# Mark Jackson won't allow gays in his locker room



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

http://blacksportsonline.com/home/2014/05/mark-jackson-on-gays-not-in-my-locker-room/

Doubtful he gets another coaching job again, and honestly he keeps this up he'll be blackballed all together from everything but bible preaching.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Not a good way to keep a coaching job these days, particularly in the San Francisco area. That's a gotsta go situation.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

That would probably be just about as bad for business as what Sterling did in the more liberal parts of the country (like the Bay Area obviously). It probably would not hurt you as much in a place like OKC, but you want your coach to keep his mouth shut about stuff like that. You want to sell tickets and jerseys to everyone no matter what.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Diable said:


> That would probably be just about as bad for business as what Sterling did in the more liberal parts of the country (like the Bay Area obviously). It probably would not hurt you as much in a place like OKC, but you want your coach to keep his mouth shut about stuff like that. You want to sell tickets and jerseys to everyone no matter what.


Not to mention, it is inevitable that a player comes out as gay that offers more value to a franchise than Jason Collins does... no sense in limiting your options by having a closed-minded and/or bigoted head coach.


----------



## edabomb (Feb 12, 2005)

A couple of members of the OKC ownership group have contributed $$ to anti-gay marriage groups. So fair to say Jackson has at least one avenue.

http://theassociation.blogs.com/the_association/2007/02/clay_benett_im_.html


----------



## Pyrex (Jan 14, 2014)

Lol it's amazing how humans can shun people based on sexuality, I always find that really creepy. They might not even want Marc commentating next year either, he could say something stupid on TV.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Keep him out of OKC.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

You won't be missed as a coach, Mark. And quite frankly after this not to keen on hearing him as an announcer either. Mama there goes that man.


----------



## Maravilla (Jul 6, 2010)

I feel that given the nature of this topic it would be given a lot more pub, assuming its accurate.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> http://blacksportsonline.com/home/2014/05/mark-jackson-on-gays-not-in-my-locker-room/
> 
> Doubtful he gets another coaching job again, and honestly he keeps this up he'll be blackballed all together from everything but bible preaching.


Based on rumors from the NBA media? NBA media has become like gossip girls. The sad part about is people have made judgements on people based on anonymous sources when NBA media has not only proven unreliable but in some cases fabricating news.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

I'd hire him. He's a great coach.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> Based on rumors from the NBA media? NBA media has become like gossip girls. The sad part about is people have made judgements on people based on anonymous sources when NBA media has not only proven unreliable but in some cases fabricating news.



All they have to do is ask Jackson point blank in a interview. I think if he really feels that strongly he won't lie about it. 


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

The should take away the NBA from him, and also slander his wife in the process and make her sell something.

That's how this all works right?


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

R-Star said:


> The should take away the NBA from him, and also slander his wife in the process and make her sell something.
> 
> That's how this all works right?


Nah, because Donald Sterling is not a rumored first incident.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

R-Star said:


> The should take away the NBA from him, and also slander his wife in the process and make her sell something.
> 
> That's how this all works right?


Being gay is something you're born with, being black is something you choose.


----------



## kbdullah (Jul 8, 2010)

Eh. Having actually read the article, it doesn't seem like Mark Jackson directly said he wouldn't allow gays in the locker room. He was asked if they'd pursue Jason Collins and he said, "not in my locker room", but the smoking gun of him having homophobic views isn't there. And the Warriors said that his views on sexuality weren't the reason he was fired, so...


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

He'd be asked about it. If he says that his comments were taken out of context, I think that would shut this all the way down. If he stands by saying such a thing, he'll never coach in this league again.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

If Jackson wants to coach again he'll say this is all a big misunderstanding. If he were a hall of fame caliber coach then maybe he could get away with pissing off a few people, but he's not.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

"not in my locker room" - there is no misunderstanding - we all understand this particular well established phrasing


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

R-Star said:


> The should take away the NBA from him, and also slander his wife in the process and make her sell something.
> 
> That's how this all works right?


You are a master baiter.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

NVM.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> The should take away the NBA from him, and also slander his wife in the process and make her sell something.
> 
> That's how this all works right?


They should take the NBA from him. The NBA is a private business and doesn't have to be open of anti-gay beliefs and remarks. Are you serious? Especially with your avatar leading people to believe you're gay yourself?

You didn't have any problem slandering V, so its funny you have a problem slandering Shelly.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

LeGoat06 said:


> Being gay is something you're born with, being black is something you choose.


*No Personal Attacks. 

- Basel*


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> They should take the NBA from him. The NBA is a private business and doesn't have to be open of anti-gay beliefs and remarks. Are you serious? Especially with your avatar leading people to believe you're gay yourself?
> 
> *You didn't have any problem slandering V, so its funny you have a problem slandering Shelly.*


How the **** does that make any sense? So if I'm fine with one woman being called a whore for sleeping with an 80 year old space case like Sterling, it means I should be ok with insults towards any woman?

Yea, that makes perfect sense Jamel.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> How the **** does that make any sense? So if I'm fine with one woman being called a whore for sleeping with an 80 year old space case like Sterling, it means I should be ok with insults towards any woman?
> 
> Yea, that makes perfect sense Jamel.


The only difference between Shelly and V is some decades in age.

Both are whores who hang out with Tokowitz just for money.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

LeGoat06 said:


> Being gay is something you're born with, being black is something you choose.



Being a Christian is something you choose and that's the worst thing you can be. 


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Being a Christian is something you choose and that's the worst thing you can be.


You know this country has gone stupid when someone can post this and think they are being clever.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> The only difference between Shelly and V is some decades in age.
> 
> Both are whores who hang out with Tokowitz just for money.


No, not at all. 

You don't agree with her beliefs so shes the same as V.Stiviano all the sudden? She's been married to Sterling for forever. As far as I'm aware they have children. What the **** are you even talking about?


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

R-Star said:


> *No Personal Attacks.
> 
> - Basel*


What'd you say R-Star? I'm curious.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

LeGoat06 said:


> What'd you say R-Star? I'm curious.


That I disagreed with your post.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

R-Star said:


> That I disagreed with your post.


You realize that post was the complete and utter opposite of a serious post right?


----------



## Pablo5 (Jun 18, 2013)

At least someone can stand on principals and not do it for the media coverage and money.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Pablo5 said:


> At least someone can stand on principals and not do it for the media coverage and money.


If you stand on your principals, you'll probably get detention.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

My principles would involve trying not to lose a huge pile of money in a discrimination lawsuit. If someone could prove that you denied them a job because they were gay, then they would be able to beat you out of a big pile of money in court. It would be much better to discriminate against Collins for being old and not very good at basketball, that would be perfectly legal.

If Jackson did what he's accused of, then he broke the law in California. I don't see a criminal case, as there's not a lot of evidence. That wouldn't matter in a civil case though.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

If he really respected his Christian values that much he wouldn't judge or discriminate and just accept him and shut the **** up about it. Right @Jamel Irief?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> You know this country has gone stupid when someone can post this and think they are being clever.



I agree. I blame the lack of Jesus in schools.

God will pay me back on judgement day. Unless he is sexually attracted to me, in which case it will be paradox.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

LeGoat06 said:


> If he really respected his Christian values that much he wouldn't judge or discriminate and just accept him and shut the **** up about it. Right @Jamel Irief?



If he really respected his Christian values he'd not eat ham (it's in the bible) and eat Ezekiel bread sprouted from human feces (it's in the bible).

My personal experience is that Christians pick and choose what values they want to credit to their religion.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Jamel Irief said:


> If he really respected his Christian values he'd not eat ham (it's in the bible) and eat Ezekiel bread sprouted from human feces (it's in the bible).
> 
> My personal experience is that Christians pick and choose what values they want to credit to their religion.


NVM, not even going to bother.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> No, not at all.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't agree with her beliefs so shes the same as V.Stiviano all the sudden? She's been married to Sterling for forever. As far as I'm aware they have children. What the **** are you even talking about?



Would your wife stay with you if you had public mistresses? Maybe if you had a billion dollars?


