http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2766213

Former Miami Heat guard Tim Hardaway said on a radio show Wednesday afternoon that he would not want a gay player on his team.

"You know, I hate gay people, so I let it be known," Hardaway said. "I don't like gay people and I don't like to be around gay people. I am homophobic. I don't like it. It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States."

Hardaway was a guest of Miami Herald columnist Dan Le Batard on the Miami radio show Sports Talk 790 and was asked how he would deal with a gay teammate. When asked if he would accept an active player's coming out, such as that of retired NBA center John Amaechi, Hardaway replied: "First of all, I wouldn't want him on my team.

"And second of all, if he was on my team, I would, you know, really distance myself from him because, uh, I don't think that's right. And you know I don't think he should be in the locker room while we're in the locker room. I wouldn't even be a part of that," he said.

NBA Commissioner David Stern, upon learning of the remarks Wednesday, removed Hardaway from subsequent league-related appearances. "It is inappropriate for him to be representing us given the disparity between his views and ours," Stern said in a statement to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

Hardaway has been taking part in NBA festivities ahead of Sunday's All-Star game in Las Vegas and attended an NBA Cares outreach event at a city YMCA with Knicks forward Jerome Williams on Tuesday.

Amaechi, meanwhile, was quoted in Le Batard's column in Thursday's Miami Herald saying that he was grateful for Hardaway's words.

"Finally, someone who is honest. It is ridiculous, absurb, petty, bigoted and shows a lack of empathy that is gargantuan and unfathomable. But it is honest. And it illustrates the problem better than any of the fuzzy language other people have used so far."

Hardaway, later saying he regretted the remarks, apologized for the remarks during a telephone interview with Fox affiliate WSVN in Miami.

"Yes, I regret it. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have said I hate gay people or anything like that," he said. "That was my mistake."

Hardaway played for five NBA teams from 1990-2003 and was a five-time All-Star. He finished with averages of 17.7 points and 8.2 assists.

Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.



Wow!

I suppose the next story in this sage is Tim;s announced plans to enter rehab for sensitivity issues.

I suppose the next story in this sage is Tim;s announced plans to enter rehab for sensitivity issues.

I thought it was alcohol rehab.

"He was who I thought he was!"

He's less media savvy and more honest than most NBA players.

He's less media savvy and more honest than most NBA players.

Well, at least we know he didn't do the gay spam on the RWBL board.

Well, at least we know he didn't do the gay spam on the RWBL board.

You got that bot too? You should see the one on the UBL boards. I left the thread open for humor.

Well crap, that's a disappointing thing to hear from my favorite former-player. :(

You got that bot too? You should see the one on the UBL boards. I left the thread open for humor.
Probably if it was something like this...

Men Fucking snails
Men fucking porpoises
....etc

Well crap, that's a disappointing thing to hear from my favorite former-player. :(

That just about explains it all. TO on your favorite football team, T-Hard bashing gays. ;)

BTW; how do you feel about a "Son of a Bum" now coaching "America's Team" (not named the Saints)

He regrets saying it? He's sorry for saying it? Hell, if he means it, what is he apologizing for?

Probably if it was something like this...

Men Fucking snails
Men fucking porpoises
....etc

But was there Ben fucking penguins?

But was there Ben fucking penguins?

yeah, found it...

dictators fucking penguins

buried between

men fucking antelopes and men fucking sasquatch

"I KNEW something was fishy after I slept with him!"

"Finally, someone who is honest. It is ridiculous, absurd, petty, bigoted and shows a lack of empathy that is gargantuan and unfathomable. But it is honest. And it illustrates the problem better than any of the fuzzy language other people have used so far."

That is a first class response. It's a shame that Amaechi is retired, because he would have just become my favorite NBA player.

men fucking sasquatch

They prefer the term Yeti...

Bravo David Stern.

Probably if it was something like this...

Men Fucking snails
Men fucking porpoises
....etc

I wish it were that benign :p :p :p

I might get boxed for posting some of it :eek:

And you'll guide the online gay sex game exactly on target.
As if it was contagious, he doubled his efforts and began to push the free gay sex video back into his throat.
God you want me to touch your free gay porn video online again.

That's how it starts, and goes downhill from there :D

He regrets saying it? He's sorry for saying it? Hell, if he means it, what is he apologizing for?

He would like to make money as a former basketball player?

It's interesting that we hate Palmeiro because he got busted, we hate McGwire because he danced around a subject instead of lying to us, but then the rest of those guys boldly and blentently lie to us and we are fine with it. Same with this situation. Hardaway says what probably a large number of players truly feel and we go off, but other players lie right to our face and we are happy with it. I guess we would rather be kept in the dark than want real candid conversation.


On a completely different note. I do think the locker room arguement is way different than just hating gays. I realize that I may sound like I am stuck 35 years ago by saying this but I have zero problems with gays, gay marriage, etc. but I understand the aversion to gays in the locker room. If I were put in a locker room of all women (especially athletes who for the most part are in excellent shape) I am going to be interested in looking at them and would make a lot of them uncomfortable. I am not going to rape any of them or masturbate in front of them but I am still going to make them uncomfortable. How is this situation any different? Players say they don't want a gay guy looking at them. I agree. If a gay guy isn't turned on by NBA guys who are in better shape than 99% of the population than maybe he doesn't like men.

hxxp://youtube.com/watch?v=QFcinlrgojk

Without disclosing how i feel about gays or any other social issue -- if it takes great courage to "out" the fact that you are gay and anyone who speaks out against that outing is sheduled into sensitivity training where exactly is the courage displayed?

In all seriousness i am beginning to believe the greatest danger to a Democracy is political correctness. If we truly are committed to allowing people to voice their opinions, however unpopular, where exactly does sensitivity training fit in. There is such a thing as common sense and i do believe that many things should not be said in public or even in private for that matter. But i find that political correctness only seems to apply to people who are by some mysterious standard expected to have common sense. If T.O. made the same statement about gays would anybody expect him to attend sensitivity training. When J.Jackson makes a disparaging statement about Jews does he head off to sensitivity training in Israel?

It's sometimes funny when idiots make public statements that you know are going to land them in hot water but when you really think about it this entire trend is extremely dangerous to a Democracy.

The funny thing about this is that I saw it on Sports Center and the lead up was something like this, "Just a day after John Amaechi came out as gay, Tim Hardaway dropped a bomb on a Miami radio show!" and I was totally thinking that Tim Hardaway came out, too. Guess I was a bit off in my assumption.

walt: Hardaway can say whatever the hell he wants to say, but his employer, in this case the NBA, has every right to fire him if they deem his remarks to be detrimental to their business.

shows a lack of empathy that is gargantuan and unfathomable

Most NBA players don't hate him because he's gay. They hate him because he keeps showing off his vocabulary.

"Look at me. I'm all British. I know what gargantuan means."

It's interesting that we hate Palmeiro because he got busted, we hate McGwire because he danced around a subject instead of lying to us, but then the rest of those guys boldly and blentently lie to us and we are fine with it. Same with this situation. Hardaway says what probably a large number of players truly feel and we go off, but other players lie right to our face and we are happy with it. I guess we would rather be kept in the dark than want real candid conversation.


On a completely different note. I do think the locker room arguement is way different than just hating gays. I realize that I may sound like I am stuck 35 years ago by saying this but I have zero problems with gays, gay marriage, etc. but I understand the aversion to gays in the locker room. If I were put in a locker room of all women (especially athletes who for the most part are in excellent shape) I am going to be interested in looking at them and would make a lot of them uncomfortable. I am not going to rape any of them or masturbate in front of them but I am still going to make them uncomfortable. How is this situation any different? Players say they don't want a gay guy looking at them. I agree. If a gay guy isn't turned on by NBA guys who are in better shape than 99% of the population than maybe he doesn't like men.

I agree with 100% on your first point. We like when athletes lie to us about the things we think are important to us. That is why the response of John Amaechi was so on point. Of course, Hardaway speaks for a large number of players. Guess what, John Amaechi speaks for a number of players as well. To hear everyone talk after he came out, I half jokingly wondered what gay athletes were worried about. There was so much acceptance being spouted that it seemed silly for for a athlete to remain in the closet. Tim Hardaway has put a face and a name to those that wanted to say the same thing but could not risk losing any endorsement money by saying it in public.

The media was absolutely desperate for this story, from someone, anyone. I think they asked everyone who's ever been associated with the NBA about that gay guy, and finally, they get to Tim Hardaway and he gives them what they want. It's unfortunate that he said it, but for god's sake, it's Tim Hardaway. If he wasn't available for an interview that day, we just would have moved down the food chain a little further and maybe Dennis Scott makes these comments on Friday.

So basically we've learned that the NBA is just like the rest of society. There are gay folk. There are folks who are cool with gay folk. And there are folks who are totally NOT cool with the gay folk. Then there's Fred Phelps and Tim Hardaway. :P

Is it a slow news week or something? I can understand the attention being paid to John Amaechi (who is a decent writer for a basketball player, if I recall correctly. He had a blog that he maintained on his website during one of his seasons that was a pretty good read). I'm not sure I get all the attention being paid to Hardaway.

Without disclosing how i feel about gays or any other social issue -- if it takes great courage to "out" the fact that you are gay and anyone who speaks out against that outing is sheduled into sensitivity training where exactly is the courage displayed?

In all seriousness i am beginning to believe the greatest danger to a Democracy is political correctness. If we truly are committed to allowing people to voice their opinions, however unpopular, where exactly does sensitivity training fit in. There is such a thing as common sense and i do believe that many things should not be said in public or even in private for that matter. But i find that political correctness only seems to apply to people who are by some mysterious standard expected to have common sense. If T.O. made the same statement about gays would anybody expect him to attend sensitivity training. When J.Jackson makes a disparaging statement about Jews does he head off to sensitivity training in Israel?

It's sometimes funny when idiots make public statements that you know are going to land them in hot water but when you really think about it this entire trend is extremely dangerous to a Democracy.
The "political correctness is ruining us" bit has totally jumped the shark.

well i don't know what jumping the shark means but i have outed my feelings on political correctness and i think i should be applauded for showing courage in the face of adversity and anyone who disagrees with me should be required to take sensitivity training because i am Italian and my ancestors a couple of thousand years ago were slaves in the roman empire and there is also the chance that i will have Parkinson's disease someday.

well i don't know what jumping the shark means
oh

well i don't know what jumping the shark means

it's male on female shark jumping

I think Chris Broussard has a pretty good take in his ESPN article.

Most NBA players don't hate him because he's gay. They hate him because he keeps showing off his vocabulary.

"Look at me. I'm all British. I know what gargantuan means."
In his defence, he's a gay man who spent a lot of time showering with NBA players. He probably needed to know as many synonyms for "gargantuan" as he could.

walt: Don't be a tool.

walt: don't be a menace to south central while drinking your juice in the hood

I'd have a lot more sympathy for John Amaechi if he didn't cleverly coincide his "coming out" with his book's release.

On a completely different note. I do think the locker room arguement is way different than just hating gays. {...} If a gay guy isn't turned on by NBA guys who are in better shape than 99% of the population than maybe he doesn't like men.

Or, he just might have a professional attitude about things.

There are probably more gays per capita in the entertainment industry than in any other profession (except fashion), but there is still a huge percentage of heterosexuals sharing backstage dressing rooms. Actors and dancers pretty much know that there are going to be straight men, straight women, gay men, and lesbians, along with an undetermined number of those in between, all sharing the same dressing spaces. After your first or second experience with the weirdness, you adjust, and it ceases to become a sexual issue. In my years as an actor, I've seen hundreds of women naked, half-dressed, body painted, you name it. The only woman I've EVER made an advance to based on how attractive she looked when I saw her in the dressing room was a secretary for the theater we were booked in whio dropped off some flowers for the cast. Needless to say, she was fully dressed in street clothes.

It is possible, very possible, that the first week or two John Amaechi (or anyone else) saw his teammates in physical education class he felt awkward and aroused. It's equally possible that with complete sexual liberation a player who was both extroverted and immature (Dennis Rodman?) would make sexual banter to another player in the locker room. In the vast majority of cases, though, a player at the professional level is going to be too focused on his job to window shop. If a gay player is going to get a crush on another player because of their hotness, it's far more likely to be because they like the cut of the player's suit during travel days.

I found this on Fark - lol

GAY WEBSITE IN 2001 NAMED HARDAWAY ONE OF "TEN MOST LIKELY GAY BALLERS IN THE NBA"

hxxp://sportsbybrooks.com/gay-website-outsports-in-2001-named-tim-hardaway-one-of-ten-most-likely-gay-nba-ballers-12253.php

The media was absolutely desperate for this story, from someone, anyone. I think they asked everyone who's ever been associated with the NBA about that gay guy, and finally, they get to Tim Hardaway and he gives them what they want.

This is the slowest time of the year for sports news. Super Bowl is over. The NBA hasn't had their All-Star game. Pitchers and catchers are just making it to spring training. It was a matter of time before they found someone who wanted to make waves.

If they haven't already, I'm sure all the pro sports have sat their athletes down and told them to say nothing about their personal opinions about anything that doesn't involve the game between the lines. Why does our sports society feel a need to ask an athlete's opinion about anything?

walt: Hardaway can say whatever the hell he wants to say, but his employer, in this case the NBA, has every right to fire him if they deem his remarks to be detrimental to their business.

I don't think he's "employed" by the NBA. I thought I heard he owned a now-defunct ABA team, and he owns a car wash or something. (EDIT: I remembered correctly. Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Hardaway)) But I don't think he's on Stern's payroll. I know he was going to be involved somehow at the All-Star weekend, but I think it was going to be a personal appearance or something. Either way, Stern did the right thing by cancelling his appearance. He doesn't want any part of that controversy.

I hear Hardaway was about to pitch Joes Vs. Homophobes to SPIKE.

I'd have a lot more sympathy for John Amaechi if he didn't cleverly coincide his "coming out" with his book's release.

You mean the book he wrote about his publicly coming out...

You mean the book he wrote about his publicly coming out...

Jusrt to add to that, he wouldn't have actually had a choice to stay closeted once the book hit - hell, FOFC sussed it out a month in advance based on the publicity material.

Apparently Chris Mullin and Mitch Richmond issued the following statement a little while ago:

"Tim Haraway's comments do not necessarily reflect the views of Run-TMC."

You mean the book he wrote about his publicly coming out...

But it's still done with financial gain at the very least a minor interest. I want to see a athlete come out as gay without writing a book about it then I'll give a crap (although only a minor one since it makes no difference to me, I watch sports for what goes on the field/court and him being gay is no different than the guy down the street being gay and he ain't writing a book bout it).

He regrets saying it? He's sorry for saying it? Hell, if he means it, what is he apologizing for?

What he means is....i'm sorry I said it out loud and even though that I am a hateful and ignorant moron I didn't mean to make it this obvious.

Maybe Hardaway's quotes were taken out of context? ;)

Deattribution: Why shouldn't he be able to gain financially? If a publisher wants to pay him for his story why does that change your attitude?

But it's still done with financial gain at the very least a minor interest. I want to see a athlete come out as gay without writing a book about it then I'll give a crap (although only a minor one since it makes no difference to me, I watch sports for what goes on the field/court and him being gay is no different than the guy down the street being gay and he ain't writing a book bout it).


When an NBA player comes out as being gay, it's a newsworthy event. If it's a newsworthy event, someone will profit from that. The guy at risk of being called a faggot or having the shit beat out of him by homophobes after a night out at a bar seems to me to be the right person to get the money.

The other thing to consider in this "media circus" is that someone writes a memoir with the intention of having his story read, in Amaechi's or Billy Bean's case to show young gay athletes that they are not alone in their situation. How does not publicizing their story on as many news outlets as are interested further that goal?

Wow... you don't hear many people say "I am a homophobe" much anymore. I thought being proud of being a bigot went out with the fall of the KKK? Oh well... looking forward to not hearing from Tim Hardaway anymore.

Deattribution: Why shouldn't he be able to gain financially? If a publisher wants to pay him for his story why does that change your attitude?

If that's the way to take it, why shouldn't O.J gain financially from his story?

I'm not comparing him to O.J, but just comparing that both had stories people wanted to pay for. That doesn't make it right, nor does that mean I have to like it or not let it undermine why he's doing it.

When an NBA player comes out as being gay, it's a newsworthy event. If it's a newsworthy event, someone will profit from that. The guy at risk of being called a faggot or having the shit beat out of him by homophobes after a night out at a bar seems to me to be the right person to get the money.

The other thing to consider in this "media circus" is that someone writes a memoir with the intention of having his story read, in Amaechi's or Billy Bean's case to show young gay athletes that they are not alone in their situation. How does not publicizing their story on as many news outlets as are interested further that goal?

If it's all for publicity for his reasons and wanting to further the cause he wouldn't need to charge for it and what he did gain, he'd give to charities to further his cause. He's no less or more gay now, he's just more known as a gay guy now. Nobody is going to be sitting around the watercooler talking about the good ole days of Amechi before he came out. He won't be anymore scrutinized than Elton John, or Ellen Degeneres or whoever that football guy was that came out and wrote a book that nobody remembers.

Wow... you don't hear many people say "I am a homophobe" much anymore. I thought being proud of being a bigot went out with the fall of the KKK? Oh well... looking forward to not hearing from Tim Hardaway anymore.

I'll tread carefully here. Isn't this thread full of bigots? Because his beliefs differ from your own, doesn't that make you a bigot as well? He never said that he wanted to hurt gays or kill gays. He just said that he wouldn't want to be teammates and further elaborated that he wouldn't want to be in the same locker room. I see nothing wrong with that.

I'll tread carefully here. Isn't this thread full of bigots? Because his beliefs differ from your own, doesn't that make you a bigot as well? He never said that he wanted to hurt gays or kill gays. He just said that he wouldn't want to be teammates and further elaborated that he wouldn't want to be in the same locker room. I see nothing wrong with that.

A good majority of soldiers in the US Army are unconfortable with having gays in their companies. Guess they're all bigots too, by Isiddiqui's reasoning.

Here we go!

A good majority of soldiers in the US Army are unconfortable with having gays in their companies. Guess they're all bigots too, by Isiddiqui's reasoning.

Although they weren't "gay" as such, mainly because tags like that didn't really exist back then, maybe the US Army should lecture its troops on the Greek & Macedonian views on man-on-man love in the military. :)

Although they weren't "gay" as such, mainly because tags like that didn't really exist back then, maybe the US Army should lecture its troops on the Greek & Macedonian views on man-on-man love in the military. :)

I'm not saying gays can't be good soldiers. I'm saying that a good portion of what makes a good company is the comraderie between the soldiers, and if someone's sexuality is causing that to be an issue, it needs to be addressed with the person causing the issue.

The same applies to a sports team. I'm a firm believer in what you do in the bedroom, regardless of your orientation, keep it to yourself.

I think Chris Broussard has a pretty good take in his ESPN article.


BTW Thanks. That was a very good piece. Unfortunately he is absolutely correct when he says that you can't have "real talk" in America today.

I'm not saying gays can't be good soldiers. I'm saying that a good portion of what makes a good company is the comraderie between the soldiers, and if someone's sexuality is causing that to be an issue, it needs to be addressed with the person causing the issue.

The same applies to a sports team. I'm a firm believer in what you do in the bedroom, regardless of your orientation, keep it to yourself.

Like Wilt, Magic, MJ.......

Like Wilt, Magic, MJ.......

Yep. Same applies to them, too.

Yep. Same applies to them, too.

I believe that you think that. But if you think most people believe that, or most people actually act that way, then you're pretty naive.

I believe that you think that. But if you think most people believe that, or most people actually act that way, then you're pretty naive.

True. One of the things I liked about Clinton's reign is the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. Same thing could apply in professional sports, but I don't think someone coming out will be good for any sports team, whether players are honest in their opinions like Hardaway was or politically correct, I'll betcha anything most athletes feel exactly like he does.

I'm not saying gays can't be good soldiers. I'm saying that a good portion of what makes a good company is the comraderie between the soldiers, and if someone's sexuality is causing that to be an issue, it needs to be addressed with the person causing the issue.

The same applies to a sports team. I'm a firm believer in what you do in the bedroom, regardless of your orientation, keep it to yourself.

Is it just limited to sexuality? What other personal characteristics need to be "addressed" if they cause a problem? Race? Religion?

Is it just limited to sexuality? What other personal characteristics need to be "addressed" if they cause a problem? Race? Religion?

I doubt if race causes issues anymore on a sports team, at least in terms of comraderie.

Anything on a personal level that cause distrust with all the other players, yes, needs to be addressed. So if a majority of players on, say a football team has an issue with someone's religion ... yes, it should be addressed with that player.

True. One of the things I liked about Clinton's reign is the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. Same thing could apply in professional sports, but I don't think someone coming out will be good for any sports team, whether players are honest in their opinions like Hardaway was or politically correct, I'll betcha anything most athletes feel exactly like he does.

Except "Don't Tell" did not apply to heterosexuals. Nor was the policy correctly practiced in the military.

Except "Don't Tell" did not apply to heterosexuals. Nor was the policy correctly practiced in the military.

How was it not correctly practiced? And of course it didn't apply to heterosexuals.

I'll tread carefully here. Isn't this thread full of bigots? Because his beliefs differ from your own, doesn't that make you a bigot as well? He never said that he wanted to hurt gays or kill gays. He just said that he wouldn't want to be teammates and further elaborated that he wouldn't want to be in the same locker room. I see nothing wrong with that.

Hardaway said, "I hate gay people." That's not a bigot?

Hardaway said, "I am homophobic." That's not a bigot?

Hardaway said, "[Homosexuality] shouldn't be in the world or in the United States." That's not a bigot?

I didn't realize that to be a bigot, you had to say "I am a bigot" while dragging by a noose the corpse of a gay man you just murdered on your way to burn down a gay bar.

Tim Hardaway is a freakin' bigot and to say otherwise is utter nonsense. It's sad that somebody would read what Hardaway said and "see nothing wrong with that."

Hardaway said, "I hate gay people." That's not a bigot?

Hardaway said, "I am homophobic." That's not a bigot?

Hardaway said, "[Homosexuality] shouldn't be in the world or in the United States." That's not a bigot?

I didn't realize that to be a bigot, you had to say "I am a bigot" while dragging by a noose the corpse of a gay man you just murdered on your way to burn down a gay bar.

Tim Hardaway is a freakin' bigot and to say otherwise is utter nonsense. It's sad that somebody would read what Hardaway said and "see nothing wrong with that."

Check what I wrote. I never said he wasn't a bigot. He is. I'm just saying that the people condemning him are bigots as well.

I'll tread carefully here. Isn't this thread full of bigots? Because his beliefs differ from your own, doesn't that make you a bigot as well? He never said that he wanted to hurt gays or kill gays. He just said that he wouldn't want to be teammates and further elaborated that he wouldn't want to be in the same locker room. I see nothing wrong with that.
Bolded for emphasis. Perhaps I should've changed the bolded part to "like he is" to be more clear.

I also see nothing wrong with what he said. He expressed his opinion. That was it. He didn't say that he wanted to castrate gays or kill them.

He didn't say that he wanted to castrate gays or kill them.

"It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States."

That's pretty close.

And yet, he said that homosexuality shouldn't be in the world. That's almost as close as you can get to saying I want to kill all the gays in the world on a radio show without going to jail.

"It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States."

That's pretty close.

You're extrapolating from his statement and taking it out of context. I could read that as they shouldn't exist but I'm not going to go out and kill them. Taking it all in perspective, the rest of his comments were somewhat benign as well. He didn't say that he wanted to kick the crap out of a gay in the locker room, did he? He said that he didn't want to be around them.

Deattribution: Come on, comparing him to OJ? But, really I don't care if OJ writes a book as long as the profits go to pay off the court judgment against him. OJ can write or say whatever the hell he wants, but if Murdoch won't publish him I think his options are limited.

WVU: Is there anything that the majority should have to accept without forcing the minority to change?

I also see nothing wrong with what he said. He expressed his opinion. That was it. He didn't say that he wanted to castrate gays or kill them.

I also see nothing wrong with the people condemning him. They expressed their opinions. They didn't say that they wanted to castrate Tim Hardaway or kill him.

I also see nothing wrong with the people condemning him. They expressed their opinions. They didn't say that they wanted to castrate Tim Hardaway or kill him.

Me neither. I was merely pointing out the fact that bigotry is in everyone.

RA: Bigotry applies to a class of people, be they gay, black, Muslim, cat lovers, whatever. Look at this definition:

Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion

We can overlook the "irrational" part if you'd like, but it's clear that we're talking about groups, not individuals.

Saying I hate gay people is bigotry, because it applies to all persons that are gay. Saying I hate Tim Hardaway isn't bigotry because it only applies to Tim Hardaway.

WVU: Is there anything that the majority should have to accept without forcing the minority to change?

What if it wasn't homosexuality, but beastiality or necrophilia or other deviant sex? The question here is where do you draw the line between good order and discipline and allowing individual freedoms. In this day and age in the United States Armed forces there is very little latitude in what is allowed. Sodomy is still punishable under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.

RA: Bigotry applies to a class of people, be they gay, black, Muslim, cat lovers, whatever. Look at this definition:



We can overlook the "irrational" part if you'd like, but it's clear that we're talking about groups, not individuals.

Saying I hate gay people is bigotry, because it applies to all persons that are gay. Saying I hate Tim Hardaway isn't bigotry because it only applies to Tim Hardaway.

True, but I think most people are expressing their disdain for homophobes, not just Tim Hardaway, correct?

RA: I'm not talking about sexuality here. WVU made it clear that the minority is responsible for behavior that upsets the majority. I want to know if this applies in every case or if there is a limit.

I should also add that there's a big difference between gay sex which is consensual and bestiality/necrophilia which is non-consensual.

WVU: Is there anything that the majority should have to accept without forcing the minority to change?

In the military or in professional sports? No.

EDIT: Lemme explain why. In regular normal life, what you do in your bedroom has absolutely no affect on me. In an environment like the military or in professional sports, when teamwork is ABSOLUTELY key, how you live your life does affect me, as it affect my confidence in you. If you have a company of 50 people, and a good bit of them are no longer confident in you because you're gay, then the company DOES NOT need to change -- you do. This isn't an environment where minorities have the right to act how they will. Same thing applies in professional sports.

RA: I'm not talking about sexuality here. WVU made it clear that the minority is responsible for behavior that upsets the majority. I want to know if this applies in every case or if there is a limit.

Okay. I'm not sure if I read it that way nor am I sure of what you mean by your last sentence.

I should also add that there's a big difference between gay sex which is consensual and bestiality/necrophilia which is non-consensual.

Ah, good point. Although some might argue that the donkey consents in some situations. :)

In the military or in professional sports? No.

I disagree somewhat here. The military was a model for integration of races (although I still maintain we're all one race: the human race).

WVU: So religion, political beliefs, etc, are all valid reasons to dismiss someone from a professional team and the league?

WVU: So religion, political beliefs, etc, are all valid reasons to dismiss someone from a professional team and the league?

Yes.

What if it wasn't homosexuality, but beastiality or necrophilia or other deviant sex? The question here is where do you draw the line between good order and discipline and allowing individual freedoms. In this day and age in the United States Armed forces there is very little latitude in what is allowed. Sodomy is still punishable under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.

I always find it interesting that when a discussion about homosexuality comes up, it generally doesn't take too long before beastiality and necrophilia are brough up of the "next logical step" in the discussion.

I have to say that homosexuality and beastiality/necrophilia are not only not in the same ballpark, but they aren't even in the same league...or the same sport.

In the military or in professional sports? No.

EDIT: Lemme explain why. In regular normal life, what you do in your bedroom has absolutely no affect on me. In an environment like the military or in professional sports, when teamwork is ABSOLUTELY key, how you live your life does affect me, as it affect my confidence in you. If you have a company of 50 people, and a good bit of them are no longer confident in you because you're gay, then the company DOES NOT need to change -- you do. This isn't an environment where minorities have the right to act how they will. Same thing applies in professional sports.

How would you suggest the gay person change? Should they not be allowed to serve in the military or play professional sports?

WVU: So religion, political beliefs, etc, are all valid reasons to dismiss someone from a professional team and the league?

I hate to butt in again, but I think they are valid reasons to dismiss someone from a professional team and the league. Hell, Tim Hardaway was dismissed from his appearance because of his beliefs! Are you arguing that the NBA shouldn't have dismissed him? :)

From a military perspective, I think they are valid reasons...until widesweeping changes are made beginning with the leadership. If the top of the ladder doesn't support tolerance, then it will never work. It's hard enough to get soldiers to wear berets instead of their patrol caps, much less convince them to sleep in the same tent or shower with a gay.

I always find it interesting that when a discussion about homosexuality comes up, it generally doesn't take too long before beastiality and necrophilia are brough up of the "next logical step" in the discussion.

I have to say that homosexuality and beastiality/necrophilia are not only not in the same ballpark, but they aren't even in the same league...or the same sport.

I'd say it depends on your perspective; none of these acts perpetuate the species. JPhillips brought up a good point about consenual sex. What if a 14 year old girl and a 38 year old man had consensual sex and both told the media they were in love? If someone said, "That guy should be castrated," nobody would blink an eye, right?

I'd say it depends on your perspective; none of these acts perpetuate the species. JPhillips brought up a good point about consenual sex. What if a 14 year old girl and a 38 year old man had consensual sex and both told the media they were in love? If someone said, "That guy should be castrated," nobody would blink an eye, right?

From a legal sense, the 14 year old girl can't give consent, so I'm not sure that is the same thing.

Do people really think the difference between homosexuality and beastiality is just a matter of perspective? I suppose this is one of those fundamental core belief issues where you can never expect to have a real debate since you can't agree on a common ground to start from.

In my mind, this world is filled with so much pain and misery that if you are lucky enough to find anyone you really love, it should be celebrated...no matter the orientation.

Anyone that says homosexuals are deviant since their act can't perpetuate the species is basically telling me that my wife and I are deviant since we are choosing to not have kids.

From a legal sense, the 14 year old girl can't give consent, so I'm not sure that is the same thing.

Do people really think the difference between homosexuality and beastiality is just a matter of perspective? I suppose this is one of those fundamental core belief issues where you can never expect to have a real debate since you can't agree on a common ground to start from.
In my mind, this world is filled with so much pain and misery that if you are lucky enough to find anyone you really love, it should be celebrated...no matter the orientation.

Anyone that says homosexuals are deviant since their act can't perpetuate the species is basically telling me that my wife and I are deviant since we are choosing to not have kids.
Bolded part mine. I think that this is correct wholeheartedly. That being said, I find this discussion quite interesting and helpful. It's nice that it hasn't degraded into name-calling and the like.

Frankly, I'd tell you that probably a few years ago I was extremely intolerant of a lot of things, including gays. I've made some comments on FOFC that I regret, but at the same time I'm somewhat glad that I made them because the responses caused me to grow as a person. I'm probably still somewhat intolerant of different lifestyles (whether that's the nosestuds or other weird piercings), but discussion on stuff like this really makes you think about what other people feel and take their feelings into account.

Is masturbation deviant? Non-procreative sex?

If this is just about procreation we need to include a lot more than gay sex.

WVU: What your saying means it's okay to exclude not just gays, but blacks, Catholics, Mexicans or anyone else. Isn't there some point when we as a society want to say that a team needs to look beyond it's own biases? Certainly given public financing of most pro sports stadiums my feeling is that the teams need to adhere to rules that society has accepted.

Timmy should be banned because he was the only player I've ever remembered that consistently missed layups.

And he went like 2 for 30 one time.

Bolded part mine. I think that this is correct wholeheartedly. That being said, I find this discussion quite interesting and helpful. It's nice that it hasn't degraded into name-calling and the like.

Frankly, I'd tell you that probably a few years ago I was extremely intolerant of a lot of things, including gays. I've made some comments on FOFC that I regret, but at the same time I'm somewhat glad that I made them because the responses caused me to grow as a person. I'm probably still somewhat intolerant of different lifestyles (whether that's the nosestuds or other weird piercings), but discussion on stuff like this really makes you think about what other people feel and take their feelings into account.

I think there is a difference between an opinion based on faulty logic and one based on different core beliefs, and I am trying to learn to avoid arguments involving core beliefs. Plenty of people believe that being gay is morally wrong, and plenty of people believe that being gay is a choice. I don't happen to believe either of these things, but they can't really be proven either way. I wonder if arguments will change if science can ever point to a gay-gene or anything like that?

I think there is a difference between an opinion based on faulty logic and one based on different core beliefs, and I am trying to learn to avoid arguments involving core beliefs. Plenty of people believe that being gay is morally wrong, and plenty of people believe that being gay is a choice. I don't happen to believe either of these things, but they can't really be proven either way. I wonder if arguments will change if science can ever point to a gay-gene or anything like that?

I suppose the arguments based on faulty logic would change if there was the discovery of a gay-gene, but the arguments based on core beliefs would not. That being said, I don't think a person who bases their argument on faulty logic would admit it if they were wrong. :) (Maybe that's me, LOL)

I don't think that being gay is morally wrong just like I don't think that being a miser or being a conservationalist is morally wrong. Based on those examples you can safely assume that I believe that being gay is a choice. Am I wrong? Possibly. Like my belief in God, I leave my mind open.

In the military or in professional sports? No.

EDIT: Lemme explain why. In regular normal life, what you do in your bedroom has absolutely no affect on me. In an environment like the military or in professional sports, when teamwork is ABSOLUTELY key, how you live your life does affect me, as it affect my confidence in you. If you have a company of 50 people, and a good bit of them are no longer confident in you because you're gay, then the company DOES NOT need to change -- you do. This isn't an environment where minorities have the right to act how they will. Same thing applies in professional sports.

Whatever. You do know it wasn't that long ago that the majority white soldiers were very uncomfortable with black soldiers in their ranks. It no doubt had a negative effect on their teamwork and ability to survive. Under your logic, the black soldiers should have changed (paint themselves white I guess) or left the military. Under your logic, we would have an all-white military still today.:rolleyes: Hmm, same thing with baseball and all professional sports in dealing with integration.

And I guess you fall into the group that believes the gay employee in your example should change, I guess by fucking the opposite sex. Or I guess the christian working alongside fellow employees who were scientologists should change by switching religions? Your statement just makes no sense. Even applied to professional sports teams or the military.

If I owned a company and had a bunch of my employees whine to me that they couldn't work with a gay person, I'd say "quit being whiny weak little-minded fools. I want people who work hard at their jobs regardless, so get over it or hit the road." And I certainly don't want any employee who can't work hard through the "adversity" of working with a gay person.

Maybe Bill parcells can consult with Timmy on some new Gay jap plays..


regardless of all this, if Timmy had said something along the lines of "I hate white people" and gotten fired.. Jesse Jackson and the whole naacp would have been down by his side within the hour to defend his right to say what he did..

Was what Timmy said ignorant and down right naive.. Yes
Did timmy have a right to say what he did.. Yes

If I owned a company and had a bunch of my employees whine to me that they couldn't work with a gay person, I'd say "quit being whiny weak little-minded fools. I want people who work hard at their jobs regardless, so get over it or hit the road." And I certainly don't want any employee who can't work hard through the "adversity" of working with a gay person.

I want to ask you a question, and I do not mean this in a negative way, more of an honest question: have you ever been in the military?

The reason I ask is because you're comparing work in a business sense with military duty, and it's not that way at all. Morale is EVERYTHING. Teamwork and interractions with your fellow soldiers are EVERYTHING. Especially if you're in a front-line unit, you HAVE to have assurances that your fellow soldier has your back. I don't care what the issue is ... whether the unit is wary of you because your religion is outside the norm, or because you're outwardly gay, or because you're hardcore liberal or convservative ... that stuff HAS to not be a part of the unit .. it can't affect what the other soldiers are doing.

In a logical, regular world where people live their own lives and they can do practically whatever they want, your line of reasoning works. It doesn't in the military. I would surmise, from the standpoint of morale and team interaction, professional sports teams are EXACTLY the same way.

You can quote the racial integrations all you want, but that was more to do with society change than change in the military. It's not the same with gays. It would cause unit chaos if outwardly gays were allowed in the military. You can justify it how you want, but at least when it comes to the military you HAVE to be in a unit to fully understand what I'm trying to say.

That's as plain as I can make it. The military has always been about adapting yourself to the standard, to be part of the unit. You separate yourself by proclaiming your gayness for no reason does not work in the military. I do not believe they have a place in professional sports, not when their presence causes a distraction to the goals of the team. Most soldiers and athletes would agree.

I took you on in both your hypos as you can see. You mentioned the 50-employee company with a gay person and said that the gay person needs to change. You didn't even address that.

In terms of the military, I've heard that one before. And the same things were said about black soldiers in the past (and there was no doubt a loss of morale and cohesion because of the presence), yet the military "survived" it. So, your second hypo has shown to be false by historical fact. And in case you missed it, societal change related to gays right now is FAR AHEAD of where societal change was in terms of african-americans when they first began joining the military. So, your casual comment in that respect is simply false.

And finally, to equate the military to professional sports as a reason for "intolerance" is completely off the mark. I mean completely.

I would like however for you to actually rebut some of what I say because as it turns out you never really do - whether its this thread or another one. Instead you usually change the subject (although you're good at doing it with subtlety).

For what it's worth, Tim Hardaway's comments actually made the national news up in Canada. It warranted about a 3-4 minute story that started out with archival footage of Jackie Robinson and described Hardaway's comments as an "angry outburst."

This Hardaway thing is now THE front page story on CNN.com, the fact that he's been banned from the All-Star game. I know people thought the press Anna Nicole was getting was irritating, but this is incredible.

I'm fascinated more than irritated. I wonder if gay rights groups have some kind of voice in media outlets' ear about the way they cover news.

I took you on in both your hypos as you can see. You mentioned the 50-employee company with a gay person and said that the gay person needs to change. You didn't even address that.

By the way, by "50 person company" I mean a military company (typically 4 to 5 platoons, ranging from 40 to 150 soldiers strong), not a business.

And you're right, if there's a 50 soldier company and 49 of them are one way, and 1 person is counter to that, you're damn right the one person needs to change. I don't give two cents what's different.


In terms of the military, I've heard that one before. And the same things were said about black soldiers in the past (and there was no doubt a loss of morale and cohesion because of the presence), yet the military "survived" it. So, your second hypo has shown to be false by historical fact. And in case you missed it, societal change related to gays right now is FAR AHEAD of where societal change was in terms of african-americans when they first began joining the military. So, your casual comment in that respect is simply false.
Well, you can quote stats all you want. I've been in a front-line company, and I can tell you from first hand experience it wouldn't work.


And finally, to equate the military to professional sports as a reason for "intolerance" is completely off the mark. I mean completely.
Neither are places where one should assert individuality. Both are team-oriented. Both rely on morale. Both have much the same attitudes on work ethics and team accomplishments over individual. I would say they're both very similar.

Honestly, you can continue to spout off how "intolerant" athletes and soldiers are, and that's probably right. It's not the place you go and proclaim your gayness. It has no place there.

[

Look. I know you say having a gay would change life in a front line company. Agreed. Some soldiers may very well feel like that. But it is historical fact that the same thing happened with black soldiers. But the military didn't think that was a big enough reason not to have black soldiers several decades ago. For the same reason, the military should reject the same argument regarding gay soldiers.

As for professional sports and the military. There is one big difference that makes the comparison you make inconsequential. One involves life or death. The other involves millionaires playing a game.

Finally, you keep saying the one "different" person needs to change. Again, I ask, does this mean the black person paints himself white, the gay person starts having intercourse with the opposite sex, or the christian disavows his religion and becomes a scientologist?

Look. I know you say having a gay would change life in a front line company. Agreed. Some soldiers may very well feel like that. But it is historical fact that the same thing happened with black soldiers. But the military didn't think that was a big enough reason not to have black soldiers several decades ago. For the same reason, the military should reject the same argument regarding gay soldiers.

In the total history of the United States from the Independance War to today, blacks have been in the military. True, they may be been segregated into their own units, but they were already there, and white soldiers had already fought side by side with them in several wars. It was MUCH easier to intregrate them simply because they were always there. Gay soliders are a completely different thing altogether. Why devote the time and effort and resources for a small minority when they could just as easily be in the military without their sexual orientation being an issue. Why? So a select few can proclaim their homosexuality? How does this benefit the military? It doesn't.

A black person can't hide their skin color. A gay person has the choice to make their orientation a public issue.


As for professional sports and the military. There is one big difference that makes the comparison you make inconsequential. One involves life or death. The other involves millionaires playing a game.
Don't make a bit of difference in the examples I'm saying. Both have similar ideas at their core. How much money they make is the inconsequential part.


Finally, you keep saying the one "different" person needs to change. Again, I ask, does this mean the black person paints himself white, the gay person starts having intercourse with the opposite sex, or the christian disavows his religion and becomes a scientologist?
The gay person doesn't need to say he's gay. The Christian doesn't need to make his religion an issue and so public. Both can be in the military if they keep their personal lives to themselves.

I'm embarassed to be human sometimes. And it's people in this thread as much as much as Tim Hardaway.

So WVU, if the gay person simply lets out that's he's gay to his fellow soldiers and teammates during one conversation that was about going looking for girls later on and never made it an issue, then from what you've said I understand then you are ok with it. My guess is: no you wouldn't be because to you just saying your'e gay is making it an issue. But I bet you feel differently about someone simply saying they were christian was making it an issue. And I would guess that's because you're a christian and not gay?

I'm not sure anyone here was in championing the cause of gays "proclaiming" their orientation or making it "public" or making it an "issue." The dialogue was centered around the simple knowledge by a fellow soldier or teammate and their feelings on it a la Tim Hardaway. But of course, you have thrown those terms out as a red herring and to subletly change the course of the conversation.

And that's my final word. I'm with you cth. I only post in these threads, not to change the minds of those I'm debating, but to ensure the opposing view is adequately represented in the hopes that those who are on the fence just watching will think differently. Help the world one person at a time every now and then you could call it.

Check what I wrote. I never said he wasn't a bigot. He is. I'm just saying that the people condemning him are bigots as well.

Wait, so if I say Tim Hardaway is a bigot then I am one too? Ok I guess I am a bigot.


I also see nothing wrong with what he said. He expressed his opinion. That was it. He didn't say that he wanted to castrate gays or kill them.

Oh my God, come on. Ok let's change it from gay to black and Tim Hardaway is a white guy and see how it sounds. Imagine if he had said:

"I hate blacks, I am a racist, they shouldn't be in the world or in the United States"

You're telling me that is ok? Because what Hardaway said amounts to the same thing.

Wait, so if I say Tim Hardaway is a bigot then I am one too? Ok I guess I am a bigot.
Check the rest of the thread on the definition of a bigot.
Oh my God, come on. Ok let's change it from gay to black and Tim Hardaway is a white guy and see how it sounds. Imagine if he had said:

"I hate blacks, I am a racist, they shouldn't be in the world or in the United States"

You're telling me that is ok? Because what Hardaway said amounts to the same thing.

Nope. If he said he hated Blacks, I would not condone that. Check the rest of the thread on my feelings on choice vs. genetics. I believe it is a choice. Based upon that, I believe that there is a huge difference between a person who makes a choice (gay) and someone who is born a certain way (Black).

Now, what if he had said:

"I hate child molesters, I am a <whatever-it-is-that's-a-child-molester-phobe>, they shouldn't be in the world or in the United States."

Is that ok?

Oh my God, come on. Ok let's change it from gay to black and Tim Hardaway is a white guy and see how it sounds. Imagine if he had said:

"I hate blacks, I am a racist, they shouldn't be in the world or in the United States"

You're telling me that is ok? Because what Hardaway said amounts to the same thing.
OK, so what if it had happened that way? We find out that some white guy hates all black people, and that's it. I understand that the backlash would be bigger, but if that's his opinion, he's welcome to say it. There are consequences either way, and if someone's willing to accept the consequences for hating gays or hating blacks or hating Christians or anyone else, they've just brought it upon themselves.

I don't think there's anything wrong with Tim Hardaway speaking his mind. He feels that way, and he didn't try to hide it. If anyone suffers for that, it'll be Tim Hardaway, not you or me or all the gay people he hates. Yeah, I do think it's OK for Tim Hardaway to say it, as long as he's speaking only for himself.

Check the rest of the thread on the definition of a bigot.


Nope. If he said he hated Blacks, I would not condone that. Check the rest of the thread on my feelings on choice vs. genetics. I believe it is a choice. Based upon that, I believe that there is a huge difference between a person who makes a choice (gay) and someone who is born a certain way (Black).

Now, what if he had said:

"I hate child molesters, I am a <whatever-it-is-that's-a-child-molester-phobe>, they shouldn't be in the world or in the United States."

Is that ok?

If somone says they hate Jews, they are a bigot. If someone says they hate Christians, they are a bigot. But you decided not to compare gays to other "choices," like religions (even though there is substantial evidence that being gay is not a choice at all). No, instead of comparing gays to choices that you might respect, you feel gays are best compared to child molestors, animal rapists, and necrophiliacs. You see nothing wrong with what Hardaway said. And if you "hate" gays too, then you too are a bigot.

The fact of the matter is, it's already working WVU. The military people just aren't aware of it because of idiocy and closed mindedness. There are gays in all walks of life and if the military thinks they are the exception, they are morons.

You really, really need to study the history of blacks in the military. Look at the struggles they went through and how difficult it was to integrate. This was still going on in Vietnam. Somehow, it's worked out.

And so would gays.

As for 49 guys acting one way and 1 guy being different so the 1 guy has to change comment, that's moronic. If the 1 different guy covers your ass in a firefight, is a good soldier and believes in the cause he's fighting for, the company will be just fine.

