Who cares. This is a non issue to me. Of course I am an Atheist so god isn't telling me homosexuality is sinful or immoral. Can't understand it, but I could care less about it. David Stern is a hypocrite for making the statement that all the league cares about is if you have game. If that is true than the league is immoral. Of course we know the league doesn't care only if you got game. They care about making money, their image, and whether or not the players dress like thugs. They don't seem to care if you have a criminal record or are a registered sex offender. So if you got game but wear baggy sweat clothes with low ridding pants and always have your ipod on that is not acceptable to the NBA. But if you are gay no problem, unless of course you dress to femininely or flambouyantly, because that part of being openly gay violates the league's policy. I guess if you are a transvestite and got game the league might have a big issue. Wait I take that back, they never had a problem with Dennis Rodman.
rcade, tell me, where is it that raising children outside marriage or dating out of my race is sin?? Not so long ago, dating outside your race was a crime. In many countries today, and indeed among many strict Catholics (for example), getting divorced is considered a sin and (in some cases) not legal. As recently as the 1960's, you could be arrested in some states for being married to somebody outside of your ethnicity. That wasn't so long ago. There are still people in the U.S. who think that you are commiting a sin - being a "race traitor" - by marrying outside of your ethnicity. So, perhaps in your current town and in among people of your current religion, these things are now ok. I bet if you did some digging, you would find ample evidence that there was a time in your very town and under your very religion that divorce and miscegenation were sins - and sins that were maybe even regarded as much, much worse than homosexuality. You equated homosexuality with murder or rape when you made your "murderphobe" and "rapeophobe" comment earlier. In essence, you are saying "two women (or men) choosing to have sex with each other is exactly the same as a brutal murder or a brutal rape." Perhaps that was not your intent, but look at your words. That is what you wrote. Do you honestly, in your heart, believe that two people making out is as ghastly a crime as murder? I suspect that you do not. If you do, please explain to me this - in a murder and a rape, I can identify a victim. When two women choose to make out, who is the victim? Anyhow, I think your issue is with the word "homophobe" because you don't want anyone to mistake your hatred for gay people with fear of gay people. Understandable. I don't want anyone to think I'm a coward either. However, the history of the word is a little more complex than that. Technically, it doesn't literally mean 'fear of gay people.' It means 'fear of men.' Of course, "tyranosaurus" means "tyrant lizard" even though we know that the T-Rex was neither a tyrant in the literal sense of the word nor a lizard. "Homophobe" may have a latin root that means "person who fears the same," but it has come to mean "person who has a dislike for homosexuality." Out of respect for the concern on the parts of homophobes that they are being called cowards when they are refered to as such, I ask you "what should we call you, oh person who dislikes gay people enough to think that they are commiting the moral equivilent of rape or murder when they make out?" How about "Homodior," which is a word I've invented by using the Latin word "hate" instead of "fear." This is an especially good word to use because "odium," the latin word for hate, suggests that hate comes from a foul place.
Drallig, do you realize pretty much all of your recent comments are something negative? Guess your mom never mentioned "If you don't have anything nice to say . . ." Probably for fear you'd sock her in the mouth.
David Stern is a hypocrite for making the statement that all the league cares about is if you have game. If that is true than the league is immoral. Close. An organization has no feelings. The league's morality is not based on the bible or on what any one person thinks is "societal norms." It's based on putting butts in seats and eyeballs on commercials. If those butts and eyeballs are cool with race mixing or homosexuality or any other trait, lifestyle or worldview, then the league is fine with it. Any other position is bad for business. Also: speak for yourself. To hide your opinions in phrases like "Most people believe..." and "There are those who would say..." is cowardly. Sack up, and own up to whatever you believe. This stealth bigotry shit really pisses me off.
David Stern is a hypocrite for making the statement that all the league cares about is if you have game. I don't think equating the league's sexual orientation policy with its dress code is at all appropriate or fair. Stern's comment reflected the fact that homosexuality is an inborn trait, like skin color, height, etc. The league doesn't care if you're short or tall, black or white, gay or straight, if you've got game, you can play. That doesn't mean that your behavior - which you have evident control over - is irrelevant to your participation in the league. Like any other job, you are expected to adhere to the dress code, obey the rules, fulfill your obligations. Given the vast variety among the NBA players - everything from choirboys to thugs to Frenchmen - I think Stern's statement was absolutely valid. And while I am sure it was just an offhand comment, the idea that flamboyant dress is an inherent part of being openly gay is wicked stereotypical.
