# OT: Telfair has chain stolen outside NY nightclub



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

espn.com 



> Shortly after the chain was taken from Telfair, rapper Fabolous (Skylar John Jackson) was shot and wounded in the leg outside of the same club, Justin's, which is owned by hip-hop mogul Sean "Diddy" Combs.





> Police sources said Telfair was outside of the club when the chain, valued at $50,000, was ripped from his neck.





> On Tuesday night, Telfair looked at four separate lineups, each including one of the four men arrested on the weapons charges, including Fabolous, but did not identify any of the men as the person who stole his chain.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> espn.com




This like most things I say is going to sound bad, but for some reason this puts a smile on my face. Telfair loved his NY home so much, hinted even a tad bit that he wanted to play their, and then gets jacked outside a nightclub where he probably shouldn't have been anyway during the season. I don't know what the policy is in Boston about player activities at after hour clubs owned by rappers, but I would assume none of those clubs make a franchises best places to go after a basketball game list. I would also assume the team feels like Telfair should have went back to his hotel room amd got some rest before his game tonight.....unless he feels comfortable that Rondo hasn't dusted his *** all preseason. 


Here's to Brandon Roy, you are looking better and better each day. :cheers:


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Sorry, mediocre man.
NO ONE ever "deserves" to be asssaulted. Period. Not a man who is robbed, not a woman who is raped. No one.
Being robbed by armed men is a terrifying experience, quite aside from the monetary value of the goods.
Bassy may have made a foolish choice. Who among us has never made a foolish choice? That is not a crime. Mugging is a crime. 
To blame it on New York is as dumb as blaming "Jail Blazers" on the city of Portland. 
(Actually, I was jumped and robbed in Portland, but never in New York. Or Oakland.)


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Telfair can kiss that $50,000 chain goodbye, because he's never seeing it again.

What kind of an idiot wears a $50,000 chain around his neck anyway? And why would he hang out in a rapper's nightclub with the thing dangling around his neck, daring some thug to yank it off of him? This kind of stuff just defies common sense, which Telfair apparently has little of.

These Rappers are hilarious. When they're not shooting each other, they're robbing each other, or getting arrested, or getting into fistfights, or arguing about girls. They're a classy bunch.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> This like most things I say is going to sound bad, but for some reason this puts a smile on my face. Telfair loved his NY home so much, hinted even a tad bit that he wanted to play their, and then gets jacked outside a nightclub where he probably shouldn't have been anyway during the season. I don't know what the policy is in Boston about player activities at after hour clubs owned by rappers, but I would assume none of those clubs make a franchises best places to go after a basketball game list. I would also assume the team feels like Telfair should have went back to his hotel room amd got some rest before his game tonight.....unless he feels comfortable that Rondo hasn't dusted his *** all preseason.
> 
> 
> Here's to Brandon Roy, you are looking better and better each day. :cheers:


FYI Justins is a restaurant not a club, I don't get why they report it as such. Lastly, this is the same location where Chris Childs was robbed at gun point for his jewelry. Maybe the celebs didn't get the memo. It's not safe hanging around in that area.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Talkhard said:


> Telfair can kiss that $50,000 chain goodbye, because he's never seeing it again.
> 
> What kind of an idiot wears a $50,000 chain around his neck anyway? And why would he hang out in a rapper's nightclub with the thing dangling around his neck, daring some thug to yank it off of him? This kind of stuff just defies common sense, which Telfair apparently has little of.
> 
> These Rappers are hilarious. When they're not shooting each other, they're robbing each other, or getting arrested, or getting into fistfights, or arguing about girls. They're a classy bunch.


I wonder; if Melinda Gates wore a $50,000 necklace, would she be an idiot? Have little common sense? What kind of rocks does Paris Hilton wear while out clubbing? Of course, they do have paler complexions than Telfair...

Yeah, these rappers, they all shoot each other and get arrested and into fights, stupid little ... oops, have to pretend not to be racist, right, Talkhard? Do "these rappers" include the white ones? Not to mention, say, Ice T, what kind of shooting and fighting does he do? Man plays a cop on TV, for heaven's sake!

Already established it was a restaurant and not a "rapper's nightclub", but let's not let facts get in the way.

And I can already assume Talkhard would think a pretty woman was "just daring" some thug to rape her.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

being robbed is not a funny thing . Ive experienced it . I hope bassy is ok hes a good kid


----------



## tradetheo (Feb 24, 2005)

crandc said:


> I wonder; if Melinda Gates wore a $50,000 necklace, would she be an idiot? Have little common sense? What kind of rocks does Paris Hilton wear while out clubbing? Of course, they do have paler complexions than Telfair...
> 
> Yeah, these rappers, they all shoot each other and get arrested and into fights, stupid little ... oops, have to pretend not to be racist, right, Talkhard? Do "these rappers" include the white ones? Not to mention, say, Ice T, what kind of shooting and fighting does he do? Man plays a cop on TV, for heaven's sake!
> 
> ...


don't listen to talkhard, he's a bush supporter. that should tell you everything you need to know about his smarts.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> These Rappers are hilarious. When they're not shooting each other, they're robbing each other, or getting arrested, or getting into fistfights, or arguing about girls. They're a classy bunch.


Dick Cheney's posse is hilarious.

When they're not shooting each other in the face, they're robbing the taxpayers, or being indicted, or getting us into nuclear showdowns, or arguing about emails to underage male pages.

They're a classy bunch. :biggrin: 

I hope that didn't come across as racist. :angel:


----------



## stupendous (Feb 17, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> These Rappers are hilarious. When they're not shooting each other, they're robbing each other, or getting arrested, or getting into fistfights, or arguing about girls. They're a classy bunch.


Hey now. When you get out of the tunnel, let me know.


----------



## tradetheo (Feb 24, 2005)

MARIS61 said:


> Dick Cheney's posse is hilarious.
> 
> When they're not shooting each other in the face, they're robbing the taxpayers, or being indicted, or getting us into nuclear showdowns, or arguing about emails to underage male pages.
> 
> ...


don't forget about lying about nuclear weapons so they can invade other countries. It's funny how iraq had none, north korea did, yet we're still in iraq and never even talk about going into north korea. ohyeah, north korea doesn't have any oil.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

tradetheo said:


> don't listen to talkhard, he's a bush supporter. that should tell you everything you need to know about his smarts.


TradeTheo, (BTW, Theo was traded, will you change your handle?) I don't listen to Talkhard, but I was mad. 
Of course, since he blocks my posts - women, in his opinion, should be seen naked but not heard - he can't reply.


----------



## tradetheo (Feb 24, 2005)

crandc said:


> TradeTheo, (BTW, Theo was traded, will you change your handle?) I don't listen to Talkhard, but I was mad.
> Of course, since he blocks my posts - women, in his opinion, should be seen naked but not heard - he can't reply.


he blocks whatever is different then what he believes. And I would change it, I don't know how to.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

crandc said:


> I wonder; if Melinda Gates wore a $50,000 necklace, would she be an idiot? Have little common sense? What kind of rocks does Paris Hilton wear while out clubbing? Of course, they do have paler complexions than Telfair...
> 
> Yeah, these rappers, they all shoot each other and get arrested and into fights, stupid little ... oops, have to pretend not to be racist, right, Talkhard? Do "these rappers" include the white ones? Not to mention, say, Ice T, what kind of shooting and fighting does he do? Man plays a cop on TV, for heaven's sake!
> 
> ...


This is just a guess, buuuuuuut...I would guess that Melinda Gates doesn't frequent the same clubs that Telfair does. Just a guess though...


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

tradetheo said:


> don't forget about lying about nuclear weapons so they can invade other countries. It's funny how iraq had none, north korea did, yet we're still in iraq and never even talk about going into north korea. ohyeah, north korea doesn't have any oil.


or trying to blame clinton for north korea having nukes, when rumsfeld was the president (or on the board, I don't recall) of the company that sold North Korea the nuke stuff.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> This is just a guess, buuuuuuut...I would guess that Melinda Gates doesn't frequent the same clubs that Telfair does. Just a guess though...


tlong, you had a perfect chance here, and you blew it. I'm hurt.


Melinda Gates goes to the adult clubs...you know, the ones that have a "you must be THIS tall" to enter signs. And Telfair isn't tall enough to go to.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

tradetheo said:


> he blocks whatever is different then what he believes. And I would change it, I don't know how to.


PM an admin, like Dabullz or Petey.


----------



## Redbeard (Sep 11, 2005)

Seems like some thugs stake out this club and Talfair was too flashy.

Either there is some other connection in this story or Telfair gained the Jail Blazer image from being here. Putting the part about the shooting, although unrelated to Telfair, seems to be an attack on his character.

I wish Telfair the best and hope he avoids these situations in the future.

It is interesting to see the contrast between Mr. New York and our two kids from Seattle. Totally different lifestyle approach.


Oh and,
go get 'em Crandc, more power to ya


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Redbeard said:


> Seems like some thugs stake out this club and Talfair was too flashy.
> 
> Either there is some other connection in this story or Telfair gained the Jail Blazer image from being here. Putting the part about the shooting, although unrelated to Telfair, seems to be an attack on his character.
> 
> ...


hey redbeard, I will give you all of my "ucash" points for the rest of the month if I can rent your signature for a month (november).


