter, and you can't help but wonder if there were folks in the Vikings front office and coaching staff that acted the same way. It's kind of like passive-aggressiveness by people who have certain beliefs but know that they would be considered intolerant if they actually voiced those beliefs.

So basically, it's not that hard to see that certain members of the organization had their personal reasons to look for an excuse to get rid of the guy. My personal reason to keep or replace a guy would be if it guaranteed that the team won more games. This is a team that stuck with some pretty bad quarterbacks and some pretty bad defensive players...but felt that it was critical to replace a punter? That stinks to me, personally. But there's no way to prove it unless it's recorded somewhere, and I bet it wasn't. I have a hard time believing that Priefer, Frazier, and Spielman were so stupid as to leave any real solid evidence that was so obvious that Kluwe would have a legal case against them. They went to such great extents to hide their opinions about these things from the public in interviews, pressers, radio shows...you'd think that at least once they'd say something substantive, but they kept that stuff really close to the chest.

So, all you CAN have on this issue is an opinion unless Kluwe drops some real evidence. In any case, I have no problems with what anyone finds out either way...I don't consider Priefer a legit head coach candidate, Frazier is gone, and I can't really find a lot of fault with Spielman for trying to find a cheaper punter through the draft when his coaches ask him to. That's his job. And if his secretaries stop getting angry calls from "outraged" fans that can't feel content tweeting mean stuff at Kluwe through twitter or posting angry comments on his Facebook page...then that means Spielman's employees' jobs are easier. Personally, considering the steaming mess this team has become over the past 10 years, I have no problem whatsoever when it means one more part of that mess is gone.

And I LIKED Frazier when he was promoted. And when he was hired as an assistant. I had high hopes for him the whole way and didn't even give up on him until this past year. And for a little while, I really believed Priefer was responsible for the Vikings greatly improved special teams...until I wised up and realized that maybe, just maybe, Blair Walsh was just a good kicker who had an off year in college and that the Vikings were consistently plugging some very talented athletes into their return game in order to make it look better (guys that most teams would avoid burning out on special teams).

You found an article on the internet and label it as proof. Stop it. If I find some articles on how homosexuality is a choice then do I have proof too?

Guys, we've been over this already. Save this political discussion for another board and lets stick to football.

BGM wrote:Um...no. I am quite certain that nothing I say will change your mind, but I do have to say you are completely wrong. Completely. This IS a civil rights issue and it is NOT a fringe issue. I don't mind you holding an opinion that is diametrically opposed to mine, but I cannot allow blatant misinformation to go unchallenged.

Quite a despotic-minded response there...so something is "blatant misinformation" simply because you say it is. Well, you sure told me! The use of such a phrase implies that you think I'm saying what I did with the intent to deceive, which of course is not the case. It's simply how I see things, just as you see things the way you do.

As an earlier commenter pointed out, gays have never had to deal with fire hoses and dogs. We've never had "straight" and "non-straight" water fountains, or bathrooms, or areas of the bus where each sit, etc. Thankfully, we are past such things. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution already affirm sovereign, God-given rights for every citizen, regardless of race, creed, or orientation. Thus, the whole "Equality!" battle cry is a farce. One small issue like this simply does not tip the scales to nearly the level of imbalance that activists like Kluwe would have you believe.

But don't take my word for it...here's another perspective I'd like to offer before hanging this up, that makes the case better than I am able to:
Mychal Massie - Homosexuality Is Not A Civil Right

My sincere apologies to GLG and the mods for my part in any violations of board policies; I have done my best to be honest in my expressions without being inflammatory. Thus, I am going to take Skyfire's advice, wish all of my purple-bleeding compatriots in every corner of the aisle here the best, and see yall later in a more football-focused thread.

No, I suppose no gay people have been beaten, tortured or killed for the simple fact they were gay. None were bullied, fired, or chemically castrated. None were subjected to electro-shock therapy to 'cure' them of their 'affliction'. Yes, they have not suffered nearly enough, so there is no need for anything like equality.

