NBA LGBT Pride Month Tshirts

[Racspur1]

http://collabs.teespring.com/nbapride/


Thoughts ??? :sombrero:

[Snaq O'Meal]

No thanks.

[bdictjames]

I have too many Spurs shirts lol. If they had a different design, sure.

[spurs1990]

If the NBA wants to get behind the movement then it needs to be on the players during the season.

Otherwise it's a case of being half-pregnant.

[K...]

From a non political standpoint, those are mostly beautiful shirts. The pictured logos are better since the gradient color shows better, vs spurs and Lakers being words.

I think I like the nuggets the best.


Anyway, for those who call this an empty political feature, consider the Hispanic day and military uniforms. This is nothing different. The NBA mandates several issues like this.

[AFMadison]

They are shoving the LGBT movement in everyone's face. Waste of money for those manufacturers.

[K...]

They are shoving the LGBT movement in everyone's face. Waste of money for those manufacturers.

You are aware that the nba is aligned with urban elites who are more likely to be pro lgbt? I mean this is the sport which subsidizes a women's league.

Again, this isn't any different from their shoving the military or Latina night down our throat. Those aren't 100% popular.

[dbestpro]

Sports use to be an escape from life and the politics it brings. Hard to get away now a days without getting away.

[sananspursfan21]

The NBA is a corporation that is free to endorse whomever they choose. Personally, I'm not on board with the LGBT movement for many reasons but some of you guys act like the NBA is federally ran or something. If Silver personally feels like he should back something, well by golly he is fully within his rights to see the endorsement through.

[Kawhitstorm]

Sports use to be an escape from life and the politics it brings. Hard to get away now a days without getting away.

NBA is doing it to sell merchandise & not b/c they care.:lol

[baseline bum]

Sports use to be an escape from life and the politics it brings. Hard to get away now a days without getting away.

Do you also complain when the Spurs wear the camouflage uniforms?

[Crazymaddopeyo]

Those shirts look tight. Way better than the regular shirts I've seen.

[AFMadison]

You are aware that the nba is aligned with urban elites who are more likely to be pro lgbt? I mean this is the sport which subsidizes a women's league.

Again, this isn't any different from their shoving the military or Latina night down our throat. Those aren't 100% popular.

Yea. So it subsidizes a women's league? What does that have to do with the LGBT movement.

[AFMadison]

Sports use to be an escape from life and the politics it brings. Hard to get away now a days without getting away.
The truth. I'm surprised ESPN hasn't made a "Keeping Up With Michael Sam" exclusive.

[Silver&Black]

Pretty sure I've already seen that Warriors one courtside.....

[K...]

Yea. So it subsidizes a women's league? What does that have to do with the LGBT movement.

The nba has been pro minority for decades. Do you not see the "watch me work" commercials? just because you have some sort of red line on cultural gate keeping doesn't mean the nba is being dicks for establishing their own.


NEWS FLASH: The league is always looking for new fans. Young people are pro lgbt, money urban people are pro lgbt.



Did you not see Silver totally backstab that clipper's guy? The agenda has been clear for decades.

[Mister Sinister]

Digging the Nuggets, Spurs and Pacers ones most tbh.

[K...]

Y'all guys bitch about tshirts but the real tragedy was when Jerry Springer started devoting the last five minutes of his show, the audience questioning of the shamed guests, to George W bush dick sucking during the iraq war. I mean, maybe i was naive, but i though Jerry springer show was real,. seeing a random black man reading a script that sounded exactly like what jerry would say totally smashed the window there. Sad day for me.



This is way less damaging

[TheGreatYacht]

Bet those Warriors shirts will sell out quickly, bc San Fran

[poeticism707]

http://collabs.teespring.com/nbapride/


Thoughts ??? :sombrero:

Disgusting.

[Obi Juan Kenobi]

Pretty sure I've already seen that Warriors one courtside.....

:lol

[AFMadison]

The nba has been pro minority for decades. Do you not see the "watch me work" commercials? just because you have some sort of red line on cultural gate keeping doesn't mean the nba is being dicks for establishing their own.


NEWS FLASH: The league is always looking for new fans. Young people are pro lgbt, money urban people are pro lgbt.



Did you not see Silver totally backstab that clipper's guy? The agenda has been clear for decades.
Young people? Like me?
L.

It's just a way to be politically correct.

[tholdren]

this is gay

[hombre]

Sports use to be an escape from life and the politics it brings. Hard to get away now a days without getting away.

People used this excuse for Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier as well.

[SpursforSix]

Those shirts are gay.

[HarlemHeat37]

Good for the NBA, tbh..I'm going to purchase a Spurs shirt, right now..

ESPN did the right thing by awarding Caitlyn Jenner the "courage" award, and the NBA is doing a great job in promoting the necessary steps that need to be taken by our society..

[LongtimeSpursFan]

No thanks. I wouldn't wear that. $25 for a tshirt. That's crazy

[cjw]

Digging the Nuggets, Spurs and Pacers ones most tbh.

Nuggets almost coincides with their old logo.

Yes, the league makes money off these but what's the harm in the end? Ideally, things like sports are something everyone can bond over regardless of race, socioeconomic background (albeit in different seats), religion, nationality, gender or sexuality. Just like the average Joe shouldn't care so long as it's not impacting their personal lives. Government imposing policy instead of simply guaranteeing freedoms is where the issue comes in.

[PÒÓCH]

We already had gay pride colors..recall the pink fast breaking fiesta logo?
The neon pink? Ain't no color gayer than that.

[Proxy]

Atlanta and Charlotte look the best imo

[Mal]

Can I get white pride of those ?

[MoSpur]

The NBA just wants to make money. That and they don't want any heat for not "doing enough" to show support for the gay community.

[TheDoctor]

I like them. Gotta say the Spurs logo is ugly. Our unis are very stark compared to the League (which I like), but the logo is ugly as sin IMO.

[SpursforSix]

Didn't the Spurs already do the LGBT thing?

https://img1.etsystatic.com/114/0/12327954/il_340x270.1005390747_8y0q.jpg

[TheDoctor]

Didn't the Spurs already do the LGBT thing?

https://img1.etsystatic.com/114/0/12327954/il_340x270.1005390747_8y0q.jpg

Yes. Such a progressive franchise tbh :lol Way ahead of their time. Take that Lacob.

[DisAsTerBot]

dope shirt tbh

[RD2191]

Disgusting. Fuckin faggots.

[DJR210]

Bet those Warriors shirts will sell out quickly, bc San Fran

They're gonna be draped on every seat in the building as freebies in Oakland if Cleveland manages to get some balls

[DJR210]

Didn't the Spurs already do the LGBT thing?

https://img1.etsystatic.com/114/0/12327954/il_340x270.1005390747_8y0q.jpg

Fiesta has nothing to do with taking it up the ass, you fucking faggot

[SpursforSix]

Fiesta has nothing to do with taking it up the ass, you fucking faggot

:lol

[Phenomanul]

Personally I don't care what folks do in their bedrooms... It's their choice to do as they please so long as they don't infringe on other's rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"... (i.e. consent).

They can get married if they choose to. They should NOT be denied certain privileges (tax breaks, common law entitlements, etc...). I don't care. [I do draw the line at adoption. Given two males can never procreate and neither can two females. Children are not an entitlement of marriage --> they are the result of the correct reproductive pairing. And i don't buy the "think of the children" argument, given that the ideologically opposing stance also supports the wanton use of abortion to rid themselves/society of "unwanted children". It's true, there are a myriad of unfit heterosexual parents out there as well, folks who don't deserve to be called parents, but that's another argument entirely.]

That said, I personally find it distastefully ignorant that those with LGBTQ self-identity refuse to acknowledge that sexual desire is A CHOICE. They want to distance themselves from the accountability of said choice. Over the past several decades the LGBTQ camp has been very successful at equating their plight to the Civil Rights movement or Woman's Suffrage movement, by suggesting that "they are born that way," that "they didn't have a choice". But for the most part, genetically speaking, they don't have a scientific basis on which to assert the validity of that claim. Pedophiles make the same claims, but we know that their mindset is wrong even if they've never 'harmed' a child - and society rightfully condemns said behavior. In some instances, identifying it as a mental disease.

The Human Genome Project was completed in 2003, and after 13 years of painstakingly mapping out humanity's genetic pool (and after much insistence/patronage from the LGBTQ camp) a "gay" gene was never found or identified - even though dedicated teams were specifically looking for said gene, and despite a disproportionate amount of LGBTQ genetic donors for said effort.

http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm

This is just an extension of society continuing to proliferate two lies.

Lie No. 1: That IF one doesn't condone LGBTQ behavior, THEN you "hate" LGBTQ people.

Lie No. 2: (related) That IF one doesn't condone LGBTQ behavior, THEN you cannot love LGBTQ people.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I don't condone everything my children do. It doesn't mean I love them any less. When they do wrong they must be instructed for correction.

That the NBA wants to do this, is well within their rights... frankly however, it's just more of the same - more of the millennial mindset. No one needs to be held accountable for their choices, "it's always someone else's fault" / "let me do as I please". A brave new world indeed.

[Phenomanul]

And I know I'm gonna take a lot of crap for that post... maybe someone here can email my supervisor again. :lol :lol (even though I am on my day off).

I just find it laughable that people are not allowed to disagree anymore. Whatever.

[Ginobilly]

:lmao celebrating putting your bobanator in another man's tiago sphincter.

[SpursforSix]

:lmao celebrating putting your bobanator in another man's tiago sphincter.

:lol

[DisAsTerBot]

^doesnt care one way or another... multi paragraph post, longest in thread, bold letters, links to studies...

[Ginobilly]

You are aware that the nba is aligned with urban elites who are more likely to be pro lgbt? I mean this is the sport which subsidizes a women's league.

Again, this isn't any different from their shoving the military or Latina night down our throat. Those aren't 100% popular.

Yeah, they're pro lgbt but only push it on the bottom 99% of the sheeple, yet they push traditional conservative values within their own families.

[K...]

And I know I'm gonna take a lot of crap for that post... maybe someone here can email my supervisor again. :lol :lol (even though I am on my day off).

I just find it laughable that people are not allowed to disagree anymore. Whatever.

The only thing is genes aren't the only thing. It's evo devo....the way the genes are expressed, so while all animals are sexual...the programming of sex can go awry. This isn't really a defect, it's just development.



Just because science can't explain something doesn't mean the opposite of the hypothesis being tested/asserted

[UZER]

They already have their own entire league, the WNBA.

[spankadelphia]

(((S:lollver)))

He knows damn well his customer base is largely homophobic.

[K...]

(((S:lollver)))

He knows damn well his customer base is largely homophobic.

Where do you base this? I assume the opposite

[Phenomanul]

The only thing is genes aren't the only thing. It's evo devo....the way the genes are expressed, so while all animals are sexual...the programming of sex can go awry. This isn't really a defect, it's just development.

Just because science can't explain something doesn't mean the opposite of the hypothesis being tested/asserted

I'm simply pointing out that both the Civil Rights movement and Women's suffrage movement were born out of legitimate genetic differences that were being discriminated against... LGBTQ folks are incorrectly trying to lump themselves in that same vein, when they don't have that clear cut genetic argument in their favor...

In the end... we're all humans and no one should be discriminated for being who they are. The problem is that LGBTQ proponents don't want to acknowledge that sexual preference is a choice. Gender is not.

[Kawhitstorm]

Good for the NBA, tbh..I'm going to purchase a Spurs shirt, right now..

ESPN did the right thing by awarding Caitlyn Jenner the "courage" award, and the NBA is doing a great job in promoting the necessary steps that need to be taken by our society..

Ooooooooohhhhh Canadaaaaaaaaa (c) LGBT Orgasm

[Kawhitstorm]

Fiesta has nothing to do with taking it up the ass, you fucking faggot

It's not gay if you aren't on the receiving end...:wakeup

[DJR210]

It's not gay if you aren't on the receiving end serving a life sentence in prison...:wakeup

Fixed

[Trainwreck2100]

Those shirts would be nice if they didn't represent taking it in the ass

[Spur|n|Austin]

Those shirts would be nice if they didn't represent taking it in the ass

How does being a lesbian represent taking it in the ass?

[Trainwreck2100]

Those shirts would be nice if they didn't represent taking it in the ass

[philldafunk]

Welp, only a matter of time before the pink breast cancer awareness colorways

[TDomination]

Not a fan, but why stop there. They should start supporting other controversial organizations like people who are devout atheist, or people who believe in the one true God, Or organizations that are anti gay, or trump supporters, or satanist, or Darwinist, I'm sure people of all these categories are nba fans too lol

[RD2191]

How does being a lesbian represent taking it in the ass?
Lesbians are anal freaks tbh.

[PingPong]

Fiesta has nothing to do with taking it up the ass, you fucking faggot

Taking it up in the wetback isn't the best thing in life, I guess.

[HI-FI]

least the rainbow colors are muted, and the logos look interesting, but still....

Those shirts would be nice if they didn't represent taking it in the ass

[SpursforSix]

Lesbians are anal freaks tbh.

Especially if they're passed out?

[cd98]

I'm tired this Proud stuff. And add all the other "_______ month" stuff. Why do we have to divide by isolating one portion of the population and celebrate them, but not others? Is there a straight pride T-Shirt? Or a Christian-pride T-Shirt? Or whatever. It makes me sick of pro sports.

[paperboy77]

.

[paperboy77]

Personally I don't care what folks do in their bedrooms... It's their choice to do as they please so long as they don't infringe on other's rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"... (i.e. consent).

They can get married if they choose to. They should NOT be denied certain privileges (tax breaks, common law entitlements, etc...). I don't care. [I do draw the line at adoption. Given two males can never procreate and neither can two females. Children are not an entitlement of marriage --> they are the result of the correct reproductive pairing. And i don't buy the "think of the children" argument, given that the ideologically opposing stance also supports the wanton use of abortion to rid themselves/society of "unwanted children". It's true, there are a myriad of unfit heterosexual parents out there as well, folks who don't deserve to be called parents, but that's another argument entirely.]

