# OT: TimBug the homophobe



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Yikes:



> Former NBA star point guard Tim Hardaway -- a five-time All-Star player -- was interviewed Wednesday on a Miami radio station about another retired player, John Amaechi, who came out as gay last week. At first Hardaway danced around the topic, using the familiar locker room concerns: "First of all I wouldn't want him on my team. Second of all, if he was on my team I would really distance myself from him because I don't think that's right and I don't think he should be in the locker room when we're in the locker room." But when pressed by the interviewer, Hardaway gave up the pretense and made it clear why Amaechi felt it was impossible to come out while he still played: "Well, you know, I hate gay people. I let it be known I don't like gay people. I don't like to be around gay people. I'm homophobic. It shouldn't be in the world, in the United States, I don't like it."


In related news...


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Timmy must've hated playing in San Francisco then.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Hap said:


> Timmy must've hated playing in San Francisco then.


...and then Miami!


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Kind of sad this thinking still exisits. I wish Amaechi would have a sense of humor and come back and say he would have distanced himself from Hardaway because he doesn't like short people. I mean it's about as stupid. Neither really has a choice in what they are like. 


No way you can convince me that someone would choose to be apart of the most rideculed group of people in the world today.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Actually, Hardaway was playing in Oakland, not SF.

True, mediocre man, Amaechi could claim with justification that short people are more out of place in the NBA than gay people. And Hardaway would deserve it. But I like to think he's taking the high road.

Note that twice Hardaway referred to showers, although a person on this board challenged the statement that big tough macho men tremble at the thought of being in a shower with a gay man. 

Remember when Kersey took Hardaway out?:biggrin:


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

crandc said:


> Remember when Kersey took Hardaway out?


I didn't know they dated.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I can kind of understand a straight guy being less than thrilled about showering with a gay guy, regardless of how macho or tough the straight guy is. As a heterosexual male, I know that if you put me in a room full of showering women I might have some ideas that wouldn't be too flattering. 

Would you want to share a shower with me, crandc? Even though you are lesbian and I am married, I doubt it, and I wouldn't blame you. 

It'd creep me out to think that a homosexual teammate might be thinking the same about me while I'm standing naked next to him. 

Outside of that, though, Hardaway's comments are absurd, and he's pretty much destroyed any hope of ever returning as an ESPN analyst (no big loss to the world). 

Sad that in ten years people will probably say, "Wasn't he that raging homophobe?" instead of "Wasn't he that guy with the wicked crossover dribble?" He accomplished so much in his career, and he just crapped all over his own legacy.

As an example, over a third of his Wikipedia entry is already devoted to this topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Hardaway


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

No, Mook, I would not want to shower with you. You're a man. I don't undress for men. 

I'm a woman. I go to a gym. I undress in the presence of other women who are also dressing/undressing. As I've said before, I would not invade their privacy by ogling them and no woman has invaded mine. And as I've also said before, even the most conservative women know that the threat of assault to a woman does not come from other women.

Why on earth do you think a gay man has nothing better to do than ogle straight men in shower rooms?

And why on earth would you think that Hardaway has never had a gay teammate in all his years in the NBA, just was not aware of it? Did any of Amaechi's former teammates every report being raped, assaulted or even ogled by him?

Why on earth would you think that every man you've ever been in a gym with is straight? I can assure you that is not the case.

BTW, Amaechi has said that Hardaway's remarks have unleashed a flood of hate mail to him. In the past week he'd gotten very few, since the public comments were either friendly or at least cautious. But now Hardaway has essentially publicly said it's OK to hate someone just because he/she is gay.

Mark Cuban predicted that coming out for an acive player would actually be a bonanza; that gay people would flock to his games, people who had not previously followed the NBA. Cuban also said that the homophobe would be the one isolated. Let's see what kind of prophet Cuban is.


----------



## #10 (Jul 23, 2004)

crandc said:


> Why on earth do you think a gay man has nothing better to do than ogle straight men in shower rooms?


Because, judging from myself and everyone I know, just about every straight guy would ogle a nude girl.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

mook said:


> I can kind of understand a straight guy being less than thrilled about showering with a gay guy, regardless of how macho or tough the straight guy is. As a heterosexual male, I know that if you put me in a room full of showering women I might have some ideas that wouldn't be too flattering.


Is "flattering" really the word you meant?



> It'd creep me out to think that a homosexual teammate might be thinking the same about me while I'm standing naked next to him.


Maybe "flattering" was - that is, the ideas are not flattering to the person having them. So what you're saying is, your ideas in a showerroom full of women would be so crass and perverted that you would be alarmed if anyone else had them about you. Of course, you're assuming that the women in your previous scenario would not be having them.
Why? Because you're butt ugly? (Or have an ugly butt?) In which case, why assume your gay teammate would be hot to trot with you? I don't think gay men are any more desperate than the average woman.
Or, more likely, because you don't think women capable of such thoughts, but you know men are (because you're a man and you have them). But why assume that? And why think you have the right to control what other people think about you? For all you know you're a pinup in the gay world and every time you're in the gym there's a signup sheet to get to shower with you. Better start worrying about that now. (Of course, you're not saying that you have the right to control it, just that it would "creep you out". But isn't that your problem and not your putative gay teammate's?)

An interesting point of comparison would be Sheryl Swoopes. Has she reported a frostier attitude in the lockerroom since she came out?



> Sad that in ten years people will probably say, "Wasn't he that raging homophobe?" instead of "Wasn't he that guy with the wicked crossover dribble?" He accomplished so much in his career, and he just crapped all over his own legacy.


Yup. I wonder if we'll be seeing a Michael Richards-like apology tour once his agent gets his hands on him.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

I find it funny that he's against showering with a "gay", but doesn't find it a little off-putting to shower with straight men.

call me old fashioned, I'd rather not shower with either.

(credit to those who caught the typo)


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

#10 said:


> Because, judging from myself and everyone I know, just about every straight guy would ogle a nude girl.


What if they were all shapes and sizes, and you saw them EVERY DAY? Don't you think there's a remote possibility you could get over it? Do you think that straight male gynecologists are getting their jollies every time they do an examination?

I guess here's a test: there's a surefire test for when a naked man is sexually aroused. Don't you think his teammates would have noticed if Amaechi had a stiffy every time he showered with them?


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

me said:


> I wonder if we'll be seeing a Michael Richards-like apology tour once his agent gets his hands on him.


I guess it's already begun:



> Hardaway later apologized for the remarks during a telephone interview with Fox affiliate WSVN in Miami. "Yes, I regret it. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have said I hate gay people or anything like that," he said. "That was my mistake."


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

crandc said:


> No, Mook, I would not want to shower with you. You're a man. I don't undress for men.


why not? because you don't like the idea of men who are attracted to your gender being able to see your naked body? 

because if so, then I guess we agree.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

crandc said:


> Why on earth do you think a gay man has nothing better to do than ogle straight men in shower rooms?


Show me where I used the word "ogle." 



crandc said:


> And why on earth would you think that Hardaway has never had a gay teammate in all his years in the NBA, just was not aware of it?


Show me where I said Hardaway has never had a gay teammate. 



crandc said:


> Did any of Amaechi's former teammates every report being raped, assaulted or even ogled by him?


Show me where I used the word "rape" or "assault." 



crandc said:


> Why on earth would you think that every man you've ever been in a gym with is straight?


Show me where I said that. 

I'm not going to reply to an argument that makes up my side of the argument for me. Feel free to continue debating yourself, though. I think you have a good chance of winning.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

meru said:


> Is "flattering" really the word you meant?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hey, I'm not saying I'm right or wrong for feeling the way I do. It's just the way I feel, and even though I've had gay roommates in the past it's just who I am. And honestly, I think most straight men feel the same way. 

If I were an NBA player, would I demand that a gay teammate have his own shower? No. I'd probably just time it so that I was showering at a different point than him. Most likely, most of the other teammates would too. I wouldn't be uptight about it, and if the gay man had a sense of humor I'd be comfortable joking about it if he were ok with joking about it. 

It's probably pretty likely that consequently the gay man would shower alone, and through social peer pressure shower before or after the rest. (Who wants to shower while there are 9 guys waiting for you to get done?) 

Sheryl Swoops is a great example of how women seem to have a much easier time in dealing with issues of homosexuality. Maybe men (and I include myself) can reach that point down the road, but I don't think it's realistic to expect us men to have the exact same attitude right now. Maybe what Amaechi has done moves us further down that road, though.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Hap said:


> call me old fashioned, I'd rather not shower with either.


I'll go along with that one too.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

mook said:


> Hey, I'm not saying I'm right or wrong for feeling the way I do. It's just the way I feel, and even though I've had gay roommates in the past it's just who I am. And honestly, I think most straight men feel the same way.


I just scrolled through this thread, but if I understand it right, you would be uncomfotable with taking a shower with a gay man because they may check you out and/or have unpleasant thought about what they would like to do with you.

Hell at my age . . . I would consider it a compliment.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Actually, mook, I don't give a damn if a man is attracted to me or not. I don't undress in the presence of men. Period. Gay men are men. Not women. Have the same equipment as straight men. Being in a locker room with gay men is not the same as being with women. And as has been said, it's easy to see if they are aroused.

Saying they must shower separately reminds me of the different shifts in swimming pools for African-Americans and whites. 

What about the military? Most industrial democracies now allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly. They live together more closely than ballplayers. Have there been problems in Canada, in Israel, or other countries?

You say you did not say ogle, rape, assault... well then, what on earth ARE you afraid of? Being merely thought of like a woman? I mean, what is the source of your discomfort if you are not afraid of being ogled, not afraid of being assaulted, recognized that you all have the same parts? Seems to me that there is nothing left but just plain prejudice. And the idea that a gay teammate would have to be in the room by himself, well, isn't that a great way to build team solidarity? 

What was Hardaway afraid of? What is scary for him that did not frighten Charles Barkley? Could it be that Hardaway hates gays and thinks they should not exist while Barkley does not?

Funny. Amaechi talked about how the men in NBA locker rooms strut about naked and openly admire one another's bodies. But a gay man being there...


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> I just scrolled through this thread, but if I understand it right, you would be uncomfotable with taking a shower with a gay man because they may check you out and/or have unpleasant thought about what they would like to do with you.
> 
> Hell at my age . . . I would consider it a compliment.


I'm nothing pretty to look at. It's certainly not because I'm terrified of being raped or "ogled." 

Who knows why I feel the way I do. People here are certainly free to psychoanalyze me (and all of my ilk) on this bulletin board. I'm certainly opening myself up to such things. 

Why does Hap wear women's undergarments? Why does barfo keep a box under his desk filled with dismembered GI Joe action figures smeared with Marmite? Why do I (and many other men) dislike the idea of knowingly showering with gay men? 

*shrug*


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

The more someone protests, the more curious they are. Tim is just struggling with his own weakness and lust for men. 

If you are secure in your sexuality, you would find no need to worry about what other people are doing. 

BTW, say goodbye to your career Timmy....


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

crandc said:


> What was Hardaway afraid of? What is scary for him that did not frighten Charles Barkley? Could it be that Hardaway hates gays and thinks they should not exist while Barkley does not?



Hardway has little man complex . . . or little something complex. : )


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

crandc said:


> You say you did not say ogle, rape, assault... well then, what on earth ARE you afraid of?


Does all discomfort derive from fear?

Can I not like tight jeans without being scared of them?

Can I not like Republicans without being scared of them? 

Can I not like tapioca pudding without being scared of it? 

Similarly, can I not like showering with gay men without being scared of gay men?

Doesn't seem so unreasonable to me.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Mook, thank you for being the voice of common sense here. Tim is an numbskull, and I have no common cause with someone who, even if they feel strongly that homosexuality is a sin, hates the sinner.

The basic premise is that it would be weird to take a shower with a third party who may have a sexual interest. Nobody has a right to invade someone else's privacy in this manner. This is why we try to let people maintain their old fashioned decency, especially in places like locker rooms, by separating men and women.

I suggest that there is a facet here which is problematic for folks like crandc. Black street culture takes its hatred of homosexuality quite seriously. Is it racist to deny them their opinions?

iWatas


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Hell at my age . . . I would consider it a compliment.


hell, at my weight I'd consider it odd.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

mook said:


> *Why does Hap wear women's undergarments?* Why does barfo keep a box under his desk filled with dismembered GI Joe action figures smeared with Marmite? Why do I (and many other men) dislike the idea of knowingly showering with gay men?
> 
> *shrug*


mostly because they feel soft against my nether regions.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

On the shower thing...Gay men and straight men have something in common...The same nibblets, just as a straight women and gay women have the same tidbits. It's a huge difference than a man being in a shower with Women and vice versa. INterestingly in ancient times prior to illumination, we all bathed together anyway.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Shilly,

you are out here in Wilsontucky? I work here too. I live in NoPo though...


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Yep in Wilsontucky...

To Add to what I was saying. techniaclly the NBA locker room and the showers would be considered part of the workplace. If a gay male were "ogling" then other players would have the right to charge sexual harassment. There are laws in place that protect people from being gawked at.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

In other news, Amaechi just sold many more copies of his book.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Hap said:


> Timmy must've hated playing in San Francisco then.


He played in Oakland. There are NO gay people in Oakland.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> On the shower thing...Gay men and straight men have something in common...The same nibblets, just as a straight women and gay women have the same tidbits. It's a huge difference than a man being in a shower with Women and vice versa. INterestingly in ancient times prior to illumination, we all bathed together anyway.


outside of certain cultures that have been known to behead and stone people for farting in public, we're a pretty odd culture when it comes to sexuality and nudity.

I'm not saying we should allow teenage girls to run around naked (well, if I was a teenager I would say that) but good lord are we prude.

Btw, in the old old days, greek men used to have "relations" with greek boys. At least I think. I'm not sure if these relationships included boffing or not. Maybe just buffing.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

It's really interesting cause I don't remembe the players complaining when the NBA decided to allow female reporters into the looker room.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> It's really interesting cause I don't remembe the players complaining when the NBA decided to allow female reporters into the looker room.


I do remember actually. Saying it wasn't a "womans place".


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Hap said:


> Btw, in the old old days, greek men used to have "relations" with greek boys. At least I think. I'm not sure if these relationships included boffing or not. Maybe just buffing.



Spartan warriors were encouraged to have relations with their brothers in arms. These were the fiercest men in the history of our planet. In addition, they were only allowed to see their wives after dark, in a tent with no lighting. As soon as the deed was "done" they got up and left. This is all factual history. 

Good lord, if any of you have showered in a gym facility, you have showered with a gay man. It is virtually statistically impossible for that not to be the case. 

I work out at 24 in the Pearl, and being straight, I am definately in the minority there...and you know what? I don't get ogled.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Wasn't there an issue awhile back because male reporters didn't access to the WNBA players as quickly as female reporters had with NBA players?


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

mook said:


> Can I not like tapioca pudding without being scared of it?


Alright mister, now you've crossed a line. You... you... tapiocaphobe. There, I said it.

BNM

P.S. Sorry to make light of the situation. For the record, I applaud, respect and admire John Amaechi for the courage it took to come out. I respect and admire him even more for all the charity and community service work he's done in the cities where he's lived and played basketball. 

And, I guess that's what it comes down to for me. There are great people and there are slimeballs of every conceivable, shape, size, race, religion and sexual orientation. The sooner we as a species recognize that and start liking/disliking our fellow humans on a one-on-one basis, rather than as entire groups who happen to share one or more common traits, the better off we will all be. Not all whites are ******* biggots. Not all African-Americans are ganstas. Not all fundamental Christians are hate mongering hypocrites. Not all Islamics are terrorists. Not all Jews are rich. Not all Asians are good at math. Not all Italians are in the mafia. Not all Irish are dunks. Not all Mexican-Americans are illegal aliens. And not all gay men are checkin' out the straight dudes in the shower.

There was a time, surprisingly recently when being left handed was a sign of inferior intelligence. In fact, my own father, who was a natural lefty was forced by his parents and teachers to be right handed rather than face the prejudice of being an open lefty. Can you imagine your teachers in school telling you, "Stop using your left hand. Do you want people to think you're an idiot?". It's a shame that a young child ever had to face that kind of torment from those in authority who were supposed to have been his mentors and role models. Ironically, the result of that prejudice served him well later in life as he was truly ambidextrious. It also made him much more tolerant of those who are "different". The prejudice against him, while ill-informed, hateful and ignorant, actually made him stronger in the end.

Thankfully, we seem to have put that form of prejudice behind us. Now, we need to work on the others as they are just as ignorant and hateful.

John Amaechi is a hero. Not just because he has the courage to be an openly gay former athlete. He's a hero because he's a good person and a positive role model for ALL people.

BNM


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> Wasn't there an issue awhile back because male reporters didn't access to the WNBA players as quickly as female reporters had with NBA players?


They had reporters at WNBA games?


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

crandc said:


> Note that twice Hardaway referred to showers, although a person on this board challenged the statement that big tough macho men tremble at the thought of being in a shower with a gay man.


As the person on this board who "challenged the statement that big tough macho men_ tremble _at the thought" I was taking issue with the characterization you are putting forth.

Tremble implies fear, which is not most people's objection to co-mingling with naked homosexuals, or with the opposite sex.

The issue for most is a sense of _modesty_ and/or fidelity and loyalty to their partner.

I have no sense of modesty and am therefore quite comfortable being naked among men and women, regardless of their orientation, but many people (especially Americans) view nudity in more complicated ways than I do.

Nice, or perhaps sad, for you crandc that you are in no way stimulated by visual nudity of others except when you want to be.

Most people, regardless of their gender/orientation, are not able or wanting to keep that tight of a leash on their senses and emotions.

To suggest, as you do, that gays do not have yens and urges similar to those of heterosexuals does them a dis-service. They are human beings after all.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Hap said:


> outside of certain cultures that have been known to behead and stone people for farting in public, we're a pretty odd culture when it comes to sexuality and nudity.
> 
> I'm not saying we should allow teenage girls to run around naked (well, if I was a teenager I would say that) but good lord are we prude.