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Did you write this Jamel?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/omgitsanf/19-things-the-bible-forbids-other-than-homosexuali-b83k


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Would your wife stay with you if you had public mistresses? Maybe if you had a billion dollars?


If I had a billion dollars? Yea, probably. Does that make her a saint? No. Is it odd that you have made multiple posts over the last month or two about how terrible Shelly Sterling is? 

I sure think so.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> If I had a billion dollars? Yea, probably. Does that make her a saint? No. Is it odd that you have made multiple posts over the last month or two about how terrible Shelly Sterling is?
> 
> I sure think so.


Why is that odd? You slander Magic Johnson for stuff that isn't even true and is just your suspicion yet you want to cry foul on some nobody like Shelly Sterling that hasn't done anything but father kids with a billionaire and is also documented to have mistreated tenants?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

LeGoat06 said:


> Did you write this Jamel?
> 
> http://www.buzzfeed.com/omgitsanf/19-things-the-bible-forbids-other-than-homosexuali-b83k


Yes sir. Thank you for supporting my work, you sinner. 

By the way premarital sex is a sin too, stop touching your girlfriend.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Jamel Irief said:


> Yes sir. Thank you for supporting my work, you sinner.
> 
> By the way premarital sex is a sin too, stop touching your girlfriend.


I've already said I'm a sinner and I have no place to judge anyone else. But you skipped the 20 posts I explained that and just go on about your day so I'm done saying it.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

LeGoat06 said:


> I've already said I'm a sinner and I have no place to judge anyone else. But you skipped the 20 posts I explained that and just go on about your day so I'm done saying it.


So maybe you'll never openly condemn homosexuals again?


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Jamel Irief said:


> So maybe you'll never openly condemn homosexuals again?


I have already said I wouldn't and I was wrong to do so. You also missed that part along time ago, which goes along with my first post in the thread that Mark Jackson shouldn't judge either.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

LeGoat06 said:


> I have already said I wouldn't and I was wrong to do so. You also missed that part along time ago, which goes along with my first post in the thread that Mark Jackson shouldn't judge either.


Apparently I did miss that, my bad.

Very mature post.... jesus would be proud of you. I almost believe you're 22 based on your behavior in this thread!


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Jamel Irief said:


> Apparently I did miss that, my bad.
> 
> Very mature post.... jesus would be proud of you. I almost believe you're 22 based on your behavior in this thread!


23 in 7 days :nono: All birthdays are pointless from here on out.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Why is that odd? You slander Magic Johnson for stuff that isn't even true and is just your suspicion yet you want to cry foul on some nobody like Shelly Sterling that hasn't done anything but father kids with a billionaire and is also documented to have mistreated tenants?


So..... Magic Johnson shouldn't be questioned for his motives because _hes a somebody?_

But _some nobody_ like Shelly is open for criticism?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> So..... Magic Johnson shouldn't be questioned for his motives because _hes a somebody?_
> 
> But _some nobody_ like Shelly is open for criticism?


Everyone is open to criticism is my point. 

You're a hypocrite if you cry foul on slandering Shelly.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Everyone is open to criticism is my point.
> 
> You're a hypocrite if you cry foul on slandering Shelly.


How exactly am I crying foul?

I came into the thread saying Jackson should get the same treatment as Sterling, and you flipped out and went on a Shelly Sterling is the devil tirade. Go back and re-read if you feel the need.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> How exactly am I crying foul?
> 
> I came into the thread saying Jackson should get the same treatment as Sterling, and you flipped out and went on a Shelly Sterling is the devil tirade. Go back and re-read if you feel the need.


It seemed like your initial post was sarcastic. I at least took it that way.

Yes I agree that there's no place for Jackson's views the same way there's no place for Sterlings. And if Jackson's wife starts speaking out in the media and defending his views then she deserves criticism as well.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> It seemed like your initial post was sarcastic. I at least took it that way.
> 
> Yes I agree that there's no place for Jackson's views the same way there's no place for Sterlings. And if Jackson's wife starts speaking out in the media and defending his views then she deserves criticism as well.


She said he wasn't a racist. Not sure exactly how that's defending his views. 

By your way of thinking, you're wife is going to get a broken nose the next time you annoy me. You and I are private entities and basketballforum.com isn't the government so it doesn't have to apply by the same rules. 

Right?


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)




----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> She said he wasn't a racist. Not sure exactly how that's defending his views.
> 
> By your way of thinking, you're wife is going to get a broken nose the next time you annoy me. You and I are private entities and basketballforum.com isn't the government so it doesn't have to apply by the same rules.
> 
> Right?


You can't claim you weren't crying foul in regards to people slandering Shelly and then defend Shelly. Make up your mind.

Im not sure I get your second paragraph at all. My job can fire me for having purple hair, let alone saying I don't tolerate gays or blacks.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Everyone is open to criticism is my point.
> 
> You're a hypocrite if you cry foul on slandering Shelly.


Clearly homosexuals are not open to criticism...


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

MemphisX said:


> Clearly homosexuals are not open to criticism...


You call that "criticism"?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> Clearly homosexuals are not open to criticism...


Saying you won't allow them employment isn't criticism. There's no excuse for discriminating against someones sexual orientation. Being a christian isn't one, because as I pointed out to LeGoat I never met a christian that follows the bible literally.

Aren't you black? Black people that are intolerant piss me off more than anyone. At least old white ******** are consistent and have never felt discrimination themselves. Black people? "Equality for all!*"

*except the gays

Dr. King would turn in his grave.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

If this ever leads to any future discussion, he would be wise, as a confirmed adulterer, not to use any "one man, one woman" / "nuclear family" / "sanctity of marriage" bullet points to justify himself.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Saying you won't allow them employment isn't criticism. There's no excuse for discriminating against someones sexual orientation. Being a christian isn't one, because as I pointed out to LeGoat I never met a christian that follows the bible literally.
> 
> Aren't you black? Black people that are intolerant piss me off more than anyone. At least old white ******** are consistent and have never felt discrimination themselves. Black people? "Equality for all!*"
> 
> ...




So black people must be tolerant of anything because they were oppressed by white folks? Is that the logic trail you are on?

I am neither Christian or homosexual, however, I know if someone substituted homosexual in your posts for Christianity, they would have been getting warnings from mods if not banned.

Imagine LeGoat posting:



> Being a homosexual is something you choose and that's the worst thing you can be.


Would you be so tolerant of his view point?

You are just as big of a hypocrite as the Christians you detest.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> So black people must be tolerant of anything because they were oppressed by white folks? Is that the logic trail you are on?
> 
> I am neither Christian or homosexual, however, I know if someone substituted homosexual in your posts for Christianity, they would have been getting warnings from mods if not banned.
> 
> ...


Homosexuality is biological like being black. If someone is black and doesn't like someone discriminating against them for something they can't control then they're a hypocrite.

Are you arguing that being a christian is biological? For the record I don't detest Christians. I do detest intolerant Christians.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> *Homosexuality is biological like being black.* If someone is black and doesn't like someone discriminating against them for something they can't control then they're a hypocrite.
> 
> Are you arguing that being a christian is biological? For the record I don't detest Christians. I do detest intolerant Christians.



Yet, there are so many lesbians and homosexuals with naturally conceived children.

Never met a black person that used to be white though.

Did Jackie Robinson have to have a press conference to let the world know he was a black man playing baseball? 

Maybe Steve Nash will pull a Collins and tell us he is a black man this offseason.

:darkomer:


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> Yet, there are so many lesbians and homosexuals with naturally conceived children.
> 
> Never met a black person that used to be white though.
> 
> ...


So the definition of something that is biological= something you can see with the naked eye? Honestly? How do I even begin to respond to that?

Pretty sure Hellen Keller didn't announce to the world she was deaf and blind.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> Yet, there are so many lesbians and homosexuals with naturally conceived children.
> 
> Never met a black person that used to be white though.
> 
> ...


Have you ever watch Steve Nash play? Dudes not black. No black person on the planet is that nonathletic on the defensive end. 