That said, I personally find it distastefully ignorant that those with LGBTQ self-identity refuse to acknowledge that sexual desire is A CHOICE. They want to distance themselves from the accountability of said choice. Over the past several decades the LGBTQ camp has been very successful at equating their plight to the Civil Rights movement or Woman's Suffrage movement, by suggesting that "they are born that way," that "they didn't have a choice". But for the most part, genetically speaking, they don't have a scientific basis on which to assert the validity of that claim. Pedophiles make the same claims, but we know that their mindset is wrong even if they've never 'harmed' a child - and society rightfully condemns said behavior. In some instances, identifying it as a mental disease.

The Human Genome Project was completed in 2003, and after 13 years of painstakingly mapping out humanity's genetic pool (and after much insistence/patronage from the LGBTQ camp) a "gay" gene was never found or identified - even though dedicated teams were specifically looking for said gene, and despite a disproportionate amount of LGBTQ genetic donors for said effort.

http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm

This is just an extension of society continuing to proliferate two lies.

Lie No. 1: That IF one doesn't condone LGBTQ behavior, THEN you "hate" LGBTQ people.

Lie No. 2: (related) That IF one doesn't condone LGBTQ behavior, THEN you cannot love LGBTQ people.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I don't condone everything my children do. It doesn't mean I love them any less. When they do wrong they must be instructed for correction.

That the NBA wants to do this, is well within their rights... frankly however, it's just more of the same - more of the millennial mindset. No one needs to be held accountable for their choices, "it's always someone else's fault" / "let me do as I please". A brave new world indeed.



Well said. 100% Agree!

[GSH]

The NBA is a corporation that is free to endorse whomever they choose. Personally, I'm not on board with the LGBT movement for many reasons but some of you guys act like the NBA is federally ran or something. If Silver personally feels like he should back something, well by golly he is fully within his rights to see the endorsement through.


The Romans called it "bread and circus". Give the unwashed masses the arena, and some scraps to eat, and they will stay docile while the patrician families rape the country's wealth. When the government and sports start "cooperating", it's not a good thing... and it's not free enterprise, or anything like it.

As for the NBA being "federally run"? Nobody said that. But in case you aren't aware, only baseball has an explicit exemption from anti-trust laws. The other sports have "limited exemptions". That means that they could be made to jump like puppets, if the government (or the right people in the government) decide to squeeze them hard enough. Not that anyone would actually do that. But the league got a lot more socially active right after the last collective bargaining agreement, and the owners coincidentally came out like bandits, while a bunch of players signed for a lot less than they might have. Funny how the owners were losing money, but after the new agreement the money faucet is flowing strong. I'm a big believer in coincidence. :rolleyes

Someone above said the league is "pro-minority". The owners are pro-money. Their pro-minority message is what they do in exchange. Clearly there are some good people. But the league as a whole is a money making machine that hires predominantly minorities. The rest is political theater. If LeBron was graduating this year, he would have to play at least one year in the un-paid college farm system (or take a year off). Then he would have to sign for a ridiculous rookie-scale contract for three years. That's not free enterprise - don't kid yourself. The owners have a really sweet deal.

I know, I know... they really are "pro-minority". They're all good people, and that's why they're so fucking rich.

[K...]

The Romans called it "bread and circus". Give the unwashed masses the arena, and some scraps to eat, and they will stay docile while the patrician families rape the country's wealth. When the government and sports start "cooperating", it's not a good thing... and it's not free enterprise, or anything like it.

As for the NBA being "federally run"? Nobody said that. But in case you aren't aware, only baseball has an explicit exemption from anti-trust laws. The other sports have "limited exemptions". That means that they could be made to jump like puppets, if the government (or the right people in the government) decide to squeeze them hard enough. Not that anyone would actually do that. But the league got a lot more socially active right after the last collective bargaining agreement, and the owners coincidentally came out like bandits, while a bunch of players signed for a lot less than they might have. Funny how the owners were losing money, but after the new agreement the money faucet is flowing strong. I'm a big believer in coincidence. :rolleyes

Someone above said the league is "pro-minority". The owners are pro-money. Their pro-minority message is what they do in exchange. Clearly there are some good people. But the league as a whole is a money making machine that hires predominantly minorities. The rest is political theater. If LeBron was graduating this year, he would have to play at least one year in the un-paid college farm system (or take a year off). Then he would have to sign for a ridiculous rookie-scale contract for three years. That's not free enterprise - don't kid yourself. The owners have a really sweet deal.

I know, I know... they really are "pro-minority". They're all good people, and that's why they're so fucking rich.

:cry

[K...]

I'm tired this Proud stuff. And add all the other "_______ month" stuff. Why do we have to divide by isolating one portion of the population and celebrate them, but not others? Is there a straight pride T-Shirt? Or a Christian-pride T-Shirt? Or whatever. It makes me sick of pro sports.

Federal law gives you the birth date of your prophet off, and most often, his death day. Wake me when he have holidays for muhhamad and ellen.

[Killakobe81]

Personally I don't care what folks do in their bedrooms... It's their choice to do as they please so long as they don't infringe on other's rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"... (i.e. consent).

They can get married if they choose to. They should NOT be denied certain privileges (tax breaks, common law entitlements, etc...). I don't care. [I do draw the line at adoption. Given two males can never procreate and neither can two females. Children are not an entitlement of marriage --> they are the result of the correct reproductive pairing. And i don't buy the "think of the children" argument, given that the ideologically opposing stance also supports the wanton use of abortion to rid themselves/society of "unwanted children". It's true, there are a myriad of unfit heterosexual parents out there as well, folks who don't deserve to be called parents, but that's another argument entirely.]

That said, I personally find it distastefully ignorant that those with LGBTQ self-identity refuse to acknowledge that sexual desire is A CHOICE. They want to distance themselves from the accountability of said choice. Over the past several decades the LGBTQ camp has been very successful at equating their plight to the Civil Rights movement or Woman's Suffrage movement, by suggesting that "they are born that way," that "they didn't have a choice". But for the most part, genetically speaking, they don't have a scientific basis on which to assert the validity of that claim. Pedophiles make the same claims, but we know that their mindset is wrong even if they've never 'harmed' a child - and society rightfully condemns said behavior. In some instances, identifying it as a mental disease.

The Human Genome Project was completed in 2003, and after 13 years of painstakingly mapping out humanity's genetic pool (and after much insistence/patronage from the LGBTQ camp) a "gay" gene was never found or identified - even though dedicated teams were specifically looking for said gene, and despite a disproportionate amount of LGBTQ genetic donors for said effort.

http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm

This is just an extension of society continuing to proliferate two lies.

Lie No. 1: That IF one doesn't condone LGBTQ behavior, THEN you "hate" LGBTQ people.

Lie No. 2: (related) That IF one doesn't condone LGBTQ behavior, THEN you cannot love LGBTQ people.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I don't condone everything my children do. It doesn't mean I love them any less. When they do wrong they must be instructed for correction.

That the NBA wants to do this, is well within their rights... frankly however, it's just more of the same - more of the millennial mindset. No one needs to be held accountable for their choices, "it's always someone else's fault" / "let me do as I please". A brave new world indeed.

Interesting takes.
I need to process this ... I am intrigued by your thoughts on the genome project, adoption, correcting children, pedophiles. I have heard the Civil Rights comparisons and not sure we are talking apples to apples.
I dont mind what people do in the privacy of their own homes because many heteros do probably way more depraved shit tbh ...but the shift we have to where if you disagree with the life choice whether for religious or natural reasons ...means you are intolerant is crazy.
Some people practice polygamy or incest and feel it's their religious right or were born that way and society does not protect those views.

[Tully365]

In 1950, discussions like the one going on in this thread would have centered around whether it was ok to let black men play in the league, and I'm sure there were lots of people back then saying they didn't want "racial politics shoved down their throats." The NBA is 100% correct here in my opinion to acknowledge people in the LGBT community, just as they were back in 1950, when they acknowledged that it would be ridiculous and racist to not allowed African-American athletes to play professional basketball.

[Horry Hipcheck]

Personally I don't care what folks do in their bedrooms... It's their choice to do as they please so long as they don't infringe on other's rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"... (i.e. consent).

They can get married if they choose to. They should NOT be denied certain privileges (tax breaks, common law entitlements, etc...). I don't care. [I do draw the line at adoption. Given two males can never procreate and neither can two females. Children are not an entitlement of marriage --> they are the result of the correct reproductive pairing. And i don't buy the "think of the children" argument, given that the ideologically opposing stance also supports the wanton use of abortion to rid themselves/society of "unwanted children". It's true, there are a myriad of unfit heterosexual parents out there as well, folks who don't deserve to be called parents, but that's another argument entirely.]

That said, I personally find it distastefully ignorant that those with LGBTQ self-identity refuse to acknowledge that sexual desire is A CHOICE. They want to distance themselves from the accountability of said choice. Over the past several decades the LGBTQ camp has been very successful at equating their plight to the Civil Rights movement or Woman's Suffrage movement, by suggesting that "they are born that way," that "they didn't have a choice". But for the most part, genetically speaking, they don't have a scientific basis on which to assert the validity of that claim. Pedophiles make the same claims, but we know that their mindset is wrong even if they've never 'harmed' a child - and society rightfully condemns said behavior. In some instances, identifying it as a mental disease.

The Human Genome Project was completed in 2003, and after 13 years of painstakingly mapping out humanity's genetic pool (and after much insistence/patronage from the LGBTQ camp) a "gay" gene was never found or identified - even though dedicated teams were specifically looking for said gene, and despite a disproportionate amount of LGBTQ genetic donors for said effort.

http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm

This is just an extension of society continuing to proliferate two lies.

Lie No. 1: That IF one doesn't condone LGBTQ behavior, THEN you "hate" LGBTQ people.

Lie No. 2: (related) That IF one doesn't condone LGBTQ behavior, THEN you cannot love LGBTQ people.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I don't condone everything my children do. It doesn't mean I love them any less. When they do wrong they must be instructed for correction.

That the NBA wants to do this, is well within their rights... frankly however, it's just more of the same - more of the millennial mindset. No one needs to be held accountable for their choices, "it's always someone else's fault" / "let me do as I please". A brave new world indeed.

1. It's not genetic - people have long demanded an explanation for why there is no gay gene if homosexuality is supposedly natural, but the fact is that less than 5% of the population identifies as gay. Less than 5% is not reflective of the gene pool. Heterosexual parents produce gay children, homosexual parents produce straight children. Human sexuality is a product of a lot of things, and it is not a "gay or straight" thing. Masculinity and social repression teach people that you're either one or the other, and anything in between is not up for discussion. An honest assessment of sexuality would show that it's a product of a great many factors in development, and can be expressed in a large variety of ways. No element of sexuality is chosen. How one acts on their sexuality and impulses IS a choice.

2. The right to a child should not determined by whether or not you and your partner are physically capable of making a child on your own. Excluding two men or two women on that basis alone makes no sense. Studies show children develop equally in same-sex parent environments versus opposite sex environments. Parenting is about loving your child and being a guiding force, not about subscribing to an antiquated gender binary that simplifies human development into requiring a female influence and a male influence in order to yield positive results. You even said yourself, there are a lot of shitty heterosexual parents out there. To exclude a willing, passionate set of parents for reasons that blatantly disregard their ability to love and nurture a child without a home is asinine.

3. The shirts are a money grab, but as a gay man I appreciate them. They're simple and elegant. I don't need more Spurs shirts but they are nice.

4. "People are not allowed to disagree anymore". This is what white people said when segregation ended and the Civil Rights Act passed. This is what straight people say when they're told LGBT people have to be treated like everyone else. This is what people will always say when something that doesn't affect them happens and they don't like it. Your original post started off great, what with thinking it's only someone else's business to do what they want with their lives. Your adoption and genetics arguments simply lack substance. You can dislike gay people if you want. I'll never understand why straight people preoccupy themselves so much with other people, but you can do that. Just don't become a voice in the slowly dying chorus of civil oppression.

[Horry Hipcheck]

I'm tired this Proud stuff. And add all the other "_______ month" stuff. Why do we have to divide by isolating one portion of the population and celebrate them, but not others? Is there a straight pride T-Shirt? Or a Christian-pride T-Shirt? Or whatever. It makes me sick of pro sports.

God I hope you're doing a comedy bit. "Where is straight pride?" is one of the most widely circulated jokes about backwards thought on the Internet. Poor straight, white Christians. The government was tailor-made to serve your interests above all others and social standards of beauty, family, stability, wealth, and power are all built around your image. Black History Month, Pride, etc. are all important because literally every other waking second of human existence is a celebration of straight, white Christians.

its such a preposterous suggestion that I legitimately assume people are being sarcastic when they say it.

[DisAsTerBot]

hipchecked!

[wildbill2u]

Probably sell a lot of them in the Spurs Talk membership. Half the time all I see is folks identifying other folks as faggots so this must be a major market for the product, eh?

[Killakobe81]

1. It's not genetic - people have long demanded an explanation for why there is no gay gene if homosexuality is supposedly natural, but the fact is that less than 5% of the population identifies as gay. Less than 5% is not reflective of the gene pool. Heterosexual parents produce gay children, homosexual parents produce straight children. Human sexuality is a product of a lot of things, and it is not a "gay or straight" thing. Masculinity and social repression teach people that you're either one or the other, and anything in between is not up for discussion. An honest assessment of sexuality would show that it's a product of a great many factors in development, and can be expressed in a large variety of ways. No element of sexuality is chosen. How one acts on their sexuality and impulses IS a choice.

2. The right to a child should not determined by whether or not you and your partner are physically capable of making a child on your own. Excluding two men or two women on that basis alone makes no sense. Studies show children develop equally in same-sex parent environments versus opposite sex environments. Parenting is about loving your child and being a guiding force, not about subscribing to an antiquated gender binary that simplifies human development into requiring a female influence and a male influence in order to yield positive results. You even said yourself, there are a lot of shitty heterosexual parents out there. To exclude a willing, passionate set of parents for reasons that blatantly disregard their ability to love and nurture a child without a home is asinine.

3. The shirts are a money grab, but as a gay man I appreciate them. They're simple and elegant. I don't need more Spurs shirts but they are nice.

