Honestly, I don't know why it didn't pass the last time it was on the ballot. I voted for it, but I don't think it's going to live or die by the Blazers. You guys keep bringing up revenue, and that's really not why I'm against it. I'm not thinking about the team, I'm thinking about the fans. I don't think the fans should be put in a position where they have to choose between supporting their team, and supporting their beliefs. I don't care what issue it's about, I just don't think the team should put the fans in that position. I would hate to be in a situation where I had to stop being a Blazers fan because they began openly supporting an issue that I strongly disagree with. Example, if the Blazers came out anti-2nd amendment, and started pushing for people to vote for an initiative that restricted gun ownership, I would most likely stop supporting the team. I don't want to give my money to an organization that is publicly pushing people to vote in one direction, which is exactly what the team is doing right now with gay marriage. That is what bothers me.
I get your point. But that really isn't my point. I'm for the Blazers being pro active in community, even on controversial issues. If they lose fans, that is something they will have to deal with because of the choices they are making. But choices like these have to be made. The easiest choice would be to avoid it so as not to upset a group, but they are going out on a limb on this topic. I like it, I support the Blazers decision. If another topic comes up that is controversial, I'll decide then if I like it or not. People always want to talk about the slippery slope and if you do this then the next thing will be something even more controversial. I don't buy that. (If the Blazers came out against gay marriage, I would not like it and would consider not supporting them. But they didn't, so I don't have to consider it . . . and I would still be in favor of sports franchises taking positions on controversial issues)
That's a national holiday. It's a day celebrating the achievements of a single man. Are we voting on something specific about MLK? Do you guys really not understand the difference between politics and divisive political issues? There's only a handful of them in the US. We're not talking about composting here, we're talking about issues that can turn families against each other, and bring about some of the worst emotions in people. I just feel that sports teams should stay out of it. Not sure why that's so hard to understand.
Honestly, I doubt most fans would turn their back on the team anyway. That is, unless they're losing. We had a shitty team in the early 2000's, and nobody went to the games because of the "character" of the players on the team. We traded all those questionable players and funny enough, it didn't make a bit of difference. The fans didn't start coming back until we got Roy and started winning again. The fans in this city are fair weather, and I suspect some of them might cite this as a reason for staying away, but in truth it will probably just be our poor record if we're losing. I've said my piece on politics and sports. Not much else to say.
I just think that's very hypocritical. You think it's great and you support it when the team is backing something you believe in, but you'd have to reconsider your support of the team if they backed something you don't agree with. You're not seeing the big picture.
I see the big picture . . . you are having trouble understanding that some people don't have a problem with the Blazers "coming out" on issues like this. yes it is political, yes it is controversial and I say good for the Blazers taking a strong stance on this. Hypocritical? I just said in the very post you quoted that even if Blazers came out on an issue I disagree with, I am in favor of professional teams coming out on controversial issues. I suspect we won't see it much as franchises have a lot more to lose than gain in situations like this. But if a franchise want to make a political statement through their organization, I don't have a problem with it the way you do. In fact I wish organizations and players would do it more often. Ali, Bumaye!
How is that hypocritical, though? I support gay marriage, so I am happy the Blazers came out in favor of it. I'm not in favor banning abortions. I would be upset if the Blazers supported making abortions illegal. I still support their right to voice that opinion, however. It's the same with a politician. It's not hypocritical if you vote for people you support, and not for people you disagree with, is it.
I'm not having trouble understanding it. I'm seeing it very clearly. The people who are in favor of the Blazers coming out in support of issues like this are the people who support the issue. That much is very clear. If the Blazers came out in favor of the color green, and the whole city loved the color green, then obviously everyone is going to agree with the Blazers coming out in favor of the color green. You also said that you'd have to consider not supporting them if they came out in support of something you don't agree with, and that's the part that I think is hypocritical. Players I don't have a problem with. Personally, I wish I didn't know how they felt, but it's totally up to them if they want to voice their own personal beliefs on an issue. The team is an organization, a group of people, and when they publicly come out in support of something, that says a lot more than just one player.
It's hypocritical if you think it's awesome that your team is being political when they support something that you agree with, but you would have to reconsider your support of the team if they came out in favor of something you disagree with. Either you think it's okay for your favorite team to be political, or you don't.
That's not being hypocritical. That's being consistent. What would be hypocritical would be to applaud them for a taking a stand you agree with, but say "they shouldn't be taking political positions" when they take a stand you disagree with. barfo
Of course people do what they want to do, regardless of laws, but we're talking about civil rights relative to same-sex marriage and that's a legal discussion. Presently, 14 states allow gay marriage; 3 by popular vote (Maine, Maryland & Washington), 6 by state legislation (Delaware, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont), and 5 by court decision (California, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and New Jersey). Washingon DC also allows same-sex marriage. 35 states ban same-sex marriage; 27 by constitutional amendment and state law, 5 by state law only, and 3 by constitutional amendment only (including Oregon). Polls indicate people are pretty evenly divided on the topic, but with a slight majority now favoring the legalization of same-sex marriage. All of which means that your "civil rights" as a same-sex couple wanting to be married vary with geography. The fact that we're so divided on this topic should hardly be surprising given that throughout all of our country's history there's never been a definition of marriage that included same-sex unions until the past decade. Trying to move a social norm that has been well defined for thousands of years isn't going to happen over night or without considerable public debate. The fact that most major religions do not recognize such unions and many consider homosexuality to be sinful also plays strongly into the dynamic of what is now being debated in our country. As I've said in previous discussions, I'm a Christian, but I recognize that we don't live in a theocracy, nor would I want to do so. I've come from a point of view of being in favor of civil unions to now having the viewpoint that same-sex marriage should be allowed in all states. I think it is incumbent on churches to take internal steps if they wish to have ceremonies in recognition of heterosexual marriages within the church as something apart from the civil marriage allowed by the state. I think the social needle is clearly leaning towards a time in the near future when same-sex marriage will be the law of the land, but don't expect it to come easily.
Well, that would cut down on litter at the "MODA Center". Instead of throwing their tickets away after the game, fans could just roll them up and smoke them.
But isn't that essentially what you're saying if you're in favor of the team being political when they support something you agree with, but reconsider your support of the team if they back something you don't agree with? That's basically sending the message that it's okay to be political as long as it's one of your beliefs, but it's not okay to be political if it's something you don't agree with. Consistent would be to support the team being political now, but also support the team if they came out in favor of something you don't agree with.
In all 50 states, men live with men (and women with women) as if married. For all intents and purposes married, as in a common law marriage. I'd call that exercising their civil rights. The issue is the laws discriminate against them, promoting unequal and unfair treatment. The fact that we're so divided on this topic is no surprise because in all things civil rights related, it's been a long struggle by the group being mistreated against bigotry and ignorance. This goes for women gaining the right to vote, even. Like it or not, sports has been a key player in changing social values. Baseball integrated, for example, 17 years before the civil rights act of the 1960s, and 7 years before the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision. I have zero doubt we will look back on this time in a similar light as with previous civil rights victories.
