Hardaway on Gays

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonybradley

Not sure about your other points. Many gay couple do adopt or 'acquire' children through some means and have the same sort of nuclear family unit as a heterosexual couple. But, I am not sure that those gay couples without children are any more or less likely than heterosexuals to tithe their income to a religious institution, particularly when most religious institutions consider their lifestyle an immoral abomination.

---

As a slight derail, Washington State recently made marriage defined by the creation of children without 3 years of marriage. This will mean many hetreo marriages will be annulled if they do not have children. It'll be curious to see how long this law stands and if they change it. This would also prove that marriage is beyond the creation of children, particularly since many couples today are foregoing having children (for a variety of reasons).

Quote:

---

if you are gay and religious, you will not have any offspring and would be more than likely to donate your accumulated wealth to your church?

---

The same could be said for hetro marriages. But that assumes that you have a will written for that. Otherwise, it all goes to the state, regardless of sexual orientation.

JPNYC: I wanna borrow your reading glasses ;)

As someone who is gay, Hardaway is welcomed to his opinion. However, IMO, his last comment "It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States." is more than just an opinion. I'd consider that a form of hatred promotion. I suspect the NBA is still trying to clean up their image and don't want to encourage hatred of any kind. Like any corporation I suspect they do have rules about discrimination within the workplace and this would certainly create an environment that would be difficult for those members of the NBA that are gay (to assume there is none would be a huge assumptions IMO).

The NBA was correct, as would any corporation, to discipline an employee who is showing behaviour that might be discriminatory.

Quote:

---

Tony old chap, I must disagree with you most strongly. Being anti-gay is not a religious thing..........

---

I don't think Tony was that far off - just compare the percentage of anti-gay people among those who believe to the percentage of anti-gay people among atheists. That does not necessarily indicate a correlation, of course, but most anti-gay sentiment is - at least in the US - deeply rooted in religion.

PS: I'm glad phishphreek and tonybradley umm... "came out"... I was starting to think I was the only one in this country :D

Does this mean that we are going to reinstate |The|Specialist ?

:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nihil

Tony old chap, I must disagree with you most strongly. Being anti-gay is not a religious thing.......... if you are gay and religious, you will not have any offspring and would be more than likely to donate your accumulated wealth to your church?

:)

---

You can still have offspring and be gay. My uncle had 2 children before he "came out". He still played an active role in their lives. He still does. He was just "living a lie". He would never do it another way though.. he is very happy about having children. His ex wife and him are still on good terms too.

In the US, it is difficult to be "religious" and gay. Most christian churches won't welcome you if they know you are gay. I've been wanting to become a member of a church for a long time. Mostly for my fiancee and so we could get married in a church. I just have too much internal conflict. I don't think it's right how they treat gays. I have a hard time even walking into a church now.

There are several people in my family who are practicing christians. Even I was. I actually use to be an altar boy in a presbyterian church... if you can believe that.

Quote:

---

Does this mean that we are going to reinstate |The|Specialist ?

:confused:

---

What doe |The|Specialist have anything to do with this? :confused:

Sooo according to freedom of speech he could also say:
[hypothetical]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hardaway

You know, I hate white people, so I let it be known," Hardaway said. "I don't like white people and I don't like to be around white people. I am whiteophobic. I don't like it. It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States."

---

[/hypothetical]

Only in this case, we would describe it as "hate" speech, right, so what's the difference in the words gay and colour, bottom line the person saying it is a bigot, so if allowing freedom of speech allows bigots to say what they want when they want,why then is it a big deal?

Or switch it around and have that person be say.....Mel Gibson, only instead of Jews he say's black people.

I also believe in freedom of speech, but I also believe in common sense, if you have nothing nice to say about a segment of society, why say anything at all.:rolleyes:

Hmmmm,

|The|Specialist is as Ghey as the night is long ;)

I actually managed to score 8 on that test? ................. I have had a lot of gay friends in my lifetime........ both sorts.......... if anything they seemed sort of apologetic about it until they really understood that I was not judgemental?

:)

Meh, I'm pretty indifferent to the whole gay thing. If someone says that they "hate gay people", whatever. I find it no different than someone saying "I hate people who like romantic-comedies" or something simular. I find it stupid and short-sighted that someone would generalize an entire person based on one characteristic, but at least they're judging someone based on a personal aspect, and not race/gender/etc.

While it may alter my opinnion in certain ways, I'm not going to think someone is a bad person for resenting homosexuality, nor will I think someone is "better" for thinking it's great/acceptable. It's not as important in regards to someone's opinions, but how they act on them I think.

I spend alot of time at raves/clubs (in San Francisco no less), so I'm pretty exposed to the most gay atmosphere around--outside of a drag show. I personally think it's unnatural, and grossed out to an extent when I see it, but I don't think it's immoral or anything. I know quite a few people that are gay/lesbian. One of them was even my boss/mentor for almost a year. We have our opinions, so live and let live.

39 - Your score rates you as "non-homophobic."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MsMittens

As a slight derail, Washington State recently made marriage defined by the creation of children without 3 years of marriage. This will mean many hetreo marriages will be annulled if they do not have children. It'll be curious to see how long this law stands and if they change it. This would also prove that marriage is beyond the creation of children, particularly since many couples today are foregoing having children (for a variety of reasons).

---

As a Washington State resident, I'd like to clear this up a bit: This thing is NOT law, and can't possibly be for a while.

AFAIK you are referring to Initiative 957. In Washington state (among others), we have Initiatives, which are basically attempts to get laws made or changed through direct voting. This initiative, even if gets enough signatures to be on the ballot for everyone to vote on, can't be voted on until November this year when ballots go out.

Now, the reasoning behind this initiative... in Washington State, we have a law called the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, passed in 1998. Initiative 957 was proposed by the Washington Defense Of Marriage Alliance, a group who is (despite the name) opposed to the DOMA law.

DOMA says that marriage is between a man and a woman. In 2006, a challenge against DOMA was upheld (controversially) by the state supreme court. The majority argument was that the law was constitutional because it upheld the state's interest in stable child-rearing and procreation.

This initiative is a sarcastic attack on DOMA. Essentially they're saying: "You said that it was OK for the state to say 'heterosexuals only' just because of the baby-making angle, right? If you really believe that, then we should deny marriage to people who aren't having children regardless of their sexual orientation."

Myself, I see and agree with their point. You cannot reject homosexual unions on the basis of making babies while ignoring infertile or childless heterosexuals. It's a legal double standard, and I-957 is drawing attention to that double standard.

14 - Your score rates you as "high-grade non-homophobic.
Their choice, their life. As for hardaway never heard of him so really dont care what he said. Ter good you clear that up but it shows how we are used to seeing stupid laws coming out of the US. If someone posted that the US was passing a law to let a goat become president we would almost believe it.

I'm just tired of the importance/value placed on celebs & athletes. The fact that this is news makes me sick. So what, some guy has an opinion. Oh wait, he's a basketball player - so it must be important.
But let's not get too distracted - we still need to figure out where Anna Nichole is going to be buried...nevermind the guys getting killed over in Iraq.

And people wonder why other countries think Americans are idiots.