Steve Nash sucks on D because hes white. James Harden sucks on D because hes black and some black people are lazy.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> So the definition of something that is biological= something you can see with the naked eye? Honestly? How do I even begin to respond to that?
> 
> Pretty sure Hellen Keller didn't announce to the world she was deaf and blind.


No my definition of something biological is something that can't be a "phase in college" or something that happened because I had one to many tequila shots.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> No my definition of something biological is something that can't be a "phase in college" or something that happened because I had one to many tequila shots.


I think there's a difference in someone that is only sexually attracted to the same gender versus someone that had a couple of flings here and there when drunk.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> I think there's a difference in someone that is only sexually attracted to the same gender versus someone that had a couple of flings here and there when drunk.


how about what goes on in prisons around the world ?

is that different too?

the simple truth is you cant change whether you are man or a woman black white, asian etc ....but who you choose to stick your penis in is a choice whether it be man or a woman and unless you either told people or let yourself be viewed doing it no one would know if you were at lets say a job interview .

its not the same thing .


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> how about what goes on in prisons around the world ?
> 
> is that different too?
> 
> ...


Again, there is a difference between having gay sex and being a homosexual. Who or what you stick your penis in doesn't defy your sexual orientation. Your ATTRACTION does. Otherwise I would be a palm sexual next time I'm in a hotel room. 

In prisons its usually a dominance thing, not a sexual gratification thing. I doubt the inmates are sexually attracted to the man they are ****ing.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Again, there is a difference between having gay sex and being a homosexual. Who or what you stick your penis in doesn't defy your sexual orientation. Your ATTRACTION does. Otherwise I would be a palm sexual next time I'm in a hotel room.
> 
> In prisons its usually a dominance thing, not a sexual gratification thing. I doubt the inmates are sexually attracted to the man they are ****ing.


actually you are what you constantly do.

if you lie all the time you are a liar .

if you engage in gay sex all the time, you are gay 

an erect penis is pretty sure sign of arousal ....without one its near impossible to have anal sex.

and there is a whole lot of people who get off on being dominant or submissive it doesn't seem to cheapen their sexual experiences any.

its just a fact of life we judge people by their actions .


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

I like this thing where we hit enter after every sentence.

It makes posts seem longer.

Unfortunately, it doesn't make being gay a choice.

I seriously don't feel like I have any choice over who I am attracted to, do you?

Maybe you can prove it for us by choosing to be gay.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Dornado said:


> I like this thing where we hit enter after every sentence.
> 
> It makes posts seem longer.
> 
> ...


You can't tell me what to do.

If I want to go out and sleep with a guy, I'll go out and sleep with a guy.

What's it to you?

Mr Big Shot?

What's it to you.

I'll prove it is a choice. You'll see.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> Yes sir. Thank you for supporting my work, you sinner.


You're joking... right?


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Dornado said:


> I like this thing where we hit enter after every sentence.
> 
> It makes posts seem longer.
> 
> ...



So your explanation for bisexuals would be...

Also, shouldn't we then advocate for giving pedophiles a break because they can't help it?


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

MemphisX said:


> So your explanation for bisexuals would be...
> 
> Also, shouldn't we then advocate for giving pedophiles a break because they can't help it?


First of all, **** you for comparing homosexuals to pedophiles... children can't give consent.


Second of all, why do I need an explanation for bisexuals? Isn't it possible that some people are born attracted to the opposite sex, some to the same sex, some to both sexes and some to neither (asexual)? I'm just saying, if it is a choice, you, as a presumably straight male should be able to choose to **** (and, the real issue, fall in romantic love with) a guy without any issues, right?


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

MemphisX said:


> So your explanation for bisexuals would be...
> 
> Also, shouldn't we then advocate for giving pedophiles a break because they can't help it?



I don't think I'm going to be giving anyone a break. I'm going to stay the hell out of what other consenting adults do and try to avoid violating the laws against discriminating against other people. Pedophilia involves sex with a person who is not of the legal age of consent, homosexual, heterosexual, metrosexual, whateverthe****sexual, that's both amoral,illegal and an entirely different thing.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> actually you are what you constantly do.
> 
> if you lie all the time you are a liar .
> 
> ...


If R-star constantly posts pictures of nude men every time he makes a post is he gay?

An erect penis is a pretty sure sign of a strong libido. It can come in the mornings (morning sexual?), for no reason as a teenager (oxygen sexual?), or when I touch my penis with my palm in a hotel room (palm sexual?). It doesn't only come when looking or thinking about an attractive member of the opposite sex. 

Im not a vegetarian if I eat salads all the time, neither is someone that engages in gay sex all the time gay. What about male porn stars that **** dudes because they get paid a lot of money but never do so in their personal time?

Again, I don't think men rape in prison for the sex. I doubt when they are out they have any desire to experience the thrill or raping another man.

Everyone that isn't castrated has an urge for sex. It's as natural as eating. Some have that urge towards men, other towards women. Some people are black, some people are white.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Did you know that if you die of suffocation you die with an erect penis? @Da Grinch would take that to mean that you are sexually aroused by oxygen deprivation?


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> Did you know that if you die of suffocation you die with an erect penis? @Da Grinch would take that to mean that you are sexually aroused by oxygen deprivation?


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Dornado said:


> First of all, **** you for comparing homosexuals to pedophiles... children can't give consent.
> 
> 
> Second of all, why do I need an explanation for bisexuals? Isn't it possible that some people are born attracted to the opposite sex, some to the same sex, some to both sexes and some to neither (asexual)? I'm just saying, if it is a choice, you, as a presumably straight male should be able to choose to **** (and, the real issue, fall in romantic love with) a guy without any issues, right?


Wow...I guess we are losing tolerance. :2ti: I did not compare anything. I am saying we should not punish people for their biology. Isn't that the argument? Or does tolerance end when we get to something you disapprove? Then it is tolerance be damned right?


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

MemphisX said:


> Wow...I guess we are losing tolerance. :2ti: I did not compare anything. I am saying we should not punish people for their biology. Isn't that the argument? Or does tolerance end when we get to something you disapprove? Then it is tolerance be damned right?


You don't think it is incredibly insulting to compare gay people to pedophiles? You can't say "I did not compare anything" and then go on to compare the two again. They aren't analogous. Sorry memphisx... you're solid on race issues but you're way off base in this discussion. You can't compare what two consenting adults do to rapists that prey on kids, sorry. The whole "you're being intolerant for not tolerating my intolerance!" thing isn't very compelling when the racists say it either.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Dornado said:


> You don't think it is incredibly insulting to compare gay people to pedophiles? You can't say "I did not compare anything" and then go on to compare the two again. They aren't analogous. Sorry memphisx... you're solid on race issues but you're way off base in this discussion. You can't compare what two consenting adults do to rapists that prey on kids, sorry. The whole "you're being intolerant for not tolerating my intolerance!" thing isn't very compelling when the racists say it either.


You said that a person can't help who they are attracted to and that it is biological. However, you don't want to keep going down that road when you get uncomfortable with the conclusions. We are talking about biological attractions. You don't get to dismiss your arguments when they get uncomfortable to you.

I am not talking about a rapist who preys on kids. What if it is a guy that admits an attraction to little girls and never acts on it? Are we still going to be tolerant?

Let's be clear, I have not stated my position at all. I am just showing that the positions taken in this thread are bullshit.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

MemphisX said:


> You said that a person can't help who they are attracted to and that it is biological. However, you don't want to keep going down that road when you get uncomfortable with the conclusions. We are talking about biological attractions. You don't get to dismiss your arguments when they get uncomfortable to you.
> 
> I am not talking about a rapist who preys on kids. What if it is a guy that admits an attraction to little girls and never acts on it? Are we still going to be tolerant?
> 
> Let's be clear, I have not stated my position at all. I am just showing that the positions taken in this thread are bullshit.


I don't have to be any more tolerant of someone who is sexually attracted to kids (and acts on it in any kind of way, including child porn, etc...) than I do someone who suffers from some psychological malady that leads them to commit some violent or otherwise detestable crime. But so what? You're comparing a situation where there is a victim and a crime being committed to a situation where two adults are attracted and/or love each other. It just isn't a good point, it leads your argument nowhere. It is an apples to rapists comparison.