4. "People are not allowed to disagree anymore". This is what white people said when segregation ended and the Civil Rights Act passed. This is what straight people say when they're told LGBT people have to be treated like everyone else. This is what people will always say when something that doesn't affect them happens and they don't like it. Your original post started off great, what with thinking it's only someone else's business to do what they want with their lives. Your adoption and genetics arguments simply lack substance. You can dislike gay people if you want. I'll never understand why straight people preoccupy themselves so much with other people, but you can do that. Just don't become a voice in the slowly dying chorus of civil oppression.

Appreciate your candor and willigness to share. Just like the post your responded to (not mine) you have given me some food for thought.

[Killakobe81]

God I hope you're doing a comedy bit. "Where is straight pride?" is one of the most widely circulated jokes about backwards thought on the Internet. Poor straight, white Christians. The government was tailor-made to serve your interests above all others and social standards of beauty, family, stability, wealth, and power are all built around your image. Black History Month, Pride, etc. are all important because literally every other waking second of human existence is a celebration of straight, white Christians.

its such a preposterous suggestion that I legitimately assume people are being sarcastic when they say it.

Great response.

[Killakobe81]

1. It's not genetic - people have long demanded an explanation for why there is no gay gene if homosexuality is supposedly natural, but the fact is that less than 5% of the population identifies as gay. Less than 5% is not reflective of the gene pool. Heterosexual parents produce gay children, homosexual parents produce straight children. Human sexuality is a product of a lot of things, and it is not a "gay or straight" thing. Masculinity and social repression teach people that you're either one or the other, and anything in between is not up for discussion. An honest assessment of sexuality would show that it's a product of a great many factors in development, and can be expressed in a large variety of ways. No element of sexuality is chosen. How one acts on their sexuality and impulses IS a choice.

2. The right to a child should not determined by whether or not you and your partner are physically capable of making a child on your own. Excluding two men or two women on that basis alone makes no sense. Studies show children develop equally in same-sex parent environments versus opposite sex environments. Parenting is about loving your child and being a guiding force, not about subscribing to an antiquated gender binary that simplifies human development into requiring a female influence and a male influence in order to yield positive results. You even said yourself, there are a lot of shitty heterosexual parents out there. To exclude a willing, passionate set of parents for reasons that blatantly disregard their ability to love and nurture a child without a home is asinine.

3. The shirts are a money grab, but as a gay man I appreciate them. They're simple and elegant. I don't need more Spurs shirts but they are nice.

4. "People are not allowed to disagree anymore". This is what white people said when segregation ended and the Civil Rights Act passed. This is what straight people say when they're told LGBT people have to be treated like everyone else. This is what people will always say when something that doesn't affect them happens and they don't like it. Your original post started off great, what with thinking it's only someone else's business to do what they want with their lives. Your adoption and genetics arguments simply lack substance. You can dislike gay people if you want. I'll never understand why straight people preoccupy themselves so much with other people, but you can do that. Just don't become a voice in the slowly dying chorus of civil oppression.

is that the true number less than 5%. In college I always heard 10% ...What studies provide a true reflection and how was that determined? Wouldnt the number of closeted folks throw off that number?

[Phenomanul]

1. It's not genetic - people have long demanded an explanation for why there is no gay gene if homosexuality is supposedly natural, but the fact is that less than 5% of the population identifies as gay. Less than 5% is not reflective of the gene pool. Heterosexual parents produce gay children, homosexual parents produce straight children. Human sexuality is a product of a lot of things, and it is not a "gay or straight" thing. Masculinity and social repression teach people that you're either one or the other, and anything in between is not up for discussion. An honest assessment of sexuality would show that it's a product of a great many factors in development, and can be expressed in a large variety of ways. No element of sexuality is chosen. How one acts on their sexuality and impulses IS a choice.

2. The right to a child should not determined by whether or not you and your partner are physically capable of making a child on your own. Excluding two men or two women on that basis alone makes no sense. Studies show children develop equally in same-sex parent environments versus opposite sex environments. Parenting is about loving your child and being a guiding force, not about subscribing to an antiquated gender binary that simplifies human development into requiring a female influence and a male influence in order to yield positive results. You even said yourself, there are a lot of shitty heterosexual parents out there. To exclude a willing, passionate set of parents for reasons that blatantly disregard their ability to love and nurture a child without a home is asinine.

3. The shirts are a money grab, but as a gay man I appreciate them. They're simple and elegant. I don't need more Spurs shirts but they are nice.

4. "People are not allowed to disagree anymore". This is what white people said when segregation ended and the Civil Rights Act passed. This is what straight people say when they're told LGBT people have to be treated like everyone else. This is what people will always say when something that doesn't affect them happens and they don't like it. Your original post started off great, what with thinking it's only someone else's business to do what they want with their lives. Your adoption and genetics arguments simply lack substance. You can dislike gay people if you want. I'll never understand why straight people preoccupy themselves so much with other people, but you can do that. Just don't become a voice in the slowly dying chorus of civil oppression.

Repeat "Lie No. 1" as often as you like. But your assertion of my frame of mind, is not represented by your generalized statement. That I don't condone what you DO (as a self identified gay man) [i.e. the implicit action is what I consider reprobate]) --> does not translate to "I don't tolerate who you ARE."

I'm going to go on a limb and state that you likely didn't read any of the linked study - or your "genetics arguments simply lacks substance" comment would not have been included. I happened to work under one of the head scientists in charge of the HGP at MIT (a devout atheist mind you) on my way to a degree in Molecular Genetics. Even he was frustrated by the folks in the LGBTQ camp who insisted "the project was failing them".

It's simple really, women and men have several distinct anatomical differences manifested by the expression of our genes. A woman, born a woman has every right to demand the same "rights" as given to men under the law --> because they did not have a CHOICE on their gender. The woman's suffrage movement, hence, was based on expounding the intrinsic unfairness of treating them as unequals. The Civil Rights movement, likewise, strived to give people of all races equal rights and protection under the law because it was expounding on the fact that to deny them rights based on who they ARE was discriminatory (the various races themselves stemming from a plethora of genetic variations). The LGBTQ movement is flawed in trying to equate themselves to this dynamic because the reprehension is not based on who they ARE as people but rather on what they DO, specifically in the bedroom. They can love whomever they please, but to engage in same-sex sexual activity is what is being highlighted as reprobate. I love my friends, male and female alike. I love my family members, male and female alike. I don't however, engage in sex with folks of my own gender.

As for the adoption issue, I was talking from the frame of reference of jurisdictional authority. But if LGBTQ "desires" are learned/developed behavior (not having a genetic source rather an environmental source) THEN subjecting/exposing children to said behaviors or the acceptability of said behaviors just perpetuates the ever growing opinion that said behavior is acceptable. It is my opinion same-sex sexual activity it is not acceptable behavior (for many reasons including health related ones --> which is why gay men disproportionately carry the AIDS virus compared against their heterosexual peers, and uggggh because feces is involved... gross).

Civil oppression. ummm OK.

I simply don't agree with same-sex intercourse ---> an action/behavior.

Much like I don't agree with someone or anyone looking down on their fellow brother/sister.

I don't dislike YOU. But I do dislike the lie that somehow "I dislike you". The distinction is key.

Again, when it comes to the LGBT issue - disagreement - is equated to intolerance --- which is deceitfully ignorant.

[cd98]

God I hope you're doing a comedy bit. "Where is straight pride?" is one of the most widely circulated jokes about backwards thought on the Internet. Poor straight, white Christians. The government was tailor-made to serve your interests above all others and social standards of beauty, family, stability, wealth, and power are all built around your image. Black History Month, Pride, etc. are all important because literally every other waking second of human existence is a celebration of straight, white Christians.

its such a preposterous suggestion that I legitimately assume people are being sarcastic when they say it.

Actually I'm not in favor of Christian night, etc. I just like to see the politically correct police come out and spout your same tired anti-religion pro-gay viewpoints. I actually believe that the essence of true acceptance is not having to do these special nights for things that are supposed to be private and no one's business. And I would find it typical and hypocritical if there was a "Christian" night in the NBA and you complained.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

We already had gay pride colors..recall the pink fast breaking fiesta logo?
The neon pink? Ain't no color gayer than that.
And a several gay players along the way over the last decade or two... 2 I can think of off the top of my head.

[Horry Hipcheck]

is that the true number less than 5%. In college I always heard 10% ...What studies provide a true reflection and how was that determined? Wouldnt the number of closeted folks throw off that number?

It's been shown in studies and polls that public belief puts actual population numbers between 10 and 30% - in actuality it's less than 5%. However, as you've sort of touched on, this is reflective of people that openly identify themselves as gay. It also kind of pigeonholes that number into "gay", and usually doesn't include other points on the sexuality spectrum (bi-sexual, trans, genderqueer, pansexual, you name it).

[Horry Hipcheck]

Actually I'm not in favor of Christian night, etc. I just like to see the politically correct police come out and spout your same tired anti-religion pro-gay viewpoints. I actually believe that the essence of true acceptance is not having to do these special nights for things that are supposed to be private and no one's business. And I would find it typical and hypocritical if there was a "Christian" night in the NBA and you complained.

You're right in the sense that true acceptance and equality would mean that minority outreach and recognition wouldn't be necessary - but we're not at that point. I'm not a Christian myself, but as the NBA is not a branch of the government, they could do a "Christian" night if they really wanted and I wouldn't protest. I just think it's comical that the white, religious population thinks they're entitled to be "tired" of hearing pushback against their beliefs, when it is their beliefs and image that have been literally institutionalized by governments for hundreds and hundreds of years as the Standard by which others should be expected to live their lives. You're experiencing a fraction of an iota of what people in my position have experienced their entire lives. A lot have it far worse than I do, too, since I'm a white male.

And "political correctness" is not the same as "don't force other people to adhere to or even respect your beliefs".

[spurtech09]

Do you also complain when the Spurs wear the camouflage uniforms?Im pretty sure you are all for it....Sicko.....

[baseline bum]

Im pretty sure you are all for it....Sicko.....

Can I still fuck your sister in the afterlife son?

[spurtech09]

This LGBT movement is a thumbs down for me....Don't have nothing against Gays just its wrong in Gods book....God created man and woman....not man man or woman woman...or any other weird man made creation :(

[spurtech09]

Can I still fuck your sister in the afterlife son?
Hey people this man wants to have sex with my little sister......pedophile ......ban this perve

[baseline bum]

Hey people this man wants to have sex with my little sister......pedophile ......ban this perve

But the afterlife goes on forever, so I wouldn't have to wait long for her to hit 18. You can watch if you want you sick bastard.

[spurtech09]

But the afterlife goes on forever, so I wouldn't have to wait long for her to hit 18. You can watch if you want you sick bastard.
People if I were you watch out for baseline bum....He is into little kids.....Always harassing me....Telling me he wants to do something to my little sisters....Beware of this Man....Ban him or report him to the cops....Im serious

[baseline bum]

People if I were you watch out for baseline bum....He is into little kids.....Always harassing me....Telling me he wants to do something to my little sisters....Beware of this Man....Ban him or report him to the cops....Im serious

You have no room, your bible is fine with pedos.

[spurtech09]

They are shoving the LGBT movement in everyone's face. Waste of money for those manufacturers.Agree

[Horry Hipcheck]

Repeat "Lie No. 1" as often as you like. But your assertion of my frame of mind, is not represented by your generalized statement. That I don't condone what you DO (as a self identified gay man) [i.e. the implicit action is what I consider reprobate]) --> does not translate to "I don't tolerate who you ARE."

I'm going to go on a limb and state that you likely didn't read any of the linked study - or your "genetics arguments simply lacks substance" comment would not have been included. I happened to work under one of the head scientists in charge of the HGP at MIT (a devout atheist mind you) on my way to a degree in Molecular Genetics. Even he was frustrated by the folks in the LGBTQ camp who insisted "the project was failing them".

It's simple really, women and men have several distinct anatomical differences manifested by the expression of our genes. A woman, born a woman has every right to demand the same "rights" as given to men under the law --> because they did not have a CHOICE on their gender. The woman's suffrage movement, hence, was based on expounding the intrinsic unfairness of treating them as unequals. The Civil Rights movement, likewise, strived to give people of all races equal rights and protection under the law because it was expounding on the fact that to deny them rights based on who they ARE was discriminatory (the various races themselves stemming from a plethora of genetic variations). The LGBTQ movement is flawed in trying to equate themselves to this dynamic because the reprehension is not based on who they ARE as people but rather on what they DO, specifically in the bedroom. They can love whomever they please, but to engage in same-sex sexual activity is what is being highlighted as reprobate. I love my friends, male and female alike. I love my family members, male and female alike. I don't however, engage in sex with folks of my own gender.

As for the adoption issue, I was talking from the frame of reference of jurisdictional authority. But if LGBTQ "desires" are learned/developed behavior (not having a genetic source rather an environmental source) THEN subjecting/exposing children to said behaviors or the acceptability of said behaviors just perpetuates the ever growing opinion that said behavior is acceptable. It is my opinion same-sex sexual activity it is not acceptable behavior (for many reasons including health related ones --> which is why gay men disproportionately carry the AIDS virus compared against their heterosexual peers, and uggggh because feces is involved... gross).

Civil oppression. ummm OK.

I simply don't agree with same-sex intercourse ---> an action/behavior.

Much like I don't agree with someone or anyone looking down on their fellow brother/sister.

I don't dislike YOU. But I do dislike the lie that somehow "I dislike you". The distinction is key.

Again, when it comes to the LGBT issue - disagreement - is equated to intolerance --- which is deceitfully ignorant.

I did read the study, and while I never questioned your credentials, congrats on your achievement.

Where I and a lot of people in my position have an issue is in being categorized by what we do that therefore determines who we are. I could abstain from any sexual involvement with another man my entire life, it would not change the fact that I am gay. It is also not the only thing that comprises my identity as a gay man. To suggest such is to dehumanize me, and that's not tolerance.