I disagree. Every culture goes around clothed, especially cultures where clothing protects one from the elements (cold or hot). 

List the majors in our modern world:
Islamic society: highly repressed, high degree of oppression of women and any open sexuality. No open nudity.

European society: Not much oppression. More nudity, but a lot of selectivity: only beautiful people welcome to flaunt it.

African: Southern part has nudity above the waist. Northern (Muslim and Xian), none of this.

Indian: fully clothed, with the exception of a little tummy.

Chinese/Japanese/Korean: fully clothed

South American: fully clothed.

And in history, homosexuality has only been acceptable in a very few, distinct cultures. The worldwide social "norm" in history is to kill or at least shun a man who flaunts homosexuality in public. Even in tolerant China a homosexual who did not father children was shunned and humiliated.

America is odd inasmuch as we have high rates of divorce, high rates of children out of wedlock, and relatively high tolerance for nudity (on screen and in music culture being a prime example).

Only compared to ancient Greeks and a few other outliers can we be called prudes. By historical norms, we are indeed libertines. Our approach to homosexuality is radically different from that of humankind in history, and across cultures. You may not like it, but 'tis a fact.

iWatas


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Oil Can said:


> The more someone protests, the more curious they are. Tim is just struggling with his own weakness and lust for men.
> 
> If you are secure in your sexuality, you would find no need to worry about what other people are doing.
> 
> BTW, say goodbye to your career Timmy....


Funny, this is what came immediately to mind for me as well...


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

crandc said:


> *Actually, mook, I don't give a damn if a man is attracted to me or not. I don't undress in the presence of men.* Period. Gay men are men. Not women. Have the same equipment as straight men. Being in a locker room with gay men is not the same as being with women. And as has been said, it's easy to see if they are aroused.
> 
> ... well then, what on earth ARE you afraid of? Being merely thought of like a woman? I mean, what is the source of your discomfort if you are not afraid of being ogled, not afraid of being assaulted, recognized that you all have the same parts? Seems to me that there is nothing left but just plain prejudice. And the idea that a gay teammate would have to be in the room by himself, well, isn't that a great way to build team solidarity?
> 
> What was Hardaway afraid of? What is scary for him that did not frighten Charles Barkley? Could it be that Hardaway hates gays and thinks they should not exist while Barkley does not?


An odd, if not hypocritical, way of looking at things, to say the least.

I just have to ask well then,_* what on earth ARE you afraid of? Being merely thought of like a woman? I mean, what is the source of your discomfort if you are not afraid of being ogled, not afraid of being assaulted?*_


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Iwatas said:


> European society: Not much oppression. More nudity, but a lot of selectivity: only beautiful people welcome to flaunt it.
> 
> Even in *tolerant China *


Nonsense on the European remark. Apparently you've never been there. Beauty has NOTHING to do with it.

_Tolerant_ China, where they drown babies for not being born male.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

I have been in an NBA locker room. Firstly, I can tell you that the players do not walk around openly naked. At least not for the most part. So the issue with women in the locker room is pretty much a moot point.

With that said, from where I stand, I wouldn't be particularly comfortable whether it was men OR women. Quite embarassing actually. Maybe I'm just not comfortable with walking around nude in front of other people, unless I happen to be in a relationship with them. Some people are more open about their body than others. So I don't think I'd make generalizations either way.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

NateBishop3 said:


> I have been in an NBA locker room. Firstly, I can tell you that the players do not walk around openly naked. At least not for the most part. So the issue with women in the locker room is pretty much a moot point.
> 
> With that said, from where I stand, I wouldn't be particularly comfortable whether it was men OR women. Quite embarassing actually. Maybe I'm just not comfortable with walking around nude in front of other people, unless I happen to be in a relationship with them. Some people are more open about their body than others. So I don't think I'd make generalizations either way.


so why did you always insist to be naked during the games of basketball at the class we had at PCC?


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Iwatas said:


> I disagree. Every culture goes around clothed, especially cultures where clothing protects one from the elements (cold or hot).


Good thing too! Who wants to see culture naked?



> European society: Not much oppression. More nudity, but a lot of selectivity: only beautiful people welcome to flaunt it.


"Welcome" by whom? So, on the nudist beaches it says "No Fuglies!"? Not in my experience - it seems to be mostly wrinkly old men who keep their socks on.



> South American: fully clothed.


Except for quite a few indigenous peoples.



> And in history, homosexuality has only been acceptable in a very few, distinct cultures. The worldwide social "norm" in history is to kill or at least shun a man who flaunts homosexuality in public. Even in tolerant China a homosexual who did not father children was shunned and humiliated.


You mean, kinda like granting equality to women? And your point is?


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

I could never shower with a gay guy. Way to much pressure! I'd have to lose weight and get in much better shape!


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Gay or not . . . I wouldn't bend over to pick up the soap if I was showering with Zach.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

mook said:


> Hey, I'm not saying I'm right or wrong for feeling the way I do. It's just the way I feel, and even though I've had gay roommates in the past it's just who I am. And honestly, I think most straight men feel the same way.


Oh come on - you know that's not good enough. A racist could say exactly the same thing. It's not enough to say "I just feel that" if the feeling is morally wrong. And just because it's a feeling you have doesn't make it okay. Now, the question is, do you think it's okay to get "creeped out" like that, or do you think it's a moot point because it's totally beyond your control? I don't believe it is. **edit*


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

If you don't want to take a shower with me, your a bad person.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> Nonsense on the European remark. Apparently you've never been there. Beauty has NOTHING to do with it.


You got me! I only lived there for 10 years. Show me an ad campaign using an ugly naked woman, and you have a point. 

I lived in England. It is a country populated almost entirely by Fugly people. And most of them know it, which may be a causal link to their reputation for prudishness.



> _Tolerant_ China, where they drown babies for not being born male.


I was allowing for the fact that China in history has not (to my knowledge) openly killed men for being homosexual. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_China


iWatas


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

meru said:


> Oh come on - you know that's not good enough. A racist could say exactly the same thing. It's not enough to say "I just feel that" if the feeling is morally wrong.


Why isn't it good enough? Sure, a racist could say the same thing about black people. Just like a person with agoraphobia could say the same thing about open spaces. Does that make agoraphobes morally wrong? 



> And just because it's a feeling you have doesn't make it okay. Now, the question is, do you think it's okay to get "creeped out" like that, or do you think it's a moot point because it's totally beyond your control?


I don't know if it is totally beyond my control. I've lived with two different gay roommates for about two years (combined), and I still feel this way. So obviously sharing the same box of Cheerios or swishing my toothpaste out from the same water glass with gay men hasn't helped. 

Perhaps the only cure for my problem is to shower with lots and lots of gay men. As my wife is so generous in pointing out, I have lots of opportunities to improve myself. I shall add this to the list, but don't expect me to prioritize it very highly. 

**Edit*


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Good lord, talk about all over the map.

Mook, you are, I think, an intelligent person, based on past posts. Could you really not know the difference between personal taste and prejudice? If you don't like tapioca it is personal preference. You don't like the taste or texture or whatever. You are not oppressing or discriminating, you are not making tapioca a second class pudding. To even say that is absurd. But to say that gay men and lesbians should have separate locker rooms or shower separately when you acknowledge there is no reason to fear them is not personal taste like food or clothing or prefering blond or brunette women. If you recognize no reason to fear but still say gay men should shower separately, what else can I think but prejudice? And what about the impact on morale of a team or a military unit if one or a few people were isolated and separated from the others?

Does it bother you, Mook, since you acknowledge that Hardaway is off base, that Iwatas, who totally agrees with Hardaway and has said he hates gays, is the one jumping to agree with you as "voice of reason"? I can't change your feelings but can you at least acknowledge they are not reasonable?

Maris, let me explain this in words of one (or very few) syllables. Rape is not a crime of desire. As a woman, I know that not all men are rapists. I also know that I can't tell by looks, speech or job who is and who is not a man who assaults or abuses women. And that it has zero to do with whether he finds her attractive.

How do you equate our desire not to have men around while we are undressed, who may or may not gawk, who may or may not threaten our safety, with men among men? You can't. There is no comparison. I think you are trying to hijack another thread into personal attack and I'm not playing.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

Hap said:


> so why did you always insist to be naked during the games of basketball at the class we had at PCC?


I play better naked. It's a proven fact.


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

Iwatas said:


> I disagree. Every culture goes around clothed, especially cultures where clothing protects one from the elements (cold or hot).
> 
> 
> South American: fully clothed.


O RLY?

look and look

(NSFW)


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

crandc said:


> Good lord, talk about all over the map.
> 
> Mook, you are, I think, an intelligent person, based on past posts. Could you really not know the difference between personal taste and prejudice? If you don't like tapioca it is personal preference. You don't like the taste or texture or whatever. You are not oppressing or discriminating, you are not making tapioca a second class pudding. To even say that is absurd. But to say that gay men and lesbians should have separate locker rooms or shower separately when you acknowledge there is no reason to fear them is not personal taste like food or clothing or prefering blond or brunette women. If you recognize no reason to fear but still say gay men should shower separately, what else can I think but prejudice? And what about the impact on morale of a team or a military unit if one or a few people were isolated and separated from the others.


I don't know about this argument. Why do we have a seperate locker room for men and women? It's because it's a common courtesy. 

Are you saying that we could eventually have men and women showering together? I'm sure some people would be ok with it, but others would not and I think that's what we are debating here.

You could also put the shoe on the other foot. What if it was just as embarrassing for the gay man to shower with straight men. Especially for someone like Amaechi. Always worried he would show some kind of arrousal, and then have to explain it. 

Just from personal experience, any time I've become *cough* aroused *cough cough* public in a females presence it is EXTEMELY embarrassing.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

I always thought Hardaway dribbled like a homophobe.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

NateBishop3 said:


> I play better naked. It's a proven fact.


are so many ways this can go....like...

you always did like taking it to the hole when JR was playing.

zing!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

NateBishop3 said:


> Just from personal experience, any time I've become *cough* aroused *cough cough* public in a females presence it is EXTEMELY embarrassing.


in the future, when you hear a little voice that says "hm, I think this should be private"..please listen to it.

no one wants to know about your sun dial nate. 

hehe


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

NateBishop3 said:


> You could also put the shoe on the other foot. What if it was just as embarrassing for the gay man to shower with straight men. Especially for someone like Amaechi. Always worried he would show some kind of arrousal, and then have to explain it.



I don't think that is the issue. The issue involves the idea that apparently there are men out there who would be uncomfortable taking showers with gay men (in a locker room setting).

Clearly that feeling exist among some men, the question is: is that feeling a prejudice feeling and should one just accept that is how it is or should we challenge that feeling as being homophopic and prejudice and not just accept that it is OK for some of society to feel that way . . .


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

NateBishop, I did say, several times, that men and women have separate facilities. I think it is not just tradition or courtesy, it is privacy. As I said, I go to the gym at work and use the locker room. I have never found it embarrassing or awkward to be among women undressing. Context is important. If my loved one was undressing in an intimate setting, that is not the same as a semi-public locker room full of women whom I do not even know.

I agree with KMD. We can deal with prejudice by realizing it is wrong and fighting it, in ourselves and in the world, or we can be like Hardaway and say "I hate, hallelujah!"


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I don't think that is the issue. The issue involves the idea that apparently there are men out there who would be uncomfortable taking showers with gay men (in a locker room setting).
> 
> Clearly that feeling exist among some men, the question is: is that feeling a prejudice feeling and should one just accept that is how it is or should we challenge that feeling as being homophopic and prejudice and not just accept that it is OK for some of society to feel that way . . .


I think Nate hit the issue right on the head. 

I think it's ludicrous to argue that a man who doesn't want to shower with an openly gay man must be afraid of gay men. It's like saying if you don't want men and women to shower together, you must be afraid of either women or men. 

Fear may be an issue for some. For others (like me) it's just an exercise in taste, social codes and family upbringing. To say that I MUST be homophobic is, well, prejudice against me. 

Are my preferences harmful? In some small way I suppose they are. I also happen to like thinner women. Those tastes similarly harm fat women. I like European women. In some small way those tastes harm American girls. I prefer talking to smart people, which robs many dumb people of my delightful conversation. 

We all have lots of personal preferences that in some small way harm others. You can spend your life wringing your hands over them, or you can just sweat the big ways we harm each other. I prefer the latter. 

I'm pro-gay marriage. I think they should have every legal right I do. I've happily called gay men my friends in the past, and will do so in the future. But do I want to shower with them? Not really.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I think most guys wouldn't mind a woman finding them attractive. So does it jar their own confidence to have a gay man find them attractive? If so why? Insecurity.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Schilly said:


> I think most guys wouldn't mind a woman finding them attractive. So does it jar their own confidence to have a gay man find them attractive? If so why? Insecurity.



Great point. I've actually had a gay man tell me I was attractive and asked me out. Why should I have been offended at that? I was flattered someone thought I was handsome enough to approach me and ask me out. Regardless of what sex, race or religon they are.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

mook said:


> Does all discomfort derive from fear?
> 
> Can I not like tight jeans without being scared of them?
> 
> ...




http://www.blackpuddingatemycharacter.com/

Pudding is nothing to be flexed with brother. Especially African American pudding..


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> Great point. I've actually had a gay man tell me I was attractive and asked me out. Why should I have been offended at that? I was flattered someone thought I was handsome enough to approach me and ask me out. Regardless of what sex, race or religon they are.


I've seen you..you should have told him to get his eyes checked.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

crandc said:


> Iwatas, who totally agrees with Hardaway and has said he hates gays


Shame on you. This is not true, and you know it.

CranDC, it is clearly a weakness in your position that causes you to repeatedly lie about other people. You figure if you radicalize the enemy then you can ignore their arguments.

Anyone who knowingly and blatantly lies to win points in an argument is despicable.

iWatas


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Hap said:


> I've seen you..you should have told him to get his eyes checked.



That hurts. Maybe he was smitten by the number of nachos I could get in my mouth at one time???


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Hey Iwatas, I have a long memory. On a previous discussion, I tried very hard over and over to reason with you. I finally gave up when you kept saying over and over about how disgusting (not sure if that was the right word, OK?) you found gay people to be. I mean, it was pretty offensive to me, you know? 

Meanwhile, back to the story. A day after his half-hearted apology, Hardaway revoked the apology and repeated that he does indeed hate gay people. When asked how he would react if a member of his family were gay, he said he'd hate his family member.

Update


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

crandc said:


> Hey Iwatas, I have a long memory. On a previous discussion, I tried very hard over and over to reason with you. I finally gave up when you kept saying over and over about how disgusting (not sure if that was the right word, OK?) you found gay people to be. I mean, it was pretty offensive to me, you know?
> 
> Meanwhile, back to the story. A day after his half-hearted apology, Hardaway revoked the apology and repeated that he does indeed hate gay people. When asked how he would react if a member of his family were gay, he said he'd hate his family member.
> 
> Update



Since he lost his job with the NBA, maybe the Advocate is hiring?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

oh, but he could ball (pardon the pun).


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

crandc said:


> Hey Iwatas, I have a long memory. On a previous discussion, I tried very hard over and over to reason with you. I finally gave up when you kept saying over and over about how disgusting (not sure if that was the right word, OK?) you found gay people to be. I mean, it was pretty offensive to me, you know?



All the old posts are kept on this board. Either show me the quotes where I said I totally agreed with Hardaway and where I said I hate gays, or APOLOGIZE.

If you have a sense of honour, you will do no less.

iWatas


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

crandc said:


> NateBishop, I did say, several times, that men and women have separate facilities. I think it is not just tradition or courtesy, it is privacy. As I said, I go to the gym at work and use the locker room. I have never found it embarrassing or awkward to be among women undressing. Context is important. If my loved one was undressing in an intimate setting, that is not the same as a semi-public locker room full of women whom I do not even know.
> 
> I agree with KMD. We can deal with prejudice by realizing it is wrong and fighting it, in ourselves and in the world, or we can be like Hardaway and say "I hate, hallelujah!"


But how is that privacy any different than having a gay man in a locker room that is prodominantly straight? Are you saying you would feel uncomfortable with a gay man in your locker room? If so, why? He has about the same amount of interest in you that you have in him. 

I just think that screaming "prejudice" is a knee jerk reaction sometimes. 

What Tim did was really wrong. What Mook said was not necessarily wrong. He said he would be uncomfortable. That's not necessarily prejudice. That's his right. He can choose to use or not use the locker room, that's up to him, but it's wrong for you to tell him how to think or feel.


----------



## Todd (Oct 8, 2003)

Big deal if he doesn't like gays, he's entitled to his opinion.


----------



## The Sebastian Express (Mar 3, 2005)

Not wanting to shower with men, straight or gay, because you fear they may assault you but you feel comfortable showering with women straight or gay doesn't really make sense. Women do assault and rape people. It isn't a large percentage, I don't believe, but it does happen.

Personally, I don't like showering with anyone. But if I had to shower with people, I wouldn't really care if they were men or women and if they were straight or gay. That is my feeling, and I am allowed to feel it. If a straight man doesn't want to shower with a gay man, that's fine. Hopefully they are just more diplomatic about it than Tim Hardaway has been.

He could just go explain to the gay man (he doesn't have to, of course) that..

"Hey, I'm not really comfortable being without clothes around you. You may or not may be checking me out, and perhaps it is a little conceited of me to think you would be checking me out, but I just wouldn't feel comfortable. It is nothing against you, it's just how I feel. And I feel that when showering, I should be able to feel comfortable. So I will just shower before you get here, or after you leave. I hope we can still be friends and you don't take it personally, and hope you understand."


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

Maybe Hardaway has an actual "phobia" of gay people. Maybe he was born that way. Maybe he had a gay man molest him. Maybe he is gay. Maybe he has no reason to hate gay people other than eminem told him to. I wonder if he likes lesbian porn?