Posting the opinion of Mychal Massie does not make a case for anything other than a very bizarre picture of those who are gay or transgender. An opinion is not valid just because someone holds it. There is so much wrong with that article that I honestly do not know where to begin. I have a feeling anything I would respond to it would make little difference to anyone who takes Massie's position seriously.

Obviously, we have strayed from the original intent of the thread, but I honestly feel this is a worthwhile conversation. If the moderators decide that we have pushed too far, so be it. Until then, I will keep contributing.

Sent from my KFJWA using Tapatalk

SkyFire wrote:Guys, we've been over this already. Save this political discussion for another board and lets stick to football.

This is what happens when your team sucked so bad this season and can't make the postseason. Topics like this. If the Vikings were in the postseason, no way this thread would have sparked this much attention.

fiestavike wrote:This is the problem with this whole issue is that the two sides simply aren't having the same conversation because the terms mean something different to each side. We will never get anywhere constructive or unifying by carrying on this way.

And because some of us are still trying to talk about this whole workplace mess.

I did learn one thing: I need to find a new college. They are lying to me about sexual orientation being in the Civil Rights category. Not cool. Thousands of dollars down the tubes. How depressing. Randoms on a message board know more. Uh huh.

fiestavike wrote:
dont put too much faith in what you "learn" in college, much like with books, newspapers, tv, and message boards, not all of it is true.

I see that.

...that was sort of my point. Made sarcastically, of course. I have much more faith in what I read in school than on here, though. That's for sure. Some foolish nonsense on here lately. My emotional intelligence dropped a few notches. People are cruel! People are going all Priefer on here!

fiestavike wrote:
If I may, and I know this reality is annoying to advocates for "Gay Rights", but this isn't a civil rights issue, because gays are and always have been allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. This is a semantic issue. What is Marriage? No Gay has been denied the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, which has been definitionally part of marriage.

Honestly, if you believe marriage is a sacrament and an institution established by God, that within its confines, sexual activity is blessed by God, then the idea of Gay Marriage is the idea of changing the definition of an institution to suit the romantic whims of advocates for homosexuality, and that makes no sense.

If you believe marriage is an expression of love and commitment between two people, then why would you deny that opportunity to someone based on their sexual orientation? To do so would simply be cruel and seems bigoted.

At the heart of the issue is ones conception of marriage. WHAT IS MARRIAGE? Your answer will determine where you stand, and so this is not a civil rights issue, it is a semantics issue.

Fiestavike,

First, I'd like to say "Thanks" for how you have presented your views on the subject. For the most part, I haven't disagreed with what you've written and it's been refreshing to see an alternate view of this issue that doesn't come across sometimes as (at best) antagonistic, and (at worst) hateful. I would like to point out that I agree most of your postings, but the reason that it is perceived as a 'civil rights' issue is that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment basically says that a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.

Marriage is an institution by God? (I actually agree with that). The problem is (at least in terms of complying with the 14th amendment as I understand it) is there are governmental "endorsements" (if you will) for heterosexual marriage that same-sex marriage couples cannot exercise. Without the marriage, (someone correct me if I'm wrong) the same-sex couples could not file taxes jointly, have the survivor spouse's estate be automatically awarded to him/her after the spouse's death, and others. By definition, it would be a civil rights issue, would it not? If same-sex couple wanted to campaign effectively to lose all of the governmental benefits for marriage, then it no longer becomes a "civil rights issue," since everyone (married or not) would have the same governmental benefits as married couples. Just wanted to point that out. Keep posting the thoughtful analysis, I've enjoyed reading it.

Can we please table all the civil rights/gay rights talk before this thread ends up getting locked? Let's try to keep it about Kluwe's claims and the Vikings. WAY too much of the discussion now has nothing to do with with either topic. These larger social issues are worth discussing but this isn't the place for the discussion.

So I guess God is a bigot because of his views against homosexuality? Unless some of you don't believe in God.

Mothman wrote:Vikings: Kluwe investigator denies promise of confidentiality

Moth - Thanks for posting. I suspected this would be the case, but it's nice to see the investigator confirm it.