# Former NBA player to announce he's gay.



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

http://dwil.wordpress.com/2007/02/05/gay-nba-player-to-come-out-this-month/

http://deadspin.com/sports/nba/your-anonymous-gay-former-nbaer-is-less-anonymous-now-but-only-slightly-so-234322.php

http://blog.sportscolumn.com/topic/nba/1


Interesting if it really is John Amaechi, I was thinking it was going to be Christian Laettner.


----------



## rebelsun (Nov 25, 2003)

When did Scot Pollard become a 'former' NBA player?


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

*groan*

i know we're being beaten to death with this topic in every other area of society, I'd like not to have to hear about it in sports.

I never got the impression Laettner was gay.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

Hopefully soon we'll live in a time where no announcement needs to be made.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Good. It's about time. It's a discussion that needs to be happening. So many homophobic sports fans out there need to have their favorite player come out as gay. People need to have it beaten into their head that it doesn't make them less of a person.

Now does anyone want to start taking bets on how many homophobic gay bashing comments this thread will end up with?


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

The % of gay / bisexual men is 8-12% accross all colour lines and all walks of life. It is already more likely then not that a random NBA team has one gay / bisexual player.

This is hardly an isolated case; basic statistics would tell it is almost 100% probable that there are 25-50 gay NBA players.


----------



## firstrounder (Oct 31, 2004)

Its also likely that this thread has at least one gay/bisexual poster.

Not me! LOL.


----------



## EGarrett (Aug 12, 2002)

I thought it would be AC Green.


----------



## MarioChalmers (Mar 26, 2004)

Brandname said:


> Hopefully soon we'll live in a time where no announcement needs to be made.


LOL

Kidding.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

essbee said:


> *groan*
> 
> i know we're being beaten to death with this topic in every other area of society, I'd like not to have to hear about it in sports.
> 
> I never got the impression Laettner was gay.


Why would have you had any impression either way? It's not like gay players would somehow play differently.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

JuniorNoboa said:


> The % of gay / bisexual men is 8-12% accross all colour lines and all walks of life. It is already more likely then not that a random NBA team has one gay / bisexual player.
> 
> This is hardly an isolated case; basic statistics would tell it is almost 100% probable that there are 25-50 gay NBA players.



unlike race there are no statistics measured by census of homosexual population. The 8-12% number is speculation, so would you please stop passing that along as fact?


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

futuristxen said:


> Good. It's about time. It's a discussion that needs to be happening. So many homophobic sports fans out there need to have their favorite player come out as gay. People need to have it beaten into their head that it doesn't make them less of a person.
> 
> Now does anyone want to start taking bets on how many homophobic gay bashing comments this thread will end up with?



I was gonna start taking bets on how soon we'd start hearing catch phrases like "homophobic" thrown around in an attempt to intimidate everybody into liberal group-think but you already rendered that moot.

Oh well there's always next time.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

tempe85 said:


> Why would have you had any impression either way? It's not like gay players would somehow play differently.


There are things like interviews and in depth profiles that give you impressions of how people act. I'm sorry you weren't aware of them and thought that the only exposure people had to a player was his silent performance on the court, but that's not the reality for most sports fans. Did that really need to be explained?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Dennis Rodman said he was bisexual while still playing.

Did everyone forget that?

BTW I thought Laetner was married?


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

essbee said:


> There are things like interviews and in depth profiles that give you impressions of how people act. I'm sorry you weren't aware of them and thought that the only exposure people had to a player was his silent performance on the court, but that's not the reality for most sports fans. Did that really need to be explained?


Point is you don't know any of these players personally. An interview isn't going to give you any indication on whether someone is gay or not ... it's like saying Adam Kennedy is gay (Angels second baseman) because he has a lisp that is stereotypically attributed to gay people.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

EGarrett said:


> I thought it would be AC Green.


So you think gay people have less sexual desires then straight people?

YOu correlate lack of sexual desire or abstaining from sex with orientation?

Read a book, learn, get out of the cave...


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

tempe85 said:
 

> Point is you don't know any of these players personally. An interview isn't going to give you any indication on whether someone is gay or not ... it's like saying Adam Kennedy is gay (Angels second baseman) because he has a lisp that is stereotypically attributed to gay people.


Actually no it's not like that. you said that I wouldn't have seen him PLAY any differently than a straight person, as if that's what I was talking about. That was your point.

"It's not like gay players would somehow play differently."


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

essbee said:


> unlike race there are no statistics measured by census of homosexual population. The 8-12% number is speculation, so would you please stop passing that along as fact?


There have been studies done on the topic... several. Just because it is not part of a US census does not mean it is not reliable.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I don't know if it has anything to do with this, but wasn't Laettner generally hated by his teammates? Always fighting and feuding? Maybe he didn't hide it good enough...if it is him.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

JuniorNoboa said:


> So you think gay people have less sexual desires then straight people?
> 
> YOu correlate lack of sexual desire with orientation?
> 
> Read a book, learn, get out of the cave...


AC Green is married to a hot ex-Rockets cheerleader. And AC did an interview with basketballboards.net after he got married. 

http://www.basketballforum.com/showthread.php?t=5529

Go to post 49.

Or- http://www.basketballforum.com/showpost.php?p=106074&postcount=49


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

essbee said:


> unlike race there are no statistics measured by census of homosexual population. The 8-12% number is speculation, so would you please stop passing that along as fact?


Why does it even matter what the percentage is anyways? Honestly.... it could be 15% for all I care. I don't understand why religous people get all nervous about the possiblity of it being a high number... I mean don't you believe 100% of people sinners?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

The number is far less than 8-12% in sports.

I know several gay people and not one is into playing sports. Also every single male in fashion design in my college was gay.

Call that sterotyping, but it's behavior I witnessed. Just like I never met one Nascar fan in Compton, but they dominate the rural southern town I am currently working in.

John Amaechi, I used to read his website in like 2000 after he got an article in SLAM. He said he didn't have a passion for basketball. He likely played because he was tall.

So I doubt there is more than 3 or so gay players at any current time.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

JuniorNoboa said:


> There have been studies done on the topic... several. Just because it is not part of a US census does not mean it is not reliable.


And you're completely wrong, speculative statistics AREN'T reliable which is why it's always quoted with the preceding line "some experts speculate that.."


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> I was gonna start taking bets on how soon we'd start hearing catch phrases like "homophobic" thrown around in an attempt to intimidate everybody into liberal group-think but you already rendered that moot.
> 
> Oh well there's always next time.


What?


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> The number is far less than 8-12% in sports.
> 
> I know several gay people and not one is into playing sports. Also every single male in fashion design in my college was gay.
> 
> ...


Unless you have a degree in something like human studies or have actually researched this topic... please don't act like your personal observation (which is about as far from a scientific study as you can get) actually means anything.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

tempe85 said:


> Why does it even matter what the percentage is anyways? Honestly.... it could be 15% for all I care. I don't understand why religous people get all nervous about the possiblity of it being a high number... I mean don't you believe 100% of people sinners?


lmao.. I'm agnostic, I have no interest in any religion. Why do you think it is all the people who are so gung ho about people being gay are comfortable with stereotyping anyone who disagrees with them as a religious fanatic, while supposedly rallying against stereotyping of people who are gay? 

Can you say hypocrite?


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

essbee said:


> And you're completely wrong, speculative statistics AREN'T reliable which is why it's always quoted with the preceding line "some experts speculate that.."


Again who cares what the percentage is? There are gay people period... face it... get over it.. and move on.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

essbee said:


> lmao.. I'm agnostic, I have no interest in any religion. Why do you think it is all the people who are so gung ho about people being gay are comfortable with stereotyping anyone who disagrees with them as a religious fanatic, while supposedly rallying against stereotyping of people who are gay?
> 
> Can you say hypocrite?


I guess I just don't understand why you're so concerned about what the percentage is. If you're agnotstic does it really matter one way or another if someone is straight or not?


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

tempe85 said:


> I guess I just don't understand why you're so concerned about what the percentage is. If you're agnotstic does it really matter one way or another if someone is straight or not?


I guess I don't understand why you're avoiding the question. Why is it okay for you to stereotype anybody who disagrees with you as a religious fanatic? Like I said this is an attempt at liberal intimidation into group-think, that's my explanation (which made before you even called me religious) but what's YOUR explanation? Why did you assume that?


----------



## xray (Feb 21, 2005)

I always thought Tom Chambers looked like he was wearing makeup or something.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

tempe85 said:


> Again who cares what the percentage is? There are gay people period... face it... get over it.. and move on.


If the percentage isn't important why did you state it?


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> AC Green is married to a hot ex-Rockets cheerleader. And AC did an interview with basketballboards.net after he got married.
> 
> http://www.basketballforum.com/showthread.php?t=5529
> 
> ...


I stand corrected his reasons for his actions were based on his beliefs... either way my point still stands in terms of people seeing abstainers as being gay.


----------



## IbizaXL (Sep 21, 2005)

here we go with the political labeling....


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

JuniorNoboa said:


> I stand corrected his reasons for his actions were based on his beliefs... either way my point still stands in terms of people seeing abstainers as being gay.


Actually gay men are stereotypically portrayed as being oversexed. Your point doesn't make any sense.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

essbee said:


> And you're completely wrong, speculative statistics AREN'T reliable which is why it's always quoted with the preceding line "some experts speculate that.."


No point discussing things with you.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

I knew when I started reading this thread thast this would turn into some kind of political debate. There is no need for this. *NONE* of you have any actual facts in regards to how mnay gay people there are in basketball and what makes it worse is you're chest pounding attitude trying to convince others. Yes there are gay athletes in all lines of sports and some of these sports it's "socially acceptable" to be gay for example figure skating. In mainstream sports such as the NBA, MLB, NFL, NHL players are way more scrutinized by their own team and would be absolutley murdered by their fans. There are reasons why certain people who have the balls to come out wait till their out of the league a signifigant time to sy anything. Whether you think you are homophobic or not if some people found out someone like Lebron James was gay it could potential destroy everything he has built as business man outside of playing. Being gay or straight has nothing to do with basketball ability but has everything to do with public persona. Throughout all these pro leagues there are probably several gay players that are afraid to come out of the closet just based on what would happen in the locker room, the media, and their fan base. Good job Jon Amechi you can now be the man you have always wanted to be in the eyes of other people.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

...


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

JuniorNoboa said:


> No point discussing things with you.


You're right, it's my bad habit of not allowing people to quote speculative stats as reliable ones or get away with other logical fallacies. My fault.


----------



## IbizaXL (Sep 21, 2005)

roux2dope said:


> I knew when I started reading this thread thast this would turn into some kind of political debate. There is no need for this. *NONE* of you have any actual facts in regards to how mnay gay people there are in basketball and what makes it worse is you're chest pounding attitude trying to convince others. Yes there are gay athletes in all lines of sports and some of these sports it's "socially acceptable" to be gay for example figure skating. In mainstream sports such as the NBA, MLB, NFL, NHL players are way more scrutinized by their own team and would be absolutley murdered by their fans. There are reasons why certain people who have the balls to come out wait till their out of the league a signifigant time to sy anything. Whether you think you are homophobic or not if some people found out someone like Lebron James was gay it could potential destroy everything he has built as business man outside of playing. Being gay or straight has nothing to do with basketball ability but has everything to do with public persona. Throughout all these pro leagues there are probably several gay players that are afraid to come out of the closet just based on what would happen in the locker room, the media, and their fan base. Good job Jon Amechi you can now be the man you have always wanted to be in the eyes of other people.



excellent post


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Full Article


Amaechi's revelation will offend some fans
In new book, ex-Penn State player says he's gay 
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
It's amazing how long a secret can keep when everyone knows it. 

About 12 years ago, around the end of John Amaechi's senior year at Penn State, I was told by a mutual acquaintance that the beloved, Brit-import PSU men's basketball center was gay. There was no rumor about it, the friend said. It was common knowledge among the PSU homosexual community. 

This was 1995. I was a little surprised at first but then not so much. And my initial overriding thought was, boy, I wonder how the homophobes in central Pennsylvania would feel if they knew. All those straitlaced Penn State faithful who thought Amaechi was one bundle of things they adored. 

And, yes, Amaechi was all those things -- devoted to his school, a brilliant analytical thinker, a determined player who made himself better every year, an active and exceedingly human advocate of the State College community beyond the borders of the campus. 

I wondered what they would think if they knew he was something else they abhorred out of hand based on preconceived convictions. 

Well, we're about to find out. Amaechi is officially announcing his sexual orientation next week. 

He's written a book called "Man in the Middle" to be released by ESPN Books Feb. 20. An ESPN "Outside The Lines" segment on Amaechi will run Tuesday or next Wednesday. He's going to talk about what it was like being a homosexual in the NBA. He'll be the first to do so, though surely not the first to be one. 

I'm assuming women's basketball Rene Portland will not be getting one of the first signed copies. Then again, maybe she will. That's Amaechi's sense of humor. 

I have a 45-minute interview scheduled with Amaechi on Monday at noon in Manhattan. I don't know if that's going to hold because I reluctantly agreed to sit on this story until next Tuesday. I arranged that interview with Amaechi's publicist in Los Angeles, knowing the news probably would explode any day, or actually any minute, having seen the rumors already leaking out on the Web. 

I made the agreement before the story showed up, sure enough, on Deadspin.com a few minutes after I got off the phone with the publicist, complete with an Amaechi action photo in his Utah Jazz uniform...


----------



## ChristopherJ (Aug 10, 2004)

Sounds like he's just trying to stir up media attention to sell his book. Smart move.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Who cares that John Amaechi's gay? It's like duh!


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

KidCanada said:


> Sounds like he's just trying to stir up media attention to sell his book. Smart move.


I should have saw this post. Pretty much. He hasn't had to live a lie, cause no one gave a damn about him in the pros anyway.


----------



## SirCharles34 (Nov 16, 2004)

JuniorNoboa said:


> There have been studies done on the topic... several. Just because it is not part of a US census does not mean it is not reliable.


It was a part of the decennial census done in 2000.


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

I'm glad he's doing it. It will force reporters to ask for comments from players and to get their reaction. Hopefully some of the more influential players will say that it's no big deal, so we can get rid of some of the machoism in sports.


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

Go John. Another small step taken against homophobia in sports. Hopefully more steps from other individuals will come soon.


----------



## EGarrett (Aug 12, 2002)

JuniorNoboa said:


> So you think gay people have less sexual desires then straight people?
> 
> YOu correlate lack of sexual desire or abstaining from sex with orientation?


Very often with men, a lack of desire to have sex is actually a lack of desire to have sex WITH WOMEN.

A lot of people define abstinence as not having traditional sexual intercourse.



> Read a book, learn, get out of the cave...


Really? Would you like to really challenge me on this, then? Here, I'll make a statement and you can try to educate me on why it's wrong.

*Amaechi was immoral for hiding his sexual orientation from his teammates. It is NOT a non-issue.*

I'll even start a new thread if you want.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Hilarious people are acting like he's brave for coming out after retirement when he's a player nobody cares about.

I assume we're either going to separate straight and gay players in locker rooms/showers since we separate men and women?


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

essbee said:


> Hilarious people are acting like he's brave for coming out after retirement when he's a player nobody cares about.
> 
> I assume we're either going to separate straight and gay players in locker rooms/showers since we separate men and women?


huh?


----------



## Rockstone (Jan 21, 2004)

Brandname said:


> Hopefully soon we'll live in a time where no announcement needs to be made.


Exactly. Do we really care about how people get off? 

Would you like to know that I enjoy getting my penis sucked by women but prefer vaginal intercourse? I like playing with the vagina and grabbing the buttocks too. Sucking breasts is a lot of fun for me. 

If this post is inappropriate, then this entire thread should be inappropriate.

I'm looking forward to the day when the homos just do what they do without wanting to be on display.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Mateo said:


> huh?


aren't men and women separated because of sexual attraction? For example male reporters aren't allowed in female locker rooms.


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

essbee said:


> aren't men and women separated because of sexual attraction?


no.


----------



## LuckyAC (Aug 12, 2004)

JuniorNoboa said:


> There have been studies done on the topic... several. Just because it is not part of a US census does not mean it is not reliable.


And they don't shown anything like 12%. Sorry, making things up will only get you so far.

"Modern survey results

Australia

2003: The largest and most thorough survey in Australia to date was conducted by telephone interview with 19,307 respondents between the ages of 16 and 59 in 2001/2002. The study found that 97.4% of men identified as heterosexual, 1.6% as gay and 0.9% as bisexual. For women 97.7% identified as heterosexual, 0.8% as gay and 1.4% as bisexual. Nevertheless, 8.6% of men and 15.1% of women reported either feelings of attraction to the same sex or some sexual experience with the same sex. Half the men and two thirds of the women who had same sex sexual experience regarded themselves as heterosexual rather than homosexual.[2]

Canada

1988: A study of 5,514 college and university students under the age of 25 found 1% who were homosexual and 1% who were bisexual. [3]

1998: A stratified random sample of 750 males aged 18 to 27 in Calgary, Canada included questions on sexual activity and orientation. 15.3% of men "reported being homosexual to some degree" on the basis of three (often overlapping) measures of homosexuality: (1) voluntary, same-gender sexual contact from age 12 to 27: 14.0%; (2) overlapping homosexual (5.9%) and/or bisexual (6.1%) self-identification: 11.1%; and (3) exclusive (4.3%) and non-exclusive (4.9%) same-gender sexual relationships in past 6 months: 9.2%.[4]

2003: A survey of 135,000 Canadians found that 1.0% of the respondents identified themselves as homosexual and 0.7% identified themselves as bisexual. About 1.3% of men considered themselves homosexual, almost twice the proportion of 0.7% among women. However, 0.9% of women reported being bisexual, slightly higher than the proportion of 0.6% among men. 2.0 % of those in the 18-35 age bracket considered themselves to be either homosexual or bisexual, but the number decreased to 1.9 among 35-44 year olds, and further still to 1.2% in the population aged 45-59. Quebec and British Columbia had higher percentages than the national average at 2.3% and 1.9%, respectively.[5]

Denmark

1992: A random survey found that 2.7% of the 1,373 men who responded to their questionnaire had homosexual experience (intercourse).[6]

France

1992: A study of 20,055 people found that 4.1% of the men and 2.6% of the women had at least one occurrence of intercourse with person of the same sex during their lifetime. [7]

Norway

1988: In a random survey of 6,300 Norwegians, 3.5% of the men and 3% of the women reported that they had had a homosexual experience sometime in their life. [8]

United Kingdom

1992: A study of 8,337 British men found that 6.1% had had "any homosexual experience" and 3.6% had "1+ homosexual partner ever." [9]

United States

1990-1992: The American National Health Interview Survey does household interviews of the civilian non-institutionalized population. The results of three of these surveys, done in 1990-1991 and based on over 9,000 responses each time, found between 2-3% of the people responding said yes to a set of statements which included "You are a man who has had sex with another man at some time since 1977, even one time." [10]

1992: The National Health and Social Life Survey asked 3,432 respondents whether they had any homosexual experience. The findings were 1.3% for women within the past year, and 4.1% since 18 years; for men, 2.7% within the past year, and 4.9% since 18 years;[11]

1993: The Alan Guttmacher Institute found of sexually active men aged 20–39 found that 2.3% had experienced same-sex sexual activity in the last ten years, and 1.1% reported exclusive homosexual contact during that time.[12]

1998: A random survey of 1672 males (number used for analysis) aged 15 to 19. Subjects were asked a number of questions, including questions relating to same-sex activity. This was done using two methods — a pencil and paper method, and via computer, supplemented by a verbal rendition of the questionnaire heard through headphones — which obtained vastly different results. There was a 400% increase in males reporting homosexual activity when the computer-audio system was used: from a 1.5% to 5.5% positive response rate; the homosexual behavior with the greatest reporting difference (800%, adjusted) was to the question "Ever had receptive anal sex with another male": 0.1% to 0.8%.[13]

2003: Smith's 2003 analysis of National Opinion Research Center data[14] states that 4.9% of sexually active American males had had a male sexual partner since age 18, but that "since age 18 less than 1% are [exclusively] gay and 4+% bisexual". In the top twelve urban areas however, the rates are double the national average. Smith adds that "It is generally believed that including adolescent behavior would further increase these rates."The NORC data has been criticised because the original design sampling techniques were not followed, and depended upon direct self report regarding masturbation and same sex behaviors. (For example, the original data in the early 1990s reported that approximately 40% of adult males had never masturbated--a finding inconsistent with some other studies.)

In general, surveys quoted by anti-gay activists tend to show figures nearer 1%, while surveys quoted by gay activists tend to show figures nearer 10%, with a mean of 4-5% figure most often cited in mainstream media reports."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

The whole thing about homosexuality in sports really has more to do with team sports and the whole "family" atmosphere built amongst teams that we call "chemistry" than the individual actually being homosexual. It's the "I don't want to be in a locker room changing in front of one of _them_" idea that makes this such a big deal. How big of a deal do you people think it would be if a tennis or golf player on Jon Amaechi's popularity level came out?


----------



## SirCharles34 (Nov 16, 2004)

LuckyAC said:


> And they don't shown anything like 12%. Sorry, making things up will only get you so far.
> 
> "Modern survey results
> 
> ...


I know you just didn't quote wikipedia? LOL... That's not an accredited journal. Anyone can post information on that site. I hope you don't attend UC Berkeley because you should know better.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

Ewww.


----------



## eymang (Dec 15, 2006)

That article TB1 posted, it says this is to 'reveal what it's like to be a gay man in the NBA'. Yeah, who cares. I'm sure it must be brutal (ROLLING EYES). If some pale looking Catholic kid would say it was tough to be in the NBA with all the girls and drugs he would get pounded.


----------



## eymang (Dec 15, 2006)

futuristxen said:


> Good. It's about time. It's a discussion that needs to be happening. So many homophobic sports fans out there need to have their favorite player come out as gay. People need to have it beaten into their head that it doesn't make them less of a person.
> 
> Now does anyone want to start taking bets on how many homophobic gay bashing comments this thread will end up with?


How does it NEED to be happening? I love how because one person thinks one way, they feel the need to force their beliefs on everyone else. What if we were discussing pedophiles or cannibals? Maybe they're not different and just born with something they can't control either. I doubt you'd be so quick to remove their social stigma.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

eymang said:


> How does it NEED to be happening? I love how because one person thinks one way, they feel the need to force their beliefs on everyone else. What if we were discussing pedophiles or cannibals? Maybe they're not different and just born with something they can't control either. I doubt you'd be so quick to remove their social stigma.


That's called liberal fascism.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

eymang said:


> How does it NEED to be happening? I love how because one person thinks one way, they feel the need to force their beliefs on everyone else. What if we were discussing pedophiles or cannibals? Maybe they're not different and just born with something they can't control either. I doubt you'd be so quick to remove their social stigma.


Oh great, so homosexuality is the same to you as eating and ****ing babies. Beautiful. You kiss your mom with that mouth? 

Esbee: Say something. Do it. So far all you've done is tried to do is obscure the issue. Your position in this thread has to this point been tertiary at best. So either get on point or stop crying. For an agnostic you sure have a mad-on about the vast left-wing liberal conspiracy.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

essbee said:


> aren't men and women separated because of sexual attraction? For example male reporters aren't allowed in female locker rooms.


What are you, stupid? Of course they don't separate them based upon sexual attraction.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Rockstone said:


> I'm looking forward to the day when the homos just do what they do without wanting to be on display.


No one wants to be on display. Well most people don't. Some people **** or hetero do have fetishes about that sort of thing--but point being, gay pride is not about wanting to be on display, it's about being political, and pushing for a change for the betterment of your community. It's about taking ownership of your situation and not allowing hetero-sexual society to dictate the terms of your life to you.

You want to talk about being on display, hetero-sexual relations are on display every second of the day. Just turn your TV on. You can pretty much name the shows that showcase homosexual relationships. Whereas the heterosexual ones are infinite. It's just the culture has been mindwarped to just accept one and not the other, even though it's the same thing. The dynamics of homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are remarkably similiar, it's just that one is under constant attack from the establishment and the other isn't.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

futuristxen said:


> What are you, stupid? Of course they don't separate them based upon sexual attraction.


Then why are female reporters allowed in male locker rooms (sam wyche tried to get them banned and was vilified) but not the other way around? If sexual attraction isn't the issue then what is?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

essbee said:


> Then why are female reporters allowed in male locker rooms (sam wyche tried to get them banned and was vilified) but not the other way around? If sexual attraction isn't the issue then what is?


Wait. Didn't you answer your own question? If you knew that female reporters were allowed in male locker rooms, but male reporters weren't allowed in female locker rooms--then why did you think that the locker rooms were kept separate for sexual attraction reasons?

The main issue with it has to do with centuries of rape, oppression, and degradation of the female gender at the hands of the male gender. It's why a female who gets approached by a male in a parking lot has to immediately start worrying about her safety, but when a male is approached by a female in the same situation, he won't feel much fear at all.

Women's lib really only started in what...the last one hundred years really? It takes more than one hundred years to undo milleneia of systematic abuse. It doesn't help that many radical religious groups are fighting, and in many cases succeeding, in rolling back many of the achievements that feminism has brought us.


----------



## Burn (Feb 2, 2003)

To the guy who compared gays to pedophiles and cannibals - THANK YOU!!! There's no difference and it's about time someone said it. These liberal fascists think they can force us into groupthink with their nazi propaganda. They want to make it legal for gays to marry yet they support the killing of babies and Jesus. They use lies like evolution, global warming and gravity to brainwash children in schools and through the liberal media. It has been proven through science and math that gays are destroying the fabric of society and undermining our war on terrorism yet the liberals want to take medals of honor from soldiers and pin them on these sex criminals/cannibals. Damned Liberal Fascists


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

Man stop this. Somebody lock the thread. This forun is about basketball people not this stuff. I dont like to hear about homosexuality because I am relligiously against it.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

Global Warming is very real!


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Man stop this. Somebody lock the thread. This forun is about basketball people not this stuff. I dont like to hear about homosexuality because I am relligiously against it.


John Ameachi=Former NBA Basketball Player
John Ameachi=Homosexual

Thread about Homosexuality in the NBA=topical to main NBA forum.

YOU, need to have this discussion more than anyone. South African Whites were once religiously against the de-segregation of south african blacks, but that didn't make it right. It's conversations like this that helped overturn the ugliness of aparthied. And if the five minutes it takes you to read this thread, gives you pause when considering committing a hate crime simply because of someone's sexual orientation, then all the better.

A topic like this is much more important to both the NBA and our culture as a whole, than another thread about why Steve Nash is or isn't the MVP.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

I do not believe race is anything like homosexualliy. Where did it say anywhere in the Bible Quaran or Torah that blacks should be segreagated. Now check those three holy books for homosexuallity.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

what should the consequences be of being a gay team sport athlete? or should they just stay in the closet?


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

futuristxen said:


> Wait. Didn't you answer your own question? If you knew that female reporters were allowed in male locker rooms, but male reporters weren't allowed in female locker rooms--then why did you think that the locker rooms were kept separate for sexual attraction reasons?


I didn't because I was leading someone to (on their own) say your next point, thank you btw.



> The main issue with it has to do with centuries of rape, oppression, and degradation of the female gender at the hands of the male gender.


Yet there are cases of women raping women and men raping men, which was the entire point. It's a bias against heterosexual men, the same won't be applied against homosexual men.



> It's why a female who gets approached by a male in a parking lot has to immediately start worrying about her safety, but when a male is approached by a female in the same situation, he won't feel much fear at all.


I wasn't aware that women who are approached by men had to immediately start worrying about their safety.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

This isnt important. Some sucky former NBA player anounces hes a **** so what.


----------



## LuckyAC (Aug 12, 2004)

SirCharles34 said:


> I know you just didn't quote wikipedia? LOL... That's not an accredited journal. Anyone can post information on that site. I hope you don't attend UC Berkeley because you should know better.


Let's see, he made statistics up out of his head, I quoted a compendium of referenced sources (guess what, posters on Wikipedia didn't do those studies themselves), which has more credibility?

And yes, I am a second semester senior at Berkeley, but that hardly defines my intelligence. I could have gone to a much more selective school, but chose not to, due to cost and proximity.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> I do not believe race is anything like homosexualliy. Where did it say anywhere in the Bible Quaran or Torah that blacks should be segreagated. Now check those three holy books for homosexuallity.


It's not at all like race, but people want you to think it is so that you associate any opinions you might have of homosexuals to racism. They're attempting to piggy back the civil rights movement that we as blacks had to work so hard for. It's only validated by idiots like Al Sharpton condoning it.

And if it was anything like race would Ameachi (who btw was a HORRIBLE player) have had to announce it after he left the league? I mean I'm pretty sure everybody knew ahead of time that Jackie Robinson was black.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

Exactly there is going to be no civil war against this just more parades.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

has anyone had a single problem in a locker room? i've been in plenty of locker rooms with homosexuals (not that hard here in nyc) and never seen anything inappropriate. it's a strawman issue.


----------



## eymang (Dec 15, 2006)

futuristxen said:


> Oh great, so homosexuality is the same to you as eating and ****ing babies. Beautiful. You kiss your mom with that mouth?


I knew this was the EXACT response you would give. Avoid my point and reword what I said. You said this NEEDS to be done, and that because you see nothing wrong with it, people should be forced to embrace it or else they are the dregs of society. Okay, let's take out cannibalism. You will be 100% open to pedophiles and their support if tomorrow scientists prove that it is something one is born with and cannot control? Actually, it doesn't even have to go that far, since I'm sure you'd feel the same about gay rights if it was 100% known that it was all choice. You have to admit those pedophiles are going through some pretty tough times, I bet they can't find anyone to marry them and their 8 year old soulmate.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

kflo said:


> what should the consequences be of being a gay team sport athlete? or should they just stay in the closet?


what should the consequences be of being a gay team sport athlete? or should they just stay in the closet?


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

eymang said:


> I knew this was the EXACT response you would give. Avoid my point and reword what I said. You said this NEEDS to be done, and that because you see nothing wrong with it, people should be forced to embrace it or else they are the dregs of society. Okay, let's take out cannibalism. You will be 100% open to pedophiles and their support if tomorrow scientists prove that it is something one is born with and cannot control? Actually, it doesn't even have to go that far, since I'm sure you'd feel the same about gay rights if it was 100% known that it was all choice. You have to admit those pedophiles are going through some pretty tough times, I bet they can't find anyone to marry them and their 8 year old soulmate.


yes, lets equate the victimization of children with mutually agreeable adult relationships. brilliant.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

kflo said:


> what should the consequences be of being a gay team sport athlete? or should they just stay in the closet?


 what should the consequences be ofbeing a gay team sport athlete? or should they just stay in the closet?

WTF


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

care to answer the question.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> I do not believe race is anything like homosexualliy. Where did it say anywhere in the Bible Quaran or Torah that blacks should be segreagated. Now check those three holy books for homosexuallity.


There were many ways the bible was used to hold black people down. Read your history. Just one was that blackness represented the mark of Cain. Even as late as Timothy the bible upholds slavery(though the pauline epistles actually attributed to Paul, are against Slavery--but contridictions can be easily overlooked).

The bible also says not to eat shrimp. And validates the oppression of women.

It's all about emphasizing one part and de-emphasizing another. Kind of a living document in that sense, in that the words don't change, but the meanings we glean from the words do.


----------



## SirCharles34 (Nov 16, 2004)

Boy, you can easily tell by reading through everyone's comments who the dimwitted, uneducated posters are. :rofl:


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

Well Im not even Christion. In the Quran and Torah it is clearly stated. And you can so eat shrimp.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

kflo said:


> yes, lets equate the victimization of children with mutually agreeable adult relationships. brilliant.



He's making the analogous comparison of one thing that someone may have been born with a tendency towards with another. His point is that pointing to a tendency or leaning as if it's justification of something being acceptable is a logical fallacy. 

It's not a complicated point.


----------



## Omniscient (Jul 18, 2004)

eymang said:


> I knew this was the EXACT response you would give. Avoid my point and reword what I said. You said this NEEDS to be done, and that because you see nothing wrong with it, people should be forced to embrace it or else they are the dregs of society. Okay, let's take out cannibalism. You will be 100% open to pedophiles and their support if tomorrow scientists prove that it is something one is born with and cannot control? Actually, it doesn't even have to go that far, since I'm sure you'd feel the same about gay rights if it was 100% known that it was all choice. You have to admit those pedophiles are going through some pretty tough times, I bet they can't find anyone to marry them and their 8 year old soulmate.


That is an absolutely horrible example. I understand what you're trying to say, but cannibals and pedophiles violate the basic human rights of people while homosexuals are simply trying to live their lives.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

The Bible adresses slaverey because it was common then. It does not say make black people slaves.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Omniscient said:


> That is an absolutely horrible example. I understand what you're trying to say, but cannibals and pedophiles violate the basic human rights of people while homosexuals are simply trying to live their lives.


which is not the issue. The actual act is irrelevant. The issue is whether or not abnormal behavior is acceptable just because people may have been born with a tendency towards it.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

essbee said:


> He's making the analogous comparison of one thing that someone may have been born with a tendency towards with another. His point is that pointing to a tendency or leaning as if it's justification of something being acceptable is a logical fallacy.
> 
> It's not a complicated point.



a tendency to harm vs a tendency to not harm. it's not simply that one is a tendency (or a immutable trait). it's the actual consequences that should matter too. not a complicated point.


