<div class="quote_poster">XSV Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Be realistic. Those examples are completely different than the ones I mentioned. There's a difference between eating dinner as a family and acting like those families on pleasentville. THAT would be abnormal. Were men meant to be with women? Yes. Were men meant to be with men? No. Thus I would consider it abnormal.</div> What is considered "abnormal" changes over the course of time as society progresses. Social and sexual equity were once considered "abnormal" for a long time in history; doesn't mean they still are now. What is "abnormal" is decided by the general consensus of society and if the majority of people just accept homosexuality, it wouldn't really be considered "abnormal" anymore, would it? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> you arent born gay or straight; just with predispositions that would determine how you will mature. I dont know if any of you took biology but try using logic. </div> I have to agree with that.
I think it's pretty pointless arguing about homosexuality. Most people aren't going to change their opinion about the issue, especially since many stem from religious beliefs which they have been taught for their whole lives. To a lesser extent, it's kind of like arguing over politics: a whole lot of arguing and no progress.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Scoop Jackson: Lemme ask you this, because I'm really trying to get at where this is coming from, the way you came across on the radio, your choice of words, your anger. I've had people roll up on me and say that something must have happened to you in your life to make you feel the way that you do about gays. Now I've been through everything that's gone on in your life with your family -- the substance abuse, the alcoholism, you riding the CTA [Chicago public transportation] at 8 years old, surviving Altgeld Gardens, all of that. But did anything happen to you? Was there any homosexual experience that triggered any of your resentment toward gay people that happened when you were young that none of us knows about? Tim Hardaway: When we was growing up Scoop, if we saw gay people or whatever, we ran across the street. We got away from them. Our parents, our friends, our families knew that that wasn't right. We didn't want to be around that and they definitely didn't want us kids around it. And it's not that they hated gay people, they just felt they it wasn't right. Let them do what they want to do. And that was my experience when I was growing up. Not acknowledging them. Now did something happen to me? No. But I did have a friend that something happened to him in a Catholic school, but that is another can of worms that it's not my place to open because it's not my life. But to answer your question, "No." Nothing happened to me. I just don't condone [being gay]. When I see gay people holding hands or kissing in the streets, I just don't think that's right.</div> Link This is an excerpt of a Q&A session with Tim Hardaway's life long friend Scoop Jackson. Kind of gives you a better insight on how Tim really feels about homosexuality. Tim has been extremely ridiculed for his comments on Dan LeBatard's show, and rightfully so. But at the end of the day I don't believe that he is a bad person -- I just think that he made a bad decision expressing his views in the manner that he did. I think that he realizes that and he understands that even free speech has its cost.
<div class="quote_poster">XSV Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Be realistic. Those examples are completely different than the ones I mentioned. There's a difference between eating dinner as a family and acting like those families on pleasentville. THAT would be abnormal. Were men meant to be with women? Yes. Were men meant to be with men? No. Thus I would consider it abnormal.</div> What do you mean by "meant to be"? Meant to be by whom/what? Just so I'm clear on your meaning, when you say normal/abnormal you're not simply talking about something being common versus rare. Rather, you seem to implying functional/dysfunctional. If you're gay, then you're not working correctly. Is that fair? In my view, a gay person is only impaired to the extent people are prejudiced against them. In some backward cultures being left handed or having some other uncommon physical trait might be taboo -- they may also be called "abnormal" and looked down upon. I just don't agree with that position. Moving on, you said the following above: <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I respect their right to choose their own sexual preference.</div> How do you "choose" your sexual preference. This doesn't make sense to me. Can you "choose" to be attracted to the women you're attracted to? In the same way, if two men or two women are attracted to eachother, is that something they can just shut off? Absolutely not. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Iron Shiek:</div><div class="quote_post">Tim has been extremely ridiculed for his comments on Dan LeBatard's show, and rightfully so. But at the end of the day I don't believe that he is a bad person -- I just think that he made a bad decision expressing his views in the manner that he did. I think that he realizes that and he understands that there is even free speech has its cost.</div> So if he expressed his views (that homosexuality is wrong, and gay people shouldn't be allowed to publically show affection towards eachother) in a more subtle way, that would be ok? I'm glad he realized how dumb it was to make his foolish, hurtful, and anti-progressive views public. That's the easy part, unless he's a total dumbass. Next step is for him to wise up and drop the ignorant homophobia altogether.