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

Don't know if it's already been posted, but Timmy's banned from Vegas for the AS events.

Fox Sports

Can't say that I didn't see him coming


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

This uproar is a bit over the top, in my opinion. When the mayor of New Orleans said he hated white people, it barely caused a ripple. But of course white people are the source of all evil in the world, as we know, and therefore are fair game for most attacks. So the nice mayor got a pass.

But when Tim Hardaway says he hates gay people, then he's the subject of endless discussion and ridicule. Why? Because it's not politically correct to attack gays. You just can't do it, don't you know? It ain't right.

Now, we shouldn't hate anyone. It's not the solution for anything, and it's pretty destructive most of the time. But Hardaway is expressing his disgust and abhorrence of behavior he finds morally repugnant, and he is entitled to use the language he finds appropriate.

No one objects when someone says he "hates" wife beaters, or child molestors, or serial killers, or rapists, or thieves. In fact, most of us concur with that sentiment because we find the behavior of the above individuals repugnant. Well, Tim Hardaway finds the behavior of gay people repugnant. You may not agree with him, but if finding moral behavior repugnant is the key to saying you "hate" someone, as it seems to be today, then Hardaway is well within his rights.


----------



## SLAM (Jan 1, 2003)

I was wondering how long it would be before TH stepped in to defend Timmy.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

When did the mayor say he hated white people? I googled that and couldnt even find someone accusing him of it.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

2k said:


> When did the mayor say he hated white people? I googled that and couldnt even find someone accusing him of it.


He didn't actually say it, but he made extremely racist remarks in his speech on Martin Luther King. Here is the comment:



> "It's time for us to rebuild a New Orleans, the one that should be a chocolate New Orleans. And I don't care what people are saying Uptown or wherever they are. This city will be chocolate at the end of the day.
> 
> This city will be a majority African-American city. It's the way God wants it to be. You can't have New Orleans no other way; it wouldn't be New Orleans."


http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/news/t-p/stories/011706_nagin_transcript.html

Now imagine someone like Pat Robertson saying, "Omaha is a white city. And I don't care what people are saying in Detroit or Birmingham or Atlanta. This city will be white at the end of the day because it's the way God wants it to be. You can't have Omaha any other way; it just wouldn't be Omaha."

Blacks would be up in arms, and screaming that Robertson is a racist and hates whites, and the media would be all over it. But they largely ignored Nagin's comments.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

edit: beaten to it


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

[Rodney King] Can't we all just shower together? [/Rodney King]

barfo


----------



## red skies at night (Jul 7, 2005)

I had to put in my two cents worth here. 
Listening to the media on this is deplorable, America is losing its ability to handle free speech. Though I cannot agree with anyone that says that they hate gay people, I can agree with someone's right to not agree with homosexuality. I can totally agree with someone's right to feel squeamish about showering with someone who is gay. Why is that even considered wrong to have a strong feeling about? Let me go on record here...I do not want to ever take a shower with a gay man, so am I a homophobe?
Having said that, my faith teaches that we are to love everyone, so hate is out of the question...I don't even want to think about hate, I want to love. Just don't ask me to take a shower with a gay man...even though I may love him.http://img.basketballforum.com/images/smilies/lol.gif


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

red skies at night said:


> I had to put in my two cents worth here.
> Listening to the media on this is deplorable, America is losing its ability to handle free speech. Though I cannot agree with anyone that says that they hate gay people, I can agree with someone's right to not agree with homosexuality. I can totally agree with someone's right to feel squeamish about showering with someone who is gay. Why is that even considered wrong to have a strong feeling about? Let me go on record here...I do not want to ever take a shower with a gay man, so am I a homophobe?
> Having said that, my faith teaches that we are to love everyone, so hate is out of the question...I don't even want to think about hate, I want to love. Just don't ask me to take a shower with a gay man...even though I may love him.http://img.basketballforum.com/images/smilies/lol.gif


Feeling uncomfortable about showering with a gay person is a normal reaction for a heterosexual person. It's only the heterosexual bashers and gay activists who would have you believe otherwise. I find it ironic that gay advocates have found a way to make a natural reaction into some kind of perversion, and twisted things around so much that one would think that homosexuality was normal and natural and anyone who reacts negatively to it is unnatural and bigoted.

Go figure.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

SLAM said:


> I was wondering how long it would be before TH stepped in to defend Timmy.


Talkhard wasn't defending Timmy, he was defending Timmy's right to believe in his morals and convictions with out having to be subjugated to endless PC policers. This is so ridiculous. I own a business where I drive all day and was forced not to listen to sports radio because of this crap. Not just this gay basketball player crap, but the entire PC police. People are jumping through fire lit hoops just to "prove" they are not homophobic! Talking about the gay friend they have just like skinny girls talking about their fat friend. 

I am just gonna go all over the place for a while to respond to stuff I have read in this thread. Read or not, I could care less.

Crandc types about how she takes her clothes off for no man. Nice of you to have that choice! She has no problem taking off her clothes for women it seems, gay or straight. What about the straight women, do you think there is a possibility that straight women that do not know you are gay would rather not be in a naked situation with you had they known you are gay? But Crandc does not seem to care about the other point of view because it is not her being uncomfortable, it is the homophobes problem, right.

The United States Military is not an institution for Social Experimentation. It is to defend the United States of America and her Allies. Blacks were allowed in the Military under Executive Order 9981 on July 26, 1948 enacted by President Truman. This is often brought up by gay people to justify their inclusion into the military. The oppression and segregation that black people were suffering can in no way be compared to the gay issue. I have been involved in many panel discussions on this topic. For anyone that wants to do the research it will not be to difficult to find plenty of articles by black people that are offended by the comparison. But do your own research, I am not anyones secretary. For blacks it was not about their sexual preferences. It is often cited that until they find the "missing gay gene" it will always be about choice. You can argue that forever, I will not partake though.

People have every right not to want to be immersed in "gay culture" just as others have the right not to want to be forced into crash courses on Islam just so that we can understand why they want to kill us. I personally do not think that I have much in common with gay people, and I am sure they would probably say that about me as well. But why do some people want to force us together socially when there is no reason too? I can be pleasent, but I do not have to share the shower. It is about choice. To gay people I should have no choice. Straight basketball players should have no choice either. That is wrong.

My freinds share my morals and convictions. My Ethos, as I do theirs. My friends are a very diverse crowd. Rich, poor, tall, short, fat, skinny, loud, quiet, republican, democrat, college educated, HS dropouts, white, black, hispanic, asian, native and what not. None are gay to my knowledge. Now sure, some may be gay, but why do I not know about it? Is my friendship so valuable that a possible person I know may be gay but will not announce it because he/she can't go on with out my friendship? Doubtful. Odds are I just do not have any gay friends. Big deal, is this world really that bad off because I do not have any gay friends? Doubtful.

And has there been an actual definition for the word "Homophobe" or is it just there for any PC'er to define as they please to prove/disprove a certain argument to suit their needs? Am I a homophobe because I could care less about whatever the hell it is they do/do not do as long as it does not negatively affect my morals and convictions? If so, then I am also an Islamophobe also. Lets just keep making up names. I have a Yorkshire Terrier, does that make me a German Sheppardaphobe? Of course this is ridiculous. We are talking about people's personal preferences and throwing names like homophobe at everyone because they are not lock step with you which is pathetic.

This whole thing is just crazy out of hand. About the only thing Hardaway probably shouldn't have said is "hate." It is hard to hate somebody you do not know, but it happens all the time. Many of you have never met George Bush, I have never met Osama Bin Laden. I am sure people wil throw the word hate around freely with those names. 

And Ameche is not couragious. He is gutless. He never stood up for his convictions. He got what he wanted, couldn't play hoop any longer, was out of the league for a while and then signs a book deal to make more money. Boy, I wish I could make millions on a book deal announcing that I am straight!

And to the poster that alluded to those that are so against homosexuallity that they may have doubts of there own, grow up! That is just an over played attack on straight people. You will never win your debate when you are attacking. Sure, it may be cute and make you feel smart for reciting something you read some place, but it is just played out. All the cute little catch phrases you think up will never help your argument. I can say they are happily married and never once thought of getting busy with a dude but you will have that cute little comment you heard on the radio and play that card. That is why many straight people do not want to get into this discussion. They will be attacked, belittled called names and eventually have deep resentment towards the offenders. Guess who that would be? The very same community trying to get universal acceptance. 

I didn't want to get into this discussion, but the media is so saturating this pile of crap that I am at wits end. And do not bother attacking me or calling me names. I have been called worse by better people. Just stick to the arguments before the thread is locked.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

BIG Q said:


> I own a business where I drive all day and was forced not to listen to sports radio because of this crap.


Sounds like a choice you made.



> The United States Military is not an institution for Social Experimentation. It is to defend the United States of America and her Allies. Blacks were allowed in the Military under Executive Order 9981 on July 26, 1948 enacted by President Truman. This is often brought up by gay people to justify their inclusion into the military. The oppression and segregation that black people were suffering can in no way be compared to the gay issue. I have been involved in many panel discussions on this topic. For anyone that wants to do the research it will not be to difficult to find plenty of articles by black people that are offended by the comparison.


It should be no problem to find black people who are offended by being compared to gays, but what does that prove? Is it up to that subset of blacks to determine whether gays are discriminated against? 



> For blacks it was not about their sexual preferences.


Well, duh. And most gays weren't taken as slaves from Africa. No one would claim that gays and blacks have identical histories. Apparently you accept that blacks were discriminated against. Do you think they are the only class of people who were ever discriminated against? And are the others identical in every way to blacks? 



> Straight basketball players should have no choice either. That is wrong.


So what's your solution? Ban gays from basketball so that the straight guys have a "choice"? Order the NBA to build separate gay locker rooms?

barfo


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

BIG Q said:


> And Ameche is not couragious. He is gutless. He never stood up for his convictions. He got what he wanted, couldn't play hoop any longer, was out of the league for a while and then signs a book deal to make more money. Boy, I wish I could make millions on a book deal announcing that I am straight!


If you think Amaechi is making millions of his book deal, you have a very naive view of the publishing world. Unless _Man in the Middle_ becomes the next _Hary Potter_, Amaeche won't make anywhere near a million dollars. If the book does very well, he might make 1/10 of that.

Also, if all he wanted was money, he'd stop giving it away and have enough to live comfortably for the rest of his life. He's given generously in every city he's played in or lived in and donated £250,000 (just under half a million US dollars) to build the Amaechi Basketball Centre in his home town of Manchester, England. He hopes to build additional gyms for kids in England.

By NBA standards, the guy made peanuts, but has always been very generous donating to various charities. Unlike many current and former athletes, John Amaechi doesn't seem to be motivated by the acquisition of massive personal wealth. If he does benefit financially from the book, I'm sure a big portion of it will go to help others. You're certainly free to your opinions about Amaechi's coming out, but characterizing him as just doing it for the money is totally off base given his history of generous charitable giving.

BNM


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

Talkhard said:


> He didn't actually say it, but he made extremely racist remarks in his speech on Martin Luther King. Here is the comment:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thats far from saying I hate white people. Your paraphrasing it as such is worse then the actual comment. Do you have any historical perspective? When you look at what black people had to overcome having a city where there is a lot of black home ownership is a credit and an accomplishment. 

He was speaking to an audience that was concerned that the city would lose what it had. As he was speaking miles of predominantly black owned homes were waist to knee underwater. People were concerned that they wouldn’t be able to afford what was rebuilt in their place. Nagin wasn’t tactful and like anyone else who uses “gods intentions” before they make their point he said something stupid but it wasn’t racist. Racism is when you stifle someone or hold people back based on a racial bias its not a matter of simple bigotry. Nagin wasn’t even being bigoted.

If Pat Robertson said that about Omaha yeah I would call him a bigot. White people didn’t have to do anything but dupe and kill Indians for Omaha. Omaha isn’t under water, there isn’t a national crisis. Hundreds of thousands of people haven’t had to leave Omaha.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

BIG Q said:


> Talkhard wasn't defending Timmy, he was defending Timmy's right to believe in his morals and convictions with out having to be subjugated to endless PC policers. This is so ridiculous. I own a business where I drive all day and was forced not to listen to sports radio because of this crap. Not just this gay basketball player crap, but the entire PC police. People are jumping through fire lit hoops just to "prove" they are not homophobic! Talking about the gay friend they have just like skinny girls talking about their fat friend.
> 
> I am just gonna go all over the place for a while to respond to stuff I have read in this thread. Read or not, I could care less.
> 
> ...


 I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks Big Q.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Tim Hardaway is entitled to his own opinion, as is everyone. 

Personally, I find his opinion is ignorant. But I don't think people just hate gays for a reason, and would go out of their way to make outlandish comments like that unless they have some sort of self-doubt (like was hinted at earlier). Why else would someone waste energy and breathe on giving an opinion of hate to a group of people who have nothing to do with Tim. Its obvious Tim has either had past experiences or self-doubt about his own sexuality or he wouldn't be so up in arms about it.

The way I look at people who happen to be gay is that its their thing, it doesn't have any effect on me whatsoever, so why should I give a flying flip about what a certain person does, likes to do or has done as long as it doesn't pertain to me. There is too much hate in this world for unjust causes.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

mook said:


> I've happily called gay men my friends in the past, and will do so in the future. But do I want to shower with them? Not really.


I don't know mook, maybe I'm missing the point. But I read that almost like "I've called black people my friends before and will do so in the future. But do I want to shower with them in a locker room. Not really".

Personally I have a hard time understanding why one would shower with hetrosexual men in locker room showers, but not gay men.

But again, there are some strong feelings here, so I not surprised if I'm jut not getting it.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> Tim Hardaway is entitled to his own opinion, as is everyone.
> 
> Personally, I find his opinion is ignorant. But I don't think people just hate gays for a reason, and would go out of their way to make outlandish comments like that unless they have some sort of self-doubt (like was hinted at earlier). Why else would someone waste energy and breathe on giving an opinion of hate to a group of people who have nothing to do with Tim. *Its obvious Tim has either had past experiences or self-doubt about his own sexuality or he wouldn't be so up in arms about it*.


With a subject as sensitive as this you should not generalize. You are stating an opinion, not a fact, and should not lump the rest of us into your opinion. I do not agree with you. A very large portion of the black population have been raised by God fearing Christian parents. They are tought the Bible, and that is what they form their opinions on, especially down here in the south. It is ignorant of you to use an overplayed, cute little anthem of the gay community to try to belittle Tim Hardaway. Stick to the argument at hand. As I said, crap like your comment does not further discussion, it only stifles it because you are trying to belittle people. Find another way to win your argument, and while you are at it, how about a little evidence to support your supposition. Your argument is baseless without fscts to back it up. So far you have added nothing to the discussion but a catch phrase and a cople of opinions. We know you can do more.



zagsfan20 said:


> The way I look at people who happen to be gay is that its their thing, it doesn't have any effect on me whatsoever, so why should I give a flying flip about what a certain person does, likes to do or has done *as long as it doesn't pertain to me*. There is too much hate in this world for unjust causes.


What about when it does pertain to you? Then what?


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Personally I have a hard time understanding why one would shower with hetrosexual men in locker room showers, but not gay men.


Really?? It's that difficult for you to understand?

A heterosexual man is not attracted to other men and is very uncomfortable with the idea that another man may be looking at him in a sexual way. The very thought makes his skin crawl. Showering with heterosexual men is non-threatening, because you know that they aren't staring at your body and lusting after you. I don't know how I can make it any clearer.

When a young woman says she does not appreciate men staring at her, or whistling, or making comments about her body, everybody seems to understand that just fine. So why is it so difficult to understand why a straight man would not appreciate the same kind of thing from another man?

It's only kooky political correctness that prohibits people from seeing this issue clearly.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

barfo said:


> So what's your solution? Ban gays from basketball so that the straight guys have a "choice"? Order the NBA to build separate gay locker rooms?


Of course not. They should be honest with their teammates since they would be in naked situations nearly every day. Let the individual players decide their own course of action. Why is the minority going to dictate to the majority in this case? How about they accept that they are different from the group and may have to do things a bit differently than the majority. Maybe wait until the majority is done showering and changing and have cleared out of the locker room. Then the minority can go in and do their thing. At some point there has to be common sense interjected into the situation. Very few want to use it though because it is not PC.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

Boob-No-More said:


> If you think Amaechi is making millions of his book deal, you have a very naive view of the publishing world. Unless _Man in the Middle_ becomes the next _Hary Potter_, Amaeche won't make anywhere near a million dollars. If the book does very well, he might make 1/10 of that.
> 
> Also, if all he wanted was money, he'd stop giving it away and have enough to live comfortably for the rest of his life. He's given generously in every city he's played in or lived in and donated £250,000 (just under half a million US dollars) to build the Amaechi Basketball Centre in his home town of Manchester, England. He hopes to build additional gyms for kids in England.
> 
> By NBA standards, the guy made peanuts, but has always been very generous donating to various charities. Unlike many current and former athletes, John Amaechi doesn't seem to be motivated by the acquisition of massive personal wealth. If he does benefit financially from the book, I'm sure a big portion of it will go to help others. You're certainly free to your opinions about Amaechi's coming out, but characterizing him as just doing it for the money is totally off base given his history of generous charitable giving.BNM



As I do not know anything about the publishing world, you may be right, you may be wrong. But I am also sure that he will now be the poster child for various gay organizations that could pay him something for something. He will also be paid to do interviews and the next Barbra Walters special. I am sure he will make out very well off of this financially. And giving away basketball courts and money to charities is a very good way to lower your tax burden in the States, not sure about the British tax code though.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

2k said:


> Thats far from saying I hate white people. Your paraphrasing it as such is worse then the actual comment. Do you have any historical perspective? When you look at what black people had to overcome having a city where there is a lot of black home ownership is a credit and an accomplishment.
> 
> He was speaking to an audience that was concerned that the city would lose what it had. As he was speaking miles of predominantly black owned homes were waist to knee underwater. People were concerned that they wouldn’t be able to afford what was rebuilt in their place. Nagin wasn’t tactful and like anyone else who uses “gods intentions” before they make their point he said something stupid but it wasn’t racist. Racism is when you stifle someone or hold people back based on a racial bias its not a matter of simple bigotry. Nagin wasn’t even being bigoted.
> 
> If Pat Robertson said that about Omaha yeah I would call him a bigot. White people didn’t have to do anything but dupe and kill Indians for Omaha. Omaha isn’t under water, there isn’t a national crisis. Hundreds of thousands of people haven’t had to leave Omaha.


