NBA: Jason Collins comes out of the closet

[Koolaid_Man]

Broussard is a dumbass but if that is his religious belief ESPN should not fire him unless his contract prohibits him sharing his religious beliefs at the workplace. He did not express hate just his own morals and belief systems. Isn't it hypocritical to applaud Collins for sharing his lifestyle choice but then condemn that high yella nicca for his?

you start off calling him a dumbass for undoubtedly sharing his religious beliefs and then finish with that last sentence...seems you a bit confused this evening...

[Chinook]

What legitimate reasons? There is no legit reason to be intolerant towards any type of people, including gays. Youre basically saying its perfectly fine to hate gay people as long as you keep it to yourself or within your circle of friends. That shouldnt be ok with society, obviously there will always be dumbasses that feel that way just like racism still exists...but it should be frowned upon by society just like racism is now.

Yes, I believe that entirely. That's what it means to have freedom of speech. , I support the KKK's right to protest, and I obviously don't agree with them at all.

Again, you confuse intolerance with disagreement. You don't have to believe sexuality is perfectly normal to be tolerant -- in fact, you can't. You don't claim to be tolerant of heterosexuality, do you? No, because no one is really arguing that it's wrong. Tolerance is best demonstrated in religions. If you're Christian, you believe your faith is the correct one. Even though you think Muslims are wrong, you support freedom of religion and defend them when their rights are being infringed upon. That's tolerance. So by that same extension, one has to believe sexuality is wrong to be tolerant of it; otherwise, it just doesn't apply.

Faith IS a legitimate reason to believe any action is wrong. The fact that it makes a person uncomfortable is also a legitimate reason. The fact that someone think it's a biological or psychological defect is also another legitimate reason. You can disagree with their conclusions (which I do), but that doesn't make their view invalid. Society should have an open discussion about what sexuality is and how we should deal with it instead of just having two sides pretend they hold the sole moral and intellectual high ground.

[Koolaid_Man]

Yes, I believe that entirely. That's what it means to have freedom of speech. , I support the KKK's right to protest, and I obviously don't agree with them at all.

Again, you confuse intolerance with disagreement. You don't have to believe sexuality is perfectly normal to be tolerant -- in fact, you can't. You don't claim to be tolerant of heterosexuality, do you? No, because no one is really arguing that it's wrong. Tolerance is best demonstrated in religions. If you're Christian, you believe your faith is the correct one. Even though you think Muslims are wrong, you support freedom of religion and defend them when their rights are being infringed upon. That's tolerance. So by that same extension, one has to believe sexuality is wrong to be tolerant of it; otherwise, it just doesn't apply.

Faith IS a legitimate reason to believe any action is wrong. The fact that it makes a person uncomfortable is also a legitimate reason. The fact that someone think it's a biological or psychological defect is also another legitimate reason. You can disagree with their conclusions (which I do), but that doesn't make their view invalid. Society should have an open discussion about what sexuality is and how we should deal with it instead of just having two sides pretend they hold the sole moral and intellectual high ground.

FKLA is just defending his peeps ...

[Killakobe81]

Lol all the gay rights police out in force Mike Wallace got killed on Twitter for saying with all the beautiful women in the world he doesn't understand sexuality. Thought we protected freedom of speech along with human (gay) rights?

[Killakobe81]

you start off calling him a dumbass for undoubtedly sharing his religious beliefs and then finish with that last sentence...seems you a bit confused this evening...

I don't like Broussard but maybe I should of placed a comma, after dumbass but he still has right to his religious beliefss. And though I think he has a right to dumbass opinions about hoops or gay people ...he was dumb for expressing on ESPN

[Koolaid_Man]

Personally, and I believe most people feel the same way, if a player was a nice contributor for my team and I enjoyed playing basketball with him, I couldn't care less if he enjoys hanging out with Magic's son on Saturday nights, tbh..

If you could be sure no one would ever find out would you suck a man's for 1 millon, let him in your face for 1 million, and then swallow that for another 1 million all clear an d tax free. Would you do it?

[Killakobe81]

I don't like Broussard but maybe I should of placed a comma, after dumbass but he still has right to his religious beliefss. And though I think he has a right to dumbass opinions about hoops or gay people ...he was dumb for expressing on ESPN

Still don't think he should be slammed for it ...