----------



## IbizaXL (Sep 21, 2005)

so this went from basketball>politics>religion? interesting

i dont care what some holy book says. this shouldnt even be an issue imo


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

essbee said:


> I didn't because I was leading someone to (on their own) say your next point, thank you btw.


Jesus christ, aren't you the ****ing Jedi Master. For someone who pretends to be controlling the debate, you sure do suck at it...as evidenced by:



> Yet there are cases of women raping women and men raping men, which was the entire point.


Wow. How is that the entire point? That's got nothing to do with what I said. Nothing. Stop pretending to be smart and attend a women's history class. For someone who believes in a vast left-wing conspiracy, the fact that you are unable to see how societal oppression creates a mindscape of fear(amongst a host of other mental problems) is staggering. 



> It's a bias against heterosexual men, the same won't be applied against homosexual men.


Homosexual men aren't allowed in women's locker rooms either. There are already out Lesbian athletes in women's basketball, and yet there are not segregated locker rooms. Which is exactly to the point of the retarded question you asked in the first place. Point of fact, what you originally asked, and what you are basing this entire screed on, is wrong.



> I wasn't aware that women who are approached by men had to immediately start worrying about their safety.


Of course you weren't. Why would you?


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

essbee said:


> which is not the issue. The actual act is irrelevant. The issue is whether or not abnormal behavior is acceptable just because people may have been born with a tendency towards it.


how can you judge an action without considering the consequences of the action? that it's a minority trait or inclination makes it wrong or unacceptable?


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

Those holy books account for over a fourth of the earth.


----------



## eymang (Dec 15, 2006)

My favorite part is how hypocritical every gay person I've encountered is. I guess it's hard to be sterotypical when my encounters (a lot, thanks to where I live near)all seem to fit the bill. Just today, listening to the radio, they were talking about how Snickers removed their Superbowl ad due to gayrights groups. A guy called in who said he was in a gay bar, and he said everyone there thought it was hilarious, and they all felt the same about it, that it was obvious 'we all knew those guys were morons anyways. Did you see what they were doing and how they were dressed?' Being a little discriminatory towards mechanics huh? Yes, they are all gossiping about you and what you wear behind your back. I will laugh my *** off 10-20 years from now when it's taken a lot further than that and people start regretting it

And I know, this sounds very anti-gay, the point is I could care less about anyone gay, but quit shoving it in people's faces with these ridiculous announcements and all that. Need to try to gain acceptance somewhere? Then quit reminding everyone else how you are different. And yes, you are different because YOU feel the need to mention it. And this specific case is DEFINATELY exploiting it. You people ripping on Tyrus Thomas for saying he's only in for the check, what do you think this is? As the article states, people who knew him already knew he was gay, and now ESPN is going to announce it to every one who doesn't care (Hmm, ESPN also has a connection with this book being written, sounds like marketing). 

One line summary: There's no need to announce your sexuality to people unless you're on Match.com . Okay I lied, more than 1 line. By telling anyone else you're hoping someone reacts like me so you can jump all over them for it, sad.


----------



## IbizaXL (Sep 21, 2005)

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Those holy books account for over a fourth of the earth.


thats great


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

kflo said:


> how can you judge an action without considering the consequences of the action? that it's a minority trait or inclination makes it wrong or unacceptable?


You can't. What about it being a minority trait or inclination makes it automatically deserving of approval?


----------



## Omniscient (Jul 18, 2004)

essbee said:


> which is not the issue. The actual act is irrelevant. The issue is whether or not abnormal behavior is acceptable just because people may have been born with a tendency towards it.


And that is a pointless issue to bring up. All abnormal behavior should be judged on its own merits, not compared to other things. What's abnormal and normal change over time so it is a terrible argument to use whether it is for or against homosexuality.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

eymang said:


> One line summary: There's no need to announce your sexuality to people unless you're on Match.com . Okay I lied, more than 1 line. By telling anyone else you're hoping someone reacts like me so you can jump all over them for it, sad.


Which brings up the point obviously of people like Billy Bean who admitted they faced no persecution after announcing they were gay.


----------



## JoeD (Sep 2, 2004)

I don't feel this is newsworthy. 



JuniorNoboa said:


> The % of gay / bisexual men is 8-12% accross all colour lines and all walks of life. It is already more likely then not that a random NBA team has one gay / bisexual player.
> 
> This is hardly an isolated case; basic statistics would tell it is almost 100% probable that there are 25-50 gay NBA players.


Dennis Rodman was bisexual


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

Well good for you Gio. I can see your opinion by your avatar. I completly agree with eymang. *Keep it civil.*


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

eymang said:


> I knew this was the EXACT response you would give. Avoid my point and reword what I said. You said this NEEDS to be done, and that because you see nothing wrong with it, people should be forced to embrace it or else they are the dregs of society. Okay, let's take out cannibalism. You will be 100% open to pedophiles and their support if tomorrow scientists prove that it is something one is born with and cannot control? Actually, it doesn't even have to go that far, since I'm sure you'd feel the same about gay rights if it was 100% known that it was all choice. You have to admit those pedophiles are going through some pretty tough times, I bet they can't find anyone to marry them and their 8 year old soulmate.


Pedophilia when acted upon is against the law. It's against the law because it is essentially rape. You can't have consentual sex with someone who doesn't understand the terms, and a 8 year old doesn't understand sex, such that they can, as we understand consent in our society, give it. Therefore, whether the attraction to children is natural or not, the acting upon it is VERY diffrent than homosexuality.

Homosexuality, chowderhead, is between two CONSENTING ADULTS. It harms NO ONE. And because of that, having objections to it, are idgit minded at best.

Did you expect me to throw truth syrup on your hatecakes today? Surely you did Xavier. Keep blabbing your fingers at that keyboard, and I'll keep telling you **** that you should have expected to hear. Common sense is like that. Bring your **** to the oven, don't be suprised if it ends up on your dinner plate.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

Yeah but Rodman was married to a woman wasnt he?


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

eymang said:


> My favorite part is how hypocritical every gay person I've encountered is. I guess it's hard to be sterotypical when my encounters (a lot, thanks to where I live near)all seem to fit the bill. Just today, listening to the radio, they were talking about how Snickers removed their Superbowl ad due to gayrights groups. A guy called in who said he was in a gay bar, and he said everyone there thought it was hilarious, and they all felt the same about it, that it was obvious 'we all knew those guys were morons anyways. Did you see what they were doing and how they were dressed?' Being a little discriminatory towards mechanics huh? Yes, they are all gossiping about you and what you wear behind your back. I will laugh my *** off 10-20 years from now when it's taken a lot further than that and people start regretting it
> 
> And I know, this sounds very anti-gay, the point is I could care less about anyone gay, but quit shoving it in people's faces with these ridiculous announcements and all that. Need to try to gain acceptance somewhere? Then quit reminding everyone else how you are different. And yes, you are different because YOU feel the need to mention it. And this specific case is DEFINATELY exploiting it. You people ripping on Tyrus Thomas for saying he's only in for the check, what do you think this is? As the article states, people who knew him already knew he was gay, and now ESPN is going to announce it to every one who doesn't care (Hmm, ESPN also has a connection with this book being written, sounds like marketing).
> 
> One line summary: There's no need to announce your sexuality to people unless you're on Match.com . Okay I lied, more than 1 line. By telling anyone else you're hoping someone reacts like me so you can jump all over them for it, sad.


you're acting like it's a non-issue, and there's no reason to be in the closet in the first place. as if there's tons of examples of known gay athletes who were openly gay to the team / community.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

essbee said:


> You can't. What about it being a minority trait or inclination makes it automatically deserving of approval?


nothing. which brings us back to assessing consequences of the actions, which you dismissed as irrelevant (well, you dismissed the actual action as irrelevant).


----------



## IbizaXL (Sep 21, 2005)

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Well good for you Gio. I can see your opinion by your avatar. I completly agree with eymang. Gio go **** youself.


hey little boy, keep it up and you wont comeback to this site...just cuz im not into bibles and korans you think youre better than me? LOL

i have yet to see a guy not enjoy the view of 2 girls kissing. maybe you have something to tell us? in denial?


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Man stop this. Somebody lock the thread. This forun is about basketball people not this stuff. I dont like to hear about homosexuality because I am relligiously against it.


There's a simple solution here. Let's see if you can find it.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Gio305 said:


> so this went from basketball>politics>religion? interesting
> 
> i dont care what some holy book says. this shouldnt even be an issue imo


but it clearly is, by evidenced by the responses in this thread. This is why it is significant/important/brave of Amaechi to come out. This countries attitude towards homosexuality needs to be reformed, and as with many movement's, it's sometimes sport that has to lead the way. This feeds into my perception of sport as an art. Sport allows us to see ourselves reflected back, and discuss and advance ourselves through it.

To me and many others out there, sport is not about statistics and wins and losses. It's about the human spirit and the expression thereof.

Freedarko 4 Life.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

Yeah Im not a prevert and I dont mock peoples holy books.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Big deal. I don't know whats all the hullabaloo about, I don't think anyone believed there wasnt a gay NBA player


----------



## IbizaXL (Sep 21, 2005)

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Yeah Im not a prevert and I dont mock peoples holy books.


who said i mocked the books? do me a favor, go back to my post and read it again. in no way did i made fun of them.


----------



## IbizaXL (Sep 21, 2005)

HB said:


> Big deal. I don't know whats all the hullabaloo about, I don't think anyone believed there wasnt a gay NBA player


watch out man, your fellow "Net fan" might curse you out. lol


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

I felt you did.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Man stop this. Somebody lock the thread. This forun is about basketball people not this stuff. I dont like to hear about homosexuality because I am relligiously against it.


So if Vince came out tomorrow and said he was gay, you would stop rooting for him.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

No but I would think a lot less of him.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

eymang said:


> My favorite part is how hypocritical every gay person I've encountered is.


How so? You know what the word hypocritical means, right? Because the rest of your post never got back to addressing this.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> No but I would think a lot less of him.


Why? You are going to think less of a person because of their sexual preference. As long as what he does doesnt bother you


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

HB said:


> Big deal. I don't know whats all the *hullabaloo* about, I don't think anyone believed there wasnt a gay NBA player


Hullabaloo is easily the best part of this thread. :lol: 

I bet noone's spent this many posts on something about John Amaechi, you guys need to chill.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

He would commiting a great sin in my eyes and it would be hard to support someone like that. And I hate the trm preference there is only one way to be natural.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

_Dre_ said:


> Hullabaloo is easily the best part of this thread. :lol:
> 
> I bet noone's spent this many posts on something about John Amaechi, you guys need to chill.


He *did* average 10 points per game, y'know...one season...

I don't quite know how to tell you this, but he's...kind of a big deal.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

kflo said:


> nothing. which brings us back to assessing consequences of the actions, which you dismissed as irrelevant (well, you dismissed the actual action as irrelevant).



as a side note it's hilarious that some people think two women kissing is different than two men kissing, and yet people who oppose promotion of homosexuality are the ones who are called immature? Gio actually just suggested that it's "gay" not to be impressed by two women kissing. Where's the outrage?!



Anyway, the consequences are not irrelevant. What I said, specifically and as clearly as is possible, is that the reason he compared things like pedophilia is that: 

--pedophilia is a sexual inclination. 
--homosexuality is a sexual inclination.

--Child molestors are the MOST ostracized people in our society.
--homosexuals are ostracized.

Yet according to society, one is punishable as a crime and one is not. So complaining that homosexuals should be accepted because it's a sexual inclination people are born with is horrible deductive logic.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> He would commiting a great sin in my eyes and it would be hard to support someone like that.


You mentioned religion was the reason why you were against it, I thought you are not supposed to judge anyone. Who are you to judge the person for their actions?


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

essbee said:


> as a side note it's hilarious that some people think two women kissing is different than two men kissing, and yet people who oppose promotion of homosexuality are the ones who are called immature?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In cases of pedophilia, one party is under the legal age of consent. A nine-year-old can be taken advantage of more easily than a nineteen-year-old.

I hope that's easy enough to understand.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

See you and me are thinking differently. You think being gay is something one cannot help.I feel being gay is a sin and bad thing to do. I dont support peole who commit sins.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Rawse said:


> In cases of pedophilia, one party is under the legal age of consent. A nine-year-old can be taken advantage of more easily than a nineteen-year-old.
> 
> I hope that's easy enough to understand.


Where did I disagree with the opinion that pedophilia should be punished and homosexuality shouldn't? Where did you miss the point that despite them both being sexual preferences we shouldn't use that as a way to prove that something should be condoned? 

I'm keeping my posts as simple as possible to explain the analogous comparison being made and people are still missing it. I don't know how else to explain it. It's not about the actions. It's about the fact that saying "they were born with that tendency" is NOT an acceptable explanation for why something is okay, in and of itself. Is that really so complicated for you to understand?


----------



## SirCharles34 (Nov 16, 2004)

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> See you and me are thinking differently. You think being gay is something one cannot help.I feel being gay is a sin and bad thing to do. I dont support peole who commit sins.


I feel bad that religion is holding your brain hostage.:worthy:


----------



## LuckyAC (Aug 12, 2004)

essbee said:


> Where did I disagree with the opinion that pedophilia should be punished and homosexuality shouldn't? Where did you miss the point that despite them both being sexual preferences we shouldn't use that as a way to prove that something should be condoned?
> 
> I'm keeping my posts as simple as possible to explain the analogous comparison being made and people are still missing it. I don't know how else to explain it. It's not about the actions. It's about the fact that saying "they were born with that tendency" is NOT an acceptable explanation for why something is okay, in and of itself. Is that really so complicated for you to understand?


I agree that being born with something does not excuse it. However, the fact that it is innate is still important because one of the gaybashers' accusations is that homosexuals will "convert" innocent youth, and that's what makes them so dangerous. If it is innate, however, conversion is not possible, and gays don't harm anybody. If they don't affect anyone else (unlike pedophiles. who DO hurt people), it's completely their own business.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

What! Relligion is guiding me. Sorry but I believe in my relligion not you.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

essbee said:


> Where did I disagree with the opinion that pedophilia should be punished and homosexuality shouldn't? Where did you miss the point that despite them both being sexual preferences we shouldn't use that as a way to prove that something should be condoned?
> 
> I'm keeping my posts as simple as possible to explain the analogous comparison being made and people are still missing it. I don't know how else to explain it. It's not about the actions. It's about the fact that saying "they were born with that tendency" is NOT an acceptable explanation for why something is okay, in and of itself. Is that really so complicated for you to understand?


I missed reading over your argument in an extreme bout of apathy. It may be coming on again, too, since I'm not going to sift through whatever contrived point you've apparently been trying to make since you first entered the thread.

Carry on though. If I don't fall completely asleep while reading your future posts, I'll keep you in line when necessary.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

Being gay does not hurt anyone but yourself. I do not feel its anywhere near murder or rape.


----------



## O2K (Nov 19, 2002)

I'd hit it.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

essbee said:


> --pedophilia is a sexual inclination.
> --homosexuality is a sexual inclination.
> *heterosexualality is a sexual inclination*
> --Child molestors are the MOST ostracized people in our society.
> ...


Arabs=Homosexuality=Pedophiles?!

I hope this underscores the absurdity of your argument, rather than convinces you that people of Arabic descent should be in prison.

Because you would have to be pretty ****ing retarded to agree with the reasoning you gave as a basis for society.


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

HB said:


> So if Vince came out tomorrow and said he was gay, you would stop rooting for him.


Yes,I would.......big deal?


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Rawse said:


> I missed following your argument in an extreme bout of apathy. It may be coming on again, too, since I'm not going to rehash over whatever contrived point you've been trying to make since you first entered the thread.
> 
> Carry on though. If I don't fall completely asleep while reading your future posts, I'll keep you in line when necessary.


In other words, you realize your point was stupid and based on poor reading comprehension; so now that you realize it you'll try to avoid admitting it with snide commentary. I think that's a perfect solution for you.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Wasn't Bison Dele bisexual?


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

futuristxen said:


> Arabs=Homosexuality=Pedophiles?!
> 
> I hope this underscores the absurdity of your argument, rather than convinces you that people of Arabic descent should be in prison.
> 
> Because you would have to be pretty ****ing retarded to agree with the reasoning you gave as a basis for society.


Your post makes zero sense, unless you feel that racial origin and sexual orientation are the same, which they are not.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

essbee said:


> as a side note it's hilarious that some people think two women kissing is different than two men kissing, and yet people who oppose promotion of homosexuality are the ones who are called immature? Gio actually just suggested that it's "gay" not to be impressed by two women kissing. Where's the outrage?!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Being a pedophile is not a crime in itself. Acting on the urges of pedophilia and molesting an undefencible child is a crime. The lack of consent or inability for a child to give reasonable consent, is what causes the crime. Not the sexual inclination. Big difference.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

Hey dont make fun of Arabs. Besides most Arabs have stopped being homosexual because
1) Its against the law
2) Its against their relligion


----------



## IbizaXL (Sep 21, 2005)

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> See you and me are thinking differently. You think being gay is something one cannot help.I feel being gay is a sin and bad thing to do. I dont support peole who commit sins.


so who do you think is the better man:

- A gay man whos rich and gives a big chuck of his money to charities, is humble, and very likeable for his great personality?....or

- A straight guy whos very religious, and thinks less of another human being because his sexual preference in his personal life is an "abomination"?

who would you think less of


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

essbee said:


> In other words, you realize your point was stupid and based on poor reading comprehension; so now that you realize it you'll try to avoid admitting it with snide commentary. I think that's a perfect solution for you.


Semi-colons are _so_ old AP-style.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> See you and me are thinking differently. You think being gay is something one cannot help.I feel being gay is a sin and bad thing to do. I dont support peole who commit sins.


Do you support yourself?


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

LuckyAC said:


> I agree that being born with something does not excuse it. However, the fact that it is innate is still important because one of the gaybashers' accusations is that homosexuals will "convert" innocent youth, and that's what makes them so dangerous. If it is innate, however, conversion is not possible, and gays don't harm anybody. If they don't affect anyone else (unlike pedophiles. who DO hurt people), it's completely their own business.


that's fine, I don't believe in homosexuality by osmosis, although I'd argue that the promotion of the lifestyle in public and media has encouraged more youth to experiment with it.

And again, what if the inclination towards it is innate but it's not an absolute? For example remember when Anne heche said she was a lesbian and dating Ellen Degeneres and loved her and the gay community went crazy for it? Is Anne Heche still considered a lesbian by them now that she left Ellen for a man, is married to him, and has a couple of kids? I can't think of a better example to show how dissimilar orientation is from race, but I'm sure we all know of less famous examples that make the same point, like women experimenting with lesbian lifestyle when they go to college etc.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

You didnt give me enough info about the straight man you just said he is relligious.


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

HB said:


> You mentioned religion was the reason why you were against it, I thought you are not supposed to judge anyone. Who are you to judge the person for their actions?


I don't think you wannna go the religion way, HB. There are many verses in the bible that tell its believer what to do in this kind of situations.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

I dont think Im better than gay people. I thing being gay is wrong.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

essbee said:


> It's about the fact that saying "they were born with that tendency" is NOT an acceptable explanation for why something is okay, in and of itself. Is that really so complicated for you to understand?


Aren't you in many respects just debating yourself then? Because we keep telling you that what matters is two consenting adults not harming anyone is the main rub of why homosexuality should not be a problem in society. It's got nothing to do with pedophilia. That both may be born tendencies is is a fact that is incidental to the crux of the main argument here. Which you seem to...9 pages later...still not understand. No matter how plainly people tell you.


----------



## IbizaXL (Sep 21, 2005)

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> You didnt give me enough info about the straight man you just said he is relligious.


i thought it be enough, since ppl that are religious dont commit sin. correct?


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

Gio305 said:


> *so who do you think is the better man*:
> 
> - A gay man whos rich and gives a big chuck of his money to charities, is humble, and very likeable for his great personality?....or
> 
> ...


The religious person.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

Yes because if you are truly relligious you dont steal cheat murder etc.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

JuniorNoboa said:


> Being a pedophile is not a crime in itself. Acting on the urges of pedophilia and molesting an undefencible child is a crime. The lack of consent or inability for a child to give reasonable consent, is what causes the crime. Not the sexual inclination. Big difference.


Incorrect, even disseminating written fiction about molesting children is considered a crime. The actual molestation is not necessary. The most famous recent case was just after the patriot act was passed, they found a man had made journal entries about molesting children and he was arrested for violating his probation even though it was apparently fiction, as he claimed. he was punished for the inclination. If you need links I'll find them, the story is about 4 years old but I'm sure they're online somewhere still.


----------



## SirCharles34 (Nov 16, 2004)

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> What! Relligion is guiding me. Sorry but I believe in my relligion not you.


Yeah, guiding you down the toilet. People don't seem to know how to use common sense when it comes to religion. Just think for yourselves for a change and use some rational thought, that's all I'm sayin'.


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

Gio305 said:


> i thought it be enough, since ppl that are religious dont commit sin. correct?


You seriously don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## IbizaXL (Sep 21, 2005)

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Yes because if you are truly relligious you dont steal cheat murder etc.


so what if the the gay man had all of those charact4eristics? you know, there ppl that are not the religious type but still have morals.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

Again what about the straight man. Does he have the money to donate charity. Does he hurt people.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

And Gio, the reason that hetersexual men don't have a problem with photos like your avatar, is because photos like that are designed FOR men. The implication behind them is that you may get to join in. It's playing on a taboo, but also the male fantasy that his penis can work such great miracles as turning gay girls straight.

I don't think you'd be nearly as turned on by two normal looking lesbians kissing.

What's titillating about the photo is that it's two extremely attractive(albeit the male stereotype of attraction)women kissing in such a way that you as the viewer are being made to feel that you are one step away from being invited into the kiss.


----------



## IbizaXL (Sep 21, 2005)

Air Fly said:


> You seriously don't know what you're talking about.


care to elaborate?


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

futuristxen said:


> Aren't you in many respects just debating yourself then? Because we keep telling you that what matters is two consenting adults not harming anyone is the main rub of why homosexuality should not be a problem in society. It's got nothing to do with pedophilia. That both may be born tendencies is is a fact that is incidental to the crux of the main argument here. Which you seem to...9 pages later...still not understand. No matter how plainly people tell you.


Um, then why did we "need Aemechi" to come out? Did anybody really give a rat's *** about him? The reason it's important is that you don't want people to be indifferent about it, you don't want them to ALLOW it. You want to force it down people's throats until they say it's great. The only reason you have for saying that is your need to have people say something is okay just because people have a tendency towards it, which is why this is relevant.

your first post on this was



"So many homophobic sports fans out there need to have their favorite player come out as gay. People need to have it beaten into their head that it doesn't make them less of a person."


It's not enough for you that people DO TEND to already let homosexuals live in peace. It's not enough for you that, despite an article posted earlier saying Aemechi's homosexuality was known since college, he was not bothered about it by the public. You demand that people have it browbeaten into their heads that it's a lifestyle they should support, and for what reason? Just because he was born with tendencies towards this lifestyle?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I think men in general have less of a problem with lesbianism than male homosexuality, because they don't really take women that seriously to begin with, so there's the subconscious thought that they could turn a lesbian straight if they really wanted to.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

I am against photos like that.


----------



## IbizaXL (Sep 21, 2005)

futuristxen said:


> And Gio, the reason that hetersexual men don't have a problem with photos like your avatar, is because photos like that are designed FOR men. The implication behind them is that you may get to join in. It's playing on a taboo, but also the male fantasy that his penis can work such great miracles as turning gay girls straight.
> 
> I don't think you'd be nearly as turned on by two normal looking lesbians kissing.
> 
> What's titillating about the photo is that it's two extremely attractive(albeit the male stereotype of attraction)*women kissing in such a way that you as the viewer are being made to feel that you are one step away from being invited into the kiss.*


:biggrin:


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

Gio305 said:


> care to elaborate?


Why do Christians pray? We are imperfect humans and we sin daily, hence we pray to God for his forgiveness. You should think before you post.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

Why is this 11 pages?


----------



## IbizaXL (Sep 21, 2005)

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Again what about the straight man. Does he have the money to donate charity. Does he hurt people.


::sigh::

i give up. as they say, to each his own.


----------



## MarioChalmers (Mar 26, 2004)

I don't like the idea of a gay teammaet checking me out in the locker room. *shivers*

Nothing against gay people though.


----------



## IbizaXL (Sep 21, 2005)

Air Fly said:


> Why do Christians pray? We are imperfect humans and we sin daily becauswe we aren't perfect, hence we pray to God for his forgiveness. You should think before you post.


the kid im talking to isnt christian.

so, every day you would curse ppl out in this message board, make explicit rap lyrics and at the end of the day before you go to bed you simply ask god for forgiveness and itll all go away? that seems very convenient


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

Hibachi! said:


> Why is this 11 pages?


Its a long story Habachi!. If you have the pateince to read it go ahead.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

Yeah I never understood that part.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

futuristxen said:


> I think men in general have less of a problem with lesbianism than male homosexuality, because they don't really take women that seriously to begin with, so there's the subconscious thought that they could turn a lesbian straight if they really wanted to.


Actually I think that men have less of a problem with lesbianism because of their natural attraction towards women. Thinking about women (or two) in a sexual manner is less off-putting to heterosexual males than thinking about two males in a sexual manner.

I don't think it has as much to do with lesbianism vs. male homosexuality as it does with the natural attraction of women vs. men.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

Brandname said:


> Actually I think that men have less of a problem with lesbianism because of their natural attraction towards women. Thinking about women (or two) in a sexual manner is less off-putting to heterosexual males than thinking about two males in a sexual manner.
> 
> I don't think it has as much to do with lesbianism vs. male homosexuality as it does with the natural attraction of women vs. men.


That's the way I always thought of it...


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

essbee said:


> Um, then why did we "need Aemechi" to come out? Did anybody really give a rat's *** about him? The reason it's important is that you don't want people to be indifferent about it, you don't want them to ALLOW it. You want to force it down people's throats until they say it's great. The only reason you have for saying that is your need to have people say something is okay just because people have a tendency towards it, which is why this is relevant.


Oh yes. I forgot. The liberal gay agenda. It's coming for your children. Ooooo scary. Are you high? Serious question. Right now. Are you under the influence of sticky green herbs and spices. Did you start your vision quest, but get side tracked by the internet? Put the mushrooms down tin-foil, the gays are not out to get you.



> It's not enough for you that people DO TEND to already let homosexuals live in peace. It's not enough for you that, despite an article posted earlier saying Aemechi's homosexuality was known since college, he was not bothered about it by the public. You demand that people have it browbeaten into their heads that it's a lifestyle they should support, and for what reason? Just because he was born with tendencies towards this lifestyle?


Do you live in america? Most people do not tend to let homosexuals live in peace. Go look up something called the gay marriage amendment. Homosexuals are told at every turn that what they do is wrong. They are laughed at and marginalized constantly. They are compared to pedophiles and cannibals even by people claiming to be intellectuals. Their entire life is called into question and put under the sniper-scope by contemporary American society.

Let's see, you are ignorant about women, you are ignorant about homosexuals. What part of society do you actually know about? Any racism you want to throw in here to top it all off?


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

Without reading a single post on this subject i'm going to say who the #### cares.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Homosexuality is way different from child molestation and cannibalism because it doesn't hurt anyone. It really has nothing to do with being born with it, because even if homosexuality was a choice, it's still not hurting anyone. In that case, it's just a lifestyle/culture, and people still need to get over it. 

It's like being left-handed. It's abnormal and more rare, sure, but it's still a matter-of-fact type thing, which is how homosexuality needs to be treated. The problem is more with homophobic folks than homosexual folks.


----------



## IbizaXL (Sep 21, 2005)

rainman said:


> Without reading a single post on this subject i'm going to say who the #### cares.


:cheers:


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

rainman said:


> Without reading a single post on this subject i'm going to say who the #### cares.


This thread isn't even about the actual player anymore. It has become more about American society in general. But that's the first thought I had when I saw 11 pages on this...


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

I also want to point out that some of the views people have expressed in this thread are exactly the reason it's good for sports and our society in general when more people (particularly famous people) come out of the closet. These types of announcements are what give the homosexual community the feeling that they are a group with a powerful voice. We need to get to a point where we can encourage everyone that is homosexual to come out of the closet. 

It's obvious from some of the opinions even here that the gay community has a long way to go. Unfortunately, because religion is such a driving force behind people not accepting gays, it's going to be an uphill battle for a long time. But the more people that come out of the closet, the less likely it will be that they can continue to be oppressed.


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

Gio305 said:


> the kid im talking to isnt christian.
> 
> so, every day you would curse ppl out in this message board, make explicit rap lyrics and at the end of the day before you go to bed you simply ask god for forgiveness and itll all go away? that seems very convenient


Nope.....Right now, I'm not really a religous person but i was just saying. I don't even pray to God these days cause I know if I do i would have to really repent from the heart. Plus, I lost faith in all religions so the only thing i have faith on is God and the bible.....pretty much.

I'm also sure muslims do pray to God for fogiveness. (correct me if i'm wrong)


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Brandname said:


> Actually I think that men have less of a problem with lesbianism because of their natural attraction towards women. Thinking about women (or two) in a sexual manner is less off-putting to heterosexual males than thinking about two males in a sexual manner.
> 
> I don't think it has as much to do with lesbianism vs. male homosexuality as it does with the natural attraction of women vs. men.


If this was true, heterosexual women would be turned on by men kissing, but they for the most part, unless they have a fetish about it, are not.

It has to do with a fundamental difference of how women are seen by men vs how men are seen by women. And a lot of that has to do with male privilege.

There's actually a lot of interesting work in this field. If you ever have the opportunity to take a women's studies course, you should, it will really open your eyes up about yourself and the world we live in. No matter what your gender. You'll find that a lot of these issues are not really conservative/liberal issues, or male/female issues, they are human issues.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

Air Fly's the only lifetime member I know.


----------



## IbizaXL (Sep 21, 2005)

Air Fly said:


> Nope.....Right now, *I'm not really a religous person* but i was just saying. *I don't even pray to God* these days cause I know if I do i would have to really repent from the heart. Plus, *I lost faith in all religions* so the only thing *i have faith on is God and the bible.*....pretty much.
> 
> I'm also sure muslims do pray to God for fogiveness. (correct me if i'm wrong)


wait....what?


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

Brandname said:


> We need to get to a point where we can encourage everyone that is homosexual to come out of the closet.


Why? I have no problem with homosexuals at are. I have no problem with seeing homosexuals either. But what someone wants to do on their own time is their own prerogative. They don't need to "come out" It's a sexual preference. It's a sexual attraction. The more people that "come out" the more people are admitting that they are different. The entire community coming out will separate them from other people...


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

Air Fly said:


> Nope.....Right now, I'm not really a religous person but i was just saying. I don't even pray to God these days cause I know if I do i would have to really repent from the heart. Plus, I lost faith in all religions so the only thing i have faith on is God and the bible.....pretty much.
> 
> I'm also sure muslims do pray to God for fogiveness. (correct me if i'm wrong)


:jawdrop:


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

futuristxen said:


> If this was true, heterosexual women would be turned on by men kissing, but they for the most part, unless they have a fetish about it, are not.
> 
> It has to do with a fundamental difference of how women are seen by men vs how men are seen by women. And a lot of that has to do with male privilege.
> 
> There's actually a lot of interesting work in this field. If you ever have the opportunity to take a women's studies course, you should, it will really open your eyes up about yourself and the world we live in. No matter what your gender. You'll find that a lot of these issues are not really conservative/liberal issues, or male/female issues, they are human issues.


No, I certainly understand that it's deeper than that. It's just that (anecdotally, I admit), it seems that women don't particularly feel a sexual repulsion to the female body, whereas men tend to. And I'm not talking about homophobia, just from a sexual standpoint. 

The point you made about Gio's profile earlier does apply here. And due to the reasons you were just talking about, it does have to do with men's vs. women's place in society (historically and currently). 

My point was more that men tend to have a bigger repulsion to the male body than women do to the female body. And that also contributes to the difference in the view of the homosexual relationships.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

Hibachi! said:


> Why? I have no problem with homosexuals at are. I have no problem with seeing homosexuals either. But what someone wants to do on their own time is their own prerogative. They don't need to "come out" It's a sexual preference. It's a sexual attraction. The more people that "come out" the more people are admitting that they are different. The entire community coming out will separate them from other people...


Because if they aren't "out of the closet" they are hiding their sexuality. Nobody should have to do that. You just don't go throughout your life without people knowing your sexuality unless you're hiding it.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

futuristxen said:


> If this was true, heterosexual women would be turned on by men kissing, but they for the most part, unless they have a fetish about it, are not.
> 
> It has to do with a fundamental difference of how women are seen by men vs how men are seen by women. And a lot of that has to do with male privilege.
> 
> There's actually a lot of interesting work in this field. If you ever have the opportunity to take a women's studies course, you should, it will really open your eyes up about yourself and the world we live in. No matter what your gender. You'll find that a lot of these issues are not really conservative/liberal issues, or male/female issues, they are human issues.


