labrys 0
david3 0
QuoteDo that, and people will accept you as is, and the fact that you're Gay won't matter to them.
I can only guess you are trolling. You caught a few, nice.
mnealtx 0
QuoteMike why did you edit it? Because it was bullshit? Owned, I think not.
Because I had you mistaken with someone else from the thread.
QuoteSo you were not implying Bill was full of shit? Okay, I was wrong (wink). So what were you aiming for?
I was stating an opinion - as I recall from the other thread, that's ok with you, isn't it?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteWhich has nothing to to with gay/anti-gay.
Well... it kinds does, in my opinion, Mike.
Not in Bill's example - he dropped the gay issue when he couldn't provide documentation and went to the issue of women. Women are not allowed to ride roughstock in PRCA sanctioned events, that's true - they *are* allowed to do so in open rodeos. The WPRA doesn't allow men to compete and also has women's roughstock events.
I'm also sure that there's gay cowboys and lesbian cowgirls out there competing in the PRCA/WPRA. Does that mean they're 'hiding their sexuality' for fear of reprisal? Perhaps - I couldn't say. Is it possible that they identify more with being rodeo cowboy/cowgirl than with being gay/lesbian? Again, perhaps - nobody knows but them.
QuoteThe gay clubs appear to be more open to diversity and participation than the straight ones. I'd wager that this is because they know very well what discrimination and denial feel like.
Appear to be, yes, and I'm sure many of them are...but then you have the countervailing example like the baseball league above who have excluded bi and straight athletes.
Like always, it's the outside edges that get the attention and give the folks in the middle a bad name.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
david3 0
QuoteQuoteMike why did you edit it? Because it was bullshit? Owned, I think not.
Because I had you mistaken with someone else from the thread.QuoteSo you were not implying Bill was full of shit? Okay, I was wrong (wink). So what were you aiming for?
I was stating an opinion - as I recall from the other thread, that's ok with you, isn't it?
Fair enough. Are you apposed to gay rodeos?
labrys 0
QuoteAppear to be, yes, and I'm sure many of them are...but then you have the countervailing example like the baseball league above who have excluded bi and straight athletes.
The quote you posted was about the gay baseball league limiting the number of non-gay players, not excluding them.
QuoteLike always, it's the outside edges that get the attention and give the folks in the middle a bad name.
This: I totally agree with this.
Owned by Remi #?
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteMike why did you edit it? Because it was bullshit? Owned, I think not.
Because I had you mistaken with someone else from the thread.QuoteSo you were not implying Bill was full of shit? Okay, I was wrong (wink). So what were you aiming for?
I was stating an opinion - as I recall from the other thread, that's ok with you, isn't it?
Fair enough. Are you apposed to gay rodeos?
Nope, sure aren't.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
jakee 1,257
QuoteNot in Bill's example - he dropped the gay issue when he couldn't provide documentation and went to the issue of women.
Uh, actually dude, Bill was already onto women when you arrived. You asked Bill about women first, and then you dropped the issue when Bill did provide documentation and so you switched back to gays.
I think it's worth paying attention to these little details.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
mnealtx 0
QuoteThe quote you posted was about the gay baseball league limiting the number of non-gay players, not excluding them.
True, and I forgot to post a link.
Further down the article, it states that the judge will allow the case to go forward.
There's also a link to the Courthouse News Service site whose article states:
QuoteThe North American Gay Amateur Athletic Association can limit the number of heterosexuals on its teams, according to a federal judge's order, which also ushers forward claims by three bisexual men who say they were kicked out of the Gay Softball World Series because they weren't gay enough.
The three men were playing for a San Francisco softball team in the finals when a rival team challenged their sexuality, citing the rule that limits no more that two heterosexuals per team.
The men were "summoned to a hearing room to answer questions about their sexual interests or attractions, purportedly to determine their sexual orientation, in front of a group of more than twenty-five people, many of whom plaintiffs did not know," according to their federal complaint. The men say organizers told them: "This is the Gay World Series, not the Bisexual World Series."
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteNot in Bill's example - he dropped the gay issue when he couldn't provide documentation and went to the issue of women.
Uh, actually dude, Bill was already onto women when you arrived. You asked Bill about women first,
Yes, the acceptance of women by the gay rodeos was covered - it was information I did not know, and I thanked him for it. You get a gold star!
Quoteand then you dropped the issue when Bill did provide documentation and so you switched back to gays.
Really? Damn, guess you weren't paying attention after all.
me: Looks like they're doing better at acceptance than the NAGAAA
billvon: And considerably better than the anti-gay rodeos.
Looks like that was Bill that dropped women and switched back to gays.
QuoteI think it's worth paying attention to these little details.
So, when are you going to start?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
labrys 0
QuoteSo, when are you going to start?
I respectfully request that we limit participation in this thread to no more than 3 straight guys.
Owned by Remi #?
mnealtx 0
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
david3 0
QuoteQuoteSo, when are you going to start?
I respectfully request that we limit participation in this thread to no more than 3 straight guys.
And straight girls?
labrys 0
QuoteAnd straight girls?
Jeez, I'm so inconsiderate.
I'd like to amend my request. Please limit the heterosexual participation to 3 member of the species homo sapiens
Being PC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tZPQC_NNGY&feature=feedf
Is often better than not being PC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTQNwMxqM3E&feature=feedf
Owned by Remi #?
Why are there gay rodeos?