You're taking my assertion that sexuality is a product of many developmental conditions and using it to support the idea that because gay men are gay, then their children would naturally be conditioned into being gay. Which, first of all, is not what I said at all, and secondly, is a straw man argument that flies directly in the face of the reality that heterosexual parents produce homosexual children all the time. I did not say homosexuality is a learned behavior, nor is human sexuality at all. I believe it to be a combination of genetics (and NOT a single "gay gene" that flips some switch inside us at birth) and developmental conditions that do not universally pertain to the environment in which you are raised. I identified the 5% of the population, but that pertains to people who openly identify themselves as such. Many more fall somewhere along a line that comprises the sexuality spectrum. So much of the debate re: this particular aspect of human nature relies on an antiquated construct of human sexuality as being black or white. It isn't, and because it's not I find gene studies searching for the "one thing" that makes gay people different in the way men and women are different to be ridiculous.

The "civil oppression" is not an accusation that you're actively oppressing people; but rather that the foundation upon which lawmakers and voters have built their cases against LGBT people sounds a lot like what you're talking about. You're touting the suggestion that equating disagreement with intolerance is ignorant, but twisting my words in a way that advances what has become the anti-LGBT narrative.

Whether or not you like me or any gay person is not really my concern. And you can decide that you never need to have intercourse with a member of your own sex, because nobody's asking you to. I don't have a problem with you thinking it's "gross", although I find that to be rather childish, and since anal intercourse is not exclusive to homosexual men, rather unfair to mention it here since it is only the act between two men you dislike. We could have a separate discussion about the nature of non-vaginal intercourse and how strongly you disagree with it for reasons religious, medical, or otherwise, but that would deviate from the idea that I Am What I Do, and that doesn't help you. It's that toxic narrative that we are only what we do, and that makes us dangerous, that fuels a great deal of the problems I face on a daily basis. I've had one too many psychiatrists try and figure out what's supposedly wrong with me, I've dealt with years and years of abuse from my family, all because they subscribe to the ideas we're talking about now. The lack of a gene to satisfy the scientific need to understand why some people are gay, bi, or anything else does not directly correlate to a matter of choice.

EDIT: A lot of this is coming from a pretty emotional place, as I have a long history of less than pleasant conversations about who I am. So I apologize that this is not the most intellectual debate on the subject.

[spurtech09]

Well the NFL supports LGBT and now the NBA supports it.....I guess no more sports for me......Were living in the sad times.....

[baseline bum]

Well the NFL supports LGBT and now the NBA supports it.....I guess no more sports for me......Were living in the sad times.....

Go burn a cross or something

[spurtech09]

Disgusting.Yes

[spurtech09]

Good for the NBA, tbh..I'm going to purchase a Spurs shirt, right now..

ESPN did the right thing by awarding Caitlyn Jenner the "courage" award, and the NBA is doing a great job in promoting the necessary steps that need to be taken by our society..People need to wake up.....Repent and forgive for there sins......Eventually we all have to face God.....Judgment Day

[cd98]

You're right in the sense that true acceptance and equality would mean that minority outreach and recognition wouldn't be necessary - but we're not at that point. I'm not a Christian myself, but as the NBA is not a branch of the government, they could do a "Christian" night if they really wanted and I wouldn't protest. I just think it's comical that the white, religious population thinks they're entitled to be "tired" of hearing pushback against their beliefs, when it is their beliefs and image that have been literally institutionalized by governments for hundreds and hundreds of years as the Standard by which others should be expected to live their lives. You're experiencing a fraction of an iota of what people in my position have experienced their entire lives. A lot have it far worse than I do, too, since I'm a white male.

And "political correctness" is not the same as "don't force other people to adhere to or even respect your beliefs".

Except the gay minority is not a defenseless minority like it was 20 years ago. Now the gay lobby is incredibly powerful. Not only do they regularly win most discrimination suits in the court system, but they have enjoyed favorably federal legislation and have defeated most attempts by state and local government to bolster religious freedoms. And they have private sector strength as demonstrated by their boycot powers that got the Mozilla CEO fired because he donated to prop 8 even though he had no professional complaints about his treatment of gays. So I do think gay pride or ESPN's new website that caters to African Americans are not only unnecessary, but they reinforce division. I don't think someone that is anti-gay rights is going to be swayed by people wearing rainbow-colored NBA logos.

[baseline bum]

Except the gay minority is not a defenseless minority like it was 20 years ago. Now the gay lobby is incredibly powerful. Not only do they regularly win most discrimination suits in the court system, but they have enjoyed favorably federal legislation and have defeated most attempts by state and local government to bolster religious freedoms. And they have private sector strength as demonstrated by their boycot powers that got the Mozilla CEO fired because he donated to prop 8 even though he had no professional complaints about his treatment of gays. So I do think gay pride or ESPN's new website that caters to African Americans are not only unnecessary, but they reinforce division. I don't think someone that is anti-gay rights is going to be swayed by people wearing rainbow-colored NBA logos.

:cry gays getting married violates my Christian right to be never be offended :cry

[coachmac87]

Repeat "Lie No. 1" as often as you like. But your assertion of my frame of mind, is not represented by your generalized statement. That I don't condone what you DO (as a self identified gay man) [i.e. the implicit action is what I consider reprobate]) --> does not translate to "I don't tolerate who you ARE."

I'm going to go on a limb and state that you likely didn't read any of the linked study - or your "genetics arguments simply lacks substance" comment would not have been included. I happened to work under one of the head scientists in charge of the HGP at MIT (a devout atheist mind you) on my way to a degree in Molecular Genetics. Even he was frustrated by the folks in the LGBTQ camp who insisted "the project was failing them".

It's simple really, women and men have several distinct anatomical differences manifested by the expression of our genes. A woman, born a woman has every right to demand the same "rights" as given to men under the law --> because they did not have a CHOICE on their gender. The woman's suffrage movement, hence, was based on expounding the intrinsic unfairness of treating them as unequals. The Civil Rights movement, likewise, strived to give people of all races equal rights and protection under the law because it was expounding on the fact that to deny them rights based on who they ARE was discriminatory (the various races themselves stemming from a plethora of genetic variations). The LGBTQ movement is flawed in trying to equate themselves to this dynamic because the reprehension is not based on who they ARE as people but rather on what they DO, specifically in the bedroom. They can love whomever they please, but to engage in same-sex sexual activity is what is being highlighted as reprobate. I love my friends, male and female alike. I love my family members, male and female alike. I don't however, engage in sex with folks of my own gender.

As for the adoption issue, I was talking from the frame of reference of jurisdictional authority. But if LGBTQ "desires" are learned/developed behavior (not having a genetic source rather an environmental source) THEN subjecting/exposing children to said behaviors or the acceptability of said behaviors just perpetuates the ever growing opinion that said behavior is acceptable. It is my opinion same-sex sexual activity it is not acceptable behavior (for many reasons including health related ones --> which is why gay men disproportionately carry the AIDS virus compared against their heterosexual peers, and uggggh because feces is involved... gross).

Civil oppression. ummm OK.

I simply don't agree with same-sex intercourse ---> an action/behavior.

Much like I don't agree with someone or anyone looking down on their fellow brother/sister.

I don't dislike YOU. But I do dislike the lie that somehow "I dislike you". The distinction is key.

Again, when it comes to the LGBT issue - disagreement - is equated to intolerance --- which is deceitfully ignorant.

You sir are a genius...

[coachmac87]

You have no room, your bible is fine with pedos.

Not true. But did you just admit to being a pedo?

[cd98]

:cry gays getting married violates my Christian right to be never be offended :cry

It's funny bc while my complaints aren't about religion, but rather this need to push some agenda in every segment of life. And people here freak out at the slightest mention of religion. Pretty thin skinned.

[DPG21920]

God I hope you're doing a comedy bit. "Where is straight pride?" is one of the most widely circulated jokes about backwards thought on the Internet. Poor straight, white Christians. The government was tailor-made to serve your interests above all others and social standards of beauty, family, stability, wealth, and power are all built around your image. Black History Month, Pride, etc. are all important because literally every other waking second of human existence is a celebration of straight, white Christians.

its such a preposterous suggestion that I legitimately assume people are being sarcastic when they say it.

I agree with this, but I think because it's centred around sexuality it's really odd. I mean, I really don't have an issue with any "blank" pride, especially for a group that has been discriminated against (and still is by many). However, when it comes to sexuality it's just odd to me personally.

I mean, promiscuous women have been demonized for a long time and there is still a severe social stigma around this even if they are single, consenting adults. But there is no pride for that. I think the sexuality portion of it is what is odd. I agree that people screaming "white pride" or "Christian pride" are silly because like you said, they have it damn good and always have. Plus, nothing is stopping them from wearing a shirt or anything to celebrate their beliefs if they so desire.

I get military, black, etc..pride. Those are different to me than sexuality which again I don't have an issue with LGBT pride - I simply don't understand why sexuality is something to be proud of either way. It's a private thing and hopefully one day people just look at it like they do anything else that is in that realm.

Side note: This was actually a very interesting and great conversation. On ST of all places. Who knew?

[UNT Eagles 2016]

This LGBT movement is a thumbs down for me....Don't have nothing against Gays just its wrong in Gods book....God created man and woman....not man man or woman woman...or any other weird man made creation :(

But Man created God.


ZING!!!

[spurtech09]

But Man created God.


ZING!!!Wrong .....

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Wrong .....

Proof?

[baseline bum]

Not true. But did you just admit to being a pedo?

No, but the bible does condone child rape.

[spurtech09]

It's funny bc while my complaints aren't about religion, but rather this need to push some agenda in every segment of life. And people here freak out at the slightest mention of religion. Pretty thin skinned.True ....Than some say religion is evil......Religion is not evil.....People are.....People need to have love in there hearts..

[baseline bum]

But Man created God.


ZING!!!

Yeah, man created god in his image

[baseline bum]

It's funny bc while my complaints aren't about religion, but rather this need to push some agenda in every segment of life. And people here freak out at the slightest mention of religion. Pretty thin skinned.

What are you talking about? You were crying about religious freedom.

[DPG21920]

1. It's not genetic - people have long demanded an explanation for why there is no gay gene if homosexuality is supposedly natural, but the fact is that less than 5% of the population identifies as gay. Less than 5% is not reflective of the gene pool. Heterosexual parents produce gay children, homosexual parents produce straight children. Human sexuality is a product of a lot of things, and it is not a "gay or straight" thing. Masculinity and social repression teach people that you're either one or the other, and anything in between is not up for discussion. An honest assessment of sexuality would show that it's a product of a great many factors in development, and can be expressed in a large variety of ways. No element of sexuality is chosen. How one acts on their sexuality and impulses IS a choice.

I'm not versed enough on the subject to say anything truly meaningful but I always thought is was genetic and not a choice. I mean, I have had several friends that even from an age (I'm talking 3 years old to 6 years old) before they knew what sexuality was that people just knew were gay.

They actually did grow up gay (both women & men) and I always found that fascinating. Even as little kids, that didn't know anything, you could, looking back, always see that they were gay (whether they came out early or later in life). Again, I'm talking about maybe 3-4 people that I was around so it's a small sample size, but I don't think those people had a choice.

[spurtech09]

Proof?
Proof is God created Heaven and Earth...creature and every living thing ....He created me,you,and every living thing....Man did not create Almighty God....Were just human beings.....God is the one with the Power brother......God is the creater.....The world did not just magically appeared out of no where....Any man should know ....

[coachmac87]

But Man created God.


ZING!!!


Who created man?

[UNT Eagles 2016]

I'm not versed enough on the subject to say anything truly meaningful but I always thought is was genetic and not a choice. I mean, I have had several friends that even from an age (I'm talking 3 years old to 6 years old) before they knew what sexuality was that people just knew were gay.

They actually did grow up gay (both women & men) and I always found that fascinating. Even as little kids, that didn't know anything, you could, looking back, always see that they were gay (whether they came out early or later in life). Again, I'm talking about maybe 3-4 people that I was around so it's a small sample size, but I don't think those people had a choice.
It's not a choice to have the biological propensity, true. However, it is certainly a choice to take such action and actually be a fake soprano toned, poopy-dicked queer.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Who created man?
Ever heard of that thing called evolution? Natural selection? What grade did you make in high school science?

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Proof is God created Heaven and Earth...creature and every living thing ....He created me,you,and every living thing....Man did not create Almighty God....Were just human beings.....God is the one with the Power brother......God is the creater.....The world did not just magically appeared out of no where....Any man should know ....
Citations?

[coachmac87]

Ever heard of that thing called evolution? Natural selection? What grade did you make in high school science?

What created the things for evolution. Evolution isn't creating...

Or are you saying things that evolved weren't created?

[spurtech09]

Ever heard of that thing called evolution? Natural selection? What grade did you make in high school science?Science is wrong....The Science book is made up...Big Bang is man made....Science is man made and false..ZING

[coachmac87]

Science is wrong....The Science book is made up...Big Bang is man made....Science is man made and false..ZING

Science isn't wrong. Science is only Gods explanation of how SOME things work..not all

[UNT Eagles 2016]

What created the things for evolution. Evolution isn't creating...

Or are you saying things that evolved weren't created?
Life emerged out of necessity for the long-term survival of Earth as a planet. Before life, there were asteroids hitting Earth almost every day. Life and ecology has spread out the elements of the Earth in such a way that has promoted continuous growth and development of our magnetic field that shields Earth from all major impacts until the Sun inevitably wanes in about 5-10 billion years.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Science is wrong....The Science book is made up...Big Bang is man made....Science is man made and false..ZING
That I will agree with. I don't believe the evidence is there to support Hawking's Big Bang theory. I think the evidence points to an never-ending continuum of time, space, energy, and matter.

[coachmac87]

Life emerged out of necessity for the long-term survival of Earth as a planet. Before life, there were asteroids hitting Earth almost every day. Life and ecology has spread out the elements of the Earth in such a way that has promoted continuous growth and development of our magnetic field that shields Earth from all major impacts until the Sun inevitably wanes in about 5-10 billion years.

You say you know all this but it's pointless because you can't explain HOW life emerged..

Are you Agnostic or Atheist?

[cd98]

What are you talking about? You were crying about religious freedom.

You came in mid discussion. I wasn't crying about anything. I was merely pointing out that while gays are a minority, they are a powerful one politically and then I gave examples. I'm tired of gay rights agenda pushed in my face. I don't favor discrimination, but keep your sex preferences to yourself.

And if I was pushing religion (like someone here who appears to be trolling people), I would say that most of the opposition comments show bigotry towards Christians, which to me is hypocritical. If bigotry is wrong for one group, it should be wrong for all groups.

