# Amaechi becomes first NBA player to come out



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

> John Amaechi, who played at Penn State and for five seasons in the NBA, will announce he is gay in an upcoming book.
> 
> The cover for "Man in the Middle," John Amaechi's upcoming book.
> The book, published by ESPN Books (owned by the Walt Disney Company, parent company of ESPN), is entitled "Man in the Middle." It is due to be released later this month.
> ...


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2757105


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Good for him, even if it is only to make money.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Yes, very brave of him to do it well after he has no chance he has of playing in the league again


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

The Ameichi "back door pass" has been a popular subject on the NBA main board for a couple of days now.

http://www.basketballforum.com/showthread.php?t=338505


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Yes, very brave of him to do it well after he has no chance he has of playing in the league again


I know your comment might have been glib, but given the fact that Esera Tuaolo and Billy Bean are the only two players the article can point to about coming out of the closet -- then yes, it may have been very brave of Amaechi to do so.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

I still remember a while back some player saying that a few percentage of the nba players are gay, so its not suprise that someone has finally came out. I guess its a little easier since Amaechi was more of a bit-player and his been long out of the league, and the added incentive to sign a book contract. But i always find it sad how people have to hide the fact that their homosexual, and my assumption that it would be even tougher to hide that fact in a league such as the NBA. 

I guess this thread will be passed by many people, but i think its important to acknowledge, in terms that its really hard for gay people, even to this day. People who are outwardly or proudly gay, are still looked down or awkardly upon by society, and the sooner people get their minds around the fact that they are still humans like any of us, we can move on. 

I've known a friend for over 15 years, and he still keeps acts and lies to everyone that his straight, when we know his gay(told from other people close to him). Just imagaine having to hide it from the people your around all the time, and having two lives. I guess in a league such as the NBA, NFL etc, where being tough and "real" men, it would be hell to outwardly proclaim that your gay. But since we've broken the race barrier, hopefully we can now break the sexual status barrier..


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I'm an advocate of gay rights and am sensitive to, and deeply offended by, the current atmosphere in the United States where sexual preference has become yet another hotbutton issue in what I consider to be a deplorable campaign of fear and biggotry waged by hard line social conservatives.

That said, does it make me a hypocrite if the title "Man in the Middle" made me chuckle?


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> I'm an advocate of gay rights and am sensitive to, and deeply offended by, the current atmosphere in the United States where sexual preference has become yet another hotbutton issue in what I consider to be a deplorable campaign of fear and biggotry waged by hard line social conservatives.
> 
> That said, does it make me a hypocrite if the title "Man in the Middle" made me chuckle?


No.

But what did you think of the Snickers ad that was pulled?


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! (Jun 10, 2003)

I don't think it was all about making money, too. The article noted that he could have signed a 17 million dollar contract with the Lakers in 2000 but opted to remain with Orlando for less, mainly so he could continue to do the community-based activities he was doing at the time in Central Florida. Sounds like a good guy. 

Let's face it--it's downright sickening to note the gay-bashing that's been going on in this country, particularly under the guise of "protecting the family". It's truly sad to note that that song plays well in certain sectors of the population. Hell, prior to the advent of the full blown civil rigths era, oppressing Blacks was always legitimated under the pretext of "protecting states' rights". In this sort of climate, any sort of act by someone like him contstitutes a political act, essentially another salvo in yet another civil rights campaign. Where's that trusted Frederick Douglass quote when you need it??


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

What a shock.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> I know your comment might have been glib, but given the fact that Esera Tuaolo and Billy Bean are the only two players the article can point to about coming out of the closet -- then yes, it may have been very brave of Amaechi to do so.


It was glib, but I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with that. What manner of bravery is involved here? Bravery suggests he might suffer some sort of loss due to his revelation.

He's not going to lose his job as a player... he doesn't play anymore. He's a TV personality. In Britain. So it's not like he's going to suffer a loss of reputation or much backlash in the NBA basketball "industry". I don't see that he's been living any sort of under cover lifestyle in Britain, so I doubt he faces a huge amount of hardship there.

In contrast, he seems to me to be likely to profit handsomely by publicizing his sexuality. That's perfectly fine to do, but it isn't bravery. If anything, bravery to me might include forgoing a few extra bucks rather than flouting what ought better be kept private for profit.

Because in the end, that seems to me to be what the end result ought to be. That it's not news in the first place whether a player is gay or straight. Of course, yeah, it's going to be news while there's still as much bigotry, but it seems to me that a guy writing a tell-all about it is somewhat capitalizing and relying on that, not fighting it.

To top it off, he was considered a diffident, half-*** as a player who didn't really care that much. He'll probably end up blaming the pitifulness of his career on being gay and get a sob story out of it when the truth of the matter was probably just that he wasn't very good or very motivated. Which, at lest to my way of thinking, is pretty insulting to talented, motivated gay people.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

I bet his teammates feel real good knowing they were getting checked out in the showers now. A teacher/coach at my school was a lesbian, and I know that when people found out, it wasn't good. My sister played basketball for her and was freaked out about showering around her (she was gone before we found out though). I pesronally liked her, but wouldn't have been too impressed if I was a girl and forced to get naked around her. 

I'm with you on the title Ron Cey. I was like wtf kind of a title is that? Is he purposely trying to make fun of himself?


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

DaBabyBullz said:


> I'm with you on the title Ron Cey. I was like wtf kind of a title is that? Is he purposely trying to make fun of himself?


Titles may be suggested by the author, but generally are picked by the marketing division of a Publishing house. In this case, it's ESPN's book division. Hmmm. Are we going to see this promoted all over ESPN's nba coverage?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> It was glib, but I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with that. What manner of bravery is involved here? Bravery suggests he might suffer some sort of loss due to his revelation.
> 
> He's not going to lose his job as a player... he doesn't play anymore. He's a TV personality. In Britain. So it's not like he's going to suffer a loss of reputation or much backlash in the NBA basketball "industry". I don't see that he's been living any sort of under cover lifestyle in Britain, so I doubt he faces a huge amount of hardship there.
> 
> ...



My take:

The book will only sell because we live in a bigoted society wherein being gay is inexplicably something to be ashamed of and hidden, at least within certain circles. Therefore it is a "big deal" that a former NBA player - a symbol of all that is maculine - is gay, because the societal stereotype put forth is that gay men are effeminate and somehow less manly than straight men. 

So, anyway, if a gay guy can go out and profit on the fact that our society is totally screwed up, good for him. No, I don't know that it's courageous to do so in these circumstances. However, this is our society's problem and not his personal problem. If he can benefit from that fact, more power to him. Profiteering from what should be a non-story will be eliminated once we stop being idiots on this issue.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

narek said:


> No.
> 
> But what did you think of the Snickers ad that was pulled?


Unfunny and stupid was its biggest offense. 

But I can definitely see how the gay community would be upset by it.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

jnrjr79 said:


> My take:
> 
> The book will only sell because we live in a bigoted society


Nice. Take a stand on a issue by calling names.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

That's probably a better way than how I said it JNR. 

That being said, it bothers me that Amaeci was known as soft and a quitter. Won't that _reinforce_ the stereotype of gay men as effiment and less than manly because this particular guy who is coming out had the rep before he came out?

I don't agree with the stereotype, and I don't like it, but you're right, it exists. And to me, trying to break it with John Amaechi as an example of bruising manhood when he was scoffed within the league is close to being counterproductive.

It reminds me of a few years ago when the French embarked a PR campaign to get Americans to like them more. Missed that one? Probably... they hired Woody Allen as their spokesman. :laugh:


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Which WNBA player said that 75% of the league was lesbian? 