Drallig's comments may be negative but right or wrong, he is still entitled to his opinions just like everyone else.
Drallig's comments may be negative but right or wrong, he is still entitled to his opinions just like everyone else. But he's not entitled to a forum. (why is that distinction so hard for people to grasp?)
Sportsfilter: all opinions are not equal and yours is stupid. I would totally buy a t-shirt with that on it.
Sam Mitchell with some good perspective:
"It shouldn't be about tolerance," he said. "It should be about respect. People should treat people as human beings. I wouldn't use the word tolerance. Are people supposed to tolerate me because I'm black? Or are they supposed to treat me with respect because I'm a human being?"..."I just go back to the Bible," he said. "Treat everyone with the respect and compassion you would want yourself. Don't judge unless you are willing to be judged."
shamelessly stolen via TrueHoop(why is that distinction so hard for people to grasp?) I don't know, but it kills me.
(why is that distinction so hard for people to grasp?) The distinction isn't hard to grasp unless an individuals comments start to cross the line between tolerable or flat out hateful.
Salt Lake Tribune columnist annoints Amaechi as the worst Jazz player ever. He then proceeds to bury himself with his lead in:Let's be clear about one thing. This isn't about John Amaechi's sexual orientation or his decision to write about being a gay man in the NBA in a soon-to-be-released book. This is about John Amaechi, basketball player with the Utah Jazz from 2001-03. Because it is, there's little to tell. That's because John Amaechi remains one of the worst players in franchise history. I'm not Amaechi-bashing here. I'm just stating a fact.
Then why devote an entire article to the man? If there's so little to tell, why waste the ink? Was a column devoted to nominating Amaechi worst ever slated to run before he came out? Somehow I doubt it. It gets better:
During his second season, Amaechi became a member of rebellious clique that also included Mark Jackson and DeShawn Stevenson.
Thats right ladies and gentleman, the Utah Jazz's season was allegedly, nearly highjacked by a gay male, a kid who graduated high school the year before, and a preacher. I see a movie in there somewhere. Some of the
excerpts from the book are rather touching:
His teammates were more accepting, though he never admitted to being gay, Amaechi wrote. Center Greg Ostertag, described as a close friend, "asked me point-blank in the tunnel, 'Ya gay, dude?' " 'Greg, you have nothing to worry about,' I said. It was clear Greg couldn't have cared less." Amaechi also recounted a text-message he received from Andrei Kirilenko, inviting him to a New Year's Eve party with "your partner, if you have one, someone special to you," Amaechi wrote. "Who it is makes no difference to me."
""It shouldn't be about tolerance," he said. "It should be about respect. People should treat people as human beings. I wouldn't use the word tolerance. Are people supposed to tolerate me because I'm black? Or are they supposed to treat me with respect because I'm a human being?"" I don't know Sam Mitchell, but thank you for pulling that quote in here Nemo.
Thanks also to Weedy, for the mental image of a bizarre form of Polo, played by folks slashing 9 Irons around, wearing Goalie gear and riding mechanical bulls.
I knew I liked Sam Mitchell for a reason, Weedy too.
you're right lil brown bat. I'm opposed to the sin in my life too. It's not a secret. Uh oh. Sounds like somebody had a Bavarian cream doughnut. I embrace the sin in my life. It's all I have. Wash away your sins, SummersEve.
