Things are about to get dicey for Tim Hardaway

[jochhejaam]

I for one am shocked, shocked, at what the National Association for Research and Therapy of sexuality has to say about this issue.

But seriously, how do you talk about an open mind and then link to that? What colour is the sky in your world?

Answer the following questions.
-What's closed minded about science?

-And you've refuted this scientific study with what? (pssst, nothing)

[jochhejaam]

I for one am shocked, shocked, at what the National Association for Research and Therapy of sexuality has to say about this issue.

Sarcasm (yours), arrogance and ignorance all fall into the same category of be without substance in making valid points in an arguement. I'll assume you have nothing of substance to bring to the issue until proven otherwise.

6. On the Meaning of Tolerance and Diversity
"Tolerance and diversity" means nothing if it is extended to activists and not traditionalists on the sexual issue.
Tolerance must also be extended to those people who take the principled, scientifically supportable view that sexuality works against our human nature.


7. On the Causes of sexuality
NARTH agrees with the American Psychological Association that "biological, psychological and social factors" shape sexual iden y at an early age for most people.
But the difference is one of emphasis. We place more emphasis on the psychological (family, peer and social) influences, while the American Psychological Association emphasizes biological influences--and has shown no interest in (indeed, a hostility toward) investigating those same psychological and social influences.

There is no such thing as a "gay gene" and there is no evidence to support the idea that sexuality is simply genetic. However, biological influences may indeed influence some people toward sexuality; recent studies point to prenatal-hormonal influences, especially in men, that result in a low-masculinized brain; also, there may be genetic factors in some people -- both of which would affect gender iden y, and therefore sexual orientation. But none of these factors mean that sexuality is normal and a part of human design, or that it is inevitable in such people, or that it is unchangeable.

Numerous examples exist of people who have successfully modified their sexual behavior, iden y, and arousal or fantasies.

http://www.narth.com/menus/positionstatements.html

[Melmart1]

WIth all the anger you display in this thread, Buck Rogers, I wonder who really needs to find some peace...

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Answer the following questions.
-What's closed minded about science?

-And you've refuted this scientific study with what? (pssst, nothing)

I have no horse in this race. I hate all people, especially stupid ones.

With that said, can anyone cite the studies which prove heterosexuality is genetic?

I'm going to guess here and say that this hasn't been proven either.

[Winnipeg_Spur]

Answer the following questions.
-What's closed minded about science?

-And you've refuted this scientific study with what? (pssst, nothing)

There's nothing closed minded about "science". It's a huge discipline, filled with thousands of people trying to reach some collective truth about the universe. One particular scientist, or even a group of scientists, however, can be just as closed minded as anyone else. , your own link claims that the APA "has shown no interest in (indeed, a hostility toward) investigating ... psychological and social influences" which doesn't sound completely open minded to me. So if NARTH can essentially claim APA's science is closed minded, I don't know what's wrong with questioning the motives of a group who's main reason for existence is "treating" sexuals.

And frankly, I don't know what there is to refute. First of all, I'm not even entirely sure that's a "scientific study." It cites a couple studies but that doesn't make itself a study. However, labelling this article aside, all they seem to be saying is that sexuality isn't purely genetic, which I thought everyone agreed on already. They certainly don't provide any evidence that it's a conscious choice and they also don't provide any rationale for why it would be "wrong." That's the sticking point for me. Whether it be by choice, environment or genetics (or some combination) there are gay people in this world, but what's the problem with that?

[jochhejaam]

I have no horse in this race. I hate all people, especially stupid ones.

With that said, can anyone cite the studies which prove heterosexuality is genetic?

I'm going to guess here and say that this hasn't been proven either.

If they haven't ID'd a gene that exhibits that some are born sexual then I would doubt that they would be able to ID one that would predestine someone for heterosexuality.

Everyone gets to choose their own lifestyle.


Many sexuals aren't ashamed of their sexuality. Rather than hide behind the ill conceived theory that it's genetic, so "I didn't have a choice" they're proud to state that their sexual by choice, and they're not interested in some invented reason why they are.
It's called gay pride.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

what gets me about this whole thing is you people honestly think Tim is the only one out there with this opinion......there are problay a majority of peopl that feel this way, but they are attacked, with help from thr media, and are now afraid to say anything.....imagine that.....silenced by the establishment......sad.


Its wrong and the more we allow it and don't say anything the more perverse our society gets and it won't matter how religious you are Kori, this society will corrupt as many people as it can.....which will include your sons and daughters.....

It isn't a matter of not allowing it you idiot; It is/and always will be prevalent in our society because a gay tendency is/always will be inherent in some humans. Just like any other deviative behavior. We are inherently perverse/deviative. It is our nature. Your view of what society should/should not be is a theocratic idealism.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

there are no gay tendecies dumbass. just little kids that are molested and use the gayness as a HUGE defense mechanism and a way to "deal"....................admit it you gays.