----------



## sabas4mvp (Sep 23, 2002)

I wonder if this is the chain that was stolen.










I snagged that pic last year when I got a press pass to the blazers nuggets game.


----------



## hoojacks (Aug 12, 2004)

Talkhard said:


> These Rappers are hilarious. When they're not shooting each other, they're robbing each other, or getting arrested, or getting into fistfights, or arguing about girls. They're a classy bunch.


That's an ignorant sweeping generalization based on a few well publicized happenings.


THAT is all that needed to be said, people. I have no idea how what TH said was turned into *****ing about politics so quickly. The season can't start soon enough.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> Here's to Brandon Roy, you are looking better and better each day. :cheers:


I have personally seen Brandon Roy walking the streets of Seattle after 2:00 AM since he was drafted by the Blazers.

Does it mean he shouldn't be there? I don't think so (after all, *I* was there to see him).

But does it mean that he's making great decisions while Telfair is making poor ones? I don't think so. I saw Roy in Belltown, which is about a dozen blocks away from where Ken Hamlin got his head busted open last year, and it's safer than some parts of Seattle, but I am not sure it's significantly different from the position Telfair put himself in.

Luckily Sebastian's OK.

I think, from an intelligence perspective, Telfair can make better decisions. But judging anything about his character based on this? No way.

Ed O.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I have personally seen Brandon Roy walking the streets of Seattle after 2:00 AM since he was drafted by the Blazers.
> 
> Does it mean he shouldn't be there? I don't think so (after all, *I* was there to see him).
> 
> ...



Based on this information I would have to call Ed O's character into question.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

Putting the robbery aside for a moment...

Isn't it obvious that Telfair has to be near NY. I know people were upset when we traded him but does anyone really think he would've stayed in Portland after his contract was up? He's all about the NY scene and I can't imagine him staying so far away from his "peeps".


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> Based on this information I would have to call Ed O's character into question.


Dude, you should check out the message board for "fans" of where I work. There are a lot of h8t0rZ out there...

A guy can't even get a lapdance from a tranny without having the fans all up in his grill. I flip off the fans ONCE and they just won't let go.

Ed O.


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

tradetheo said:


> don't listen to talkhard, he's a bush supporter. that should tell you everything you need to know about his smarts.


Typical liberalism. Blame by association. You have just called me stupid. Because I am a conservative, I must be stupid. If you had any intelligence whatsoever you would defeat Talkhards post with some facts. But nope. Just say since he supports Bush, he's an idiot! Man, are you classy. You all remind me everyday why I vote Republican!


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

tradetheo said:


> don't forget about lying about nuclear weapons so they can invade other countries. It's funny how iraq had none, north korea did, yet we're still in iraq and never even talk about going into north korea. ohyeah, north korea doesn't have any oil.


So, you would "invade" North Korea? Say it. Let's go invade North Korea. I thought so.


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

very predictable, people liking that this happened to Telfair and talking down a race/lifestyle/profession. Yeah, we know that not everyone is as perfect as you guys.


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

Ed O said:


> I have personally seen Brandon Roy walking the streets of Seattle after 2:00 AM since he was drafted by the Blazers.
> 
> Does it mean he shouldn't be there? I don't think so (after all, *I* was there to see him).


Stalker.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> A guy can't even get a lapdance from a _tranny_ without having the fans all up in his grill..


Did you pull an Eddie Griffin?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

The difference between Roy wandering the streets of Seattle at 2 AM and Telfair out at a New York nightclub that rappers frequent, wearing a $50,000 chain around his neck is a little bit different.

A.) Telfair is a player who markets his street cred, growing up on Coney Island and being a playground legend. Of course he's going to be a target for something like this if he's hanging around at that kind of a place late at night.

B.) I think there's a difference between since Roy was drafted and in the middle of a preseason stretch after he's already reported to training camp.


----------



## stockfire (Jul 17, 2004)

Whoa. Did you all miss the post about Justin's is a RESTAURANT, not some seedy rapper club like most of you want to believe. I live NEXT DOOR to Justin's in Atlanta. ...Dress up, give a car to the valet and EAT DINNER.

Sometimes, yes, it stays open late and has musical guests (like when MTV filmed My Super Sweet 16 a few months ago and it was full of 14-18 year olds). Real scary. To put it in a way TH can relate to: Imagine Red Lobster, up the price, add some occasional entertainment.

And as far as being owned by a Rapper. Sean Combs is arguably 1st) a businessman, 2nd) a producer, and 3rd) a rapper. So if you want to classify him by what is surely his 3rd heighest means of income, you might only be doing so to attempt to make the situation look worse.

So, let's refresh. Not a nightclub owned by a rapper -- it's A Restaurant & Bar owned by Businessman who happens to occasioanlly rap.

From Atlanta City Guide:


> The fare found at this upscale eatery is a mix a Southern soul food and tangy Caribbean cuisine, but chances are, the food will not be your main concern during your visit. This is the place to see and be seen; which is exactly how founder, and hip-hop, entertainment mogul Sean "P. Diddy" Combs intended it.
> 
> That's not to say Justin's doesn't take food seriously, because in Diddy's world, life is a party, and you can't very well have a good party without good food. So, with dishes such as Grandma Jessie's sweet barbecue chicken wings, Louisiana seafood gumbo and Puff Daddy's Seafood Pan Roast, executive chef Joe Rickerson makes sure that's taken care of, while the party takes care of itself. On any given night, everyone from local politicians, A-list celebrities and sports stars, to those who don't do much other than be beautiful, can be found mingling either in the island-themed dining room, or on the patio, while music pumps from the speakers. They can also be found at the two full bars, where you'll be able to indulge in the other ingredient necessary in Diddy's world; drink. Specialty drinks, as well as extensive wine and cognac lists are available and if you want to live like a hip-hop mogul, you can even pop open a bottle of Cristal. Just be prepared to spend like a mogul, because there's one other thing to remember about Diddy's world -- nothing comes cheap. -- Tony Jenkins (Photo: Jim Carr)


----------



## AUNDRE (Jul 11, 2005)

hes from NY... he should know how it goes down around there, stick up kids arent infactuacted when they see celebrities, nobodies untouchable


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

stockfire said:


> Whoa. Did you all miss the post about Justin's is a RESTAURANT, not some seedy rapper club like most of you want to believe...


IIRC, back in the day, many of those mobster hoodlums were shot........either inside, or right outside..............................restaurants.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

ABM said:


> IIRC, back in the day, many of those mobster hoodlums were shot........either inside, or right outside..............................restaurants.


That's right. A steakhouse called Sparks here in NYC is famous for being the place where a mobster was gunned down.

I'm amused by the way some people have jumped all over the race issue, when I NEVER brought up race. I was simply pointing out the illogic of wearing a $50,000 piece of jewelry around your neck in a neighborhood that is known to be frequented by thieves and thugs and rappers' crews. It's not too smart.

And yes, rappers have earned a reputation for thuggery. Sorry if you don't like it, but it's true nevertheless. Deal with it.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Hey Baler,

I haven't seen you here a lot. So maybe you are new and don't know the history that prompted Trade Theo's remark, which you saw as intolerant and condescending. BTW, it should not affect your vote; snide remarks are hardly the exclusive property of either side of the partisan divide.

Fact is, Talkhard has a LONG history. He has started innumerable political threads, all saying the same thing: Everything Bush does is right, everyone who criticizes him is stupid and a traitor. He has repeatedly attempted to hijack basketball threads into political diatribes. He has spared no invective against THEY. THEY are anyone different from him and of course THEY are all alike. THEY include Black people (THEY are all thugs), gays and lesbians (THEY are all rapists, child molesters and cannibals), immigrants (THEY all cross borders to commit crimes, not work), Muslims (THEY are all terrorists), "liberals", a catch all term for anyone who disagree with him regardless of whether they actually are liberals (THEY are clueless Bush-bashers who hate America). He does not even propound his own ideas; they are cribbed, sometimes literally word for word, from various Web sites. Often his statements are provably factually wrong, but when challenged he either continues to repeat them or goes off on some other tangent.

And while Talkhard claims that he and only he is a true Christian, he shows an appalling and total lack of compassion for anyone who is THEY, which is, of course, most of the world. Whatever we think of Sebastian Telfair as a basketball player, he is a human being. For a human being, to be robbed at gunpoint is a terrifying experience. Whatever macho swagger Telfair may try to present, I'd be willing to bet he is not sleeping well. And what is Talkhard's response? Telfair is stupid, it is Telfair's fault because he wore jewelry (but if a rich white woman wearing jewelry was robbed at gunpoint it would be a different story; he'd be talking about the thugs who robbed her) and <gasp!> Telfair went to a restaurant! Blame the victim. No concern at all for another human's well-being.

Then there was the remark about rappers all shooting each other, which seems irrelevant. Telfair is a ballplayer, not a rapper, and there is no evidence the men who robbed him were rappers. but for Talkhard "rapper" is synonymous with "Black person". Then he plays innocent and claims he did not bring up race! And while some see so-called "Black on Black crime" as a tragedy, Talkhard finds it funny. Yet, he insists that he is more moral than all of the rest of us because he hates gay people!