[K...]

Who created man?

man doesn't exist. It's just a huge collective arrogance that we consider ourselves "things" when we are just the same cosmic dusts as the rest of the universe. The fact that at an arbitrary scale of the universe we say we exist, while on almost all other parts of the universe we are 100% insignificant means that humans are insignificant.


God too, even if they exist, are not a "thing"; compared to humans they appear big, but no god is bigger than the universe or else is the universe and the universe is not a god.





The only true god is Oblivion, the ultimate stillness.








Anyway the shirts are still cool, anybody order one yet?

[spurtech09]

man doesn't exist. It's just a huge collective arrogance that we consider ourselves "things" when we are just the same cosmic dusts as the rest of the universe. The fact that at an arbitrary scale of the universe we say we exist, while on almost all other parts of the universe we are 100% insignificant means that humans are insignificant.


God too, even if they exist, are not a "thing"; compared to humans they appear big, but no god is bigger than the universe or else is the universe and the universe is not a god.





The only true god is Oblivion, the ultimate stillness.








Anyway the shirts are still cool, anybody order one yet?
Not trying to pick a fight brother but the fact is God created the the whole world....The whole universe......Some people seem like they know but only God knows....god bless bro

[coachmac87]

man doesn't exist. It's just a huge collective arrogance that we consider ourselves "things" when we are just the same cosmic dusts as the rest of the universe. The fact that at an arbitrary scale of the universe we say we exist, while on almost all other parts of the universe we are 100% insignificant means that humans are insignificant.


God too, even if they exist, are not a "thing"; compared to humans they appear big, but no god is bigger than the universe or else is the universe and the universe is not a god.





The only true god is Oblivion, the ultimate stillness.








Anyway the shirts are still cool, anybody order one yet?



That's all nice but you still didn't answer my question

[spurtech09]

Science isn't wrong. Science is only Gods explanation of how SOME things work..not allhmmm IC

[spurtech09]

You came in mid discussion. I wasn't crying about anything. I was merely pointing out that while gays are a minority, they are a powerful one politically and then I gave examples. I'm tired of gay rights agenda pushed in my face. I don't favor discrimination, but keep your sex preferences to yourself.

And if I was pushing religion (like someone here who appears to be trolling people), I would say that most of the opposition comments show bigotry towards Christians, which to me is hypocritical. If bigotry is wrong for one group, it should be wrong for all groups.If I were you just put him on ignore.....

[K...]

That's all nice but you still didn't answer my question

man doesn't exist. It's the thought of man that exists. What's thinking of man? Well, not man. possibly nothing, possibly aliens, a simulation, we might never know.

[coachmac87]

ex·ist
iɡˈzist/
verb
1.
have objective reality or being.
"remains of these baths still exist on the south side of the Pantheon"
synonyms: live, be alive, be living; More
2.
live, especially under adverse conditions.
"how am I going to exist without you?"
synonyms: survive, subsist, live, support oneself; More


We're able to have this conversation because we "exist" don't be fucking weird man:lmao

[UNT Eagles 2016]

You say you know all this but it's pointless because you can't explain HOW life emerged..

Are you Agnostic or Atheist?

Yes


Science isn't proof, but it's well documented (and supported) theory.


The Bible is simply a novel compilation. Holds the same merit as the polytheistic testaments of the early Greeks and Romans, but that is seen as myth rather than religion today simply because it came before Abrahamism.

[coachmac87]

Yes


Science isn't proof, but it's well documented (and supported) theory.


The Bible is simply a novel compilation. Holds the same merit as the polytheistic testaments of the early Greeks and Romans, but that is seen as myth rather than religion today simply because it came before Abrahamism.


Atheist or Agnostic? And please don't try to tell me what the Bible is.. especially if it's something you haven't studied
throughly or read...


I'm not going to take anybody seriously who was on suicide watch because of sports and got banned from this forum.

You also said you'd eat your own shit on two pieces of bread.

You're a sick twisted fuck and a fool.

[Phenomanul]

I did read the study, and while I never questioned your credentials, congrats on your achievement.

Where I and a lot of people in my position have an issue is in being categorized by what we do that therefore determines who we are. I could abstain from any sexual involvement with another man my entire life, it would not change the fact that I am gay. It is also not the only thing that comprises my identity as a gay man. To suggest such is to dehumanize me, and that's not tolerance.

The highlighted statement is where you keep implying that somehow those opposed to same-sex activity are being intolerant simply for not condoning an ACTION. I don't really care what you do in your mind.

TBH we could be best buds if we knew each other in person... I'm fairly sociable with everyone despite my fairly defined and worldview/perspective. That I disagree with something doesn't mean I dehumanize anyone or hate them or even dislike them. It just means I disagree with 'something' whatever that 'something' may be. I tell you what though... 'something' has never represented a person. I've never hated anyone, no matter how gravely they may have hurt me or any of my loved ones - and believe me, folks have. Just last year one of my cousins was shot and murdered in cold blood by the brother of the girl he was dating at the time. I don't even harbor ill will against the man. So yeah, I get peeved when folks suggest that I am being intolerant of anyone or am disliking them.


You're taking my assertion that sexuality is a product of many developmental conditions and using it to support the idea that because gay men are gay, then their children would naturally be conditioned into being gay.

That's not what I implied or said. I said they would be conditioned to find it acceptable.


Which, first of all, is not what I said at all, and secondly, is a straw man argument that flies directly in the face of the reality that heterosexual parents produce homosexual children all the time. I did not say homosexuality is a learned behavior, nor is human sexuality at all. I believe it to be a combination of genetics (and NOT a single "gay gene" that flips some switch inside us at birth) and developmental conditions that do not universally pertain to the environment in which you are raised. I identified the 5% of the population, but that pertains to people who openly identify themselves as such. Many more fall somewhere along a line that comprises the sexuality spectrum. So much of the debate re: this particular aspect of human nature relies on an antiquated construct of human sexuality as being black or white. It isn't, and because it's not I find gene studies searching for the "one thing" that makes gay people different in the way men and women are different to be ridiculous.

Human sexual nature is thoroughly explained in that study as a function of genetics (hormones, physical attributes) / the brain (conditioning/development/environment). It is immensely complex. Far too much to even begin to explain it in this type of venue/platform.

But you may have missed my point. The whole point of bringing up the subject of genetics in the first place was to DISTINGUISH why the LGBTQ movement and the other two noted civil movements are dissimilar.

There is no natural "switch" or any amount of "environmental conditioning" that could change someone with African heritage/lineage into being some other race. Or an Asian person. Or a Hispanic one. It's WHO they ARE.

There is no natural "switch" or any amount of "environmental conditioning" that could change someone born with a fully developed set of male genitalia or female genitalia into the opposite gender. And I'm not talking about true hermaphrodism either... That's technically a genetic disease originating with the haploid cells themselves, prior to conception (passed along as a faulty set of genes). The brain piece which completes the sexual maturation comes with time - after development, and after exposure to hormonal surges. None of this changes the fact that the genders cant be "naturally" flipped from any genetically driven dynamic (i.e a man developing a fully functional set of female reproductive organs or vice versa).


he "civil oppression" is not an accusation that you're actively oppressing people; but rather that the foundation upon which lawmakers and voters have built their cases against LGBT people sounds a lot like what you're talking about. You're touting the suggestion that equating disagreement with intolerance is ignorant, but twisting my words in a way that advances what has become the anti-LGBT narrative.

You first twisted my stance by equating my disagreement with the following statement:

(paraphrasing) "this is similar to what folks who were opposed to the civil rights movement said."

You don't think that equating my disagreement with same-sex sexual activity and flat out racism is disingenuous?

It doesn't matter. Based on last comment in your overall post, I understand that you have suffered in some sense because of your life choices. I'm sorry you are going through that and that people have attacked you on a more personal level. But that doesn't mean I have to be forced into believing same-sex activity is acceptable. You wouldn't receive a direct attack from me.


Whether or not you like me or any gay person is not really my concern. And you can decide that you never need to have intercourse with a member of your own sex, because nobody's asking you to. I don't have a problem with you thinking it's "gross", although I find that to be rather childish, and since anal intercourse is not exclusive to homosexual men, rather unfair to mention it here since it is only the act between two men you dislike. We could have a separate discussion about the nature of non-vaginal intercourse and how strongly you disagree with it for reasons religious, medical, or otherwise, but that would deviate from the idea that I Am What I Do, and that doesn't help you. It's that toxic narrative that we are only what we do, and that makes us dangerous, that fuels a great deal of the problems I face on a daily basis. I've had one too many psychiatrists try and figure out what's supposedly wrong with me, I've dealt with years and years of abuse from my family, all because they subscribe to the ideas we're talking about now. The lack of a gene to satisfy the scientific need to understand why some people are gay, bi, or anything else does not directly correlate to a matter of choice.

EDIT: A lot of this is coming from a pretty emotional place, as I have a long history of less than pleasant conversations about who I am. So I apologize that this is not the most intellectual debate on the subject.

Over the past 20 years we have had 3 different self-identified LGBT folks come to our church (2 men, 1 woman) seeking to change. The transformation wasn't immediate in all cases, but all three of those folks have families of their own now. They openly speak about their stories.

Anyways, this subject is highly controversial AND I know my viewpoint isn't always the popular one. I wish you good luck and blessings.

I technically don't want to be drawn into another Spurstalk debate... :lol :lol :lol

[UNT Eagles 2016]

You also said you'd eat your own shit on two pieces of bread.

If the Spurs had actually beaten the Warriors in a seven-game series.


Turns out, the SA Shits shitted out against the Thunderefs as I anticipated all along :lol SA Shits

[spurtech09]

You were made by God and for God. Until you understand that, life will never make sense....

[TDomination]

You were made by God and for God. Until you understand that, life will never make sense....

This

[spurtech09]

ThisWake up before its too late.....Time is slipping away...While we still have a chance....Repent and forgive for your sins....Turn away from the darkness....Jesus Christ is COMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Killakobe81]

The highlighted statement is where you keep implying that somehow those opposed to same-sex activity are being intolerant simply for not condoning an ACTION. I don't really care what you do in your mind.

TBH we could be best buds if we knew each other in person... I'm fairly sociable with everyone despite my fairly defined and worldview/perspective. That I disagree with something doesn't mean I dehumanize anyone or hate them or even dislike them. It just means I disagree with 'something' whatever that 'something' may be. I tell you what though... 'something' has never represented a person. I've never hated anyone, no matter how gravely they may have hurt me or any of my loved ones - and believe me, folks have. Just last year one of my cousins was shot and murdered in cold blood by the brother of the girl he was dating at the time. I don't even harbor ill will against the man. So yeah, I get peeved when folks suggest that I am being intolerant of anyone or am disliking them.



That's not what I implied or said. I said they would be conditioned to find it acceptable.



Human sexual nature is thoroughly explained in that study as a function of genetics (hormones, physical attributes) / the brain (conditioning/development/environment). It is immensely complex. Far too much to even begin to explain it in this type of venue/platform.

But you may have missed my point. The whole point of bringing up the subject of genetics in the first place was to DISTINGUISH why the LGBTQ movement and the other two noted civil movements are dissimilar.

There is no natural "switch" or any amount of "environmental conditioning" that could change someone with African heritage/lineage into being some other race. Or an Asian person. Or a Hispanic one. It's WHO they ARE.

There is no natural "switch" or any amount of "environmental conditioning" that could change someone born with a fully developed set of male genitalia or female genitalia into the opposite gender. And I'm not talking about true hermaphrodism either... That's technically a genetic disease originating with the haploid cells themselves, prior to conception (passed along as a faulty set of genes). The brain piece which completes the sexual maturation comes with time - after development, and after exposure to hormonal surges. None of this changes the fact that the genders cant be "naturally" flipped from any genetically driven dynamic (i.e a man developing a fully functional set of female reproductive organs or vice versa).



You first twisted my stance by equating my disagreement with the following statement:

(paraphrasing) "this is similar to what folks who were opposed to the civil rights movement said."

You don't think that equating my disagreement with same-sex sexual activity and flat out racism is disingenuous?

It doesn't matter. Based on last comment in your overall post, I understand that you have suffered in some sense because of your life choices. I'm sorry you are going through that and that people have attacked you on a more personal level. But that doesn't mean I have to be forced into believing same-sex activity is acceptable. You wouldn't receive a direct attack from me.



Over the past 20 years we have had 3 different self-identified LGBT folks come to our church (2 men, 1 woman) seeking to change. The transformation wasn't immediate in all cases, but all three of those folks have families of their own now. They openly speak about their stories.

Anyways, this subject is highly controversial AND I know my viewpoint isn't always the popular one. I wish you good luck and blessings.

I technically don't want to be drawn into another Spurstalk debate... :lol :lol :lol

Well thought out responses. Not sure if you ever posted those before, but your thoughts on the subject are very similar to mine. Feel free to PM me if you have the time or want to ... i have some questions but dont want to drag on this public debate if you dont want it ...
But well done sir, some of the best replies i have seen on a tough subject.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

goddamn it, FUCK terrorism tbh, let the faggots kiss or whatever... terrorism and killing of innocents SHOULD NEVER be tolerated... #Trump2016

[K...]

goddamn it, FUCK terrorism tbh, let the faggots kiss or whatever... terrorism and killing of innocents SHOULD NEVER be tolerated... #Trump2016

15% this leads to the American race war. I'm analyzing the possible lines of schism. I need Trump to clarify who is the agreivor.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

15% this leads to the American race war. I'm analyzing the possible lines of schism. I need Trump to clarify who is the agreivor.
American race war? Has nothing to do with race... if anything, Obama has been the instigator of recent racial tension in the last half-decade plus. Omar the Muzzie killed gay whites, gay Hispanics, gay blacks, and other gay people. Americans of ALL races were slaughtered in cold blood by a jihadist who considers gay people to be among the lowest levels of infidel (kafireen). Trump needs to come in and unite Americans against the large-scale insurgency and clean the nation of such dangerous muzzie barbarians who have no positive use in the free world.

[gambit1990]

man made god. it's not the other way around.