Good for Amaechi but let's not get carried away. This is a publicity stunt, plain and simple. He'll likely make a pretty penny by selling this book and ultimately that's the goal. Now if he takes things a step further and becomes a spokesperson for the GLB community then that might be a different story. It's perfectly fine what he's doing but I wouldn't consider it "heroic".

As far as how homosexuals are perceived and treated today - I agree, we have quite a ways to go but the picture isn't nearly as gloomy as it was 10-20 years ago. I remember maybe 10 years ago where it was acceptable to openly make fun of gays. Does anyone remember Eddie Murphy in RAW where he asked where the "******" section was? Eminem performing with Elton John, countless gay congressman, homosexuals in the church, etc. The gay rights movement has made huge strides in an incredibly short amount of time and by the time my children are grown I'm sure it will be an afterthought. 

Personally, I think it's a far greater tragedy that Obama has a chance to become the first black president, Clinton might become the first female president, and Tony Dungy is the first black coach to win a Super Bowl. Those are equal rights movements that have been fighting far longer than the GLBT movement.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> That being said, it bothers me that Amaeci was known as soft and a quitter. Won't that _reinforce_ the stereotype of gay men as effiment and less than manly because this particular guy who is coming out had the rep before he came out?


If I remember correctly, Amaechi was very upfront about the fact that basketball was never his first love, and that he mainly played in order to finance his ambition to get a PhD in something or other (maybe economics). I'm not sure whether that makes him a quitter/soft or just sort of an indifferent hired gun. Then again, if he's a TV personality now or whatever, I wonder whether he even pursued an advanced degree.

regardless, I don't see this as particularly brave. Seems like he can only gain from it, and he probably never did, and certainly doesn't now, really care about his reputation among NBA circles.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

SecretAgentGuy said:


> As far as how homosexuals are perceived and treated today - I agree, we have quite a ways to go but the picture isn't nearly as gloomy as it was 10-20 years ago. I remember maybe 10 years ago where it was acceptable to openly make fun of gays. Does anyone remember Eddie Murphy in RAW where he asked where the "******" section was?


I personally feel that anyone is on limits during comedy. Still cracks me up watching Delirious. Then again, I didn't care about Michael Richards' tirade either.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Unfunny and stupid was its biggest offense.
> 
> But I can definitely see how the gay community would be upset by it.


Agree it was a bad ad. As for its offensiveness to the gay community, how is it very different from the "man law" commercial about how horrible it is to touch the tops of your beer bottles, because it's like kissing? In the world of political correctness, aren't we all supposed to believe that it's completely OK for men to kiss men? I'm not very much in touch with the gay community, but I don't remember any backlash on the man law ad.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

The real question is who will be the first poster on this board to come out and are they going to write a book about their crazy times posting threads about Tyson Chandlers hand size.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

All I have to say is it must of been a slow news day...


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

It really encourages people to come out when the few that do are condemned as doing it for publicity.

It would have been an extremely unfathomably brave man that said this mid-career. If John had done this, it would have achieved more than it will now, and I'm sure even he'll admit that. But I can't see how we can criticise Amaechi for this. It's not all that farfetched to see that he could have been run out of the sport, both in the NBA and wherever else. Some people, his peers, probably carry some weird opinions on this matter. Karl Malone did, so I'm told. Meech's former teammate.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> That's probably a better way than how I said it JNR.
> 
> That being said, it bothers me that Amaeci was known as soft and a quitter. Won't that _reinforce_ the stereotype of gay men as effiment and less than manly because this particular guy who is coming out had the rep before he came out?
> 
> ...



Agreed on all counts. Amaechi is no Ben Wallace. Still, your average NBA player, even a soft one, is probably perceived as being manlier or tougher than your average Joe on the street. Also, you've got to remember that we are big basketball nerds. Other people might not remember with such particularity that he was a soft/lazy player.

That's funny about the French campaign. I'm actually a big francophile, but I missed that one. Woody Allen? Way to get right to the hearts of your average American.


----------



## Orange Julius Irving (Jun 28, 2004)

Ron Cey said:


> the current atmosphere in the United States where sexual preference has become yet another hotbutton issue in what I consider to be a deplorable campaign of fear and biggotry waged by hard line social conservatives.


It's sad that we've come to the point where people who have a difference of opinion/belief on an issue that is held by a vast majority of people will demonize the opposition with "a campaign of fear and bigotry waged". 


Diversity seems to be a concept that applies to all things liberal and not thought.


----------



## BeZerker2008 (Jun 29, 2006)

I think in today's society we are 'Overly' sensitive towards any subject. I didn't really think anything bad about the Snickers commercial, I didn't think they were disrespecting the homosexual community. Nowadays you have any kind of rights people sitting around and searching for 'any' little thing to want to complain about even if it's not really bad. Everybody where I was watching the commercial were laughing at it's stupid humor from both men and women none of them said anything regarding it as being offensive. 

Racism nor any other slurs or views on certain people have not nor will not disappear, simple as that. You may fine some people for using the term but come on all of that stuff has been around for ages & until the person is caught using the term they will continue to use it. People back then were were more out in the open and nowadays people still hate each other, they just know how to hide it.

Just my two cents.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Orange Julius Irving said:


> It's sad that we've come to the point where people who have a difference of opinion/belief on an issue that is held by a vast majority of people will demonize the opposition with "a campaign of fear and bigotry waged".
> 
> 
> Diversity seems to be a concept that applies to all things liberal and not thought.


I see what you're saying, but I an not enamoured of the "reasonable people can disagree with civil debate" line of thinking when it comes to this subject. I view the situation of the fight against rights for gays in our country as completely analagous with the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. I think those that work so hard to prevent homosexuals from being treated equally will be looked upon history as being equivalent to Governor Wallace standing in the doorway in Alabama trying to prevent the black students from attending school. I am not trying to be dramatic about this, either. People do not now say, "Well, those segregationists did have a valid point." History has decided on that one.

It is clear that among my genereation (I'm in my late 20s), that these ideas seem entirely outdated. This struggle does not seem like a matter of "if" but rather "when" society will catch up. It's an inevitability. It's just disappointing to see it take so long.

That said, thus ends my rant having nothing to do with basketball.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Orange Julius Irving said:


> It's sad that we've come to the point where people who have a difference of opinion/belief on an issue that is held by a vast majority of people will demonize the opposition with "a campaign of fear and bigotry waged".
> 
> Diversity seems to be a concept that applies to all things liberal and not thought.


This isn't a difference of opinion. This is one group of people telling another group of people that they aren't entitled to enjoy the same legal protections as everyone else because of their sexual preference.

Do you consider Jim Crow laws "a difference of opinion"? How about the illegality of inter-racial marriage? The refusal to allow women and blacks the right to vote? Slavery for that matter?

We aren't talking about one person approving of homosexuality and another person disapproving. There is nothing wrong with that. You want to be a bigot? Go for it. Anti-semite? More power to ya. But that isn't what we have here.

We are talking about one group using that disapproval to pass laws and state and federal constitutional amendments to restrict access to the legal rights, institutions and privileges that should be afforded to all of us.

Your opinion ceases being a mere opinion when it prevents another person from enjoying the legal protections afforded everyone else.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> If I remember correctly, Amaechi was very upfront about the fact that basketball was never his first love, and that he mainly played in order to finance his ambition to get a PhD in something or other (maybe economics).


Hey man, free money.