On topic, I seriously don't remember waking up this morning and deciding to be straight, do you? Seriously, if it is a choice, shouldn't you be able to choose too? Shouldn't you remember the time when you decided you would be straight?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> You said that a person can't help who they are attracted to and that it is biological. However, you don't want to keep going down that road when you get uncomfortable with the conclusions. We are talking about biological attractions. You don't get to dismiss your arguments when they get uncomfortable to you.
> 
> I am not talking about a rapist who preys on kids. What if it is a guy that admits an attraction to little girls and never acts on it? Are we still going to be tolerant?
> 
> Let's be clear, I have not stated my position at all. I am just showing that the positions taken in this thread are bullshit.


A pedophile is not somebody that is sexually attracted to kids. A pedophile is someone that acts on a sexual attraction to kids. 

Someone who is just attracted but doesn't act on it has a different term... I would tell you but I'm tired of educating your ignorance. Go back to treating gays like whites did blacks in the 50s.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> A pedophile is not somebody that is sexually attracted to kids. A pedophile is someone that acts on a sexual attraction to kids.
> 
> Someone who is just attracted but doesn't act on it has a different term... I would tell you but I'm tired of educating your ignorance. Go back to treating gays like whites did blacks in the 50s.


I haven't stated anything intolerant towards gays and have never treated gays any different than anyone. Your posts are the problem, I stated as such and my statement has been proven true. Homosexuality is above public criticism.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> I haven't stated anything intolerant towards gays and have never treated gays any different than anyone. Your posts are the problem, I stated as such and my statement has been proven true. Homosexuality is above public criticism.


"Homosexuality is above public criticism" is an independent statement from the rest of your post or are you saying that my posts are stating that and thats the problem?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Dornado said:


> I like this thing where we hit enter after every sentence.
> 
> It makes posts seem longer.
> 
> ...


do you like ugly women? , old woman?

if no one had any choice about attraction who you would attracted to would be completely random everyone would be attracted to all races equally....

when did you stop liking little girls? 
did you stop liking little girls because if you have no choice in the matter it shouldn't be your fault that or if you still do. child predators shouldn't be prosecuted under your viewpoint.

i dont question what goes on between your ears i am not a mindreader however if my 40 year old neighbor is boinking little kids i'm not going to think "we'll maybe he's attracted to kids so its ok "

the whole we dont have choice thing doesn't make sense and we were born that way is equally crazy science has already proven that.

no buddy we all have a choice


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> If R-star constantly posts pictures of nude men every time he makes a post is he gay?


if he posts pics with his dick inside them than yes, if not that no

you could post pics of gerbils it means nothing unless you had them stored in your anus


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> do you like ugly women? , old woman?
> 
> if no one had any choice about attraction who you would attracted to would be completely random everyone would be attracted to all races equally....
> 
> ...



It is almost like you didn't read any of the thread.

And decided to make the same dumb and insulting argument that memphisx was making.

Even though we already explained that "consent" can't be given by children.

And that the two are not analogous at all.

Your "if you didn't have a choice"... "then you'd be attracted to everyone equally" is an if-then pulled directly out of your ass. 

The one does not follow from the other.

I'm still having fun hitting enter after every sentence. 

Do you see women you find attractive and then choose not to find them attractive anymore? 

That must be a nice gift, would have saved me some heart ache chasing certain women over the years. 

And again, if we "all have a choice", please, let me know, when is it that you made your choice? 

And what are you choosing today?


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> do you like ugly women? , old woman?
> 
> if no one had any choice about attraction who you would attracted to would be completely random everyone would be attracted to all races equally....
> 
> ...



Don't be fooled. The flaw in the argument is seen, they are just going to ignore it and act like they don't understand the position.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> if he posts pics with his dick inside them than yes, if not that no
> 
> 
> 
> you could post pics of gerbils it means nothing unless you had them stored in your anus



Weak. That's all you replied to in my post? You're as ignorant as the guy that thinks by definition a pedophile assaults children.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Dorando's argument that you can't compare any sort of sexuality to pedophilia because "you just can't" is asinine. 

The whole point of the comparison is that these sick perverts are sexually attacked to children. No one is saying "Well, that makes them equal then. If you say its ok for two gay males to have sex, then it must mean its ok for pedophiles." No. So shut the **** up and once again get off your high horse Dornado. You're coming in here and trying to fight an argument that no one but yourself made.

"Do you think homosexuals like to be compared to pedophiles!?!?!" - Dornado.

No? Seeing as that's not what MemphisX said, then I'm not sure why we're talking about it. If someone says a pedophile is attracted to children the same way I'm attracted to women, should I flip out and say I refuse the premise because pedophiles are bad? No. Because the statement is a fact. 

Just because the discussion becomes murky from that point and makes you uncomfortable doesn't change that it is fact.


Being that I'm posting with you, I feel the need to post a disclaimer before you attempt to twist my post. I'm in no way saying pedophiles and someone from the LBGT community are "the same", nor am I defending pedophiles. Anyone who preys on children should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Jamel Irief said:


> A pedophile is not somebody that is sexually attracted to kids. A pedophile is someone that acts on a sexual attraction to kids.
> 
> Someone who is just attracted but doesn't act on it has a different term... I would tell you but I'm tired of educating your ignorance. Go back to treating gays like whites did blacks in the 50s.


I like everything you've said in this thread so far except the stop treating gays like whites did blacks. Bad analogy. Being bigoted and using disgusting terms isn't nearly on the same level of making people use different bathrooms and drink at shitty water fountains. The LBGT movement should never be compared to the Civil right movement in any sense, ever.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

LeGoat06 said:


> I like everything you've said in this thread so far except the stop treating gays like whites did blacks. Bad analogy. Being bigoted and using disgusting terms isn't nearly on the same level of making people use different bathrooms and drink at shitty water fountains. The LBGT movement should never be compared to the Civil right movement in any sense, ever.


I think you forgot gays have their rights suppressed. In most states they can't even get a document allowing them to split benefits with their same sex significant other.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

R-Star said:


> Dorando's argument that you can't compare any sort of sexuality to pedophilia because "you just can't" is asinine.
> 
> The whole point of the comparison is that these sick perverts are sexually attacked to children. No one is saying "Well, that makes them equal then. If you say its ok for two gay males to have sex, then it must mean its ok for pedophiles." No. So shut the **** up and once again get off your high horse Dornado. You're coming in here and trying to fight an argument that no one but yourself made.
> 
> ...


The pedophile thing only seems to come up when the topic of homosexuality comes up... it is a common refrain of bigots, hence the reaction.

But the real question is - what is your point? We both don't like pedophilia _because_ it is harmful to others. The very nature of it makes it a separate and distinct category of behavior. That's what makes the comparison meaningless. You're not making some great point that I or anyone are "uncomfortable" with... you're making an irrelevant point that has been refuted.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Jamel Irief said:


> I think you forgot gays have their rights suppressed. In most states they can't even get a document allowing them to split benefits with their same sex significant other.


I"m not going to get in an argument about it. I just don't think what the LBGT community goes through now is anything close to what a black man/woman went through during the Civil rights movement. Not in any sense. Soon you'll gay will be able to get married in all states and they won't be getting showered by fire hoses while they march to fight it.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

LeGoat06 said:


> I"m not going to get in an argument about it. I just don't think what the LBGT community goes through now is anything close to what a black man/woman went through during the Civil rights movement. Not in any sense. Soon you'll gay will be able to get married in all states and they won't be getting showered by fire hoses while they march to fight it.


