NBA: Jason Collins comes out of the closet

[jag]

2nd post now where you can't find specific context from me that's extreme. That should speak for itself

Maybe I'm wrong relative to what you consider moderate behavior. That would of course require you to display this type of obsessive behavior on a regular basis. If that's the case, I can't help but wonder to what degree your reasoning and judgement has been clouded by your chronic obsessive hatred.

[ambchang]

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba...170001023.html

Didn't Jefferson break off his marriage as well? Makes you wonder.

[Chinook]

But that is part of my point, she probably questioned her looks or her sexual prowess and yes that comes as a relief later but she had to deal with it then.
And yes, I think that is sad for your friend. The few gay guys I played sports with (track & hoops) (As far as I know) all waited for college to come out. Our HS sports teams was pretty phobic ...
Too bad he could not find that support in college ...

So not to keep this all serious since we know at least 10% of most groups has someone LGBT ... how many post here and is anyone BRAVE enough to be the Jason Collins of this forum ...or will they wait until they are no longer an active poster?


Kidding ...

Oh he would have had plenty of support here in Philly. He used to hang out with the LGBT community for "research." It's back in rural Texas that he'd have issues. We've never really spoken about it, as I don't think it's that big of a deal. He's sort of a fake bible-thumper, though, which as an extra wrinkle of irony.

I was agreeing with you on the effect down-low relationships could have by citing Collins' ex. It's good that she feels better now, but Collins' was a punk (not pun intended) for making her feel that way in the first place with his lie.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Yes. Especially if that didn't affect their work. Like if they didn't help minorities costumers or something, then that's one thing. But if they just hate non-Aryans and say nothing about it while at work, then you would be doing something wrong if you discriminated them.

saying I'd be wrong if I didn't hire Nazis.

You do realize that the Establishment Clause (AKA the part of the Cons ution that creates the separation) was made protect religion, and not to curtail it, right? Yes, the point of it is to keep the government from telling people what to believe, whether that is a majority religion or an atheistic view. It doesn't say that individuals can't use their religious beliefs when cast votes for initiatives.

This post is how I know you're a jeebo . Separation of Church and State was created by secular founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson who warned against Christianity growing in America.

I bet if you polled Christians you'd see that most of them don't wait to tax gay people more, either.

Most Christians oppose gay marriage, thus most Christians support higher taxes for gay couples. Opposing gay marriage is inherently believing gays should be taxed more.

By definition, it's not a civil right until it gets accepted into government. It's a natural right, perhaps, which is a different story. The reason why the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s wasn't under the same restriction is because the 14th Amendment had already given black people en lement to the rights they were seeking. Abolition was not a civil-rights struggle, because blacks hadn't yet been given civil rights.

Where this applies to gay marriage is that marriage isn't a natural right, just like voting isn't. So there isn't technically a civil right to be protected yet. We have to grant it by voting for it. If gay marriage were legalized, but some agency failed to recognize it, THEN it would be a denial of civil rights. Simply protesting a change of law is perfectly inline with civil code.

This is such bull . Civil rights aren't granted based off what the American people vote on. If they were, we'd still have segregated public schools because the only thing that stopped that was Brown v. Board of Education going against the majority opinion because segregation was uncons utional. What is/isn't a civil right according to the cons ution is a never ending discussion and it's not decided by which side has a simple majority. If it was, the state of Mississippi would still have legal slavery.

Saying abolition wasn't a civil rights struggle might be one of the most re ed things I've ever heard.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Maybe I'm wrong relative to what you consider moderate behavior. That would of course require you to display this type of obsessive behavior on a regular basis. If that's the case, I can't help but wonder to what degree your reasoning and judgement has been clouded by your chronic obsessive hatred.

my reasoning and judgement is clouded because I don't believe in a magical man in the sky

[Gay Robot]

So not to keep this all serious since we know at least 10% of most groups has someone LGBT ... how many post here and is anyone BRAVE enough to be the Jason Collins of this forum ...or will they wait until they are no longer an active poster?

I'll be your Jason Collins!!

[jag]

my reasoning and judgement is clouded because I don't believe in a magical man in the sky

Your continued use of straw man arguments isn't very logical. I expect more from you.

[Blake]

I just posted a response to a similar observation. I don't know if DoK's critique is the same as yours, though.

yeah, I'm avoiding the tldr posts. Sorry.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Your continued use of straw man arguments isn't very logical. I expect more from you.

I felt like using an inflammatory strawman since you're incapable of finding specific context from me that's extreme.

After that I'd love to hear how my logic and judgement is clouded.

[Killakobe81]

I'll be your Jason Collins!!

You wont be "mine"

But Im willing to be your agent.

I will get you a cover story with ESPN THE MAG ... (SI has been done)
An interview with Bill simmons ...
A spot on the Today show ...
A book deal ...
OXygen movie deal ...
And you will grand marshal the BAY area LGBT PRIDE parade ...

You in?

[Gay Robot]

You wont be "mine"

But Im willing to be your agent.