So yeah, Baler, Talkhard's act has worn pretty thin and Trade Theo is not the only one who is fed up.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

crandc said:


> Hey Baler,
> 
> I haven't seen you here a lot. So maybe you are new and don't know the history that prompted Trade Theo's remark, which you saw as intolerant and condescending. BTW, it should not affect your vote; snide remarks are hardly the exclusive property of either side of the partisan divide.
> 
> ...


Pretty good summary, but I would suggest if we're gonna go any further down this path, we take it to the OT Forum.


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

crandc said:


> Hey Baler,
> 
> I haven't seen you here a lot. So maybe you are new and don't know the history that prompted Trade Theo's remark, which you saw as intolerant and condescending. BTW, it should not affect your vote; snide remarks are hardly the exclusive property of either side of the partisan divide.
> 
> ...


Thanks, I guess. I actually have been around since 2003 but don't post on every topic. Some of your comments I agree with, some I don't. I agree that being robbed at gun point or raped for that matter are extremely terrifying. I wish that on no one. However, to say that frequenting certain parts are town or dressing a certain way don't increse your chances of being attacked are crazy. People should be able to go and do as they like. However, this is not the world we live in. Some people may just think a little more before they go somewhere. That is NOT blaming the victim.

Well, I don't agree with the gay lifestyle or their agenda but that does not mean I hate gay people or that I am a homophobe. I think that what gay people do is disgusting and not natural but whatever they do behind closed doors, just like straight people, is non of my business. Just don't throw it in my face everyday. This should be moved to the OT forum obviously.

BTW, how did Iraq become part of this thread?


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Talkhard said:


> I was simply pointing out the illogic of wearing a $50,000 piece of jewelry around your neck in a neighborhood that is known to be frequented by thieves and thugs and rappers' crews. It's not too smart.


Unless you paid 30K for the piece of jewelry but recovered 50K from the insurance company for the "market value" of the piece of jewelry. :biggrin:


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

baler said:


> Well, I don't agree with the gay lifestyle or their agenda but that does not mean I hate gay people or that I am a homophobe. I think that what gay people do is disgusting and not natural but whatever they do behind closed doors, just like straight people, is non of my business. Just don't throw it in my face everyday. This should be moved to the OT forum obviously.


Did I mention Iraq?

Baler, if I said I don't agree with the Christian lifestyle, right away you would say I am prejudiced for assuming millions of Christians from all walks of life have the same lifestyle. If I said what Christians do is disgusting, you'd say I was bigoted. If I said Christianity is not natural, you would say the same. If I said it is OK to pray to Jesus behind closed doors but don't parade it in my face with Christmas displays, Falwell and Robertson on all the talk shows, athletes giving credit to Jesus for good performances, etc, you'd say I was a bigot.
You'd be right.
But you can say them all about me and say you are not a bigot?

Yep, getting off topic. 

But you can't call someone disgusting, say millions of THEY are all alike and all disgusting and unnatural and that our existence is "in your face" and say you are not prejudiced. Can't have it both ways.


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

crandc said:


> Did I mention Iraq?
> 
> Baler, if I said I don't agree with the Christian lifestyle, right away you would say I am prejudiced for assuming millions of Christians from all walks of life have the same lifestyle. If I said what Christians do is disgusting, you'd say I was bigoted. If I said Christianity is not natural, you would say the same. If I said it is OK to pray to Jesus behind closed doors but don't parade it in my face with Christmas displays, Falwell and Robertson on all the talk shows, athletes giving credit to Jesus for good performances, etc, you'd say I was a bigot.
> You'd be right.
> ...


Didn't say you mentioned Iraq. TradeTheo did. If you disagree with Christian lifestyle, thats just fine. I don't think you are prejudiced at all. That's your opinion and thats why America is the greatest country in the world, we can disagree. Not sure what you mean by "What Cristian do is disgusting", do they do something that is particularly disgusting?

Who is a bigot? I never called you one. I never called anyONE disgusting. I said that WHAT they do is disgusting. I'm assuming you know what I mean by that. Last time I checked two gay people can't procreate.

I personally cannot stand when atheletes credit Jesus for solid performances but never blame him when they do poorly. :biggrin:


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> Dick Cheney's posse is hilarious.
> 
> When they're not shooting each other in the face, they're robbing the taxpayers, or being indicted, or getting us into nuclear showdowns, or arguing about emails to underage male pages.
> 
> ...


Ever heard of Jerry Studds. He actually had sex with a underage Page. Not just emails. BTW, I feel that what happened with Foley is disgusting and he should be scutinized/jailed. But don't conveniently forget what promenent Liberals have done.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

baler said:


> Ever heard of Jerry Studds. He actually had sex with a underage Page. Not just emails. BTW, I feel that what happened with Foley is disgusting and he should be scutinized/jailed. But don't conveniently forget what promenent Liberals have done.


Old and very weak argument...You want to continue with it I suggest you check out this thread.

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=306866


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

It's *G*erry Studds. The page was over the age of consent. Still not right but not illegal since, as we discussed already, sexual harassment was not at that time against the law. What Foley did is illegal because sexual harassment is now a crime. And also, Studds welcomed, indeed asked for, an investigation to show he had done nothing illegal. Foley not only covered up, so did his party's leadership. Studds had one such involvement. Foley has reportedly numerous for years.

What do Christians do disgusting?
Spanish inquistion, slaughter of Native Americans, slavery in the US, lynching, Nazi Holocaust, mass rapes/murders in former Yugoslavia, and oh yes, using gays and lesbians as whipping boys/girls to get out Republican votes.

Show me anything gays and lesbians have done that has despoiled the earth and murdered people the way Christianity has.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Crandc - I think you take the bait too easily. Like you, I am a liberal, but TH was not totally incorrect on all of his assertions.

It is dumb to wear $50,000 jewelry out to restaurants, especially in medium to high crime environments. After my great aunt died, she passed a $35,000 wedding ring down to my mother. I have repeatedly asked my mother to not wear that ring in public because she is setting herself up to become a victim. I think my mother (older white woman) is being a bit of an idiot every time she wears the ring. 

Also crandc, just as I don't like TH's avatar, I don't like yours. I have to turn off all avatars because of the two of you. While I am at work, it would be inappropriate for my employees to see such images on my screen. 

TalkHard - Turn off Fox.


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> Old and very weak argument...You want to continue with it I suggest you check out this thread.
> 
> http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=306866


Always an OLD argument when it's not convenient, isn't it. Nothing ever changes. Weak, did you say? How is it weak? Relatively same position of power, actually HAVING sex with an underaged boy. Yep, thats weak. Reread my post. I said what Foley did was terrible and he should be arrested or whatever is appropriate. Just doesn't apply to your own, right?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

crandc said:


> What do Christians do disgusting?
> Spanish inquistion, slaughter of Native Americans, slavery in the US, lynching, Nazi Holocaust, mass rapes/murders in former Yugoslavia, and oh yes, using gays and lesbians as whipping boys/girls to get out Republican votes.
> 
> Show me anything gays and lesbians have done that has despoiled the earth and murdered people the way Christianity has.


Christians don't do those things by definition. They believe something along the lines of Jesus being the son of God, etc., etc.

Homosexuals, by definition I think, are attracted to people of the same gender. A logical step is that they have sexual encounters (or at least try to, I suppose) with people of their own sex.

Some people find those acts--which DEFINE homosexuality--to be disgusting. I, personally, am not one of them, but some do.

The acts you list--even if all performed by Christians (and I wonder how much responsibility Christians had for the Holocaust)--were not performed as a direct result of being Christians.

If people find monotheism disgusting (I've never been a fan of Ahura-Mazda, for example, and I know my ancient Persian friends are at a loss) or think that religion or spirituality as a whole is disgusting? Or think that any other of a large number of Christian-defining acts are? Then that would be more similar, I think, to what some people feel about homosexuality.

Ed O.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

crandc said:


> It's *G*erry Studds. The page was over the age of consent. Still not right but not illegal since, as we discussed already, sexual harassment was not at that time against the law. What Foley did is illegal because sexual harassment is now a crime. And also, Studds welcomed, indeed asked for, an investigation to show he had done nothing illegal. Foley not only covered up, so did his party's leadership. Studds had one such involvement. Foley has reportedly numerous for years.
> 
> What do Christians do disgusting?
> Spanish inquistion, slaughter of Native Americans, slavery in the US, lynching, Nazi Holocaust, mass rapes/murders in former Yugoslavia, and oh yes, using gays and lesbians as whipping boys/girls to get out Republican votes.
> ...


All those atrocities you mention INCLUDE homosexuals among the perpetrators. There may not have been any Nazi gay pride parades - but they were there up to the higest levels.

I don't see how you can carve out gays from Christians. Heck, the revionist history of the Catholic Church, for example, is one so intertwined with homosexuality, you cannot possibly separate the two. A lover's embrace, if you will.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

crandc said:


> Did I mention Iraq?
> 
> Baler, if I said I don't agree with the Christian lifestyle, right away you would say I am prejudiced for assuming millions of Christians from all walks of life have the same lifestyle. If I said what Christians do is disgusting, you'd say I was bigoted. If I said Christianity is not natural, you would say the same. If I said it is OK to pray to Jesus behind closed doors but don't parade it in my face with Christmas displays, Falwell and Robertson on all the talk shows, athletes giving credit to Jesus for good performances, etc, you'd say I was a bigot.
> You'd be right.
> ...


