Hardaway on Gays

Ok. Now I really don't get this one. When asked about gay people Hardaway expressed his "opinion" and said:

Quote:

---

"You know, I hate gay people, so I let it be known," Hardaway said. "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."

---

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2766213

Why is there such an outcry from the media over a basketball player's "opinion"? The last time I checked we are allowed freedom of speech...to a degree. I know that Hardaway is a "celebrity" and he shall be held accountable for his words, but if you take out the word "hate" and subsitute in "don't like" are his comments really that bad?

If a straight male is supposed to be sensitive to the gay's sexual preference, and make allowances to accept gays within normal society, and turn their heads and pretend that nothing abnormal is occuring....then shouldn't the gay be sensitive to the homophobic's fear of an unexpected visit by the ether bunny, and make allowances to accept the homophobic's agressive display of masculinity, and pretend to be straight in order to "not" offend anyone's sensibilities?

Personally I applaud Hardaway for at least being honest.

Now go take you homophobic test!!@!!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../etc/quiz.html

63 - Your score rates you as "homophobic."

There was a media outcry for the exact same reason that you had when you posted this here: everybody's got an opinion on it and feels the need to express it :p

It's always the same pattern:

1. Someone says something controversial
2. Someone else (usually "the media") says something about it
3. Yet someone else mentions that there is such a thing as free speech, then immediately forgets that they just said that and wonder why there is a media outcry (as if that's not a perfect example of free speech)

I'm not sure what you don't get... The media outcry? Didn't you just say that there's such a thing as freedom of speech? Or is it the fact that you can get blasted for saying that you hate gays (just like you can get blasted for saying you like gays, of course)?

Well, as the old saw goes, I disagree with his opinion, but will defend his right to hold and express it. It doesn't bother me one way or another if someone is gay, as long as he doesn't try to stick his tongue in my mouth. But that is molestation/sexual harassment/assault upon my person, and that is a whole different ballgame. It's a personal lifestyle choice and homosexuals should be allowed to live their lives, just like everyone else. As long as the relationship is consensual, I don't care if two hermaphrodites are getting it on....

Cheers,
cgkanchi

Oh, and 25 - Your score rates you as "high-grade non-homophobic."

I thought the whole thing was hysterical! I may not like what he has to say or even agree what he says... but I'll defend his right to say it. I don't think he was wrong for saying it. If it pisses some people off, who cares. You can't please all the people all the time. If anything, I'm glad he was "keeping it real" and not faking it. He was asked for his opinion, was he not? It's not like he just started out ranting on gays. He was specifically asked for his opinion.

Mind you, I don't share his opinion. I associate with several people (both friends and family) that are gay. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. Then again, I'm not religious either. For some reason, I've associated gay bashing with religious folk. "Because the bible says!" I don't give a F what the bible says. It was written by man (too many "interpreters") and man is fallible. BTW: I'm not bashing on religious people here. I'm just sharing my point of view. If you don't agree... good.

10 - Your score rates you as "high-grade non-homophobic."

Well,

Apart from the question of "who gives a damn about his opinion?", I think it is pretty typical.

It is the macho "jock" image that seems to be prevalent in team sports?

I think you would get very similar responses from football and hockey players?

I think that the responses from athletes, golfers, tennis players and the like would be rather different?

Just suggestions based on my experiences of active team sports in my younger days:D

{Mind you, I don't share his opinion. I associate with several people (both friends and family) that are gay. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. Then again, I'm not religious either. For some reason, I've associated gay bashing with religious folk. "Because the bible says!" I don't give a F what the bible says. It was written by man (too many "interpreters") and man is fallible. BTW: I'm not bashing on religious people here. I'm just sharing my point of view. If you don't agree... good.

10 - Your score rates you as "high-grade non-homophobic."}


You beat me, but I was still high-grade non-homophobic. I had a 15.

The irony of religion, particularly Christianity, being used as the basis of passing judgment is that the bible also specifies not to pass judgment.

