ccrider is one of those good ol' boys that think all gay men are there to hit on him.  He gets upset because he doesn't know how he'd react.  The fact that he might like it is what scares him the most.  My two sons have had a couple of their buddies come out to them.  I am thankful that they listened to me when I taught them to be tolerant of everything but ignorance and bigotry as nothing changed in their friendship. 

LMAO. LGD, you got jokes.

ccrider is one of those good ol' boys that think all gay men are there to hit on him.  He gets upset because he doesn't know how he'd react.  The fact that he might like it is what scares him the most.  My two sons have had a couple of their buddies come out to them.  I am thankful that they listened to me when I taught them to be tolerant of everything but ignorance and bigotry as nothing changed in their friendship. 

Can we finally lock this thread after 10 pages??

+1000000000000000

ccrider is one of those good ol' boys that think all gay men are there to hit on him.  He gets upset because he doesn't know how he'd react.  The fact that he might like it is what scares him the most.

LGD, are you saying that you do speculate that ccrider MAY, in fact, have a preference for weiner and balls that he is internally in denial of?    

I can't believe I read the whole thread.
Arone, you are a tool. Nobody cares what you think. And that is giving you too much credit, to say that you can think. LGD read you like a book and gave you the rope. I think that you should use it to hang yourself.
Ccrider, you are an ass too. You can can go drink a few cold ones with the other bigots here and remember the old times. You know, before them fags were on the ESPN.
I am surprised that no one said why Scott cried. The win was for his friend, Tony Reyes. The TR patch wasn't some secret gay sign.
LGD, you are a class act.

It seems that I missed all these replies.

Read me like a book? If anyone was read it was Long Gone Daddy having to go home and actually watch the telecast after I called him out for not knowing what I was talking about when I mentioned bowling with a gout inflammation. I'm done arguing with him. I'm sure he's one who voted for Obama and is now mad that his paycheck is now short $100 a pay period.

As for me being a tool: if that is your definition of recognizing special treatment when I see it, fine. That's all it is. Until you hear an interview every week on being a heterosexual in bowling, I'm sorry it's special treatment or promotion.

You people are very right. It's 2013. They have the right to kiss on TV just as I have the right to say i find it disgusting. We are all different. Gay, straight, Caucasian, African American, oriental, skinny, fat, tall, short and many other kinds of people. If it was the "equal" treatment as you say ESPN would not have made it a big deal. Show their spouse, let em hug, kiss, and cry all they want, but don't announce it in the same manner as you show Belmos televised 300 game. I understand ESPN did it to get exposure through controversy and not to promote homosexuality but that in no way makes it right.

Jorge, since you claim to be "intelligent," why not give the complete and accurate definition, rather than your mis-stated watered down version: Merriam-Websters bigot- "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
 
You fail to realize that using your misstated watered down version of the definition, you trap yourself. Applying your standard, surely you can see how you are being "intolerant of any ideas other than your own."


Of course, intolerant is another key term that you do not have a true grasp on.
Lets look at Webster's Definition of INTOLERANT
1: unable or unwilling to endure
2a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : bigoted


Again, some of us prefer not to be subjected to what we believe is immoral gay conduct while watching a bowling show. I stated early on, I place no more value on a persons right to be gay, than I do on my right to believe that it is wrong. My right to choose what I watch on T.V. is again, my right. ESPN has a right to televise whatever they choose. I am fine with that too. Maybe they gained attention, maybe they loose watchers in the end.

We all have rights. The fact that I am not persuaded to accept your opinions, beliefs or values over my own does not make me bigoted, or intolerant. It simply means that we disagree. The only difference is, I can address the issue rationally without diverting to non-productive name calling (unless I choose to just to get a rise out of some of you whose brain short circuited simply because you do not agree with my beliefs). You seem unable to give a rational response to support the statements that you are making, or the position that you are taking.

Tell me this, what percentage of the population do you believe, actually maintains that being gay is morally o.k?  I say morally, because this is a moral, not a legal issue.  Does that mean that everyone that does not agree with those of you that think that it is hunky dory, is a bigot or intolerant?

Jorge, since you claim to be "intelligent," why not give the complete and accurate definition, rather than your mis-stated watered down version: Merriam-Websters bigot- "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
 
You fail to realize that using your misstated watered down version of the definition, you trap yourself. Applying your standard, surely you can see how you are being "intolerant of any ideas other than your own."


Of course, intolerant is another key term that you do not have a true grasp on.
Lets look at Webster's Definition of INTOLERANT
1: unable or unwilling to endure
2a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : bigoted


Again, some of us prefer not to be subjected to what we believe is immoral gay conduct while watching a bowling show. I stated early on, I place no more value on a persons right to be gay, than I do on my right to believe that it is wrong. My right to choose what I watch on T.V. is again, my right. ESPN has a right to televise whatever they choose. I am fine with that too. Maybe they gained attention, maybe they loose watchers in the end.

We all have rights. The fact that I am not persuaded to accept your opinions, beliefs or values over my own does not make me bigoted, or intolerant. It simply means that we disagree. The only difference is, I can address the issue rationally without diverting to non-productive name calling (unless I choose to just to get a rise out of some of you whose brain short circuited simply because you do not agree with my beliefs). You seem unable to give a rational response to support the statements that you are making, or the position that you are taking.

Tell me this, what percentage of the population do you believe, actually maintains that being gay is morally o.k?  I say morally, because this is a moral, not a legal issue.  Does that mean that everyone that does not agree with those of you that think that it is hunky dory, is a bigot or intolerant?

Well done!

Jethro Bodine? Haha thanks??? I guess! Seriously, read a history book. Increased spending, rising tax rates, public healthcare, a divided country, more people relying on the government than contributing, pending gun control, a biased media, and now there's a bill in the works to end presidential term limitb see for yourself: http://www.examiner.com/article/president-obama-could-get-3-terms-if-h-j-res-15-abolishes-term-limits

Does none of this ring a bell from a country in Europe?