Anyway, good for Amaechi. I wish that all of the gay athletes in sports felt comfortable enough to come out while they were still playing. Maybe we'll get there, eventually.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

jnrjr79 said:


> I see what you're saying, but I an not enamoured of the "reasonable people can disagree with civil debate" line of thinking when it comes to this subject. I view the situation of the fight against rights for gays in our country as completely analagous with the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. I think those that work so hard to prevent homosexuals from being treated equally will be looked upon history as being equivalent to Governor Wallace standing in the doorway in Alabama trying to prevent the black students from attending school. I am not trying to be dramatic about this, either. People do not now say, "Well, those segregationists did have a valid point." History has decided on that one.
> 
> It is clear that among my genereation (I'm in my late 20s), that these ideas seem entirely outdated. This struggle does not seem like a matter of "if" but rather "when" society will catch up. It's an inevitability. It's just disappointing to see it take so long.


I agree 100%. I should probably not post anymore in this thread, because I'm deeply embarrassed that I live in a society that so openly accepts - and encourages through legal sanction - bigotry towards homosexuals. I sort of thought it was all just harmless gay jokes and the only dangerous folks were the gay-bashing skinheads. Until a little over 2 years ago, that is. 

Then I realized I wasn't living in the country I thought I was living in. It'll change. Just like you said. And history will look back on this era in shame.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I agree 100%. I should probably not post anymore in this thread, because I'm deeply embarrassed that I live in a society that so openly accepts - and encourages through legal sanction - bigotry towards homosexuals. I sort of thought it was all just harmless gay jokes and the only dangerous folks were the gay-bashing skinheads. Until a little over 2 years ago, that is.
> 
> Then I realized I wasn't living in the country I thought I was living in. It'll change. Just like you said. And history will look back on this era in shame.


I'm not sure it will change as quickly as we hope, Ron Cey, because it's tied up in people's religious beliefs.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> I'm not sure it will change as quickly as we hope, Ron Cey, because it's tied up in people's religious beliefs.


Wait, is religion important to people?

I kid, I kid.

:biggrin:


----------



## Orange Julius Irving (Jun 28, 2004)

jnrjr79 said:


> I see what you're saying, but I an not enamoured of the "reasonable people can disagree with civil debate" line of thinking when it comes to this subject. I view the situation of the fight against rights for gays in our country as completely analagous with the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. I think those that work so hard to prevent homosexuals from being treated equally will be looked upon history as being equivalent to Governor Wallace standing in the doorway in Alabama trying to prevent the black students from attending school. I am not trying to be dramatic about this, either. People do not now say, "Well, those segregationists did have a valid point." History has decided on that one.
> 
> It is clear that among my genereation (I'm in my late 20s), that these ideas seem entirely outdated. This struggle does not seem like a matter of "if" but rather "when" society will catch up. It's an inevitability. It's just disappointing to see it take so long.
> 
> That said, thus ends my rant having nothing to do with basketball.



I really didn't want to say anything but I felt I had to say something. But I think there are quite a few Baptist Preachers and many other Black Christians who would strongly disagree with ANY comparison between Homosexuality and Slavery. As a matter of fact I know a few who think the comparison is very offensive.

So let's be clear that NO ONE I know who is a Christian is trying to keep ANYONE from being treated EQUALLY. Those on the other side of the debate believe it's a case of wanting special consideration.

But I somewhat regret saying what I did knowing pretty well that no one on this board is likely to agree with what I am saying.


----------



## Orange Julius Irving (Jun 28, 2004)

Ron Cey said:


> This isn't a difference of opinion. This is one group of people telling another group of people that they aren't entitled to enjoy the same legal protections as everyone else because of their sexual preference.
> 
> Do you consider Jim Crow laws "a difference of opinion"? How about the illegality of inter-racial marriage? The refusal to allow women and blacks the right to vote? Slavery for that matter?
> 
> ...



I believe you are framing the debate in a way that is dishonest to the oppostion. 

Suffice it to say that there is a legitamate debate on both sides. I just find it sad that the side that has the voice, that is the Major Media, is the one distorting the other view and you are basically calling anyone who disagrees with you a Bigot.

Your OPINION ceases to be an Opinion when it is backed up by The Bible, What many believe is The Word of God, So You are basically calling Christians bigots and the idea is to just shut up already.

Soon we'll see Book Burnings, The Bible that doesn't conform, will be gone, see you, it will be re-written as it already is being done. But no one in the media or the schools is concerned about that! 

I will shut up on this since there really is no debate to be had as you have said.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> We are talking about one group using that disapproval to pass laws and state and federal constitutional amendments to restrict access to the legal rights, institutions and privileges that *should* be afforded to all of us.


Based on what? That is the crux.

A example: 

With homosexuality, there arises the need for someone from the other gender to fill a role in the fulfillment of a desire that most humans seem to want: a child. Thus the relationship involves three people, even if one later walks away forever, instead of just the two in a heterosexual relationship. Why is there the need for a third person? Why can't the two do it by themselves?

Merely asking these questions does not make a person a bigot. Expressing the opinion that perhaps it would be better to mull these things over instead of immediately codifying them into law doesn't make one a bigot. One can reasonably ask the questions and ask if they offer some deep insight into human nature.

Having children is not the point of every relationship. I understand that. But it is such a strong and prevalent desire across all strata of human society that it fills the purpose of this post. It seems that nature would not write that desire into people if it also wrote into them the desire for a life with people that cannot help them fulfill it. It is a conflict. Very basic to me.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> I'm not sure it will change as quickly as we hope, Ron Cey, because it's tied up in people's religious beliefs.


And this thread seems to have demonstrated as much.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Orange Julius Irving said:


> Your OPINION ceases to be an Opinion when it is backed up by The Bible, What many believe is The Word of God, So You are basically calling Christians bigots and the idea is to just shut up already.


OJI:

Here's the thing. As soon as you say, "Well, the Bible says so!", then we have reached the the point in the conversation at which reasoned debate is no longer possible. 

There are two issues at play here:

1. What legal rights should homosexuals be afforded? In our society, religion/the Bible/etc. has no place in this debate.

2. How should homosexuals be treated by other people? Feel free to use your religion here in deciding how you would like to treat homosexuals. This is a matter of personal choice dealing with how you want to live your life and your religion, or lack thereof, will all end up being factors, I suppose.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> Based on what? That is the crux.
> 
> A example:
> 
> ...


You're obviously a very eloquent person, Soulful Sides, but I can't say I really understand this post at all. 

Humans want to reproduce,
and gay people cannot reproduce,
so (and here is where I get confused), being gay might not be natural????

Please explain further.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> Based on what? That is the crux.
> 
> A example:
> 
> ...


I am completely lost.

You're saying that people have a strong instictive desire to have children. What's your point as it relates to homosexuals? That people should not have a homosexual lifestyle because it is contrary to their desire to procreate? I don't understand.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Just a reminder guys - this thread is about Amaechi and his book, not about each other's personal beliefs. There are more appropriate places for those arguments.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

I don't see what's wrong with the discussion, as long as it remains under control. Rarely do long discussions strictly adhere to the specific topic of the first post.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

narek said:


> Just a reminder guys - this thread is about Amaechi and his book, not about each other's personal beliefs. There are more appropriate places for those arguments.


Can someone please recap? This afternoon my neighbors and I figured out who'd been intermittently stealing our weekend newspapers, and we just finished up stoning the guy to death.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

I am really holding back on fulling expressing myself for fear of offending someone...and I ripped several sentences from that post before posting it for that reason. Maybe that is why it did not read well. I'm not afraid of offending, good debate sometimes demands that you do so (in tactful ways). But this board has a obvious tilt, and is a sports board to boot.

The crux is this: Looking at the whole of humanities existence and how we define humanity...from the poorest people with nothing to the richest people with everything, from the most religious, to the very non-religious...there arise legitimate questions as to whether homosexuality is a "natural" occurence in humanity. The fact that it is there does not automatically make it so. The questions should be asked, and mulled over, and debated. 

Instead there a surplus of invective and name-calling, and worse.

