Jump to content
IGNORED

Are there any homosexuals on Tour?


Note: This thread is 3061 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm going to start a thread asking "Are there any homosexuals on the Sandtrap?"...

Is it wrong that I am only interested in the lesbian side of this question....

Riddle me this Batman............ How is using your reproductive organs in a manner that doesn't lead to procreation natural? If all the world were homosexuals/lesbians how would we NATURALLY c

Just curious if anyone is openly gay.

If there were any open gay players you wouldn't need to ask the question. Now I'm leaving (this thread) before a few more idiotic comments like Vox's above send this thing in an ugly direction. (Let's go talk about anchored putters some more :))

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

If there were any open gay players you wouldn't need to ask the question. Now I'm leaving (this thread) before a few more idiotic comments like Vox's above send this thing in an ugly direction. (Let's go talk about anchored putters some more :))


I think the creation of this thread automatically sends it in the wrong direction. Personally I couldn't care less if there was.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Assume that the percentage on tour that prefer sausage to taco is roughly in line with the distribution in the general population. Not aware of anyone who makes a big deal of it, but why would you particularly?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator

To be clear, I don't think there's anything wrong with asking the question. Maybe if John Doe was gay it could inspire some child out there or he could be a role model to someone. Asking the question doesn't mean that someone is trying to find people to ridicule or something.

Gay people make up, what, 5% or so of the population? Maybe a bit less, maybe a bit more? It's probably a smaller percentage in most sports, but I believe it's higher in others (figure skating). So there are reasonably good odds that someone on the PGA Tour this year is gay, because 200 some guys have status and even if it's 0.5% that's one person.

I hope some day we get to the point where this kind of stuff doesn't matter. I couldn't care less about things that do not affect me. Just because Tab A doesn't go into Slot B doesn't mean we should stop people from getting married and having the same rights and/or privileges. It's yet another example of how religion (just stating facts here - religious people are far more likely to be against homosexual equal rights/privileges) is holding us back as human beings.

I saw a Kindle commercial where some woman in a bikini was reading and the guy in the next lounge chair was "hitting on her" - except he wasn't, because they both said they were waiting for their husbands to bring them drinks. The commercial stood out to me because I knew that people would have a reaction to it, when they shouldn't. You see car commercials where parents let their kids take the car for a "date night" and I hope some day soon in a montage of kids going out on dates one or two show a gay couple, and that it's NO BIG DEAL. That nobody even really notices.

So please, be mature in this thread, and don't reveal yourself to a moron.

And if for some reason you're "against" homosexuals, please come up with a better reason than "the bible says so" (because then it will become a debate on religion) or "that's not the way nature says it should be" (because there are plenty of facts in that area already which show homosexuality is not isolated to homo sapiens ).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, a gay and lesbian think tank, released a study in April 2011 estimating based on its research that just 1.7 percent of Americans between 18 and 44 identify as gay or lesbian.

___

Far from underestimating the ranks of gay people because of homophobia, these figures included a substantial number of people who remained deeply closeted, such as a quarter of the bisexuals. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey of women between 22 and 44 that questioned more than 13,500 respondents between 2006 and 2008 found very similar numbers: Only 1 percent of the women identified themselves as gay, while 4 percent identified as bisexual.

Higher numbers can be obtained when asking about lifetime sexual experiences, rather than identity. The Williams Institute found that, overall, an estimated 8.2 percent of the population had engaged in some form same-sex sexual activity. Put another way, 4.7 percent of the population had wandered across the line without coming to think of themselves as either gay or bisexual. Other studies suggest those individuals are, like the bisexuals, mainly women: The same CDC study that found only 1 percent of women identify as lesbian, for example, found that 13 percent of women reported a history of some form of sexual contact with other women.

In surveys conducted in 2002 and 2011, pollsters at Gallup found that members of the American public massively overestimated how many people are gay or lesbian

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/americans-have-no-idea-how-few-gay-people-there-are/257753/

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I don't intend on arguing the subject one way or the other, but it sounds to me like you're only allowing debate within a certain set of parameters. A persons reasons for believing one way are their reasons no matter what side they're on. If you're going to ask that certain reasonings to viewpoints be left out of the thread you may as well just lock it now because it's rigged to make one side look like "morons".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't intend on arguing the subject one way or the other, but it sounds to me like you're only allowing debate within a certain set of parameters. A persons reasons for believing one way are their reasons no matter what side they're on. If you're going to ask that certain reasonings to viewpoints be left out of the thread you may as well just lock it now because it's rigged to make one side look like "morons".

This.. A person can be against the practice of homosexuality and not against the person who does it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I agree with the logic of your post, and can see the viewpoint that all angles ought to be allowed in a debate. FWIW, I also agree with characterization of people who use the arguments identified above as moronic. And I also believe (as I hope we all do!) that if these same arguments are applied to any other segment of the population,(blacks,women,etc) they would be universally rejected as utterly ignorant and/or idiotic/moronic. Which of course, they would be. "I'm against ((race,gender)) because the bible or 'nature' says so" ... Preposterous. Not acceptable in civilized society. Just my opinion, which may be disputed, I suppose.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

for clarification I was referring to nututhugame's post. I intended to quote it, but screwed up.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I couldn't care less.

Or, "I could care less" as some people say on this side of the pond, meaning the same thing.  I have always found this rather confusing.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by sofingaw

I agree with the logic of your post, and can see the viewpoint that all angles ought to be allowed in a debate.

FWIW, I also agree with characterization of people who use the arguments identified above as moronic. And I also believe (as I hope we all do!) that if these same arguments are applied to any other segment of the population,(blacks,women,etc) they would be universally rejected as utterly ignorant and/or idiotic/moronic. Which of course, they would be. "I'm against ((race,gender)) because the bible or 'nature' says so" ... Preposterous. Not acceptable in civilized society.

Just my opinion, which may be disputed, I suppose.


Just wondering, are you also for the characterization of gay people for their actions and the reasons behind them, whatever those may be?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Note: This thread is 3061 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • Support TST Affiliates

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    Whoop
    SuperSpeed
    FlightScope Mevo
    Use the code "iacas" for 10% off Mevo and the code "iacasjun21" for 10% off SuperSpeed.
  • Posts

    • How? 🙂 Day 14 – Moving or Touching Loose Impediments or Touching Sand in a Bunker
    • If I am understanding this correctly, I've been able to, for over two and a half years now, move stones in bunkers, as long as doing so doesn't move my ball, same as I can do on the fairway or in the rough?   I either missed this entirely or forgot about it.   
    • It was explained to me that they wanted people to remove stones, but not to give them so much freedom that they  could just go messing about willy nilly and moving their ball. So, what they came up with did that.
    • Previously the LR caused a stone to be treated like a MO in all respects. Now the rule doesn't.  Why not?  Why shouldn't the Rule simply deem a stone in a bunker as either a LI or treat it by Rule as one? A safety conscious player could incur a penalty for being safe about a stone but not a walnut. 
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. DanTheStallion
      DanTheStallion
      (36 years old)
    2. iYelledFOREatTheHOLE
      iYelledFOREatTheHOLE
      (31 years old)
    3. jd1623
      jd1623
      (38 years old)
    4. Rextarpromodel63
      Rextarpromodel63
      (38 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...