I will get you a cover story with ESPN THE MAG ... (SI has been done)
An interview with Bill simmons ...
A spot on the Today show ...
A book deal ...
OXygen movie deal ...
And you will grand marshal the BAY area LGBT PRIDE parade ...

You in?

Oh, you'll know when I'm in. I prefer you to be in though.

[Pelicans78]

DoK's go to jab of "Well, you can't be Christian AND support gay marriage" is silly. What he is showing through a lack of knowledge (which I am sure if we asked him, he's spent more time watching The Pats play than studying Christianity) is that he doesn't understand the fundamental principal of Christianity. Free will & choice. No where in the bible does it say we should judge others for their choices. It says God will judge them. It also says people have their own free will to believe or not. When you understand that, you can certainly see how one can "support" Gay marriage and still be a Christian.

My job as a Christian is not to judge or harm - that is not my responsibility. My role is to be a good person in accordance to the bible and leave the judging to God. I can support people's rights to make decisions on their own and still respect and care about them while maintaining my values. It's not like I'm donating money to force Gay marriage through. But I firmly believe they should be allowed to get married if they want and support the fact they are fully able to make their own decisions.

I'm not even what you would call a devout Christian (meaning I go to church every week or something like that), but that is what I have learned.

It would be like me saying someone can't be a big defender of Civil Rights while simultaneously calling people be@ners and n*ggers.

That's your intrepretation of Christianity. Doesn't mean that's what the actual intrepretation. It can be intrepreted many different ways. But you make a great point overall. I do think that supporting gay marriage in this country is not a big deal regardless of religion because this cons ution is not based on any religious laws. This is about a free society based on the cons ution so there's not a reason why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.

[Chinook]

This post is how I know you're a jeebo . Separation of Church and State was created by

Did you forget to finish that line? And no, I'm still not any more Christian than I was before.

Most Christians oppose gay marriage, thus most Christians support higher taxes for gay couples. Opposing gay marriage is inherently believing gays should be taxed more.

Again, that's a false assumption. I don't think most Christians care enough either way. And opposing gay marriage doesn't inherently mean that one believes gay couples shouldn't have the same civil rights.

This is such bull . Civil rights aren't granted based off what the American people vote on. If they were, we'd still have segregated public schools because the only thing that stopped that was Brown v. Board of Education going against the majority opinion because segregation was uncons utional. What is/isn't a civil right according to the cons ution is a never ending discussion and it's not decided by which side has a simple majority. If it was, the state of Mississippi would still have legal slavery.

Saying abolition wasn't a civil rights struggle might be one of the most re ed things I've ever heard.

The courts upheld the 14th Amendment when the desegregated the schools. We had already voted for it, so we didn't need to do it again. That's how the Supreme Court works. It interprets our Cons ution to see what rights it grants us. It doesn't just make up new ones. So the courts are there to see which civil rights were being violated in every case.

When the Supreme Court says gay marriage is legal, then we don't have to try to vote on it all the time, because we would have already voted for the rights used to legalize gay marriage. Until then, voting against it is not doing anything against the Cons ution and is therefore not a matter of attacking civil rights. Essentially, a court case is someone saying their civil rights have been violated, and the court looks to see if that's the case. If they rule against the person, they are claiming that the person's didn't have a right to whatever they lost.

Abolition WASN'T a civil-rights struggle. Black people DIDN'T have civil rights until after the 13-15th amendments were passed. That's why the government had to pass new amendments to the Cons ution in the first place. Now if, by saying that it wasn't a "civil-rights struggle", you think I meant that it wasn't a struggle to get civil rights, then that's one thing. It was that. But it wasn't a struggle to enforce already present civil rights.

[Chinook]

yeah, I'm avoiding the tldr posts. Sorry.

That's fine. Pretty much said that rights theory is really complicated and people often mix up when rights are being violated or not.

[Killakobe81]

Oh, you'll know when I'm in. I prefer you to be in though.

Collins would like to discuss the "ins and outs" with you ...
Me? I just want you for the money to be made ...

[Blake]

So forgiveness is where your problem with Christianity lies?!?! That's a pathetic excuse to hate something.

So who should be despised more, the people who *forgives* the molester or the person who molests?

Forgiveness is part of the many logical fallacies of Christianity.

I don't really hate Christianity itself any more than I hate Santa Claus. But if people tried to tell me I need to believe in Santa and that Santa thinks gays should be executed, then I would direct my hate towards Santa as well.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Did you forget to finish that line? And no, I'm still not any more Christian than I was before.

My computer is ing up. I'd bet money that you're a Christian who's saying you're not a Christian to improve your credibility as an unbiased observer. It's a trick I've seen countless times.

Again, that's a false assumption. I don't think most Christians care enough either way. And opposing gay marriage doesn't inherently mean that one believes gay couples shouldn't have the same civil rights.

Opposing gay marriage means you oppose gay couples being able to file their tax return jointly which means you support gay couples paying up to 60% more in taxes than straight couples. These are simple facts.

