Printable View
[QUOTE=boozehound][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior[/URL][/QUOTE]
Wikipedia really isn't the most academic source. Nice try though.
[QUOTE=VCDrivesAPorscheToWork]Tim Hardaway thinks this way.
but who do you define as a homophobe? conservatives? Republicans? regular church going families? the Vatican? the Muslims? please elaborate.
singling out people as homophobes is just as ignorant and bigoted as it is to call people homosexual deviants. they are both born out of sheer mean spirited ignorance.
just like how it is wrong, ignorant and bigoted to call a black man the N word, just as it is to call someone who votes Republican a stupid Red State hick who likes to eat at Red Lobster and play bowling on Friday nights.
it may not have the same civil connotations, but you cannot disagree both are ignorant statements.[/QUOTE]
When I say homophobe i'm using the dictionary definition which is
ho
[QUOTE=El Kabong]When I say homophobe i'm using the dictionary definition which is
ho
[QUOTE]Here's a guy who mentions exclusively black people as non human primates? in a country that has a history of not only being insensitive but downright abusive using such images......
but him I guess being humerous makes the difference? Cracking on Tim Hardaway becuz he's an idiot or an ignoramus is one thing...but Ewing has never said anything remotely close to Hardaway range..[/QUOTE]
Allow me to clarify.
I put Hardaway in the sentence contest with the non-human primates because of his tenure as an analyst/commentator. During that time, there were threads upon threads devoted to or mentioning Hardaway's lack of skills in that area. GOBB in particular is one of the guys I remember joining me (or was I joining him?) with the Hardaway stuttering jokes. It was mean spirited, sure, but it was more because he was just a bad choice for the job. Anyone should have been able to see that.
That's what this was about. Hardaway's muff-ups as an analyst, not his race. The non-human primates certainly didn't help me in the joke there. I just picked the animals that were closer to humans because the possibility of them speaking in sentences is less unfathomable.
The joke wasn't about Hardaway's intolerant comments or my thoughts on whether or not he's educated or smart.
On to Ewing. I'm talking pure facial resemblance here with Ewing. That teamed with my non-human primate comment to give the joke blatantly (though unintentionally) racist overtones. As I have tried to state from the beginning, that was not my intent.
If this helps at all, ANOTHER poster mentioned Ewing and Bobby Jackson. I included Ewing, but NOT Jackson. Because I don't think Jackson bears as strong resemblance as Ewing does.
I'm honestly surprised that more noise wasn't made about my jokes. I can assure you, however, that there was no intent to come across as a racist.
Take it for what you will.
[QUOTE=BlackMoses]Wikipedia really isn't the most academic source. Nice try though.[/QUOTE]
Sure, its not, but it is easily accesible on the internet and you will see that the page I cited is very well referenced. You could follow those references if you would like to find out more or corroborate the info on wikipedia. Or you could, as I suggested earlier, try google scholar or Searchnow or web of science in you have access to it. This really is a fairly well studied area among ethologists.
While I do hesitate to use sources like wikipedia for anything beyond a casual internet discussion, many of the entries on there are well researched and provide references or reading lists.
Besides this isn't exactly an academic discussion :hammerhead:
[QUOTE=El Kabong]When I say homophobe i'm using the dictionary definition which is
ho
Kind of ironic considering that Tim's signature move is "The Crossover"
Now let me be up front. I do not hate gay people. I accept them for who they are and I understand the difficulties they have to endure. But I disagree with Amaechi's comment on Hardaway's reaction.
Living in North America, we are blessed with freedom of individuality. Common sense dictates that this freedom is by no means absolute and is bounded by our willingness to accept responsibilities for our own actions.
It is this freedom that allows Amaechi to announce to the world by way of publishing his book his homosexuality. By choosing this path, Amaechi also announced to the world that he is willing to accept the responsibilities of being praised and judged by those who take his sexually either in grace or malice.
It is also this freedom that allows Hardaway to express his personal opinion about Amaechi's announcement by way of a radio interview when the question was posed. By choosing this path, Hardaway also take responsibilities to the fact that those who support Amaechi and the Gay & Lesbian movement will react negatively.
But the reason I disagree with Amaechi is because Freedom of Individually also include freedom of acceptance. Each of us has the freedom to choose to accept or reject anything based on our own moral judgment. Amaechi's response to Hardaway's comment expresses that it is not alright to reject him as a homosexual and that the fact that there are those who dislike gays and lesbians are "problems" that society must resolve. That is wrong.
Frankly, that's what is wrong with the entire Gay and Lesbian movement. Acceptance of their existence and their right as a normal individual is one thing, but acceptance to a point where no one can have any negative personal feelings toward their lifestyle would be impeding the freedom of an individual.
You can tell people to accept you...but you cannot force people to like you.
Tim Hardaway simply stated his personal opinion about homosexual which is a normal human reaction to Amaechi's public announcement. He had in no way promoted violent toward gays and lesbians. Amaechi on the other hand, could have simply announced his sexual preference to his close circle of friends and family. But he did it on a world stage with a mass audience. To comment on Hardaway's reaction in the way he did, Amaechi is neither brave nor responsible.
[QUOTE=Nightwolf]Now let me be up front. I do not hate gay people. I accept them for who they are and I understand the difficulties they have to endure. But I disagree with Amaechi's comment on Hardaway's reaction.