I have taken a women's studies class and even then what I found was pretty obvious. It has nothing to do with how men view women or how women view men. Men are attracted to seeing lesbian women because we are attracted to women completely differently than women are attracted to a man. It has nothing to do with men looking down on women and that's why we don't have a problem with lesbians. It's because seeing two women make out (if they are attractive) is attractive. Seeing two men make out (even if they are good looking) is not attractive to a women.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Hibachi! said:


> I have taken a women's studies class and even then what I found was pretty obvious. It has nothing to do with how men view women or how women view men. Men are attracted to seeing lesbian women because we are attracted to women completely differently than women are attracted to a man. It has nothing to do with men looking down on women and that's why we don't have a problem with lesbians. It's because seeing two women make out (if they are attractive) is attractive. Seeing two men make out (even if they are good looking) is not attractive to a women.


This would be a generalization wouldnt it. I dont really care about seeing two women make out, and I am attracted to women


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

Gio305 said:


> wait....what?


Not too hard to comprehend. I have faith in God that he exist and all that, but I don't pray to him cause i feel guilty when I did so i stopped. Why i felt guilty? cause the next day I would still commit the same sin i did last night and the bible is clear. Praying to God to forgive is fine as long as you make an attempt to repent and change you way, otherwise he will stop listeneing to your prayer. The bible is the word of God and many religions today believe in it but I don't have faith in all of them....so whats the big deal?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Hibachi! said:


> I have taken a women's studies class and even then what I found was pretty obvious. It has nothing to do with how men view women or how women view men. Men are attracted to seeing lesbian women because we are attracted to women completely differently than women are attracted to a man. It has nothing to do with men looking down on women and that's why we don't have a problem with lesbians. It's because seeing two women make out (if they are attractive) is attractive. Seeing two men make out (even if they are good looking) is not attractive to a women.


Yeah, you're going to have to explain that better. I don't really understand where you are differentiating from what I said. I said there were differences, but gave reasons as to why those differences might be, you gave the same differences, but left off and possible cause for them. So it would seem on some level we're making the same argument.

Did you take women's studies in college or as a high school course? What did you think of it overall?

Oh yeah, and this is probably a good topic to start it's own thread for in a diffrent subforum.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I think the attraction issue is being over complicated. 



> Men are attracted to seeing lesbian women because we are attracted to women completely differently than women are attracted to a man.


I think that's as simple as it gets. The confusion is trying to figure out what goes into a person's perception of the opposite sex, which is a way broader discussion.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

And for the love of christ, we have a whole thread elsewhere about Air Fly's ever changing religious beliefs. Let's keep his updates quarantined to that monstrosity of a thread.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Oh and if John Amaechi played today, would he be a borderline all-star in the center deprived league? He could start for a lot of teams. He'd make a ton of money.


----------



## TiMVP2 (Jun 19, 2003)

It was worse back then cuz u no they had Antonio Davis startin in da allstar game.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

futuristxen said:


> Oh yes. I forgot. The liberal gay agenda. It's coming for your children. Ooooo scary. Are you high? Serious question. Right now. Are you under the influence of sticky green herbs and spices. Did you start your vision quest, but get side tracked by the internet? Put the mushrooms down tin-foil, the gays are not out to get you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


lmfao. opposition with gay marriage has to do with the fact that it's not equal to heterosexuality, not because people want to hunt down homosexuals and keep them from living their lives. I know I'm using big words again, but polygamy is ALSO illegal, even if it involves HETEROSEXUALS. Did you get that? There are HETEROSEXUAL unions that are illegal, so the ban attempts on gay marriage are not the only type of marriage that are restricted. Try again.

It's also hilarious you talk about there not being an agenda, when just today you talked about how people need their favorite player to be gay so they get the idea pounded into their heads. That's not an agenda??!!?!


Also ignorant means lacking any information or exposure. You're using ignorant to describe someone who has information and exposure but has come to a different conclusion than you *EDIT*


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> lmfao. opposition with gay marriage has to do with the fact that it's not equal to heterosexuality, not because people want to hunt down homosexuals and keep them from living their lives. I know I'm using big words again, but polygamy is ALSO illegal, even if it involves HETEROSEXUALS. Did you get that? There are HETEROSEXUAL unions that are illegal, so the ban attempts on gay marriage are not the only type of marriage that are restricted. Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> Also ignorant means lacking any information or exposure. You're using ignorant to describe someone who has information and exposure but has come to a different conclusion than you *EDIT*


Are you against gay marriage? If so, why would an agnostic be against gay marriage?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

futuristxen said:


> Oh and if John Amaechi played today, would he be a borderline all-star in the center deprived league? He could start for a lot of teams. He'd make a ton of money.


Hmmm... I wonder why Amaechi's "peak" years were when he played alongside T-MAc in Orlando...


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

futuristxen said:


> Yeah, you're going to have to explain that better. I don't really understand where you are differentiating from what I said. I said there were differences, but gave reasons as to why those differences might be, you gave the same differences, but left off and possible cause for them. So it would seem on some level we're making the same argument.
> 
> Did you take women's studies in college or as a high school course? What did you think of it overall?
> 
> Oh yeah, and this is probably a good topic to start it's own thread for in a diffrent subforum.


Took it in college. I liked it somewhat but there were entirely too many feminists in there who thought it was "empowering" to basically talk trash about men the entire time. The teacher was great but being one of three guys in that class to have to listen to women sit there and basically talk trash the entire time was fairly annoying. But it does give a lot of insight to the other side. And the way I took your previous statement was that men are attracted to lesbian women because they see them as basically inferior which I just don't think is true. Perhaps I misunderstood


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

So since so many people think homosexuality is the same as race, something you're born with, etc. 

Same question.

Is Anne Heche still a lesbian? She was a few years ago. She's married to a guy with kids now. Just wondering if it's one of those things that changes whenever a person wants.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> Are you against gay marriage? If so, why would an agnostic be against gay marriage?


yeah I am. I see marriage not as a religious issue (I don't have the highest opinion of religious arguments to be honest), but a matter of holding a heterosexual two member coupling as a standard and comparing other pairings or groupings to it. Homosexuality in particular comes up short.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

I just wanted to say Gio, I love that avatar. 

Respect


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

essbee said:


> lmfao. opposition with gay marriage has to do with the fact that it's not equal to heterosexuality, not because people want to hunt down homosexuals and keep them from living their lives. I know I'm using big words again, but polygamy is ALSO illegal, even if it involves HETEROSEXUALS. Did you get that? There are HETEROSEXUAL unions that are illegal, so the ban attempts on gay marriage are not the only type of marriage that are restricted. Try again.


I honestly don't know enough about polygamy to give you the reasons why it's illegal. Though most of the instances I've been exposed to have involved rampant exploitation of women. Either way there's not a campaign specifically against polygamy like there is with Gay Marriage. But Gay Marriage is just the tip of the iceberg. It's in people's attitudes, jokes, comments. It's in the violent attacks. It's in the discrimination at the work place. In the discrimination in the market place. 




> Also ignorant means lacking any information or exposure. You're using ignorant to describe someone who has information and exposure but has come to a different conclusion than you, which is moronic.


Sorry I wasn't aware you had a lot of information and exposure to homosexuals and women. Because your comments seem to indicate that you don't. That's why I thought you were ignorant. But please, by all means, feel free to at some point drop some of this info and exposure that you've been blessed with. 13 pages in, and you've yet to really say anything. Which is admirable in it's own right, I guess.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> yeah I am. I see marriage not as a religious issue (I don't have the highest opinion of religious arguments to be honest), but a matter of holding a heterosexual two member coupling as a standard and comparing other pairings or groupings to it. Homosexuality in particular comes up short.


What about it makes it come up short?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

essbee said:


> yeah I am. I see marriage not as a religious issue (I don't have the highest opinion of religious arguments to be honest), but a matter of holding a heterosexual two member coupling as a standard and comparing other pairings or groupings to it. Homosexuality in particular comes up short.


Interesting. How does homosexuality come up short?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

essbee said:


> So since so many people think homosexuality is the same as race, something you're born with, etc.
> 
> Same question.
> 
> Is Anne Heche still a lesbian? She was a few years ago. She's married to a guy with kids now. Just wondering if it's one of those things that changes whenever a person wants.


Good question. I have always wondered this. I for one know there is no way I can change my race, and I was watching TV last night, and some woman said she changed from gay to straight


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Brandname said:


> What about it makes it come up short?


Jinx, you owe me a coke.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> So since so many people think homosexuality is the same as race, something you're born with, etc.
> 
> Same question.
> 
> Is Anne Heche still a lesbian? She was a few years ago. She's married to a guy with kids now. Just wondering if it's one of those things that changes whenever a person wants.


Well, you see, sexuality isn't always as obvious as something as race. They may be similar in that it's something innate that you're born with, but that doesn't mean everything about the two situations is the same.

Look in the mirror and ask a couple of questions about your ancestry, and you can (in most cases) easily determine your race. It's not always an easy thing to determine sexuality. That's why so many people are confused about their own sexuality. It doesn't help things that these people rarely feel comfortable being open about their confusion.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

futuristxen said:


> I honestly don't know enough about polygamy to give you the reasons why it's illegal. Though most of the instances I've been exposed to have involved rampant exploitation of women. Either way there's not a campaign specifically against polygamy like there is with Gay Marriage. But Gay Marriage is just the tip of the iceberg. It's in people's attitudes, jokes, comments. It's in the violent attacks. It's in the discrimination at the work place. In the discrimination in the market place.


um they don't need a campaign, they already had the campaigns that made it illegal. If you don't know what you're talking about maybe you shouldn't portray bans on gay marriage as not allowing gay people to live in peace, since bans on polygamy haven't kept heterosexuals from living in peace. Causality is pretty important.

I see you're not addressing how your comments reflect an agenda. Interesting.





> Sorry I wasn't aware you had a lot of information and exposure to homosexuals and women. Because your comments seem to indicate that you don't. That's why I thought you were ignorant. But please, by all means, feel free to at some point drop some of this info and exposure that you've been blessed with. 13 pages in, and you've yet to really say anything. Which is admirable in it's own right, I guess.


What's hilarious is that the people who are usually the most gung ho are people with limited exposure who take this up as a rallying cry and see homosexuals as a cause celebre. But then what kind of people assume that anyone who disagrees with them on a topic is a religious fanatic, or that if someone disagrees with them they're ignorant and not as exposed to a topic as they are? That seems pretty intolerant doesn't it?


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

futuristxen said:


> Jinx, you owe me a coke.


b b b but I was first! And I was writing another reply! Argh...


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> Well, you see, sexuality isn't always as obvious as something as race. They may be similar in that it's something innate that you're born with, but that doesn't mean everything about the two situations is the same.
> 
> Look in the mirror and ask a couple of questions about your ancestry, and you can (in most cases) easily determine your race. It's not always an easy thing to determine sexuality. That's why so many people are confused about their own sexuality. It doesn't help things that these people rarely feel comfortable being open about their confusion.




Anthropologically we can determine race, even without things like skin, based on a number of forensic tests. That's why if a dead body is found, decomposed beyond recognition, they can determine the race of the person from analyzing their bones.

Even if we were able to do scientific tests to determine if people were gay, they would be able to change their orientation based on whims. What they're born with are the tendencies, it is not a permanent state that they are born with, otherwise how would people be able to "hide" being gay so often? 

There are virtually zero similarities between the two.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Hibachi! said:


> Took it in college. I liked it somewhat but there were entirely too many feminists in there who thought it was "empowering" to basically talk trash about men the entire time. The teacher was great but being one of three guys in that class to have to listen to women sit there and basically talk trash the entire time was fairly annoying. But it does give a lot of insight to the other side. And the way I took your previous statement was that men are attracted to lesbian women because they see them as basically inferior which I just don't think is true. Perhaps I misunderstood


Oh that's unfortunate. The class I took had more guys, but the girls who were in it, made up a wider political spectrum. So the discussions were more lively and balanced. Plus I think we had like 5 or 6 guys and the class was like 20 people.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> What about it makes it come up short?


We can tackle that issue if you like when I finish explaining some other things to people who think they're enlightened automatically just because they adopt politically liberal causes. We can either start a separate thread or continue it here, but we should probably finish the current topics first.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> Anthropologically we can determine race, even without things like skin, based on a number of forensic tests. That's why if a dead body is found, decomposed beyond recognition, they can determine the race of the person from analyzing their bones.
> 
> Even if we were able to do scientific tests to determine if people were gay, they would be able to change their orientation based on whims. What they're born with are the tendencies, it is not a permanent state that they are born with, otherwise how would people be able to "hide" being gay so often?
> 
> There are virtually zero similarities between the two.


All your saying is that sexuality is easier to conceal than race. Which, of course, is true. 

But what does that change? It has little to do with one being more innate than the other.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Brandname said:


> Well, you see, sexuality isn't always as obvious as something as race. They may be similar in that it's something innate that you're born with, but that doesn't mean everything about the two situations is the same.
> 
> *Look in the mirror and ask a couple of questions about your ancestry, and you can (in most cases) easily determine your race. It's not always an easy thing to determine sexuality. That's why so many people are confused about their own sexuality. It doesn't help things that these people rarely feel comfortable being open about their confusion.*


I dont agree with this. Sure for some you can easily just look in the mirror and say I belong to so and so group. But what about children of interracial unions. Some people will spew of almost 5 different races that they think they belong to. You think they would fall into the above you stated.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

futuristxen said:


> Interesting. How does homosexuality come up short?


*I'm not against gay marriage*, but the fact that they can't reproduce is something people point to.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

HB said:


> I dont agree with this. Sure for some you can easily just look in the mirror and say I belong to so and so group. But what about children of interracial unions. Some people will spew of almost 5 different races that they think they belong to. You think they would fall into the above you stated.


That's why I included asking about ancestry. Skin color will never be definitive. But skin color is an obvious clue that can serve to give an indication of ethnicity. It's not definitive, though.

I was just saying that there is no similar physical marker for sexuality.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> All your saying is that sexuality is easier to conceal than race. Which, of course, is true.
> 
> But what does that change? It has little to do with one being more innate than the other.


Actually no it doesn't.

It's not as simple as "COncealing" it. If Anne Heche said she was gay because she dated Ellen Degeneres, the GAY COMMUNITY believed her. Is it as simple as her concealing it or was she only taking part in a gay lifestyle, and no one is capable of telling the lifestyle apart from the supposed born condition?

If she really is gay, which the gay community said when she came out, then she's still gay right now, while she's married to a man. That means she's gay, but being straight, so now it's not as simple as CONCEALING her sexuality, as she's actually adopted the entirely opposite sexuality. Whether it be her or people "pretending" to be straight that indicates that it's not anything but a tendency, otherwise it wouldn't be something people could contradict. I can't suddenly BECOME white because my parents are black. Even if I did something to conceal it like straightening my hair, I would still be black, so would my family. I can't change it when I want, so how are they remotely similar?


I'd also point out that homosexuality was previously referred to as a lifestyle choice by the gay rights movements up until the late 80s/early 90's when they realized that strategy wasn't working.


----------



## pmac34 (Feb 10, 2006)

firstrounder said:


> Its also likely that this thread has at least one gay/bisexual poster.
> 
> Not me! LOL.


ROFLMAO


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

_Dre_ said:


> *I'm not against gay marriage*, but the fact that they can't reproduce is something people point to.


Since it's not your opinion, I'm not arguing with you, but rather people who express that particular viewpoint.

If reproduction is really the issue, then why aren't people campaigning against any couples that can't reproduce? There are couples that can't have kids because of reproductive problems. If reproduction is the actual issue behind it, then people shouldn't be campaigning against gay marriage, but *non-reproductive marriage*.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

_Dre_ said:


> *I'm not against gay marriage*, but the fact that they can't reproduce is something people point to.


Which is the primary proof. Not because reproduction is necessary from all marriages, but because a union which has a 0% reproduction rate, not because of fertility of its members but because of biological incompatibility, seems obviously to have deficiencies compared to those that don't.

The typical counterargument is generally that "they don't need to reproduce" but again, we're comparing a coupling's capabilities.

Another typical counterargument is that "what about fertile or old heterosexuals that can't reproduce" but this is moronic. The infertility is caused by the inabilities of the individuals who are no longer fertile, whereas homosexuality CAUSES infertility even if both members are perfectly capable. Two fertile men or two fertile women for example cannot reproduce no matter the circumstances, but if the men and the women join they can because that coupling is biologically superior and native to anatomy.

Another typical counterargument is "they probably don't want children. " This was used heavily until artificial insemination came along and lesbian women became the largest users of it, which shot that argument to hell. It would seem obvious that people who are fertile and take part in a lifestyle that directly contradicts their wishes are doing something abnormal.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> Actually no it doesn't.
> 
> It's not as simple as "COncealing" it. If Anne Heche said she was gay because she dated Ellen Degeneres, the GAY COMMUNITY believed her. Is it as simple as her concealing it or was she only taking part in a gay lifestyle, and no one is capable of telling the lifestyle apart from the supposed born condition?
> 
> ...


First, it's very possible that she's attracted to men and women. It's possible that she's just not sure. Maybe sometimes she likes men, and other times she likes women. Bisexuality exists, and there's no reason to think that bisexuals can't be attracted to a particular sex at some times in their lives more than others.

Second, it doesn't matter what the gay rights movement calls it. They were calling it whatever they were calling it for political reasons. To gain acceptance. They didn't know whether or not it was scientifically true. As science learns more, it is natural to think that their position will change according to scientific discovery.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> Since it's not your opinion, I'm not arguing with you, but rather people who express that particular viewpoint.
> 
> If reproduction is really the issue, then why aren't people campaigning against any couples that can't reproduce? There are couples that can't have kids because of reproductive problems. If reproduction is the actual issue behind it, then people shouldn't be campaigning against gay marriage, but *non-reproductive marriage*.



Lol i must be psychic.

addressed below.


----------



## Kneejoh (Dec 21, 2004)

Brandname said:


> Since it's not your opinion, I'm not arguing with you, but rather people who express that particular viewpoint.
> 
> If reproduction is really the issue, then why aren't people campaigning against any couples that can't reproduce? There are couples that can't have kids because of reproductive problems. If reproduction is the actual issue behind it, then people shouldn't be campaigning against gay marriage, but *non-reproductive marriage*.


Thats because something is scientifically wrong with them. Are you therefore saying that something is scientifically wrong with homosexuals?


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

_Dre_ said:


> *I'm not against gay marriage*, but the fact that they can't reproduce is something people point to.


Using that argument no man with a vasectomy should ever be able to get married, even though it is in most cases relatively reversable


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

thug_immortal8 said:


> Thats because something is scientifically wrong with them. Are you therefore saying that something is scientifically wrong with homosexuals?


I would also point out that we attempt to cure infertility all the time, whereas people who attempt to "cure" homosexuality are called religious zealots and nazis. So... ya know.. on is a physical individual explanation for why they can't do it, whether it be age or other reasons, one is a coupling that forces inability to reproduce on its participants regardless of their individual status.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> Which is the primary proof. Not because reproduction is necessary from all marriages, but because a union which has a 0% reproduction rate, not because of fertility of its members but because of biological incompatibility, seems obviously to have deficiencies compared to those that don't.
> 
> The typical counterargument is generally that "they don't need to reproduce" but again, we're comparing a coupling's capabilities.
> 
> ...


Umm, it's not moronic at all. The argument hinges on whether a child can come from the union. Who cares whether they still have the ability?

Or are you saying that if you don't let a homosexual man marry another man, he'll decide to marry a woman instead and actually reproduce?


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

Hibachi! said:


> Using that argument no man with a vasectomy should ever be able to get married.


Don't forget post-menopausal and/or steril(iz)e(d) women. No late in life marriages for them either.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

essbee said:


> um they don't need a campaign, they already had the campaigns that made it illegal. If you don't know what you're talking about maybe you shouldn't portray bans on gay marriage as not allowing gay people to live in peace, since bans on polygamy haven't kept heterosexuals from living in peace. Causality is pretty important.


Actually the bans on gay marriage were in response to the judicial branch deciding that the current laws did not prohibit homosexual marriage. So yes, there was a campaign to get the vote out, to vote against homosexuals. Did you know that if you're not married, you could be a partner of someone for say forty years, and if your partner suddenly got sick you would not be entitled to receiving medical information about their condition. Do you have any idea what that must be like? To have no idea what is wrong with a loved one and whether they are going to live or die. To not even have the right to be by their side in a situation like that? Whereas married couples have that right.



> I see you're not addressing how your comments reflect an agenda. Interesting.


No I do have an agenda. I do believe in being activist on this cause because I do believe it's a cause worth trumpeting. I don't believe homosexuality makes anyone less than someone who is heterosexual. That there is that perception out there disgusts me.





> What's hilarious is that the people who are usually the most gung ho are people with limited exposure who take this up as a rallying cry and see homosexuals as a cause celebre. But then what kind of people assume that anyone who disagrees with them on a topic is a religious fanatic, or that if someone disagrees with them they're ignorant and not as exposed to a topic as they are? That seems pretty intolerant doesn't it?


I do not concede that there are two valid viewpoints to this discussion. Sorry. This topic is anything but a cause celebre for me. It's fun that for you it's just a nice academic exercise in bigotry and intolerance. But I do not believe the position that you are backing has an equal place at the table to my position on it. And I never will. There's a misconception in today's america that just because you have an opposing viewpoint you deserve the same respect right or wrong. And that's simply not true. A bigot is a bigot. I have no love for people who wish to push an agenda of hate and exclusion.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

thug_immortal8 said:


> Thats because something is scientifically wrong with them. Are you therefore saying that something is scientifically wrong with homosexuals?


No.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

_Dre_ said:


> *I'm not against gay marriage*, but the fact that they can't reproduce is something people point to.



There's a law in Washington they are trying to pass where if people don't have children after 3 years of being married, then their marriage would be voided. That would be a hoot if it passed.

I'm actually against marriage on any level. I think it's a stupid silly institution. But if you're going to have it, then I don't see why gay couples should be excluded.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

futuristxen said:


> Actually the bans on gay marriage were in response to the judicial branch deciding that the current laws did not prohibit homosexual marriage. So yes, there was a campaign to get the vote out, to vote against homosexuals. Did you know that if you're not married, you could be a partner of someone for say forty years, and if your partner suddenly got sick you would not be entitled to receiving medical information about their condition. Do you have any idea what that must be like? To have no idea what is wrong with a loved one and whether they are going to live or die. To not even have the right to be by their side in a situation like that? Whereas married couples have that right.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


QFT.

Every last ****ing word of it.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

futuristxen said:


> I do not concede that there are two valid viewpoints to this discussion. Sorry. This topic is anything but a cause celebre for me. It's fun that for you it's just a nice academic exercise in bigotry and intolerance. But I do not believe the position that you are backing has an equal place at the table to my position on it. And I never will. There's a misconception in today's america that just because you have an opposing viewpoint you deserve the same respect right or wrong. And that's simply not true. A bigot is a bigot. I have no love for people who wish to push an agenda of hate and exclusion.


What's hilarious of course is that you rally against bigotry and exclusion by saying that there is no valid viewpoint that doesn't agree with yours and that you won't allow a place for my contentions at your "table". 

Lmao


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> Umm, it's not moronic at all. The argument hinges on whether a child can come from the union. Who cares whether they still have the ability?
> 
> Or are you saying that if you don't let a homosexual man marry another man, he'll decide to marry a woman instead and actually reproduce?


Um, a child *CAN *come from a heterosexual union though. A homosexual union *CAN'T* produce one. So what do you mean?

You said the argument hinges on whether a child can come from a union, and a child can come from a heterosexual union. I think you're confusing individual causes of fertility with coupling based causes of fertility. The marriage issue is a matter of comparing the COUPLINGS. Not the individuals. Seriously am I not making that point clearly? That's why it's imperative that we talk about how the heterosexuality will deny reproduction no matter if the people involved are fertile OR NOT. That's because the COUPLING ITSELF is what's responsible for their lack of reproduction.

So do you see why talking about the individuals is no longer a comparison of the couplings and their attributes/abilities?


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> What's hilarious of course is that you rally against bigotry and exclusion by saying that there is no valid viewpoint that doesn't agree with yours and that you won't allow a place for my contentions at your "table".
> 
> Lmao


The bigotry of denying homosexual unions the same social and legal privileges that heterosexuals have is despicable. In my opinion, saying that the other viewpoint is invalid is no different than saying someone who believes murder is ok is wrong. The prejudice against people because of their sexuality in our society is terrible.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

essbee said:


> Anthropologically we can determine race, even without things like skin, based on a number of forensic tests. That's why if a dead body is found, decomposed beyond recognition, they can determine the race of the person from analyzing their bones.
> 
> Even if we were able to do scientific tests to determine if people were gay, they would be able to change their orientation based on whims. What they're born with are the tendencies, it is not a permanent state that they are born with, otherwise how would people be able to "hide" being gay so often?
> 
> There are virtually zero similarities between the two.



Genetically there is no difference in races. There may be a gay gene. And I think you are confusing bisexuality with homosexuality.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

How can you think marrige is stupid? When a man and a women love eachother they want to be toghether and want to be legally binded.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> How can you think marrige is stupid? When a man and a women love eachother they want to be toghether and want to be legally binded.


and then when they don't love each other anymore, they can get divorced. Yeah...marriage is a farce. You want to really test your relationship. Don't get married. If you can stay together without the bonds of marriage, then to me that is true love.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> Um, a child *CAN *come from a heterosexual union though. A homosexual union *CAN'T* produce one. So what do you mean?
> 
> You said the argument hinges on whether a child can come from a union, and a child can come from a heterosexual union. I think you're confusing individual causes of fertility with coupling based causes of fertility. The marriage issue is a matter of comparing the COUPLINGS. Not the individuals. Seriously am I not making that point clearly? That's why it's imperative that we talk about how the heterosexuality will deny reproduction no matter if the people involved are fertile OR NOT. That's because the COUPLING ITSELF is what's responsible for their lack of reproduction.
> 
> So do you see why talking about the individuals is no longer a comparison of the couplings and their attributes/abilities?


That's a terrible argument. 

You're saying seriously that it's not important _that _a couple is infertile, but _what makes them infertile_? 

And you didn't address my other question. It seems as if you're denying homosexuals the ability to marry because they can't reproduce if they marry. That must mean that you're implying that they'll reproduce otherwise. Unless you recognize that they won't reproduce anyway and simply want to deny them the privileges that heterosexuals get.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

Legal marriage should absolutely not be able to be bestowed by the church.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

essbee said:


> What's hilarious of course is that you rally against bigotry and exclusion by saying that there is no valid viewpoint that doesn't agree with yours and that you won't allow a place for my contentions at your "table".
> 
> Lmao


No what's hilarious is that you'd let David Duke sit at the same table as Martin Luther King. Not all viewpoints are created equal. Hate based ones in specific. Sorry, your arguement has no merit, and to you it is only an intellectual exercise. So my exclusion of your bigoted viewpoint harms nothing.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> That's a terrible argument.
> 
> You're saying seriously that it's not important _that _a couple is infertile, but _what makes them infertile_?
> 
> And you didn't address my other question. It seems as if you're denying homosexuals the ability to marry because they can't reproduce if they marry. That must mean that you're implying that they'll reproduce otherwise. Unless you recognize that they won't reproduce anyway and simply want to deny them the privileges that heterosexuals get.



We're comparing couplings.

one coupling has the capability to do something which is a basic function of species, not only for important evolutionary reasons like biodiversity, but is also tied into simple human wishes and biological desires.

One coupling is completely incapable of doing the previously mentioned function.

Are you saying that neither one of these couplings is superior to the other? And you think I'M the one making a ridiculous argument?




When comparing these things and realizing that reproduction is a basic function it would seem to follow logically that the group that is incapable of one is not equal to the other, and thus does not deserve equal recognition. The reasons for the illegality of polygamy are mainly religious in origin, but either way gay marriage is not the only union that is not approved by law. It's just the only one we hear about ad nauseum in the media.

For the record I know a gay guy who's one of the lawyers fighting for equal recognition, and the main reason they want it is because of the legal and financial benefits married couples get.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

But then your not commited to the person. People divorce because they rushed into marrige. You have to really get to know someone before you pull the trigger like that. If you divorced them its not true love because if you love them it doesnt fade away. True love doesnt start developing until a little bit more than a year from when the realationship started.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> We're comparing couplings.
> 
> one coupling has the capability to do something which is a basic function of species, not only for important evolutionary reasons like biodiversity, but is also tied into simple human wishes and biological desires.
> 
> ...


How is an infertile heterosexual coupling superior to a homosexual coupling?

Just because one couple could have kids if they weren't infertile? Well guess what, the other couple could also have kids if they had different reproductive organs. But they don't. 

The distinction you should be making is fertile vs. infertile. Trying to argue that fertility is the issue and then going and saying that fertility isn't really the issue but the cause of the infertility is poor rhetoric. 

It's not a logically valid argument.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> How is an infertile heterosexual coupling superior to a homosexual coupling?
> 
> Just because one couple could have kids if they weren't infertile? Well guess what, the other couple could also have kids if they had different reproductive organs. But they don't.
> 
> ...


you're incorrect and making the same mistake I've now corrected a number of times.

An infertile heterosexual couple is infertile because of the characteristics of the individuals involved. THe heterosexuality is not causing the infertility, their individual makeup is. Heterosexuality is biologically compatible with reproduction.

The homosexual couple would be infertile NO MATTER WHAT the makeup of its individuals was because the coupling CAUSES infertility since it is biologically not compatible.

If a hetero couple is infertle it's not CAUSED by the type of coupling they have, unlike homosexuality which forces infertility on its participants.

you also keep saying fertile vs. fertile. Two fertile women can be in a lesbian relationship and still not have a child, because it's not SIMPLY fertility vs. infertility it's coupling compared to another coupling, and how the COUPLING affects potential fertility in its participants. 

Same question. If one coupling STRIPS the ability to reproduce from fertile INDIVIDUALS who participate in said coupling, how can you not say that coupling isn't inferior to one that allows reproduction? What is your specific biological explanation for how one is not inferior? Or more to the point, if they're EQUAL, and all couplings in history had been homosexual, would any of us be alive here today to have this discussion, and if not, why?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I don't really like the notion that marriages, hetero or **** should be judged on whether they can and are creating babies. 

Plus as already stated, lesbian couples are fully capable of producing children. Moreso than some straight couples.

Y'all should be adopting anyways. Which is another thing in the agenda against homosexuals. The push for laws prohibiting gay couples from adopting children.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

The man makes a good point.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

futuristxen said:


> I don't really like the notion that marriages, hetero or **** should be judged on whether they can and are creating babies.
> 
> Plus as already stated, lesbian couples are fully capable of producing children. Moreso than some straight couples.
> 
> Y'all should be adopting anyways. Which is another thing in the agenda against homosexuals. The push for laws prohibiting gay couples from adopting children.


What do you mean lesbians can reproduce? Two females cannot reproduce together


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

HB said:


> What do you mean lesbians can reproduce? Two females cannot reproduce together


Going to a sperm bank and getting inseminated.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

essbee said:


> you're incorrect and making the same mistake I've now corrected a number of times.
> 
> An infertile heterosexual couple is infertile because of the characteristics of the individuals involved. THe heterosexuality is not causing the infertility, their individual makeup is. Heterosexuality is biologically compatible with reproduction.
> 
> ...



This argument presumes a cultural acceptance and adherence to the notion of parentage, which is presumptuous.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> you're incorrect and making the same mistake I've now corrected a number of times.
> 
> An infertile heterosexual couple is infertile because of the characteristics of the individuals involved. THe heterosexuality is not causing the infertility, their individual makeup is. Heterosexuality is biologically compatible with reproduction.
> 
> ...


Well maybe I don't understand then why it matters to you that a couple is infertile only if it is homosexual.

You keep ranting on the cause of the infertility, and trust me, I understand what your point is. 

But you're making the issue out of fertility. Saying that it's that homosexual relationships causing infertility is why they should be banned. By saying that, you're taking the issue away from fertility. 

So why does it matter what causes it? Using the "cause" excuse is just taking away from the issue of fertility.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

_Dre_ said:


> Going to a sperm bank and getting inseminated.


But then theyre not producing they are relying on someone elses sperm.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

And seriously, marriage and reproduction are two entirely separate issues. The ability to reproduce should have absolutely nothing to do with the ability to marry.

Unless you're also in favor of outlawing vasectomies. After all, it is a procedure that CAUSES infertility.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> But then theyre not producing they are relying on someone elses sperm.


...and?


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

_Dre_ said:


> Going to a sperm bank and getting inseminated.


that's not two women reproducing. That's one of the women using artificial means to circumvent the admitted LIMITATIONS of their coupling in order to reproduce. Also she's taking sperm, which are produced by men, not women.

Now come on don't make me break down something that simple again.

If a couple has to use ARTIFICIAL (meaning not natural) means to get AROUND the limitations their coupling produces, doesn't that tell you there is an inferiority in their coupling? I mean seriously? And what if it's two men? Then they can't even use artificial means. So what's to be made of them?

Or the same point that people don't like which I'll make again.


IF homosexuality and heterosexuality are equal, where would humanity be if every couple in history had been heterosexual. Where would we be if they had all been homosexual? Is the answer the same and if not why? Since I'm supposedly bigoted and evil for stating things, I'll let the people who disagree EXPLAIN why I'm wrong intellectually.

By all means go ahead.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Brandname said:


> And seriously, marriage and reproduction are two entirely separate issues. The ability to reproduce should have absolutely nothing to do with the ability to marry.
> 
> Unless you're also in favor of outlawing vasectomies. After all, it is a procedure that CAUSES infertility.


