spkb25

saintswhodi the only problem i would have with your post is that englands crime rate is worse then the u.s. i did a report in school on this and it is true. their crime rate is actually worse since 2000 then that of the u.s. i would go into the particulars but it would be getting into a political debate. i apologize that i cant. also our crime rate has fallen to all time lows since the 90,s. the rest of your post was very good

spkb25

subguy my wife doesnt find it offensive in any way

ScottyRo

About the gay commercial on Cartoon Network... I disapprove because it seems to me to be part of the liberal media\'s plan to saturate our minds with the idea that being gay is ok. The problem for me is that Queer Eye doesn\'t seem to be the type of show that kids young enough to want to watch cartoons would want to watch. Thus, I have to question the motives of the peope who placed those ads on that particular channel.

I also want to say that tolerating an act is different from condoning an act. The way our society is structured I believe that we should be careful about laws prohibiting gay behavior especially inside the home. However, I am not going to say that I think it is morally ok for someone to be gay. I believe that Christ\'s approach would be to rebuke the offender then forgive.

Also, the Bible is not a children\'s book. There are many great kid\'s stories in it, but many of the stories are not intended for a young, immature audience. I wouldn\'t tell a 5 year old about the above story just like I wouldn\'t tell the 5 year old that he/she would go to hell without being saved.

There\'s been lots of great conversation on this thread. It got so non-football that it got bumped here to the EE forum, but that\'s ok. I just ask that everyone continues to treat others with respect - especially when discussing sensitive issues like the ones contained here.

WhoDat

Ah... we\'re in the everything else board now boys - in you\'re my world! LOL

First, BMG, nice post. You should do that more often.

Actually Danno, I disagree. Well, it\'s your daughter so you can do whatever you want with her. But teaching a child tolerance and acceptance of different things is BEST done at a young age when they are more easily persuaded. That\'s exactly why children\'s books are always about the one purple elephant that was different from the rest. Rudolph is the perfect example. It teaches kids that there is nothing wrong with being different. This is exactly when you should be teaching your child to accept others, IMHO.

Interesting how that works out, huh? Those godless barbarians over in Europe... oh, wait, those people tend to be more devout in their religious beliefs, more steeped in tradition, more open about sex, less prohibitive with \"mind-alerting\" substances, and more open to helping their fellow man. Hhmmm... maybe Puritanical paternalism isn\'t such a good idea.

And contrary to what may be suggested, crime in the U.S. is worse. Far worse. MAYBE England reported more crimes than the US. I doubt it, b/c the US is much larger. Maybe it\'s a per capita number. Even so, I would bet very large amounts of money that VIOLENT CRIMES occur far more in the US than other industrialized nations like those in Europe.


And finally, on to Scotty, my favorite nemesis in these debate.

If it requires a \"liberal\" mind to know that being gay is OK, then color me a liberal. Being gay isn\'t OK? That\'s disappointing to see, even if your intent was different than it sounded. I guess if it were up to the \"conservative\" media, TV would stil look like the 50s. No minorities, women in the kitchen, and god-forbid the suggestion that anything culd ever go wrong in Pleasantville. Gimme a break.

Queer Eye doesn\'t seem like a show for kids? You let your kids watch fashion shows on Nick, MTV, etc? B/c that\'s what QE is - a show about fashion, food, and decorating. It\'s not a show about being gay. In fact, I think it hurts gays. It perpetuates the feminine snooty attitude that only gays really know good taste. I know many a homosexual who is turned off by the concept. Further, metrosexuals tend to be disenfranchised by the entire idea. I bet you Brad Pitt or George Clooney could sell men fashion or food far better than those guys. QE hits its target square on the head - young-professional, metropolitan, entertainment-minded WOMEN.

Most importantly, I just can\'t get over this \"It\'s wrong to be gay stuff.\" I honestly thought you wiser than that. I don\'t mean that as an insult, I am just stunned. What\'s your grounds for that? It\'s unnatural? So is an ARTIFICIAL hip. And that\'s assuming it\'s a choice. If not, then it\'s no different than being born blind. What\'s the other argument? The Bible says it\'s wrong? Tell me it\'s not that b/c if so, this could get messy.