[DMC]

Let the market decide. I don't want one but then again I don't want Legos Batman on PS4 but it's a pretty hot item.

[K...]

American race war? Has nothing to do with race... if anything, Obama has been the instigator of recent racial tension in the last half-decade plus. Omar the Muzzie killed gay whites, gay Hispanics, gay blacks, and other gay people. Americans of ALL races were slaughtered in cold blood by a jihadist who considers gay people to be among the lowest levels of infidel (kafireen). Trump needs to come in and unite Americans against the large-scale insurgency and clean the nation of such dangerous muzzie barbarians who have no positive use in the free world.

First off, fuck off with the obama raceist shit. Obama didn't call on the cops who kill blacks to be executed. Nor did he order reperations unless you want to bitch about obomacare or something dumb.


This terror attack is like a multicolor card in uno....want to slam muslims, easy, want to slam gays, start a conspiracy, want to slam men for rape and murder.....you got material. want to confiscate guns, easy to call for.

[spurtech09]

man made god. it's not the other way around.Cause man says so?MMMMM don't think so....Not to be disrespectful but your 100% wrong....Repent for for your sins.....Turn to the Lord.....

[DJR210]

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn188/DJR210/bromance_zpsrrxuip3u.png

[.G.]

Cause man says so?MMMMM don't think so....Not to be disrespectful but your 100% wrong....Repent for for your sins.....Turn to the Lord.....

Decent troll attempt :tu

[DeRozan m8]

nba getting caught up in government agendas again

talk about important issues like bathrooms...not the issues of corruption, illegal war practices, etc...

and whatever you do...don't whistle blow.
only dob in criminals like pot smokers.
those darn pot smokers.

[DPG21920]

nba getting caught up in government agendas again

Agreed, that's what makes basketball the premier sports league in the world. Has a global impact and isn't afraid to take an actual stand on social issues :tu

[DeRozan m8]

Agreed, that's what makes basketball the premier sports league in the world. Has a global impact and isn't afraid to take an actual stand on social issues :tu


They regurgitate propaganda

[K...]

They regurgitate propaganda

like recognizing the existence of non-standard gender.....real provocative. It's not "nba gay marriage, nba gays in the Military, nba lets fuck children" it's NBA "these people exist and are fine. Yup totally fascist there with the agenda.

[gambit1990]

Cause man says so?MMMMM don't think so....Not to be disrespectful but your 100% wrong....Repent for for your sins.....Turn to the Lord.....
fuck your lord. i curse him a million times. tell that bitch to smite me right now. you know what will happen? jack shit.

[spurtech09]

fuck your lord. i curse him a million times. tell that bitch to smite me right now. you know what will happen? jack shit.Bro why so much hate?I speak from my heart...Jesus Christ loves you.....Sorry you feel that way bro but no one should ever mock God or the Son of God...Jesus Christ....Becareful what you ask for cause eventually we all have to face Gods Judgment.....I admit I have sinned so many times but one thing I would never do is test Almighty God...God could destroy me right now if he wanted to but no he loves us that he is giving us a chance by his son Christ Jesus..the one who died on the cross for us..the sinners...for me the sinner....I repent of all my sins..forgive me for all my sins Jesus Christ..My lord and Saviour...Praise the LORD!!!!!Wake up before to late.... one more time...Turn to the Lord before its too late cause he his coming..Yes Jesus is COMING...Don't know the day time or hour ....He is coming back...The kings of Kings...Lord of Lords....Jesus loves you....

[gambit1990]

Bro why so much hate?I speak from my heart...Jesus Christ loves you.....Sorry you feel that way bro but no one should ever mock God or the Son of God...Jesus Christ....Becareful what you ask for cause eventually we all have to face Gods Judgment.....I admit I have sinned so many times but one thing I would never do is test Almighty God...God could destroy me right now if he wanted to but no he loves us that he is giving us a chance by his son Christ Jesus..the one who died on the cross for us..the sinners...for me the sinner....I repent of all my sins..forgive me for all my sins Jesus Christ..My lord and Saviour...Praise the LORD!!!!!Wake up before to late.... one more time...Turn to the Lord before its too late cause he his coming..Yes Jesus is COMING...Don't know the day time or hour ....He is coming back...The kings of Kings...Lord of Lords....Jesus loves you....
kill me you pussy ass god. you fake ass fuck. if you're real this will be the last post i ever make. try me bitch.

[gambit1990]

two things people on spurstalk should get over: god & tony parker.

[spurtech09]

kill me you pussy ass god. you fake ass fuck. if you're real this will be the last post i ever make. try me bitch.God have Mercy on your soul....Love you bro....Don't be afraid of showing your LOVE.....Dig deep in your heart.....Reach out....LOVE Brother....its all about Loving one another....being in peace within yourself...

[gambit1990]

God have Mercy on your soul....Love you bro....Don't be afraid of showing your LOVE.....Dig deep in your heart.....Reach out....LOVE Brother....its all about Loving one another....being in peace within yourself...
i'm so not afraid of showing love that i hope you have the exact life you want.

i don't live mine by some bullshit book written a long time ago and mistranslated a ton of times.

[spurtech09]

i'm so not afraid of showing love that i hope you have the exact life you want.

i don't live mine by some bullshit book written a long time ago and mistranslated a ton of times.Its not just about the Bible....By the way...the things that are in the Bible is happening right now....But its also about having a true relationship with Jesus Christ....The Holy Father :)

[spurtech09]

Well bro I hope you give you some thought and turn to him if you want to be saved....I just not telling you this cause im a bible thumper or that im brainwashed with religion...Its because I know that Jesus is the son of God and that God is the creator of Heaven and earth....and that time is short and that time is running out....do not take Jesus for granted...He is the truth and he loves you and wants you to be saved but for that you need to turn away from your sins and wicked ways...get out of the darkness and turn to the light..Jesus is the only light that can get you out of the darkness...we all have a choice....either Heaven or Hell....And im not here to judge or point the finger..this goes for everybody...im telling this cause I want everybody to be saved and not be left behind.....no one wants to be left behind....do something before its too late because we all don't know what tomorrow brings..

[K...]

i'm so not afraid of showing love that i hope you have the exact life you want.

i don't live mine by some bullshit book written a long time ago and mistranslated a ton of times.

the dumbest idea in Christianity is the idea that god made us, and knows are destiny, but still judges the hell out of us. Hello, can't blame the devil all the time when you made that shitbag too.

[K...]

Its not just about the Bible....By the way...the things that are in the Bible is happening right now....But its also about having a true relationship with Jesus Christ....The Holy Father :)

random question: do you believe in Free will? Christians didn't always but they eventually did and hold free will as central to their idea of man being imperfect but savable.

Free will doesn't exist. Not in way you would think. It's about patterns of behavior and memes (the scientific kind, not internet memes)

[spurtech09]

the dumbest idea in Christianity is the idea that god made us, and knows are destiny, but still judges the hell out of us. Hello, can't blame the devil all the time when you made that shitbag too.God did made us.....The truth is brother.....God created......That is what I feel in my heart.....

[spurtech09]

random question: do you believe in Free will? Christians didn't always but they eventually did and hold free will as central to their idea of man being imperfect but savable.

Free will doesn't exist. Not in way you would think. It's about patterns of behavior and memes (the scientific kind, not internet memes)
God did give us freedom....but at the same time we have too abide by his rules

[TheGreatYacht]

two things people on spurstalk should get over: god & tony parker.
You said two things. Tony Parker and God are the same thing

[K...]

God did made us.....The truth is brother.....God created......That is what I feel in my heart.....

sure but if he made us, why need to judge us? I know that that's were the devil comes in, but i think this is the weakest part of Christianity.

[spurtech09]

sure but if he made us, why need to judge us? I know that that's were the devil comes in, but i think this is the weakest part of Christianity.Yes the deceiver .....right now I feel im being deceived....You can bring up Christiantity all you want..... I follow Jesus.....as for the Judging....He is the Almighty God....He if free to do whatever he wants......

[SpursforSix]

sure but if he made us, why need to judge us? I know that that's were the devil comes in, but i think this is the weakest part of Christianity.

I think the weakest part is accepting that Christ died for everyone's sins. I don't even understand what that means.

[spurtech09]

Well bro's and sisters...sorry you feel the way you do...unless you get to know the lord alittle bit better you will never know the truth...and to learn the truth to need to pour out your heart to the lord.....Jesus Christ.....God bless you all....May the Lord pour his Spirit on you..Holy Spirit....

[coachmac87]

I think the weakest part is accepting that Christ died for everyone's sins. I don't even understand what that means.

Man killed Jesus because they didn't believe he was the Messiah..but believing he is the messiah afterwards would mean he died for your sin. In other words "forgiven"

[spurtech09]

I think the weakest part is accepting that Christ died for everyone's sins. I don't even understand what that means.Yes he died for are Sins.....For us the sinner..To repent and forgive are sins...God has been fair....

[spurtech09]

Man killed Jesus because they didn't believe he was the Messiah..but believing he is the messiah afterwards would mean he died for your sin. In other words "forgiven"Amen

[SpursforSix]

Yes he died for are Sins.....For us the sinner..To repent and forgive are sins...God has been fair....

What does that even mean?

[spurtech09]

Man killed Jesus because they didn't believe he was the Messiah..but believing he is the messiah afterwards would mean he died for your sin. In other words "forgiven"Speaking the Truth

[coachmac87]

But believing in Jesus is not the ONLY step to salvation. It's the FIRST. You still have to read his word and follow his word with actions. That's something ALOT of "Christians"'don't do.

[spurtech09]

But believing in Jesus is not the ONLY step to salvation. It's the FIRST. You still have to read his word and follow his word with actions. That's something ALOT of "Christians"'don't do.Yes.....Coachmac knows his stuff...God bless you brother

[spurtech09]

What does that even mean?Just read coachmac comments.....the truth

[.G.]

Bro why so much hate?I speak from my heart...Jesus Christ loves you.....Sorry you feel that way bro but no one should ever mock God or the Son of God...Jesus Christ....Becareful what you ask for cause eventually we all have to face Gods Judgment.....I admit I have sinned so many times but one thing I would never do is test Almighty God...God could destroy me right now if he wanted to but no he loves us that he is giving us a chance by his son Christ Jesus..the one who died on the cross for us..the sinners...for me the sinner....I repent of all my sins..forgive me for all my sins Jesus Christ..My lord and Saviour...Praise the LORD!!!!!Wake up before to late.... one more time...Turn to the Lord before its too late cause he his coming..Yes Jesus is COMING...Don't know the day time or hour ....He is coming back...The kings of Kings...Lord of Lords....Jesus loves you....

jesus fucking christ, mang!

[spurtech09]

What does that even mean?Just like coachmac says... iMan killed Jesus because they didn't believe he was the Messiah..but believing he is the messiah afterwards would mean he died for your sin. In other words "forgiven"s the word of God

[.G.]

God did made us.....The truth is brother.....God created......That is what I feel in my heart.....
Looks like he rushed it with yo...

[K...]

What does that even mean?

it means before jesus you couldn't be saved except under Jewish standards and afterwards you can pray to jesus with your foreskin attached and still go to heaven.

it's funny, the muslims have no problem with jesus christ being a prophet. Just that their guy is the big one. Their guy actually wrote a book. Jesus knocked over a cart (he was antisemitic) and had fan boys hash out a religion over a few choice words. Christianity is mostly paul dumbing down Judaism for greeks.

No one in this thread would be christian if it weren't for the roman empire. And no one would be christian today if it weren't for luther slapping down the corrupt church. luther is more important than jesus. I can imagine being a christian, but not ever using the bible since that is a man made book.

[coachmac87]

it means before jesus you couldn't be saved except under Jewish standards and afterwards you can pray to jesus with your foreskin attached and still go to heaven.

it's funny, the muslims have no problem with jesus christ being a prophet. Just that their guy is the big one. Their guy actually wrote a book. Jesus knocked over a cart (he was antisemitic) and had fan boys hash out a religion over a few choice words. Christianity is mostly paul dumbing down Judaism for greeks.

No one in this thread would be christian if it weren't for the roman empire. And no one would be christian today if it weren't for luther slapping down the corrupt church. luther is more important than jesus. I can imagine being a christian, but not ever using the bible since that is a man made book.



You don't even believe in your own existence...

I am a Christian but I gurantee you my "Christian Beliefs" are NOT the same as the main stream Christian.

[spurtech09]

For the Son of Man came to seek and save the lost. Luke 19.10

[spurtech09]

You don't even believe in your own existence...

I am a Christian but I gurantee you my "Christian Beliefs" are NOT the same as the main stream Christian.Im right with you brother....

[AFMadison]

I'm not an LGBT supporter but that doesn't mean I'm against it. What happened yesterday in particular with our nations response to the shooting is laughable. Obama wants to blame the 2nd amendment for what happened.

The second amendment was originally created to let the people be equal to the government. It was an establishment of power for the people. The whole gun control is a movement to relinquish power from the people.

First off, if you are for gun control then I won't even hold an argument with you. If you think gun control will solve any problem within our country you are a complete idiot. The Democratic Party wants to take firearms away from you. That means that if some type of law were to pass outlawing the 2nd amendment, all citizens with a license to carry would have to fork over their guns. This means that about 90% of criminals who carry a gun without permits would get to keep their guns. So literally you're taking away protection from law abiding citizens. Guns don't kill people, crazy people with guns kill people. The worst mass shooting in history takes place and Obama blames the second amendment, meanwhile Trump wants to take action. I guarantee you that if a few other people in that nightclub had firearms it would have saved some lives.

I am loaded down with protection and refuse to register, because I fear the possibility of my protection being taken away. Get your head out of the gutter.

[AFMadison]

Im right with you brother....
Look a little deeper into your belief, you might find that you are not Christian.

[dabom]

fuck your lord. i curse him a million times. tell that bitch to smite me right now. you know what will happen? jack shit.

I'm an agnostic. But you getting caught up in this doesn't look good. Just laugh at it and brush it off. The fact that you replied a couple times says it got under you...