[Koolaid_Man]

I don't like Broussard but maybe I should of placed a comma, after dumbass but he still has right to his religious beliefss. And though I think he has a right to dumbass opinions about hoops or gay people ...he was dumb for expressing on ESPN

They're trying to flip the story...and make us believe being gay is as cool as buying a fresh pair of MJ's

[Chinook]

Still don't think he should be slammed for it ...

I agree. It has nothing to do with basketball. Just like we shouldn't care if Collins is gay, we shouldn't care if Broussard thinks sexuality is wrong. Anyone who was looking to ESPN for moral guidance was already a lost cause.

[Koolaid_Man]

Kobe spinning like a mutha er after he called that ref a ing got...now he expects us to believe that after a lifetime of likely calling people gots he got a revelation in 1 short year..... trying to capitalize and build up his image off this ...I can't hate on that though....maybe gay is the way ..naah I'm just joking there's no money in it for me...so I don't have to be PC...

[Koolaid_Man]

Lol all the gay rights police out in force Mike Wallace got killed on Twitter for saying with all the beautiful women in the world he doesn't understand sexuality. Thought we protected freedom of speech along with human (gay) rights?

if we cannot call people 's and gots then what are we gonna call them? if we keep this up pretty soon all the asses and mutha ers gonna be demanding rights as well

[Proxy]

Yes, I believe that entirely. That's what it means to have freedom of speech. , I support the KKK's right to protest, and I obviously don't agree with them at all.

Again, you confuse intolerance with disagreement. You don't have to believe sexuality is perfectly normal to be tolerant -- in fact, you can't. You don't claim to be tolerant of heterosexuality, do you? No, because no one is really arguing that it's wrong. Tolerance is best demonstrated in religions. If you're Christian, you believe your faith is the correct one. Even though you think Muslims are wrong, you support freedom of religion and defend them when their rights are being infringed upon. That's tolerance. So by that same extension, one has to believe sexuality is wrong to be tolerant of it; otherwise, it just doesn't apply.

Faith IS a legitimate reason to believe any action is wrong. The fact that it makes a person uncomfortable is also a legitimate reason. The fact that someone think it's a biological or psychological defect is also another legitimate reason. You can disagree with their conclusions (which I do), but that doesn't make their view invalid. Society should have an open discussion about what sexuality is and how we should deal with it instead of just having two sides pretend they hold the sole moral and intellectual high ground.

People can have their own opinions, but faith has no grounds to make up their own facts. The social injustices that you're attempting to justify with the regurgitated freedom of speech argument is weak.

[AaronY]

Holy , this thread sucks now

[FkLA]

Yes, I believe that entirely. That's what it means to have freedom of speech. , I support the KKK's right to protest, and I obviously don't agree with them at all.

Again, you confuse intolerance with disagreement. You don't have to believe sexuality is perfectly normal to be tolerant -- in fact, you can't. You don't claim to be tolerant of heterosexuality, do you? No, because no one is really arguing that it's wrong. Tolerance is best demonstrated in religions. If you're Christian, you believe your faith is the correct one. Even though you think Muslims are wrong, you support freedom of religion and defend them when their rights are being infringed upon. That's tolerance. So by that same extension, one has to believe sexuality is wrong to be tolerant of it; otherwise, it just doesn't apply.

Faith IS a legitimate reason to believe any action is wrong. The fact that it makes a person uncomfortable is also a legitimate reason. The fact that someone think it's a biological or psychological defect is also another legitimate reason. You can disagree with their conclusions (which I do), but that doesn't make their view invalid. Society should have an open discussion about what sexuality is and how we should deal with it instead of just having two sides pretend they hold the sole moral and intellectual high ground.

Youre confusing legality with morality. Just because hating gays is legal doesnt mean society shouldnt frown upon it...Im not saying outlaw it or control it. Obviously people will believe what they want, just saying its ignorant. Irrationality is ignorance.

[DeadlyDynasty]

If you could be sure no one would ever find out would you suck a man's for 1 millon, let him in your face for 1 million, and then swallow that for another 1 million all clear an d tax free. Would you do it?

Yes to the first million. A dry bj is worth the mil, especially if no one ever knew. I could always kill the guy afterwards too.

[Chinook]

People can have their own opinions, but faith has no grounds to make up their own facts. The social injustices that you're attempting to justify with the regurgitated freedom of speech argument is weak.

Morals aren't facts -- their opinions. Faith is perfectly acceptable as the basis of morals.