There's one major difference. Homosexuality is inborn, but Christianity is a choice.  :raised_ey


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

baler said:


> Always an OLD argument when it's not convenient, isn't it. Nothing ever changes. Weak, did you say? How is it weak? Relatively same position of power, actually HAVING sex with an underaged boy. Yep, thats weak. Reread my post. I said what Foley did was terrible and he should be arrested or whatever is appropriate. Just doesn't apply to your own, right?


Simply pointing the finger the other direction rarely constitutes a good or valid argument IMO. 

Funny that you fail to mention Dan Crane (R) who at the same time was also accused of having sex with a female underage page. Crane was later censured by the House along with Studds. 

Could it be you feel Studds actions were worse then Cranes due to their homosexual nature? Or are you just reciting what you heard Bill O'Reilly and other conservative loudmouths saying following the Foley investigation. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Congressional_page_sex_scandal


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> Simply pointing the finger the other direction rarely constitutes a good or valid argument IMO.
> 
> Funny that you fail to mention Dan Crane (R) who at the same time was also accused of having sex with a female underage page. Crane was later censured by the House along with Studds.
> 
> ...


Stop making this more then it is. TradeTheo chose to bring up the Foley scandle and the war in Iraq. I was reacting to that bascially saying this has no relevence to the topic. Doesn't matter if it's Crane or Foley or Studds, it's wrong. Just seems as though as soon as a conservative says something the immediate reaction is, "conservatives are stupid", "war in Iraq", "WMD", "Foley", etc. GO BACK AND REREAD THE THREAD. I did not start this.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

baler said:


> Stop making this more then it is. TradeTheo chose to bring up the Foley scandle and the war in Iraq. I was reacting to that bascially saying this has no relevence to the topic. Doesn't matter if it's Crane or Foley or Studds, it's wrong. Just seems as though as soon as a conservative says something the immediate reaction is, "conservatives are stupid", "war in Iraq", "WMD", "Foley", etc. GO BACK AND REREAD THE THREAD. I did not start this.


So this post wasn't confrontational at all...you didn't expect anyone to respond to it?



> Typical liberalism. Blame by association. You have just called me stupid. Because I am a conservative, I must be stupid. If you had any intelligence whatsoever you would defeat Talkhards post with some facts. But nope. Just say since he supports Bush, he's an idiot! Man, are you classy. You all remind me everyday why I vote Republican!


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> This like most things I say is going to sound bad, but for some reason this puts a smile on my face. Telfair loved his NY home so much, hinted even a tad bit that he wanted to play their, and then gets jacked outside a nightclub where he probably shouldn't have been anyway during the season.
> 
> 
> Here's to Brandon Roy, you are looking better and better each day. :cheers:



first off, i dunno if this has already been said (becuase i dont care to read all these pages...) but *he wasnt at a nightclub. he was at Justins, which is a RESTAURANT*. the media is just stupid and called it a club. so before you talk about your definition of expected player behavior, get your facts straight.

regardless, who cares? he cant go to a club...? thats stupid. hes young, he is supposed to have fun. being at a club doesnt have to entail getting drunk and stupid. of course, i dont know, you may be basing all your knowledge simply on what you hear about what goes on at one. 



...and im shaking my head at you saying this is funny and it makes you smile.

wtf? he never did anything wrong during his time here.

and from a sociological perspective, telfair is from brooklyn, the projects to be exact. the fact his girlfriend left a gun with him means NOTHING to me. its protection, and makes sense for his girl to have one. but lets not get into that. 

bottom line, youve lost my respect for your rediculous post. and praising brandon roy at the end has absolutely (if i could cuss, here is where i would...) nothing to do with the topic.


ugh, disgusting. Rapper fabolous was shot outside in the same time-frame Telfair was robbed. In fact he was in the police lineup for the robbing. Telfair could have been shot as its hypothesized the two attacks were by the same people.


...would that have made you laugh just cause you didnt like his flasy play?


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Nate McVillain said:


> TalkHard - Turn off Fox.


I'm always amused when folks criticize me for watching FOX or listening to Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage, when in fact I don't listen or watch any of them (except on rare occasions).

Liberals are actually stupid enough to believe that no conservative could possibly have his or her own ideas, but would have to get them from watching or listening to some conservative media source. This is just part of the ongoing rage and impotence that liberals feel in the face of a large and growing conservative presence on TV and talk radio. They think, in their own little paranoid and delusional way, that FOX and their ilk are somehow brainwashing the rest of us, when in fact they themselves could just as easily be accused of being brainwashed by the left.

So . . . Libs stop reading the New York Times and New Yorker magazine and Rolling Stone and The Village Voice, and stop watching CBS and ABC and NBC and CNN, for God's sake!! Get a grip! Think for yourselves, I beg of you!!! . . . .


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

Talkhard said:


> Telfair can kiss that $50,000 chain goodbye, because he's never seeing it again.
> 
> What kind of an idiot wears a $50,000 chain around his neck anyway? And why would he hang out in a rapper's nightclub with the thing dangling around his neck, daring some thug to yank it off of him? This kind of stuff just defies common sense, which Telfair apparently has little of.
> 
> These Rappers are hilarious. When they're not shooting each other, they're robbing each other, or getting arrested, or getting into fistfights, or arguing about girls. They're a classy bunch.




dont be mad he can afford a chain. if i had the money i would do the same. 

what is the difference between a black man weaing a chain that costs $50,000, and white man wearing a comparably priced rolex watch? NOTHING. 

hes a multi-millionaire, who cares if he spends 50 on his chain. if you buy an escalade for 50 and drive it down into NY, whats the difference?

and your overgeneralization of rappers is hilarious to me. but of course you probably know absolutely nothing about hip-hop culture and/or its contributions to society. go listen to your whiny rock music.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

ryanjend22 said:


> you probably know absolutely nothing about hip-hop culture


Hip-hop doesn't have any culture. It has a ghetto swagger, but that's about it.


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

Talkhard said:


> Hip-hop doesn't have any culture. It has a ghetto swagger, but that's about it.


.....

this statement is so idiotic i barely even think its worth replying, but i will.

ive written college essays on hip-hop as a culture, and there are NUMEROUS books addressing it as such. its more a culture than it is an art form.

But like i said earlier, you have no idea. i bet you dont even own a rap cd. blah, im done.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> Hip-hop doesn't have any culture. It has a ghetto swagger, but that's about it.



FWIW


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

ryanjend22 said:


> ive written college essays on hip-hop as a culture, and there are NUMEROUS books addressing it as such. its more a culture than it is an art form.


Here's a good example of that "culture"--a piece of musical genius called "Ain't No *****," by the very cultured artist Jay-Z:

Aint no n**** like the one I got
no one can **** you betta
sleeps around but he gives me alot
keeps you in diamonds and leathers
friends 'ill tell me I should leave you alone
hah hah, hah hah, hah hah, hah ha
tell the freaks to find a man of there own
(man a they own, man a they own)

Yep, that's great "culture" all right. The Greeks and the Romans should be ashamed.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Here's some more great "culture" from hip-hop genius Ludacris:

Shake, shake, shake your money maker 
Like you were shaking it for some paper 
It took your momma 9 months to make ya 
Might as well shake what your momma gave ya 
You, you lookin good in them jeans 
I bet you'd look even beter with me in between 
I keep my mind on my money - money on my mind 
But you's a hell of a distraction when you shake your behind 
I got *** on my right side pourin' some cups 
My whole hood is to my left and they ain't givin a **** 
So feel free to get loose and get carried away 
So by tomorrow you forgot what you where saying today 
But don't forget about this feeling that I am making you get 
And all the calories you burn from me making you sweat 
The mile highpoints you earn when we taking my jet and 
How everywhere you turn I'll be making you wet 

I guess I was wrong. That is definitely high-brow stuff! My god, the passion, the eloquence, the spiritual beauty of those lyrics!!! I'm telling you, Mozart and Beethovan didn't have anything on these guys!


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

ryanjend22 said:


> first off, i dunno if this has already been said (becuase i dont care to read all these pages...) but *he wasnt at a nightclub. he was at Justins, which is a RESTAURANT*. the media is just stupid and called it a club. so before you talk about your definition of expected player behavior, get your facts straight.
> 
> regardless, who cares? he cant go to a club...? thats stupid. hes young, he is supposed to have fun. being at a club doesnt have to entail getting drunk and stupid. of course, i dont know, you may be basing all your knowledge simply on what you hear about what goes on at one.
> 
> ...



Shootings don't make me laugh. Telfair had a game the next night, was out later than he should be, and probably in an area he shouldn't have been in. It was said that the club/diner has had trouble before. He is a professional athlete, and should act more like a professional and less like an athlete. Funny how trouble just follows some people around. What's it going to be next....or better yet what will your apology be for it


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Talkhard said:


> Here's some more great "culture" from hip-hop genius Ludacris:
> 
> Shake, shake, shake your money maker
> Like you were shaking it for some paper
> ...


That would be rap actually...not hip-hop. While some rappers consider themselves part of the hip-hop culture hip-hop is not defined by rap. It's a completely different type of music and culture. 

Maybe you recall Jim Morrison, Eric Clapton and countless others singing about getting high, using drugs, partying with women etc.Real "high brow" stuff for sure. 

Just like all those greats said back in their era.."you don't like our music..then don't listen."