Your argument is so full of holes I do not even have time to point out facts. Maybe somebody else will, but did you just get out of the U of O?


----------



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

I think we've really gone off on a tangent with the whole showering thing. Showering with someone else, regardless of their sex or sexual orientation, comes down to an individual's comfort level. I don't feel you can judge someone based on who they feel comfortable showering with. The reason _why_ they feel uncomfortable, however, is what's important. I wouldn't want to shower with John Amaechi, or any other player for that matter, because they would probably make me feel pretty insecure about my body. In Tim Hardaway's case, it's because he hates gay people. That is, by far, the main issue here.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Talkhard said:



> Really?? It's only kooky political correctness that prohibits people from seeing this issue clearly.



Well that just shows how closed minded you are and shows there is no point discussing it with you. Beleive it or not people can disagree with your opinion and not be influenced by kooky political correctness but instead have their own thoughts on the issue.

But in your world it is either see it your way or you are influenced by kooky political correctness . . . whatever.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Since this thread is 7 damn pages now..I am going to state something again:

If you have showered at your local gym, you have showered with a gay man. I bet you lived through it. I bet you did not even know it. I bet he did not even give you a second glance. 

I work out at 24 Hour in the Pearl and I get hit on by gay men often (though not in the shower, out in the weight room). What do I care? 

If you are secure in your sexaulity as a hetero, than what the "F" does it matter? Good lord people.....


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Oil Can said:


> Since this thread is 7 damn pages now..I am going to state something again:


change your preference for the # of threads per page to 50. It makes for an easier read.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I don't know mook, maybe I'm missing the point. But I read that almost like "I've called black people my friends before and will do so in the future. But do I want to shower with them in a locker room. Not really".


I also have a friend who often has bad breath. I wouldn't want to sit in a car with them for very long. If you replace "a friend who often has bad breath" with "a friend who is black," that sounds pretty racist too. So is it prejudice to not want to sit in a car with a guy with bad breath? 



Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Personally I have a hard time understanding why one would shower with hetrosexual men in locker room showers, but not gay men.


I have a hard time understanding why this friend of mine refuses to brush his teeth regularly. People are strange.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

mook said:


> I also have a friend who often has bad breath. I wouldn't want to sit in a car with them for very long. If you replace "a friend who often has bad breath" with "a friend who is black," that sounds pretty racist too. So is it prejudice to not want to sit in a car with a guy with bad breath?


So what would be the analogue of giving a breath mint here? Getting a skin bleach? Going to whatever bible camp just "cured" Ted Haggard? Or, on the other hand, is it now to the point where you don't want to be in the car with your friend even if his halitosis was suddenly cured?


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

BIG Q said:


> As I do not know anything about the publishing world, you may be right, you may be wrong. But I am also sure that he will now be the poster child for various gay organizations that could pay him something for something. He will also be paid to do interviews and the next Barbra Walters special. I am sure he will make out very well off of this financially. And giving away basketball courts and money to charities is a very good way to lower your tax burden in the States, not sure about the British tax code though.


Amaechi's last basketball contract paid him $12 million dollars over four years. He has been quoted in the press as saying his book deal will earn him less than one hundred thousand dollars. It's basically a drop in the bucket compared to what he made during his playing days (and he was hardly highly paid by NBA standards) He wishes it was more so he could build more community centers in England, but the money from the book won't come close to the cost of building even one more.

Unless you're in a 100% marginal tax bracket (hint, no such thing exists in the US or the UK, or anywhere else I know of) you will get less back in a tax break than you donate to charity. Yes, charitable donations can help reduce your taxes, but never by more than the amount you donate. In the US, the current highest marginal tax rate is 35%. The highest marginal tax rate in the UK is 40%. Based on those numbers and assuming he's currently in the highest marginal tax bracket (he may no longer be now that his playing career is over), for every million Amaechi gives to charity he saves 400,000 in taxes, or effectively gives up 600,000 in personal wealth. Yes, deductions for charitable contributions are intended to encourge philanthropy, but if someone was only concerned about their own financial benefit, they'd pay the taxes and keep the rest for themselves. This whole notion that people only give money to charity for the tax benefits is bordering on urban legend and shows a complete ingnorance of how margin income tax rates actually work.

BNM

P.S. Both the US and especially Great Britain had ridiculously high marginal tax rates on the upper tax brackets back in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. This was largely done to help pay for WWII and the rebuilding process. Such high marginal tax rates started to phase out around 1970 and the highest marginal tax rates in both nations have been steadily declining ever since.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> blah blah blah kooky political correctness blah blah blah. Ditto.


You know what should "creep you out" much more than showering with the most flaming guys on the planet, mook? Having Talkhard take your side in an argument.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

meru said:


> You know what should "creep you out" much more than showering with the most flaming guys on the planet, mook? Having Talkhard take your side in an argument.


Hey, I suppose there are some issues I can find agreement on even with Osama Bin Laden if I looked hard enough. People are complex. Everything doesn't fit into the tidy buckets of liberal and conservative, good and evil. 

When I find myself saying anything that Talkhard agrees with, I have to admit it makes my skin crawl. It doesn't make me necessarily wrong, though.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

If Hardaway had just said he disliked gays, would it have made a difference?

I think hate is a word that is so often misused and over used in human speech...I think the Hardaway misused that word, like so many do, to emphasize a point...

Does it make what he said right? No 

Does he have a right to his opinions? Yes

The bottom line is that with the way political correctiveness is running rampant in this country, EVERYONE should be aware of what they say or how they say it...else subject themselves to labels such as Bigot...Homophobe...Racist....and public ridicule...

You may not agree with Hardaway's beliefs\opinions...but he has a right to them...just as you do to yours...and trying to label another person, shout them down or ridicule them for their beliefs...makes you no better than them IMO...

I don't know of anyone who changed their beliefs because of such measures....


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> If Hardaway had just said he disliked gays, would it have made a difference?
> 
> I think hate is a word that is so often misused and over used in human speech...I think the Hardaway misused that word, like so many do, to emphasize a point...
> 
> ...


You may not agree with people who disagree with Hardaway's beliefs/opinions, but they have a right to do so, and trying to label those people as 'politically correct' makes you no better than them, IMO.

barfo


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Kmurph said:


> You may not agree with Hardaway's beliefs\opinions...but he has a right to them...just as you do to yours...and trying to label another person, shout them down or ridicule them for their beliefs...makes you no better than them IMO...


Balderdash. Now we're supposed to tolerate the intolerant? Talk about politcal correctness gone haywire.

My feelings and comments about Tim Hardaway are based on the specific actions of a specific individual person - Tim Hardaway. If he has the right to be a bigot, then I have every right to call him a bigot. His words about hating all gays are the very definition of bigotry. He is the one who gave himself that label. Not me, or anyone else speaking out against his actions.

And holding a specific individual accountable for their bigotry is WAY, WAY different than hating (or judging) and entire group of millions of people based on one common trait they share. Speaking out against Tim Hardaway's intolerant, hateful words is not bigotry, it's accountability. Hating an entire group of people based on race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation is, by definition, bigotry. Big, big, BIG difference.

BNM


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

BIG Q said:


> Your argument is so full of holes I do not even have time to *point out facts*. Maybe somebody else will, but did you just get out of the U of O?


Yeah I should have just said he hates white folk.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> Speaking out against Tim Hardaway's intolerant, hateful words is not bigotry, it's accountability.


They use that same rationale for other things, you know...


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Kmurph said:


> The bottom line is that with the way political correctiveness is running rampant in this country, EVERYONE should be aware of what they say or how they say it...else subject themselves to labels such as Bigot...Homophobe...Racist....and public ridicule...


P.S. If you've heard the sound bite, or read the actual quotes, you will note that it was Tim Hardaway who labeled Tim Haradaway as homophobic - not anyone who has spoken out against him or his opinions.

In case you missed it, here's the portion of the quote in Tim Hardaway's own words:

“I hate gay people. I let it be known. I don't like gay people. I don't like to be around gay people. I'm homophobic.”

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Samuel said:


> They use that same rationale for other things, you know...


No, I don't know. Exactly who are "they" and what "other things" are you referring to? Could you please be more specific and not talk in such vague generalizations? I'm not looking for an argument, just want to know exactly who and what you are referring to.

BNM


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> You may not agree with people who disagree with Hardaway's beliefs/opinions, but they have a right to do so, and trying to label those people as 'politically correct' makes you no better than them, IMO.


I never I said I did or I didn't...and I didn't label anyone, but if you don't think that PC has run rampant in this country...then you're blind....



> Now we're supposed to tolerate the intolerant? Talk about politcal correctness gone haywire.


You are right, maybe we should flog him and make him a public pariah b\c he doesn't share your same belief sysytem....Seriously the irony in such a concept is THICK....



> If he has the right to be a bigot, then I have every right to call him a bigot. His words about hating all gays are the very definition of bigotry.


I guess that makes you one as well...



> big·ot /ˈbɪgət/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[big-uht] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> –noun a person who is utterly *intolerant* of *any differing* creed, *belief, or opinion*.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> [Origin: 1590–1600; < MF (OF: derogatory name applied by the French to the Normans), perh. < OE bī God by God]


Or maybe you just didn't know what the word meant?



> Hating an entire group of people based on race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation is, by definition, bigotry. Big, big, BIG difference.


Yeah..ya know, it couldn't have been that he used an improper word to express his feelings about gays could it? NO...no...He must definitely hate them, b\c well...you know...he said it. 

I sincerely wonder if Tim associates the same feelings\actions to hate as you apparently do...like I said, I doubt most people fully understand the meanings of the words they are saying...


----------



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

Kmurph said:


> Yeah..ya know, it couldn't have been that he used an improper word to express his feelings about gays could it? NO...no...He must definitely hate them, b\c well...you know...he said it.
> 
> I sincerely wonder if Tim associates the same feelings\actions to hate as you apparently do...like I said, I doubt most people fully understand the meanings of the words they are saying...


So now we have to stop believing how people tell us they feel, and try and figure out how they feel for ourselves?


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Kmurph said:


> You are right, maybe we should flog him and make him a public pariah b\c he doesn't share your same belief sysytem....Seriously the irony in such a concept is THICK....


Utterly ridiculous hyperbole. Neither I, nor anyone else here has ever suggest flogging Hardaway. To even make such comments is ridiculous. Again, keep in mind it was not me, or anyone else here who labeled Tim Hardaway a bigot or a homophobe - it was his own words. By his own choosing, he is a public figure. Any public outcry over his statements is part and parcel with making those comments over the public airwaves.



Kmurph said:


> I guess that makes you one as well...


Actually, no it doesn't. Read your own defnition again. I am holding a specific person accountable for his own specific actions. That's about as far from being a bigot as you can get. I am NOT "utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion." I do not hate an entire group of people based on a common trait they happen to share. I don't hate all homophobic former NBA point guards. I don't even hate Tim Hardaway. I'd rather see him educated than harmed in any way. I'd love the opportunity to sit down with him face to face and discuss his beliefs, his comments and the affects they may have on others.



Kmurph said:


> I sincerely wonder if Tim associates the same feelings\actions to hate as you apparently do...like I said, I doubt most people fully understand the meanings of the words they are saying...


Which is why I think education is the solution. Now that he's said it, the best thing for Tim Hardaway is to understand why people are upset by his statements. Hopefully, he can learn why his words are harmful to other people. That's part of holding him accountable. Note, while I diasgree with his opinion, I am not suggesting he be forced or coerced to change it. I just want him to understand why hating an entire group people is harmful to many.

BNM


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

BIG Q said:


> With a subject as sensitive as this you should not generalize. You are stating an opinion, not a fact, and should not lump the rest of us into your opinion. I do not agree with you. A very large portion of the black population have been raised by God fearing Christian parents. They are tought the Bible, and that is what they form their opinions on, especially down here in the south. It is ignorant of you to use an overplayed, cute little anthem of the gay community to try to belittle Tim Hardaway. Stick to the argument at hand. As I said, crap like your comment does not further discussion, it only stifles it because you are trying to belittle people. Find another way to win your argument, and while you are at it, how about a little evidence to support your supposition. Your argument is baseless without fscts to back it up. So far you have added nothing to the discussion but a catch phrase and a cople of opinions. We know you can do more.
> 
> 
> 
> What about when it does pertain to you? Then what?


I never stated it as an opinion, and I don't feel the need on something as public as a message board, where opinions are thrown around on a constant basis to subhead everything that I state as "opinion or fact". Thats something that you should be able to tell on your own. In this case, I obviously didn't state it as fact.

A very large portion of the gay African-American community comes from the Atlanta area, a good ole' fashion bible thumping city in the heartland of the Southern United States.

Link:http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/blackgays816

But, hey don't let facts get in the way of anything. Whats facts anyway?


The rest of your post is basically a long paragraph telling me that its my opinion not fact....Well guess what...

You wouldn't spend all that time typing that jibber-jabber and attack me unless I really struck a cord with someone who is uncomfortable with themselves as you are. 

Oh, and thats opinion.


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

Hap said:


> change your preference for the # of threads per page to 50. It makes for an easier read.



where does this device reside? i appologize for being lazy.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

drexlersdad said:


> where does this device reside? i appologize for being lazy.


 user CP, edit options and then Thread Display Options


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

i'm only on page 2. but i have to say something

i dont hear many athletes (male or female) complaining when the opposite sex are in the locker rooms... like reporters, coaches, family, fans, etc...

and it was wrong of hardaway to say he hated gays. at least lebron james was smart enough to almost say the same thing in how he worded things.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> You wouldn't spend all that time typing that jibber-jabber and attack me unless I really struck a cord with someone who is uncomfortable with themselves as you are.
> 
> *Oh, and thats opinion*.


Exactly, that is why very few on this board do not loath you. You only wish to attack people. You are now trying to question my sexuality just like any other POS PC'er. 

Is there an ignore option here? I would like to make this chump the first on my list. He has little to offer society and his basketball acumen is even worse. After all of the A_am Morrison homerism and now this, how can you be of substance to any free thinker?


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

BIG Q said:


> Exactly, that is why very few on this board do not loath you. You only wish to attack people. You are now trying to question my sexuality just like any other POS PC'er.
> 
> Is there an ignore option here? I would like to make this chump the first on my list. He has little to offer society and his basketball acumen is even worse. After all of the A_am Morrison homerism and now this, how can you be of substance to any free thinker?


While I agree with many of your views I must ask you to reconsider your decision.

How can a free-thinker ignore other's viewpoints?

Seems a contradiction to me.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

BIG Q said:


> Exactly, that is why very few on this board do not loath you. You only wish to attack people. You are now trying to question my sexuality just like any other POS PC'er.
> 
> Is there an ignore option here? I would like to make this chump the first on my list. He has little to offer society and his basketball acumen is even worse. After all of the A_am Morrison homerism and now this, how can you be of substance to any free thinker?


Ouch, did I strike a nerve?

Very few on this board like me? Did you do a vote through PM's?

I never questioned your sexuality. Try reading the post again. If someone is comfortable enough in their sexuality, they wouldn't make outlandish statements bashing gay people and saying they hate them. What have they ever done to receive you, or anyone's hate. Its something deep rooted or a past experience.

Its nice that you don't think I know basketball. Your right though, your a basketball Einstein and I ride on the short bus of basketball knowledge. 

How did this discussion go to basketball 'acumen' from the topic at hand anyways?

Are you going to ignore the facts I presented you about black people who happen to be gay.

BTW, there's an ignore list somewhere in your "User CP" settings, feel free to ignore me.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

MARIS61 said:


> While I agree with many of your views I must ask you to reconsider your decision.
> 
> *How can a free-thinker ignore other's viewpoints?*
> 
> Seems a contradiction to me.


Of course that is a concern, but he is just a useless poster that enjoys trying to stifle debate. He has no experience and serves no purpose to me. If I was to go on with his line of posting he would continue to attempt baiting me into saying something against the rules and then will cry about it to a mod to get me banned. That was his M.O. during his futile draft the stache campaign. He said he was being personally attacked and wanted protection from a mod. This was the latest bomb he threw that I called him on and all he can do is try to turn it into making the quote apply to me as well;




zagsfan20 said:


> But I don't think people just hate gays for a reason, and would go out of their way to make outlandish comments like that *unless they have some sort of self-doubt* (like was hinted at earlier). *Why else would someone waste energy and breathe on giving an opinion* of hate to a group of people who have nothing to do with Tim. Its obvious Tim has either had *past experiences or self-doubt about his own sexuality* or he wouldn't be so up in arms about it.


What I was trying to point out is that his post is baseless and full of holes. He knows nothing of Tim Hardaway, so where does he get off trying to convince us he knows that Hardaway has self doubt? Is he basing it on his own experiences, his brothers, sisters, friends, where does his knowledge of this subject come from so that he can be accepted as a reliable source? Utterly absurd and baseless! The reason people waste energy and breath on giving an opinion is because it is in the news and nearly every one is commenting on it. Zagsboy seems to think we can only post in lock step with his thinking. If you do not post lock step with zagsboy he throws out "past experiences..."


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

mook said:


> I also have a friend who often has bad breath. I wouldn't want to sit in a car with them for very long. If you replace "a friend who often has bad breath" with "a friend who is black," that sounds pretty racist too. So is it prejudice to not want to sit in a car with a guy with bad breath?
> 
> 
> 
> I have a hard time understanding why this friend of mine refuses to brush his teeth regularly. People are strange.


Bad analogy Mook. One is a curable hygenic problem and the other is trait you are born with. 

That's like saying you hate people who drive Saab's, and that anyone who would drive a Saab is clearly a lesser human being... then again... Jason Quick drives a Saab. :biggrin:


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> Of course that is a concern, but he is just a useless poster that enjoys trying to stifle debate. He has no experience and serves no purpose to me. If I was to go on with his line of posting he would continue to attempt baiting me into saying something against the rules and then will cry about it to a mod to get me banned. That was his M.O. during his futile draft the stache campaign. He said he was being personally attacked and wanted protection from a mod. This was the latest bomb he threw that I called him on and all he can do is try to turn it into making the quote apply to me as well;


Lying is a sin. Probably more of a sin then being gay (realize sarcasm here). I have never complained to mods for protection as your lying about, I've had people do that to me though. Now if you could find a post that has me complaining to the mods for 'protection' then I'll retract my statements. But, as of right now your a lying sinner who is uncomfortable with his sexuality. 

I showed you facts about black gay people in the south that you lied about earlier and you ignored it, in fact you went as far as putting me on your ignore list because you can't handle the truth.



> What I was trying to point out is that his post is baseless and full of holes. He knows nothing of Tim Hardaway, so where does he get off trying to convince us he knows that Hardaway has self doubt? Is he basing it on his own experiences, his brothers, sisters, friends, where does his knowledge of this subject come from so that he can be accepted as a reliable source? Utterly absurd and baseless! The reason people waste energy and breath on giving an opinion is because it is in the news and nearly every one is commenting on it. Zagsboy seems to think we can only post in lock step with his thinking. If you do not post lock step with zagsboy he throws out "past experiences..."


Your blaming me for your inability to decipher opinion from fact. Get a clue in then come out of your cave. 

And people waste the energy of hate because its on the news and everyones commenting on it? Uhhhhhh your brilliant.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

NateBishop3 said:


> That's like saying you hate people who drive Saab's, and that anyone who would drive a Saab is clearly a lesser human being...


That's a given.

Unless you're a SAAB mechanic.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

deanwoof said:


> and it was wrong of hardaway to say he hated gays. at least lebron james was smart enough to almost say the same thing in how he worded things.


It is clear that, for whatever reason, Tim Hardaway hates gays.

So it was not wrong for him to say so.

It was honest.

So in that sense, maybe Lebron James could stand to learn something from TH.


----------



## obiwankenobi (Jan 31, 2004)

I love free speech.

Dr. King suggested we judge each other not by the color of our skin but by the content of our character. It's a pretty good suggestion, don't you think?


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Indubitably.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

obiwankenobi said:


> Dr. King suggested we judge each other not by the color of our skin but by the content of our character. It's a pretty good suggestion, don't you think?


The very best kind of suggestion. Dr. King realized that ending racism did NOT mean we should not judge -- just that the criteria we use should be someone's words and deeds. 

iWatas


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

obiwankenobi said:


> Dr. King suggested we judge each other not by the color of our skin but by the content of our character. It's a pretty good suggestion, don't you think?


Yes, I do. And I guess we should judge him pretty harshly, since he constantly cheated on his wife.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Yes, I do. And I guess we should judge him pretty harshly, since he constantly cheated on his wife.


This ad hominem attack is irrelevant. The thought expressed by "judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin" is exactly right, no matter who said it. 

iWatas


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

It's wrong to hate gay people, because being gay isn't a choice. It's something people are born with, and it's pretty mean and immoral to condemn people for something over which they have no conscious control.

It isn't hypocritical to condemn the haters as being intolerant. It's important to recognize and accept others' viewpoints, to a point. But only a militant relativist can really refuse to acknowledge that some viewpoints are just wrong and hurtful. It is immoral to hate gay people, and moral people have no choice but to point that out.

That said, the best way to respond to people who are hateful or just uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality is usually to try to talk it out and maintain a little empathy. Sexual identity, especially in American males, is a difficult and complex topic. It's perfectly understandable that people are uncomfortable with people whose very existence shakes the foundation of their concept of gender. That discomfort often turns to anger which is also understandable.

That said, the people who are uncomfortable need to try to get over it. Gay people exist, not by choice, and they are among us, even in the locker room. Decency requires us to get comfortable with that fact and make an effort to be accepting, because there is no real option.

Our society has and still is undergoing a similar process of integration, among races, so a precedent exists. We've seen that separate but equal is nonviable.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Dudleyghost, do you mean what you write?

Is *any* trait a person has something we should never condemn, no matter how dangerous or destructive it is? Do we not rightly condemn, say, murderers or rapists? Do you deny that some people are born with the desire to rape or murder? Don't some people, by genetic predisposition, prefer to smoke or consume alcohol?

For myself, I make a distinction between what people *are*, and what people *do*. We are not animals. We have choices. Even though we may be hardwired for certain behavior, some people choose not to behave in that manner.

I, for example, am faithful to my wife. Yet it is undeniable that men are typically attracted to more than one woman in their lifetime, sometimes with considerable desire. Choosing the right thing is not trivial or easy. Words like "irresistible" cross our lips whenever we justify things we know to be wrong. But we can rise above ourselves -- people do every day, whether it means not taking an extra desert, or not cheating on a spouse, or going off of alcohol or tobacco.

I know principled homosexuals who do not choose to act on their desires because they believe them to be wrong. Here's one example: http://www.narth.com/docs/givesup.html . You may agree or disagree with the decision of such a person. But clearly just because someone is born a certain way does not mean that they have no choice in whether or not they follow their urges. 

You may also feel that some urges are perfectly acceptable. But you should not deny the legitimate beliefs of others that following those urges is itself immoral.

Being a different race is not analogous to different sexual actions. Ultimately one chooses with whom one engages in relations. One does not choose race. And if we are to be measured by what we do with ourselves (thoughts, words, and deeds), race is immaterial. How we choose to act is of primary importance.

There should be no government involvement, at any level, for any of this. Government should not be in business of legislating morality, or defining marriage. These are decisions that individuals, and individual communities, need to make for themselves.

I do not hate gay people. I wish people who chose to act on certain urges would choose to do otherwise. But I acknowledge and celebrate their right to make their own decisions with their own lives -- everyone is free to do so. Likewise, I know many people who feel similarly about me; that they prefer that I should make other choices. All I ask is the same freedom to make my own decisions, and be ultimately held responsible for what I do.

iWatas


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> It's wrong to hate gay people, because being gay isn't a choice. It's something people are born with, and it's pretty mean and immoral to condemn people for something over which they have no conscious control.


No "conscious control," eh? Then why is it popular for college girls to experiment with lesbian relationships these days? Someone who has no "choice" about their sexuality doesn't suddenly start experimenting with another version of sexual expression. 

Anne Heche was a lesbian for years, then recently started dating a man. If she had no control over her lesbianism, how could she ever have switched sides?

And finally, if you don't have a choice about these things, how do you explain people who have given up homosexuality for good and settled down to raise a family?



> Sexual identity, especially in American males, is a difficult and complex topic. It's perfectly understandable that people are uncomfortable with people whose very existence shakes the foundation of their concept of gender. That discomfort often turns to anger which is also understandable.


That's the oldest myth going. It's constantly trotted out by the Left to make the point that straight men really want to be gay. It's pure propaganda.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> Anne Heche was a lesbian for years, then recently started dating a man. If she had no control over her lesbianism, how could she ever have switched sides?


Your bringing up one person who reverted (for lack of a better word), out of millions of gay people. I consider it the same likelihood as a dirt poor inner-city kid who can grow up to be a millionaire. Sure it happens, but to expect it to happen to everybody in that situation is pretty naive.



> That's the oldest myth going. It's constantly trotted out by the Left to make the point that straight men really want to be gay. It's pure propaganda.


I forgot, in your world everything is either right or left. Ask Dick Cheney if his daughter grew up in household where being gay was accepted and whether his daughter chose to be gay or it was something that she couldn't help.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> But when Tim Hardaway says he hates gay people, then he's the subject of endless discussion and ridicule. Why?


Because majorities have the power and are thus put in far less danger by hate than minorities. Hate or prejudice against any demographic group is wrong, but when a minority who has a history of being victimized by the majority is subjected to it, it's going to be a bigger story.



> Now, we shouldn't hate anyone. It's not the solution for anything, and it's pretty destructive most of the time. But Hardaway is expressing his disgust and abhorrence of behavior he finds morally repugnant, and he is entitled to use the language he finds appropriate.


Here comes the incredibly empty, "This is America and we have right to freedom of speech!!" argument. Empty because it's a strawman. No one is saying Hardaway doesn't have the right. Rights are legal in nature and no one is advocating putting Hardaway in jail for his comments. People are just calling him a hateful bigot. Which is well within the rights of those who hear his comments.



> No one objects when someone says he "hates" wife beaters, or child molestors, or serial killers, or rapists, or thieves. In fact, most of us concur with that sentiment because we find the behavior of the above individuals repugnant.


The difference, of course, is that your set of examples harm other people, while homosexuality isn't harmful to other people. Condemning harm to others is a reasoned, internally consistent principle. Condemning things that one, personally, doesn't like but affects no one but those doing the action is not internally consistent, because it can be applied to anyone and everyone (what if I find Christianity repugnant...should we make laws against it?) and leads to an unlivable society.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> No "conscious control," eh? Then why is it popular for college girls to experiment with lesbian relationships these days? Someone who has no "choice" about their sexuality doesn't suddenly start experimenting with another version of sexual expression.


Experimenters don't contradict the assertion that for many, sexuality is born in. There are people who use surgery to change gender, that doesn't mean that genders aren't an in-born trait for the vast majority.

Also, you confuse sexuality with actions. Sexuality is who you're sexually attracted to, not actually who you have sex with. Usually, the two will be the same, but there are plenty of instances where they won't. Like people who are either in the closet or denying their sexuality out of fear or self-recriminations. They may have sex with the opposite sex even if that's not who they're attracted to. It's well-known that rape occurs in prisons, and that isn't because jail turns men gay but because they're going against their sexuality in order to relieve sexual tension. Lesbians sometimes have sex with male friends in order to conceive, even though they aren't sexually attracted to men.

None of these things mean that sexuality changes or was chosen. It means that people can force themselves to go against their sexuality.

The other point I want to make is that it hardly matters whether homosexuality is a choice. Being a Christian or a Jew is a choice. Does that mean we can pass laws to restrict their rights, simply because it was a choice? It's still bigoted to hate or discriminate against a group of people who don't cause others harm.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Experimenters don't contradict the assertion that for many, sexuality is born in.


Ah, so we've gone from the statement that homosexuality is preordained to "it's preordained for some people." I guess that's something. You are at least admitting that for some people, homosexuality is a choice. 



> Also, you confuse sexuality with actions. Sexuality is who you're sexually attracted to, not actually who you have sex with.


Uh, Anne Heche seems to be very attracted to her current boyfriend (or was, the last time I read anything about her.)



> It's well-known that rape occurs in prisons, and that isn't because jail turns men gay but because they're going against their sexuality in order to relieve sexual tension.


I don't know any straight guys who would start having homosexual relations just because there weren't any women around. If you want to relieve your "sexual tension," there are ways to do that without shacking up with a dude. But I digress.



> Lesbians sometimes have sex with male friends in order to conceive, even though they aren't sexually attracted to men.


Fine and good, but it still doesn't explain someone like Anne Heche happily switching to a man after years of lesbianism. 



> The other point I want to make is that it hardly matters whether homosexuality is a choice. Being a Christian or a Jew is a choice. Does that mean we can pass laws to restrict their rights, simply because it was a choice? It's still bigoted to hate or discriminate against a group of people who don't cause others harm.


You don't have to hit someone or physically abuse them in some way in order to do them "harm." What if a woman regularly took her child along with her when she robbed clothing stores, and made the kid hide the clothes in her shopping bag? The mother isn't literally "hurting" the child, but she is surely setting a bad example for her--which is just as pernicious a kind of "damage."

I would argue that two men raising a child together and having a homosexual relationship in front of her while she is growing up is harming that child because it is setting a twisted example of human sexuality for her. If you believe that male-female sexuality is the natural order of things (and the God-given order of things) as I do, then you believe that living out a degenerate lifestyle in front of her is harming her.

And does the law have anything to say about letting a child observe behaviors that are innapproriate for it? Yes, it does. A married couple who was having sex in front of their children would be arrested, because that is considered innappropriate modeling of a certain behavior which could be harmful for the child. In the same manner, it can be argued that raising a child in a lesbian or gay household could also be harmful. Many people believe that it is.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> Ah, so we've gone from the statement that homosexuality is preordained to "it's preordained for some people." I guess that's something. You are at least admitting that for some people, homosexuality is a choice.


All evidence points to sexual orientation being innate. Hair color is also innate, but people freely change their hair color superficially with dyes. Just because some heterosexuals "experiment" with people of the same gender doesn't mean that they've changed their sexuality nor does it mean that it's not innate.



> Uh, Anne Heche seems to be very attracted to her current boyfriend (or was, the last time I read anything about her.)
> ...
> Fine and good, but it still doesn't explain someone like Anne Heche happily switching to a man after years of lesbianism.


Uh, anyone with even a passing knowledge of logic knows an anecdote is pretty weak evidence of an overall principle or point. I've read of people changing their genders with surgery. I guess I've now proven that gender is a choice, not a characteristic.



> I don't know any straight guys who would start having homosexual relations just because there weren't any women around. If you want to relieve your "sexual tension," there are ways to do that without shacking up with a dude. But I digress.


Right, prison rape is about "shacking up." You have the most incredible world views.



> You don't have to hit someone or physically abuse them in some way in order to do them "harm." What if a woman regularly took her child along with her when she robbed clothing stores, and made the kid hide the clothes in her shopping bag? The mother isn't literally "hurting" the child, but she is surely setting a bad example for her--which is just as pernicious a kind of "damage."
> 
> I would argue that two men raising a child together and having a homosexual relationship in front of her while she is growing up is harming that child because it is setting a twisted example of human sexuality for her.


Well, you would argue something that has been pretty conclusively shown untrue. There have been plenty of studies done of children brought up by heterosexual parents and homosexual parents, and the results show that there's no difference in the health, happiness or social competence in either group of people.

Of course, you'd reply, health, happiness and social competence aren't what's important! Did they become gay? That's what's important! Well, there was exactly the same incidence of homosexuality in both groups of children.

So, even if you're a bigot and consider someone being homosexual a "bad thing," homosexual parents didn't cause that any more than heterosexual parents (which, of course, makes perfect sense if it's simply born in).

I know, I know...empirical evidence is fishy and your God-fearin' certainty that homosexuals destroy people seems much more compelling.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Also, you confuse sexuality with actions. Sexuality is who you're sexually attracted to, not actually who you have sex with. Usually, the two will be the same, but there are plenty of instances where they won't. Like people who are either in the closet or denying their sexuality out of fear or self-recriminations. They may have sex with the opposite sex even if that's not who they're attracted to. It's well-known that rape occurs in prisons, and that isn't because jail turns men gay but because they're going against their sexuality in order to relieve sexual tension. Lesbians sometimes have sex with male friends in order to conceive, even though they aren't sexually attracted to men.


I'd say you're the one who's confused here.

I couldn't, as a man, have sex with anyone whom I wasn't sexually attracted to, regardless of their gender. There's a safety mechanism built into a man's equipment by nature that pretty much guarantees it won't happen. Without being too graphic, women have a similar requirement of being sexually stimulated.

If you're having sex with a certain person, you're attracted to them, whether you want to admit it to yourself or not.

Many, many people are attracted to both women and men to varying degrees, and this can become confusing to them in a society where everything is presented in either/or, black/white choices.

Rape doesn't belong in this discussion, as it has absolutely nothing at all to do with sexuality or sexual attraction.

Rape is about power.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> All evidence points to sexual orientation being innate. Hair color is also innate, but people freely change their hair color superficially with dyes. Just because some heterosexuals "experiment" with people of the same gender doesn't mean that they've changed their sexuality nor does it mean that it's not innate.
> 
> Well, you would argue something that has been pretty conclusively shown untrue. There have been plenty of studies done of children brought up by heterosexual parents and homosexual parents, and the results show that there's no difference in the health, happiness or social competence in either group of people.
> 
> Of course, you'd reply, health, happiness and social competence aren't what's important! Did they become gay? That's what's important! Well, there was exactly the same incidence of homosexuality in both groups of children.


One of my boys was born with light blonde hair. It went bright red in his teens and in his twenties is now jet black.

I'd appreciate some links on those studies you refer to in support of your position. I'm not saying they don't exist but I am truly interested in reading them. It's been my experience that "exact likeness" is a rarity in nature.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> I couldn't, as a man, have sex with anyone whom I wasn't sexually attracted to, regardless of their gender. There's a safety mechanism built into a man's equipment by nature that pretty much guarantees it won't happen. Without being too graphic, women have a similar requirement of being sexually stimulated.


That isn't remotely true. You're telling me men are sexually attracted to their hand, allowing masturbation? Even without true sexual attraction, the stimulus can often be enough to allow arousal and therefore sex.



> Rape doesn't belong in this discussion, as it has absolutely nothing at all to do with sexuality or sexual attraction.


Rape absolutely shows that sex can happen without sexual attraction. Prison rape illustrates that non-homosexual men can still have sex with other men, again showing that sexuality and sexual action don't have to move in lockstep.

It also shows that men don't need to have a sexual attraction in order to have sex.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

mook said:


> I think Nate hit the issue right on the head.
> 
> I think it's ludicrous to argue that a man who doesn't want to shower with an openly gay man must be afraid of gay men. It's like saying if you don't want men and women to shower together, you must be afraid of either women or men.
> 
> ...


I think this only comes to the point of prejudice or discrimination if you feel that rules, policies or laws should be made that prevent any gay man from showering publically with any straight man... therefore making your personal preference into something that deprives the rights of others.

Feeling a bit uncomfortable doesn't seem like a big deal to me...

But I gotta ask - are you actually fully comfortable showering with 100% straight guys? 

Personally, I'm not ever comfortable in a public shower setting regardless of the company.

Just wondering if you're like me and projecting a general discomfort and modesty towards the particular group that we're discussing.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> That isn't remotely true. You're telling me men are sexually attracted to their hand, allowing masturbation? Even without true sexual attraction, the stimulus can often be enough to allow arousal and therefore sex.
> 
> Rape absolutely shows that sex can happen without sexual attraction. Prison rape illustrates that non-homosexual men can still have sex with other men, again showing that sexuality and sexual action don't have to move in lockstep.
> 
> It also shows that men don't need to have a sexual attraction in order to have sex.


Masturbation is an expression of Narcissism, so yes there has to be some attraction to one's self to accomplish it. There are many people who are unable to achieve sexual stimulation through masterbation.

You seem to acquaint being forcibly raped against your will as "having sex".

I don't, and I don't think any rape victims do either.

As for the rapists, their sexual stimulation comes from the wielding of power and the gender or sex of the victim (and sometimes even the species) is rarely a factor in the act.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> No one objects when someone says he "hates" wife beaters, or child molestors, or serial killers, or rapists, or thieves. In fact, most of us concur with that sentiment because we find the behavior of the above individuals repugnant. Well, Tim Hardaway finds the behavior of gay people repugnant. You may not agree with him, but if finding moral behavior repugnant is the key to saying you "hate" someone, as it seems to be today, *then Hardaway is well within his rights*.


I didn't hear that he was being thrown in jail...

You have the *right* to say pretty much anything you want. But with that you bear the responsibility to protect your interests.

If you're trying to have a career in public speaking, you probably shouldn't offend massive amounts of people. 

That's what he did, and I certainly don't feel sorry for him.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

red skies at night said:


> I had to put in my two cents worth here.
> Listening to the media on this is deplorable, *America is losing its ability to handle free speech*. Though I cannot agree with anyone that says that they hate gay people, I can agree with someone's right to not agree with homosexuality. I can totally agree with someone's right to feel squeamish about showering with someone who is gay. Why is that even considered wrong to have a strong feeling about? Let me go on record here...I do not want to ever take a shower with a gay man, so am I a homophobe?
> Having said that, my faith teaches that we are to love everyone, so hate is out of the question...I don't even want to think about hate, I want to love. Just don't ask me to take a shower with a gay man...even though I may love him.http://img.basketballforum.com/images/smilies/lol.gif


How has Tim's right to free speech been violated?

Why is offensive free speech more important than the free speech that rebukes it?

Freedom is speech is meant to prevent people from getting thrown in jail, not prevent them from suffering the consequences of their actions. 

You don't just get to say whatever you want and then shout "Free Speech! Free Speech! You can't get mad!"


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> Balderdash. Now we're supposed to tolerate the intolerant? Talk about politcal correctness gone haywire.
> 
> My feelings and comments about Tim Hardaway are based on the specific actions of a specific individual person - Tim Hardaway. If he has the right to be a bigot, then I have every right to call him a bigot. His words about hating all gays are the very definition of bigotry. He is the one who gave himself that label. Not me, or anyone else speaking out against his actions.
> 
> ...


Very well said.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> One of my boys was born with light blonde hair. It went bright red in his teens and in his twenties is now jet black.


That's interesting. It doesn't contradict anything I said. My point was that hair colour is innate, not a chosen characteristic, but people can superficially make changes. If a blonde dyes her hair, she's still innately blonde, but she _looks_ like a redhead.



> I'd appreciate some links on those studies you refer to in support of your position. I'm not saying they don't exist but I am truly interested in reading them. It's been my experience that "exact likeness" is a rarity in nature.


http://aappolicy.aappublications.or...rics;109/2/341?fulltext=&searchid=QID_NOT_SET



> A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> Masturbation is an expression of Narcissism, so yes there has to be some attraction to one's self to accomplish it.


That's an interesting take, though not one I believe very many would agree with. I don't think the underlying desire for masturbation is to engage in Narcissim, but to relieve sexual tension.



> You seem to acquaint being forcibly raped against your will as "having sex".


No, I'm referring to the perpetrator, not the victim.



> As for the rapists, their sexual stimulation comes from the wielding of power and the gender or sex of the victim (and sometimes even the species) is rarely a factor in the act.


Yes, that still doesn't contradict what I said, which is that sexual activity can be had without sexual attraction to the other person. I agree that the rapist is stimulated by power; but the rapist is not necessarily attracted to the victim, which is as I said: that sexual attraction to the other person doesn't have to be there.

Stimulation by power (rape) is simply one way in which people can get around their sexuality. Enough physical stimulation can also do it. A lesbian can be physically impregnated by a man, even if she's not sexually attracted to him. Etc.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Iwatas said:


> Dudleyghost, do you mean what you write?
> 
> Is *any* trait a person has something we should never condemn, no matter how dangerous or destructive it is? Do we not rightly condemn, say, murderers or rapists? Do you deny that some people are born with the desire to rape or murder? Don't some people, by genetic predisposition, prefer to smoke or consume alcohol?
> 
> For myself, I make a distinction between what people *are*, and what people *do*......


Ok Iwatas, to answer your comments (and yes I mean what I write) I have a couple questions for you:

1. Were you born a heterosexual, or only with a "predisposition" to heterosexuality? Did you not considere yourself heterosexual until you were able to *do* it?

2. If, hypothetically, your moral system were turned upside down, and you and your friends and family considered being straight to be wrong and being gay the only right thing to do, could you make the switch? Would really be able to overcome your biological imperative in favor of a moral one if your moral one required you to either have sex with other men or sex with no one? 

If you read this, I'm very interested to hear your reply.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Talkhard said:


> No "conscious control," eh? Then why is it popular for college girls to experiment with lesbian relationships these days? Someone who has no "choice" about their sexuality doesn't suddenly start experimenting with another version of sexual expression.


Basically, there can be a difference between who we choose to partner with and who we get sexual gratification with. As Minstrel has been attempting valiantly to explain, committing some kind of act doesn't change your orientation. It used to be not uncommon (and at times it still occurs) for guys in prison or in the military to gratify themselves with each other, then go home later and marry women and never be with a guy again. And I'm not talking about rape, which is a different story entirely, but consensual sex. You've heard of the stereotype about being "In the Navy..." Despite committing that act, they remain straight men.

As for college girls having lesbian relationships... who says it's popular? Do you have any idea how many girls actually get in relationships with other girls? I don't know the exact numbers, but I was just in college less than two years ago, and I can assure you it's a pretty small portion. Some are actual lesbians, who just discover it. Some are actual bisexuals. Some are straight girls, who just mess around with other girls to entertain the nearby boys, who are their true partner preferences.



Talkhard said:


> Anne Heche was a lesbian for years, then recently started dating a man. If she had no control over her lesbianism, how could she ever have switched sides?


Anne Heche is bisexual, not homosexual. For any given individual, the category of sexual orientation might not be clear, but the categories themselves are fairly distinct. Some people have little or no attraction to the opposite sex, and they are homosexuals. They might experiment with being straight, or try to be straight in the time before they realize and accept their homosexuality, but if you ask them they will tell you they have a clear preference for the same sex.

Other people have attraction for both genders, and they are bisexual. They do have a choice, and could partner with either. But bisexuality isn't the same as homosexuality, and the existence of bisexuals doesn't make homosexuality a choice.



Talkhard said:


> And finally, if you don't have a choice about these things, how do you explain people who have given up homosexuality for good and settled down to raise a family?


First of all, those people are a tiny number of people. Second of all, they have an enormous rate of recidivism, because in most cases they eventually reject their reprogramming. How do you explain that, if homosexuality is just a choice? Reprogramming just doesn't work. No amount of behavioral therapy can truly change a person's sexual orientation. If people do manage to deny the biological imperative and live straight, then they are gay people who just act straight in a desperate attempt to conform to their own and their friends' and families' conceptions of moral behavior, but the number of people who are able to do that is pretty small.



Talkhard said:


> That's the oldest myth going. It's constantly trotted out by the Left to make the point that straight men really want to be gay. It's pure propaganda.


I'm not sure what you think I said, but it doesn't seem to be the same as what I really said. I never said straight men really want to be gay. WTF? I have no idea how the plinko disc is falling through the pegs of your mind on this one.

What I was trying to say was simply that it's understandable that some people would be uncomfortable with homosexuality, because it's natural for people to be uncomfortable with something that violates their cultural conception of gender. We shouldn't condemn people for being uncomfortable, as long as they are at least willing to talk about it and consider the issue, because that discomfort is a pretty natural reaction.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Talkhard said:


> Ah, so we've gone from the statement that homosexuality is preordained to "it's preordained for some people." I guess that's something. You are at least admitting that for some people, homosexuality is a choice.


For bisexual people, it is a choice, although I cringe at the idea of having the government make that choice for them to satisfy some people's religious preferences. For the much larger group of people that comprises homosexuals, it isn't a choice at all. The existence of Anne Heche doesn't mean that Ellen DeGeneres secretly harbors and suppresses a lust for men.



TalkhardI would argue that two men raising a child together and having a homosexual relationship in front of her while she is growing up is harming that child because it is setting a twisted example of human sexuality for her. If you believe that male-female sexuality is the natural order of things (and the God-given order of things) as I do said:


> I think it's fortunate for the rest of us that opinion in the developed world is moving clearly and irrevocably away from your opinion. Have fun in the 20th century Talkhard, or I guess you could just move to the Third World.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Thanks for the links, Minstrel.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> Thanks for the links, Minstrel.


No problem!


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> Ok Iwatas, to answer your comments (and yes I mean what I write) I have a couple questions for you:
> 
> 1. Were you born a heterosexual, or only with a "predisposition" to heterosexuality? Did you not considere yourself heterosexual until you were able to *do* it?


Sure I was. But I did not engage in the actual act with anyone except my wife. In other words, I refrained from sex during the very most difficult years, when sexual drive is at its peak, responsibility is lowest, etc. 




> 2. If, hypothetically, your moral system were turned upside down, and you and your friends and family considered being straight to be wrong and being gay the only right thing to do, could you make the switch? Would really be able to overcome your biological imperative in favor of a moral one if your moral one required you to either have sex with other men or sex with no one?


The short answer is yes. I did it before, for many years until I found my wife. Yet compared to "national averages" (however accurate they may be), I am a very driven person. It would not be much fun, but I try very hard to do what I think is right. I think all people are able to at least make the attempt.

iWatas


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Iwatas said:


> The short answer is yes. I did it before, for many years until I found my wife. Yet compared to "national averages" (however accurate they may be), I am a very driven person. It would not be much fun, but I try very hard to do what I think is right. I think all people are able to at least make the attempt.


But what makes homosexuality wrong? It being against some people's moral code isn't good enough, if it can't be justified with reason. I can give you a reasoned justification for why murder is wrong, or why theft is wrong. Can you give me a reasoned justification for why homosexuality (the act, not the state of being) is wrong?


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Iwatas said:


> Sure I was. But I did not engage in the actual act with anyone except my wife. In other words, I refrained from sex during the very most difficult years, when sexual drive is at its peak, responsibility is lowest, etc.


So you do believe you were "heterosexual" at birth? Then in what way was it a choice? It sounds like you chose to defer having sex until marriage, which is great, but I don't hear you even claiming is that it was ever your choice to be heterosexual.

In the same way, it isn't a choice for people who are homosexual. They are just born different. It is a choice how they act on it, but not much of one. You seem to believe that your decision to defer sex until marriage, because it's the moral thing to do, as analogous to gay people not having sex. But think about it, all you did was defer, for probably just a few years. Do you really expect gay people to never have sex their entire lives? Or to have sex with someone they aren't attracted to? That's not at all comparable to just waiting until marriage.






Iwatas said:


> The short answer is yes. I did it before, for many years until I found my wife. Yet compared to "national averages" (however accurate they may be), I am a very driven person. It would not be much fun, but I try very hard to do what I think is right. I think all people are able to at least make the attempt.
> 
> iWatas


I don't think you understood my question. I asked that if hypothetically your moral system demanded of you that you be gay instead of straight, would you be able to make the switch? If your church, and your friends and family, and your conscience all required you to be with a man instead of a woman, would you piously accept that, denying the fact that you are actually attracted to women, and take a man by the hairy hand and marry him and have sex with him? Or would you be able to choose, instead of being with a lovely nice-smelling women and violating the mores of your people, to live a life of pious celibacy? Would the choice be easy?

That's the question I asked you to ponder. As I said above, denying your biological imperative for a few years, while you wait for marriage, is a whole different ballpark than denying to the point where you remain celibate your whole life or being with someone who your sex drive doesn't even make you attracted to.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> But what makes homosexuality wrong? It being against some people's moral code isn't good enough, if it can't be justified with reason. I can give you a reasoned justification for why murder is wrong, or why theft is wrong. Can you give me a reasoned justification for why homosexuality (the act, not the state of being) is wrong?


I could give all kinds of reasons having to do with societal preservation, with the importance of the family unit, with being a good role model for kids, etc. etc. 

But ultimately, those are not the reasons that motivate me, and so I am not going to defend them. I believe that the male homosexual act is wrong because that is what my G-d has told me. It is that simple. I fear and love G-d, and I try to follow his laws. It is for this reason, and this reason alone why I think that male-male homosexuality is in the same league of wrongness as, say, beastiality or incest. (FWIW, I have no problem with lesbianism, for the same reasons.)

I reiterate: this is my decision for myself. I recognize and celebrate that everyone should be free to make their own choices. There is no value in a false "choice" legislated by law. My belief does not harm any practising homosexuals in any practical or measurable way.

By the same token, I am not offended if you disagree with me. I *am* offended if you think that my views are so wrong that they should be censored. Let's be bilateral: I don't advocate censoring opposing views, and I think those who disagree with me should occupy the same high ground. 

iWatas


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> Do you really expect gay people to never have sex their entire lives? Or to have sex with someone they aren't attracted to? That's not at all comparable to just waiting until marriage.


Tell it to a teenage boy. 

Your point is fair, and I do not deny that going your whole life without following your urges can be unbelievably difficult. I think that everyone gets challenges in their life, and they are able -- even if only barely -- to overcome their challenges. Nobody has an "easy" life. Obstacles and difficulties and hardships are thrown in everyone's path. This did not happen to be my particular challenge, but I assure you I have others. I don't think sexual frustration is in a unique category of urges that are almost impossible to control. People may snicker about nuns and monks and how some of them cheat, but it is undeniable that a LOT of people over the course of history, have overcome their frustrations and lived lives of celibacy. I think that the Catholics are wrong about this, just as they are wrong about Original Sin. But it is their choice -- and many thousands of people have made the choice for lifelong celibacy, and held to it.








> I don't think you understood my question. I asked that if hypothetically your moral system demanded of you that you be gay instead of straight, would you be able to make the switch? If your church, and your friends and family, and your conscience all required you to be with a man instead of a woman, would you piously accept that, denying the fact that you are actually attracted to women, and take a man by the hairy hand and marry him and have sex with him? Or would you be able to choose, instead of being with a lovely nice-smelling women and violating the mores of your people, to live a life of pious celibacy? Would the choice be easy?


Of course I understood your question the first time. You put it clearly, and while you think I am wrongheaded, it does not mean that I cannot comprehend a simple question. I answered the question. Yes, I believe I could do the right thing. And no, of course the choice would not be easy. What kind of worthwhile choice *is* easy? 

Ultimately, I believe that life is about so very much more than whether or not slot A goes into Tab B or not. We are more than our sexual urges. At least I like to think so.

iWatas


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Iwatas said:


> I could give all kinds of reasons having to do with societal preservation, with the importance of the family unit, with being a good role model for kids, etc. etc.


Right, all of which have basically been found to be invalid in modern society.



> But ultimately, those are not the reasons that motivate me, and so I am not going to defend them. I believe that the male homosexual act is wrong because that is what my G-d has told me. It is that simple. I fear and love G-d, and I try to follow his laws.


So, if whatever religion you follow encouraged banishing black people from society, you'd do your best to accomplish that? Is it blind obedience, regardless of the evidence of the senses God has provided you and regardless of the reason stemming from the mind God has given you? I don't use the word "blind" to be insulting, but to question whether it is automatic regardless of all else.

Also, what if another man's religion tells him to do something deplorable (but not directly against your religion)? Do you believe he is operating in a principled manner, as he is abiding by the same principle you are, even if you two disagree on the God?

Is there no place for reason in being a religious person?



> I *am* offended if you think that my views are so wrong that they should be censored. Let's be bilateral: I don't advocate censoring opposing views, and I think those who disagree with me should occupy the same high ground.


No one has called for a censoring of anyone's views.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> Right, all of which have basically been found to be invalid in modern society.


In its absolute basic form, place a society of gays on an island and it would eventually die off.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

ABM said:


> In its absolute basic form, place a society of gays on an island and it would eventually die off.


Only if they wanted to...

Gay people can have heterosexual sex if they want to have children and gay people do not beget gay children at any higher of a rate than straight people.




Besides, is anyone actually worried about the human species dying off?

No offense, ABM, but it's a pretty weak argument against homosexuality.

You might as well say... "it's unnatural".

Except that homosexuality occurs in nature too.

Then people like to say... "but I think we should be better than ANIMALS!"

But when you take a long look, you realize that we're actually less civilized than most mammals...