I agree with this, I only pointed out what I thought was a flaw in his statement


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> Well maybe I don't understand then why it matters to you that a couple is infertile only if it is homosexual.
> 
> You keep ranting on the cause of the infertility, and trust me, I understand what your point is.
> 
> ...


Actually I'm not saying that homosexual relationships should be banned. You're lying when you say that, as an attempt to exaggerate my position. I'm saying that marriage holds a one man /one woman coupling up because of many reasons including the biological naturalness of it-- and comparing homosexuality to it, it comes up short. I said that before, which you asked me to clarify, and now I have. In light of them coming up short, I don't think they deserve equal recognition of marriage. At no point did I say their relationships should be banned.

The reason the "cause" issue is the entire POINT is because we're comparing capabilities of one to another, which is the only way to see if one meets the standard we've set. I think the ability to reproduce is a vital capability of a coupling. Not because all couples need to be able to do it, but because its' an important function of any species. If one type of coupling completely lacks it, I'd say that's a pretty ****ing big inferiority.

By that argument heterosexual polygamy is much more deserving of legal recognition than gay marriage but people are ARRESTED for practicing heterosexual polygamy.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

Homosexuallity is just unatural. You dont see gay animals. I dought there were gay cavemen. Its happeining now. Why? Because humans are so ahead of every other species. They have to do everything and somehoew it has been nailed into their head that you can be with a memeber of the same sex.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> But then theyre not producing they are relying on someone elses sperm.



So? Their union is producing a child. Wasn't that what the whole arguement was about?

I honestly don't see what marriage has to do with reproduction. It's easy to create kids, it's hard to maintain a long term relationship. One really has nothing to do with the other. Frankly given the population problems in some parts of the world, relationships that don't produce children should be valorized.

Kids...something else I want nothing to do with.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

futuristxen said:


> So? Their union is producing a child. Wasn't that what the whole arguement was about?


Basically, no need to get all technical.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Homosexuallity is just unatural. You dont see gay animals. I dought there were gay cavemen. Its happeining now. Why? Because humans are so ahead of every other species. They have to do everything and somehoew it has been nailed into their head that you can be with a memeber of the same sex.


Who told you there arent gay animals?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Homosexuallity is just unatural. You dont see gay animals. I dought there were gay cavemen. Its happeining now. Why? Because humans are so ahead of every other species. They have to do everything and somehoew it has been nailed into their head that you can be with a memeber of the same sex.



There are gay animals.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

You dont want marrige or kids what are you some kind of hermit.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Homosexuallity is just unatural. You dont see gay animals. I dought there were gay cavemen. Its happeining now. Why? Because humans are so ahead of every other species. They have to do everything and somehoew it has been nailed into their head that you can be with a memeber of the same sex.


*Everyone is encouraged to post*


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> that's not two women reproducing. That's one of the women using artificial means to circumvent the admitted LIMITATIONS of their coupling in order to reproduce. Also she's taking sperm, which are produced by men, not women.
> 
> Now come on don't make me break down something that simple again.
> 
> ...


With the reproductive options we have now, every couple in the world could be homosexual and we'd be just fine. 

Our intelligence has given us the ability to change the science of reproduction. Our social views should progress in the same way. 

Of course, this is all moot because homosexuality is a minority. And if homosexual couples can't reproduce with each other, we're not going to get 100% of the world homosexual. 

Saying "what if everyone did it?" is a bad argument because we'd be outlawing vasectomies, hysterectomies, etc. as well. You take things on a case-by-case basis.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

futuristxen said:


> There are gay animals.


In zoos who have been interferd with by humans. You wont fly up to the south pole and see a gay penguin.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> In zoos who have been interferd with by humans. You wont fly up to the south pole and see a gay penguin.


Jesus, educate yourself.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

I have only had 13 years to educate myself old man.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> I have only had 13 years to educate myself old man.


Well then don't act like you know what you're talking about. Because you don't.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> With the reproductive options we have now, every couple in the world could be homosexual and we'd be just fine.
> 
> Our intelligence has given us the ability to change the science of reproduction. Our social views should progress in the same way.
> 
> ...



Wrong. 

You said they're equal. The reason for the either/or hypothesis is that doing so allows us to compare the potential results, since reasonably equal couplings in this case should produce REASONABLY similar results. This allows us to compare the traits of one to another instead of worrying about partial this and partial that. Isn't that fair since we're comparing the couplings?

ARr the results even REASONABLY similar? They must be if you think the couplings are equal right? How many generations would humanity have survived without heterosexual reproduction? How many without homosexual reproduction? Are the results even reasonably similar? 

Can I ask how many advanced logic/philosophy classes have you taken? You keep swearing up and down you know what a bad argument is (I think you mean unsound) but you shown no actual ability to back up your position.



Also are you saying that homosexuality was inferior before artificial reproduction but it's equal now? Because that's a ludicrous position.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

I am so confused.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

I didnt I have never heard OF a gay animal in nature. But then again I havent been through high school college and Im not 40.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> I didnt I have never heard OF a gay animal in nature. But then again I havent been through high school college and Im not 40.


The kids on south park learned about gay animals when they were 6.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

You watch south park. WOW! That tells me a lot about your maturity.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

essbee said:


> that's not two women reproducing. That's one of the women using artificial means to circumvent the admitted LIMITATIONS of their coupling in order to reproduce. Also she's taking sperm, which are produced by men, not women.
> 
> Now come on don't make me break down something that simple again.
> 
> ...


Again, you are presuming only a society where two parents, one man, one woman, raise children. Society does not have to fit that paradigm and hasn't always fit that paradigm.

Your premise is flawed. Because both gay men and gay women can create children entirely separate of their coupling, and the only way you are invalidating their coupling is because you say they can't produce children...but they can.

What if a gay couple and a lesbian couple decide to form their own gay community, and between the two of them they decide that they want to help each other have kids. Both couples would still be homosexual, because the sex they preferred and enjoyed would be that of homosexual sex. Both couples would have children that they produced through natural means. And by your definitions those couples would be better than a heterosexual couple that was infertile.

There are so many ways around and through your arguement that the fact you think you've come up with such a concrete air tight case is hilarious. What you have fallen prey to are viral ideas. Forced narratives that you've been raised never to question. Which is funny because you are presenting yourself as the exact opposite.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

I am going bck to basketball which this thread has nothing to do with. The orginal discussion ended pages ago.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> The number is far less than 8-12% in sports.


The number of admitted homosexuals is far less than 8-12% in sports. You have to take into account the culture of sports and athletics...there may be many more homosexuals than will ever admit it, due to self-imposed or peer pressure.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> You watch south park. WOW! That tells me a lot about your maturity.


When you're older you'll come to understand that South Park was a lot more than just naughty words. It's probably getting close to your bed time now. Go to bed and let us grown folks hash this out tonight. When you wake up tomorrow it will all be okay. We won't let the gay penguins hurt you.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> You watch south park. WOW! That tells me a lot about your maturity.


Lol South Park has some of the best social commentary on TV. The V-Chip stuff in the movie was hilarious.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> Wrong.
> 
> You said they're equal. The reason for the either/or hypothesis is that doing so allows us to compare the potential results, since reasonably equal couplings in this case should produce REASONABLY similar results. This allows us to compare the traits of one to another instead of worrying about partial this and partial that. Isn't that fair since we're comparing the couplings?
> 
> ...


No, not wrong. 

First, homosexuality isn't inferior now, and it wasn't inferior before artificial insemination. I was refuting an argument you made about trying to extend an argument to an "If everyone was homosexual" type of thing. The point was that sexuality is a separate issue from reproduction. This is undeniably true. 

Second, an unsound argument is a bad argument. Arguing semantics is just pointless intellectualism that I don't even want to get into right now. 

Third, I have taken a couple of advanced logic/philosophy courses. In the high undergraduate/lower graduate level. And that doesn't even matter anyway.

In the end, you believe that because a homosexual coupling removes the ability to reproduce, it shouldn't be allowed. Of course I completely disagree because reproduction and sexuality are completely different issues. But is it safe to assume that you don't think vasectomies should be allowed to be performed because they specifically CAUSE infertility?

I just want to make sure your reasons for disagreeing with issues are consistent.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> No, not wrong.
> 
> First, homosexuality isn't inferior now, and it wasn't inferior before artificial insemination. I was refuting an argument you made about trying to extend an argument to an "If everyone was homosexual" type of thing. The point was that sexuality is a separate issue from reproduction. This is undeniably true.
> 
> ...


yeah, wrong again. You're saying (again) that I said homosexual couplings "shouldnt' be allowed." I said they dont deserve the recognition of being EQUAL to heterosexual ones.

So that you can't keep making up things I'm not saying let's take this one point at a time so we're not "arguing semantics" as you call it.

Since you keep talking about me saying homosexual relationships should be banned or "not allowed" why don't you find the quote where I said that?

I'll wait. When we get this first point resolved I'll move on to your next one, that way we won't keep going around in circles.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> yeah, wrong again. You're saying (again) that I said homosexual couplings "shouldnt' be allowed." I said they dont deserve the recognition of being EQUAL to heterosexual ones.
> 
> So that you can't keep making up things I'm not saying let's take this one point at a time so we're not "arguing semantics" as you call it.
> 
> ...


Give me a break. You are arguing that they shouldn't be recognized legally. Of course that is what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about putting everyone who tries to be in a homosexual relationship in jail.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Again. How does homosexuality eliminate the ability to reproduce? One has nothing to do with the other. Are you saying a gay man can't impregnate a woman? Or that a lesbian can't get pregnate?


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> Give me a break. You are arguing that they shouldn't be recognized legally. Of course that is what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about putting everyone who tries to be in a homosexual relationship in jail.


Saying I don't think they should be recognized legally isn't the same as saying they should be banned or not allowed to exist. What you see as semantics is more along the lines of accuracy and not bending people's quotes to suit your own needs. There's no need, we have the quote button.

I assume that's resolved?

If that's taken care of I'd like to address next your point that "I was refuting an argument you made about trying to extend an argument to an "If everyone was homosexual" type of thing. The point was that sexuality is a separate issue from reproduction. This is undeniably true. "

Is that okay?


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

Once again age discrimination rears its ugly head. HYPOCRITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

South Park is a racist immature show for people like you.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> Saying I don't think they should be recognized legally isn't the same as saying they should be banned or not allowed to exist. What you see as semantics is more along the lines of accuracy and not bending people's quotes to suit your own needs. There's no need, we have the quote button.
> 
> I assume that's resolved?
> 
> ...


Reread my post. That's not the semantics I was referring to. 

I was operating under an assumption that the phrase "banning gay marriages" implies not disallowing the _legality_, not the _relationship_. In the context of this discussion, that should be understood. 

Just as when I refer to banning vasectomies, I am referring to removing the legality of the medical practice of performing vasectomies, not finding people who have vasectomies and putting them in jail.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> South Park is a racist immature show for people like you.


South Park is a social satire. 

I don't care for the show in particular, maybe because I haven't seen it enough. But I recognize what it is, at least.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> Reread my post. That's not the semantics I was referring to.
> 
> I was operating under an assumption that the phrase "banning gay marriages" implies not disallowing the _legality_, not the _relationship_. In the context of this discussion, that should be understood.
> 
> Just as when I refer to banning vasectomies, I am referring to removing the legality of the medical practice of performing vasectomies, not finding people who have vasectomies and putting them in jail.


You didn't say banning gay marriages, you said gay relationships. There is a notable difference from my perspective between relationships and marriages. So... ya know..

"Saying that it's that homosexual relationships causing infertility is why they should be banned" -- That's your quote.


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> In zoos who have been interferd with by humans. You wont fly up to the south pole and see a gay penguin.


funny you mention penguins



> While homosexuality would appear to contradict evolutionary imperatives, scientists involved in the exhibition say it appears to do no harm and may actually help in some circumstances.
> 
> Sometimes a pair of male birds may rear eggs "donated" by a female.
> 
> ...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6066606.stm


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> You didn't say banning gay marriages, you said gay relationships. There is a notable difference from my perspective between relationships and marriages. So... ya know..
> 
> "Saying that it's that homosexual relationships causing infertility is why they should be banned"


ok, you got me. Replace all instances of 'relationships' with 'marriages'. I was typing fast and in all instances was actually referring to marriages. 

So back to the actual point of this debate. Let me ask you a question:

Do you think any couple of people should be allowed to enter into a non-reproductive marriage?


----------



## Theonee (Dec 5, 2006)

Why is this such a big deal? There are millions of gays around the world.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

Pimped Out said:


> funny you mention penguins
> 
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6066606.stm


That is a good scientific example of a homosexual relationship actually being advantageous in nature.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

This was probably a rare case. Or scientists tampered with the penguins.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> ok, you got me. Replace all instances of 'relationships' with 'marriages'. I was typing fast and in all instances was actually referring to marriages.
> 
> So back to the actual point of this debate. Let me ask you a question:
> 
> Do you think any couple of people should be allowed to enter into a non-reproductive marriage?


Okay, what you were saying makes more sense now. 

Are you asking for new questions or would you like to continue as I was, with your previous points one by one? I don't want to keep jumping around , I'd rather do like I'm doing now and resolve things definitively before moving on. Your next point I was about to address was



"I was refuting an argument you made about trying to extend an argument to an "If everyone was homosexual" type of thing. The point was that sexuality is a separate issue from reproduction. This is undeniably true. "


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

Theonee said:


> Why is this such a big deal? There are millions of gays around the world.


It's only a big deal because gays are still struggling to get equal recognition to straight people. From the sound of it, they're fighting an uphill battle.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

**edited: Please constructively add to the discussion or ignore it. Don't chime in just to try to derail it or tell people to stop talking about it**


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> Okay, what you were saying makes more sense now.
> 
> Are you asking for new questions or would you like to continue as I was, with your previous points one by one? I don't want to keep jumping around , I'd rather do like I'm doing now and resolve things definitively before moving on. Your next point I was about to address was
> 
> ...


I don't to sit here debating one sentence per one post.

I'm not going to be able to be here long enough to get anywhere with that.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> **edited**


If you don't want to discuss it, just go to bed. Or just don't read this thread.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> I don't to sit here debating one sentence per one post.
> 
> I'm not going to be able to be here long enough to get anywhere with that.


If you're incorrectly summarizing my posts or using straw men I'm not sure what other recourse I have, and I guarantee I'll break down your argument if I do it in parts. Not sure what other solution there is.

I asked you to compare a world where all couples had been hetero to a world where all had been homosexual since the couplings are equal, and you still haven't done that. I think I've done a good job of answering your questions, would you mind doing the same with that question?


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

Because it is very hard to sleep at 9:30 and because this basketballboards.net dont see the basketball in here. The guy who started this thread gave up a long time ago.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> If you're incorrectly summarizing my posts or using straw men I'm not sure what other recourse I have, and I guarantee I'll break down your argument if I do it in parts. Not sure what other solution there is.
> 
> I asked you to compare a world where all couples had been hetero to a world where all had been homosexual since the couplings are equal, and you still haven't done that. I think I've done a good job of answering your questions, would you mind doing the same with that question?


umm, you've answered some of my questions, and have ignored plenty of others.

All right, in a world where all couplings are homosexual, you have the majority of people unhappy but a minority that is happy. In a world where all couplings are heterosexual, you have the majority of people happy but a minority that is unhappy.

That's the difference. Reproduction is an entirely separate issue.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

essbee said:


> I asked you to compare a world where all couples had been hetero to a world where all had been homosexual since the couplings are equal, and you still haven't done that. I think I've done a good job of answering your questions, would you mind doing the same with that question?


There's no reason to believe a world with all homosexual couples would be any better or worse than a world of all heterosexual couples. You would still have kids being raised in some form or another by some individuals or group of individuals in a way that passed down their heritage and culture.

The only difference would be that we would be having this same conversation but about straight couples, and I would have to convince you that hetero couples are okeydokey too. Though one might imagine that the communal nature that a world like that would necessitate, my actually cause it to be more open minded, so maybe not.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Because it is very hard to sleep at 9:30 and because this basketballboards.net dont see the basketball in here. The guy who started this thread gave up a long time ago.


For chrissakes. There are a billion forums on this site. And a million threads in them discussing a million diffrent things. Go to one you want to be in, and stop whinging about this one. Even on the main page here, there is a ton of stats talk. If you don't want to talk about the intersection of hoops and culture in this thread, then go to a diffrent one. It's not that hard.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

Who did that?


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

*Do not post in the thread again unless you want to intelligently discuss the subject matter.

There are plenty of other threads around. Why mull around in one you don't like?*


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> umm, you've answered some of my questions, and have ignored plenty of others.
> 
> All right, in a world where all couplings are homosexual, you have the majority of people unhappy but a minority that is happy. In a world where all couplings are heterosexual, you have the majority of people happy but a minority that is unhappy.
> 
> That's the difference. Reproduction is an entirely separate issue.


I don't comprehend how you think reproduction is an entirely separate issue, because we're talking about couplings. If no couplings on earth are capable of producing another generation, and if biodiversity is not created by reproduction, there are no future generations to exist and the species stops. This is of course assuming they maintain couplings and simply accept the limitations that come with it. fyi artificial insemination is, literally, a simulation of heterosexual coupling, so that's not a very good workaround.


*Or the shortened version:*
If all couplings are heterosexual, the species can continue.
If all couplings are homosexual, the species stops immediately after the current generation.

With the above summary can you say that in this test under similar conditions the two couplings are equal in their capabilities? IF so would you explain how?


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

futuristxen said:


> There's no reason to believe ...


If we've established that you think my position holds no merit and doesn't deserve recognition, I'm confused on why you're constantly addressing my posts. I'm not baiting you or mentioning you in any way so I don't get it.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> I don't comprehend how you think reproduction is an entirely separate issue, because we're talking about couplings. If no couplings on earth are capable of producing another generation, and if biodiversity is not created by reproduction, there are no future generations to exist and the species stops. This is of course assuming they maintain couplings and simply accept the limitations that come with it. fyi artificial insemination is, literally, a simulation of heterosexual coupling, so that's not a very good workaround.
> 
> 
> *Or the shortened version:*
> ...


You didn't read what I said. Marriage and reproduction are completely separate issues. 

You can be in a gay relationship and still reproduce. You can be in a straight relationship and never reproduce. 

That's why using reproduction is a poor argument against allowing gay marriage.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Brandname will you repost what I put in my last post about the reproduction vs. marriage question he keeps asking. I think he's got me on block, so repost it as what you've written. I'd like to see his response to it, because the arguements he keeps making.

Also you might hyperlink him to the article about the flamingos and pengiuns,as that shows the way nature works with homosexuality to it's advantage. He doesn't seem to be understanding that two gay men can still impregnate a woman, and a lesbian can still get pregnate, whether the sex they had to accomplish that was enjoyable or not. But the whole artificial insimination sidebar has become a red hearing in the arguement for him to latch onto.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> You didn't read what I said. Marriage and reproduction are completely separate issues.
> 
> You can be in a gay relationship and still reproduce. You can be in a straight relationship and never reproduce.
> 
> That's why using reproduction is a poor argument against allowing gay marriage.


Now we get to the crux of the argument, one I mentioned at the beginning of this discussion's tangent.

For each type of coupling there are features, or attributes, or abilities, or traits or whatever you want to call them.

We are comparing coupling types, which means we are comparing features, attributes... traits... 

if we are comparing attributes, one of them would be reproduction. In the context of comparing abilities, the complete inability of one to do something significant is an inferiority. We are not talking about imperatives, we are talking about... CAPABILITIES, because comparing the set of abilities in each is how we measure equality. Measuring equality, or comparing ABILITY, is how we determine if a non-standard coupling should be given equal standing to our base model.

This by the way is why the issue of homosexual individual rights is separate from the issue of homosexual coupling rights.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

Reproduction is the product of marrige. Otherwise were just a bunch of rabits.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

futuristxen said:


> Brandname will you repost what I put in my last post about the reproduction vs. marriage question this idiot keeps asking. I think he's got me on block, so repost it as what you've written. I'd like to see his response to it, because the arguements he keeps making.
> 
> Also you might hyperlink him to the article about the flamingos and pengiuns,as that shows the way nature works with homosexuality to it's advantage. He doesn't seem to be understanding that two gay men can still impregnate a woman, and a lesbian can still get pregnate, whether the sex they had to accomplish that was enjoyable or not. But the whole artificial insimination sidebar has become a red hearing in the arguement for him to latch onto.


"There's no reason to believe a world with all homosexual couples would be any better or worse than a world of all heterosexual couples. You would still have kids being raised in some form or another by some individuals or group of individuals in a way that passed down their heritage and culture.

The only difference would be that we would be having this same conversation but about straight couples, and I would have to convince you that hetero couples are okeydokey too. Though one might imagine that the communal nature that a world like that would necessitate, my actually cause it to be more open minded, so maybe not."

and

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6066606.stm

BAM! Done.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

essbee said:


> If we've established that you think my position holds no merit and doesn't deserve recognition, I'm confused on why you're constantly addressing my posts. I'm not baiting you or mentioning you in any way so I don't get it.


Ohhhhh so that's why you stopped responding to my posts. I thought it was because if you had bothered to respond to my posts, your entire silly argument that you've been going on about for the last five pages, would have ended. I don't believe your position has any merit, I do think it's intellectually counter-productive, and I do think less of you as a person for the position you pretend to hold. Which is why I'm pouring truth syrup down your underpants. You can either ignore the fact that you're starting to attract ants, OR you can go put on some new drawers. The sensible thing would be to do the latter. The stubborn thing, which is what you're doing, would be to do the former.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Reproduction is *one example of a* product of marrige, *others being happiness and legal benefits*. Otherwise were just a bunch of rabits.


There, fixed it for you.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

essbee said:


> Now we get to the crux of the argument, one I mentioned at the beginning of this discussion's tangent.
> 
> For each type of coupling there are features, or attributes, or abilities, or traits or whatever you want to call them.
> 
> ...



But just because you are a homosexual and in a homosexual relationship, does not mean you are incapable of reproducing. That's what you refuse to acknowledge. Conversely just because you are in a heterosexual relatinoship does not mean you are capable of reproducing. One HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER.

Reproductivity is not a capablitiy through which we can compare homosexual and heterosexual relationships. 

How many ways and times does this have to be said? You keep misinterpreting Brandnames's posts and trying to twist his words, when this is all he is trying to tell you.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> Now we get to the crux of the argument, one I mentioned at the beginning of this discussion's tangent.
> 
> For each type of coupling there are features, or attributes, or abilities, or traits or whatever you want to call them.
> 
> ...


All right, I'll take an example from nature (quoted earlier in this thread):

A homosexual male couple can protect a larger territory to take care of the offspring they are raising. A male/female couple can protect a smaller area. In this example, the homosexual male couple is superior to the heterosexual couple. 

This has been observed in nature and is an example of how a homosexual couple can be superior to a heterosexual couple. Notice specifically how the homosexual couple was able to care for and raise offspring even though they are homosexual. 

This is why reproduction is a separate issue, as has been touched on several times by *futuristxen*.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

futuristxen said:


> I don't believe your position has any merit, I do think it's intellectually counter-productive, and I do think less of you as a person for the position you pretend to hold. Which is why I'm pouring truth syrup down your underpants. You can either ignore the fact that you're starting to attract ants, OR you can go put on some new drawers. The sensible thing would be to do the latter. The stubborn thing, which is what you're doing, would be to do the former.


I could prove your points wrong, but when you said that you had no interest in hearing my viewpoint I'm not sure why you think I'd respond to your posts. It's inconsistent.

If you want to apologize and change your tone I'd be happy to discuss the topic with you. I personally like discussing things with people of differing views, you don't, so why are you on a message board?


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

Thank you so much.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

*You've been asked several times nicely to stop disrupting the thread. Your warning level has now increased.*


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> All right, I'll take an example from nature (quoted earlier in this thread):
> 
> A homosexual male couple can protect a larger territory to take care of the offspring they are raising. A male/female couple can protect a smaller area. In this example, the homosexual male couple is superior to the heterosexual couple.
> 
> ...



I'll go ahead and break this down for you.

If reproduction is a separate issues from the capabilities and traits of homosexual vs. heterosexual couplings, why isn't territory guarding? Also the reason it says "even though they are homosexual" is that the two males could be non-homosexual and still protect a larger area just as two guys could be just good friends and not an actual couple and adopt a child so...


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

essbee said:


> I could prove your points wrong, but when you said that you had no interest in hearing my viewpoint I'm not sure why you think I'd respond to your posts. It's inconsistent.
> 
> If you want to apologize and change your tone I'd be happy to discuss the topic with you. I personally like discussing things with people of differing views, you don't, so why are you on a message board?


The reason I keep responding is because it is a message board and other people who are more open to different ideas are reading it, so I'm lodging my arguments for their benefit, not yours. I don't apologize to bigots who support an agenda of hate. No matter how nicely they dress it up. You compromise on what you want on your pizza, not on affording people human rights/equality.


----------



## Lynx (Mar 6, 2004)

Who is this guy, please? Never heard of him till now.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

essbee said:


> I'll go ahead and break this down for you.
> 
> If reproduction is a separate issues from the capabilities and traits of homosexual vs. heterosexual couplings, why isn't territory guarding? Also the reason it says "even though they are homosexual" is that the two males could be non-homosexual and still protect a larger area just as two guys could be just good friends and not an actual couple and adopt a child so...


I'll go ahead and break this down for you. If Territory guarding is a separate issue from the capabilities and traits of homosexual vs. heterosexual couplings, why isn't reproduction?

:yay:


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> I'll go ahead and break this down for you.
> 
> If reproduction is a separate issues from the capabilities and traits of homosexual vs. heterosexual couplings, why isn't territory guarding?


Wow, will you quit with that condescending, superior tone?

And umm, I never stated that it's not a separate issue. I'm not in favor of disallowing heterosexual marriages because homosexual marriages may be able to better defend territory. 

You gave an example to prove why heterosexual couplings are superior. I gave an example to show how homosexual couplings can be superior. I was refuting your argument-by-superiority for gay couplings by giving an example of non-superiority.


----------



## Krstic All-Star (Mar 9, 2005)

The debate here should not be focusing on the issue of gay rights or the issue of homosexuality itself so much as the ramifications of a former player coming out. Is it in fact such an earth-shattering event? That it is a first does not really make it a watershed mark in homosexuality in America - its effects must dictate that. 

So, the real question is what difference will it make? Not even '...does it make' but what the outcome will be. That's what discussions relating to this event should focus on.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Lynx said:


> Who is this guy, please? Never heard of him till now.


You've never heard of John Amaechi? THE John Amaechi? I mainly remember him from his Orlando days. Thought somewhat hazy. I believe he was a jump shooting center for the most part. A less athletic Bill Wennington maybe?


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> You've never heard of John Amaechi? THE John Amaechi? I mainly remember him from his Orlando days. Thought somewhat hazy. I believe he was a jump shooting center for the most part. A less athletic Bill Wennington maybe?


He was actually fairly athletic. He couldn't jump very well, but he moved very well and pretty quick for his size. 

For a while there he was a pretty good player for Orlando.


----------



## Krstic All-Star (Mar 9, 2005)

Lynx said:


> Who is this guy, please? Never heard of him till now.


The first I ever heard of him was in college, where his defense was supposedly so soft that he was considered a donut... 

He had a good season for the Magic, which is really what I remember him for. He also had a couple of good games for the Jazz.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> Wow, will you quit with that condescending, superior tone?
> 
> And umm, I never stated that it's not a separate issue. I'm not in favor of disallowing heterosexual marriages because homosexual marriages may be able to better defend territory.
> 
> You gave an example to prove why heterosexual couplings are superior. I gave an example to show how homosexual couplings can be superior. I was refuting your argument-by-superiority for gay couplings by giving an example of non-superiority.



Why aren't you complaining about future's tone? 

I accept your comparison of a way in which homosexual couplings among penguins are superior in territory guarding. I counter that by saying that the ability for the species to continue and the biodiversity created by reproduction, trumps territory guarding by an absolutely humongous margin.

I'd also point out that the reason for territory established in your link was primarily to guard offspring, and those offspring would not exist without... well you guessed it.

I'd also point out that human homosexual couples circumvent this by using artificial insemination instead of accepting their limitations and acting merely as caretakers.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Krstic All Star said:


> The debate here should not be focusing on the issue of gay rights or the issue of homosexuality itself so much as the ramifications of a former player coming out. Is it in fact such an earth-shattering event? That it is a first does not really make it a watershed mark in homosexuality in America - its effects must dictate that.
> 
> So, the real question is what difference will it make? Not even '...does it make' but what the outcome will be. That's what discussions relating to this event should focus on.


To my mind this discussion in and of itself denotes the significance of Amaechi coming out. It is BECAUSE of Amaechi coming out that we are having this discussion here on the main board. The purpose behind him coming out was to force a dialouge amongst people who generally do not have to or want to confront the issue.

And while I agree in principle in recentering the argument back upon homosexuality in sports, and specifically the NBA--the arguments that have spurred out of that organically, should not be discounted.

I would plead with the mods to leave this on the main board until tomorrow evening, so that everyone on the board does actually have a chance to read and respond to it. It's a golden opportunity for an issue like this to get exposure in the sports world, and the good it can do, surely outweighs the harm.


----------



## C-Rave (Nov 24, 2006)

First off I say kudos to this man as telling the world that you are a homosexual is a tough thing to do. If he is gay, then he is gay. He is just the first professional basketball player to admit to being so. Other than that, there is no big deal.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> Why aren't you complaining about future's tone?
> 
> I accept your comparison of a way in which homosexual couplings among penguins are superior in territory guarding. I counter that by saying that the ability for the species to continue and the biodiversity created by reproduction, trumps territory guarding by an absolutely humongous margin.
> 
> ...


I'm not arguing with *futuristxen*, and his tone isn't directed at me.

This argument is getting way off topic, anyway. In humans, allowing gay marriage will neither eliminate reproduction nor improve territory guarding. 

In our current society, we are able to let any couple raise a child, and we take away the need for couples to defend territory (in a general sense). 

So ultimately it comes down not to the biological limitations of the relationship, but rather whether you value a homosexual couple's right to marry as much as a heterosexual couple's. We live in a society where these biological considerations are of no consequence any more. 

There is no reason to disallow gay marriage other than bigotry.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

essbee said:


> Why aren't you complaining about future's tone?
> 
> I accept your comparison of a way in which homosexual couplings among penguins are superior in territory guarding. I counter that by saying that the ability for the species to continue and the biodiversity created by reproduction, trumps territory guarding by an absolutely humongous margin.
> 
> ...


Homosexual couples have not always had the means of artificial insemination, and it's not the only option. Again, you can engage in hetersexual sex for the purposes purely of reproduction, and still maintain a homosexual relationship, and still have that be what works for you sexually. Because reproduction...again...is seperate from sexuality. It might come as a shock to you, but the majority of sex does not occur for purposes of reproduction. Despite what the Catholic church would have you believe.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

futuristxen said:


> To my mind this discussion in and of itself denotes the significance of Amaechi coming out. It is BECAUSE of Amaechi coming out that we are having this discussion here on the main board. The purpose behind him coming out was to force a dialouge amongst people who generally do not have to or want to confront the issue.
> 
> And while I agree in principle in recentering the argument back upon homosexuality in sports, and specifically the NBA--the arguments that have spurred out of that organically, should not be discounted.
> 
> I would plead with the mods to leave this on the main board until tomorrow evening, so that everyone on the board does actually have a chance to read and respond to it. It's a golden opportunity for an issue like this to get exposure in the sports world, and the good it can do, surely outweighs the harm.


I completely agree. 

His coming out will spur some discussion of homosexuality in sports, as it should. But hopefully it will also be another brick in the wall of the gay-rights movement. And a more general dialogue of the place of gays in our society is obviously needed, seeing as how there are still people who do not view them as equal to heterosexuals.

I am also hoping that this stays on the main board. Given the circumstances, I think it is -- at the very least -- on-topic.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Oh yeah, I asked this several pages back, but was Bison Dele(Brian Williams to some of you) gay or bisexual or neither? I seem to remember there were a lot of stories that came out about him with regards to his sexuality. And he was certainly more significant a player than Amaechi.

What will be really a watershed moment in sports will be when a major male star of some sport comes out.

I've also heard a lot of rumors about homosexuality in hiphop. Like real rumors, not just disses.


----------



## Krstic All-Star (Mar 9, 2005)

Brandname said:


> I'm not arguing with *futuristxen*, and his tone isn't directed at me.
> 
> This argument is getting way off topic, anyway. In humans, allowing gay marriage will neither eliminate reproduction nor improve territory guarding.
> 
> ...


I take exception to this sweeping, and untrue, generalization. If one defines marriage in purely religious terms, bigotry does not enter into it at all. Having a moral, philosophical or religious objection to something is not even prima facie evidence of bigotry - and attempted to smear those who have objections to the concept in this manner is incorrect.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> Homosexual couples have not always had the means of artificial insemination, and it's not the only option. Again, you can engage in hetersexual sex for the purposes purely of reproduction, and still maintain a homosexual relationship, and still have that be what works for you sexually. Because reproduction...again...is seperate from sexuality.* It might come as a shock to you, but the majority of sex does not occur for purposes of reproduction. Despite what the Catholic church would have you believe*.


WHAT?!?!