[Edited on 21/11/2004 by WhoDat]

\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans Saints’ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse


\"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

iceshack149

GREAT generalization, WD.

Whodat be honest, how many homosexuals do you know? One? Five? Ten?

Being gay isn\'t o.k. Paint me \"religious right\". Oh I\'ll teach my child about acceptance. Jesus went to the very least of the people and spent time with them. Not the \"righteous\". But that doesn\'t exuse their behavior.

It is unnatural. The difference between the gay person and the person with the artificial hip is that the person with the artificial hip will tell you that their hip is indeed fake.
Being born blind and having an artificial hip has nothing to do with homosexuality. Homosexuality is a choice, it\'s not by chance. Now forgive me if it seems that I am being general but all the homosexuals that I know have had bad situations in their lives. Abusive parents, absent parents, parents that ignored their children...

Wow. We got way off topic.

"...it's good to have friends, no matter where they are."--JOESAM2002

mutineer10

In regard to gay stereotypes, should we hold our breath waiting on a gay football fan to show up and defend himself??? LOL!

I\'m a bit puzzled on how we got from a black guy/white girl episode (and Tony Dungy hating it) to homosexuality. Do some people equate the two?

I discussed the \"kids watching MNF with their parents\" argument with my wife, and she got livid. She said she\'s sick of having to run her life around other people\'s kids and having to spend her tax dollars to support them. We obviously don\'t have children, and have no plans of changing that, but she wasn\'t buying my defense of other folks wanting to watch the game with their kids. I don\'t have a strong opinion either way (like I said earlier, the skit didn\'t offend me), but I gotta ask if the T.O. & Nicholette Sheridan episode really enhanced anyone\'s enjoyment of the FOOTBALL GAME??? You know they did play one after that, right?

Sure, football is a violent sport. I still have nightmares about Lawrence Taylor tying Joe Theisman\'s leg in a bow, but some of my fondest childhood memories are of watching football with my old man, and I bet alot of you guys have the same memories. My dad was painfully conservative, and would\'ve had a stroke about the T.O. incident, but when I was a kid MNF didn\'t show that sort of thing. If we\'re not gonna tell people whether or not to engage in interracial relationships, or homosexual relationships, isn\'t it just as fair that we don\'t tell people how to raise their kids or whether or not they should go to church? Tolerance has gotta work both ways to be effective.

BrooksMustGo

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...e=caple/041118

Uh, they did actually. I\'ll put the relevant parts of the promo in quotes.

Charlie\'s Angels Promo
There are two other plugs in the article, one for MacGyver with a nearly naked Teri Hatcher and a drunk Joe Namath before a game in 85. There\'s also a Rosanne and Michael Irvin promo from 94.

My point is that the NFL seems to have never complained about these plugs. But while I\'m thinking about it, where is the NFL outrage over official team lingerie calendars with topless cheerleaders plugged all over the front page of team websites, ala the Eagles? Based on the school I used to work at, I can tell you that official team sites are very popular with school aged children.

Evidently it\'s OK to sell calendars with nearly naked women posed provacatively because that\'s fine for children to see, but it\'s horribly wrong to let ABC plug it\'s show where a woman does the whole soap opera thing in a towel.

So to recap.

In the 70\'s Charlie\'s Angels in towels sent to \"seduce\" Cosell = A-OK.
In 85, Terri Hatcher wearing strategically placed duct tape and a learing Joe Namath = A-OK.
In 94, Rosanne Arnold in a towel with Michael Irvin = A-OK.
Right now, calendars with pictures like this:


are totally A-OK

But this:

Totally and completely offensive, has no place in football of any sort and is a symptom of the decay of our society and is actively trying to destroy our children. Anyone even tangentially related to the NFL is tripping over each other rushing to get in line and scream about how racist, lewd, awful, morally bankrupt it is. Even worse it is spoiling the pure wholesome game that professional football is. You know the game where Ray Lewis, Jamal Lewis and Randy Moss are heroes.