No more posts on this...at least not here. There are better forums.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Quick recap:

- Amaechi announces (well, will announce) that he's gay
- Thread turns into a discussion of the ethics of homosexuality.

A natural tangent, really, but let's all try and be civil about it.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Can someone please recap? This afternoon my neighbors and I figured out who'd been intermittently stealing our weekend newspapers, and we just finished up stoning the guy to death.


Not funny.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> Can someone please recap? This afternoon my neighbors and I figured out who'd been intermittently stealing our weekend newspapers, and we just finished up stoning the guy to death.


Nothing wrong with a good stoning.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Soulful Sides said:


> I am really holding back on fulling expressing myself for fear of offending someone...and I ripped several sentences from that post before posting it for that reason. Maybe that is why it did not read well. I'm not afraid of offending, good debate sometimes demands that you do so (in tactful ways). But this board has a obvious tilt, and is a sports board to boot.
> 
> The crux is this: Looking at the whole of humanities existence and how we define humanity...from the poorest people with nothing to the richest people with everything, from the most religious, to the very non-religious...there arise legitimate questions as to whether homosexuality is a "natural" occurence in humanity. The fact that it is there does not automatically make it so. The questions should be asked, and mulled over, and debated.
> 
> ...


Does the fact that it is found naturally among other animals make you lean one way or the other with this line of thinking?


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

See your PM.

For the record, that line of reasoning is a dead end for me. For others, maybe not.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

A couple points:

* I'm pretty close to moving this to the Political Economy forum. It's much more appropriate there. I'll do so if it gets too nutty, because the mods and posters there sign up for this sort of discussion. On the Bulls board we obviously don't, and it can quickly be obtuse and uncomfortable for people. In any case, I strongly recommend some folks go there and post, you've got a lot to offer it.

* Ron Cey, when you say something like


> We are talking about one group using that disapproval to pass laws and state and federal constitutional amendments to restrict access to the legal rights, institutions and privileges that should be afforded to all of us.
> 
> Your opinion ceases being a mere opinion when it prevents another person from enjoying the legal protections afforded everyone else.


I think you're throwing the baby out with the bath water. 

It ceases being "mere opinion" and becomes what? A political act? But acting on opinion seems to be an even more fundamental right in a free government. Criticize the opinion as wrong-headed and I'd agree. Suggest it's _improper _to voice one's opinions because of the legal ramifications of doing so and you seem to be crossing a line against self-government.

Most legal rights and priviliges are discriminatory in the first place. The only reason homosexuals adults are "deprived" of certain privileges is that they accorded to other adults on a limited basis first. 

That is to say, the state has and is far more often a tool of discrimination than it is a guarantor of equality. We'd be better off getting the state be it by the vehicle of a 50%, 67% or 75% majority doling out such privileges in the first place. I don't see why marriage, be it male-female or same sex should be anything more than a matter of private contract.

* OJ - further along those lines, there are many, though obviously not a majority of people who get married intending to never procreate. Should they be prevented from getting married?

* Soulful, in my experience people are filled with conflict. It seems arbitrary to selct one and say it's defining. Adultery happens in something approaching 50% of marriages, for example. To me, that suggests we have an overarching desire both to be monogomous and not. Hence, a conflict. I wouldn't want that inherent conflict leading the state to decide who I can or can't live my life with and what my employer should or should not be able to compensate me for.

* Further, what about male-female couples who can't have kids? Should things like in vitro fertilization be outlawed? How about adoption? And if there are to be those third party benefits for male-female couples, I don't see any reason they shouldn't be extended to same sex couples.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> * Ron Cey, when you say something like
> I think you're throwing the baby out with the bath water.
> 
> It ceases being "mere opinion" and becomes what? A political act? But acting on opinion seems to be an even more fundamental right in a free government. Criticize the opinion as wrong-headed and I'd agree. Suggest it's _improper _to voice one's opinions because of the legal ramifications of doing so and you seem to be crossing a line against self-government.



That's an interesting point. The thing is, I think some of this rises above the level of mere political expression. For instance, the US Constitution exists, in part, to protect its citizenry from some of the things that might happen as a result of political expression. It identifies some areas and says, "It doesn't matter what people think, X. Y, and Z are not allowed." The fact of the matter is, pure majority rule in a society doesn't always end up with the right results. Many of the most abhorrent events and epochs of human history were political acts, many even sanctioned by the populous. 

Anyway, I don't know where I'm going with this. I guess I'm saying that things shouldn't necessarily be sanctified because they are political expression. Should political expression be protected at all costs? Absolutely. However, when racism or bigotry exists in the form of political expression, I think it's necessary to attack it vigorously (while still protecting the right to express it). 

Meh. I think I've jumped the shark here. Anyway, I probably won't read the book, but good luck to the guy.


----------



## Orange Julius Irving (Jun 28, 2004)

jnrjr79 said:


> OJI:
> 
> Here's the thing. As soon as you say, "Well, the Bible says so!", then we have reached the the point in the conversation at which reasoned debate is no longer possible.
> 
> ...



Sorry but this shows an utter lack of understanding of our history. Of course the Bible and Relgion has a place in the debate, it was used by many of the people who started this country.

This line of debate is weak. So what you are saying is those who use the Bible as a standard for their lives have no place in a debate on human rights? That's what the Bible is, a book on human rights.

King was a Bapitist preacher who used the pulpit and the scriptures to prove the GOD was indeed behind the equality of men of all races.

You in fact and the original poster to which I responded, are the ones saying the debate is ended because those who believe in the Bible and what it contains are disqualified because we have "belief" which i guess means you have "The Truth". Which seems to me what liberals and athiests always make fun of Christians for, that is saying we have the truth.

As I said in a previous post, the direction this is going is an outright ban of the Bible and a reverse discrimination by which those who profess to be Christians are somehow now made the ones to be inferior and have inferior opinions.

Just to be clear I never said we should "agree to disagree" but that instead of throwing out the "bigot" tag and be done with it, try to understand the other side. That is what you demand of others yet will not do yourself.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

JNR, I think you're going in a good direction I agree with. Fundamentally though the Constitution doesn't prevent changes to rights protected theirin, it just sets out more stringent requirements for doing so (e.g. 67% of both houses plus 3/4 of the state legislatures). Truth be told, I don't see any good reason to use majority voting to pass most laws. Why 51%? Why not 2/3rds? We'd end up having a lot fewer laws, but in my book that's probably a good thing.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Orange Julius Irving said:


> Sorry but this shows an utter lack of understanding of our history. Of course the Bible and Relgion has a place in the debate, it was used by many of the people who started this country.
> 
> This line of debate is weak. So what you are saying is those who use the Bible as a standard for their lives have no place in a debate on human rights? That's what the Bible is, a book on human rights.
> 
> ...


I have a lot of sympathy for your position here because I think you're absolutely right in that lots of liberals and atheists act much like they protest Christians act.

That being said, I don't think the Bible itself can be used to support either state authorized or private discrimination against homosexuals. Like you said, if it can be derived from the Bible that all races and peoples are fundamentally equal, isn't the big picture message that homosexuals ought not be discriminated against either?


----------



## Orange Julius Irving (Jun 28, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> I have a lot of sympathy for your position here because I think you're absolutely right in that lots of liberals and atheists act much like they protest Christians act.
> 
> That being said, I don't think the Bible itself can be used to support either state authorized or private discrimination against homosexuals. Like you said, if it can be derived from the Bible that all races and peoples are fundamentally equal, isn't the big picture message that homosexuals ought not be discriminated against either?



See, what i see as the crux here is the definitions being used.

1st what homosexuals demand is acceptance, but the term used is tolerance. Christians that believe the Bible is True will never accept Homosexuality as normal but will tolerate it, and wil treat them no differently than others in a general sense. Kindenss, compassions, helping meet basic needs of food, shelter water. But we are not going to abandone the Word of God for political correctness. Meanwhile many have and still do face death for their beliefs. 