I see you're still doing the LeGoat thing where you enter thread, make dumb comment, quickly back off and run away before you make another dumb comment.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Jamel Irief said:


> I see you're still doing the LeGoat thing where you enter thread, make dumb comment, quickly back off and run away before you make another dumb comment.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Dornado said:


> The pedophile thing only seems to come up when the topic of homosexuality comes up... it is a common refrain of bigots, hence the reaction.
> 
> But the real question is - what is your point? We both don't like pedophilia _because_ it is harmful to others. The very nature of it makes it a separate and distinct category of behavior. That's what makes the comparison meaningless. You're not making some great point that I or anyone are "uncomfortable" with... you're making an irrelevant point that has been refuted.


Please explain to me anything that has been refuted. 

It was pointed out that pedophiles are sexually attracted to children, just as a gay man is attracted to another man, and you went off about how its not the same at all.

How does it differ? And I'm not speaking on how it differs morally, I'm asking how it differs chemically. 

The plain fact is, it doesn't. So again, I'll ask, what have you refuted?


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Homosexuality is biological like being black.


:tonbricks: :tonbricks:

I love this board man. Brilliant ignorance.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Whether it's a choice or not is a slippery slope.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Pedophilia and homosexuality are as analogous as pedophilia and heterosexuality.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

This whole thing is just retarded. If Mark Jackson was a McDonald's manager instead of a basketball coach, would he be allowed to ban gays from working at his McDonald's? Just because people are dribbling basketballs instead of flipping burgers doesn't give him the right to have different boundaries to what he can and cannot do.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

seifer0406 said:


> This whole thing is just retarded. If Mark Jackson was a McDonald's manager instead of a basketball coach, would he be allowed to ban gays from working at his McDonald's? Just because people are dribbling basketballs instead of flipping burgers doesn't give him the right to have different boundaries to what he can and cannot do.


He can't ban anyone, I'm guessing if the Warriors had signed a gay player on his team that he would have quit. Not much he can do about it, lot of higher ups in an organization than a head coach. And the analogy is dumb, we need to stop comparing playing pro sports to normal jobs and coaches/gms/owners to managers of shitty grocery stores and food chains. No matter what point you're trying to make, it is far from the same.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

R-Star said:


> Please explain to me anything that has been refuted.


It is annoying that I have to explain this again, but I'll try to do so without being a dick. 



> It was pointed out that pedophiles are sexually attracted to children, just as a gay man is attracted to another man, and you went off about how its not the same at all.
> 
> How does it differ? And I'm not speaking on how it differs morally, I'm asking how it differs chemically.


It doesn't matter if it differs chemically, because pedophilia harms someone. I don't know why people are attracted to the people they're attracted to, I just don't think it is something they choose. Even if you grant your premise, that they are the same chemically, are you saying that as a consequence they should be viewed the same way? Treated the same way under the law? If not, what's your point? And if so, how can you ignore the significant difference between the two, that one involves consenting adults and the other does not... it victimizes children... that's why I "went off on how its not the same at all". The point about pedophilia was refuted because it is a moot point - even if you think they are similar because they are not within a persons control, I assume we both agree that pedophilia is wrong, that it doesn't involve consenting adults and that they shouldn't be treated the same way.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> This whole thing is just retarded. If Mark Jackson was a McDonald's manager instead of a basketball coach, would he be allowed to ban gays from working at his McDonald's? Just because people are dribbling basketballs instead of flipping burgers doesn't give him the right to have different boundaries to what he can and cannot do.


mark jackson is not a GM and never was , he has never had the ability to decide who is in his locker room , its never been in his power to ...at best he can recommend , and why should his GM listen to him?

you know back when he was a coach?


----------



## Pyrex (Jan 14, 2014)

holy shit LeGoat6 gives lebron fans a bad wrap...that's some weird shit he is saying. The fact he cares about what people do with their penises/vaginas is down right creepy


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Dornado said:


> It is almost like you didn't read any of the thread.
> 
> And decided to make the same dumb and insulting argument that memphisx was making.
> 
> ...



its funny i've been posting like this for about 10 years on this site no one's had an issue with until you ...you think maybe since lack anything of substance to spout you are trying a little too hard?

your viewpoint is one of a moron and a victim .

you have been chasing the wrong women ? too bad i'm sorry 

but my point still stands , if no one has a choice than no one has preferences and we are just animals who just throw our parts into anyone who is the right gender at the right time (big, small, ugly, fat etc if you dont have a choice in the matter it doesn't matter ) by your rational, looks dont matter because you cant control what you are attracted to ?

monogamy would be ridiculous by your rational , because you cant control who you are attracted to.

maybe those wrong woman in your life convinced you of this foolishness.

is that the case?

also consent can be given by children , its just not accepted legally but a 12 year old can say yes to sex as easily as they can say yes to ice cream.

the law has not always been that way, a few hundred years ago most of the world allowed 12 year olds to have sex and be married ...what changed biologically in 12 year olds since 1700?

the answer is nothing

if your sexuality isn't a choice explain chirlane mccray she is married to the mayor of new york , but in the 70's and 80's she was considered a "trailblazing black lesbian" 

that's not a fling or a prison situation

if its not a choice explain why why not 100% of twins where one twin is gay why isn't the other ?

explain jarron collins , married with 3 kids twin brother of jason collins who we all know is gay....if you are born that way and identical twins have all the same stuff in them genetically how is that possible that jarron collins is heterosexual?

this is a stupid argument


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> ?
> 
> monogamy would be ridiculous by your rational , because you cant control who you are attracted to.


Are you now arguing that people in monogamous relationships cease being attracted to anyone else?

Careful how you throw out the word stupid when you make arguments like that.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> mark jackson is not a GM and never was , he has never had the ability to decide who is in his locker room , its never been in his power to ...at best he can recommend , and why should his GM listen to him?
> 
> you know back when he was a coach?


I know he's not the GM, I was only referring to his statement and what it implies what he would do and how those actions would be a lot more socially unacceptable in other circumstances.

For example if I tell you that if I am a McDonald's manager I wouldn't hire any black people, you would think that I am despicable regardless of what my actual profession is.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

> if its not a choice explain why why not 100% of twins where one twin is gay why isn't the other ?


My girlfriend has a twin sister. Her twin sister is bipolar and has a severe anxiety disorder. My girlfriend is perfectly normal. Guess her sister just chose to be bipolar. What an odd thing to choose.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

btw, this whole comparing homosexuals to pedophiles is really stupid. The reason why people are against pedophiles is because they HARM children. If someone has pedophilic(I don't know if this is even a word) thoughts but never acts on them then I wouldn't have a problem with it. However, since thoughts can manifest into actions and nobody can be sure that it never goes that route therefore I would be against people having those thoughts due to the severity of the consequences. That said I wouldn't punish them for thought crimes and neither would the current law.

Homosexual acts on the other hand harms nobody as long as it's two consenting people of legal age. Saying that we are cutting them a break is stupid because there is no break since theres no harm being caused and no mistake being made.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> do you like ugly women? , old woman?
> 
> if no one had any choice about attraction who you would attracted to would be completely random everyone would be attracted to all races equally....
> 
> ...


Did you choose not to screw dogs and goats and cows and horses? Your understanding of the human mind is second to none.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> its funny i've been posting like this for about 10 years on this site no one's had an issue with until you ...you think maybe since lack anything of substance to spout you are trying a little too hard?
> 
> your viewpoint is one of a moron and a victim .
> 
> ...


I'll let you call me a moron because I think moderation is pretty much a thing of the past on this board and I'm done fighting those losing battles. And I'm fairly confident I'm not the moron here.

Your posts in this thread are full of a myriad if illogical and baseless conclusions... for example, this one:



> if no one has a choice than no one has preferences


Huh? You're building an argument on a faulty premise. It does not necessarily follow that because you do not have a choice you do not have a preference. Who says that because you're not actively choosing your preference it means you don't have one? That's a really odd way of looking at things.



> and we are just animals who just throw our parts into anyone who is the right gender at the right time


Again, not a logical conclusion. 

Also... I think you took my joke about chasing women I'd rather not have been attracted to in retrospect a little too seriously.

As for people who live as gay or lesbian or straight and then begin living another way I don't know that it necessarily means it is a choice. Some people may be attracted to both sexes. Some may take a while to really discover what their sexuality is. It is a complicated world full of a lot of different societal pressures, I don't really read much into people that self-identify differently at different periods of their life.

