# Tim Hardaway: "I hate gay people"



## Jizzy

Taken from Ghoti.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sports/basketball/16700402.htm


----------



## OneBadLT123

lol


----------



## Lynx

I hate Tim Hardaway.


----------



## HKF

He's not in the league anymore, so no one will care. Although I do have to say his honesty in this situation is rather interesting.


----------



## TiMVP2

dont hate on him yall and dont compare it to being racist. race is based off what u cant control hard-away(thats what happens when he sees gays i bet) not liking gays is dumb but its same thing for some ppl saying they hate people who drink that berry gatorade.


----------



## speedythief

This is pretty much the reaction most players are having, some are just better with words. They want to say what Tim said, just not outright, or _straight_, as it were. They are saying all of the garbage about 'locker rooms' and 'showers' and 'Amechi being dishonest', etc.. The reaction by most NBA players has been consistently shameful.


----------



## HB

Too defensive in my opinion


----------



## Ras

MDIZZ said:


> dont hate on him yall and dont compare it to being racist. race is based off what u cant control hard-away(thats what happens when he sees gays i bet) not liking gays is dumb but its same thing for some ppl saying they hate people who drink that berry gatorade.


Who says you can control sexual orientation?


----------



## speedythief

MDIZZ said:


> dont hate on him yall and dont compare it to being racist. race is based off what u cant control hard-away(thats what happens when he sees gays i bet) not liking gays is dumb but its same thing for some ppl saying they hate people who drink that berry gatorade.


Uhh... not to get this thread totally off topic, but I think most gay people can't help the way they are, just like not being able to control the colour of your skin or your nationality at birth.


----------



## TiMVP2

how the hell can u not controll if u like somebody i mean if i see a girl who in my opinion is hot i think shes hot and if i tried hard enough i can find a flaw or something and put her as ugly,ive seen a lot of chix ugly for like a week and then i fall mad in love with them


----------



## roux

So much for political correctness in his eyes. While he is entitled to his opinion his comments probably just killed any chances of him working in the NBA, whether its coaching or TV or a career in politics. He may not need the money but boy way to burn all you're bridges from the league. Tim Hardaway is just plain stupid, it has nothing to do with his beliefs it with the way he shouts them off the rooftops. Very immature for a man near 40 years old.


----------



## Mateo

Completely disgusting, I now have 0 respect for him.


----------



## speedythief

MDIZZ said:


> how the hell can u not controll if u like somebody i mean if i see a girl who in my opinion is hot i think shes hot and if i tried hard enough i can find a flaw or something and put her as ugly,ive seen a lot of chix ugly for like a week and then i fall mad in love with them


I think you went in the wrong direction. Obviously they can control themselves, but they can't change their orientation, like a person can't change his race.


----------



## Sir Patchwork

People need to get over their homophobia. Homosexuality is only a problem because homophobic people have this wandering imagination about what gay people are thinking about all the time.


----------



## Hairy Midget

MDIZZ said:


> dont hate on him yall and dont compare it to being racist. race is based off what u cant control hard-away(thats what happens when he sees gays i bet) not liking gays is dumb but its same thing for some ppl saying they hate people who drink that berry gatorade.


You think people choose to be gay? Like you chose to be straight?


----------



## roux

Ras said:


> Who says you can control sexual orientation?


Lets not run in circles arguing about something neither side can prove. Please leave this thread for the topic at hand, Tim Hardaway and his comments. Oh I will repeat myself neither side can prove whether you can or can't control sexual orientation so please stop.


----------



## Ras

roux2dope said:


> Lets not run in circles arguing about something neither side can prove. Please leave this thread for the topic at hand, Tim Hardaway and his comments. Oh I will repeat myself neither side can prove whether you can or can't control sexual orientation so please stop.


Sorry, I had no intentions of derailing the thread, but I just had to question that thought because it seemed somewhat ignorant.

As for the actual issue, my respect level for Tim Hardaway dropped quite a bit.


----------



## kawika

And to think that the impression one got of him during his ever-so-brief tenure as an NBA analyst on ESPN a few years back was that of an embarrassingly inarticulate halfwit. Who knew?!


----------



## unluckyseventeen

Way to go Hardaway, you moron.


----------



## roux

Ras said:


> Sorry, I had no intentions of derailing the thread, but I just had to question that thought because it seemed somewhat ignorant.
> 
> As for the actual issue, my respect level for Tim Hardaway dropped quite a bit.


I understand you have you're beliefs but if the two of you kept going it would sweep other people into the mix and this thread would get out of control over an unproven topic.


----------



## roux

kawika said:


> And to think that the impression one got of him during his ever-so-brief tenure as an NBA analyst on ESPN a few years back was that of an embarrassingly inarticulate halfwit. Who knew?!


Well he talked himself out of any TV job he may have gotten in the future.


----------



## JNice

Well, Hardaway is certainly a moron. Sure there are tons of others who probably are thinking the exact same thing in their machismo world... but unlike Timmy boy, they aren't idiot enough to say it. And say it like that. I hope he invested his earnings well. He certainly won't be getting a basketball/league related job in the future.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Hardway has similar opinions to me. But I do not hate all gay people. I hate homosexuality as a concept. Hardway need to think about what he says.


----------



## Dre

RIP Hardaway's broadcasting career.


----------



## DaBruins

MDIZZ said:


> how the hell can u not controll if u like somebody i mean if i see a girl who in my opinion is hot i think shes hot and if i tried hard enough i can find a flaw or something and put her as ugly,ive seen a lot of chix ugly for like a week and then i fall mad in love with them


I don't get what you're trying to say. You think gay guys just find all guys attractive? It's just like a straight guy, you think some people are hot, you think some people are not, and you can manipulate those feelings to some degree. So yes a gay guy can probably convince himself that another guy is ugly, but can he convince himself that ALL guys are just nasty? Can you convince yourself that all girls are just nasty and something you dont want? 

I think there are plenty of people who choose their sexual orientation, but for the most part I think you are born however you are born.


----------



## futuristxen

Does anyone remember Tim Hardaway's broadcasting career? For some reason these comments don't suprise me. He was ignorant then, and he's ignorant now. I'm suprised he was even able to form a phrase as articulate as "I hate gay people" without stuttering all over himself.


----------



## roux

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Hardway has similar opinions to me. But I do not hate all gay people. I hate homosexuality as a concept. Hardway need to think about what he says.


Differance though... you are a joe schmo in New Jersey(no offense, I consider myself a joe nobody from Milwaukee) and he is a multi time NBA all star whose words can steer other peoples opinions, what he did was just incredibley insensitive and poorly worded.


----------



## NyXpun

MDIZZ said:


> dont hate on him yall and dont compare it to being racist. race is based off what u cant control hard-away(thats what happens when he sees gays i bet) not liking gays is dumb but its same thing for some ppl saying they hate people who drink that berry gatorade.


no being homophobic is basically the same as being racist just hating on ppl for a different reason 

so basically with this line "dont hate on him yall and dont compare it to being racist." ur saying being homophobic isnt bad and that ppl should not be criticized for it? 

please explain that


----------



## KingOfTheHeatians

MDIZZ said:


> not liking gays is dumb but its same thing for some ppl saying they hate people who drink that berry gatorade.


Congratulations. I thought it would take at least 5-10 pages on this thread before a poster said something even dumber than Hardaway did. Kudos.


----------



## HKF

NyXpun said:


> no being homophobic is basically the same as being racist just hating on ppl for a different reason
> 
> so basically with this line "dont hate on him yall and dont compare it to being racist." ur saying being homophobic isnt bad and that ppl should not be criticized for it?
> 
> please explain that


It's very hard to discriminate against someone simply because they are gay. No one has to tell their employer they are gay (just like they don't have to tell their employer they're straight). Discrimination on race is very easy to do and much more detrimental to society.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Warning for not liking homosexuallity. Is this fair? I thought I could express my opinoins.


----------



## GNG

If you're going to think "I hate gay people," then go ahead and think it. But you can't say something so clearly prejudice.

It'd be nice if a lot of the current and ex-players could be grown-ups about the whole thing, but that obviously isn't the case at this point.


----------



## deanwoof

i lost all respect for tim hardaway. ALL. 

for him to say "i hate gay people" LOUD AND CLEAR on the interview makes me disgusted.


----------



## IbizaXL

he wasnt beating around the bush and was very direct with is comment. but man, that was just ****ed up.


----------



## BG7

My only problem with gay people, are the ones, who think that they are like enlightened, because they're gay. No, your not enlightened, your not more intelligent, of a higher quality of humans, your just gay, and get over yourself. That annoys me so much.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

You are basiclly attracted to most girls. You personally decide who you "like". It is probably similar with gay people but they have an attraction to men and chose to display it.


----------



## KingOfTheHeatians

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Hardway has similar opinions to me. But I do not hate all gay people. I hate homosexuality as a concept. Hardway need to think about what he says.


What does that even mean? You hate homosexuality as a concept? First of all, it's not a concept, it's a sexual orientation. Second of all, what is there to hate about it? Are you routinely forced to engage in gay sex? No? Then what do you care what anybody else does? 



> how the hell can u not controll if u like somebody i mean if i see a girl who in my opinion is hot i think shes hot and if i tried hard enough i can find a flaw or something and put her as ugly,ive seen a lot of chix ugly for like a week and then i fall mad in love with them


Wow. Just wow.


----------



## Brandname

Any respect I once had for Tim Hardaway has completely disappeared.


----------



## cadarn

Hardaway is my hero.

I hate homosexuality. I hate some, but not all gay, people.

most of the people offended by his comments have never spent serious time around the gay community.


----------



## JNice

Mebarak said:


> My only problem with gay people, are the ones, who think that they are like enlightened, because they're gay. No, your not enlightened, your not more intelligent, of a higher quality of humans, your just gay, and get over yourself. That annoys me so much.


And you don't run across heterosexual people like that? Gimme a break.

Have you ever met a Tool fan? Christ.


----------



## JNice

cadarn said:


> Hardaway is my hero.
> 
> I hate homosexuality. I hate some, but not all gay, people.
> 
> most of the people offended by his comments have never spent serious time around the gay community.


Maybe you just hate the people themselves ... maybe it has nothing to do with them being gay ... hrrmmm..


----------



## KingOfTheHeatians

cadarn said:


> Hardaway is my hero.
> 
> I hate homosexuality. I hate some, but not all gay, people.
> 
> most of the people offended by his comments have never spent serious time around the gay community.


Geezus, what is wrong with some of you? Yeah, I'd say most homophobes like yourself spend more time around the gay community than those who don't hate gays. Yeah, that makes a TON of sense.


----------



## Nate505

MDIZZ said:


> dont hate on him yall and dont compare it to being racist. race is based off what u cant control hard-away(thats what happens when he sees gays i bet) not liking gays is dumb but its same thing for some ppl saying they hate people who drink that berry gatorade.


Don't hate on him? After saying this garbage?

_You know I hate gay people, so I let it be known. I don't like gay people and I don't like to be around gay people. I am homophobic. I don't like it. It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States. So yeah, I don't like it._

Screw him. He's a jagoff bigot of the highest order.


----------



## Brandname

I have to say, though. The Amaechi thing might really have done some good. People are talking about it. Some bigots make themselves well-known. Others try to hide it a little better. But at least we're talking about it. 

These are the kind of discussions that need to happen before we can make some significant progress.


----------



## Dream Hakeem

thx 4 da info


----------



## IbizaXL

im hearing he came out with an apology. if true, i dont think itll make much of a diofference. he ****ed up.


----------



## The lone wolf

Hardaway has issued as official apology - just heard it on ESPN - something like - i'm sorry, i should not have said that bla bla


----------



## Krstic All-Star

Tim Hardaway's comments underscore what Free Speech is all about. A person can say whatever he feels. I can personally understand uneasiness at having a gay man in a locker room, though not outright hatred of homosexuals. But he has every right to hold his opinion.


----------



## KingOfTheHeatians

And we have every right to call him a moron.


----------



## The lone wolf

Just means - you cannot take any legal action against him for saying things - doesn't make his comments any less stupid and him any less an idiot


----------



## farhan007

Hairy Midget said:


> You think people choose to be gay? Like you chose to be straight?


yes they do choose... there are countless records of people reverting back to liking the opposite sex.

I do believe that being gay is dependent on your childhood and any abnormalities you faced during it, but at the end of the day it is your decision if you want to *edit*


----------



## Brandname

An apology? I mean really, what possible purpose could an apology serve? It's not like he said something in the heat of the moment or something. 

The point isn't to prevent people like Hardaway from saying these things. The point is to prevent them from thinking these things.


----------



## Krstic All-Star

KingOfTheHeatians said:


> And we have every right to call him a moron.


Exactly. 'course he'd probably call names out right back, but somehow I don't think he comes here...


----------



## KingOfTheHeatians

farhan007 said:


> yes they do choose... there are countless records of people reverting back to liking the opposite sex.


Sure, just like that Ted Haggard guy. Didn't you hear, he's now 100% heterosexual, LOL.


----------



## BG7

JNice said:


> And you don't run across heterosexual people like that? Gimme a break.
> 
> Have you ever met a Tool fan? Christ.


Well I don't think its any mystery that I'm a Shakira fan (beautiful goddess!). And the majority of Shakira fans are gay. Now I pretty much hate almost all the other Shakira fans, almost every Shakira fan in the world is a very self absorbed person. These people think its wrong to be straight. Like if you get to kiss Shakira, and your a straight guy, these people will berate the hell out of you, calling you a sexist pig, rapist, or what have you. Yet if one of these gay guys, or a girl, kisses her (were talking about on the cheeks of course), oh no problem. If a straight guy says Shakira looked sexy in the La Tortura video (like come on....), he is a stalker, and he must objectify woman. Vain of the world. But of course, now say a gay girl talks about how she wants to have sex with Shakira, oh, no problem. These people are gay, these people are bad people. Now I'm not an idiot, I have many gay friends that aren't like this, but this collective group here are just evil people. This is Social Darwinism right here. This group of gay people baiscally evolved into self absorbed, liking the smell of their own fart, hybrid owners, rather than a decent human being. Not all gay people are bad, thats for sure, tons of them are great, but there are definitely large groups of very bad gay people.


----------



## The lone wolf

farhan007 said:


> yes they do choose... there are countless records of people reverting back to liking the opposite sex.
> 
> I do believe that being gay is dependent on your childhood and any abnormalities you faced during it, but at the end of the day it is your decision if you want to take it up the butt.


There are some people who choose to be gay/lesbian for whatever reason (not countless records.) - but the majority of them are born that way


----------



## Brandname

farhan007 said:


> yes they do choose... there are countless records of people reverting back to liking the opposite sex.
> 
> I do believe that being gay is dependent on your childhood and any abnormalities you faced during it, but at the end of the day it is your decision if you want to take it up the butt.


See, it's nice to finally see people trust their 'gut'. Why do we even bother with things like 'science'? There's no need. We have our 'gut'. It's a shame more people don't base their opinions on this.


----------



## Nate505

KingOfTheHeatians said:


> What does that even mean?


It could mean he fines homosexual sexual/affectionate actions revolting, at least among men. Frankly, most heterosexual men do. I know I do. The few shows like Oz or whatever when you see men kissing, it disgusts me and I usually can't watch it. That is not saying the same thing that gays are disgusting, just that most regular heterosexual guys are revulsed by seeing two men kissing, or whatever other sexual actions I don't want to describe.

Just because I believe in equal rights for gays, believe gays should have legal protections if they want to become partners, and think that criticizing someone just because they are gay is wrong, doesn't mean that I have to not have a negative visceral reaction to seeing two guys kiss, or more.


----------



## Pimped Out

Mebarak said:


> Well I don't think its any mystery that I'm a Shakira fan (beautiful goddess!). And the majority of Shakira fans are gay. Now I pretty much hate almost all the other Shakira fans, almost every Shakira fan in the world is a very self absorbed person. These people think its wrong to be straight. Like if you get to kiss Shakira, and your a straight guy, these people will berate the hell out of you, calling you a sexist pig, rapist, or what have you. Yet if one of these gay guys, or a girl, kisses her (were talking about on the cheeks of course), oh no problem. If a straight guy says Shakira looked sexy in the La Tortura video (like come on....), he is a stalker, and he must objectify woman. Vain of the world. But of course, now say a gay girl talks about how she wants to have sex with Shakira, oh, no problem. These people are gay, these people are bad people. Now I'm not an idiot, I have many gay friends that aren't like this, but this collective group here are just evil people. This is Social Darwinism right here. This group of gay people baiscally evolved into self absorbed, liking the smell of their own fart, hybrid owners, rather than a decent human being. Not all gay people are bad, thats for sure, tons of them are great, but there are definitely large groups of very bad gay people.


i hate a lot of shakira fans too


----------



## KingOfTheHeatians

I'm a big fan of her ***, but if you're a big fan of Shakira's music, well.....you might not be on Tim Hardaway's Christmas list. :biggrin:


----------



## JNice

Mebarak said:


> Well I don't think its any mystery that I'm a Shakira fan (beautiful goddess!). And the majority of Shakira fans are gay. Now I pretty much hate almost all the other Shakira fans, almost every Shakira fan in the world is a very self absorbed person. These people think its wrong to be straight. Like if you get to kiss Shakira, and your a straight guy, these people will berate the hell out of you, calling you a sexist pig, rapist, or what have you. Yet if one of these gay guys, or a girl, kisses her (were talking about on the cheeks of course), oh no problem. If a straight guy says Shakira looked sexy in the La Tortura video (like come on....), he is a stalker, and he must objectify woman. Vain of the world. But of course, now say a gay girl talks about how she wants to have sex with Shakira, oh, no problem. These people are gay, these people are bad people. Now I'm not an idiot, I have many gay friends that aren't like this, but this collective group here are just evil people. This is Social Darwinism right here. This group of gay people baiscally evolved into self absorbed, liking the smell of their own fart, hybrid owners, rather than a decent human being. Not all gay people are bad, thats for sure, tons of them are great, but there are definitely large groups of very bad gay people.


And therein lies your problem. Those people are bad people because they are bad people. They aren't bad people because they are gay bad people. 

It is amazing some people have trouble separating these things. I have known *******s of every race and orientation. There are white people, black people, latino people, etc I hate. It has nothing to do with their race or orientation ... it is because they are *******s.


----------



## KingOfTheHeatians

Nate505 said:


> It could mean he fines homosexual sexual/affectionate actions revolting, at least among men. Frankly, most heterosexual men do. I know I do.


That has nothing to do with "hating homosexuality as a concept." If he meant that watching man-on-man love disgusted him, I think he would've said that.


----------



## farhan007

NyXpun said:


> no being homophobic is basically the same as being racist just hating on ppl for a different reason
> 
> so basically with this line "dont hate on him yall and dont compare it to being racist." ur saying being homophobic isnt bad and that ppl should not be criticized for it?
> 
> please explain that


hating people is a bad thing, but disagreeing with a concept is reasonable. For me i do not agree with the concept of homosexuality. I also do not believe that one is "born" gay. Every sex is NATURALLY attracted to the opposite sex. Its your childhood and your surroundings that turns someone gay.


----------



## essbee

Oh no, this is tragic.


----------



## Nate505

KingOfTheHeatians said:


> That has nothing to do with "hating homosexuality as a concept." If he meant that watching man-on-man love disgusted him, I think he would've said that.


Fair point, you could be right about that. 

I don't hate homosexuality as a concept. I personally don't care what two consenting adults do with each other.


----------



## Crossword

cadarn said:


> Hardaway is my hero.
> 
> I hate homosexuality. I hate some, but not all gay, people.
> 
> most of the people offended by his comments have never spent serious time around the gay community.


Stop being a retard. I work a block away from Toronto's gay district, have lived with gays, and have gay friends. And I think what Timmy said is downright backwards. How the **** does being around the gay community invoke villifying emotions towards them? Other than jealousy, because they probably have more money in their pockets because they don't have to deal with kids.


----------



## Air Fly

The lone wolf said:


> There are some people who choose to be gay/lesbian for whatever reason (not countless records.) - but the majority of them are born that way


Born what, gay or *****? :lol:


----------



## Nate505

farhan007 said:


> hating people is a bad thing, but disagreeing with a concept is reasonable. For me i do not agree with the concept of homosexuality. I also do not believe that one is "born" gay. Every sex is NATURALLY attracted to the opposite sex. Its your childhood and your surroundings that turns someone gay.


FWIW, there's a ton of instances of homosexuality occuring within nature. Especially with rabbits....


----------



## TiMVP2

NyXpun said:


> no being homophobic is basically the same as being racist just hating on ppl for a different reason
> 
> so basically with this line "dont hate on him yall and dont compare it to being racist." ur saying being homophobic isnt bad and that ppl should not be criticized for it?
> 
> please explain that



did i say it wasnt bad?? naw its bad to judge people but u no its there choice to be hated u no.


----------



## JNice

farhan007 said:


> hating people is a bad thing, but disagreeing with a concept is reasonable. For me i do not agree with the concept of homosexuality. I also do not believe that one is "born" gay. Every sex is NATURALLY attracted to the opposite sex. Its your childhood and your surroundings that turns someone gay.


There is an awful lot of research that disagrees with your beliefs. I think it is pretty ignorant to think people are raised or made gay by their families or surroundings.


----------



## roux

Once again the stupid debate continues, no one can proves what goes on in another persons brain. Congrats to tim hardaway, he took everything positive Ameachi did and spit all over it, now its more likely that pro athletes have stay in the closet to avoid the scrutiny from guys like Tim "*******" hardaway. Wheter you like or dislike gay people everyon has the right to be happy in this country unless "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" no longer has an meaning to people in this country. Agree or disagree with Hardaway but there alot of un happy people out there who should not be discriminated against based on who the are sexually attracted to.Now there will be people who will remain unhappy out of fear because of *****s like Hardaway. He talks about America at the end of that rant, while not acting like a true american throughout the whole interview.


----------



## KingOfTheHeatians

> hating people is a bad thing, but disagreeing with a concept is reasonable. For me i do not agree with the concept of homosexuality. I also do not believe that one is "born" gay. Every sex is NATURALLY attracted to the opposite sex. Its your childhood and your surroundings that turns someone gay.


You have no idea what you're talking about. You can find homosexuality in nature everywhere. All different types of animals have exhibited homosexual behavior as well and I doubt it was because of "their childhood and surroundings." Homosexuality is a part of nature. And sexual attraction is not a choice. You don't get to tell your penis what to like. 



essbee said:


> Oh no, this is tragic.


I'm shocked that essbee decided to join this conversation. Let me guess, he's going to tell us that we're all overreacting and this is no big deal. We're all just a part of the liberal agenda to prop up gays and give them preferential treatment.


----------



## Brandname

farhan007 said:


> hating people is a bad thing, but disagreeing with a concept is reasonable. For me i do not agree with the concept of homosexuality. I also do not believe that one is "born" gay. Every sex is NATURALLY attracted to the opposite sex. Its your childhood and your surroundings that turns someone gay.


Stating this doesn't just make it true. 

Aren't you more interested in knowing the right answer? You don't know whether this is true or not, you just believe it. (I'm saying this assuming you're not a genetic biologist)


----------



## Air Fly

What's the difference between saying "I hate black people", and "I hate gay people"?


----------



## Crossword

farhan007 said:


> hating people is a bad thing, but disagreeing with a concept is reasonable. For me i do not agree with the concept of homosexuality. I also do not believe that one is "born" gay. Every sex is NATURALLY attracted to the opposite sex. Its your childhood and your surroundings that turns someone gay.


Says the all-knowing straight dude.

Not a single gay man or woman I know was "converted" into homosexuality. Just like you and I naturally have feelings for the opposite sex, has it occurred to you that they might naturally have feelings for the same sex? It might be an impossible concept to grasp, but then again, you wouldn't know a thing about it. So stop acting like you do.


----------



## essbee

Air Fly said:


> What's the difference between saying "I hate black people", and "I hate **** people"?


Pretty much everything. The two things are not comparable.


----------



## Dre

...Not another gay referendum in the general board.

Bottomline, Hardaway is in the wrong IMO, but why do you guys have to jump around and "lose all respect for him" as a player and everything else when he just said something you already knew so many people thought? Why are you so shocked a player is homophobic?


----------



## JNice

essbee said:


> Pretty much everything. The two things are not comparable.


How are they not comparable? So discriminating by race is better than discriminating by sexual orientation?

I learn so much around here.


----------



## KingOfTheHeatians

essbee said:


> Pretty much everything. The two things are not comparable.


Only to hateful homophobes like yourself.


----------



## Crossword

Air Fly said:


> What's the difference between saying "I hate black people", and "I hate gay people"?


Hmm... Air Fly disagrees with one?


----------



## The lone wolf

Air Fly said:


> Born what, gay or *****? :lol:


yeah dude - like you may be born to like chicks - there are chicks that are born to like chicks and guys born to like guys


----------



## Brandname

Air Fly said:


> What's the difference between saying "I hate black people", and "I hate **** people"?


Easy.

The liberal agenda has had about a 50 year head start on the former.


----------



## Crossword

_Dre_ said:


> ...Not another gay referendum in the general board.
> 
> Bottomline, Hardaway is in the wrong IMO, but why do you guys have to jump around and "lose all respect for him" as a player and everything else when he just said something you already knew so many people thought? Why are you so shocked a player is homophobic?


Sorry for not assuming he was homophobic and losing respect for him on premise before.


----------



## essbee

JNice said:


> How are they not comparable? So discriminating by race is better than discriminating by sexual orientation?
> 
> I learn so much around here.


Because the two subjects would have to be comparable, and race and sexual orientation are not, it's not complicated.


----------



## Brandname

_Dre_ said:


> ...Not another gay referendum in the general board.
> 
> Bottomline, Hardaway is in the wrong IMO, but why do you guys have to jump around and "lose all respect for him" as a player and everything else when he just said something you already knew so many people thought? Why are you so shocked a player is homophobic?


I'm not shocked. 

Just like I lose respect for someone when I find out that he is racist. True, a lot of people think that. And I don't respect those people. It's a pretty simple connection. If my own brother came out spewing hateful speech against gays, I'd lose all respect for him too.


----------



## essbee

KingOfTheHeatians said:


> Only to hateful homophobes like yourself.


Seriously how many times have you guys said "homophobe" in this thread? You sound like parrots.


----------



## BG7

Air Fly said:


> What's the difference between saying "I hate black people", and "I hate **** people"?


The first one is not acceptable in our culture, and the 2nd one is.

Actually, Stephen and Davis talked about this on Real World Denver tonight. You can catch the episode on overdrive.mtv.com , check it out, good thing to watch on this subject.


----------



## Dre

Noone said you had to assume anything about him, but I'm asking why the board is doing backflips about something you knew _someone_ was bound to say? I figure a lot of players feel this way, so I'm not shocked. And I think of him differently, but Mike Tyson doesn't have to eat his first born, damn...


----------



## BG7

KingOfTheHeatians said:


> I'm a big fan of her ***, but if you're a big fan of Shakira's music, well.....you might not be on Tim Hardaway's Christmas list. :biggrin:


Perhaps if your a fan of her ***, you wouldn't be on Tim Hardaway's Christmas list.

http://www.freewebs.com/shakirasaman/


----------



## The lone wolf

essbee said:


> Because the two subjects would have to be comparable, and race and sexual orientation are not, it's not complicated.


But hating on them are totally comparable


----------



## Crossword

essbee said:


> Seriously how many times have you guys said "homophobe" in this thread? You sound like parrots.


Hard to imagine, but the majority of posters here seem to have an understanding of what constitutes hatred towards a certain group, and furthermore that such hatred is unacceptable in a pluralistic society.


----------



## JNice

essbee said:


> Because the two subjects would have to be comparable, and race and sexual orientation are not, it's not complicated.


How exactly are they not comparable? And either way, it is discrimination and flat out ignorance.


----------



## reHEATed

pretty disappointed its coming from Timmy

I knew a player would come out with something like this and make a fool of himself.... upset it is a player I really like and with so many ties to my area......


----------



## KingOfTheHeatians

essbee said:


> Seriously how many times have you guys said "homophobe" in this thread? You sound like parrots.


Probably because this thread has so many homophobes posting on it. I think your addition to the thread brings the count to about 5.


----------



## Brandname

_Dre_ said:


> Noone said you had to assume anything about him, but I'm asking why the board is doing backflips about something you knew _someone_ was bound to say? I figure a lot of players feel this way, so I'm not shocked. And I think of him differently, but Mike Tyson doesn't have to eat his first born, damn...


Someone was bound to say it. And I was bound to lose respect for that someone.


----------



## essbee

JNice said:


> How exactly are they not comparable? And either way, it is discrimination and flat out ignorance.


I'm confused on how they ARE comparable. The definitions of each indicate they aren't even similar.

And as I explained before, ignorance indicates a lack of expeirence or exposure, whereas you're using it to indicate exposure which has led to a different opinion.


----------



## Air Fly

JNice said:


> How are they not comparable? So discriminating by race is better than discriminating by sexual orientation?
> 
> I learn so much around here.


Exactly. 

And I know exactly why i brought that up........Will explain later.


----------



## Crossword

_Dre_ said:


> Noone said you had to assume anything about him, but I'm asking why the board is doing backflips about something you knew _someone_ was bound to say? I figure a lot of players feel this way, so I'm not shocked. And I think of him differently, but Mike Tyson doesn't have to eat his first born, damn...


Well, that someone happened to be Tim Hardaway, and that's why cats are lashing out on him and saying he's lost their respect. Saying it's an outrage to be outraged at this outrageous comment, however, is outrageous in itself. Just because someone was bound to say it, doesn't make it right. And it shouldn't go quietly. If someone said "I hate black people", you could say, "oh it was bound to happen, no big deal"... but even if it was bound to happen, it IS a big deal. Because people shouldn't be saying this kind of **** to begin with. People shouldn't be thinking like this, period. And I don't give a **** if I'm on some Big Brother ****, because people should be accepting of everyone around them, period. Just because it's a commonality for these beliefs to be expressed by others, doesn't make it right.


----------



## roux

Should I start a new thread for the big Gay vs. Straight debate, this way you can all argue til you are blue in the face, no opinions will change and it wont affect this thread anymore. This should be about what he said what people think about it, only once someone agrees it opens up the pandoras box and turns into a big political debate. I thought we talked basketball on this site.


----------



## Dre

Whatever, carry on. I'll moderate to page 600, then I'll pull all my hair out.


----------



## Pimped Out

MDIZZ said:


> did i say it wasnt bad?? naw its bad to judge people but u no its there choice to be hated u no.


no i dont know. because that is an incredibly ignorant comment. even if i agree with what your definition of what homosexuality is (which i dont) why is a guy being attracted to another guy a reason for you to hate him? does it make him a worse person or an ******* or stupid or like that friend of yours that likes to beat the **** out of you for fun? how does it hurt you? and dont give me that "i dont want a *** staring at my ***" bull****. i want an actual explanation.

based on the logic in this thread, is it okay to hate on interracial couples? they made the decision to be attracted to each other and knew it would result in hate so its there fault when people give them looks and tell them their relationship is unnatural?


----------



## Mateo

_Dre_ said:


> ...Not another gay referendum in the general board.
> 
> Bottomline, Hardaway is in the wrong IMO, but why do you guys have to jump around and "lose all respect for him" as a player and everything else when he just said something you already knew so many people thought? Why are you so shocked a player is homophobic?


just because the opinion is common doesn't mean individuals stop being responsible for holding it.


----------



## Dre

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Just because someone was bound to say it, doesn't make it right. And it shouldn't go quietly. If someone said "I hate black people", you could say, "oh it was bound to happen, no big deal"... but even if it was bound to happen, it IS a big deal. Because people shouldn't be saying this kind of **** to begin with. People shouldn't be thinking like this, period. And I don't give a **** if I'm on some Big Brother ****, because people should be accepting of everyone around them, period. Just because it's a commonality for these beliefs to be expressed by others, doesn't make it right.


In understand what your saying, but I guess I'm just different. If someone came out as racist, I'd be like Damn, but I wouldn't be shocked, because their are racists out there, and we all know it. That person would just be another one of them. 

The most hilarious thing is losing so much respect for someone you've never known. Where exactly was his level of respect as a human at before this? Do you all know Hardaway personally?


----------



## Pimped Out

essbee said:


> I'm confused on how they ARE comparable. The definitions of each indicate they aren't even similar.
> 
> And as I explained before, ignorance indicates a lack of expeirence or exposure, whereas you're using it to indicate exposure which has led to a different opinion.


what about hating christians, muslims, hindus, buddhist, atheists or jews? are any of those comparable? can i hate them?


----------



## JNice

essbee said:


> I'm confused on how they ARE comparable. The definitions of each indicate they aren't even similar.
> 
> And as I explained before, ignorance indicates a lack of expeirence or exposure, whereas you're using it to indicate exposure which has led to a different opinion.



I'm confused as to how you could think they are not comparable. Discrimination based on two uncontrollable aspects of ones life. It's like saying I hate all blonde people. Or I hate all blue eyed people. 

Unless of course you believe it is a choice ... which of course I'm sure there are thousands and thousands of people who would want to choose to live their lives in seclusion or be discriminated against by idiots for the rest of their lives.


----------



## Dre

Mateo said:


> just because the opinion is common doesn't mean individuals stop being responsible for holding it.


Even if there was a huge thread about it the other day? What more can be said? If people say Nash is the MVP, which is common, I just don't partake in those discussions cause I've argued 'til I'm blue in the face on it. I don't even care anymore. You're not "responsible" for holding a conversation about it. You don't have to talk about it at all. Especially when it's something that's been beaten to death.


----------



## essbee

Pimped Out said:


> what about hating christians, muslims, hindus, buddhist, atheists or jews? are any of those comparable? can i hate them?


You can do whatever you like. Liberty means doing what you feel like until you infringe on the right of someone else to do the same. AS long as you don't take action or use violence to attempt to impose your opinion on people you can do as you please..


Still not sure why people hate Jews though, most of the criticisms people have of them are historically inaccurate and caused by deficiencies in other religions. However I can see why someone from Africa for example would have a hatred of Christianity because of its history on the continent.


----------



## JNice

_Dre_ said:


> In understand what your saying, but I guess I'm just different. If someone came out as racist, I'd be like Damn, but I wouldn't be shocked, because their are racists out there, and we all know it. That person would just be another one of them.
> 
> The most hilarious thing is losing so much respect for someone you've never known. Where exactly was his level of respect as a human at before this? Do you all know Hardaway personally?



I think you have a point on the respect thing.

But honestly, I am a little surprised to hear a reaction like Hardaway's. I expecting maybe some reasonable expressions of possible discomfort from some players. Not a flat out statement of hate and homophobia.


----------



## Crossword

_Dre_ said:


> In understand what your saying, but I guess I'm just different. If someone came out as racist, I'd be like Damn, but I wouldn't be shocked, because their are racists out there, and we all know it. That person would just be another one of them.
> 
> The most hilarious thing is losing so much respect for someone you've never known. Where exactly was his level of respect as a human at before this? Do you all know Hardaway personally?


I don't respect intolerance of others based on superficial characteristics such as skin colour and sexual orientation, characteristics which really have no bearing whatsoever on personality traits. Whether that's a politician responsible for carrying out a genocide or a professional athelete broadcasting his hatred, or Joe Loser at the bar on a drunken rant of who he doesn't like... it doesn't matter if I know them or not, it's hard to have any appreciation for people like that.


----------



## Brandname

_Dre_ said:


> In understand what your saying, but I guess I'm just different. If someone came out as racist, I'd be like Damn, but I wouldn't be shocked, because their are racists out there, and we all know it. That person would just be another one of them.
> 
> The most hilarious thing is losing so much respect for someone you've never known. Where exactly was his level of respect as a human at before this? Do you all know Hardaway personally?


Well personally, that's why I said "Any respect I once had for Tim Hardaway..." instead of "The worlds of respect I once had for Tim Hardaway..."


----------



## Krstic All-Star

_Dre_ said:


> Whatever, carry on. I'll moderate to page 600, then I'll pull all my hair out.


You know, if you buy the Rogaine in bulk, it'll be cheaper.


----------



## Hibachi!

Wait wait wait wait... So this moron says he hates gay people and it doesn't belong in the USA or the world and people are going "At least he's being honest" Are you ****ing kidding me? Like honestly do some of you read the crap you write? Tim Hardaway is a moron for saying it. It's just as bad as hating black people, or white people, or anything like that. It's the same damn thing.


----------



## Air Fly

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Well, that someone happened to be Tim Hardaway, and that's why cats are lashing out on him and saying he's lost their respect. Saying it's an outrage to be outraged at this outrageous comment, however, is outrageous in itself. Just because someone was bound to say it, doesn't make it right. And it shouldn't go quietly. If someone said "I hate black people", you could say, "oh it was bound to happen, no big deal"... but even if it was bound to happen, it IS a big deal. Because people shouldn't be saying this kind of **** to begin with. People shouldn't be thinking like this, period. And I don't give a **** if I'm on some Big Brother ****, because people should be accepting of everyone around them, period. Just because it's a commonality for these beliefs to be expressed by others, doesn't make it right.


Listen, on this board...

Someone already stated that he hates black people. However, nobody made a big deal out of it.


----------



## Crossword

essbee said:


> Still not sure why people hate Jews though


Are you for real...


----------



## Mateo

_Dre_ said:


> Even if there was a huge thread about it the other day? What more can be said? If people say Nash is the MVP, which is common, I just don't partake in those discussions cause I've argued 'til I'm blue in the face on it. I don't even care anymore. You're not "responsible" for holding a conversation about it. You don't have to talk about it at all. Especially when it's something that's been beaten to death.


No, you're right, no one has to talk about anything. We all choose to for our own reasons. Maybe you should be asking yourself why you are holding a conversation about whether or not it's worth holding a conversation on Hardaway's comments.


----------



## Diable

Only thing that surprises me is that he is dumb enough to say it and couldn't say it some way that didn't make him look like a total ***.In every locker room you're going to have at least one guy that feels the same way but wouldn't be so stupid as to come out and say it.Around here in the bible belt you'd find that a lot of people feel pretty much the same,but most of them don't come out and say it.I have to believe that if an openly gay player was on CHarlotte's roster you'd have a lot of evangelicals and fundamentalists protesting.I'm not sure how big a deal it'd be,but a lot of people around here think that homosexuality is a sin.Personally I don't care so long as they leave me alone.


----------



## Crossword

Air Fly said:


> Listen, on this board...
> 
> Someone already stated that he hates black people. However, nobody made a big deal out of it.


If I didn't it's because I didn't see the post. I'm rarely on this part of BBB.net anyway.


----------



## Pimped Out

essbee said:


> You can do whatever you like. Liberty means doing what you feel like until you infringe on the right of someone else to do the same. AS long as you don't take action or use violence to attempt to impose your opinion on people you can do as you please..
> 
> 
> Still not sure why people hate Jews though, most of the criticisms people have of them are historically inaccurate and caused by deficiencies in other religions. However I can see why someone from Africa for example would have a hatred of Christianity because of its history on the continent.


but are they comparable to being racist? im free to hate races but i dont think you are arguing its okay to be racist, are you? is it comparable to racism to hate people based on religion, which is undeniably a choice and based on upbringing? can i offer half those people legal protections for marriage and not the other half? is that a legal infringement. if the government stopped recognizing catholic marriages would that be okay?


----------



## essbee

JNice said:


> I'm confused as to how you could think they are not comparable. Discrimination based on two uncontrollable aspects of ones life. It's like saying I hate all blonde people. Or I hate all blue eyed people.
> 
> Unless of course you believe it is a choice ... which of course I'm sure there are thousands and thousands of people who would want to choose to live their lives in seclusion or be discriminated against by idiots for the rest of their lives.


An interesting counterpoint to the "no one would choose to be discriminated against" argument is the fact that criminals and pedophiles are loathed by society, so extrapolating your position would tell us they aren't in control of their actions because no one would "choose" what they do. 

AS said in the other thread, homosexuality is an impulse or tendency some people have and choose to act on. It's something that can be suppressed, unlike race, it's something that a person can avoid by simulation, unlike race, and it's disrespectful to black history month to compare it to race when there were mass lynchings and rapes of black people to a degree that homosexuals have never even come close to and never will. If they choose to act on that impulse fine, but people should stop exaggerating the degree of their oppression or trying to insist that everybody condone their lifestyle.


----------



## Hibachi!

Air Fly said:


> Listen, on this board...
> 
> Someone already stated that he hates black people. However, nobody made a big deal out of it.


I must have missed that too... I don't assume it was by someone of importance or made in seriousness. I can't imagine that there wouldn't be a huge backfire...


----------



## Dre

Budweiser_Boy said:


> I don't respect intolerance of others based on superficial characteristics such as skin colour and sexual orientation, characteristics which really have no bearing whatsoever on personality traits. Whether that's a politician responsible for carrying out a genocide or a professional athelete broadcasting his hatred, or Joe Loser at the bar on a drunken rant of who he doesn't like... it doesn't matter if I know them or not, it's hard to have any appreciation for people like that.


Even if you only knew him as a basketball player? Being homophobic made him no less of a basketball player. I don't lose my appreciation for him as a basketball player. I never knew him as a person, so I had no stance to take initially. This is about to open up another can of worms about how offcourt things always find their way into the oncourt category.


----------



## roux

_Dre_ said:


> Whatever, carry on. I'll moderate to page 600, then I'll pull all my hair out.


Regardless, maybe we could start debating the war in Irag or discuss stem cell research, hell anything goes and Basketballboards.net.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

I wont go up to some gay guy ans say Hey I hate you cause your gay. Its their choice but I believe it is sin and punisible by God. That Shakira is a man link was pretty interesting.


----------



## Krstic All-Star

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Are you for real...


It is a question that has been posed by noted thinkers throughout the millennia...


----------



## Crossword

essbee said:


> An interesting counterpoint to the "no one would choose to be discriminated against" argument is the fact that criminals and pedophiles are loathed by society, so extrapolating your position would tell us they aren't in control of their actions because no one would "choose" what they do.
> 
> AS said in the other thread, homosexuality is an impulse or tendency some people have and choose to act on. It's something that can be suppressed, unlike race, it's something that a person can avoid by simulation, unlike race, and it's disrespectful to black history month to compare it to race when there were mass lynchings and rapes of black people to a degree that homosexuals have never even come close to and never will. If they choose to act on that impulse fine, but people should stop exaggerating the degree of their oppression or trying to insist that everybody condone their lifestyle.


You really don't think hate crimes happen to gays? And how is bringing up one type of discrimination disrispectful to another? This is retarded, this is not a popularity contest, nor are we comparing the lesser of two evils. They're both wrong, no matter what way your prejudiced mind would like to cut it.


----------



## Spriggan

I can't fathom why anyone who holds this opinion would actually admit it publically through the media, particularly such a relatively (and I stress, relatively) high-profile figure like Tim Hardaway. How could he not see that not only would this irreparably tarnish his reputation both as a person and a former NBA All-Star, but likely deal a huge blow to his career as well (whatever it is, but now and in the future)? What did he possibly think he had to gain? Respect from fellow homophobes for his honesty?

Tim Hardaway's word choice, in particular, leaves me in amazement. It's one thing to say you disagree with the "homosexual lifestyle". It's quite another thing altogether to say "I hate gay people". At first I actually thought that Jizzy was just exaggerating for effect with the title of the thread and wasn't actually directing quoting Hardaway, but it appears I was wrong.


----------



## cadarn

KingOfTheHeatians said:


> Geezus, what is wrong with some of you? Yeah, I'd say most homophobes like yourself spend more time around the gay community than those who don't hate gays. Yeah, that makes a TON of sense.


it's spelled jesus, which I find more offensive than being disgusted by homosexuality.
Any straight man should be repulsed and disgusted by homosexuality. I will admit it doesn't require a hatred of gay people.


----------



## Crossword

_Dre_ said:


> Even if you only knew him as a basketball player? Being homophobic made him no less of a basketball player. I don't lose my appreciation for him as a basketball player. I never knew him as a person, so I had no stance to take initially. This is about to open up another can of worms about how offcourt things always find their way into the oncourt category.


I don't give a **** about Tim Hardaway the basketball player at this point. Tim Hardaway the human being is a scumbag.


----------



## essbee

Pimped Out said:


> but are they comparable to being racist? im free to hate races but i dont think you are arguing its okay to be racist, are you? is it comparable to racism to hate people based on religion, which is undeniably a choice and based on upbringing? can i offer half those people legal protections for marriage and not the other half? is that a legal infringement. if the government stopped recognizing catholic marriages would that be okay?


I think race, sexual orientation and religion are all different. So no, religion, which is a choice and a grouping, is not comparable to race.

A better example would be wiccan rituals, btw.


----------



## Dre

Mateo said:


> No, you're right, no one has to talk about anything. We all choose to for our own reasons. Maybe you should be asking yourself why you are holding a conversation about whether or not it's worth holding a conversation on Hardaway's comments.


Because I walked into a screaming room and asked what the hell was going on, and someone let me in on it. I just wanted to know where your heads were at. Maybe that's why.


----------



## Krstic All-Star

roux2dope said:


> Regardless, maybe we could start debating the war in Irag or discuss stem cell research, hell anything goes and Basketballboards.net.


War in Iraq? Stem cell research? Come to the Political Economy Forum, located in Time Out!


----------



## Mateo

essbee said:


> An interesting counterpoint to the "no one would choose to be discriminated against" argument is the fact that criminals and pedophiles are loathed by society, so extrapolating your position would tell us they aren't in control of their actions because no one would "choose" what they do.


Pedophiles have victims. Homosexual is consensual, it hurts no one.



> AS said in the other thread, homosexuality is an impulse or tendency some people have and choose to act on. It's something that can be suppressed, unlike race, it's something that a person can avoid by simulation, unlike race, and it's disrespectful to black history month to compare it to race when there were mass lynchings and rapes of black people to a degree that homosexuals have never even come close to and never will. If they choose to act on that impulse fine, but people should stop exaggerating the degree of their oppression or trying to insist that everybody condone their lifestyle.


That's not true. Homosexuals were in the holocaust. One of the most embarrassing things about WWII was when we freed the concentration camps, we made the gays stay because Germany had an anti-homosexuality law.


----------



## Sir Patchwork

I'm glad this stuff is being talked about. You see less and less of this "being gay is wrong" mentality floating around. It's good to see that some former player idiot saying that causes people to lose respect for him. That's the kind of response it needs, because it's almost exactly like racism. If any player came out and openly said they hate black people, or white, or asian, they'd get ripped apart too. Of course, there would be nobody brave enough to defend them, even though there would be some closet racists. 

Like with racism, it'll be great when the consensus will become strong enough to where the homophobes are the ones who have to stay in the closet with their opinions, in fear of being called ignorant, like closet racists. That will be the day.


----------



## eymang

See, I agree with Mebarak. From living near a gay part of town, I've encountered two different types of gay people. The ones I would talk to in everyday life, and we would not feel the need to exchange sexual orientation preferences. And then the ones who would roam the streets wearing their rainbow colored underwear or go infront of a crowd to kiss some guy for the sake of attention. Okay, I understand there may be political or reasons about benefits to try and tell people, so write your congressman, there's a lot of laws and impressions that people get of you that you will hate, are a part of life, and have nothing to do with sexuality. I have seen many examples where they act about as civil (a few extreme examples where less) as a 'homophobe', and hurting your cause in a lot of people's eyes. 

And Ameachi and ESPN are the lowest of the low, using this all and exploiting the hell out of it for $$ for their book, and if you believe any different you are blind. They have been going insane putting him on everything ESPN lately, and you know they got a hard on for more free publicity when they heard Hardaway's comments.




Pimped Out said:


> what about hating christians, muslims, hindus, buddhist, atheists or jews? are any of those comparable? can i hate them?


Hate whoever you want, I'm probably alone on this but I would have more respect (and have had) for people who will admit to hating me, even for background or race then some puppets I see run around going crazy with their politically correct badge.


----------



## essbee

Budweiser_Boy said:


> You really don't think hate crimes happen to gays? And how is bringing up one type of discrimination disrispectful to another? This is retarded, this is not a popularity contest, nor are we comparing the lesser of two evils. They're both wrong, no matter what way your prejudiced mind would like to cut it.


Where did I say hate crimes don't happen to gays?

I'll wait for the quote. Thanks


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

roux2dope said:


> Regardless, maybe we could start debating the war in Irag or discuss stem cell research, hell anything goes and Basketballboards.net.


Yup last time there was a gay thread. And I said Hey this isnt about basketball people said you can discuss what you want and I got a warning. So I decided on the old expression. If you cant beat em join em. Dont get me started on Iraq please dont bring that to this site.


----------



## Air Fly

Hibachi! said:


> I must have missed that too... I don't assume it was by someone of importance or made in seriousness. I can't imagine that there wouldn't be a huge backfire...


Oh that dude was serious about it, no question. To my surprise nobody gave a **** about what he said. Though, I'm sure if someone claims he or she hates gay people there would be a huge backfire and some warning/banning handed out.

Why is this double standard? It's pretty much the same thing hating blacks and gays.


----------



## Dre

Budweiser_Boy said:


> I don't give a **** about Tim Hardaway the basketball player at this point. Tim Hardaway the human being is a scumbag.


Ok, there are plenty of scumbags, so I'm not shocked someone I never knew would be one. 


(This is my last post for all of you appaled at me questioning the validuty of this. It pretty much sums up my point anyway.)


----------



## eymang

Sir Patchwork said:


> I'm glad this stuff is being talked about. You see less and less of this "being gay is wrong" mentality floating around. It's good to see that some former player idiot saying that causes people to lose respect for him. That's the kind of response it needs, because it's almost exactly like racism. If any player came out and openly said they hate black people, or white, or asian, they'd get ripped apart too. Of course, there would be nobody brave enough to defend them, even though there would be some closet racists.
> 
> Like with racism, it'll be great when the consensus will become strong enough to where the homophobes are the ones who have to stay in the closet with their opinions, in fear of being called ignorant, like closet racists. That will be the day.


Umm yeah, racism is different, I hate that comparison. No one has made gay people their slaves, and it's a little harder to discriminate against a gay person just by looking at them or their skin. That is unless they scream it out to you when you haven't asked


----------



## Pimped Out

_Dre_ said:


> Even if you only knew him as a basketball player? Being homophobic made him no less of a basketball player. I don't lose my appreciation for him as a basketball player. I never knew him as a person, so I had no stance to take initially. This is about to open up another can of worms about how offcourt things always find their way into the oncourt category.


i dont separate the deeds a person commits from who the person is. especially when the deed is something as ultimately meaningless as basketball. if dont hold a person in high regard, im not going to hold them in high regard as basketball player


----------



## Crossword

eymang said:


> See, I agree with Mebarak. From living near a gay part of town, I've encountered two different types of gay people.


This is proposterous. Way to pigeonhole gays. There's more than two types of people, so I'm positive there are more than two types of gay people. I don't get this whole treating gays like another species ideal.


----------



## One on One

Ok, maybe Timmy went over the line, but what about a cross-dresser or a transexual...would you be okay playing with them? I mean at some point you're gonna get very uncomfortable getting changed in the locker room, everyone has their point where they get weirded out so it's not so bad to not want to share a locker room with a gay guy who might be thinking about....yeah I won't go there.


----------



## HB

JNice said:


> How are they not comparable? So discriminating by race is better than discriminating by sexual orientation?
> 
> I learn so much around here.


They are nothing alike


----------



## Crossword

Air Fly said:


> Oh that dude was serious about it, no question. To my surprise nobody gave a **** about what he said. Though, I'm sure if someone claims he or she hates gay people there would be a huge backfire and some warning/banning handed out.
> 
> Why is this double standard? It's pretty much the same thing hating blacks and gays.


Probably because Timmy Hardaway is an ex-NBA player.


----------



## essbee

Mateo said:


> Pedophiles have victims. Homosexual is consensual, it hurts no one.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not true. Homosexuals were in the holocaust. One of the most embarrassing things about WWII was when we freed the concentration camps, we made the gays stay because Germany had an anti-homosexuality law.


But if they can't help it does it matter if there are victims? Doesn't that mean the pedophiles are victims too? What about say.. thieves? Why would they choose something that makes them so hated... so doesn't that mean they have no choice? 

The suggestion that people don't make decisions which make them outcasts in society is absolutely nonsense.

You realize homosexuals weren't the primary target of the holocaust and other groups like gypsies, religious groups, etc. were also persecuted right?


----------



## Seuss

I'm not sure what to think. Of course he shouldn't say it, but is there something wrong with
being uncomfortable around gay people? He said he hates them, which he is an idiot for saying.

But I don't feel there is anything wrong with not wanting to be around a gay person. 

I don't understand why he would even say that, what exactly will it do for him?


----------



## Brandname

Air Fly said:


> Oh that dude was serious about it, no question. To my surprise nobody gave a **** about what he said. Though, I'm sure if someone claims he or she hates gay people there would be a huge backfire and some warning/banning handed out.
> 
> Why is this double standard? It's pretty much the same thing hating blacks and gays.


I think the difference is that the equality (in principle) of blacks has pretty much been established. It's assumed that racists are ignorant.

Unfortunately, there is a larger subset of people who believe homosexuality is wrong. And it's a hot debate right now. There isn't the public-policy discrimination based on race like we're seeing with the gay marriage debate right now.


----------



## roux

Krstic All Star said:


> War in Iraq? Stem cell research? Come to the Political Economy Forum, located in Time Out!


Laugh it up, I feel it is a topic that shouldnt be discussed, we are lik 7 pages away from the last relevant comment made abou tim hardaway and its been nothing but team gay bash vs. the gay freedom fighters. It should not be going down on basketball message board.


----------



## Sir Patchwork

eymang said:


> Umm yeah, racism is different, I hate that comparison. No one has made gay people their slaves, and it's a little harder to discriminate against a gay person just by looking at them or their skin. That is unless they scream it out to you when you haven't asked


What does slavery have to do with being racist? It's not a black and white world, and racism isn't limited to white people hating black people. You can be racist against chinese people without ever meeting or talking to one, infact a lot of racism is simply because people never were around the people they hate enough to realize that there reason for discriminating is stupid.


----------



## Seuss

roux2dope said:


> Laugh it up, I feel it is a topic that shouldnt be discussed, we are lik 7 pages away from the last relevant comment made abou tim hardaway and its been nothing but team gay bash vs. the gay freedom fighters. It should not be going down on basketball message board.




Is it really that big of a deal to you?

You don't have to click on the thread if you don't want to read it.


----------



## Krstic All-Star

roux2dope said:


> Laugh it up, I feel it is a topic that shouldnt be discussed, we are lik 7 pages away from the last relevant comment made abou tim hardaway and its been nothing but team gay bash vs. the gay freedom fighters. It should not be going down on basketball message board.


I see you haven't traveled throughout the site. Political Economy is a Forum on this site for posters to discuss "Politics, economics, philosophy, current events, and religion." If what you're saying is that the direction of this thread has made it more in keeping with the mandate of PE rather than an NBA-related thread, you may have a point, and there is such a forum for that type of dialogue.


----------



## roux

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Yup last time there was a gay thread. And I said Hey this isnt about basketball people said you can discuss what you want and I got a warning. So I decided on the old expression. If you cant beat em join em. Dont get me started on Iraq please dont bring that to this site.


Like most politcal debates in our country no one will ever agree, either you do or you dont. I dont give a **** about the subject either way. Half of you keep making the same point over and over again and the other half retort with the same ole response. Its a touchy subject that will never be reconciled especially on a basketball website. I brought up Iraq and stem cell just to prove how stupid of an arguement this is.


----------



## Crossword

essbee said:


> Where did I say hate crimes don't happen to gays?
> 
> I'll wait for the quote. Thanks


You said it's disrespectful to compare it to racial hate on the basis that blacks were lynched in the past. This implies that gays haven't encountered abuse based on their sexual preference, otherwise it would not be deemed disrespectful by you as they would be on the same playing field. So if, like you now defend, gays are subject to physical (as well as mental which is another monster in itself) abuse, then bashing gays IS on the same level as bashing a racial group.

At the end of the day, they're both superficial birth-given characteristics that have no bearing on personality, and that's why hatred of gays is the same as hatred of racial groups.


----------



## Spriggan

eymang said:


> Umm yeah, racism is different, I hate that comparison. No one has made gay people their slaves, and it's a little harder to discriminate against a gay person just by looking at them or their skin. That is unless they scream it out to you when you haven't asked


How do you not see that both racism and homophobia are forms of discrimination?


----------



## Mateo

essbee said:


> But if they can't help it does it matter if there are victims? Doesn't that mean the pedophiles are victims too? What about say.. thieves? Why would they choose something that makes them so hated... so doesn't that mean they have no choice?
> 
> The suggestion that people don't make decisions which make them outcasts in society is absolutely nonsense.


No, the fact that something is natural doesn't make it "right", the fact that it _harms no one_, is what makes it right. Even if homosexuality wasn't natural, and it clearly is by any reasonable definition, the fact that no one is harmed by it - not the homosexuals, not you, not anyone - is what makes hatred of it, and Hardaway's comments, so particularly vile.



> You realize homosexuals weren't the primary target of the holocaust and other groups like gypsies, religious groups, etc. were also persecuted right?


Yes, dude, I know that non-homosexuals were in the holocaust. My point was that we, the allies, the liberators, didn't recognize homosexuals as victims _at the time_. We *made them stay* in the concentration camps, or in some instances transported them to regular prisons.


----------



## essbee

This reminds me of when Mike Jarvis said after a game that it felt like someone had come into his house and raped his daughter.


----------



## Krstic All-Star

Spriggan said:


> How do you not see that both racism and homophobia are forms of discrimination?


They themselves are not discrimination per se. If one acts on those feelings to the detriment of the subject, at that point it becomes discrimination.


----------



## Brandname

roux2dope said:


> Laugh it up, I feel it is a topic that shouldnt be discussed, we are lik 7 pages away from the last relevant comment made abou tim hardaway and its been nothing but team gay bash vs. the gay freedom fighters. It should not be going down on basketball message board.


It's a hot topic that is particularly relevant to basketball right now. These discussions need to be had if we want to make progress. We just need more communication. We need communication of the facts and research that has been done in the area to educate people.

There will be a lot of bigoted, stupid posts. But if you can get through those, there could be a chance we could all learn something from a discussion like this. 

It is relevant to basketball right now. Not just to the Amaechi case in particular, but where gays stand not only in sports, but in society in general.

Of course, if you don't want to discuss it, there are plenty of other topics on the general board you could comment on.


----------



## The lone wolf

essbee said:


> But if they can't help it does it matter if there are victims? Doesn't that mean the pedophiles are victims too? What about say.. thieves? Why would they choose something that makes them so hated... so doesn't that mean they have no choice?
> 
> The suggestion that people don't make decisions which make them outcasts in society is absolutely nonsense.


do you hate homosexuals? if so what is your reason?


----------



## HB

Budweiser_Boy said:


> You said it's disrespectful to compare it to racial hate on the basis that blacks were lynched in the past. This implies that gays haven't encountered abuse based on their sexual preference, otherwise it would not be deemed disrespectful by you as they would be on the same playing field. So if, like you now defend, gays are subject to physical (as well as mental which is another monster in itself) abuse, then bashing gays IS on the same level as bashing a racial group.
> 
> At the end of the day, they're both superficial birth-given characteristics that have no bearing on personality, and that's why hatred of gays is the same as hatred of racial groups.


Race is a trait that cannot be concealed, is that easy to point out who is gay or not?


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Please not another Essebe Brandname argument. You should have seen those 2 go at eachother last time!


----------



## Dre

*Ok I lied last post*



Pimped Out said:


> i dont separate the deeds a person commits from who the person is. especially when the deed is something as ultimately meaningless as basketball. if dont hold a person in high regard, im not going to hold them in high regard as basketball player


So you're going to rank Hardaway lower on a point guard list because he's homophobic? I don't see why when you talk about basketball, you can't praise or have his skills in high regard because he's homophobic. If Kobe had been convicted of rape, it would've made him no less of an amazing player in my eyes. 

I think you should definitely think about separating deeds and a person's personal life, or else you'll miss out. There are plenty of talented people who are jerks, but it doesn't make it any less talented, and in most cases their personal life has nothing to do with what they offer to the world professionally.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Yes you cant do some weird magic trick and change your race. You can easily lie and say you are gay or straight.


----------



## Hibachi!

eymang said:


> Umm yeah, racism is different, I hate that comparison. No one has made gay people their slaves


Why is it that racism is synonymous with African Americans to some people? You know there can be racism against other races right?


----------



## Pimped Out

roux2dope said:


> Laugh it up, I feel it is a topic that shouldnt be discussed, we are lik 7 pages away from the last relevant comment made abou tim hardaway and its been nothing but team gay bash vs. the gay freedom fighters. It should not be going down on basketball message board.


i fail to see what your actual problem is? should we be discussing the basketball implications of what tim hardaway said? i believe steve nash will win his 3rd mvp and the pistons are a legit elite team because tim hardaway hates gay people. the only reason what hardaway said is news or amaechi coming out was news is because of the implications being discussed in this thread. do you want us to talk about his opinion being right or wrong without discussing if its right or wrong? and im pretty sure basketball fans are allowed to have opinions on the matter so there is no reason it shouldnt be discussed on a basketball board


----------



## JNice

essbee said:


> But if they can't help it does it matter if there are victims? Doesn't that mean the pedophiles are victims too? What about say.. thieves? Why would they choose something that makes them so hated... so doesn't that mean they have no choice?
> 
> The suggestion that people don't make decisions which make them outcasts in society is absolutely nonsense.
> 
> You realize homosexuals weren't the primary target of the holocaust and other groups like gypsies, religious groups, etc. were also persecuted right?



Lets not also forget that being a pedophile or a thieve is also against the law. You are breaking this down into "impulses" when there is quite a bit of research to indicate, in most cases, that being homosexual is genetic. So is it really just an impulse? Can you stop yourself from your impulse to eat? Or breathe?

It is ridiculous to discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation. There are no victims in someone being gay. Who the hell cares what they do or who they are attracted to? Equally as ridiculous as hating someone because of the color of their skin. Just because there is a longer history and greater documentation of racism doesn't make it any worse. In both cases, it is ridiculous to hate someone for those reasons.


----------



## hroz

Homophobia is a disgusting prejudice that has led to many bashings and killings of gay people. That alone should be reason enough not to say some **** like Hardaway said.


----------



## Dre

HB said:


> Race is a trait that cannot be concealed, is that easy to point out who is gay or not?


Race can potentially be concealed, it's not always as obvious as skin. It's much easier to point out a black person from a gay person, but still.


----------



## essbee

Mateo said:


> No, the fact that something is natural doesn't make it "right", the fact that it _harms no one_, is what makes it right. Even if homosexuality wasn't natural, and it clearly is by any reasonable definition, the fact that no one is harmed by it - not the homosexuals, not you, not anyone - is what makes hatred of it, and Hardaway's comments, so particularly vile.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, dude, I know that non-homosexuals were in the holocaust. My point was that we, the allies, the liberators, didn't recognize homosexuals as victims _at the time_. We *made them stay* in the concentration camps, or in some instances transported them to regular prisons.


No, the fact that it doesn't harm anyone is what makes it acceptable. "Right" is a definition based on personal moral codes. And for the record, pedophiles don't think they're harming anyone, and defend what they do as simply being love. Many of the ancient societies like the Greeks (pederast) saw those kinds of relationships as not only harmless but a normal part of life.

But personally I judge those societies AND pedophiles and say I disagree with them, and that by my moral position they're wrong, because I disagree with their perspective. People are allowed to do that.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Yes lets look at Kobe Bryant for example or Allen Iverson. They can be major jerks sometimes. Are they ranked lower now!


----------



## roux

Brandname said:


> It's a hot topic that is particularly relevant to basketball right now. These discussions need to be had if we want to make progress. We just need more communication. We need communication of the facts and research that has been done in the area to educate people.
> 
> There will be a lot of bigoted, stupid posts. But if you can get through those, there could be a chance we could all learn something from a discussion like this.
> 
> It is relevant to basketball right now. Not just to the Amaechi case in particular, but where gays stand not only in sports, but in society in general.
> 
> Of course, if you don't want to discuss it, there are plenty of other topics on the general board you could comment on.


I understand its a hot topic but it so far off of basketball to this point it is getting out of hand, besides i do have an interest in this thread and its to stop people who will never change their minds on this subject to take a breather and realize that even if they make their most impressive statement about gay people half the people will disagree on them. I guess I was hoping i could stop this merry go round from spinning out of control, I screwed up.


----------



## Krstic All-Star

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Yes you cant do some weird magic trick and change your race. You can easily lie and say you are gay or straight.


You can *say *it, but that doesn't mean anyone will believe you.


----------



## HB

Question, if he had said I am not comfortable around gay people instead of I hate gay people, would he still be in the wrong


----------



## Brandname

HB said:


> Race is a trait that cannot be concealed, is that easy to point out who is gay or not?


True, it is more difficult to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

I still don't see how it makes the discussion of prejudice against gays any different. Because you can't see 'gayness', does it make it ok to discriminate based on that. Whether gays have suffered the same plight as blacks isn't relevant to the discussion of whether or not hating gays is ok.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

A lot of people dont discriminate or hate gay people but think being gay is wrong.


----------



## JNice

HB said:


> Race is a trait that cannot be concealed, is that easy to point out who is gay or not?


lol... What does being able to conceal it have to do with anything?


----------



## Mateo

*Re: Ok I lied last post*



_Dre_ said:


> So you're going to rank Hardaway lower on a point guard list because he's homophobic? I don't see why when you talk about basketball, you can't praise or have his skills in high regard because he's homophobic. If Kobe had been convicted of rape, it would've made him no less of an amazing player in my eyes.
> 
> I think you should definitely think about separating deeds and a person's personal life, or else you'll miss out. There are plenty of talented people who are jerks, but it doesn't make it any less talented, and in most cases their personal life has nothing to do with what they offer to the world professionally.


I've thought about this before, particularly in regard to Jason Kidd and his domestic abuse issues. I concluded then, and the same applies here for Hardaway, that I can recognize their ability, but I can not cheer for them, or want them to be on my team, regardless of how that might positively affect my team's winning ability.


----------



## Krstic All-Star

HB said:


> Question, if he had said I am not comfortable around gay people instead of I hate gay people, would he still be in the wrong


I would not have a problem with that statement, though he'd still get pilloried.


----------



## Pimped Out

*Re: Ok I lied last post*



_Dre_ said:


> So you're going to rank Hardaway lower on a point guard list because he's homophobic? I don't see why when you talk about basketball, you can't praise or have his skills in high regard because he's homophobic. If Kobe had been convicted of rape, it would've made him no less of an amazing player in my eyes.
> 
> I think you should definitely think about separating deeds and a person's personal life, or else you'll miss out. There are plenty of talented people who are jerks, but it doesn't make it any less talented, and in most cases their personal life has nothing to do with what they offer to the world professionally.


you can recognize someone has amazing abilities without respecting them for their abilities.


----------



## Brandname

roux2dope said:


> I understand its a hot topic but it so far off of basketball to this point it is getting out of hand, besides i do have an interest in this thread and its to stop people who will never change their minds on this subject to take a breather and realize that even if they make their most impressive statement about gay people half the people will disagree on them. I guess I was hoping i could stop this merry go round from spinning out of control, I screwed up.


There was a time when half of the US wouldn't change their minds that black people are inferior to white people.

That problem didn't improve by *not *talking about it.


----------



## Seuss

HB said:


> Question, if he had said I am not comfortable around gay people instead of I hate gay people, would he still be in the wrong




No, because almost any man you find is going to be uncomfortable around a gay man.

It's like an elephant being afraid of a mouse, the fear is very physcological.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Jason Kidd suposedly has been abused this whole time.


----------



## roux

Pimped Out said:


> i fail to see what your actual problem is? should we be discussing the basketball implications of what tim hardaway said? i believe steve nash will win his 3rd mvp and the pistons are a legit elite team because tim hardaway hates gay people. the only reason what hardaway said is news or amaechi coming out was news is because of the implications being discussed in this thread. do you want us to talk about his opinion being right or wrong without discussing if its right or wrong? and im pretty sure basketball fans are allowed to have opinions on the matter so there is no reason it shouldnt be discussed on a basketball board


It has been removed from its implications regarding the game of basketball and turne into a full blown war of pro gay vs. anti gay. It started off just fine and then someone brings up that people can control their sexual orientation and then somebody has to jump in and defend their side of it. You all have the right to talk about what you want, i just felt that this was getting rapidly out of control and would be better served elsewhere.


----------



## essbee

JNice said:


> Lets not also forget that being a pedophile or a thieve is also against the law. You are breaking this down into "impulses" when there is quite a bit of research to indicate, in most cases, that being homosexual is genetic. So is it really just an impulse? Can you stop yourself from your impulse to eat? Or breathe?
> 
> It is ridiculous to discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation. There are no victims in someone being gay. Who the hell cares what they do or who they are attracted to? Equally as ridiculous as hating someone because of the color of their skin. Just because there is a longer history and greater documentation of racism doesn't make it any worse. In both cases, it is ridiculous to hate someone for those reasons.


you realize there is scientific evidence that criminal behavior is a combination largely of genetics and environment right?


----------



## HB

Brandname said:


> True, it is more difficult to discriminate based on sexual orientation.
> 
> I still don't see how it makes the discussion of prejudice against gays any different. Because you can't see 'gayness', does it make it ok to discriminate based on that. Whether gays have suffered the same plight as blacks isn't relevant to the discussion of whether or not hating gays is ok.


I agree that discrimination is wrong, but this die Tim Hardaway stance by some is just over the top. There are lots of people who have the exact same sentiments. Who knows if Hardaway has ever known a gay person in his life? The guy is just acting on his ignorance.


----------



## Crossword

HB said:


> Race is a trait that cannot be concealed, is that easy to point out who is gay or not?


So what if it isn't? It's still discrimination, which is still wrong.

Another thing we're forgetting here, gays are often denounced even by their parents and disregarded by their own families. That NEVER happens with heterosexuals of minority race groups, that is a factor exclusive to gays. So what about that? Minorities don't have to deal with that, so discrimination against gays is worse? Of course not! It's all the same ****, hate is hate, discrimination is discrimination, and primitive, superiority thinking supports those types of emotions.


----------



## Dre

HB said:


> Question, if he had said I am not comfortable around gay people instead of I hate gay people, would he still be in the wrong


I think the wording is part of the outrage here. If he had merely said I'm uncomfortable around them and stopped, he probably would be vilified. But if he explained a bad experience in the past or something, it would be different, so you never know. The interviewer would've asked him why he's uncomfortable, and that answer helps answer this question. 

But to hate in itself is wrong.


----------



## JNice

Krstic All Star said:


> I would not have a problem with that statement, though he'd still get pilloried.


I think had he said that it barely would have made the news. Saying you may be uncomfortable and saying "hate" and that they shouldn't be in this country are two completely different things.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Brandname said:


> There was a time when half of the US wouldn't change their minds that black people are inferior to white people.
> 
> That problem didn't improve by *not *talking about it.


Yes but when relligion is a component in it. It becomes far more debatable. The KKK said it was relligious but had no proof and nobody is burning gays houses down.


----------



## HB

Dr. Seuss said:


> No, because almost any man you find is going to be uncomfortable around a gay man.
> 
> It's like an elephant being afraid of a mouse, the fear is very physcological.


Fear of what, if you are comfortable in yourself, whats there to fear


----------



## Crossword

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Yes you cant do some weird magic trick and change your race. You can easily lie and say you are gay or straight.


WTF. You can't do a magic trick and change your sexual orientation either.


----------



## Brandname

essbee said:


> you realize there is scientific evidence that criminal behavior is a combination largely of genetics and environment right?


For someone that is so fervently against comparing racism to discrimination against gays, you sure like to make some completely invalid comparisons yourself. They aren't even close to being related.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

You fear is this guy checking meout. Dont attractive women often feel uncomfortable around men.


----------



## Crossword

Dr. Seuss said:


> No, because almost any man you find is going to be uncomfortable around a gay man.
> 
> It's like an elephant being afraid of a mouse, the fear is very physcological.


Speak for yourself.


----------



## Mateo

essbee said:


> No, the fact that it doesn't harm anyone is what makes it acceptable. "Right" is a definition based on personal moral codes. And for the record, pedophiles don't think they're harming anyone, and defend what they do as simply being love. Many of the ancient societies like the Greeks (pederast) saw those kinds of relationships as not only harmless but a normal part of life.


I know. They were wrong. Psychology didn't come to fruition until the 19th century. We now know that humans are not able to make consensual decisions until their minds are fully developed, in their mid to late teens. There is no research in the field of psychology to suggest that pedophilia is harmless to the victim.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Yes but you can say I am straight you cannot hide your race.


----------



## essbee

JNice said:


> lol... What does being able to conceal it have to do with anything?


For one, it illustrates the difference between discrimination against the two groups.

For two, the fact that people can conceal or alter it at will to suit their needs suggests that it's not inherently as obvious a feature as race typically is.

Those two things have quite a bit to do with the current issue of whether discrimination against gays is comparable to that based on race. There is no "Africa" to go to in order to round up a huge group of homosexuals, it's just not the same thing.


----------



## Brandname

HB said:


> I agree that discrimination is wrong, but this die Tim Hardaway stance by some is just over the top. There are lots of people who have the exact same sentiments. Who knows if Hardaway has ever known a gay person in his life? The guy is just acting on his ignorance.


I don't think anyone wants him to die.

We just want him to stop spewing ignorant comments. It's his right to hold them and to say these things, but he should be held accountable for them.


----------



## Pimped Out

HB said:


> Question, if he had said I am not comfortable around gay people instead of I hate gay people, would he still be in the wrong


yes. you make decisions on who you are comfortable around on a person by person basis. if you dont feel comfortable in a locker room with a gay guy it would be more understandable the same way some guys dont like to be naked in front of women they arent married/attracted too. of course i feel if you are uncomfortable naked around a;; gay men you should be uncomfortable around all women you arent attracted to. but to say you are not comfortable around them in a normal, social, friendly situation is overboard.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

essbee said:


> For one, it illustrates the difference between discrimination against the two groups.
> 
> For two, the fact that people can conceal or alter it at will to suit their needs suggests that it's not inherently as obvious a feature as race typically is.
> 
> Those two things have quite a bit to do with the current issue of whether discrimination against gays is comparable to that based on race. There is no "Africa" to go to in order to round up a huge group of homosexuals, it's just not the same thing.


Yes exactly!


----------



## essbee

Brandname said:


> For someone that is so fervently against comparing racism to discrimination against gays, you sure like to make some completely invalid comparisons yourself. They aren't even close to being related.


Actually this is about the comment that someone made that "no one would choose" to do something that made them outcasts in society.


----------



## HB

Budweiser_Boy said:


> So what if it isn't? It's still discrimination, which is still wrong.
> 
> Another thing we're forgetting here, gays are often denounced even by their parents and disregarded by their own families. That NEVER happens with heterosexuals of minority race groups, that is a factor exclusive to gays. So what about that? Minorities don't have to deal with that, so discrimination against gays is worse? Of course not! It's all the same ****, hate is hate, discrimination is discrimination, and primitive, superiority thinking supports those types of emotions.


I'd like to get into what and what not minorities go through, but that is a topic for another day. Yes it is wrong to discriminate against someone you know nothing about, but not everyone is as open minded as you are.


----------



## roux

Brandname said:


> There was a time when half of the US wouldn't change their minds that black people are inferior to white people.
> 
> That problem didn't improve by *not *talking about it.


and everybody in this country lives in perfect harmony because it was talked about. I do remember a war in which millions of americans lost their lives to free slaves, as for gaining equal rights, yes i agree with you talk and protest brought us closer to being a civilized country, the truth is is racism is still a big *** problem in our country and some choose to stand on top of a mountain proclaim their beliefs while others remain racist on the inside so they dont lose their job or fail to be the person that everyone in this country wants them to be.


----------



## JNice

essbee said:


> you realize there is scientific evidence that criminal behavior is a combination largely of genetics and environment right?



Absolutely. But criminal behavior is lawfully wrong and has victims. So when someone chooses to become a criminal they are choosing to break the law. Sexual orientation is not against the law nor has a victim.


----------



## Dre

*Re: Ok I lied last post*



Pimped Out said:


> you can recognize someone has amazing abilities without respecting them for their abilities.


But why would you not respect their _ability_ because of something offcourt? Why say, Kobe's great because he scored 81, but I can't respect his _ability_ as a basketball player because he committed adultery? Oncourt and offcourt are two different things.



Mateo said:


> I've thought about this before, particularly in regard to Jason Kidd and his domestic abuse issues. I concluded then, and the same applies here for Hardaway, that I can recognize their ability, but I can not cheer for them, or want them to be on my team, regardless of how that might positively affect my team's winning ability.


It's not the olympics or college. It's the NBA. You're paid to be a good player, not a good person. That sounds a lot rougher than what I intend, but that's the raw bottomline.


----------



## Hibachi!

I find it hilarious that people argue that you can just "not be gay" How many gay people have you seen that don't WANT to be gay. They don't want to be disowned. They don't want to be hated. They don't want to be different. You honestly think for most gay people that it is a choice? They can just turn their attraction on or off?


----------



## HB

Pimped Out said:


> yes. you make decisions on who you are comfortable around on a person by person basis. if you dont feel comfortable in a locker room with a gay guy it would be more understandable the same way some guys dont like to be naked in front of women they arent married/attracted too. of course i feel if you are uncomfortable naked around a;; gay men you should be uncomfortable around all women you arent attracted to. but to say you are not comfortable around them in a normal, social, friendly situation is overboard.


Exactly


----------



## HB

Hibachi! said:


> I find it hilarious that people argue that you can just "not be gay" How many gay people have you seen that don't WANT to be gay. They don't want to be disowned. They don't want to be hated. They don't want to be different. You honestly think for most gay people that it is a choice? They can just turn their attraction on or off?


Anne Heche thinks so


----------



## Brandname

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Yes but when relligion is a component in it. It becomes far more debatable. The KKK said it was relligious but had no proof and nobody is burning gays houses down.


Which is why more people need to be educated about it.

It's hard to get people to step away from the ignorance bred by their religion. It's an uphill battle, but more people have to speak out to let others know that just because the Bible has a strong anti-gay message doesn't make it ok to discriminate against them.


----------



## Crossword

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> You fear is this guy checking meout. Dont attractive women often feel uncomfortable around men.


The hilarious thing is when ugly *** guys are scared of gays checking them out. And I've talked to plenty of butt-ugly homophobes, like they EXPECT gays to be attracted to just whoever. I think you hit a good point here, and most homophobes fail to realize that just because they're men, doesn't mean that gays will be attracted to them. Attractive men who happen to be homophobes for this reason have a good case, but that's about it.

And anyway, if a gay guy finds you attractive, it's a compliment. It means you're attractive. I still fail to see the big deal. Homophobia is stupid.


----------



## Sir Patchwork

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Yes but you can say I am straight you cannot hide your race.


Sure you can! Come out in public fully clothed head to toe with no skin showing and tell people you're white. 

Now let's figure why anyone should have to do that? Why should gay people have to live in a box and pretend their straight because you're too much of a homophobe to get over some misplaced discomfort?


----------



## Seuss

HB said:


> Fear of what, if you are comfortable in yourself, whats there to fear




Why is an elephant afraid of a tiny thing such as a mouse? 


The unknown is scary.


----------



## HB

Dr. Seuss said:


> *Why is an elephant afraid of a tiny thing such as a mouse?
> 
> *
> The unknown is scary.


I am not even sure that example is true, I only see that in cartoons


----------



## eymang

Budweiser_Boy said:


> This is proposterous. Way to pigeonhole gays. There's more than two types of people, so I'm positive there are more than two types of gay people. I don't get this whole treating gays like another species ideal.


Umm, no, the same thing is done to anyone no matter gay or straight. Some people are quiet, some people are sociable, some people are envious, some people show off, etc etc etc. How does that imply another species


----------



## Brandname

roux2dope said:


> and everybody in this country lives in perfect harmony because it was talked about. I do remember a war in which millions of americans lost their lives to free slaves, as for gaining equal rights, yes i agree with you talk and protest brought us closer to being a civilized country, the truth is is racism is still a big *** problem in our country and some choose to stand on top of a mountain proclaim their beliefs while others remain racist on the inside so they dont lose their job or fail to be the person that everyone in this country wants them to be.


I didn't say everyone lives in perfect harmony. I said the situation improved. Surely you don't disagree with this.


----------



## Pimped Out

*Re: Ok I lied last post*



_Dre_ said:


> But why would you not respect their _ability_ because of something offcourt? Why say, Kobe's great because he scored 81, but I can't respect his _ability_ as a basketball player because he committed adultery? Oncourt and offcourt are two different things.


to give you an extreme example, no one i know respects hitler for constructing roadways. i dont respect actions. i respect the people who perform them. and when you lose the amount of respect you do when you make a comment like "i hate gay people" isnt going to be replaced by putting a ball through a hole


----------



## Hibachi!

HB said:


> Anne Heche thinks so


Anne Heche legitimately believes she got abducted by aliens and has an alter ego that's half god... Does she really count?


----------



## Seuss

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Speak for yourself.





Hence, almost.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

It is wrong to discriminate against homosexuals but why cant people like me just think it is wrong. Teach their children it is wrong and not like it. Bieng a uslim I disagree with it becuase it says so clearly in the Quaran.


----------



## Crossword

HB said:


> I'd like to get into what and what not minorities go through, but that is a topic for another day. Yes it is wrong to discriminate against someone you know nothing about, but not everyone is as open minded as you are.


Yes, it's well established that I am on a higher plane of thinking than most.


----------



## Seuss

HB said:


> I am not even sure that example is true, I only see that in cartoons





I've seen it a few times.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

You dont have to respect him. You just shouldnt let personal issues affect what you think of when you rate him as a baller not person.


----------



## essbee

JNice said:


> Absolutely. But criminal behavior is lawfully wrong and has victims. So when someone chooses to become a criminal they are choosing to break the law. Sexual orientation is not against the law nor has a victim.


So if homosexuality was against the law you would tell people to curb their impulses? If someone is raised in a bad neighborhood and DECIDES to act on genetic predisposition and become a criminal are they really to blame? I would also argue that many things that are against the law are not in fact morally wrong even if lawfully wrong. Certain forms of protests for example.

This is not an argument of whether homosexuality is a criminal act, merely pointing out the stupidity of saying that homosexuality's inherent "rightness" is proven by the fact that nobody would choose to act in a way that made them outcasts.


----------



## eymang

and no I'm not an idiot, I know racism is not limited to black people. I was just citing an example of extreme discrimination that everyone is familiar with. That had nothing to do with the point of my post and it's just diverting the attention.

I think it should also be pointed out, just like homophobes generalize about gay people, people generalize about homophobes. Being against gay rights or being a homophobe in general does not = kill them, perform hate crimes, etc. There's also the 'just leave me alone' homophobe. I doubt anyone in this thread is going to go out killing gay people, which it seems like many people assume when you become honest and not politically correct


----------



## roux

Brandname said:


> I didn't say everyone lives in perfect harmony. I said the situation improved. Surely you don't disagree with this.


I do agree, but the persecution of gays in this country has died down signifigantly. The point i am trying to make is thast there are still thousands of people that are still mad that black people can vote, and nothing that anyone will ever say to the will ever change their mind. It may improve but when most people around the world are willing to die for their beliefs you will never make things completely ok. If anyone on this board steps up and says that their view on homosexuality have changed due to this thread I will issue and apology.


----------



## Crossword

Dr. Seuss said:


> Hence, almost.


No, speak for yourself. You have no idea about the statistics of straight men who feel uncomfortable around gays, you are merely speaking on your own skewed prejudice.

Anyway, why _do_ you feel uncomfortable around gays? And really, how many gays have you been around, consciously, to know you feel uncomfortable around them? This isn't another case of lack of interaction or symathy with said group, as you admitted to with homeless people, is it?


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

I go through a lot of discrimination and hate it when I see others getting discriminated. But I can not feel as bad for homosexuals when I believe what they are doing is wrong.


----------



## Dre

Dr. Seuss said:


> Why is an elephant afraid of a tiny thing such as a mouse?
> 
> 
> The unknown is scary.


That's not a good leg to stand on this discussion. If people were uncomfortable and shunned others because they didn't know them and the unknown was scary...then where would we be? 

You have to meet and overcome your fears. In this case, the way you know a certain gay person might be in question, but whatever oppurtunity you have, you should try and meet them yourself, overcome your fear, and realize gay people are not "scary". The real thing you're getting at is the possibility of a gay man being attracted to you, but unless you're in jail or drunk at a party or something, you don't have to worry about someone just pushing themselves on you on physical attraction alone. There's nothing to be afraid of, and the only way you can realize that is by meeting your fear. 

Man would make no progress if it ran away from everything it was scared of. You can't just be uncomfortable forever, there will eventually be a breaking point either way. Their should be anyway.


----------



## HB

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Yes, it's well established that I am on a higher plane of thinking than most, but I do my best to put those types of negative emotions to rest. Although I'm positive I won't convince anyone otherwise in this thread, my only hope is to make some of these homophobes feel stupid.


I see where you are coming from, but you are talking about going against people's beliefs here. It has been ingrained in some that homosexuality is a deviant behavior. I bet if you asked Tim if has had any encounter with gay people he'd probably say no. You mentioned you have a lot of gay friends, you have seen what they have gone through, which influences how you think on the whole situation. But for someone who doesnt know any better, can you really blame them for their ignorance?


----------



## HB

_Dre_ said:


> That's not a good leg to stand on this discussion. If people were uncomfortable and shunned others because they didn't know them and the unknown was scary...then where would we be?
> 
> You have to meet and overcome your fears. In this case, the way you know a certain gay person might be in question, but whatever oppurtunity you have, you should try and meet them yourself, overcome your fear, and realize gay people are not "scary". The real thing you're getting at is the possibility of a gay man being attracted to you, but unless you're in jail or drunk at a party or something, you don't have to worry about someone just pushing themselves on you on physical attraction alone. There's nothing to be afraid of, and the only way you can realize that is by meeting your fear.
> 
> Man would make no progress if it ran away from everything it was scared of. You can't just be uncomfortable forever, there will eventually be a breaking point either way. Their should be anyway.


:greatjob:


----------



## Crossword

Budweiser_Boy said:


> gays are often denounced even by their parents and disregarded by their own families. That NEVER happens with heterosexuals of minority race groups, that is a factor exclusive to gays. So what about that? Minorities don't have to deal with that, so discrimination against gays is worse? Of course not! It's all the same ****, hate is hate, discrimination is discrimination, and primitive, superiority thinking supports those types of emotions.


This is my response to whoever brings up the 'can't conceal race' "argument" next. And again, and again. Because it's baseless and irrelevant. Both minority groups have their own society-triggered problems that are unique to them, but that doesn't make hatred of one group worse than hatred of another, period.


----------



## Pimped Out

HB, im a little confused by your overall stance on this subject.

and whoever said its the same thing to feel uncomfortable around a gay guy as a girl being uncomfortable around a guy, it is to an extent. women feel uncomfortable around guys they arent interested in who seemingly are checking them out and acting kinda creepy. its decided on a case by case basis. if you meet a gay guy and automatically start to walk around in a way that the guy can never see your ***, its homophobia. if you notice the continually checking you out and he makes keeps advancing on you despite you asking them to stop, it is 100% okay to feel uncomfortable around them. 

as for being naked around them (women or gay males), i couldnt care less. i'll get naked around pretty much anyone. except my family, they are the only people i feel incredibly uncomfortable being around without pants. probably directly related to my sibling all being older sisters


----------



## Sir Patchwork

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> I go through a lot of discrimination and hate it when I see others getting discriminated. But I can not feel as bad for homosexuals when I believe what they are doing is wrong.


Why do you believe it's wrong though? Logically. I don't want to hear about how the good book says so. That just makes me think that minus some foundation in religion, you would probably agree that gays are not wrong in what they do.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Most people go through discrimination. Unless they are white Christion straight not mentally retarded normal looking males.


----------



## Brandname

roux2dope said:


> I do agree, but the persecution of gays in this country has died down signifigantly. The point i am trying to make is thast there are still thousands of people that are still mad that black people can vote, and nothing that anyone will ever say to the will ever change their mind. It may improve but when most people around the world are willing to die for their beliefs you will never make things completely ok. If anyone on this board steps up and says that their view on homosexuality have changed due to this thread I will issue and apology.


It's not even necessarily to change people's opinions.

It's just to raise discussion. If this gets talked about a lot, maybe more gay people will be willing to come out of the closet. The more support people show for gays, the easier it will be for them to feel comfortable being themselves in our society.


----------



## JNice

essbee said:


> So if homosexuality was against the law you would tell people to curb their impulses? If someone is raised in a bad neighborhood and DECIDES to act on genetic predisposition and become a criminal are they really to blame? I would also argue that many things that are against the law are not in fact morally wrong even if lawfully wrong. Certain forms of protests for example.
> 
> This is not an argument of whether homosexuality is a criminal act, merely pointing out the stupidity of saying that homosexuality's inherent "rightness" is proven by the fact that nobody would choose to act in a way that made them outcasts.



How is it that stupid? Yes, if homosexuality were a choice being made, there may be some who still decide to engage in it even in public scrutiny. Just like there are other people who will engage in other acts that are knowingly objectionable to society. But I don't think that type of thinking would apply to the majority.


----------



## Crossword

HB said:


> I see where you are coming from, but you are talking about going against people's beliefs here. It has been ingrained in some that homosexuality is a deviant behavior. I bet if you asked Tim if has had any encounter with gay people he'd probably say no. You mentioned you have a lot of gay friends, you have seen what they have gone through, which influences how you think on the whole situation. But for someone who doesnt know any better, can you really blame them for their ignorance?


I just think if you're not familiar with a group of people, then don't comment on them. Simple. Obviously some people, as you said, can't get over their stereotypes and just let people be, and it's unfortunate.


----------



## Spriggan

eymang said:


> There's also the 'just leave me alone' homophobe.


What is it exactly that makes you think gay people have an inherent reason not to leave you alone?


----------



## HB

Pimped Out said:


> HB, im a little confused by your overall stance on this subject.
> 
> and whoever said its the same thing to feel uncomfortable around a gay guy as a girl being uncomfortable around a guy, it is to an extent. women feel uncomfortable around guys they arent interested in who seemingly are checking them out and acting kinda creepy. its decided on a case by case basis. if you meet a gay guy and automatically start to walk around in a way that the guy can never see your ***, its homophobia. if you notice the continually checking you out and he makes keeps advancing on you despite you asking them to stop, it is 100% okay to feel uncomfortable around them.
> 
> as for being naked around them (women or gay males), i couldnt care less. i'll get naked around pretty much anyone. except my family, they are the only people i feel incredibly uncomfortable being around without pants. probably directly related to my sibling all being older sisters


Indifferent really. I think it was idiotic for him to say what he said, but I also think the man has truly not had any encounters with gay people. If he knew any or known what they had been through, he wouldnt say such. Hate is a strong word, and if he is going by religion, no religion supports hatred.


----------



## Hibachi!

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Most people go through discrimination. Unless they are white Christion straight not mentally retarded normal looking males.


o

What an ignorant statement


----------



## Pimped Out

Brandname said:


> It's not even necessarily to change people's opinions.
> 
> It's just to raise discussion. If this gets talked about a lot, maybe more gay people will be willing to come out of the closet. The more support people show for gays, the easier it will be for them to feel comfortable being themselves in our society.


well said. the reason you never discuss these things expecting immediate change from everyone. you raise concerns and be vocal to help make things better down the road


----------



## JNice

I wonder how many times Hardaway was at the club in Miami handing out 20s to a couple of chicks getting it on. I betcha he didn't hate that.


----------



## Brandname

Sir Patchwork said:


> Why do you believe it's wrong though? Logically. I don't want to hear about how the good book says so. That just makes me think that minus some foundation in religion, you would probably agree that gays are not wrong in what they do.


This is the unfortunate thing about this debate. Many religions/religious texts have well-defined stances on homosexuality. And as we all know, a lot of people are willing to accept something as fact just based on what it says in the book.

For crying out loud, there are people out there that believe the Earth is 6000 years old. This, in my opinion, is the most difficult challenge facing the gay community in trying to gain acceptance.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

I think it is wrong because it says so in the Quran. I believe the Quran is the word of God. I believe God is all knowing and knows what is right and wrong. I believe all humans are servents of Gods and have to listen tohim. Homoosexuallity will really give you a very high chance of going to Hell in Islam.


----------



## JNice

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Most people go through discrimination. Unless they are white Christion straight not mentally retarded normal looking males.



lol ... wow ... that is sad.


----------



## Pimped Out

HB said:


> Indifferent really. I think it was idiotic for him to say what he said, but I also think the man has truly not had any encounters with gay people. If he knew any or known what they had been through, he wouldnt say such. Hate is a strong word, and if he is going by religion, no religion supports hatred.


sorry, my question was unclear. i meant gay people and homophobia in general. your comments on the subject seemed to have changed in the past 6 months or so. im just curious to know if they have or if i am imagining things


----------



## HB

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> I think it is wrong because it says so in the Quran. I believe the Quran is the word of God. I believe God is all knowing and knows what is right and wrong. I believe all humans are servents of Gods and have to listen tohim. Homoosexuallity will really give you a very high chance of going to Hell in Islam.


And it also says thou shall not judge


----------



## Brandname

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> I think it is wrong because it says so in the Quran. I believe the Quran is the word of God. I believe God is all knowing and knows what is right and wrong. I believe all humans are servents of Gods and have to listen tohim. Homoosexuallity will really give you a very high chance of going to Hell in Islam.


Well I certainly can't argue with that. 

But there really isn't a single thing in the Qur'an that you disagree with. At all?


----------



## Crossword

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Most people go through discrimination. Unless they are white Christion straight not mentally retarded normal looking males.


You forgot rich. The poor get discriminated against increasingly in our society. Just look at the way one naive suburbanite treats the homeless.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

People believe this book will decide wheter they go to Hell or Heaven. I do not know of this whole God created everything in 6 days thing. Thats just in Christionity.


----------



## HB

Pimped Out said:


> sorry, my question was unclear. i meant gay people and homophobia in general. your comments on the subject seemed to have changed in the past 6 months or so. im just curious to know if they have or if i am imagining things


Lots of soul searching within that period. Realized that as long as I am secure in myself no need to be scared of anyone or anything.

Plus I live by thou shalt not judge and thou shall not hate principles


----------



## MonStrSquad*JK RJ VC*

You've gotta love the "I'm Sorry" PR route. To late Tim you said what you thought/felt and you're true colors came out. No need in trying to fake the funk now. You made your bed, and now you should lie in it!
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/basketball/nba/02/14/bc.bkn.hardawayremarks.ap/index.html


----------



## roux

Brandname said:


> It's not even necessarily to change people's opinions.
> 
> It's just to raise discussion. If this gets talked about a lot, maybe more gay people will be willing to come out of the closet. The more support people show for gays, the easier it will be for them to feel comfortable being themselves in our society.


I agree 100% hell i said almost the exact same thing in the Ameachi thread, when it was discussed in the terms of PRo-Athletes being gay. It is beyond sports now and is a full fledged war that neither side will ever agree on, its just getting repetitive.


----------



## Crossword

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> I go through a lot of discrimination and hate it when I see others getting discriminated. But I can not feel as bad for homosexuals when I believe what they are doing is wrong.


Which is... living?


----------



## Dre

*Re: Ok I lied last post*



Pimped Out said:


> to give you an extreme example, no one i know respects hitler for constructing roadways. i dont respect actions. i respect the people who perform them. and when you lose the amount of respect you do when you make a comment like "i hate gay people" isnt going to be replaced by putting a ball through a hole


It's not an action..it's a proffession or state of being almost. He's not just a guy that plays basketball, everyone does that, he happens to be one of the best in the world at basketball. He's a _professional basketball player_. With entertainment in particular, you have to separate your feelings about a person from what they do to entertain you, because in most cases, one has nothing to do with the others.

Your example doesn't really fit this case, because he constructed those roadways for his people to be able to drive around on. I don't want to sound ignorant or insensitive of the situation, but most of the people that he was against were in concentration camps or thousands of miles away, so they didn't benefit from those actions. 

When you want to be entertained, you are being benefitted by great entertainers, and I see no reason to lose respect for a person as an entertainer because of whatever they may do offcourt, or off camera, or off record.

I don't think it's safe to put a blanket layer of respect on a person, as if you were god and making a final judgement on a person. What if a person adopted kids all his life, took them from the worst scenarios imaginable, fathered them, and paid their way to school, but left his elderly mother out to dry? How do you factor all of that into one final judgement? That's a skewed decision with way too many factors. It's best you judge the layers of a person's life separately.


----------



## IbizaXL

i bet this thread will *blow* the ameichi thread out of the water 

30 pages? 50?


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

No I cannot disagree with anything in the Quaran. I cannot find one thing in there that does not make sense to me. If you can please point it out to me and I will be glad toexplain it.


----------



## JNice

roux2dope said:


> I agree 100% hell i said almost the exact same thing in the Ameachi thread, when it was discussed in the terms of PRo-Athletes being gay. It is beyond sports now and is a full fledged war that neither side will ever agree on, its just getting repetitive.



It is not a war. And seriously, why do you keep reading it?


----------



## Pimped Out

HB said:


> Lots of soul searching within that period. Realized that as long as I am secure in myself no need to be scared of anyone or anything.
> 
> Plus I live by thou shalt not judge and thou shall not hate principles


2 great principles to live by


----------



## Sir Patchwork

Brandname said:


> This is the unfortunate thing about this debate. Many religions/religious texts have well-defined stances on homosexuality. And as we all know, a lot of people are willing to accept something as fact just based on what it says in the book.


People are raised into religion before they're raised to treat all people equally. Unfortunetly, they are not synonomous, and when push comes to shove, the "word of god" is going to take precedent over anything.


----------



## HKF

I personally don't see anything wrong with Hardaway's statements. He's definitely a homophobic bigot, but I am glad he has the freedom to say what he wants to say. Everyone is always tripping over themselves to defend something that can be construed as anti-semitic or homophobic, I sometimes wonder why do we feel that we're ever going to see eye to eye on everything. 

Amazingly enough, gay marriage gets shot down in almost every city, yet so many become outraged when Hardaway says what he says. It can't be that the message board poster is more enlightened then the average person, can it?


----------



## Spriggan

> "Yes, I regret it. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have said I hate gay people or anything like that," he said. "That was my mistake."


Can't you just _feel_ the sincerity?


----------



## Crossword

No true Christian/Muslim/Jew/Buddhist/Hindu can hate gays.


----------



## Crossword

HKF said:


> I personally don't see anything wrong with Hardaway's statements. He's definitely a homophobic bigot, but I am glad he has the freedom to say what he wants to say. Everyone is always tripping over themselves to defend something that can be construed as anti-semitic or homophobic, I sometimes wonder why do we feel that we're ever going to see eye to eye on everything.
> 
> Amazingly enough, gay marriage gets shot down in almost every city, yet so many become outraged when Hardaway says what he says. It can't be that the message board poster is more enlightened then the average person, can it?


Well, not the entire message board. But most posters who showed up in this thread, yeah.


----------



## IbizaXL

Sir Patchwork said:


> People are raised into religion before they're raised to treat all people equally. Unfortunetly, they are not synonomous,* and when push comes to shove, the "word of god" is going to take precedent over anything.*


very true


----------



## Seuss

Budweiser_Boy said:


> No, speak for yourself. You have no idea about the statistics of straight men who feel uncomfortable around gays, you are merely speaking on your own skewed prejudice.


Nah, I think I will speak for the majority of men.

As much as you would want to believe that a straight man is comfortable around a gay guy,
I'm sure you're wrong.



> Anyway, why _do_ you feel uncomfortable around gays?


Because it's sick to think another man could actually be attracted to another man.
No, I'm not trying to imply that I'm 100% **** and have no 'gay' interests in me.
But it's not right for another man to be with another man, and I'm entitled to being
uncomfortable around such people.



> And really, how many gays have you been around, consciously, to know you feel uncomfortable around them?


I know one for sure. 



> This isn't another case of lack of interaction or symathy with said group, as you admitted to with homeless people, is it?


What exactly did I say? You were the one who was trying to back the guy for making homeless
people look like white trash and rob them for free money. In fact you praised him.


----------



## Dre

Brandname said:


> This is the unfortunate thing about this debate. Many religions/religious texts have well-defined stances on homosexuality. And as we all know, a lot of people are willing to accept something as fact just based on what it says in the book.
> 
> For crying out loud, there are people out there that believe the Earth is 6000 years old. This, in my opinion, is the most difficult challenge facing the gay community in trying to gain acceptance.



You know sooner or later, religion will rear its head here and people will try to hide behind their books. And the hypocrite meter will blow up.


----------



## HKF

Sir Patchwork said:


> People are raised into religion before they're raised to treat all people equally. Unfortunetly, they are not synonomous, and when push comes to shove, the "word of god" is going to take precedent over anything.


Where does it say we must treat each other equally? Now is this something universally accepted or is this a moral/ethical thing that should be adopted? 

I kind of feel that the end of your first sentence is a "utopian" ideal that has no way of ever being effectively carried out. In fact, we're not taught to treat people equally. We're taught to treat our peers equally. Now one must decide who exactly are their peers.


----------



## Dre

HKF said:


> Amazingly enough, gay marriage gets shot down in almost every city, yet so many become outraged when Hardaway says what he says. It can't be that the message board poster is more enlightened then the average person, can it?


This was my initial point exactly.


----------



## Krstic All-Star

Budweiser_Boy said:


> No true Christian/Muslim/Jew/Buddhist/Hindu can hate gays.


Hate, no. But they can definitely be dead-set against the concept of homosexuality. There is never an excuse for hate.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

I dont hate gays. I hate the idea of bieng gay. I think it is wrong. What do you know of Islam and its principles? It clearly says not to be homosexual. It says not to discriminate it says not to do it yourself or it will be on you not to hurt other people for their own wrongdoing.


----------



## JNice

HKF said:


> I personally don't see anything wrong with Hardaway's statements. He's definitely a homophobic bigot, but I am glad he has the freedom to say what he wants to say. Everyone is always tripping over themselves to defend something that can be construed as anti-semitic or homophobic, I sometimes wonder why do we feel that we're ever going to see eye to eye on everything.
> 
> Amazingly enough, gay marriage gets shot down in almost every city, yet so many become outraged when Hardaway says what he says. It can't be that the message board poster is more enlightened then the average person, can it?



Yeah, but who is shooting those down? Generally older folks who are far less free thinking. If most of the people I know of my age group or younger actually got involved then they probably wouldn't get shot down. But most young people just don't pay attention. Plus we're on a basketball message board ... a statement by a former well-known professional player is likely to get more of a reaction here.


----------



## roux

JNice said:


> It is not a war. And seriously, why do you keep reading it?


Well I feel that if one person can say I dislike gay people because of yadadadada and another call them an idiot and go on a little rant about how they are right, i feel i have the right to give my opinion that this is a hot topic discussion based on what a former NBA player said and it is being turned into I am right you are wrong debate. Its ok though get mad at me for trying to peacefully resolve a thread that seems to be stuck on repeat.


----------



## Pimped Out

*Re: Ok I lied last post*



_Dre_ said:


> It's not an action..it's a proffession or state of being almost. He's not just a guy that plays basketball, everyone does that, he happens to be one of the best in the world at basketball. He's a _professional basketball player_. With entertainment in particular, you have to separate your feelings about a person from what they do to entertain you, because in most cases, one has nothing to do with the others.
> 
> Your example doesn't really fit this case, because he constructed those roadways for his people to be able to drive around on. I don't want to sound ignorant or insensitive of the situation, but most of the people that he was against were in concentration camps or thousands of miles away, so they didn't benefit from those actions.
> 
> When you want to be entertained, you are being benefitted by great entertainers, and I see no reason to lose respect for a person as an entertainer because of whatever they may do offcourt, or off camera, or off record.
> 
> I don't think it's safe to put a blanket layer of respect on a person, as if you were god and making a final judgement on a person. What if a person adopted kids all his life, took them from the worst scenarios imaginable, fathered them, and paid their way to school, but left his elderly mother out to dry? How do you factor all of that into one final judgement? That's a skewed decision with way too many factors. It's best you judge the layers of a person's life separately.


for me, respect has always been different. its a paramount and personal thing for me and not something i have ever taken lightly. im aware i am a little odd on the subject, but its the way i am


----------



## HKF

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Well, not the entire message board. But most posters who showed up in this thread, yeah.


Now is this really true. Is it because they agree with your position? I don't think the average message board poster in this thread is any smarter than the average person at all. Just because we're using proper spelling and grammar doesn't make one right or wrong, when this is an opinion based argument, as we're talking about someone's personal preference.


----------



## 23isback

This is just for 2 seconds of attention, I doubt he really hates gays that much. 

Didn't he say he'd be back this season??


----------



## Crossword

HKF said:


> Where does it say we must treat each other equally? Now is this something universally accepted or is this a moral/ethical thing that should be adopted?
> 
> I kind of feel that the end of your first sentence is a "utopian" ideal that has no way of ever being effectively carried out. In fact, we're not taught to treat people equally. We're taught to treat our peers equally. Now one must decide who exactly are their peers.


Are you talking economically or in a humanitarian sense? Because the first one can't happen in a capitalist society, and the second can't happen in a colonialist society. But there is only a fictional barrier halting people from treating others equally in a humanitarian sense.


----------



## essbee

JNice said:


> How is it that stupid? Yes, if homosexuality were a choice being made, there may be some who still decide to engage in it even in public scrutiny. Just like there are other people who will engage in other acts that are knowingly objectionable to society. But I don't think that type of thinking would apply to the majority.


Because people act on impulses and cravings despite knowing the end result in societal terms. So it's stupid to suggest otherwise, or else we're removing all culpability from groups like criminals who can just fall back on the "I couldn't help myself" defense.


----------



## Brandname

HKF said:


> I personally don't see anything wrong with Hardaway's statements. He's definitely a homophobic bigot, but I am glad he has the freedom to say what he wants to say. Everyone is always tripping over themselves to defend something that can be construed as anti-semitic or homophobic, I sometimes wonder why do we feel that we're ever going to see eye to eye on everything.
> 
> Amazingly enough, gay marriage gets shot down in almost every city, yet so many become outraged when Hardaway says what he says. It can't be that the message board poster is more enlightened then the average person, can it?


Wait, you don't see anything wrong with the fact that he's allowed to say it? Or you don't see anything wrong with his opinion?

We all agree that freedom of speech is a good thing. But saying ignorant, hateful things is not. Sure he has the freedom to say it, but it's still a terrible thing to say. And it highlights how severe this problem is. I understand I'm never going to see eye-to-eye with everyone else on things, but it doesn't stop me from trying to help people treat others as equals. 

Gay marriage gets shot down because of the religious nature of the discussion. We're a largely religious country, and many people just believe what their pastor tells them. 

And your last comment really highlights a problem popping up in America right now. Everyone believes that their opinions are just as valid as, say, an expert. Much scientific research has been done on this very topic. Homosexuality has been observed in nature. Gene linkages have been observed (and debated) for the trait of homosexuality.

Some people _*are *_more enlightened on this topic than others. Not all opinions are created equal.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Relligions do not say commit hate crimes. It says do not be gay. It also says not to hurt or discriminate people because they do not follow your relligion.


----------



## Spriggan

Dr. Seuss said:


> Because it's sick to think another man could actually be attracted to another man.
> No, I'm not trying to imply that I'm 100% **** and have no 'gay' interests in me.
> But it's not right for another man to be with another man, and I'm entitled to being
> uncomfortable around such people.


Why do you say that you speak for the majority of men? So that you can feel it can somehow validate your homophobia?


----------



## Crossword

LMAO @ these homophobes saying, "oooh but I don't hate gays, I just hate homosexuality!"

Same damn thing, that's like saying you don't hate blacks, just the concept of people having dark skin. Outta here with that.


----------



## JNice

roux2dope said:


> Well I feel that if one person can say I dislike gay people because of yadadadada and another call them an idiot and go on a little rant about how they are right, i feel i have the right to give my opinion that this is a hot topic discussion based on what a former NBA player said and it is being turned into I am right you are wrong debate. Its ok though get mad at me for trying to peacefully resolve a thread that seems to be stuck on repeat.



I'm not getting mad at you nor are you attempting to resolve anything. You aren't involving yourself in the discussion, you are just needlessly bickering.


----------



## Pimped Out

HKF said:


> I personally don't see anything wrong with Hardaway's statements. He's definitely a homophobic bigot, but I am glad he has the freedom to say what he wants to say. Everyone is always tripping over themselves to defend something that can be construed as anti-semitic or homophobic, I sometimes wonder why do we feel that we're ever going to see eye to eye on everything.
> 
> Amazingly enough, gay marriage gets shot down in almost every city, yet so many become outraged when Hardaway says what he says. It can't be that the message board poster is more enlightened then the average person, can it?


if i felt outraged and argued and protested when the proposition was brought up and passed in texas, have i earned your permission to post here? if i spent more energy on that one subject than i have on this board as a whole (on any subject, not just gay rights) am i allowed to discuss. pretty please/


----------



## Brandname

_Dre_ said:


> You know sooner or later, religion will rear its head here and people will try to hide behind their books. And the hypocrite meter will blow up.


It already has.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

I think its OK for gay people to get married. Its their choice to commit sin. Relligion promotes freedom. Let people do what they want as long as no one is getting hurt.


----------



## Krstic All-Star

Budweiser_Boy said:


> LMAO @ these homophobes saying, "oooh but I don't hate gays, I just hate homosexuality!"
> 
> Same damn thing, that's like saying you don't hate blacks, just the concept of people having dark skin. Outta here with that.


There is a profound difference between objecting to a concept and to people themselves. Out of curiosity, are you including me in this generalization?


----------



## Seuss

Spriggan said:


> Why do you say that you speak for the majority of men? So that you can feel it can somehow validates your homophobia?




Being uncomfortable around gay men is 'homophobic'? That's news to me.

I'm not anti-gay. I'd rather not be around them.


----------



## HKF

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Are you talking economically or in a humanitarian sense? Because the first one can't happen in a capitalist society, and the second can't happen in a colonialist society. But there is only a fictional barrier halting people from treating others equally in a humanitarian sense.


A little of both. In an economic sense, you're right it will never happen. In a humanitarian sense, it can happy, but you're taking a variable out, that causes many problems... free will and human expression. Highly volatile and unpredictable.


----------



## Pimped Out

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Relligions do not say commit hate crimes. It says do not be gay. It also says not to hurt or discriminate people because they do not follow your relligion.


does it say not to look down on other people's beliefs as wrong or against nature or disgusting?


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

I will not hate a person for being homosexual. I will go home think its wrong never do it and teach my children its wrong. If thats being a homophobe than so be it.


----------



## Crossword

Dr. Seuss said:


> Nah, I think I will speak for the majority of men.
> 
> As much as you would want to believe that a straight man is comfortable around a gay guy,
> I'm sure you're wrong.


Considering I am a straight man, no. You are wrong. 



> Because it's sick to think another man could actually be attracted to another man.
> No, I'm not trying to imply that I'm 100% **** and have no 'gay' interests in me.
> But it's not right for another man to be with another man, and I'm entitled to being
> uncomfortable around such people.


It's not right even if it is right for them? Why are you judging someone based on their god-given characteristics? What you're essentially saying is that you're entitled to being dead wrong.



> I know one for sure.


And that's enough for you to base your entire damn argument around?



> What exactly did I say? You were the one who was trying to back the guy for making homeless
> people look like white trash and rob them for free money. In fact you praised him.


You know damn well what I praised him for and you know this is not the case. Don't put words in my mouth.


----------



## Dre

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> I think its OK for gay people to get married. Its their choice to commit sin. Relligion promotes freedom. Let people do what they want as long as no one is getting hurt.


I wish it were that simple.


----------



## Pimped Out

Dr. Seuss said:


> Being uncomfortable around gay men is 'homophobic'? That's news to me.
> 
> I'm not anti-gay. I'd rather not be around them.


ive already expressed my view on it as have others like bud_boy. and yes, it is antigay and homophobic


----------



## JNice

essbee said:


> Because people act on impulses and cravings despite knowing the end result in societal terms. So it's stupid to suggest otherwise, or else we're removing all culpability from groups like criminals who can just fall back on the "I couldn't help myself" defense.



Some people do. But in consideration of all people, that is a minority. Like I said, if it WAS a choice to be gay, SOME might still choose to be gay despite public ridicule. But I don't believe you are speaking for the majority. 

People have urges all the time but choose not to act because they are considered morally or lawfully wrong. Sometimes I'd like to just walk around and smash car windows with a bat. That'd be fun. But I don't.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

What is wrong with believing someone. You can look down on black people hate them and never hurt or discriinate against them


----------



## Sir Patchwork

I think it's strange. As strange as someone who would say being left handed is not natural, and everyone who is left-handed should pretend to be right-handed even if it makes them look retarded when they write and perform everyday tasks, because *I'm* uncomfortable around left-handed freaks! It's wrong.


----------



## Dre

Dr. Seuss said:


> Being uncomfortable around gay men is 'homophobic'? That's news to me.
> 
> I'm not anti-gay. I'd rather not be around them.



Phobia=fear.

Weren't you talking about fear of mice in elephants to reference your opinion on this?


----------



## Pimped Out

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> What is wrong with believing someone. You can look down on black people hate them and never hurt or discriinate against them


you honestly believe you can hate someone without it affecting you? your decision making, your subconscious, they way you act around the,?


----------



## Krstic All-Star

Sir Patchwork said:


> I think it's strange. As strange as someone who would say being left handed is not natural, and everyone who is left-handed should pretend to be right-handed even if it makes them look retarded when they write and perform everyday tasks, because *I'm* uncomfortable around left-handed freaks! It's wrong.


Funny thing about that - a mere generation or two ago in the US children were forcibly taught to be right-handed... And of course the very word sinister is derived from left-handedness.


----------



## HB

But Dr Seuss I thought you were very liberal


----------



## HKF

Brandname said:


> Wait, you don't see anything wrong with the fact that he's allowed to say it? Or you don't see anything wrong with his opinion?


I don't see anything wrong with either. I have done a complete 360 on this racism/homophobia/etc... I used to get huffy at everything that can be considered as such, but a funny thing happened. I realized I spent too much time arguing with people who weren't changing their opinion regardless and finally decided to except that free will will never allow us to be equal, in what we say, what we do, unless we all look the same and speak the same, then it will be short vs. tall, fat vs. small. 

I have no problems with either point you bring up.



> And your last comment really highlights a problem popping up in America right now. Everyone believes that their opinions are just as valid as, say, an expert. Much scientific research has been done on this very topic. Homosexuality has been observed in nature. Gene linkages have been observed (and debated) for the trait of homosexuality.
> 
> Some people _*are *_more enlightened on this topic than others. Not all opinions are created equal.


See and this is exactly what I'm talking about. How can we be equal, if someone else's opinion is considered more valid then mine, especially when we're speaking on personal preference. We're not speaking on facts. We will never be equals, no matter how much we try to think we all will be.


----------



## Brandname

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> What is wrong with believing someone. You can look down on black people hate them and never hurt or discriinate against them


Yeah, but it's still wrong to look down on black people.


----------



## Crossword

Krstic All Star said:


> There is a profound difference between objecting to a concept and to people themselves. Out of curiosity, are you including me in this generalization?


If you support the stance you suggested when you quoted me on the religious aspect, then yes.

Thing is, hating the "concept" of homosexuality - and it's not a concept, it's a fact of life for those who are - is a generalization that encompasses all homosexuals within it. Therefore, by discriminating against a sexual orientation, the perpetrator is discriminating against all people within that group.


----------



## HKF

Pimped Out said:


> if i felt outraged and argued and protested when the proposition was brought up and passed in texas, have i earned your permission to post here? if i spent more energy on that one subject than i have on this board as a whole (on any subject, not just gay rights) am i allowed to discuss. pretty please/


My question was rhetorical. Not meant to be taken facetiously.


----------



## Crossword

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> I think its OK for gay people to get married. Its their choice to commit sin. Relligion promotes freedom. Let people do what they want as long as no one is getting hurt.


If no one's getting hurt then how is it a sin?


----------



## Spriggan

Dr. Seuss said:


> Being uncomfortable around gay men is 'homophobic'? That's news to me. I'm not anti-gay. I'd rather not be around them.


You said, and I quote, that "it's sick to think another man could actually be attracted to another man". That's pretty homophobic, dude. Also saying you don't want to be around gays is like a basic definition of homophobia.


----------



## Pimped Out

Krstic All Star said:


> Funny thing about that - a mere generation or two ago in the US children were forcibly taught to be right-handed...* And of course the very word sinister is derived from left-handedness.*


i learned that from the simpsons!

ive heard it other places since then, but the simpsons was a great education source on that matter


----------



## Seuss

Budweiser_Boy said:


> It's not right even if it is right for them? Why are you judging someone based on their god-given characteristics? What you're essentially saying is that you're entitled to being dead wrong.


Oooooooooooh, so it's genetically given now? Please, proof. I'll wait.



> And that's enough for you to base your entire damn argument around?


Why would you need to encounter a gay guy to make a judgement that you would not be
comfortable around one? If you knew someone liked eating boogers, would you have to 
encounter a guy who does to be to come to the conclusion of being uncomfortable?



> You know damn well what I praised him for and you know this is not the case. *Don't put words in my mouth.*


Did I put words in your mouth? Or did you put words in mine?
You know exactly why I don't sympathize for most homeless people.


----------



## IbizaXL

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> I think its OK for gay people to get married. Its their choice to commit sin. *Relligion promotes freedom.* Let people do what they want as long as no one is getting hurt.


alot of ppl would think otherwise


----------



## JNice

Krstic All Star said:


> Funny thing about that - a mere generation or two ago in the US children were forcibly taught to be right-handed...



wow ... I did not know that ... see, this thread is worth something!


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

It is wrong. Relligion does not say look down on them. It basiclly says dont be gay say it is wrong and teach your children it is wrong. My relligion also says dont eat pork. I dont look down upon people who eat it.


----------



## Crossword

HB said:


> But Dr Seuss I thought you were very liberal


Hates the homeless, unwilling to help the addicted, fearful of gays... yeah he's liberal, but not outside that gated community he's fenced in.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Well I think MY relligion promotes freedom.


----------



## Seuss

HB said:


> But Dr Seuss I thought you were very liberal



What do you mean? Because I do not believe in God?




> You said, and I quote, that "it's sick to think another man could actually be attracted to another man". That's pretty homophobic, dude. Also saying you don't want to be around gays is like a basic definition of homophobia


I prefer the definition of "If you hate gays, and cannot tolerate it" would be more of
homophobic. I prefer not to be around them. But I don't give a **** if they like guys.
As long as they aren't smooching infront of my kids(if I have any), I'm fine.

Why has society allowed this to become 'normal'?


----------



## JNice

Dr. Seuss said:


> Oooooooooooh, so it's genetically given now? Please, proof. I'll wait.


I'm sure there are hundreds of pages of research and dissertations you could find online on the topic.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

I feel bad for homeless people and want to help addicted people. I also would help gay people. I just do the 3 things mentioned what is so wrong about that?


----------



## Sir Patchwork

Krstic All Star said:


> Funny thing about that - a mere generation or two ago in the US children were forcibly taught to be right-handed... And of course the very word sinister is derived from left-handedness.


That's interesting.


----------



## Crossword

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> It is wrong. Relligion does not say look down on them. It basiclly says dont be gay say it is wrong and teach your children it is wrong. My relligion also says dont eat pork. I dont look down upon people who eat it.


Yeah, well I'm Muslim and I eat pork. So **** that.


----------



## Dre

Dr. Seuss said:


> Why would you need to encounter a gay guy to make a judgement that you would not be
> comfortable around one? If you knew someone liked eating boogers, would you have to
> encounter a guy who does to be to come to the conclusion of being uncomfortable?


But homosexuality is a bit more complex than eating a booger. It involves a lot of different perspectives and thought processes. If you're repulsed at someone eating a booger, so be it, that's an action...but when you encounter a homosexual what exactly are you afraid of? Them being attracted to you...attraction is a lot more varied, and you can't make a general opinion off of one instance. You shouldn't anyway.


----------



## Spriggan

Dr. Seuss said:


> Why has society allowed this to become 'normal'?


Society is evolving.


----------



## JNice

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> I feel bad for homeless people and want to help addicted people. I also would help gay people. I just do the 3 things mentioned what is so wrong about that?



Well, don't offer to "help" someone who is gay. You might get ***** slapped. 

I'm going to guess most homosexuals don't think they need your "help."


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Yes but again no one is relligiously against being left handed. When you enforce things on people they do not want to do it. That is why I belive to give people relligious choices instead offorcing conversion.


----------



## IbizaXL

_Dre_ said:


> But homosexuality is a bit more complex than eating a booger. .


i love this sentence.


----------



## Seuss

JNice said:


> I'm sure there are hundreds of pages of research and dissertations you could find online on the topic.




No one's ever come out and straight up say "It's genetic."

I've never heard that...........ever. I have heard that people believe it is, but I haven't
seen any proof to make me believe it is.


----------



## Brandname

HKF said:


> See and this is exactly what I'm talking about. How can we be equal, if someone else's opinion is considered more valid then mine, especially when we're speaking on personal preference. We're not speaking on facts. We will never be equals, no matter how much we try to think we all will be.


Well that's the thing. There are facts involved, too. 

We're equal when talking about things like, "Homosexuality is morally wrong." That's an opinion. And in most cases, it's rooted in a religious belief. And there's no way we can argue right or wrong about that. 

But there are other statements being made like, "People CHOOSE to be homosexual. They aren't born that way." These are the types of 'opinions' that aren't equal. There is a great deal of scientific research (heritability linkages, twin studies, etc.) that suggest homosexuality may be a heritable trait (not an inherited trait). But there are a lot of people that spew ignorant statements about this topic and say, "It's just my opinion, so it can't be right or wrong."

Sorry, some people believe that evolution doesn't exist. That's not an opinion, whether they want to claim it is or not. That's just being incorrect.


----------



## Krstic All-Star

Budweiser_Boy said:


> If you support the stance you suggested when you quoted me on the religious aspect, then yes.
> 
> Thing is, hating the "concept" of homosexuality - and it's not a concept, it's a fact of life for those who are - is a generalization that encompasses all homosexuals within it. Therefore, by discriminating against a sexual orientation, the perpetrator is discriminating against all people within that group.


Again, discrimination is an act, not a mindset. 

That said, let me be perfectly clear on where I stand. I have never had any personal problems with gay people - and in fact all my roommates in college were homosexual, and that was fine. I do not treat them one iota differently than I would a straight individual or group thereof. I am happy that John Amaechi was able to reveal his true self to the world for his own sake.

However, as a religious matter, I have an objection to it as antithetical to my religion's teachings. That cannot simply be ignored or dismissed out of hand in light of so-called 'progressive' thinking. It dictates that homosexuality is a sin, period. 

Now, here's the thing. Everyone's a sinner, and indeed, it is considered impossible to fulfil every commandment and refrain from every sin. That's not what's expected of us as human beings, nor is it how we were designed. As a personal view, I find a Jewish person's eating of a bacon cheeseburger more objectionable than I would his homosexuality. But both are sins. 

To even impute that I am somehow less 'enlightened' or 'bigoted' as the result of my religious beliefs is, guess what? That's an act of discrimination, and one founded upon a lack of comprehension. I hope I've made the difference clear enough.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Yeah, well I'm Muslim and I eat pork. So **** that.


Your not fooling anyone. Eating pork and drinking alcohal is against Islam. You obviously do both.


----------



## HB

Dr. Seuss said:


> *What do you mean? Because I do not believe in God?*


Nah, from the way you have talked on here


----------



## Seuss

_Dre_ said:


> But homosexuality is a bit more complex than eating a booger. It involves a lot of different perspectives and thought processes. If you're repulsed at someone eating a booger, so be it, that's an action...but when you encounter a homosexual what exactly are you afraid of? Them being attracted to you...attraction is a lot more varied, and you can't make a general opinion off of one instance. You shouldn't anyway.



True.


But the main complex of a gay man, is he likes other guys. That's the uncomfortable part.
I don't need to meet five gay guys to come to the conclusion of being uncomfortable.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Yes but being homosexual is a lifestyle. Not a sin like lying it is much different.


----------



## Pimped Out

Dr. Seuss said:


> No one's ever come out and straight up say "It's genetic."
> 
> I've never heard that...........ever. I have heard that people believe it is, but I haven't
> seen any proof to make me believe it is.


if you are looking for the genome sequence, you aint gonna find it. the supporting evidence in empirical. animals which have been observed committing homosexual acts (not just sex but long term mating) in several different species. i think there was even mention of a chimp species which was primarily homosexual. i have also heard mention of twin studies.


----------



## roux

JNice said:


> I'm not getting mad at you nor are you attempting to resolve anything. You aren't involving yourself in the discussion, you are just needlessly bickering.


I guess i though it would work better than making posts trying to argue my position on the topic, apparently i upset people with trying to stay nuetral, but ill throw that out the window now so here it goes:

Whether you like or dislike gay people the fact is they are all around, they cook our meals, teach our children and entertain us via movie TV and sports. Gay people are a major contributor to our economy whether you like or dislike who they go to bed with at night. It makes for an uncomfortable world when people are so open to trashing other people's religons, beliefs and sexual orientation. Like them or not they arent going anywhere and they will continue to be valuable members of society. The world would be a better place if people would just leave people alone and let them live their lives. One of the most popular phrases used by our founding fathers is " Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" although anti gay people wil almost never do a 180 and decide that gay people are just people trying to be happy, and until they do the " pursuit of happiness" aspect will forever be tarnished. IIm my opinion everyone has the right to pursue their own brand of happiness unless its raping or killing people. There are so many outspoken homophobic people out there stealing happiness away from people just because they dont like certain aspects of their lifestyle. Its jerk offs like tim hardaway that almost make certain that there will be no John Ameachi in the near future. Tim Hardaway "was" a respected former all star who has millions of fans many of them young and for him to go in the national media and say what he did could make undecided people think what he is saying is the truth. Everyone in this country is entitled to happiness, it took a civil war to free the slaves and it took decades of protest to give them equal rights. I wish people would learn from the mistakes we have made in the past and just allow people to be people, gay, straight, black or white.


----------



## JNice

Dr. Seuss said:


> No one's ever come out and straight up say "It's genetic."
> 
> I've never heard that...........ever. I have heard that people believe it is, but I haven't
> seen any proof to make me believe it is.



And what proof have you looked for or read up on? Anything involving DNA and genetics is complex but I'm quite sure there is significant evidence to support that homosexuality is genetic. Not to mention it is present throughout nature, suggestion that parenting, environment, and choice don't necessarily come into play.


----------



## Seuss

HB said:


> Nah, from the way you have talked on here





Well, 15 years of being a Christian and some 'values' never leave you.


----------



## Crossword

Dr. Seuss said:


> Oooooooooooh, so it's genetically given now? Please, proof. I'll wait.


It is, but I'm a skeptical guy. I'm mostly going on personal conversations I've had with homosexual friends.



> Why would you need to encounter a gay guy to make a judgement that you would not be
> comfortable around one? If you knew someone liked eating boogers, would you have to
> encounter a guy who does to be to come to the conclusion of being uncomfortable?


Because if you've never been around a gay dude, you won't know what being around a gay dude is like. You would look at them as alien (as many still do, yourself included) and make unfair judgments about them. One gay guy, two, that's not a lot to base a fair analysis on. You have to understand that a gay person is a person first and foremost, not the other way around. And you need to get these idiotic ideas that a gay person is deterrent to your wellbeing due to their sexual preference.



> Did I put words in your mouth? Or did you put words in mine?
> You know exactly why I don't sympathize for most homeless people.


Yes, because like with homosexuals, you have little experience with them. I, on the other hand, like my experience with homosexuals, have plenty of experience with the homeless, and although I have never been homeless myself, I know much more on the subject than you have proven to know.


----------



## Dre

Dr. Seuss said:


> True.
> 
> 
> But the main complex of a gay man, is he likes other guys. That's the uncomfortable part.
> I don't need to meet five gay guys to come to the conclusion of being uncomfortable.


Not all "other guys". Guys he's attracted to. Do you feel like this about every female?
Does possible attraction with them solely influence your dealings with females?


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

I dont believe it is genitic but you cannot really argue with the cycolagy of relligion.


----------



## Seuss

JNice said:


> And what proof have you looked for or read up on? Anything involving DNA and genetics is complex but I'm quite sure there is significant evidence to support that homosexuality is genetic. Not to mention it is present throughout nature, suggestion that parenting, environment, and choice don't necessarily come into play.




If it can be proven, why hasn't anyone brought this up before?

There are some gays who straight up made the choice to be gay. Others probably became
that way through the things you listed.


----------



## Hibachi!

Dr. Seuss said:


> Well, 15 years of being a Christian and some 'values' never leave you.


Unfortunately


----------



## Crossword

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Yes but being homosexual is a lifestyle. Not a sin like lying it is much different.


Homosexuality isn't a lifestyle, I'm not sure where you got that idea from. That comment is the same as saying heterosexuality is a lifestyle, also false.


----------



## Seuss

_Dre_ said:


> Not all "other guys". Guys he's attracted to. Do you feel like this about every female?
> Does possible attraction with them solely influence your dealings with females?




Any female that encounters me is going to be attracted to me, it's a fact.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

OK well most people who defend homosexuallity say it is.


----------



## Crossword

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> I dont believe it is genitic but you cannot really argue with the cycolagy of relligion.


Of course you can.

Anyway, you're getting away from the point. The basic lessons of all religions are centred around acceptance, love, and peace. And that's about all that should be taken away from them.


----------



## Dre

Dr. Seuss said:


> Any female that encounters me is going to be attracted to me, it's a fact.


Damnit, why'd you have to be funny? I'm trying to get into this conversation for a change


----------



## Brandname

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> I dont believe it is genitic but you cannot really argue with the *cycolagy *of relligion.


lol...

But why 'believe' it's not genetic without knowing the facts? I imagine you haven't read the studies on this very topic. Whether or not homosexuality is genetic is a factual piece of information. It either is or it isn't. Why believe anything without learning about it first?


----------



## Hibachi!

Let me put it this way... If gay people can choose who they are attracted to then so can I. So instead of being attracted to Salma Hayak, I am going to be attracted to fat chicks. And not just normal fat, I'm talking majorly obese. I'll take on the girls with messed up faces, and hell old woman can hop on board! I'll just CHOOSE to be attracted to them all! I'll be getting so much ***!


----------



## Krstic All-Star

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Of course you can.
> 
> Anyway, you're getting away from the point. *The basic lessons of all religions are centred around acceptance, love, and peace.* And that's about all that should be taken away from them.


That's quite incorrect. The basic lessons of religions are the existence of one or more gods and acceptance of their power and their laws.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

WTF! So relligons are just little lessons to you which you can pick and choose what you like. Well they arent to almost all of earth.


----------



## HB

Hibachi! said:


> Let me put it this way... If gay people can choose who they are attracted to then so can I. So instead of being attracted to Salma Hayak, I am going to be attracted to fat chicks. And not just normal fat, I'm talking majorly obese. I'll take on the girls with messed up faces, and hell old woman can hop on board! I'll just CHOOSE to be attracted to them all! I'll be getting so much ***!


:laugh:


----------



## Crossword

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Your not fooling anyone. Eating pork and drinking alcohal is against Islam. You obviously do both.


Yes but never while posting (unless announced), so you wouldn't know.


----------



## JNice

Dr. Seuss said:


> If it can be proven, why hasn't anyone brought this up before?
> 
> There are some gays who straight up made the choice to be gay. Others probably became
> that way through the things you listed.


Again, maybe there were some who made a choice but you are speaking of a minority and not the majority. There are always exceptions to the rule.

And it may not be able to be 100% proven but many things in science cannot be. If significant scientific evidence exists and cases in nature exist, that should be enough to draw a valid conclusion. This might be more significantly put out there but the religious right doesn't want people believing it can be genetic. Just like they don't want people to believe we evolved from monkeys.


----------



## Crossword

Krstic All Star said:


> That's quite incorrect. The basic lessons of religions are the existence of one or more gods and acceptance of their power and their laws.


I wouldn't really call those lessons, more like... statements.


----------



## Seuss

> Because if you've never been around a gay dude, you won't know what being around a gay dude is like. You would look at them as alien (as many still do, yourself included) and make unfair judgments about them. One gay guy, two, that's not a lot to base a fair analysis on. You have to understand that a gay person is a person first and foremost, not the other way around. And you need to get these idiotic ideas that a gay person is deterrent to your wellbeing due to their sexual preference.


I've overstated being uncomfortable. I'd rather not be around them.



> Yes, because like with homosexuals, you have little experience with them. I, on the other hand, like my experience with homosexuals, have plenty of experience with the homeless, and although I have never been homeless myself, I know much more on the subject than you have proven to know.


Really............you should write a book.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Yes but you just said you do. And nobody who doesnt drink alchohal choses the name Budwiser Boy.


----------



## Dre

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Of course you can.
> 
> Anyway, you're getting away from the point. The basic lessons of all religions are centred around acceptance, love, and peace. And that's about all that should be taken away from them.


I agree. I'm not a scholar, but I think a lot of them preach the ability to forgive/love in spite as an important trait, so in the end you shouldn't be condemned as the scum of a religion because you violate a particular sin. Christianity in particular puts all sins on the same level, so you can either live in a hole all your life, or be relatively openminded about things.


----------



## Dre

Hibachi! said:


> Let me put it this way... If gay people can choose who they are attracted to then so can I. So instead of being attracted to Salma Hayak, I am going to be attracted to fat chicks. And not just normal fat, I'm talking majorly obese. I'll take on the girls with messed up faces, and hell old woman can hop on board! I'll just CHOOSE to be attracted to them all! I'll be getting so much ***!


Quoted for emphasis know it all homophobes.


----------



## Seuss

_Dre_ said:


> I agree. I'm not a scholar, but I think a lot of them preach the ability to forgive/love in spite as an important trait, so in the end you shouldn't be condemned as the scum of a religion because you violate a particular sin. Christianity in particular puts all sins on the same level, so you can either live in a hole all your life, or be relatively openminded about things.




Then what the hell are all these suicide bombers for?

That's not love or peace.


----------



## Krstic All-Star

Budweiser_Boy said:


> I wouldn't really call those lessons, more like... statements.


They are the fundamental blocks. The First Commandment is "I Am the Lord your God." That is the fundamental tenet of Judaism, the recognition of God. It's followed by a prohibition against idolatry. The reason for the prohibition is that idolatry (much like the proscription against magic in the Bible, which really refers to necromancy...) is a direct challenge to God's sole position as Creator and Sustainer of the Universe. Evreything stems from the initial premise that God is, well, God.


----------



## Crossword

Dr. Seuss said:


> I've overstated being uncomfortable. I'd rather not be around them.


You mean understated. Basically you're a frozen homophobe.



> Really............you should write a book.


Well, if it were between you and I, it's clear who would get published. Unless they wanted a tragic comedy, then it's all you.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Because people always misinterprit relligions!


----------



## Krstic All-Star

Dr. Seuss said:


> Then what the hell are all these suicide bombers for?
> 
> That's not love or peace.


It's a perversion of religion.


----------



## Crossword

Dr. Seuss said:


> Then what the hell are all these suicide bombers for?
> 
> That's not love or peace.


A misguided interpretation of holy writings.


----------



## Dre

Dr. Seuss said:


> Then what the hell are all these suicide bombers for?
> 
> That's not love or peace.


They've kind of misconstrued things. A bit.


----------



## Crossword

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Yes but you just said you do. And nobody who doesnt drink alchohal choses the name Budwiser Boy.


lol, Budweiser tastes nasty. I've just had this moniker for the longest time.


----------



## Dre

_Dre_ said:


> They've kind of misconstrued things. A bit.





> It's a perversion of religion.





> A misguided interpretation of holy writings.


3 straight posts...the million dollar question.


----------



## Seuss

> You mean understated. Basically you're a frozen homophobe.


Speak for yourself.



> Well, if it were between you and I, it's clear who would get published. Unless they wanted a tragic comedy, then it's all you.



Reality check, no body wants to read a book of holding hands and understanding of the 
world. That's lame.

Homophobes would eat my book up. New York Bestsellers here I can!


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Ha you just said Budwiser tastes nasty. How would you know unless you drank it. You drink alchohal your not a uslim stop lying.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Oh thanks a lot Dre. Mine doesnt count as a fourth.


----------



## Seuss

Budweiser_Boy said:


> A misguided interpretation of holy writings.




Is that your opinion, or is that 100% true? 

Perhaps, others aren't reading the writings correctly....


----------



## Dre

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Ha you just said Budwiser tastes nasty. How would you know unless you drank it. You drink alchohal your not a uslim stop lying.


So you really agree with absolutely *everything?* You're lying.

In the end, one sin doesn't excommunicate you from a religion, and when you reach 10, you'll realize that.


----------



## Hibachi!

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Ha you just said Budwiser tastes nasty. How would you know unless you drank it. You drink alchohal your not a uslim stop lying.


I lie... Does that make me not a Christian? (BTW I am not Christian, but for the sake of the argument)


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Are you implying the Quran promotes suicide bombing. Who has the upperhand. A person who goes to Mosk reads the Quran every day and prays 5 times a day. Or the non relligious person.


----------



## Air Fly

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> What is wrong with believing someone. You can look down on black people hate them and never hurt or discriinate against them


Doesn't the Quran tell Muslims to treat people equally? (correct me if i'm wrong)


----------



## Pimped Out

Dr. Seuss said:


> Is that your opinion, or is that 100% true?
> 
> Perhaps, others aren't reading the writings correctly....


maybe none of us even exist. maybe we are all part of some dude's dream and when he wakes up we will all cease to exist


----------



## Crossword

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Ha you just said Budwiser tastes nasty. How would you know unless you drank it. You drink alchohal your not a uslim stop lying.


wtf are you talking about.

1. I drink beer
2. I eat pork
3. I'm Muslim
4. I'm not religious
5. following any religion blindly is moronic
6. all holy books are ancient scriptures, times change
7. it is possible to believe in god (Allah) without being religious
8. all religions are the same
9. we know nothing about Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha, Moses, or any other diety or prophet personally, so it is foolish to take everything they say as pure gospel without questioning it
10. religion is the cause of all evil


----------



## Krstic All-Star

Pimped Out said:


> maybe none of us even exist. maybe we are all part of some dude's dream and when he wakes up we will all cease to exist


Nah, I'm already awake.


----------



## JNice

Pimped Out said:


> maybe none of us even exist. maybe we are all part of some dude's dream and when he wakes up we will all cease to exist



that's deep


----------



## Dre

Dr. Seuss said:


> Is that your opinion, or is that 100% true?
> 
> Perhaps, others aren't reading the writings correctly....


Well where's your 100% proof? Where does it say kill and fly into buildings in my name? I really want to know for reference.


----------



## Seuss

Pimped Out said:


> maybe none of us even exist. maybe we are all part of some dude's dream and when he wakes up we will all cease to exist





I already stated that theory in the "We never landed on the moon" thread.


----------



## IbizaXL

Budweiser_Boy said:


> wtf are you talking about.
> 
> 1. I drink beer
> 2. I eat pork
> 3. I'm Muslim
> 4. I'm not religious
> 5. following any religion blindly is moronic
> 6. all holy books are ancient scriptures, times change
> 7. it is possible to believe in god (Allah) without being religious
> 8. all religions are the same
> 9. we know nothing about Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha, Moses, or any other diety or prophet personally, so it is foolish to take everything they say as pure gospel without questioning it
> 10. religion is the cause of all evil


i agree and understand #1-9,, #10 however....


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

One sin does not exclude you. A lifestyle trait like drinking alchohal eatiing pork and not praying something that can easily be done excludes you from following your relligion. I believe the Bible states you should AVOID lying. When did I say to not treat black people equally! My best friend is black!


----------



## Dre

Gio305 said:


> i agree and understand #1-9,, #10 however....


Yeah, I could definitely just go out and beat someone up for the hell of it. No pun intended.


----------



## IbizaXL

Pimped Out said:


> maybe none of us even exist. maybe we are all part of some dude's dream and when he wakes up we will all cease to exist


brilliant!:clap: 

mind if i make this my sig?


----------



## Krstic All-Star

Due to the increasingly likely possibility that this will recycle itself, I go now to rest for a bit, as I have hours and hours of classes and work ahead of me tomorrow, though I do look forward, as ever, to American Legal History. 

Here's my preemptitive response to any and all reposting that goes on henceforth:










Cracks me up...:rofl:


----------



## Seuss

_Dre_ said:


> Well where's your 100% proof? Where does it say kill and fly into buildings in my name? I really want to know for reference.




I never said that the writings want people to kill others.

You said it was misconstructed, so that's why I asked if that was your opinion or
the truth.


----------



## Crossword

Dr. Seuss said:


> Speak for yourself.


Talk about the wrong context. I never made a generalization, I made a claim based on what you gave me. I stand by that comment.



> Reality check, no body wants to read a book of holding hands and understanding of the
> world. That's lame.
> 
> Homophobes would eat my book up. New York Bestsellers here I can!