2nd what is "discrimination" As I see it what is being asked for is "special treatment". 

King demanded that all people be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin, yet the solution society came up with initially was race-based quotas. That is racism.

I certainly don't believe ANYONE should be denied basic needs, but I don't agree that state sponsored marriage is a "need" that homosexuals must be granted. As I stated before I would sooner vote to have any marriages not recognoized at all by the state and be done with it. I have yet to see any evidence that the institution of marriage has anything other than a religious basis.

As a former liberal married to a liberal activist I never thought the institution of marriage was anything to be admired, sought after or needed. 

As for most of the other "rights" as far as I know those can worked out through lawyers and wills and are not denied anyone.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Here's a "saying" that most religious people would use on this topic: "Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve."


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

We get really bent out of shape trying to figure out what is "natural" and what isnt. As if settling this could somehow settle the larger debate.

I don't know if anything could ever be truly "natural." What really seems at issue: there are 1000 different ways of living, and we will always be offended by the other 999. They aren't ours.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

I know this discussion has gone off on a tangent but isn't the question at hand how homosexuals feel the need to hide their sexuality? Particularly athletes? Whether one group believes homosexuality is wrong or right, natural or unnatural, I believe it has little impact on the discussion at hand. Both sides tend to agree that homosexuals should not be persecuted. Only a true bigot would say otherwise. Where's the disagreement? 

Now is this discussion now evolving to determine whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry and gain the benefits that married people have (health insurance, tax breaks)? Or are we trying to say that sexual preference should be accepted rather than merely tolerated?

Sorry, just trying to figure out what we're discussing. :whoknows:

And kudos to all. Threads that are able to remain civil and intelligently discussed in light of controversial topics is what sets this board apart from others.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Orange Julius Irving said:


> As I said in a previous post, the direction this is going is an outright ban of the Bible and a reverse discrimination by which those who profess to be Christians are somehow now made the ones to be inferior and have inferior opinions.


Considering that a solid majority of Americans identify themselves as Christian and that our lawmakers (almost) all are sworn into their office by making an oath on the Bible, I find this rhetoric to be just a little bit extreme. I live in San Francisco - supposedly (among those who have never been here anyway) the hotbed of every hedonistic, godless excess known to mankind. Guess what we have every few blocks? Unless you're in North Beach it's not bordellos. Churches, of course. Believing in gay marriage and being Christian are NOT mutually exclusive.

I just wanted to make this one comment. Otherwise I choose to steer clear of this one. I am impressed by the thought and civility that has gone into the discussion so far, though.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)




----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Orange Julius Irving said:


> See, what i see as the crux here is the definitions being used.
> 
> 1st what homosexuals demand is acceptance, but the term used is tolerance. Christians that believe the Bible is True will never accept Homosexuality as normal but will tolerate it, and wil treat them no differently than others in a general sense. Kindenss, compassions, helping meet basic needs of food, shelter water. But we are not going to abandone the Word of God for political correctness. Meanwhile many have and still do face death for their beliefs.


I believe homosexuals deserve acceptance from all, not merely tolerance. However, legally, I think that tolerance is all that is required. 

Use the Bible all you want for your _motivation_ politically. Just don't use it as the _basis_ of the reason the law should be one way or the other. I put absolutely no merit in the argument of "religion has had influence historically." Yes, that is because we as a society have failed to live up entirely to the lofty goals we've set for ourselves.




Orange Julius Irving said:


> 2nd what is "discrimination" As I see it what is being asked for is "special treatment".


That's wrong. Straight people can get married and pass on their assets. Disallowing that for gays is treating one massive group of straight people "specially" while discriminating directly against a minority group. That's oppression.



Orange Julius Irving said:


> I certainly don't believe ANYONE should be denied basic needs, but I don't agree that state sponsored marriage is a "need" that homosexuals must be granted. As I stated before I would sooner vote to have any marriages not recognoized at all by the state and be done with it. I have yet to see any evidence that the institution of marriage has anything other than a religious basis.
> 
> As a former liberal married to a liberal activist I never thought the institution of marriage was anything to be admired, sought after or needed.
> 
> As for most of the other "rights" as far as I know those can worked out through lawyers and wills and are not denied anyone.


My roommate is one of those estate planners who has to do extensive work for gay couples because our society discriminates against them. I hardly think it's "special treatment" to think that they shouldn't have to expend thousands of dollars on an estate planner to devise some fancy trust to accomplish what everyone else gets as a mere matter of right through intestate decent.


I'd be fine with the state making everything "civil unions" and then people having whatever marriage ceremonies people wanted in their respective churches. I don't think legal marriage has anything to do with religious marriage. People should be able to have whatever private ceremonies they want and their private churches should be free to choose who they are willing and not willing to marry.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Looks like stuff we talk about in the Political Economy forum.

I frankly don't care if the guy is gay or not. Or if any of our players are, or whatever. To each his own.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Orange Julius Irving said:


> King demanded that all people be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin, yet the solution society came up with initially was race-based quotas. That is racism.
> 
> I certainly don't believe ANYONE should be denied basic needs, but I don't agree that state sponsored marriage is a "need" that homosexuals must be granted. As I stated before I would sooner vote to have any marriages not recognoized at all by the state and be done with it. I have yet to see any evidence that the institution of marriage has anything other than a religious basis.
> 
> ...


I think it's just a matter of being treated equally, which means homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples. Requiring a homosexual couple to rely on lawyers and wills to obtain rights that heterosexual couples are automatically entitled to under law is not equality. Lawyers are expensive and it doesn't make sense that if you die without a will your estate would be divided differently among your loved ones if you are heterosexual than if you're homosexual.


----------



## Orange Julius Irving (Jun 28, 2004)

jnrjr79 said:


> I believe homosexuals deserve acceptance from all, not merely tolerance. However, legally, I think that tolerance is all that is required.
> 
> Use the Bible all you want for your _motivation_ politically. Just don't use it as the _basis_ of the reason the law should be one way or the other. I put absolutely no merit in the argument of "religion has had influence historically." Yes, that is because we as a society have failed to live up entirely to the lofty goals we've set for ourselves.



Again, who are you to tell me and millions of Christians that I/they can't use the Bible for the basis of laws and how society should be run. Since Christians base their lives on the teachings found in the Bible it makes sense that it would prevade all aspects of their lives.


What you are saying is exactly what I objected to in this post originally. You are making a biased decision against someone elses strongly held beliefs and declaring your pov superior because it's "not a religion".


One way or another somebody is deciding what is right and wrong for society and what is morally acceptable. 

If you really think about what you are saying you might even agree that part of the argument here is that the majority should be over-ridden when they are wrong. But who decides when the majority is wrong?

And who is the minority that gets to decide. 

And why, all of sudden, does religion become an instant disqualifier for decisions that involve life and death?


----------



## Orange Julius Irving (Jun 28, 2004)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I think it's just a matter of being treated equally, which means homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples. Requiring a homosexual couple to rely on lawyers and wills to obtain rights that heterosexual couples are automatically entitled to under law is not equality. Lawyers are expensive and it doesn't make sense that if you die without a will your estate would be divided differently among your loved ones if you are heterosexual than if you're homosexual.



I don't know about all that. 

I am currently trying to find time to meet with an estate planner and work all that stuff out. From what I've seen, heard and been told it's not all that automatic for hetero's either.

And anyone who followed even remotely the debacle in Florida with the woman and the feeding tube (sorry can't remember her name off the top of my head) knows that everyone needs a instructions on what to do if your disabled before it happens or anything can happen.