As for the Collins brothers, like I said, I don't know what causes people to be attracted to other people... I just don't think it is something we actively choose. Whether it is written into someones genetic code isn't necessarily the issue, I don't think.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Just to elaborate on the "have a choice topic", homosexual behavior is also observed in many other animal species. Almost all of those animals don't even have to mental capacity to make that type of decision. So your idea that this behavior isn't born with would be debunked that way as well.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I always think that those who swear it's a choice are suppressing homosexual urges. Maybe for those people, it *is* a choice that they struggle with and that's why they think that?


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> A pedophile is not somebody that is sexually attracted to kids. A pedophile is someone that acts on a sexual attraction to kids.


That's actually wrong.



> A pedophile is a person who has a sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger, Blanchard says.
> 
> Not all pedophiles are child molesters (or vice versa). "Child molesters are defined by their acts; pedophiles are defined by their desires," Blanchard says. "Some pedophiles refrain from sexually approaching any child for their entire lives." But it's not clear how common that is.





> Pedophilia is considered a paraphilia, an "abnormal or unnatural attraction." Pedophilia is defined as the fantasy or act of sexual activity with prepubescent children.





> In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often incorrectly used to mean any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse. For example, The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary states, "Pedophilia is the act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children." This common use sometimes conflates the sexual interest in and sexual contact with pubescent or post-pubescent minors. Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided because although people who commit child sexual abuse sometimes exhibit the disorder, many child sexual abuse offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia and these standards pertain to prepubescents.


Link 1
Link 2

Really, that's just a matter of semantics. Thoughts, desires and tendencies mean nothing if not acted upon. Homosexuality wouldn't be an issue either if they didn't act on their interests and (god forbid) live with, love/marry, have sex with, etc. each other. Pedophilia is the same in that sense, as uncomfortable as it is to think about. Someone who merely has fantasies or sexual desires with children but does not in any way act on it (including the viewing of child pornography) does not harm anyone and there are no victims. How many of those people actually exist? I have no clue. I'm not a fan of the comparison just because it deflects from the real issue purely for shock value, but at its core it is really not that outlandish.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I always think that those who swear it's a choice are *suppressing homosexual urges*. Maybe for those people, it *is* a choice that they struggle with and that's why they think that?


So giving example after example of people who have been off and on hetero/**** sexual does nothing for you? You'll ignore that and say people who say it is a choice are in the closet.

I always think people who say it is biological with zero scientific evidence to prove it are playing word games.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

hobojoe said:


> Really, that's just a matter of semantics. Thoughts, desires and tendencies mean nothing if not acted upon. Homosexuality wouldn't be an issue either if they didn't act on their interests and (god forbid) live with, love/marry, have sex with, etc. each other. Pedophilia is the same in that sense, as uncomfortable as it is to think about. Someone who merely has fantasies or sexual desires with children but does not in any way act on it (including the viewing of child pornography) does not harm anyone and there are no victims. How many of those people actually exist? I have no clue. I'm not a fan of the comparison just because it deflects from the real issue purely for shock value, but at its core it is really not that outlandish.


Like I said, the difference doesn't lie in the thought since thoughts can't harm anyone. The difference is when the two are acted upon homosexual acts don't harm people whereas pedophile acts harm children.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

seifer0406 said:


> Like I said, the difference doesn't lie in the thought since thoughts can't harm anyone. The difference is when the two are acted upon homosexual acts don't harm people whereas pedophile acts harm children.


I agree with you.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

I so want to stick my erect penis in @MemphisX. The question is am I choosing to have that desire?


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I always think that those who swear it's a choice are suppressing homosexual urges. Maybe for those people, it *is* a choice that they struggle with and that's why they think that?



Strong avatar-to-post ratio.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> I so want to stick my erect penis in @MemphisX. The question is am I choosing to have that desire?
> 
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

R-Star said:


> Please explain to me anything that has been refuted.
> 
> It was pointed out that pedophiles are sexually attracted to children, just as a gay man is attracted to another man, and you went off about how its not the same at all.
> 
> ...


Child predilections are not a hardwired nature but actually a developmental abnormality where the brain stops developing an attraction towards age appropriate individuals. 

Just read the wiki page on pedophilia and you'll see that this false equivalency is truly a malicious comparison meant to only incite anger rather than argue any logical points.



> Several researchers have reported correlations between pedophilia and certain psychological characteristics, such as low self-esteem[55][56] and poor social skills.[57] Cohen et al. (2002), studying child sex offenders, states that pedophiles have impaired interpersonal functioning and elevated passive-aggressiveness, as well as impaired self-concept. Regarding disinhibitory traits, pedophiles demonstrate elevated psychopathy and propensity for cognitive distortions. According to the authors, pathologic personality traits in pedophiles lend support to a hypothesis that such pathology is related to both motivation for and failure to inhibit pedophilic behavior.[58]
> 
> According to Wilson and Cox (1983), "The paedophiles emerge as significantly higher on Psychoticism, Introversion and Neurotocism than age-matched controls. [But] there is a difficulty in untangling cause and effect. We cannot tell whether paedophiles gravitate towards children because, being highly introverted, they find the company of children less threatening than that of adults, or whether the social withdrawal implied by their introversion is a result of the isolation engendered by their preference i.e., awareness of the social approbation and hostility that it evokes" (p. 324).[59]


Homosexuality on the other hand:


> Science has looked at the causes of homosexuality, and more generically the causes of human sexual orientation, with the general conclusions being related to biological and environmental factors. The biological factors that have been researched are genetic and hormonal, particularly during the fetal developmental period, that influence the resulting brain structure, and other characteristics such as handedness.[3][4] There are a wide range of environmental factors (sociological, psychological, or early uterine environment), and various biological factors, that may influence sexual orientation; though many researchers believe that it is caused by a complex interplay between nature and nurture, they favor biological models for the cause.[1][3]..... The longstanding consensus of research and clinical literature demonstrates that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality.[137] There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

R-Star said:


> If I had a billion dollars? Yea, probably. Does that make her a saint? No.


I think you just called your wife a prostitute.



Da Grinch said:


> if you engage in gay sex all the time, you are gay
> 
> an erect penis is pretty sure sign of arousal ....without one its near impossible to have anal sex.
> 
> its just a fact of life we judge people by their actions .


I think that homosexuality is not about sex, but about emotional attraction. People can have sex with anything. I've heard of people using all sorts of inanimate objects for pleasure, does that mean that they're in love with those objects or are attracted to them? It is true that we judge people's CHARACTER by their actions, but not their nature. You can't judge nature. You can't judge someone because they're blue eyed, left-handed, or tall can you? 

As for genetic rationale for homosexuality, there is a theory that having gay members, i.e. non-reproductive members, of a family made them more fit since there were fewer children per adult and therefore more hunters and gatherers to ensure the survival of the genes.



Da Grinch said:


> do you like ugly women? , old woman?
> 
> if no one had any choice about attraction who you would attracted to would be completely random everyone would be attracted to all races equally....
> 
> no buddy we all have a choice


You are combining a whole lot of social conditioning into your arguments for genetic dispositions. Fat women were highly desirable in the 1600s. Not so much now. There are plenty of current cultures around the world today where the men covet the heifers there. 



MemphisX said:


> So your explanation for bisexuals would be...
> 
> Also, shouldn't we then advocate for giving pedophiles a break because they can't help it?


You can if they don't act on it. If someone had a traumatic experience that stunted their sexual development and gave them an unnatural attraction to age inappropriate individuals and they have identified it and have sought counseling to prevent them from acting on it then yes, they are fine. 

Once someone exploits a child, or engages in the exploitation of a child, then that's a crime.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

MemphisX said:


> So giving example after example of people who have been off and on hetero/**** sexual does nothing for you? You'll ignore that and say people who say it is a choice are in the closet.


Example after example? Besides your anecdotal evidence, you didn't even name examples beyond "I know people" which anyone can do, especially on the internet. 