How old are you?

[Findog]

there are no gay tendecies dumbass. just little kids that are molested and use the gayness as a HUGE defense mechanism and a way to "deal"....................admit it you gays.

You are obviously gay or were molested yourself. Only self-loathing closet cases and molestation victims publicly hate gay people this much.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

You are obviously gay or were molested yourself. Only self-loathing closet cases and molestation victims publicly hate gay people this much.

Tell me about it. This guy is depressingly mad. I just hope everything is going on alright in his life.

[ChumpDumper]

Buck prepares to use his "deep curiosity" to solve his neighbor's "problem."

[Ronaldo McDonald]

Buck prepares to use his "deep curiosity" to solve his neighbor's "problem."

[Ronaldo McDonald]

hey, how do you post pictures? I've a good one.

[itzsoweezee]

hilarious - george takei on tim hardaway

http://www.influks.com/post897.html

[P-O-Z]

hilarious - george takei on tim hardaway

http://www.influks.com/post897.html

i was just about post that remember when george goes "i like those nice hard calfs"

[trueD]

hilarious - george takei on tim hardaway

http://www.influks.com/post897.html

phobics everywhere, beware.

[trueD]

Here's Chris Broussards comments, sorry if this has already been posted somewhere:

From Insider:

My take on John Amaechi

I think the NBA is ready for an openly gay player.

By "ready" I don't mean that everyone on the guy's team or in his organization will like the fact that he's a sexual, or that the guy might not get called names by opponents on the court, or even that his own teammates might not chuckle behind his back.

But by "ready" I mean that players will tolerate a sexual teammate or opponent. Like Charles Barkley said, some have been doing that already.

Just look at the comments made by players, coaches and Commissioner David Stern when asked about former player John Amaechi's recent disclosure that he is gay.

The overwhelming majority of comments have been politically correct, even the ones that were considered phobic by Philadelphia's Shavlik Randolph and Steven Hunter.

Go talk to guys at an open gym in your neighborhood, and lots of the comments won't be so polite.

But America has become so politically correct -- not to mention that, in my opinion, much of the media and Hollywood are promoting the idea that sexuality is a normal lifestyle -- that many players are afraid to voice their true feelings publicly.

Thus, whenever a current player comes out as gay, you will hear overwhelming support for the guy. And while I think Mark Cuban went overboard in saying the guy would be "an American hero," I do believe he would be embraced by a sizeable segment of the population.

He would definitely get marketing/endorsement opportunities, and some folks in the media would champion him and the gay cause.

Well, anyone who reads this blog regularly knows I'm not concerned with being politically correct. So here's where I stand:

I'm a born-again, Bible-believing Christian (no, I'm not a member of the Religious Right). And I'm against sexuality (I believe it's a sin) and same-sex marriage.

But before you label me " phobic," know that I'm against any type of sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman. That includes heterosexual fornication (premarital sex).

Some cats in the NBA run around, sleeping with different women in every city -- I don't agree with their lifestyles.

Some players run around, cheating on their wives -- I don't agree with their lifestyles.

It's all wrong to me and against the biblical teachings I believe in.

I'm saying all that to say that if I can play basketball with a sexual, just about anyone can.

I've played in several rec leagues with LZ Granderson, who is an openly gay writer at ESPN The Magazine.

I consider LZ a friend. I've gone out to lunch with him, talked music, sports, politics and lots of other things with him. I greet him with a handshake and a hug, just like I greet lots of other guys.

By the way, LZ can ball. In a league in New York City that features several former college players, we both made the All-Star team. He was kind of like our Shawn Marion minus the dunks (though he claims he can still slam!) and I was like our Gilbert Arenas (high game of 39, thank you).

Anyway, when we play in our rec league games, I give him high fives and hugs. Same with one of his friends who is on the team and also gay. When we're on the court trying to get a win -- or in the office talking about a story, for that matter -- his sexuality is not an issue.

Granted, I don't shower with LZ after games like NBA teammates do, and I'll admit that if I had to, it might be a little uncomfortable at first.

But if a gay player just goes about his business in the shower, showing that he has no sexual interest in his teammates and that he's not "checking them out," I think the awkwardness would wear off fairly quickly.

LZ and I know where each other stand and we respect each other's right to believe as he does.

I know he's gay, and he knows I believe that's a sin. I know he thinks I get my moral standards from an outdated, mistranslated book, and he knows I believe he needs to change his lifestyle. Still, we can laugh together, and play ball together.

That's real diversity. Disagreeing but not being disagreeable.

For the record, I covered Amaechi as a beat writer for the Akron Beacon Journal when he was a rookie playing for the Cleveland Cavaliers.

I like John. He's intelligent, nice and you can have a good conversation with him. I haven't seen him in several years but if I saw him today, I'd smile and give him a hug. I think dinner with him would be a blast, with lots of great discussion/debate about race, politics, religion, Africa and yes, sexuality.