If you understood anything about the world, you'd know it has nothing to do with holding hands.


----------



## Air Fly

Hibachi! said:


> I lie... Does that make me not a Christian? (BTW I am not Christian, but for the sake of the argument)


No, it makes you son of the devil. (just answering your question):biggrin:


----------



## Pimped Out

Gio305 said:


> brilliant!:clap:
> 
> mind if i make this my sig?


whatever floats your boat


----------



## Dre

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> One sin does not exclude you. A lifestyle trait like drinking alchohal eatiing pork and not praying something that can easily be done excludes you from following your relligion. I believe the Bible states you should AVOID lying. When did I say to not treat black people equally! My best friend is black!


So you're saying 3 things are the end all and be all of being a _____.



Dr. Seuss said:


> I never said that the writings want people to kill others.
> 
> You said it was misconstructed, so that's why I asked if that was your opinion or
> the truth.


I don't have the Quran in hand, so I can't say positively, but I'm sure some kind of uproar would be made about the Quran saying kill in my name. That's where I feel the misinterpretation lies. If the religion is based on love, acceptance, etc., why would kill in my name be a tenant?


----------



## Crossword

Gio305 said:


> i agree and understand #1-9,, #10 however....


Long story. All I know is I started philosophizing over a conversation with a Christian friend and an athiest friend over religion. I don't even remember how I got to that conclusion.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Budweiser_Boy said:


> wtf are you talking about.
> 
> 1. I drink beer
> 2. I eat pork
> 3. I'm Muslim
> 4. I'm not religious
> 5. following any religion blindly is moronic
> 6. all holy books are ancient scriptures, times change
> 7. it is possible to believe in god (Allah) without being religious
> 8. all religions are the same
> 9. we know nothing about Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha, Moses, or any other diety or prophet personally, so it is foolish to take everything they say as pure gospel without questioning it
> 10. religion is the cause of all evil


defintion of Islam- following the Quaran 
The Quaran says clearly not to eat prok or drink alchohal. I hate when people say they are not relligious if you are not relligious it means you do not follow your relligion. You cannot pick and chose what you like and dont like for the Quaran. You are stuck with everything. Thats what makes being good so hard. The hardest part is probably not being able to date or have sex before marrige. Is it hard yes! Do I still do it yes!


----------



## Seuss

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Talk about the wrong context. I never made a generalization, I made a claim based on what you gave me. I stand by that comment.


You stand misinformed.




> If you understood anything about the world, you'd know it has nothing to do with holding hands.


Speak for yourself.


----------



## IbizaXL

Pimped Out said:


> whatever floats your boat


...or tickles my pickle.

damn it, i just had ot take it there. LOL


----------



## Air Fly

Budweiser_Boy said:


> wtf are you talking about.
> 
> 1. I drink beer
> 2. I eat pork
> 3. I'm Muslim
> 4. I'm not religious
> 5. following any religion blindly is moronic
> 6. all holy books are ancient scriptures, times change
> 7. it is possible to believe in god (Allah) without being religious
> 8. all religions are the same
> 9. we know nothing about Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha, Moses, or any other diety or prophet personally, so it is foolish to take everything they say as pure gospel without questioning it
> 10. religion is the cause of all evil


Bud Boy, don't stress it. 

You're not muslim if you can't follow the basic teachings of Quran even if you question some of them.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Just becuase you are not part of that relligion does not mean you will not go to Heaven. In Islam if you are a a great person donate charity and do good deeds you will probably still go to Heaven. Will you go to one of the lower out of the 7 heavens yes. But you wont go to Hell.


----------



## Seuss

_Dre_ said:


> I don't have the Quran in hand, so I can't say positively, but I'm sure some kind of uproar would be made about the Quran saying kill in my name. That's where I feel the misinterpretation lies. If the religion is based on love, acceptance, etc., why would kill in my name be a tenant?




Doesn't it imply to kill infediles? If you do you get 60 virgins or so wacky thing like
that.


----------



## Dre

Air Fly said:


> Bud Boy, don't stress it.
> 
> You're not muslim if you can't follow the basic teachings of Quran even if you question some of them.


Says who?


----------



## Crossword

Dr. Seuss said:


> You stand misinformed.


In that case, your posts are a contradiction of what you truly believe. You said that it was an overstatement that you're uncomfortable with gays. Meaning, that was going overboard, you meant to soften it up. You then proceeded to claim that you would rather not have anything to do with gays, which is the opposite of softening it up. That's why it was an understatement. And in saying that, you are implying homophobia. Therefore, my statement is true.



> Speak for yourself.


lol, again, context.


----------



## Dre

Dr. Seuss said:


> Doesn't it imply to kill infediles? If you do you get 60 virgins or so wacky thing like
> that.


I know the 7 virgins thing...but that's all part of misinterpretation, from our perspective at least. When it comes to religion and doing things in the name of _____, everybody thinks they're right, so there's automatically misinterpretation somewhere. Be it the people victimized or the culprits.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

OMG do not say tha quote in front of me. That is the beggining of a quote in the Quran. It starts by saying stuff about them harming you. Trust me my Dad has a whole inter faith program. He has counter arguments to everytihng. Those ***** liars say about Islam.


----------



## Crossword

Air Fly said:


> Bud Boy, don't stress it.
> 
> You're not muslim if you can't follow the basic teachings of Quran even if you question some of them.


Oh, so now I HAVE to blindly follow a religion? **** that. Take the good, leave the bad.


----------



## Air Fly

_Dre_ said:


> Says who?


The Quran....I once was a muslim too so I know their law.


----------



## Pimped Out

_Dre_ said:


> So you're saying 3 things are the end all and be all of being a _____.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have the Quran in hand, so I can't say positively, but I'm sure some kind of uproar would be made about the Quran saying kill in my name. That's where I feel the misinterpretation lies. If the religion is based on love, acceptance, etc., why would kill in my name be a tenant?


im not sure about that line from the quran, but at the time of islams birth, muhammod had a war through out arabia to spead the teachings


"Doesn't it imply to kill infediles? If you do you get 60 virgins or so wacky thing like
that."
do the work of god and you will get 40 virgins in heavan. but not really virgins, more like eunuchs who will be your servants


"...or tickles my pickle."
im gonna start using that more in my everyday life


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

What 60 virgins thing. Give me proof of that nonsense.


----------



## Dre

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Just becuase you are not part of that relligion does not mean you will not go to Heaven. In Islam if you are a a great person donate charity and do good deeds you will probably still go to Heaven. Will you go to one of the lower out of the 7 heavens yes. But you wont go to Hell.


None of that means you're not a muslim. In _some_ eyes such as yours, you might not be a "good" one, but that's no reason to be excommunicated.


----------



## Crossword

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> defintion of Islam- following the Quaran
> The Quaran says clearly not to eat prok or drink alchohal. I hate when people say they are not relligious if you are not relligious it means you do not follow your relligion. You cannot pick and chose what you like and dont like for the Quaran. You are stuck with everything. Thats what makes being good so hard. The hardest part is probably not being able to date or have sex before marrige. Is it hard yes! Do I still do it yes!


If you want a book to dictate everything you do in your life, that's fine too.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

No the Quran says if you die in a war fighting for Islam you will get passage into Heaven. The prophet Muhamud had wars to protect Isla. The Arab empire then conqured people but did not force conversion.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

A book that dictates you life is the whole point of Islam. If that doesnt appeal to you then stop saying your a Muslim.


----------



## Seuss

Budweiser_Boy said:


> In that case, your posts are a contradiction of what you truly believe. You said that it was an overstatement that you're uncomfortable with gays. Meaning, that was going overboard, you meant to soften it up. You then proceeded to claim that you would rather not have anything to do with gays, which is the opposite of softening it up. That's why it was an understatement. And in saying that, you are implying homophobia. Therefore, my statement is true.



Trying to confuse me with a long paragraph?

NOT GONNA HAPPEN! Try again next time.




> lol, again, context.


So you are the unofficial judge of "Speak for yourself" saying?

Please, speak for yourself.


----------



## Pimped Out

IMO, religion isnt a book. its a faith in the beliefs and the central tenets of the book. the book is to be used as a guide in your life, but not everything in there should be an absolute law which you must follow if you want to be a _______. religion shouldnt take away free will or make decisions for you, it should guide you to your own decisions.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Actually that book is supposed to tell you how to live your life in Islam.


----------



## Dre

Pimped Out said:


> im not sure about that line from the quran, but at the time of islams birth, muhammod had a war through out arabia to spead the teachings


Yeah, but who's in the wrong? That's my point.


----------



## Krstic All-Star

OK, now I'm really going to sleep. Anyone who's interested in how Judaism pertains to any of this discussion is free to PM me, drop by my personal forum, or, better yet, go to Political Economy and start a thread there. Naptime for me.


----------



## Crossword

Dr. Seuss said:


> Trying to confuse me with a long paragraph?
> 
> NOT GONNA HAPPEN! Try again next time.


Either start making sense, or stop posting.



> So you are the unofficial judge of "Speak for yourself" saying?
> 
> Please, speak for yourself.


No, I just know the proper context in which to use it, which is when a generalization is made. None of the times you said speak for yourself, were you countering a generalization. You lose.


----------



## futuristxen

All of these people in these threads who talk about how they can't stand gay people, and marginalize them as some mysterious other that you can't possibly have anything in common with...this bud is for you.

I think a lot of you assume I'm a straight male, which I let you assume because it's funny, and I can get my opinions taken somewhat seriously.

However, contrary to photos to the contrary:









(watch that photo not work...just watch it)

I actually identify as lesbian to boot. So I dunno, it's funny to watch you guys like...assume crap about a group of people you have no real idea about. And talk about how you couldn't get along with gay people, when I know for a fact several of you homophobic people have gotten along with me fine for several years. Like just as an example, Air Fly and I have gotten along great in many conversations, and he has given me lots of props.

So hopefully this somewhat justifies me in taking huge offense to Tim Hardaway, and finding it crazy some of the people here attempting to agree with him. When in fact you don't hate gay people, when you deal with them just as people.

It all boils down to at the end of the day that we're all just people. We all have the same concerns as far as love, job, money, education, entertainment. Picking these arbitrary reasons to pull us all apart is just silly. And hopefully some of you will think about the relationship you've had with me over the course of however many years on this board, and reconsider some of your views on the topic. (And while we're at it, some of your assumptions about women).


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Yes I am extremly tired can we continue this later!


----------



## Crossword

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Actually that book is supposed to tell you how to live your life in Islam.


Well, I guess it's too bad I'm stuck here in Canada!

*corny joke* I'm going to sleep. This is ridiculous. **** Tim Hardaway, I'm gonna need some Tim Hortons tomorrow.


----------



## Pimped Out

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Actually that book is supposed to tell you how to live your life in Islam.


tell you or guide you? does it actually say "follow every rule listed here verbatim?"


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

YES it does! You are supposed to try to follow every single rule in there!


----------



## Seuss

futuristxen said:


> All of these people in these threads who talk about how they can't stand gay people, and marginalize them as some mysterious other that you can't possibly have anything in common with...this bud is for you.
> 
> I think a lot of you assume I'm a straight male, which I let you assume because it's funny, and I can get my opinions taken somewhat seriously.
> 
> However, contrary to photos to the contrary:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (watch that photo not work...just watch it)
> 
> I actually identify as lesbian to boot. So I dunno, it's funny to watch you guys like...assume crap about a group of people you have no real idea about. And talk about how you couldn't get along with gay people, when I know for a fact several of you homophobic people have gotten along with me fine for several years. Like just as an example, Air Fly and I have gotten along great in many conversations, and he has given me lots of props.
> 
> So hopefully this somewhat justifies me in taking huge offense to Tim Hardaway, and finding it crazy some of the people here attempting to agree with him. When in fact you don't hate gay people, when you deal with them just as people.
> 
> It all boils down to at the end of the day that we're all just people. We all have the same concerns as far as love, job, money, education, entertainment. Picking these arbitrary reasons to pull us all apart is just silly. And hopefully some of you will think about the relationship you've had with me over the course of however many years on this board, and reconsider some of your views on the topic. (And while we're at it, some of your assumptions about women).



I'm confused......................

You are a women and therefore a lesbian?


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Good night and that was VERY corny!


----------



## Hibachi!

futuristxen said:


> All of these people in these threads who talk about how they can't stand gay people, and marginalize them as some mysterious other that you can't possibly have anything in common with...this bud is for you.
> 
> I think a lot of you assume I'm a straight male, which I let you assume because it's funny, and I can get my opinions taken somewhat seriously.
> 
> However, contrary to photos to the contrary:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (watch that photo not work...just watch it)
> 
> I actually identify as lesbian to boot. So I dunno, it's funny to watch you guys like...assume crap about a group of people you have no real idea about. And talk about how you couldn't get along with gay people, when I know for a fact several of you homophobic people have gotten along with me fine for several years. Like just as an example, Air Fly and I have gotten along great in many conversations, and he has given me lots of props.
> 
> So hopefully this somewhat justifies me in taking huge offense to Tim Hardaway, and finding it crazy some of the people here attempting to agree with him. When in fact you don't hate gay people, when you deal with them just as people.
> 
> It all boils down to at the end of the day that we're all just people. We all have the same concerns as far as love, job, money, education, entertainment. Picking these arbitrary reasons to pull us all apart is just silly. And hopefully some of you will think about the relationship you've had with me over the course of however many years on this board, and reconsider some of your views on the topic. (And while we're at it, some of your assumptions about women).


So does your brain shrink when you do that? You know women have half the brain size of a man... It's science...


----------



## Pimped Out

futuristxen said:


> All of these people in these threads who talk about how they can't stand gay people, and marginalize them as some mysterious other that you can't possibly have anything in common with...this bud is for you.
> 
> I think a lot of you assume I'm a straight male, which I let you assume because it's funny, and I can get my opinions taken somewhat seriously.
> 
> However, contrary to photos to the contrary:
> 
> (watch that photo not work...just watch it)
> 
> I actually identify as lesbian to boot. So I dunno, it's funny to watch you guys like...assume crap about a group of people you have no real idea about. And talk about how you couldn't get along with gay people, when I know for a fact several of you homophobic people have gotten along with me fine for several years. Like just as an example, Air Fly and I have gotten along great in many conversations, and he has given me lots of props.
> 
> So hopefully this somewhat justifies me in taking huge offense to Tim Hardaway, and finding it crazy some of the people here attempting to agree with him. When in fact you don't hate gay people, when you deal with them just as people.
> 
> It all boils down to at the end of the day that we're all just people. We all have the same concerns as far as love, job, money, education, entertainment. Picking these arbitrary reasons to pull us all apart is just silly. And hopefully some of you will think about the relationship you've had with me over the course of however many years on this board, and reconsider some of your views on the topic. (And while we're at it, some of your assumptions about women).


i never really put any thought into it, but i never knew you were a women. its easy to assume most people here are men unless you see something to the otherwise. kinda like when you meet an engineer, odds are its a guy.

and the picture worked. i dont have a myspace either so if it worked for, it should for everyone


----------



## HB

I am in shock, I guess this was how Airfly felt when he found out I was black


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Yes so am I.


----------



## Crossword

futuristxen said:


> All of these people in these threads who talk about how they can't stand gay people, and marginalize them as some mysterious other that you can't possibly have anything in common with...this bud is for you.
> 
> I think a lot of you assume I'm a straight male, which I let you assume because it's funny, and I can get my opinions taken somewhat seriously.
> 
> However, contrary to photos to the contrary:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (watch that photo not work...just watch it)
> 
> I actually identify as lesbian to boot. So I dunno, it's funny to watch you guys like...assume crap about a group of people you have no real idea about. And talk about how you couldn't get along with gay people, when I know for a fact several of you homophobic people have gotten along with me fine for several years. Like just as an example, Air Fly and I have gotten along great in many conversations, and he has given me lots of props.
> 
> So hopefully this somewhat justifies me in taking huge offense to Tim Hardaway, and finding it crazy some of the people here attempting to agree with him. When in fact you don't hate gay people, when you deal with them just as people.
> 
> It all boils down to at the end of the day that we're all just people. We all have the same concerns as far as love, job, money, education, entertainment. Picking these arbitrary reasons to pull us all apart is just silly. And hopefully some of you will think about the relationship you've had with me over the course of however many years on this board, and reconsider some of your views on the topic. (And while we're at it, some of your assumptions about women).


I still don't think I'll stop reading your posts with a guy voice, sorry.


----------



## futuristxen

Dr. Seuss said:


> I'm confused......................
> 
> You are a women and therefore a lesbian?


No I am a woman who is a lesbian.


----------



## Seuss

HB said:


> I am in shock



WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON!


I can't believe Futurxien is a women. And a lesbian. 
That's kind of hot.......damnit now I have to hear about a double-standard from Budboy.


----------



## Crossword

HB said:


> I am in shock, I guess this was how Airfly felt when he found out I was black


Hah, I'll still never forget when I called sliccat white trash in a battle, then found out he's black.


----------



## Pimped Out

Budweiser_Boy said:


> I still don't think I'll stop reading your posts with a guy voice, sorry.


yeah, im gonna need some time to adjust


----------



## Hibachi!

Pimped Out said:


> i never really put any thought into it, but i never knew you were a women. its easy to assume most people here are men unless you see something to the otherwise. kinda like when you meet an engineer, odds are its a guy.
> 
> and the picture worked. i dont have a myspace either so if it worked for, it should for everyone


Uh... Future is a dude... He's trans-gendered according to the picture and claim... Although this could all be a fake... Wait... Isn't Future a dude? I could have sworn... Wait... I'm so confused


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Well I didnt know you so I have nothing to say!


----------



## Crossword

Dr. Seuss said:


> WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON!
> 
> 
> I can't believe Futurxien is a women. And a lesbian.
> That's kind of hot.......damnit now I have to hear about a double-standard from Budboy.


You're barking up the wrong tree man, that's all I'm gonna say.


----------



## HB

There is something fishy about all this


----------



## Seuss

futuristxen said:


> No I am a woman who is a lesbian.



You didn't want to tell anybody because you thought you wouldn't get any respect?


Endora gets alot of respect. 

But I'm still going to picture you with a man voice for my own comfort.


----------



## Pimped Out

Hibachi! said:


> Uh... Future is a dude... He's trans-gendered according to the picture and claim... Although this could all be a fake... Wait... Isn't Future a dude? I could have sworn... Wait... I'm so confused


i have a new solution to soothe my brain.

from now on, everyone on this board is a eunuch in my mind.


----------



## IbizaXL

futuristxen said:


> All of these people in these threads who talk about how they can't stand gay people, and marginalize them as some mysterious other that you can't possibly have anything in common with...this bud is for you.
> 
> *I think a lot of you assume I'm a straight male, which I let you assume because it's funny, and I can get my opinions taken somewhat seriously.*
> 
> However, contrary to photos to the contrary:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (watch that photo not work...just watch it)
> 
> I actually identify as lesbian to boot. So I dunno, it's funny to watch you guys like...assume crap about a group of people you have no real idea about. And talk about how you couldn't get along with gay people, when I know for a fact several of you homophobic people have gotten along with me fine for several years. Like just as an example, Air Fly and I have gotten along great in many conversations, and he has given me lots of props.
> 
> So hopefully this somewhat justifies me in taking huge offense to Tim Hardaway, and finding it crazy some of the people here attempting to agree with him. When in fact you don't hate gay people, when you deal with them just as people.
> 
> It all boils down to at the end of the day that we're all just people. We all have the same concerns as far as love, job, money, education, entertainment. Picking these arbitrary reasons to pull us all apart is just silly. And hopefully some of you will think about the relationship you've had with me over the course of however many years on this board, and reconsider some of your views on the topic. (And while we're at it, some of your assumptions about women).



revelation of the year? 'dum dum duuummm'

cant say im surprised, the moment i met you i knew you were a girl even though you triesd telling me otherwise.

respect:cheers:


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Are you serious?


----------



## Hibachi!

Dude that picture is a dude dressed like a girl. Isn't it? I hope I'm right or that's really messed up that I said that. I swear I see Adam's Apple. I could have sworn he was a dude. That picture looks like a man. But not... Like a well dressed man. Or wait... It could be... Hmm. Isn't it? Or... he... or she? I swear I remember seeing a picture of Future as a man. I'm sticking to my story. This is a sham!


----------



## Crossword

Straight guys are just lesbians trapped in a man's body anyway, I don't get the big fuss. Way to derail the thread futurist!


----------



## GNG

Pimped Out said:


> maybe none of us even exist. maybe we are all part of some dude's dream and when he wakes up we will all cease to exist


*takes another hit*


----------



## Pimped Out

Hibachi! said:


> Dude that picture is a dude dressed like a girl. Isn't it? I hope I'm right or that's really messed up that I said that


yeah that would be awkward. worse than asking a fat girl when she's due


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Lol


----------



## LameR

This sucks. That's going to tarnish his image quite a bit. Was a heck'uva player.


----------



## MoscowHeel

rofl, the bs drama in this thread is awesome
i don't hate gays because it's like hating people with cancer. it's not their fault they are diseased. I pity them.


----------



## Seuss

Budweiser_Boy said:


> You're barking up the wrong tree man, that's all I'm gonna say.




You're tree or future's?


----------



## HB

Someones not being truthful


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Manyou ruined our whole discussion.


----------



## Crossword

Hibachi! said:


> Dude that picture is a dude dressed like a girl. Isn't it? I hope I'm right or that's really messed up that I said that. I swear I see Adam's Apple. I could have sworn he was a dude. That picture looks like a man. But not... Like a well dressed man. Or wait... It could be... Hmm. Isn't it? Or... he... or she? I swear I remember seeing a picture of Future as a man. I'm sticking to my story. This is a sham!


_Otto approaches the window. Patty explains that she will be testing him.
She grades good deeds with a green pen, errors with a red pen. ``Any
questions?'' ``Yeah, one. *Have you always been a chick?*'' Patty discards
her green pen._


----------



## IbizaXL

intersting how things change after someone comes out as "gay" or "lesbian". you guys think any less of futursitxen? cuz you shouldnt. nothing should change.


----------



## Pimped Out

for the record "maybe none of us even exist. maybe we are all part of some dude's dream and when he wakes up we will all cease to exist" was a reference to what i think was an episode of home improvement where tim asks wilson what he is afraid of. it might have been from somewhere else, but it wasnt something i came up with on my own


----------



## Tooeasy

MoscowHeel said:


> rofl, the bs drama in this thread is awesome
> i don't hate gays because it's like hating people with cancer. it's not their fault they are diseased. I pity them.


You pity someone for having a life threatening disease, or for choosing a lifestyle other than yours? this is an even stupider comment than hardaways, great job.


----------



## Hibachi!

That is a picture of a dude plain and simple. This is all a sham! Future is a liar! I see Adam's apple! It's a dude dammit! Wait... Right? It is a guy... I'm pretty sure Future is a guy... Maybe he likes to dress up as a girl. But he... she... is lying... Right? I don't think any less of Future. Unless this is a scam like I think it is! In that case... Future has ruined this thread!


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Well you cant ask me that!


----------



## Crossword

Dr. Seuss said:


> You're tree or future's?


Both, but I took it you were talking about futurist in that post.


----------



## Crossword

Gio305 said:


> intersting how things change after someone comes out as "gay" or "lesbian". you guys think any less of futursitxen? cuz you shouldnt. nothing should change.


The only thing that changed is that this thread became completely off topic.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Yeah maybe he did this just to make us think twice about this issue


----------



## Crossword

MoscowHeel said:


> rofl, the bs drama in this thread is awesome
> i don't hate gays because it's like hating people with cancer. it's not their fault they are diseased. I pity them.


And homosexuality is a disease now?


----------



## Seuss

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Both, but I took it you were talking about futurist in that post.



Future knows I'm joking.


My first thought to futurixsten, is why so long before you said something?
You really thought people wouldn't respect you because you are a women?


----------



## IbizaXL

Budweiser_Boy said:


> The only thing that changed is that this thread became completely off topic.


true.

from timmys commment>political>religious.

it always happens hehehe


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Allright I have to wake up tommorow good night!


----------



## Crossword

Dr. Seuss said:


> Future knows I'm joking.
> 
> 
> My first thought to futurixsten, is why so long before you said something?
> You really thought people wouldn't respect you because you are a women?


I was referring to the "that's kinda hot" part of the post.


----------



## Crossword

Budweiser_Boy said:


> I was referring to the "that's kinda hot" part of the post.


****, shouldn't I be in bed by now?


----------



## Pimped Out

Budweiser_Boy said:


> The only thing that changed is that this thread became completely off topic.


when we started discussing what makes you a muslim, we were officially way off topic.

perhaps future identifies her gender as female which would mean hibachi is right and future isnt lying


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Yes its alreadt 2:30. Please let it snow like ****.


----------



## Dre

Rawse said:


> *takes another hit*


:lol: Close thread!


----------



## Spriggan

When did Budweiser_Boy and Pimped Out become two different people?


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Cant you close it?


----------



## Seuss

LOL

From futures biography.....



> "All you know is wrong."


Someone should have spotted that earlier.


----------



## Pimped Out

Spriggan said:


> When did Budweiser_Boy and Pimped Out become two different people?


ummmmmmmm, what? when were we the same person. one of us is from texas the other is from canada.

i was also "i start fires" for a while if that helps


----------



## Pimped Out

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Cant you close it?


nah, i need to resolve an issue here first


----------



## Hibachi!

Well if this thread is going to be closed let my statement stand here... Future is lying! (Unless he defines herself as a female...) This is a scam I say!


----------



## Dre

lol @ these random former players engendering this controversy.

What's Cedric Ceballos doing about now?


----------



## Seuss

Hibachi! said:


> Well if this thread is going to be closed let my statement stand here... Future is lying! (Unless he defines herself as a female...) This is a scam I say!




I always thought there was something suspicious about future.

Maybe because no straight man would have the name "Futurxsten"


I know, I just set myself up for a Dr. Seuss joke..........


----------



## futuristxen

Dr. Seuss said:


> Future knows I'm joking.
> 
> 
> My first thought to futurixsten, is why so long before you said something?
> You really thought people wouldn't respect you because you are a women?



Uh yeah. Have you ever read solaarpleasure's posts. Like she says something and then a hundred guys hit on her. There's a lot of idiots on this board who would not allow me to have an opinion on like...hiphop, or basketball because of my gender.


----------



## edabomb

Statements like these just make me think Tim has found himself attracted to guys in the past. Otherwise even if he felt that way he wouldn't be so vocal about it.


----------



## Seuss

futuristxen said:


> Uh yeah. Have you ever read solaarpleasure's posts. Like she says something and then a hundred guys hit on her. There's a lot of idiots on this board who would not allow me to have an opinion on like...hiphop, or basketball because of my gender.



That's true.

But if you said you were 47 like Endora said, I doubt too many guys hit on you.


----------



## ChristopherJ

What about that 50 cent/Futurixten thread in the hip-hop forum from a couple of years ago? I swear I remember there being a picture of Futurixten in that thread....a picture of a guy...

What the F?


----------



## Brandname

futuristxen said:


> Uh yeah. Have you ever read solaarpleasure's posts. Like she says something and then a hundred guys hit on her. There's a lot of idiots on this board who would not allow me to have an opinion on like...hiphop, or basketball because of my gender.


We have a long way to go.


----------



## Spriggan

futuristxen said:


> Uh yeah. Have you ever read solaarpleasure's posts. Like she says something and then a hundred guys hit on her. There's a lot of idiots on this board who would not allow me to have an opinion on like...hiphop, or basketball because of my gender.


Solaar_pleasure_? Isn't her name Solaarpleure? Nice freudian slip. You wanna bang Solaar.


----------



## Seuss

Spriggan said:


> Solaar_pleasure_? Isn't her name Solaarpleure? Nice freudian slip. You wanna bang Solaar.




LOL


----------



## Pimped Out

futuristxen said:


> Uh yeah. Have you ever read solaarpleasure's posts. Like she says something and then a hundred guys hit on her. There's a lot of idiots on this board who would not allow me to have an opinion on like...hiphop, or basketball because of my gender.


didnt you used to get along well with 7m3?


----------



## MarioChalmers

_Dre_ said:


> lol @ these random former players engendering this controversy.
> 
> What's Cedric Ceballos doing about now?


Cedric Ceballos played in the Philippine league and got owned by nearly every starting post player. He sucks. 

Anyway, I don't think there's anything to hate about gay people. Personally I'm just very uncomfortable when they start touching me. A few years back, I hated gay people, I always thought of how disgusting it would be to hang around with them. Now that I'm in college, I still feel weird when they get all flirty but there are so many other people out there deserving of hate.


----------



## HB

Lol all I am going to say is, you have been fooled


----------



## Dre

KidCanada said:


> What about that 50 cent/Futurixten thread in the hip-hop forum from a couple of years ago? I swear I remember there being a picture of Futurixten in that thread....a picture of a guy...
> 
> What the F?


I remember that too...


----------



## Seuss

HB said:


> Lol all I am going to say is, you have been fooled




YOu think it's fake?

Or do you know?


----------



## Hibachi!

I have not been fooled. I call bull****! Time to fold your hand Future!


----------



## Dre

I'm confused and convinced Hardaway paid off Futuristxen for us to forget about him.


----------



## HB

I know whats going on, and I understand why it was done.


----------



## Dre

HB said:


> I know whats going on, and I understand why it was done.


I think I do too.


----------



## Pimped Out

i did some sleuth work on myspace (searched for futuristxen) and the story in this thread checks out. i have chosen to believe futurist.


----------



## Hibachi!

HB said:


> I know whats going on, and I understand why it was done.


My guess? Trying to make a point that it shouldn't really matter if he was a guy or a girl yet look at all the hooplah about it. Which it really doesn't matter. But it's a pretty poor example if that's what it really is.


----------



## MarioChalmers

Eh? I remember seeing a picture of futurist too, I call your bluff, boy!...er...girl? boy!


----------



## Dre

Hibachi! said:


> My guess? Trying to make a point that it shouldn't really matter if he was a guy or a girl yet look at all the hooplah about it. Which it really doesn't matter. But it's a pretty poor example if that's what it really is.


It's working.


----------



## Chalie Boy

Good for Tim. I don't really agree with how he handled the situation but its a free damn country and he can say what he wants...he is not even in the NBA anymore. Im sick of this country trying to make it seem like being gay is ok and its not.


----------



## HB

Hibachi! said:


> My guess? Trying to make a point that it shouldn't really matter if he was a guy or a girl yet look at all the hooplah about it. Which it really doesn't matter. But it's a pretty poor example if that's what it really is.


Why? Do you think any less of futuristxen after this?


----------



## Ras

I don't know how I read all of this.


----------



## Hibachi!

No actually I don't. Whether Future is a boy, girl, or both combined matters not. However just because it doesn't matter doesn't mean it doesn't capture your curiosity if it is true. If I had never seen a picture of Future (or at least thought I did) then I wouldn't care if he or she came on and made that claim. However since I (like others) believed to have seen a picture of a male Future than it just captures curiosity. It shows nothing about homophobia and more about curiosity.


----------



## Brandname

Hibachi! said:


> No actually I don't. Whether Future is a boy, girl, or both combined matters not. However just because it doesn't matter doesn't mean it doesn't capture your curiosity if it is true. If I had never seen a picture of Future (or at least thought I did) then I wouldn't care if he or she came on and made that claim. However since I (like others) believed to have seen a picture of a male Future than it just captures curiosity. It shows nothing about homophobia and more about curiosity.


I think your preconceived notions of what to expect from the picture clouded what you actually saw in the picture. :biggrin:


----------



## Tooeasy

Chalie Boy said:


> Good for Tim. I don't really agree with how he handled the situation but its a free damn country and he can say what he wants...he is not even in the NBA anymore. Im sick of this country trying to make it seem like being gay is ok and its not.


I was going to respond to your post, then I read your signature..... obviously you have a pretty misconstrued view on life.


----------



## Seuss

Future, the stage is yours.........

Any misconceptions about homosexuals you can get out of the way.

Also, you don't have any feeling towards guys? Or are you bisexual?

Just curious.


----------



## Auggie

"Somethings got to give"?

What the f is that supposed to even mean? He said it like 6 friggin times... oh well Timmy = Idiot.


----------



## Pimped Out

Dr. Seuss said:


> Future, the stage is yours.........
> 
> Any misconceptions about homosexuals you can get out of the way.
> 
> Also, you don't have any feeling towards guys? Or are you bisexual?
> 
> Just curious.


i can try to clear one up. they wont **** anything that is the right gender like some people seem to think

and she said she is a lesbian, which is different from bisexual.


----------



## Hibachi!

Whatever Future chooses to disclose is his/her business... Although he/she decided to post such a picture. I still am not sure for some EXTREMELY odd reason because I could have sworn I saw a picture of Future looking just like that... except as a guy... But... Whatever will be will be... I can not speculate anymore


----------



## Air Fly

[email protected] revealing HER true self? yo, this is gonna be hard for me to picture him in a woman voice.

I've always thought she was a guy. her interest in soccer....**** i don't feel comfortable calling him she/**** i'm confused.....someone tell me if this is fake.


----------



## futuristxen

Well the emphasis was on the fact I'm a lesbian, which is more topical to this thread than my gender. But if I just said I was a lesbian you guys would have laughed like "oh so am I yuck yuck". So I had to put that in context.


----------



## MarioChalmers

Air Fly said:


> [email protected] revealing HER true self? yo, this is gonna be hard for me to picture him in a woman voice.
> 
> I've always thought she was a guy. her interest in soccer....**** i don't feel comfortable calling him she/**** i'm confused.....someone tell me if this is fake.


It's fake, relax.


----------



## Dre

This is how you steal a thread.


----------



## Chalie Boy

Tooeasy said:


> I was going to respond to your post, then I read your signature..... obviously you have a pretty misconstrued view on life.


My view on life is just fine, you just tell me what is wrong with him stating his opinion? If thats how he feels then who are we to be mad at him for saying it? In my opinion the only people who are mad about it are gays, if I were gay I would be offended as well.


----------



## Pimped Out

gian said:


> It's fake, relax.


i 100% believe her. and its probably the fact that everyone thinks its a joke which is why none of knew us earlier


----------



## Seuss

futuristxen said:


> Well the emphasis was on the fact I'm a lesbian, which is more topical to this thread than my gender. But if I just said I was a lesbian you guys would have laughed like "oh so am I yuck yuck". So I had to put that in context.



LOL

That's true.

Replying to Pimped Out, I know alot of lesbians that still have interest in guys.
But they are not really bisexual because they mostly date women. So they just say they
are lesbian.


----------



## MarioChalmers

Pimped Out said:


> i 100% believe her. and its probably the fact that everyone thinks its a joke which is why none of knew us earlier


I'm pretty confused. I just told Air Fly that 'cause he asked me to. 

Also, don't lesbians have the least sex? :yay:


----------



## Seuss

gian said:


> It's fake, relax.




I've asked her if this is real, she said yes.

I don't accuse anyone of being a liar, unless she proves me wrong.


----------



## Air Fly

futuristxen said:


> Well the emphasis was on the fact I'm a lesbian, which is more topical to this thread than my gender. But if I just said I was a lesbian you guys would have laughed like "oh so am I yuck yuck". So I had to put that in context.


When I first became a member and saw your post, i thought you were a female but I swear i remember asking you that in the soccer forum and you said you were a guy. that surprised me but this one right now, i don't know girl/man. lol


----------



## Hibachi!

To quote the Persian guy from 300... "THIS IS MADNESS!"


----------



## futuristxen

Dr. Seuss said:


> Future, the stage is yours.........
> 
> Any misconceptions about homosexuals you can get out of the way.
> 
> Also, you don't have any feeling towards guys? Or are you bisexual?
> 
> Just curious.


Well just that the gay community is not some monolithic thing that people can just generalize. It's all diffrent people from all diffrent walks of life, living in all kinds of diffrent ways. It's very narrow minded to define any of it as one way or the other.

I mean, you have ministers and log cabin republicans who are a part of the same community as like bikers and truckers, athletes...whatever. It's like Amechi said in this Tim Hardaway article, by him coming out, he's presenting that fact. 

I just wanted to show that with me a lot of you have been really friendly over the years, and we've had lots of discussions, and I think it really shows how little sex and gender really should matter.

If anyone wants a link to my myspace they are free to private message me.


----------



## Chalie Boy

Im sick of this media stuff where people are expected to hold their tongues because it may hurt some feelings or offend someone...this same media does and says all type of crap to people and then when someone speaks their mind all hell breaks loose. Thats a bunch of crap and some of you guys need to realize that.


----------



## ElMarroAfamado

thats fine, its normal most guys are homophobes...i personally dont hate nothing but racism itself.....
as far as gayness haha and gay people...i have a gay barber hahahahah and hes cool, most gay people are cool except those ones that are so blatantly gay that are "slutty" hahah and perverted....besides that gay people are fine....


----------



## futuristxen

Air Fly said:


> When I first became a member and saw your post, i thought you were a female but I swear i remember asking you that in the soccer forum and you said you were a guy. that surprised me but this one right now, i don't know girl/man. lol


I remember you asking me that, I may even still have that in my inbox. I thought it was interesting that you picked up on that as early as you did. Though I don't really understand how.


----------



## Seuss

futuristxen said:


> I remember you asking me that, I may even still have that in my inbox. I thought it was interesting that you picked up on that as early as you did. Though I don't really understand how.




I've always had a feeling you were a girl. But never had the guts to ask you
because how embarrassing would that be if you were actually a guy......


----------



## deanwoof

HB said:


> Race is a trait that cannot be concealed, is that easy to point out who is gay or not?


would you call jason kidd the n word? cuz he's half white half black. but he looks white. 

what about sammy sosa? he's dark. but he's from the dominican republic. 

what would you call charlize theron or dave matthews? they're both african but they look white. 

and why should we even be talking about someone's color, heritage, ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference? can't we all just ****ing look at one another and just see another human being and attatch a name to him/her?


----------



## ChristopherJ

If you are a girl then what's with that pic of you from the 50 cent thread? You look like a guy in that pic.


----------



## Spriggan

Chalie Boy said:


> Im sick of this media stuff where people are expected to hold their tongues because it may hurt some feelings or offend someone...this same media does and says all type of crap to people and then when someone speaks their mind all hell breaks loose. Thats a bunch of crap and some of you guys need to realize that.


People are free to say what they want, and free to be lambasted for it.


----------



## Tooeasy

Chalie Boy said:


> My view on life is just fine, you just tell me what is wrong with him stating his opinion? If thats how he feels then who are we to be mad at him for saying it? In my opinion the only people who are mad about it are gays, if I were gay I would be offended as well.


so, if you were a homosexual you would be offended, yet you commend hardaway for making a comment that offends gays, that doesn't make much sense. And your little generalization in stating that in "this country" it isn't ok to be gay is pretty brash and erroneous. If you wanna make a mockery of yourself, thats fine... but don't bring up the good old "freedom of speech" line in an arguement that deals with peoples everyday freedoms.


----------



## Air Fly

futuristxen said:


> I remember you asking me that, I may even still have that in my inbox. I thought it was interesting that you picked up on that as early as you did. Though I don't really understand how.


I think it had more to do with your username and choice of avatars.


----------



## Hibachi!

Spriggan said:


> People are free to say what they want, and free to be lambasted for it.


Exactly


----------



## Chalie Boy

Tooeasy said:


> so, if you were a homosexual you would be offended, yet you commend hardaway for making a comment that offends gays, that doesn't make much sense. And your little generalization in stating that in "this country" it isn't ok to be gay is pretty brash and erroneous. If you wanna make a mockery of yourself, thats fine... but don't bring up the good old "freedom of speech" line in an arguement that deals with peoples everyday freedoms.


Yea you are right being Gay isn't against the law...but let me ask you this...would you consider the U.S. a christian country?


----------



## Tooeasy

Chalie Boy said:


> Yea you are right being Gay isn't against the law...but let me ask you this...would you consider the U.S. a christian country?


I'll call it a culturally diverse country, which is how I like it.


----------



## futuristxen

Dr. Seuss said:


> LOL
> 
> That's true.
> 
> Replying to Pimped Out, I know alot of lesbians that still have interest in guys.
> But they are not really bisexual because they mostly date women. So they just say they
> are lesbian.



There are some lesbians, like from the 60's wave of feminism that are or were lesbian by political choice, not because they were per se attracted sexually to women. 

But for the most part lesbian means lesbian. The gray area you find is usually because of bisexuals, and that's part of the reason why they can face a lot of resistance in the gay/lesbian community because the gay/lesbian community feels like acknowledging bisexuality gives the christian right and others to discredit them. However Bisexuality is it's own thing. And I believe there have been studies to the effect that bisexuals committ suicide at a much higher rate than homosexuals and heterosexuals. I forget where I heard that, but the logic behind that would be that since they are outcasted from straight society for being at all homosexual, as well as being outcasted from the homosexual community for being too hetero--it leaves them in a precarious position between two sides that would rather have nothing to do with them.

I think actual bisexuality is underrated in terms of people to empathize with.

I also think the patriarchal nature of society also feeds into why you might see some lesbians give up the lifestyle.

One thing we have to get away from especially in regards to lesbianism, which I think it occurs most there, is the idea that a lesbian because she is a woman, just needs a good man to change her mind. As a rule lesbian means lesbian, and anything you push to the opposite, you're getting into highly offensive territory.

My sister is bisexual, ha. We're a fun family. I blame the fundementalist christian upbringing :biggrin: .


----------



## Chalie Boy

Spriggan said:


> People are free to say what they want, and free to be lambasted for it.


Very true, but I don't have a problem with what he said because it is what he wanted to say and how he felt.


----------



## bullsger

> Tim Hardway quote: "You know I hate gay people, so I let it be known. I don't like gay people and I don't like to be around gay people. I am homophobic. I don't like it. *It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States. *So yeah, I don't like it."


So I think guys like Tim Hardaway shouldn't be in the world. I don't like it.



deanwoof said:


> and why should we even be talking about someone's color, heritage, ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference? can't we all just ****ing look at one another and just see another human being and attatch a name to him/her?


Yes just see another human being. That is right.


----------



## Chalie Boy

Tooeasy said:


> I'll call it a culturally diverse country, which is how I like it.


How was the groundwork put in?


----------



## Tooeasy

Chalie Boy said:


> How was the groundwork put in?


how is that relevant to homosexuality, or diversity in general, in america today?


----------



## Hibachi!

Chalie Boy said:


> Very true, but I don't have a problem with what he said because it is what he wanted to say and how he felt.


If I said your mom was ugly and your whole family is ugly would you not care because "that's what I wanted to say and that's how I felt?"


----------



## Seuss

futuristxen said:


> There are some lesbians, like from the 60's wave of feminism that are or were lesbian by political choice, not because they were per se attracted sexually to women.
> 
> But for the most part lesbian means lesbian. The gray area you find is usually because of bisexuals, and that's part of the reason why they can face a lot of resistance in the gay/lesbian community because the gay/lesbian community feels like acknowledging bisexuality gives the christian right and others to discredit them. However Bisexuality is it's own thing. And I believe there have been studies to the effect that bisexuals committ suicide at a much higher rate than homosexuals and heterosexuals. I forget where I heard that, but the logic behind that would be that since they are outcasted from straight society for being at all homosexual, as well as being outcasted from the homosexual community for being too hetero--it leaves them in a precarious position between two sides that would rather have nothing to do with them.
> 
> I think actual bisexuality is underrated in terms of people to empathize with.
> 
> I also think the patriarchal nature of society also feeds into why you might see some lesbians give up the lifestyle.
> 
> One thing we have to get away from especially in regards to lesbianism, which I think it occurs most there, is the idea that a lesbian because she is a woman, just needs a good man to change her mind. As a rule lesbian means lesbian, and anything you push to the opposite, you're getting into highly offensive territory.
> 
> *My sister is bisexual, ha. We're a fun family. I blame the fundementalist christian upbringing :biggrin:* .



You guys must have some interesting conversations at ThanksGiving. =)


----------



## futuristxen

Chalie Boy said:


> How was the groundwork put in?



If we took your logic, Tim Hardaway wouldn't have been even able to make his comment, because he would have been in shackles picking cotton down in Alabama.

Fortunately we progress. And just as we(well most of us) are now able to look back on slavery, lychings, and racism as horrific idiocies of the past, so to will we look back at all the craziness over the gay community.

Once everyone settles down and realizes we're people too, and we say dumb things, smart things, boring things--that we are the exact same as everyone else on every level that matters--then we'll look back at idiots like Tim Hardaway as representations of a crazy time we wish never happened.

Assuming Global Warming or the Terrorists don't get us first.


----------



## Chalie Boy

Hibachi! said:


> If I said your mom was ugly and your whole family is ugly would you not care because "that's what I wanted to say and that's how I felt?"


LMAO, yea I would care but like I said earlier you can say whatever you want to about me, my mom, or my family. Who am I to stop you?


----------



## futuristxen

Dr. Seuss said:


> You guys must have some interesting conversations at ThanksGiving. =)



Actually nobody shows up at thanksgiving. I've been basically blackballed out of the bulk of my family, besides my mom and sister.

God bless America, eh?


----------



## IbizaXL

futuristxen said:


> Actually nobody shows up at thanksgiving. I've been basically blackballed out of the bulk of my family, besides my mom and sister.
> 
> God bless America, eh?


land of the free indeed


----------



## Chalie Boy

I am done arguing with homosexuals and their supporters for the night. I will pray for you guys(and girls) tonight as well as myself because I have sinning problems as well as you. Homosexuality is a lifestyle because that is they way you live your life day in and day out...and homosexuality is a sin. God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve and I hope you guys(and girls) realize that one day before it is too late. :cheers:


----------



## IbizaXL

Chalie Boy said:


> I am done arguing with homosexuals and their supporters for the night. I will pray for you guys(and girls) tonight as well as myself because I have sinning problems as well as you. Homosexuality is a lifestyle because that is they way you live your life day in and day out...and homosexuality is a sin. God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve and I hope you guys(and girls) realize that one day before it is too late. :cheers:


what sucks for you is that there was never an Adam and Eve.


----------



## bullsger

futuristxen said:


> Actually nobody shows up at thanksgiving. I've been basically blackballed out of the bulk of my family, besides my mom and sister.
> 
> God bless America, eh?


I'm not sure what blackballing means. I understand this so:

Besides your mom and sister, all the other family members don't want to contact you and don't want a relation with you? Did I understand it right?

If so, that is sad for you.


----------



## Chalie Boy

Gio305 said:


> what sucks for you is that there was never an Adam and Eve.


Thats a WHOLE nother' discussion bro :chill:


----------



## bullsger

Chalie Boy said:


> I am done arguing with homosexuals and their supporters for the night. I will pray for you guys(and girls) tonight as well as myself because I have sinning problems as well as you. Homosexuality is a lifestyle because that is they way you live your life day in and day out...and homosexuality is a sin. God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve and I hope you guys(and girls) realize that one day before it is too late. :cheers:


That is your view and belief.

But not the view and belief of me. To all people who are saying gay isn't natural, please explain why there are gay animals, too? 
To be gay and heterosexual are natural. So I think homosexuality isn't a lifestyle in my opinion.


----------



## futuristxen

bullsger said:


> I'm not sure what blackballing means. I understand this so:
> 
> Besides your mom and sister, all the other family members don't want to contact you and don't want a relation with you? Did I understand it right?
> 
> If so, that is sad for you.


I think I meant to say blacklisted. But yes that is correct. Most of my family is deeply religious(like live out in the wilderness, stockpile weapons, and keep their kids away from scooby doo--all in the name of Jesus).

So I mean...who wants to hang out with them anyways?

For me family is something you make on your own.


----------



## IbizaXL

Chalie Boy said:


> Thats a WHOLE nother' discussion bro :chill:


so there was no point in bringing that up? got it!:biggrin:


----------



## bullsger

futuristxen said:


> I think I meant to say blacklisted. But yes that is correct. Most of my family is deeply religious(like live out in the wilderness, stockpile weapons, and keep their kids away from scooby doo--all in the name of Jesus).
> 
> So I mean...who wants to hang out with them anyways?
> 
> For me family is something you make on your own.


Yes, you are right.

What I had in mind, is that it is sad and not easy to live with it at the beginning after the coming out.


----------



## bullsger

Perhaps I only think so, but I've a notion that a bigger percentage of the people in the United States dislike gay people. And have you events like the Christopher Street Day (CSD)? There are two big events here in germany every year. One in cologne and one in berlin. But over 30 cities have this events annually.



Post #550 in 5 1/2 hours, this subject is very polarizing.


----------



## IbizaXL

bullsger said:


> Perhaps I only think so, but I've a notion that a bigger percentage of the people in the United States dislike gay people. And have you events like the Christopher Street Day (CSD)? There are two big events here in germany every year. One in cologne and one in berlin. But over 30 cities have this events annually.
> 
> 
> 
> Post #550 in 5 1/2 hours, this subject is very polarizing.


somewhere in this thread i said we are going to hit 50 pages. 

i still stand by that


----------



## sonicFLAME6

but gay people are so um.... gay! lol its not a big deal, just live your life the way you want and let them live theirs..... i dont see why people make it such a big deal, theirs bigger problems on this earth then people of the same sex wanting to be with each other...... so there's gay players oh well, they are out there playing basketball not running around doing gay things.


----------



## bullsger

Undefeated82 said:


> just live your life the way you want and let them live theirs..... i dont see why people make it such a big deal, theirs bigger problems on this earth then people of the same sex wanting to be with each other...... so there's gay players oh well, they are out there playing basketball not running around doing gay things.


Yes. I also don't understand why it is a big deal to many people.


----------



## IbizaXL

bullsger said:


> Yes. I also don't understand why it is a big deal to many people.


most of them tend to be the religious type. to them its an "abomination". others are just a bit homophobic.


----------



## bullsger

And there are no problems to many people when they don't need to share a locker room. Why are so many men afraid to share a locker room with a gay? Are all females afraid of men at the sauna? I don't think so.


----------



## sonicFLAME6

i duno why, but i would like to see the reaction of, for example lets say the best player in a pro league was gay, i wonder what would happen... p.s. im not gay lol


----------



## sonicFLAME6

i think society/media has created this stereotypical lifestyle so when they think gay they immediately think of the stereotype homosexual being in a pro league.


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa

Tim Hardaway is ignorant on this issue - like, probably, 80% of the people in the U.S. and 80% of the people on this board, and 80% of the people chastising Hardaway for saying this. Why are heterosexual people upset that he said it? At least he's being honest. And, quite honestly, I would venture to say most of the people criticising Hardaway are in no moral position to do so, as they are probably homophobic too, just in different ways. The mere fact that someone won't come out and say something doesn't mean they don't believe it. The bottom line is that Hardaway is the cause, product, voice, and perpetuation of a homophobic society, such as the U.S. 

Besides, you can't have inmates running the asylum, and by this I mean that you can't have homophobics pointing out and criticising other homophobics. You see this happen with race all the time: white, "liberal-minded", peace-loving Americans who claim they are not racist have no problem criticising a Michael Richards, Trent Lott, etc., but they are completely oblivious to the fact that they themselves are racist. That's what happens when you let the inmates run the asylum - the alleged wrong idea, thought, act, etc. gets defined as something other than what it really is. Ideologies and systems get chopped up into narrowlily defined, blatant acts that most everyone can see. When this happens, people lose sight of themselves and their personal responsibility in the entire issue. This is why you'll hear white people talk about the KKK in a second, conveniently pointing out that they'd never do such as thing as support a hateful, racist organization. Unfortuantely, when racism becomes so narrowly defined - by those most privy to being racist - those who benefit most from the system now place themselves in an uncritical position that is nearly beyond reproach, as they've distanced themselves entirely from the problem in defining as something other, something that is conveniently dichotomous to themselves. The same can be applied to homophobia in the U.S., the Tim Hardaway situation, and this very discussion. 

By the way, I find it entirely asinine to compare racism and homophobia. The two are equally wrong on a moral level, but I do not believe that moral equilavency always trumps the actual results, the actual consequences of what is being compared. Homosexuals get treated like ****. In fact, I would argue that there are times when a homosexual's life chances can be as greatly diminished as that of a racial minority. However, looking at the overlying system and implementation behind the two, people are ignorant of history if they think they are comparable in scope. Unfortunately, discrimination against homosexuals is often used by white, racist males to undermine the continued and unrectified discrimination against minorities, and particularly, black people. 

I also want to point out that race is not a trait but a social construction. This shows how ignorant this board is. People scoffed at the idea of someone hiding their race, but this has been a largely utilized practice for years and continues to be. Unfortunately, as soon as the word race is used in conjunction with black people, Wesley Snipes pops into people's minds, and Wesley Snipes - as judged by the completely unbiased and objective standards of this society - is decidedly *black*. How could Wesley ever hide his blackness? However, that ignores the significant number of "black" people living in America that could pass into another race on skin color alone, let alone on other social aspects. This is the unfortunate part of racism - to even get to a point where the situation can be rectified, people have to acknowledge and give life to the untrue, insidious, and dishonest system that is racial classification. Unfortunately, the majority of the people living in the United States have no clue that the racial classification system is complete bull****, and thus (buying into the bull****) is the reason why much of white America has brought the very idea of race into existence. Well, he can't. We see the same kind of filtering of homosexuals in statements such as: "I know two types of gay people. Those who are who they are and those who try to parade it around." That creates two preexisting categories that the individual will now sort all homosexual people he or she meets into, and it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. When something happens to question that ideology, changes will be made as necessary to keep the underlying idea unscathed. 

Tim Hardaway is ignorant as hell - so am I, so are you, and so is the rest of America. I haven't a problem so much with people taking issue with what he said, but this energy could be better spend dealing with our own homophobia and/or taking actions to improve the social position of homosexual people. Pointing fingers in a subconscious effort to shirk oneself of responsibility in the very system that is being questioned does nothing positive in the long run.


----------



## John

Lynx said:


> I hate Tim Hardaway.


I hate you too to be honest!


----------



## kflo

RoddneyThaRippa said:


> Tim Hardaway is ignorant as hell - so am I, so are you, and so is the rest of America. I haven't a problem so much with people taking issue with what he said, but this energy could be better spend dealing with our own homophobia and/or taking actions to improve the social position of homosexual people. Pointing fingers in a subconscious effort to shirk oneself of responsibility in the very system that is being questioned does nothing positive in the long run.


we improve the social position of homosexuals by making it a non-issue, and shining a spotlight on ignorance/hate. i know you'd prefer to deal with the covert, lurking in all of us, but we can start with the overt. and we can have dialogue on the issue. i can't help that you don't trust me (straight white man) on race or homophobia. i can't. i can only control my words and actions.


----------



## Burn

Not gonna name any names, but there are a lot of retards in this thread - I mean people who are actually mentally retarded. And frankly, I hate the whole concept of retardation. I don't understand why people choose to be retarded. I don't hate retards themselves, just the concept. God made Adam and Eve not Lloyd and Harry.


----------



## Brandname

Burn said:


> Not gonna name any names, but there are a lot of retards in this thread - I mean people who are actually mentally retarded. And frankly, I hate the whole concept of retardation. I don't understand why people choose to be retarded. I don't hate retards themselves, just the concept. God made Adam and Eve not Lloyd and Harry.


lol, well done. Probably a little bit over the top, though. You've gotta tone it down just a little to be truly believable.


----------



## Turkish Delight

It's because of idiotic, senseless fools like Tim Hardaway that no current NBA player will want to come out of the closet publicly.


----------



## The Truth

I would detest homophobia and racism, but according to Roddney I can't since I'm straight and white, and doing so would make me a hypocrite (since my being straight and white inherently makes me homophobic and racist).

Roddney, I respect a lot of the things you've posted on this site, but this is just absurd.


----------



## kflo

reading hardaway's comments, i feel sorry for him. really. he articulated what many are smart enough not to say but do think. he wasn't smart enough. i can't expect his thoughts to not exist though. he'll be the fall guy for this, the caricature to point at. it's shocking that someone so prominent for so long would be so clueless as to the impact of his words. but they're out there now, and it does bring that level of hate to the forefront, to be confronted. we shouldn't necessarily be lashing out at tim hardaway, the individual. this is a dialog with all the tim hardaway's out there. and it needs to address more than just the words. rodney was more right than i initially gave him credit for (in some ways). we do need to address the sources. effin religions and their reps are 1 of the tough obstacles to overcome though.

amaechi himself said it best:

“I’m actually tempted to laugh,” Amaechi told The Miami Herald. “Finally, someone who is honest. It is ridiculous, absurd, petty, bigoted and shows a lack of empathy that is gargantuan and unfathomable. But it is honest. And it illustrates the problem better than any of the fuzzy language other people have used so far.”


----------



## HB

And Gio there was an Adam and Eve, maybe not in your biblical form BUT the first EVE did originate from Africa


----------



## Nate505

Chalie Boy said:


> Good for Tim. I don't really agree with how he handled the situation but its a free damn country and he can say what he wants...he is not even in the NBA anymore. Im sick of this country trying to make it seem like being gay is ok and its not.


It's not because you say so? Why are people so concerned with the behavior of other people that does not affect them?


----------



## Spaceman Spiff

I'll admit that I am 100% homophobic and stand by it. I'm with Hardaway. I won't want a gay teammate. I'd prefer not to know that a teammate is gay. It's doing the right thing. People can say what they want, but a vast majority of players will be very uncomfortable if they find out a teammate is gay. They only going to say the right things to not stir controversy. If I had a teammate who was gay our relationship would be strictly basketball. Outside of that, I won't communicate with him in any way. I won't say "I hate gay people" on radio though; that's a recipe for disaster.


----------



## kflo

Spaceman Spiff said:


> I'll admit that I am 100% homophobic and stand by it. I'm with Hardaway. I won't want a gay teammate. I'd prefer not to know that a teammate is gay. It's doing the right thing. People can say what they want, but a vast majority of players will be very uncomfortable if they find out a teammate is gay. They only going to say the right things to not stir controversy. If I had a teammate who was gay our relationship would be strictly basketball. Outside of that, I won't communicate with him in any way. I won't say "I hate gay people" on radio though; that's a recipe for disaster.


it's because you are ignorant. sorry. it's because you fear that which you don't know. and are not exposed to. 

i go to a gym in nyc. plenty of gay people work out there. i've been going for years. never have i seen anything inappropriate in the locker room, where people shower and get changed. i've never been approached. never heard comments. never felt uncomfortable with someone near me. 

you think women in europe feel like they're going to be assaulted at the beach because they're topless? it's common, so it's no big deal. you just have no experience, so you fear that which you don't know.


----------



## The Truth

Spaceman Spiff said:


> I'll admit that I am 100% homophobic and stand by it. I'm with Hardaway. I won't want a gay teammate. I'd prefer not to know that a teammate is gay. It's doing the right thing. People can say what they want, but a vast majority of players will be very uncomfortable if they find out a teammate is gay. They only going to say the right things to not stir controversy. If I had a teammate who was gay our relationship would be strictly basketball. Outside of that, I won't communicate with him in any way. I won't say "I hate gay people" on radio though; that's a recipe for disaster.


Why would it bother you that a teammate is gay?


----------



## BlackNRed

I'll just copy my post from the Heat board here.

I could care less if he isn't comfortable around gay people. He was a bit over the top, borderline hateful with his comments. But this liberal political correctness bs, that aims to make people feel guilty about such opinions so they'll fall in line is pathetic. If he doesn't want to be around gay people so what!?


----------



## IbizaXL

Spaceman Spiff said:


> I'll admit that I am 100% homophobic and stand by it. I'm with Hardaway. I won't want a gay teammate. I'd prefer not to know that a teammate is gay. It's doing the right thing. People can say what they want, but a vast majority of players will be very uncomfortable if they find out a teammate is gay. They only going to say the right things to not stir controversy. If I had a teammate who was gay our relationship would be strictly basketball. Outside of that, I won't communicate with him in any way. I won't say "I hate gay people" on radio though; that's a recipe for disaster.


why? are you that insecure about yourself and your masculinity?


----------



## Pimped Out

for anyone who thinks we were founded a christian nation, do your homework. "This is patently untrue. The early presidents and patriots were generally Deists or Unitarians, believing in some form of impersonal Providence but rejecting the divinity of Jesus and the absurdities of the Old and New testaments."
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/ffnc/


----------



## Theonee

Wow, threads with the name GAY are a hit.


----------



## The Truth

Heated said:


> I'll just copy my post from the Heat board here.
> 
> I could care less if he isn't comfortable around gay people. He was a bit over the top, borderline hateful with his comments. But this liberal political correctness bs, that aims to make people feel guilty about such opinions so they'll fall in line is pathetic. If he doesn't want to be around gay people so what!?


Nobody is going to try force him to want to be around gay people. He is absolutely free to have that opinion, and he is absolutely free to express it. 

And I am absolutely free to call him ignorant and a bigot in response.


----------



## BlackNRed

The Truth said:


> Nobody is going to try force him to want to be around gay people. He is absolutely free to have that opinion, and he is absolutely free to express it.
> 
> And I am absolutely free to call him ignorant and a bigot in response.


Fair enough.

So, I notice a lot of people bringing race into this.

Lets look at something as taboo such as pedophilia. Since people should have to openly accept gay people to avoid being labeled ignorant, should they also have to openly accept pedophiles? Do you accept pedophilia? Is that ok with you? 
I'm well aware that pedophilia is a million times worse than homosexuality. But it's not something they can help, anymore than gay people can help being gay. It's a mental disease. So essentially it's the same thing, right?


----------



## Spaceman Spiff

kflo said:


> it's because you are ignorant. sorry. it's because you fear that which you don't know. and are not exposed to.
> 
> i go to a gym in nyc. plenty of gay people work out there. i've been going for years. never have i seen anything inappropriate in the locker room, where people shower and get changed. i've never been approached. never heard comments. never felt uncomfortable with someone near me.
> 
> you think women in europe feel like they're going to be assaulted at the beach because they're topless? it's common, so it's no big deal. you just have no experience, so you fear that which you don't know.





Gio305 said:


> why? are you that insecure about yourself and your masculinity?





The Truth said:


> Nobody is going to try force him to want to be around gay people. He is absolutely free to have that opinion, and he is absolutely free to express it.
> 
> And I am absolutely free to call him ignorant and a bigot in response.



For one, I don't have Hardaway's celeb status, so I would say it, and wouldn't give a *Rawse is god around these parts, and he says no masked cursing.* who thinks what. I care even less what any of you have to say. But being of such status he's only bound to cause controversy.

This isn't about being ignorant. I don't like them, and I avoid them if I know it's not necessary to go through them. If I see one at a help desk, I make whatever requests I have and go about my business. If I'm in a store and a gay man is all I see who's available to help, I leave the store and come back and hope someone else is there later.

I ain't a hypocrite either, cause I don't like lesbians either. They're more open than men and to see two women passionately kissing is a horrible sight.

If I was to go to my local gym and see a bunch of gay people working out, I'd leave. Hell no!!! I ain't going in no gym to play ball with a bunch of gays. 

God said "Be fruitful and multiply". It takes a man and a woman to multiply. "Adam and Eve" not "Adam and Steve". 

We in a society of freedom of speech. I just think that too much is accepted here. And I feel that one day America is gonna burn like Sodom because America is slowly becoming a gay society. And before you quote this with any bull**** read up on Sodom and see what I'm talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah


----------



## HB

Man some of the stuff you guys say is really disheartening. Now I understand why the KKK can go around supporting their misguided views thinking they are doing the right things


----------



## The Truth

Heated said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> So, I notice a lot of people bringing race into this.
> 
> Lets look at something as taboo such as pedophilia. Since people should have to openly accept gay people to avoid being labeled ignorant, should they also have to openly accept pedophiles? Do you accept pedophilia? Is that ok with you?
> I'm well aware that pedophilia is a million times worse than homosexuality. But it's not something they can help, anymore than gay people can help being gay. It's a mental disease. So essentially it's the same thing, right?


A pedophile breaks the law by having non-consensual sex with a minor. A homosexual having consensual sex with another person is not harming anyone.


----------



## essbee

Heated said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> So, I notice a lot of people bringing race into this.
> 
> Lets look at something as taboo such as pedophilia. Since people should have to openly accept gay people to avoid being labeled ignorant, should they also have to openly accept pedophiles? Do you accept pedophilia? Is that ok with you?
> I'm well aware that pedophilia is a million times worse than homosexuality. But it's not something they can help, anymore than gay people can help being gay. It's a mental disease. So essentially it's the same thing, right?


Yeah we talked about this earlier. If we lived in the times of the ancient Greek societies, like I said, with their pederast arrangements, we'd be told to accept pedophilia as not only victimless but a normal way of life. Since pedophilia has been around for so long and the tendencies are obviously predisposed in some people should we automatically condone it? I think it's obviously not the case.

It's also obvious that race is unrelated as I said last night.

Calling homosexuality a mental disease is inaccurate though, since, while the coupling is inferior clearly to heterosexuality, it does not in any way impair their other individual abilities the way mental diseases do. What you probably mean is disorder, and even that would not be an accurate description, unless all deviations from the norm are disorders, which isn't accurate.


----------



## The Truth

Spaceman Spiff said:


> For one, I don't have Hardaway's celeb status, so I would say it, and wouldn't give a f*** who thinks what. I care even less what any of you have to say. But being of such status he's only bound to cause controversy.
> 
> This isn't about being ignorant. I don't like them, and I avoid them if I know it's not necessary to go through them. If I see one at a help desk, I make whatever requests I have and go about my business. If I'm in a store and a gay man is all I see who's available to help, I leave the store and come back and hope someone else is there later.
> 
> I ain't a hypocrite either, cause I don't like lesbians either. They're more open than men and to see two women passionately kissing is a horrible sight.
> 
> If I was to go to my local gym and see a bunch of gay people working out, I'd leave. Hell no!!! I ain't going in no gym to play ball with a bunch of gays.
> 
> God said "Be fruitful and multiply". It takes a man and a woman to multiply. "Adam and Eve" not "Adam and Steve".
> 
> We in a society of freedom of speech. I just think that too much is accepted here. And I feel that one day America is gonna burn like Sodom because America is slowly becoming a gay society. And before you quote this with any bull**** read up on Sodom and see what I'm talking about.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah


Why are you worried about interacting with homosexuals?


----------



## essbee

Turkish Delight said:


> It's because of idiotic, senseless fools like Tim Hardaway that no current NBA player will want to come out of the closet publicly.


So the fact that people have an opinion on people like Amiechi is what makes their cowardice acceptable? I fail to see how it's a justification for someone pretending to be what they're not. More importantly if it's so "brave" for someone to be honest about who they are I fail to see how it's also okay for them to lie about it.


----------



## essbee

The Truth said:


> A pedophile breaks the law by having non-consensual sex with a minor. A homosexual having consensual sex with another person is not harming anyone.


Again, in greek socieites, and in some parts of the world today, those relationships were not against the law, they were in fact encouraged. Does that mean it was right then but wrong now? Doesn't make much sense.


----------



## Ras

Spaceman Spiff said:


> For one, I don't have Hardaway's celeb status, so I would say it, and wouldn't give a f*** who thinks what. I care even less what any of you have to say. But being of such status he's only bound to cause controversy.
> 
> This isn't about being ignorant. I don't like them, and I avoid them if I know it's not necessary to go through them. If I see one at a help desk, I make whatever requests I have and go about my business. If I'm in a store and a gay man is all I see who's available to help, I leave the store and come back and hope someone else is there later.
> 
> I ain't a hypocrite either, cause I don't like lesbians either. They're more open than men and to see two women passionately kissing is a horrible sight.
> 
> If I was to go to my local gym and see a bunch of gay people working out, I'd leave. Hell no!!! I ain't going in no gym to play ball with a bunch of gays.
> 
> God said "Be fruitful and multiply". It takes a man and a woman to multiply. "Adam and Eve" not "Adam and Steve".
> 
> We in a society of freedom of speech. I just think that too much is accepted here. And I feel that one day America is gonna burn like Sodom because America is slowly becoming a gay society. And before you quote this with any bull**** read up on Sodom and see what I'm talking about.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah


I find it crazy that you feel 'too much is accepted.' If it's not imposing on anyone else, why shouldn't it be accepted? No one is hurting anyone by being gay.


----------



## Crossword

Heated said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> So, I notice a lot of people bringing race into this.
> 
> Lets look at something as taboo such as pedophilia. Since people should have to openly accept gay people to avoid being labeled ignorant, should they also have to openly accept pedophiles? Do you accept pedophilia? Is that ok with you?
> I'm well aware that pedophilia is a million times worse than homosexuality. But it's not something they can help, anymore than gay people can help being gay. It's a mental disease. So essentially it's the same thing, right?


Homosexuality is not a disease.


----------



## kawika

Spaceman Spiff said:


> This isn't about being ignorant. I don't like them, and I avoid them if I know it's not necessary to go through them. If I see one at a help desk, I make whatever requests I have and go about my business. If I'm in a store and a gay man is all I see who's available to help, I leave the store and come back and hope someone else is there later.
> 
> I ain't a hypocrite either, cause I don't like lesbians either. They're more open than men and to see two women passionately kissing is a horrible sight.
> 
> If I was to go to my local gym and see a bunch of gay people working out, I'd leave. Hell no!!! I ain't going in no gym to play ball with a bunch of gays.


How 'bout posting on a MB? If I come out now on this thread** will you leave? Not that I want you to...merely wondering about your consistency in these matters. 



**oops, guess I just did.


----------



## The lone wolf

essbee said:


> Again, in greek socieites, and in some parts of the world today, those relationships were not against the law, they were in fact encouraged. Does that mean it was right then but wrong now? Doesn't make much sense.


Yeah dude - it was considered right then - just like flogging in public and treating women like garbage. Over time people realized that those things were wrong. Makes perfect sense


----------



## BlackNRed

The Truth said:


> A pedophile breaks the law by having non-consensual sex with a minor. A homosexual having consensual sex with another person is not harming anyone.


Wrong. A pedophile is someone who has physical/sexual attraction to a minor. That is not illegal in itself. It becomes illegal when a pedophile acts on his or her urges. Then they would become a sex offender, or a child rapist.

The point is, it's no more controllable than being born a homosexual. So one should have to accept it, according to your logic of course.


----------



## essbee

The lone wolf said:


> Yeah dude - it was considered right then - just like flogging in public and treating women like garbage. Over time people realized that those things were wrong. Makes perfect sense


Except that we still have the death penalty and to this day troops are found guilty of torturing prisoners. There was a debate as recent as a year ago on what exactly constituted torture.

Also your point is nonsensical because there are still people who feel it isn't wrong. What exactly do you think NAMBLA exists for? The issue is whether we should automatically simply be told that something is "right" or whether people are able to make their own decisions on whether a lifestyle is appropriate or not.