<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">So if he expressed his views (that homosexuality is wrong, and gay people shouldn't be allowed to publically show affection towards eachother) in a more subtle way, that would be ok?</div> He is entitled to his opinion. You can't make someone accept something that they don't want to accept. If, in his leisure time, he doesn't want to associate with anyone who is homosexual, that is his perogative. Now if he is a business owner and he decides not to hire gays because of his prejudiceness than that is a different story. The problem with Tim Hardaway is not that he doesn't accept homosexuality but that he used his public status to promote hate towards homosexuals. I'm black and if someone said on Dan Le Batard's show that they hate black people I wouldn't be in an uproar. That would just be his or her opinion. Now if they were in a position of power and they discriminated towards blacks than my viewpoint would be totally different. Like I said, I would much rather people express their opinions (good or bad) about a group of people than conceal them and discriminate against that same group. Tim Hardaway should not have said that he hates gays. But if he doesn't want to associate with gays then who are we to tell him that he has to. I'm sure that you wouldn't ridicule a white family who chooses to move into an exclusively white neighborhood because they want to get away from the minorities that are moving into their old neighborhood.
<div class="quote_poster">Iron Shiek Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">He is entitled to his opinion. You can't make someone accept something that they don't want to accept. If, in his leisure time, he doesn't want to associate with anyone who is homosexual, that is his perogative. Now if he is a business owner and he decides not to hire gays because of his prejudiceness than that is a different story. The problem with Tim Hardaway is not that he doesn't accept homosexuality but that he used his public status to promote hate towards homosexuals. I'm black and if someone said on Dan Le Batard's show that they hate black people I wouldn't be in an uproar. That would just be his or her opinion. Now if they were in a position of power and they discriminated towards blacks than my viewpoint would be totally different.</div> Firstly, I think Tim Hardaway -- being somewhat of a celebrity with some influence amongst his fans -- is in a position of power. Him making those comments can have a more damaging effect than some random interviewee making those comments. If a racist on the Dan Le Batard show made some hurtful comments towards black people, would say that his racist views aren't a problem, but rather his decision to make those views public is the problem? I'm just trying to understand your analogy better. I do agree that Hardaway is entitled to his opinion and he should even have the right to voice that opinion in public. What I'm saying is his opinion is disgusting, which is problem #1. If I was a personal friend or family member of his, I think I'd want to engage him and try to get him to reconsider his views. Maybe he'd say the same thing about me. I just think we need to distinguish between having a right to something, and that something being morally acceptable. Hardaway has a right to think what he likes. That doesn't mean what he thinks should be condoned. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Iron Shiek:</div><div class="quote_post">Like I said, I would much rather people express their opinions (good or bad) about a group of people than conceal them and discriminate against that same group. Tim Hardaway should not have said that he hates gays. But if he doesn't want to associate with gays then who are we to tell him that he has to. I'm sure that you wouldn't ridicule a white family who chooses to move into an exclusively white neighborhood because they want to get away from the minorities that are moving into their old neighborhood.</div> I don't think he should be forced to associate with gays if he doesn't want to. But that doesn't mean his reluctance to associate with gays isn't a problem. As for the while family that chooses to move, it depends on the situation. If the demographics in the neighborhood change significantly, maybe it becomes more difficult to find neighbors with similar interests, hobbies, cultures. Maybe the neighbors become less friendly towards them. Maybe the neighborhood becomes less secure. There are legitimate reasons for wanting to move in that situation, and none of them are simply not liking people who aren't white.
<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post"> If a racist on the Dan Le Batard show made some hurtful comments towards black people, would say that his racist views aren't a problem, but rather his decision to make those views public is the problem? I'm just trying to understand your analogy better.</div> This is basically what I'm trying to say. You can't control how someone thinks. If a celebrity on a radio show said that they hated blacks, I would initially be upset but I would then realize that that celebrity relationship with blacks will now be under enormous scrutiny. In each instance where it could be perceived that this celebrity is treating blacks unfairly it would garner national attention - and it would hurt that celebrity where it hurts the most: their pocket book. Cramer from Seinfeld is a full fledged racist, and b/c of his exploits he will be reluctant to mistreat blacks in a public or private forum. Same thing with John Rocker and the same thing w/ Marge Schott. Now there are a ton of more celebrities who are racist, but b/c of what has happened they could possibly be more reluctant to act dicriminantly against blacks. Same thing with Tim. Do you think that any other premier athlete will say anything as harsh as Tim after this? There is the possibility that someone could, but Tim's honest comments have made others reevaluate their stance on homosexuals: which is good in the long run. So at the end of the day I'm not going to be too critical for someone expressing their own opinion, even when it is ignorant. People have to formulate their own opinions and those opinions should be formulated from research and experience -- not soley from opinion of a retired celebrity.