Poll a unit on 50 hot button topics. Marriage, premarital sex, abortion, torture, etc. and you'll find that they are a composite of society. They believe in different things. They have different dreams and goals.

This attitude that if we somehow sprinkled a gay guy in each unit, that our military would come to a standstill and we'd be rendered helpless is beyond ridiculous.

If somone says they hate Jews, they are a bigot. If someone says they hate Christians, they are a bigot. But you decided not to compare gays to other "choices," like religions (even though there is substantial evidence that being gay is not a choice at all). No, instead of comparing gays to choices that you might respect, you feel gays are best compared to child molestors, animal rapists, and necrophiliacs. You see nothing wrong with what Hardaway said. And if you "hate" gays too, then you too are a bigot.
In looking back at it, I don't think that I wrote what I meant properly.

Yes, I am a bigot. I admitted that earlier. Please see the example I gave about the 14 year old girl and the 38 year old man who profess their love for one another. Is that any more wrong than being gay? What about a brother a sister who want to get married but don't want any kids? Is that more wrong than being gay? Both of those examples are taboo and against the law....but remember that being gay was taboo and against the law as well (Isn't sodomy still a crime in some states?).

I think that everyone believes that certain lines shouldn't be crossed. Where they draw that line is different.

OK, so what if it had happened that way? We find out that some white guy hates all black people, and that's it. I understand that the backlash would be bigger, but if that's his opinion, he's welcome to say it. There are consequences either way, and if someone's willing to accept the consequences for hating gays or hating blacks or hating Christians or anyone else, they've just brought it upon themselves.

I don't think there's anything wrong with Tim Hardaway speaking his mind. He feels that way, and he didn't try to hide it. If anyone suffers for that, it'll be Tim Hardaway, not you or me or all the gay people he hates. Yeah, I do think it's OK for Tim Hardaway to say it, as long as he's speaking only for himself.

I see your point that it is not hurting you or I Pumpy but I think that saying that IS hurtful in a way to the group of people that he is hating on. If I am a celebrity of some sort and come out and say that I hate blacks, jews, gays, whatever then it DOES hurt them don't you think? Not physically, not financially but if I am Jewish let's say and some public figure says I hate Jews and they shouldn't be part of the world then your damn right that hurts me.

I see your point that it is not hurting you or I Pumpy but I think that saying that IS hurtful in a way to the group of people that he is hating on. If I am a celebrity of some sort and come out and say that I hate blacks, jews, gays, whatever then it DOES hurt them don't you think? Not physically, not financially but if I am Jewish let's say and some public figure says I hate Jews and they shouldn't be part of the world then your damn right that hurts me.
I hope this doesn't sound like it's belittling your point -- that's not my intention -- but why would some public figure's opinion matter to you or anyone else? If an athlete or an actor or even a politician said "I hate blacks and they shouldn't be a part of the world", I don't think he'd come over to my house and try to kill me. Heck, it's more likely that some black guy would go over to his house and kill him for saying it. It's the person who made their bigoty public who could face the most severe consequences.

I recognize that I didn't clearly state what I meant before. I do understand that it would hurt to hear somebody say that they hate you, even if they say it indirectly. Ultimately, though, it's unlikely that it would really have any bearing on your life personally.

I suppose my question is: At the end of the day, how much does it really matter what Tim Hardaway thinks? He's not the leader of a militia, he's not an influential figure who's going to change people's minds, he's not a spokesperson... he's just some guy who used to play pro basketball. I'm not trying to address the content of his message. It's just that I don't see any reason that he shouldn't say it (again, as long as he's speaking only for himself).

The fact of the matter is, it's already working WVU. The military people just aren't aware of it because of idiocy and closed mindedness. There are gays in all walks of life and if the military thinks they are the exception, they are morons.



Interestingly, the rate of dismissals due to homosexuality has actually declined quite a bit since the Iraq war started. While they are still happening, with recruitment and retention being a really big issue these days, commanders on the ground are often very willing to look the other way with regards to sexual orientation, if it means getting to retain someone competent.

Interestingly, the rate of dismissals due to homosexuality has actually declined quite a bit since the Iraq war started. While they are still happening, with recruitment and retention being a really big issue these days, commanders on the ground are often very willing to look the other way with regards to sexual orientation, if it means getting to retain someone competent.

Not shocking in the least.

Pumpy, then you were fine with Michael Richards' speaking his mind?

Pumpy, then you were fine with Michael Richards' speaking his mind?


I'm fine with any of these guys speaking their mind. They can say whatever the hell they want. Now, what happens after they say it? I can also say whatever I want.

Timmy H. can say he hates gay people all he wants. it's his right. And Stern can choose not to have him affiliated with the NBA. Consequences suck sometimes.

Timmy H. can say he hates gay people all he wants. it's his right. And Stern can choose not to have him affiliated with the NBA. Consequences suck sometimes.

I love how people spout off about how important freedom of speech is, until they hear speech they don't approve of.

I love how people spout off about how important freedom of speech is, until they hear speech they don't approve of.

You seem to have absolutely no concept of what "freedom of speech" is under American law.

I love how people spout off about how important freedom of speech is, until they hear speech they don't approve of.

Oh good, we haven't had this argument in at least a couple of weeks.

Freedom of Speech = freedom from political/governmental repercussions.
Freedom of Speech != freedom from private repercussions.

I love how people spout off about how important freedom of speech is, until they hear speech they don't approve of.

wait, I missed where hardaway was arrested

I love how people spout off about how important freedom of speech is, until they hear speech they don't approve of.

I don't think that is his point though. We have freedom of speech, but just because the government can't restrict it doesn't mean we are immune from the consequences that the marketplace (literal and figurative) imposes on us as a result.

Loved the Hardaway apology. Very well written.

I don't think that is his point though. We have freedom of speech, but just because the government can't restrict it doesn't mean we are immune from the consequences that the marketplace (literal and figurative) imposes on us as a result.

Wouldn't the same apply to those who choose to publically come out as gays? Wouldn't the same logic you just applied to Hardaway's speech apply to them as well?

Wouldn't the same apply to those who choose to publically come out as gays? Wouldn't the same logic you just applied to Hardaway's speech apply to them as well?

Yes, that is just how the marketplace works. That is why many gay athletes were very deliberate in their decision-making on whether to come out or not. Many have decided not to take the risk, based on the potential consequences.

Yes, that is just how the marketplace works. That is why many gay athletes were very deliberate in their decision-making on whether to come out or not. Many have decided not to take the risk, based on the potential consequences.

So by that logic, gays who choose to come out publically do so with the knowledge that it makes them ineligible for the military. They make the CHOICE to do so, knowing the consequences.

Same goes for professional sports. They choose to come out knowing the effect it might have on the team. They must accept the consequences, up to and including being eliminated from that team, for that choice.

So by that logic, gays who choose to come out publically do so with the knowledge that it makes them ineligible for the military. They make the CHOICE to do so, knowing the consequences.

Same goes for professional sports. They choose to come out knowing the effect it might have on the team. They must accept the consequences, up to and including being eliminated from that team, for that choice.

Yes, of course it is a cost-benefit. But I would argue, that due to the reality of attitudinal shifts in general society, it is becoming less riskier for gays to come out. As the Iraq example shows, declaring your sexual orientation is not necessarily going to get you the boot--especially if you are talented at what you do.

So by that logic, gays who choose to come out publically do so with the knowledge that it makes them ineligible for the military. They make the CHOICE to do so, knowing the consequences.

Aside from the fact that military is a part of the government... or did you not realize that? One thing for a private actor to sting back, but the government is another thing entirely. Freedom of speech is a right against the government, after all.

I'm embarassed to be human sometimes. And it's people in this thread as much as much as Tim Hardaway.

Ditto.