If the NFL wants to climb on such a high horse, then I have just one thought. \"Welcome to AM radio fellas.\"

[Edited on 21/11/2004 by BrooksMustGo]

http://www.blackandgold.net/site/signature/buddysig.jpg

saintswhodi

BMG, that is another gem and summed up my feelings nicely. I posted that same article on another forum I visit by ESPN. The NFL is hypocritical and it is easy to see a bare back is not the only issue here. Great job BMG.

mutineer10

Can\'t argue with the evidence, BMG, nor can I any longer declare the \"racist, lewd, awful, morally bankrupt\" MNF a shrine of the holiest of holies (never did, actually). I don\'t remember any of that crap (with God\'s grace on the Roseanne bit), but I applaud your knack for detail, nice post...

But ... lemme ask again. Did the T.O. & Nicholette Sheridan bit enhance your enjoyment of the Eagles vs. Cowboys? Do you think the \"Charlie\'s Angels\" bit or, for God\'s sake, the Roseanne bit enhanced the enjoyment of those respective games? I have my doubts...

But then again, I never claimed to be offended by the skit, nor do I care what my non-existent children are exposed to. Quite frankly, I\'d be happy if ALL NFL calenders bore full-fontal nudity and interracial lesbian action. I\'ve spent a couple of posts trying to defend the breeders, and they ain\'t backed me up. I\'ll keep spending my hard-earned check to take care of somebody else\'s babies, but I\'ll spend the rest at the Hustler Club next time I\'m in New Orleans (like always...).

La vie boheme...

[Edited on 21/11/2004 by mutineer10]

BrooksMustGo

Mutineer, I see where you\'re coming from and I basically agree with you. It\'s a stupid little plug that adds nothing to the game.

The problem I have is that NFL games aren\'t played in a vacuum. I don\'t think the Desperate Housewives plug added anything more to the game than does a beer, pepsi or southwest airlines commercial. My problem with the NFL is that they want to charge top dollar for their product (even if it\'s a ratings loser) and then want to stipulate what kinds of commercials the network puts on. The networks are a business and they aren\'t broadcasting NFL games as a public service. The NFL is making a king\'s ransom for any game they allow to be aired, but then cry foul when the network tries to get any return off of their investment?

I also think it\'s pretty rich that the NFL wants to claim any sort of morality for their product. Now I do understand that Tagliabue doesn\'t want to go testify before congress. But let\'s get real, the NFL is making money hand over fist and morality has nothing to do with it.

It would be one thing if the NFL wanted to go to some sort of pay-per-view scheme for all of its games. Then they wouldn\'t have to air any commercials, plugs or promos at all. But the NFL chooses to go with network television. I think it\'s ridiculous for the NFL to spend all week biting the hand that\'s feeding them.

It also seems odd to me that the NFL didn\'t climb into bed with the morality police until Janet Jackson embarrassed them. The same sorts of promos have been fine for years. It\'s fine to air countless beer commercials, levitra commercials, Bob Dole\'s \"little blue friend\" pepsi commercials, beer commercials, and sell all of their nearly naked cheerleader calendars. But it\'s not ok for the network to try and steer a few viewers to another show that 18-50 year old men might want to watch.

So I agree with you that the plug doesn\'t add anything to the game per se. But neither do all the other commercials I see whenever I sit down to watch a game. By the same token, if ABC had chosen to just make 10 Desperate Housewives 30 second commercials with the whole cast parading around in lingerie or towels and put into the program, then I doubt there would have been a peep from the NFL or anyone else this week.

It\'s the hypocrisy that I think is stupid. Someone needs to tell the NFL, \"pssst, hey pot, you\'re black.\"

http://www.blackandgold.net/site/signature/buddysig.jpg