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> That would be rap actually...not hip-hop. While some rappers consider themselves part of the hip-hop culture hip-hop is not defined by rap. It's a completely different type of music and culture.
> 
> Maybe you recall Jim Morrison, Eric Clapton and countless others singing about getting high, using drugs, partying with women etc.Real "high brow" stuff for sure.
> 
> Just like all those greats said back in their era.."you don't like our music..then don't listen."


 :clown:


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> That would be rap actually...not hip-hop.


OK, if you say so. But even the guy who claimed to have written a paper on Hip-Hop accused me of not owning a Rap cd, which suggests that at least he equates Hip-Hop with Rap. As for their roots in African culture, at least one source I found says that Rap goes back much farther than Hip-Hop.



> Rap can be roughly defined as words spoken rhythmically. In modern days it can be added that these words are spoken over a beat. *With it's origins in Africa it should be understood that Rap has been around a lot longer than Hip-Hop's seventeen years*


http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/joto/RapHipHopDiff.html

So Rap is deeply grounded in African culture, and is a more "evolved" than Hip-Hop, yet its lyrics are extremely vulgar and trashy. That's a bit disturbing to me.


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

Talkhard said:


> Here's some more great "culture" from hip-hop genius Ludacris:
> 
> Shake, shake, shake your money maker
> Like you were shaking it for some paper
> ...


your taking some MTV crap and applying it as reflective of a an entire culture. 

I would say there is a great deal of fallacious reasoning in your argument. 


kinda sad you took the time to look up ludacris lyrics...u mad?

hip-hop is poetry, what you copied and pasted is just something to make a dollar and make people dance. but again, i dont think your a very intelligent person, so im done arguing with you about this.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Baler, Ed, Masbee

In a sense you are proving my point.

First, there were not numerous open homosexuals "at the highest level" of Nazi Germany. There were, however, a lot of open homosexuals in Nazi concentration camps; like Jews, Gypsies and the disabled, they were classified as "subhuman". By law of average, of course there were "homosexuals" (I put the term in quotes because it was not invented until the 1940s) in the Inquisition, Conquest, et al. However, these horrors were not carried out in the name of homosexuality for the sake of homosexuality. But those acts were 1) unquestionably real 2) carried out by people who identified themselves as Christian 3) carried out in the name of Christianity 4) considered by their practitioners to be vital for Christianity.

Ed, you say those actions do not define Christians. Well, I could very well say that to me they do. I mean, how many of your family members were killed by gays because they were straight? I'd bet zero. And yet I would surely oppose any law that would prevent Christians from meeting openly in their churches, from marrying, having children, having equal rights on the job. Will you grant me the same?

By the way, I consider some of the foods eaten by Christians to be disgusting. Seriously. When I see a milk-based sauce on a meat dish, I literally gag. I could no more swallow such food than I could eat slugs or worms. I would not want to amend the Constitution to prevent Christians from marrying because of their disgusting foods. 

The point is, that nothing done by "homosexuals", gays, lesbians, inverts or whatever term has been used over the centuries compares to the horrors perpetrated in the name of Christianity. And yet it is considered absolutely acceptable for people to publicly say that gays and lesbians are "disgusting", "unnatural" (that is really bizarre considering homosexual, bisexual and transgendered individuals exist in every known human culture past and present and in nearly every known vertebrate species, including all primates), should be hidden in closets, and that the Constitution should be amended to forever make us second class citizens. While insisting they are not bigots! 

We are not the ones who have slaughtered millions. 

Baler, I have to ask. Did you even hear of Gerry Studds before about 3 weeks ago? He's been retired for some years. But as soon as it was revealed that Foley allegedly sexually harassed a series of underage males AND alleged that his party leadership knew about it for years but did nothing, all of the clones in the talk radio and cable and web sites start chanting "Gerry Studds Gerry Studds Gerry Studds". That is all you can say? What he did 20+ years ago, which was not illegal? What has that to do with anything, especially since the Republicans claim to be the party of personal responsibility? For whom?

PS, as to whether Telfair made a foolish choice in wearing expensive jewelry, I can't say, not being familiar with the restaurant or its neighborhood. I think people do, all of us, make foolish mistakes. But a crime is still a crime, and Telfair is as much a victim of a crime as a woman who goes to a man's home and is raped.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

ryanjend22 said:


> your taking some MTV crap and applying it as reflective of a an entire culture.


It IS reflective of an entire culture--the Rap culture! Jay-Z's lyrics are even worse than Ludacris', and they are two of the biggest stars in Rap. Their music glamourizes drugs, sexual promiscuity, mysogyny, guns, violence, big cars, jewelry, arrogance, and "street cred." Great role models for black youth, yes indeed!

You seem completely unaware of the values of Rap music, but then maybe you don't listen to the lyrics. Or perhaps you just hate having people point out what trash this stuff really is.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Justin's is a _club _ owned by P Diddy and is frequented by hip-hop artists and rappers. Telfair is now being investigated for possible involvement with the shooting there. He is a *freaking idiot * and I am very glad that he's gone.


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

crandc said:


> Baler, Ed, Masbee
> And yet it is considered absolutely acceptable for people to publicly say that gays and lesbians are "disgusting", "unnatural" (that is really bizarre considering homosexual, bisexual and transgendered individuals exist in every known human culture past and present and in nearly every known vertebrate species, including all primates), should be hidden in closets, and that the Constitution should be amended to forever make us second class citizens. While insisting they are not bigots!


Please stop generalizing. I never said any of those things. The acts that "homosexuals" engange in I find disgusting. Sorry about that, just my opinion. Does't mean they "should be hidden in closets, and that the Constitution should be amended to forever make us second class citizens.". Am I not allowd to have an opinion that varies from yours? Now that sounds like Nazi Germany.


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

crandc said:


> Baler, Ed, Masbee
> 
> 
> We are not the ones who have slaughtered millions.


Oh, I'm sure there were a few "gays" in there.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

*Update:*



> *PALS OF rapper Fabolous were caught on camera ripping a $50,000 diamond chain off NBA star Sebastian Telfair's neck - and the same tape shows the gunman who shot Fabolous about 20 minutes later fleeing in a getaway car, sources said.*
> 
> 
> *The video catches Fabolous' Brooklyn buddies approaching Telfair outside hip-hop mogul Sean (Diddy) Combs' W. 21st St. restaurant early Tuesday, the sources said yesterday. *
> ...


http://www.nydailynews.com/10-20-2006/news/gossip/story/463462p-389947c.html


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

have a great time on the east coast bassy.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> And yet it is considered absolutely acceptable for people to publicly say that gays and lesbians are "disgusting", "unnatural" (that is really bizarre considering homosexual, bisexual and transgendered individuals exist in every known human culture past and present and in nearly every known vertebrate species, including all primates). . .


Huh? You're defending homosexuality based on the fact that animals do it? Animals do all kinds of things, some of which definitely should not be done by humans. Lemmings follow each other off of cliffs and commit suicide in the ocean. Other animals eat their own young, or their own feces. And buffalo leave the weakest and oldest members of the herd to die alone or be eaten by other animals. If animals are our models for behavior, maybe we should start doing all of the above.

And how is it relevant if homosexual, bisexual, and "transgendered" individuals have existed in every society? There have been murderers, child molesters, rapists, and all variety of deviants in every society. Does that mean we should embrace them all and give their behavior our approval?


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

ryanjend22 said:


> your taking some MTV crap and applying it as reflective of a an entire culture.
> 
> I would say there is a great deal of fallacious reasoning in your argument.
> 
> ...


Yes, because someone who uses incorrect grammar, incorrect spelling, and appears to be at a loss to discover their shift key and capitalize a word or two is certainly indicative of an intelligent person.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Talkhard said:


> Huh? You're defending homosexuality based on the fact that animals do it? Animals do all kinds of things, some of which definitely should not be done by humans. Lemmings follow each other off of cliffs and commit suicide in the ocean. Other animals eat their own young, or their own feces. And buffalo leave the weakest and oldest members of the herd to die alone or be eaten by other animals. If animals are our models for behavior, maybe we should start doing all of the above.
> 
> And how is it relevant if homosexual, bisexual, and "transgendered" individuals have existed in every society? There have been murderers, child molesters, rapists, and all variety of deviants in every society. Does that mean we should embrace them all and give their behavior our approval?


Hey Talkhard, I'm unblocked!!
My point is that you cannot call something "unnatural" that so widely exists IN NATURE. 

As to following others off a cliff, aren't you doing just that, with Bush?


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

baler said:


> Please stop generalizing. I never said any of those things. The acts that "homosexuals" engange in I find disgusting. Sorry about that, just my opinion. Does't mean they "should be hidden in closets, and that the Constitution should be amended to forever make us second class citizens.". Am I not allowd to have an opinion that varies from yours? Now that sounds like Nazi Germany.



Baler, I never said you could not have an opinion. But if you have an opinion that millions of people are inferior and should be judged by standards different from the ones that apply to you, I am going to call that opinion bigotry. And if you try to make your opinion law, I am going to fight it.

Baler, there is not ONE SINGLE ACT that homosexuals "engage in" that heterosexuals do not also engage in. Not one. I mean, are you really so innocent?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

it's interesting that the animal defense used to be a huge "anti gay" argument, till it turned out that homosexuality also appeared in nature. 

Also, the "i find it digusting" argument rears it's ugly head too. Well, there's a lot of things that us "straightys" do that I personally find a little disturbing. I guess I should be offended by gays and straights.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

crandc said:


> Hey Talkhard, I'm unblocked!!
> My point is that you cannot call something "unnatural" that so widely exists IN NATURE.


On my car, I doubt I'd ever make the mistake of shoving the dipstick up the exhaust pipe. Two different functions, entirely.

On a different take, I just couldn't ever imagine the thought of having my rectum getting ripped to shreds.....then turning around and whispering, "I love you."

But, hey, that's just me.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

ABM said:


> On my car, I doubt I'd ever make the mistake of shoving the dipstick up the exhaust pipe. Two different functions, entirely.
> 
> On a different take, I just couldn't ever imagine the thought of having my rectum getting ripped to shreds.....then turning around and whispering, "I love you."
> 
> But, hey, that's just me.


The post of the week!! I'm still laughing . . .


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ABM said:


> On my car, I doubt I'd ever make the mistake of shoving the dipstick up the exhaust pipe. Two different functions, entirely.


HAH...barfo-esque tim. nicely done.



> On a different take, I just couldn't ever imagine the thought of having my rectum getting ripped to shreds.....then turning around and whispering, "I love you."
> 
> But, hey, that's just me.


response 1:

well, than I suggest you don't date guys with big um...dipsticks.

I had a 2nd response, but it was a little too graphic and toilet humor based. 

Honestly tho, if I was a woman, I just couldn't imagine the thought of having some guy stick his willy into my hoo-haa, and then for a few moments have his fun, get his jollies off, and then get off me and go to sleep...and then whisper to him and go "I love you". 

just seems a little one-sided.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> Honestly tho, if I was a woman, I just couldn't imagine the thought of having some guy stick his willy into my hoo-haa, and then for a few moments have his fun, get his jollies off, and then get off me and go to sleep...and then whisper to him and go "I love you".
> 
> just seems a little one-sided.


You're _still_ single, correct?

What I thought.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

I thought this thread was for *bashing Telfair?* Why are we having a discussion on homosexuality?


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> I thought this thread was for *bashing Telfair?* Why are we having a discussion on homosexuality?



It's kinda amusing how you poked your head in at this point.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> Also, the "i find it digusting" argument rears it's ugly head too. Well, there's a lot of things that us "straightys" do that I personally find a little disturbing. I guess I should be offended by gays and straights.


Sure. If you want.

People tend to find prostitution disgusting. They find drug use disgusting. They find bestiality disgusting.

Should they not find these things disgusting? Perhaps not.

Are people not supposed to be disgusted by anything? You normally call ME a robot (and, in fact, I'm disgusted by very little) but then you get onto some soap box and think that people shouldn't feel a certain way just because, seemingly, you disagree with how they feel.

Ed O.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

crandc said:


> Baler, I never said you could not have an opinion. But if you have an opinion that millions of people are inferior and should be judged by standards different from the ones that apply to you, I am going to call that opinion bigotry. And if you try to make your opinion law, I am going to fight it.
> 
> Baler, there is not ONE SINGLE ACT that homosexuals "engage in" that heterosexuals do not also engage in. Not one. I mean, are you really so innocent?


And if you had an opinion where you lump million of people together and hold them accountable for acts throughout history then I'd call that prejudicial and somewhat ignorant.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

yakbladder said:


> And if you had an opinion where you lump million of people together and hold them accountable for acts throughout history then I'd call that prejudicial and somewhat ignorant.


Exactly what I said, Yakbladder! That if I said about Christians what is said about gays - even though you could make a much better case for Christians - I'd be called a bigot and rightly so.

Glad we agree.

I still don't think beef stroganoff should be outlawed, even though I find it disgusting.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> Baler, there is not ONE SINGLE ACT that homosexuals "engage in" that heterosexuals do not also engage in. Not one. I mean, are you really so innocent?


Are you really so stupid? Those "acts" that homosexuals engage in are with members of the same sex. That's the key point here. If the litmus test for all human sexual interaction were the "things" that heterosexual couples do in bed, then brothers and sisters and parents and children could be having sex together, too. After all, they would only be doing the things that heterosexual couples do!!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> Are you really so stupid? Those "acts" that homosexuals engage in are with members of the same sex. That's the key point here. If the litmus test for all human sexual interaction were the "things" that heterosexual couples do in bed, then brothers and sisters and parents and children could be having sex together, too. After all, they would only be doing the things that heterosexual couples do!!


unplonked:

do you want to be judged soley based on who you have sex with, how you have sex with that person, and whether or not you have 'normal' sex with that person?

didn't think so.

btw, how did you go from 2 men (consenting adults) having sex with each other, to siblings and siblings, and children and parents?

thanks for reminding me why you're plonked.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Talkhard said:


> It IS reflective of an entire culture--the Rap culture! Jay-Z's lyrics are even worse than Ludacris', and they are two of the biggest stars in Rap. Their music glamourizes drugs, sexual promiscuity, mysogyny, guns, violence, big cars, jewelry, arrogance, and "street cred." Great role models for black youth, yes indeed!
> 
> You seem completely unaware of the values of Rap music, but then maybe you don't listen to the lyrics. Or perhaps you just hate having people point out what trash this stuff really is.


Yet you watch NBA basketball. A sport who has a team in it that is partially owned by Jay-Z, that rapper that you loathe. Another team is owned by Robert Johnson who is the CEO of BET (Black Entertainment Television) and partially owned by Nelly, another rapper. 

A good portion of the NBA's players are black, inner-city kids who grow up living that culture that you dislike so much.

Yet, you still watch.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Can we *please * get back to bashing Telfair?!


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

Ed O said:


> Sure. If you want.
> 
> People tend to find prostitution disgusting. They find drug use disgusting. They find bestiality disgusting.
> 
> ...


Did I read this correctly..........Bassy is into BESTIALITY?


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Hap said:


> unplonked:
> 
> do you want to be judged soley based on who you have sex with, how you have sex with that person, and whether or not you have 'normal' sex with that person?
> 
> ...


First of all, Talkhard, it's the argument that's stupid, not the person.

Secondly, TH actually has a point. IF (keyword: IF) the basis of the argument is that the acceptability of homosexuality is because heterosexuals do the same actions then his reasoning, while extreme, is a perfectly acceptable argument in opposition. Despite what he may have stated or inferred in the past at least in this particular case he hasn't said anything about being judged. He may feel that way about it, but I certainly wouldn't want to impose my inferring of that on so sensitive a subject.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

yakbladder said:


> First of all, Talkhard, it's the argument that's stupid, not the person.
> 
> Secondly, TH actually has a point. IF (keyword: IF) the basis of the argument is that the acceptability of homosexuality is because heterosexuals do the same actions then his reasoning, while extreme, is a perfectly acceptable argument in opposition. Despite what he may have stated or inferred in the past at least in this particular case he hasn't said anything about being judged. He may feel that way about it, but I certainly wouldn't want to impose my inferring of that on so sensitive a subject.



it's an intellectually dishonest argument he's making. He's trying to go "If a, than b..and since b and d have something in common (sex) than A=D"

It's a scare tactic and a rather ignorant one to make. Because "homosexuals" have sex (and that we shouldn't freak out over it because afterall, hetrosexuals can and do have the same variety of sex), doesn't therefore mean that all the sudden we should be hearing incestual relationships coming into the forground as a valid kind of relationship.

Let's be real here. The chances of a man not having sexual relations with a woman that is in the line of how lesbians have sex, is probably not THAT high. Is the big issue that she's a woman doing it? 

Is that really an issue (and better yet, WHY is that an issue?)

Is the issue that two men, who aren't in your bed, who aren't near you, who aren't YOU, having anal sex? Is that really something you worry about (you universally)? I mean seriously, why is this something you think of?

Is it because when you see two gay men (or two lesbians) you automtically think of that? Well, I don't think of two old farts having sex when I saw Jessica Tandy and Hugh Cronam (sp) in movies together..why would I think of two men having sex if I saw a gay couple?

really, don't you have better things to fantasize (purely meant in a non sexual manner)? 

And then why do we have to bring up something thats completely different manner of taboo? Its a subtle way to imply that man on man action is just as "wrong" as brother/sister action.

In most cases, "man on man" action is between two consenting adults in a relationship..or so I should say, it's doubtful (outside of talkhards famous "link" that proved to be a bit of a questionable fact) that the # of gay relationships that is just "for fun" is any different than the # of male/female relationships that are just for fun (and THAT actually is more disturbing to me than gay relationships). 

bottom line, it seems rather strange to want the government out of MY bed, as long as it's controlling what you do in YOUR bed, if it's not what I deem proper.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> And then why do we have to bring up something thats completely different manner of taboo? Its a subtle way to imply that man on man action is just as "wrong" as brother/sister action.


I don't think there's anything subtle about it. To some people, homosexuality is just as wrong and disgusting as incest.

I find that laughable, myself, but I'm not sure that a persuasive argument can be made that incest is clearly, absolutely wrong while homosexuality is clearly, absolutely acceptable.

If it were up to ME, things would be one way. Unfortunately, I don't get to make decisions for all of society, and the next-best process that I'm aware of is the representative democratic one that we have in this country.

Ed O.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Hap said:


> it's an intellectually dishonest argument he's making. He's trying to go "If a, than b..and since b and d have something in common (sex) than A=D"
> <insert chatter here>


But I wasn't referring to whether it's right or wrong or whatever. Again, I think you're applying TH's old comments he must've made in some previous post and inferring that he means that here. All I'm saying is that the guy has a logical argument if taken at face value. As I mentioned in my previous post, is it an extreme? Yes, but it's still valid.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I don't think there's anything subtle about it. To some people, homosexuality is just as wrong and disgusting as incest.
> 
> I find that laughable, myself, but I'm not sure that a persuasive argument can be made that incest is clearly, absolutely wrong while homosexuality is clearly, absolutely acceptable.


The only things that are clearly wrong are those that affect other people in ways that they don't consent to.

The actions of homosexuality that are done between consenting adults affect only them and therefore cannot be judged by any reasonable standard "wrong." It's imposing preferences; can a persuasive argument be made that a society that finds Christianity "wrong" is morally wrong to forbid the practice of Christianity for anyone? If so, the same argument applies to homosexuality.

Incest harms non-consenting offspring due to the genetics of combining similar dna. That's the clear dividing line. Should non-reproductive incest between consenting adults be legal? Perhaps, but the enforcement of the non-reproductive part would be impossible, so it may not be practical.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

yakbladder said:


> But I wasn't referring to whether it's right or wrong or whatever. Again, I think you're applying TH's old comments he must've made in some previous post and inferring that he means that here. All I'm saying is that the guy has a logical argument if taken at face value. As I mentioned in my previous post, is it an extreme? Yes, but it's still valid.


I didn't mean to imply you were saying that. sorry if it came off that way.

I dont know if I would say it's a logical argument, outside of the structure. It's a slippery slope argument, and it could lead to people then arguing the counter.

If it's not ok for homosexuals to have sex, that should mean that A: oral sex between a man and a woman (or a woman and a man) should be wrong and B: any form of non vaginal/penis sexual contact is wrong and C: any sex not for procreation is wrong.

thats not a road I want to go down. (pardon the pun)


as for eds comments 



Ed O said:


> I don't think there's anything subtle about it. To some people, homosexuality is just as wrong and disgusting as incest.


I understand that, but something can be 'wrong and and disgusting as', but not be the equiviliant to. 

I think vomit is gross and disgusting, but I also think fish is gross and digusting (both have the same affect on me). But I know they're not the same.



> I find that laughable, myself, but I'm not sure that a persuasive argument can be made that incest is clearly, absolutely wrong while homosexuality is clearly, absolutely acceptable.


Im not sure if anyone is making a "clearly" argument though. I think one could argue, rather easily, that homosexuality is acceptable far before you could even fathom an argument that incestual relationships is remotely something worth arguing as acceptable (even if you mention that the health issues aren't as, iirc, a big of a deal as once thought). 

If we base it on the bible, thats opening a huge kettle of fish as for why something is acceptable or not, as the whole seperation of church and state to start with. If we were to base it on whether or not hetrosexuals can "do it", and therefore it's right or wrong, you open a whole other kettle of fish.



> If it were up to ME, things would be one way. Unfortunately, I don't get to make decisions for all of society, and the next-best process that I'm aware of is the representative democratic one that we have in this country.
> 
> Ed O.


if it were up to me, we'd all realize it's not actually that important who's having sex with who, if they're consenting adults, since the vast majority of the cases that involve incest, it wouldnt' be between consenting adults.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

I'm soooooo glad we were able to rob the Celtics when we traded Telfair. Awesome.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> if it were up to me, we'd all realize it's not actually that important who's having sex with who, if they're consenting adults, since the vast majority of the cases that involve incest, it wouldnt' be between consenting adults.


That's cool, I suppose. Should consenting adult incest participants be allowed to marry, even if the popular will (in the form of votes and/or legislation) isn't behind it? Should they be guaranteed the same benefits as non brother/sister or mother/son or father/daughter unions?

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> I'm soooooo glad we were able to rob the Celtics when we traded Telfair. Awesome.


Just lucky we didn't rob *Telfair*. I don't feel like us getting shot.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> That's cool, I suppose. Should consenting adult incest participants be allowed to marry,


considering the minute # of people who fit into that group, vs the much bigger # of people who are gay, I think thats a rather silly point of contention.


> even if the popular will (in the form of votes and/or legislation) isn't behind it? Should they be guaranteed the same benefits as non brother/sister or mother/son or father/daughter unions?
> 
> Ed O.


such a small # that it's not worth worrying about.


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I don't think there's anything subtle about it. To some people, homosexuality is just as wrong and disgusting as incest.
> 
> I find that laughable, myself, but I'm not sure that a persuasive argument can be made that incest is clearly, absolutely wrong while homosexuality is clearly, absolutely acceptable.
> 
> ...


Yea, what he said.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Hap said:


> If it's not ok for homosexuals to have sex, that should mean that A: oral sex between a man and a woman (or a woman and a man) should be wrong and B: any form of non vaginal/penis sexual contact is wrong and C: any sex not for procreation is wrong.


What the hell are you talking about? Is this supposed to be a serious argument?

All you need is a quick lesson in anatomy to realize that the male and female bodies were designed to fit together. That same anatomy lesson will teach you that the bodies of two men or two women were not designed to go together. It's simple, really. Homosexuality is a deviation from nature, and from the natural expression of sexual desire. You can argue against that fact until the cows come home, but just keep looking at that anatomical diagram and you'll figure it out . . .


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

baler said:


> Yea, what he said.


how did this turn into a debate on homosexuality...?

im staying out of this, as discussion goes nowhere in this topic.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> It's simple, really. Homosexuality is a deviation from nature, and from the natural expression of sexual desire.


Simple, but wrong. Homosexuality has been observed in many different species, so it's clearly "natural" in that it occurs naturally in nature. Nature plus nature equals natural.

Pretty simple.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> What the hell are you talking about? Is this supposed to be a serious argument?
> 
> All you need is a quick lesson in anatomy to realize that the male and female bodies were designed to fit together. That same anatomy lesson will teach you that the bodies of two men or two women were not designed to go together. It's simple, really. Homosexuality is a deviation from nature, and from the natural expression of sexual desire. You can argue against that fact until the cows come home, but just keep looking at that anatomical diagram and you'll figure it out . . .


oooh, so it's about what fits where? So you're telling me you've never EVER varied from strictly vaginal/penis sexual contact? Ever? I mean, it's designed only for that, right? I mean, thats why homosexuals are wrong..

and ah, the old "nature" argument.

well, if it's a design issue, who's the guy who came up with the design for our naughty bits? and does that mean that the animals in nature who are homosexual, aren't actually...in nature?

and what is sex, if not a desire in the first place?

if you have to use "anatomical diagram" as your best argument, you've already lost.

we, as people, have already designed things that don't "fit" the human design. Pigs hearts, for example. We've used metal in bodies to replace bones. So the "natural" thing is too selective.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

The human arm wasn't meant for throwing a ball the way baseball pitchers do. Any doctor will tell you that.

I imagine pitching in baseball is "unnatural" and morally repugnant.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Homosexuality has been observed in many different species, so it's clearly "natural" in that it occurs naturally in nature. Nature plus nature equals natural.
> 
> Pretty simple.


If anything that occurs in the animal world is by definition "natural" and therefore to be emulated by humans, then it's completely natural for us to kill each other, eat our young, eat our feces, and let the weakest members of the herd die along the side of the road. Those are all "natural" things done by one animal species or another.

More to the point, it's ridiculous to think that humans and animals are the same, or that they should live by the same laws. Humans are a far higher order of beings, and were designed by God for a higher purpose. A dumb animal who happens to copulate with another animal of his same sex should not be held up as an example of how humans ought to behave!


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Talkhard said:


> If anything that occurs in the animal world is by definition "natural" and therefore to be emulated by humans, then it's completely natural for us to kill each other, eat our young, eat our feces, and let the weakest members of the herd die along the side of the road. Those are all "natural" things done by one animal species or another.
> 
> More to the point, it's ridiculous to think that humans and animals are the same, or that they should live by the same laws. Humans are a far higher order of beings, and were designed by God for a higher purpose. A *dumb animal who happens to copulate with another animal of his same sex should not be held up as an example of how humans ought to behave*!


So now homosexuals are dumb?


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Hap said:


> oooh, so it's about what fits where? So you're telling me you've never EVER varied from strictly vaginal/penis sexual contact? Ever? I mean, it's designed only for that, right? I mean, thats why homosexuals are wrong...


You're still missing the point. It's not the nature of the acts themselves, but WHO you are doing them with. We were not designed to mate with members of our own sex. You don't even have to believe in God to know that. Just examine the male and female anatomy. To mate with a member of your own sex is a perversion of "function," if you will. It can be done, and it is done all the time, obviously, but it's still a perversion. 

Within the range of sexual acts practiced between men and women, I'm sure there are some practices that certain people would frown upon. Other people would argue that those practices are merely an expression of love and affection between the two people. I'm not an authority on which practices are "kosher," but I feel pretty confident in saying that homosexuality is wrong from the very get-go. And yes, I go back to the anatomical differences, and the obvious intent of our designer. We were designed to mate with the opposite sex, not with our own sex.