Because there are gay bulls and broncs?
Since these rodeos are for gays, what would happen if someone promoted a "straight" rodeo?
Because there are gay bulls and broncs?
Since these rodeos are for gays, what would happen if someone promoted a "straight" rodeo?
HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.
labrys 0
QuoteSince these rodeos are for gays, what would happen if someone promoted a "straight" rodeo?
Welcome to the show. Bother reading before you posted?
Owned by Remi #?
BobMoore 0
QuoteUh, actually dude, Bill was already onto women when you arrived.
I should hope so. I've met his wife.
"For you see, an airplane is an airplane. A landing area is a landing area. But a dropzone... a dropzone is the people."
QuoteQuoteSince these rodeos are for gays, what would happen if someone promoted a "straight" rodeo?
Welcome to the show. Bother reading before you posted?
Actually, I did read. Care to comment on what would happen if someone promoted a rodeo just for straights? Kinda like what would happen if someone made a movie titled "Black Men Can't Swim" in response to "White Men Can't Jump".
To the best of my knowledge rodeos don't ask for sexual orientation when signing up.
While we are at it, if the intent of gay rodeos is to include all participants in all events...why not just call it an "open rodeo"? Why present it as for gays when their intent is obviously not to exclude anyone?
HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.
billvon 2,421
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>While we are at it, if the intent of gay rodeos is to include all participants in all
>events...why not just call it an "open rodeo"?
To make it clear that it's open to gays as well, I suppose. Given how angry many people here get over the issue of homosexuality, how often gays are told "you'll be tolerated as long as you don't tell anyone you're gay" and how homophobic the rodeo scene is in general I can see how a gay cowboy might prefer to know up front that they will be accepted. Sort of like the rainbow skydivers or Chicks Rock provide welcoming environments for gays and women in skydiving.
"Open" would do much the same thing if it really meant "open." Or "GLBT friendly" but then people wouldn't be able to spell it as easily.
>events...why not just call it an "open rodeo"?
To make it clear that it's open to gays as well, I suppose. Given how angry many people here get over the issue of homosexuality, how often gays are told "you'll be tolerated as long as you don't tell anyone you're gay" and how homophobic the rodeo scene is in general I can see how a gay cowboy might prefer to know up front that they will be accepted. Sort of like the rainbow skydivers or Chicks Rock provide welcoming environments for gays and women in skydiving.
"Open" would do much the same thing if it really meant "open." Or "GLBT friendly" but then people wouldn't be able to spell it as easily.
Quote>You might have a point, if you have documentation showing that gays cannot
>compete in the PRCA.
Never said they couldn't. But you must have forgotten already that women are banned from several events in the anti-gay (non-gay, if you prefer) rodeos.
It's not that women are 'banned' from several events, it all goes back to the history of rodeo. Men worked the cattle, broke horses, roped steers and calves. Cowboys got to talking amongst themselves and bragged about how good they were at what they did. Ranches competed against each other to see which ranch had the best hands. Someone along the way, decided there was money in it. Along came 'rodeo' and tickets were sold to the public. To involve women, barrel racing became an event and is a big part of modern rodeo. The reason women don't enter rough-stock events is just a matter of history... men do that! Today's PRCA rodeo is just a matter of hanging-on to a bit of our Western history. It's by no means a matter of discrimination or any of that.
Chuck
Chuck
billvon 2,421
>The reason women don't enter rough-stock events is just a matter of history... men do that!
Well, women DID do that in the "regular" (i.e. traditional non-gay) rodeos. But after Bonnie McCarroll got killed in 1929, women were banned from the rough-stock events for their own good.
But I agree that a lot of the other reasons for separate women's events are more traditional. Fortunately women who want to compete now have a way to do so.
Well, women DID do that in the "regular" (i.e. traditional non-gay) rodeos. But after Bonnie McCarroll got killed in 1929, women were banned from the rough-stock events for their own good.
But I agree that a lot of the other reasons for separate women's events are more traditional. Fortunately women who want to compete now have a way to do so.
mdrejhon 8
QuoteQuotethree members of the Men's World Record were gay.
Great! So why do they have their own separate events where they exclude everyone else, as a way of celebrating the way they are?
Clicky: The straight attendance of Rainbow Boogie (Bonfire)
P.S. To flamebait...
Why do POPS jumps exist? Exclude people under 40?
Why do JTFC jumps exist? Exlude men?
Why do Deaf World Record exist? Exclude hearing?
And there's women's rodeo too.
I presume you think those are contradictory, too, considering the facts that Rainbow Boogie welcomes straight people, and technically "more inclusive" than these groups?
(P.S. I have nothing against the groups; they are worthy. Let's remember the almost $1M donated by JFTC to charities.)
Quote>The reason women don't enter rough-stock events is just a matter of history... men do that!
Well, women DID do that in the "regular" (i.e. traditional non-gay) rodeos. But after Bonnie McCarroll got killed in 1929, women were banned from the rough-stock events for their own good.
But I agree that a lot of the other reasons for separate women's events are more traditional. Fortunately women who want to compete now have a way to do so.
Women were banned only from bronc riding. There are many nonPRCA rodeoes that allow women in rough-stock events.
Chuck
Well... it kinds does, in my opinion, Mike.
The gay clubs appear to be more open to diversity and participation than the straight ones. I'd wager that this is because they know very well what discrimination and denial feel like.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites