Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Emory889

The NBA and fining players for social commentary

Recommended Posts

Not that I'm a history intellectual, but I don't think the founders were meaning or implying anything related to sexual orientation at the moment of the nation's foundation.

 

The guy did say other stuff about people having rights to think or do what they want...

 

 

 

 

Saying religion hates on other people like it is an obvious truth is, at least, part of what's wrong with this society. It's like insults, name calling and stereotypes can go just one way.

 

Gay marriage impacts other people and institutions in society and their freedom of speech and religion. If it's not obvious, take a look at the places were the gay community has had the rights they've been seeking. It's just not as simple as that, whether you like the impact it has or not. And I'm obviously not talking about practicing religion equaling being violent against other people.

 

Homosexualism is not a race... that's why there are people trying so hard to prove it is something people have in their DNA so it can get to the same level legitimately.

 

I watch gay sensitivity messages during NBA games... I don't watch sensitivity messages for anything else... aren't other people in society verbally abused?

 

I understand I'll probably get flamed for this. I'm trying to keep this very simple just pointing a thing or 2 of what I think was incorrect about your statements. I'll probably not stay discussing this or going much deeper.

 

Who's the ones leading the charge against gay marriage in America? It's Christian organizations. Millions of dollars have been raised by churches for the express purpose of barring gay couples from having the exact same rights and priviledges that heterosexual couples take for granted. I was raised Christian. I've heard first hand the anti-homosexual rhetoric preached from pulpits...several different pulpits. I've yet to see any homosexual organization attempt to convert Christians to their lifestyle or morally corrupt their youth despite numerous accusations from Christians saying just that. In fact, every accusation I've heard levied against the homosexual community from the church the church is in fact guilty of.

 

You're right though, the founding fathers did not specificially address the homosexual community when they were writing the constitution. Probably because homosexuality wasn't something that was commonly advertised during that time. It shouldn't change the original intent of the founding fathers that states that all people are created equal. Telling a man that he can't serve in the military because he is attracted to other men is NOT equal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's the ones leading the charge against gay marriage in America? It's Christian organizations. Millions of dollars have been raised by churches for the express purpose of barring gay couples from having the exact same rights and priviledges that heterosexual couples take for granted. I was raised Christian. I've heard first hand the anti-homosexual rhetoric preached from pulpits...several different pulpits. I've yet to see any homosexual organization attempt to convert Christians to their lifestyle or morally corrupt their youth despite numerous accusations from Christians saying just that. In fact, every accusation I've heard levied against the homosexual community from the church the church is in fact guilty of.

 

You're right though, the founding fathers did not specificially address the homosexual community when they were writing the constitution. Probably because homosexuality wasn't something that was commonly advertised during that time. It shouldn't change the original intent of the founding fathers that states that all people are created equal. Telling a man that he can't serve in the military because he is attracted to other men is NOT equal.

 

not to mention, the founding fathers agreed that blacks were worth 5/8ths? a person. The constitution should be used implicitly, not explicitly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's the ones leading the charge against gay marriage in America? It's Christian organizations. Millions of dollars have been raised by churches for the express purpose of barring gay couples from having the exact same rights and priviledges that heterosexual couples take for granted. I was raised Christian. I've heard first hand the anti-homosexual rhetoric preached from pulpits...several different pulpits. I've yet to see any homosexual organization attempt to convert Christians to their lifestyle or morally corrupt their youth despite numerous accusations from Christians saying just that. In fact, every accusation I've heard levied against the homosexual community from the church the church is in fact guilty of.

 

You're right though, the founding fathers did not specificially address the homosexual community when they were writing the constitution. Probably because homosexuality wasn't something that was commonly advertised during that time. It shouldn't change the original intent of the founding fathers that states that all people are created equal. Telling a man that he can't serve in the military because he is attracted to other men is NOT equal.

 

 

My whole family is majorly christian, and they're all in acceptance of homosexuals. There's such an entitlement of a supposed right which they have never had in the first place. Heterosexual men are not allowed to marry men either, sexual preferences and race should not be compared because they are different.

 

Regardless, I honestly see no need for the government to be involved in marriage whatsoever, civil unions for everyone would be the correct resolution in my opinion.

 

Also, in regards to the military, gays have always been able to serve, just not to spout their sexual preference. There are many things you are not allowed to say when in the military, in essence many of your rights are taken when you choose to sign. What about the barracks, if women and men get separate barracks do we have to make and entire new barracks for homosexuals? The military is efficient because it is not fueled by political correctness rather by hard work and getting the job done

 

 

just my .02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My whole family is majorly christian, and they're all in acceptance of homosexuals. There's such an entitlement of a supposed right which they have never had in the first place. Heterosexuals are not allowed to marry men either, sexual preferences and race should not be compared because they are different.