Besides, on and off hetero/**** is called bisexual, being attracted to both genders. Just because someone gets married, doesn't mean they're "off" hetero/****. They are still attracted to both genders. There are heterosexuals who never experience homosexual attraction, and homosexuals who never experience heterosexual attraction, and bisexuals who are attracted to both genders. 

*Saying any of this is a choice infers that we are all dealing with the urge to have sex with everyone and everything, and our sexuality is determined by what we have the discipline not to have sex with. *



MemphisX said:


> I always think people who say it is biological with zero scientific evidence to prove it are playing word games.


It can be a choice even if it isn't biological or genetic. There is no straight-forward genetic link to being left-handed, and yet children develop a dominant hand before they know what that even means.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Hyperion said:


> I think you just called your wife a prostitute.


I think you're way off here. Marriage does not equate to constant free passes for sex. Prostitution is selling sex for money. If his wife finds out he has mistresses she could withhold sex while remain married for financial reasons. It is up to him whether he would divorce her and suffer the financial costs of a divorce.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> I know he's not the GM, I was only referring to his statement and what it implies what he would do and how those actions would be a lot more socially unacceptable in other circumstances.
> 
> For example if I tell you that if I am a McDonald's manager I wouldn't hire any black people, you would think that I am despicable regardless of what my actual profession is.


jackson's stance is simply outside his abilities , its not cool, his job is/was to win basketball games not hire people based on what they do off the court its discrimination, but its not the same as being black or a woman, a person can simply wake up one morning and change their sexual preference , but no one goes to sleep a black man and wakes up a white woman, 

one is biological

the other is mental.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> Just to elaborate on the "have a choice topic", homosexual behavior is also observed in many other animal species. Almost all of those animals don't even have to mental capacity to make that type of decision. So your idea that this behavior isn't born with would be debunked that way as well.


actually no, animals have the ability to choose and prefer many things but if an animal was born a certain way it would be inherent in their dna ...no gay gene has been found in any species....although scientists have been able to induce homosexuality by messing with an animal's brain chemistry

which signifies choice.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> Did you choose not to screw dogs and goats and cows and horses? Your understanding of the human mind is second to none.


of course i choose not to screw animals ....maybe you make different choices ...i am aware that some do.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Dornado said:


> I'll let you call me a moron because I think moderation is pretty much a thing of the past on this board and I'm done fighting those losing battles. And I'm fairly confident I'm not the moron here.
> 
> Your posts in this thread are full of a myriad if illogical and baseless conclusions... for example, this one:
> 
> ...


if you are born gay why do you have to "discover" anything?

do people discover what gender they are or are simply born with certain parts?

and whether you actively choose something or passively choose something , its still a choice and if you passively chose to do something without really putting much thought into it,and didn't like that choice , you would actively choose differently.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Are you now arguing that people in monogamous relationships cease being attracted to anyone else?
> 
> Careful how you throw out the word stupid when you make arguments like that.


no i am saying that the whole idea of monogamy is ridiculous if personal responsibility is removed from the equation.

if you are born a certain way , its not your choice ...you cant make a personal choice to be born black or a male, jamel either you born that way or you weren't,

you can act any way you like but you simply are who you are , who you choose to have sex with will always be a choice it will never be something you just had to do because it was encoded in your dna....if it were than monogamous relationships would cease to exist.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Hyperion said:


> I think that homosexuality is not about sex, but about emotional attraction. People can have sex with anything. I've heard of people using all sorts of inanimate objects for pleasure, does that mean that they're in love with those objects or are attracted to them? It is true that we judge people's CHARACTER by their actions, but not their nature. You can't judge nature. You can't judge someone because they're blue eyed, left-handed, or tall can you?


i am not a mind reader and do not profess to be , but if people are having sex with inanimate objects its because they choose to do so not because of some coding in their dna

and of course you can judge people by their appearance , people do it all the time, is it right of course not but we all have preconceived notions about other people based on outward appearance



> As for genetic rationale for homosexuality, there is a theory that having gay members, i.e. non-reproductive members, of a family made them more fit since there were fewer children per adult and therefore more hunters and gatherers to ensure the survival of the genes.


of course if they aren't reproducing that genetic trait should die out ?




> You are combining a whole lot of social conditioning into your arguments for genetic dispositions. Fat women were highly desirable in the 1600s. Not so much now. There are plenty of current cultures around the world today where the men covet the heifers there.


the whole point is i'm saying it isn't genetic, its a choice...you are proving my point for me.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Hyperion said:


> You can if they don't act on it. If someone had a traumatic experience that stunted their sexual development and gave them an unnatural attraction to age inappropriate individuals and they have identified it and have sought counseling to prevent them from acting on it then yes, they are fine.
> 
> Once someone exploits a child, or engages in the exploitation of a child, then that's a crime.


what if they didn't have a traumatic event?

how can you counsel someone about something they are genetically?

that sounds dangerously close to "pray away the gay".


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

@Da Grinch, let me understand your position correctly. You feel everyone is born attracted to the opposite sex? In that case why would anyone choose to be attracted to the same sex and deal with a smaller pool of mates to choose from and persecution and judgement from Mark Jackson and looks of disgust from @MemphisX? Do you not disagree that it is harder to function in almost any global society as a homosexual?


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Jamel Irief said:


> @Da Grinch, let me understand your position correctly. You feel everyone is born attracted to the opposite sex? In that case why would anyone choose to be attracted to the same sex and deal with a smaller pool of mates to choose from and persecution and judgement from Mark Jackson and looks of disgust from @MemphisX? Do you not disagree that it is harder to function in almost any global society as a homosexual?


For some reason I use to think it was pure choice. Until I met my gf's cousin a while back who I was actually hanging with last night, that kid was born gay. No questions asked, playing with barbie dolls, putting on makeup and lipstick at the age of 4, had princess wallpaper. Walked, talked, extremely feminine and wanted to be a pro dancer by the age of 11. He completely changed my mind on the case. I think a lot of gays are bi-sexual and do make a choice, but I also think a lot of straight people probably have urges towards the same sex that they don't act on because of fear of public ridicule.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Da Grinch said:


> i am not a mind reader and do not profess to be , but if people are having sex with inanimate objects its because they choose to do so not because of some coding in their dna
> 
> and of course you can judge people by their appearance , people do it all the time, is it right of course not but we all have preconceived notions about other people based on outward appearance





> of course if they aren't reproducing that genetic trait should die out ?
> 
> 
> the whole point is i'm saying it isn't genetic, its a choice...you are proving my point for me.



No, because the genetic trait is passed on within that family. Not only is that trait passed on, it's selected for. A family with a homosexual trait means a fitter or more competitive genetic family tree. Sure that immediate person's lineage ends, but the family of genes lives on. 

Your point is a false equivalency because at the end of the day, it's heterosexual intercourse that you're prattling on about. Sex does not equal orientation. How can it be a choice when so many homosexuals don't want to be attracted to the same gender?


----------



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

Hyperion said:


> I think you just called your wife a prostitute.


She _does_ have the best handjob prices in Canada.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Da Grinch said:


> what if they didn't have a traumatic event?
> 
> how can you counsel someone about something they are genetically?
> 
> that sounds dangerously close to "pray away the gay".


No, again, you have purposely misinterpreted a point. Should someone with bipolar disorder not seek treatment because they were born with this? The difference between the two is that one is a mental disorder as it IMPEDES one's functions and interactions in society, while the other is a relationship between two CONSENTING ADULTS.



seifer0406 said:


> I think you're way off here. Marriage does not equate to constant free passes for sex. Prostitution is selling sex for money. If his wife finds out he has mistresses she could withhold sex while remain married for financial reasons. It is up to him whether he would divorce her and suffer the financial costs of a divorce.


If, if if.... That wasn't the statement. He said that she would stay with him if he had a billion dollars.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Hyperion said:


> I think you just called your wife a prostitute.


What?


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Wait a minute, Who's wife is a prostitute?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

LeGoat06 said:


> Wait a minute, Who's wife is a prostitute?


Mine. 

My wife is a prostitute.