----------



## Crossword

Burn said:


> Not gonna name any names, but there are a lot of retards in this thread - I mean people who are actually mentally retarded. And frankly, I hate the whole concept of retardation. I don't understand why people choose to be retarded. I don't hate retards themselves, just the concept. God made Adam and Eve not Lloyd and Harry.


Yeah, because Adam and Eve are the only people ever to roam the earth ever. If we're all god-created, then Lloyd and Harry are as much a product of god as Adam and Eve.


----------



## darth-horax

_Again, in greek socieites, and in some parts of the world today, those relationships were not against the law, they were in fact encouraged. Does that mean it was right then but wrong now? Doesn't make much sense._

Time did not begin in greek or roman times.
If you want to get really technical, whether you belive in Adam and Eve or not, remember that there were eventually 2 humans initially (rather monkeys or ****-erectus or whatnot). They only way they could perpetuate their species was through sex, or coitus.

Two men together, or two women, could NOT perpetuate their species if they did the horizontal mambo together. Hence, it was initially NOT accepted and not natural until the crazy greeks and romans brought it to the forefront of their self worshipping society.


----------



## essbee

Heated said:


> The point is, it's no more controllable than being born a homosexual. So one should have to accept it, according to your logic of course.


And as I said there is evidence that the same applies to criminal behavior. Environment plus genetics, so by their logic we shouldn't blame them since it's beyond their control.


----------



## The Truth

essbee said:


> Again, in greek socieites, and in some parts of the world today, those relationships were not against the law, they were in fact encouraged. Does that mean it was right then but wrong now? Doesn't make much sense.


The legality of the act has nothing to do with the crux of my argument. It's that the pedophile causes physical and mental harm to the non-consenting child.


----------



## Spaceman Spiff

kawika said:


> How 'bout posting on a MB? If I come out now on this thread** will you leave? Not that I want you to...merely wondering about your consistency in these matters.
> 
> 
> 
> **oops, guess I just did.


Just to answer your question, communication between us would be kept to a minimum. I wouldn't respond to you unless you asked me a question. I won't say anything to you, reply to any of your posts, or ask you for anything. I won't go out of my way by any means to communicate with a gay person.


----------



## Crossword

Enough with this damn free speech ****. I love free speech, but there are limitations to free speech, and saying bigoted things in public is one of them.


----------



## essbee

darth-horax said:


> Time did not begin in greek or roman times.
> If you want to get really technical, whether you belive in Adam and Eve or not, remember that there were eventually 2 humans initially (rather monkeys or ****-erectus or whatnot). They only way they could perpetuate their species was through sex, or coitus.
> 
> Two men together, or two women, could NOT perpetuate their species if they did the horizontal mambo together. Hence, it was initially NOT accepted and not natural until the crazy greeks and romans brought it to the forefront of their self worshipping society.


I'm talking about fairly recent examples of societies where pedophilia was practiced as a matter of habit and socially accepted and there was no marked determent to the society. The point is that doesn't mean that pedophilia still isn't wrong, because it is.

The other stuff you're talking about I already covered in another thread where we talked about gay marriage and I pointed out that homosexuality is naturally inferior to heterosexuality for the reasons you're talking about. Everybody tried to counter with the "yeah but there's plenty of heterosexual couples so it's not really inferior" argument -- which naturally is silly because the nature of empirical value has nothing to do with overall amounts like that.


----------



## Crossword

Chalie Boy said:


> Thats a WHOLE nother' discussion bro :chill:


How many different discussions has this thread accomodated already? We can fit a few more.


----------



## essbee

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Enough with this damn free speech ****. I love free speech, but there are limitations to free speech, and saying bigoted things in public is one of them.


No it's not actually.


----------



## essbee

The Truth said:


> The legality of the act has nothing to do with the crux of my argument. It's that the pedophile causes physical and mental harm to the non-consenting child.


What if the child consents?


----------



## The lone wolf

essbee said:


> Except that we still have the death penalty and to this day troops are found guilty of torturing prisoners. There was a debate as recent as a year ago on what exactly constituted torture.
> 
> Also your point is nonsensical because there are still people who feel it isn't wrong. What exactly do you think NAMBLA exists for? The issue is whether we should automatically simply be told that something is "right" or whether people are able to make their own decisions on whether a lifestyle is appropriate or not.


What is your point? - that homosexuals and pedophiles are not different and if the society accepts pedophile hate, they should automatically accept homosexual hate?


----------



## The lone wolf

essbee said:


> What if the child consents?


A child cannot consent because it's a child.


----------



## essbee

The lone wolf said:


> What is your point? - that homosexuals and pedophiles are not different and if the society accepts pedophile hate, they should automatically accept homosexual hate?


Oh it's not complicated.

1) Pedophilia and homosexuality are both sexual tendencies which deviate from the norm. 

2) Both have been prevalent parts of past societies.

3) IF we use the arguments of gay activists in this thread that "no one would pick a lifestyle that ostracized them so much so they MUST be that way naturally" we need to apply that same logic to pedophiles, who are the most reviled members of our society. If they are that way naturally why are we punishing them?

Because opinions on a sexual tendency can exist outside the realm of its "naturalness" because as humans, that's what we do to establish a moral code.


----------



## essbee

The lone wolf said:


> A child cannot consent because it's a child.


Age of consent is a pretty hotly contested topic, with various standards the world over. You have no way of telling what a child's real age of consent is.


----------



## -33-

Timmy has always been very vocal and open to what he believes in. He was always loud mouthed towards the Knicks, he's been critical of Pat Riley and the Heat organization openly since we've parted ways, and now this is really no surprise to those who know Timmy.


----------



## 49erfan

*Re: Tim Hardaway: "I'm a gay man"*

oh no, not this again


----------



## Crossword

essbee said:


> No it's not actually.


Yes it is actually. It's why Holocaust deniers can't publish books.


----------



## The Truth

Heated said:


> Wrong. A pedophile is someone who has physical/sexual attraction to a minor. That is not illegal in itself. It becomes illegal when a pedophile acts on his or her urges. Then they would become a sex offender, or a child rapist.
> 
> The point is, it's no more controllable than being born a homosexual. So one should have to accept it, according to your logic of course.


Oh man, here we go again...

You're right, a pedophile is someone who is physically/sexually attracted to children. 

If I know that someone is physically/sexually attracted to children, and by some strange power in the universe I am able to determine with *100%* certainty that the person in question will *never* act on that urge, than I really don't give a ****.

However, in reality, we both know that I would never be able to attain 100% assurance that the pedophile will never act on that urge; therefore, because the pedophile would harm someone if acting upon their urges, you cannot equate their sexual "perversion" with the sexual preference of a homosexual, since a homosexual having consensual sex with an of-age person of the same sex will not harm anyone.

A pedophile desires a harmful act. A homosexual doesn't.

I find that even dignifying your comparison of a homsexual and a pedophile is offensive.


----------



## BlackNRed

essbee said:


> And as I said there is evidence that the same applies to criminal behavior. Environment plus genetics, so by their logic we shouldn't blame them since it's beyond their control.


Exactly. It's taking the lesser of two extremes, and calling it appropriate while condemning another. It's a huge double standard.


----------



## Crossword

essbee said:


> Age of consent is a pretty hotly contested topic, with various standards the world over. You have no way of telling what a child's real age of consent is.


Not when the child is forced into the act, no you can't. Pedophelia is nothing more than rape of a child. Homosexuality, unless unwillfully committed, is not rape.


----------



## Crossword

As for ancient societies, in ancient Greek homosexual pedophelia was a rite of passage. Today it is a crime. Big, BIG difference.


----------



## essbee

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Yes it is actually. It's why Holocaust deniers can't publish books.


Except those same holocaust deniers just had a conference in Iran where they were allowed to speak freely of their opinions. It's a matter of the opinions of the hosting party and what is deemed allowable.


----------



## Crossword

essbee said:


> Except those same holocaust deniers just had a conference in Iran where they were allowed to speak freely of their opinions. It's a matter of the opinions of the hosting party and what is deemed allowable.


Completely agreed. And here, in North America, where Tim Hardaway recorded his outburst, public bigotry is not allowable.


----------



## essbee

Budweiser_Boy said:


> As for ancient societies, in ancient Greek homosexual pedophelia was a rite of passage. Today it is a crime. Big, BIG difference.


Ah see now you're making my point FOR ME.

the same act that was considered acceptable and had NO overall palpable effect on the societies where it was present is now considered a crime. That's because of changing morals of the lawmakers, not changing acts. So the idea that people should automatically jump on the bandwagon to condone homosexuality loses it's legs when you don't have the "it's been around forever", "it doesn't affect you" and "they don't control it" arguments. The fact is people who support this lifestyle have that opinion, and people who don't have a different one. It has nothing to do with ignorance or any of the other stupid reasons being given for why an opposing position is unacceptable.

If people have a belief system that says they should see it as a wrongful lifestyle, that's their choice.


----------



## BlackNRed

The Truth said:


> Oh man, here we go again...
> 
> You're right, a pedophile is someone who is physically/sexually attracted to children.
> 
> If I know that someone is physically/sexually attracted to children, and by some strange power in the universe I am able to determine with *100%* certainty that the person in question will *never* act on that urge, than I really don't give a ****.
> 
> However, in reality, we both know that I would never be able to attain 100% assurance that the pedophile will never act on that urge; therefore, because the pedophile would harm someone if acting upon their urges, you cannot equate their sexual "perversion" with the sexual preference of a homosexual, since a homosexual having consensual sex with an of-age person of the same sex will not harm anyone.


Does a heterosexual person have 100% assurance that a gay will not come on to them? Or maybe take it a step further, and forcibly act on their urges, rape? I don't think anybody can be 100% sure of anything. Which is the whole reason one would be uncomfortable being around someone who's lifestyle, or sexual orientation deviates from the norm. 

Like I said, the lesser of two extremes.


----------



## The lone wolf

essbee said:


> Oh it's not complicated.
> 
> 1) Pedophilia and homosexuality are both sexual tendencies which deviate from the norm.
> 
> 2) Both have been prevalent parts of past societies.
> 
> 3) IF we use the arguments of gay activists in this thread that "no one would pick a lifestyle that ostracized them so much so they MUST be that way naturally" we need to apply that same logic to pedophiles, who are the most reviled members of our society. If they are that way naturally why are we punishing them?
> 
> Because opinions on a sexual tendency can exist outside the realm of its "naturalness" because as humans, that's what we do to establish a moral code.


1) that's one common factor - the major difference is that a party gets hurt. (i'm sure you agree that the child gets hurt without getting too technical on the age)

2) Almost everything in the world today has been prevalent parts of past societies - moot point

3) It's true that homosexuals and pedophiles are born that way. But the punishing part has nothing to do with how they are born or their natural tendencies. Punishing occurs only when someone gets hurt or tends to get hurt (hating for the tending to get kids hurt and punishing for actually getting kids hurt and maybe imminent threat of kids getting hurt)

See it's all very simple


----------



## essbee

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Completely agreed. And here, in North America, where Tim Hardaway recorded his outburst, public bigotry is not allowable.


If someone says that anybody who opposes homosexuality is ignorant and bigoted but that person's beliefs are outlined for example by a Christian religion isn't that bigotry against the people who disagree with them? I'm confused on how it's acceptable to be bigoted against people who disagree with you on a topic.


----------



## essbee

The lone wolf said:


> 1) that's one common factor - the major difference is that a party gets hurt. (i'm sure you agree that the child gets hurt without getting too technical on the age)
> 
> 2) Almost everything in the world today has been prevalent parts of past societies - moot point
> 
> 3) It's true that homosexuals and pedophiles are born that way. But the punishing part has nothing to do with how they are born or their natural tendencies. Punishing occurs only when someone gets hurt or tends to get hurt (hating for the tending to get kids hurt and punishing for actually getting kids hurt and maybe imminent threat of kids getting hurt)
> 
> See it's all very simple


1)Perspective. Pedophiles often don't feel they're hurting children. They are getting hurt in MY opinion, but according to the "live and let live" nonsense from people here I shouldn't want to impose my moral code on anybody but myself right? Or am I allowed to disagree and say that they're wrong? Also for what it's worth, just disseminating FICTIONAL works of child pornography can get you jail time so it's not even just about the acts.

2)The fact that it's all been prevalent in the past is the entire point. Just because it's existed doesn't mean it should be condoned, so the argument as such in favor of homosexuality are rendered moot just as you say.

3)Perspective again. You say they get hurt. Pedophiles don't. People say homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. I say it isn't. How do you guys pick and choose when opposing viewpoints are acceptable and when they're not?


----------



## essbee

Heated said:
 

> Does a heterosexual person have 100% assurance that a gay will not come on to them? Or maybe take it a step further, and forcibly act on their urges, rape? I don't think anybody can be 100% sure of anything. Which is the whole reason one would be uncomfortable being around someone who's lifestyle, or sexual orientation deviates from the norm.
> 
> Like I said, the lesser of two extremes.


http://www.sfrcc.org/same_gender.html


----------



## Crossword

essbee said:


> Ah see now you're making my point FOR ME.
> 
> the same act that was considered acceptable and had NO overall palpable effect on the societies where it was present is now considered a crime. That's because of changing morals of the lawmakers, not changing acts. So the idea that people should automatically jump on the bandwagon to condone homosexuality loses it's legs when you don't have the "it's been around forever", "it doesn't affect you" and "they don't control it" arguments. The fact is people who support this lifestyle have that opinion, and people who don't have a different one. It has nothing to do with ignorance or any of the other stupid reasons being given for why an opposing position is unacceptable.
> 
> If people have a belief system that says they should see it as a wrongful lifestyle, that's their choice.


But just because it was part of that culture, does it mean the choice was never there? I don't think so. If we maintained the same rite of passage in our world today, there would be people who are naturally attracted to the person of their gender (read: gay people), and then a much larger group that would not be naturally attracted (read: straight people), and would only carry on with the procedure because it is a rite of passage. Its implementation in a culture doesn't dictate the desires or feelings of the people within that culture.


----------



## The Truth

Heated said:


> Does a heterosexual person have 100% assurance that a gay will not come on to them? Or maybe take it a step further, and forcibly act on their urges, rape? I don't think anybody can be 100% sure of anything. Which is the whole reason one would be uncomfortable being around someone who's lifestyle, or sexual orientation deviates from the norm.
> 
> Like I said, the lesser of two extremes.


Ok, so now you're beginning to answer my question that you dodged earlier. It seems to me that you don't like homosexuals because you are scared of what they might do to you.

You're conflating ideas here. We were discussing the homosexual desire vs. the pedophiliac desire. Now, when confronted with the idea that a homosexual does not desire to commit a harmful act and a pedophile does, you then change the analogy to comparing a homosexual who desires to rape with a pedophile.


----------



## Crossword

essbee said:


> If someone says that anybody who opposes homosexuality is ignorant and bigoted but that person's beliefs are outlined for example by a Christian religion isn't that bigotry against the people who disagree with them? I'm confused on how it's acceptable to be bigoted against people who disagree with you on a topic.


It's not about who agrees or disagrees. Hatred of a group because of their beliefs and hatred of a group because of their natural ways are two completely different things.


----------



## BlackNRed

The lone wolf said:


> 3) It's true that homosexuals and pedophiles are born that way. But the punishing part has nothing to do with how they are born or their natural tendencies. Punishing occurs only when someone gets hurt or tends to get hurt (hating for the tending to get kids hurt and punishing for actually getting kids hurt and maybe imminent threat of kids getting hurt)
> 
> See it's all very simple


It's not that simple at all. If a person suffering from pedophilia was open about their feelings society would deem them intolerable, and repulsive. They'd be forced to live a life of exile. 

Can you say the same applies to homosexuals? Not even close.


----------



## Ras

essbee said:


> 1)Perspective. Pedophiles often don't feel they're hurting children. They are getting hurt in MY opinion, but according to the "live and let live" nonsense from people here I shouldn't want to impose my moral code on anybody but myself right? Or am I allowed to disagree and say that they're wrong? Also for what it's worth, just disseminating FICTIONAL works of child pornography can get you jail time so it's not even just about the acts.
> 
> 2)The fact that it's all been prevalent in the past is the entire point. Just because it's existed doesn't mean it should be condoned, so the argument as such in favor of homosexuality are rendered moot just as you say.
> 
> 3)Perspective again. You say they get hurt. Pedophiles don't. People say homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. I say it isn't. How do you guys pick and choose when opposing viewpoints are acceptable and when they're not?


Just because the pedophile doesn't feel he's hurting the child doesn't mean he isn't. It's probably true in almost every case of child rape, that the child is hurt.


----------



## The lone wolf

essbee said:


> 1)Perspective. Pedophiles often don't feel they're hurting children. They are getting hurt in MY opinion, but according to the "live and let live" nonsense from people here I shouldn't want to impose my moral code on anybody but myself right? Or am I allowed to disagree and say that they're wrong? Also for what it's worth, just disseminating FICTIONAL works of child pornography can get you jail time so it's not even just about the acts.
> 
> 2)The fact that it's all been prevalent in the past is the entire point. Just because it's existed doesn't mean it should be condoned, so the argument as such in favor of homosexuality are rendered moot just as you say.
> 
> 3)Perspective again. You say they get hurt. Pedophiles don't. People say homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. I say it isn't. How do you guys pick and choose when opposing viewpoints are acceptable and when they're not?


1) It's not perspective - it's just a matter of fact. Kids do get hurt. disseminating FICTIONAL works - personally i wouldn't jail someone for that - don't know what the law is about imminent threat in this case.

2)I'm not arguing that homosexuality is OK just because it was practiced in the past- not sure anyone is using that as an argument in itself to accept homosexuality. That argument is brought up usually against folks who say that this is a new-age thing 

3) Again - it's not perspective. Kids get hurt. I cannot argue with you if you think otherwise or if you think that kids getting hust is just a "viewpoint"


----------



## The lone wolf

Heated said:


> It's not that simple at all. If a person suffering from pedophilia was open about their feelings society would deem them intolerable, and repulsive. They'd be forced to live a life of exile.
> 
> Can you say the same applies to homosexuals? Not even close.


man1 - i'm genetically predisposed to liking chocolates.
man2 - i'm genetically predisposed to like stabbing people.

There is your difference - Makes perfect sense to exile man2 even though he has no control over it and makes absolutely no sense to hate man1.


----------



## kawika

Spaceman Spiff said:


> Just to answer your question, communication between us would be kept to a minimum. I wouldn't respond to you unless you asked me a question. I won't say anything to you, reply to any of your posts, or ask you for anything. I won't go out of my way by any means to communicate with a gay person.


Thank you for deigning to communicate with me. I know it must have required a lot of courage to do that.

Y'know in almost four years/1400 posts here, a brief spell as a mod, posting in various fora, etc. I think this is the second time I've made reference to my sexuality...precisely because I didn't wish for that to be the only lens others saw me through. But of course what's so Alice in Wonderland about these kinds of discussions is that it seems to be gay people who are often accused of making their sexuality the defining issue about themselves when the reality is that it's folks who have severe issues with gay people who wish to reduce another person to merely one aspect of their humanity. 

And, I hate to break it to you, but I don't feel that way about you or anyone else that has expressed opinions that basically view me as sub-human, because I choose not to let that be the part of you that cancels everything else out. That's the whole point, there may be parts of someone else that I strongly disapprove of, but it doesn't blind me to their possible contributions, either. If you write something good about basketball, I'd still rep you. Funny ol' world, ain't it?


----------



## Pimped Out

Heated said:


> Does a heterosexual person have 100% assurance that a gay will not come on to them? Or maybe take it a step further, and forcibly act on their urges, rape? I don't think anybody can be 100% sure of anything. Which is the whole reason one would be uncomfortable being around someone who's lifestyle, or sexual orientation deviates from the norm.
> 
> Like I said, the lesser of two extremes.


does a heterosexual female have 100% assurance a heterosexual male wont rape her?

the fact is, a homosexual can act on their urges in an appropriate, consensual manner in which no one is taken advantage of or hurt. a heterosexual can act on their urges in an appropriate, consensual manner in which no one is taken advantage of or hurt. a homosexual can have a violent outburst which results in non-consensual sex. a heterosexual can have a violent outburst which results in non-consensual sex.


----------



## kflo

essbee - it's not live and let live nonsense. that's your continued confusion. it's that which consenting adults choose to do without victimizing others shouldn't subject them to scorn. that's quite different than reviling something that you feel victimizes defenseless children. 

you say homosexuality isn't the same as heterosexuality, but don't say anything of the consequences of treating them the same or differently. 

if you feel pedophilia victimizes children, you should find it revolting. what's your reason for homosexuality, and is it comparable? if it's not, maybe it's time to drop the pedophilia strawman.


----------



## BlackNRed

The Truth said:


> Ok, so now you're beginning to answer my question that you dodged earlier. It seems to me that you don't like homosexuals because you are scared of what they might do to you.
> 
> You're conflating ideas here. We were discussing the homosexual desire vs. the pedophiliac desire. Now, when confronted with the idea that a homosexual does not desire to commit a harmful act and a pedophile does, you then change the analogy to comparing a homosexual who desires to rape with a pedophile.


But a homosexual COULD just as well desire to commit a harmful act, or illegal crime. That was the point. I brought up pedophilia, and you immediately defer to child molestion. What was your reasoning for why a pedophile (non-sex offender) is generally unwanted by society but a homosexual is? Oh that's right, you didn't have one.

You instead lumped pedophilia and child molestation into one, and suggested that you can never be sure if a pedophile would act on their urges. Well, I countered with the same point considering my whole argument is that they are two different human deficiencies with endless similarities, one of which is unacceptable, and one that is.


----------



## BlackNRed

Pimped Out said:


> does a heterosexual female have 100% assurance a heterosexual male wont rape her?


No, which again, is my point entirely. The Truth, is saying he is uncomfortable with pedophiles because of the possibility that they *could* act on their urges, even if they have never actually commited an act of violence.

So what's different from a child rapist, and an adult rapist? No matter the sexual orientation, besides the obvious one of course. It would still be unconsentual and completely illegal.



The lone wolf said:


> man1 - i'm genetically predisposed to liking chocolates.
> man2 - i'm genetically predisposed to like stabbing people.
> 
> There is your difference - Makes perfect sense to exile man2 even though he has no control over it and makes absolutely no sense to hate man1.


Thank you, you're a perfect example of what i'm talking about. Your little analogy couldn't be more of contradicting.

You're comparing a gay person who has commited no crime toliking chocolates.

While comparing a pedophile (someone who has not commited any crime, other than being born with with a deficiency) to to a murderer.

I rest my case.


----------



## Dre

Some of you guys are just lowering the idiot meter to a new level. Only dogs can hear your ignorance.


----------



## The lone wolf

Heated said:


> . What was your reasoning for why a pedophile (non-sex offender) is generally unwanted by society but a homosexual is? Oh that's right, you didn't have one.


see man1 man2 example above


----------



## kflo

heated - i don't know what you're arguing.

acting out on homosexuality is itself not a criminal act. acting out on pedophilia is. i'm not sure what your comparison is.


----------



## kflo

aren't rapists of all kinds generally frowned upon by society?


----------



## Prolific Scorer

Tim would've been politically correct if he would've just said "**** GAYS!"


----------



## Minstrel

JNice said:


> There is an awful lot of research that disagrees with your beliefs. I think it is pretty ignorant to think people are raised or made gay by their families or surroundings.


While I agree that sexuality (both homosexuality and heterosexuality) is, in general, innate, I don't think it matters as to whether homophobia is bigotry.

If you believe homosexuality is innate, then hating homosexuals is akin to hating races or genders.

If you believe homosexuality is a choice, then hating homosexuals is akin to anti-Semitism or hating people due to religion.

Either way, it's bigoted.


----------



## essbee

Budweiser_Boy said:


> It's not about who agrees or disagrees. Hatred of a group because of their beliefs and hatred of a group because of their natural ways are two completely different things.


is that similar to how I said earlier that hatred of a group for race and hatred for sexual orientation are two different things? When I said that you responded by saying:



" Hard to imagine, but the majority of posters here seem to have an understanding of what constitutes hatred towards a certain group, and furthermore that such hatred is unacceptable in a pluralistic..."

I'm confused, you're contradicting yourself here.


----------



## essbee

Ras said:


> Just because the pedophile doesn't feel he's hurting the child doesn't mean he isn't. It's probably true in almost every case of child rape, that the child is hurt.


Just because some people think homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality doesn't mean I do.

Just because some people morally think homosexuality should be condoned doesn't mean I do.

So where's this "tolerance" when it comes to people who don't approve of the lifestyle?


----------



## Hibachi!

May I ask those of you that are arguing that this shouldn't be a big deal because he was just practicing his free speech how that is a viable argument? Or those of you that want him to not say it because it's not right? Look this is America, and here in America you can say whatever the **** you want. See look... ****, penis, boobs, vagina freely... So Tim Hardaway CAN say whatever he damn well pleases. But being this is America good ol' Tim can criticize as much as he wants, but we can say the same crap back now can't we?

This is one of those stupid arguments the Dixie Chix and Madonna tried to make... Both said the same idiotic statement of "This is supposed to be the country of free speech, but the minute you say something that people don't agree with you get blasted for it..." With smirks on their faces. Uh... no **** Sherlock? You think you're the only ones that can talk? Hardaway WAS practicing his free speech. But SO ARE WE. Tim says he hates gay people. I say Tim is a moron. It goes both ways... Who cares if he was practicing his free speech? That does not make the speech right. So we are entitled by the first amendment to say whatever the hell we want back.


----------



## essbee

kflo said:


> essbee - it's not live and let live nonsense. that's your continued confusion. it's that which consenting adults choose to do without victimizing others shouldn't subject them to scorn. that's quite different than reviling something that you feel victimizes defenseless children.
> 
> you say homosexuality isn't the same as heterosexuality, but don't say anything of the consequences of treating them the same or differently.
> 
> if you feel pedophilia victimizes children, you should find it revolting. what's your reason for homosexuality, and is it comparable? if it's not, maybe it's time to drop the pedophilia strawman.


You're wrong. It's specifically addressing the contention that if somebody is "born a certain way" we should automatically say we approve of it. That's a specific, detailed response to such a contention. That doesn't remotely fit the definition of a straw man because it's being tied into the conversation we're having, and two different types of sexual tendencies are relevant to each other in the discussion. Please use the term strawman correctly.

My opinions on the inferiority of homosexuality were covered in the other thread, as a coupling it's simply not equal to heterosexuality. If people want to do it that's no concern, but demanding recognition as an equal union is inappropriate.


----------



## kflo

essbee said:


> Just because some people think homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality doesn't mean I do.
> 
> Just because some people morally think homosexuality should be condoned doesn't mean I do.
> 
> So where's this "tolerance" when it comes to people who don't approve of the lifestyle?


if someone has an attraction to same sex individuals, why do you not condone acting on that attraction? why should a homosexual not BE homosexual? and if they do, why would you frown upon it? 

what is the societal harm from treating individual consenting relationships as equivalent? and what's the benefit from not doing so? or do you just like feeling superior?


----------



## Kuskid

This deals more with one of the issues from a couple pages back, but I stumbled upon a quote earlier this year from a gay conservative blogger on http://gaypatriot.org/. I can't find the exact quotye right now, but I believe it was "Americans aren't so much pro-gay as they are anti-anti-gay."


----------



## kflo

essbee said:


> You're wrong. It's specifically addressing the contention that if somebody is "born a certain way" we should automatically say we approve of it.


EXCEPT NOONE IS ARGUING THIS. therefore, strawman. try again.


----------



## BlackNRed

The lone wolf said:


> see man1 man2 example above


See my edited post on page 42 for my response. Thanks for making it so easy.



kflo said:


> heated - i don't know what you're arguing.
> 
> acting out on homosexuality is itself not a criminal act. acting out on pedophilia is. i'm not sure what your comparison is.


That's because you don't realize there is a difference. You can't act out pedophilia. Pedophilia is the disease of being sexually attracted to minors, which is not illegal in itself. I am comparing Pedophilia to Homosexuality. NOT CHILD RAPE. The lesser of the two extremes is accepted while the other is NOT.


----------



## Minstrel

Heated said:


> Thank you, you're a perfect example of what i'm talking about. Your little analogy couldn't be more of contradicting.
> 
> You're comparing a gay person who has commited no crime to not liking chocolates.
> 
> While comparing a pedophile (someone who has not commited any crime, other than being born with with a deficiency) to to a murderer.
> 
> I rest my case.


Your illogic astounds.

He compared a gay person to someone predisposed to having a certain, non-illegal preference.

He compared a pedophile to someone _predisposed_ to committing a harmful crime.

He never said man 2 actually stabbed people. He said man 2 was _predisposed_ to it. Just as a pedophile (even one who has committed no crime) is predisposed to child molestation. You do know what "predisposed" means, right?

Your homosexuality/pedophile comparison (which is generic and has been destroyed many, many times) is patently illogical. The _desire_ to cause others harm (which pedophiles have by definition, even if they don't act on it) bears no comparison to the desire to engage in consensual activities with another adult.

It makes perfect sense to be uncomfortable about someone who desires to harm others while not being uncomfortable about someone who desires a non-harmful preference. There's no contradiction there.


----------



## essbee

kflo said:


> EXCEPT NOONE IS ARGUING THIS. therefore, strawman. try again.





JNice said:


> Discrimination based on two uncontrollable aspects of ones life. It's like saying I hate all blonde people. Or I hate all blue eyed people.
> 
> Unless of course you believe it is a choice ... which of course I'm sure there are thousands and thousands of people who would want to choose to live their lives in seclusion or be discriminated against by idiots for the rest of their lives.


My post:

"It's specifically addressing the contention that if somebody is "born a certain way" we should automatically say we approve of it. "



Where's the strawman?


----------



## kflo

Heated said:


> That's because you don't realize there is a difference. You can't act out pedophilia. Pedophilia is the disease of being sexually attracted to minors, which is not illegal in itself. I am comparing Pedophilia to Homosexuality. NOT CHILD RAPE. The lesser of the two extremes is accepted while the other is NOT.


the acting out of one impulse is criminal and harmful, the acting of the other is not. that should give you a clue as to why they're thought of differently.


----------



## essbee

Heated said:


> See my edited post on page 42 for my response. Thanks for making it so easy.
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you don't realize there is a difference. You can't act out pedophilia. Pedophilia is the disease of being sexually attracted to minors, which is not illegal in itself. I am comparing Pedophilia to Homosexuality. NOT CHILD RAPE. The lesser of the two extremes is accepted while the other is NOT.


And if we lived in another society, I'm sure these same people would say pedophilia was okay if the child consented.


----------



## HB

essbee said:


> And if we lived in another society, *I'm sure these same people would say pedophilia was okay if the child consented.*


One of the posters in here as agreed to that before


----------



## kflo

essbee said:


> My post:
> 
> "It's specifically addressing the contention that if somebody is "born a certain way" we should automatically say we approve of it. "
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the strawman?


the post you were responding to with your "live and let live" line clearly discussed the consequences of the action. why revert to arguing against automatic approval? that wasn't what you were respoinding to. noone has put forth a explicit argument on automatic approval.

i don't know why you would focus on an automatic apporval, when noone argued such. you're basing your entire argument on 1 line from jnice which wasn't expounded upon?


----------



## The Truth

Heated said:


> You instead lumped pedophilia and child molestation into one, and suggested that you can never be sure if a pedophile would act on their urges.


I didn't lump it into one. A pedophile desires to molest children (whether acted upon or not). I'm not conflating the two; that's simply the nature of pedophilia.



> Well, I countered with the same point considering my whole argument is that they are two different human deficiencies with endless similarities, one of which is unacceptable, and one that is.


What's your point?

Please answer the following question: why do you dislike homosexuals?


----------



## Burn

essbee, could you stop avoiding kflo's question of what specifically you have against homosexuality? Others have already given their reasons for why they oppose pedophilia, I think it's fair that you explain what your problem with homosexuality is if you're going to try and equate the two.


----------



## IbizaXL

Theonee said:


> Wow, threads with the name GAY are a hit.


it seems to strike some ppls nerves.

just a reminder to everybody, i still stand by my perdiction i made early in this thread. we will hit at least 50 pages. 6 more to go


----------



## kflo

why the obsession with pedophilia. we've pretty much covered why pedophilia is reviled, and have not come up with a comparable reason homosexuality should be comparably viewed. why such an obsession with it?


----------



## essbee

kflo said:


> the post you were responding to with your "live and let live" line clearly discussed the consequences of the action. why revert to arguing against automatic approval? that wasn't what you were respoinding to. noone has put forth a explicit argument on automatic approval.
> 
> i don't know why you would focus on an automatic apporval, when noone argued such. you're basing your entire argument on 1 line from jnice which wasn't expounded upon?


The argument for automatic approval is brought forth every time someone compares a lifestyle/coupling to eye color, or race, or gender, implying that we should be equally indifferent to sexual orientation as we are to those classifications. I consider that to be an argument on automatic approval. 

Please point out the strawman. Thanks.


----------



## Prolific Scorer

Minstrel said:


> While I agree that sexuality (both homosexuality and heterosexuality) is, in general, innate, I don't think it matters as to whether homophobia is bigotry.
> 
> If you believe homosexuality is innate, then hating homosexuals is akin to hating races or genders.
> 
> If you believe homosexuality is a choice, then hating homosexuals is akin to anti-Semitism or hating people due to religion.
> 
> Either way, it's bigoted.


The way kids are being brought up, bigotry is innate.


----------



## essbee

Burn said:


> essbee, could you stop avoiding kflo's question of what specifically you have against homosexuality? Others have already given their reasons for why they oppose pedophilia, I think it's fair that you explain what your problem with homosexuality is if you're going to try and equate the two.


The reason for comparing homosexuality to pedophilia (two innate, societally undesirable tendencies people are still drawn to act upon) was already given earlier in the thread. I listed it in 3 points when somebody asked why I was comparing the two.


----------



## Burn

You're doing it again. You're avoiding the question. Please answer what your problem is with homosexuality.


----------



## The Truth

Heated said:


> That's because you don't realize there is a difference. You can't act out pedophilia. Pedophilia is the disease of being sexually attracted to minors which is not illegal in itself.


Being sexually attracted to someone means that you desire sexual contact with them. The pedophile is sexually attracted to children, meaning they desire sexual contact with children--whether they act on it or not--and since we can all agree that having sex with a non-consenting child is harmful to that child, the pedophile desires to commit an act that would harm a child.


----------



## essbee

Burn said:


> You're doing it again. You're avoiding the question. Please answer what your problem is with homosexuality.


As a coupling it's an inferior relationship, contrary to our biological design, non-beneficial for bio diversity, and contradictory to the natural process of reproduction. I consider it inferior to heterosexuality. It's also ridiculous of the proponents of civil rights on the basis of homosexuality (I would argue that all needed anti-discrimination laws are covered in other areas like race and gender) compare it to race since as I've said neither the classification or suffering experienced by the group are comparable. The entire point of the civil rights movement for blacks was to counter past wrongs, so yes, the past experiences are relevant.

On an individual basis I consider it irrelevant, just like being straight.


----------



## essbee

The Truth said:


> Being sexually attracted to someone means that you desire sexual contact with them. The pedophile is sexually attracted to children, meaning they desire sexual contact with children--whether they act on it or not--and since we can all agree that having sex with a non-consenting child is harmful to that child, the pedophile desires to commit an act that would harm a child.


Ah, the old pre-emptive strike?


----------



## Burn

essbee said:


> As a coupling it's an inferior relationship, contrary to our biological design, non-beneficial for bio diversity, and contradictory to the natural process of reproduction. I consider it inferior to heterosexuality. It's also ridiculous of the proponents of civil rights on the basis of homosexuality (I would argue that all needed anti-discrimination laws are covered in other areas like race and gender) compare it to race since as I've said neither the classification or suffering experienced by the group are comparable. The entire point of the civil rights movement for blacks was to counter past wrongs, so yes, the past experiences are relevant.
> 
> On an individual basis I consider it irrelevant, just like being straight.


Ah I see. That's the same problem I have with condoms.


----------



## kflo

essbee said:


> The argument for automatic approval is brought forth every time someone compares a lifestyle/coupling to eye color, or race, or gender, implying that we should be equally indifferent to sexual orientation as we are to those classifications. I consider that to be an argument on automatic approval.
> 
> Please point out the strawman. Thanks.


it's not automatic approval. you're simply confused. the differentiator is consequences. the default automatic is that different = ok. then judge ones actions based on the consequences of the actions. your insistent comparison to pedophilia continually fails to address this, only focusing on your own obsession with different = different = equivalent. you continually ignore the issue of consequences, because it's inconvenient to your argument. find a single individual who will stand by an automatic approval regardless of consequences stance. a single one. if not, drop the STRAWMAN.


----------



## essbee

Burn said:


> Ah I see. That's the same problem I have with condoms.


Now that I've answered the question do you need anything else?


----------



## essbee

kflo said:


> it's not automatic approval. you're simply confused. the differentiator is consequences. the default automatic is that different = ok. then judge ones actions based on the consequences of the actions. your insistent comparison to pedophilia continually fails to address this, only focusing on your own obsession with different = different = equivalent. you continually ignore the issue of consequences, because it's inconvenient to your argument. find a single individual who will stand by an automatic approval regardless of consequences stance. a single one. if not, drop the STRAWMAN.



No. 

I'm comparing one sexual orientation to another because they are more comparable than comparing race or eye color to sexual orientation. There is no "action" associated with race, whereas sexual orientation is something that can be acted on. So comparing different types of sexual orientation to other types is more logical than what you're trying to do.

Try again.


----------



## kflo

essbee said:


> As a coupling it's an inferior relationship, contrary to our biological design, non-beneficial for bio diversity, and contradictory to the natural process of reproduction. I consider it inferior to heterosexuality. It's also ridiculous of the proponents of civil rights on the basis of homosexuality (I would argue that all needed anti-discrimination laws are covered in other areas like race and gender) compare it to race since as I've said neither the classification or suffering experienced by the group are comparable. The entire point of the civil rights movement for blacks was to counter past wrongs, so yes, the past experiences are relevant.
> 
> On an individual basis I consider it irrelevant, just like being straight.


some straight couples cannot conceive. they can conceive with others, but not each other. some simply cannot conceive. on a couple by couple basis, is their relationship inferior. do they hinder the human race? would societal and legal acceptance of equivalence of the individual relationships harm the species? again, i ask, what's the consequences of acceptance, vs the consequences of labeling inferior? at both the societal and individual level?


----------



## Burn

essbee said:


> Now that I've answered the question do you need anything else?


Nope. If that's the reason you're going to give then you obviously have no problem against gays having the same rights as anyone else i.e. ability to marry and what not, in which case you're entitled to whatever personal opinions you have, since they don't infringe on the rights of others.

Unless of course you do oppose gays being allowed to marry, in which case I do have some follow-up questions.


----------



## Hibachi!

5 more pages... Who thinks it's gonna make it?


----------



## essbee

Burn said:


> Nope. If that's the reason you're going to give then you obviously have no problem against gays having the same rights as anyone else i.e. ability to marry and what not, in which case you're entitled to whatever personal opinions you have, since they don't infringe on the rights of others.
> 
> Unless of course you do oppose gays being allowed to marry, in which case I do have some follow-up questions.


I already explained that I oppose gay marriage because the coupling is inherently inferior and contradicts our biological design. Not sure what you're talking about. Either way all this was already discussed at length in the original Aemichi thread.


----------



## essbee

kflo said:


> some straight couples cannot conceive. they can conceive with others, but not each other. some simply cannot conceive. on a couple by couple basis, is their relationship inferior. do they hinder the human race? would societal and legal acceptance of equivalence of the individual relationships harm the species? again, i ask, what's the consequences of acceptance, vs the consequences of labeling inferior? at both the societal and individual level?


Actually those are individual based reasons for infertility. Homosexuality is a coupling based reason for infertility. Already discussed in the other thread.

The consequence is pretending something is equal when it is in fact not equal.


----------



## Crossword

essbee said:


> is that similar to how I said earlier that hatred of a group for race and hatred for sexual orientation are two different things? When I said that you responded by saying:
> 
> 
> 
> " Hard to imagine, but the majority of posters here seem to have an understanding of what constitutes hatred towards a certain group, and furthermore that such hatred is unacceptable in a pluralistic..."
> 
> I'm confused, you're contradicting yourself here.


I'm not contradicting myself, because hatred of someone based on skin colour and hatred of someone based on sexual orientation are both types of hatred on the basis of a natural trait.

As for hating on a bigoted group, that's the same thing as appreciating a pluralistic group. So yes, it is okay, going back to ancient Greeks and quoting plato, to disobey the unjust law, or in this case, disprove of the unjust attitude.


----------



## kflo

essbee said:


> No.
> 
> I'm comparing one sexual orientation to another because they are more comparable than comparing race or eye color to sexual orientation. There is no "action" associated with race, whereas sexual orientation is something that can be acted on. So comparing different types of sexual orientation to other types is more logical than what you're trying to do.
> 
> Try again.


and what happens after you compare the 2 sexual orientations and get a clear understanding as to why there are different levels of acceptance between the 2? 

if religious persecution is more apt, use it. and by that, i mean the jew who is persecuted for being jewish because he was born jewish, not because he practices judiasm. 

ones sexual orientation, for the majority, isn't a choice. why should a homosexual act contrary to their orientation/desire? and why should they be treated differently for acting on their orientation? most homosexuals aren't saying i choose to be homosexual. they are - their attraction is to same sex. why should acting on that lead to discrimination?


----------



## Crossword

Here's the way I think of it:

Homosexuals are attracted to people of their own gender.
Pedophiles are desperate.


----------



## essbee

kflo said:


> and what happens after you compare the 2 sexual orientations and get a clear understanding as to why there are different levels of acceptance between the 2?
> 
> if religious persecution is more apt, use it. and by that, i mean the jew who is persecuted for being jewish because he was born jewish, not because he practices judiasm.
> 
> ones sexual orientation, for the majority, isn't a choice. why should a homosexual act contrary to their orientation/desire? and why should they be treated differently for acting on their orientation? most homosexuals aren't saying i choose to be homosexual. they are - their attraction is to same sex. why should acting on that lead to discrimination?


Ah for the majority, which ones choose it? Because 0% of the population CHOOSES their racial makeup. Nobody determines the racial makeup of their own parents do they? That would be pretty hard. So just on the basis of SOME people choose sexual orientation, the two aren't remotely comparable.

Now out of curiosity where is the strawman that you keep talking about?


----------



## Crossword

Hibachi! said:


> 5 more pages... Who thinks it's gonna make it?


We know it's gonna make it. Let's start a pool instead. I say by 4:30 EST.


----------



## essbee

Budweiser_Boy said:


> I'm not contradicting myself, because hatred of someone based on skin colour and hatred of someone based on sexual orientation are both types of hatred on the basis of a natural trait.
> 
> As for hating on a bigoted group, that's the same thing as appreciating a pluralistic group. So yes, it is okay, going back to ancient Greeks and quoting plato, to disobey the unjust law, or in this case, disprove of the unjust attitude.


So it's okay to hate people with different lifestyles (like religion) than you if that lifestyle includes things you hate like an opposition to homosexuality? That still sounds like hatred to me.

If someone's religious beliefs tell them to find homosexuality morally reprehensible should they be allowed freedom to express their religious beliefs?


----------



## HB

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Here's the way I think of it:
> 
> Homosexuals are attracted to people of their own gender.
> *Pedophiles are desperate.*


Even though they have no control of who they are and arent attracted to


----------



## kflo

essbee said:


> Actually those are individual based reasons for infertility. Homosexuality is a coupling based reason for infertility. Already discussed in the other thread.
> 
> The consequence is pretending something is equal when it is in fact not equal.


does those individual based reasons make them inferior?

i'm asking for a real consequence. a societal one. an individual one. 

you've got your own narrow definition of equal, and saying the consequence of treating them equally is that you have to pretend. sorry, you don't have to pretend anything. YOU can still believe they're not equal. the question is what the impact would be of treating them as equal. c'mon - try here. you're intent on surface answers. the societal impact, the individual impact.


----------



## kflo

kflo said:


> find a single individual who will stand by an automatic approval regardless of consequences stance. a single one. if not, drop the STRAWMAN.


nt


----------



## Minstrel

essbee said:


> If someone's religious beliefs tell them to find homosexuality morally reprehensible should they be allowed freedom to express their religious beliefs?


Certainly. It's their right to express it all they like; they just can't ("can't" in the ethical sense) infringe on other people's rights, like disallowing them to marry, raise children, etc. But they can certainly express their _belief_ that it's wrong. And others can freely express their beliefs that that religion is unreasonable.


----------



## Burn

essbee said:


> I already explained that I oppose gay marriage because the coupling is inherently inferior and contradicts our biological design. Not sure what you're talking about. Either way all this was already discussed at length in the original Aemichi thread.


Oh, see, I thought your explanation meant that you just didn't like it because it was inferior. I didn't think you applied its biological inferiority to marriage because I didn't think you'd reject a marriage between two people on the basis that they can't reproduce. It's just such a strange basis for marriage being illegal, and leads to all sorts of questions on what else should be illegal for biologically inferior people. So does this marriage ban really extend to all sterile people?


----------



## Crossword

HB said:


> Even though they have no control of who they are and arent attracted to


If that's the case then either the person is diseased or has not reached a stage of natural progression sexually in his or her life. If someone continues to be attracted to minors after that period of their life, there's obviously an unfulfilled desire they need to catch up on. That's much different than a homosexual act. And besides, pedophelia is not a birth-given trait.


----------



## Crossword

essbee said:


> So it's okay to hate people with different lifestyles (like religion) than you if that lifestyle includes things you hate like an opposition to homosexuality? That still sounds like hatred to me.
> 
> If someone's religious beliefs tell them to find homosexuality morally reprehensible should they be allowed freedom to express their religious beliefs?


That aspect of their religious belief should not be broadcasted if it entails bigotry. And I never said it's okay to hate peoples for their lifestyle choices, bur rather the negative attitude is what should be chastized.


----------



## HB

Budweiser_Boy said:


> If that's the case then either the person is diseased or has not reached a stage of natural progression sexually in his or her life. If someone continues to be attracted to minors after that period of their life, there's obviously an unfulfilled desire they need to catch up on. That's much different than a homosexual act. And besides, pedophelia is not a birth-given trait.


Is this scientifically proven or are you just going by opinion? You think pedophiles choose to be that way, maybe choose isnt the right word. But you clearly dont think its a birth-given trait


----------



## Jamel Irief

Gio305 said:


> it seems to strike some ppls nerves.
> 
> just a reminder to everybody, i still stand by my perdiction i made early in this thread. we will hit at least 50 pages. 6 more to go


It's on page 14.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Why is there nothing in between homophobia and overall aceptance of homosexuallity? Why can their not be people who think homosexuallity is a sin? They dont discriminate or judge people just think it is is wrong. LOL at the part of being scared of homosexuals. Just because someone say he is gay does not mean they will start checking you out. Do you suddenly attack every women your attracted to? I would think gay people ar even more catious of this happening because of the way people act.


----------



## Crossword

HB said:


> Is this scientifically proven or are you just going by opinion? You think pedophiles choose to be that way, maybe choose isnt the right word. But you clearly dont think its a birth-given trait


If pedophelia is considered to be a form of retardation, and it very well could be, then it is a birth-given trait. That alone would distinctify it from homosexuality, which is clearly not a form of retardation.

However, I don't believe it's a form of retardation, I think it has more to do with a lack of maturity. Pedophiles are people who can't, for whatever reason, evolve sexually as they grow older.


----------



## Crossword

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Why is there nothing in between homophobia and overall aceptance of homosexuallity? Why can their not be people who think homosexuallity is a sin? They dont discriminate or judge people just think it is is wrong. LOL at the part of being scared of homosexuals. Just because someone say he is gay does not mean they will start checking you out. Do you suddenly attack every women your attracted to? I would think gay people ar even more catious of this happening because of the way people act.


Thinking homosexuality is a sin, is in itself a form of homophobia.


----------



## HB

Budweiser_Boy said:


> If pedophelia is considered to be a form of retardation, and it very well could be, then it is a birth-given trait. That alone would distinctify it from homosexuality, which is clearly not a form of retardation.
> 
> However, I don't believe it's a form of retardation, I think it has more to do with a lack of maturity. Pedophiles are people who can't, for whatever reason, evolve sexually as they grow older.


In that case, wouldnt every other form of sex not involving a man or woman, be some type of retardation according to your above statement.


----------



## darth-horax

Exactly.

How can you say that pedophiles are NOT born that way buy homosexuals are?
You can't look at a newborn and say, "Ah how cute, you can tell they're going to grow up and be a pedophile or ****!"

Anybody who says otherwise has no children.

Studies have shown that children's brain activity towards sexual orientation doesn't occur until they are several years old, thus making the claim that they are BORN wiht pedo or **** tendencies illogical.

Now I know you can go out and find a study that says otherwise, and that's all fine and good. I know you can find studies to show any outcome you want, basically, as it's all a matter of statistics and focus groups.

Suffice it to say that whichever way you believe, you can't expect people to accept your lifestyle and beliefs if you can't accept theirs.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

All right then what is wrong with homophobia? You not hurting anybody you have your own set of beliefs. I thought freedom was granted to us by the constititution!


----------



## Crossword

HB said:


> In that case, wouldnt every other form of sex not involving a man or woman, be some type of retardation according to your above statement.


No, because unless the gay dude/ette is a pedophile, he/she will have evolved sexually to enjoy relations with men/women on the same plane of maturity.


----------



## HB

Budweiser_Boy said:


> No, because unless the gay dude/ette is a pedophile, he/she will have evolved sexually to enjoy relations with men/women on the same plane of maturity.


Because you think its just that easy for people to tune off their feelings and attractions. Whats your stance on bestiality? Do you think its a mental retardation or you think its a birth trait


----------



## darth-horax

How can you say that Homosexuality is CLEARLY NOT a form of mental retardation?

To the pedophile, their actions are normal, just like a ****'s actions are normal to the ****.

You're being extremely biased in what you state is NORMAL and RETARDED.

To the in between comments: Yes, there can be something between pro and anti, if you will. I have several gay acquaintances, but I do believe that homosexuality is a sin, and that it's unnatural. That's my belief, and I'm sticking to it becuase this is America, and I"m allowed to believe what I want. However, I am not going to hate people for wanting to sleep with another man or woman or goat or wahtever. The way I see it, they are responsible for thier own actions adn whatever may occur because of that is their business.

When you start saying that you are entitled to your own beliefs, but I'm not entitled to mine, then you need to look in the mirror and ask yourself what kind of a -phobe are you?


----------



## Crossword

darth-horax said:


> Studies have shown that children's brain activity towards sexual orientation doesn't occur until they are several years old, thus making the claim that they are BORN wiht pedo or **** tendencies illogical.


Then how come gay people naturally feel attracted to other members of their sex, the same way that straight people are naturally attracted to members of the opposite sex? That's the key here, it's a natural attraction. And what's illogical is trying to diminish that natural attraction.


----------



## darth-horax

I personally believe it's a matter of choice that's determined by a lot of outlying factors, not limited to, but including religious belief, home structure, and political orientation.

How do you know that the pedophile does not NATURALLY feel attracted to children? Is it any different for the **** or heterosexual?

It all comes down to choice...maybe not conscious, maybe totally unconscious, but a choice nonehteless.


----------



## Crossword

darth-horax said:


> How can you say that Homosexuality is CLEARLY NOT a form of mental retardation?
> 
> To the pedophile, their actions are normal, just like a ****'s actions are normal to the ****.
> 
> You're being extremely biased in what you state is NORMAL and RETARDED.


It's the cause of the act's normality that sets them apart. Homosexuals, whether they experience those feelings early on or not, are born that way. Pedophelia is an acquired trait.



> When you start saying that you are entitled to your own beliefs, but I'm not entitled to mine, then you need to look in the mirror and ask yourself what kind of a -phobe are you?


I'm a phobiaphobe.


----------



## darth-horax

You're missing the point. What makes YOU the definer of what you're born with or not?

You're saying it's normal to be gay, but not to be a pedo. How can you tell?

PS-I like your -phobe.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Hardaway has a right to say what he wants. The right to love gay people is the same right to hate gay people. I commend him from speaking from his heart, but at the same time, I don't like the PR suicide.


----------



## HB

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Then how come gay people naturally feel attracted to other members of their sex, the same way that straight people are naturally attracted to members of the opposite sex? That's the key here, it's a natural attraction. And what's illogical is trying to diminish that natural attraction.


Not trying to be offend anyone and not trying to get too graphic here, but I disagree with you saying its natural, considering the fact that males genetically were not created to take penetration.


----------



## Crossword

darth-horax said:


> I personally believe it's a matter of choice that's determined by a lot of outlying factors, not limited to, but including religious belief, home structure, and political orientation.


So right-wing, heavily religious, strict householded couples can't have gay kids?



> How do you know that the pedophile does not NATURALLY feel attracted to children? Is it any different for the **** or heterosexual?


They could very well be, but there has to have been a series of exterior events that led to it. Dejection, sexual abuse, mere immaturity, I even leave the door open to retardation as I've stated... but it's not something you're born with unless it's retardation.



> It all comes down to choice...maybe not conscious, maybe totally unconscious, but a choice nonehteless.


Well that's convincing.


----------



## darth-horax

That AND the fact that the act of sex between two males or females is fruitless in the outcome.

If you look at natural tendencies of animals, they have sex PRIMARILY (even humans) to perpetuate the species. Sure you can (as a human or dolphin) have sex for fun and whatnot, but the PRIMARY (meaning first) reason for sex is to have offspring.

Two men together or two women together cannot do this.


----------



## Crossword

HB said:


> Not trying to be offend anyone and not trying to get too graphic here, but I disagree with you saying its natural, considering the fact that males genetically were not created to take penetration.


The act of making love might not seem natural (to us, at least), but the attraction is most certainly natural.


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> Hardaway has a right to say what he wants. The right to love gay people is the same right to hate gay people. I commend him from speaking from his heart, but at the same time, I don't like the PR suicide.


So the right to love Chinese people is the same as the right to hate Chinese people? Again, there are limitations on freedom of speech. Offensive slurs are included.


----------



## darth-horax

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, bud Boy...I'm stating my opinion.

As to religious right wingers not having gay children, it is possible, if it's their choice. I feel that a lot of factors weigh into it, but can't a child who's raised in a family of soccer players love to play basketball instead? They can, but they choose to take that route, even if it's not smiled upon by the rearers.

I'm not going back to the retardation issue because you just don't seem to get what I'm saying there about who can call what normal or otherwise.

I also think it's funny how you allude in your last post to the fact that you're gay, but in your public profile you say you're into music, girls, music, whatever....where do the guys and girls come in? 

Much love bro...


----------



## Crossword

HB said:


> Because you think its just that easy for people to tune off their feelings and attractions. Whats your stance on bestiality? Do you think its a mental retardation or you think its a birth trait


I think homosexuality is as much a retardation of heterosexuality as heterosexuality is a retardation of homosexuality.


----------



## darth-horax

People can beleive what they want, EVEN if it offends people.

I don't agree with the KKK, but I'll fight to the death for their RIGHT to believe the way they do. That's the concept of America, otherwise we'd all be living in Europe right now.


----------



## darth-horax

Budweiser_Boy said:


> I think homosexuality is as much a retardation of heterosexuality as heterosexuality is a retardation of homosexuality.


That's a good way to dodge the question, you should run for politics on the green ticket.


----------



## Hibachi!

Budweiser_Boy said:


> So the right to love Chinese people is the same as the right to hate Chinese people? Again, there are limitations on freedom of speech. Offensive slurs are included.


No... there aren't. He has a RIGHT to say he hates gay people. He has a RIGHT to do that. The only thing you are talking about is that the first amendment does not protect fighting words or words that disturb the peace. So if he want to a gay parade, got it someones face, and started cussing them out and calling him a *** etc... Then that would be different. Tim has every RIGHT to say whatever the F he wants. Hell he even has a right to sit at a gay parade and hold up a sign saying "Sinners" He has a RIGHT to do that...


----------



## Crossword

darth-horax said:


> I also think it's funny how you allude in your last post to the fact that you're gay, but in your public profile you say you're into music, girls, music, whatever....where do the guys and girls come in?
> 
> Much love bro...


WHAT?! lol, I'm not gay. My sometime workplace happens to be in the gay district, and I have gay friends, and I lived with a gay sheep farming couple for two weeks, but that's about as far as it goes. But wow, that comment took me by surprise!


----------



## darth-horax

Exactly...then he has to be ready for whatever repurcussions his actions will dictate.

Much like John Amaechi, who chose to come out of the closet. He had the right to be gay, he had the right to talk about it...now he has the right to hear other people's opinions about it.

Not wanting to hear other sides fo the story when you publicly tell them yours is a sign that you are not advanced enough to expect such reactions and responsibility.


----------



## darth-horax

Budweiser_Boy said:


> WHAT?! lol, I'm not gay. My sometime workplace happens to be in the gay district, and I have gay friends, and I lived with a gay sheep farming couple for two weeks, but that's about as far as it goes. But wow, that comment took me by surprise!





It was your comment where you said something to the effect of, "WE are attracted..." or whatever...I"ll quote it.


----------



## Crossword

Hibachi! said:


> No... there aren't. He has a RIGHT to say he hates gay people. He has a RIGHT to do that. The only thing you are talking about is that the first amendment does not protect fighting words or words that disturb the peace. So if he want to a gay parade, got it someones face, and started cussing them out and calling him a *** etc... Then that would be different. Tim has every RIGHT to say whatever the F he wants. Hell he even has a right to sit at a gay parade and hold up a sign saying "Sinners" He has a RIGHT to do that...


I'm just going by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which has a reasonable limits clause when it comes to fundamental freedoms. I shouldn't be, because Hardaway is an American who said what he said in America, but that's the piece of legislation I'm familiar with, and I also happen to agree with it.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Budweiser_Boy said:


> So the right to love Chinese people is the same as the right to hate Chinese people? Again, there are limitations on freedom of speech. Offensive slurs are included.


Yes. Saying "I hate gay people" is not a slur. It is saying what you feel. Until Hardaway goes on an anti-gay crusade that hurts people with words and weapons, he has done nothing wrong.


----------



## darth-horax

Budweiser_Boy said:


> The act of making love might not seem natural (to us, at least), but the attraction is most certainly natural.


It was this one.

However, upon further review, I see where the faux pas lies. It could very easily be interpreted that the comment "To Us, at least" could imply your homosexuality (that or the gay sheep farming incident).  Now I see that you meant the reverse.

My bad.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Comon we would not all be living in Europe. Only 60% of America is white!


----------



## darth-horax

Ba doom boom! NICE!


----------



## streetballa

Hibachi! said:


> No... there aren't. He has a RIGHT to say he hates gay people. He has a RIGHT to do that. The only thing you are talking about is that the first amendment does not protect fighting words or words that disturb the peace. So if he want to a gay parade, got it someones face, and started cussing them out and calling him a *** etc... Then that would be different. Tim has every RIGHT to say whatever the F he wants. Hell he even has a right to sit at a gay parade and hold up a sign saying "Sinners" He has a RIGHT to do that...


Yes i agree.


----------



## darth-horax

On a side note, I'm having a TON of gas today...crazy. Must be the Thera-Flu!


----------



## Crossword

darth-horax said:


> It was this one.
> 
> However, upon further review, I see where the faux pas lies. It could very easily be interpreted that the comment "To Us, at least" could imply your homosexuality (that or the gay sheep farming incident).  Now I see that you meant the reverse.
> 
> My bad.


Ahh, yeah could have been more straightforward there. No pun intended.


----------



## darth-horax

This thread is killing me!


----------



## Hibachi!

BTW Amaechi is walking a very very fine line here... I've seen him on 4 talk shows now and just saw him on Outside the Lines talking about Tim Hardaway's comments and people's inability to accept his ways etc. There's a fine line between saying your gay and getting it out in the open and shoving it down people's throats. He is coming very close to shoving it down peoples throats. He is often using a tone in which people who don't agree with it are inferior and stupid. He really needs to not overstep his bounds...


----------



## Crossword

Hibachi! said:


> BTW Amaechi is walking a very very fine line here... I've seen him on 4 talk shows now and just saw him on Outside the Lines talking about Tim Hardaway's comments and people's inability to accept his ways etc. There's a fine line between saying your gay and getting it out in the open and shoving it down people's throats. He is coming very close to shoving it down peoples throats. He is often using a tone in which people who don't agree with it are inferior and stupid. He really needs to not overstep his bounds...


Yeah, kind of like how Martin Luther King and Malcolm X were shoving civil rights down peoples' throats in the 50's.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Hibachi! said:


> BTW Amaechi is walking a very very fine line here... I've seen him on 4 talk shows now and just saw him on Outside the Lines talking about Tim Hardaway's comments and people's inability to accept his ways etc. There's a fine line between saying your gay and getting it out in the open and shoving it down people's throats. He is coming very close to shoving it down peoples throats. He is often using a tone in which people who don't agree with it are inferior and stupid. He really needs to not overstep his bounds...


I don't think we should have to accept it. It'd be nice, but it's a right not to.


----------



## darth-horax

No. Thta's not the same.

Amaechi wants us to accept and embrace his lifestyle. He has to expect taht some people won't want to, and he has to accept that as much as he wants to be accepted.

Timmy doesn't have to like John's choices here. And John doesn't have to like Timmy's.

What I don't like is how everybody is ganging up on Tim on this issue and saying how justified John is. This is AMerica...accept people and get over yourself or get out.


----------



## HB

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Yeah, kind of like how Martin Luther King and Malcolm X were shoving civil rights down peoples' throats in the 50's.


People still arent accepting till this present day


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> I don't think we should have to accept it. It'd be nice, but it's a right not to.


That type of thinking is entirely retrograde to a free society. By that same logic, should we not have to accept other minority groups? Is it okay if an employer chooses not to accept a minority group as its employees? Of course not, same thing applies to gays.


----------



## Dre

Hibachi! said:


> BTW Amaechi is walking a very very fine line here... I've seen him on 4 talk shows now and just saw him on Outside the Lines talking about Tim Hardaway's comments and people's inability to accept his ways etc. There's a fine line between saying your gay and getting it out in the open and shoving it down people's throats. He is coming very close to shoving it down peoples throats. He is often using a tone in which people who don't agree with it are inferior and stupid. He really needs to not overstep his bounds...


And you thought the first openly gay NBA player would do one interview and be out?


----------



## darth-horax

Malcolm X stood for the brotherhood of ALL men, white and black. Not at first, but eventually.

John needs to push for the acceptance of all things gay or not gay...either supporting or not. H'ed catch more flies that way instead of saying, "This is me, you NEED to accept it." He'd do better saying, "This is me, I'd like you to accept it, but if you don't, I accept you either way. let's accept each other adn move on."


----------



## Crossword

HB said:


> People still arent accepting till this present day


Yeah, but that doesn't make it right.


----------



## darth-horax

Minority groups are different that belief groups.


----------



## The Truth

darth-horax said:



> That AND the fact that the act of sex between two males or females is fruitless in the outcome.


So is oral sex between two heterosexuals. Do you have a problem with that?



> If you look at natural tendencies of animals, they have sex PRIMARILY (even humans) to perpetuate the species. Sure you can (as a human or dolphin) have sex for fun and whatnot, but the PRIMARY (meaning first) reason for sex is to have offspring.


Are you saying that humans should only have sex with the intention of getting the female pregnant? If not, what's your point.



> Two men together or two women together cannot do this.


Neither can a man and an infertile woman. Do you have a problem with them having sex?


----------



## darth-horax

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Yeah, but that doesn't make it right.


Doesn't amke it wrong, either...it is what it is...freedom of choice.


----------



## Crossword

darth-horax said:


> accept people and get over yourself or get out.


Agreed


----------



## Dre

darth-horax said:


> Malcolm X stood for the brotherhood of ALL men, white and black. Not at first, but eventually.
> 
> John needs to push for the acceptance of all things gay or not gay...either supporting or not. H'ed catch more flies that way instead of saying, "This is me, you NEED to accept it." He'd do better saying, "This is me, I'd like you to accept it, but if you don't, I accept you either way. let's accept each other adn move on."


Well they're essentially saying the same thing then. Malcolm and Martin preached everyone was equal...and John is saying he's no worse than any straight person. Same thing.


----------



## Hibachi!

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Yeah, kind of like how Martin Luther King and Malcolm X were shoving civil rights down peoples' throats in the 50's.


First of all MLK JR. was a man with a vision. He was a man who lead the people and spoke of equality. He was so successful for a very big reason and that reason being that he did not attack (in this case) white people. He spoke of equality. He had a dream of everyone being on the same level. Speaking down of everyone that doesn't agree with you is NOT a way to go about it.

Second of all this is a new age. An age of e-mail, YouTube, television, permanent news channels, tons of rival newspapers and magazines, and tons of radio shows. This is the age of information. It's INCREDIBLY easy to overflow. It's in your face everywhere you turn. It's a lot different with MLK. He did his best to spread the word, but he didn't have NEAR the resources that we do today. So when Amaechi goes on talk shows, on radio shows, in newspapers, on the internet, then he is shoving it way too far into people's faces. I even AGREE with Amaechi. People should be respectful of his ways. But he needs to be respectful of other peoples ways as well. TOLERANCE goes both ways...


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Budweiser_Boy said:


> That type of thinking is entirely retrograde to a free society. By that same logic, should we not have to accept other minority groups? Is it okay if an employer chooses not to accept a minority group as its employees? Of course not, same thing applies to gays.


Yes. It's a right to be racist and to be homophobic. Although I don't think race and sexual orientaion are comparable, the principle stands.


----------



## Crossword

darth-horax said:


> Minority groups are different that belief groups.


Belief (religious) groups can be minorities as well, but homosexuals don't qualify as a belief group.


----------



## Hibachi!

BTW, response is end of page 49


----------



## HB

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Yeah, but that doesn't make it right.


No it doesnt, but somethings will never change


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> Yes. It's a right to be racist and to be homophobic. Although I don't think race and sexual orientaion are comparable, the principle stands.


Now tell me, if you went to a potential employer, and before you handed out your resume, he turned you down by saying, "Git att you dog eatin' *****, we don't like yur kind 'round here"? Would it be okay then?


----------



## darth-horax

The Truth said:


> So is oral sex between two heterosexuals. Do you have a problem with that?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that humans should only have sex with the intention of getting the female pregnant? If not, what's your point.
> 
> 
> 
> Neither can a man and an infertile woman. Do you have a problem with them having sex?



What I'm saying is that the SCIENTIFIC (Primary) purpose is to perpetuate the species. I'm not against (and if you would have read my post entirely you would have known this) oral or fun or trysts or whatever for the sake of fun. I'm speaking PURELY on the Primary level of sex here. It's for perpetuation. 

If we were in the wild, the infertile woman would not be able to conceive,a nd the males that would want to perpetuate their species would move on. That's the nature of the beast. Remember, I'm speaking PRIMARY FUNCTION here.

What's the primary function for homosexual love making? Is it pure sexual satisfaction or is it rebellion or what? I'm not certain.


----------



## Crossword

HB said:


> No it doesnt, but somethings will never change


With that attitude....


----------



## Minstrel

darth-horax said:


> Studies have shown that children's brain activity towards sexual orientation doesn't occur until they are several years old, thus making the claim that they are BORN wiht pedo or **** tendencies illogical.


Actually, it doesn't. All it means is that that functionality of the brain (which might well be determined from birth) doesn't activate until children are several years old.

In any case, who cares whether it is a choice or not? Most evidence points to it being innate, but what does it matter? Being a Christian or Jew is a choice, that doesn't mean it's reasonable to be prejudiced towards them.


----------



## Dre

Hibachi! said:


> Second of all this is a new age. An age of e-mail, YouTube, television, permanent news channels, tons of rival newspapers and magazines, and tons of radio shows. This is the age of information. It's INCREDIBLY easy to overflow. It's in your face everywhere you turn. It's a lot different with MLK. He did his best to spread the word, but he didn't have NEAR the resources that we do today. So when Amaechi goes on talk shows, on radio shows, in newspapers, on the internet, then he is shoving it way too far into people's faces. I even AGREE with Amaechi. People should be respectful of his ways. But he needs to be respectful of other peoples ways as well. TOLERANCE goes both ways...


Well you have to grow up with the times. It's not like everyone reads, watches and listens to every aspect of media. 

The reason people compete and have many radio shows etc. are for different audiences. One station will treat this differently than another station...plus...if you want to stop hearing him, turn it off. He wouldn't be shoving it down anyone's throat if you weren't paying attention. Presidential candidates campaign all the time, and America doesn't say they're tired of them talking about how good of a candidate they are, because their campaign stops are for different audiences.


----------



## Crossword

Hibachi! said:


> First of all MLK JR. was a man with a vision. He was a man who lead the people and spoke of equality. He was so successful for a very big reason and that reason being that he did not attack (in this case) white people. He spoke of equality. He had a dream of everyone being on the same level. Speaking down of everyone that doesn't agree with you is NOT a way to go about it.
> 
> Second of all this is a new age. An age of e-mail, YouTube, television, permanent news channels, tons of rival newspapers and magazines, and tons of radio shows. This is the age of information. It's INCREDIBLY easy to overflow. It's in your face everywhere you turn. It's a lot different with MLK. He did his best to spread the word, but he didn't have NEAR the resources that we do today. So when Amaechi goes on talk shows, on radio shows, in newspapers, on the internet, then he is shoving it way too far into people's faces. I even AGREE with Amaechi. People should be respectful of his ways. But he needs to be respectful of other peoples ways as well. TOLERANCE goes both ways...


It's a new age, you're right, and in the 50's, that was the only plateau MLK could use and be taken seriously on. In today's world, we're more accepting, although not all the way yet (as evidenced by Timmy's rant, for one), so Amaechi can talk about equality by demanding others accept homosexuals, rather than beating around the bush at it. At the end of the day, though, they're both preaching the same thing.


----------



## darth-horax

If homosexuality is a choice, it is comparable to religion, which is a choice.

Minority groups (let's go with race since it's the EASIEST to identify) are something you have NO choice in.

Now if you look at a minority DUE to beliefs (as in religion or whatever), then that's a WHOLE other can of beans right there. 

YOu cannot in a job interview ask a person, "Are you gay?" or "What is your religion?" becuase that violates laws. You don't have to ask if a person is black, chinese, or mexican...for example.


----------



## Crossword

Budweiser_Boy said:


> We know it's gonna make it. Let's start a pool instead. I say by 4:30 EST.


I'm good.


----------



## Hibachi!

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Now tell me, if you went to a potential employer, and before you handed out your resume, he turned you down by saying, "Git att you dog eatin' *****, we don't like yur kind 'round here"? Would it be okay then?