Religion is a matter of convenience. Most only quote bible passages that help to rationalize the judgment they are passing. They don't seem quite as hung up on taking the rest of the book literally.

Exodus 35:2 says that anyone who works on Sunday should be put to death

Leviticus 25:44 says that it is OK to own both male and female slaves as long as you purchase them from neighboring nations (watch out Canadians and Mexicans)

Leviticus 24:17 clearly outlines the death penalty- if you take the life of a human you shall be put to death

When wishing to dole out punishment and pass judgment, many quote the Old Testament. That is fine if you are Jewish because it represents the sum total of your teachings. But, if you claim to be Christian, you have to take into account that the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus allegedly supercede the Old Testament.

We no longer sacrifice goats on a burning alter- because Jesus died as the ultimate, one-time sacrifice.

We no longer honor eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, because Jesus said to forget that stuff and love thy enemy, turn the other cheek, etc.

You can't take the bible literally. But, if you choose to try, take the whole thing literally. How can people ignore or disregard one passage, then quote the next as if it is an immutable law?

All that being said- I am atheist. I take great interest however in the hypocricy and lack of logic on which all major religions seem to be founded and how those proclaiming to follow those religions only follow the tenets and passages that are convenient or fit with how they want to interpret the world.

{Well,

Apart from the question of "who gives a damn about his opinion?", I think it is pretty typical.

It is the macho "jock" image that seems to be prevalent in team sports?

I think you would get very similar responses from football and hockey players?

I think that the responses from athletes, golfers, tennis players and the like would be rather different?

Just suggestions based on my experiences of active team sports in my younger days}


I don't know what percentage of the population is alleged to be gay, but the homophobes are just in denial.

The whole world operates on a don't ask / don't tell policy. I am sure that the homophobic community would be shocked to learn just how many men and women in the military, professional sports, public office, etc. are actually gay and just haven't come out because they know it would damage their career.

It is all hypocricy anyway. The politicians of the "Religious Right" preach fire and brimstone while standing on the floor of Congress, then go home to have sex with their male intern or hire a prostitute for a back-alley quicky before heading home to the wife and kids.

The "Religious Right" claim the moral high ground, but behind closed doors they are as immoral- or more so- than the rest of us.

Hell- the poster child of the evangelical faith and very adamant anti-gay pastor, Ted Haggard, was having gay sex and doing meth in the back alleys. Jerry Falwell slept (sleeps) with prostitutes. Catholic priests are involved with homosexual pedophilia around the world. This is the moral compass of the "Religious Right"? These are the "leaders" people turn to in order to learn about their faith and gain enlightenment on how to be better people and lead better lives.

The sheep need to stop following the wolves and just think for themselves.

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?

:)

Funny, I saw the Hardaway quote and what I read was, "I'm an idiot. I'm a moron with a grossly inflated view of my own value. In a truly civilized nation, I would be neutered before I can procreate".

Granted, I may be reading between the lines a bit.

{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?}

I don't mean to imply the 2 are inextricably linked. It was more a tangent sparked by what phishphreek said that sparked my anti-religious rhetoric.

Certainly, there are those who call themselves religious who are also tolerant of alternative lifestyles, and there are those who are not religious and are still homophobic for some other reason (or lack thereof).

I was simply pointing out that those who do cling to biblical scripture as the basis for their close-minded ignorance are doing so hypocritically because it is a book of parables and fables- good stories, some with good morals- but not to be taken literally. Or, if you want to try to take it literally, take the whole thing literally and not just those chapters and verses that back your close-minded ignorance.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShagDevil

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.

---

Its the same **** in other countries. Just different people and we get a little too worked up on little crap that means nothing to most of us but the media shoves it up our ass and we go "wwwoooooooo!!! Did you hear about that Holloway girl?" OR "Grnnuuuuunnnnnttt!!! I can't believe they won't bury her with her son in the Bahamas"

- Well not all of us....