Since Amaechi came out, I've read lots of columns about being "progressive." The implication -- or outright assertion -- is that anyone who believes sexuality is wrong is not progressive or enlightened.

That's where this thing becomes problematic, because those who hold to that view are saying I must change my entire belief system/religion because of your belief system.

Where's the diversity in that?

Those folks don't want diversity. They want everyone to agree with their "enlightened" opinion.

Look, I'll accept your right to have your own belief system and to live as you please, but I'm not changing mine. Diversity is not just accepting alternatives to what has long been perceived as normal, but it's accepting the significant number of people who hold to long-standing "traditional" beliefs as well.

Millions of Christians who follow the Bible -- and Muslims who follow the Koran and Jews who follow the Torah, as well as many nonreligious Americans -- believe sexuality is wrong.

That doesn't mean they're unenlightened. That just means their moral code doesn't fluctuate based on society's ever-changing standards. As long as we're not being violent toward one another, as long as we can be civil, everything should be fine. We don't have to agree.

And please don't compare being sexual to being black. I consider that insulting to blacks for a number of reasons. The fact that some blacks make the comparison themselves only shows how crushed our racial esteem has become because of America's oppression (witness our insistence on calling ourselves the n-word).

You can't hide your skin color, choose your skin color, change your skin color or switch your skin color back and forth. Some argue that you can't do that with your sexuality either, but there are many scientists on both sides of the genetic debate, and I believe a truly objective person would admit the biological evidence for sexuality is far from definitive.

Nor has the Bible, the Koran or the Torah ever associated a particular skin color with sin (it was only racist whites who twisted the Scriptures 400 years ago who did that, never the Bible itself).

I'm not trying to get into a religious or scientific discussion here, I'm just saying that some people will accept sexuality as fine and others will not.

Some will write me off as a bigot for this article, but folks, this is real talk. Unfortunately, we can't have real talk in America nowadays.

Whites can't voice their real opinions -- no matter how legitimate -- about race for fear of being called racist, and everyone's afraid of offending anyone. It seems the only person who can be openly criticized, or disagreed with, is the President.

How crazy is that?

Until we can honestly hear each other out -- and be civil while doing so -- we won't get anywhere. One thing I hope this article does is encourage people to have frank discussions about sensitive issues such as this one.

Here's the bottom line: If I can accept working side-by-side with a sexual, then he/she can accept working side-by-side with someone who believes sexuality is wrong.

If an NBA player can accept playing with a sexual, then the sexual must accept playing with guys who don't agree with his lifestyle.

Believe me, when the ball goes up, his sexual preference isn't going to matter.

[trueD]

Having a hard time deciphering my feelings about this (somewhat dead) issue, but wanted to chime in for fear of looking like a whimp. So yeah, I used someone elses viewpoints to help me out, that's kind of whimpish

Broussard speaks well, and it's how I feel about the subject also. And who can't applaud Broussard for speaking his mind, with no regard as to whether he looks fanatical?

Hating gays is ignorant. Hating ANY group of people is ignorant. But, the ignorance with which most people tend to speak, at least regarding this issue, seems to be ignorance about feeling sexual tendancies towards the same sex.

Over-sensitivity towards sexuality is our dilemna, I believe. And it's likely men possess more phobic tendancies than do women, for this very reason. But men exhibit a strong double standard when it comes to women having sex with each other, further proving my point that sexual sensitivity can really with guys' brains. In more ways than one.

Anyways, you'd likely not hear a woman be as intolerant towards gays as men are. Which proves absolutely no point whatsoever, but bears mentioning.

[trueD]

That's a lot of talking from a man who got into trouble for talking too much!

Who said he probably doesn't mean he HATES gays? I thought it. By his own admission, Hardaway dislikes GAY, not gays. phobia x 10.

All the 12 thread pages, and no one is paying attention to this interview, why? Am I a total ass for responding?

Intolerance may be unacceptable to some, true. However, Hardaway doesn't appear to be a hateful-type person, but there were the words: I hate gay people.

I hope he can work out the kinks with counseling, seems like he's already on the road with learning about gay people and their (seems weird saying "their", like they are martians) contributions to society.

So, anyone ready to forgive him yet?

[Findog]

there are no gay tendecies dumbass. just little kids that are molested and use the gayness as a HUGE defense mechanism and a way to "deal"....................admit it you gays.

I'm guessing you speak from experience.

[Findog]

what gets me about this whole thing is you people honestly think Tim is the only one out there with this opinion.

You're probably right. There's a lot of people out there that don't care for ######s, s, s and Gooks. What's your point?

[Findog]

Hating gays is ignorant. .

True, but "hating" gays is also a defense mechanism for being a self-loathing closet case. Some of these " phobes" on this thread doth protest too much, if you know what I mean.