Also, there are all kinds of "rights" equated to people of certain "standing" that not all people are granted. It doesn't make them less of people or un-equal. 

My favorite quote from "Pursuit of Happyness" was that the line in the Declaration of Independence was "The Pursuit of Happiness" not Happiness itself. 

Good-night, Good-People. Sorry in some ways to have created such a dust-up, not sorry in others.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Orange Julius Irving said:


> Also, there are all kinds of "rights" equated to people of certain "standing" that not all people are granted. It doesn't make them less of people or un-equal.


You've got to be kidding. Rights (and I don't know why one would ever find the use of quotation marks necessary when discussing something as cut and dry as rights) ought to be a given for everyone, regardless of "standing". Just for the hell of it, Webster's definition of the term "human rights" :

"The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law."

I think that pretty much says it all. That's not some lefty *******ization of the term, that's Merriam-Webster's. If you've got an issue with it, write the dictionary people.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> That being said, I don't think the Bible itself can be used to support either state authorized or private discrimination against homosexuals. Like you said, if it can be derived from the Bible that all races and peoples are fundamentally equal, isn't the big picture message that homosexuals ought not be discriminated against either?


With all due respect Mike, who cares? The bible shouldn't be used to support or not support anything state authorized. What's the Koran's stance on gay marriage? I don't know, I imagine you don't, and there's really no reason for either of us to care (assuming you aren't Muslim). The idea that one religion's ideology/text/whatever should be used as a decider on social/state issues while the texts of other religions aren't afforded the same respect is just weird to me.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Here's a "saying" that most religious people would use on this topic: "Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve."


I think that's a condescending slur of "most religious people" on part with saying "most gay people" must think a certain way. It's substituting one stereotype for another.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

jbulls said:


> With all due respect Mike, who cares? The bible shouldn't be used to support or not support anything state authorized. What's the Koran's stance on gay marriage? I don't know, I imagine you don't, and there's really no reason for either of us to care (assuming you aren't Muslim). The idea that one religion's ideology/text/whatever should be used as a decider on social/state issues while the texts of other religions aren't afforded the same respect is just weird to me.


As a matter of fact, I do know the Koran's stance on gay marriage 

Well, the Koran itself actually has some contradictory points, but the hadiths (writings that basically amount to the associated religious dogma not in the Koran... sort of like the official writings and emphasis points in the various Christian religious) are generally pretty clear on prohibiting it and punishing it quite severely. By quite severely I mean people in the stricter Muslim nations face death (traditionally by tying them to the ground and pushing a wall over on them) or significant imprisonment. Unlike laws here for sodomy, these are actually enforced.

To put it simply, one reason to support Israel is it's the only place in the Middle East you'd ever find a gay pride parade. :laugh:

Anyway, I don't think it should be an explicit authority for the state, but in a democracy I don't see why it shouldn't be an ethical guide for the people, and the people are the state.

As to why one text should be a matter of concern and the another not, it's obviously because the people in this country believe one to be true in much greater numbers than the other. Just like you said it's irrelevant what the Koran says unless I'm Muslim (in a conversation about what's right between us), it's irrelevant what the Koran says if none of us are Muslim (in a conversation about what's right between all of us - i.e. passing laws for the nation).


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

Orange Julius Irving said:


> Again, who are you to tell me and millions of Christians that I/they can't use the Bible for the basis of laws and how society should be run. Since Christians base their lives on the teachings found in the Bible it makes sense that it would prevade all aspects of their lives.
> 
> 
> What you are saying is exactly what I objected to in this post originally. You are making a biased decision against someone elses strongly held beliefs and declaring your pov superior because it's "not a religion".
> ...


Are you saying that you do not believe in the separation of Church and State?

I think the big problem is that there are typically two components of marriage, the religious component and the legal component, and most people fail to separate the two. I personally believe that homosexuals should have the right to a legal marriage. The religious aspect should be left to the discretion of the Church. 

Julius, would you have objections to that, or do you think that homosexuals should not have the right to a legal marriage?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Unfunny and stupid was its biggest offense.
> 
> But I can definitely see how the gay community would be upset by it.


You know, I think the uproar over the commercial was complete knee-jerk PC overreacting.

If you individually didn't think it was funny, fine, but really, this wasn't "gay bashing" so much as it was poking fun at the way heterosexual men are often uncomfortable with homosexuality and will go out of their way to demonstrate machismo if their sexuality is questioned in any way.

In my mind, there is a strong parallel to what to me is an unquestionably funny take on the exact same subject and reactions:










THOSE AREN'T PILLOWS!!!!!


Now the Snickers ad is undeniably less funny than that scene from Planes, Trains and Automobiles, but I don't think anybody can really support and laugh at the movie scene and then turn their nose up at the insensitivity of the commercial. If you take offense to the one, you pretty much have to take offense to the other.

Since I have no problem with the movie, I can't come down against the commercial.

In other words:

Not that there's anything WRONG with that...


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JHkoZ7ngAM0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JHkoZ7ngAM0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kKifmB4u6zQ"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kKifmB4u6zQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

This was in the Toronto Sun: 


 For Sam, it goes beyond tolerance



> Sam Mitchell once jumped into the debate about women sportswriters in male locker rooms.
> 
> He didn't have a problem with it, but wanted to know if it was okay for male reporters to go into female locker rooms. When told that that was verboten, Mitchell suggested that there was a double-standard involved. He then went into a song and dance about how, if he was a male reporter in a female locker room, he would conduct his interviews lying on the ground.
> 
> ...


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

One reason to be an atheist is that it makes it easy to mentally divorice yourself from the imponderable cruelty that so many people inflict on each other in the name of their God and religion. It's safe to say that religious intolerance is largely responsible for most of the violence in the world today. 

The United States was founded by children of the enlightenment who were all too aware of the mindless violence of the european religious civil wars that had been largely responsible for their forefathers emigrating to the new world. They formulated a constitution that explicitly separated church and state, and guaranteed the liberty of citizens to choose their own lifestyle and way of worshiping the creator.

It's not hard to guess where Jefferson, Hamilton or Franklin would stand on gay rights. Unfortunately there is a significant minority of religious fanatics in this country, including the current President, who would like to turn back the clock to the 17th century when it was fashionable to torture, and make war against those who didn't share a common view of God's intent.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> You know, I think the uproar over the commercial was complete knee-jerk PC overreacting.
> 
> If you individually didn't think it was funny, fine, but really, this wasn't "gay bashing" so much as it was poking fun at the way heterosexual men are often uncomfortable with homosexuality and will go out of their way to demonstrate machismo if their sexuality is questioned in any way.
> 
> ...


I didn't have a problem with the Snickers commercials, other than they lost me with the ripping out their chest hair, which I didn't think was funny in the least bit. I don't really care for the "man" stereotypes that are portrayed in adverstising, especially beer commercials--and not just the man-law ones--but I understand that they are effective.

And that scene from PT&A is classic.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> You know, I think the uproar over the commercial was complete knee-jerk PC overreacting.
> 
> If you individually didn't think it was funny, fine, but really, this wasn't "gay bashing" so much as it was poking fun at the way heterosexual men are often uncomfortable with homosexuality and will go out of their way to demonstrate machismo if their sexuality is questioned in any way.
> 
> ...


I was not offended by the Snickers' ad. I agree that it was intended to poke fun at idiotic machismo and not homosexuality. I'm just saying that I can imagine a gay man watching it and taking offense. And that I wouldn't find the offense to be without basis.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I was not offended by the Snickers' ad. I agree that it was intended to poke fun at idiotic machismo and not homosexuality. I'm just saying that I can imagine a gay man watching it and taking offense. And that I wouldn't find the offense to be without basis.