----------



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

R-Star said:


> My wife is a prostitute.


Think of her as an entrepreneur.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> Think of her as an entrepreneur.


An independent business woman.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

The whole point of my argument was not to "prove" it was choice or disprove it was biology. My point is that NOBODY knows. People seem unable to admit they don't know.


----------



## Geaux Tigers (Apr 26, 2004)

MemphisX said:


> The whole point of my argument was not to "prove" it was choice or disprove it was biology. My point is that NOBODY knows. People seem unable to admit they don't know.


You're right I don't know. But I'll bet gay people have a pretty good idea.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Geaux Tigers said:


> You're right I don't know. But I'll bet gay people have a pretty good idea.


I don't think all gay people are born that way. I know a lot of girls that went through a Lesbian stage in High School because they were looking for attention. I think a lot of people are born that way though.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

R-Star said:


> What?


She'd stay with you and give you the "wife experience" for a billion dollars. At least she's in the Pretty Woman category of classiness. Just don't let her be around Jason Alexander.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Hyperion said:


> She'd stay with you and give you the "wife experience" for a billion dollars. At least she's in the Pretty Woman category of classiness. Just don't let her be around Jason Alexander.


I'm sorry, where did anyone write "wife experience"?

You seem to try so hard to sound clever around here and more often than not just end up looking like an idiot.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

R-Star said:


> I'm sorry, where did anyone write "wife experience"?
> 
> You seem to try so hard to sound clever around here and more often than not just end up looking like an idiot.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

R-Star said:


> I'm sorry, where did anyone write "wife experience"?
> 
> You seem to try so hard to sound clever around here and more often than not just end up looking like an idiot.


no, I was quoting it to indicate that it was a type of service that a prostitute would sell. For instance, there is the "girl friend experience" where she stays the night. So when I stated "wife experience", I was referring to that type of situation but for longer duration obviously. In essence, you stated that your wife would be married to you for $1 billion, not for love, but for love of money. Therefore you called her an expensive prostitute. I found that humorous. Then after not catching the error after I pointed it out to you, I attempted to clarify why there was an amusing interpretation to your statement. Now I am having to explain my explanation why your statement was humorous and insulting to your wife. 

I find this quite ironic that you can't understand a simple witticism and call me an idiot for it. It is a bit of a nuisance to have to explain every bit of wit though. I thought you were cleverer than you are, it won't happen again.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> The whole point of my argument was not to "prove" it was choice or disprove it was biology. My point is that NOBODY knows. People seem unable to admit they don't know.


I know I didn't choose to like women. I just went from one day making fun of them on the playground and hating them to staring at their boobs.



LeGoat06 said:


>


LeGoat cheers when someone makes fun of someone else. Keeps the attention off him.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

I think if everyone just sticks to picking on old white guys the world will be a better place.aperbag:


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

MemphisX said:


> The whole point of my argument was not to "prove" it was choice or disprove it was biology. My point is that NOBODY knows. People seem unable to admit they don't know.


And yet you're ready to make judgements on people's choices that harm nobody based on something we don't really understand fully? We don't understand completely why someone is gay. Evidence would lead us to believe a lot of it is based at birth. You are right that we don't have all the answers. Evidence also shows that gay people can live happy successful lives and raise happy successful children. 

And yet even when you admit that it's not something we understand, and it's not something we have all the answers to, you want to discriminate against them? 
Even though you know you could be wrong and it could not be a choice? Even though there are people across the world that get executed for being gay? That would love to hold hands with their partner without the fear of getting burned alive or stoned to death? Even though there are people who would love nothing more than to be by their partner's bedside when they're dying? You want to discriminate against them even though you KNOW and ADMIT that nobody currently knows what EXACTLY causes someone to be gay? And that you're ok with these ****ing people who could have been born gay and through no choice of their own suffer because people are simply intolerant of them or because their bible told them so? Shameful man.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> if you are born gay why do you have to "discover" anything?
> 
> do people discover what gender they are or are simply born with certain parts?
> 
> and whether you actively choose something or passively choose something , its still a choice and if you passively chose to do something without really putting much thought into it,and didn't like that choice , you would actively choose differently.


Now _that_ has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever read. If something isn't readily apparent at birth that means it didn't exist at birth and is a choice?

My daughter isn't even two months old yet, but I can confirm she is in fact a girl and was born that way. She has yet to show any romantic or sexual interest in girls, however. If she does later in life I can safely assume she's choosing to be a homosexual since those desires aren't currently present, right? 

She also hasn't displayed any developmental abnormalities yet either, I sure hope she doesn't choose to be autistic or anything.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Hibachi! said:


> And yet you're ready to make judgements on people's choices that harm nobody based on something we don't really understand fully? We don't understand completely why someone is gay. Evidence would lead us to believe a lot of it is based at birth. You are right that we don't have all the answers. Evidence also shows that gay people can live happy successful lives and raise happy successful children.
> 
> And yet even when you admit that it's not something we understand, and it's not something we have all the answers to, you want to discriminate against them?
> Even though you know you could be wrong and it could not be a choice? Even though there are people across the world that get executed for being gay? That would love to hold hands with their partner without the fear of getting burned alive or stoned to death? Even though there are people who would love nothing more than to be by their partner's bedside when they're dying? You want to discriminate against them even though you KNOW and ADMIT that nobody currently knows what EXACTLY causes someone to be gay? And that you're ok with these ****ing people who could have been born gay and through no choice of their own suffer because people are simply intolerant of them or because their bible told them so? Shameful man.


Dude, wtf are you even talking about? Find one post from me saying any of the crap you just posted. You literally just made some stuff up in your head and assigned it to me.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

The reason I quit arguing is because the opposition is correct in saying that there is no definite scientific proof that people are born gay. However there is also no proof of any kind that people choose to be gay. I mean there is no scientific proof that people are born left handed or right handed as no scientist to date have discovered a specific gene that defines handedness. You can use the same logic to argue that people just choose to be left handed.

This whole argument then becomes a matter of examining circumstantial evidence and coming to a reasonable guess to whether it is or isn't. To me at least it doesn't make any sense that someone would choose to be gay given the inequalities that exists in our society and the problems for some of those people after they choose to be gay. Why would people living in countries that advocates killing gay people choose to be gay? Why would someone like Ted Haggard whose entire life and career is build on the foundation that he's straight choose to be gay? To me at least if you want to claim that sexuality is a choice then you really have your work cut out for you to explain all these crazy things that people are doing to hide their supposedly 'chosen" sexuality.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Hyperion said:


> no, I was quoting it to indicate that it was a type of service that a prostitute would sell. For instance, there is the "girl friend experience" where she stays the night. So when I stated "wife experience", I was referring to that type of situation but for longer duration obviously. In essence, you stated that your wife would be married to you for $1 billion, not for love, but for love of money. Therefore you called her an expensive prostitute. I found that humorous. Then after not catching the error after I pointed it out to you, I attempted to clarify why there was an amusing interpretation to your statement. Now I am having to explain my explanation why your statement was humorous and insulting to your wife.
> 
> I find this quite ironic that you can't understand a simple witticism and call me an idiot for it. It is a bit of a nuisance to have to explain every bit of wit though. I thought you were cleverer than you are, it won't happen again.


No, the actual wit in all this is me having to explain yet another terrible joke gone wrong.

I know more than a few women who have had their husband cheat on them an opted to stay around. If you're a 50 year old lady and find out your husband cheated on you, do you break up the family and have a divorce? If your husband doesn't make enough to give you much in alimony (if you'd even get it), what do you do for income as a 50 year old who's past 30 years work experience is as a mother and home maker?

How about the younger woman who just had a baby and finds out her husbands cheating? Is she wrong for not rushing out the door with her kid so she can go get a 1 bedroom apartment, and quit her full time job so she can find one where she's still able to look after her kid?


But hey, maybe I just didn't get the "R-Star's wives a prostitute!" joke. 

The issue here is you think you're clever, you think you're funny, and quit often I see that no one ever replies to any of your posts because you're the quite the opposite.


----------