> we, as people, have already designed things that don't "fit" the human design. Pigs hearts, for example. We've used metal in bodies to replace bones. So the "natural" thing is too selective.


You're getting silly now. Yes, we put silver in our teeth, and use metal bolts to hold broken bones together, and even use aluminum to replace faulty knee joints. What that has to do with the subject we're talking about is beyond me.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> So now homosexuals are dumb?


Nope. Creatures in the animal kingdom are "dumb" in comparison to humans. They live mainly by instinct rather than by reason. They eat, they drink, they hunt, they sleep. An animal doesn't live by any moral code or strive to be anything other than what it is, a simple animal.

We were made for something far better.


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> So now homosexuals are dumb?


I haven't read anywhere in this thread where someone stated homosexuals are dumb. Stop inferring that people mean something else from a simple statement referring to animals. You will never convince me that homosexuality is right and normal and I will never convince you that it is wrong and disgusting. Can we simply just agree to disagree?


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

baler said:


> I haven't read anywhere in this thread where someone stated homosexuals are dumb. Stop inferring that people mean something else from a simple statement referring to animals. You will never convince me that homosexuality is right and normal and I will never convince you that it is wrong and disgusting. Can we simply just agree to disagree?


I was wrong about you Baler, I thought maybe you had just not been exposed to any divergent views. But I don't debate with people who consider me subhuman, so I am out of this discussion.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Wow, this thread is just ... wow. :sad:


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

What exactly is the higher purpose that humans were designed to?

Whatever it is, we are clearly not achieving it.

So why is it that only homosexuals are held responsible for the shortcomings of all?


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> What exactly is the higher purpose that humans were designed to?
> 
> Whatever it is, we are clearly not achieving it.
> 
> So why is it that only homosexuals are held responsible for the shortcomings of all?


What? Huhh? How could you possibly come up with "So why is it that only homosexuals are held responsible for the shortcomings of all?"? Now this is just silly. You all are just making **** up now.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

baler said:


> I haven't read anywhere in this thread where someone stated homosexuals are dumb. Stop inferring that people mean something else from a simple statement referring to animals. You will never convince me that homosexuality is right and normal and I will never convince you that it is wrong and disgusting. Can we simply just agree to disagree?


No worry I wouldn't have expected you to understand what was being inferred.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

Whoever is in charge of this thing please move this crap somewhere else! Let's talk hoops!


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Talkhard said:


> Nope. Creatures in the animal kingdom are "dumb" in comparison to humans. They live mainly by instinct rather than by reason. They eat, they drink, they hunt, they sleep. An animal doesn't live by any moral code or strive to be anything other than what it is, a simple animal.
> 
> We were made for something far better.


Ok...let me make sure I understand what you are saying. 
1. It's ok for animals to be homosexual because they are dumb. 
2. Thus it's not ok for humans to be homosexual because they are not dumb.

?


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> Whoever is in charge of this thing please move *this crap* somewhere else! Let's talk hoops!


Yet here you are reading it...It's kind of like watching a trainwreck..horid but fascinating. :biggrin:


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

sa1177 said:


> Ok...let me make sure I understand what you are saying.
> 1. It's ok for animals to be homosexual because they are dumb.
> 2. Thus it's not ok for humans to be homosexual because they are not dumb.
> 
> ?



Is it OK for an adult to have sexual relations with a child.....or a goat? If not, then why not?

This conversation go go to the n'th degree. Which is why I vote we all call a "truce" and move on.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

ABM said:


> Is it OK for an adult to have sexual relations with a child.....or a goat? If not, then why not?
> 
> This conversation go go to the n'th degree. Which is why I vote we all call a "truce" and move on.


I am just trying to understand what he is saying...Can't argue with it until I understand it. :biggrin:


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

baler said:


> What? Huhh? How could you possibly come up with "So why is it that only homosexuals are held responsible for the shortcomings of all?"? Now this is just silly. You all are just making **** up now.


Whatever. You missed the point. 

Talkhard is saying that homosexuality goes against the "higher purpose" of being human.

My question is what is this higher purpose and does he honestly think that he (or anyone really) is meeting such a standard? 

If not, then why is homosexuality getting singled out?


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

So if I understand this thread right, Telfair is homosexual and Fabolous is his *****. 

Link?


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> So if I understand this thread right, Telfair is homosexual and Fabolous is his *****.
> 
> Link?



Sounds about right.

:biggrin:


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Mr. Plumb used the Candlestick in the Pantry.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Oil Can said:


> Mr. Plumb used the Candlestick in the Pantry.


Euwwww-ah!


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Talkhard is saying that homosexuality goes against the "higher purpose" of being human.
> 
> My question is what is this higher purpose and does he honestly think that he (or anyone really) is meeting such a standard?
> 
> If not, then why is homosexuality getting singled out?


Homosexuality is not getting singled out--it's just the subject under discussion. The "higher purpose" that we were created for is to become Godlike (or Christlike) by overcoming our sinful natures. The Bible says that we were created in the image of God, and we are to aspire to be more like him every day. That's the work of a lifetime, and it requires turning our back on sin and corruption of all kinds so that we can become perfect even as our father in heaven is perfect.

Any kind of sin that we cherish and hold close to our heart will prevent this transformation from happening. That includes homosexuality, as well as all the other sins--pride, gluttony, selfishness, envy, hatred, etc. And no, I fall way short of the goal, and way short of Christ's example, as do most of us.


----------



## madgam3 (Jul 11, 2005)

What if everyone was gay? What would happen to the human race? This is a serious question from a dumb human who happens to wonder about stuff like this. Figured I might as well ask since we are on the subject.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

I've got a crazy idea, and maybe a little out there. But how about we talk about BASKETBALL YOU FREAKS! I went to church for the first 18 years of my life and didn't join this site to read about your opinion of god! Is that not off-topic? Hoops gentleman, please.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> I've got a crazy idea, and maybe a little out there. But how about we talk about BASKETBALL YOU FREAKS! I went to church for the first 18 years of my life and didn't join this site to read about your opinion of god! Is that not off-topic? Hoops gentleman, please.


While I understand your point I can't help but wonder why you are still reading this thread after making said points multiple times...


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> I've got a crazy idea, and maybe a little out there. But how about we talk about BASKETBALL YOU FREAKS! I went to church for the first 18 years of my life and didn't join this site to read about your opinion of god! Is that not off-topic? Hoops gentleman, please.


Give us a break. The regular season hasn't started yet!


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

madgam3 said:


> What if everyone was gay? What would happen to the human race? This is a serious question from a dumb human who happens to wonder about stuff like this. Figured I might as well ask since we are on the subject.



There would be more vitro fertilizations than google searches.


----------



## Redbeard (Sep 11, 2005)

I am glad I haven't followed this thread all the way through, but I have to throw in a tidbit.
Don't take this as my position on the subject, but I had a thought that may clarify Talkhard's position.
(Never imagained that happening :biggrin Anyway.

The anatomy issue could be divided as such.
Vaginal intercourse is natural in that it is an action of procreation and not just lust.
Other forms of sex are purely lustful, which is described as sinful.

Although nothing in this world is unnatural IMO, since it all comes from Nature in one form or another.
As an animal with an intellect high enough to consider moral reasoning, it is our choice whether to recognize feelings of lust, greed, etc. in our lives and decide whether they fit in the higher image of our conciousness. People throughout history have expressed feelings of happiness beyond normal levels (enlightenment) and described methods as to how they achieved it. Thus we have religion and we have morals in our society that are defined through trial and tribulation.

Decide for yourself whether you want your life controlled by lust and then make your decision about homosexuality.

And for God's sake, can we have an un-merge and put this in OT. I am sure both Telfair and Fabulous would appreciate it.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

sa1177 said:


> While I understand your point I can't help but wonder why you are still reading this thread after making said points multiple times...


Because I keep thinking someone has posted somthing pertaining to the Bass situation. We shouldn't have to read all this crap. I'm pretty new, but isn't this suppose to be OT?


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> *Because I keep thinking someone has posted somthing pertaining to the Bass situation* . We shouldn't have to read all this crap. I'm pretty new, but isn't this suppose to be OT?


Come on now you should know better then that... :biggrin: 

You don't "have" to read anything..I am sure ESPN will keep us all aprised of potential jailbird Bassy and his situation, but yes I do agree this probably should have moved/closed long ago.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> Because I keep thinking someone has posted somthing pertaining to the Bass situation. We shouldn't have to read all this crap. I'm pretty new, but isn't this suppose to be OT?


I consider this thread part on topic and part off topic. To stay with the theme of this thread, I guess you could say this thread is bi-sexual. :biggrin: 

But is that natural?


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Aren't you glad we got rid of Telfair? I sure am.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> Because I keep thinking someone has posted somthing pertaining to the Bass situation. We shouldn't have to read all this crap. I'm pretty new, but isn't this suppose to be OT?


Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

tlong said:


> Aren't you glad we got rid of Telfair? I sure am.


yes because he also just plain sucked... :biggrin:


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

sa1177 said:


> yes because he also just plain sucked... :biggrin:



Hmmmm....I didn't know he was strictly one of _those_.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

ABM said:


> Hmmmm....I didn't know he was strictly one of _those_.


And we have come full circle....:rofl:


----------