Right. But I'm saying that movie has been out for 20 years and I can't ever recall hearing a peep from anyone finding the Candy/Martin bedroom scene remotely offensive to anyone, and I don't see any major difference between the 2 except Steve Martin and John Candy are much funnier.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

The Truth said:


> I didn't have a problem with the Snickers commercials, other than they lost me with the ripping out their chest hair, which I didn't think was funny in the least bit. I don't really care for the "man" stereotypes that are portrayed in adverstising, especially beer commercials--and not just the man-law ones--but I understand that they are effective.
> 
> And that scene from PT&A is classic.


My favorite commercial right now is that Old Spice deoderant ad that uses a male stereotype: the unshaven, burly chested, square jawed macho male, shirtless in a locker room, holding a basketball and proclaiming that if you try Old Spice and don't like it, they'll send you a stick of something that smells of wildflowers and shame.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4Aj55sgudlc"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4Aj55sgudlc" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> I believe you are framing the debate in a way that is dishonest to the oppostion.


No, I'm not. You are being disengenuous about your position. Being allowed to marry, and receive the many legal benefits attendent to that institution, isn't "special treatment". Its participating in the same legal institution that heterosexuals participate in. 

The denial of participation is exclusion and oppression. Granting equal participation is not "special treatment" but I'd be absolutely fascinated to hear you explain how it is. 

If your Church refuses to sanction a gay marriage on religious grounds, thats fine and dandy. But marriage is also a legal institution and a binding legal contract. One segment of society is denying that right to contract to another segment based on nothing more than sexual preference between consenting adults.



> Suffice it to say that there is a legitamate debate on both sides.


No there is not. Not when we are talking about the laws. '

Is there legitimate debate about whethor or not God wanted people to be homosexual and whether or not he approves? Absolutely there is. Is there legitimate debate over whether homosexuality is genetic or a matter of choice? Certainly (but not a rational one).

But that is not what I'm talking about. 



> I just find it sad that the side that has the voice, that is the Major Media, is the one distorting the other view and *you are basically calling anyone who disagrees with you a Bigot*.


Anyone who disagrees with me on this point is a bigot. But I'm not concerned with the biggotry. I'm concerned with the law.



> Your OPINION ceases to be an Opinion when it is backed up by The Bible, What many believe is The Word of God, So You are basically calling Christians bigots and the idea is to just shut up already.


I don't have a problem with people having biggoted opinions at all. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs. It is the most fundamental right we have. 

But they cease being mere beliefs when they oppress others through legal sanction.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Right. But I'm saying that movie has been out for 20 years and I can't ever recall hearing a peep from anyone finding the Candy/Martin bedroom scene remotely offensive to anyone, and I don't see any major difference between the 2 except Steve Martin and John Candy are much funnier.


Times change. GLAD is more organized, mobilized and empowered now.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> * Ron Cey, when you say something like
> I think you're throwing the baby out with the bath water.
> 
> It ceases being "mere opinion" and becomes what? A political act?


Yes. 



> But acting on opinion seems to be an even more fundamental right in a free government. Criticize the opinion as wrong-headed and I'd agree.


Okay. 



> Suggest it's _improper _to voice one's opinions because of the legal ramifications of doing so and you seem to be crossing a line against self-government.


No. An opinion does not have a legal ramification. A law has a legal ramification. 



> Most legal rights and priviliges are discriminatory in the first place. The only reason homosexuals adults are "deprived" of certain privileges is that they accorded to other adults on a limited basis first.


So what? 



> That is to say, the state has and is far more often a tool of discrimination than it is a guarantor of equality. We'd be better off getting the state be it by the vehicle of a 50%, 67% or 75% majority doling out such privileges in the first place. I don't see why marriage, be it male-female or same sex should be anything more than a matter of private contract.


Fine with me. But the government would ultimately need to be the line of enforcement for that contract, otherwise the contract means nothing.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

McBulls said:


> It's not hard to guess where Jefferson, Hamilton or Franklin would stand on gay rights.


Homosexuality didn't exist when they were creating "a more perfect union"?


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Anyone who disagrees with me on this point is a bigot.


You know...that kinda makes you what you're calling other folks.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Soulful Sides said:


> Homosexuality didn't exist when they were creating "a more perfect union"?


It did. Did you see them put anything in the Constitution to discriminate against them?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Soulful Sides said:


> You know...that kinda makes you what you're calling other folks.


How?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Soulful Sides said:


> You know...that kinda makes you what you're calling other folks.


Does it? Then so be it. 

People who think other people should be treated differently to their detriment based on race, religion, sex, national origin, and sexual preference are bigots. I said it. I believe it. But I still think bigots should be able to get married, vote, and get equal pay.

Thats the difference.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

jnrjr79 said:


> It did. Did you see them put anything in the Constitution to discriminate against them?


I see nothing either way. Its left open to interpretation.

I do know that most of them were opposed to slavery...though politics kept it out of the Constitution until much later. Did they say anything at the same time about homosexual rights?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

McBulls said:


> One reason to be an atheist is that it makes it easy to mentally divorice yourself from the imponderable cruelty that so many people inflict on each other in the name of their God and religion. It's safe to say that religious intolerance is largely responsible for most of the violence in the world today.
> 
> The United States was founded by children of the enlightenment who were all too aware of the mindless violence of the european religious civil wars that had been largely responsible for their forefathers emigrating to the new world. They formulated a constitution that explicitly separated church and state, and guaranteed the liberty of citizens to choose their own lifestyle and way of worshiping the creator.
> 
> It's not hard to guess where Jefferson, Hamilton or Franklin would stand on gay rights. Unfortunately there is a significant minority of religious fanatics in this country, including the current President, who would like to turn back the clock to the 17th century when it was fashionable to torture, and make war against those who didn't share a common view of God's intent.


You know, its too easy to stand on the soapbox and decry "the Founding Fathers Would Be Ashamed."

But you gotta be careful doing that...

Throwing around the names of these venerable "children of the enlightenment" can blow up in your face pretty quickly. 

http://www.citizensoldier.org/gaysinthemilitary.html



> We don't have to wonder what Washington though about homosexuals in the service because he communicated his position by his actions and his words in this General Order for March 14, 1778:
> 
> At a General Court Martial wereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778), Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom's Regiment [was] tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false accounts, [he was] found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and [we] do sentence him to be disniss'd [from] the service with infamy. His excellency the Commander in Chief [Washington] approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return; The drummers and fifers [are] to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose.
> George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, ed. (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1934), Vol. XI, pp.83-84, from General Orders at Valley Forge on March 14, 1778.
> ...


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Soulful Sides said:


> I see nothing either way. Its left open to interpretation.
> 
> I do know that most of them were opposed to slavery...though politics kept it out of the Constitution until much later. Did they say anything at the same time about homosexual rights?


Is there some reason homosexuals would not be afforded the same protections as other persons under the constitution?

You brought up the framers, not me. I'm merely pointing out that they had an opportunity to discriminate against homosexuals if they wanted to, and they didn't.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

jnrjr79 said:


> I'm merely pointing out that they had an opportunity to discriminate against homosexuals if they wanted to, and they didn't.


They also had an opportunity to stake out a position and did not.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I'd be careful about bringing up the framers, too. Even without boerwinkle's citations, it's pretty obvious how they felt about equal protection when it came to women (no right to vote), blacks, and indians.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Isn't this thread a bit useless without a few of these:


:cowboy::cowboy::cowboy:


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

McBulls said:


> One reason to be an atheist is that it makes it easy to mentally divorice yourself from the imponderable cruelty that so many people inflict on each other in the name of their God and religion. It's safe to say that religious intolerance is largely responsible for most of the violence in the world today.


Although I'm not religious that strikes me as completely backwards. The biggest killers by far in the last century were atheists and agnostics, . Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Hitler, etc.