[spurtech09]

Look a little deeper into your belief, you might find that you are not Christian.Well don't know what you mean about that....Deep down in my heart I love Jesus....Jesus changed my life.....I admit I believed in Jesus but didn't really have true abiding faith in the Lord intill my dad got ill and he passed away last Dec...God really opened up my heart as well as my life....I thank god everyday for what all the things he has done for me and for my family....as well as others.....I couldn't do it without Jesus Christ.....The lord is what keeps me strong and he is a very loving father...(Holy Father)Everytime that I need help with something all I do is ask in prayer....He has been there for me and Im very greatful to have an amazing Lord Jesus Christ....If you believe and have faith...as well as action in faith the Lord will come to you..but you need to call out to him..he is there....you just to need invite him into your heart..welcome him to your life....Yes Jesus Saves

[spurtech09]

Trust in The Lord with all your Heart & lean not on your own understanding Proverbs3:5

[Obstructed_View]

I'm not an LGBT supporter but that doesn't mean I'm against it. What happened yesterday in particular with our nations response to the shooting is laughable. Obama wants to blame the 2nd amendment for what happened.

The second amendment was originally created to let the people be equal to the government. It was an establishment of power for the people. The whole gun control is a movement to relinquish power from the people.

First off, if you are for gun control then I won't even hold an argument with you. If you think gun control will solve any problem within our country you are a complete idiot. The Democratic Party wants to take firearms away from you. That means that if some type of law were to pass outlawing the 2nd amendment, all citizens with a license to carry would have to fork over their guns. This means that about 90% of criminals who carry a gun without permits would get to keep their guns. So literally you're taking away protection from law abiding citizens. Guns don't kill people, crazy people with guns kill people. The worst mass shooting in history takes place and Obama blames the second amendment, meanwhile Trump wants to take action. I guarantee you that if a few other people in that nightclub had firearms it would have saved some lives.

I am loaded down with protection and refuse to register, because I fear the possibility of my protection being taken away. Get your head out of the gutter.

If laws making guns illegal stopped gun violence, then the only thing required to make people safe is laws making murder illegal.

[K...]

Haha, now we taking guns...on one hand we have a clear majority of Americans favoring gun restrictions but because some liberal devil might go too far, no restrictions are allowed ever.

So Saudi Arabia doesn't need to finance dumb jihadists, just buy ar-15s. Every time we have a mass killing idiots adjust the template. You have to kill at least twenty to make the satanic hall of fame. The machine gun, body armor, and a crowded place will easily result in double digit deaths in 30 seconds. We'll see more of this from imbeciles to various grievance filed numb nuts.




Can anyone convince me that a known Isis fighter couldn't get guns if they wanted it? .like if the store refuses they could sue right?


First amendment, plus second amendment is a Hell of a combo.



Fwiw I'm a big proponent of the security state. Great jobs under the fascist regime, but please please please, vote for a smart sane fascist.

[LkrFan]

Do it RC! :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm not an LGBT supporter but that doesn't mean I'm against it. What happened yesterday in particular with our nations response to the shooting is laughable. Obama wants to blame the 2nd amendment for what happened.

The second amendment was originally created to let the people be equal to the government. It was an establishment of power for the people. The whole gun control is a movement to relinquish power from the people.

First off, if you are for gun control then I won't even hold an argument with you. If you think gun control will solve any problem within our country you are a complete idiot. The Democratic Party wants to take firearms away from you. That means that if some type of law were to pass outlawing the 2nd amendment, all citizens with a license to carry would have to fork over their guns. This means that about 90% of criminals who carry a gun without permits would get to keep their guns. So literally you're taking away protection from law abiding citizens. Guns don't kill people, crazy people with guns kill people. The worst mass shooting in history takes place and Obama blames the second amendment, meanwhile Trump wants to take action. I guarantee you that if a few other people in that nightclub had firearms it would have saved some lives.

I am loaded down with protection and refuse to register, because I fear the possibility of my protection being taken away. Get your head out of the gutter.

The second amendment was before things like breach loads, semi-autos, TNT, tanks and atomic bombs. Small arms are not going to take over the country from tyrants like Locke and company had in mind two centuries ago. The ideal bows down to reality.

Once you understand that arms control, the actual term used in the amendment, is necessary because prima facia people shouldn't have tanks and explosives, then we can have a conversation based on reality as to where the line should be drawn.

[AFMadison]

If laws making guns illegal stopped gun violence, then the only thing required to make people safe is laws making murder illegal.
^

[AFMadison]

The second amendment was before things like breach loads, semi-autos, TNT, tanks and atomic bombs. Small arms are not going to take over the country from tyrants like Locke and company had in mind two centuries ago. The ideal bows down to reality.

Once you understand that arms control, the actual term used in the amendment, is necessary because prima facia people shouldn't have tanks and explosives, then we can have a conversation based on reality as to where the line should be drawn.
The line could easily be drawn but I'm pretty sure the Democratic Party is trying to draw the line on all guns, not just heavy assaul rifles, that's not really the point because criminals don't need WMD to kill people, and small arms were for protecting property not gaining territories.

[cjw]

Imagine what making guns difficult to buy would do to gangs. Not only do they control the drug trade, but this would create a whole new avenue for them.

Sadder part is that people only give a damn about gun violence when there's a mass shooting. 50 people die every month from gun violence in Chicago. But we've become so desensitized to that we only care when shocked by these crazy events.

If ISIS did in fact plan this, they picked the perfect target to deflect attention - gays and guns become issues as big if not bigger than terrorists. If they bombed a school bus, peoples' attention would be focused solely on terrorism. Not to mention inflicting mass casualties by targeting a place where people were drunk and a bar that had been scoped out and likely was above capacity with doors apparently blocked off.

The gun debate has become like the abortion debate. No give from either side, while most people are actually in the middle.

[Obstructed_View]

The second amendment was before things like breach loads, semi-autos, TNT, tanks and atomic bombs. Small arms are not going to take over the country from tyrants like Locke and company had in mind two centuries ago. The ideal bows down to reality.

Once you understand that arms control, the actual term used in the amendment, is necessary because prima facia people shouldn't have tanks and explosives, then we can have a conversation based on reality as to where the line should be drawn.

Sorry, Fuzz, but that term is nowhere in the second amendment. It's one sentence.

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The amendment says that because the government needs an army to protect the country from outside forces, the government that maintains that army will not infringe the right of the people to bear arms to any degree the people deem necessary, up to and including to protect the people from the army.

You say I don't need a nuclear weapon to protect myself from our government. I say you don't need to change the second amendment to protect yourself from law-abiding citizens. You draw lines with private rules, city ordinances and local laws. People who don't follow those don't give a shit about the constitution either.

I'd imagine that most people will be far more interested in a conversation based on reality about where lines should be drawn with people that accurately recite and understand the text.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sorry, Fuzz, but that term is nowhere in the second amendment. It's one sentence.

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The amendment says that because the government needs an army to protect the country from outside forces, the government that maintains that army will not infringe the right of the people to bear arms to any degree the people deem necessary, up to and including to protect the people from the army.

You say I don't need a nuclear weapon to protect myself from our government. I say you don't need to change the second amendment to protect yourself from law-abiding citizens. You draw lines with private rules, city ordinances and local laws. People who don't follow those don't give a shit about the constitution either.

I'd imagine that most people will be far more interested in a conversation based on reality about where lines should be drawn with people that accurately recite and understand the text.

The word 'arm' is used not guns. Arms include bombs and tanks.

Try again.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The line could easily be drawn but I'm pretty sure the Democratic Party is trying to draw the line on all guns, not just heavy assaul rifles, that's not really the point because criminals don't need WMD to kill people, and small arms were for protecting property not gaining territories.

Then you look at the legislation that has been attempted to be passed.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Imagine what making guns difficult to buy would do to gangs. Not only do they control the drug trade, but this would create a whole new avenue for them.

Sadder part is that people only give a damn about gun violence when there's a mass shooting. 50 people die every month from gun violence in Chicago. But we've become so desensitized to that we only care when shocked by these crazy events.

If ISIS did in fact plan this, they picked the perfect target to deflect attention - gays and guns become issues as big if not bigger than terrorists. If they bombed a school bus, peoples' attention would be focused solely on terrorism. Not to mention inflicting mass casualties by targeting a place where people were drunk and a bar that had been scoped out and likely was above capacity with doors apparently blocked off.

The gun debate has become like the abortion debate. No give from either side, while most people are actually in the middle.

The gangs in Chicago where the gun laws are strict go to the much more relaxed Gary, Indiana right across the border to buy their guns. Love these fantasy scenarios though.

[acoelho1]

sure but if he made us, why need to judge us? I know that that's were the devil comes in, but i think this is the weakest part of Christianity.

Because He is a holy and just God and cannot except sin. He could have made us sinless but then we would be robots so He gave us free will to make our own decisions. However, deep down we know right from wrong because we are made in God's image and it's imprinted in our hearts. Unfortunately, many people reject God and what He did for us. Because He loves us so much, He sacrificed His son Jesus Christ for our sins so we could have eternal life. It's a free gift from God that many people won't except for a myriad of reasons.

Matthew 7:14 King James Version (KJV)

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

[spurtech09]

Because He is a holy and just God and cannot except sin. He could have made us sinless but then we would be robots so He gave us free will to make our own decisions. However, deep down we know right from wrong because we are made in God's image and it's imprinted in our hearts. Unfortunately, many people reject God and what He did for us. Because He loves us so much, He sacrificed His son Jesus Christ for our sins so we could have eternal life. It's a free gift from God that many people won't except for a myriad of reasons.

Matthew 7:14 King James Version (KJV)

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.Amen

[Em-City]

Gun control works here in Australia - I don't know why you Americans don't accept the facts.

[AFMadison]

Gun control works here in Australia - I don't know why you Americans don't accept the facts.
Statistically in the US there are a higher number of crimes per year in states that don't allow concealed carry permits. Fact... :wow

[cjw]

The gangs in Chicago where the gun laws are strict go to the much more relaxed Gary, Indiana right across the border to buy their guns. Love these fantasy scenarios though.

Yes, and if gun laws are stricter everywhere (as they should be), the supply doesn't disappear and criminals will still skirt the law. Tighter gun laws in Indiana might help on the margins, but do you honestly think it would move the needle?

NYC cleaned up with tougher gun laws, but also some stronger policing = people moving back into city, unemployment falling, etc. though unfortunately a lot of that was pushed to smaller marginal cities nearby.

[DrSteffo]

Statistically in the US there are a higher number of crimes per year in states that don't allow concealed carry permits. Fact... :wow

Were the states randomly assigned to condition? Did they control for confounding variables? Did they measure any effects? If not this fact does not say anything about the effects of gun control.

[AFMadison]

Were the states randomly assigned to condition? Did they control for confounding variables? Did they measure any effects? If not this fact does not say anything about the effects of gun control.
Facts don't lie :wow
All states that allowed concealed carry permits saw a decrease in crime rates. States weren't randomly assigned. The effects were lower crime rates. One confounding variable could be mental but that still sways heavily into the favor that having concealed carry permits > than banning firearms.

[Proxy]

https://freedomshammer.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/gun-jesus.jpg

[Proxy]

http://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Jesus-Teaching-Gun-Safety.jpg
merica

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes, and if gun laws are stricter everywhere (as they should be), the supply doesn't disappear and criminals will still skirt the law. Tighter gun laws in Indiana might help on the margins, but do you honestly think it would move the needle?

NYC cleaned up with tougher gun laws, but also some stronger policing = people moving back into city, unemployment falling, etc. though unfortunately a lot of that was pushed to smaller marginal cities nearby.

The supply will still shrink. You undermined your position with NYC.

It's funny all the theorycrafting on crime but when it comes to actually studying the issue the NRA and its ilk fight to prevent said study.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Facts don't lie :wow
All states that allowed concealed carry permits saw a decrease in crime rates. States weren't randomly assigned. The effects were lower crime rates. One confounding variable could be mental but that still sways heavily into the favor that having concealed carry permits > than banning firearms.

People that don't know how to normalize statistics and wave their hand sure do.

[Kikoluna]

That's dumb. Are we hanging straight month shirts too?

[cjw]

The supply will still shrink. You undermined your position with NYC.

It's funny all the theorycrafting on crime but when it comes to actually studying the issue the NRA and its ilk fight to prevent said study.

Gun laws have worked in NYC - but it's a bunch of other factors too. Also, as I mentioned, the problem has gotten worse in other cities as poverty's moved out of NYC to the Camdens and similar cities of the world.

NRA is just ... any Republican running for office who opposes the NRA will never win a primary. Unfortunate state of affairs when special interest groups can control the narrative.

[Obstructed_View]

The word 'arm' is used not guns. Arms include bombs and tanks.

Try again.

There's nothing to try. I'm completely correct. The term arms is used, but the word control appears nowhere. If arms include bombs and tanks, as you suggest, then the second amendment pretty clearly states that the right to bear them will not be infringed. There's no mention of hunting or home protection.

[Obstructed_View]

The gangs in Chicago where the gun laws are strict go to the much more relaxed Gary, Indiana right across the border to buy their guns. Love these fantasy scenarios though.

It's illegal for someone who lives in Illinois to buy a gun in Indiana and bring it back. There's a law. Explain for us all again how making more laws stops people that don't give a shit about laws.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's illegal for someone who lives in Illinois to buy a gun in Indiana and bring it back. There's a law. Explain for us all again how making more laws stops people that don't give a shit about laws.

The point is that the law is mind numbingly easy to circumvent.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There's nothing to try. I'm completely correct. The term arms is used, but the word control appears nowhere. If arms include bombs and tanks, as you suggest, then the second amendment pretty clearly states that the right to bear them will not be infringed. There's no mention of hunting or home protection.

It also says a 'well regulated militia.'

I meant that the word gun is nowhere in there. You're arguing minutiae to avoid the point. Are automatic weapons, mortars, grenades, and the like arms or not? Should they be made available to the public?

[SupremeGuy]

It's illegal for someone who lives in Illinois to buy a gun in Indiana and bring it back. There's a law. Explain for us all again how making more laws stops people that don't give a shit about laws.Everyone taking a shit on FL per par :lol

[gay abc]

this place hasn't changed one bit, now it's even worse :rolleyes

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/07/17/study-homophobia-homosexual_n_7816390.html

[Obstructed_View]

The point is that the law is mind numbingly easy to circumvent.