The courts upheld the 14th Amendment when the desegregated the schools. We had already voted for it, so we didn't need to do it again. That's how the Supreme Court works. It interprets our Cons ution to see what rights it grants us. It doesn't just make up new ones. So the courts are there to see which civil rights were being violated in every case.

When the Supreme Court says gay marriage is legal, then we don't have to try to vote on it all the time, because we would have already voted on it. Until then, voting against it is not doing anything against the Cons ution and is therefore not a matter of attacking civil rights. Essentially, a court case is someone saying their civil rights have been violated, and the court looks to see if that's the case. If they rule against the person, they are claiming that the person's didn't have a right to whatever they lost.

Abolition WASN'T a civil-rights struggle. Black people DIDN'T have civil rights until after the 13-15th amendments were passed. That's why the government had to pass new amendments to the Cons ution in the first place. Now if, by saying that it wasn't a "civil-rights struggle", you think I meant that it wasn't a struggle to get civil rights, then that's one thing. It was that. But it wasn't a struggle to enforce already present civil rights.

when has a civil rights struggle ever been about "enforcing already present civil rights", it's always been about when someone is getting civil rights. 20 years from now, we'll be referring to this time as the civil rights movement for gay people and I'll be able to laugh at all the dumb s who had an epiphany sometime during this period and flip flopped on the issue.

[DPG21920]

What about what I've said is extreme? Be specific.

Apparently stuff I say on a message board makes me as extreme as people who blow up abortion clinics and protest funerals, tbh.

I can find something extreme you said. You said you're a big defender of civil rights. That's extremely funny.

[Blake]

DoK's go to jab of "Well, you can't be Christian AND support gay marriage" is silly. What he is showing through a lack of knowledge.

Fundamentally, you can't.

If you want to disregard direct orders from God to kill the gays, that's fine, but then what's the point of being a Christian?

[I. Hustle]

Nobody is born Christian. It's a choice.

You don't sound smart at all here.

That didn't have anything to do with what I said.

You are lumping together a group and hating them based on crusades from hundreds of years ago (by catholics and their pope) and people like the Westboro peeps with others who don't believe the way they do. Regardless of them being born that way or choosing to believe that way you still have no idea what you are talking about.
Speaking about choices, you have the choise to not talk about things that you really don't know about.

[DPG21920]

My computer is ing up. I'd bet money that you're a Christian who's saying you're not a Christian to improve your credibility as an unbiased observer. It's a trick I've seen countless times.


Opposing gay marriage means you oppose gay couples being able to file their tax return jointly which means you support gay couples paying up to 60% more in taxes than straight couples. These are simple facts.

.

what the . Paranoid.

[Killakobe81]

My computer is ing up. I'd bet money that you're a Christian who's saying you're not a Christian to improve your credibility as an unbiased observer. It's a trick I've seen countless times.


Opposing gay marriage means you oppose gay couples being able to file their tax return jointly which means you support gay couples paying up to 60% more in taxes than straight couples. These are simple facts.



when has a civil rights struggle ever been about "enforcing already present civil rights", it's always been about when someone is getting civil rights. 20 years from now, we'll be referring to this time as the civil rights movement for gay people and I'll be able to laugh at all the dumb s who had an epiphany sometime during this period and flip flopped on the issue.

I kinda get SOME of what you are expressing. But if a Christian believes with ever fiber of their being that sam-sex marriage is a sin, how could they NOT vote against it?
Maybe you are right some day we may look at this different, but I dont have an issue with someone that votes based on their religous morals ...is that any worse that someone that votes based strictly on part lines or selfish financial reasons instead of the greater good?

[Killakobe81]

Fundamentally, you can't.

If you want to disregard direct orders from God to kill the gays, that's fine, but then what's the point of being a Christian?

Direct orders? Where is that part? would be interesting to discuss ...

[I. Hustle]

Forgiveness is part of the many logical fallacies of Christianity.

I don't really hate Christianity itself any more than I hate Santa Claus. But if people tried to tell me I need to believe in Santa and that Santa thinks gays should be executed, then I would direct my hate towards Santa as well.

Again, you assume that ALL Christians believe that way.

[jag]

I felt like using an inflammatory strawman since you're incapable of finding specific context from me that's extreme.

After that I'd love to hear how my logic and judgement is clouded.

I have already addressed both of these things.

Maybe I'm wrong relative to what you consider moderate behavior. That would of course require you to display this type of obsessive behavior on a regular basis. If that's the case, I can't help but wonder to what degree your reasoning and judgement has been clouded by your chronic obsessive hatred.

I'm not sure what direction you're trying to go here. You admit to being extreme and obsessive then retract your statements and ask me to provide evidence. You clamor on about certain religious groups and challenge people to logically attack your arguments, all while you continue to make intentionally illogical arguments.


If you think this type of obsession rooted in hatred is moderate behavior then so be it. If you don't think you're obsessed then so be it.