In the grand scheme of things, the current round of religious nutism in the Middle East can't hold a candle to those guys.

Religion is a natural aspect of humanity (even those who consider themselves atheists frequently simply replace organized religion with a faith based zeal in something else). Imponderable cruelty is another natural aspect of humanity. I wouldn't make the mistake of assigning responsibility for the latter to the former any more than I'd say mustard is responsible for ketchup on the burger.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I'd be careful about bringing up the framers, too. Even without boerwinkle's citations, it's pretty obvious how they felt about equal protection when it came to women (no right to vote), blacks, and indians.


I would be equally as careful when citing the Bible as support of laws that should or should not be enacted. Some of the views represented in the Bible are considered barbaric by widely-held modern moral standards.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> Religion is a natural aspect of humanity (even those who consider themselves atheists frequently simply replace organized religion with a faith based zeal in something else).


Kudos. Thats very well said.


----------



## MacDanny 6 (Jun 7, 2002)

If you played with Amaechi wouldn't you notice that he wasn't married nor had a girlfriend and he probably never talked about women while most likely all the other players had a bunch of conversations about chicks. Its kinda fishy.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Of course, with Hamilton, you'd suspect he'd be all about gay rights...since by all accounts he was probably gay.

Predicting Frankin's views are a tough nut to crack. He had a Puritan upbringing, but rejected organized religion. On the other hand, he remained a devout "Deist."

He doesn't seem to have written on the subject, but I can't imagine sodomy laws were particularly offensive to him, considering he was an activist, a publisher who wasn't afraid to use the press as a bully pulpit and never spoke out against punishment of homosexual activity, despite the fact that in Colonial times, sodomy was punishable by death, and that particular sentence was often carried out. In the early States, it is my understanding that every state had anti-sodomy laws in place, with the "enlightened" view changing punishment from death to mere imprisonment.

I agree that the Constitution does not specifically address the issue, but that is not surprising, since marriage laws, sodomy laws, etc would have most certainly be viewed by the Founding Fathers as local matters, reserved for the several States.

As DaBullz points out, our Founding Fathers don't have a great track record of defending "rights" of anyone other than the Traditional White Male.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

MacDanny 6 said:


> If you played with Amaechi wouldn't you notice that he wasn't married nor had a girlfriend and he probably never talked about women while most likely all the other players had a bunch of conversations about chicks. Its kinda fishy.


If you played with Amaechi, you'd have taken many showers with other men in locker rooms and would never have known or cared if one (or more) of the others was gay. It surely wouldn't have been a big deal.

And just how did Magic get HIV in the first place?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

MacDanny 6 said:


> If you played with Amaechi wouldn't you notice that he wasn't married nor had a girlfriend and he probably never talked about women while most likely all the other players had a bunch of conversations about chicks. Its kinda fishy.


You know how a woman's breast feels like a bag of sand?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> And just how did Magic get HIV in the first place?


Two words: Johnny Gill.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

MacDanny 6 said:


> If you played with Amaechi wouldn't you notice that he wasn't married nor had a girlfriend and he probably never talked about women while most likely all the other players had a bunch of conversations about chicks. Its kinda fishy.


Heck, Ben Gordon asked KC what injury Noch had and how long he'd be out. I think it's safe to say a lot of athletes are a bit self-absorbed. 

And you know, gay men have been known to talk about women. Just because you have a preference for the same sex, doesn't mean you don't appreciate people of the opposite sex.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> In the grand scheme of things, the current round of religious nutism in the Middle East can't hold a candle to those guys.


I can't go along with that one. I think there are literally millions of fundamentalists who, if given the chance to push a big red button that would cause the earth to be vaporized, would push the button. I don't know that the same is true of most of history's prolific mass murderers.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> I think


Baaaad idea.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I can't go along with that one. I think there are literally millions of fundamentalists who, if given the chance to push a big red button that would cause the earth to be vaporized, would push the button. I don't know that the same is true of most of history's prolific mass murderers.


Tend to agree...the main difference is the means. However, I think they'd try to make it an "infidels only" bomb if they could.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I think there are literally millions of fundamentalists who, if given the chance to push a big red button that would cause the earth to be vaporized, would push the button.


Undoubtably true.

Here are a couple of fundamentalists who come to mind as fitting that description:


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Undoubtably true.
> 
> Here are a couple of fundamentalists who come to mind as fitting that description:


I don't know that those two would push the button, but if the chips were down, they probably wouldn't break a sweat trying to stop the button-pusher.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> Although I'm not religious that strikes me as completely backwards. The biggest killers by far in the last century were atheists and agnostics, . Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Hitler, etc.
> 
> In the grand scheme of things, the current round of religious nutism in the Middle East can't hold a candle to those guys.


Good point, although those guys have been dead a long time, and Iraq, Afganistan, Israel-Palestine, Checknya-Russia, Bosnia-Serbia, Kashmir and even Dafur have religious nuts cheerleading the conflicts.

But the subject is gay rights. Whatever their faults, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Napolean and Hitler were not gay-bashers. 

Most of the cheerleading for bashing gays in this country seems to be coming from religious fanatics who want to impose their values and mores on everyone else. These are the same idiots who believe the sun revolves around the earth (because the bible says so), insist that modern genetics and evolution are not the basis of life on earth and should not be taught in our public schools, and who think public breast feeding and research on stem cell cures for the diseases that afflict millions of people should be banned. 

I respect the right of religious extremists like George Bush to hold their rather pequliar beliefs, but their persistent efforts to deny others the right to live their lives based on more rational premises needs to be opposed just as much as the appalling intolerance of Muslim extremists.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I don't know that those two would push the button, but if the chips were down, they probably wouldn't break a sweat trying to stop the button-pusher.


I dunno. Considering that they consider themselves to be doing the work of The Lord and they believe that even mainstream America (let alone the "fruits, nuts and flakes") inhabit a modern, expanded version of Sodom and Gommorah, I can see them deluding themselves into doing some mass smiting of the "preverts" in the name of what they consider Holy.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> People who think other people should be treated differently to their detriment based on race, religion, sex, national origin, and sexual preference are bigots.


One interesting side note is that this famous litany (race, color, creed, etc.) comes from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended). While many think that sexual preference/orientation is included in the federal law as prohibited bases for discrimination, it isn't. Many states and municipalities have their own laws/ordinances, but not the feds. 

The best known use of the law is in employment. Absent state/local laws, there's no sanction against firing an employee because he/she is found to be gay. With all the talk about the "right" to same sex marriage, I'm surprised that the failure to provide national Title VII protection doesn't get more run.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

McBulls said:


> Most of the cheerleading for bashing gays in this country seems to be coming from religious fanatics who want to impose their values and mores on everyone else. These are the same idiots who believe the sum revolves around the earth (because the bible says so), insist that modern genetics and evolution are not the basis of life on earth and should not be taught in our public schools, and who think public breast feeding and research on stem cell cures for the diseases that afflict millions of people should be banned.



Not all religious people believe the above. I'd even say that those who do are a vast, but vocal, minority.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

McBulls said:


> But the subject is gay rights. Whatever their faults, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Napolean and Hitler were not gay-bashers.


Umm..homosexuality had been decriminilized in the late stages of Czarist Russia. Stalin recriminilized the behavior and sent homosexuals to labor camps.

Hitler rounded up homosexuals and put them in concentration camps, as being abhorrent to the German Racial Purity concept.

I don't know about Napolean, but I have a hard time believer that the "purification-prone" Chairman "What the **** is a Human Right" Mao exactly put out a red carpet for homosexuals.

Both the Russian government under Lenin and the Nazi party under Hitler considered homosexuality to be a disease and funded research to "cure" the same.


----------