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> I'm not arguing with *futuristxen*, and his tone isn't directed at me.
> 
> This argument is getting way off topic, anyway. In humans, allowing gay marriage will neither eliminate reproduction nor improve territory guarding.
> 
> ...


And in nature, there is no designation such as marriage, which is an official recognition of a union. So if you didn't want to compare the two it was an irrelevant element to the conversation, which I didn't bring in.

In our current society biological considerations are not about imperatives, they haven't been since the conversation began. This is confirmed by my post a few hours ago which began this tangent which said..



"Not because reproduction is necessary from all marriages, but because a union which has a 0% reproduction rate, not because of fertility of its members but because of biological incompatibility, seems obviously to have deficiencies compared to those that don't."


----------



## Krstic All-Star (Mar 9, 2005)

futuristxen said:


> Oh yeah, I asked this several pages back, but was Bison Dele(Brian Williams to some of you) gay or bisexual or neither? I seem to remember there were a lot of stories that came out about him with regards to his sexuality. And he was certainly more significant a player than Amaechi.
> 
> What will be really a watershed moment in sports will be when a major male star of some sport comes out.
> 
> I've also heard a lot of rumors about homosexuality in hiphop. Like real rumors, not just disses.


With Dele, they were only rumors. More to the point, his persona became tied into his battles with depression more than anything else, so his sexuality was never really examined so much as his personal troubles.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

Krstic All Star said:


> I take exception to this sweeping, and untrue, generalization. If one defines marriage in purely religious terms, bigotry does not enter into it at all. Having a moral, philosophical or religious objection to something is not even prima facie evidence of bigotry - and attempted to smear those who have objections to the concept in this manner is incorrect.


This is why marriage should be taken out of the hands of religion.

Any legal advantages gained by marriage should require the same process out of church. If the church wants to have an extra ceremony to acknowledge the marriage, they should be free to do that. But seeing as how they discriminate against gay couples, they should not be allowed to confer a legal binding.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Krstic All Star said:


> I take exception to this sweeping, and untrue, generalization. If one defines marriage in purely religious terms, bigotry does not enter into it at all. Having a moral, philosophical or religious objection to something is not even prima facie evidence of bigotry - and attempted to smear those who have objections to the concept in this manner is incorrect.



I actually would prefer if the government did away with marriage as an institution legally recognized before the law, and left it as a purely religious ceremony. Marriage as an institution is fairly discriminatory as a government practice. That there is such a push for gay marriage in the homosexual community, just shows how far from the margins the community has come.

I do think that pushing to redefine marriage in the constitution to the exclusion of homosexual couples IS bigotry, and has really nothing to do with religion. Which I believe is what Brandname was really talking about.


----------



## Krstic All-Star (Mar 9, 2005)

Brandname said:


> This is why marriage should be taken out of the hands of religion.
> 
> Any legal advantages gained by marriage should require the same process out of church. If the church wants to have an extra ceremony to acknowledge the marriage, they should be free to do that. But seeing as how they discriminate against gay couples, they should not be allowed to confer a legal binding.


Marriage is a fundamentally religious act. In fact, it is governmental intrusion into that realm that should be looked at more carefully, if anything. It is most emphatically not a matter that should be defined by any government.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> And in nature, there is no designation such as marriage, which is an official recognition of a union. So if you didn't want to compare the two it was an irrelevant element to the conversation, which I didn't bring in.
> 
> In our current society biological considerations are not about imperatives, they haven't been since the conversation began. This is confirmed by my post a few hours ago which began this tangent which said..
> 
> ...


What? I was responding to your argument. I didn't bring it into the conversation to further my point that marriage should be extended to gays. In fact, I said that it doesn't apply to the human society today. I'm not sure what the confusion is here.

You quoting your original post works out well for me, because it points out the vital flaw in your argument:

Homosexual couples do not have a 0% reproduction rate.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Brandname said:


> This is why marriage should be taken out of the hands of religion.
> 
> Any legal advantages gained by marriage should require the same process out of church. If the church wants to have an extra ceremony to acknowledge the marriage, they should be free to do that. But seeing as how they discriminate against gay couples, they should not be allowed to confer a legal binding.


It's probably going to be easier to push for this than the other, because your way is affording people rights, rather than stripping anyone of them.

I just think it's dumb that a married couple gets extra rights before the law than an unmarried couple. I mean...why should that matter?


----------



## eymang (Dec 15, 2006)

kflo said:


> you're acting like it's a non-issue, and there's no reason to be in the closet in the first place. as if there's tons of examples of known gay athletes who were openly gay to the team / community.


Actually the article says that he was openly gay to his community and I believe it said his PSU teammates knew it. In other words, him and ESPN are basically exploiting the subject for money. Good thing this isn't Tyrus Thomas. I don't care who the hell he ****s or fantasizes about, my problem is if someone tells me that a) I have to care, b) This needs to happen more often, and/or c) I have to support it. 

And how dare you some of you bring up something like race. This is not the first time I have heard someone bring this up. Some gay rights activist was on TV once saying that history was rewriting itself and that gays were this century's black or slave. Now THAT is offensive. So what is it that's so HORRIBLE about being in the closet or coming out? Going through tough times? Wow, millions are going through worse. This just in, there's no easy way through life, if there was some hetero law or protection against being shunned or criticized I'd love to know about it, because I'd be damn rich. And you have it much easier than racial minorities. This struggle seems pretty exaggerated if you ask me. You can **** whoever you want in your own time; you can go to clubs, bars, parts of towns specifically for similar people when you are feeling so 'shunned', and there is no physical feature which would hurt you in a situation job interview or any kind of service, things racial minorities have gone through. And if you're John Ameachi, you can make millions off of it, where you will probably complain about the basketball atmosphere, something that made you more millions.

Wow, it causes a problem for you when you want to flaunt it or tell others who don't care, or try to force their opinion for them. What's a matter, it's hard to hit on other guys? Is this what Ameachi is gonna cry about? Well I'd be in a lot of trouble too if I went up to my secretary and told her I wanted to **** her


----------



## Krstic All-Star (Mar 9, 2005)

futuristxen said:


> I actually would prefer if the government did away with marriage as an institution legally recognized before the law, and left it as a purely religious ceremony. Marriage as an institution is fairly discriminatory as a government practice. That there is such a push for gay marriage in the homosexual community, just shows how far from the margins the community has come.
> 
> I do think that pushing to redefine marriage in the constitution to the exclusion of homosexual couples IS bigotry, and has really nothing to do with religion. Which I believe is what Brandname was really talking about.


See my last post for the legal issue I have as well. 

While I have jurisprudential objections to marriage amendments to the Constitution on several grounds, I cannot agree that that thrust of that movement is prediacted on bigotous grounds, but rather, derives from religious precepts. Indeed, a far better argument against that amendment is on Non-Establishment Clause grounds, than merely dismissing it as bigotry.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Krstic All Star said:


> See my last post for the legal issue I have as well.
> 
> While I have jurisprudential objections to marriage amendments to the Constitution on several grounds, I cannot agree that that thrust of that movement is prediacted on bigotous grounds, but rather, derives from religious precepts. Indeed, a far better argument against that amendment is on Non-Establishment Clause grounds, than merely dismissing it as bigotry.


Non-Establishment Clause won't fit on my billboard. Bigot will.
:biggrin:


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

futuristxen said:


> I actually would prefer if the government did away with marriage as an institution legally recognized before the law, and left it as a purely religious ceremony. Marriage as an institution is fairly discriminatory as a government practice. That there is such a push for gay marriage in the homosexual community, just shows how far from the margins the community has come.
> 
> I do think that pushing to redefine marriage in the constitution to the exclusion of homosexual couples IS bigotry, and has really nothing to do with religion. Which I believe is what Brandname was really talking about.


Yes, this is exactly what I was talking about.

Krstic All Star, I understand that marriage was originally a purely religious thing. What I was referring to was the joining of legal conferment with religious ceremony. It already violates a principle of our government, and the only reason it still exists is because the majority of the country is Christian and so it represents a non-issue to them. 

No institution that openly discriminates on the basis of gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. should be allowed to confer a legal document such as marriage.


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

futuristxen said:


> The reason I keep responding is because it is a message board and other people who are more open to different ideas are reading it, so I'm lodging my arguments for their benefit, not yours. I don't apologize to bigots who support an agenda of hate. No matter how nicely they dress it up. *You compromise on what you want on your pizza, not on affording people human rights/equality.*


i like that. i think i am going to steal it


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> What? I was responding to your argument. I didn't bring it into the conversation to further my point that marriage should be extended to gays. In fact, I said that it doesn't apply to the human society today. I'm not sure what the confusion is here.
> 
> You quoting your original post works out well for me, because it points out the vital flaw in your argument:
> 
> Homosexual couples do not have a 0% reproduction rate.


a)Male gay couples have a zero % reproduction rate of any kind--men cannot carry a child to term.
b)Lesbian couples have a zero % rate of reproduction from their couplings

For example when using male sperm technologically, that's not a homosexual coupling. That's circumventing their relationship to simulate a hetero coupling because a hetero coupling allows things they can't do within their relationship. And if (As I saw in the bay area a lot) a woman has sex with a gay man in order to reproduce, she's completely broken the exclusivity of the homosexual relationship she supposedly belongs in. The fact remains that all lesbian reproduction is artificial and reflects their efforts to go outside the admitted confines of their coupling. I'm not entirely sure how this point is even arguable. In other words artificial insemination not only goes away from the relationship but simulates the TYPE OF COUPLING they aren't a part of. Or if I can sum up my previous statements, homosexuality has to imitate heterosexuality to make up for its own flaws.

Naturally that's where sperm banks come in.


"Insemination is when sperm is inserted into a woman's uterus to attempt to create a pregnancy. Artificial insemination is a popular way for lesbians to get pregnant. A woman can use sperm from a known donor or from a sperm bank."

link

Does that sound like the product of a lesbian relationship to you? To help answer the question, sperm banks are also heavily used by single women, because if one is being impregnated by a donated sperm, the "other woman" is not relevant. In other words, it's no longer a coupling.

I hope that wasn't the argument you were going to make.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

eymang said:


> And you have it much easier than racial minorities. This struggle seems pretty exaggerated if you ask me. You can **** whoever you want in your own time; you can go to clubs, bars, parts of towns specifically for similar people when you are feeling so 'shunned'


Yeah so could blacks in the 20's and Jews(And Gays) in Nazi Germany.



> , and there is no physical feature which would hurt you in a situation job interview or any kind of service,


God pray you don't have the wrong kind of lisp, walk in the wrong way. Or god forbid that your boss happens upon your myspace page. Because for any of those reasons he could decide not to hire you, or he could fire you for those reasons...in some parts of the country. And god forbid you are a transexual on top of all of that.




> Wow, it causes a problem for you when you want to flaunt it or tell others who don't care, or try to force their opinion for them. What's a matter, it's hard to hit on other guys? Is this what Ameachi is gonna cry about? Well I'd be in a lot of trouble too if I went up to my secretary and told her I wanted to **** her


It hurts when they drag your *** to the parking lot, tie you to the back of their pickup truck, and drag your *** to death down the middle of the road in texas. Or so it would seem. I dunno. Ask Matthew Shepard.

Gay people just want to be able to pursue happiness and live a normal life like everyone else. They are not able to under the current regime.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

I really have neither the time nor inclination to read this whole thread, but am I to understand that Kendall Gill's still in the closet?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

essbee said:


> And if (As I saw in the bay area a lot) a woman has sex with a gay man in order to reproduce, she's completely broken the exclusivity of the homosexual relationship she supposedly belongs in.


So sayeth the great Essbee! Who died and made you the great arbitor of what constitutes a break in a lesbian relationship and what doesn't? The fact is, you're just making **** up now, about people you apparently don't understand very well.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

ehmunro said:


> I really have neither the time nor inclination to read this whole thread, but am I to understand that Kendall Gill's still in the closet?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> I really have neither the time nor inclination to read this whole thread, but am I to understand that Kendall Gill's still in the closet?


He's in R. Kelly's closet.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> a)Male gay couples have a zero % reproduction rate of any kind
> b)Lesbian couples have a zero % rate of reproduction from their couplings
> 
> For example when using male sperm technologically, that's not a homosexual coupling. That's circumventing their relationship to simulate a hetero coupling because a hetero coupling allows things they can't do within their relationship. And if (As I saw in the bay area a lot) a woman has sex with a gay man in order to reproduce, she's completely broken the exclusivity of the homosexual relationship she supposedly belongs in. The fact remains that all lesbian reproduction is artificial and reflects their efforts to go outside the admitted confines of their coupling. I'm not entirely sure how this point is even arguable. In other words artificial insemination not only goes away from the relationship but simulates the TYPE OF COUPLING they aren't a part of.
> ...


You keep arguing this point.

I know what artifical insemination is. I know what in vitro fertilization is. I know that two men can't have sex and make a baby. I know that two women can't have sex and make a baby. 

None of that matters. They can still reproduce just fine.

All your talk about "breaking the exclusivity of the relationship" doesn't matter. The fact is, a homosexual couple can reproduce while having an *exclusive relationship* with a member of the same sex. The reproduction does not have to be a part of that relationship. As I've said many, many times in this thread. Reproduction is a separate issue from marriage. 

All of this talk about going outside the confines of the coupling and all that junk doesn't apply to the human society of today. 

Why deny a homosexual couple the benefits of a straight couple if they can a)Have a child, b)Raise that child, and c)Love each other just like any straight couple could?


----------



## Krstic All-Star (Mar 9, 2005)

Brandname said:


> Yes, this is exactly what I was talking about.
> 
> Krstic All Star, I understand that marriage was originally a purely religious thing. What I was referring to was the joining of legal conferment with religious ceremony. It already violates a principle of our government, and the only reason it still exists is because the majority of the country is Christian and so it represents a non-issue to them.
> 
> No institution that openly discriminates on the basis of gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. should be allowed to confer a legal document such as marriage.


Ah, well that's where it gets very tricky from a legal philosophy perspective. 

First, it is not a fact that such an action does in fact conflict with the 1st Amendment. It is a particular legal school of thought, based initially on a personal letter from Thomas Jefferson, whose views on religion were not in fact those of the Framers of the Constitution. So the potential violation is just that, potential - not a violation per se.

Second, as to why it still exists, it is far more complex than the nature of this country as 'Christian.' It is certainly not a non-issue to any non-progressive Christian movements, merely an issue that they come out against. In point of fact, Judaism and Islam, though far less represetative in our society, have similar views on marriage - and indeed the Biblical proscription on homosexuality is from the Torah, let us not forger.

Third, when a concept is borrowed from any source and is codified as law, the original definition - the reason for codification - goes along with it. This extends to the very basic principles of civil rights in America - which were derived from pre-existing British concepts of rights. (And other sources as well, but read the Federalist for a great discussion on that...) 

Fourth, discrimination is a subjective term in this regard. It depends on one's fundamental conception of marriage - as a concept. If one were to take an expansive view of the concept, then anything that restricted any combination of people would be discriminatory. However, if one were to look at marriage as a specific and historically-based concept, then not recognizing innovations as part of the concept is not discriminatory, but in keeping with the nature of the concept itself. There is a serious philosophical issue here, and one that is all too often dismissed by both sides. It lies in the nature of the concept - and that has nothing to do with bigotry.


----------



## Krstic All-Star (Mar 9, 2005)

ehmunro said:


> I really have neither the time nor inclination to read this whole thread, but am I to understand that Kendall Gill's still in the closet?


Just for the moment... there's still a chance!


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> You keep arguing this point.
> 
> I know what artifical insemination is. I know what in vitro fertilization is. I know that two men can't have sex and make a baby. I know that two women can't have sex and make a baby.
> 
> ...


yeah they can, which is fine. If they go outside the relationship that's fine.

But...


aren't we talking about comparing the capabilities of the coupling? Wasn't that the entire point of the thread? IF you have to go outside the....


LIMITATIONS

of your coupling to do something that comes naturally and which you are individually perhaps naturally capable of, I see that as an inferiority. Apparently so do lesbian couples or they wouldn't use sperm banks to simulate heterosexual sexual relations so much.

Obviously you think reproduction is only important if it's needed by society. I see it as important as an ability, AND i say it's still important in society, otherwise gay couples wouldn't be so obsessed with reproduction. That's where we differ.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

Krstic All Star said:


> Ah, well that's where it gets very tricky from a legal philosophy perspective.
> 
> First, it is not a fact that such an action does in fact conflict with the 1st Amendment. It is a particular legal school of thought, based initially on a personal letter from Thomas Jefferson, whose views on religion were not in fact those of the Framers of the Constitution. So the potential violation is just that, potential - not a violation per se.
> 
> ...


I agree with everything you said.

And specifically, I should let it be recognized that I have thought a great deal about the fourth point and agree that it is a deeper issue. And also, it isn't quite what I am discussing so far in this thread. My opinions thus far have not been addressing the application of the definition of marriage to homosexual couples. Because there is the exact issue you are talking about, and it's what has allowed this talk of a constitutional amendment to go anywhere in the first place. 

But the application of the historical definition of marriage is actually of very little consequence to me. That's not what I'm particularly interested in.

My debate is with the mindset. The mindset that still exists in our society (be it religious, moral, or whatever in nature) that a homosexual couple should not be able to enter into a union that confers the same legal advantages a heterosexual couple has. This is a serious problem.

While disallowing gay marriage may not be discrimination based on the definition of marriage, it is discrimination in mindset. The reason the definition of marriage is being brought up so much is because there is a percentage of people who do not want gays to have the same marriage license as straight people. And adhering to the strict definition of marriage is the vehicle through which they can achieve this goal. It's this mindset that I take issue with.


----------



## Krstic All-Star (Mar 9, 2005)

Brandname said:


> I agree with everything you said.
> 
> And specifically, I should let it be recognized that I have thought a great deal about the fourth point and agree that it is a deeper issue. And also, it isn't quite what I am discussing so far in this thread. My opinions thus far have not been addressing the application of the definition of marriage to homosexual couples. Because there is the exact issue you are talking about, and it's what has allowed this talk of a constitutional amendment to go anywhere in the first place.
> 
> ...


If it's the mindset itself, that's another matter entirely - with the caveat that mind-reading is at best an inexact science. [/tongue in cheek] 

Personally, I have no problem with the government conferring full and equal legal rights to homosexual couples - but if it tries to call tht marriage, I have grave reservations.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> Obviously you think reproduction is only important if it's needed by society. I see it as important as an ability, AND i say it's still important in society, otherwise gay couples wouldn't be so obsessed with reproduction. That's where we differ.


What? There are lots of gay couples that have no desire to reproduce. 

I guess I just don't understand the mindset that wants to prevent 2 consenting adults who want to be legally joined in a relationship the benefits that other consenting adults get. 

Why do so many people care so passionately about other people *not *getting benefits?


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

Krstic All Star said:


> If it's the mindset itself, that's another matter entirely - with the caveat that mind-reading is at best an inexact science. [/tongue in cheek]
> 
> Personally, I have no problem with the government conferring full and equal legal rights to homosexual couples - but if it tries to call tht marriage, I have grave reservations.


I would be ok with that. Except I would say that marriage should then not be a legal document at all.

To get the legal advantages, every couple must get a civil union in a court. Including those that will later go on to be married in a church. That's the only way you can prevent the government from denying gay couples. 

You should not get legal benefits from any church ceremony.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> What? There are lots of gay couples that have no desire to reproduce.
> 
> I guess I just don't understand the mindset that wants to prevent 2 consenting adults who want to be legally joined in a relationship the benefits that other consenting adults get.
> 
> Why do so many people care so passionately about other people *not *getting benefits?


And there are lots of couples that do. Not sure what your point is. Lesbians are generally the largest users of sperm banks, indicating that their lifestyle goes against their wishes. You're saying that's NOT an inferiority, and I say it is, and frankly can't see how it's not based on the explanations you've provided.

"Why do so many people care so passionately about other people *not *getting benefits?[/QUOTE]"

This is a logical fallacy. The typical equivalent given in classroom books is something like "why is that politician worrying about issue x when issue y is more important."


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> And there are lots of couples that do. Not sure what your point is. Lesbians are generally the largest users of sperm banks, indicating that their lifestyle goes against their wishes. You're saying that's NOT an inferiority, and I say it is, and frankly can't see how it's not based on the explanations you've provided.
> 
> "Why do so many people care so passionately about other people *not *getting benefits?"
> 
> This is a logical fallacy. The typical equivalent given in classroom books is something like "why is that politician worrying about issue x when issue y is more important."


I was responding to your statement, "otherwise gay couples wouldn't be so obsessed with reproduction." Which of course, is a broad generalization unsupported by fact.

How does your point about Lesbians mean that their lifestyle goes against their wishes? It makes sense that they would be the biggest users of sperm banks, of course, because many of them want to reproduce. 

Tell me why you care so much about homosexuals not being allowed to marry.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Krstic All Star said:


> I take exception to this sweeping, and untrue, generalization. If one defines marriage in purely religious terms, bigotry does not enter into it at all. Having a moral, philosophical or religious objection to something is not even prima facie evidence of bigotry - and attempted to smear those who have objections to the concept in this manner is incorrect.


So when Mormons, at one point in their history, believed that blacks were inferior as a religious belief, did that make it non-bigoted?

I don't think the source of the belief is what defines bigotry. Bigotry is defined as a preference for one's own group and/or a condemnation of another segment of the population. Religious belief is one of the most common reasons for bigotry.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> So when Mormons, at one point in their history, believed that blacks were inferior as a religious belief, did that make it non-bigoted?
> 
> I don't think the source of the belief is what defines bigotry. Bigotry is defined as a preference for one's own group and/or a condemnation of another segment of the population. Religious belief is one of the most common reasons for bigotry.


Exactly. 

This is what I was talking about when I proceeded to go on that incoherent rant about "mindset" and whatnot.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> I was responding to your statement, "otherwise gay couples wouldn't be so obsessed with reproduction." Which of course, is a broad generalization unsupported by fact.
> 
> How does your point about Lesbians mean that their lifestyle goes against their wishes? It makes sense that they would be the biggest users of sperm banks, of course, because many of them want to reproduce.
> 
> Tell me why you care so much about homosexuals not being allowed to marry.


Actually no, it's not unsupported by fact. It's supported by the statistics on increasing amounts of gay couples who use artificial means to reproduce. This contradicts the movement's position in the 80's when their response was "But we don't WANT children." 

Ah well. Let's see, if the two lesbians are both fertile, and if they both want to have children, then it would be possible in other circumstances. But since they're in a relationship with EACH OTHER, they are restricted from fulfilling their wishes b their coupling. As a result they have to "step outside" of their relationships to solve this problem.

I think that's a pretty good example of their lifestyle going against their wishes.

Obsessed with gay marriage how? Where has this been a topic of conversation with me outside of this thread? You asked me to explain why, as an agnostic, I oppose gay marriage. We're now talking about it.


----------



## Sunsfan81 (Apr 17, 2006)

HAHAHA, John Amaechi, I'm not too surprised.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

essbee said:


> Actually no, it's not unsupported by fact. It's supported by the statistics on increasing amounts of gay couples who use artificial means to reproduce. This contradicts the movement's position in the 80's when their response was "But we don't WANT children."
> 
> Ah well. Let's see, if the two lesbians are both fertile, and if they both want to have children, then it would be possible in other circumstances. But since they're in a relationship with EACH OTHER, they are restricted from fulfilling their wishes b their coupling. As a result they have to "step outside" of their relationships to solve this problem.
> 
> ...


How is this any different from heterosexuals being obsessed with reproduction. All the methods you describe that homosexuals use were developed by heterosexuals and in terms of absolute numbers (aritificial insemination, etc.) are used vastly more by heterosexuals. I.e. what's wrong morally with an infertile heterosexual couple using a surrogate mother? No sex is involved.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> Actually no, it's not unsupported by fact. It's supported by the statistics on increasing amounts of gay couples who use artificial means to reproduce. This contradicts the movement's position in the 80's when their response was "But we don't WANT children."
> 
> Ah well. Let's see, if the two lesbians are both fertile, and if they both want to have children, then it would be possible in other circumstances. But since they're in a relationship with EACH OTHER, they are restricted from fulfilling their wishes b their coupling. As a result they have to "step outside" of their relationships to solve this problem.
> 
> ...


Of COURSE gay couples are going to use artificial means to reproduce. Come on, now. Your statement was that gays are "so obsessed with reproduction". A ridiculous generalization. And frankly, it gives off vibes of bias. 

Who says getting artifically inseminated is "stepping outside" their relationship? I'm sure they view it as a very intimate, important part that strengthens their relationship.

I never said you were obsessed with gay marriage. Remember the whole straw man thing you like to get on people about? I never talked about obsession (except about the other topic). You are talking pretty passionately about this topic. I asked you why you seem to care so passionately about it. 

I am arguing passionately about it because I view it as an human equality issue. How about you?


----------



## eymang (Dec 15, 2006)

futuristxen said:


> Yeah so could blacks in the 20's and Jews(And Gays) in Nazi Germany.


Wow, you too are going compare what they went through to what Gays are going through today. So because they suffered through something horrible and were able to do what I described, you are saying they have a relationship with gays today. Great logic. I am allowed to hang out with fans of my favorite team at a local sports bar. Someone please treat me better. Don't forget that little part of it being a little easier to tell who black people were, or how the known way Jews were forced to be shown to be separate or different by the gold star. Oh yeah, gays also go through this, except they choose to represent the 'gay pride' symbol or colrs themselves. My main point is that people act as if someone puts a gun to a random person's head and asks their sexual preference when it is them themselves who are pointing the difference out. People take others more seriously when they aren't attention whores.



> God pray you don't have the wrong kind of lisp, walk in the wrong way. Or god forbid that your boss happens upon your myspace page. Because for any of those reasons he could decide not to hire you, or he could fire you for those reasons...in some parts of the country. And god forbid you are a transexual on top of all of that.


You love you some sterotypes don't you, but if you can pick em out, then the more power to you. It is not even close to disinguishable to how a racial minority would be. And there is no heteroadvantage to this. There's a lot of jobs where being yourself will give you no chance of getting it. This is no news, but I have had several HR people (actually the first top HR guy I had was openly gay, and the policy he put in place was the strictest on this) restrict and use as a base for hiring any visible piercings, tattoos, out of the norm hair colors or styles, etc and have had the same advice when I used to go to career service type events. Common sense of course, but it can be weight, personality, or whatever, you'll probably be judged right when you walk in, don't worry gay people, you're not missing out on anything here. 



> It hurts when they drag your *** to the parking lot, tie you to the back of their pickup truck, and drag your *** to death down the middle of the road in texas. Or so it would seem. I dunno. Ask Matthew Shepard.
> 
> Gay people just want to be able to pursue happiness and live a normal life like everyone else. They are not able to under the current regime.


Obviously this is the extreme and I don't think anyone in this thread has suggested taking the Nazi Germany approach towards gays, we are discussing this player and the NEED as you put it to force it on everyone else. I am not going to defend murder or anything like that, but you can have the most acceptance in the world and hate crimes will still happen. A famous story in my old school is how the 'popular kids' ended up killing a kid because they didn't like him because he was a 'nerd'. Especially today, I think this is more rare than the norm unless you are at the wrong place at the wrong time or are actually the one starting/looking for trouble.

Fat people, short people, I can name a million, every body who goes through this life will have someone discriminate them in some point in there life, and they deal with it. A normal life like everyone else in this world is that nothing is easy and you're guaranteed to go through ****. Again my main point, as I said in my last post regarding to this or any other athlete, 'I don't care who the hell he ****s or fantasizes about, my problem is if someone tells me that a) I have to care, b) This needs to happen more often, and/or c) I have to support it.',and actually, gay people I do know more deeply do live a happy/normal life and hate the radical version of the homosexual for the reasons I mentioned, and share the same feelings about not thinking the rest of the world cares about their sexual orientation.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

Pioneer10 said:


> How is this any different from heterosexuals being obsessed with reproduction. All the methods you describe that homosexuals use were developed by heterosexuals and in terms of absolute numbers (aritificial insemination, etc.) are used vastly more by heterosexuals. I.e. what's wrong morally with an infertile heterosexual couple using a surrogate mother? No sex is involved.


Without putting words in his mouth, I believe he thinks it's all right in that case because if infertile heterosexual couples weren't actually infertile, they would be able to have kids.


----------



## eymang (Dec 15, 2006)

Brandname said:


> Why do so many people care so passionately about other people *not *getting benefits?


Because that is not who the benefits are entitled to? I'm sure there's a lot of straight people who can't get a date or only want to live with a mutual friend who can't get these benefits but would like to. How about if some guy just likes to have sex with animals and he wants to marry his dog, should he get the benefits? A better question, will you pay for them? Who is anyone to tell him what should make him happy, especially if someone who has an attraction to that sort of thing is born that way? I don't know the exact law, but I'm sure it the jist of it is a 'between a man and a woman'. There's a ton of laws I and millions of others don't like. Write a Congressman or go to Canada, what do you want me to tell you. And no, I'm guessing people don't like the idea of paying for these extra benefits for someone who says 'Everyone look at me, I'm different than you, now when it comes to benefits, just assume we're all the same'.

And now, I am done for tonight, time to do some other things and get to bed. I'm sure when I wake up this thing'll be about 40 pages long, yikes.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Pioneer10 said:


> How is this any different from heterosexuals being obsessed with reproduction. All the methods you describe that homosexuals use were developed by heterosexuals and in terms of absolute numbers (aritificial insemination, etc.) are used vastly more by heterosexuals. I.e. what's wrong morally with an infertile heterosexual couple using a surrogate mother? No sex is involved.


Were you simply not reading the rest of the discussion? 

Heterosexuality does not strip participants of ability to reproduce. homosexuality does. If you're going to repeat the 'infertile hetero couple' stuff I already explained that several pages ago, namely the difference between coupling-based reproduction topics and individuality-based reproduction topics.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

essbee said:


> Ah well. Let's see, if the two lesbians are both fertile, and if they both want to have children, then it would be possible in other circumstances. But since they're in a relationship with EACH OTHER, they are restricted from fulfilling their wishes b their coupling. As a result they have to "step outside" of their relationships to solve this problem.


You're basing this on current society's beliefs and norms. In a hypothetical "all homosexual world," society and customs would likely be completely different. Reproduction and relationship fulfillment would likely be considered two separate things. In a heterosexual world, we have grown to expect partnerships based around the ability to reproduce. In a homosexual world, we may have grown to expect partnerships based around emotional fulfillment and _see it as normal and nothing to do with the relationship_ to reproduce with other people.

You can't start with a cultural model that has grown out of what we, as humans, have generally been (mostly heterosexual) as though it's universal and then point out how it would fail in a different kind of human race and society. Of course it would fail...which is why it would never have been created in the first place, if we were mostly homosexual.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Brandname said:


> Without putting words in his mouth, I believe he thinks it's all right in that case because if infertile heterosexual couples weren't actually infertile, they would be able to have kids.


That doesn't make any sense either as if the gay couple weren't born gay then they wouldn't be infertile either


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

essbee said:


> Were you simply not reading the rest of the discussion?
> 
> Heterosexuality does not strip participants of ability to reproduce. homosexuality does. If you're going to repeat the 'infertile hetero couple' stuff I already explained that several pages ago, namely the difference between coupling-based reproduction topics and individuality-based reproduction topics.


I don't think there is a very strong scientific case to be made that people _choose _to be gay and thus end up wanting to be in homosexual couple. People who are gay are born with an inheritable factor that makes them gay in the first place. They are born gay just like some folks are born infertile: there's very little choice involved


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

eymang said:


> Because that is not who the benefits are entitled to? I'm sure there's a lot of straight people who can't get a date or only want to live with a mutual friend who can't get these benefits but would like to. How about if some guy just likes to have sex with animals and he wants to marry his dog, should he get the benefits? A better question, will you pay for them? Who is anyone to tell him what should make him happy, especially if someone who has an attraction to that sort of thing is born that way? I don't know the exact law, but I'm sure it the jist of it is a 'between a man and a woman'. There's a ton of laws I and millions of others don't like. Write a Congressman or go to Canada, what do you want me to tell you. And no, I'm guessing people don't like the idea of paying for these extra benefits for someone who says 'Everyone look at me, I'm different than you, now when it comes to benefits, just assume we're all the same'.
> 
> And now, I am done for tonight, time to do some other things and get to bed. I'm sure when I wake up this thing'll be about 40 pages long, yikes.


sigh

A man who likes to have sex with animals? Terrible analogy; animals can't consent to anything of that nature. Having a sexual relationship with an animal is animal abuse, and it is criminal. Give me a break.

And wow, you sure do take an issue with the fact that gays want to be open about their sexuality. I'm pretty sure you give off vibes of "straight guy" a lot more than you realize. The gay community wants to encourage gays to be very open so we can eventually get around this prejudiced bull****. 

And anyway, read the last sentence of your first paragraph again. You'll find that it's so ridiculous you might just have to edit it tomorrow morning. 

Here's a hint: *As a country, America has always taken great pride in giving equal rights to all sorts of people who are different. It's pretty much a fundamental guiding principle to our country.*


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

Pioneer10 said:


> That doesn't make any sense either as if the gay couple weren't born gay then they wouldn't be infertile either


Hey, I completely agree with you. It makes absolutely no sense to me.