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> So, if whatever religion you follow encouraged banishing black people from society, you'd do your best to accomplish that? Is it blind obedience, regardless of the evidence of the senses God has provided you and regardless of the reason stemming from the mind God has given you? I don't use the word "blind" to be insulting, but to question whether it is automatic regardless of all else.
> 
> Is there no place for reason in being a religious person?


Of there is a place for reason in a religious person. But it is no accident that a high percentage of Nobel Prize winners (in the sciences, where reason presumably dominates) are religious people. Religion and reason coexist quite happily. Religion provides the underpinnings of my assumptions and presuppositions, giving me a foundation upon which to live my life and make other decisions. Religion also gives emotional support, making risk taking easier.

Your question is a fundamental one: do I follow G-d's will even if I might think it immoral? And the answer will not satisfy you: there IS no "rational" morality. Morality is defined solely by religion. Reason in the modern world has been used to justify eugenics, human experimentation, genocide, rape and murder -- every horror under the sun. "Reason" was widely used not long ago to defend racism. With this kind of record, I have no problem saying that religion is *the* moral compass, and that reason has no role to play. In my religion, man is created in G-d's image -- all people. And so every person deserves respect from religious principles, even though "rationalists" like Pete Singer militate for terminating the lives of handicapped or elderly people for their own good.

In other words: Reason does a very poor job of determining right and wrong, or any morality whatsoever. This is religion's bailiwick.



> Also, what if another man's religion tells him to do something deplorable (but not directly against your religion)? Do you believe he is operating in a principled manner, as he is abiding by the same principle you are, even if you two disagree on the God?


Another excellent question. I am reminded of a famous reply from an Archbishop (Church of England) to a Catholic Cardinal (or vice-versa): "We both serve G-d. You serve G-d in your way, and I serve G-d in G-d's way."

The answer to your question is that while I respect everyone's right to have their own opinions, sexuality, religious faith, etc., I don't necessarily respect the decisions they make. There is a religion that holds that killing people is martyrdom. I reject that without any hesitation. In judging murderers or terrorists, I don't care *why* they target innocents -- I care *that* they target innocents. In other words, religious choice is no more special than choice of sexual acts. It is the decision that matters, not so much why you make it.




> No one has called for a censoring of anyone's views.


Not so. In this forum objectionable speech is censored. Racist or foul or abusive speech is censored. And people who disagree with me have been known (in this thread and others) to misstate my position, say that I agree with Hardaway and "hate gay people". A lot of people do not want to have a discussion such as we are having -- they want to condemn me, ban me, and move on.

iWatas


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Iwatas said:


> Your question is a fundamental one: do I follow G-d's will even if I might think it immoral? And the answer will not satisfy you: there IS no "rational" morality. Morality is defined solely by religion. Reason in the modern world has been used to justify eugenics, human experimentation, genocide, rape and murder -- every horror under the sun.


So has religion. There has been more death in the name of religion than any other cause.

You might say that that's a misuse of religion. I have two responses to that. One is that your examples of reason-based horror were a misuse of reason and have been discredited on a logical basis. Two is that religion eventually amounts to what its followers take from it. There may or may not be a God watching, but it hardly matters if His devout are murderers (as per the Crusades or the Inquisition or any number of other religious wars/massacres).



> With this kind of record, I have no problem saying that religion is *the* moral compass, and that reason has no role to play.


As stated, religion has a very bloody, ugly record. There are perfectly good reason-based moral compasses. The easiest and quickest to state is that every person has complete autonomy over their own selves insofar as their choices do not take away another's complete autonomy over themselves. This allows, in the parlance of the Declaration of Independence, for each person to pursue happiness in any way they see fit so long as they do not disrupt others' pursuit of the same.

Singling out people who cause harm to no other people for persecution seems to be pretty clearly antithetical to fair conduct.

If your religion told you to murder heathens, would you do so, since religion is your only moral compass? If religion has been misused in the past to unleash bloody horror on the world, shouldn't that give you a moment of pause as to whether it, and you, are being misused again?



> The answer to your question is that while I respect everyone's right to have their own opinions, sexuality, religious faith, etc., I don't necessarily respect the decisions they make. There is a religion that holds that killing people is martyrdom. I reject that without any hesitation. In judging murderers or terrorists, I don't care *why* they target innocents -- I care *that* they target innocents.


But you are willing to do the same if your religion commands it (so I've gathered). If their religion is the correct one, they're doing the right thing, right? You can't justify holding the same principles as people who kill for their religion with "My religion is the right one." Everyone believes their religion is the right one, and some of you are wrong. By definition, you believe it is not you, but so does everyone else. Some of you have to be wrong about whether you are wrong. 

Therefore, you need a differentiator between you and those people you reject that _isn't_ based on who's religion is ultimately right. As of yet, I don't see it. They will kill for their religion, so would you if so commanded. As it is, you are prejudiced towards a harmless group of people (different from "hating" them) on religion command.



> Not so. In this forum objectionable speech is censored. Racist or foul or abusive speech is censored.


Foul language and insults aren't "positions." No one's position on an issue is censored, even if it is racist/sexist/homophobic. Only bad language and insults are censored, which are merely accoutrements to opinions, not opinions themselves.



> And people who disagree with me have been known (in this thread and others) to misstate my position, say that I agree with Hardaway and "hate gay people". A lot of people do not want to have a discussion such as we are having -- they want to condemn me, ban me, and move on.


I've never seen anyone ask that you be banned. As for condemning you, isn't that _their_ right to freedom of expression? You have a right to your opinion...no social model that I've ever heard of gives you the *right* to have your opinion accepted or be free from criticism or condemnation. Freedom of speech doesn't stop with the person giving an opinion--it flows to the listeners giving their response.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> So has religion. There has been more death in the name of religion than any other cause.


Since when did I suggest that all religions are equivalent? Of course I don't defend murderous faiths. But when was the last time Quakers justified mass murder? Unitarians? 


BTW, you are VERY wrong about more death in the name of religion. Mao Tse Tung, according to some estimates, was responsible for the death of 70 million people. That makes the total of deaths in the 20th century from communism at over 130 million. Add up Pol Pot and Stalin and Mao -- then add Hitler's fascism. Nationalism and the "reason-based" brilliance of communism have killed many, many more people than have religion.





> As stated, religion has a very bloody, ugly record. There are perfectly good reason-based moral compasses. The easiest and quickest to state is that every person has complete autonomy over their own selves insofar as their choices do not take away another's complete autonomy over themselves. This allows, in the parlance of the Declaration of Independence, for each person to pursue happiness in any way they see fit so long as they do not disrupt others' pursuit of the same.


You think this is reason-based. It is not. It is an arbitrary expression of faith. There is no ironclad reason-based argument that says the individual is more important than society, for example. And while I agree entirely with the sentiment, the Declaration of Independence includes the non-reasonable, highly religious assertion that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain rights. *that* is a moral statement, grounded not in reason but in faith. After all, any schoolchild can look around and "disprove", rationally, the assertion that all men are created equal. Yet we hold it as a fundamental underpinning of our society.




> If your religion told you to murder heathens, would you do so, since religion is your only moral compass? If religion has been misused in the past to unleash bloody horror on the world, shouldn't that give you a moment of pause as to whether it, and you, are being misused again?


No. Because MY religion has done none of these things. I take no credit for what others have done in the name of other faiths and other G-ds.




> If their religion is the correct one, they're doing the right thing, right? You can't justify holding the same principles as people who kill for their religion with "My religion is the right one." Everyone believes their religion is the right one, and some of you are wrong. By definition, you believe it is not you, but so does everyone else. Some of you have to be wrong about whether you are wrong.


Other people are often wrong. What else is new? Don't you have the same position? I do not defend all religion -- any more than you defend reason-based eugenics and genocide. There are wrong religions that cause tremendous damage. There are tremendous reason-based ideologies (like those of fascism and communism) that have killed even more.

What is so hard about saying that there is right and wrong in the world?

iWatas


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Iwatas said:


> BTW, you are VERY wrong about more death in the name of religion. Mao Tse Tung, according to some estimates, was responsible for the death of 70 million people. That makes the total of deaths in the 20th century from communism at over 130 million.


"Communism" didn't kill those people, tyrants did. The reason that distinction is important is because you're talking about murder that was "reason-based." Communism was a reasoned ideology, absolutely, but nothing in the philosophy of Communism encourages the killing of others. The tyrants who chose to do the killing did so on their own, with no "reason" (as we are using the word) behind it. They weren't engaging in "reason-based" killing, they were engaging in standard murder...I don't want my enemies to remain before me, so I'll kill them. It wasn't justified by reason, as you suggest.



> You think this is reason-based. It is not. It is an arbitrary expression of faith. There is no ironclad reason-based argument that says the individual is more important than society, for example.


That exact same ethic leads to a coherent society. In truth, *any* moral compass that is internally consistent when universalized (that is, the whole thing works coherently if _everyone_ adopted it) can be called a reason-based morality or ethics.

For example, "murder is okay" is not a moral principle that passes the test, because if everyone adopted that principle, we'd have an unlivable society where anyone could die at any moment. Society would unravel.

There is no real faith to that. Internal consistency is a logical concept, as is universality. My original "reason-based moral compass" that I mentioned earlier was just one possible example of an ethics that meets this logical standard. I'm sure others could be conceived.



> After all, any schoolchild can look around and "disprove", rationally, the assertion that all men are created equal. Yet we hold it as a fundamental underpinning of our society.


Well, my point was not to defend the Declaration as a document free from faith; I was simply using some nicely-stated rhetoric from it to illustrate my point. That said, I think you're misunderstanding this particular passage. It doesn't mean all men are created identical, or equal in abilities. It means all men are created equal in value. That is, everyone deserves an equal say in their society innately, because they all _count_ for the same, even if they are not all identical.

Of course, that _is_ faith-based. But not rationally disproven.



> No. Because MY religion has done none of these things. I take no credit for what others have done in the name of other faiths and other G-ds.


But your religion encourages prejudice towards others who have done nothing to you or to others. It's not murder, but it's still counter to fairness and reason.



> What is so hard about saying that there is right and wrong in the world?


There's nothing hard about _saying_ it. But when it's backed only by faith, faith that not everyone has, it comes down to whether _you_ are right or wrong in your faith. Obviously, by definition, you will believe you are right...otherwise you wouldn't have the faith. But that doesn't mean you _are_ right.

As I said, everyone with a faith believes absolutely that they are right. But some are wrong, despite that absolute conviction. So absolute conviction doesn't mean much in terms of who is right.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Iwatas said:


> > But it is no accident that a high percentage of Nobel Prize winners (in the sciences, where reason presumably dominates) are religious people.
> 
> 
> Care to provide a source for that? What percentage?
> ...


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Crandc, you owe me an apology for outright and baseless lies. When you refused to apologize, I should have put you on ignore; I am fixing that now.

Blaming Hitler's genocides on *religion*??? Give me a break. Read what he wrote: he was a rationalist, and his defenders thought him one as well.

Based on your earlier posts on myself, you engage in outright falsehood. You have no honour and no shame. 

iWatas


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> "Communism" didn't kill those people, tyrants did.


That is like saying that priests who molested kids were not Catholics, they were ordinary people repressed by their celibacy. One leads to the other. "Communism" was an ideology that necessarily, and rapidly, made tyrannical states with secret police and an absolutely awful body count. Lenin and Trotsky both were "pure" communists; both were tyrants.



> Communism was a reasoned ideology, absolutely, but nothing in the philosophy of Communism encourages the killing of others. The tyrants who chose to do the killing did so on their own, with no "reason" (as we are using the word) behind it. They weren't engaging in "reason-based" killing, they were engaging in standard murder...I don't want my enemies to remain before me, so I'll kill them. It wasn't justified by reason, as you suggest.


Not so. Communism necessitates removing people who are unwilling to go with the Will of the People. You can argue with a Lenin or a Mao, but in their minds, and in the minds of their followers, they were NOT tyrants -- they were rational people blazing the trail to the future.

This is precisely my point. In a "rational" world, very profound disagreements can and do emerge. There is no one "right" answer, just as there is no truly ideal form of government, or perfect school system. There is no way to put everything on a linear scale of the "rationally good" in any perfectly reasonable way. See the Introduction at http://www.chanacox.com/open_society.shtml for a brilliant explanation of this.





> That exact same ethic leads to a coherent society. In truth, *any* moral compass that is internally consistent when universalized (that is, the whole thing works coherently if _everyone_ adopted it) can be called a reason-based morality or ethics.
> 
> For example, "murder is okay" is not a moral principle that passes the test, because if everyone adopted that principle, we'd have an unlivable society where anyone could die at any moment. Society would unravel.
> 
> There is no real faith to that. Internal consistency is a logical concept, as is universality. My original "reason-based moral compass" that I mentioned earlier was just one possible example of an ethics that meets this logical standard. I'm sure others could be conceived.


All you want is internal consistency? Then a rational society can be fascist, or communist or communitarian or libertarian. Or it could be an Islamic State or a Jewish State or a Quaker State. In other words, any society on earth could be called "rational". Is there actually a definition here?




> Well, my point was not to defend the Declaration as a document free from faith; I was simply using some nicely-stated rhetoric from it to illustrate my point. That said, I think you're misunderstanding this particular passage. It doesn't mean all men are created identical, or equal in abilities. It means all men are created equal in value. That is, everyone deserves an equal say in their society innately, because they all _count_ for the same, even if they are not all identical.


The point is far more profound, because the Declaration borrows from Genesis. We say that men are created equal, because all men are equally endowed in the image of their Creator. In other words, we respect men because we respect and fear *G-d*. That is a fundamental principle. 

And you can see it from any society which promotes hate. As soon as any society calls other people "apes" or "animals" -- as people have done for other races, or homosexuals, or even simply for foreigners -- they are seeking to dehumanize them. Once someone is no longer human, they no longer have the spark of G-d, and there is no point in claiming equality. 

And dehumanizing people is the danger that terrifies me in a "rational" world. Modern philosophers like Singer argue, quite rationally, that life should only be valued inasmuch as it can objectively be stated to be worth living. Therefore any disabled person, or elderly person, or retarded person can or even *should* be put to death, to save them from their misery (not to mention save the planet from the damage humans cause). This has nothing to do with the choices people make, and everything to do with saying that a person is no longer a full human, is no longer endowed by their Creator. They are no longer equal, and can be killed. This is a perfectly rational construct, but it is also perfectly wrong in the eyes of someone like myself. 



> Of course, that _is_ faith-based. But not rationally disproven.


Not so. Pete Singer would say that reason dictates that not all people count for the same. In the absence of a "irrational" moral code, he cannot be refuted.





> But your religion encourages prejudice towards others who have done nothing to you or to others. It's not murder, but it's still counter to fairness and reason.


It is true that I feel the decisions of others are wrong. It is equally true that others feel that my decisions are wrong. Does that make us both prejudiced? I would submit that everyone is prejudiced, about other people, all the time. Churches don't tend to hire Hindu employees. Health clubs don't tend to hire computer geeks. Everyone is at least a little wary about strangers. To top it off, people on this board have been defending gay rights. Isn't preferring relations with one sex or another pure prejudice?




> There's nothing hard about _saying_ it. But when it's backed only by faith, faith that not everyone has, it comes down to whether _you_ are right or wrong in your faith. Obviously, by definition, you will believe you are right...otherwise you wouldn't have the faith. But that doesn't mean you _are_ right.
> 
> As I said, everyone with a faith believes absolutely that they are right. But some are wrong, despite that absolute conviction. So absolute conviction doesn't mean much in terms of who is right.


You are 100% correct. Conviction does not make right. Most people in the world are wrong about important things most of the time. Most "rationalists" disagree much of the time as well, so most of them have to be wrong. 

As far as I am concerned, my belief in G-d, and in the G-dliness of the individual means that I trumpet and defend a society in which people are free to make their own choices, and that I value all people as being created in the image of G-d. And my belief in freedom means that people are free to disagree, up to the point at which they infringe upon each others' freedoms. 

I WANT people to be able to disagree and try to debate and reason their way toward the truth. But that means that opinions that some people find hurtful will be aired. Our society depends on free speech and free inquiry, and that means being able to argue.

I don't think we disagree that much in the result. We get there from opposite directions, but we both defend the individual's right to choose. The biggest difference between us seems to be that I think people should also have the freedom to decide, for themselves, whether or not someone else's choices are right or wrong. 

BTW, I really appreciate this thread and your arguments. It is exactly the kind of discourse people of different opinions need to have.

iWatas


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Iwatas said:


> That is like saying that priests who molested kids were not Catholics, they were ordinary people repressed by their celibacy.


That's not quite accurate as an analogue. It's like saying Catholicism doesn't encourage child molestation, rather that some of its more abnormal adherents react to their circumstances with such a crime. The conclusion, then, would be that child molestation shouldn't be laid at religion's feet, but at the feet of warped individuals who couldn't handle their circumstances properly.

I would argue the same vis a vis Communism and dictators.



> This is precisely my point. In a "rational" world, very profound disagreements can and do emerge. There is no one "right" answer, just as there is no truly ideal form of government, or perfect school system. There is no way to put everything on a linear scale of the "rationally good" in any perfectly reasonable way. See the Introduction at http://www.chanacox.com/open_society.shtml for a brilliant explanation of this.


Thanks for the link, I'm always interested in such things. I would agree that there's no true "right" and "wrong." Rationality, though, is about finding answers that are demonstrably better solutions than what we might intuit or guess on. Science, for example, is not about finding Truth. It's about finding the best model of our surroundings, the model that produces the best predictions, allowing us to manipulate our environments. Any scientist worth his/her salt knows that what we currently believe in science is not necessarily or even likely "true" and that a better model might well come along.

But in all things, a key principle (based on our natures at least) is that we should investigate. We should always be able to ask "Why?" about a principle or belief. In that vein, why should homosexuality be deemed wrong when it appears to be a personal characteristic that doesn't affect others? If it were based on a rational principle, we can investigate that principle and see if it appears to have merit, based on the evidence. But when the reason is faith or religion, it cuts off investigation. As investigative beings, that produces a problem.