Dude you're comparing words and ACTIONS. They are COMPLETELY different. By your example you shouldn't be allowed to say "I want to kill me boss" because it's wrong to murder someone.


----------



## Dre

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Now tell me, if you went to a potential employer, and before you handed out your resume, he turned you down by saying, "Git att you dog eatin' *****, we don't like yur kind 'round here"? Would it be okay then?


No, because their are specific laws that say you have to treat every candidate equal. No law against having hate in your heart.


----------



## darth-horax

But John needs to accept hte fact that some people won't believe the same way he does. he also needs to expect that people will talk out as strongly as he is in the opposite.

That's physics' first rule...equal and opposite reaction. He can't expect less.


----------



## Crossword

darth-horax said:


> YOu cannot in a job interview ask a person, "Are you gay?" or "What is your religion?" becuase that violates laws. You don't have to ask if a person is black, chinese, or mexican...for example.


Job interview biases may be exclusive to groups of ethnic minorities, but there are other biases exclusive to homosexuals as well. Futuristxen already stated how she's been blackballed by family on the basis of her sexual orientation.


----------



## HB

Budweiser_Boy said:


> It's a new age, you're right, and in the 50's, that was the only plateau MLK could use and be taken seriously on. In today's world, we're more accepting, although not all the way yet (as evidenced by Timmy's rant, for one), so Amaechi can talk about equality by demanding others accept homosexuals, rather than beating around the bush at it. At the end of the day, though, they're both preaching the same thing.


Thats the thing though, he shouldnt be demanding anything. If he wants people to see things his way, he shouldnt try shoving it down their throats. That much I agree with Hibachi on.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

We got to 50!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Minstrel

darth-horax said:


> What I'm saying is that the SCIENTIFIC (Primary) purpose is to perpetuate the species. I'm not against (and if you would have read my post entirely you would have known this) oral or fun or trysts or whatever for the sake of fun. I'm speaking PURELY on the Primary level of sex here. It's for perpetuation.


What does the "primary purpose" matter? We've long since moved beyond primary purposes for things. Are people who eat low-fat diets "unnatural?" Our primary purpose for eating, back in the day, was to accumulate fat. Are people who use artificial lights to keep working/recreating beyond the setting of the sun unnatural? The primary purpose of our body clocks was to have us sleep from sunset to sunrise.

Many heterosexual couples have anal sex. Many humans appreciate artwork, despite it not having any immediate evolutionary benefit. Arguing "primary purpose" or evolutionary purpose is an inconsistent and flawed tack.


----------



## darth-horax

I'm out for a bit, guys...got work to do...I'll check in later...and we're already on page 50 on my browser.


----------



## Crossword

_Dre_ said:


> No, because their are specific laws that say you have to treat every candidate equal. No law against having hate in your heart.


Come on, you act as if racist beliefs don't translate into actions. The example I used was quite the extremity, but in a society where racism is okay, as Chan said it is, it's not hard to imagine such occurrences.


----------



## darth-horax

Primary purpose NEEDS to be there, or else the species will not perpetuate.
That is one of the defining traits of animals, including humans. You cannto take it out of hte equation.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Bud Boy were were you in the orginal thread. That was all Brandname and essebe.


----------



## Crossword

HB said:


> Thats the thing though, he shouldnt be demanding anything. If he wants people to see things his way, he shouldnt try shoving it down their throats. That much I agree with Hibachi on.


Don't you think we _should_ be demanding equality though?


----------



## Crossword

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Bud Boy were were you in the orginal thread. That was all Brandname and essebe.


I was shutting YOU down in the Raptors board.


----------



## HB

darth-horax said:


> Primary purpose NEEDS to be there, or else the species will not perpetuate.
> That is one of the defining traits of animals, including humans. You cannto take it out of hte equation.


In addition, isnt that how a species is defined also. By how they can reproduce?


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

We can demand all we want. Racisim will always exist.


----------



## HB

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Don't you think we _should_ be demanding equality though?


What exactly is equality? Equality in what sense?


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Budweiser_Boy said:


> I was shutting YOU down in the Raptors board.


WTF I owned all of you in that thread. It was like 10 to 1 but after I got to you guys you started making personal attacks.


----------



## Crossword

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> We can demand all we want. Racisim will always exist.


That's only because we allow it to exist.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Now tell me, if you went to a potential employer, and before you handed out your resume, he turned you down by saying, "Git att you dog eatin' *****, we don't like yur kind 'round here"? Would it be okay then?


That's not what Hardaway said. That's like the employer telling me: "I don't want to hire you. I don't like Chinese people." I'd walk away, and I wouldn't ask questions. I don't like it, but it's his business and it's his right.

Name calling is different from saying what you feel. If Hardaway said started saying gay people are scum and **** and such, that's bad. But that's not what he said.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

And that will never change.


----------



## Minstrel

darth-horax said:


> Primary purpose NEEDS to be there, or else the species will not perpetuate.
> That is one of the defining traits of animals, including humans. You cannto take it out of hte equation.


Homosexuality is a minority behaviour. Arguing against it on the basis of the survival of the species is specious (no pun intended).

Homosexuality is obviously not going to damage the likelihood of the species continuing. Even with homosexuality, *over*population will be the biggest problem we have to deal with.


----------



## The Truth

darth-horax said:


> What I'm saying is that the SCIENTIFIC (Primary) purpose is to perpetuate the species. I'm not against (and if you would have read my post entirely you would have known this) oral or fun or trysts or whatever for the sake of fun. I'm speaking PURELY on the Primary level of sex here. It's for perpetuation.
> 
> If we were in the wild, the infertile woman would not be able to conceive,a nd the males that would want to perpetuate their species would move on. That's the nature of the beast. Remember, I'm speaking PRIMARY FUNCTION here.
> 
> What's the primary function for homosexual love making? Is it pure sexual satisfaction or is it rebellion or what? I'm not certain.


Well, if your argument that homosexual sex is wrong because its primary purpose is not to perpertuate the species, how can it be okay for a heterosexual couple to participate in a sex act when its primary purpose is not to perpetuate the species (oral sex)?


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> That's not what Hardaway said. That's like the employer telling me: "I don't want to hire you. I don't like Chinese people." I'd walk away, and I wouldn't ask questions. I don't like it, but it's his business and it's his right.
> 
> Name calling is different from saying what you feel. If Hardaway said started saying gay people are scum and **** and such, that's bad. But that's not what he said.


Who cares? By saying he hates black people, he infers that he views them as scum and would call them ****, etc. etc.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Minstrel said:


> Homosexuality is a minority behaviour. Arguing against it on the basis of the survival of the species is specious (no pun intended).
> 
> Homosexuality is obviously not going to damage the likelihood of the species continuing. Even with homosexuality, *overpopulation* will be the biggest problem we have to deal with.


Are you kidding me. Overpopulation is nothing compared to GLOBAL WARMING.


----------



## darth-horax

Minstrel said:


> Homosexuality is a minority behaviour. Arguing against it on the basis of the survival of the species is specious (no pun intended).
> 
> Homosexuality is obviously not going to damage the likelihood of the species continuing. Even with homosexuality, *over*population will be the biggest problem we have to deal with.


One more thing after reading this...

Homosexualtiy COULD INDEED hurt the continuance fo the species. If everybody became homosexual, the species woudl not perpetuate itself and it would not endure, thus ending humankind. 

How can this be natural? have monkeys or dolphins or apes or rhinos or whatever had this problem? No they haven't. They've been around forever, basically, and they have no issues with this.

Humans are the only species that could potentially wipe themselves off of the map due to sexual orietation issues. Hence the reasoning that it very well COULD be a choice, and not something you're born with.


----------



## Crossword

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Are you kidding me. Overpopulation is nothing compared to GLOBAL WARMING.


They go hand in hand.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Yeah, but that doesn't make it right.


Since when is this world based on morality? Maybe not accepting gays is immoral. Maybe being gay is immoral. ****, maybe being Chinese is immoral. Maybe not being Chinese is immoral. Who's to say?


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

NO! Global Warming is a problem now. Overpopulation will be in 100 years. You know what heres a good movie to watch Inconveniant Point by Al Gore.


----------



## Crossword

darth-horax said:


> One more thing after reading this...
> 
> Homosexualtiy COULD INDEED hurt the continuance fo the species. If everybody became homosexual, the species woudl not perpetuate itself and it would not endure, thus ending humankind.
> 
> How can this be natural? have monkeys or dolphins or apes or rhinos or whatever had this problem? No they haven't. They've been around forever, basically, and they have no issues with this.
> 
> Humans are the only species that could potentially wipe themselves off of the map due to sexual orietation issues. Hence the reasoning that it very well COULD be a choice, and not something you're born with.


There is an increasing number of voluntarily childless couples, but that can't be chalked up to homosexuality. Again, if homosexuality and heterosexuality are natural traits that come to each group respectively, then there will always be heterosexuals to be able to replenish the earth. EVEN IF, in some bizarre event, the entire world suddenly *became* homosexual, there are still reproductive technologies that help gay couples conceive children. Like Minstrel said though, overpopulation is the main issue, not underpopulation.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Who cares?  By saying he hates black people, he infers that he views them as scum and would call them ****, etc. etc.


Come on man, don't bother with that. Infer, whatever man. Like he said, he thinks it's wrong. You have no proof that he thinks they're scum and all that bad stuff. You can't judge someone off what you think he thinks.


----------



## Crossword

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> NO! Global Warming is a problem now. Overpopulation will be in 100 years. You know what heres a good movie to watch Inconveniant Point by Al Gore.


You're missing the point. With overpopulation comes even more consumers and polluters who contribute to global warming. Global warming is an issue today, but not near the issue it will be in the future, thus the correlation to overpopulation. China's economic growth is already causing massive ripples around the world, and they _already_ have a large population. Imagine what will happen when they consume half as much as North Americans do.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

We cannot rely soley on technolagy for reproduction!


----------



## Minstrel

darth-horax said:


> One more thing after reading this...
> 
> Homosexualtiy COULD INDEED hurt the continuance fo the species. If everybody became homosexual, the species woudl not perpetuate itself and it would not endure, thus ending humankind.


Wrong. If "God" magically transformed our species into all homosexuals, we'd adapt socially. We'd divorce sex from romantic partnerships and men and women would have sex for the sake of creating children, rather than sexual interest.

And what's the point of a silly hypothetical like "IF we were all gay?" Homosexuality is a tiny part of the species and therefore obviously not going to stem the tide of overpopulation. 



> How can this be natural? have monkeys or dolphins or apes or rhinos or whatever had this problem? No they haven't.


Yes, they have. Homosexual behaviour has been recorded in the animal kingdom quite a bit.



> Humans are the only species that could potentially wipe themselves off of the map due to sexual orietation issues. Hence the reasoning that it very well COULD be a choice, and not something you're born with.


Well, as stated above, wrong. So...conclusion also wrong.


----------



## KingOfTheHeatians

No offense but you'd have to be a moron to think there's a chance everyone turns gay and kills the species. Men and women have been humping each other since the beginning of time and they'll continue to do so until global warming kills us all. There have always been homosexuals and, apparently, it's not contagious. Who knew? 

And as has been said, if you condemn sexual behavour that does need perpetuate the species, then I await your hard-line stance against oral sex, birth control, anal sex between men and women and finger/hand jobs.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Budweiser_Boy said:


> You're missing the point. With overpopulation comes even more consumers and polluters who contribute to global warming. Global warming is an issue today, but not near the issue it will be in the future, thus the correlation to overpopulation. China's economic growth is already causing massive ripples around the world, and they _already_ have a large population. Imagine what will happen when they consume half as much as North Americans do.


Point understood.


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> Since when is this world based on morality? Maybe not accepting gays is immoral. Maybe being gay is immoral. ****, maybe being Chinese is immoral. Maybe not being Chinese is immoral. Who's to say?


Obviously not you. Sorry for believing in the principle that all humans are created equal and should not be discriminated against based on their god-given characteristics. I must be one of them crazy types.


----------



## Spriggan

Chan said:


> Since when is this world based on morality? Maybe not accepting gays is immoral. Maybe being gay is immoral. ****, maybe being Chinese is immoral. Maybe not being Chinese is immoral. Who's to say?


Why would anything be immoral that doesn't harm anybody? The crux of the argument is that homosexuality is completely victimless, and two consenting adults should be able to do pretty much whatever they want to and with each other. I've never seen anyone argue this with logic.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Again with the God given characteristics!


----------



## Minstrel

Chan said:


> Since when is this world based on morality? Maybe not accepting gays is immoral. Maybe being gay is immoral. ****, maybe being Chinese is immoral. Maybe not being Chinese is immoral. Who's to say?


We try to apply a little logic and link morality/ethics to the harm of others.


----------



## Crossword

darth-horax said:


> One more thing after reading this...


Who are you kidding... you'd cancel a date for this thread.


----------



## Dre

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> NO! Global Warming is a problem now. Overpopulation will be in 100 years. You know what heres a good movie to watch Inconveniant Point by Al Gore.


'

Tssk Tssk. One of the caues of Global Warming is excessive use of energy, which overpopulation is a factor of.


----------



## The Truth

For those of you saying overpopulation isn't an issue, I just saw a news blurb saying that Rwanda is considering passing a law that would limit a woman to having 3 children because of overpopulation concerns. 

Overpopulation is a HUGE problem throughout the world, and it is only going to get worse in the future.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Hes still here. Go do your "work."


----------



## HB

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Obviously not you. Sorry for believing in the principle that all humans are created equal and should not be discriminated against based on their god-given characteristics. I must be one of them crazy types.


All humans were not created equal. And until people realize that, debates like this will keep going on.

Heck do you really think a society where everyone is 'equal' is a good thing.


----------



## IbizaXL

man, i was only away for a few hours and this thread jumped an extra 7 pages! LOL i knew it was going to be at least 50 pages. 

who wants to bet we'll hit 80?


----------



## Crossword

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Again with the God given characteristics!


Okay bud, can you do an experiment for me? Go into your city's gay district, and ask as many homosexual couples as you can find this question: "When did you become gay?"

I expect to see a fully detailed report, including many LMAO's at the question.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Obviously not you. Sorry for believing in the principle that all humans are created equal and should not be discriminated against based on their god-given characteristics. I must be one of them crazy types.


I believe all humans are created differently, and many are discriminated against due to their difference. I also believe it's a right to discriminate.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

I dont even think we have a gay district here.


----------



## Minstrel

You know, what with orphanages all over the world filled with children who don't have parents, the last thing we need is more breeders. We should all be praying for more homosexuals who can give these children a good home (and great design sense).


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

We are not hittin 80. I bet on that!


----------



## Dre

HB said:


> All humans were not created equal. And until people realize that, debates like this will keep going on.
> 
> Heck do you really think a society where everyone is 'equal' is a good thing.


They weren't _created_ equally? Sure, some have various talent that sets them apart in a particular field, but fundamentally...humans are created equally because they all have the same natural rights. 

And when you say equal...you have to be more specific. Some people are born better off economically than others etc., but that's more a subdivision than a basis for saying one person is better than another. All people are definitely _created_ equally.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Chan said:


> I believe all humans are created differently, and many are discriminated against due to their difference. I also believe it's a right to discriminate.


WTF its a right to discriminate? Wow there goes you arguent.


----------



## Dre

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> I dont even think we have a gay district here.


Yeah, I'm sure there's not an abundance of gays in one of the most heavily populated regions in America.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Spriggan said:


> Why would anything be immoral that doesn't harm anybody? The crux of the argument is that homosexuality is completely victimless, and two consenting adults should be able to do pretty much whatever they want to and with each other. I've never seen anyone argue this with logic.


That's like saying prostitution is not immoral. Even if it is, it's that hooker's right to suck that dick.


----------



## Minstrel

HB said:


> All humans were not created equal. And until people realize that, debates like this will keep going on.
> 
> Heck do you really think a society where everyone is 'equal' is a good thing.


All humans should be born with equal status and opportunity. What they do with that opportunity will lead to unequal results, which is fine and fair. But starting some humans from socially-inflicted disadvantages is clearly unreasonable.


----------



## Dre

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> WTF its a right to discriminate? Wow there goes you arguent.


You can have a right to freedom of thought and expression as long as it doesn't interfere with constituional etc. laws.

That US Government class is worth it! :bbanana:


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

So retarded people are equal to genuisis. Maybe you should say all people are equal in the eyes o God.


----------



## Crossword

HB said:


> All humans were not created equal. And until people realize that, debates like this will keep going on.
> 
> Heck do you really think a society where everyone is 'equal' is a good thing.


Yes.


----------



## HB

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Yes.


Why?

And Dre and Minstrel make good points btw.


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> I believe all humans are created differently, and many are discriminated against due to their difference. I also believe it's a right to discriminate.


Then you're a racist, and officially no better than any slave master in my books.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

There are so many people here who hat homosexuals here. Gay is a term to describe someone dumb or stupid. I do not know one gay person here at all.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Minstrel said:


> We try to apply a little logic and link morality/ethics to the harm of others.


We try, but what do we have other than our own word?


----------



## Crossword

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> So retarded people are equal to genuisis. Maybe you should say all people are equal in the eyes o God.


UGH! As human ****ing beings, people are equal. That's all. Not everybody will become painters or construction workers or lawyers or thieves. But they should all be treated equally by the law and by other people. I'm ashamed that some of you can't grasp this.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

I still dont understand. You think its a right to not offer someone a job or spit on them or call them names because their skin is a little draker?


----------



## Dre

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> So retarded people are equal to genuisis. Maybe you should say all people are equal in the eyes o God.


So if I killed a retarded person in relation to a genius, would my penalty be any different? Are poor people given less natural rights than rich people? No. When you say created equal, you talk about them being born into their *natural rights*. I mean, at least in America "all people are created equal". Are you saying MLK was wrong or wasting his time pulling for general equality, or at least more than there was at the time?


----------



## Minstrel

Chan said:


> I believe all humans are created differently, and many are discriminated against due to their difference. I also believe it's a right to discriminate.


Discrimination may be an innate human characteristic, much as stealing something one wants that another possesses. Or fighting and killing for a piece of land. That doesn't mean such ugly urges should be made rights of civilized society.


----------



## Minstrel

Chan said:


> We try, but what do we have other than our own word?


Substantiation that a person or group is harming other people. If you can't show that, leave them alone.


----------



## Crossword

HB said:


> Why?
> 
> And Dre and Minstrel make good points btw.


Because if people feel included, that maximizes their potential as human beings, and that is good for the overall welfare of society.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Hey cut me some slack.I am having a little bit of trouble grasping this because I am way younger than any of you!


----------



## Dre

There's a difference Chan. You can have all the discriminatory, bigoted _thoughts_ you want, but discriminant action is not a right. In fact, the actual opposite, equality, is your right.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Then you're a racist, and officially no better than any slave master in my books.


I think I am a racist as well. I think it's my right to accept whoever I want to, and hate whoever I want to.


----------



## HB

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Because if people feel included, that maximizes their potential as human beings, and that is good for the overall welfare of society.


We dont all to be equal to feel included. Thats why everyone has a role.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> I still dont understand. You think its a right to not offer someone a job or spit on them or call them names because their skin is a little draker?


I think it's okay to exclude someone from my workplace (assuming I own it) if I don't like that person because of his race.


----------



## Brandname

darth-horax said:


> One more thing after reading this...
> 
> Homosexualtiy COULD INDEED hurt the continuance fo the species. If everybody became homosexual, the species woudl not perpetuate itself and it would not endure, thus ending humankind.
> 
> How can this be natural? have monkeys or dolphins or apes or rhinos or whatever had this problem? No they haven't. They've been around forever, basically, and they have no issues with this.
> 
> Humans are the only species that could potentially wipe themselves off of the map due to sexual orietation issues. Hence the reasoning that it very well COULD be a choice, and not something you're born with.


Wow, that's just so.... wrong. 

I don't mean "morally" wrong or "I disagree with your opinion" wrong, but just plain "factually incorrect" wrong.

If you're genuinely interested in learning the truth, I would highly recommend reading up on some of the research done on homosexuality in the animal kingdom. There are countless instances of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, and **gasp**, even instances where the homosexual pairing is _advantageous _over a heterosexual pairing.


----------



## Minstrel

Chan said:


> I think it's okay to exclude someone from my workplace (assuming I own it) if I don't like that person because of his race.


Yes, that's classic racism. Fortunately, our society doesn't give you that right.


----------



## Dre

HB said:


> We dont all to be equal to feel included. Thats why everyone has a role.


BUT you're not born into that certain role, and furthermore, your straying from the point of equality. What you seem to be getting at is economical more than anything..but in general...stripping away demographics, economics, all of that..humans have the same natural right to equality. You can't go farther than a natural right because that intels bringing in extra, superlative aspects.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Racist Alert! This is just one example of the millions of racistis who still exist.


----------



## HB

Chan said:


> I think it's okay to exclude someone from my workplace (assuming I own it) if I don't like that person because of his race.


Completely wrong


----------



## HB

_Dre_ said:


> BUT you're not born into that certain role, and furthermore, your straying from the point of equality. What you seem to be getting at is economical more than anything..but in general...stripping away demographics, economics, all of that..humans have the same natural right to equality. You can't go farther than a natural right because that intels bringing in extra, superlative aspects.


What do you think of China?


----------



## Dre

I've lost all respect for Chan and quite frankly I'm shocked at that point of view...I had *no idea*people had thoughs like his.

I can't agree with *any* of his points here or in EHH now, because he said he's racist. No matter how much I want to, I can't.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Minstrel said:


> Discrimination may be an innate human characteristic, much as stealing something one wants that another possesses. Or fighting and killing for a piece of land. That doesn't mean such ugly urges should be made rights of civilized society.


Discrimination is the opposite of acceptance. If we allow acceptance, then we should allow discrimination.

I have a story for you. A little while earlier, my school held a MLK assembly. I didn't think much about it until the school announced that it was a mandatory assembly. This made me think: If I didn't want to go, if I didn't agree with MLK's speech on being non-racist, isn't it my right not to go? 

Isn't this a similar situation? Why am I forced to like people of a certain race/sexual orientation if I don't want to? Because you say it's right?


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Probably if you kill a genuis people will care more than if you kill a racist. If someoone killed mother Teresa people would care a lot more than if you killed an ex-killer.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

HB said:


> Completely wrong


Why not? It's mine, right? It's my call, isn't it?


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

Your not forced to like them. Your forced to not harm them or deny them rights.


----------



## Dre

HB said:


> What do you think of China?


I'm not even all that familiar with their system, but..I'm not against the basic idea of communism. When you start getting unnecessarily intrusive into their lives, such as controlling their freedoms and what they can watch on TV, you're wrong. I think communism should pretty much stay an economical tool.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

If a policer officer found out you owned a store and had many instances where you denied for example blacks jobs. You think he wont send you to court and then jail?


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> Your not forced to like them. Your forced to not harm them or deny them rights.


The rights conflict. If they (whoever he or she might be) want to be here, and I don't want them to be here, and it's my place, isn't it my right?


----------



## Dre

Chan said:


> Discrimination is the opposite of acceptance. If we allow acceptance, then we should allow discrimination.
> 
> I have a story for you. A little while earlier, my school held a MLK assembly. I didn't think much about it until the school announced that it was a mandatory assembly. This made me think: If I didn't want to go, if I didn't agree with MLK's speech on being non-racist, isn't it my right not to go?
> 
> Isn't this a similar situation? Why am I forced to like people of a certain race/sexual orientation if I don't want to? Because you say it's right?


Noone said you had to like them. But you can't beat them up or keep them away from your job on the basis of them being a certain skin color, because beyond religion and race is your natural human rights that you can't be stripped of. Equality in the workplace and in general was used to protect a human's natural rights, not any specific race or sexual orientation. In their eyes, religion and the like is superlative and ultimately has nothing to do with a humans right to do something. 

Do you think a person of a certain race is unfit for a certain job *just* because of their race? That's irrational and just wrong. Discriminant action is not only wrong, it's just dumb.


----------



## Brandname

_Dre_ said:


> I'm not even all that familiar with their system, but..I'm not against the basic idea of communism. When you start getting unnecessarily intrusive into their lives, such as controlling their freedoms and what they can watch on TV, you're wrong. I think communism should pretty much stay an economical tool.


Yeah, that's the thing.

Communism when it comes to limiting personal freedoms is very wrong. Communism in the general sense of structuring a government around the betterment of the entire society isn't inherently bad. It's just that we've discovered it simply doesn't work. And Socialism as an economic system also just doesn't work.

The greatest genius of Capitalism is that it takes advantage of humans' basic selfishness and puts it to use for the betterment of society.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

No because you cannot just kick them out of your store without a good reason. If they sued you you would have no defense. Are you a FOB or what?


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

The way this thread has changed topics original topic-homosexuallity-relligion-relligious definition-politics-discrimination.


----------



## Dre

Chan said:


> Why not? It's mine, right? It's my call, isn't it?


In the end, sure it's your call. 

But your call will get you in jail for violating laws in America. Some things just are the way they are, and your stance won't change anything, in fact it will do way more harm than good IMO. If you truly feel like that, than at the root you aren't a true American and you should go elsewhere.


----------



## Dre

Chan said:


> The rights conflict. If they (whoever he or she might be) want to be here, and I don't want them to be here, and it's my place, isn't it my right?


No, it's not your right. The constitution says in America it's not your right, because it's everyone's right to be treated equal. And treatment in this case is a result of action. You can think whatever you want, but you just can't act on it because it's against the fundamental laws of America.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

And I bet this guy wont get a warning. I got a warning for saying I believe homosexuallity is a sin.


----------



## The Truth

Chan said:


> I have a story for you. A little while earlier, my school held a MLK assembly. I didn't think much about it until the school announced that it was a mandatory assembly. This made me think: If I didn't want to go, if I didn't agree with MLK's speech on being non-racist, isn't it my right not to go?


No, because it's a school mandated assembly.

Don't confuse your rights in school with your legal rights.


----------



## streetballa

The Truth said:


> No, because it's a school mandated assembly.
> 
> Don't confuse your rights in school with your legal rights.


Ye because when i was in school they always made us do stuff like that. You are supposed to do it because of the school rules, so its nothing to do with legal rights. If it was a speech being given in a neighbourhood and they said that it was mandatory then that would be wrong because everyone has a choice not to go, but in school you have too.


----------



## Sir Patchwork

Chan said:


> Isn't this a similar situation? Why am I forced to like people of a certain race/sexual orientation if I don't want to? Because you say it's right?


You're not forced to like or dislike anyone. You're forced to take irrelevant traits such as race out of the employment process and things of that nature. The thing to remember is that you don't actually dislike these people, you don't even know them. You just know what color their skin is, or what hand they write with. Stupid irrelevant things that have no bearing on job performance.


----------



## kisstherim

_Dre_ said:


> No, it's not your right. The constitution says in America it's not your right, because it's everyone's right to be treated equal. And treatment in this case is a result of action. You can think whatever you want, but you just can't act on it because it's against the fundamental laws of America.


lol, I didn't know in the great America, you couldn't NOT want a person you don't like to be in your own house. What a great country.


----------



## Dre

kisstherim said:


> lol, I didn't know in the great America, you couldn't NOT want a person you don't like to be in your own house. What a great country.


Well I didn't know there were constitutional laws about who you could let in your house either, unlike employment. I actually thought there was something about the right to bear arms when someone invades your property. 

You should probably stay casual and just observe in this case.


----------



## kisstherim

Sir Patchwork said:


> You're not forced to like or dislike anyone. You're forced to take irrelevant traits such as race out of the employment process and things of that nature. The thing to remember is that you don't actually dislike these people, you don't even know them. You just know what color their skin is, or what hand they write with. Stupid irrelevant things that have no bearing on job performance.


Then if a white girl who doesn't even know me refuses to date with me because I am a freaking Chinese, does she voilate the law of the America? If not, plz fill me in about the difference between this (which actually harms me more than unemployment :sadbananaand employment issues


----------



## Dre

kisstherim said:


> Then if a white girl who doesn't even know me refuses to date with me because I am a freaking Chinese, does she voilate the law of the America? If not, plz fill me in about the difference between this (which actually harms me more than unemployment :sadbananaand employment issues


http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeo/overview_laws.html

Tell me where there's anything about a date in there.


----------



## smrtguy

Do bisexual men choose to sleep with a women one night, and then a man the next?

Yes. It is a choice. 

What is the difference between bisexual men and gay men?

Both choices if you ask me.


----------



## kflo

you have a right to make a living. you have no such right to get laid. sorry.


----------



## kflo

smrtguy said:


> Do bisexual men choose to sleep with a women one night, and then a man the next?
> 
> Yes. It is a choice.
> 
> What is the difference between bisexual men and gay men?
> 
> Both choices if you ask me.


are you a bisexual or a gay man? did you choose your sexual preference?


----------



## kisstherim

_Dre_ said:


> Well I didn't know there were constitutional laws about who you could let in your house either, unlike employment. I actually thought there was something about the right to bear arms when someone invades your property.


oh, sorry, I should have used the word "store" instead of "house"?


----------



## Dre

kisstherim said:


> oh, sorry, I should have used the word "store" instead of "house"?


Actually, wonderful genius, there's no laws I know of regarding who can enter a store. But you know, since stores usually see green before anything else, I'm sure they'll tolerate anyone buying from them.


----------



## Sir Patchwork

kflo said:


> you have a right to make a living. you have no such right to get laid. sorry.


Right. When I say "employment process and things of that nature" I didn't mean dating.


----------



## Spriggan

kisstherim said:


> oh, sorry, I should have used the word "store" instead of "house"?


Nah, those two words are interchangeable.


----------



## kisstherim

_Dre_ said:


> http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeo/overview_laws.html
> 
> Tell me where there's anything about a date in there.


Sorry, I have actually learned a great deal of the American laws. I am more interested in debating if these laws are justified. Quoting what the current laws say to refute one person(Chan, in this specific case, who as I see it was not talking about what the laws actually say but what the laws are supposed to say.)'s argument is not so effective, I guess


----------



## Dre

kisstherim said:


> Sorry, I have actually learned a great deal of the American laws. I am more interested in debating if these laws are justified. Quoting what the current laws say to refute one person(Chan, in this specific case, who as I see it was not talking about what the laws actually say but what the laws are supposed to say.)'s argument is not so effective, I guess


Ok, I understand. 

I'm still with the class that say the laws are justified, which is why I used them for reference in the first place. I think it's just plain dumb to discriminate, especially when it comes to race and religion etc. What kind of good business minds excludes a group of people on something irrelevant to the job?


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

_Dre_ said:


> Noone said you had to like them. But you can't beat them up or keep them away from your job on the basis of them being a certain skin color, because beyond religion and race is your natural human rights that you can't be stripped of. Equality in the workplace and in general was used to protect a human's natural rights, not any specific race or sexual orientation. In their eyes, religion and the like is superlative and ultimately has nothing to do with a humans right to do something.
> 
> Do you think a person of a certain race is unfit for a certain job *just* because of their race? That's irrational and just wrong. Discriminant action is not only wrong, it's just dumb.


If I did, isn't it my call, because it's my property (someone tell me the law about that, I don't know it) There's one thing to go out of your way to harm someone because of his race/sex/etc, it's another when they come to your place looking to get hired by you.


----------



## Pimped Out

about hardaway, after he issued his apology he said he doesnt condone homosexuality and doesnt want to be around them knowing they sleep a with someone of the same sex. tmac said he thinks hardaway should have kept the comment to himself and they he didnt really agree with it but doesnt disagree with it. jeff van gundy said it probably just came out wrong.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

The Truth said:


> No, because it's a school mandated assembly.
> 
> Don't confuse your rights in school with your legal rights.


Ok. Good point.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

The store maybe your property, but if you are letting people in it and letting people buy from it, you cannot stop certain kinds of people from coming in. Sorry but thats American law if you dont like it move to Mexico.


----------



## Dre

Chan said:


> If I did, isn't it my call, because it's my property (someone tell me the law about that, I don't know it) There's one thing to go out of your way to harm someone because of his race/sex/etc, it's another when they come to your place looking to get hired by you.


No. I already explained why I'm against it and why America says it's wrong. 

Like I said, its your call, but your call is going to wipe your business out in America. If you're so racist that you'd risk losing your livelihood to keep another person from working for you, then you have some serious issues.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

_Dre_ said:


> In the end, sure it's your call.
> 
> But your call will get you in jail for violating laws in America. Some things just are the way they are, and your stance won't change anything, in fact it will do way more harm than good IMO. If you truly feel like that, than at the root you aren't a true American and you should go elsewhere.


Isn't it your right to determine who works at your store?


----------



## Dre

Chan said:


> Isn't it your right to determine who works at your store?


Probably somewhere. Not in America.

I'm sure you can inherently, in certain regions, be as racist as you want to be in your hiring practices, as long as your reasoning for not hiring someone is blamed on something else, and in that case you would be "right", but my bottomline is you can't discriminate on any credential irrelevant to the job, such as solely race, because it's against a person's natural rights. 

I've said it over and over in this thread, I can't just keep repeating the same post and idea. That's how these threads get so huge, people keep repeating themselves.


----------



## kisstherim

_Dre_ said:


> I think it's just plain dumb to discriminate, especially when it comes to race and religion etc.


Sometimes yes, but often not. Human beings do discriminate quite often in life because it saves time and efforts of making judgements.



_Dre_ said:


> What kind of good business minds excludes a group of people on something irrelevant to the job?


actually emipirical evidences collected by the economists showed that discrimination would be less pervasive in more competitive industries while discrimination was more pervasive in more regulated and, therefore, less competitive industries. 
Anyway, I still think it's supposed to be their right to discriminate even if it might actually harm their own economic interests.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

_Dre_ said:


> No. I already explained why I'm against it and why America says it's wrong.
> 
> Like I said, its your call, but your call is going to wipe your business out in America. If you're so racist that you'd risk losing your livelihood to keep another person from working for you, then you have some serious issues.


Ok, the store thing is going too far, it turned from words into discriminatory actions, and that's not what I intended. I apologize for the confusion.

Look, what I wanted to say is that Tim Hardaway has the right to say he hates gay people if he wants to. And anyone has a right say they hate any ethnic group or sexual orientaion group if they want to. That is free speech protected by America.

Tim Hardaway has done nothing wrong, and I don't think he needs to apologize.


----------



## Dre

kisstherim said:


> Sometimes yes, but often not. Human beings do discriminate quite often in life because it saves time and efforts of making judgements.


Well that's laziness, something different.




> actually emipirical evidences collected by the economists showed that discrimination would be less pervasive in more competitive industries while discrimination was more pervasive in more regulated and, therefore, less competitive industries.


I think the "competition" factor speaks to the point. Generally competitive industries are bigger industries, which mean more spots, which usually mean a broader base of people. I'm sure the secret racism does exist there, but it's hidden by the vastness of the people in the certain industry in relation to the less competitive, smaller industries. That's my take.


----------



## Dre

Chan said:


> Look, what I wanted to say is that Tim Hardaway has the right to say he hates gay people if he wants to. And anyone has a right say they hate any ethnic group or sexual orientaion group if they want to. That is free speech protected by America.
> 
> Tim Hardaway has done nothing wrong, and I don't think he needs to apologize.


I never said what he did was wrong, because he's protected by free speech. 

But acting on it is wrong, and while this is for personal judgement, I think his opinion is wrong. That last point is what this thread was based on.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

This thread is dead.


----------



## Dre

And exactly what more can be said?


----------



## futuristxen

smrtguy said:


> Do bisexual men choose to sleep with a women one night, and then a man the next?
> 
> Yes. It is a choice.
> 
> What is the difference between bisexual men and gay men?
> 
> Both choices if you ask me.


That's not how bisexualism works. If it were just a choice bisexuals would choose to be one or the other and cut down on the number of headaches they get from both sides. But it's not. They're attracted to both, and that's just how it is. Doesn't mean their entire being is defined by sex either. My sister is bisexual and I assure you she's not sleeping with a woman one night and a guy the next. It's more like she'll be with guys for awhile, then a woman will come along that she really likes, she'll be with women for awhile, and then a guy will come by and so on. But she could easily fall in love with either and stay with them for the rest of her life.

The diffrence between bisexuals and homosexuals is that one is attracted to one of two sexes, and the other is attracted to both. 

Must be nice for you people that can just choose what and whom you're attracted to. You must never be heartbroken.


----------



## futuristxen

Pimped Out said:


> about hardaway, after he issued his apology he said he doesnt condone homosexuality and doesnt want to be around them knowing they sleep a with someone of the same sex. tmac said he thinks hardaway should have kept the comment to himself and they he didnt really agree with it but doesnt disagree with it. jeff van gundy said it probably just came out wrong.


T-mac: "I can see both sides of wanting to eliminate homosexuals from the face of the planet"(by the way the part of Hardaway's quote that people are discussing the least on this board). Give me a break. What a loony thing to say by T-Mac. Makes me miss his "I'm going to retire" quotes he used to have every six months. I hope they put that in his next shoe ad.


----------



## kisstherim

_Dre_ said:


> I think the "competition" factor speaks to the point. Generally competitive industries are bigger industries, which mean more spots, which usually mean a broader base of people. I'm sure the secret racism does exist there, but it's hidden by the vastness of the people in the certain industry in relation to the less competitive, smaller industries. That's my take.


But in the former socialist countries where the non-competitive industries were much bigger than the competitive industries, this "law" still applied. The logic of those economics researches, as I understand, goes like this: employers with a preference or "taste" for discrimination” will lose some economic interests to indulge their "taste" for a specific kind of employees. Therefore in highly competitive market, nondiscriminating employers get a economic advantage thanks to the taste of their discriminating counterparts and in the long run drive the discriminating employers out of business. While in the non(or less)-competitive markets, this mechanism doesn't exist or not work that well.

______________________
btw, my former flatmate is a gay but we are quite good friends. (Hell, do I have to do such "clarification" which can be translated into "Don't get me wrong, I do not discriminate against gay people"? )


----------



## Pimped Out

kisstherim said:


> But in the former socialist countries where the non-competitive industries were much bigger than the competitive industries, this "law" still applied. The logic of those economics researches, as I understand, goes like this: employers with a preference or "taste" for discrimination” will lose some economic interests to indulge their "taste" for a specific kind of employees. Therefore in highly competitive market, nondiscriminating employers get a economic advantage thanks to the taste of their discriminating counterparts and in the long run drive the discriminating employers out of business. While in the non(or less)-competitive markets, this mechanism doesn't exist or not work that well.
> 
> ______________________
> btw, my former flatmate is a gay but we are quite good friends. (Hell, do I have to do such "clarification" which can be translated into "Don't get me wrong, I do not discriminate against gay people"? )


simply put, in a competitive market, if you pass on more qualified people based on discrimination you will be less successful than someone who qualifies the most qualified people.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

_Dre_ said:


> I never said what he did was wrong, because he's protected by free speech.
> 
> But acting on it is wrong, and while this is for personal judgement, I think his opinion is wrong. That last point is what this thread was based on.


Many people do. It's not easy to defend discriminatory free speech without extending it to actions.


----------



## -33-

I'm not siding one way or another, but my personal opinion on the overall subject is this:

John Amaechi wants equality, or better treatment. So he comes out of the closet in a book? John Amaechi got what he wanted, ATTENTION. Not because he was a good basketball player. Not because he did anything at all on the court. No, John Amaechi got attention because of the sex he is attracted to. 

I could really care less about Amaechi or any of this, and I think it's stupid that the basketball community is "walking on eggs" now on this subject b/c of one guy who couldn't make it in the league coming out of the closet. I'm sure theres gays in the league right now, who knows, who cares? Do we judge straight players on how much *** they get? or what type of women they sleep with? No, so why is it a big deal that Amaechi or any other player is attracted to guys? 

I know plenty of gay males and females. It's really not a big deal to me. So why should the top story in the sports world be that John Amaechi is gay and played in the NBA? The media is making this bigger than what it really is.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Shaq_Diesel said:


> I'm not siding one way or another, but my personal opinion on the overall subject is this:
> 
> John Amaechi wants equality, or better treatment. So he comes out of the closet in a book? John Amaechi got what he wanted, ATTENTION. Not because he was a good basketball player. Not because he did anything at all on the court. No, John Amaechi got attention because of the sex he is attracted to.
> 
> I could really care less about Amaechi or any of this, and I think it's stupid that the basketball community is "walking on eggs" now on this subject b/c of one guy who couldn't make it in the league coming out of the closet. I'm sure theres gays in the league right now, who knows, who cares? Do we judge straight players on how much *** they get? or what type of women they sleep with? No, so why is it a big deal that Amaechi or any other player is attracted to guys?
> 
> I know plenty of gay males and females. It's really not a big deal to me. So why should the top story in the sports world be that John Amaechi is gay and played in the NBA? The media is making this bigger than what it really is.


Because it's unprecedented. Have you read his excerpt on ESPN.com? He describes locker room attitudes as 'machismo' and 'homophobic'. No doubt that only applies to the Jazz locker room. Most likely the whole league is like that. And that could go past the NBA - it could reflect sports in general.


----------



## Jizzy

Gay people are gay.


----------



## MarioChalmers

_Dre_ said:


> Probably somewhere. Not in America.
> 
> I'm sure you can inherently, in certain regions, be as racist as you want to be in your hiring practices, as long as your reasoning for not hiring someone is blamed on something else, and in that case you would be "right", but my bottomline is you can't discriminate on any credential irrelevant to the job, such as solely race, because it's against a person's natural rights.
> 
> I've said it over and over in this thread, I can't just keep repeating the same post and idea. That's how these threads get so huge, people keep repeating themselves.


What do you think of Hot Topic's hiring procedures? 

Where do you draw the line? 

If your market is scared of black people, would it be justified to not hire a black man?

Then again, some companies hire people only if they're part of a minority. Say, make-up shops hire gay people all the time. 

Also, don't private establishments have rights? They have the right not to offer service to certain customers, and I believe they have the right not to hire someone just because they don't like 'em. I'm not trying to be a bigot, I'm just really trying to learn something, justifying the four questionmarks in my post.


----------



## -33-

Chan said:


> Because it's unprecedented. Have you read his excerpt on ESPN.com? He describes locker room attitudes as 'machismo' and 'homophobic'. No doubt that only applies to the Jazz locker room. Most likely the whole league is like that. And that could go past the NBA - it could reflect sports in general.


Ok so just along the lines of how sports media plays out storylines

-Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith are the 1st two black coaches in Super Bowl history-

great, congratulations...but do I care? no, i watch the game just like anytime before.

Will they make a huge deal out the next time we have 2 white running backs in the super bowl? The next time a white starting 5 makes the NBA Finals? etc. etc.

It won't happen, because that's how our media works.


----------



## Pimped Out

futuristxen said:


> T-mac: "I can see both sides of wanting to eliminate homosexuals from the face of the planet"(by the way the part of Hardaway's quote that people are discussing the least on this board). Give me a break. What a loony thing to say by T-Mac. * Makes me miss his "I'm going to retire" quotes he used to have every six months.* I hope they put that in his next shoe ad.


that came afterwards. i didnt include because i figure it would be assumed


----------



## MarioChalmers

Chan said:


> Because it's unprecedented. Have you read his excerpt on ESPN.com? He describes locker room attitudes as 'machismo' and 'homophobic'. No doubt that only applies to the Jazz locker room. Most likely the whole league is like that. And that could go past the NBA - it could reflect sports in general.


Yeah, it's not a question of things that happen on the court, unless you're talking about Reggie Evans. 

The way some players are reacting is like how women would react if a guy showered with them in the locker room.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Shaq_Diesel said:


> Ok so just along the lines of how sports media plays out storylines
> 
> -Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith are the 1st two black coaches in Super Bowl history-
> 
> great, congratulations...but do I care? no, i watch the game just like anytime before.
> 
> Will they make a huge deal out the next time we have 2 white running backs in the super bowl? The next time a white starting 5 makes the NBA Finals? etc. etc.
> 
> It won't happen, because that's how our media works.


You mean to say that the media makes big stories out of the minority? I don't know about that, look at all the Adam Morrison talk.


----------



## Jizzy

What I don't understand is, why doesn't John Amaechi just keep this to himself? It's a no brainer that he's trying to get as much attention as possible for his book. He's out of the NBA, if he wasn't trying to promote his book, he would have kept that private. That is a smart man.


----------



## budselig

Shaq_Diesel said:


> The media is making this bigger than what it really is.


Yes but isn't this entirely manufactured by the media? Isn't the book itself published by ESPN?

I, like Tim Hardaway, am averse to male homosexuals, and I am glad he came out publicly with his comments. Although I think his actions have to be attributed more to stupidity than bravery, I think it is important to realize that Hardaway, and not Amaechi, is the <i>braver</i> of the two because of the current environment regarding their positions. Yes, homosexuals are still currently discriminated against, via laws (which often lag public sentiment) and by individuals in society on an everyday basis, but the media and large, private organizations like the NBA are almost exclusively and entirely behind them - despite the fact that millions of people are opposed to their mere existence. I shake my head in wonderment everytime I read or hear someone attempting to claim that the media does <i>not</i> have a liberal bias. Tim Hardaway will probably be demonized for years now solely because he stated that he is homophobic. I feel sorry for him, but it was his own fault for coming out in this environment.


----------



## MarioChalmers

Jizzy said:


> What I don't understand is, why doesn't John Amaechi just keep this to himself? It's a no brainer that he's trying to get as much attention as possible for his book. He's out of the NBA, if he wasn't trying to promote his book, he would have kept that private. *That is a smart man.*


Man?


----------



## HB

Around here being bisexual is more of a fad thing. Its whats hot at the moment


----------



## Jizzy

gian said:


> Man?



:lol:

That's cold.


----------



## -33-

budselig said:


> Yes but isn't this entirely manufactured by the media? Isn't the book itself published by ESPN?
> 
> I, like Tim Hardaway, am averse to male homosexuals, and I am glad he came out publicly with his comments. Although I think his actions have to be attributed more to stupidity than bravery, I think it is important to realize that Hardaway, and not Amaechi, is the <i>braver</i> of the two because of the current environment regarding their positions. Yes, homosexuals are still currently discriminated against, via laws (which often lag public sentiment) and by individuals in society on an everyday basis, but the media and large, private organizations like the NBA are almost exclusively and entirely behind them - despite the fact that millions of people are opposed to their mere existence. I shake my head in wonderment everytime I read or hear someone attempting to claim that the media does <i>not</i> have a liberal bias. Tim Hardaway will probably be demonized for years now solely because he stated that he is homophobic. I feel sorry for him, but it was his own fault for coming out in this environment.


What is the goal of John Amaechi and his book? To expose his sexuality and the problems of the NBA and sell only a few books? Or to cause enormous controversy and sell a TON of books? BINGO! Goal accomplished.

I could give two ****s about John Amaechi, or any other athlete's sexual preference. As Rony Seikaly said on the *same* radio show today, "whatever tickles your bone". He also later compared it to how in Europe, nobody really knows how many athletes are straight or gay. Or how Marv Albert was caught wearing women's underwear, "every person has their own thing". 

He then makes a great point - Tim Hardaway is basing a lot of his argument on his faith, which doesn't make sense. As Rony says, "Sex of out wedlock is a sin - and I'm sure Timmy got plenty of *** before he was married." 

Listen to the Seikaly interview here - it was a VERY good interview to counter the Hardaway ****.


----------



## HB

Shaq_Diesel said:


> Ok so just along the lines of how sports media plays out storylines
> 
> -Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith are the 1st two black coaches in Super Bowl history-
> 
> great, congratulations...but do I care? no, i watch the game just like anytime before.
> 
> Will they make a huge deal out the next time we have 2 white running backs in the super bowl? The next time a white starting 5 makes the NBA Finals? etc. etc.
> 
> It won't happen, because that's how our media works.


M-I-N-O-R-I-T-Y

Do I need to spell that word for you? It seems you dont understand why the media makes such a big deal about two black coaches in the superbowl. Want to go through the percentages of how many black coaches are in the NFL, how about college football?


----------



## Jamel Irief

Wow, this thread reached 18 pages in about one day.


----------



## -33-

HB said:


> M-I-N-O-R-I-T-Y
> 
> Do I need to spell that word for you? It seems you dont understand why the media makes such a big deal about two black coaches in the superbowl. Want to go through the percentages of how many black coaches are in the NFL, how about college football?


I completely understand what a minority is - but to me, as someone born in the early-to-mid 80's, I really don't see it as a huge deal. I don't see it as black coach vs. white coach or white coach vs. white coach. It's a great accomplishment for sure, but I don't think the mainstream media needs to make it a frontpage headline story.


----------



## Minstrel

Chan said:


> Discrimination is the opposite of acceptance. If we allow acceptance, then we should allow discrimination.


Discrimination isn't the opposite of acceptance. Discrimination is separating groups of people by some trait of theirs that has no connection to who they are as individual people.



> I have a story for you. A little while earlier, my school held a MLK assembly. I didn't think much about it until the school announced that it was a mandatory assembly. This made me think: If I didn't want to go, if I didn't agree with MLK's speech on being non-racist, isn't it my right not to go?
> 
> Isn't this a similar situation? Why am I forced to like people of a certain race/sexual orientation if I don't want to? Because you say it's right?


It's not a similar situation. Whether schools should get to dictate what you learn is a fair subject for debate, but has nothing to do with discrimination.


----------



## futuristxen

HB said:


> Around here being bisexual is more of a fad thing. Its whats hot at the moment


On Lovetron?

Bisexualism can be a transitory state to be sure, and in certain enviroments sexual experimentation will take place. But there are actual legit bisexuals, who that is their life, and it's not a fad.


----------



## Brandname

HB said:


> M-I-N-O-R-I-T-Y
> 
> Do I need to spell that word for you? It seems you dont understand why the media makes such a big deal about two black coaches in the superbowl. Want to go through the percentages of how many black coaches are in the NFL, how about college football?


I'm not sure I understand your point about the percentages of black head coaches in the NFL.

And either way, the gay issue is completely different. Blacks are obviously accepted in sports in our society. Gays, obviously, aren't.


----------



## -33-

great picture for this story


----------



## Dre

The best picture would be Amaechi swatting Hardaway's **** 10 rows back.


----------



## futuristxen

Jamel Irief said:


> Wow, this thread reached 18 pages in about one day.



Um...try two hours, there chief. I posted something on page 3, went to work, checked back and hour and a half later, and was already about 25 pages behind.


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa

The Truth said:


> I would detest homophobia and racism, but according to Roddney I can't since I'm straight and white, and doing so would make me a hypocrite (since my being straight and white inherently makes me homophobic and racist).
> 
> Roddney, I respect a lot of the things you've posted on this site, but this is just absurd.


If this is what you gathered from my post, I'm disappointed. 

Regarding my stance on people in privileged positions making judgements on other people in privileged positions, I am concerned about inmates running the asylum. My point was less about people in privileged positions being inherently discriminatory, and more of a reminder that even those people who do not think they are discriminatory need to be hyperaware of themselves and their own views before condemning someone else. The lesson to be learned in the whole thing is that oppressed people need to lead their own struggle for equality, partnering with allies along the way. I hate to see only the blatant manifestations of homophobia or racism or whatever else get discussed, because when that *becomes* the issue, the whole system gets ignored. And yes, people in privileged positions are more susceptible to this ignorance, though they are not entirely to blame.


----------



## -33-

futuristxen said:


> Um...try two hours, there chief. I posted something on page 3, went to work, checked back and hour and a half later, and was already about 25 pages behind.


yea this thread is moving crazy fast...I listened to the interview last night before it really hit "big time news" and looked this morning to find a HUGE thread.


----------



## HB

Brandname said:


> I'm not sure I understand your point about the percentages of black head coaches in the NFL.
> 
> And either way, the gay issue is completely different. Blacks are obviously accepted in sports in our society. Gays, obviously, aren't.


Nah it has nothing to do with the gay issue, just responding to SD's comments as to why the media made such a big deal about the race of the coaches. And blacks are not as accepted as you might think they are. At least in coaching ranks they are not.


----------



## -33-

HB said:


> Nah it has nothing to do with the gay issue, just responding to SD's comments as to why the media made such a big deal about the race of the coaches. And blacks are not as accepted as you might think they are. At least in coaching ranks they are not.


I agree with you - but let me put this out there.

In sports you might be right, but in society is it the same?

I think both of these groups face a lot of the same discrimination in our society today. Not being a member of either of those minority groups I can't really speak from experience, but I think I'm educated enough to make an assumption like that.


----------



## futuristxen

Shaq_Diesel, the reason it's important about John Ameachi, is because, as evidenced by this thread, large segments of the american population don't understand or flat out hate people based upon their sexual orientation. Ameachi helps to bridge some of those gaps, because he does not fit the stereotype for gay men that is perpetuated in the media. 

I mean is anyone really talking about Ameachi and his book anymore? Most people are talking in general about homosexuality, sports, and society. So centering your complaints on ameachi seems sort of short sighted, and slightly askew from the larger point.


----------



## Pimped Out

futuristxen said:


> Um...try two hours, there chief. I posted something on page 3, went to work, checked back and hour and a half later, and was already about 25 pages behind.


18 pages if you do 50 posts per page


----------



## budselig

Shaq_Diesel said:


> What is the goal of John Amaechi and his book? To expose his sexuality and the problems of the NBA and sell only a few books? Or to cause enormous controversy and sell a TON of books? BINGO! Goal accomplished.
> 
> I could give two ****s about John Amaechi, or any other athlete's sexual preference. As Rony Seikaly said on the *same* radio show today, "whatever tickles your bone". He also later compared it to how in Europe, nobody really knows how many athletes are straight or gay. Or how Marv Albert was caught wearing women's underwear, "every person has their own thing".
> 
> He then makes a great point - Tim Hardaway is basing a lot of his argument on his faith, which doesn't make sense. As Rony says, "Sex of out wedlock is a sin - and I'm sure Timmy got plenty of *** before he was married."
> 
> Listen to the Seikaly interview here - it was a VERY good interview to counter the Hardaway ****.


Pretty hilarious interview. I especially enjoyed the segments about the gay teammate and the random 70% of female athletes are gay number that Seikaly dropped out of nowhere and the interviewers immediately laughed at. I wonder who the gay teammate was - Keith Askins perhaps? I'd like to see the homosexuals rooted out, jews in nazi germany style (or, alternatively, nazis in post-ww2 germany style). I'm not sure how valuable all of Seikaly's statements were. You <i>can</i> discriminate against people with other sexual preferences, and Tim Hardaway did. Yea, Hardaway is being narrow minded, but narrowing his mind to eliminate things (people, perhaps) that he views as deleterious. The fact Tim Hardaway may have been promiscuous prior to his marriage is not inconsistent with his position against homosexuals, but may in fact be completely congruous with it. The magnification of male promiscuity present in the male homosexual relationship may be its most negative aspect - and Hardaway could easily have plenty of direct experience with that. Ranking the quality (a nebulous term of course, but this isn't at thesis paper) of relationships between sexes, lebsians rank first, followed second by heterosexuals, and third by male homosexuals. I'm not religious and don't buy the whole 'let the person who didn't sin cast the first stone' doctrine that Rony was talking about. I don't think Hardaway has to be a perfect human being (whatever that is) to critcisize homosexuals - in fact I wouldn't see problem with him being a homosexual and critcizing homosexuals. I would have to agree with Seikaly that <i>basing</i> his opposition to them on what he reads in the bible is rather flimsy support for his views, though, if that's what Rony is saying. Thank you for the link, that as a good listen.


----------



## -33-

futuristxen said:


> Shaq_Diesel, the reason it's important about John Ameachi, is because, as evidenced by this thread, large segments of the american population don't understand or flat out hate people based upon their sexual orientation. Ameachi helps to bridge some of those gaps, because he does not fit the stereotype for gay men that is perpetuated in the media.
> 
> I mean is anyone really talking about Ameachi and his book anymore? Most people are talking in general about homosexuality, sports, and society. So centering your complaints on ameachi seems sort of short sighted, and slightly askew from the larger point.


I personally don't see how this book is going to bridge any gaps. I think to bridge those gaps, you need first hand experience with homosexuals (that doesn't sound right at all, but i dont know how to rephrase) to better understand that lifestyle and not feel "threatened" as a straight person. Do most Americans even know who the hell John Amaechi is? I bet most basketball fans really didn't know John Amaechi before this past week.


----------



## kisstherim

kflo said:


> you have a right to make a living. you have no such right to get laid. sorry.


Making a living is not always more important than getting laid to ALL people, sorry

(and sorry I missed your post previously)


----------



## -33-

budselig said:


> Pretty hilarious interview. I especially enjoyed the segments about the gay teammate and the random 70% of female athletes are gay number that Seikaly dropped out of nowhere and the interviewers immediately laughed at. I wonder who the gay teammate was - Keith Askins perhaps? I'd like to see the homosexuals rooted out, jews in nazi germany style (or, alternatively, nazis in post-ww2 germany style). I'm not sure how valuable all of Seikaly's statements were. You <i>can</i> discriminate against people with other sexual preferences, and Tim Hardaway did. Yea, Hardaway is being narrow minded, but narrowing his mind to eliminate things (people, perhaps) that he views as deleterious. The fact Tim Hardaway may have been promiscuous prior to his marriage is not inconsistent with his position against homosexuals, but may in fact be completely congruous with it. The magnification of male promiscuity present in the male homosexual relationship may be its most negative aspect - and Hardaway could easily have plenty of direct experience with that. Ranking the quality (a nebulous term of course, but this isn't at thesis paper) of relationships between sexes, lebsians rank first, followed second by heterosexuals, and third by male homosexuals. I'm not religious and don't buy the whole 'let the person who didn't sin cast the first stone' doctrine that Rony was talking about. I don't think Hardaway has to be a perfect human being (whatever that is) to critcisize homosexuals - in fact I wouldn't see problem with him being a homosexual and critcizing homosexuals. I would have to agree with Seikaly that <i>basing</i> his opposition to them on what he reads in the bible is rather flimsy support for his views, though, if that's what Rony is saying. Thank you for the link, that as a good listen.


First off, let me clear any rumors that Keith Askins is gay, that's just not true.

Here are the links to the three interviews done by LeBatard (Hardaway, Seikaly, Amaechi) over the past two days.

Amaechi Interview

Seikaly Interview

Hardaway Interview


----------



## Jamel Irief

Is anybody else nervous that with this whole Amaechi thing that your favorite player will go Tmac, Shav Randolph, Hardaway etc... and reveal himself to be a bigot? Or do you care if your favorite player is a bigot and you seperate the person from the player?


----------



## Brandname

HB said:


> Nah it has nothing to do with the gay issue, just responding to SD's comments as to why the media made such a big deal about the race of the coaches. And blacks are not as accepted as you might think they are. At least in coaching ranks they are not.


No, but there aren't people coming out anymore saying things like, "I hate blacks. I don't think blacks should be in the US." At least, nobody of prominence on the national stage. 

Black coaches are still struggling to gain the respect they deserve as coaches. There's always going to be those people who think that blacks are less competent or some nonsense like that. 

But I just can't believe some of the words I'm hearing from athletes about other gay athletes (I CAN believe it, but you know what I mean). It's not even so much a matter of questioning a gay athlete's competence as it is with black coaches. Guys like Tim Hardaway seriously just hate gay people and think they shouldn't be allowed in the country. That's why this is a big issue. 

I personally thought the 2 black head coaches in the Super Bowl was overblown. Black head coaches are already overrepresented in the NFL, so I can't imagine why it would ever be a surprise that they would make a Super Bowl.

The gay issue is something that needs to be talked about, though, since the hate still runs deep, even among NBA players.


----------



## HKF

Men crack me up. They don't like gay men, but adore lesbian women. I don't think you should be on the fence about it. You either think it's completely wrong or you are fine with it. 

And personally I will always equate bisexuality with homosexuality. It's all **** to me.


----------



## futuristxen

Shaq_Diesel said:


> I personally don't see how this book is going to bridge any gaps. I think to bridge those gaps, you need first hand experience with homosexuals (that doesn't sound right at all, but i dont know how to rephrase) to better understand that lifestyle and not feel "threatened" as a straight person. Do most Americans even know who the hell John Amaechi is? I bet most basketball fans really didn't know John Amaechi before this past week.


Again, you're focusing too much on the small picture, and not the big picture. The book is pretty inconsequiential to the large dialouge going on. You can't say that Amaechi coming out hasn't spurred a lot of discussion. This thread and the original one prove you wrong. And this is hardly the only place this is being discussed.


----------



## HKF

Brandname said:


> I personally thought the 2 black head coaches in the Super Bowl was overblown. Black head coaches are already overrepresented in the NFL, so I can't imagine why it would ever be a surprise that they would make a Super Bowl.


Over-represented in relation to what? The population of the NFL? Of the League? Sports has always been a meritocracy except when it was discriminating against blacks in each of the major leagues.


----------



## Pimped Out

Jamel Irief said:


> Is anybody else nervous that with this whole Amaechi thing that your favorite player will go Tmac, Shav Randolph, Hardaway etc... and reveal himself to be a bigot? Or do you care if your favorite player is a bigot and you seperate the person from the player?


tmacs comments werent as bad as shavlik's or hardaways. tmac's comment was like "hardaway can think that way if he wants. im not saying i necessarily agree with them, but if he feels that way, he should at least keep it to himself."


----------



## Minstrel

Jamel Irief said:


> Is anybody else nervous that with this whole Amaechi thing that your favorite player will go Tmac, Shav Randolph, Hardaway etc... and reveal himself to be a bigot? Or do you care if your favorite player is a bigot and you seperate the person from the player?


Did TMac go bigot, or did he just go wishy-washy? I still haven't seen his actual comments, nor can I find them. Anyone got a link?


----------



## -33-

futuristxen said:


> Again, you're focusing too much on the small picture, and not the big picture. The book is pretty inconsequiential to the large dialouge going on. You can't say that Amaechi coming out hasn't spurred a lot of discussion. This thread and the original one prove you wrong. And this is hardly the only place this is being discussed.


Sure it has spurred a TON of attention. From sports media to the larger mass media of the United States and the world. It's in the news.

But how does Amaechi coming out help the average gay male in today's society? I don't see the impact right now.


----------



## The Truth

Jamel Irief said:


> Is anybody else nervous that with this whole Amaechi thing that your favorite player will go Tmac, Shav Randolph, Hardaway etc... and reveal himself to be a bigot? Or do you care if your favorite player is a bigot and you seperate the person from the player?


What did Shav Randolph say? I must have missed that one.


----------



## Brandname

HKF said:


> Over-represented in relation to what? The population of the NFL? Of the League? Sports has always been a meritocracy except when it was discriminating against blacks in each of the major leagues.


Overrepresented in terms of US population. Just like black players in the NFL. Or Asian students in the Universities of California. There's more black coaches in the NFL (percentage wise) than there are black people in the United States. My comment was unrelated to merit. Usually there is a good reason that these groups are overrepresented. 

Although I'm not sure about the black coaches thing. I have a feeling that's more related to the Rooney Rule than anything.


----------



## HB

I just saw the headline that the NBA bans Hardaway from Vegas. Can they do that?


----------



## Spaceman Spiff

I'm gonna be positive about this and look on the bright side of gays

More women in the world for us straight guys.


----------



## budselig

HKF said:


> Men crack me up. They don't like gay men, but adore lesbian women. I don't think you should be on the fence about it.


Well, the lense that homosexuality is viewed through obscures the actual issue. What matters is the <i>sex</i> of the people involved in the relationships, not that the relationships involve two people of the same sex. I personally am not "on the fence" about it, but I do recognize degrees of right and degrees of wrong. I do think the lesbian relationship is superior to the heterosexual relationship, which is in turn superior to the homosexual relationship. And my views are based on sex, not sexual preference - which I think is the <i>actual</i> issue in the relationship.


----------



## -33-

HB said:


> I just saw the headline that the NBA bans Hardaway from Vegas. Can they do that?


They banned him from an appearence which represented the league. So yes, they can do that.



Spaceman Spiff said:


> I'm gonna be positive about this and look on the bright side of gays
> 
> More women in the world for us straight guys.


Amen to that. :cheers:


----------



## Pimped Out

The Truth said:


> What did Shav Randolph say? I must have missed that one.


http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=23490
"For real? He's gay for real?" Philadelphia center Steven Hunter responded on hearing the news. "Nowadays it's proven that people can live double lives. I watch a lot of TV, so I see a lot of sick perverted stuff about married men running around with gay guys and all types of foolishness."
A pro athlete who watches a lot of TV? There's a shocker.
Despite his damning cultural analysis, Hunter also said, "As long as he don't make any advances toward me I'm fine with it. As long as he came to play basketball like a man and conducted himself like a good person, I'd be fine with it."
"As long as you don't bring your gayness on me I'm fine," echoed Hunter's teammate Shavlik Randolph. "As far as business-wise, I'm sure I could play with him. But I think it would create a little awkwardness in the locker room."




HB said:


> I just saw the headline that the NBA bans Hardaway from Vegas. Can they do that?


he said that he doesnt approve of homosexuality and would never feel comfortable being around a man that has sex with another man during an NBA sponsored event in vegas. he is allowed in the city, but is not allowed in any NBA festivities, which is with in the rights on the NBA.


----------



## futuristxen

Shaq_Diesel said:


> But how does Amaechi coming out help the average gay male in today's society? I don't see the impact right now.


At the very least he gives another role model for young gay men to look up to, in so far as they can actually now see themselves somewhere on the sporting landscape. Since we know for a fact that there are other NBA players who are gay because of the fallout of this story(we just don't know who), I would suppose for them getting the dialouge started in any direction is good. You can't have progress in complete silence.

It would be interesting to hear how this is really being discussed amongst players. Just getting people talking about it is huge. We went from when Cheryl Swoopes came out people saying there aren't any gay men in sports, to well...yeah..there are some, but they are in hiding.

We're better for Amaechi coming out, than we'd be for him not. It's not something he had to do. And he did do it when it was most safe for him to do so, but the discussion is worth it.


----------



## JNice

budselig said:


> Well, the lense that homosexuality is viewed through obscures the actual issue. What matters is the <i>sex</i> of the people involved in the relationships, not that the relationships involve two people of the same sex. I personally am not "on the fence" about it, but I do recognize degrees of right and degrees of wrong. I do think the lesbian relationship is superior to the heterosexual relationship, which is in turn superior to the homosexual relationship. And my views are based on sex, not sexual preference - which I think is the <i>actual</i> issue in the relationship.



lol ... wtf ... you realize lesbian is homosexual, right? 

Wow. Just wow.

I guess nobody really caught your previous comment about rooting out gays like Jews in Nazi Germany.

Really incredible people can still think like that these days.


----------



## -33-

futuristxen said:


> At the very least he gives another role model for young gay men to look up to, in so far as they can actually now see themselves somewhere on the sporting landscape. Since we know for a fact that there are other NBA players who are gay because of the fallout of this story(we just don't know who), I would suppose for them getting the dialouge started in any direction is good. You can't have progress in complete silence.
> 
> It would be interesting to hear how this is really being discussed amongst players. Just getting people talking about it is huge. We went from when Cheryl Swoopes came out people saying there aren't any gay men in sports, to well...yeah..there are some, but they are in hiding.
> 
> We're better for Amaechi coming out, than we'd be for him not. It's not something he had to do. And he did do it when it was most safe for him to do so, but the discussion is worth it.


Again, I agree with you. But to a point, I don't. Why can't a young gay man look up to say....Dwyane Wade? (assuming his marriage and children are a legit sign of straightness)

Growing up, when I had that "dream of playing in the NBA" like many kids do, I didn't say....I want to be like John Stockton b/c he shows me that white kids can play in the NBA. I wanted to be like Mike just like every other 90s kid. Again, just a counterargument to your point.


----------



## JuniorNoboa

HB said:


> I just saw the headline that the NBA bans Hardaway from Vegas. Can they do that?


They can't ban him from the city, but they most certainly can choose to ban anyone they want from their sponsored events.


----------



## futuristxen

Spaceman Spiff said:


> I'm gonna be positive about this and look on the bright side of gays
> 
> More women in the world for us straight guys.


Unless they are lesbians.


----------



## JNice

What would happen if one of the league's big stars ... and All-Star maybe ... came out with a reaction like Hardaway? Do you think they would be removed from the All-Star game? That would be interesting to see how that was handled, given how the Hardaway situation was handled.


----------



## The Truth

Shavlik Randolph: "As long as you don't bring your gayness on me I'm fine,"


Um, I'm confused. I didn't think Shav was interested in girls:



> Shavlik and his parents are all quick to point out that girls do not figure into his life at this point. They are 'out of his comfort level,' Kim Randolph says.


http://www.truthaboutduke.com/being_shav.php


Shavlik Randolph says don't bring your gayness on me!


----------



## Brandname

I just listened to Dwyane Wade's comments about this, and I wasn't particularly thrilled. He didn't say anything bad, but he pretty much just skirted the issue. I just wish an active NBA player would come out with a strong statement of support for the gay community in sports. Grant Hill's words were nice, but it would mean a lot of one of the current NBA superstars would come out with a similar statement.

If I had to figure on someone, it would be Steve Nash.


----------



## budselig

JNice said:


> lol ... wtf ... you realize lesbian is homosexual, right?
> 
> Wow. Just wow.
> 
> I guess nobody really caught your previous comment about rooting out gays like Jews in Nazi Germany.
> 
> Really incredible people can still think like that these days.


Yes, I do realize lesbians are homosexuals, which is why I like to distinguish between male homosexuals and female homosexuals (something I have attempted to do in my posts). It is absolutely ludicrous that we tend to regard lesbian relationships and male homosexual relationships as more similar to each other than either is to heterosexual relationships, when in fact each one is more similar to the heterosexual relationship than it is to the homosexual relationship of the opposite sex. A lesbian relationship is more similar to a heterosexual relationship because it shares one member of the same sex. The same goes for a male homosexual relationship. They are farther apart from each other because they do not share an members of the same sex. People of different sexes <i>are</i> different (whether or not that is a fact we acknowledge in our society anymore or not, I do not know) and they act differently, especially when viewed at the aggregate level. It's not the "homosexuality" that matters, it's the fact that two women are in a relationship with each other, or that a woman and a man are in a relationship with each other, or that two men are in a relationship with each other. Our society does not view homosexuality in this way. Our society is wrong.


----------



## budselig

Brandname said:


> I just listened to Dwyane Wade's comments about this, and I wasn't particularly thrilled. He didn't say anything bad, but he pretty much just skirted the issue. I just wish an active NBA player would come out with a strong statement of support for the gay community in sports. Grant Hill's words were nice, but it would mean a lot of one of the current NBA superstars would come out with a similar statement.
> 
> If I had to figure on someone, it would be Steve Nash.


As one of the biggest stars in the NBA, and a young one who needs to carefully manage his image, I have to think that Dwyane Wade is being smart and listening to his agent and not getting involved in something controversial. I don't think a stranger to a particular cause can really be expected to martyr himself for it especially when doing so <i>may</i> be decidedly against his own financial interest.