----------



## AJC NYC (Aug 16, 2005)

I think that at least 1 in 5 people have homosexual/bisexual tendencies


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> Of COURSE gay couples are going to use artificial means to reproduce. Come on, now. Your statement was that gays are "so obsessed with reproduction". A ridiculous generalization. And frankly, it gives off vibes of bias.
> 
> Who says getting artifically inseminated is "stepping outside" their relationship? I'm sure they view it as a very intimate, important part that strengthens their relationship.
> 
> ...




I talk about all things passionately.

Stepping outside the relationship? I already explained that it was stepping out because it simulates heterosexual sex and they are supposedly born as homosexuals. If they are a lesbian couple how is introducing sperm into it not stepping outside the confines of homosexuality? If a gay man fertilizes an egg from a woman how is that not outside the nature of a relationship that involves TWO MEN?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Wow @ this thread going to 25 pages. I have my reservations on the whole issue, but some pretty good arguements I have read so far.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Krstic All Star said:


> Just for the moment... there's still a chance!


No one that witnessed Kendall sexually assaulting his martial arts punching dummy on MTV Cribs can ever have any doubts. :bsmile:


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Pioneer10 said:


> I don't think there is a very strong scientific case to be made that people _choose _to be gay and thus end up wanting to be in homosexual couple. People who are gay are born with an inheritable factor that makes them gay in the first place. They are born gay just like some folks are born infertile: there's very little choice involved


if there is very little choice would you explain the couples I've seen who are lesbian and have one of the members sleep with a man just to get pregnant? I mean isn't sleeping with a man contradictory to lesbian lifestyle?


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

essbee said:


> I talk about all things passionately.
> 
> Stepping outside the relationship? I already explained that it was stepping out because it simulates heterosexual sex and they are supposedly born as homosexuals. If they are a lesbian couple how is introducing sperm into it not stepping outside the confines of homosexuality? If a gay man fertilizes an egg from a woman how is that not outside the nature of a relationship that involves TWO MEN?


Who says this has to be physical sex to reproduce? Putting a sperm into a petri dish and mixing it with an egg simulates the emotional/pleasure centers of the brain like physical sex? You're argument doesn't make much sense at all


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> I talk about all things passionately.
> 
> Stepping outside the relationship? I already explained that it was stepping out because it simulates heterosexual sex and they are supposedly born as homosexuals. *If they are a lesbian couple how is introducing sperm into it not stepping outside the confines of homosexuality? *If a gay man fertilizes an egg from a woman how is that not outside the nature of a relationship that involves TWO MEN?


Umm, because they never feel an attraction towards males. They need sperm for reproduction, but that's not what sexuality is. Sexuality is what arouses your brain. Stepping outside the confines of their sexuality would be if they start feeling sexual attraction to men. In which case they're actually bisexual.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

essbee said:


> If they are a lesbian couple how is introducing sperm into it not stepping outside the confines of homosexuality? If a gay man fertilizes an egg from a woman how is that not outside the nature of a relationship that involves TWO MEN?


Because there's no universal principle that states that reproduction and a partnership must be connected. That's a convention humans have adopted because it makes sense for what we are. If we were something else, we'd have no reason to connect the two.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

essbee said:


> if there is very little choice would you explain the couples I've seen who are lesbian and have one of the members sleep with a man just to get pregnant? I mean isn't sleeping with a man contradictory to lesbian lifestyle?


Again this is not a coherent argument: if they weren't lesbian in the first place then they wouldn't in a lesbian relationship


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> Umm, because they never feel an attraction towards males. They need sperm for reproduction, but that's not what sexuality is. Sexuality is what arouses your brain. Stepping outside the confines of their sexuality would be if they start feeling sexual attraction to men. In which case they're actually bisexual.


Actually it's the coupling they're stepping outside of.

Sperm is not a factor in a lesbian relationship if a lesbian relationship involves two women having sex. Introducing sperm is introducing something that would never factor into their relationship under natural circumstances.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

essbee said:


> if there is very little choice would you explain the couples I've seen who are lesbian and have one of the members sleep with a man just to get pregnant?


How does this contradict that homosexuality can be a born-in trait? Your example is very easy to explain: Two women who were born with an attraction to other women become partners and then decide that one of them should have intercourse with a man for the sake of bringing a child into the union that shares genetics with at least one of them. Perhaps one of them has sex with a close male friend, so that the other part of the genetics is at least from someone they love (platonically).

There's nothing contradictory there and it makes perfect sense that some people could find that to be the best way to handle it.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> Actually it's the coupling they're stepping outside of.
> 
> Sperm is not a factor in a lesbian relationship if a lesbian relationship involves two women having sex. Introducing sperm is introducing something that would never factor into their relationship under natural circumstances.


Sperm is a factor in a lesbian relationship if they choose to have kids. Just like it is a factor in straight women who want to have kids. It is independent of their sexuality.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Pioneer10 said:


> Again this is not a coherent argument: if they weren't lesbian in the first place then they wouldn't in a lesbian relationship


So just to clarify, if they have consentual sex with a male to get pregnant, the woman is still a lesbian?


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

essbee said:


> So just to clarify, if they have consentual sex with a male to get pregnant, the woman is still a lesbian?


Umm yes


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> Sperm is a factor in a lesbian relationship if they choose to have kids. Just like it is a factor in straight women who want to have kids. It is independent of their sexuality.


Thank you.

That makes my point that in order to fulfill their wishes they have to step outside of their restrictions though. I'm not sure what we're arguing about anymore.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

essbee said:


> So just to clarify, if they have consentual sex with a male to get pregnant, the woman is still a lesbian?


Yes. Homosexuality (and heterosexuality) are not defined by actions, but by which gender one is attracted to. In many cases, people will assume they go hand in hand, but you brought up an example where they clearly do not go hand in hand. The lesbian is having sex with someone she is _not_ sexually attracted to, for other purposes.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> Thank you.
> 
> That makes my point that in order to fulfill their wishes they have to step outside of their restrictions though. I'm not sure what we're arguing about anymore.


Basically you're arguing (I believe) that because of this requirement, a lesbian relationship should not be able to be consummated by marriage. 

I disagree with that assertion. I think they should be able to share the same privileges that a straight couple can get.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> How does this contradict that homosexuality can be a born-in trait? Your example is very easy to explain: Two women who were born with an attraction to other women become partners and then decide that one of them should have intercourse with a man for the sake of bringing a child into the union that shares genetics with at least one of them. Perhaps one of them has sex with a close male friend, so that the other part of the genetics is at least from someone they love (platonically).
> 
> There's nothing contradictory there and it makes perfect sense that some people could find that to be the best way to handle it.


Because a born-in trait, comparable to the born in traits like gender that we associate with civil rights movements, cannot be reversed on the whims of its possessors.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> Basically you're arguing (I believe) that because of this requirement, a lesbian relationship should not be able to be consummated by marriage.
> 
> I disagree with that assertion. I think they should be able to share the same privileges that a straight couple can get.


then we'll just disagree on the ramifications.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> Yes. Homosexuality (and heterosexuality) are not defined by actions, but by which gender one is attracted to. In many cases, people will assume they go hand in hand, but you brought up an example where they clearly do not go hand in hand. The lesbian is having sex with someone she is _not_ sexually attracted to, for other purposes.


So if it's based on attraction, then homosexuality will stand as the only existing basis for civil rights that is taken entirely at someone's word I assume?


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> Because a born-in trait, comparable to the born in traits like gender that we associate with civil rights movements, cannot be reversed on the whims of its possessors.


Right, so what's the argument here?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

essbee said:


> Because a born-in trait, comparable to the born in traits like gender that we associate with civil rights movements, cannot be reversed on the whims of its possessors.


And it hasn't been. You're confused about what homosexuality and heterosexuality are. Homosexuality and heterosexuality indicate _sexual attraction to one's own gender_. In your example, the lesbian's sexual attraction was not reversed. She still was attracted sexually to women and not men. She had sex despite lack of attraction for the purposes of impregnation.

By your logic, when heterosexual men rape other men in prison, they're proving that heterosexuality isn't a born-in trait. In reality, they didn't stop being heterosexual, they simply overcame their lack of sexual attraction to men because they're desperate to relieve sexual tension.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

essbee said:


> Because a born-in trait, comparable to the born in traits like gender that we associate with civil rights movements, cannot be reversed on the whims of its possessors.


Sort of like how I can't dye my born in trait of jet black hair into blonde hair? Or if I'm left handed I can write with my right hand?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

essbee said:


> So if it's based on attraction, then homosexuality will stand as the only existing basis for civil rights that is taken entirely at someone's word I assume?


Indeed. What's the issue? It's not like homosexuals get a bag of gold. The desire is for equality, nothing more. So you're worried that we have to take them at their word that they're a minority that deserves equality? That's not even a coherent concern.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> Right, so what's the argument here?


He's arguing that it's a born in trait, and I'm trying to say that I'm not aware of any other born in trait that can be casually changed. That puts it simply into the realm of tendencies, like temper, or anything else people are born with that they have control over.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Pioneer10 said:


> Sort of like how I can't dye my born in trait of jet black hair into blonde hair? Or if I'm left handed I can write with my right hand?


Well you could, but are you building a civil rights case based on your natural hair color?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

essbee said:


> He's arguing that it's a born in trait, and I'm trying to say that I'm not aware of any other born in trait that can be casually changed.


And, as I said, it can't be casually changed. You seem to be ignoring what's inconvenient to your claims.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> He's arguing that it's a born in trait, and I'm trying to say that I'm not aware of any other born in trait that can be casually changed. That puts it simply into the realm of tendencies, like temper, or anything else people are born with that they have control over.


Pioneer10 just gave you some examples.

And also, having sex with a man for reproductive purposes != changing sexuality


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

essbee said:


> Well you could, but are you building a civil rights case based on your natural hair color?


If people didnt allow rights because I was blond or was left handed then the answer is YES: you're answering you're own question


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Didn't realize when I first posted this that I'd be opening up a HUGE can o' worms.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

essbee said:


> Well you could, but are you building a civil rights case based on your natural hair color?


The point is not whether a civil rights case is built around it, the point is that superficial actions don't change born-in traits. You could dye your hair black, but that doesn't change that you're a natural blond. You can write with your right hand, but doesn't change that you're a natural lefty.

Similarly, you can have sex with a man in order to get pregnant, but doesn't change that you're a natural lesbian. ("Natural lesbian" based on which gender you actually hold sexual attraction for.)

Hope that "breaks it down" for ya.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> The point is not whether a civil rights case is built around it, the point is that superficial actions don't change born-in traits. You could dye your hair black, but that doesn't change that you're a natural blond. You can write with your right hand, but doesn't change that you're a natural lefty.
> 
> Similarly, you can have sex with a man in order to get pregnant, but doesn't change that you're a natural lesbian. ("Natural lesbian" based on which gender you actually hold sexual attraction for.)
> 
> Hope that "breaks it down" for ya.


Actually when we're discussing things like gay marriage, the point of whether civil rights are in play is relevant, because we have to determine the grounds for who receives benefits. You're saying (As many others have already) that we can't base it on sexual relationships. We have to base it on who they're attracted to... how do we determine that? Just ask them? 

There is no way to determine what are NATURAL lesbians, and people who have relied on being told what someone's attraction is have been wrong countless times(many in the gay rights community now HATE anne heche for what they consider an embarrassment, because they had latched onto her, not as bisexual, but as a lesbian). 

So no, that doesn't break anything down.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

essbee said:


> Actually when we're discussing things like gay marriage, the point of whether civil rights are in play is relevant, because we have to determine the grounds for who receives benefits. You're saying (As many others have already) that we can't base it on sexual relationships. We have to base it on who they're attracted to... how do we determine that? Just ask them?
> 
> There is no way to determine what are NATURAL lesbians, and people who have relied on being told what someone's attraction is have been wrong countless times(many in the gay rights community now HATE anne heche for what they consider an embarrassment, because they had latched onto her, not as bisexual, but as a lesbian).
> 
> So no, that doesn't break anything down.


Yes you just ask them and if they're consenting adults let them be, after all you (i.e. the government) doesn't ask heterosexual men or women who they choose to marry even when it ends up in predictable results like Kevin Federline


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

essbee said:


> Actually when we're discussing things like gay marriage, the point of whether civil rights are in play is relevant, because we have to determine the grounds for who receives benefits. You're saying (As many others have already) that we can't base it on sexual relationships. We have to base it on who they're attracted to... how do we determine that? Just ask them?


I don't see why you consider this a major point. If two people of the same gender want to get married, why would they be lying about being homosexual? They don't receive anything extra and homosexuals certainly don't get positions of honour in the society, so what's their motive for lying? You still haven't explained that. 



> There is no way to determine what are NATURAL lesbians


In any case, this is is a separate issue. What I generously broke down for you was the difference between action and natural sexuality. You seemed to feel that since a lesbian could have sex with a man, she was "changing" sexuality, which is clearly wrong.

Now you're asking about how we _know_ what their natural sexuality is, which is a different issue (and I addressed in the top portion of this post).


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> I don't see why you consider this a major point. If two people of the same gender want to get married, why would they be lying about being homosexual? They don't receive anything extra and homosexuals certainly don't get positions of honour in the society, so what's their motive for lying? You still haven't explained that.


If homosexuality was given the status of equal marriage then they would receive extra benefits over, for example simply being roommates. And I know of cases where people have lied about being gay to get out of the military, which caused the military to tighten it's policies on how they investigate people who say they are so they can't use that loophole.





> In any case, this is is a separate issue. What I generously broke down for you was the difference between action and natural sexuality. You seemed to feel that since a lesbian could have sex with a man, she was "changing" sexuality, which is clearly wrong.


Actually no, we were previously talking about the limitations of the coupling one opposed to the other. I feel, however, that if a woman can overcome her "trait" to do something opposite to that trait's natural manifestations, then it is in fact simply a TENDENCY or strong leaning, and not a legitimate basis for civil rights discussions.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Pioneer10 said:


> Yes you just ask them and if they're consenting adults let them be, after all you (i.e. the government) doesn't ask heterosexual men or women who they choose to marry even when it ends up in predictable results like Kevin Federline


Still wrong, heterosexual men and women are legally forbade from polygamy, and are scrutinized heavily when it involves the issue of possibly getting around immigration laws. Whether or not they're consenting in these two circumstances is irrelevant.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

essbee said:


> If homosexuality was given the status of equal marriage then they would receive extra benefits over, for example simply being roommates. And I know of cases where people have lied about being gay to get out of the military, which caused the military to tighten it's policies on how they investigate people who say they are so they can't use that loophole.


You also lose benefits. Two individuals can receive more benefits than one married couple, because the government assumes (correctly) that a unit doesn't require two of everything. It's unlikely to be used for "roommates," since it also creates a lot of alimony issues in many states upon divorce.




> Actually no, we were previously talking about the limitations of the coupling one opposed to the other.


There have been multiple threads in this discussion. In fact, I responded several times about your "limitations" idea, to which you never responded. The mini-thread you and I conversed over most recently was your claim that a lesbian having sex with a man "changed" her sexuality which is clearly wrong.



> I feel, however, that if a woman can overcome her "trait" to do something opposite to that trait's natural manifestations, then it is in fact simply a TENDENCY or strong leaning, and not a legitimate basis for civil rights discussions.


So heterosexuality is also a tendency? As I said before, by this logic, heterosexual men who rape other men in prison are proving that heterosexuality is just a tendency that can be flipped.

Also, whether or not it's a "trait" or "tendency" is semantics, and never has been the determining factor for whether something is a legitimate basis for civil rights. What religion a person is is absolutely choice, but see how you fare in creating a law that Jews can't marry or that Catholics can't vote.

Hey, by your logic, religion is a choice. No legitimate basis for civil rights discussions. So we can freely remove civil rights from people based on their religion, right?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

essbee said:


> Still wrong, heterosexual men and women are legally forbade from polygamy, and are scrutinized heavily when it involves the issue of possibly getting around immigration laws. Whether or not they're consenting in these two circumstances is irrelevant.


As long as any marriage benefits are not conferred multiple times, polygamy _shouldn't_ be outlawed, for exactly the same reason homosexuality shouldn't be. Using one form of government taking away consenting adult choice is not a good argument for why government should take away another form of consenting adult choice.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

essbee said:


> Still wrong, heterosexual men and women are legally forbade from polygamy, and are scrutinized heavily when it involves the issue of possibly getting around immigration laws. Whether or not they're consenting in these two circumstances is irrelevant.


You're still not making any sense. The argument against polygamy in this country stems from the fact that polygamous societies in the US tended to marry off _minors_ in situations of often forced marriage. Plus immigration has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. If you had one gay couple where the other partner was not a US citizen they would first of all recieve the same scrutiny as a heterosexual couple doing the same thing. Plus, no one is arguing that the right to marry should be used to break law (i.e. in this case immigration law) other then the right to marry in the first place


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> If homosexuality was given the status of equal marriage then they would receive extra benefits over, for example simply being roommates. And I know of cases where people have lied about being gay to get out of the military, which caused the military to tighten it's policies on how they investigate people who say they are so they can't use that loophole.


By openly discriminating against gays, the military set themselves up for that loophole. Maybe it will cause the military to accept gays with open arms. 





> Actually no, we were previously talking about the limitations of the coupling one opposed to the other. I feel, however, that if a woman can overcome her "trait" to do something opposite to that trait's natural manifestations, then it is in fact simply a TENDENCY or strong leaning, and not a legitimate basis for civil rights discussions.


Greg Oden is doing this right now. And left-handedness is a largely genetic trait. If people were being denied equal rights for being left handed, I don't know about you, but I'd sure as hell stand up for them.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> Greg Oden is doing this right now. And left-handedness is a largely genetic trait. If people were being denied equal rights for being left handed, I don't know about you, but I'd sure as hell stand up for them.


Yeah.


Know why?

Because I'd argue that left-handed people are equally capable to right-handed ones.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

essbee said:


> Yeah.
> 
> 
> Know why?
> ...


You're again contradicting yourself: gay men and women are NOT equally capable as heterosexual ones?


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> Yeah.
> 
> 
> Know why?
> ...


Do you feel comfortable using your left hand to write (I'm assuming you're right handed). No, probably not. But you could do it if you had to. 

Not much different from a lesbian having sex to reproduce.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> As long as any marriage benefits are not conferred multiple times, polygamy _shouldn't_ be outlawed, for exactly the same reason homosexuality shouldn't be. Using one form of government taking away consenting adult choice is not a good argument for why government should take away another form of consenting adult choice.


What I just said is that polygamy is proof that heterosexual forms of marriage are discriminated against, in response to Pioneer's post which said


"the government) doesn't ask heterosexual men or women who they choose to marry"





If you're going to respond to my post please read the post I'm quoting when I say something.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Pioneer10 said:


> You're again contradicting yourself: gay men and women are NOT equally capable as heterosexual ones?


No i'm not. I think you're trying to come in late to a discussion you weren't an active part of. How much of the thread have you actually read?


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

essbee said:


> No i'm not. I think you're trying to come in late to a discussion you weren't an active part of. How much of the thread have you actually read?


Enough to know you're arguments don't make sense


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> By openly discriminating against gays, the military set themselves up for that loophole. Maybe it will cause the military to accept gays with open arms.


The question was asked of why people would lie about being homosexual. I just gave two examples. The other issue of gays in the military is separate obviously.



> Greg Oden is doing this right now. And left-handedness is a largely genetic trait. If people were being denied equal rights for being left handed, I don't know about you, but I'd sure as hell stand up for them.


Um, people who imitate heterosexuals already are afforded full benefits, the issue is that when they go back to "being" gay they aren't still equal for the reasons I stated earlier. The difference being that when Greg Oden is left handed he's able to perform tasks that right handers can. Since I said earlier that homosexual couplings are not the same as heterosexual ones (And also explained that individual rights are not the same as couple-based rights) why are we comparing it to handedness? You already acknowledge the inherent limitations of BEING in a homosexual relationship. You remember that right?


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Pioneer10 said:


> Enough to know your arguments don't make sense


I'll take that to say you haven't been reading long. The stuff you're trying to bring up has already been discussed. Just go back and re-read it.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

essbee said:


> I'll take that to say you haven't been reading long. The stuff you're trying to bring up has already been discussed. Just go back and re-read it.


No I did read it back and like I said you're points simply don't hold to even slight scrutiny


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Pioneer10 said:


> No I did read it back and like I said you're points simply don't hold to even slight scrutiny


The discussion was on gay marriage. The point was not that gay individuals don't hold equality to straight individuals, it was that gay couplings are not equivalent to hetero ones, because of limited capability due to biology.

again, you don't know what you're talking about, you haven't read the thread, so go back and re-read it, or stop speaking nonsense based on statements you have no frame of reference for. Coming in this late and acting like an authority when you haven't been a part of the discussion is asinine.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

essbee said:


> The discussion was on gay marriage. The point was not that gay individuals don't hold equality to straight individuals, it was that gay couplings are not equivalent to hetero ones, because of limited capability due to biology.
> 
> again, you don't know what you're talking about, you haven't read the thread, so go back and re-read it, or stop speaking nonsense based on statements you have no frame of reference for. Coming in this late and acting like an authority when you haven't been a part of the discussion is asinine.


Sorry but you're points are asinine. By you're logic just transferred a hetero couple who happen to be older (i.e. 50 and byeond) who cannot reproduce by any natural means should not enjoy the same priviledge as a younger couple in terms of marriage


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Pioneer10 said:


> Sorry but you're points are asinine. By you're logic just transferred a hetero couple who happen to be older (i.e. 50 and byeond) who cannot reproduce by any natural means should not enjoy the same priviledge as a younger couple in terms of marriage


Already addressed earlier, with the difference explained between individual reasons for infertility and the traits of a coupling. Only one is relevant in the discussion of comparing a coupling's capability. Discussed AT LENGTH. Thank you for confirming you were lying about reading back into the thread.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> Um, people who imitate heterosexuals already are afforded full benefits, the issue is that when they go back to "being" gay they aren't still equal for the reasons I stated earlier. The difference being that when Greg Oden is left handed he's able to perform tasks that right handers can. Since I said earlier that homosexual couplings are not the same as heterosexual ones (And also explained that individual rights are not the same as couple-based rights) why are we comparing it to handedness? You already acknowledge the inherent limitations of BEING in a homosexual relationship. You remember that right?


Do you even remember what we were talking about?

You said that you can't change something that's supposed to be innate. I explained, as a counterexample, that if necessary, a left-handed person can switch to his right hand to perform tasks that need to be done. That doesn't make him right handed.

Just as a lesbian can have sex with a man if she has to reproduce. That doesn't mean she's not a lesbian anymore. 

These are very simple analogies, and you're insistence on going back to the marriage topic indicates that either:
1) You just forgot that the discussion was currently about whether an innate trait can be acted against, or
2) You fully understood the point I was making and chose not to address my counterexample. 

The fact is that homosexuality is at least partly due to genetics. It occurs very often in nature. In fact, its frequency in nature damages your argument about disallowing gay marriages. (The argument that it is somehow inferior). It seems to get along just fine in nature.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

essbee said:


> Already addressed earlier, with the difference explained between individual reasons for infertility and the traits of a coupling. Only one is relevant in the discussion of comparing a coupling's capability. Discussed AT LENGTH. Thank you for confirming you were lying about reading back into the thread.


Just because it's "discussed" doesn't mean a point was proven which again confirms that you don't know what you're talking about.

i.e. this is you're previous post on the subject which still doens't make sense




> Which is the primary proof. Not because reproduction is necessary from all marriages, but because a union which has a 0% reproduction rate, not because of fertility of its members but because of biological incompatibility, seems obviously to have deficiencies compared to those that don't.
> 
> The typical counterargument is generally that "they don't need to reproduce" but again, we're comparing a coupling's capabilities.
> 
> ...


Because there are PLENTY of heterosexual couples who don't want children (I know several of them) and the fact that older men for example can and do marry younger women who can reproduce but often CHOOSE to do marry older women who know they have no chance of reproduction


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

essbee said:


> The discussion was on gay marriage. The point was not that gay individuals don't hold equality to straight individuals, it was that gay couplings are not equivalent to hetero ones, because of limited capability due to biology.


But this entire time you've been making a faulty assumption that marriage and "coupling" (sexually) are either the same thing or inextricably linked. That's a human construction that wouldn't have happened were were majority or 100% homosexual.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> Do you even remember what we were talking about?
> 
> You said that you can't change something that's supposed to be innate. I explained, as a counterexample, that if necessary, a left-handed person can switch to his right hand to perform tasks that need to be done. That doesn't make him right handed.
> 
> ...


No, I stated that things that are innate and can be changed learn more towards *TENDENCIES* than they do towards things like race and gender. I said it repeatedly. You're confirming it by saying that it's "partly due" to genetics. It's not equivalent to those things.

You're incorrect. The frequency doesn't mean it's not inferior, it means that the other coupling which counters it makes up for its incapabilities. Cell deterioration occurs in nature too... FREQUENTLY. AS said at the beginning of the thread, simply pointing to the existence of something does not in fact eliminate it as being maladaptive. This is a logical fallacy, the argument that "if it's always been there..."


The reason your analogy doesn't work is simple

The tasks that can be completed by a left handed person can be completed by a right handed person.

The tasks that can be completed by a heterosexual couple cannot be completed by a homosexual couple.


do you see the difference or really believe your analogy makes sense?


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> But this entire time you've been making a faulty assumption that marriage and "coupling" (sexually) are either the same thing or inextricably linked. That's a human construction that wouldn't have happened were were majority or 100% homosexual.


*Futuristxen *and I have been barking up that tree pretty much the whole thread. He hasn't accepted it by now, and I don't think he is going to


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> But this entire time you've been making a faulty assumption that marriage and "coupling" (sexually) are either the same thing or inextricably linked. That's a human construction that wouldn't have happened were were majority or 100% homosexual.



Marriage and coupling ARE linked in our society because MARRIAGE is a human construction, and its definition comes from the standard. What are you talking about?

btw you asked for why people would lie about being homosexual to get something, I gave two examples.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> *Futuristxen *and I have been barking up that tree pretty much the whole thread. He hasn't accepted it by now, and I don't think he is going to


I feel the same way about my points, since the comparative traits of homosexual and hetero couplings would still stand if marriage didn't exist, we jut wouldn't have a reason to differentiate between the two.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

essbee said:


> No, I stated that things that are innate and can be changed learn more towards *TENDENCIES* than they do towards things like race and gender.


But sexuality can't be changed. This has been pointed out to you ad nauseum. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.



> The reason your analogy doesn't work is simple
> 
> The tasks that can be completed by a left handed person can be completed by a right handed person.
> 
> The tasks that can be completed by a heterosexual couple cannot be completed by a homosexual couple.


What you've left out is that tasks that can be completed by a homosexual couple cannot be completed by a heterosexual couple. The example brought up in this thread was that a partnership of two males can stake out more territory for their family than a male and female. There are other examples in evolutionary theory as to why homosexual members of the society are beneficial to the race and their own genetics, rather than maladaptive.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> But sexuality can't be changed. This has been pointed out to you ad nauseum. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.


Changed? I said it can be suspended, it can be ignored by the possessor. If that's the case, it's not a rights-deserving trait. Ask the gay rights community in 1998 if Anne Heche is a lesbian. Ask them now if she is. They just have to go off of what she says and does. That's not equivalent to race and gender.






> What you've left out is that tasks that can be completed by a homosexual couple cannot be completed by a heterosexual couple. The example brought up in this thread was that a partnership of two males can stake out more territory for their family than a male and female. There are other examples in evolutionary theory as to why homosexual members of the society are beneficial to the race and their own genetics, rather than maladaptive.


Actually I didn't leave them out. I addressed them and said that the advantages of hetero couplings outweighed the disadvantages, including saying that if mankind were "either/or" only one of those couplings would allow for survival of the species. Did you not read those posts?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

essbee said:


> Marriage and coupling ARE linked in our society because MARRIAGE is a human construction, and its definition comes from the standard. What are you talking about?


I'm returning to your oft-used hypothetical about what if the species were 100% homosexual, in which case, our human construct of marriage would NOT link in reproduction. It would simply be an outside event in the service of the race, like banding together for national defense. You keep acting like the relationship of a partnership and the reproduction act being linked is some universal principle that would exist no matter what, and therefore a 100% homosexual society would die out or have to go "outside the relationship."

However, you're wrong. If humans were 100% homosexual, reproduction wouldn't be considered a part of the relationship, so no one would consider it going "outside the relationship" to reproduce for society's benefit.



> btw you asked for why people would lie about being homosexual to get something, I gave two examples.


By the way, I responded to that post. I didn't find your reasoning compelling and explained why.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

essbee said:


> Changed? I said it can be suspended, it can be ignored by the possessor. If that's the case, it's not a rights-deserving trait.


Again, this has never determined what is "rights-deserving". As I already pointed out to you (and you, as always, ignored), religion is something that can be chosen, changed, ignored and/or suspended. Therefore, by your logic, it is not "rights-deserving." Try and make a law, then, that forbids Jews from marrying or Christians from voting.



> Actually I didn't leave them out. I addressed them and said that the advantages of hetero couplings outweighed the disadvantages, including saying that if mankind were "either/or" only one of those couplings would allow for survival of the species. Did you not read those posts?


I did. But it's not "either/or." Which completely invalidates your point.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> No, I stated that things that are innate and can be changed learn more towards *TENDENCIES* than they do towards things like race and gender. I said it repeatedly. You're confirming it by saying that it's "partly due" to genetics. It's not equivalent to those things.
> 
> You're incorrect. The frequency doesn't mean it's not inferior, it means that the other coupling which counters it makes up for its incapabilities. Cell deterioration occurs in nature too... FREQUENTLY. AS said at the beginning of the thread, simply pointing to the existence of something does not in fact eliminate it as being maladaptive. This is a logical fallacy, the argument that "if it's always been there..."
> 
> ...


The only judgment I made on the homosexual vs. heterosexual relationships is that they homosexual relationships cannot be labeled with the "inferior" label, as you so desperately want to do. Don't worry, no logical fallacy has been committed. In order to invoke "inferior", you have to bring reproduction into the equation. And as we've already established, reproduction and sexuality are two separate issues.

And your arguments at the end are wrong. The tasks can be completed by both heterosexual couples and homosexual couples. Your statement is just wrong. It's been pointed out to you repeatedly, but you don't get it.

Anyway, I have to work early, so I'm off. It's been a good discussion. I don't know if you're young like me or older, but either way, try to keep an open mind about what benefit it would do our country to treat everyone as equals. Sometimes it just takes stepping back from all the details and giving people support, even if you disagree with their actions.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> I'm returning to your oft-used hypothetical about what if the species were 100% homosexual, in which case, our human construct of marriage would NOT link in reproduction. It would simply be an outside event in the service of the race, like banding together for national defense. You keep acting like the relationship of a partnership and the reproduction act being linked is some universal principle that would exist no matter what, and therefore a 100% homosexual society would die out or have to go "outside the relationship."


And I said that even without marriage, if 100% of the population stayed in homosexual couplings, even if they were all fertile, the population would die out. That's why the relationship of partnership and reproduction is a universal consistent.



[/quote]However, you're wrong. If humans were 100% homosexual, reproduction wouldn't be considered a part of the relationship, so no one would consider it going "outside the relationship" to reproduce for society's benefit.[/quote]

lmao.

COUPLING is independent of the term marriage. If men only had sex with men, and women with women, the species would die out. The people who had sex in different arrangements would be doing what? Circumventing the LIMITATIONS of their coupling? What could possibly be complicating this for you?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

essbee said:


> And I said that even without marriage, if 100% of the population stayed in homosexual couplings, even if they were all fertile, the population would die out. That's why the relationship of partnership and reproduction is a universal consistent.


And that's wrong. In a 100% homosexual society, partnership (in this context) and reproduction would not be linked. What could possibly be making this extremely easy and obvious point difficult for you to get, guy?

Your claim that it's a "universal consistent" (I assume you mean "constant") is factually wrong. You can look at the animal kingdom for many, many different arrangements, plenty of which do not link reproduction with partnerships.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> The only judgment I made on the homosexual vs. heterosexual relationships is that they homosexual relationships cannot be labeled with the "inferior" label, as you so desperately want to do. Don't worry, no logical fallacy has been committed. In order to invoke "inferior", you have to bring reproduction into the equation. And as we've already established, reproduction and sexuality are two separate issues.


That's wrong. Reproduction and INDIVIDUAL sexuality are two separate issues. If discussing the *merits or traits* of sexuality based COUPLINGS they are not separate issues because of the way our type of organisms reproduce. 



> And your arguments at the end are wrong. The tasks can be completed by both heterosexual couples and homosexual couples. Your statement is just wrong. It's been pointed out to you repeatedly, but you don't get it.
> 
> Anyway, I have to work early, so I'm off. It's been a good discussion. I don't know if you're young like me or older, but either way, try to keep an open mind about what benefit it would do our country to treat everyone as equals. Sometimes it just takes stepping back from all the details and giving people support, even if you disagree with their actions.


No your conclusions are wrong.

Homosexual couples, such as two men, can never do certain things hetero couples can, unless they stop being exclusively homosexual couples... I mean seriously it's an empirically provable idea. If a homosexual couple exists by themselves, the species has zero chance of survival, even if this is two fertile people, because biologically they are not conducive to reproduction.

If a heterosexual couple, a man and a woman, are both fertile, they have a chance of reproduction. 