 

Regardless, I honestly see no need for the government to be involved in marriage whatsoever, civil unions for everyone would be the correct resolution in my opinion.

 

Also, in regards to the military, gays have always been able to serve, just not to spout their sexual preference. There are many things you are not allowed to say when in the military, in essence many of your rights are taken when you choose to sign. What about the barracks, if women and men get separate barracks do we have to make and entire new barracks for homosexuals? The military is efficient because it is not fueled by political correctness rather by hard work and getting the job done

 

 

just my .02

 

Heterosexuals are not allowed to marry men either? There are literally millions of heterosexual women who are married to men.

 

Also, your point about the military might make sense if the policy didn't discharge people who are outed against their will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heterosexuals are not allowed to marry men either? There are literally millions of heterosexual women who are married to men.

LMFAO!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heterosexuals are not allowed to marry men either? There are literally millions of heterosexual women who are married to men.

 

Also, your point about the military might make sense if the policy didn't discharge people who are outed against their will.

 

Probably should of specified that I meant heterosexual men :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My whole family is majorly christian, and they're all in acceptance of homosexuals. There's such an entitlement of a supposed right which they have never had in the first place. Heterosexual men are not allowed to marry men either, sexual preferences and race should not be compared because they are different.

 

Regardless, I honestly see no need for the government to be involved in marriage whatsoever, civil unions for everyone would be the correct resolution in my opinion.

 

Also, in regards to the military, gays have always been able to serve, just not to spout their sexual preference. There are many things you are not allowed to say when in the military, in essence many of your rights are taken when you choose to sign. What about the barracks, if women and men get separate barracks do we have to make and entire new barracks for homosexuals? The military is efficient because it is not fueled by political correctness rather by hard work and getting the job done

 

 

just my .02

 

I'm in the military. You don't have to explain military policy to me.

 

In short, you are wrong. I'm still entitled to my opinion, regardless of subject. I'm just not allowed to express that opinion in uniform or express my opinion in a way that would make it appear as if it's an official military policy. For instance, I'm allowed to openly campaign for a presidential candidate. I'm not allowed to campaign for a president in uniform or as "TSgt Purdy of the United States Air Force". See the difference? I haven't been stripped of any rights. I just have to be careful when and how I express them. The only real rights that I no longer have is that I can't sue the government.

 

As for someone spouting their sexual preference in the military: Why shouldn't they? While it is frowned upon, I work in a maintenance career field and I can assure you that I hear more about the sexual prowess of the heterosexual males (and females for that matter) than I care to. So explain to me how that is ok but a homosexual male is not allowed to simply state, "I'm attracted to men." THAT is "spouting" their sexual preference? Give me a break. And, like it was already mentioned, it's not necessary for a homosexual to publicly state their sexual orientation for them to be kicked out of the military for it. I heard a story a few months ago about a Major that was kicked out because a co-worker read his private email and reported him. I also personally knew a couple of guy that were "caught" messing around in a hotel shower by one of the guys roommates. Both of them were kicked out. So, as you see, it's not necessary to come out of the closet in order to be removed from military service. Expecting someone to lie about who they are for 20 years in order to serve their country is complete discrimination. "Don't ask, don't tell" is going to be viewed just as discriminatory as the Navy's policy that black men couldn't serve in combat because "they don't see as well in the dark" in a few decades.

 

To answer your question about dormitories, dormitories will not be segregated based off of sexual preference.....nor should they be. I would have to be really naive to believe that the 10+ years I've spent in the Air Force has only been served with straight men. And no, I'm not worried about getting hit on in the shower when gay men are openly allowed to serve. There's still a very strict policy on sexual harrassment in the military.

 

I think I must have missed your first point. Why would 2 heterosexual men want to get married?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I must have missed your first point. Why would 2 heterosexual men want to get married?

 

Benefits. Or at least that's what usually comes up during these discussions.

 

But that's a stupid argument because a male and female can easily (and actually do, more often than one might guess) get married for insurance or citizenship reasons. That doesn't seem to be a concern with heterosexual marriage though, certainly not enough of a concern to ban heterosexual marriage. I don't see a reason why homosexuals would be more inclined to exploit that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and you should have heard the 45 minute briefing on sexual harrassment that I had to sit through a couple of days ago. The nuts and bolts of it is that the military is most efficient when it IS politically correct. This isn't the 70s anymore. We haven't been a fraternity in camoflage for quite some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×