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).

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.