Living in North America, we are blessed with freedom of individuality. Common sense dictates that this freedom is by no means absolute and is bounded by our willingness to accept responsibilities for our own actions.
It is this freedom that allows Amaechi to announce to the world by way of publishing his book his homosexuality. By choosing this path, Amaechi also announced to the world that he is willing to accept the responsibilities of being praised and judged by those who take his sexually either in grace or malice.
It is also this freedom that allows Hardaway to express his personal opinion about Amaechi's announcement by way of a radio interview when the question was posed. By choosing this path, Hardaway also take responsibilities to the fact that those who support Amaechi and the Gay & Lesbian movement will react negatively.
But the reason I disagree with Amaechi is because Freedom of Individually also include freedom of acceptance. Each of us has the freedom to choose to accept or reject anything based on our own moral judgment. Amaechi's response to Hardaway's comment expresses that it is not alright to reject him as a homosexual and that the fact that there are those who dislike gays and lesbians are "problems" that society must resolve. That is wrong.
Frankly, that's what is wrong with the entire Gay and Lesbian movement. Acceptance of their existence and their right as a normal individual is one thing, but acceptance to a point where no one can have any negative personal feelings toward their lifestyle would be impeding the freedom of an individual.
You can tell people to accept you...but you cannot force people to like you.
Tim Hardaway simply stated his personal opinion about homosexual which is a normal human reaction to Amaechi's public announcement. He had in no way promoted violent toward gays and lesbians. Amaechi on the other hand, could have simply announced his sexual preference to his close circle of friends and family. But he did it on a world stage with a mass audience. To comment on Hardaway's reaction in the way he did, Amaechi is neither brave nor responsible.[/QUOTE]
Well said!^
What Tim said was wrong- hating people because of skin color , sexual preference etc... is all wrong.
But on the other hand read Romans 1 versus 24-32.
Seems to me anybody promoting this homosexual
lifestyle is way across the lines.
Any nation that justifies Homosexuality or Lesbianism as an acceptible lifestyle is in it's final stages of moral corruption.
Is this why I have to turn the channel because of images on commercials or when I have a hard time trying to explain what the act of homosexuality is to my 8 yr old child.
I never had to worry about watching soft porn on commercials during a BIG sporting event when I was a kid growing up.
That's off. This is what Amaechi said:
[QUOTE]"His words pollute the atmosphere. It creates an atmosphere that allows young gays and lesbians to be harassed in school, creates an atmosphere where in 33 states you can lose your job, and where anti-gay and lesbian issues are used for political gain.[/QUOTE]
I disagree with Amaechi's evaluation of what the repercussion's of Hardaway's idiocy will be. IMO, the comments by Hardaway may even influence people to go a little overboard in the opposite direction to prove that they aren't homophobic. It's the attitude of people like Hardaway more so than when they actually speak that is harmful to gay people. Hardaway's speaking would be dangerous if he was a Hitler-type that was capable of swaying others to his thinking, but there was nothing persuasive about what he said, it was just ugliness, if anything in the long run it will engender more sympathy for gay people. But there is no attack on "Freedom of Individually" in Amaechi's response. That's nonsense.
[QUOTE]Any nation that justifies Homosexuality or Lesbianism as an acceptible lifestyle is in it's final stages of moral corruption. [/QUOTE]
This kind of statement always gets me excited about my fellow Christians. [/sarcasm]
[QUOTE=bringthetruth]Is this why I have to turn the channel because of images on commercials or when I have a hard time trying to explain what the act of homosexuality is to my 8 yr old child. [/QUOTE]
Bad news for you: your child just saw an ad for Zipdick in the paper and has now been converted to homosexuality. All of your grandkids will be the results of test tubes and cloning. Life is hard.
[QUOTE=saKf]This kind of statement always gets me excited about my fellow Christians.[/QUOTE]
Something I always wondered about the religious right: How can they spend all of their time and money on the moral issues in Teletubbies, Ellen Degeneres, and San Francisco while ignoring how many people die in Iraq?
[QUOTE=saKf]This kind of statement always gets me excited about my fellow Christians. [/sarcasm][/QUOTE]
Scripture also makes it clear that God will give mankind up to "unnatural desires and men burning for one another". The first reference we see to homosexuality is in the book of Genesis with the story of Sodom and Gomorah. There is now clear historical record that these cities existed and were destroyed catastrophically.
My opinion is that homosexuality is immoral. I also believe that a nation's ability to legislate morality is confined by their dependancy upon God. Given where this nation is in their denial of God (removing all discussion on God from schools and the workplace), homosexuality will not be illegal. What scares me about this is that we are very close to legislating AGAINST the right to disagree with it.
[QUOTE=bringthetruth] There is now clear historical record that these cities existed and were destroyed catastrophically.
I also believe that a nation's ability to legislate morality is confined by their dependancy upon God. Given where this nation is in their denial of God (removing all discussion on God from schools and the workplace), homosexuality will not be illegal. What scares me about this is that we are very close to legislating AGAINST the right to disagree with it.[/QUOTE]
Is there historical evidence of the degeneracy and so forth? Or just a city....
How is your view any different than the islamic extremists (not terrorists, just conservative muslims that are called this in the west) in many countries who are trying to maintain or reestablish governments based upon holy law? If you want to live in a country founded upon religious law, well your up **** creek. The new god is the almighty dollar.