<div class="quote_poster">XSV Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I won't respond to that because you didn't bring up any valid points and just resorted to personal attacks. Not so sure why you would get so heated about this... ^Durvasa, being gay is a LIFESTYLE choice, so I'm saying it's an abnormal lifestyle choice. Doesn't mean I think its worng, but I would consider it to be abnormal, just like being a goth would be abnormal, going to orgies is abnormal or choosing to be a transvestite is abnormal.</div> You keep saying "abnormal." Don't you realize that you alone or any person for that matter can be the judge of what is considered abnormal. Whats abnormal to you can be totally normal to something else. You aren't being too bright calling something abnormal just cause you don't agree/or do it.
<div class="quote_poster">Iron Shiek Wrote</div><div class="quote_post"> Cramer from Seinfeld is a full fledged racist,.</div>i highly doubt it.
<div class="quote_poster">phunDamentalz Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">i highly doubt it.</div> I dunno man... I don't think those type of things just come out of a person's mouth.
I don't have the time to read through all these posts. I'd like for this whole issue to be dropped but I am just going to post anyways. I am not gay. I do not believe in gays. Gays should <u>NOT</u> be allowed in the NBA. Hardaways comments were unacceptable but any other player would think the same thing. I know if we found out somebody was gay on my basketball team we would see to it that they are off the team. I don't think they should be bullied or teased. However Jon Ameichi is wrong for using the analogy about it being the same as being prejudice against blacks. Being BLACK is not a choice, you choose to be GAY. Believe me they weren't born with it they chose to be somewhere down the road. God created Eve so Adam would have a partner nowhere in the bible does it say anything about there being two Adams. Well anyways thats my view on the whole issue, Tim definitely did not say it in the way he should of I'm sure if he wasn't put on the spot like that he could of found a better choice of words.
<div class="quote_poster">Detroit Madness Wrote</div><div class="quote_post"> Believe me they weren't born with it they chose to be somewhere down the road. God created Eve so Adam would have a partner nowhere in the bible does it say anything about there being two Adams. </div> You know, 150 years ago, people were also using the Bible to justify slavery. There are a range of topics for which the Bible isn't a particularly credible source.
<div class="quote_poster">Detroit Madness Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I don't have the time to read through all these posts. I'd like for this whole issue to be dropped but I am just going to post anyways. I am not gay. I do not believe in gays. Gays should <u>NOT</u> be allowed in the NBA. Hardaways comments were unacceptable but any other player would think the same thing. I know if we found out somebody was gay on my basketball team we would see to it that they are off the team. I don't think they should be bullied or teased. However Jon Ameichi is wrong for using the analogy about it being the same as being prejudice against blacks. Being BLACK is not a choice, you choose to be GAY. Believe me they weren't born with it they chose to be somewhere down the road. God created Eve so Adam would have a partner nowhere in the bible does it say anything about there being two Adams. Well anyways thats my view on the whole issue, Tim definitely did not say it in the way he should of I'm sure if he wasn't put on the spot like that he could of found a better choice of words.</div> Why shouldn't gays be allowed in the NBA? If they can play basketball, what does it matter?
I don't like to get involved in big arguments, but given the words flying around I feel the need to voice my feeling that homosexuality, whether a person is born with it or adopts it as a decision, is fine by me and I have no hesitation about saying so. Love's love, man.
<div class="quote_poster">Detroit Madness Wrote</div><div class="quote_post"> Being BLACK is not a choice, you choose to be GAY. Believe me they weren't born with it they chose to be somewhere down the road. </div> Thats essentially the arguement. And How would you know how someone "goes about" being gay. If you aren't gay, you wouldn't know if its a choice or not. Think about it this way, if you are straight, can you choose to be gay tomorrow. I don't think so. There is no way a man can make me aroused like a woman can. END OF STORY.
