Tim Hardaway

[imported_biggamesjames]

So you wouldn't mind for gay marriage to be legal since you don't care about what others do? Two men adopting a child is no problem for you? You will raise your kids teaching them there is no difference whether they have a partner of the same sex or not?

[jtw61194]

Glad to see everybody is in full swing. Let me see if I can get my two cents in. When I think of homosexuality (as a heterosexual male) the first thing I immediately think of is the sexual stuff. I have to be honest when I say I don't see how it can be pleasureable. But, I also make myself understand that there is also a culture that goes along with the orientation and that has to be respected. The problem I have with the whole homosexual issue is that I really don't care what you do and who you do it with, so why bother me with your personal business? As long as what you do doesn't cause me to lose my job or make my life miserable, I don't care what you are. I do think there is a close comparison to racism and homophobia, in my white, heterosexual opinion, because you are discriminating against somebody else that is "different." As for Tim Hardaway, here's what it boils down to. A man who owes a great deal of his success to the fact that blacks (and others, too)would not tolerate or accept prejudice and discrimination, did the exact same thing to somebody else. That's hypocritical.

[Ironlung]

Exactly.

[R0cketer]

If someone hates gays on the idea of it being sin, then you're absolutely right, not related to being a bigot. That being said, I don't think most people do. Since most of the people who will talk about 'hateing gays' will be lusting after the hot girl in the bar or in the mall. And if they hate the sin of homosexuality, they should hate the sin of lusting.

Like Biggin said to most people the hate of homosexuality is a lot closer to being a bigot. They don't like them because they are 'different'.

Biggin wasnt being disparaging and promote the upholding of negative sterotypes of people of this region. You, on the other hand, wear the sterotype and parade it around as a badge of honor with such comments as "i'd rather be hill billy redneck etc...than gay, fruity, etc in San Fran."

It is people such as yourself, with a narrow worldview and intolerance of others, who not only hold such views but propogate the sterotype by glorifying it in comparision to the "evil" "wrong" or "backward" cultures or lifestyles of others.......in an dual attempt to paint your culture as the "good" by comparing it to the "bad" (which is only a perception you have crafted)culture/lifestyles of other people. Thus, you propogate the same sterotype of yourself which you claim to hate (the redneck sterotype, which, i might add for the record, is just as wrong, misleading, and offensive as ones of gays, blacks, jews, etc).

The fact that homosexuality is different, unorthodox, or even opposed to your belief system doesnt make it wrong. I just makes it different. And thats really what homophobia is all about: not the "fear" of getting hit on by a homosexual, but fear derived from differences and a lack of being able to see things from a different prospective.

I dont mean to berate you personally here. Perhaps that are different types of homophobes: some that just dont want to be around gays, and some that downright hate them. I would place you in the first and Hardaway in the second, that class being pretty dispicable.

you are right he has a right to speak his mind. it probably wasnt in his best interests to do so, but he has that right, and i defend his right to SAY it, but the sentiment behind that statement i vehemently disagree with.

And also, be sure not to confuse the right to free speech with the right to say ANYTHING (which is NOT included). Hate speech is the subjects of numerous court rulings on such a topic. The more classic example however, is the theatre one. You have the right to free speech, but you do NOT have the right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theatre.

As to the topic of this whole debate, homosexuals: it should be emphasized its OK to disapprove of it, which on some level i do. But when it comes down to it, i really dont care. I have a few gay friends. Nice people. If they are homosexual, i really dont care...it doesnt really change anything about them as a person. It may make them different in a way, but.....SO WHAT? We're all different. There is no PROTOTYPE. There is no NORMAL human.

Basically, I just dont understand why it matters so much to people? If a guy is a nice person, when why would i not be friends with him? Because of something he does in his private time? Maybe John reads People Magazine, or Tom likes opera...thats different from what I do/like, but i dont hate him or fear him, i dont become a operaphobe. Why wouldnt i like the guy? Because he doesn't conform with my belief system (and if that's Chrisitanity, then no one conforms wholly to my belief system, since we're all sinners)?

[imported_biggamesjames]

Its not the same and here's why: Disliking homosexuality is disliking an action. Disliking a person because of the color of their skin is different. They didn't do anything for you to dislike them. That being said I do not dislike homosexuals but those who do are not the same as bigots. It's like saying I dislike thieves and liars. I dislike their ACTIONS. I do not dislike them because of how they were born. They chose to do what they did. You could say you dislike pornographers....You don't dislike them for how they were born you dislike what they are doing.

[imported_biggamesjames]

Ok, thats your perogative. I disagree.

[sup-rbeast]

The difference is folks are born a certain race. But bein gay is a choice. If someone is discriminated against because of race or sex it is wrong. But sayin' someone bein discriminated against because of a choice outside the social norm is not the same. Think about this: If a man was fired from his job because he repeatedly showed of to work nude is that discrimination if he is a nudist?..Same principle. Nudists are outside the social norm and there are laws against it. Homosexuality is a choice outside the social norm. I see no reason why homosexuality can't be outlawed and exempted from protection when it comes to discrimination and lawsuits. Folks can scream freedom and pursuit of happiness, yadda yadda yadda...but since it is a choice of whether a person is a homosexual or not I don't think they should be protected from discrimination any more than a nudist showing up in public or at work in the buff would. We are protected in society from discrimination pertaining to things we can't help...but really how many choices that you make does the law protect protect you from. If you make a bad investment does the law protect you?...If you ran out in public naked and got arrested, is there a law to protect you?...The answer is plain and simple...NO.

And some has mentioned (and im sure will defend this view later) that "homosexuality is a choice".

"no one is born with a root in there ***"

Im sorry, but are heterosexuals born with the reproductive organs of the opposite sex on them??? I must have missed that one.

Secondly, why would someone make that choice, with all the baggage that comes with it (and critiicism and hate from other people)

Being homosexual is genetic, just like one's sex, just like one's skin color.

Now, is it NATURAL??? Well, i think its had to say it is...if your into religion, then no. If youre a darwinist, then obviously no, b/c homosexuality does not propogate itself genetically. This leads me to conclude that it either is...A) a genetic mutation, a random happenchance change during genetic repoductive stage of the human, of B) a highly recessive gene, like albino-ness, or to a lesser extent, blue eyes.

Its not a choice.

[Ironlung]

Agreed Juhan. If it were a choice nobody would chose to live a lifetime having to read some of the stuff that's been put on here and worse that they live with every day. If I had a choice of being kicked in the nuts every 5 minutes or not, that choice wouldn't be that hard to make. Same thing here, imo.