----------



## -33-

budselig said:


> As one of the biggest stars in the NBA, and a young one who needs to carefully manage his image, I have to think that Dwyane Wade is being smart and listening to his agent and not getting involved in something controversial. I don't think a stranger to a particular cause can really be expected to martyr himself for it especially when doing so <i>may</i> be decidedly against his own financial interest.


very true


----------



## Pimped Out

Brandname said:


> I just listened to Dwyane Wade's comments about this, and I wasn't particularly thrilled. He didn't say anything bad, but he pretty much just skirted the issue. I just wish an active NBA player would come out with a strong statement of support for the gay community in sports. Grant Hill's words were nice, but it would mean a lot of one of the current NBA superstars would come out with a similar statement.
> 
> If I had to figure on someone, it would be Steve Nash.


safe bet, pick the canadian. you could also make a safe bet going euro. dirk. i read some where that shaq made a comment similar to hill but i never saw what he said exactly.


----------



## futuristxen

Shaq_Diesel said:


> Again, I agree with you. But to a point, I don't. Why can't a young gay man look up to say....Dwyane Wade? (assuming his marriage and children are a legit sign of straightness)


He can, but it's a huge deal to have like...actual role models that you can see yourself in when you are trying to formulate your identity. If you go on myspace note how many of your girl friends heroes are like...their mom, vs. your guy friends and how many of their heroes are like famous people.

Seeing someone like you accomplishing something goes a long ways toward convincing you that it's possilble for you to even dream that. Obviously it's possible to have that dream anyways, I mean Tiger Woods grew up watching white men dominate the sport he wanted to play. But I think it takes an exceptional person to dream that dream when no one has really done it before. Whereas once it becomes normalized, then you have every black and asian kid heading to the golf course.

What would really help is if a legit really good player came out as gay in men's professional sports.


----------



## The Truth

Shaq_Diesel said:


> very true


very disappointing


----------



## Brandname

budselig said:


> As one of the biggest stars in the NBA, and a young one who needs to carefully manage his image, I have to think that Dwyane Wade is being smart and listening to his agent and not getting involved in something controversial. I don't think a stranger to a particular cause can really be expected to martyr himself for it especially when doing so <i>may</i> be decidedly against his own financial interest.


Oh I agree he's doing the smart thing both with PR and financially.

I just wish someone would hold this issue as more important than a little extra money or something. I'm not blaming Dwyane here at all. Lebron said something dumb, and his image has taken a hit in my eyes (like he really cares). And guys like Randolph and Hardaway and stuff have said really, really dumb things. So I don't blame Dwyane for not commenting on it. 

It would be nice for someone to come out and give a statement of support, though, whether or not it's in their best interests financially. Grant Hill has already done it. More players should follow suit.


----------



## kflo

budselig said:


> Yes, I do realize lesbians are homosexuals, which is why I like to distinguish between male homosexuals and female homosexuals (something I have attempted to do in my posts). It is absolutely ludicrous that we tend to regard lesbian relationships and male homosexual relationships as more similar to each other than either is to heterosexual relationships, when in fact each one is more similar to the heterosexual relationship than it is to the homosexual relationship of the opposite sex. A lesbian relationship is more similar to a heterosexual relationship because it shares one member of the same sex. The same goes for a male homosexual relationship. They are farther apart from each other because they do not share an members of the same sex. People of different sexes <i>are</i> different (whether or not that is a fact we acknowledge in our society anymore or not, I do not know) and they act differently, especially when viewed at the aggregate level. It's not the "homosexuality" that matters, it's the fact that two women are in a relationship with each other, or that a woman and a man are in a relationship with each other, or that two men are in a relationship with each other. Our society does not view homosexuality in this way. Our society is wrong.


why should our society view any of them differently? what would be the consequences to viewing them the same? noone seems to want to answer this. what's the point of differentiation, in terms of laws, or in terms of acceptance?


----------



## Brandname

Pimped Out said:


> safe bet, pick the canadian. you could also make a safe bet going euro. dirk. i read some where that shaq made a comment similar to hill but i never saw what he said exactly.


Yeah, the Canadians are usually on the ball on this particular issue. But that's not the only reason. Steve Nash has always been extremely well-spoken, and he seems like a very accepting person. I would be very surprised if he harbored any ill-will towards gays. Very surprised. 

Dirk might be a good choice, too. But I don't have as good of a read on him.


----------



## Animism

Who cares? He has every right to not want gay people around him. Not wanting a person around you isnt discrimination, as Hardaway didnt go to his house and threaten his life or anything. I dont see how its always "ignorant" to believe in what you believe. Thats the glory of America, believe what you want.
I, for one, dont like gay people around me. Im not a religious person, its not a "God" thing, I just find it gross. Usually, If you say something like that people respond with comments about how you just hate something you dont understand and so forth, but come on now, Im sure theres plenty of things you understand and still hate.

Im sure I worded that wrong, and used too many commas, both of these things happen frequently when Ive been drinking  

P.s Cant they just make a gay sports league? I mean most people dont support the idea of a woman and man integrated basketball league or anything...*also, no I didnt read the 63(!) pages of this thread, and dont care if any of this has been said


----------



## Jamel Irief

Keith "flagrant foul" Askins is gay? Interesting.


----------



## The Truth

Animism said:


> Who cares? He has every right to not want gay people around him. Not wanting a person around you isnt discrimination, as Hardaway didnt go to his house and threaten his life or anything. I dont see how its always "ignorant" to believe in what you believe. Thats the glory of America, believe what you want.
> I, for one, dont like gay people around me. Im not a religious person, its not a "God" thing, I just find it gross. Usually, If you say something like that people respond with comments about how you just hate something you dont understand and so forth, but come on now, Im sure theres plenty of things you understand and still hate.
> 
> Im sure I worded that wrong, and used too many commas, both of these things happen frequently when Ive been drinking
> 
> P.s Cant they just make a gay sports league? I mean most people dont support the idea of a woman and man integrated basketball league or anything...*also, no I didnt read the 63(!) pages of this thread, and dont care if any of this has been said


But if a gay person is near you, what is gross about it?


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

I want RJ's coment. Lots of people said he was bi.


----------



## futuristxen

Animism said:


> Who cares? He has every right to not want gay people around him. Not wanting a person around you isnt discrimination, as Hardaway didnt go to his house and threaten his life or anything. I dont see how its always "ignorant" to believe in what you believe. Thats the glory of America, believe what you want.


Hardaway's quote also included that he wanted homosexuals eliminated. Do you think that's okay?



> I, for one, dont like gay people around me. Im not a religious person, its not a "God" thing, I just find it gross. Usually, If you say something like that people respond with comments about how you just hate something you dont understand and so forth, but come on now, Im sure theres plenty of things you understand and still hate.


You don't understand. What justification do you have in hating someone for something that doesn't pertain to you in the slightest?


----------



## HKF

The most significant thing I have read in this thread is basically people like Brandname practically begging a top notch athlete to say something nice about gay men (again we're never talking about women in these situations, which doesn't make much sense, but I digress). 

You can't force these guys to say being gay is fun, I want him on my team, especially when they don't believe it. I just wish they would say no comment or I don't care either way, if you can ball, let's ball.

Because if you are real about it, you're going to get vilified. Tim Hardaway did a great thing for any NBA player who was ready to stick his foot in his mouth. Now I'd just keep quite, because Rosie O'Donnell and company are going to come down so hard on you for not being accepting, lest we forget the entire nation was built on segregation and discrimination and will always be this way.


----------



## JNice

budselig said:


> Yes, I do realize lesbians are homosexuals, which is why I like to distinguish between male homosexuals and female homosexuals (something I have attempted to do in my posts). It is absolutely ludicrous that we tend to regard lesbian relationships and male homosexual relationships as more similar to each other than either is to heterosexual relationships, when in fact each one is more similar to the heterosexual relationship than it is to the homosexual relationship of the opposite sex. A lesbian relationship is more similar to a heterosexual relationship because it shares one member of the same sex. The same goes for a male homosexual relationship. They are farther apart from each other because they do not share an members of the same sex. People of different sexes <i>are</i> different (whether or not that is a fact we acknowledge in our society anymore or not, I do not know) and they act differently, especially when viewed at the aggregate level. It's not the "homosexuality" that matters, it's the fact that two women are in a relationship with each other, or that a woman and a man are in a relationship with each other, or that two men are in a relationship with each other. Our society does not view homosexuality in this way. Our society is wrong.


This doesn't make a damn bit of sense.


----------



## MarioChalmers

The Truth said:


> But if a gay person is near you, what is gross about it?


It's like not liking to be around people who enjoy scat porn. Sexual preference is a very sensitive thing. One might not want to be around people who like reading lolita hentai manga. One might not want to be around people who enjoy golden showers. I might not want be around people who take it up the ***.

I would take no offense if some gay dude avoids me for liking women and wanting to bump uglies with them, so I don't think they should take offense if people are uncomfortable around them. 

Well whatever, I have gay friends and they're pretty cool when they're not in the "I'm gonna pinch your nipples a lot" mode, just trying to justify a valid way of thinking. 

:twocents:


----------



## Animism

futuristxen said:


> Hardaway's quote also included that he wanted homosexuals eliminated. Do you think that's okay?


I didnt hear that part. No, Im not okay with that, the same way I dont like that people want to "eliminate"(their views anyway) those that dont like homosexuality. Im not defending his stance, as its hardly correlative to mine (excpet that we dont like it), Im defending his abitlity to have those views and voice them, without being called a moron or ignorant.





futuristxen said:


> You don't understand. What justification do you have in hating someone for something that doesn't pertain to you in the slightest?


I didnt say I hate them, I said I dont want them around me. There is a difference there. Do you want nazis around you, or being on your team? And what justification does someone have to say that you have to accept everyone, and "want" them around you?


----------



## GNG

budselig said:


> Yes, I do realize lesbians are homosexuals, which is why I like to distinguish between male homosexuals and female homosexuals (something I have attempted to do in my posts). It is absolutely ludicrous that we tend to regard lesbian relationships and male homosexual relationships as more similar to each other than either is to heterosexual relationships, when in fact each one is more similar to the heterosexual relationship than it is to the homosexual relationship of the opposite sex. A lesbian relationship is more similar to a heterosexual relationship because it shares one member of the same sex. The same goes for a male homosexual relationship. They are farther apart from each other because they do not share an members of the same sex. People of different sexes <i>are</i> different (whether or not that is a fact we acknowledge in our society anymore or not, I do not know) and they act differently, especially when viewed at the aggregate level. It's not the "homosexuality" that matters, it's the fact that two women are in a relationship with each other, or that a woman and a man are in a relationship with each other, or that two men are in a relationship with each other. Our society does not view homosexuality in this way. Our society is wrong.



When are you going to do something about Barry Bonds?

Seriously.


----------



## Brandname

Also, for those of you going around saying, "I just hate it that they announce their sexuality to everyone. I don't go around announcing I'm heterosexual." Consider this:

Gay people have two reasons (among many others) for coming out:

1) They're still not accepted. Nobody should have to hide their sexuality. And trust me, if you've known someone for a long time without knowing that they're gay, it's almost a sure thing that they've been keeping it inside on purpose. Things that seem normal to heterosexuals (like keeping pictures of half-dressed beautiful women as an avatar, for example) get magnified if it's done by a homosexual. If one of the guys on this board has a half-dressed man as his avatar, many people would misconstrue it as "flaunting" his gayness. 

2) People take for granted how easy it is to find a romantic interest for heterosexuals. Homosexuals are a significant minority, so it's not just a matter of finding someone that you're attracted to and love for homosexuals. It's also a matter of hoping that person shares your sexual orientation, and *also *feels similar feelings towards you. Those are not good odds. In many cases, gay people have to let it known that they are gay just to be able to get an idea of who their potential love interests are. The odds are stacked against them. 

Hoping that they hide their sexuality will do two things. First, it will make it more likely that they will hit on straight people because they don't know whether the person is gay or straight. And that seems to be what so many of you are afraid of. Second, it would make it extraordinarily difficult for gay people to find each other. 

The fact is, whether you're straight, gay, or bisexual, you probably display your sexual orientation more than you realize. It just gets magnified when you see it happen with someone of a different orientation.


----------



## Seuss

This thread went 64 pages long, no wonder we were.......


----------



## streetballa

budselig said:


> Yes, I do realize lesbians are homosexuals, which is why I like to distinguish between male homosexuals and female homosexuals (something I have attempted to do in my posts). It is absolutely ludicrous that we tend to regard lesbian relationships and male homosexual relationships as more similar to each other than either is to heterosexual relationships, when in fact each one is more similar to the heterosexual relationship than it is to the homosexual relationship of the opposite sex. A lesbian relationship is more similar to a heterosexual relationship because it shares one member of the same sex. The same goes for a male homosexual relationship. They are farther apart from each other because they do not share an members of the same sex. People of different sexes <i>are</i> different (whether or not that is a fact we acknowledge in our society anymore or not, I do not know) and they act differently, especially when viewed at the aggregate level. It's not the "homosexuality" that matters, it's the fact that two women are in a relationship with each other, or that a woman and a man are in a relationship with each other, or that two men are in a relationship with each other. Our society does not view homosexuality in this way. Our society is wrong.


What?


----------



## Jamel Irief

Dr. Seuss said:


> This thread went 64 pages long, no wonder we were.......


It's only on page 20.


----------



## Brandname

HKF said:


> The most significant thing I have read in this thread is basically people like Brandname practically begging a top notch athlete to say something nice about gay men (again we're never talking about women in these situations, which doesn't make much sense, but I digress).
> 
> You can't force these guys to say being gay is fun, I want him on my team, especially when they don't believe it. I just wish they would say no comment or I don't care either way, if you can ball, let's ball.
> 
> Because if you are real about it, you're going to get vilified. Tim Hardaway did a great thing for any NBA player who was ready to stick his foot in his mouth. Now I'd just keep quite, because Rosie O'Donnell and company are going to come down so hard on you for not being accepting, lest we forget the entire nation was built on segregation and discrimination and will always be this way.


First, the discussion topic is mainly about homosexuality in the NBA. The topic of gays in the WNBA was addressed a couple of years ago, and frankly, I don't remember any of these types of hateful words being thrown around about it. Male homosexuality is a particularly sensitive issue when it comes to sports because it appears to have a significant contingent of players who do not accept it.

Yes I think players should speak out in favor of accepting gays in the NBA. I don't want them to say it if they don't believe it, though. I want the ones who do believe it to speak up. It takes a brave man to stick up for a group that you're not a part of, especially if your own image could take a hit because of it. 

Finally, not everyone who is real about it gets vilified. Hardaway was vilified because his words were hateful. Grant Hill was very real about his comments regarding gays in the NBA. He's been praised because he responded in a very accepting and mature way.


----------



## futuristxen

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> I want RJ's coment. Lots of people said he was bi.


His parents are missionaries though, right? He probably has comments worse than Tim Hardaway.


----------



## HKF

Brandname said:


> Finally, not everyone who is real about it gets vilified. Hardaway was vilified because his words were hateful. Grant Hill was very real about his comments regarding gays in the NBA. He's been praised because he responded in a very accepting and mature way.


I haven't seen his comments, but is it accepting and mature because he sees nothing wrong with homosexuality, because I could have sworn that him and Tamia were, in fact swingers.


----------



## futuristxen

Animism said:


> I didnt say I hate them, I said I dont want them around me. There is a difference there. Do you want nazis around you, or being on your team? And what justification does someone have to say that you have to accept everyone, and "want" them around you?


Yes but Nazism is based around exclusion and hate. If someone is homosexual they could be interested in all the things you are interested in. Like if you didn't know someone was homosexual, you would get along with them fine, which is why I'm saying it's weird that you would use something that doesn't really have any impact on you as a reason to not want that person around you.


----------



## HB

HKF said:


> I haven't seen his comments, but is it accepting and mature because he sees nothing wrong with homosexuality, because I could have sworn that him and Tamia were, in fact swingers.


Shocker


----------



## Brandname

HKF said:


> I haven't seen his comments, but is it accepting and mature because he sees nothing wrong with homosexuality, because I could have sworn that him and Tamia were, in fact swingers.


They were accepting and mature because they weren't hateful words (like Hardaway's), nor were they ignorant (like Lebron's). I have no idea whether he and Tamia are swingers, but why would I care about that? And why would that be at all relevant to this discussion?


----------



## JNice

HKF said:


> I haven't seen his comments, but is it accepting and mature because he sees nothing wrong with homosexuality, because I could have sworn that him and Tamia were, in fact swingers.


Where are you getting that from?


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

futuristxen said:


> His parents are missionaries though, right? He probably has comments worse than Tim Hardaway.


I dont think they are. But I dought he will say things that bad many people say he is bi.


----------



## HKF

JNice said:


> Where are you getting that from?


Let's just say that my current boss is very familiar with Tamia. I wouldn't just say it for no reason. The only reason why one would conclude that Grant's comments were mature is if they showed tolerance for Gays. However, I still contend, why is that mature? 

Why can't some people just not like gay people? I personally think it's better when you know of someone who doesn't like you, because you can take measures to not be around them.


----------



## HKF

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> I dont think they are. But I dought he will say things that bad many people say he is bi.


Richard Jefferson is the son of Christian missionaries.


----------



## Brandname

HKF said:


> Let's just say that my current boss is very familiar with Tamia. I wouldn't just say it for no reason. The only reason why one would conclude that Grant's comments were mature is if they showed tolerance for Gays. However, I still contend, why is that mature?
> 
> Why can't some people just not like gay people? I personally think it's better when you know of someone who doesn't like you, because you can take measures to not be around them.


People can dislike anyone they want. People can dislike black people if they want. People can dislike Jews or Christians if they want. But that doesn't make it right. Look, everyone understands that people have the *right *to like/dislike/say whatever they want. I'm not sure what people are arguing here, though. Are you arguing that it's _ok_ to dislike people just because they're gay? 

Surely you've come across people that don't like you just because you're black. I wouldn't go around saying "Why can't some people just not like black people?" because it's not ok.


----------



## Dre

Jamel Irief said:


> Is anybody else nervous that with this whole Amaechi thing that your favorite player will go Tmac, Shav Randolph, Hardaway etc... and reveal himself to be a bigot? Or do you care if your favorite player is a bigot and you seperate the person from the player?


You have to separate the person from the player, because their opinion has nothing to do with their skills. They're still the same player. They're not debating about gays oncourt, they're playing ball, and doing it well. What did Mcgrady say though that could be considered bigotry?


----------



## Carbo04

He's just saying what 99% of all the other NBA players feel but are afraid to say I'd wager.


----------



## HKF

Brandname said:


> People can dislike anyone they want. People can dislike black people if they want. People can dislike Jews or Christians if they want. But that doesn't make it right. Look, everyone understands that people have the *right *to like/dislike/say whatever they want. I'm not sure what people are arguing here, though. Are you arguing that it's _ok_ to dislike people just because they're gay?
> 
> Surely you've come across people that don't like you just because you're black. I wouldn't go around saying "Why can't some people just not like black people?" because it's not ok.


This is a moral/ethical question. Yes, it is okay for someone to dislike other people because they are gay, white, black, women, children, etc... If it weren't, these people wouldn't be walking the planet and we would be unisex humanoids who had no thoughts and ate berries all day.

At the end of the day, you're fight against discrimination is a losing battle, because you're fighting against human nature and a humans' right to discern what they feel is right and wrong. 

When you realize that there is a place for hatred and bigotry, you'll be better off in your life. We don't live in a utopia where it doesn't it and it can't be cured.


----------



## Brandname

HKF said:


> This is a moral/ethical question. Yes, it is okay for someone to dislike other people because they are gay, white, black, women, children, etc... If it weren't, these people wouldn't be walking the planet and we would be unisex humanoids who had no thoughts and ate berries all day.


I'm not being sarcatic, but I honestly have no idea what you're saying here. 


> At the end of the day, you're fight against discrimination is a losing battle, because you're fighting against human nature and a humans' right to discern what they feel is right and wrong.
> 
> When you realize that there is a place for hatred and bigotry, you'll be better off in your life. We don't live in a utopia where it doesn't it and it can't be cured.


Are you saying that because it's human nature to be bigoted, we shouldn't fight against bigotry?


----------



## HKF

Brandname said:


> I'm not being sarcatic, but I honestly have no idea what you're saying here.
> 
> 
> Are you saying that because it's human nature to be bigoted, we shouldn't fight against bigotry?


Yup, it's human nature for us to be bigoted. People have to fight against their bigotry. Because no one is perfect, we're going to have flaws. I'll use myself as an example. If you knew me in real life you'd probably say that I was a bigot. I only choose to associate with people who are just like me (regardless of race, ethnicity or sexual orientation), however they have to think the same way I do about pretty much everything I do or I won't associate with them. Now obviously it's not unilaterally that someone has to be like me, but there are certain kinds of people who you relate to (for me that would be Coatesvillain, we are real life friends). 

I don't actively seek out to accept people that are different from me, because I couldn't be bothered.


----------



## JNice

HKF said:


> Let's just say that my current boss is very familiar with Tamia. I wouldn't just say it for no reason. The only reason why one would conclude that Grant's comments were mature is if they showed tolerance for Gays. However, I still contend, why is that mature? ...


Everything Grant Hill says sounds mature.

So are you saying your boss has touched the heiny?


----------



## Brandname

HKF said:


> Yup, it's human nature for us to be bigoted. People have to fight against their bigotry. Because no one is perfect, we're going to have flaws. I'll use myself as an example. If you knew me in real life you'd probably say that I was a bigot. I only choose to associate with people who are just like me (regardless of race, ethnicity or sexual orientation), however they have to think the same way I do about pretty much everything I do or I won't associate with them. Now obviously it's not unilaterally that someone has to be like me, but there are certain kinds of people who you relate to (for me that would be Coatesvillain, we are real life friends).
> 
> I don't actively seek out to accept people that are different from me, because I couldn't be bothered.


Honestly, it's kind of surprising that you would hold this view. I imagine you've benefited significantly from the Civil Rights Movement. The whole thing was one colossal fight against bigotry. 

I will gladly stick up for any group of people whom I think is being treated unequally. And I don't think I'm alone in that viewpoint.


----------



## HKF

JNice said:


> Everything Grant Hill says sounds mature.
> 
> So are you saying your boss has touched the heiny?


Not unless he wanted his wife to kick ***. However he was an A&R at RCA and then a President of a record label on Warner Bros. I believe him when he says it.


----------



## HKF

Brandname said:


> Honestly, it's kind of surprising that you would hold this view. I imagine you've benefited significantly from the Civil Rights Movement. The whole thing was one colossal fight against bigotry.
> 
> I will gladly stick up for any group of people whom I think is being treated unequally. And I don't think I'm alone in that viewpoint.


Many blacks will tell you they don't feel they've benefited enough. I am just saying that even if laws get changed, you can't change what people feel in their hearts. I mean the Civil Rights movement was about getting laws changed. It's still more separate than equal in many parts of the country.

If it wasn't that way, the terms "White Flight" and "Gentrification" wouldn't exist.


----------



## Jizzy

Carbo04 said:


> He's just saying what 99% of all the other NBA players feel but are afraid to say I'd wager.



Same thing I thought when I first read this.


----------



## Brandname

HKF said:


> Many blacks will tell you they don't feel they've benefited enough. I am just saying that even if laws get changed, you can't change what people feel in their hearts. I mean the Civil Rights movement was about getting laws changed. It's still more separate than equal in many parts of the country.
> 
> If it wasn't that way, the terms "White Flight" and "Gentrification" wouldn't exist.


You and I both know that attitudes towards blacks have *significantly *improved as a result of the Civil Rights Movement. Sure, things aren't perfect. But working at it still helped. It wasn't just about laws.

I don't see how this situation is any different.


----------



## Hibachi!

Brandname said:


> You and I both know that attitudes towards blacks have *significantly *improved as a result of the Civil Rights Movement. Sure, things aren't perfect. But working at it still helped. It wasn't just about laws.


Agreed


----------



## Hibachi!

I agree with Kenny Smith about Amaechi. Here's a recap

"When John first came out and said he was gay my first reaction was so what? He's out there trying to sell a book. I mean who cares. We know there are gay guys in basketball. It's just like white rappers. We know they are there. He's trying to sell a book and I thought it was an oversell to begin with" I agree with that. Who cares? Like Kenny said or eluded to, and I have said before, was that John was shoving it down our throats.


----------



## HB

I agree with Kenny too.


----------



## Seuss

Hibachi! said:


> I agree with Kenny Smith about Amaechi. Here's a recap
> 
> "When John first came out and said he was gay my first reaction was so what? He's out there trying to sell a book. I mean who cares. We know there are gay guys in basketball. It's just like white rappers. We know they are there. He's trying to sell a book and I thought it was an oversell to begin with" I agree with that. Who cares? Like Kenny said or eluded to, and I have said before, was that John was shoving it down our throats.




I agree with Kenny.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Brandname said:


> Are you saying that because it's human nature to be bigoted, we shouldn't fight against bigotry?


If it doesn't hurt anyone. And Tim Hardaway hasn't hurt anyone, so why can't he make bigoted comments?


----------



## HB

Hardaway's comments hurt him more than anything else


----------



## Brandname

Chan said:


> If it doesn't hurt anyone. And Tim Hardaway hasn't hurt anyone, so why can't he make bigoted comments?


It's incredibly short-sighted to believe that his comments haven't hurt anyone.


----------



## Pimped Out

> "Every comment that [Hardaway] made is labeled with hate," Amaechi said. "The percentage of e-mails I've received overnight that are going to have to go into a little box somewhere just in case I end up dead are unbelievable. He's been a lightning rod for people to finally open the floodgates and decide that they can say some pretty awful stuff.
> 
> "I will say this about the Tim Hardaway comments and the comments of people like him ... these are the loud comments that pollute the air," Amaechi said. "These are the comments that create the atmosphere that allow some of the tragic incidents of homophobia that we've seen. This is what makes the lives of gay and lesbian young people in schools miserable. It's what stops gay and lesbian people in the workplace from coming out as well as the fact they can be fined in 33 states for being gay. These are part of the problem."


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2766213

Sam Mitchell had this to stay


> "It wouldn't bother me, but I'm 43 years old, I've been through a lot of things, seen lot of things," said Mitchell. "I just think when you look at sports and you look at the age, maybe you wouldn't have enough guys with the level of maturity to understand . . . the struggle going on within someone who's not living the life that they're comfortable with.
> 
> "That's got to be his own special torment that you're not comfortable being who you are, and not having people with the level of maturity to deal with that."
> 
> Mitchell was asked whether he believes tolerance increases with age.
> 
> "It shouldn't be about tolerance, it should be about respect, treating people as human beings," said Mitchell. "I don't like the word tolerance. Are you supposed to tolerate me because I'm black, or are people supposed to treat me with respect because I'm a human being?"
> 
> Mitchell played against Amaechi in all four seasons Amaechi was in the league, and the Raptors coach wished him well Wednesday.
> 
> "I hope John's happy, I hope his announcement gives him a level of freedom and comfort," said Mitchell. "I hope he's happy.
> 
> "Everybody lives their life, I try to adhere to what the bible says, try to treat everybody with respect and compassion and humanity, and don't judge unless you're willing to be judged, and hope everybody is happy."


http://media.www.thelantern.com/med.../Opinion/Respect.Over.Tolerance-2722402.shtml


----------



## HB

I really love Mitchell's comments on respecting people as a human being rather than their race or sexuality.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Brandname said:


> It's incredibly short-sighted to believe that his comments haven't hurt anyone.


Do tell.


----------



## Pimped Out

Chan said:


> Do tell.


"Every comment that [Hardaway] made is labeled with hate," Amaechi said. "The percentage of e-mails I've received overnight that are going to have to go into a little box somewhere just in case I end up dead are unbelievable. He's been a lightning rod for people to finally open the floodgates and decide that they can say some pretty awful stuff.

"I will say this about the Tim Hardaway comments and the comments of people like him ... these are the loud comments that pollute the air," Amaechi said. "These are the comments that create the atmosphere that allow some of the tragic incidents of homophobia that we've seen. This is what makes the lives of gay and lesbian young people in schools miserable. It's what stops gay and lesbian people in the workplace from coming out as well as the fact they can be fined in 33 states for being gay. These are part of the problem."


----------



## SignGuyDino

When you are in any position of leadership or representation of a corporation, what you say can get you screwed, even how you say something can get you screwed. Hardaway clearly doesn't have the diplomatic capacity to make a comment that made his point without making him look stupid. Sometimes, "no comment" is the best comment.

I don't mind saying it: I agree with the sentiments against homosexuality in the locker room. Sue me. Call me a bigot. I honestly don't care. I wouldn't want any woman who isn't my wife checking me out, why the hell would I want some gay guy checking me out? If some player were known to be gay, no way in hell would I want to shower with him. Call it intolerant, I honestly don't care. 

You know, some people are tired of the PC-NBA. Tired of Father Stern telling players they shouldn't be carrying guns (which they couldn't do at arenas anyway, outside of that, ever heard of the 2nd Amendment?). Tired of political comments, I can watch Fox News or CNN for that. How about we just want to be entertained and see the best team win? Is that too much to ask?


----------



## budselig

Brandname said:


> Lebron said something dumb, and his image has taken a hit in my eyes


Lebron's comments just sounded immature to me. I felt slightly embarrassed reading them, but I suppose he is fairly young and probably not particularly intelligent.



kflo said:


> why should our society view any of them differently? what would be the consequences to viewing them the same? noone seems to want to answer this. what's the point of differentiation, in terms of laws, or in terms of acceptance?


kflo, great post, those are the questions that need to be asked. Society should (and still does, I think, unavoidably) view them differently because they are different. Men are different than women. They're not different in the sense that one can do math and the other can't, they're different in their behavior toward others, their emotions, and the things that drive them and determine their actions. Sure, they're more similar than they are different, even in all of the aforementioned ways, but that does not give anyone license to ignore their differences and how those differences impact behavior, both positively and negatively. Laws, and "acceptance," on the aggregate level, which I think is what you are getting at, have a huge impact on the behavior of individuals. A law or a social stigma can oppress certain behavior; if it oppresses good behavior, its net value to society is negative. If it oppresses bad behavior, its net value is positive.

Past that it becomes, obviously, a value judgment - determining what type of behavior is good and what type of behavior is bad. I have been asserting that male homosexuality is bad because as far as I can tell it is, on the aggregate level (which is the only level, I <i>think</i>, that the problem should be addressed at) the form of relationship that manifests the most intensified expression of male promiscuity and perversity. On the individual level surely there will be instances of heterosexual behavior and even female homosexual behavior that are worse than instances of male homosexual behavior, but viewed on the aggregate level a shift away from oppression of male homosexual behavior toward acceptance of male homosexual behavior will result in an aggregate increase of the deviant behavior. I've made an assertion here, but I haven't backed it up, substantively, with any facts, or even specific theories, and I don't know that it can be effectively backed up without extensive research. It is an important issue that perhaps can, but shouldn't be, shortchanged. I know this entire paragraph went beyond the scope of your remark, but I wanted to try and clear up where I stand.


----------



## Tragedy

All I know is this, no one should even TRY to attempt to compare it to racism in sports, unless they just want to look like a fool.


----------



## budselig

SignGuyDino said:


> I wouldn't want any woman who isn't my wife checking me out


Well, I do think the NBA allows women reporters into lockerrooms, so they are probably staring at schlong all night. Am I wrong here?

I agree and would like to see sport be as much of a haven from this type of social commentary as possible. I think the removal of Hardaway from league events is a step in that direction, as he would almost certainly be a distraction. It's really a shame ESPN came out with this book, and spearheaded the story, though. I'm going to assume that they will push it forward almost perpetually.


----------



## budselig

Tragedy said:


> All I know is this, no one should even TRY to attempt to compare it to racism in sports, unless they just want to look like a fool.


It truly is incredibly dissimilar from race, and not just in a sporting context. I don't think I have thought much about it before, but it is significantly closer to religion than race. Both manifest themselves via behavior, and I suppose desire (belief in the case of religion, craving schlong in the case of homosexuality), while race manifests itself as a color or a physical feature. They almost couldn't be more different.


----------



## budselig

Rawse said:


> When are you going to do something about Barry Bonds?
> 
> Seriously.


Actually I can't wait till he breaks the record. I just hope he keeps playing after this season, in the AL preferably, because if he doesn't Pujols and Rodriguez could easily surpass him one day.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Pimped Out said:


> "Every comment that [Hardaway] made is labeled with hate," Amaechi said. "The percentage of e-mails I've received overnight that are going to have to go into a little box somewhere just in case I end up dead are unbelievable. He's been a lightning rod for people to finally open the floodgates and decide that they can say some pretty awful stuff.
> 
> "I will say this about the Tim Hardaway comments and the comments of people like him ... these are the loud comments that pollute the air," Amaechi said. "These are the comments that create the atmosphere that allow some of the tragic incidents of homophobia that we've seen. This is what makes the lives of gay and lesbian young people in schools miserable. It's what stops gay and lesbian people in the workplace from coming out as well as the fact they can be fined in 33 states for being gay. These are part of the problem."


So what if it's labeled with hate? It's free speech. It's his opinion, and it happens to be quite prevalent in the US.


----------



## Pimped Out

Chan said:


> So what if it's labeled with hate? It's free speech. It's his opinion, and it happens to be quite prevalent in the US.


you asked how it hurts someone. i answered. why does freedom of speech mean it wont hurt anyone?

and there is a difference between legality and right and wrong. just because something is legal and you can justify it in front of the supreme court doesnt mean you are right to say it.


----------



## Brandname

Pimped Out said:


> you asked how it hurts someone. i answered. why does freedom of speech mean it wont hurt anyone?
> 
> and there is a difference between legality and right and wrong. just because something is legal and you can justify it in front of the supreme court doesnt mean you are right to say it.


Bingo.

I don't know why so many people are saying that it's his right to say what he wants. I don't recall anyone saying he should be arrested for his words...


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Pimped Out said:


> you asked how it hurts someone. i answered. why does freedom of speech mean it wont hurt anyone?
> 
> and there is a difference between legality and right and wrong. just because something is legal and you can justify it in front of the supreme court doesnt mean you are right to say it.


According to some, not accepting gays is 'wrong'. According to some, being gay is 'wrong'. What about it?


----------



## rock747

If Tim Hardaway disagrees with the gay lifestyle he had every right to voice his opinion, however the manner in which he did it is unrespectable. 

What startles me a little bit is that people are upset that he voiced his opinion, America is "supposedly" about free speach. People can disagree with him, and the way he presented his opinion, but it is his opinion.


----------



## Diable

Some ******* of an explayer opens his mouth and this thread hits 1000 posts.You people need to get used to living with idiots.This isn't that big a deal.If noone had opened their mouth and made themselves look stupid that would have been a real shock.


----------



## Dre

Post 1000.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

rock747 said:


> If Tim Hardaway disagrees with the gay lifestyle he had every right to voice his opinion, however the manner in which he did it is unrespectable.
> 
> What startles me a little bit is that people are upset that he voiced his opinion, America is "supposedly" about free speach. People can disagree with him, and the way he presented his opinion, but it is his opinion.


People are forming opinions about him based on his opinion. Then we can form an opinion about those people, and some more people can form opinions about us. It's a chain.

While I agree with you, how is Hardaway's opinions about gays disrespectable, and how could he have presented it in a respectable manner?


----------



## Krstic All-Star

Looks like this thread has continued its circular pattern since late last night/early morning. Since I have no desire to read back 500 or so posts, anything new?


----------



## thatsnotgross

I want to quickly say to all of you who are homophobic or against it but won't say they are homophobic.

How are they effecting your life? 

why are you so concern about their life and why are you shoving the bible/koran/old testament or whatever book you believe into their life? 

I find it hilarious when the people who read the bible are the same people who had pre-marital sex, and committed every sin that you would think of. Yet the same people who criticizes others. So my point is, fix your life first and then you can fix others. Try not to say what is wrong and right unless you fix what is wrong and do the "right" thing in your eyes.

Unless you go to church every damn Sunday, a walking virgin in your 30s until you are marry, and not curse a damn word then sure go ahead and criticize all you want. 

Do you go around your town, spewing religion to everyone that doesn't believe in what you believe in or do you just do it to gays? Give me a break. How about you stop cherry picking the fight you want to fight and "man" up and spew equally the wrath of your religious book.

Note: I believe every religion is an amazing aspect of everyone's life, it enlightens anyone's life, gives them peace of mind and so on. But I don't believe in people shoving religion down into other people's throat. I don't believe in religion in politics, sports or anywhere you can confess your love to your god. Keep it private and leave it alone. Maybe, just maybe the world can live in peace.


----------



## Brandname

I guess I'll just never understand why some people think prejudice is no big deal.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

thatsnotgross said:


> I want to quickly say to all of you who are homophobic or against it but won't say they are homophobic.
> 
> How are they effecting your life?
> 
> why are you so concern about their life and why are you shoving the bible/koran/old testament or whatever book you believe into their life?
> 
> I find it hilarious when the people who read the bible are the same people who had pre-marital sex, and committed every sin that you would think of. Yet the same people who criticizes others. So my point is, fix your life first and then you can fix others. Try not to say what is wrong and right unless you fix what is wrong and do the "right" thing in your eyes.
> 
> Unless you go to church every damn Sunday, a walking virgin in your 30s until you are marry, and not curse a damn word then sure go ahead and criticize all you want.
> 
> Do you go around your town, spewing religion to everyone that doesn't believe in what you believe in or do you just do it to gays? Give me a break. How about you stop cherry picking the fight you want to fight and "man" up and spew equally the wrath of your religious book.
> 
> Note: I believe every religion is an amazing aspect of everyone's life, it enlightens anyone's life, gives them peace of mind and so on. But I don't believe in people shoving religion down into other people's throat. I don't believe in religion in politics, sports or anywhere you can confess your love to your god. Keep it private and leave it alone. Maybe, just maybe the world can live in peace.


People are hypocrites.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Brandname said:


> I guess I'll just never understand why some people think prejudice is no big deal.


You accept what you can't change. Our ability to adapt to the state of society is what makes us human.


----------



## 4BiddenKnight

thatsnotgross said:


> I want to quickly say to all of you who are homophobic or against it but won't say they are homophobic.
> 
> How are they effecting your life?
> 
> why are you so concern about their life and why are you shoving the bible/koran/old testament or whatever book you believe into their life?
> 
> I find it hilarious when the people who read the bible are the same people who had pre-marital sex, and committed every sin that you would think of. Yet the same people who criticizes others. So my point is, fix your life first and then you can fix others. Try not to say what is wrong and right unless you fix what is wrong and do the "right" thing in your eyes.
> 
> Unless you go to church every damn Sunday, a walking virgin in your 30s until you are marry, and not curse a damn word then sure go ahead and criticize all you want.
> 
> Do you go around your town, spewing religion to everyone that doesn't believe in what you believe in or do you just do it to gays? Give me a break. How about you stop cherry picking the fight you want to fight and "man" up and spew equally the wrath of your religious book.
> 
> Note: I believe every religion is an amazing aspect of everyone's life, it enlightens anyone's life, gives them peace of mind and so on. But I don't believe in people shoving religion down into other people's throat. I don't believe in religion in politics, sports or anywhere you can confess your love to your god. Keep it private and leave it alone. Maybe, just maybe the world can live in peace.


I am homophobic myself, not because of the church (and no I will never ever fall for their farce beliefs), but because I actually got a first hand experience dealing with a possibly gay person who might have crushed on me because I was such a big fish in a small tank in my school for playing basketball. Yeah, it got me real nervous, real uncomfy whenever I feel the guy checking me out. I even had thoughts of that guy stalking me for some odd reason, when its obvious that dude isn't. And yes there are at times where I dwell on why I even get nervous about a guy checking me out when a girl checking me out is soo dam awesome.

And about how sports in general are homophobic, well, I experience that first hand too. Slowly the gay dude started making friends with my balling buddies, well in his mind though. I talked to them about what they think of that gay dude, they all hate him. All the guys I talked to either thought of him as retarded, stupid, gay and what not. I was even able to get them pumped up whenever I tried to talk them into beating that gaylord up, but they weren't ever able to act on it, while I tried to tell him to get lost, unsuccessfully because those guys were somewhat compassionate towards that guy. Well, hopefully that didn't offend anyone, but at least I'm coming out of the closet as a homophobe.

I'm a total ignorant on what kind of beliefs religion has, but I bet most people are homophobic simply because they don't like guys checking out on them and stuff.


----------



## Turkish Delight

4BiddenKnight said:


> I am homophobic myself, not because of the church (and no I will never ever fall for their farce beliefs), but because I actually got a first hand experience dealing with a possibly gay person who might have crushed on me because I was such a big fish in a small tank in my school for playing basketball. Yeah, it got me real nervous, real uncomfy whenever I feel the guy checking me out. I even had thoughts of that guy stalking me for some odd reason, when its obvious that dude isn't. And yes there are at times where I dwell on why I even get nervous about a guy checking me out when a girl checking me out is soo dam awesome.
> 
> And about how sports in general are homophobic, well, I experience that first hand too. Slowly the gay dude started making friends with my balling buddies, well in his mind though. I talked to them about what they think of that gay dude, they all hate him. All the guys I talked to either thought of him as retarded, stupid, gay and what not. I was even able to get them pumped up whenever I tried to talk them into beating that gaylord up, but they weren't ever able to act on it, while I tried to tell him to get lost, unsuccessfully because those guys were somewhat compassionate towards that guy. Well, hopefully that didn't offend anyone, but at least I'm coming out of the closet as a homophobe.
> 
> I'm a total ignorant on what kind of beliefs religion has, but I bet most people are homophobic simply because they don't like guys checking out on them and stuff.


How about just telling him your not interested? It might just be crazy enough to work.


----------



## LuckyAC

Turkish Delight said:


> How about just telling him your not interested? It might just be crazy enough to work.


But a truck and a chain is so much simpler!


----------



## Brandname

Chan said:


> You accept what you can't change. Our ability to adapt to the state of society is what makes us human.


It's a good thing we haven't had this attitude in the past.


----------



## kflo

4BiddenKnight said:


> I am homophobic myself, not because of the church (and no I will never ever fall for their farce beliefs), but because I actually got a first hand experience dealing with a possibly gay person who might have crushed on me because I was such a big fish in a small tank in my school for playing basketball. Yeah, it got me real nervous, real uncomfy whenever I feel the guy checking me out. I even had thoughts of that guy stalking me for some odd reason, when its obvious that dude isn't. And yes there are at times where I dwell on why I even get nervous about a guy checking me out when a girl checking me out is soo dam awesome.
> 
> And about how sports in general are homophobic, well, I experience that first hand too. Slowly the gay dude started making friends with my balling buddies, well in his mind though. I talked to them about what they think of that gay dude, they all hate him. All the guys I talked to either thought of him as retarded, stupid, gay and what not. I was even able to get them pumped up whenever I tried to talk them into beating that gaylord up, but they weren't ever able to act on it, while I tried to tell him to get lost, unsuccessfully because those guys were somewhat compassionate towards that guy. Well, hopefully that didn't offend anyone, but at least I'm coming out of the closet as a homophobe.
> 
> I'm a total ignorant on what kind of beliefs religion has, but I bet most people are homophobic simply because they don't like guys checking out on them and stuff.


man, that would have been great if you had gotten them to beat him up. awesome. fun too. woulda made you cool too. rock on.


----------



## Brandname

4BiddenKnight said:


> I am homophobic myself, not because of the church (and no I will never ever fall for their farce beliefs), but because I actually got a first hand experience dealing with a possibly gay person who might have crushed on me because I was such a big fish in a small tank in my school for playing basketball. Yeah, it got me real nervous, real uncomfy whenever I feel the guy checking me out. I even had thoughts of that guy stalking me for some odd reason, when its obvious that dude isn't. And yes there are at times where I dwell on why I even get nervous about a guy checking me out when a girl checking me out is soo dam awesome.
> 
> And about how sports in general are homophobic, well, I experience that first hand too. Slowly the gay dude started making friends with my balling buddies, well in his mind though. I talked to them about what they think of that gay dude, they all hate him. All the guys I talked to either thought of him as retarded, stupid, gay and what not. I was even able to get them pumped up whenever I tried to talk them into beating that gaylord up, but they weren't ever able to act on it, while I tried to tell him to get lost, unsuccessfully because those guys were somewhat compassionate towards that guy. Well, hopefully that didn't offend anyone, but at least I'm coming out of the closet as a homophobe.
> 
> I'm a total ignorant on what kind of beliefs religion has, but I bet most people are homophobic simply because they don't like guys checking out on them and stuff.


I can't tell whether you're serious or this is one big joke.


----------



## kflo

budselig said:


> Lebron's comments just sounded immature to me. I felt slightly embarrassed reading them, but I suppose he is fairly young and probably not particularly intelligent.
> 
> 
> 
> kflo, great post, those are the questions that need to be asked. Society should (and still does, I think, unavoidably) view them differently because they are different. Men are different than women. They're not different in the sense that one can do math and the other can't, they're different in their behavior toward others, their emotions, and the things that drive them and determine their actions. Sure, they're more similar than they are different, even in all of the aforementioned ways, but that does not give anyone license to ignore their differences and how those differences impact behavior, both positively and negatively. Laws, and "acceptance," on the aggregate level, which I think is what you are getting at, have a huge impact on the behavior of individuals. A law or a social stigma can oppress certain behavior; if it oppresses good behavior, its net value to society is negative. If it oppresses bad behavior, its net value is positive.
> 
> Past that it becomes, obviously, a value judgment - determining what type of behavior is good and what type of behavior is bad. I have been asserting that male homosexuality is bad because as far as I can tell it is, on the aggregate level (which is the only level, I <i>think</i>, that the problem should be addressed at) the form of relationship that manifests the most intensified expression of male promiscuity and perversity. On the individual level surely there will be instances of heterosexual behavior and even female homosexual behavior that are worse than instances of male homosexual behavior, but viewed on the aggregate level a shift away from oppression of male homosexual behavior toward acceptance of male homosexual behavior will result in an aggregate increase of the deviant behavior. I've made an assertion here, but I haven't backed it up, substantively, with any facts, or even specific theories, and I don't know that it can be effectively backed up without extensive research. It is an important issue that perhaps can, but shouldn't be, shortchanged. I know this entire paragraph went beyond the scope of your remark, but I wanted to try and clear up where I stand.


the key here is that you have made an assertion without substantive backup. we do know, unequivocally, that oppression of homosexual behavior negatively affects the homosexual. considering that's the point, it's obviously true. the point is to make it uncomfortable to be homosexual so there will be less homosexuals, whereas more would be gay without the oppression/stigma. except, again, you haven't shown that the positive impacts are there - either in the form of less homosexuals, or, more importantly, in the form of a better society. what of the individuals who are affected? the homosexual who can't feel comfortable being homosexual? say we decrease homosexuality by 10%, but the existing homosexuals are miserable and their misery negatively affects society. does that make for a better society than one with the 10% more homosexuals, but homosexuals who get to live a better, more open and accepted life? see, even if we accept the unsupported premise that acceptance leads to more, there's still more to the question. is the underground homosexual better for society than the comfortable out one? what's the net gain/loss? you're not even stigmatizing the behavior (promiscuity), just the type of relationship. and you're not addressing how the stigma could be influencing the behavior. how do you feel about responsible monogomous homosexual relationships? you talk about looking at it in aggregate, but lost in that is the impact on those most affected.


----------



## futuristxen

4BiddenKnight said:


> I am homophobic myself, not because of the church (and no I will never ever fall for their farce beliefs), but because I actually got a first hand experience dealing with a possibly gay person who might have crushed on me because I was such a big fish in a small tank in my school for playing basketball. Yeah, it got me real nervous, real uncomfy whenever I feel the guy checking me out. I even had thoughts of that guy stalking me for some odd reason, when its obvious that dude isn't. And yes there are at times where I dwell on why I even get nervous about a guy checking me out when a girl checking me out is soo dam awesome.


Poor baby. Now imagine if you had to put up with that every single day. And the guy was a lot bigger and stronger than you. And you have some idea of what it's like to be a girl.


----------



## edabomb

People are only homophobic because they're scared they might not be able to control themselves if a guy came onto them.

If you are confident in your sexuality it doesn't matter to you one way or the other what other guys are thinking.


----------



## Turkish Delight

4BiddenKnight said:


> I'm a total ignorant on what kind of beliefs religion has, but I bet most people are homophobic simply because they don't like guys checking out on them and stuff.


No, most people are homophobic because they are scared of their own sexuality. If you are actually straight, and you know that you are, you shouldn't care who is gay. Even if this guy was attracted to you, which I can hardly believe based on what an ******* you are, what is the difference of him and just another girl that you are not attracted to? You are singling him out, making him the outcast when he shouldn't be. Being straight or gay is a human condition, and not an illness like many people still believe.


----------



## kflo

edabomb said:


> People are only homophobic because they're scared they might not be able to control themselves if a guy came onto them.
> 
> If you are confident in your sexuality it doesn't matter to you one way or the other what other guys are thinking.


self-confidence and self-esteem go a long way to addressing alot of issues. the more comfortable you are in your own skin, the less you'll be concerned with critiquing others. good point.


----------



## The Truth

HKF said:


> Let's just say that my current boss is very familiar with Tamia. I wouldn't just say it for no reason. The only reason why one would conclude that Grant's comments were mature is if they showed tolerance for Gays. However, I still contend, why is that mature?
> 
> Why can't some people just not like gay people? I personally think it's better when you know of someone who doesn't like you, because you can take measures to not be around them.


This is flat out idiotic.

There is nothing wrong with not liking a gay person. There is something wrong with not liking all gay people based upon the fact that they are gay. That is prejudice. 

But if you have no problem with discrimination, more power to you.

And just stop with this Grant Hill bull****.


----------



## kflo

The Truth said:


> There is nothing wrong with not liking a gay person. There is something wrong with not liking all gay people based upon the fact that they are gay. That is prejudice.


Truth


----------



## The Truth

4BiddenKnight said:


> I am homophobic myself, not because of the church (and no I will never ever fall for their farce beliefs), but because I actually got a first hand experience dealing with a possibly gay person who might have crushed on me because I was such a big fish in a small tank in my school for playing basketball. Yeah, it got me real nervous, real uncomfy whenever I feel the guy checking me out. I even had thoughts of that guy stalking me for some odd reason, when its obvious that dude isn't. And yes there are at times where I dwell on why I even get nervous about a guy checking me out when a girl checking me out is soo dam awesome.


That's _your_ problem, not his. Smacks of insecurity.



> And about how sports in general are homophobic, well, I experience that first hand too. Slowly the gay dude started making friends with my balling buddies, well in his mind though. I talked to them about what they think of that gay dude, they all hate him. All the guys I talked to either thought of him as retarded, stupid, gay and what not. I was even able to get them pumped up whenever I tried to talk them into beating that gaylord up, but they weren't ever able to act on it, while I tried to tell him to get lost, unsuccessfully because those guys were somewhat compassionate towards that guy. Well, hopefully that didn't offend anyone, but at least I'm coming out of the closet as a homophobe


This is pathetic beyond words. 



> I'm a total ignorant on what kind of beliefs religion has, but I bet most people are homophobic simply because they don't like guys checking out on them and stuff.


You're ignorant of much more than just religion.


----------



## The Truth

Chan said:


> You accept what you can't change. Our ability to adapt to the state of society is what makes us human.


This is just bull****. Utter bull****. Where do you get this? How can you possibly support this?

You're just pulling this out of your ***.


----------



## kflo

HKF said:


> When you realize that there is a place for hatred and bigotry, you'll be better off in your life. We don't live in a utopia where it doesn't it and it can't be cured.


we're not born with it. it's created. it's largely upbringing, partly circumstance.


----------



## Brandname

The excuses people are making for being prejudiced are just mind-boggling.


----------



## Crossword

HB said:


> We dont all to be equal to feel included. Thats why everyone has a role.


Yes, but this role isn't a birthright. Roles are allocated through personal achievements, they're not something you're born into. If that is the case, as it is when people are discriminated against, then people are not equal. If you don't label people based on their natural characteristics (read: stereotype), and treat them the same that's equality. And social equality can work. I'm not talking about inequality between the rich and the poor, that's another topic. In our society, that can't happen, because in order for capitalism to work, someone has to be rich and someone has to be poor. But capitalism is blind, and doesn't say that the rich person has to be straight and the poor person has to be gay. That's the difference.

The only reason you're led to believe that social equality can't work, is because those who have power use racism and homophobia as tools to keep their power. Discrimination has no positives. This is why Chan is a moron for thinking it's good for society. When someone is discriminated against based on factors out of their control, their potential is limited as they are tagged with a sense of inferiority. Social equality removes this tag by treating everyone equally. What people do with this equal treatment, and what roles they partake in after receiving this equal treatment, defines their status in society. But that's okay, because that means everyone has equal opportunity. And THAT is how equality works.


----------



## Crossword

Chan, you're making your railroad building ancestors roll over in their graves. Just stop talking.


----------



## Crossword

_Dre_ said:


> I've lost all respect for Chan and quite frankly I'm shocked at that point of view...I had *no idea*people had thoughs like his.
> 
> I can't agree with *any* of his points here or in EHH now, because he said he's racist. No matter how much I want to, I can't.


Ditto.


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> Discrimination is the opposite of acceptance. If we allow acceptance, then we should allow discrimination.
> 
> I have a story for you. A little while earlier, my school held a MLK assembly. I didn't think much about it until the school announced that it was a mandatory assembly. This made me think: If I didn't want to go, if I didn't agree with MLK's speech on being non-racist, isn't it my right not to go?
> 
> Isn't this a similar situation? Why am I forced to like people of a certain race/sexual orientation if I don't want to? Because you say it's right?


There's a difference between accepting pluralism and accepting discrimination. One is good for society, and one is bad. Take a wild guess which one's which.


----------



## Crossword

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> The way this thread has changed topics original topic-homosexuallity-relligion-relligious definition-politics-discrimination.


Yet they're all related to the original topic. Funny how that works.


----------



## Crossword

Brandname said:


> Yeah, that's the thing.
> 
> Communism when it comes to limiting personal freedoms is very wrong. Communism in the general sense of structuring a government around the betterment of the entire society isn't inherently bad. It's just that we've discovered it simply doesn't work. And Socialism as an economic system also just doesn't work.
> 
> The greatest genius of Capitalism is that it takes advantage of humans' basic selfishness and puts it to use for the betterment of society.


This definition of capitalism is very true, although with the increasing gap between rich and poor we're seeing how it isn't necessarily for the betterment of all society.


----------



## Crossword

smrtguy said:


> Do bisexual men choose to sleep with a women one night, and then a man the next?
> 
> Yes. It is a choice.
> 
> What is the difference between bisexual men and gay men?
> 
> Both choices if you ask me.


Gay men are not attracted to women.


----------



## Brandname

Budweiser_Boy said:


> This definition of capitalism is very true, although with the increasing gap between rich and poor we're seeing how it isn't necessarily for the betterment of all society.


Yeah, unfortunately that's one of the bigger downsides to capitalism. The wealth gap gets really big.


----------



## homer

I think you guys should give chan and 4BiddenKnight a break. They're just teenagers and have no clue what they're talking about. They'll grow up.


----------



## Crossword

gian said:


> What do you think of Hot Topic's hiring procedures?
> 
> Where do you draw the line?
> 
> If your market is scared of black people, would it be justified to not hire a black man?
> 
> Then again, some companies hire people only if they're part of a minority. Say, make-up shops hire gay people all the time.
> 
> Also, don't private establishments have rights? They have the right not to offer service to certain customers, and I believe they have the right not to hire someone just because they don't like 'em. I'm not trying to be a bigot, I'm just really trying to learn something, justifying the four questionmarks in my post.


In an equal market, no particular demographic is feared. Employment laws are in place to establish equality in the workplace.


----------



## Brandname

homer said:


> I think you guys should give chan and 4BiddenKnight a break. They're just stupid teenagers and have no clue what they're talking about. They'll grow up.


Some people never get over their prejudices. 

Usually, it's because they weren't raised in an environment free of prejudice. Some parents never talk to their kids about accepting people of all races/genders/sexual orientations/etc, so it's not as easy to shake off feelings of prejudice. Hell, some parents are the most bigoted people around. Their kids never seem like they're going to have a chance. 

There's no guarantee that Chan and 4BiddenKnight will lose their prejudice just because they get older. A lot of people don't. People need to explain why having these feelings against other people is wrong.


----------



## Crossword

gian said:


> Man?


And a gay man is any less of a man because he's gay?


----------



## Crossword

homer said:


> I think you guys should give chan and 4BiddenKnight a break. They're just stupid teenagers and have no clue what they're talking about. They'll grow up.


I disagree. When I was 14, I was saying the same things I say now, only with a much less extensive vocabulary and free-roaming beliefs that weren't as in line as they are now.

I won't deny change at such extremities being possible, but it would have to come quick.


----------



## Crossword

_Dre_ said:


> The best picture would be Amaechi swatting Hardaway's **** 10 rows back.


Clearly the best picture would be Hardaway posting up on Amaechi.


----------



## Crossword

Jamel Irief said:


> Is anybody else nervous that with this whole Amaechi thing that your favorite player will go Tmac, Shav Randolph, Hardaway etc... and reveal himself to be a bigot? Or do you care if your favorite player is a bigot and you seperate the person from the player?


The homer in me is naive enough to believe that no Raptor would come out with such comments, so I'm not worried.

Besides, the Raptors are having gay night vs. the Pacers next Friday, so they'd be in some **** if they did.


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> If it doesn't hurt anyone. And Tim Hardaway hasn't hurt anyone, so why can't he make bigoted comments?


You did not just say bigotry doesn't hurt anyone.


----------



## Dre

About 900 posts ago, I think it was Brandname who said this discussion would be worthwhile to enlighten the homophobic and discrimination complacent/supportive people on the board. It clearly hasn't been the case, They still sound just as dumb as they did two days ago. Why do we even bother trying to talk to these "discrimination will exist so we should just deal with it" cowards?


----------



## Crossword

budselig said:


> Well, I do think the NBA allows women reporters into lockerrooms, so they are probably staring at schlong all night. Am I wrong here?


Wow.


----------



## Skylaars

I really can't believe some of the **** im reading... Chan.. something is wrong with your brain.


----------



## HB

In Chan's case, I really dont know if he believes what he is writing or he is just arguing for arguement's sake


----------



## Crossword

Is there really a problem with guys checking you out? If a guy thinks you're hot, chances are, a girl thinks you're hot too. Unless you're like wearing fishnet stockings and a rainbow bra with some makeup on... under which circumstance you're probably not a homophobe.

And besides, who chooses to be homosexual? Honestly, who CHOOSES to be hated, discriminated against, made to feel inferior, beaten, condemned, etc. etc.? Do you homophobes even consider this?


----------



## Crossword

_Dre_ said:


> About 900 posts ago, I think it was Brandname who said this discussion would be worthwhile to enlighten the homophobic and discrimination complacent/supportive people on the board. It clearly hasn't been the case, They still sound just as dumb as they did two days ago. Why do we even bother trying to talk to these "discrimination will exist so we should just deal with it" cowards?


It's really become more of a novelty. And trying to hit 80 pages.


----------



## HB

Budweiser_Boy said:


> *Is there really a problem with guys checking you out?* If a guy thinks you're hot, chances are, a girl thinks you're hot too. Unless you're like wearing fishnet stockings and a rainbow bra with some makeup on... under which circumstance you're probably not a homophobe.
> 
> *And besides, who chooses to be homosexual? Honestly, who CHOOSES to be hated, discriminated against, made to feel inferior, beaten, condemned, etc. etc.? Do you homophobes even consider this*?


YES, why do you think there shouldn't be a problem with a guy checking another one out. Once again this is a case of the openminded thing, the majority of people do not think that way. They arent so open to things like that.

Around here though, homosexuals are pretty much accepted.


----------



## Dre

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Is there really a problem with guys checking you out? If a guy thinks you're hot, chances are, a girl thinks you're hot too. Unless you're like wearing fishnet stockings and a rainbow bra with some makeup on... under which circumstance you're probably not a homophobe.
> 
> And besides, who chooses to be homosexual? Honestly, who CHOOSES to be hated, discriminated against, made to feel inferior, beaten, condemned, etc. etc.? Do you homophobes even consider this?


No, homophobes don't think very hard.

And I know it's going to sound wierd coming from someone my age, but Chan looks like he's going through that stage where he just has to question any and everything on the grounds of it being "his life, hence his prerogative" or whatever. I went through that in 9th grade and got out of it pretty quickly though.


----------



## Dre

HB said:


> YES, why do you think there shouldn't be a problem with a guy checking another one out. Once again this is a case of the openminded thing, the majority of people do not think that way. They arent so open to things like that.


Lol, it's 2007. They need to open the hell up.


----------



## HB

_Dre_ said:


> Lol, it's 2007. They need to open the hell up.


Are you flattered by EVERY girl that checks you out?


----------



## Crossword

HB said:


> Are you flattered by EVERY girl that checks you out?


I'm not attracted to every girl that checks me out, but flattered, sure.


----------



## Dre

HB said:


> Are you flattered by EVERY girl that checks you out?


Oh wow, this takes me back to Middle School when the dudes would joke about "unnattractive" chicks having a crush on you whatever, and I've always had the same reply: It doesn't matter to me, that's her being attracted to me, I have no control over that. If I don't feel the same way about her, so be it.


----------



## HB

Budweiser_Boy said:


> I'm not attracted to every girl that checks me out, but flattered, sure.


Ah and thats where we differ and probably a lot of people differ too.


----------



## HB

_Dre_ said:


> Oh wow, this takes me back to Middle School when the dudes would joke about "unnattractive" chicks having a crush on you whatever, and I've always had the same reply: It doesn't matter to me, that's her being attracted to me, I have no control over that. If I don't feel the same way about her, so be it.


This sounds silly, but what if only 'unattractive chicks' kept checking you out, or chicks you had no interest in.


----------



## Crossword

_Dre_ said:


> No, homophobes don't think very hard.
> 
> And I know it's going to sound wierd coming from someone my age, but Chan looks like he's going through that stage where he just has to question any and everything on the grounds of it being "his life, hence his prerogative" or whatever. I went through that in 9th grade and got out of it pretty quickly though.


Rebel without a cause. Or any sense for that matter.


----------



## Crossword

HB said:


> This sounds silly, but what if only 'unattractive chicks' kept checking you out, or chicks you had no interest in.


Then obviously you're in major lack of some steez and need to step your game up!


----------



## Dre

HB said:


> Ah and thats where we differ and probably a lot of people differ too.


Why would you not be flattered if you were found attractive, even if it was someone you weren't attracted to? That's a bit silly. 

It's like NBA players saying they're not flattered by us liking their games because we're amateurs and they're professionals.


----------



## HB

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Then obviously you're in major lack of some steez and need to step your game up!


Lol because I dont want 'unattractive chicks' checking me out. Why would I need any game in the first place for chicks I have no interest for?


----------



## Dre

HB said:


> This sounds silly, but what if only 'unattractive chicks' kept checking you out, or chicks you had no interest in.


I don't know why it would be "only", but I still wouldn't shun them for being attracted.


----------



## Dre

HB said:


> Why would I need any game in the first place for chicks I have no interest for?


Lol, he's saying so more attractive girls do actually like you or whatever.


----------



## Crossword

HB said:


> Lol because I dont want 'unattractive chicks' checking me out. Why would I need any game in the first place for chicks I have no interest for?


Well then you need to get a game? lol you get my point.


----------



## HB

_Dre_ said:


> Why would you not be flattered if you were found attractive, even if it was someone you weren't attracted to? That's a bit silly.
> 
> It's like NBA players saying they're not flattered by us liking their games because we're amateurs and they're professionals.


Heh if the only chicks that kept checking me out where the ones I have no interest in, I really don see any reason to be flattered. Now if I am getting that type of reaction from all girls (attractive and not) then yeah I prolly will be flattered


----------



## Dre

HB said:


> Heh if the only chicks that kept checking me out where the ones I have no interest in, I really don see any reason to be flattered. Now if I am getting that type of reaction from all girls (attractive and not) then yeah I prolly will be flattered


But you should be flattered by the action, not who's doing it, that's the point.


----------



## HB

Lol thats why the two of you would never be allowed into Lovetron


----------



## Crossword

HB said:


> Heh if the only chicks that kept checking me out where the ones I have no interest in, I really don see any reason to be flattered. Now if I am getting that type of reaction from all girls (attractive and not) then yeah I prolly will be flattered


Well now you know why Dre and I are flattered.


----------



## Crossword

HB said:


> Lol thats why the two of you would never be allowed into Lovetron


Taht sounds like the name of a gay bar.


----------



## Crossword

By the way, I don't think everyone understands the magnitude of this thread. It's so huge that John has posted in it!


----------



## HB

John who?


----------



## Crossword

This thread is dead.


----------



## streetballa

Wow this thread has gone on for 72 pages.


----------



## The Truth

HB said:


> Heh if the only chicks that kept checking me out where the ones I have no interest in, I really don see any reason to be flattered. Now if I am getting that type of reaction from all girls (attractive and not) then yeah I prolly will be flattered


But it's not a matter of whether you're flattered. It's a matter of whether you're offended.

If a girl that you find unattractive is attracted to you, are you offended by it?


----------



## Crossword

The Truth said:


> But it's not a matter of whether or not your flattered. It's a matter of if you're offended.
> 
> If a girl that you find unattractive is attracted to you, are you offended by it?


Maybe not by the attraction, but I could be offended by what she's wearing.


----------



## HKF

I don't like thinly veiled insults and for someone to say I'm a coward for believing discrimination will always exist, just makes me shake my head. You do realize that you're fighting an uphill battle that you'll never be able to fully win and yet you want everyone to accept your POV because you presume that it's right. 

I have no dog in the fight, but I don't agree with unilateral thinking, nor do I believe you should place your beliefs upon me if I don't want them. 

There is no one here that I feel is more intelligent then I am, I strictly don't like being told what to think and what to feel. So have your sing-a-longs in lock step with some gays and lesbians if you must, but don't sit here and insult people for thinking differently than you, because the same things that you're saying, can be flipped around...

And I am talking to you Dre. Grow a little older and realize that changing the world is a losing game.


----------



## The Truth

HKF said:


> I have no dog in the fight, but I don't agree with unilateral thinking, nor do I believe you should place your beliefs upon me if I don't want them.


THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!!!! People try to limit the rights of homosexuals or discriminate against them because of their sexuality. That is someone (a homophobe) trying to force their beliefs on another person (the homosexual).




> There is no one here that I feel is more intelligent then I am,


I strenuously disagree.



> I strictly don't like being told what to think and what to feel.


This I just don't get. You're telling everyone else how they should "think" and "feel." 



> So have your sing-a-longs in lock step with some gays and lesbians if you must, but don't sit here and insult people for thinking differently than you, because the same things that you're saying, can be flipped around...


Yes, we must all be tolerant of the intolerant.

We're not saying that you have to like homosexuals. We're just pointing out that by disliking someone based on their sexuality (and their sexuality alone), you are committing an act of prejudice. If you act upon that prejudice, you are discriminating. 

That's all we're saying. I could give a flying **** if you don't like homosexuals (though I would take offense if you actively discriminate against them). But I think it's sad/pathetic that you base your judgment of a person on their sexuality, and I think it only reveals your own insecurities.




> And I am talking to you Dre. Grow a little older and realize that changing the world is a losing game.


Basing you're credibility on your age. That's great. I think this is evidence in itself that wisdom does not always come with age.


----------



## Brandname

The Truth said:


> I strenuously disagree.


lol


----------



## Crossword

HKF - nobody's trying to change the world. But having a hopeless outlook on it does absolutely nothing to help. The only way the world can change is if people individually change. So if you refuse to take that step, then you're the only one holding change back, and that's why you say discrimination will always exist. By keeping that "oh well, I can't do anything about it" approach, you're not doing anything about it, and of course it will continue to exist.


----------



## The Truth

Budweiser_Boy said:


> HKF - nobody's trying to change the world. But having a hopeless outlook on it does absolutely nothing to help. The only way the world can change is if people individually change. So if you refuse to take that step, then you're the only one holding change back, and that's why you say discrimination will always exist. By keeping that "oh well, I can't do anything about it" approach, you're not doing anything about it, and of course it will continue to exist.


Don't even take that "the world is never goign to change" **** seriously. HKF can continue to pull things out of his ***, and we can cite thousands of years of history to refute that silly, unsupportable claim.


----------



## The Truth

HKF, when is your birthday?

This is very important. 

My age is listed as 25, as is your's. I need to figure out who's older so we can determine who is right.

But I see that Minstrel is browsing the thread now, so let's wait to see what he says...since he's older and all.


----------



## MarioChalmers

You can change the world, but someone will always be discriminated against.


----------



## Brandname

The Truth said:


> HKF, when is your birthday?
> 
> This is very important.
> 
> My age is listed as 25, as is your's. I need to figure out who's older so we can determine who is right.
> 
> But I see that Minstrel is browsing the thread now, so let's wait to see what he says...since he's older and all.


Looks like you're out of luck. His profile says his birthday is this coming Monday. :biggrin:


----------



## Crossword

gian said:


> You can change the world, but someone will always be discriminated against.


Yes, but hopefully, that discression won't be made based on superficial differences such as race and sexual orientation.


----------



## HB

Lol @ this ideal world some of you picture


----------



## HKF

I turn 26 on Monday. I don't have a problem with gay people or discriminate against anyone based on sexuality, that would be silly, but I also don't like other people being told they aren't right to feel the way they do. If they want to discriminate they are allowed to, because it's a choice. Just like you choose to fight against discrimination.

The only reason I cited Dre's age is because at that age (not even done with college), everyone is so full of optimism and hope for the future, when they don't realize that each generation is exactly same. Some things become important, while others fall back, and it's a constant cycle.

There's no true purpose to life, when you consider we're born to die, yet some people choose to be activists. If you want to live your life as a martyr or an activist, be my guest, but if I say something to the contrary of your beliefs don't get all pissy. I choose to simply have as much pleasure as possible. And I guess we can agree to disagree, but I don't feel in anyway shape or form that you're more intelligent then I am, The Truth. Reason why, you're a Duke fan and you went to Illinois State.


----------



## Crossword

HKF said:


> I turn 26 on Monday. I don't have a problem with gay people or discriminate against anyone based on sexuality, that would be silly, but I also don't like other people being told they aren't right to feel the way they do. If they want to discriminate they are allowed to, because it's a choice. Just like you choose to fight against discrimination.