@ Detroit People do not choose who they are attracted to, it is subconscious brain chemistry that dictates what we will be attracted to. Have you ever chosen to be attracted to someone? if you have, are you sure it wasn't lust? It would be pretty weird if one second you are straight..next second you are gay.
<div class="quote_poster">23MJordan23 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">@ Detroit People do not choose who they are attracted to, it is subconscious brain chemistry that dictates what we will be attracted to. Have you ever chosen to be attracted to someone? if you have, are you sure it wasn't lust? It would be pretty weird if one second you are straight..next second you are gay.</div> Interesting, I've never heard this as a possible theory on explaining why a person is homosexual. Would you happen to have any links on this research? I'm mainly interested in how the chemical levels are effected, or is someone just born with that specific mix.
<div class="quote_poster">shapecity Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Interesting, I've never heard this as a possible theory on explaining why a person is homosexual. Would you happen to have any links on this research? I'm mainly interested in how the chemical levels are effected, or is someone just born with that specific mix.</div> Shape ,you're attracted to certain types of people, right? What do you think determines that? Are you choosing to be attracted to them? Does that even remotely make sense? I'm not a biology expert, so I don't know if its brain chemistry or something else. But it's silly to think sexual attraction is a concious decision.
@ Shapecity It is my personal theory based on different scientific theories combined, and basically dissecting how the brain works. Conscious vs. Subconscious Conscious does not communicate with Subconscious, but Subconscious can communicate with the Conscious mind. If I choose to rob a store for whatever reason, that is a conscious decision and has nothing to do with what my subconscious mind. However, attraction on the other hand is subconscious communicating with the conscious. Have you ever been attracted to the wrong person, for all of the wrong reasons? I am not talking about lust, but I am talking about attraction. Being attracted to that person or any person is your subconscious communicating to your conscious saying: "be attracted to this person." Conscious is logic type thing, Subconscious is not always logical, it is more imaginative. "whenever your conscious and subconscious are in conflict, your subconscious invariably wins" Consciously logical. Subconscious mind always wins, the subconscious mind controls the brain's chemicals; whenever the subconscious mind is stimulated the chemicals change to match that situation that you are in. If you feel attraction for the person right next to you, your subconscious will alter you brain chemistry to look at that person differently basically: Friends vs. Lover. Your brain chemistry dictates how you feel around certain people. http://www.iloveulove.com/spirituality/bud...subconcious.htm Attraction is determined by many things, for example: subconscious and brain chemistry and Smell: (that is why people try to sell cologne and perfume with Pheromones in it) http://www.chemistry.org/portal/a/c/s/1/fe...f944fd8fe800100 Ultimately the most powerful dictator is the subconscious. <u>Sexual Evolution</u> http://www.unm.edu/~psych/faculty/mate_choice.htm Sexual Evolution has started since the beginning of the animal: females are generally attracted to more masculinity: http://coefaculty.csus.edu/chambersj/assets/043.gender.pdf, confidence, courage, etc. And us guys are generally attracted to more femininity: http://coefaculty.csus.edu/chambersj/assets/043.gender.pdf Homosexuality has been existent since the beginning of time. Not all men and women were "straight" some were gay, some were lesbians, and some liked a little bit of both. It is Brain Chemistry. Generally, more masculine homosexuals (men or women) will be attracted to more feminine homosexuals (men or women). Our brain determines how we will act. That is why it is called sexual preference, not because one wakes up one morning and says "oh, 'hehe', I'm gay today." It is what ones' subconscious prefers that dictates what one will prefer sexually. When us guys honestly say: "I could never imagine myself with another man" that isn't you talking, it is your subconscious talking because the subconscious does not agree with such imagery, thus ceasing action to pursue being homosexual. If one is gay, their subconscious allows them to imagine same sex relations. It is whatever stimulates the brain's subconscious that communicates with the conscious to allow one to be gay, straight or bi. http://www.glow.cc/net/choice.htm http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neur...eb2/csmiga.html Brain Chemistry and how our chemicals together dictates what kind of person we are. Being Straight, Gay or Bi is a scientific thing, not a conscious decision. A long post, I know.
Well let me put it like this Hardaway probably means that he dont like "gay" people for what they stand for...I dont either...but yeah know what what if he said he hates white people? Then what? Lets move on people...there are alot of nut heads in this society and Hardaway is one of them