BornIcon: The distinction isn't hard to grasp unless an individuals comments start to cross the line between tolerable or flat out hateful. Well, my point was that there's a difference between opinions (which live in your head) and comments (which are, you know, out there somewhere). The expression, "Everyone has the right to an opinion," taken literally, is sort of like saying, "Everyone has the right to mentally recite the poems of Alfred Lord Tennyson" -- well, sure, you have the right, but it's not like anyone could (or would) try to stop you, so does it make sense to refer to it as a right, or even to comment on it at all? However, although many people say, "Everyone has the right to an opinion," what they really mean is some variation of, "Everyone has the right to express an opinion," and that statement really isn't true, because that right is neither universal nor unrestricted. I have the right to express whatever opinions I want in my house; I don't have the right to express whatever opinions I want in someone else's house, and I don't have the right to express whatever opinions I want on someone else's website. And this is someone else's website.
I don't have the right to express whatever opinions I want in someone else's house, and I don't have the right to express whatever opinions I want on someone else's website. And this is someone else's website. Someone else's website created for the express purpose of allowing people to express their opinions on the sports topic of the day. Unless Drallig (or whoever else) is violating specific spofi rules of conduct why should it be an issue? You disagree with him, then post your own opinion. But to question his right to post his opinion smacks of censorship. And this is coming from a pro gay marriage, pro gay rights person who finds the the condemnation of a gay lifestyle as a sin to be a much bigger sin than that gay lifestyle will ever be. Bottom line: I may disagree with most of what Drallig has said but I will always defend his right to say it.
Very true LBB but isn't this website used to express one's opinion whether you believe it's right or wrong? That I believe, was the whole purpose for someone to create a website such as this, to express your opinion, just like you do and all the rest of us do as well. Bottom line: I may disagree with most of what Drallig has said but I will always defend his right to say it. My point exactly.
cjets: But to question his right to post his opinion smacks of censorship. Who did that? BornIcon: Very true LBB but isn't this website used to express one's opinion whether you believe it's right or wrong? No, it isn't -- not without restrictions. That was my point. The owners of the site make it available to the public, but there are restrictions on the expression therein, and they can add, change or delete those restrictions whenever they want. You and cjets are both trying to make my comments into something they're not, i.e., a call to censor drallig. In fact, a careful reader will note that I did nothing of the sort. Instead, I pointed out that being "entitled to your opinion" is pretty meaningless. That's all. Now, excuse me, please, I've got to go recite the poems of Alfred Lord Tennyson in my head.
uh, and I'm sure you can sort out the italics on that one..sorry 'bout that...
It's semantics but the creation of a website and inviting people to post does not create any rights. A privilege, yes, but the word "entitled" means a right. No one expressed that drallig should not express his opinion, just criticized that opinion. On preview, what lbb said.
Now, excuse me, please, I've got to go recite the poems of Alfred Lord Tennyson in my head. You guys keep forgetting the comma. Alfred, Lord Tennyson. But that might just be an opinion...
It's still interesting that elite players have to wait to "come out" after they retire. One would think that especially now it really isn't a huge issue anymore. I was an elite sportsman many years ago. I came out when I was 18 . I am 50 now.I was critised back then but I said that my performance is what mattered on the field plus I was a team player. I didn't approach anyone as it was the sport that mattered not my sexual preference. All the players knew too. They accepted me for who I was both on the field and off. I was more surpised many years later meeting up with players who were gay and I didn't know. Such is life.
I think the thing that bothers people most people about an elite athlete "coming out" is the fact that society views homosexuals as feminine ( or the opposite for lez) and professional male athletes are the antithesis of feminine. I guess people need to start realizing that gay does not equal feminine or substandard, it just means that you like "sweaty butt love". After stating the common P.C. answer to this dilemma, I must admit that in my time as a high school/college athlete, I would have been floored if I found out that one of my teammates was batting from the other side of the plate. Gay jokes were a staple of everyday banter. If someone was gay, it must have hurt them o-so bad to have to put up with all of the jokes and comments that were made. I must say that as a teenager I was homophobic (as most teenagers are), but now I support equal rights for gays (including marriage) because I know now that being gay is not a choice ( if it was no one would choose to be ridiculed ) much in the same way that being black or asian or handicapped is not a choice.
It would have made for a much better story if he had said who he was most attracted to while playing.
I can pretty much guarantee it wasn't Sam Cassell.