But when discrimination is a negative thing, there's a big difference between fighting for it and fighting against it. It's not like fighting for or against a neutral entity like a sports team. You can't say that rooting for the Clippers is wrong, but you can say that fighting for discrimination is wrong, because by supporting discrimination one supports a detrimental aspect of society.


----------



## Minstrel

The Truth said:


> HKF, when is your birthday?
> 
> This is very important.
> 
> My age is listed as 25, as is your's. I need to figure out who's older so we can determine who is right.
> 
> But I see that Minstrel is browsing the thread now, so let's wait to see what he says...since he's older and all.


Well, at one time, slavery was pretty accepted practice and could easily be called human nature, considering virtually every conquering nation took them. Murder and rape are also pretty defensible as "human nature," considering many of our earlier, less-civilized societies. Saying something is human nature ignores what is a key human ability...the ability to introspect, make rational choices and overcome "natures" of ours that are not conducive to living with other people in a stable society.

Personally, I think excusing clearly bad behaviour as "human nature" is a rather poor dodge. It basically translates to: "I find it easier to behave badly and I don't want to have to take responsibility for my actions or to think carefully about what I'm doing."

When you're my age, that just doesn't fly.


----------



## HKF

Budweiser_Boy said:


> But when discrimination is a negative thing, there's a big difference between fighting for it and fighting against it. It's not like fighting for or against a neutral entity like a sports team. You can't say that rooting for the Clippers is wrong, but you can say that fighting for discrimination is wrong, because by supporting discrimination one supports a detrimental aspect of society.


As I have said in the past, this boils down to your stance on morals and ethics. Depending on where you stand on them, will determine how you feel about topics like this. I am closer to nihilism and try to get as far away from moral and ethical code that society has deemed appropriate or inappropriate. 

I am not really arguing against you. I am just not arguing for you. I applaud the possibility in life where we don't feel the same way about certain things. I tell you this, if we did life wouldn't be worth living.


----------



## Crossword

HB said:


> Lol @ this ideal world some of you picture


What do you expect? Why even argue against discrimination if not to try taking another step towards an ideal world? It would be easy for me to say "**** the world, it's never gonna change" and categorize people as inferiors because of their birth-given traits, but then we'd be back at square one.


----------



## kflo

HKF said:


> I turn 26 on Monday. I don't have a problem with gay people or discriminate against anyone based on sexuality, that would be silly, but I also don't like other people being told they aren't right to feel the way they do. If they want to discriminate they are allowed to, because it's a choice. Just like you choose to fight against discrimination.
> 
> The only reason I cited Dre's age is because at that age (not even done with college), everyone is so full of optimism and hope for the future, when they don't realize that each generation is exactly same. Some things become important, while others fall back, and it's a constant cycle.
> 
> There's no true purpose to life, when you consider we're born to die, yet some people choose to be activists. If you want to live your life as a martyr or an activist, be my guest, but if I say something to the contrary of your beliefs don't get all pissy. I choose to simply have as much pleasure as possible. And I guess we can agree to disagree, but I don't feel in anyway shape or form that you're more intelligent then I am, The Truth. Reason why, you're a Duke fan and you went to Illinois State.


and i suspect your views will also change after you have children. if you have them already, then i'd think you'd see the importance of social "progress" (at least my definition of progress).


----------



## HKF

Minstrel said:


> Well, at one time, slavery was pretty accepted practice and could easily be called human nature, considering virtually every conquering nation took them. Murder and rape are also pretty defensible as "human nature," considering many of our earlier, less-civilized societies. Saying something is human nature ignores what is a key human ability...the ability to introspect, make rational choices and overcome "natures" of ours that are not conducive to living with other people in a stable society.


The thing is, slavery still happens, albeit not in the traditional sense when we think of the word. Murder and rape happen all the time in this country and around the world and there is no real way to stop it. As we've seen in Dar fur, Rwanda and many other African nations where anarchy reigns supreme and lives are marginalized. 




> Personally, I think excusing clearly bad behaviour as "human nature" is a rather poor dodge. It basically translates to: "I find it easier to behave badly and I don't want to have to take responsibility for my actions or to think carefully about what I'm doing."
> 
> When you're my age, that just doesn't fly.


So let me ask this question: Is Good behavior is human nature? If it is, then what would bad behavior be? How many human beings have to commit an act before it's considered human nature?

I practice celibacy, but most would probably conclude that it's against our nature to do as such.


----------



## HKF

kflo said:


> and i suspect your views will also change after you have children. if you have them already, then i'd think you'd see the importance of social "progress" (at least my definition of progress).


I will probably have a vasectomy before I'm 30. I have no interest in raising a family.


----------



## The Truth

HB said:


> Lol @ this ideal world some of you picture


Please tell me what ideal world people picture.

Arguing against the idea that things will never change is hardly asserting a belief in an ideal world.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

HB said:


> In Chan's case, I really dont know if he believes what he is writing or he is just arguing for arguement's sake


I'm arguing for the right to free speech. It doesn't matter how much you disagree with Tim Hardaway, he has the right to say it. It doesn't matter if it's discriminatory. Forcing everyone to be good and accepting is just a form of facism. Life is about choices, and someone can choose to be accepting or bigoted; it's their choice. It's free will, and if you want everyone to be all good and accepting and loving, you're aruging against what makes us human.


----------



## HB

The Truth said:


> Please tell me what ideal world people picture.
> 
> Arguing against the idea that things will never change is hardly asserting a belief in an ideal world.


Some of you picture, not what everyone pictures

Anyways that would be this whole idea of everyone being equal and somehow would lead to an ideal society.


----------



## HKF

Chan said:


> I'm arguing for the right to free speech. It doesn't matter how much you disagree with Tim Hardaway, he has the right to say it. It doesn't matter if it's discriminatory. Forcing everyone to be good and accepting is just a form of facism. Life is about choices, and someone can choose to be accepting or bigoted; it's their choice. It's free will, and if you want everyone to be all good and accepting and loving, you're aruging against what makes us human.


This is what is lost. We don't live in an artsy-fartsy world where everyone loves each other. Heck look at all the bigots who like basketball but hate the NBA because it's predominately black. You can't change their minds.


----------



## The Truth

HKF said:


> If you want to live your life as a martyr or an activist, be my guest, but if I say something to the contrary of your beliefs don't get all pissy.


What exactly are people doing to you? You kept saying "don't force your beliefs on others." When I pointed out that I'm not trying to force my beliefs on others, you revised your statement to "don't get all pissy."

The fact is, I am arguing for my beliefs and values and you are arguing for your beliefs and values. To keep falling back on the "don't tell me how to live" argument crutch is meaningless, especially when you're doing the same thing.



> I choose to simply have as much pleasure as possible. And I guess we can agree to disagree, but I don't feel in anyway shape or form that you're more intelligent then I am, The Truth. Reason why, you're a Duke fan and you went to Illinois State.


What exactly is this supposed to mean?


----------



## HB

Chan said:


> I'm arguing for the right to free speech. It doesn't matter how much you disagree with Tim Hardaway, he has the right to say it. It doesn't matter if it's discriminatory. Forcing everyone to be good and accepting is just a form of facism. Life is about choices, and someone can choose to be accepting or bigoted; it's their choice. It's free will, and if you want everyone to be all good and accepting and loving, you're aruging against what makes us human.


I actually agree with this


----------



## kflo

HKF said:


> I will probably have a vasectomy before I'm 30. I have no interest in raising a family.


don't do it. there's nothing like it. and you just don't understand some things until you do.


----------



## HB

HKF said:


> I will probably have a vasectomy before I'm 30. I have no interest in raising a family.


:lol: radical


----------



## The Truth

HB said:


> I actually agree with this


BUT NOBODY IS ARGUING AGAINST HARDAWAY'S RIGHT TO SAY THIS!

Please show me any post in this thread that says that Hardaway did not have the right to make the comments he made.


----------



## Crossword

HKF said:


> The thing is, slavery still happens, albeit not in the traditional sense when we think of the word. Murder and rape happen all the time in this country and around the world and there is no real way to stop it. As we've seen in Dar fur, Rwanda and many other African nations where anarchy reigns supreme and lives are marginalized.


Rwanda is a textbook example of a conflict that would not have existed had it not been for discrimination based on superficial, even nonexistant, differences amongst people. It is exactly why discrimination should cease to exist, and why those posters in this thread championing racism (not talking about you) look especially foolish and insensitive.



> So let me ask this question: Is Good behavior is human nature? If it is, then what would bad behavior be? How many human beings have to commit an act before it's considered human nature?
> 
> I practice celibacy, but most would probably conclude that it's against our nature to do as such.


I don't like chalking things up to human nature, because that nature can change from one person to the next. However, it is always easier to do a bad thing than a good thing. It's always easier to demolish a structure than to build one. It's easier to commit a genocide than raise a generation of upstanding citizens. And of course, it's easier to discriminate against others than to include everyone, because it takes much more to build a strong, respectful, positive relationship with someone than it is to ignore them. Furthermore, discrimination as I've prior stated is merely a tool used by those in power to create classes below them and maintain them in those classes, so that the powers that be can in turn maintain their power. It is much easier to divide people based on superficial differences such as race or sexual orientation than it is to do so based on their actual capabilities as human beings. The traits they developed, rather than the ones they were born with.

Is it human nature to take the easy way out? That I could see a case made for. But maybe it's time we stopped taking the easy way out.


----------



## Pioneer10

You have right to say whatever you want and that should NOT be abolished. Things like racims/anit-semitism/bigotry actually IMO get worse when allowed to fester underneath w/o being brought into the light of day. I actually think what Tim Hardaway is a good thing because they are a lot of folks out there who share his misguided beliefs. What cannot happen is that those comments are allowed to lie there withough being rebutted. I actually thought the TNT crew did a lot in terms of being smart and showing how stupid Tim's comments were. In that sense, I'm glad Tim's comments were brought there and I'm even more glad that people have come out not only to bash Tim but actually explain why his comments were stupid. That's how progress is made


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

The Truth said:


> BUT NOBODY IS ARGUING AGAINST HARDAWAY'S RIGHT TO SAY THIS!
> 
> Please show me any post in this thread that says that Hardaway did not have the right to make the comments he made.


You're arguing against bigotry. That's an invasion of free will.


----------



## futuristxen

HB said:


> I actually agree with this


Again. NO ONE IS SAYING TIM HARDAWAY DOESN"T HAVE A RIGHT TO SPEAK HIS MIND. But so does David Duke. It doesn't make either of them less of an asshat. And we should have the right to call him an asshat. And treat him like an asshat. Because at the end of the day, that's what he probably is. An asshat.

And what kind of homophobic asshat choose to live in Miami of all places? That's suspicious to me. Tim Hardaway...Ted Haggard. **** they even have the same initials.


----------



## The Truth

Chan said:


> You're arguing against bigotry. That's an invasion of free will.


What are you talking about?

Please Chan, your *** is not a good source to cite when making an argument.


----------



## Crossword

HB said:


> Some of you picture, not what everyone pictures
> 
> Anyways that would be this whole idea of everyone being equal and somehow would lead to an ideal society.


To me, an ideal society, is one where nobody feels inferior based on things they can't control. If someone feels inferior in an ideal society, it's because they didn't take advantage of their situation.


----------



## futuristxen

Chan said:


> You're arguing against bigotry. That's an invasion of free will.


You're arguing against his right to argue against bigotry. So by your logic that's an invasion of free will.

Check. And mate.


----------



## HB

The Truth said:


> BUT NOBODY IS ARGUING AGAINST HARDAWAY'S RIGHT TO SAY THIS!
> 
> Please show me any post in this thread that says that Hardaway did not have the right to make the comments he made.


So why are some going gung-ho over Chan saying he is a racist, isnt it his choice?


----------



## kflo

Chan said:


> I'm arguing for the right to free speech. It doesn't matter how much you disagree with Tim Hardaway, he has the right to say it. It doesn't matter if it's discriminatory. Forcing everyone to be good and accepting is just a form of facism. Life is about choices, and someone can choose to be accepting or bigoted; it's their choice. It's free will, and if you want everyone to be all good and accepting and loving, you're aruging against what makes us human.


noone is arguing against speaking your mind, even if it's inspired by hate. the argument is about losing the hate in the first place. and teaching why it's not healthy for anyone. hate that's blanket and not based on consequences of one's actions is detrimental to society, and generally comes from past teachings and internal issues of self esteem. we can see any dog and befriend it, but humans we get to judge on things inherent and not related to the individuals impact on fellow man and society. 

put it this way, the more people grow up in an environment that fosters self worth, individuality, embraces differences, and judges people on content of character, the less hate we'll have. be comfortable in who you are and you'll care less about casting dispersion on others.


----------



## The Truth

Chan said:


> You're arguing against bigotry. That's an invasion of free will.


What are you talking about?

Please Chan, your *** is not a good source to cite when making an argument.


----------



## The Truth

HB said:


> So why are some going gung-ho over Chan saying he is a racist, isnt it his choice?


And isn't it my choice to be againts racism?

That's an ABSURDLY illogical argument.

It is noted that you haven't provided a single post questioning Hardaway's right to free speech.


----------



## HB

The Truth said:


> And isn't it my choice to be againts racism?
> 
> That's an ABSURDLY illogical argument.


Must you then in that case shove your choice down his throat. I dont see Chan trying to convince anyone to be like him.

And dude there are 74 pages in this thread, do you really expect me to go through all 74 pages to point out and what so and so said about Hardaway's quotes.


----------



## HKF

The best thing about this is we have come full circle. I speak my mind, you speaks yours, I speak mine, you speak yours... [rinse and repeat]


----------



## Crossword

HB said:


> Must you then in that case shove your choice down his throat. I dont see Chan trying to convince anyone to be like him.


He's done a good job doing the opposite.


----------



## The Truth

HB said:


> Must you then in that case shove your choice down his throat. I dont see Chan trying to convince anyone to be like him.
> 
> And dude there are 74 pages in this thread, do you really expect me to go through all 74 pages to point out and what so and so said about Hardaway's quotes.


You're trying to shove the idea that I should be tolerant of Chan's racism down my throat.

I'm telling you, this is a USELESS argument.


----------



## HB

The Truth said:


> You're trying to shove the idea that I should be tolerant of Chan's racism down my throat.
> 
> I'm telling you, this is a USELESS argument.


Yet you expect others to be tolerant of yours. Do you honestly believe everyone is as open to change as you make it sound?

How exactly am I trying to tell you to accept Chan's stance? I never told you to be like him


----------



## Pioneer10

HB said:


> Yet you expect others to be tolerant of yours. Do you honestly believe everyone is as open to change as you make it sound?
> 
> How exactly am I trying to tell you to accept Chan's stance? I never told you to be like him


This makes the assumption that both side of the argument are equal and valid which is clearly not the case pretty much ever.

You can have the right to speak whatever you want but not the right to expect that stupidity should be tolerated especially when you have to fall on the argument that even though it's stupid I have a right to say it


----------



## Crossword

I'm not tolerant of intolerance based on ridiculous differences in others, which Chan is professing.


----------



## HB

Pioneer10 said:


> This makes the assumption that both side of the argument are equal and valid which is clearly not the case pretty much ever.
> 
> You can have the right to speak whatever you want but not the right to expect that stupidity should be tolerated especially when you have to fall on the argument that even though it's stupid I have a right to say it


And you think jumping on that person is going to solve anything? I mean most I have read on Chan's statements were I have lost respect for you for saying this and that, yet not much of people actually trying to see why he is that way and changing his mind without force feeding your opinions on him.


----------



## Crossword

5 more pages guys and vincedunkedonzo eats a little crow.


----------



## Crossword

HB said:


> And you think jumping on that person is going to solve anything? I mean most I have read on Chan's statements were I have lost respect for you for saying this and that, yet not much of people actually trying to see why he is that way and changing his mind without force feeding your opinions on him.


He didn't come out saying racist things right off the bat. We challenged him, and he showed his true colours. That's where the loss of respect posts come in.


----------



## kflo

everyone seems to agree that hardaway has a right to say what he said. nobody seems to want to argue that it's actually good to believe what he believes. many have raised valid points about why it's detrimental to both the individual and society, but good? anyone? this is the dark side of human nature. the one that hurts.


----------



## The Truth

HB said:


> Yet you expect others to be tolerant of yours. Do you honestly believe everyone is as open to change as you make it sound?


What the hell is your point? Every time we have one of these conversations, you just stand in the periphery and take occassional vague chip shots, rather than subject your own opinion to scrutiny.

We are having a debate. Chan is arguing in favor of racism and homophobia. I am arguing against racism and homophobia. How is one person forcing anything on anybody?

If I were to say, "people who say racist things should be thrown in jail," then I would be trying to force my opinion on someone. But I am not, I am simply stating my opinion, as is Chan.


HB's idea of the ideal message board discussion:

Threadstarter: Tim Hardaway said he hates gay people!

Chan: I don't like gay people.

The Truth: I don't have a problem with gay people.

Close Thread.


----------



## Brandname

Why the hell are we even on a message board?

Everyone has a right to their own opinion. Why do we even discuss them on a message board? It's an all-out assault on free will here!!!!


----------



## HB

The Truth said:


> What the hell is your point? Every time we have one of these conversations, you just stand in the periphery and take occassional vague chip shots, rather than subject your own opinion to scrutiny.
> 
> We are having a debate. Chan is arguing in favor of racism and homophobia. I am arguing against racism and homophobia. How is one person forcing anyting on anybody?
> 
> If I were to say, "people who say racist things should be thrown in jail," then I would be trying to force my opinion on someone. But I am not, I am simply stating my opinion, as is Chan.
> 
> 
> HB's idea of the ideal message board discussion:
> 
> Threadstarter: Tim Hardaway said he hates gay people!
> 
> Chan: I don't like gay people.
> 
> The Truth: I don't have a problem with gay people.
> 
> Close Thread.


Absolutely right lol, on a more serious note, there is a reason why I try not to get into this type of arguements with you. Its Deja Vu all over again.


----------



## The Truth

HB said:


> Its Deja Vu all over again.


If you don't feel confident arguing your opinion, maybe you should reconsider your opinion.


----------



## HB

The Truth said:


> If you don't feel confident arguing your opinion, maybe you should reconsider your opinion.


I have been pretty much indifferent to the whole thing from the get go


----------



## Pioneer10

HB said:


> And you think jumping on that person is going to solve anything? I mean most I have read on Chan's statements were I have lost respect for you for saying this and that, yet not much of people actually trying to see why he is that way and changing his mind without force feeding your opinions on him.


 This doesn't make any sense. Chan's argument was that we should Tim speak, which I've already stated is ok and probably a good thing. He then goes and critizices people for speaking against what Time said and not his right to speak. I'm losing respect for this incoherent argument


----------



## HB

Pioneer10 said:


> This doesn't make any sense. Chan's argument was that we should Tim speak, which I've already stated is ok and probably a good thing. He then goes and critizices people for speaking against what Time said and not his right to speak. I'm losing respect for this incoherent argument


I take it you havent read the responses to Chan in the past couple or so pages, I wasnt talking about you specifically when I made that post


----------



## Pioneer10

HB said:


> I take it you havent read the responses to Chan in the past couple or so pages, I wasnt talking about you specifically when I made that post


Yet you responded to my post and what I said is essentially Chan's argument. Tim is ok to speak his mind and but people are not free to openly criticize him for what I can tell no good reason at all


----------



## The Truth

HB said:


> I take it you havent read the responses to Chan in the past couple or so pages, I wasnt talking about you specifically when I made that post


What are you talking about? People saying they've lost respect for Chan?

Chan has every right to be a racist and a homophobe. Other people have every right to lose respect for Chan for because of those opinions.


----------



## Minstrel

HKF said:


> The thing is, slavery still happens, albeit not in the traditional sense when we think of the word. Murder and rape happen all the time in this country and around the world and there is no real way to stop it. As we've seen in Dar fur, Rwanda and many other African nations where anarchy reigns supreme and lives are marginalized.


This would be a horrific world if we took the standard of "Unless it can be 100% eliminated, it should be allowable." Yes, all those things still happen. Virtually every evil (or "ugliness" to use a less moralistic word) will always be with us. But by condemning it and exhorting each individual to make the choice to sublimate injurious natures, there's far _less_ slavery, murder and rapine than there would be otherwise.

Similarly, by condemning prejudice and bigotry, we are not really expecting to 100% eliminate it. We are expecting to reduce it, just as like to reduce all societal ills.



> So let me ask this question: Is Good behavior is human nature? If it is, then what would bad behavior be? How many human beings have to commit an act before it's considered human nature?


Good or bad behaviour isn't linked to nature. Nature is not moral or immoral, but amoral. It is purely about survival and nothing else. We, who wish to be civilized beings and who have transcended merely worrying about survival, try to act morally or ethically. The best definition of a "universal ethics" that I've seen is to allow everyone to have sole dominion over themselves and their actions and their possessions, insofar as they do not trespass upon others' dominions over themselves, their actions and their possessions. Or, perhaps more clearly, you have every right to pursue happiness so long as it doesn't take away another person's right to pursue their happiness.



> I practice celibacy, but most would probably conclude that it's against our nature to do as such.


I am not preaching for or against human nature. Some of what it is in our nature is good, some is not, when it comes to living in society. Natures that trespass upon others' lives aren't particularly good. Celibacy may not be our nature, but you have every right to sublimate your sexual nature if that suits you. It doesn't affect other people, just as homosexuality doesn't affect other people. Therefore, I see nothing wrong in either case.


----------



## HB

Pioneer10 said:


> Yet you responded to my post and what I said is essentially Chan's argument. Tim is ok to speak his mind and but people are not free to openly criticize him for what I can tell no good reason at all


Well maybe thats because you quoted me first, and who is Tim?


----------



## Pioneer10

HB said:


> Well maybe thats because you quoted me first, and who is Tim?


I quoted you because you continue to push Chan's incoherent argument and this thread is about TIM Hardaway


----------



## HB

The Truth said:


> What are you talking about? People saying they've lost respect for Chan?
> 
> Chan has every right to be a racist and a homophobe. Other people have every right to lose respect for Chan for because of those opinions.


Maybe thats because I believe there are ways to get through to Chan without making him feel like crap for saying whats on his mind. Now that you all know his stance on things, dont you think it makes it easier to talk him on such. But if you all alienate cause you have lost all respoect for him, how can anything get settled?


----------



## HB

Pioneer10 said:


> I quoted you because you continue to push Chan's incoherent argument and this thread is about TIM Hardaway


Same thing, I hear tons of people say they have lost all respect for Tim and this and that. But guess what, how exactly is that solving anything. Tim has a problem, shouldnt people be more concerned about helping him rather than trying to alienate him.


----------



## The Truth

HB said:


> Maybe thats because I believe there are ways to get through to Chan without making him feel like crap for saying whats on his mind. Now that you all know his stance on things, dont you think it makes it easier to talk him on such. But if you all alienate cause you have lost all respoect for him, how can anything get settled?


What about Chan alienating and pissing off people with differing opinions?

How do you think Chan's opinions make kawika feel? 

It's interesting, when push comes to shove, you seem to defend the intolerant.


----------



## The Truth

HB said:


> Same thing, I hear tons of people say they have lost all respect for Tim and this and that. But guess what, how exactly is that solving anything. Tim has a problem, shouldnt people be more concerned about helping him rather than trying to alienate him.


So people shouldn't voice their opinion of Hardaway's comments?


----------



## HB

The Truth said:


> What about Chan alienating and pissing off people with differing opinions?
> 
> How do you think Chan's opinions make kawika feel?
> 
> It's interesting, when push comes to shove, you seem to defend the intolerant.


I dont even know who kawika is. I dont know what the deal is between Kawika and Chan. I don't support Chan's racist stance, BUT I really dont see how alienating him is ging to make him realize his mistakes.


----------



## Brandname

I love how people think promoting racism is akin to preferring the color blue over the color green.

Hey, they're all opinions, right?


----------



## Pioneer10

HB said:


> Same thing, I hear tons of people say they have lost all respect for Tim and this and that. But guess what, how exactly is that solving anything. Tim has a problem, shouldnt people be more concerned about helping him rather than trying to alienate him.


Did you not read my post? Bigotry is best taken care of when people like Tim state feelings openly and others show how stupid it is. People getting confronted about there misconceptions is the only way things are changed and not by letting people simply feel and act on there misconceptions in a vacuum. You can use both the carrot and stick


----------



## HB

The Truth said:


> So people shouldn't voice their opinion of Hardaway's comments?


So thats what you got out of that post. You don't think trying to help him see the error of his ways is a good thing


----------



## KingSpeed

Here's the problem with Hardaway's comment about not wanting to have a gay man in the locker room.................. HE PROBABLY ALREADY HAS HAD A GAY MAN IN HIS TEAM'S LOCKER ROOM. I'm sure there are MANY gay people in the NBA. I guess the only thing he has a problem with is people being OUT. This is why all the NBA players should come out now. Would Tim then hate people he thought he liked?


----------



## HB

Pioneer10 said:


> Did you not read my post? Bigotry is best taken care of when people like Tim state feelings openly and others show how stupid it is. People getting confronted about there misconceptions is the only way things are changed and not by letting people simply feel and act on there misconceptions in a vacuum. You can use both the carrot and stick


Exactly, sorry if I didnt see your earlier post on that.


----------



## The Truth

HB said:


> I dont even know who kawika is. I dont know what the deal is between Kawika and Chan. I don't support Chan's racist stance, BUT I really dont see how alienating him is ging to make him realize his mistakes.


Maybe you should search for kawika's posts.


----------



## The Truth

HB, here you go:




kawika said:


> How 'bout posting on a MB? If I come out now on this thread** will you leave? Not that I want you to...merely wondering about your consistency in these matters.





kawika said:


> Thank you for deigning to communicate with me. I know it must have required a lot of courage to do that.
> 
> Y'know in almost four years/1400 posts here, a brief spell as a mod, posting in various fora, etc. I think this is the second time I've made reference to my sexuality...precisely because I didn't wish for that to be the only lens others saw me through. But of course what's so Alice in Wonderland about these kinds of discussions is that it seems to be gay people who are often accused of making their sexuality the defining issue about themselves when the reality is that it's folks who have severe issues with gay people who wish to reduce another person to merely one aspect of their humanity.
> 
> And, I hate to break it to you, but I don't feel that way about you or anyone else that has expressed opinions that basically view me as sub-human, because I choose not to let that be the part of you that cancels everything else out. That's the whole point, there may be parts of someone else that I strongly disapprove of, but it doesn't blind me to their possible contributions, either. If you write something good about basketball, I'd still rep you. Funny ol' world, ain't it?


Why don't you tell kawika to be tolerant of Chan's ignorance and hatred?


----------



## HB

Wow, I didnt see that. What did Chan say? Well better yet what page was that?


----------



## The Truth

HB said:


> Wow, I didnt see that. What did Chan say? Well better yet what page was that?


It was actually in response to Spaceman Spiff, who was echoing many of Chan's sentiments.

Maybe it puts it into better perspective when we realize that we are dealing with *real* people.


----------



## The Truth

his posts were on pages 39 and 40.


----------



## HB

I don't know how I missed Kawika's post cause I posted on page 39, it is disheartening to read some of the stuff in those two pages


----------



## Brandname

When it comes down to it, all this hate against gays is just an incredibly selfish response. 

Really, seriously selfish.


----------



## budselig

kflo said:


> the key here is that you have made an assertion without substantive backup. we do know, unequivocally, that oppression of homosexual behavior negatively affects the homosexual. considering that's the point, it's obviously true. the point is to make it uncomfortable to be homosexual so there will be less homosexuals, whereas more would be gay without the oppression/stigma. except, again, you haven't shown that the positive impacts are there - either in the form of less homosexuals, or, more importantly, in the form of a better society. what of the individuals who are affected? the homosexual who can't feel comfortable being homosexual? say we decrease homosexuality by 10%, but the existing homosexuals are miserable and their misery negatively affects society. does that make for a better society than one with the 10% more homosexuals, but homosexuals who get to live a better, more open and accepted life? see, even if we accept the unsupported premise that acceptance leads to more, there's still more to the question. is the underground homosexual better for society than the comfortable out one? what's the net gain/loss? you're not even stigmatizing the behavior (promiscuity), just the type of relationship. and you're not addressing how the stigma could be influencing the behavior. how do you feel about responsible monogomous homosexual relationships? you talk about looking at it in aggregate, but lost in that is the impact on those most affected.



It depends what you mean by negatively affecting the homosexual. Surely it decreases whatever happiness the homosexual is deriving from fornication because it reduces both the quantity and quality (to him) of fornication. I don't think that is in question. As far as the value of interpersonal relationships, I do not think oppression of the homosexual necessarily has a net negative impact on him. There are likely millions of homosexuals who have enjoyed fulfilling lives within a marriage to a female. With homosexuality less oppressed and more accepted, many of those homosexuals who were 'forced' into marriage to a female due to society's stigma will marry a male, preventing their marital relationship with a female from ever occurring in the first place. To say that this state of affairs will positively affect a homosexual is an assertion, not a fact. It needs backing. What one <i>wants</i> simply isn't always what is best for them. Many people would lounge around all day, not working and using mind-altering substances if they had the opportunity to do so (many likely do). Fortunately we do have laws and an incentive based society that helps to divert personal behavior from trending in those directions.

I don't think that the existing homosexuals being oppressed and experiencing 'misery' due to sexual dissatisfaction will necessarily affect society negatively at all: I think that is an assertion as opposed to a statement of fact and it does need substantive backing. I think that implying that sexual dissatisfaction among homosexuals negatively affects society on an aggregate level is a relatively bold claim.

I do not think that the premise that acceptace of homosexuals, less oppression, leads to more homosexual <i>behavior</i> needs to be supported substantively. I think that if you asserted the opposite, that the removal oppression does <i>not</i> lead to more homosexual behavior, that you'd have to support <i>that</i>. The removal of a regulation (a disincentive) on a type of behavior naturally leads to more of that behavior occurring. Granted, there may be exceptions, but I think those exceptions would have to be supported with empirical evidence, and not the opposite.

This <i>is</i> the rule, after all, not the exception to the rule. As far as responsible monogamous homosexual relationships, I tend to think that many of them may exceed the quality of some heterosexual relationships, and certainly much of heterosexual behavior, <i>however</i>, I do think the comparison that has to be made in this instance is not that between monogamous homosexual relationships and monogamous heterosexual relationships, but between monogamous homosexual relationships and the monogamous relationships between homosexual males and heterosexual females that would be occurring if homosexuality were repressed further and those monogamous homosexuals were "forced" into entering into a long term relationship with a female as opposed to a male. That is the <i>shift</i> in behavior, or relationships, that needs to be analyzed when discussing oppression of the class. I do think the comparison between monogamous relationships between homosexual males and monogamous relationships between heterosexual males and females has value though and I am glad you brought it up.

Exactly the question to ask - does the oppressed, underground homosexual compared to the open homosexual result in a net gain or net loss to society. I've stated my view before, that it all depends upon the sex of the participants, and promoting relationships between two males, a sex that is historically and I'd say unequivocably - although perhaps this can be challenged - more promiscuous and more perverse than its opposite will necessarily result in a net loss to society. Again, this can (and needs to be) fleshed out further with historical, current, and perhaps biologically substantive evidence. Just trying to make clear where I stand.


----------



## Crossword

Brandname said:


> When it comes down to it, all this hate against gays is just an incredibly selfish response.
> 
> Really, seriously selfish.


It's just stupid. Homophobes are hilarious. They're like dogs among men. They have absolutely no reason to hate gays, unless a gay dude ****ed their dad or something, yet they do it. It's an elementary, purposeless hate towards people that have no bearing on their lives whatsoever. The only thing you can do is laugh at them.


----------



## Hibachi!

Has anyone gotten a chance to read the Aemichi article in ESPN the Magazine?


----------



## Crossword

NathanLane said:


> Here's the problem with Hardaway's comment about not wanting to have a gay man in the locker room.................. HE PROBABLY ALREADY HAS HAD A GAY MAN IN HIS TEAM'S LOCKER ROOM. I'm sure there are MANY gay people in the NBA. I guess the only thing he has a problem with is people being OUT. This is why all the NBA players should come out now. Would Tim then hate people he thought he liked?


Quality point, and one that was brought up earlier but overlooked for some sexier topics. I see no reason why the percentage of gays in society would be much different among NBA players, or even basketball players in general. Just because a player might not come out and say it doesn't mean he's straight.


----------



## Crossword

Hibachi! said:


> Has anyone gotten a chance to read the Aemichi article in ESPN the Magazine?


Nah, is there a link?


----------



## Brandname

Budweiser_Boy said:


> It's just stupid. Homophobes are hilarious. They're like dogs among men. * They have absolutely no reason to hate gays, unless a gay dude ****ed their dad or something*, yet they do it. It's an elementary, purposeless hate towards people that have no bearing on their lives whatsoever. The only thing you can do is laugh at them.


Even that would be a terrible reason to hate gay people.


----------



## Hibachi!

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Nah, is there a link?


Not sure my brother has a subscription to it. I read it... Very disheartening...


----------



## budselig

4BiddenKnight said:


> I am homophobic myself, not because of the church (and no I will never ever fall for their farce beliefs), but because I actually got a first hand experience dealing with a possibly gay person who might have crushed on me because I was such a big fish in a small tank in my school for playing basketball. Yeah, it got me real nervous, real uncomfy whenever I feel the guy checking me out. I even had thoughts of that guy stalking me for some odd reason, when its obvious that dude isn't. And yes there are at times where I dwell on why I even get nervous about a guy checking me out when a girl checking me out is soo dam awesome.
> 
> And about how sports in general are homophobic, well, I experience that first hand too. Slowly the gay dude started making friends with my balling buddies, well in his mind though. I talked to them about what they think of that gay dude, they all hate him. All the guys I talked to either thought of him as retarded, stupid, gay and what not. I was even able to get them pumped up whenever I tried to talk them into beating that gaylord up, but they weren't ever able to act on it, while I tried to tell him to get lost, unsuccessfully because those guys were somewhat compassionate towards that guy. Well, hopefully that didn't offend anyone, but at least I'm coming out of the closet as a homophobe.
> 
> I'm a total ignorant on what kind of beliefs religion has, but I bet most people are homophobic simply because they don't like guys checking out on them and stuff.


Thank you for providing a real life example of how overt homosexuality affects not only the homosexual but others who he interacts with. I have never had an experience of this sort, or even heard of one. Fortnately there was a fairly strong stigma against homosexuals in the high school I attended. I can think of two homosexuals who came out of the closet post high school - one of them was asexual in the high school setting and the other dated retarded (actually mentally handicapped) girls. Both were otherwise fully integrated into the high school society, as far as I could tell.


----------



## Crossword

Hibachi! said:


> Not sure my brother has a subscription to it. I read it... Very disheartening...


Can you give us a synopsis?


----------



## Minstrel

budselig said:


> Exactly the question to ask - does the oppressed, underground homosexual compared to the open homosexual result in a net gain or net loss to society.


No, I'm afraid that's exactly the wrong question to ask. It's not society's role to _force_ people to do what society decides is best for them. I'm sure there were plenty of 1700s versions of you who argued just as calmly that slavery was what was best for the black man, and a free black man (who wouldn't be given free shelter, clothing and food) may not necessarily be better off.

Outside of preventing behaviour that is harmful to other people, society's proper role is to allow people to make their own decisions and do what _they_ decide is best for them. You say most people would rather lounge around and not work. Absolutely true...and, contrary to your claims, we do _not_ have laws preventing that. People can choose to lounge around and not work if they wish...but then they will not earn money which will negatively effect them. We do not use laws to decide how this is resolved: we let each individual decide what the right amount of work and right amount of "lounging" is right for them.

Likewise, each homosexual can decide for themselves whether they're happier in a marriage with someone of their own sex or someone of the opposite sex. It's not our role or right to decide that for them, as a group.


----------



## Crossword

budselig said:


> Thank you for providing a real life example of how overt homosexuality affects not only the homosexual but others who he interacts with. I have never had an experience of this sort, or even heard of one. *Fortnately there was a fairly strong stigma against homosexuals in the high school I attended.* I can think of two homosexuals who came out of the closet post high school - one of them was asexual in the high school setting and the other dated retarded (actually mentally handicapped) girls. Both were otherwise fully integrated into the high school society, as far as I could tell.


That's actually quite unfortunate.


----------



## Brandname

budselig said:


> Thank you for providing a real life example of how overt homosexuality affects not only the homosexual but others who he interacts with. I have never had an experience of this sort, or even heard of one. *Fortnately there was a fairly strong stigma against homosexuals in the high school I attended.* I can think of two homosexuals who came out of the closet post high school - one of them was asexual in the high school setting and the other dated retarded (actually mentally handicapped) girls. Both were otherwise fully integrated into the high school society, as far as I could tell.


Yeah good thing!

EDIT - Wow, funny simulpost for the exact same thing.


----------



## GNG

Brandname said:


> Even that would be a terrible reason to hate gay people.



Shaq_Diesel's quote in your sig has a lot of humor at this point of the debate.


----------



## Crossword

Brandname said:


> Yeah good thing!


Get out of my head!


----------



## Hibachi!

budselig said:


> Thank you for providing a real life example of how overt homosexuality affects not only the homosexual but others who he interacts with. I have never had an experience of this sort, or even heard of one. Fortnately there was a fairly strong stigma against homosexuals in the high school I attended. I can think of two homosexuals who came out of the closet post high school - one of them was asexual in the high school setting and the other dated retarded (actually mentally handicapped) girls. Both were otherwise fully integrated into the high school society, as far as I could tell.


So using that example should a guy who constantly hits on a girl, buys her gifts, and won't leave her alone be hated too? Does that woman have a right to hate all men because of one guy? That doesn't make any sense... 

Ever heard of the Hasty Generalization fallacy? If we take all the commentary out this is basically what he said...

"I hate gay guys"
"Why?"
"Because this one gay guy, I think he was hitting on me because I'm hot ****"

Is that really a good argument to you?


----------



## Brandname

Rawse said:


> Shaq_Diesel's quote in your sig has a lot of humor at this point of the debate.


Haha, it certainly puts an interesting spin on it.


----------



## Hibachi!

budselig said:


> Thank you for providing a real life example of how overt homosexuality affects not only the homosexual but others who he interacts with. I have never had an experience of this sort, or even heard of one. Fortnately there was a fairly strong stigma against homosexuals in the high school I attended. I can think of two homosexuals who came out of the closet post high school - one of them was asexual in the high school setting and the other dated retarded (actually mentally handicapped) girls. Both were otherwise fully integrated into the high school society, as far as I could tell.


So using that example should a guy who constantly hits on a girl, buys her gifts, and won't leave her alone be hated to? Does that woman have a right to hate all men because of one guy? That doesn't make any sense... 

Ever heard of the Hasty Generalization fallacy? If we take all the commentary out this is basically what he said...

"I hate gay guys"
"Why?"
"Because this one gay when I was in High School, I think he was hitting on me because I'm hot ****"
"So I hate em"

Is that really a good argument to you?


----------



## DHarris34Phan

**edited: Post something like that again and face suspension**


----------



## Dre

HKF said:


> I don't like thinly veiled insults and for someone to say I'm a coward for believing discrimination will always exist, just makes me shake my head. You do realize that you're fighting an uphill battle that you'll never be able to fully win and yet you want everyone to accept your POV because you presume that it's right.
> 
> I have no dog in the fight, but I don't agree with unilateral thinking, nor do I believe you should place your beliefs upon me if I don't want them.
> 
> There is no one here that I feel is more intelligent then I am, I strictly don't like being told what to think and what to feel. So have your sing-a-longs in lock step with some gays and lesbians if you must, but don't sit here and insult people for thinking differently than you, because the same things that you're saying, can be flipped around...
> 
> And I am talking to you Dre. Grow a little older and realize that changing the world is a losing game.


I'm not trying to change the entire world, I just know the mindset that you have isn't entirely beneficial to any kind of positive change. If you're going to go head up against something, you can't have "well, I can't _completely_ defeat it" in the back of your mind IMO. You have to be firmly against the idea and be for the complete eradication of it, even if it's inevitable that people will think that way. 

And my bad, coward was strong for your POV, but I just think it's half-assed to just sit back and say "it's always gonna be there regardless". That's probably true, but you still change your mindset, and one person at a time, this point of view will devolve. 

It's what happened in the 60s and 70s with racism. No, it's not completely gone, but people who stood up and said end *all* racism were at the forefront and made a difference, not the people who said "we understand there will be racists, just don't be so many of you". 

And I don't think im trying to force my ideas on anyone. People replied to my posts, and I replied back with my POV. I didn't go out of my way just calling people out for no reason. I understood from the start that this was pretty much a losing battle like most threads here. People will pretty much believe what they want at the beginning and ends of threads, but that doesn't mean I can't speak my mind on what I think. Sometimes I may get over passionate with it, but the root or true intention of my main point is always within whatever angry statements I may make.

In the end, no, you're not a coward for believing discrimination will exist forever, but I just don't agree with that neutral, it is what it is attitude about something, especially when there were people before us who drastically changed their surroundings.


----------



## Crossword

_Dre_ said:


> I'm not trying to change the entire world, I just know the mindset that you have isn't entirely beneficial to any kind of positive change. If you're going to go head up against something, you can't have "well, I can't _completely_ defeat it" in the back of your mind IMO. You have to be firmly against the idea and be for the complete eradication of it, even if it's inevitable that people will think that way.
> 
> And my bad, coward was strong for your POV, but I just think it's half-assed to just sit back and say "it's always gonna be there regardless". That's probably true, but you still change your mindset, and one person at a time, this point of view will devolve.
> 
> It's what happened in the 60s and 70s with racism. No, it's not completely gone, but people who stood up and said end *all* racism were at the forefront and made a difference, not the people who said "we understand there will be racists, just don't be so many of you".
> 
> And I don't think im trying to force my ideas on anyone. People replied to my posts, and I replied back with my POV. I didn't go out of my way just calling people out for no reason. I understood from the start that this was pretty much a losing battle like most threads here. People will pretty much believe what they want at the beginning and ends of threads, but that doesn't mean I can't speak my mind on what I think. Sometimes I may get over passionate with it, but the root or true intention of my main point is always within whatever angry statements I may make.
> 
> In the end, no, you're not a coward for believing discrimination will exist forever, but I just don't agree with that neutral, it is what it is attitude about something, especially when there were people before us who drastically changed their surroundings.


Oh snap. Hot dog, we have a weiner.


----------



## rock747

Chan said:


> People are forming opinions about him based on his opinion. Then we can form an opinion about those people, and some more people can form opinions about us. It's a chain.
> 
> While I agree with you, how is Hardaway's opinions about gays disrespectable, and how could he have presented it in a respectable manner?


I didn't say Hardaway's opinions were disrespectful, I said the way he presented his opinion was not respectable.

Instead of saying he "hates gays", he could of simply said he disagrees with the gay lifestyle and doesn't feel comfortable with the idea of a gay man in the locker room with him.


----------



## Dre

rock747 said:


> I didn't say Hardaway's opinions were disrespectful, I said the way he presented his opinion was not respectable.
> 
> Instead of saying he "hates gays", he could of simply said he disagrees with the gay lifestyle and doesn't feel comfortable with the idea of a gay man in the locker room with him.


But shouldn't you ultimately _respect_ his right to free speech?


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

OMG gio was right this thread is going to 80. I cannot read another 20 pages of this. We should just make this a sticky it will never die.


----------



## Crossword

_Dre_ said:


> But shouldn't you ultimately _respect_ his right to free speech?


*spins the broken record*

No, I'd say not allowing someone to say things like "It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States" is a fair limitation to freedom of speech. Again, it's the same principle that doesn't allow Holocaust deniers to publish books in North America.


----------



## Crossword

vincedunkedonzo2 said:


> OMG gio was right this thread is going to 80. I cannot read another 20 pages of this. We should just make this a sticky it will never die.


Don't need to make it a sticky. It'll be at least a couple days until this thread even sees page 2.


----------



## rock747

Budweiser_Boy said:


> *spins the broken record*
> 
> No, I'd say not allowing someone to say things like "It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States" is a fair limitation to freedom of speech. Again, it's the same principle that doesn't allow Holocaust deniers to publish books in North America.


Wait, having a limitation on freedom of speach is not having freedom of speach.


----------



## kflo

Minstrel said:


> No, I'm afraid that's exactly the wrong question to ask. It's not society's role to _force_ people to do what society decides is best for them. I'm sure there were plenty of 1700s versions of you who argued just as calmly that slavery was what was best for the black man, and a free black man (who wouldn't be given free shelter, clothing and food) may not necessarily be better off.
> 
> Outside of preventing behaviour that is harmful to other people, society's proper role is to allow people to make their own decisions and do what _they_ decide is best for them. You say most people would rather lounge around and not work. Absolutely true...and, contrary to your claims, we do _not_ have laws preventing that. People can choose to lounge around and not work if they wish...but then they will not earn money which will negatively effect them. We do not use laws to decide how this is resolved: we let each individual decide what the right amount of work and right amount of "lounging" is right for them.
> 
> Likewise, each homosexual can decide for themselves whether they're happier in a marriage with someone of their own sex or someone of the opposite sex. It's not our role or right to decide that for them, as a group.


i agree with this for the most part and it was well stated. i'd just ask to separate the role of government from the role of "society". "society" can and should attempt to influence. it just should be done with great care and respect for the impact of that influence. and "society" is just a collection of individuals.


----------



## rock747

_Dre_ said:


> But shouldn't you ultimately _respect_ his right to free speech?


Yes, but you don't have to respect the way in which he presented his argument.


----------



## Minstrel

kflo said:


> i agree with this for the most part and it was well stated. i'd just ask to separate the role of government from the role of "society". "society" can and should attempt to influence. it just should be done with great care and respect for the impact of that influence. and "society" is just a collection of individuals.


That's a fair distinction, but even then, while society should and can attempt to influence, it doesn't have the right, IMO, to dictate unless it's in curbing people from dictating to others. I was conflating government and society because I view government as society's hand of force.


----------



## Pimped Out

budselig said:


> Thank you for providing a real life example of how overt homosexuality affects not only the homosexual but others who he interacts with. I have never had an experience of this sort, or even heard of one. Fortnately there was a fairly strong stigma against homosexuals in the high school I attended. I can think of two homosexuals who came out of the closet post high school - one of them was asexual in the high school setting and the other dated retarded (actually mentally handicapped) girls. Both were otherwise fully integrated into the high school society, as far as I could tell.


i thought that was an example of how an overt ******* can hurt other people in society


----------



## TiMVP2

21 more posts and this thread goes diamond!!!!!


gold=250 posts
platinum=750 posts
diamond=1200 posts

threads in games dont coutn.


----------



## Pimped Out

> But Hardaway isn't alone; he's just the most recent one stupid enough to share his feelings on the matter.
> 
> An NBA player I talked to Thursday laughed off the discomfort.
> "I've played with a couple of players who were suspected of being gay," he said. "You can't let that stuff bother you.
> 
> "As long as you don't make a pass at me, I don't care what you do. Just play ball."
> 
> Houston native and Cleveland Browns running back Lawrence Vickers had the same "just play ball," attitude when asked about the possibility of having a gay teammate in an NFL locker room.
> 
> University of Houston athletic director Dave Maggard said sexual preference isn't a consideration when scholar-
> ships are offered and college coaches are hired or fired.
> 
> "That's not something that we ask about at all," he said. "It's like any other behavior — unless it impacts the team in some negative way, it's nobody's business.
> 
> "It would be inappropriate to start questioning people about that kind of thing. I just don't think it belongs. Are you going to class, doing your homework, doing the best you can in your sport? Those are the only questions we're concerned with."
> 
> Another NBA player, who asked not to be identified, said he didn't agree with Hardaway's hate but understood his discomfort.
> 
> "I don't hate anybody; I wasn't raised that way," he said. "But man, I don't know. I mean, in the locker room? The showers? That just won't be comfortable for me or hardly anybody else, probably."
> 
> ...
> 
> "I especially apologize to my fans, friends and family in Miami and Chicago. I am committed to examining my feelings and will recognize, appreciate and respect the differences among people in our society."
> 
> Certainly some things are better left unsaid.
> 
> And some things are better if done than said.


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/bk/bkn/4558274.html


----------



## Hibachi!

I don't see anything wrong with any of those comments...


----------



## Pimped Out

Hibachi! said:


> I don't see anything wrong with any of those comments...


there isnt suppose to be. the if you go to the article it becomes more clear that he is contrasting the opinions with hardaway


----------



## Minstrel

Pimped Out said:


> there isnt suppose to be. the if you go to the article it becomes more clear that he is contrasting the opinions with hardaway


Well, this line:



> But Hardaway isn't alone; he's just the most recent one stupid enough to share his feelings on the matter.


seems out of place with the quotes that follow. It anticipates more bad (anonymous) comments, to show Hardaway "isn't alone."


----------



## Pimped Out

Minstrel said:


> Well, this line:
> 
> 
> 
> seems out of place with the quotes that follow. It anticipates more bad (anonymous) comments, to show Hardaway "isn't alone."


i didnt mean to copy that part.


----------



## thrillhouse

well ill do my part to help get this to 80 since i read just about every post. i definitely agree with bud boy, truth, tre,piped out... and all the others i can remember right now. however there is one thing i agree with hkf, that is that the truth should definitely lose intelligence points for being a duke fan:biggrin:


----------



## Hibachi!

80!!!!!!


----------



## budselig

Hibachi! said:


> So using that example should a guy who constantly hits on a girl, buys her gifts, and won't leave her alone be hated to? Does that woman have a right to hate all men because of one guy? That doesn't make any sense...
> 
> Ever heard of the Hasty Generalization fallacy? If we take all the commentary out this is basically what he said...
> 
> "I hate gay guys"
> "Why?"
> "Because this one gay when I was in High School, I think he was hitting on me because I'm hot ****"
> "So I hate em"
> 
> Is that really a good argument to you?


No! And that's not the argument I was making in any of my posts. I just wanted to thank that fellow for providing an example of how the actions of homosexuals <i>can</i> affect other people - ie that homosexuals aren't infallible human beings residing in some sort of glass bottle, not affecting anyone else. He provided a type of anecdote I hadn't seen in the thread before and I found it interesting. I'm not trying to make generalizations based on one event or person.


----------



## budselig

Minstrel said:


> No, I'm afraid that's exactly the wrong question to ask. It's not society's role to _force_ people to do what society decides is best for them. I'm sure there were plenty of 1700s versions of you who argued just as calmly that slavery was what was best for the black man, and a free black man (who wouldn't be given free shelter, clothing and food) may not necessarily be better off.
> 
> Outside of preventing behaviour that is harmful to other people, society's proper role is to allow people to make their own decisions and do what _they_ decide is best for them. You say most people would rather lounge around and not work. Absolutely true...and, contrary to your claims, we do _not_ have laws preventing that. People can choose to lounge around and not work if they wish...but then they will not earn money which will negatively effect them. We do not use laws to decide how this is resolved: we let each individual decide what the right amount of work and right amount of "lounging" is right for them.
> 
> Likewise, each homosexual can decide for themselves whether they're happier in a marriage with someone of their own sex or someone of the opposite sex. It's not our role or right to decide that for them, as a group.


But it isn't the wrong quesiton to ask, because we don't live in some bizarre Libertarian society, we live in the United States, where our representatives in government, local, federal, and state, regularly pass legislation specifically tailored to change how people act. You may <i>think</i> it isn't the right question to ask, or you may <i>wish</i> for it not to be the right question to ask, but it is, indeed, the <i>right</i> question to ask - at least until the infrastructure of our government changes significantly.


----------



## Minstrel

budselig said:


> But it isn't the wrong quesiton to ask, because we don't live in some bizarre Libertarian society, we live in the United States, where our representatives in government, local, federal, and state, regularly pass legislation specifically tailored to change how people act.


It doesn't require a bizarre Libertarian society to remove slavery or to allow homosexuals to marry. I'm not denying that we have a government which passes laws, I'm providing my opinion on what those laws should restrict. Denying rights to a minority group that doesn't harm anyone else isn't something government should be doing.

This is as opposed to your view that government should decide what's right for homosexuals and mandate it by law.


----------



## Pimped Out

budselig said:


> No! And that's not the argument I was making in any of my posts. I just wanted to thank that fellow for providing an example of how the actions of homosexuals <i>can</i> affect other people - ie that homosexuals aren't infallible human beings residing in some sort of glass bottle, not affecting anyone else. He provided a type of anecdote I hadn't seen in the thread before and I found it interesting. I'm not trying to make generalizations based on one event or person.


i thought it was clear that you didnt have a bad experience and hate all gay people now because of it. it seems like you hate all gay people which led to your bad experience.


----------



## PauloCatarino

I wish players would look upon Amaschi's example and come out of the closet after being retired...

KG, Tracie McGrady and Vince Carter comes to mind...


----------



## Dre

....don't get it.


----------



## MarioChalmers

Let's send this to 150 pages. 

I'm gay.


----------



## PauloCatarino

gian said:


> Let's send this to 150 pages.
> 
> *I'm gay.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> We know, we know...


----------



## johny

This should lighten the mood. Love the LeBron line:

http://thesportshernia.typepad.com/blog/2007/02/hardawaygate_pl.html


----------



## JNice

PauloCatarino said:


> I wish players would look upon Amaschi's example and come out of the closet after being retired...
> 
> KG, Tracie McGrady and Vince Carter comes to mind...


And let's not get into Earvin ...


----------



## Pimped Out

JNice said:


> And let's not get into Earvin ...


dont forget about wilt. it always seemed like he was over compensating for something


----------



## JNice

Pimped Out said:


> dont forget about wilt. it always seemed like he was over compensating for something


Yeah ... I mean, 10,000? There had to be a few "iffys" in there.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

I'm back from work, couldn't find a computer.

The argument to a right of bigotry is like I said before, a right to free will. That right conquers all other rights, including right of equality. The most important thing in the world is our ability to think however we want. If you think we must all love, and we must all accept, you might think you're a crusader for justice and morality, but in fact you're nothing more than Hitler dressed in a Santa Claus costume. To force everyone to accept is facism. We have a choice to love, and we may or may not make that choice. Nobody should force us to make a certain choice, good or bad.


----------



## JNice

Chan said:


> I'm back from work, couldn't find a computer.
> 
> The argument to a right of bigotry is like I said before, a right to free will. That right conquers all other rights, including right of equality. The most important thing in the world is our ability to think however we want. If you think we must all love, and we must all accept, you might think you're a crusader for justice and morality, but in fact you're nothing more than Hitler dressed in a Santa Claus costume. To force everyone to accept is facism. We have a choice to love, and we may or may not make that choice. Nobody should force us to make a certain choice, good or bad.


You're completely right. You have a choice to have an opinion as long as you don't take it beyond just an opinion. That doesn't separate your right from the fact that it is just plain idiotic and moronic to not accept someone simply because of their race, religion, or sexual orientation. Not to mention it is just a plain waste of time and energy.


----------



## madman

rock747 said:


> Wait, having a limitation on freedom of speach is not having freedom of speach.


Yes, but in this case it's for the good of society.

By the way this is Bud_Boy, I'm just at madman's house and too drunk/lazy to switch to my account.


----------



## madman

MDIZZ said:


> 21 more posts and this thread goes diamond!!!!!
> 
> 
> gold=250 posts
> platinum=750 posts
> diamond=1200 posts
> 
> threads in games dont coutn.


What are you talking about?

Platinum is 100 posts, at least on the hip hop board. Jeez.


----------



## JNice

madman said:


> Yes, but in this case it's for the good of society.
> 
> By the way this is Bud_Boy, I'm just at madman's house and too drunk/lazy to switch to my account.


Is he your "significant other?"

(sorry, couldn't help it)


----------



## madman

JNice said:


> Is he your "significant other?"
> 
> (sorry, couldn't help it)


He might be after a few more drinks.


----------



## Pimped Out

madman said:


> Yes, but in this case it's for the good of society.
> 
> By the way this is Bud_Boy, I'm just at madman's house and too drunk/lazy to switch to my account.


i thought it was against the rules for mods to let other posters use their accounts, for security reasons. this looks like a reason to get madman banned


----------



## madman

thrillhouse said:


> well ill do my part to help get this to 80 since i read just about every post. *i definitely agree with bud boy*, truth, tre,piped out... and all the others i can remember right now. however there is one thing i agree with hkf, that is that the truth should definitely lose intelligence points for being a duke fan:biggrin:


I like this guy already. As a poster. lol.


----------



## madman

Pimped Out said:


> i thought it was against the rules for mods to let other posters use their accounts, for security reasons. this looks like a reason to get madman banned


We're both mods, what difference does it make?

By the way, I just repped you as madman.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

JNice said:


> You're completely right. You have a choice to have an opinion as long as you don't take it beyond just an opinion. That doesn't separate your right from the fact that it is just plain idiotic and moronic to not accept someone simply because of their race, religion, or sexual orientation. Not to mention it is just a plain waste of time and energy.


Yes. But if you push that belief onto others, you'll be what I stated. An offender of free will. That's not to say many racists do the same to push their beliefs onto non-racists - it happens quite often. But just like that way, non-racists should not push their beliefs onto racists.


----------



## JNice

Pimped Out said:


> i thought it was against the rules for mods to let other posters use their accounts, for security reasons. this looks like a reason to get madman banned


Not if they are lovers.


----------



## madman

Rudy GAYYYYYYYYY


----------



## Pimped Out

madman said:


> We're both mods, what difference does it make?
> 
> By the way, I just repped you as madman.


it was a joke

and yeah, i picked up on that


----------



## madman

Chan said:


> Yes. But if you push that belief onto others, you'll be what I stated. An offender of free will. That's not to say many racists do the same to push their beliefs onto non-racists - it happens quite often. But just like that way, non-racists should not push their beliefs onto racists.


Why not? Clearly non-racists are right and racists are wrong. That is a law of nature, and racism is an indefensible belief. People who don't believe in racism are superior as humanitarians to people who do, and therefore they have the right to shun racists. There's no way to spin this. You can't spin it. It's just unfathomable to even let the thought CROSS YOUR ****ING MIND THAT RACISTS ARE IN ANY ****ING WAY, SHAPE OR FORM CORRECT IN THEIR IDEOLOGIES AND CONTRIBUTING HUMAN BEINGS THAT ARE NOT DETRIMENTAL TO OUR SOCIETY!!! DID I MAKE MYSELF MOTHER ****ING CLEAR? ****.


----------



## madman

Pimped Out said:


> it was a joke
> 
> and yeah, i picked up on that


Yeah man it's all good.

Kinda funny how two of the most predominant human rights activists on this thread are Persian, while the rest of the world stereotypes Iranians as insensitive, uncivilized *******s. Just throwing it out there!


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

madman said:


> Why not? Clearly non-racists are right and racists are wrong. That is a law of nature, and racism is an indefensible belief. People who don't believe in racism are superior as humanitarians to people who do, and therefore they have the right to shun racists. There's no way to spin this. You can't spin it. It's just unfathomable to even let the thought CROSS YOUR ****ING MIND THAT RACISTS ARE IN ANY ****ING WAY, SHAPE OR FORM CORRECT IN THEIR IDEOLOGIES AND CONTRIBUTING HUMAN BEINGS THAT ARE NOT DETRIMENTAL TO OUR SOCIETY!!! DID I MAKE MYSELF MOTHER ****ING CLEAR? ****.


So what if it's wrong? It's still his choice.


----------



## JNice

madman said:


> Yeah man it's all good.
> 
> Kinda funny how two of the most predominant human rights activists on this thread are Persian, while the rest of the world stereotypes Iranians as insensitive, uncivilized *******s. Just throwing it out there!


That's because you are clearly developing gay nuclear weapons.


----------



## madman

PauloCatarino said:


> I wish players would look upon Amaschi's example and come out of the closet after being retired...
> 
> KG, Tracie McGrady and *Vince Carter comes to mind...*


YES! YOU ARE SO RIGHT!!! Man if this opinion of yours was human, I'd make out with it, right here and right now.


----------



## Pimped Out

JNice said:


> That's because you are clearly developing gay nuclear weapons.


HEY!!!

my nuclear weapons only have sex with female nuclear weapons, the way einstein intended.

*******


----------



## madman

JNice said:


> That's because you are clearly developing gay nuclear weapons.


Why else would the Dubya "I hate all gay people worldwide" Bush cabinet be against Iran? HONESTLY.


----------



## madman

Chan said:


> So what if it's wrong? It's still his choice.


Because it's wrong. Like you said.

I mean **** it, let's all be backwards why don't we. Condoing a wrong thing like racism, is like condoning a wrong thing like all NBA players shooting midcourt shots all game long. Yeah, the right thing would be to take a high percentage shot, but **** it, just like anti-racism, to like minded individuals of your school of thought, THAT TAKES EFFORT!!!!!!!! Do YOU chuck mid-range shots every time you play basketball? If the answer is no, then STOP BEING RACIST!


----------



## madman

Yo, me posting drunk is still coherent and perfect vocabulary. That's why I'm amazing.


----------



## JNice

madman said:


> Yo, me posting drunk is still coherent and perfect vocabulary. That's why I'm amazing.


Yeah, yeah ... oh wait ... is this Bud Boy or MDIZZ?


----------



## madman

RUDY GAY!!! with the THROWDOWN!!!!!


----------



## Minstrel

Chan said:


> So what if it's wrong? It's still his choice.


And? Nobody's saying a person doesn't have a right to be a racist or homophobe. But just like anyone else who ruins their credibility by holding an ill-founded "opinion," they're not going to get much respect in society. Who society gives respect to is also free will.


----------



## madman

JNice said:


> Yeah, yeah ... oh wait ... is this Bud Boy or MDIZZ?


When did MJIZZ ever have coherent thoughts and perfect vocabulary? His posts are like a puzzle, they make a little sense, but you have to exert all your effort into solving that puzzle.


----------



## madman

I say we start the hit-on-homophobes coalition. Where we hit on the idiot homophobes who posted on this thread enough that they either become accepting of homosexuals or get disgusted and leave the forum altogether.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

madman said:


> Because it's wrong. Like you said.
> 
> I mean **** it, let's all be backwards why don't we. Condoing a wrong thing like racism, is like condoning a wrong thing like all NBA players shooting midcourt shots all game long. Yeah, the right thing would be to take a high percentage shot, but **** it, just like anti-racism, to like minded individuals of your school of thought, THAT TAKES EFFORT!!!!!!!! Do YOU chuck mid-range shots every time you play basketball? If the answer is no, then STOP BEING RACIST!


So we all have to be right? We are all forced to be right? Did you not read my post on free will? You want everyone to think the same way. You deny free will. You deny the most important right any human can have. You want us to live in a mechanical society where we all belive in equality, and are not allowed to think otherwise. You are worse than a facist - a facist controls the way we act. You want to control the way we think. It is despicable.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Minstrel said:


> And? Nobody's saying a person doesn't have a right to be a racist or homophobe. But just like anyone else who ruins their credibility by holding an ill-founded "opinion," they're not going to get much respect in society. Who society gives respect to is also free will.


Yeah, they say it's free will be intolerant of racists too. Or it's free will to be intolerant of anybody.


----------



## madman

Chan said:


> So we all have to be right? We are all forced to be right? Did you not read my post on free will? You want everyone to think the same way. You deny free will. You deny the most important right any human can have. You want us to live in a mechanical society where we all belive in equality, and are not allowed to think otherwise. You are worse than a facist - a facist controls the way we act. You want to control the way we think. It is despicable.


Okay, let me put it this way:

If you are right, you are a productive, positive human being.

If you are wrong, you are an idiot.

Congratulations Chan, for supporting all idiots worldwide.


----------



## Minstrel

Chan said:


> Yeah, they say it's free will be intolerant of racists too. Or it's free will to be intolerant of anybody.


Well, there's a difference between being intolerant towards an _action_ and being intolerant towards a _non-harmful group_. It's okay to hate murder. It's not okay to hate black people. It's okay to hate racism. It's not okay to hate Christians.

Surely you see the difference.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

madman said:


> Okay, let me put it this way:
> 
> If you are right, you are a productive, positive human being.
> 
> If you are wrong, you are an idiot.
> 
> Congratulations Chan, for supporting all idiots worldwide.


No. Wrong doesn't mean idiocy. Just because someone is discriminant doesn't mean they are ignorant. Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, some have seen what the other side is like, and that they decided for themselves that they just don't like it? It is a sweeping statement to say that anyone who is discriminatory is an idiot.


----------



## JNice

Chan said:


> No. Wrong doesn't mean idiocy. Just because someone is discriminant doesn't mean they are ignorant. Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, some have seen what the other side is like, and that they decided for themselves that they just don't like it? It is a sweeping statement to say that anyone who is discriminatory is an idiot.


Absolutely.

So you run into a gay guy you don't like and all of a sudden all gays are bad? Or you get beat up by a black dude and now the whole black race is bad?

*******s are *******s. They come in every shape, color, race, religion, or sexual orientation. 

If you are judging an entire sect of people based on some limited experiences, then yes, you are an ignorant idiot.


----------



## madman

Chan said:


> No. Wrong doesn't mean idiocy. Just because someone is discriminant doesn't mean they are ignorant. Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, some have seen what the other side is like, and that they decided for themselves that they just don't like it? It is a sweeping statement to say that anyone who is discriminatory is an idiot.


Do you even read my posts? Honestly. **** you if you don't read my posts. And don't talk to me if you don't read my posts.

Because my posts ALL STATE that discrimination is only invalid if it is based on a superficial difference in naturally acquired human traits. In other words, dicrimination against people based on factors they can't control is WRONG AND IGNORANT. So if you discriminate based on race, which is a NATURALLY ACQUIRED HUMAN TRAIT, or homosexuality, which is ALSO A NATURALLY ACQUIRED HUMAN TRAIT, then yes, you are dicriminatory, AND you are an idiot.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Minstrel said:


> Well, there's a difference between being intolerant towards an _action_ and being intolerant towards a _non-harmful group_. It's okay to hate murder. It's not okay to hate black people. It's okay to hate racism. It's not okay to hate Christians.
> 
> Surely you see the difference.


In this case, we are talking about a state of mind, not an action. I'm not condoning actions such as the KKK or any other supremacist group. I'm saying if they want to think that way (in this case, that white people are the best, everyone else sucks, etc.), they can of their own free will, regardless of what you, me, or anyone else feels.


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> In this case, we are talking about a state of mind, not an action. I'm not condoning actions such as the KKK or any other supremacist group. I'm saying if they want to think that way (in this case, that white people are the best, everyone else sucks, etc.), they can of their own free will, regardless of what you, me, or anyone else feels.


**** you.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

JNice said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> So you run into a gay guy you don't like and all of a sudden all gays are bad? Or you get beat up by a black dude and now the whole black race is bad?
> 
> *******s are *******s. They come in every shape, color, race, religion, or sexual orientation.
> 
> If you are judging an entire sect of people based on some limited experiences, then yes, you are an ignorant idiot.


Don't your past experiences shape who you are?


----------



## Crossword

For all you wondering... I changed my profile...


LIKE A BISEXUAL!!!!


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> Don't your past experiences shape who you are?


Obviously you had a ****ty upbringing.


----------



## JNice

Chan said:


> Don't your past experiences shape who you are?



In a very general sense, yes. But I am intelligent enough and open minded enough to realize that a person is a person. If someone does me wrong, they did not do me wrong because they were gay. Or because they were mexican. Or because they were canadian. It was because they were a bad PERSON. Not a bad race. Not a bad sexual orientation. Not following a bad religion.

It is unfathomable to me how someone could think in any way other than that.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

madman said:


> Do you even read my posts? Honestly. **** you if you don't read my posts. And don't talk to me if you don't read my posts.
> 
> Because my posts ALL STATE that discrimination is only invalid if it is based on a superficial difference in naturally acquired human traits. In other words, dicrimination against people based on factors they can't control is WRONG AND IGNORANT. So if you discriminate based on race, which is a NATURALLY ACQUIRED HUMAN TRAIT, or homosexuality, which is ALSO A NATURALLY ACQUIRED HUMAN TRAIT, then yes, you are dicriminatory, AND you are an idiot.


Then if I am discriminant, I cannot think my way. I have to follow what you think. I cannot choose.


----------



## The Truth

Chan said:


> So we all have to be right? We are all forced to be right? Did you not read my post on free will? You want everyone to think the same way. You deny free will. You deny the most important right any human can have. You want us to live in a mechanical society where we all belive in equality, and are not allowed to think otherwise. You are worse than a facist - a facist controls the way we act. You want to control the way we think. It is despicable.


Please define free will.


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> Then if I am discriminant, I cannot think my way. I have to follow what you think. I cannot choose.


The world would be a much better place if discriminatory people thought like I did. It really would, and I'm not being in the least bit pretentious.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Budweiser_Boy said:


> **** you.


We've been down this road. I don't like it. You don't like it. But they like it. And it's their choice to like it, and we cannot make that choice for them. You want to make that choice for them, because you disagree. I want them to make their own choice, even if I disagree.


----------



## ATLien

okaaaay whats chan even talking about anyone? he is headless.


----------



## Crossword

TheATLien said:


> okaaaay whats chan even talking about anyone? he is headless.


Yup, and it's why I resort to simple platitutes such as "**** you" and "you're wrong" as opposed to legitimate arguments when responding to his posts.


----------



## Pimped Out

Minstrel said:


> Well, there's a difference between being intolerant towards an _action_ and being intolerant towards a _non-harmful group_. It's okay to hate murder. It's not okay to hate black people. It's okay to hate racism. It's not okay to hate Christians.
> 
> Surely you see the difference.


you would hope so, but its amazing the things people will blind themselves to just so they can justify their hate


----------



## ATLien

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Yup, and it's why I resort to simple platitutes such as "**** you" and "you're wrong" as opposed to legitimate arguments when responding to his posts.


wait.. those aren't legitimate arguments? Crap.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

JNice said:


> In a very general sense, yes. But I am intelligent enough and open minded enough to realize that a person is a person. If someone does me wrong, they did not do me wrong because they were gay. Or because they were mexican. Or because they were canadian. It was because they were a bad PERSON. Not a bad race. Not a bad sexual orientation. Not following a bad religion.
> 
> It is unfathomable to me how someone could think in any way other than that.


If a pattern persists, what do you do?

Back to the original point - seeing something that you don't like. What if you've seen it, or know about it, and you don't like it? Like gay sex? It may be a vulgar example, but it's concrete.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

The Truth said:


> Please define free will.


The right to choose your stance on any subject. The right to choose to be right or be wrong.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Budweiser_Boy said:


> The world would be a much better place if discriminatory people thought like I did. It really would, and I'm not being in the least bit pretentious.


It's mind-facism.


----------



## The Truth

Chan said:


> The right to choose your stance on any subject. The right to choose to be right or be wrong.


Not free will.

Try again.

And nobody is telling you that you can't be a racist or a homophobe; they're just calling you an idiot for thinking that way.