So more laws mean nothing to lawbreakers. Glad we're all on the same page here.

[dbestpro]

So more laws mean nothing to lawbreakers. Glad we're all on the same page here.

:bobo

[Obstructed_View]

It also says a 'well regulated militia.'
Which refers to the armed forces. They are necessary to the security of a free state. Again, it's one sentence.


I meant that the word gun is nowhere in there.
No, you said that arms control was the term they used. And yes, the word gun is nowhere in there, which is why it's curious that you think that the term "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" somehow refers to only guns.


You're arguing minutiae to avoid the point.
There were no automatic weapons, mortars, grenades or the like used in Orlando, so bringing them up in a conversation about the Orlando attack is a textbook definition of arguing minutiae to avoid the point.

Since a person with three hours could easily kill 49 hostages with any number of weapons, any talk about gun laws is horribly misplaced in this conversation.


Are automatic weapons, mortars, grenades, and the like arms or not? Should they be made available to the public?
Yes, they are arms. And the constitution clearly states that it is not for the federal government to have any authority to "make them available" to anyone. Cities, towns and states decide what's available based on logic and need, and law-abiding citizens will follow the law, while lawbreakers will be punished.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Which refers to the armed forces. They are necessary to the security of a free state. Again, it's one sentence.


No, you said that arms control was the term they used. And yes, the word gun is nowhere in there, which is why it's curious that you think that the term "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" somehow refers to only guns.


There were no automatic weapons, mortars, grenades or the like used in Orlando, so bringing them up in a conversation about the Orlando attack is a textbook definition of arguing minutiae to avoid the point.

Since a person with three hours could easily kill 49 hostages with any number of weapons, any talk about gun laws is horribly misplaced in this conversation.


Yes, they are arms. And the constitution clearly states that it is not for the federal government to have any authority to "make them available" to anyone. Cities, towns and states decide what's available based on logic and need, and law-abiding citizens will follow the law, while lawbreakers will be punished.

:lol line by line.

It does not refer to the military.

Let me speak for myself. If I was vague then fine but I said what I meant now argue.

We are talking about gun control in general. Your dodging like a coward. Fact is that what I mentioned are arms and they should be banned. You just don't want to admit I made a point.

Federalism is dead and regardless:


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So more laws mean nothing to lawbreakers. Glad we're all on the same page here.

Keep going with that LaPierre reasoning. So we shouldn't have laws against murder then. Prima facia your reasoning is asinine.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Everyone taking a shit on FL per par :lol

Were arguing. You really are desperate for something you cannot do yourself.

[Spursone]

Hay!

[Obstructed_View]

It does not refer to the military.
Actually it does. Go read it. It says that because the federal government will require a military to provide for the common defense, the federal government will not abridge the right of the people to keep and bear arms to any degree they feel necessary to feel protected from the federal government's army. It's the reason the president is the commander in chief of the military. It's very simple. Changing it would change absolutely nothing in our world, but would likely endanger the country going forward.


Let me speak for myself. If I was vague then fine but I said what I meant now argue.
Actually you tried to move the goalposts, but I already defeated your argument. The word gun is indeed nowhere in the second amendment. The second amendment does not refer to guns. The second amendment is to protect the people from the government. It has nothing to do with anything else. There are other government agencies that deal with other things, as I'll list below.


We are talking about gun control in general.
No, actually the only reason I posted was because you misquoted the second amendment, which has nothing to do with gun control. You're the one who wants to talk about gun control. I say that someone could kill 49 hostages with a claw hammer in three hours, so bringing up gun control is just as stupid as trying to change the second amendment because someone killed someone with a legal gun.


Your dodging like a coward.
I've taken on literally every point you've made, and I've eviscerated every single one of them. You want to use a tragic attack to gain political points. You show a complete ignorance of how the constitution works, as well as ignorance about existing laws, though you think that making more laws will somehow make people who intend to break the law suddenly stop what they're doing. Then, when faced with irrefutable logic that explains why your point of view is misguided, mistaken and illogical, you claim that I'm dodging the conversation. That makes you willfully ignorant. That means that you are so dug in to your political view that you will still act stupidly when faced with logic that is impossible to refute. You're a pigeon on a chessboard, dude. Why that doesn't embarrass the shit out of you is the only mystery that remains.


Fact is that what I mentioned are arms and they should be banned.
Actually, you mentioned automatic weapons, mortars, grenades, tanks and nuclear weapons. Automatic weapons manufactured before 1987 can be owned if you have the right license, which requires a large fee, an extensive background check, and is heavily regulated. Mortars and grenades, and even large fireworks, regulated by the ATF and the consumer product safety commission, are illegal to own. Nuclear weapons also count as explosives and are regulated. A tank can be owned, so long as it is demilitarized.

So the fact is that everything that you mentioned are already banned, so you're standing here waving your arms around for no reason. If that's not a textbook example of someone ignorantly calling for change on the back of a tragedy without full possession of the facts, I don't know what is.


You just don't want to admit I made a point.
The only thing you've proven is how little you know. Hardly surprising, since you can't seem to learn anything despite the education I've provided for you in this thread.


Federalism is dead and regardless:
So you post the preamble to the constitution. I'm sure you think you're making some striking point, but there's nothing in the preamble that goes against the amendment. Further, do you understand how amendments work? They would supersede the preamble if there were actually a conflict.


Keep going with that LaPierre reasoning.
No idea what this means. Whoever you stole it from probably thought they were frightfully clever.


So we shouldn't have laws against murder then.
Always nice to throw a strawman out there when you're getting your ass handed to you. I already said that we have laws against murder. You have yet to explain why you think passing a law against guns will stop someone intent on committing murder.


Prima facia your reasoning is asinine.
I ignored this the first time you used it, because I didn't want to embarrass you, but you're just such a blithering idiot that I don't give a shit anymore.

The term is "prima facie" and it means "at first look". It means an assumption that looks correct before delving into details. It's a legal term with no relevance whatsoever in this conversation, and you've now used it twice. It only makes you look smart to people stupider than you. I'm sure they're both very impressed.

Here endeth the lesson. Plonk.

[Obstructed_View]

Apologies to everyone else on ST. I thought this thread was in the political forum for some reason, or I likely wouldn't have responded to it in the first place. I won't post further in it.

[z0sa]

The NBA just wants to make money.

You could just stop right there. The second half of your quote along with everything else in this thread, for or against, can be traced directly back to ^

[z0sa]

Also, the 2nd amendment is not just for safe guarding the rights of the states from overreach of the federal armies, but also against invasion from foreign countries or dare I say, other states. Have to remember, when the Bill of Rights was passed, there was a lot more continent than colony.

[Obstructed_View]

Also, the 2nd amendment is not just for safe guarding the rights of the states from overreach of the federal armies, but also against invasion from foreign countries or dare I say, other states. Have to remember, when the Bill of Rights was passed, there was a lot more continent than colony.

Excellent point. It's actually not for safeguarding the rights of the states at all, but for safeguarding the rights of the people above all else, including states and foreign invaders.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Actually it does. Go read it. It says that because the federal government will require a military to provide for the common defense, the federal government will not abridge the right of the people to keep and bear arms to any degree they feel necessary to feel protected from the federal government's army. It's the reason the president is the commander in chief of the military. It's very simple. Changing it would change absolutely nothing in our world, but would likely endanger the country going forward.


Actually you tried to move the goalposts, but I already defeated your argument. The word gun is indeed nowhere in the second amendment. The second amendment does not refer to guns. The second amendment is to protect the people from the government. It has nothing to do with anything else. There are other government agencies that deal with other things, as I'll list below.


No, actually the only reason I posted was because you misquoted the second amendment, which has nothing to do with gun control. You're the one who wants to talk about gun control. I say that someone could kill 49 hostages with a claw hammer in three hours, so bringing up gun control is just as stupid as trying to change the second amendment because someone killed someone with a legal gun.


I've taken on literally every point you've made, and I've eviscerated every single one of them. You want to use a tragic attack to gain political points. You show a complete ignorance of how the constitution works, as well as ignorance about existing laws, though you think that making more laws will somehow make people who intend to break the law suddenly stop what they're doing. Then, when faced with irrefutable logic that explains why your point of view is misguided, mistaken and illogical, you claim that I'm dodging the conversation. That makes you willfully ignorant. That means that you are so dug in to your political view that you will still act stupidly when faced with logic that is impossible to refute. You're a pigeon on a chessboard, dude. Why that doesn't embarrass the shit out of you is the only mystery that remains.


Actually, you mentioned automatic weapons, mortars, grenades, tanks and nuclear weapons. Automatic weapons manufactured before 1987 can be owned if you have the right license, which requires a large fee, an extensive background check, and is heavily regulated. Mortars and grenades, and even large fireworks, regulated by the ATF and the consumer product safety commission, are illegal to own. Nuclear weapons also count as explosives and are regulated. A tank can be owned, so long as it is demilitarized.

So the fact is that everything that you mentioned are already banned, so you're standing here waving your arms around for no reason. If that's not a textbook example of someone ignorantly calling for change on the back of a tragedy without full possession of the facts, I don't know what is.


The only thing you've proven is how little you know. Hardly surprising, since you can't seem to learn anything despite the education I've provided for you in this thread.


So you post the preamble to the constitution. I'm sure you think you're making some striking point, but there's nothing in the preamble that goes against the amendment. Further, do you understand how amendments work? They would supersede the preamble if there were actually a conflict.


No idea what this means. Whoever you stole it from probably thought they were frightfully clever.


Always nice to throw a strawman out there when you're getting your ass handed to you. I already said that we have laws against murder. You have yet to explain why you think passing a law against guns will stop someone intent on committing murder.


I ignored this the first time you used it, because I didn't want to embarrass you, but you're just such a blithering idiot that I don't give a shit anymore.

The term is "prima facie" and it means "at first look". It means an assumption that looks correct before delving into details. It's a legal term with no relevance whatsoever in this conversation, and you've now used it twice. It only makes you look smart to people stupider than you. I'm sure they're both very impressed.

Here endeth the lesson. Plonk.

A militia is not a standing army. Never has been and never will be. No one is going to read all that shit so I don't know why you bother anyway. I got through about half of it when I realized most of it was juvenile posturing.

You argue minutiae and pretend it invalidates the entire point. Fact is that the items that I mentioned should be banned whether or not they already are. You still refuse to acknowledge it and dance around it like a coward. The term used is arms and some arms should be banned.

My argument is that they should be banned. As if it wasn't obvious to everyone that nuclear weapons were already banned. If you don't understand my argument then ask me rather then fumbling around foolishly and trying bluster your way through. The overall point is that the right to bear arms that shant be infringed is already infringed for very good reason. Same reason that speech is not universally accepted when it affects the public welfare. You're arguing ideological purity and waving your hands in opposition. Prima facie it's wrong.

I'm not calling for a ban of anything but ideological NRA nonsense like the ideas about criminals and how you're going to stop them with your guns. If you don't realizing that you are parroting the same shit that LaPierre, the leader of the NRA, peddles at his rallies then that is just sad. Not surprising considering groupthink and your lack of curiosity outside of what you want to hear but pathetic just the same.

[dbestpro]

Actually it does. Go read it. It says that because the federal government will require a military to provide for the common defense, the federal government will not abridge the right of the people to keep and bear arms to any degree they feel necessary to feel protected from the federal government's army. It's the reason the president is the commander in chief of the military. It's very simple. Changing it would change absolutely nothing in our world, but would likely endanger the country going forward.


Actually you tried to move the goalposts, but I already defeated your argument. The word gun is indeed nowhere in the second amendment. The second amendment does not refer to guns. The second amendment is to protect the people from the government. It has nothing to do with anything else. There are other government agencies that deal with other things, as I'll list below.


No, actually the only reason I posted was because you misquoted the second amendment, which has nothing to do with gun control. You're the one who wants to talk about gun control. I say that someone could kill 49 hostages with a claw hammer in three hours, so bringing up gun control is just as stupid as trying to change the second amendment because someone killed someone with a legal gun.


I've taken on literally every point you've made, and I've eviscerated every single one of them. You want to use a tragic attack to gain political points. You show a complete ignorance of how the constitution works, as well as ignorance about existing laws, though you think that making more laws will somehow make people who intend to break the law suddenly stop what they're doing. Then, when faced with irrefutable logic that explains why your point of view is misguided, mistaken and illogical, you claim that I'm dodging the conversation. That makes you willfully ignorant. That means that you are so dug in to your political view that you will still act stupidly when faced with logic that is impossible to refute. You're a pigeon on a chessboard, dude. Why that doesn't embarrass the shit out of you is the only mystery that remains.


Actually, you mentioned automatic weapons, mortars, grenades, tanks and nuclear weapons. Automatic weapons manufactured before 1987 can be owned if you have the right license, which requires a large fee, an extensive background check, and is heavily regulated. Mortars and grenades, and even large fireworks, regulated by the ATF and the consumer product safety commission, are illegal to own. Nuclear weapons also count as explosives and are regulated. A tank can be owned, so long as it is demilitarized.

So the fact is that everything that you mentioned are already banned, so you're standing here waving your arms around for no reason. If that's not a textbook example of someone ignorantly calling for change on the back of a tragedy without full possession of the facts, I don't know what is.


The only thing you've proven is how little you know. Hardly surprising, since you can't seem to learn anything despite the education I've provided for you in this thread.


So you post the preamble to the constitution. I'm sure you think you're making some striking point, but there's nothing in the preamble that goes against the amendment. Further, do you understand how amendments work? They would supersede the preamble if there were actually a conflict.


No idea what this means. Whoever you stole it from probably thought they were frightfully clever.


Always nice to throw a strawman out there when you're getting your ass handed to you. I already said that we have laws against murder. You have yet to explain why you think passing a law against guns will stop someone intent on committing murder.


I ignored this the first time you used it, because I didn't want to embarrass you, but you're just such a blithering idiot that I don't give a shit anymore.

The term is "prima facie" and it means "at first look". It means an assumption that looks correct before delving into details. It's a legal term with no relevance whatsoever in this conversation, and you've now used it twice. It only makes you look smart to people stupider than you. I'm sure they're both very impressed.

Here endeth the lesson. Plonk.

:bobo