You and cjets are both trying to make my comments into something they're not.... What are you talking about, LBB? This isn't some sort of combined forces against you, I just so happen to agree with cjets' opinion, what seems to be your problem? No one is attacking you, my friend. Just relax. Now, excuse me, please, I've got to go recite the poems of Alfred Lord Tennyson in my head Sure, his poetry is to die for. It little profits that an idle king, By this still hearth, among these barren crags, Match'd with an aged wife, I mete and dole Unequal laws unto a savage race, That hoard, and sleep, and feed, and know not me
Good for you, wannie. I wish that more "elite" athletes would open up and break down the walls but they are just not as brave as you were when you decided to "come out". Yay-yo is correct though. As a former athlete myself, I can tell you that many gay jokes were of the norm in the locker room. Being that I am an adult now, I understand that it was indeed childish behavior and looking back, am truly ashamed at the ridiculous comments that were made to poke fun at someone's sexual preference. I can only hope that more athletes would be like wannie and somehow summon the courage to be the first active "elite" sportsman to speak up and tell the world that they're gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
What are you talking about, LBB? This isn't some sort of combined forces against you, Didn't say it was. I just so happen to agree with cjets' opinion, And which opinion was that? That "to question his right to post his opinion" -- something that, as I pointed out, did not happen-- "smacks of censorship"? No one did any such questioning, so the j'accuse as if someone did is inappropriate, don't you think?
Sir Charles said it best ".......
Actually LBB, with this comment: "You and cjets are both trying to make my comments into something they're not", your implying that cjets and myself are somehow twisting your words into something you claim they're not. But again, you're entitled to express your opinions but don't think that I'm trying to attack you with my words, it's called disagreeing. Please, this is a dead issue.
I'll agree with Charles Barkley. ESPN video.
Please, this is a dead issue. Then stop posting about it! You post, she posts, you post, she posts...you two are worse than Maddy and Dave. Get a room, already.
thank you.
I think BornIcon took the last line to heart, "To strive, to seek and not to yield". I do wish people would de-confuse this place with a government-sponsored forum. I'm not trampling anyone's freedom of speech when I say it makes everything suck a little bit more when all a person every contributes is bile. It's easy to write negative reviews. How about an insightful comment about a team or player or even just sports once in a while?
Here, here. (Or is it hear, hear?) "Amaechi puts his head down and takes it hard to the hole; slams it and serves up a facial! What a performance!" See? It's better to stay on topic and contribute something positive.
Yeah, Moonlighting was a good show.
I had a poster of Cybil Shepard on my bedroom wall in high school.
Wow, what a coincidence, Amaechi had a poster of Bruce Willis.
Are you sure it wasn't a Curtis Armstrong poster?
"Amaechi puts his head down and takes it hard to the hole; slams it and serves up a facial! What a performance!" Well that paints a pretty picture right before lunch break! Nice one weedy, I've had a chuckle or too in here before but that line is a classic in my book.
It sure was classic stuff, weedy. Thanks for the laugh.
"Amaechi puts his head down and takes it hard to the hole; slams it and serves up a facial! What a performance!" See? It's better to stay on topic and contribute something positive. I know it ws intended as comic relief, but honestly, I'm having a hard time finding the humor.
I'm having a hard time finding the humor. It's called a double entendre. Kinda like a pun in a garter belt and fishnets.
I know it ws intended as comic relief, but honestly, I'm having a hard time finding the humor. A basketball game sometimes can sound like gay sex? And vice versa? This reminds me of the time I was forced to defend my idea of having a tattoo of Vince Carter dunking into my starfish. Thankfully, those old Raptor uniforms with the dinosaur on them stopped me. Man, those uniforms were in poor taste.
One or two handed dunk?
The league's morality is not based on the bible or on what any one person thinks is "societal norms." It's based on putting butts in seats and eyeballs on commercials. So capitalism isn't a societal norm? Interesting.
No, it's not. How would it be considered so?
Would capitalism be a societal norm for socialists? Would socialism be a capitalistic norm for capitalists? Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an ism, he should believe in himself.
Re. ism's......Ferris Bueller?
How about izzle's?
I just read an excerpt from Amaechi's book. Umm, I have to say, the words "asshole" and "bitchy" come to mind.
He definitely has no fond memories of Sloan.