> All you want is internal consistency? Then a rational society can be fascist, or communist or communitarian or libertarian. Or it could be an Islamic State or a Jewish State or a Quaker State. In other words, any society on earth could be called "rational". Is there actually a definition here?


Sorry, I left out a piece. It should be internally consistent when universalized and it should place sovereignty for each person in their own hands. All creatures are naturally born as sovereign entities, it is artificial means like capture, slavery or government coercion that takes it away.



> And you can see it from any society which promotes hate. As soon as any society calls other people "apes" or "animals" -- as people have done for other races, or homosexuals, or even simply for foreigners -- they are seeking to dehumanize them. Once someone is no longer human, they no longer have the spark of G-d, and there is no point in claiming equality.


And this is the whole point. It's got nothing to do with the abilities of each individual, but their value. The Declaration drew that value from the spark of God, but they were saying each person counts equally, not that they are equal in abilities or characteristics. This is not something rationally provable or disprovable.



> Not so. Pete Singer would say that reason dictates that not all people count for the same. In the absence of a "irrational" moral code, he cannot be refuted.


Absolutely it can. Peter Singer is a utilitarian, but that's not the be-all and end-all of rationality. Just because I said that ethics can be rational doesn't mean I believe all reasoned positions are ethical. A rational person can see that a person's impact and value in the world is not tied merely to their productivity. That doesn't require religion.



> It is true that I feel the decisions of others are wrong. It is equally true that others feel that my decisions are wrong. Does that make us both prejudiced? I would submit that everyone is prejudiced, about other people, all the time. Churches don't tend to hire Hindu employees. Health clubs don't tend to hire computer geeks. Everyone is at least a little wary about strangers.


There's a big difference. Your examples are ones of unfitness for the job. Churches require adherents to their religion, health clubs require people who know fitness, legal firms require people who know law. Using these standards of job requirements is not an example of prejudice.

Making judgments about and taking actions against people of a certain characteristic, when that characteristic has nothing to do with their fitness for the issue at hand, is prejudice.



> To top it off, people on this board have been defending gay rights. Isn't preferring relations with one sex or another pure prejudice?


Not at all. Prejudice is judging a person ahead of knowing them as an individual. Sexual attraction is not about judgment, it's about biological imperative.



> I don't think we disagree that much in the result. We get there from opposite directions, but we both defend the individual's right to choose. The biggest difference between us seems to be that I think people should also have the freedom to decide, for themselves, whether or not someone else's choices are right or wrong.


Well, I don't disagree that people have the right to judge others. I suppose I just don't see the point of it, if what they do doesn't affect you or others. And especially when we're talking about the way God (if you believe in God) made someone.



> BTW, I really appreciate this thread and your arguments. It is exactly the kind of discourse people of different opinions need to have.


I'm glad to have a civil discussion on the issue. It just can be difficult with people who are disputing the worth, as humans, of people who are perfectly "good" people (in terms of their relations to other people; I don't want to relate this to a moral code since we disagree on that). But, from my interaction with you here, that doesn't seem to be you.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Hitler was such a "rationalist" that science books were burned and banned, scientists imprisoned and killed, libraries shut down, teaching of many scientific topics in schools prohibited.

The leaders of both Catholic and Protestant churches in Germany supported the Nazis, although not all their members did. They justified the Holocaust with the old saw about Christ killing. Their main objection was that born Jews who converted to Christianity were considered Jews and treated accordingly, rather than considered Christians.

I am still waiting for the source of Nobelists being religious.

And for an apology for all the insults.

And for how this relates to Tim Hardaway, aside from a chance to vent, OK not hate, extreme dislike, of gay people.

I have a feeling I should not hold my breath.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> That's not quite accurate as an analogue. It's like saying Catholicism doesn't encourage child molestation, rather that some of its more abnormal adherents react to their circumstances with such a crime.
> 
> I would argue the same vis a vis Communism and dictators.


You are right -- the analogy was a bit forced. I perhaps should have put it another way: everywhere communism was tried, tyrants resulted. Communism, in dozens of cases and with no exceptions, leads to tyranny.





> But in all things, a key principle (based on our natures at least) is that we should investigate. We should always be able to ask "Why?" about a principle or belief. In that vein, why should homosexuality be deemed wrong when it appears to be a personal characteristic that doesn't affect others? If it were based on a rational principle, we can investigate that principle and see if it appears to have merit, based on the evidence. But when the reason is faith or religion, it cuts off investigation. As investigative beings, that produces a problem.


You are right. Faith is a roadblock; it does not budge. But not any more than your belief in the sovereignty of the individual, which you claim to exist despite rational arguments that civilized man cannot survive without society. Any set of presuppositions, religious or not, allow certain lines of enquiry and deny others.





> It should be internally consistent when universalized and it should place sovereignty for each person in their own hands. All creatures are naturally born as sovereign entities, it is artificial means like capture, slavery or government coercion that takes it away.


I agree with this -- it is a libertarian (or classical liberal) position. Though I note that the classical liberals came to the conclusion, as do I, from their religious principles.




> And this is the whole point. It's got nothing to do with the abilities of each individual, but their value. The Declaration drew that value from the spark of God, but they were saying each person counts equally, not that they are equal in abilities or characteristics. This is not something rationally provable or disprovable.


100% agreement.




> Absolutely it can. Peter Singer is a utilitarian, but that's not the be-all and end-all of rationality. Just because I said that ethics can be rational doesn't mean I believe all reasoned positions are ethical. A rational person can see that a person's impact and value in the world is not tied merely to their productivity. That doesn't require religion.


I think it does. Ethics and morality are religious inputs to moderate reason. I don't think there is such a thing as morality without religion, because people who use their own moral compasses have been able to justify every atrocity under the sun. That does not mean that most irreligious people are immoral -- on the contrary. But it does not take many tyrants to give rationality a bad name. And the 20th century had plenty.




> There's a big difference. Your examples are ones of unfitness for the job. Churches require adherents to their religion, health clubs require people who know fitness, legal firms require people who know law. Using these standards of job requirements is not an example of prejudice.
> 
> Making judgments about and taking actions against people of a certain characteristic, when that characteristic has nothing to do with their fitness for the issue at hand, is prejudice.


I like your new definition of prejudice. And I agree with it 100%. Which is why, to take off on a lot of bad jokes, some of my best associates and coworkers are gay. :biggrin:





> Not at all. Prejudice is judging a person ahead of knowing them as an individual. Sexual attraction is not about judgment, it's about biological imperative.


Small quibble. I am MUCH more sexually attracted to a feisty, intelligent beautiful woman than I am to a stupid bovine babe. Sexual attraction has a lot to do with synapses, and I am surely not the only person who feels this way. Of course, I chalk up my preferences to good judgment, while you might chalk them up to good genes. Either way works for me. :biggrin:


[QUOTE[
Well, I don't disagree that people have the right to judge others. I suppose I just don't see the point of it, if what they do doesn't affect you or others. And especially when we're talking about the way God (if you believe in God) made someone. [/QUOTE]

Because we do not live in a vacuum. I have kids, and I want them to make good choices. All I can do is encourage them - I don't make their choices for them. But they want to know what I think, and why. So, for example, I extol the value of hard work and good manners. I extol the nuclear family (for reasons practical and religious) -- and I extol the fear (and love) of G-d. It is not a large leap for them to understand that I wish other people make similar choices as well. 

iWatas


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Iwatas said:


> You are right -- the analogy was a bit forced. I perhaps should have put it another way: everywhere communism was tried, tyrants resulted. Communism, in dozens of cases and with no exceptions, leads to tyranny.


That is true. However, those tyrants, in my opinion, did not have reasoned justification from Communism to be brutal and kill people. They did it because tyrants don't work from moral compasses, but from self-interest. It's not just Communistic dictators that operate like this, but all dictators. It's the nature of dictators, not Communism.



> You are right. Faith is a roadblock; it does not budge. But not any more than your belief in the sovereignty of the individual, which you claim to exist despite rational arguments that civilized man cannot survive without society. Any set of presuppositions, religious or not, allow certain lines of enquiry and deny others.


I never said that my belief in the sovereignty of the individual is unassailable and cannot be investigated. But I have yet to see or hear of anyone who has investigated that belief and come away with compelling evidence that we are not self-ruled. The existence of society is orthogonal to this principle. We can have a society of self-ruled individuals, we can have a society of government-ruled individuals, we can have a society of religion-ruled individuals, etc. Society doesn't contradict personal autonomy.



> I agree with this -- it is a libertarian (or classical liberal) position. Though I note that the classical liberals came to the conclusion, as do I, from their religious principles.


Religion, IMO, is a human construct. This doesn't deny (or affirm) the existence of a God, but the organization, teachings and trappings of religion come from humans, at base. And religion has both informed and been informed by ethics. For example, many believe that the injunction against pork in Islam came about to prevent the noblemen's wholesale slaughter of pigs for dining, when the masses needed pigs for a variety of tasks. There is no check on nobility save one: religion. Create a religious edict against eating pork and now you have something even nobles would fear. I think it likely that most or all religions have picked up odds and ends like these for the sake of social engineering. So it wouldn't be surprising if religion acquired rational beliefs and conveyed them to others.



> I think it does. Ethics and morality are religious inputs to moderate reason. I don't think there is such a thing as morality without religion, because people who use their own moral compasses have been able to justify every atrocity under the sun.


This is a non sequitur. Because people have tried to justify atrocities, it doesn't follow that religion is the only source of morality. Basic morality systems predate religion and, at base, morality is simply how to live peacefully with others. This does not require religion, as many atheists and agnostics do this. In fact, I'd say more of them live at peace than religious people, who have used religion to "justify every atrocity under the sun."



> Because we do not live in a vacuum. I have kids, and I want them to make good choices. All I can do is encourage them - I don't make their choices for them. But they want to know what I think, and why. So, for example, I extol the value of hard work and good manners. I extol the nuclear family (for reasons practical and religious) -- and I extol the fear (and love) of G-d. It is not a large leap for them to understand that I wish other people make similar choices as well.


To me, it is a large leap. Your children are your responsibility, thus there is good reason why you'd want to mold their beliefs and principles. Someone has to guide them, and we believe parents should be those people. But I don't see how that transfers to other adults who aren't looking for guidance and have their own beliefs and principles that don't fit with yours. For such people, if they do not harm you or others, shouldn't it be live and let live? What good does it do to judge them, even if you have the "right" to?


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

oh goodness...why is this still in discussion?

people are going to believe what they want about homosexuality. and your essays on a message board aren't going to change anything.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

ryanjend22 said:


> oh goodness...why is this still in discussion?
> 
> people are going to believe what they want about homosexuality. and your essays on a message board aren't going to change anything.


Yes, clearly discussion is useless on a discussion forum.

Good point!


----------



## obiwankenobi (Jan 31, 2004)

I, for one, find most of it fascinating. However if I didn't I would just skip the thread rather than comment on it. Huh.

I do wonder, however, why iWatas chooses to write God without the o. Did I miss an explanation of that?


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Kevin Burns, the mayor of North Miami, who is gay, has invited Tim Hardaway to his home to meet him, his partner of 23 years and their daughter. No word yet as to whether Hardaway has accepted the invitation. Mayor Burns said that people are less likely to express the sentiments Hardaway did if they understand the people being hurt.

It is a generous gesture and frankly, not one I'd do. Anyone who said they hate gays would not be invited to my home. I wish Mayor Burns the best.

Sometimes prejudice is based on ignorance. Remember the closing lines of _To Kill A Mockingbird_:

"He wasn't like that at all, Atticus, he was real nice."
"Most people are, Scout, when you finally see them."

OTOH, some people are prejudiced quite consciously and deliberately and with pride; they think their prejudice is the right thing or divinely ordained. I don't think those people will be changed by dinner with a gay family, no matter how happy a family, how solid a relationship, how nice a home, how much they contribute to society, how much they love their child, etc.

As to writing G-d, that is done by observant Jews who believe the Name is too holy to be written or spoken. However, I'd be really surprised if Iwatas is Jewish. Perhaps some other religions also use that writing convention.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

obiwankenobi said:


> I do wonder, however, why iWatas chooses to write God without the o. Did I miss an explanation of that?



It's because God could never hit an outside jump shot . . . no offensive presence.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

crandc said:


> It is a generous gesture and frankly, not one I'd do. Anyone who said they hate gays would not be invited to my home. I wish Mayor Burns the best.



I like what the mayor did. He has given Tim the opportunity to try and redeem himself for making such stupid comments and continues to keep the topic in the public eye. 

Also, I think to treat people who express prejudice and hate with hate back is the wrong approach as it just feed the hate on both sides.

Tim was an idiot, he realized how wrong it was to say those things . . . should he be shuned (sp?) from society as a result?


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Hey KMD, I'm not in Hardaway's head, so I don't know if he's "sorry" because he was too blunt in expressing his true feelings, "sorry" because he realized talking about hate is wrong, or "sorry" that it cost him. 

As to not returning hate with hate...makes sense on one level, but you know, the guy who is tied to a fence and beaten to death is not the one who can stop the hating. Perhaps not "hate" in return but definitely "fight".


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

crandc said:


> Hey KMD, I'm not in Hardaway's head, so I don't know if he's "sorry" because he was too blunt in expressing his true feelings, "sorry" because he realized talking about hate is wrong, or "sorry" that it cost him.



My guess is that he's sorry that he misrepresented the NBA as a whole.

I'm pretty certain he's not sorry for feeling the way he does about gays. It's certainly his opinion - and right- to feel that way and express it as such.

The issue with him currently is, his privilege to represent the NBA has been taken from him....and rightly so.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

crandc said:


> Hey KMD, I'm not in Hardaway's head, so I don't know if he's "sorry" because he was too blunt in expressing his true feelings, "sorry" because he realized talking about hate is wrong, or "sorry" that it cost him.
> 
> As to not returning hate with hate...makes sense on one level, but you know, the guy who is tied to a fence and beaten to death is not the one who can stop the hating. Perhaps not "hate" in return but definitely "fight".


I'm guessing his apology was written by a someone else. But I really appreciated that he related the hatred he faced as a black person and how he sees how wrong it express that kind of hate towards another group.

Is he sincere? I don't know, but he has brought a lot of attention to the issue and has tied it in well with racisim. 

But obviously it is John who deserves the real credit.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Tim Hardaway talks to Scoop Jackson about his comments:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=jackson/070222&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab1pos1


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> That is true. However, those tyrants, in my opinion, did not have reasoned justification from Communism to be brutal and kill people. They did it because tyrants don't work from moral compasses, but from self-interest. It's not just Communistic dictators that operate like this, but all dictators. It's the nature of dictators, not Communism.


I think we should agree to disagree on this one. It is impossible for me to prove causality of communism to tyranny, just as it is impossible for you to find a communist state that did not become a tyranny. 





> I never said that my belief in the sovereignty of the individual is unassailable and cannot be investigated. But I have yet to see or hear of anyone who has investigated that belief and come away with compelling evidence that we are not self-ruled. The existence of society is orthogonal to this principle. We can have a society of self-ruled individuals, we can have a society of government-ruled individuals, we can have a society of religion-ruled individuals, etc. Society doesn't contradict personal autonomy.


Ah. I missed your subtler point. I thought you were saying that reason dictates that the individual's rights are primary. That is easily disproven by all reasonable nation-states that come from Hobbes or Marx or Plato who do NOT think individual rights are important. Instead you are saying that individuals have free choice. And I agree with you -- even though that choice may seem quite limited at times. I want society to maximize choices, not minimize them -- but not for the purpose of increasing diversity of behaviour per se, but to make people more responsible and conscious of what makes them human.





> Religion, IMO, is a human construct. This doesn't deny (or affirm) the existence of a God, but the organization, teachings and trappings of religion come from humans, at base.


We will disagree on this as well. Neither of us can prove, using reason, that there is a G-d -- or that there is no G-d. You have your belief and I have mine. The big advantage I have is that demographics will mean G-d fearing people win, for a very simple reason: atheist societies do not reproduce enough to sustain themselves. In history there has never been an "enlightened" society that outbreeds the religious fanatics. So the Xian right in this country grow stronger while blue staters grow weaker, thanks in part to Roe v Wade. Very broad generalization: Liberals don't have kids, and conservatives do.





> Basic morality systems predate religion and, at base, morality is simply how to live peacefully with others. This does not require religion, as many atheists and agnostics do this.


Locke argued that no atheist could be trusted, because someone who did not fear G-d (some ultimate consequence for lying) had no reason to tell the truth. I think history has shown that Locke was wrong -- that there is decency absent religion. 

My argument is that morality is not just coexistence. Morality is setting guidelines for behaviour, for things like sexual behavior and property rights. *Any* system will have strife. And any rationalist can justify any dispute resolution system. Some could be as simple as "might makes right". There have certainly been atheists who have made that case. I think religion, with the fundamental principle that Man is made in G-d's image, historically has been the first and last line of defense against "might makes right". 





> To me, it is a large leap. Your children are your responsibility, thus there is good reason why you'd want to mold their beliefs and principles. Someone has to guide them, and we believe parents should be those people. But I don't see how that transfers to other adults who aren't looking for guidance and have their own beliefs and principles that don't fit with yours. For such people, if they do not harm you or others, shouldn't it be live and let live? What good does it do to judge them, even if you have the "right" to?


I should clarify. I do not go around "judging" people. I do share my view that I wish other choices were being made. I certainly would not be true to myself or my beliefs if I let silence seem like I was condoning behavior that I do not condone. 

Then, too, I have shared my opinion on this board because I believe in discourse and debate for people to find their own paths, with as much information as possible. Why should my opinions be stifled while the opinions of others be shared?

I want people to make conscious choices, having considered and thought about the arguments and opinions of others. That is why sharing opinions is good. An argument or belief which is not tested is of no consequence.

iWatas


----------