You are arguing in favor of homophobia, others are arguing against it. Nobody is trying to limit your "free will."


----------



## JNice

Chan said:


> If a pattern persists, what do you do?
> 
> Back to the original point - seeing something that you don't like. What if you've seen it, or know about it, and you don't like it? Like gay sex? It may be a vulgar example, but it's concrete.



What if a pattern persists? Maybe you are unlucky. But are you telling me you've come across thousands of gay males who all treated you badly? Maybe you've run across a few. Hell, maybe even 10. So now you judge hundreds of thousands of people based on those experiences? How many white *******s have you run across? Black? Latino? Asian? 

I don't like to see two guys making out. Point blank. I'd also prefer not to see two large fat chicks making out. Or an ugly-*** heterosexual couple having sex. Doesn't mean I would ever disriminate or hate homosexuals or any of those groups. That would be idiotic and moronic, to complete the circle.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Pimped Out said:


> you would hope so, but its amazing the things people will blind themselves to just so they can justify their hate


If you're talking about me, I don't think at any point, I have justified hate. I said it was a choice to hate, and you cannot take that choice away. This goes beyond discrimination - this goes for any type of thinking. Just because it's morally wrong doesn't mean you can force them to be right. To do so is blah blah blah free will. Change their mind, persuade them, but to say they cannot think that way is blah blah blah free will.


----------



## The Truth

Chan said:


> If you're talking about me, I don't think at any point, I have justified hate. I said it was a choice to hate, and you cannot take that choice away. This goes beyond discrimination - this goes for any type of thinking. Just because it's morally wrong doesn't mean you can force them to be right. To do so is blah blah blah free will. Change their mind, persuade them, but to say they cannot think that way is blah blah blah free will.


Please stop talking about free will. You have no idea what you are talking about. 

Nobody is "forcing" you to think anything. They're just disagreeing with your opinion.

How many times do we need to go through that?


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

The Truth said:


> Not free will.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> *And nobody is telling you that you can't be a racist or a homophobe; they're just calling you an idiot for thinking that way.*
> 
> You are arguing in favor of homophobia, others are arguing against it. Nobody is trying to limit your "free will."


Umm, yes, that is what everyone is telling me, that I can't be discriminatory. Ask Bud_Boy. But if what you say is true, then it is not an invasion of free will, and I can agree with that.

I am arguing for the right to choose to be ****/blank_race-hating or ****/blank_race-loving. To take away that choice and making everyone a certain way (in this case, loving), is what I'm arguing against.


----------



## The Truth

Chan said:


> I am arguing for the right to choose to be ****/blank_race-hating or ****/blank_race-loving. To take away that choice and making everyone a certain way (in this case, loving), is what I'm arguing against.


YOU CAN BE A HOMOPHOBE. YOU HAVE THAT RIGHT. GO RIGHT AHEAD.

But don't be surprised when people tell you you're an idiot for it. And them calling you an idiot does not mean they are denying you your right to be a homophobe.


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> It's mind-facism.


You don't even know what fascism is you moron.

Fascism is being sripped or your ability to be. What YOU profess is fascism. YOU are not a victim of fascism. If a racist is being argued against, he/she is still not the victim of fascism. Because racism and homophobia are both practices of fascism.

Don't throw words around without considering their true meaning, especially if you come out acting the hypocrite because of it..


----------



## Crossword

Anyway... my point is, you can be a homophobe sure. BUT YOU ARE WRONG IF YOU ARE!


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

JNice said:


> What if a pattern persists? Maybe you are unlucky. But are you telling me you've come across thousands of gay males who all treated you badly? Maybe you've run across a few. Hell, maybe even 10. So now you judge hundreds of thousands of people based on those experiences? How many white *******s have you run across? Black? Latino? Asian?


I wasn't disagreeing with that point, I just wanted to see where it would lead.



> I don't like to see two guys making out. Point blank. I'd also prefer not to see two large fat chicks making out. Or an ugly-*** heterosexual couple having sex. Doesn't mean I would ever disriminate or hate homosexuals or any of those groups. That would be idiotic and moronic, to complete the circle.


This is the point. There are some things that you just don't like. And if you don't like it, you can form your own opinions about it. Hate it if you want to.


----------



## Pimped Out

free will is not a pass to do and think whatever you want and expect no consequences. thats not part of free will, thats part of being a brat


----------



## Crossword

I don't like seeing homosexuals make out either.

I also don't like seeing heterosexuals make out. What's your ****ing point, you're just coming up with excuses to back up your stupid mindstate. If you're homophobic, you don't deserve to live. Just like racists don't deserve to live. So do us all a favour and shove that barrel down your throat, because the world would be better off without you. And so would this forum.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

The Truth said:


> YOU CAN BE A HOMOPHOBE. YOU HAVE THAT RIGHT. GO RIGHT AHEAD.
> 
> But don't be surprised when people tell you you're an idiot for it. And them calling you an idiot does not mean they are denying you your right to be a homophobe.


Hey madman, hey Dre, hey JNice, can I be a racist? Can I be a homophobe?


----------



## TiMVP2

madman said:


> What are you talking about?
> 
> Platinum is 100 posts, at least on the hip hop board. Jeez.


100 posts is ****ing easy. thats like 2 pages too many platinum artists then i mean i must be 10x platinum or something


----------



## Crossword

The following people are right: Budweiser_Boy and all those who agree with him.

The following people are wrong: Chan and everyone who agrees with him.

Now that we've established that, let's equate 'right' with 'reasonable' and 'wrong' with 'scum of the earth'.


----------



## Pimped Out

Chan said:


> Hey madman, hey Dre, hey JNice, can I be a racist? Can I be a homophobe?


can you? yes. will their be consequences? yes. can you expect society to support you? no. will you be killed or jailed or blackballed from society? probably not.


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> Hey madman, hey Dre, hey JNice, can I be a racist? Can I be a homophobe?


Sure, you can also be an idiot and rot in hell while you're at it.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Pimped Out said:


> free will is not a pass to do and think whatever you want and expect no consequences. thats not part of free will, thats part of being a brat


I wasn't going to extend my argument past an individual's attitude.


----------



## Crossword

MDIZZ said:


> 100 posts is ****ing easy. thats like 2 pages too many platinum artists then i mean i must be 10x platinum or something


This thread is an anomaly. Don't take it as the norm.


----------



## Pimped Out

Budweiser_Boy said:


> The following people are right: Budweiser_Boy and all those who agree with him.
> 
> The following people are wrong: Chan and everyone who agrees with him.
> 
> Now that we've established that, let's equate 'right' with 'reasonable' and 'wrong' with 'scum of the earth'.


sweet. im finally not in the scum of the earth category. take that every junior high teacher i ever had.


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> I wasn't going to extend my argument past an individual's attitude.


Good, because I hope to god nobody else thinks like you.


----------



## Pimped Out

Chan said:


> I wasn't going to extend my argument past an individual's attitude.


thats probably a good thing considering you argument makes no sense


----------



## Crossword

Pimped Out said:


> sweet. im finally not in the scum of the earth category. take that every junior high teacher i ever had.


Maybe you should move to Toronto. I would say Canada, but in reality Toronto is nothing like the rest of Canada.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Sure, you can also be an idiot and rot in hell while you're at it.


That's not a problem for me. The problem was anyone who wanted to say that me, or Hardaway, can't be a certain way.


----------



## Kunlun

I like what Tim Hardaway had to say. I myself hate the concept of homosexuality. It's wrong in my opinion. 

I work with a bunch of ******s in my store and I don't like any of them. I've treated them the way I would treat any normal man, but the way they act just annoys me. Not all of them have the same personality, but they all have something about them that irritates me. Gay men are in my opinion less trustworthy than straight men. You'll most likely get ****ed trusting one of them. Who can trust a man who literally ****s guys? 

I truly believe that ******s want to be ******s just for the attention it brings. Also, if a man really is gay then he would be attracted to all men. In the locker room for instance, when you take a shower and saw a naked woman next to you, even if she's not too attractive you would still check out her ***** and think of hitting it. A gay man would see your dick and want to suck it or stick it up his ***. Same concept. 

I'm glad Tim Hardaway said what was on his mind, but these days we can't speak our minds and be straight forward without being shait on by the media and the overly sensitive people. Nowadays, everybody has to be like a woman and express themselves with little 'hints' or not even say anything at all.


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> That's not a problem for me. The problem was anyone who wanted to say that me, or Hardaway, can't be a certain way.


I say you can't be a certain way. I say you can't be a racist or a homophobe. I say that if you discriminate against anyone based on things they can't control, you are a waste of sperm.


----------



## Crossword

Kunlun said:


> I like what Tim Hardaway had to say. I myself hate the concept of homosexuality. It's wrong in my opinion.
> 
> I work with a bunch of ******s in my store and I don't like any of them. I've treated them the way I would treat any normal man, but the way they act just annoys me. Not all of them have the same personality, but they all have something about them that irritates me. Gay men are in my opinion less trustworthy than straight men. You'll most likely get ****ed trusting one of them. Who can trust a man who literally ****s guys?
> 
> I truly believe that ******s want to be ******s just for the attention it brings. Also, if a man really is gay then he would be attracted to all men. In the locker room for instance, when you take a shower and saw a naked woman next to you, even if she's not too attractive you would still check out her ***** and think of sticking your dick in there. A gay man would see your dick and want to suck it or stick it up his ***. Same concept.
> 
> I'm glad Tim Hardaway said what was on his mind, but these days we can't speak our minds and be straight forward without being shait on by the media and the overly sensitive people. Nowadays, everybody has to be like a woman and express themselves with little 'hints' or not even say anything at all.


Hey ****head, go kill yourself. You'd be doing the galaxy a favour. You're a piece of ****. **** you. Plus you think Jay-Z is better than Nas. I didn't think you could be more of an idiot, but hey, you are. Go to hell. I hope you get AIDS.


----------



## Pimped Out

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Maybe you should move to Toronto. I would say Canada, but in reality Toronto is nothing like the rest of Canada.


nah, everything is good in austin right now. my junior high teachers didnt hate me because of my political views because i barely had any. it had more to do with me thinking their classes were useless and waste of time and then letting them now it. my GPA in college is better than it was in junior high, and in junior high, half my classes were on a 5 point GPA scale instead of 4.


----------



## Crossword

Pimped Out said:


> nah, everything is good in austin right now. my junior high teachers didnt hate me because of my political views because i barely had any. it had more to do with me thinking their classes were useless and waste of time and then letting them now it. my GPA in college is better than it was in junior high, and in junior high, half my classes were on a 5 point GPA scale instead of 4.


True say. I just figured it was related to this thread lol, my bad.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Budweiser_Boy said:


> I say you can't be a certain way. I say you can't be a racist or a homophobe. I say that if you discriminate against anyone based on things they can't control, you are a waste of sperm.


Then you take away my ability to think for myself. The facism extends to the mind. You strip someone's ability to be; ability to think their way because they aren't right? Hitler-ish.


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> Then you take away my ability to think for myself. The facism extends to the mind. You strip someone's ability to be; ability to think their way because they aren't right? Hitler-ish.


I have NO PROBLEM with being a new age Hitler, but in a good way.


----------



## Pimped Out

Chan said:


> Then you take away my ability to think for myself. The facism extends to the mind. You strip someone's ability to be; ability to think their way because they aren't right? Hitler-ish.


you should read "discipline and punish" by michel foucault. it might put your narrow minded, i should be able to do whatever i want, stop trying to control me bull**** into perspective

edit: you get to read about innocent men being tortured, dismembered, burned, and shredded up. that seems like something you would enjoy


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Kunlun said:


> I like what Tim Hardaway had to say. I myself hate the concept of homosexuality. It's wrong in my opinion.
> 
> I work with a bunch of ******s in my store and I don't like any of them. I've treated them the way I would treat any normal man, but the way they act just annoys me. Not all of them have the same personality, but they all have something about them that irritates me. Gay men are in my opinion less trustworthy than straight men. You'll most likely get ****ed trusting one of them. Who can trust a man who literally ****s guys?
> 
> I truly believe that ******s want to be ******s just for the attention it brings. Also, if a man really is gay then he would be attracted to all men. In the locker room for instance, when you take a shower and saw a naked woman next to you, even if she's not too attractive you would still check out her ***** and think of hitting it. A gay man would see your dick and want to suck it or stick it up his ***. Same concept.
> 
> I'm glad Tim Hardaway said what was on his mind, but these days we can't speak our minds and be straight forward without being shait on by the media and the overly sensitive people. Nowadays, everybody has to be like a woman and express themselves with little 'hints' or not even say anything at all.


You're basing things off assumptions.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Budweiser_Boy said:


> I have NO PROBLEM with being a new age Hitler, but in a good way.


Then you are an offender of free will.


----------



## Kunlun

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Hey ****head, go kill yourself. You'd be doing the galaxy a favour. You're a piece of ****. **** you. Plus you think Jay-Z is better than Nas. I didn't think you could be more of an idiot, but hey, you are. Go to hell. I hope you get AIDS.


Is this the type of person that the site is administered by these days?


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Pimped Out said:


> you should read "discipline and punish" by michel foucault. it might put your narrow minded, i should be able to do whatever i want, stop trying to control me bull**** into perspective
> 
> edit: you get to read about innocent men being tortured, dismembered, burned, and shredded up. that seems like something you would enjoy


How is this different from extremist Christians trying to force the Bible down everyone's thoats? The arguments against that method applies to this one.


----------



## Crossword

Kunlun said:


> Is this the type of person that the site is administered by these days?


I'm a moderator, not an administrator, so, as the trend shows, YOU ARE WRONG.


----------



## JNice

Chan said:


> This is the point. There are some things that you just don't like. And if you don't like it, you can form your own opinions about it. Hate it if you want to.


But you are talking about different things. You can dislike seeing homosexual sex without hating all homosexuals. Would you enjoy watching a group of heterosexual white people eating pickled squid livers? I'm guess no. So would you decide then to hate all white people? It is irrational. And thus, why I think a lot of discrimination is rooted in a lack of overall intelligence and the ability to distinguish between very obvious things.


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> Then you are an offender of free will.


But for the betterment of ALL people of society, not a select few. Hitler's views only benefitted a select few. Your views only benefit a select few. My views benefit everyone. THAT is the major difference.


----------



## Pimped Out

Kunlun said:


> Is this the type of person that the site is administered by these days?


what you said is significantly worse than what he did. at least he is making the judgment you are a ****head on an individual basis instead of generalizing a group of people as awful based on sheer ignorance and stupidity


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa

Kunlun said:


> Is this the type of person that the site is administered by these days?


Actually, it is. Moderators continue to run amuck on this site with little to no accountability. 

That said, you deserved some type of harsh retort for what you said. I just don't think the retort needed to involve anything regarding AIDS, which is pretty jacked up in itself.


----------



## Kunlun

Budweiser_Boy said:


> I'm a moderator, not an administrator, so, as the trend shows, YOU ARE WRONG.


Be an example to other posters. If any normal poster had written what you did about me they would have been banned.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

JNice said:


> But you are talking about different things. You can dislike seeing homosexual sex without hating all homosexuals. Would you enjoy watching a group of heterosexual white people eating pickled squid livers? I'm guess no. So would you decide then to hate all white people? It is irrational. And thus, why I think a lot of discrimination is rooted in a lack of overall intelligence and the ability to distinguish between very obvious things.


Maybe I just really don't like the color white.

Look, I can't justify racism, or homophobia. But what I can do is tell you a racist and a homophobe have the right to hate.


----------



## Minstrel

Chan said:


> In this case, we are talking about a state of mind, not an action. I'm not condoning actions such as the KKK or any other supremacist group. I'm saying if they want to think that way (in this case, that white people are the best, everyone else sucks, etc.), they can of their own free will, regardless of what you, me, or anyone else feels.


And no one is saying any different. Anyone has the right to be a bigot. It's when they act like a bigot that they run into problems. What's so hard about this?


----------



## Kunlun

Pimped Out said:


> what you said is significantly worse than what he did. at least he is making the judgment you are a ****head on an individual basis instead of generalizing a group of people as awful based on sheer ignorance and stupidity


If you read my post carefully, without any bias you would notice I never generalized gay people based on ignorance and stupidity. I based it on experience working with them and being around them eight hours a day, five days a week.


----------



## JNice

Chan said:


> Maybe I just really don't like the color white.
> 
> Look, I can't justify racism, or homophobia. But what I can do is tell you a racist and a homophobe have the right to hate.



And they also have the right to be called ignorant, moronic, and idiotic. Which, undoubtedly, they are.


----------



## Crossword

RoddneyThaRippa said:


> Actually, it is. Moderators continue to run amuck on this site with little to no accountability.
> 
> That said, you deserved some type of harsh retort for what you said. I just don't think the retort needed to involve anything regarding AIDS, which is pretty jacked up in itself.


Come on man. Say that about someone who beefs with you, not someone who AGREES with you! 

Government ties, government ties, government ties.... :devil:


----------



## Pimped Out

Chan said:


> How is this different from extremist Christians trying to force the Bible down everyone's thoats? The arguments against that method applies to this one.


im forcing you to accept anything, but foucault is considered the definitive author on societal control over the mind in the past half a century. ive never supported forcing the bible down people throats, but its equally as bad or worse to condemn something or make opinions on something you are not educated about. if i was asked which is better: an atheist who blindly hates religion despite knowing nothing about it or a christian who stands on the street corner trying to preach, i would choose (as a lifelong atheist) the christian. if ignorance is your thing (which it appears to be) then be ignorant. i just hope at some point you grow up or shut up and stop offering people your opining


----------



## Pimped Out

Kunlun said:


> If you read my post carefully, without any bias you would notice I never generalized gay people based on ignorance and stupidity. I based it on experience working with them and being around them eight hours a day, five days a week.


fine, i'll drop the ignorance comment and just go with stupidity


----------



## Crossword

Kunlun said:


> Be an example to other posters. If any normal poster had written what you did about me they would have been banned.


If another poster had the track record of what I've been saying all along in this thread, and then came out with that comment, they would not be banned. I guarantee you that. At the very least, that poster would have my complete support and backing, and without speaking specifically for other moderators, the backing of others as well. Again, you are wrong.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Budweiser_Boy said:


> But for the betterment of ALL people of society, not a select few. Hitler's views only benefitted a select few. Your views only benefit a select few. My views benefit everyone. THAT is the major difference.


Your views don't benefit the people you change. Your view is to strip them of their free will.


----------



## Crossword

Kunlun said:


> If you read my post carefully, without any bias you would notice I never generalized gay people based on ignorance and stupidity. I based it on experience working with them and being around them eight hours a day, five days a week.


Then you're an even bigger idiot for letting your prejudices take over even when you have ample opportunity to change your views for the better.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

JNice said:


> And they also have the right to be called ignorant, moronic, and idiotic. Which, undoubtedly, they are.


They have the right to be called anything. As long as they can be who they are, then I don't have a problem with that.


----------



## JNice

Chan said:


> Your views don't benefit the people you change. Your view is to strip them of their free will.


Would it be stripping a group of people of their free will if they all believed 2 + 2 = 3 when we all know it really equals 4? There is not much gray area here. It is wrong for any human being with intellectual capacity to hate or discriminate another solely based on their race, religion, or sexual orientation.


----------



## Pimped Out

Chan said:


> Your views don't benefit the people you change. Your view is to strip them of their free will.


free will is some magic wand you can wave to get people to stop arguing with you so that you can continue to be a bigot so stop pretending like it is. free will is the right to make choices. choices have consequences. when you make the choice to be an *******, you deal with the consequence of society treating you like an *******


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Pimped Out said:


> im forcing you to accept anything, but foucault is considered the definitive author on societal control over the mind in the past half a century. ive never supported forcing the bible down people throats, but its equally as bad or worse to condemn something or make opinions on something you are not educated about. if i was asked which is better: an atheist who blindly hates religion despite knowing nothing about it or a christian who stands on the street corner trying to preach, i would choose (as a lifelong atheist) the christian. if ignorance is your thing (which it appears to be) then be ignorant. i just hope at some point you grow up or shut up and stop offering people your opining


That was an example. Take a manuscript that is based on your point of view and tell someone else to read it.


----------



## Pimped Out

Chan said:


> They have the right to be called anything. As long as they can be who they are, then I don't have a problem with that.


last i checked, no one here has been tied down and forced to do anything by bud-boy or anyone else in this thread. when someone is hate-monger and someone else tries to convince them not to be, that isnt mind control. that is dialogue


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

JNice said:


> Would it be stripping a group of people of their free will if they all believed 2 + 2 = 3 when we all know it really equals 4? There is not much gray area here. It is wrong for any human being with intellectual capacity to hate or discriminate another solely based on their race, religion, or sexual orientation.


Arithmetic and morality is two different things. Math is definitive. Morality is arguable. And the argument is, like I stated before, maybe it's immoral to be a certain way, or maybe it's immoral to discriminate against people of a certain way. Moralities conflict; arithmetic does not.


----------



## Kunlun

Pimped Out said:


> fine, i'll drop the ignorance comment and just go with stupidity


I think what many of you don't understand is that gay men are actually different from straight men. Do any of you have a gay friend. A 'real' friend. Not somebody you call a friend. Not somebody you hang out with or go to work/class with. Someone you can trust. I don't think a gay man can be that.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Pimped Out said:


> last i checked, no one here has been tied down and forced to do anything by bud-boy or anyone else in this thread. when someone is hate-monger and someone else tries to convince them not to be, that isnt mind control. that is dialogue


Bud_Boy says I can't discriminate.


----------



## Minstrel

Chan, you're spinning your wheels here.

You say people have a right to be bigoted. Nobody disagrees with you, because "rights" are legal in nature and nobody is advocating jailing bigots.

You seem to have a skewed definition of the word "right," but an inability to actually articulate that definition. It seems to be some confused garble of "everyone has the right to think what they want AND have that opinion be considered legitimate."

That's wrong. No one has the right to have their opinion automatically count as legitimate. Opinions are legitimized by standards of reason, logic and fact. Bigots, virtually by definition, do not back their opinions up by reason, logic or facts. Therefore, there's no earthly reason why they should be considered to hold legitimate, acceptable opinions.

But do they have the right to hold ignorant, unfounded opinions? Yes. Yes. Yes, they do.

Are we finally on the same page?


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> Your views don't benefit the people you change. Your view is to strip them of their free will.


My view is to stop racists of their free will, so that the harmful effects of their opinions are diminished. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms already expresses this in the Reasonable Limits Clause. Maybe the US needs to step up if they don't have something like that.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Minstrel said:


> Chan, you're spinning your wheels here.
> 
> You say people have a right to be bigoted. Nobody disagrees with you, because "rights" are legal in nature and nobody is advocating jailing bigots.
> 
> You seem to have a skewed definition of the word "right," but an inability to actually articulate that definition. It seems to be some confused garble of "everyone has the right to think what they want AND have that opinion be considered legitimate."
> 
> That's wrong. No one has the right to have their opinion automatically count as legitimate. Opinions are legitimized by standards of reason, logic and fact. Bigots, virtually by definition, do not back their opinions up by reason, logic or facts. Therefore, there's no earthly reason why they should be considered to hold legitimate, acceptable opinions.
> 
> *But do they have the right to hold ignorant, unfounded opinions? Yes. Yes. Yes, they do.*
> 
> Are we finally on the same page?


I've said that to the last few arguments. If that is so, I have no problem with that.


----------



## JNice

Chan said:


> Arithmetic and morality is two different things. Math is definitive. Morality is arguable. And the argument is, like I stated before, maybe it's immoral to be a certain way, or maybe it's immoral to discriminate against people of a certain way. Moralities conflict; arithmetic does not.


Morality overall is arguable in a general sense. Hating or discriminating against someone solely because of their race, religion, or sexual orientation is not arguable and just as definitive as arithmetic, IMO.


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> They have the right to be called anything. As long as they can be who they are, then I don't have a problem with that.


Even if that right to be called anything results in the deterioration of their capabilities as human beings? If so, then you're a bigger idiot than I initially thought.


----------



## Minstrel

Chan said:


> I've said that to the last few arguments. If that is so, I have no problem with that.


And nobody has said they don't. But I'm glad that this has finally been put to rest.


----------



## Pimped Out

Chan said:


> Bud_Boy says I can't discriminate.


yeah. to be honest, i wouldnt mind stripping you of your free will. your free will has led you to form some of the stupidest, most narrow minded opinions i have ever seen. and i grew up in a suburb of texas.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Pimped Out said:


> free will is some magic wand you can wave to get people to stop arguing with you so that you can continue to be a bigot so stop pretending like it is. free will is the right to make choices. choices have consequences. when you make the choice to be an *******, you deal with the consequence of society treating you like an *******


Right. I never said there wasn't going to be consequences.


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> Bud_Boy says I can't discriminate.


Damn right you can't, so long as that discrimination is based on things as trivial as race (a made up prejudice) and homosexuality. And you're foolish to believe otherwise.


----------



## JNice

Kunlun said:


> I think what many of you don't understand is that gay men are actually different from straight men. Do any of you have a gay friend. A 'real' friend. Not somebody you call a friend. Not somebody you hang out with or go to work/class with. Someone you can trust. I don't think a gay man can be that.



Saying you don't think a gay man can be trusted sounds completely ignorant. You may not find someone here who has a close homosexual friend but I'm sure in the real world you could find hundreds of thousands of people who would go to bat for their gay friends. You are generalizing a population based on a small sample size you have experiences with. That is ignorant.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Even if that right to be called anything results in the deterioration of their capabilities as human beings? If so, then you're a bigger idiot than I initially thought.


Yes. Even if it results in their deterioation of their capabilities as human beings. Unless you're them, you can't make the choice for them. We've been over this.


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> I've said that to the last few arguments. If that is so, I have no problem with that.


Obviously you, as an ignorant individual, would agree with such thoughts. But Minstrel is just dumbing it down for people like you (I hope).


----------



## Pimped Out

Chan said:


> Right. I never said there wasn't going to be consequences.


and what if one of those consequences is someone telling you not to be a bigot. or telling you you cant be part of society unless you change your views. but if you tell them they cant do that, you take their free will. but if they tell you not to take their free will, they are taking your free will.

you see how that gets you stuck in a loop of idiocy. that is a general sign of idiotic theories


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Pimped Out said:


> yeah. to be honest, i wouldnt mind stripping you of your free will. your free will has led you to form some of the stupidest, most narrow minded opinions i have ever seen. and i grew up in a suburb of texas.





Budweiser_Boy said:


> Damn right you can't, so long as that discrimination is based on things as trivial as race (a made up prejudice) and homosexuality. And you're foolish to believe otherwise.


You cannot strip someone of their free will, and their right to hate. Literally.


----------



## Minstrel

Can we please stop calling other posters "idiots?" If you disagree, either explain why or ignore them.


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> Yes. Even if it results in their deterioation of their capabilities as human beings. Unless you're them, you can't make the choice for them. We've been over this.


Can't make the choice for them? You're making even less sense than you previously were. That puts you at aroune -5000 on the sense meter.

If you don't think that discrimination results in feelings of inferiority, and furthermore if that is detrimental to the overall society, which includes the minorities being discriminated agsinst, then **edited**


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Obviously you, as an ignorant individual, would agree with such thoughts. But Minstrel is just dumbing it down for people like you (I hope).


You are ignorant to believe you can strip someone of their choice to be discriminatory.


----------



## Crossword

Minstrel said:


> Can we please stop calling other posters "idiots?" If you disagree, either explain why or ignore them.


Don't forget, I'm drunk. I have a tendencey of being edgy when drunk. But I will adhere to your advice and refrain from labelling those I disagree with as idiots.


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> You are ignorant to believe you can strip someone of their choice to be discriminatory.


And you are ignorant, period.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Can't make the choice for them? You're making even less sense than you previously were. That puts you at aroune -5000 on the sense meter.
> 
> *If you don't think that discrimination results in feelings of inferiority, and furthermore if that is detrimental to the overall society, which includes the minorities being discriminated agsinst, then* **edited**


I do think so. I never said I didn't.


----------



## Kunlun

JNice said:


> Saying you don't think a gay man can be trusted sounds completely ignorant. You may not find someone here who has a close homosexual friend but I'm sure in the real world you could find hundreds of thousands of people who would go to bat for their gay friends. You are generalizing a population based on a small sample size you have experiences with. That is ignorant.


How about meeting thirty one armed men and not being able to trust any of them. Can i generalize one armed men? I can't say, "One armed men aren't trustworthy from my experiences."?


----------



## Crossword

Pimped Out said:


> and what if one of those consequences is someone telling you not to be a bigot. or telling you you cant be part of society unless you change your views. but if you tell them they cant do that, you take their free will. but if they tell you not to take their free will, they are taking your free will.
> 
> you see how that gets you stuck in a loop of idiocy. that is a general sign of idiotic theories


BAM!


----------



## Crossword

Kunlun said:


> How about meeting thirty one armed men and not being able to trust any of them. Can i generalize one armed men? I can't say, "One armed men aren't trustworthy from my experiences."?


I'm sorry, bur your right to make analogies has been revoked due to your offending initial post.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Pimped Out said:


> and what if one of those consequences is someone telling you not to be a bigot. or telling you you cant be part of society unless you change your views. but if you tell them they cant do that, you take their free will. but if they tell you not to take their free will, they are taking your free will.
> 
> you see how that gets you stuck in a loop of idiocy. that is a general sign of idiotic theories


Are you saying racists and homophobes aren't part of society?


----------



## Blink4

Kunlun said:


> How about meeting thirty one armed men and not being able to trust any of them. Can i generalize one armed men? I can't say, "One armed men aren't trustworthy from my experiences."?


I have nothing to do with this convo, but i just wanted to tell u that that was a terrible analogy


----------



## Minstrel

Kunlun said:


> How about meeting thirty one armed men and not being able to trust any of them. Can i generalize one armed men? I can't say, "One armed men aren't trustworthy from my experiences."?


Not unless there's a causal link between being one-armed and deception.


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> I do think so. I never said I didn't.


Then why are you in favour of it?


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> Are you saying racists and homophobes aren't part of society?


Doesn't matter if they are. The FACT is that they shouldn't be.


----------



## Crossword

Blink4 said:


> I have nothing to do with this convo, but i just wanted to tell u that that was a terrible analogy


You have nothing to do with this convo, but I would still like to point out that I repped that comment.


----------



## Crossword

Kunlun said:


> How about meeting thirty one armed men and not being able to trust any of them. Can i generalize one armed men? I can't say, "One armed men aren't trustworthy from my experiences."?


Shut up.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Then why are you in favour of it?


Because of free will man. It doesn't matter how ****ed up someone's views are, it's their call to make it.


----------



## JNice

Kunlun said:


> How about meeting thirty one armed men and not being able to trust any of them. Can i generalize one armed men? I can't say, "One armed men aren't trustworthy from my experiences."?



That really would depend. Are there 1 million other one armed men for whom you've never met? If so, then although I could understand being hesitant to a degree, it would still be ignorant to assume all one armed men are untrustworthy. 

I'm sorry, but you are generalizing thousands and thousands of people based on your limited personal experiences. How can you not see that is wrong?

I've been stabbed in the back by numerous different from all different types of cultures. Like i've said before, *******s are *******s. They come in every race, religion, and sexual orientation. Period.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Doesn't matter if they are. The FACT is that they shouldn't be.


Right. But they are, and you can't control it. It is simply not doable.


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> Because of free will man. It doesn't matter how ****ed up someone's views are, it's their call to make it.


Yes it DOES matter, especially if their views are detrimental to society.


----------



## Pimped Out

Chan said:


> Are you saying racists and homophobes aren't part of society?


no, im saying that when you have beliefs based off of hate, you have to be prepared for any ostracism that incurs. if it is backlash from your peers like hardaway then you need to understand that is a consequences. when you are fired from your job for inciting hate and making offensive comments then you need to understand that is a consequence of your actions and decisions. when someone tells you your opinions are morally reprehensible, you need to understand why it is a consequence of your free will. when some one tells you shouldnt be allowed to have the beliefs you do because they hurt innocent people and inspire unnecessary hatred, guess what that is a consequence of?


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Yes it DOES matter, especially if their views are detrimental to society.


What are you going to do? Kill them all? Brainwash? There's nothing you can do to change people's minds; only their actions.


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> Right. But they are, and you can't control it. It is simply not doable.


That's not even an argument. That's saying the same unproductive, anticlimactic, "you can't change the world, so might as well **** other people over while you're at it" that myself, Dre, and several others have been fighting against over the course of this entire thread.


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> What are you going to do? Kill them all? Brainwash? There's nothing you can do to change people's minds; only their actions.


Like I said, you don't even have an argument anymore. The Civil Rights movement didn't get anywhere with that kind of attitude, and the world won't progress with that kind of attitude. And therefore, it's time that people like you stopped having that kind of attitude.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Pimped Out said:


> no, im saying that when you have beliefs based off of hate, you have to be prepared for any ostracism that incurs. if it is backlash from your peers like hardaway then you need to understand that is a consequences. when you are fired from your job for inciting hate and making offensive comments then you need to understand that is a consequence of your actions and decisions. when someone tells you your opinions are morally reprehensible, you need to understand why it is a consequence of your free will. when some one tells you shouldnt be allowed to have the beliefs you do because they hurt innocent people and inspire unnecessary hatred, guess what that is a consequence of?


Someone can tell you your opinions are morally reprehensible. They can try to change it, but they can't order you to think a certain way.


----------



## Pimped Out

bud-boys last 2 posts really sum things up


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Like I said, you don't even have an argument anymore. The Civil Rights movement didn't get anywhere with that kind of attitude, and the world won't progress with that kind of attitude. And therefore, it's time that people like you stopped having that kind of attitude.


The Civil Rights movement changed the actions of white institutional power. But you'd be fooling yourself if you thought they were genuine; if you thought they really wanted to do it. Racism is still in their hearts.

As long as there is diversity, there will be comparison. As long as there will be comparison, there will be competition. As long as there will be competition, there will be rivalry. And as long as there is rivalry, there will be hate.


----------



## Pimped Out

perhaps i need to explain this in a way basketball fans are more familiar with

"I mean, listen, we're having dialogue. Not mind control. Not mind control. Not mind control. We're having dailogue. Not mind control."
"I'm suppose to be an ordinary poster and were talking about mind control?"


----------



## JNice

Chan said:


> The Civil Rights movement changed the actions of white institutional power. But you'd be fooling yourself if you thought they were genuine; if you thought they really wanted to do it. Racism is still in their hearts.
> 
> As long as there is diversity, there will be comparison. As long as there will be comparison, there will be competition. As long as there will be competition, there will be rivalry. And as long as there is rivalry, there will be hate.


No matter how far the Civil Rights movement or any movement goes, there will always be those who will still hate. Even though things have improved through the years, there is still plenty of hate. Just because it exists, does not make it even remotely right. And just because it will never be completely eradicated does not mean those who disagree with the ignorance should not continue to speak out against it.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

JNice said:


> No matter how far the Civil Rights movement or any movement goes, there will always be those who will still hate. Even though things have improved through the years, there is still plenty of hate. Just because it exists, does not make it even remotely right. And just because it will never be completely gone does not mean those who disagree with the ignorance should not continue to speak out against it.


I think it's wrong, and I think it's impossible to change it. And I'm telling all those who disagree with ignorance that they cannot change ignorance.


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> The Civil Rights movement changed the actions of white institutional power. But you'd be fooling yourself if you thought they were genuine; if you thought they really wanted to do it. Racism is still in their hearts.
> 
> As long as there is diversity, there will be comparison. As long as there will be comparison, there will be competition. As long as there will be competition, there will be rivalry. And as long as there is rivalry, there will be hate.


So you're suggesting that human nature is flawed. Instead of chastizing a specific group, you're chastizing everyone. Great work man. Or, maybe, this is just you hiding from your original statements, yet again. Yeah, that seems more like it. When you're getting pwned by a drunk dude, you need to give up and move to other threads.


----------



## Pimped Out

Chan said:


> I think it's wrong, and I think it's impossible to change it. And I'm telling all those who disagree with ignorance that they cannot change ignorance.


there is at least one example of someone who has posted in this thread who used to be homophobic, did some soul searching, and no longer judges people based off their sexuality.


----------



## Crossword

JNice said:


> No matter how far the Civil Rights movement or any movement goes, there will always be those who will still hate. Even though things have improved through the years, there is still plenty of hate. Just because it exists, does not make it even remotely right. And just because it will never be completely eradicated does not mean those who disagree with the ignorance should not continue to speak out against it.


BAM!


----------



## JNice

Chan said:


> I think it's wrong, and I think it's impossible to change it. And I'm telling all those who disagree with ignorance that they cannot change ignorance.


I disagree. I don't think it is impossible at all to change it. It is impossible to eradicate it but people can change. It happens all the time.

And future generations can be furthered by parents teaching love and acceptance of all people. Ignorant and hateful parents will likely breed ignorant and hateful children whom become tougher nuts to crack. But crackable nonetheless.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Budweiser_Boy said:


> So you're suggesting that human nature is flawed. Instead of chastizing a specific group, you're chastizing everyone. Great work man. Or, maybe, this is just you hiding from your original statements, yet again. Yeah, that seems more like it. When you're getting pwned by a drunk dude, you need to give up and move to other threads.


Human nature ain't perfect, I can tell you that.


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> I think it's wrong, and I think it's impossible to change it. And I'm telling all those who disagree with ignorance that they cannot change ignorance.


Then just kill yourself. Because if you don't think there's any chance you can progress, or even change in ANY direction whether it be positive or negative, then you don't have any reason to live.


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> Human nature ain't perfect, I can tell you that.


Yeah, and neither are you.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Pimped Out said:


> there is at least one example of someone who has posted in this thread who used to be homophobic, did some soul searching, and no longer judges people based off their sexuality.


Did I say I was homophobic?


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> Did I say I was homophobic?


You said you were racist. Same damn thing.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

JNice said:


> I disagree. I don't think it is impossible at all to change it. It is impossible to eradicate it but people can change. It happens all the time.
> 
> And future generations can be furthered by parents teaching love and acceptance of all people. Ignorant and hateful parents will likely breed ignorant and hateful children whom become tougher nuts to crack. But crackable nonetheless.


The seed of hatred spreads a lot faster than the seed of love. At this rate, it's going to break even.


----------



## Pimped Out

Chan said:


> Did I say I was homophobic?


what does that have to do with what i just posted. you said you people who are ignorant will always be and can never change. i provide an example where it has happened


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Then just kill yourself. Because if you don't think there's any chance you can progress, or even change in ANY direction whether it be positive or negative, then you don't have any reason to live.


I don't dedicate my life to making this world a utopia, Bud_Boy.


----------



## Pimped Out

Chan said:


> The seed of hatred spreads a lot faster than the seed of love. At this rate, it's going to break even.


but the roots that the seed of loves grow will be much deeper and harder to uproot

if we were keeping score on analogies that sound deep but are ultimately meaningless, i totally would have just taken the lead on that one.


----------



## Pimped Out

Chan said:


> I don't dedicate my life to making this world a utopia, Bud_Boy.


do you put any effort into making it a better place? or making yourself a better person?


----------



## Pimped Out

holy crap. i just made the association that BAM! is my user title. good stuff.


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> I don't dedicate my life to making this world a utopia, Bud_Boy.


Maybe you should. Maybe, by dedicating your life to the opposite, which it appears to me from this thread that you're doing, you are detrimental to society. And someone who is detrimental to society, in my opinion, does not deserve to live.

So either be indifferent about it, like say HB is, or try to make this world a utopia. One person simply trying won't make it a utopia, but if you begin to move in that direction, change will occur whether small or large.


----------



## Crossword

Pimped Out said:


> holy crap. i just made the association that BAM! is my user title. good stuff.


I know that ONLY you are going to understand me when I say this, but don't you think BAM as a city name is now highly ironic?


----------



## JNice

Chan said:


> The seed of hatred spreads a lot faster than the seed of love. At this rate, it's going to break even.


Conjecture. IMO it is far more likely for someone brought up in a hateful household to become accepting than for someone brought up in a loving and accepting household/environment to suddenly become hateful.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Budweiser_Boy said:


> You said you were racist. Same damn thing.


No. I have a certain prejudice in me for a certain people who massacred my family. And I apply that for all of them, because during that massacre, that country was fanatic about world domination. Not just the military; the civilians too. I see that as racism, and while I'm not proud of it, I do not deny it. It is part of my history.


----------



## Crossword

JNice said:


> Conjecture. IMO it is far more likely for someone brought up in a hateful household to become accepting than for someone brought up in a loving and accepting household/environment to suddenly become hateful.


This goes back to my "it's easier to do wrong" theory, erm, fact. It's much easier to raise ****ty kids than it is to raise respectable, upstanding kids.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Pimped Out said:


> but the roots that the seed of loves grow will be much deeper and harder to uproot
> 
> if we were keeping score on analogies that sound deep but are ultimately meaningless, i totally would have just taken the lead on that one.


It takes one incident to hate; many to love.


----------



## Pimped Out

Budweiser_Boy said:


> I know that ONLY you are going to understand me when I say this, but don't you think BAM as a city name is now highly ironic?


yeah


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

JNice said:


> Conjecture. IMO it is far more likely for someone brought up in a hateful household to become accepting than for someone brought up in a loving and accepting household/environment to suddenly become hateful.


Interesting. I'd ask for proof, but then you'd ask for mine. I still don't believe it though.


----------



## Pimped Out

Chan said:


> It takes one incident to hate; many to love.


nah. i agree with jnice.

my proof would be i know people who have become more accepting. former homophobes who voted against banning gay marriages when the proposition came up in texas. ive never met someone who become a racist half way through high school or college


----------



## ChristopherJ

I agree that people who hate gays are a little foolish. But honestly, what player wouldn't be uncomfortable about having a homosexual in the locker room? It's just natural to be weirded out by a guy checking you out. Doesn't mean you hate the guy, or that you can't be his friend, but it isn't bigoted or uneducated to be weirded out no matter what some people may say.


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> No. I have a certain prejudice in me for a certain people who massacred my family. And I apply that for all of them, because during that massacre, that country was fanatic about world domination. Not just the military; the civilians too. I see that as racism, and while I'm not proud of it, I do not deny it. It is part of my history.


Affirmative Action is completly different than outright hatred. Don't think your comments in this thread are in any fashion justifying the actions taken against your ancestors. They go way beyond, and to be honest you seem to go against any beliefs they would hold to begin with.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Maybe you should. Maybe, by dedicating your life to the opposite, which it appears to me from this thread that you're doing, you are detrimental to society. And someone who is detrimental to society, in my opinion, does not deserve to live.
> 
> So either be indifferent about it, like say HB is, or try to make this world a utopia. One person simply trying won't make it a utopia, but if you begin to move in that direction, change will occur whether small or large.


I don't think the meaning of life is to be a productive member of society. Life is what you make of it. I disagree with your opinion.


----------



## Pimped Out

KidCanada said:


> I agree that people who hate gays are a little foolish. But honestly, what player wouldn't be uncomfortable about having a homosexual in the locker room? It's just natural to be weirded out by a guy checking you out. Doesn't mean you hate the guy, or that you can't be his friend, but it isn't bigoted or uneducated to be weirded out no matter what some people may say.


sam mitchell said he would have no problem being in the locker room naked if there was a gay man on the team.

there was an article in the houston chronicle saying if that was the only problem with gay people in the nba, just get guys private showers and they can change there. but people like tim hardaway arent looking for those situations


----------



## JNice

KidCanada said:


> I agree that people who hate gays are a little foolish. But honestly, what player wouldn't be uncomfortable about having a homosexual in the locker room? It's just natural to be weirded out by a guy checking you out. Doesn't mean you hate the guy, or that you can't be his friend, but it isn't bigoted or uneducated to be weirded out no matter what some people may say.


Yeah, but those are two different things. I can't say I wouldn't necessarily not be uncomfortable in a lockerroom with a homosexual man. But that is completely different from being hateful and saying "those people" shouldn't even be in the country or should be rooted out like Jews in Nazi Germany, as someone 70 pages ago had said.


----------



## Seuss

"In the end, it doesn't even matter." - Linkin Park



True or false?


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> It takes one incident to hate; many to love.


Actually, an emotion of love has a much more profound effect than an emotion of hate.

Let me put this into perspective for you. Let's say, you ask out 13 girls before one takes you up on your offer. That one girl's acceptance and successive actions during the date and what comes afterwards will completely outweigh the numerous rejections you received earlier, would it not? Would those rejections not be worth it? Same difference. Good ALWAYS outweighs bad. It's only because of the fact that it takes more to create good than to engineer bad thoughts that we neglect the good, and even villify good like you do. But it is far from the case.


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> I don't think the meaning of life is to be a productive member of society. Life is what you make of it. I disagree with your opinion.


LOL, then what do you believe in? ****ing over the world and making it worse for your kids?


----------



## Crossword

Dr. Seuss said:


> "In the end, it doesn't even matter." - Linkin Park
> 
> 
> 
> True or false?


False, because you're not bringing anything to this debate at this point.


----------



## JNice

Dr. Seuss said:


> "In the end, it doesn't even matter." - Linkin Park
> 
> 
> 
> True or false?


lol ... quoting Linkin Park ...

See, I believe in the end, it does really matter. But I also believe in Karma, so don't listen to me.


----------



## Pimped Out

JNice said:


> lol ... quoting Linkin Park ...


got any relevant tool quotes?


----------



## Crossword

JNice said:


> lol ... quoting Linkin Park ...
> 
> See, I believe in the end, it does really matter. But I also believe in Karma, so don't listen to me.


A horrible lyrical band, at that.


----------



## JNice

Pimped Out said:


> got any relevant tool quotes?


See my shadow changing,
Stretching up and over me.
Soften this old armor.
Hoping I can clear the way
By stepping through my shadow,
Coming out the other side.
Step into the shadow.
Forty six and two are just ahead of me.

?


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Affirmative Action is completly different than outright hatred. Don't think your comments in this thread are in any fashion justifying the actions taken against your ancestors. They go way beyond, and to be honest you seem to go against any beliefs they would hold to begin with.


Why are you talking about AA?

I don't justify anything done towards my family. Like I said, I'm not proud of it, but raised like I was, hearing stories I did, it's hard not to feel a certain sense of dislike. I don't outright hate them, in fact I have a few friends that belong to that group. We get along fine. But when I meet a stranger, I'm less likely to help that person that I would anyone else. And my dislike for their culture has nothing to do with my upbringing. I think it's terrible.

You want to tell me the beliefs of my ancestors? They believe in survival. That was their virtue at that time.


----------



## Seuss

Budweiser_Boy said:


> False, because you're not bringing anything to this debate at this point.




Look at Chan's point of view, does him liking Gay people or not caring to "make the 
world a better place" really matter?

I can understand what Chan is saying. It's the truth, in the end it really doesn't matter
if you liked gay people or hated asians. You might say it's about legacy, but when this
earth is dried up and gone, him not liking gay people didn't mean ****.

Some will agree with Chan, others will try and convince him to make the world a better
place while he's here.


----------



## Pimped Out

JNice said:


> See my shadow changing,
> Stretching up and over me.
> Soften this old armor.
> Hoping I can clear the way
> By stepping through my shadow,
> Coming out the other side.
> Step into the shadow.
> Forty six and two are just ahead of me.
> 
> ?


i dunno. thats over my head. i'm a simple man.


----------



## Crossword

JNice said:


> See my shadow changing,
> Stretching up and over me.
> Soften this old armor.
> Hoping I can clear the way
> By stepping through my shadow,
> Coming out the other side.
> Step into the shadow.
> Forty six and two are just ahead of me.
> 
> ?


I could post much more relevant System of a Down quotes, but I won't, becuase I don't need to prove my favourite band is superior to yours, you already know.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Actually, an emotion of love has a much more profound effect than an emotion of hate.
> 
> Let me put this into perspective for you. Let's say, you ask out 13 girls before one takes you up on your offer. That one girl's acceptance and successive actions during the date and what comes afterwards will completely outweigh the numerous rejections you received earlier, would it not? Would those rejections not be worth it? Same difference. Good ALWAYS outweighs bad. It's only because of the fact that it takes more to create good than to engineer bad thoughts that we neglect the good, and even villify good like you do. But it is far from the case.


People always take the easy route. Many go through life without that one act of love given to them.


----------



## Crossword

Dr. Seuss said:


> Look at Chan's point of view, does him liking Gay people or not caring to "make the
> world a better place" really matter?
> 
> I can understand what Chan is saying. It's the truth, in the end it really doesn't matter
> if you liked gay people or hated asians. You might say it's about legacy, but when this
> earth is dried up and gone, him not liking gay people didn't mean ****.
> 
> Some will agree with Chan, others will try and convince him to make the world a better
> place while he's here.


Please explain to me how saying "look at Chan" is contributing anything from your side of the debate.


----------



## Kunlun

Dr. Seuss said:


> Look at Chan's point of view, does him liking Gay people or not caring to "make the
> world a better place" really matter?
> 
> I can understand what Chan is saying. It's the truth, in the end it really doesn't matter
> if you liked gay people or hated asians. You might say it's about legacy, but when this
> earth is dried up and gone, him not liking gay people didn't mean ****.
> 
> Some will agree with Chan, others will try and convince him to make the world a better
> place while he's here.


I like.


----------



## ChristopherJ

JNice said:


> Yeah, but those are two different things. I can't say I wouldn't necessarily not be uncomfortable in a lockerroom with a homosexual man. But that is completely different from being hateful and saying "those people" shouldn't even be in the country or should be rooted out like Jews in Nazi Germany, as someone 70 pages ago had said.


Yeah, it's shocking how people can actually defend is comments.

I will say one thing though, atleast Hardaway was honest. Yeah, it's an extremely uneducated comment to make, but it represents what I'm sure more than a few of NBA players think...although probably to a lesser extent. Just read in between the lines with the quotes that have come out so far, Hardaway isn't the only homphobic player. It's his own fault he's been made out be the scapegoat of homophobia in the NBA, but with all the ruckuss around his comments it's like people are actually shocked by what he said. 

The way people view homoseuxals in society these days is still, for the most part, extremely ignorant. Look no further then this thread for proof. Why would it be any different in the NBA, a sport that prides itself on macho-ism?


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> People always take the easy route. Many go through life without that one act of love given to them.


I already mentioned that, except in much further detail than the simplification that you just gave me. It still doesn't justify the act.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Budweiser_Boy said:


> LOL, then what do you believe in? ****ing over the world and making it worse for your kids?


Hedonism.


----------



## Pimped Out

Dr. Seuss said:


> Look at Chan's point of view, does him liking Gay people or not caring to "make the
> world a better place" really matter?
> 
> I can understand what Chan is saying. It's the truth, in the end it really doesn't matter
> if you liked gay people or hated asians. You might say it's about legacy, but when this
> earth is dried up and gone, him not liking gay people didn't mean ****.
> 
> Some will agree with Chan, others will try and convince him to make the world a better
> place while he's here.


if you want to be a borderline nihilist, thats fine. but you will have to deal with that empty feeling that will nag you for the rest of your life


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Dr. Seuss said:


> Look at Chan's point of view, does him liking Gay people or not caring to "make the
> world a better place" really matter?
> 
> I can understand what Chan is saying. It's the truth, in the end it really doesn't matter
> if you liked gay people or hated asians. You might say it's about legacy, but when this
> earth is dried up and gone, him not liking gay people didn't mean ****.
> 
> Some will agree with Chan, others will try and convince him to make the world a better
> place while he's here.


When did I start hating gay people again?


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Pimped Out said:


> if you want to be a borderline nihilist, thats fine. but you will have to deal with that empty feeling that will nag you for the rest of your life


I love my life. That empty feeling may come later, but I'm not concerned with it.


----------



## JNice

KidCanada said:


> Yeah, it's shocking how people can actually defend is comments.
> 
> I will say one thing though, atleast Hardaway was honest. Yeah, it's an extremely uneducated comment to make, but it represents what I'm sure more than a few of NBA players think...although probably to a lesser extent. Just read in between the lines with the quotes that have come out so far, Hardaway isn't the only homphobic player. It's his own fault he's been made out be the scapegoat of homophobia in the NBA, but with all the ruckuss around his comments it's like people are actually shocked by what he said.
> 
> The way people view homoseuxals in society these days is still, for the most part, extremely ignorant. Look no further then this thread for proof. Why would it be any different in the NBA, a sport that prides itself on macho-ism?


To be honest, I am surprised that someone with as high a profile of Tim came out with such inflammatory comments. First, because it was a completely stupid move financially on his side. Second, I expected a lot of comments about being "uncomfortable" and such, but nothing to the level that Hardaway stated. 

I can understand uncomfortable. I cannot understand questioning existence.

You can bet one thing for sure ... after the Tim backlash, even if there are other players who believe the same they won't be outing it like Hardaway did.


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> Why are you talking about AA?
> 
> I don't justify anything done towards my family. Like I said, I'm not proud of it, but raised like I was, hearing stories I did, it's hard not to feel a certain sense of dislike. I don't outright hate them, in fact I have a few friends that belong to that group. We get along fine. But when I meet a stranger, I'm less likely to help that person that I would anyone else. And my dislike for their culture has nothing to do with my upbringing. I think it's terrible.
> 
> You want to tell me the beliefs of my ancestors? They believe in survival. That was their virtue at that time.


You want to know what hatred feels like? Just thank whoever you praise that you only have to reciprocate what your ancestors felt like. Dudes like myself and Pimped Out have to go through dicrimination through the media EVERY ****ING DAY, and that's in the present. That doesn't mean we're going to start an ego trip and automatically hate everyone else in the world because of certain injustices inflicted upon us. I, personally, would rather take the approach I've been taking all thread long, which is trying to direct people in a more positive and accepting direction.

I'd much rahter have all those discriminating against me start accepting me and my people than my people start discriminating against the oppresors. It's unfortunate that you don't feel the same way.


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> I love my life. That empty feeling may come later, but I'm not concerned with it.


Karma's a *****.


----------



## Seuss

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Please explain to me how saying "look at Chan" is contributing anything from your side of the debate.



“You can't not be affected by it,” -Jessica Simpson

Does that apply to my comment? 

My side of the debate? I was trying to explain how Chan views this. You obviously want
to keep going at him because he doesn't agree with you. Fact of the matter is, why is it
wrong to not like gay people? If society has evoled to making everyone believe homosexuality is "normal" then why can't society evolve into not likeing gay people?

What's right and what's wrong is to be judged by his or her own beliefs. 

Unless you believe in (a) God. Then you have different feelings towards this because most
religious people live by a book. Hardly, by their own instincts.


----------



## Seuss

Chan said:


> When did I start hating gay people again?



You know what I meant.


Find the word 'hate' in there.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Budweiser_Boy said:


> You want to know what hatred feels like? Just thank whoever you praise that you only have to reciprocate what your ancestors felt like. Dudes like myself and Pimped Out have to go through dicrimination through the media EVERY ****ING DAY, and that's in the present. That doesn't mean we're going to start an ego trip and automatically hate everyone else in the world because of certain injustices inflicted upon us. I, personally, would rather take the approach I've been taking all thread long, which is trying to direct people in a more positive and accepting direction.


It's not common for someone of my background to have my views. My views represent me, not my people. Please do not confuse this.



> I'd much rahter have all those discriminating against me start accepting me and my people than my people start discriminating against the oppresors. It's unfortunate that you don't feel the same way.


My people are accepted. They're supposed to be the model minority. Leaves quite a few of those who aren't models out to dry, doesn't it? We are accepted and we've found our own niche. Those who don't represent the stereotypes don't fit in that niche. How's that for acceptance?


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Karma's a *****.


Insert Chinese people eating dog joke here.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Dr. Seuss said:


> You know what I meant.
> 
> 
> Find the word 'hate' in there.


Fine, I'll be a homophobe for the sake of this thread.


----------



## JNice

Can I go to sleep now? ****.

:biggrin:


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

JNice said:


> Can I go to sleep now? ****.
> 
> :biggrin:


Probably. We've established that Bud_Boy and Pimped Out are the gung-ho, improve the world, defender of justice good guys, and Chan is the nihilistic, hedonistic, self-serving bad guy.


----------



## cadarn

how ironic. that's a disgrace to a replica of the statue of liberty.


----------



## kflo

Minstrel said:


> No, I'm afraid that's exactly the wrong question to ask. It's not society's role to _force_ people to do what society decides is best for them. I'm sure there were plenty of 1700s versions of you who argued just as calmly that slavery was what was best for the black man, and a free black man (who wouldn't be given free shelter, clothing and food) may not necessarily be better off.
> 
> Outside of preventing behaviour that is harmful to other people, society's proper role is to allow people to make their own decisions and do what _they_ decide is best for them. You say most people would rather lounge around and not work. Absolutely true...and, contrary to your claims, we do _not_ have laws preventing that. People can choose to lounge around and not work if they wish...but then they will not earn money which will negatively effect them. We do not use laws to decide how this is resolved: we let each individual decide what the right amount of work and right amount of "lounging" is right for them.
> 
> Likewise, each homosexual can decide for themselves whether they're happier in a marriage with someone of their own sex or someone of the opposite sex. It's not our role or right to decide that for them, as a group.


i agree with this for the most part and it was well stated. i'd just ask to separate the role of government from the role of "society". "society" can and should attempt to influence. it just should be done with great care and respect for the impact of that influence. and "society" is just a collection of individuals.


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> My people are accepted. They're supposed to be the model minority. Leaves quite a few of those who aren't models out to dry, doesn't it? We are accepted and we've found our own niche. Those who don't represent the stereotypes don't fit in that niche. How's that for acceptance?


Sure, and your views **** all over this perception.


----------



## Jizzy

Whoa, why is Budweiser Boy getting so upset over this?


----------



## Crossword

Jizzy said:


> Whoa, why is Budweiser Boy getting so upset over this?





 Chan said:


> We've established that Bud_Boy and Pimped Out are the gung-ho, improve the world, defender of justice good guys, and Chan is the nihilistic, hedonistic, self-serving bad guy.


That's why.


----------



## Dre

Y'all are a mess, that's why I initially didn't even want to enter this discussion, because whoever you're debating with is just gonna label you an extremist no matter how rational your argument is. "Homer vs. Hater" syndrome.


----------



## thatsnotgross

I have yet to hear from people that criticizes the homosexual world...

HOW are they affecting you and your lives? Are they endangering you or your family? The hilarious part about people who has this hate on gays, doesn't put as much passion to that hate on rapist, murderers and so on. 

I"M AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE BLAH BLAH BLAH.... why don't you put some effort into something that can really be harmful to yourself and your family instead of telling how people to live and think. Everyone wants to be a teacher, which is just hilarious. Everyone wants to preach but they obviously can't.

Chan... as for your thinking. Thats lame. If everyone just sat on their asses and do nothing, nothing will get done. If George Washington didn't do what he had to do? If Columbus or Leif Erickson didn't do what they had to do, then where will we be? If MLK, if Malcolm X, if Jackie Robinson, Abraham Lincoln. Now, these are HUGE and popular names around the country. Yet you can help by doing something small that goes unnotice. I guess everyone wants to be the "first scorer" instead of doing the dirty work.

Tim Hardaway can say whatever he wants, and so does businesses. If the media doesn't want to hire his *******, then you can't say they weren't expressing their freedom of speech by not hiring a *******.

People who say John Amaechi is going to make money out of this... I want to hear the names of authors that are making MILLIONS of dollars?! Aside from probably a dozen writers, authors doesn't make a whole lot unless you keep churning out successful books after books.

JK Rowling, Stephen King, etc. 

Very few authors are making that kind of money that you guys are probably thinking of.

As for getting into the media. Well, lets think about this for a moment alright? Just because Amaechi says he is gay, doesn't MEAN THAT THE MEDIA have to eat it up. And blow this stuff up. So who are you really blaming here? John Amaechi, the media or the public that is reading the story?


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Budweiser_Boy said:


> Sure, and your views **** all over this perception.


You missed the bitter, sarcastic tone of my last post.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

thatsnotgross said:


> I have yet to hear from people that criticizes the homosexual world...
> 
> HOW are they affecting you and your lives? Are they endangering you or your family? The hilarious part about people who has this hate on gays, doesn't put as much passion to that hate on rapist, murderers and so on.
> 
> I"M AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE BLAH BLAH BLAH.... why don't you put some effort into something that can really be harmful to yourself and your family instead of telling how people to live and think. Everyone wants to be a teacher, which is just hilarious. Everyone wants to preach but they obviously can't.
> 
> Chan... as for your thinking. Thats lame. If everyone just sat on their asses and do nothing, nothing will get done. If George Washington didn't do what he had to do? If Columbus or Leif Erickson didn't do what they had to do, then where will we be? If MLK, if Malcolm X, if Jackie Robinson, Abraham Lincoln. Now, these are HUGE and popular names around the country. Yet you can help by doing something small that goes unnotice. I guess everyone wants to be the "first scorer" instead of doing the dirty work.
> 
> Tim Hardaway can say whatever he wants, and so does businesses. If the media doesn't want to hire his *******, then you can't say they weren't expressing their freedom of speech by not hiring a *******.
> 
> People who say John Amaechi is going to make money out of this... I want to hear the names of authors that are making MILLIONS of dollars?! Aside from probably a dozen writers, authors doesn't make a whole lot unless you keep churning out successful books after books.
> 
> JK Rowling, Stephen King, etc.
> 
> Very few authors are making that kind of money that you guys are probably thinking of.
> 
> As for getting into the media. Well, lets think about this for a moment alright? Just because Amaechi says he is gay, doesn't MEAN THAT THE MEDIA have to eat it up. And blow this stuff up. So who are you really blaming here? John Amaechi, the media or the public that is reading the story?


I never said anyone should have my approach to discrimination.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Budweiser_Boy said:


> That's why.


Bud_Boy can't stand bad guys.


----------



## futuristxen

_Dre_ said:


> Y'all are a mess, that's why I initially didn't even want to enter this discussion, because whoever you're debating with is just gonna label you an extremist no matter how rational your argument is. "Homer vs. Hater" syndrome.



There's not a rational argument for hating on people for their sexual orientation when it involves two consenting adults.


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> You missed the bitter, sarcastic tone of my last post.


No I got the sarcasm, but ironically what you say is quite close to the truth.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Budweiser_Boy said:


> No I got the sarcasm, but ironically what you say is quite close to the truth.


Of course. So then if that is the perception, I have no problem ****ting all over it. I hate that perception.


----------



## Crossword

Chan said:


> Of course. So then if that is the perception, I have no problem ****ting all over it. I hate that perception.


To want to stray from that perception isn't my problem with your posts though. It's the way in which you plan to do so. Your methods burn bridges rather than mend them.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Budweiser_Boy said:


> To want to stray from that perception isn't my problem with your posts though. It's the way in which you plan to do so. Your methods burn bridges rather than mend them.


My methods recognize that as long as there are menders, there will be guys who tear it down. Because diversity...comparison...competition...rivalry...hate.


----------



## CB4Allstar

These are just terrible comments. Being homophobic is fine with me, but it is not fine when you make comments like that. I can't believe he said some of that stuff.


----------



## DurantDurant

I don't like people who stutter, or want to be around people that stutter. I don't think their should be people that stutter in the World or in the U.S...Sorry Tim Hardaway, I shouldn't make fun of people for something they have no control over...what was I thinking. 

(Just so you guys know, Tim Hardaway has a stuttering problem).


----------



## Seuss

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aA20dKc3kK8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aA20dKc3kK8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

LOL

That was classic.


----------



## Jizzy

LOL and people wonder why gays are so afraid to come out.


----------



## Dre

I admire the people who can come in with one post and summarize what guys have spent pages saying.


----------



## JNice

Aerials, in the sky, 
When you lose small mind, 
You free your life. 
Aerials, so up high, 
When you free your eyes, 
Eternal prize.


----------



## Pimped Out

what about

cheese smells so good 
on a burnt piece of lamb 
*** of the year 
who can beat up your man


----------



## hroz

WOW this has nearly gone to 100 scary.

LOL Dr Seuss that was a classic.


----------



## Dre

> Former Miami Heat star Tim Hardaway's name is off his South Dixie Highway carwash, just days after he declared on a local radio program, ``I hate gay people.''
> 
> Hardaway apologized, but the backlash has cost him a national endorsement deal and an appearance at the NBA's All-Star Game weekend activities.
> 
> A local gay-rights group then called for a boycott of Hardaway's US 1 Finest Hand Car Wash at South Dixie Highway and Bird Road.
> 
> Saturday a new sign went up: Grand Luxe Auto Bathe.


....


----------



## streetballa

Dr. Seuss said:


> <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aA20dKc3kK8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aA20dKc3kK8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
> 
> LOL
> 
> That was classic.


Lol that was the funniest video i have ever seen!


----------



## Dre

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/16719271.htm



> As the firestorm continued over Tim Hardaway's anti-gay remarks on radio, the mayor of North Miami, who is gay, invited the ex-Heat star to spend a day with him.
> 
> On Friday, Hardaway accepted, the mayor said.
> 
> ''We're just trying to show him that there are living, breathing people that just happen to be gay,'' said North Miami Mayor Kevin Burns, who lives with his partner of 23 years and an adopted daughter.


Why do I have a feeling he's gonna end up on Surreal life with this ****?


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Am I the only one here that wouldn't mind being hit on just once by a gay dude? I mean, it'd be kinda weird, but I'd still be flattered. Maybe it's just my vanity speaking.


----------



## Pimped Out

thatsnotgross said:


> I have yet to hear from people that criticizes the homosexual world...
> 
> HOW are they affecting you and your lives? Are they endangering you or your family? The hilarious part about people who has this hate on gays, doesn't put as much passion to that hate on rapist, murderers and so on.


sure they have. didnt you read that story about that guy who was hit on by that gay guy one time and then he felt like the gay guy was stalking him even though the gay never did anything like that or anything which could actually be construed as creepy? and then they were forced to pretend to be his friend and talk behind his back about how much they wanted to beat that ****** to a blood pulp. poor guys.


----------



## Crossword

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fbGkxcY7YFU"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fbGkxcY7YFU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


----------



## Hibachi!

Pimped Out said:


> sure they have. didnt you read that story about that guy who was hit on by that gay guy one time and then he felt like the gay guy was stalking him even though the gay never did anything like that or anything which could actually be construed as creepy? and then they were forced to pretend to be his friend and talk behind his back about how much they wanted to beat that ****** to a blood pulp. poor guys.


I love the part where he discretely inserted that he was "the big fish in a little pond"


----------



## Hibachi!

Budweiser_Boy said:


> <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fbGkxcY7YFU"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fbGkxcY7YFU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


:rofl: who the F would pay to produce that? That was sooooooo bad...

It sort of reminds me of the homosexual version of this... But this one is wayyyyyyyyyyy better Take it down if it's "offensive"

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oOOB32o8PU8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oOOB32o8PU8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


----------



## Pimped Out

Hibachi! said:


> I love the part where he discretely inserted that he was "the big fish in a little pond"


yeah, he just couldnt resist talking about his big fish


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

WTF I gave up on this thread a long time ago but its up to 97 now. End this madness.


----------



## kawika

(The following borders on the maudlin, but what the hey...) 

Before it dies completely, (though I strongly suspect only about three people are still reading it as this point) I wanted to thank all the 'straight allies' who've eloquently spoken on this thread (and various and sundry others over the years). You have no idea just how mentally/emotionally taxing it is to spend one's time justifying one's existence, to the point where, y'know, I mostly don't even bother anymore...it just takes too much out of a person, or at least this person. But it really does warm my heart every time someone whose worth as a human being isn't being debated steps up to the plate and defends those of us who are in the crosshairs. Especially on a sports-related MB, where (and perhaps I'm engaging in stereotyping) it might not be expected. Thanks for your public support, it's truly appreciated and means a lot.


----------



## Pimped Out

****, i can only imagine. if i spend a few days having to argue about it, i feel drained and angry. it must really suck to have to deal with it your whole life. it kinda puts it into more perspective for me. i never really had to deal with any racism or anything like that first hand growing up. i am really lucky in the way i was raised and the area i grew up in that its still weird for me to think about what other people have to go through.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2

I just wanna see this thread get to 100.


----------



## darth-horax

+1


----------



## PauloCatarino

kawika said:


> (The following borders on the maudlin, but what the hey...)
> 
> Before it dies completely, (though I strongly suspect only about three people are still reading it as this point) I wanted to thank all the 'straight allies' who've eloquently spoken on this thread (and various and sundry others over the years). You have no idea just how mentally/emotionally taxing it is to spend one's time justifying one's existence, to the point where, y'know, I mostly don't even bother anymore...it just takes too much out of a person, or at least this person. But it really does warm my heart every time someone whose worth as a human being isn't being debated steps up to the plate and defends those of us who are in the crosshairs. Especially on a sports-related MB, where (and perhaps I'm engaging in stereotyping) it might not be expected. Thanks for your public support, it's truly appreciated and means a lot.


What a gay thing to say!


----------



## cadarn

I still can't stand gay people. However, my political belief is that consenting beings should be able to partake of any sexual practice they desire. I don't understand why many gay supporters don't support bigamy and polygamy.


----------



## Diable

Why don't we open a special olympics forum so we can move this thread there...Or lock it for god's sake.


----------



## Diable

eh double post


----------



## futuristxen

cadarn said:


> I still can't stand gay people.


How would you know?


----------



## Pioneer10

Will this get to a 100 pages?


----------



## hroz

How many threads have got to 100 pages????????

I dont think there is anything else to talk about.


----------



## LameR

hroz said:


> How many threads have got to 100 pages????????
> 
> I dont think there is anything else to talk about.


Somehow, Isaiah Thomas.


----------



## Apostales Warning

Jizzy's points have gone through the roof.


----------



## quench23

I hate gay people.


----------



## Apostales Warning

Here we go again.


----------



## budselig

The Sonics owners may agree with Tim Hardaway - at least on some aspects of The Homosexual Question. 



> The campaign finance records I’ve reviewed show that Sonics/Storm co-owner Tom Ward has contributed $475,000 to Gary L. Bauer’s Americans United to Preserve Marriage.
> 
> And another Sonics/Storm co-owner, Aubrey McClendon, contributed $625,000.
> 
> Both men made their first contributions to the group, $250,000 apiece, on September 8, 2004—the day after the group was formed.


http://www.thestranger.com/blog/2007/02/re_seattle_storm_fans_should_be_pissed

I am now an honorary Sonics fan.


----------



## Apostales Warning

Keep on posting get to 100.


----------



## GNG

Apostales Warning said:


> Keep on posting get to 100.


*We aren't turning this into a post-padding thread.

Or an outlet for a handful of idiots to announce their irrational hatreds.*


----------



## Brandname

Rawse said:


> *We aren't turning this into a post-padding thread.
> 
> Or an outlet for a handful of idiots to announce their irrational hatreds.*


Thank you.


----------