You're attempting to say that homosexuals can go outside of their coupling in order to do what the heterosexual couple is capable of. The point you're missing is that it's the ABILITY of the coupling, by definition, that makes one superior. I've (ad nauseum) repeated the ways people are using straw man to attempt to switch the argument from couplings to individuals.


Consider the ramifications of an intellectually lazy country that bases its decisions on peer pressure and not the kind of browbeating we see being given out by liberal fascists like future. Ask yourself if that's genuine progress.





Peace, i have to be at work too, i'm gonna finish watching this ****ty movie and turn in. It was interesting talking to ya.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

And if you're wondering, most scholarly writings on this topic separate

sexual orientation
sexual attraction
sexual behavior.

Since homosexuality is categorized as sexual orientation, calling it merely sexual attraction is inaccurate. It's just an FYI. I think orientation is a combination of attraction, behavior, etc, not simply attraction. Some argue that it also involves sexual identity which is why transgendered people are involved in the movements for homosexuals.


----------



## knicksfan89 (Jan 6, 2005)

yes and it's britain's very own john amaechi our most succesful nba player at that


----------



## BullSoxChicagosFinest (Oct 22, 2005)

this thread is ridiculous. one page is about amaechi, the other 29 are not, time to leave the nba forum...


----------



## Maestro (May 28, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> There's a law in Washington they are trying to pass where if people don't have children after 3 years of being married, then their marriage would be voided. That would be a hoot if it passed.
> 
> I'm actually against marriage on any level. I think it's a stupid silly institution. But if you're going to have it, then I don't see why gay couples should be excluded.


well said:yay: marriage should be a simple civil affair overseen by the state. With all the attendant legal status that would accompany that process.

And if people wanted to get married due to religious beliefs they should feel free to knock themselves out.


----------



## Maestro (May 28, 2002)

Brandname said:


> I would be ok with that. Except I would say that marriage should then not be a legal document at all.
> 
> To get the legal advantages, every couple must get a civil union in a court. Including those that will later go on to be married in a church. That's the only way you can prevent the government from denying gay couples.
> 
> You should not get legal benefits from any church ceremony.


Oops my bad, I posted previously on this topic before I got to this point in the thread(this thread is fun but exhausting).


----------



## Maestro (May 28, 2002)

eymang said:


> Wow, you too are going compare what they went through to what Gays are going through today. So because they suffered through something horrible and were able to do what I described, you are saying they have a relationship with gays today. Great logic. I am allowed to hang out with fans of my favorite team at a local sports bar. Someone please treat me better. Don't forget that little part of it being a little easier to tell who black people were, or how the known way Jews were forced to be shown to be separate or different by the gold star. Oh yeah, gays also go through this, except they choose to represent the 'gay pride' symbol or colrs themselves. My main point is that people act as if someone puts a gun to a random person's head and asks their sexual preference when it is them themselves who are pointing the difference out. People take others more seriously when they aren't attention whores.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


hey eymang do yourself a favor and check out a documentary titled Paragraph 175. The title is taken from the German penal code of 1871. The Nazis used it as legal justification to go after gay people. And these people were not flaunting themselves or trying to push an agenda, they were just trying to live.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

couple points - haven't read all 48000 posts, so sorry if it's repeat material.

categorizing amechi as courageous is not very accurate, imo, as he doesn't stand to lose much at this point, and does stand to gain (publicity, money).

what he's saying is important, as he is still the very 1st to come out as a gay nba player. ever. those who wish to dismiss this as a who cares and it's no big deal why announce it (most taking this stance seem to have a problem with it), should consider that it's never happened before. the nothing to see here when we've never seen it before doesn't quite hold up.

on gay marriage, what would be the consequences to society if they were permitted to marry? there's this tango going on about the superiority of one type of coupling, but what's the consequence of allowing gays to marry? would my heterosexual marriage mean less? would my vows to my wife take a different meaning? the species survival argument doesn't really hold much water unless we believe homosexuality can become the dominant sexual practice as a result of allowing gay marriage. is that what we believe? 

the main question here that still stands is what should the consequences of coming out be for a professional team sport athlete? THAT has still never happened. that player will have to have courage.


----------



## One on One (Dec 12, 2004)

LOL @ Lebron

"if you're gay and you're not admitting that you are, then you are not trustworthy"


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Maestro said:


> well said:yay: marriage should be a simple civil affair overseen by the state. With all the attendant legal status that would accompany that process.


Marriage should be no such thing. It oughtn't be a government institution at all. The state has no ethical or moral claims to overseeing the relationships of individuals. There should be _no_ civil marriage.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

One on One said:


> LOL @ Lebron
> 
> "if you're gay and you're not admitting that you are, then you are not trustworthy"


kind of bizarre statement by lebron. it's safe in that he's not complaining about someone being gay though. but he still gets to complain about something.

if someone comes out as gay, he's saying the problem would be that they kept it from the team previously? lol.


----------



## One on One (Dec 12, 2004)

I wonder if Lebron is concerned about the sexuality of Anderson Varejao.


----------



## darth-horax (Nov 21, 2005)

His hair IS fabulous!


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

One on One said:


> LOL @ Lebron
> 
> "if you're gay and you're not admitting that you are, then you are not trustworthy"


Where is that quote from?


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

> Orlando’s Grant Hill, who said he didn’t know Amaechi when he was with the Magic, also applauded the decision to go public.
> 
> “The fact that John has done this, maybe it will give others the comfort or confidence
> to come out as well, whether they are playing or retiring,” Hill said.
> ...


Detroit Free Press

i definitely get a vibe of homophobia from lebron and shavlik. and its no surprise that grant hill continues to come across as a classy guy


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

Pimped Out said:


> Detroit Free Press
> 
> i definitely get a vibe of homophobia from lebron and shavlik. and its no surprise that grant hill continues to come across as a classy guy


Thanks for the article.

Shavlik's quote sounded homophobic. Lebron's didn't particularly seem homophobic, just pretty insensitive to the difficulties gays face trying to come out of the closet. I'm surprised he'd say something like that, considering how guarded and pc he usually tries to be. It's not a terribly empathetic statement.

Grant Hill is, and always will be one of the most educated, well-spoken, and classy guys in the NBA. He's one of the guys kids should really look up to.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

Pimped Out said:


> Detroit Free Press
> 
> i definitely get a vibe of homophobia from lebron and shavlik. and its no surprise that grant hill continues to come across as a classy guy


I don't sense any homophobia from LeBron at all. He was stating that any player who is gay and is hiding it should openly tell their teammates. He was saying it's hard to trust someone when they are most likely lying about who they really are. In fact it sounds like he is pretty far from homophobic. The guy in the paper is saying "LeBron doesn't think an openly gay man could survive" but then uses the quote where LeBron basically says that he would want someone who is gay to come out and say it. When he talked about the locker room code and stuff he was saying if he told his teammates it would stay there. That is the trust factor. Doesn't sound negative at all. Well at least that's what I took from it...

BTW what is it with guys and thinking gay guys will go for anyone with a penis. Like everytime I hear a comment like "As long as he doesn't bring his gayness on me..." or "I don't want to be in a locker room with no dude that's gay, he'll be looking at my stuff" I cringe... For some reason some people fail to realize that just like guys aren't attracted to all women, homosexual men aren't attracted to all men...


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

Hibachi! said:


> I don't sense any homophobia from LeBron at all. He was stating that any player who is gay and is hiding it should openly tell their teammates. He was saying it's hard to trust someone when they are most likely lying about who they really are. In fact it sounds like he is pretty far from homophobic. The guy in the paper is saying "LeBron doesn't think an openly gay man could survive" but then uses the quote where LeBron basically says that he would want someone who is gay to come out and say it. When he talked about the locker room code and stuff he was saying if he told his teammates it would stay there. That is the trust factor. Doesn't sound negative at all. Well at least that's what I took from it...
> 
> BTW what is it with guys and thinking gay guys will go for anyone with a penis. Like everytime I hear a comment like "As long as he doesn't bring his gayness on me..." or "I don't want to be in a locker room with no dude that's gay, he'll be looking at my stuff" I cringe... For some reason some people fail to realize that just like guys aren't attracted to all women, homosexual men aren't attracted to all men...


"You’ve heard of the in-room, locker room code. What happens in the locker room stays in there. It’s a trust factor, 
honestly. A big trust factor.”

is he openly saying he doesnt want any gay people in the same lockerroom as him? no. but read between the lines

edit: i do agree with the second part of your post


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

Hibachi! said:


> I don't sense any homophobia from LeBron at all. He was stating that any player who is gay and is hiding it should openly tell their teammates. He was saying it's hard to trust someone when they are most likely lying about who they really are. In fact it sounds like he is pretty far from homophobic. The guy in the paper is saying "LeBron doesn't think an openly gay man could survive" but then uses the quote where LeBron basically says that he would want someone who is gay to come out and say it. When he talked about the locker room code and stuff he was saying if he told his teammates it would stay there. That is the trust factor. Doesn't sound negative at all. Well at least that's what I took from it...
> 
> BTW what is it with guys and thinking gay guys will go for anyone with a penis. Like everytime I hear a comment like "As long as he doesn't bring his gayness on me..." or "I don't want to be in a locker room with no dude that's gay, he'll be looking at my stuff" I cringe... For some reason some people fail to realize that just like guys aren't attracted to all women, homosexual men aren't attracted to all men...


Yeah, I didn't think Lebron's quote was homophobic at all, either. But it wasn't particularly sensitive to the struggles of the gay community, either. 

I agree on the last part, by the way. And to extend that, I'm not even sure why some guys are so deathly afraid of another guy thinking they are attractive. If I were to find out an unattractive woman finds me attractive, I wouldn't be so up-in-arms about it. I would just tell her I'm not interested, and that would be the end of it. I'm not sure why it would be different with another guy. It's not like his "gayness" is going to rub off on you if he finds you attractive or something.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

Pimped Out said:


> "You’ve heard of the in-room, locker room code. What happens in the locker room stays in there. It’s a trust factor,
> honestly. A big trust factor.”
> 
> is he openly saying he doesnt want any gay people in the same lockerroom as him? no. but read between the lines


Um, I didn't get that impression at all from his quote. It just sounded to me like he wanted the person to tell his teammates if he's gay.


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

Brandname said:


> Um, I didn't get that impression at all from his quote. It just sounded to me like he wanted the person to tell his teammates if he's gay.


i think he would want to know so he could avoid the guy in the locker room. you think if it came out daniel gibson was cheating on his girlfriend and kept it hidden from lebron, lebron would feel lied to and wouldnt want to be gibson's teammate because he felt he couldnt trust him anymore?


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

Pimped Out said:


> i think he would want to know so he could avoid the guy in the locker room. you think if it came out daniel gibson was cheating on his girlfriend and kept it hidden from lebron, lebron would feel lied to and wouldnt want to be gibson's teammate because he felt he couldnt trust him anymore?


I don't know. Nobody knows except Lebron. I am just saying that the Free Press quote doesn't really give any indication that he's homophobic. Just that he sees that type of thing as a trust issue. I disagree, but I don't necessarily think it means he's homophobic.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

c'mon - the trust line is ridiculous. not very well thought out by lebron. 

think about it - a player struggles with the repercussions of being the very first active professional team sport player to come out, and lebron will hold it against him that he didn't come out before or the instant he joined the team? it's laughable.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

kflo said:


> c'mon - the trust line is ridiculous. not very well thought out by lebron.
> 
> think about it - a player struggles with the repercussions of being the very first active professional team sport player to come out, and lebron will hold it against him that he didn't come out before or the instant he joined the team? it's laughable.


I agree. It was a really dumb comment. Very insensitive.


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

More from lebron



> "We spend so much time together, honestly, that we’re kind of like a family," James said. "We take showers with each other after practice. You’re on the bus talking about a lot of things. If you’re sitting there and you’re conversing with us but you’re not sincere about it … you’re kind of hiding it.
> 
> "As teammates, you have to be trustworthy, and if you’re gay and you’re not admitting it that you are, you’re not trustworthy."


http://www.columbusdispatch.com/cavs/cavs.php?story=dispatch/2007/02/08/20070208-E9-04.html

edit: more


> Cavs forward LeBron James said he doesn't know how he'd react to playing with a gay teammate.
> "It's something I'd have to evaluate," he said. "They said he always denied (being gay). One of his biggest regrets was not telling his teammates he was gay. That would be a difficult situation."


http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17824331&BRD=1698&PAG=461&dept_id=21848&rfi=6


----------



## unluckyseventeen (Feb 5, 2006)

Wow, Shavlik Randolph is a moron.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

LeBron's comment wasn't too intelligent, but I don't think it was formed out of homophobia. Just seems to me like some naivete on LeBron's end. He wasn't looking at it from the gay teammate's point of view.


----------



## xray (Feb 21, 2005)

ESPN the Mag did an article a few years ago on Amaechi, and I was very impressed with how articulate and intelligent he came across. One of the points he made was that some people loved the game of basketball - but he wasn't one of them.

In fact, he was rather bored with it.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

The ironic thing about James' comment is that a gay teammate not coming out is probably more about feeling his teammates are untrustworthy (on this particular issue, at least) rather than being untrustworthy himself.


----------



## KingOfTheHeatians (Jul 22, 2005)

It was an incredibly silly comment by LeBron. How someone his age can't grasp the magnitude of a professional athlete announcing he's gay or just as a human being in this country announcing they're gay is beyond me. To say that he couldn't trust a gay man who didn't announce he's gay publicly is just so stupid I don't know what to say.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Somebody should tell Lebron to just shut up on this, because his comments are either contridictory, offensive, or moronic. Either of the three or all three at once. He's getting very close to crossing a line for me.

I thought Shaq had the right attitude about it.

"I'd have to evauluate it..." the **** Lebron? Sounding like George Bush.

Aghhh. Kids. That's one thing going to college would have helped with. He could have gotten more exposure to a wider variety of people before coming into the league and roping himself off from the world.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Spriggan said:


> LeBron's comment wasn't too intelligent, but I don't think it was formed out of homophobia. Just seems to me like some naivete on LeBron's end. He wasn't looking at it from the gay teammate's point of view.


I agree, not too intelligent but not even close to the level of say, Shavlik Randolph.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Shavlik Randolph's Duke Education at work.


----------



## KingOfTheHeatians (Jul 22, 2005)

Randolph just sounded like some ignorant frat boy. I'm not ready to go out on a limb and say LeBron is a homophobe, but his comments were at the least very insensitive. I'd like very much to hear him clarify what exactly he meant.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

KingOfTheHeatians said:


> It was an incredibly silly comment by LeBron. How someone his age can't grasp the magnitude of a professional athlete announcing he's gay or just as a human being in this country announcing they're gay is beyond me. To say that he couldn't trust a gay man who didn't announce he's gay publicly is just so stupid I don't know what to say.


He's talking about someone among friends who pretends to be something he's not. He's saying that if you think you know someone well and they have a huge secret they're keeping from people they're around day and night for about half a year, that person isn't trustworthy. I don't see what's incredibly silly about it.

But then, pretty much anybody is gonna be given the "bravery" card in this situation by most people even if they're not.


----------



## One on One (Dec 12, 2004)

futuristxen said:


> Shavlik Randolph's Duke Education at work.


More like his conservative background.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

I see where Bron is coming from, but Shavlik's comments are just dumbfounding


----------



## KingOfTheHeatians (Jul 22, 2005)

essbee said:


> He's talking about someone among friends who pretends to be something he's not. He's saying that if you think you know someone well and they have a huge secret they're keeping from people they're around day and night for about half a year, that person isn't trustworthy. I don't see what's incredibly silly about it.
> 
> But then, pretty much anybody is gonna be given the "bravery" card in this situation by most people even if they're not.


I'm sorry but you're completely off base with this. You have no frame of reference for divulging that you're a homosexual and neither do I. It's not something we can personally relate to. A player could not come out to all of his teammates and not have it come out publicly. Not in this day and age. And for LeBron to say in one breath that a gay NBA player couldn't survive and then in the next breath say that they're untrustworthy for not admitting it is blatantly hypcrotical and flat out stupid.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

KingOfTheHeatians said:


> I'm sorry but you're completely off base with this. You have no frame of reference for divulging that you're a homosexual and neither do I. It's not something we can personally relate to. A player could not come out to all of his teammates and not have it come out publicly. Not in this day and age. And for LeBron to say in one breath that a gay NBA player couldn't survive and then in the next breath say that they're untrustworthy for not admitting it is blatantly hypcrotical and flat out stupid.


I think you're completely wrong. Magic Johnson talked about a disease that at the time was SO misunderstood and stigmatized that people not only said he was gay just for having it, they actually tried to use his kissing Zeke at half court as proof of him being gay. 

And Magic Johnson was an ACTIVE player, MAGIC JOHNSON was a superstar, yet he had the bravery to not only talk about his disease, but to use it as a chance to educate people about it. But you're gonna sit here and say that since I'm not gay I don't have a frame of reference for what constitutes bravery and what constitutes lying to people? 

Please.

Like I said no matter what gay public figures do people will try to find a way to paint them in a positive light. If a guy does come out after he's done playing, he's brave. If he doesn't, he's brave. If he just exists, he's brave.


----------



## KingOfTheHeatians (Jul 22, 2005)

Magic Johnson RETIRED from the NBA when he found out he had HIV. We're talking about an active player making an announcement that he's gay, then having to live with the reaction to it for his entire career. He'd have to live with all the bigotry and negative stigma that goes with it for his entire career. He'd also risk being cut by his team if he wasn't a player who was integral to the team's success. He'd have to deal with heckling and insults from opposing fans and likely from some of his own team's fans on a nightly basis. He'd be shunned by at least some of his teammates and looked at differently by others. The stigma of being a gay man in this country is still very large and you can magnify that by about 100 when you're talking about young professional athletes in team sports. 

Again, Magic RETIRED when he made his announcement. And he was announcing a medical condition that anyone who did play against him would have the right to know about. It's not the same. I admire Magic for using his celebrity to educate people about his illness. Then again, being Magic made it a lot easier for him than it would've been for someone else. A player like John Amaechi would've been putting his career at risk by announcing he was gay, whether you want to believe it or not.

By the tone of your posts, it seems like you might have your own issues with homosexuals.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

KingOfTheHeatians said:


> Magic Johnson RETIRED from the NBA when he found out he had HIV. We're talking about an active player making an announcement that he's gay, then having to live with the reaction to it for his entire career. He'd have to live with all the bigotry and negative stigma that goes with it for his entire career. He'd also risk being cut by his team if he wasn't a player who was integral to the team's success. He'd have to deal with heckling and insults from opposing fans and likely from some of his own team's fans on a nightly basis. He'd be shunned by at least some of his teammates and looked at differently by others. The stigma of being a gay man in this country is still very large and you can magnify that by about 100 when you're talking about young professional athletes in team sports.


The stigma a gay athlete would face is not nearly as bad as what Jackie Robinson went through, or what Magic even went through with the lack of education about aids at that time. It's not even close. Lol @ 'risk being cut by the team.' No actually he wouldn't, not in an NBA where you get fined 10k just for saying you're playing in the dunk contest only for money. The NBA is more image conscious than ever, and it wouldn't cut a player for announcing he was gay. Wow he'd be shunned? That's amazing. When Dennis Rodman said he spent time in gay bars what were the consequences? Because... we kinda have a frame of reference for it.. you know with him writing a hugely lettered book and all.



> Again, Magic RETIRED when he made his announcement.


He played the All-Star game for the NBA and also played on the Olympic Dream Team. So... I assumed you realized that?



> And he was announcing a medical condition that anyone who did play against him would have the right to know about. It's not the same.


you're right, what Magic did was a lot harder.



> I admire Magic for using his celebrity to educate people about his illness. Then again, being Magic made it a lot easier for him than it would've been for someone else.


Wrong, being Magic meant he had a lot more to lose than the walking towerr of power we know as Aemechi. More endorsements to lose, more angered fans, more business ventures put at risk, more of a reputation to be damaged.



> By the tone of your posts, it seems like you might have your own issues with homosexuals.


I don't believe in automatically kissing their asses due to political correctness, if that's what you mean.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

essbee said:


> He's talking about someone among friends who pretends to be something he's not. He's saying that if you think you know someone well and they have a huge secret they're keeping from people they're around day and night for about half a year, that person isn't trustworthy. I don't see what's incredibly silly about it.


Of course you don't see what's silly about it. You have the empathetic abilities of a garden gnome. Your clarification of Lebron's comments only make me like them worse.


----------



## KingOfTheHeatians (Jul 22, 2005)

You're really reaching by pulling Jackie Robinson out of a hat. No one brought him up except for you. But if you think I was exaggerating the consequences of an NBA player coming out publicly, then you're clueless. That's exactly how it would be. And yes, they would run the risk of being cut if it was a marginal player. The "NBA" doesn't cut anyone. NBA franchises do. David Stern doesn't get to decide what personnel moves the league's franchises want to make. If an NBA team decides that a player isn't good enough to warrant dealing with the media circus that would follow a public outing of a gay player, then there would be a great chance that they would get rid of that player. You're a fool to think otherwise. 

There's no point in comparing Magic having HIV to Amaechi being gay because they're two completely different circumstances involving two completely different people. Amaechi didn't "catch" homosexuality. It's who he is and whether you believe it or not that affects the way people look at someone more than any disease someone gets. People feel sorry for a person with a disease. Lots of people look at a gay person as being a deviant or a sinner.

The main point is that LeBron was being incredibly silly to say that an active NBA player would be untrustworthy for not announcing he was gay considering the consequences of making such an announcement. And what is it of LeBron's business anyway. Does he expect every one of his teammates to divulge every aspect of their lives to him? What if a teammate has a gambling problem? Does he have to tell LeBron? What if he has herpes? Is that LeBron's business, too?


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

KingOfTheHeatians said:


> You're really reaching by pulling Jackie Robinson out of a hat. No one brought him up except for you.


I'm using Jackie Robinson as a barometer of legitimate courage and amazing obstacles. Coming out as a homosexual in today's society isn't nearly what things like that are.



> And yes, they would run the risk of being cut if it was a marginal player.


I love how you keep saying "if it was a marginal player." All marginal players are at risk of being cut. That's why they're marginal players.



> If an NBA team decides that a player isn't good enough to warrant dealing with the media circus that would follow a public outing of a gay player, then there would be a great chance that they would get rid of that player. You're a fool to think otherwise.


you're a moron to think that the same NBA franchises which spend so much time and effort on marketing would be willing to cut a marginal player or any other kind, only because he's gay in today's political climate. You're exaggerating the severity of the situation.

If you want to see what it's like for actively gay personnel in sports, lets' see what Billy Bean's experience has been... 


hm... lots of talk about moneyball (which is crap by the way), lots of talk about the A's early playoff exits... out of curiosity if you follow baseball how much do you hear them talk about Bean being gay?


Here's his BOOK about being gay and playing in the majors.


Link to his official site

Can you tell me where the backlash has been? How has it kept him from acquiring crappy players like Charles Thomas in trades?



> There's no point in comparing Magic having HIV to Amaechi being gay because they're two completely different circumstances involving two completely different people. Amaechi didn't "catch" homosexuality. It's who he is and whether you believe it or not that affects the way people look at someone more than any disease someone gets. People feel sorry for a person with a disease. Lots of people look at a gay person as being a deviant or a sinner.


 Yeah you're right, people look at gay people as being deviants or sinners, but NOT people with AIDS. They see that the same way they see cancer. That's a BRILLIANT argument.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Wow, LeBron is an idiot.

I know if I was gay and in the NBA (and I still believe these players come in maybe once every 5 years at most) I wouldn't be brave enough to come out.


----------



## Burn (Feb 2, 2003)

Barkley just said he and Kenny have played with gay teammates. INTERESTING.


----------



## KingOfTheHeatians (Jul 22, 2005)

essbee said:


> I'm using Jackie Robinson as a barometer of legitimate courage and amazing obstacles. Coming out as a homosexual in today's society isn't nearly what things like that are.


So, are you saying that an NBA player coming out as gay while he's playing would not be an example of "legitimate courage?" That's pretty telling on your part.



> I love how you keep saying "if it was a marginal player." All marginal players are at risk of being cut. That's why they're marginal players.


Not all marginal players are at risk of being cut EXPRESSLY BECAUSE they're homosexuals. The league is filled with journeymen players. They're easily replaceable. That's why a gay journeymen would be at risk of being cut and/or blackballed from the league.



> you're a moron to think that the same NBA franchises which spend so much time and effort on marketing would be willing to cut a marginal player or any other kind, only because he's gay in today's political climate. You're exaggerating the severity of the situation.


They don't have to admit they're cutting him because his gay. And if it's not a great player, they would already have a built-in excuse. And unfortunately, there are more people out there who share yours, LeBron's and Randolph's views of gays than don't. 



> If you want to see what it's like for actively gay personnel in sports, lets' see what Billy Bean's experience has been...
> 
> hm... lots of talk about moneyball (which is crap by the way), lots of talk about the A's early playoff exits... out of curiosity if you follow baseball how much do you hear them talk about Bean being gay?


You know full well that he didn't admit to being gay until after his playing career was over. And you can't possibly be dumb enough to not know the difference between being gay in the front office and being gay in the locker room.



> Yeah you're right, people look at gay people as being deviants or sinners, but NOT people with AIDS. They see that the same way they see cancer. That's a BRILLIANT argument.


Magic was a heterosexual man who got HIV from having unprotected sex with women. Magic even joked about how many women he used to sleep with in one of his post-announcement interviews. And uh, the reason why HIV had such a negative connotation at the time was because people associated it with homosexuality, which is kind of the point I'm making. IT'S HOMOSEXUALITY THAT GAVE HIV THAT STIGMA. If you had it, they assumed you were gay, which is why they hated you. Get the point? LOTS OF PEOPLE HATE GAYS. That's what I'm trying to say.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

essbee said:


> I think you're completely wrong. Magic Johnson talked about a disease that at the time was SO misunderstood and stigmatized that people not only said he was gay just for having it, they actually tried to use his kissing Zeke at half court as proof of him being gay.
> 
> And Magic Johnson was an ACTIVE player, MAGIC JOHNSON was a superstar, yet he had the bravery to not only talk about his disease, but to use it as a chance to educate people about it.


Magic Johnson was *A.* one of the most-loved athletes in America at the time (people cried when they heard about this) and *B.* had no choice, because it was forcing him into retirement.

While it must have taken some bravery to talk about it, he was the athlete most likely to have America's goodwill behind him.

There's no comparison between that and an active player who will be in the league for years to come and doesn't have a great store of love for him around the nation.



> But you're gonna sit here and say that since I'm not gay I don't have a frame of reference for what constitutes bravery and what constitutes lying to people?


The fact that you seem to be a pretty militant hard-liner against homosexuals (and not necessarily because you hate homosexuals, but it seems more like you're trying to lash back at "the liberal agenda") suggests that you don't have a good frame of reference. I know out-and-out homophobes who wouldn't go as far as you in saying that homosexuals who remain in the closet are "lying to people."

LeBron's comments are absurd because there's no balance of investment. _Hearing_ that a teammate is gay is a hell of a lot easier than admitting that you are gay, when you work in a culture that has been historically homophobic. He acts like his right to know trumps a homosexual's right to privacy and limiting vulnerability. That's clearly silly. If a teammate came out of the closet, James' life would pretty much go on unchanged. His teammate's life would be altered forever and quite likely in a very negative manner.


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

essbee said:


> He's talking about someone among friends who pretends to be something he's not. He's saying that if you think you know someone well and they have a huge secret they're keeping from people they're around day and night for about half a year, that person isn't trustworthy. I don't see what's incredibly silly about it.
> 
> But then, pretty much anybody is gonna be given the "bravery" card in this situation by most people even if they're not.


personally, if i found out a good friend of mine is gay, i wouldnt be upset that i was lied to. i would feel upset he lives in a world and is surrounded by people who he doesnt feel comfortable being himself around. and its people who say things like shavlik randolph and steven hunter and even lebron that make them scared to come out or people like sloan you constantly use anti-gay slurs.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Pimped Out said:


> personally, if i found out a good friend of mine is gay, i wouldnt be upset that i was lied to. i would feel upset he lives in a world and is surrounded by people who he doesnt feel comfortable being himself around. and its people who say things like shavlik randolph and steven hunter and even lebron that make them scared to come out or people like sloan you constantly use anti-gay slurs.


If you were a good friend of him/her, why would he/she be uncomfortable around you, and why would he/she hide things from you


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Pimped Out said:


> personally, if i found out a good friend of mine is gay, i wouldnt be upset that i was lied to. i would feel upset he lives in a world and is surrounded by people who he doesnt feel comfortable being himself around. and its people who say things like shavlik randolph and steven hunter and even lebron that make them scared to come out or people like sloan you constantly use anti-gay slurs.


you must have different definitions of the word friend. If I consider someone a friend, I know major things about them, including what they do for a living, what they hope to do with their lives, how old they are, and what their sexual orientation is. The entire point is that if someone is a legitimate friend you would know major things about them. If your friend lied to you for that long and you didn't know it you must not have been very good friends.


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

essbee said:


> you must have different definitions of the word friend. If I consider someone a friend, I know major things about them, including what they do for a living, what they hope to do with their lives, how old they are, and what their sexual orientation is. The entire point is that if someone is a legitimate friend you would know major things about them. If your friend lied to you for that long and you didn't know it you must not have been very good friends.


Spoken like someone who will never have a friend tell them that they are gay. And I don't say that because you don't have any gay friends. I say that because you are a bigot.


----------



## KingOfTheHeatians (Jul 22, 2005)

You guys act like admitting your gay is the same as admitting you like the movie "Road House." It's a major life event for gay people. They have a hard enough time admitting it to themselves, first of all, then admitting it to their parents. I doubt they're going to tell it to their friends until they're ready to be openly gay, which takes longer for some than others.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

KingOfTheHeatians said:


> So, are you saying that an NBA player coming out as gay while he's playing would not be an example of "legitimate courage?" That's pretty telling on your part.
> 
> Not all marginal players are at risk of being cut EXPRESSLY BECAUSE they're homosexuals. The league is filled with journeymen players. They're easily replaceable. That's why a gay journeymen would be at risk of being cut and/or blackballed from the league.


You're still making excuses by talking about marginal players. The reason you're doing this is you know that NBA teams are NOT going to cut a player just because he's gay. Evan Eschmeyer hung around the league for multiple years for god's sake, just because he was tall. This is, again, an attempt to present a civil rights type of case for something that doesn't warrant it.




> You know full well that he didn't admit to being gay until after his playing career was over. And you can't possibly be dumb enough to not know the difference between being gay in the front office and being gay in the locker room.


And you can't be stupid enough to think that even being gay in a front office, he is still involved in sports, in the same supposedly overly-macho community that we're not hearing would not allow homosexuality. So even if we create a sliding scale for Billy Bean since he's in the front office and not a player, where is the backlash? Where is he being blackballed? 

But this is easy. If it's all about marginal players losing their jobs, would you agree that non-marginal, or star players who don't admit they're homosexual are simply cowards? 



> Magic was a heterosexual man who got HIV from having unprotected sex with women. Magic even joked about how many women he used to sleep with in one of his post-announcement interviews. And uh, the reason why HIV had such a negative connotation at the time was because people associated it with homosexuality, which is kind of the point I'm making. IT'S HOMOSEXUALITY THAT GAVE HIV THAT STIGMA. If you had it, they assumed you were gay, which is why they hated you. Get the point? LOTS OF PEOPLE HATE GAYS. That's what I'm trying to say.


Um I pointed out that people assumed he was gay because of the nature of the disease. even people who don't see it as a gay disease see it as a disease of sin for a culture with sexual freedom. Homosexuality is NOT the only reason HIV has a stigma attached to it. It's because it's an STD. I'm pretty sure Ghonnorhea has a stigma too.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

SeaNet said:


> Spoken like someone who will never have a friend tell them that they are gay. And I don't say that because you don't have any gay friends. I say that because you are a bigot.


So I'm a bigot, but I might have gay friends, but those gay friends wouldn't tell me they were gay? 

Read your post before you hit submit next time, your attempt to sound deep ended up being bad.


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

essbee said:


> So I'm a bigot, but I might have gay friends, but those gay friends wouldn't tell me they were gay?
> 
> Read your post before you hit submit next time, your attempt to sound deep ended up being bad.


Attempt to be deep? Are you so bigotted that you can't tell what I was saying? I guess so.


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

essbee said:


> So I'm a bigot, but I might have gay friends, but those gay friends wouldn't tell me they were gay?
> 
> Read your post before you hit submit next time, your attempt to sound deep ended up being bad.


it made sense to me.

and you are seriously ignorant if you dont think the stigma around HIV in the 80s had to do with the gay community. if you look hard enough, you will still find extreme, bigoted, ignorant people who blame gay people for HIV. when aids first came to light, it was largely associated with the gay community and thought of as a gay disease.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

HB said:


> If you were a good friend of him/her, why would he/she be uncomfortable around you, and why would he/she hide things from you


Perhaps he/she doesn't know how you'd react. Just because you're friends, or even close friends, these reactions are unpredictable. I've had friends who I would have expected to be fine with homosexuality, only to find out, if the topic happened to come up, that they were completely intolerant of them.

So, you never know, and that has to give one pause.