I didn't justify any social injustice. In fact, I specifically stated that laws should be formed to protect everyone's rights. But their shouldn't be a law to prevent people from being offended. That doesn't jive with rights theory.

It's like people miss the forest through the trees. The problem with the KKK (for example) isn't their beliefs; it's when they act on them. We don't have a right to control their beliefs just because we don't agree with them. That is a true social injustice. In the same way, it's an injustice to attack people for stating their opinions. It's not an injustice to belief someone's lifestyle is wrong.

[Chinook]

Youre confusing legality with morality. Just because hating gays is legal doesnt mean society shouldnt frown upon it...Im not saying outlaw it or control it. Obviously people will believe what they want, just saying its ignorant. Irrationality is ignorance.

No, irrationality is not ignorance. They're just two completely different things. It's like saying insanity is the same thing as stupidity. You can fix ignorance with knowledge; you can't fix irrationality that way.

And hating gay people is becoming de facto illegal, even though it's not de jure illegal. You can't disagree with gay marriage without getting fired, or losing your business, or being judged as a lesser person. It should be the same as with sexuality; it shouldn't matter unless it for some reason directly affects the contributions that person is putting out. Just like no one should care if Collins is gay, so too should no one care that the owner of Chick Fil' A doesn't support gay marriage.

[TDfan2007]

I'm a rare case of a person growing up in the hood that has never been a phobe, I rarely use the word got, tbh, but , Gay rights groups have quickly taken the crown of irritation, tbh..they have surpassed PETA and feminists..

Why do we need Gay athletes to come out of the closet, tbh?..what difference does it make if the public is aware of their sexual preference and fetishes?..

If they want to spread awareness for sexuality, that's fine, but why is there so much pressure and such a demand for Gay athletes?..are sexuals planning on a global takeover, tbh?..

It's 2013, the average Gay man isn't afraid to come out of the closet, tbh..they don't need Gay athletes to influence common folks..

There is still plenty of phobia/bigotry in the country. KillaKobe answered your question about why it's beneficial for gay athletes to come out earlier in the threat, and I completely agree with his point.

I would hardly call Collins a notable athlete though. Never was and never will be.

[Koolaid_Man]

Yes to the first million. A dry bj is worth the mil, especially if no one ever knew. I could always kill the guy afterwards too.

Appreciate the candor...but I would not since my pops and nem leaving me close to what I estimate is a 15 mil or so inheritance when they die....but he if upped the ante to say 3 mill then I just might

[Koolaid_Man]

if I equate Hollins gay anal penetrating love making skills to his on court abilities..I'd say he was a lousy lay...

[Kool Bob Love]

[whitemamba]

what if he likes that ....

[FkLA]

No, irrationality is not ignorance. They're just two completely different things. It's like saying insanity is the same thing as stupidity. You can fix ignorance with knowledge; you can't fix irrationality that way.

And hating gay people is becoming de facto illegal, even though it's not de jure illegal. You can't disagree with gay marriage without getting fired, or losing your business, or being judged as a lesser person. It should be the same as with sexuality; it shouldn't matter unless it for some reason directly affects the contributions that person is putting out. Just like no one should care if Collins is gay, so too should no one care that the owner of Chick Fil' A doesn't support gay marriage.

I guess youre right on that. Irrationality is probably worse tbh.

And it is perfectly within a companys or societys right to judge someone as a lesser person because they hate people with a certain skin color/sexual preference, especially if youre open about your hatred. Just like they choose to have their irrational beliefs we can choose to look down on them because of those beliefs.

[Proxy]

Morals aren't facts -- their opinions. Faith is perfectly acceptable as the basis of morals.

I didn't justify any social injustice. In fact, I specifically stated that laws should be formed to protect everyone's rights. But their shouldn't be a law to prevent people from being offended. That doesn't jive with rights theory.

It's like people miss the forest through the trees. The problem with the KKK (for example) isn't their beliefs; it's when they act on them. We don't have a right to control their beliefs just because we don't agree with them. That is a true social injustice. In the same way, it's an injustice to attack people for stating their opinions. It's not an injustice to belief someone's lifestyle is wrong.

Again, your argument is regurgitated bull . It isn't "moral" to respect the existence of ignorance and anti-progressive sentiment. Let me make it clear that I am in no way attempting to tackle any legality or resolution, but your attempt to justify hostility and stupidity is a shallow and backwards way of thinking.

[DeadlyDynasty]

Proxy is a