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> Perhaps he/she doesn't know how you'd react. Just because you're friends, or even close friends, these reactions are unpredictable. I've had friends who I would have expected to be fine with homosexuality, only to find out, if the topic happened to come up, that they were completely intolerant of them.
> 
> So, you never know, and that has to give one pause.


on the flip side i have known people who seem like they wouldnt be okay with it and even said they wouldnt be, but ended up being okay with it when one of their friends came out. i guess when they realized someone they knew was gay, they realized it wasnt a big deal and it didnt change.

so i agree, you never know.


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

HB said:


> If you were a good friend of him/her, why would he/she be uncomfortable around you, and why would he/she hide things from you


A very good friend of mine from college didn't come out to me and the Notorious W.I.F.E. until years after we were all out of school. And the Notorious W.I.F.E. and I have got to be two of the least homophobic people on the planet. And this was in San Francisco and the surrounding area, which has to be the least homophobic place in the country. And he still couldn't tell us. It didn't have anything to do w/ us or our relationship w/ our friend. It was an internal thing. He couldn't admit it to himself, because of how his family would react, and then after he could admit it to himself, he couldn't tell anyone else, again because of the prejudices he was raised w/. When a friend can't tell you they are gay, its rarely about you, the friend. Its an internal thing.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

SeaNet said:


> A very good friend of mine from college didn't come out to me and the Notorious W.I.F.E. until years after we were all out of school. And the Notorious W.I.F.E. and I have got to be two of the least homophobic people on the planet. And this was in San Francisco and the surrounding area, which has to be the least homophobic place in the country. And he still couldn't tell us. It didn't have anything to do w/ us or our relationship w/ our friend. It was an internal thing. He couldn't admit it to himself, because of how his family would react, and then after he could admit it to himself, he couldn't tell anyone else, again because of the prejudices he was raised w/. When a friend can't tell you they are gay, its rarely about you, the friend. Its an internal thing.


Good posts Minstrel and SN. I agree with the whole internal thing. I just think for me, I hold friendships to a very high esteem. Considering I have just a handful of people I can call friends, I'd feel really low if one of my friends was scared to be themselves around me.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Amaechi is a BBB legend.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

Amechi was before my time.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Amaechi turned down more cash from the Lakers, after his semi-big year in Orlando in 2000, to stay with Orlando because he felt he owed them some loyalty.

It always takes some guts to leave money on the table for a principle.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> Amaechi turned down more cash from the Lakers, after his semi-big year in Orlando in 2000, to stay with Orlando because he felt he owed them some loyalty.
> 
> It always takes some guts to leave money on the table for a principle.


Either that or he had a boyfriend on the team? Im not gonna say more than that.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Tragedy said:


> Either that or he had a boyfriend on the team? Im not gonna say more than that.


Choosing love over money still embiggens the spirit.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Choosing love over money still embiggens the spirit.


Until the bills come...


----------



## TiMVP2 (Jun 19, 2003)

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Amechi was before my time.



damm foo how old r u i remember him im 13 ive been watching since 9899 though


----------



## Kunlun (Jun 22, 2003)

The big question here is: Which active player in the NBA is gay?




> Amaechi also said he believes there are other gay players in the NBA.
> 
> "I don't know if there are a lot, but there are some," Amaechi said. "But you know … I don't really want to talk about it because I think that the coming out process for these individuals that for some I have been privy to and some I have not, um, it is theirs and theirs alone. And I don't think that they should be pressured or pushed for the good of the gay community or otherwise. They should not be pressured or pushed."
> 
> ...


Richard Jefferson looks pretty gay to me.


----------



## KingOfTheHeatians (Jul 22, 2005)

Stevie Francis and Cuttino Mobley sure made a cute couple. I'd also put it at at least 70% that Shav is a self-loathing homosexual.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Another question i've seen raised is, would it be easier, harder, the same for a basketball player to be gay vs. a baseball or football player? The NFL is so marketed to white middle class bible belt america, and the lack of guaranteed contracts--I would think that unless they were LT they would just be cut before they could come public with it. And baseball...well too many John Smoltz, John Rocker types.

Another thing I wonder about, a lot of players these days are ultra-religious, would there be some guys like Charlie Ward who just couldn't play with a gay player?

Would some coaches be more or less open? Would they care?

It's an interesting question. Whoever does come out, better be signed to a long term contract and be good to great. But I hope it happens sooner than later. It would be nice to cross that thresshold in sports to where it wouldn't even be a topic of discussion.


----------



## hroz (Mar 4, 2006)

This is a good thing being gay shouldnt be something to embarrassed about or something that should be hidden. Here is to more freedom for gay people. 

PS Ted Haggard is a joke he is now apparently he is 100% hetrosexual...........
Go figure.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> Amaechi turned down more cash from the Lakers, after his semi-big year in Orlando in 2000, to stay with Orlando because he felt he owed them some loyalty.
> 
> It always takes some guts to leave money on the table for a principle.


Yeah, it was a 6 year 18 million dollar deal.

Thanks Amaechi!

However Orlando promised him greener pastures down the road if he resigned dirt cheap so that they can get Hill and Tmac.

Of course Orlando didn't pony up when it came time to fulfill their word.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

essbee said:


> And you can't be stupid enough to think that even being gay in a front office, he is still involved in sports, in the same supposedly overly-macho community that we're not hearing would not allow homosexuality. So even if we create a sliding scale for Billy Bean since he's in the front office and not a player, where is the backlash? Where is he being blackballed?


Maybe Billy Beane is not getting blackballed because he is not gay.

Do some research and you might find out a few things... like how there was a player in MLB once called Billy Bean and there was also a player called Billy Beane.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

yeah, a friend not coming out to you is all about YOU. how F'in narcissistic are some people. "i can see them keeping it from everyone else, but ME???" lololol.

and yeah, no big deal coming out in men's professional team sport. i mean, it's only been done NEVER. and the comments of athletes trying to be pc in reacting to a retired player are so universally inviting (which player recently (last year?) said they probably should keep that to themselves (so contradictory, these players)?).

ameachi isn't overly courageous here - he stands to gain more than he can lose at this point. that doesn't mean he can't have a positive impact, and be admirable in the process. lots of people profit while also doing something good / worthwhile.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

JuniorNoboa said:


> Maybe Billy Beane is not getting blackballed because he is not gay????????
> 
> Do some research and you might find out a few things... like how there was a player in MLB once called Billy Bean....


but isn't it still telling that billy bean can be gay, and billy beane can not have any negative repercussions and keep his cushy front office job? doesn't that speak to how far we've come?


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

kflo said:


> but isn't it still telling that billy bean can be gay, and billy beane can not have any negative repercussions and keep his cushy front office job? doesn't that speak to how far we've come?


I'm dumb and I'm not following you.

There are no negative repercussions for Billy Beane being gay, because Billy Beane is straight.

Billy Bean, a completely different person, but also a bit player in the 80's, is gay.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

facetious, jn, i'm being facetious.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Pimped Out said:


> it made sense to me.
> 
> and you are seriously ignorant if you dont think the stigma around HIV in the 80s had to do with the gay community. if you look hard enough, you will still find extreme, bigoted, ignorant people who blame gay people for HIV. when aids first came to light, it was largely associated with the gay community and thought of as a gay disease.


You need reading comprehension lessons. The first thing I said was:


essbee said:


> "Magic Johnson talked about a disease that at the time was SO misunderstood and stigmatized that people not only said he was gay just for having it, they actually tried to use his kissing Zeke at half court as proof of him being gay. "


and then you turn around and said

"you dont think the stigma around HIV in the 80s had to do with the gay community"

I mean seriously could you possibly pay LESS attention?



What I SAID is that homosexuality is not the only stigma associated with HIV, because it's an STD and there are plenty of other stigmas associated with it. Do you need anything else explained to you?


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

JuniorNoboa said:


> Maybe Billy Beane is not getting blackballed because he is not gay.
> 
> Do some research and you might find out a few things... like how there was a player in MLB once called Billy Bean and there was also a player called Billy Beane.


Oh no, an extra "e" confusing two people who worked in the same sport. What a catastrophe. That changes EVERYTHING. Thank god you did that extra research.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

essbee said:


> Oh no, an extra "e" confusing two people who worked in the same sport. What a catastrophe. That changes EVERYTHING. Thank god you did that extra research.


Well given that one is a baseball executive and the other is not, it does change everything with regards to your points on Billy Beane raised earlier in this thread.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> Choosing love over money still embiggens the spirit.


Who says its gotta be love?


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

essbee said:


> You need reading comprehension lessons. The first thing I said was:
> 
> 
> and then you turn around and said
> ...


is your point that because magic endured (coming "out" because he had to - he had to retire from basketball), and jackie robinson endured, it's absolutely no big deal for someone to become the very first active male professional team sport athlete to come out? 

and yes, the "e" at the end of beane does pretty much invalidate your point about him having a front office position.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

JuniorNoboa said:


> Well given that one is a baseball executive and the other is not, it does change everything with regards to your points on Billy Beane raised earlier in this thread.


Yeah, because posting a link to the official website with his book would still leave doubt who was being discussed. Nice logic.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

kflo said:


> is your point that because magic endured (coming "out" because he had to - he had to retire from basketball), and jackie robinson endured, it's absolutely no big deal for someone to become the very first active male professional team sport athlete to come out?
> 
> and yes, the "e" at the end of beane does pretty much invalidate your point about him having a front office position.


Um, my point in the post you just quoted? Pimped Out asked me if I was saying there was no gay stigma attached to the HIV virus, I was addressing that. It was a stupid question since I noted what was re-posted above about people saying Magic was gay once they found out he had HIV.

you're right, he's not a front office exec. He's a former player who's had no repercussions to speak of. He's dramatized his situation to have a post-playing career as a spokesman who noone would otherwise care about. 

It was a simple matter of confusing the spelling.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

essbee said:


> Um, my point in the post you just quoted? Pimped Out asked me if I was saying there was no gay stigma attached to the HIV virus, I was addressing that. It was a stupid question since I noted what was re-posted above about people saying Magic was gay once they found out he had HIV.


no, whats your point on magic, and jackie robinson in the first place? again, is it no big deal to come out, when noone has ever done it before, and we have quotes time after time from players who give an indication that it could be an issue. 



essbee said:


> you're right, he's not a front office exec. He's a former player who's had no repercussions to speak of. He's dramatized his situation to have a post-playing career as a spokesman who noone would otherwise care about.
> 
> It was a simple matter of confusing the spelling.


it wasn't a case of confusing the spelling. you talked about him being active in professional sports. ring a bell? 



> If you want to see what it's like for actively gay personnel in sports, lets' see what Billy Bean's experience has been...
> 
> 
> hm... lots of talk about moneyball (which is crap by the way), lots of talk about the A's early playoff exits... out of curiosity if you follow baseball how much do you hear them talk about Bean being gay?
> ...


and again, your point about bean, an ex-player out of the game and "dramatizing" his situation is what exactly? 

we've never had an active player come out. ever. in any men's major team sport. ex-players coming out at least brings us closer to that day. sorry you have such a problem with it.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

kflo said:


> no, whats your point on magic, and jackie robinson in the first place? again, is it no big deal to come out, when noone has ever done it before, and we have quotes time after time from players who give an indication that it could be an issue.
> 
> 
> it wasn't a case of confusing the spelling. you talked about him being active in professional sports. ring a bell?


Why did you quote that post and ask what the point was about Magic and Jackie when I already said that I use what they had to go through as a barometer of courage? I've already stated what the point was. What gay athletes avoid (and are still called COURAGEOUS for doing nothing about it) pales in comparison to something that people can automatically picked out based on things like skin color. So, no, sorry, I'd rather not hear people act like this is the end of the world for a guy to have to be honest about who he is, when they can instead choose to hide it. And what magic had to address had far more mis-education than homosexuality does.

People try to portray homosexuality in the same context as race in this liberal agenda to make it a civil rights issue, when its' not. Bringing up people like Jackie shows what REAL suffering and endurance is.


Yeah you're right, it's not fair to talk about him as an active player, it was obviously the wrong guy.




> and again, your point about bean, an ex-player out of the game and "dramatizing" his situation is what exactly?


That he's portrayed as brave for doing something that requires little bravery. People are ostracized for things all the time. I'm an agnostic with little respect for religion in a very religious family. Wanna know how that goes over? Should I expect a medal or just be honest and live my life?



> we've never had an active player come out. ever. in any men's major team sport. ex-players coming out at least brings us closer to that day. sorry you have such a problem with it.


and you have to qualify it by saying 'men team sport', because women's tennis, womens' basketball, swimming, figure skating and others are littered with examples of people who are openly gay and play actively.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

essbee said:


> Yeah, because posting a link to the official website with his book would still leave doubt who was being discussed. Nice logic.


Apparently the link you provided gave you no clue who was being discussed. 




----------------------
"
If you want to see what it's like for actively gay personnel in sports, lets' see what Billy Bean's experience has been... 


hm... lots of talk about moneyball (which is crap by the way), lots of talk about the A's early playoff exits... out of curiosity if you follow baseball how much do you hear them talk about Bean being gay?


Here's his BOOK about being gay and playing in the majors.


Link to his official site

Can you tell me where the backlash has been? How has it kept him from acquiring crappy players like Charles Thomas in trades?'


---------------------


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

essbee said:


> Why did you quote that post and ask what the point was about Magic and Jackie when I already said that I use what they had to go through as a barometer of courage? I've already stated what the point was. What gay athletes avoid (and are still called COURAGEOUS for doing nothing about it) pales in comparison to something that people can automatically picked out based on things like skin color. So, no, sorry, I'd rather not hear people act like this is the end of the world for a guy to have to be honest about who he is, when they can instead choose to hide it. And what magic had to address had far more mis-education than homosexuality does.
> 
> People try to portray homosexuality in the same context as race in this liberal agenda to make it a civil rights issue, when its' not. Bringing up people like Jackie shows what REAL suffering and endurance is.


bringing up jackie robinson to trivialize coming out for a gay player? what you don't seem capable of doing is acknowledging what it would be like for a gay athlete to come out. instead of comparing it to other historic examples of courage and suffering, why not just think about the individual in the situation? because jackie suffered more, that makes it no big deal?



essbee said:


> That he's portrayed as brave for doing something that requires little bravery. People are ostracized for things all the time. I'm an agnostic with little respect for religion in a very religious family. Wanna know how that goes over? Should I expect a medal or just be honest and live my life?


i don't think bean or amaechi are particularly brave, and i posted that. but that doesn't mean they don't have a story to tell, that doesn't mean they can't make a difference, and that doesn't mean their story isn't important. 



essbee said:


> and you have to qualify it by saying 'men team sport', because women's tennis, womens' basketball, swimming, figure skating and others are littered with examples of people who are openly gay and play actively.


and because it's a completely different situation, and as mentioned, has never happened before. you of course, don't think it's any major thing to be the first to come forward and deal with the unknown consequences. again, we've got plenty of quotes suggesting it's not all fine and dandy.

just acknowledge that when it does occur, that too will be real courage - it doesn't have to be jackie robinson level courage to still be courage. you just seem hell bent on trivializing and not wanting to hear anything about it.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

kflo said:


> bringing up jackie robinson to trivialize coming out for a gay player? what you don't seem capable of doing is acknowledging what it would be like for a gay athlete to come out. instead of comparing it to other historic examples of courage and suffering, why not just think about the individual in the situation? because jackie suffered more, that makes it no big deal?


If we don't need to compare it to anything why do the people who advocate openly gay players always compare homosexuality to race? It's already been done in this very thread we're talking in right now. 

The reason is that while blacks are coming from a position of things like slavery and jim crow south and the KKK, there isn't nearly the amount of violence or historical bias against homosexuals. Many like J Edgar Hoover were able to keep their lifestyles a secret and still suceed in chosen professions, whereas things like gender and skin color are not concealable. You talk about an athlete ADMITTING he was gay, but Jackie Robinson had RULES in place against him playing in the league, and if it weren't for people like Red Auerbach (RIP) who knows how long blacks would have taken to get into the NBA. It's just not that significant by comparison.




> i don't think bean or amaechi are particularly brave, and i posted that. but that doesn't mean they don't have a story to tell, that doesn't mean they can't make a difference, and that doesn't mean their story isn't important.


I disagree, I think their story is unimportant, and I think they're cowards. Not being honest about who you are (Bean pretended to date women) is simply lying. You can spin it any way you want, but that's cowardice.





> just acknowledge that when it does occur, that too will be real courage - it doesn't have to be jackie robinson level courage to still be courage. you just seem hell bent on trivializing and not wanting to hear anything about it.


Again, my family is Jehovah's witnesses. When someone leaves their church they don't talk to or associate extensively with that person. I told my family that I thought their religion didn't make any sense, stopped going, and moved out of my house. IS that courage? I dont think so, I think it's honesty, and I think people who spend years and years lying to people around them about who they are are simply cowards. If you admit who you are you're just being honest. 

Gender and race are things that don't NEED to be admitted for people to see, which makes the fight much worse because you don't have the convenience of choosing when to fight your battles (I'm sure jackie would have loved to just have played and then talked about being black after his career was over).


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> Why did you quote that post and ask what the point was about Magic and Jackie when I already said that I use what they had to go through as a barometer of courage? I've already stated what the point was. What gay athletes avoid (and are still called COURAGEOUS for doing nothing about it) pales in comparison to something that people can automatically picked out based on things like skin color. So, no, sorry, I'd rather not hear people act like this is the end of the world for a guy to have to be honest about who he is, when they can instead choose to hide it. And what magic had to address had far more mis-education than homosexuality does.


Are you saying gay athletes are called courageous for staying in the closet?



> People try to portray homosexuality in the same context as race in this liberal agenda to make it a civil rights issue, when its' not. Bringing up people like Jackie shows what REAL suffering and endurance is.


Using the phrase "liberal agenda" makes you sound like a partisan nutbag, and I'm not sure that's how you want to sound. I mean really, is this all just politics to you?



> Yeah you're right, it's not fair to talk about him as an active player, it was obviously the wrong guy.
> 
> 
> That he's portrayed as brave for doing something that requires little bravery. People are ostracized for things all the time. I'm an agnostic with little respect for religion in a very religious family. Wanna know how that goes over? Should I expect a medal or just be honest and live my life?


Being a public figure and coming out of the closet requires little bravery? I beg to differ. We've seen how gays are viewed in these threads and in the eyes of many sports players over the past few days, and if I knew I was going to be faced with that kind of prejudice, it would be very difficult for me to come out, too.

The comparison with telling your family you're an agnostic is not even close. 



> and you have to qualify it by saying 'men team sport', because women's tennis, womens' basketball, swimming, figure skating and others are littered with examples of people who are openly gay and play actively.


Are you implying that the dynamic between members of the major men's team sports is the same as those in figure skating, etc?

Because some of the comments we've heard in the past couple of days would indicate otherwise.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> Are you saying gay athletes are called courageous for staying in the closet?
> 
> Using the phrase "liberal agenda" makes you sound like a partisan nutbag, and I'm not sure that's how you want to sound. I mean really, is this all just politics to you?


It's weird you say I sound like a partisan nutjob, but not the guy on your side, future, who said people need to have his opinion beaten into their heads. 

I'm a moderate libertarian if that helps any.




> Being a public figure and coming out of the closet requires little bravery? I beg to differ. We've seen how gays are viewed in these threads and in the eyes of many sports players over the past few days, and if I knew I was going to be faced with that kind of prejudice, it would be very difficult for me to come out, too.
> 
> The comparison with telling your family you're an agnostic is not even close.


Really? lol my family who are jehovah's witnesses don't talk to me. What is the comparison that a gay athlete would have to go through that would make it so much worse as to be "not even close"? I'd like to hear the explanation, since people say the hard part about admitting you're gay to teammates is being OSTRACIZED.





> Are you implying that the dynamic between members of the major men's team sports is the same as those in figure skating, etc?


Does it have to be the same when we're talking about public perception as well? One of the things people said would be so hard was not just the teammates but the reactions of the people who pay the athletes and the general public.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> It's weird you say I sound like a partisan nutjob, but not the guy on your side, future, who said people need to have his opinion beaten into their heads.
> 
> I'm a moderate libertarian if that helps any.


Futuristxen never made any broad political generalizations. With him, it's pretty obvious that the issue is a very personal belief. With you, it's a little more difficult to tell when phrases like "liberal agenda" start coming out (I know you used that phrase when you first came into the thread also.). Those are the types of phrases we often here from hardcore bipartisan conservatives who just view "liberalism" as the enemy. I'm not saying that characterizes you in particular, but it sounds bad when you use phrases like that.

EDIT - it's really not about whether he agrees with me or not. I've mostly only been addressing the posts whose opinions I disagree with, anyway. 



> Really? lol my family who are jehovah's witnesses don't talk to me. What is the comparison that a gay athlete would have to go through that would make it so much worse as to be "not even close"? I'd like to hear the explanation, since people say the hard part about admitting you're gay to teammates is being OSTRACIZED.


I know that it's hard to tell your family something like that. I was raised in a very religious family, as well. When I told them I am an atheist, they basically acted as if I was going to hell and that I am a bad person and all that jazz. 

The difference is that (unless you're in a special circumstance), you are probably not in danger of physical violence from your family. Someone admitting to the entire world that they are homosexual not only draws the crowd (like you, I assume) that shakes their head and disagrees with it, but also a certain group of people who become blind with rage. I don't recall hearing a story about anyone dying because they admitted they are atheist or agnostic. But many people have been beaten/killed because they are homosexual. For some reason, it brings out violent tendencies in many people. 

By admitting that you're gay, you are putting yourself in very possible physical danger. Not to mention it just carries a stronger stigma today than something like atheism does. I make my beliefs well known, and I have been ostracized for them, but I don't think what I go through is even close to what many gay people have to go through when they come out. 



> Does it have to be the same when we're talking about public perception as well? One of the things people said would be so hard was not just the teammates but the reactions of the people who pay the athletes and the general public.


But the public does see these things very differently. As an example, being a lesbian doesn't have the perception of making a woman weaker. So lesbians are not viewed the same way as gay men in sports.

But the 4 major sports are the sports that rely heavily on strength. And whether we like it or not, there is a stigma associated with homosexuality that gay men are effeminate. And so this would be viewed as a weakness in any of these sports.

The other sports we talk about are sports where strength is a major focus. The general stigma associated with gay men means that if it were true, they would be naturally disadvantaged at these sports. This is not true in the other sports that you mentioned because they are perceived as more skill sports than athletic sports.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

Also I should say it's a lot harder to come out of the closet publicly than it is to do it to just your family. The world's perception of you completely changes.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> Futuristxen never made any broad political generalizations. With him, it's pretty obvious that the issue is a very personal belief. With you, it's a little more difficult to tell when phrases like "liberal agenda" start coming out (I know you used that phrase when you first came into the thread also.). Those are the types of phrases we often here from hardcore bipartisan conservatives who just view "liberalism" as the enemy. I'm not saying that characterizes you in particular, but it sounds bad when you use phrases like that.


 If we were addressing affirmative action I'd be identifying the typical "conservative agenda" techniques, like talking about AA as a program that isn't used by whites despite the heavy participation by white women. The reason liberal agenda comes up would seem to be pretty clear at this point.




> I know that it's hard to tell your family something like that. I was raised in a very religious family, as well. When I told them I am an atheist, they basically acted as if I was going to hell and that I am a bad person and all that jazz.
> 
> 
> I don't recall hearing a story about anyone dying because they admitted they are atheist or agnostic. But many people have been beaten/killed because they are homosexual.


And in my family i'm now not invited to weddings, don't know many of my nieces and nephews who i'm very close to, and miss out on the family, which is arguably the most important social structure any of us have. About 80% of my extended family is also Jehovah's Witnesses. And again, they don't simply ostracize people, their belief on disfellowshipping is not to even talk to people even if they're family members. I guess I'm missing the part where you think that it's "not even close" because of the obscure threat of physical violence. But here you go.

Murder of Larry Hooper





> By admitting that you're gay, you are putting yourself in very possible physical danger.


If you can, please define "very possible." 




> But the public does see these things very differently. As an example, being a lesbian doesn't have the perception of making a woman weaker. So lesbians are not viewed the same way as gay men in sports.


 When the rumor came out that Piazza was gay (which honestly had been around since he was here in LA) what happened to him either from the public or organization? Just out of curiosity.




> The other sports we talk about are sports where strength is a major focus. The general stigma associated with gay men means that if it were true, they would be naturally disadvantaged at these sports. This is not true in the other sports that you mentioned because they are perceived as more skill sports than athletic sports.


So you're saying the gap in perception between sports that are seen as skill based and ones that are seen as strength based would change things from almost no real reaction from the public to outright violence? I find that to be a gigantic leap of logic.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> Also I should say it's a lot harder to come out of the closet publicly than it is to do it to just your family. The world's perception of you completely changes.


I don't comprehend your opinion that the viewpoints of people you've never met have more impact than those of your family.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> If we were addressing affirmative action I'd be identifying the typical "conservative agenda" techniques, like talking about AA as a program that isn't used by whites despite the heavy participation by white women. The reason liberal agenda comes up would seem to be pretty clear at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I will give you credit for finding that murder case. I had not previously heard of that case or any like it.

By "very possible", I mean that there are many people out there who wish violence upon gays, and many people who outwardly act on it. You have to be a little more guarded when you make a statement like that that invokes anger in so many people.

As far as the Piazza rumors, they're just rumors. Nobody really gets worked up about rumors. It when they've been confirmed to be true that people start to take it seriously. I've read enough Peter Vescey to immediately stop reading when I hear "rumor". 

I wasn't talking about public violence against gay athletes. I was referring to public perception. And internal perception within an organization. 

Just as an example, these (possibly subconscious) prejudices aren't limited to outright discrimination. Say a GM is evaluating talent he is thinking about obtaining. It's entirely possible that he can be completely on the fence between two players, and subconsciously just feels like the straight player has a little more "it" factor. That he'll have a better chance of "competing with the big boys". He might make the decision to pursue the straight player for what he feels is gut intuition, but it might not be completely independent of sexuality.

People that make personnel decisions are susceptible to prejudice, too. And that's where a lot of these athletes have the potential to suffer.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

essbee said:


> I don't comprehend your opinion that the viewpoints of people you've never met have more impact than those of your family.


I'm not saying the viewpoints of other people are more important.

I'm saying the scope is much greater. As a public figure, if you come out in public, the entire world knows, including your family. If you are just coming out to your family, the scope is much smaller.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Brandname said:


> I will give you credit for finding that murder case. I had not previously heard of that case or any like it.
> 
> By "very possible", I mean that there are many people out there who wish violence upon gays, and many people who outwardly act on it. You have to be a little more guarded when you make a statement like that that invokes anger in so many people.


And i'm saying that makes it possible, but not *very* possible. And it's no excuse for *lying* about who you are. 

The obvious other cases in terms of fear from religious persecution would probably be too many to mention, go back to the founding of this country, and are much greater in severity. It depends on if you view atheism as a religion or not (many atheists I know do).



> As far as the Piazza rumors, they're just rumors. Nobody really gets worked up about rumors.


People got extremely worked up over the Piazza rumors. Remember he had to call a press conference, etc. "hey look I banged this chick" the whole 9 yards.



> Just as an example, these (possibly subconscious) prejudices aren't limited to outright discrimination. Say a GM is evaluating talent he is thinking about obtaining. It's entirely possible that he can be completely on the fence between two players, and subconsciously just feels like the straight player has a little more "it" factor. That he'll have a better chance of "competing with the big boys". He might make the decision to pursue the straight player for what he feels is gut intuition, but it might not be completely independent of sexuality.


It's possible, but you're crafting a slippery slope argument that could just as easily be countered by me saying that the same things are ALSO much more severe in terms of race, for example blacks not being seen as quarterbacks in football. Again, the idea that NBA scouts are looking at a guy and saying "he's not gonna play well in the post because he's gay" isn't nearly as likely to me as for example, someone making a decision based on race. 

I would again say that Dennis Rodman wrote about cross dressing and being around gay people and if I remember said he had often wondered if he was gay. Even if you say these aren't the same as being out about being gay, they are taboo, and they do oppose the perception that the sport is for strong men. Rodman continued to play power forward, one of the most physical positions in the NBA, and i'm wondering how it affected him. He also wasn't exactly a model citizen for NBA teams, which seemed to get him into a lot more trouble than his sexual interests.



> People that make personnel decisions are susceptible to prejudice, too. And that's where a lot of these athletes have the potential to suffer.


Yeah they do, all people who do something different from the norm have the potential to be discriminated against. The question we seem to disagree on is whether lying about who you are in order to avoid that potential discrimination makes you anything but a lying coward.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

essbee said:


> And in my family i'm now not invited to weddings, don't know many of my nieces and nephews who i'm very close to, and miss out on the family, which is arguably the most important social structure any of us have. About 80% of my extended family is also Jehovah's Witnesses. And again, they don't simply ostracize people, their belief on disfellowshipping is not to even talk to people even if they're family members.


If you're suffering from this (and sounds like you are, to some extent) and you knew this would happen (again, seems like you did), then it _was_ a courageous act.

Just like it's a courageous act when someone who's gay comes out...some people will disown a gay child. Knowing that's a possibility makes coming out that much harder. You can sneer at it as "lying to people," but when telling people exactly who you are could cause you to become ostracized and isolated, it takes guts to do it. And sometimes, may not even be smart to do (if the end result is an even more miserable life or engendering physical violence).

In the macho, often gay-bashing culture of sports (and that is not to say all athletes are like that, but a higher percentage than the normal population), it becomes an even bigger issue, as suddenly you may be facing the hostility of the people who you've bonded to as brothers you go to war with. Not to mention the personal taunts and insults of every crowd you play in front of. It's not exactly what Jackie Robinson went through, but it's still going to be hell.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> Wait. Didn't you answer your own question? If you knew that female reporters were allowed in male locker rooms, but male reporters weren't allowed in female locker rooms--then why did you think that the locker rooms were kept separate for sexual attraction reasons?
> 
> The main issue with it has to do with centuries of rape, oppression, and degradation of the female gender at the hands of the male gender. It's why a female who gets approached by a male in a parking lot has to immediately start worrying about her safety, but when a male is approached by a female in the same situation, he won't feel much fear at all.
> .


No, the main issue is that males sports are a huge business with a large following, female sports is not even close.

If CBS is paying millions of dollars to broadcast the final four, the NCAA better let Bonnie Bernstein go in the locker room. Meanwhile ESPN will send any scrub reporter to cover WNBA game, so they don't really care that is limited to females. Not like most of their male reporters are knowledgeable about female sports anyways.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

The notion that its cowardly, or you're a coward, if you conceal a part of who you are regardless of the consequences if ridiculous. Essbee seems to think that his coming out as agnostic to his family puts him on higher ground here. As if that makes him capable of understanding exactly what it would be like for a dwyane wade or lebron to come out.

Were Jews who hid their jewishness from Nazis cowards? Not the same of course, but a blanket liars are cowards shows very little thought, and lots of arrogance


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

kflo said:


> The notion that its cowardly, or you're a coward, if you conceal a part of who you are regardless of the consequences if ridiculous. Essbee seems to think that his coming out as agnostic to his family puts him on higher ground here. As if that makes him capable of understanding exactly what it would be like for a dwyane wade or lebron to come out.
> 
> Were Jews who hid their jewishness from Nazis cowards? Not the same of course, but a blanket liars are cowards shows very little thought, and lots of arrogance


No kidding. Your family of 6 or whatever is nothing compared to all of society. Your coworkers likely don't care what your religion is (and you dont make millions), your fans are non-existant, the grocery clerk doesn't care what your religion is, etc....


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> No, the main issue is that males sports are a huge business with a large following, female sports is not even close.
> 
> If CBS is paying millions of dollars to broadcast the final four, the NCAA better let Bonnie Bernstein go in the locker room. Meanwhile ESPN will send any scrub reporter to cover WNBA game, so they don't really care that is limited to females. Not like most of their male reporters are knowledgeable about female sports anyways.



****in' Females, and their... sports. 

Do they let male reporters into women's locker rooms in Tennis? Or what about women's figure skating vs. men's figure skating? Or Women's Gymnastics vs. men's gymnastics?

I don't know, so I'm asking.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Is sloth gay? Want to find out?

Buy my book, for $29.99 MSRP.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> ****in' Females, and their... sports.
> 
> Do they let male reporters into women's locker rooms in Tennis? Or what about women's figure skating vs. men's figure skating? Or Women's Gymnastics vs. men's gymnastics?
> 
> I don't know, so I'm asking.


I'm pretty sure they don't let anyone into the locker room for those events. In tennis and figure skating there are only one or two people. It makes more sense to have a press conference with them after. No rush to get them partially clothed. Same with gymnastics sort of. You can interview them right after they preform in between events.


----------



## BullSoxChicagosFinest (Oct 22, 2005)

Zarko Cabarkapa, the next Amaechi? 










(okay it looked better live)


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

I just realized that I went to the same high school as John Amaechi (obviously not at the same time). 

Our basketball team played the big game against their arch rivals on Friday night on the road. The other team's fans were taunting our basketball team the entire game, inciting chants about Amaechi, etc. Many (not all) of their fans were making derogatory comments about Amaechi (his sexuality) and by extension, our current team.

It was a very sobering reminder that we have a long way to go, not just within sports players, but also within the entire culture of sports and America in general.


----------