Aside from the fact that military is a part of the government... or did you not realize that? One thing for a private actor to sting back, but the government is another thing entirely. Freedom of speech is a right against the government, after all.

And when you join the military, you give up some fundamental civil rights ... or did you not realize that? One of the rights you give up is freedom of speech.

The fact of the matter is, it's already working WVU. The military people just aren't aware of it because of idiocy and closed mindedness. There are gays in all walks of life and if the military thinks they are the exception, they are morons.

You really, really need to study the history of blacks in the military. Look at the struggles they went through and how difficult it was to integrate. This was still going on in Vietnam. Somehow, it's worked out.

And so would gays.

As for 49 guys acting one way and 1 guy being different so the 1 guy has to change comment, that's moronic. If the 1 different guy covers your ass in a firefight, is a good soldier and believes in the cause he's fighting for, the company will be just fine.

Poll a unit on 50 hot button topics. Marriage, premarital sex, abortion, torture, etc. and you'll find that they are a composite of society. They believe in different things. They have different dreams and goals.

This attitude that if we somehow sprinkled a gay guy in each unit, that our military would come to a standstill and we'd be rendered helpless is beyond ridiculous.

Seriously. Since 2001, over 200 Arab speakers have been kicked out of a military desperate for them because they're gay. The Daily Show profiled one of these. When your life is on the line, is wondering who the guy next to you wants to fuck your primary concern?

So by that logic, gays who choose to come out publically do so with the knowledge that it makes them ineligible for the military. They make the CHOICE to do so, knowing the consequences.

Same goes for professional sports. They choose to come out knowing the effect it might have on the team. They must accept the consequences, up to and including being eliminated from that team, for that choice.

PUBLIC != PRIVATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And when you join the military, you give up some fundamental civil rights ... or did you not realize that? One of the rights you give up is freedom of speech.

Only because the CIVILIAN government told you to on this issue. "Don't ask , don't tell" wasn't initiated by the military.

Btw, can you discharged from the military because your superior officer finds out you are a Catholic because of the cross you wear? Why not? Isn't freedom of speech given up when you join the military?

Only because the CIVILIAN government told you to on this issue. "Don't ask , don't tell" wasn't initiated by the military.

Btw, can you discharged from the military because your superior officer finds out you are a Catholic because of the cross you wear? Why not? Isn't freedom of speech given up when you join the military?

If being a Catholic was chargable under the UCMJ, absolutely. But it's not. If it was, and I CHOSE to wear a cross outing me as a Catholic instead of keeping it to myself, I deserve to be discharged.

And, please, don't equate being a Catholic to being a gay in terms of unit cohesion. I can provide link after link after link of top military minds quoting that outed gays in the military would cause unit breakdown. I suppose they don't know anything about how a military works. I suppose they're all bigots. Riight.

If being a Catholic was chargable under the UCMJ, absolutely. But it's not.

And, please, don't equate being a Catholic to being a gay in terms of unit cohesion. I can provide link after link after link of top military minds quoting that outed gays in the military would cause unit breakdown. I suppose they don't know anything about how a military works. I suppose they're all bigots. Riight.

Would you like me to provide the same quotes about Blacks in the military? Did they not know anything about an army worked back then?

Would you like me to provide the same quotes about Blacks in the military? Did they not know anything about an army worked back then?

Absolutely. Go right ahead. Find me links for military personnel that believed blacks should not be in the military.

EDIT: before you find quotes about black integration into white units, it's not the same thing. Find me quotes that state they shouldn't be in the military AT ALL.

Absolutely. Go right ahead. Find me links for military personnel that believed blacks should not be in the military.

EDIT: before you find quotes about black integration into white units, it's not the same thing. Find me quotes that state they shouldn't be in the military AT ALL.

Why? Are you okay with all-gay units then, as long as they're segregated? Seriously?

Why? Are you okay with all-gay units then, as long as they're segregated? Seriously?

I am absolutely ok with gay-segregated units. As a matter of fact, it might be a good first step in integrating the into regular units.

"He was who I thought he was!"

This made me spit out my coffee when I saw it.

Pumpy, then you were fine with Michael Richards' speaking his mind?
Sure, why wouldn't I be? Michael Richards means absolutely nothing to me. He didn't mean anything to me before his outburst, and he doesn't mean anything to me now. I don't like the content of his outburst, but hey, I don't care if he says it. It doesn't affect me.

I guess I'm just too self-involved or something, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over the bigoted views of some guy. He could've said that he brutally tortured and murdered his mother just because he didn't like her pancakes, and while that's repulsive, he's the one who'd have to deal with the backlash. Not me. He can say whatever he wants.

And, please, don't equate being a Catholic to being a gay in terms of unit cohesion. I can provide link after link after link of top military minds quoting that outed gays in the military would cause unit breakdown. I suppose they don't know anything about how a military works. I suppose they're all bigots. Riight.

You said you have no problems with gay segregated units. So why would these 'military minds' have a problem with gays even being in the military at all? They had a problem with blacks in the same units with whites because it may cause unit breakdown (and they thought that blacks couldn't fight as well). So what's the difference?

And btw, yes, I think there is a ton of bigotry behind the 'unit breakdown' bullshit. Just as there was in the blacks can't fight as well as whites BS. Unfortunately it took someone like Truman, who wasn't scared of the assholes, to integrate the military and show them that blacks were just as good as whites when it came to being soldiers and integrated units didn't suffer from the experience.

Why? Are you okay with all-gay units then, as long as they're segregated? Seriously?

I smell sitcom.

For what it's worth, Tim Hardaway's comments actually made the national news up in Canada. It warranted about a 3-4 minute story that started out with archival footage of Jackie Robinson and described Hardaway's comments as an "angry outburst."

That's cuz Canada is full of sissies! :D

Gays are no more a minority than nerds, jocks, transvestites, red heads, obese people, etc. I don't have a problem with what Hardaway said, just like I don't have a problem with the NBA firing him. It's his choice to express his opinion, so he pays the consequences of an overboard politically correct society.

If that's the way to take it, why shouldn't O.J gain financially from his story?

Oh, I don't know. Perhaps the fact that O.J. lost a civil suit that he has not paid the judgment on. I'd say that does make the situation a little different and significantly more complicated than you make it seem.

Nice to see he learned tolerance at UTEP.

Gays are no more a minority than nerds, jocks, transvestites, red heads, obese people, etc. I don't have a problem with what Hardaway said, just like I don't have a problem with the NBA firing him. It's his choice to express his opinion, so he pays the consequences of an overboard politically correct society.
No, seriously, this really has jumped the shark.

Gays are no more a minority than nerds, jocks, transvestites, red heads, obese people, etc. I don't have a problem with what Hardaway said, just like I don't have a problem with the NBA firing him. It's his choice to express his opinion, so he pays the consequences of an overboard politically correct society.

Or Jews or Blacks? And if you think it is "overboardly politically correct" to stop public figures from going around saying that they hate either one of those minorities and that they wished that there was none of them in the US or the world, given the history of what has actually happened, then I think we have a problem.

For the people arguing the gay vs child molester angle, do you honestly see no difference between the two. Yes being gay may be a "choice" (my personal view actually) but being gay is a) legal in almost every single Western civilization and b) there is the whole issue of consent.

Who gives a shit what adults do as long as it's consentual. Seems like from the Christian angle pre-marital and extra-marital sex is just as condemned by the Bible, but nobody is going to call out or refuse to work with a guy who gets laid a couple of times a night in Vegas while his wife and kids are back home. If you think a gay guy is going to fondle you in the shower or give you gay disease by being in close contact then you really need to grow up. Hopefully in 20 or 30 years we will all be mature enough to get over it and move on.

Or Jews or Blacks? And if you think it is "overboardly politically correct" to stop public figures from going around saying that they hate either one of those minorities and that they wished that there was none of them in the US or the world, given the history of what has actually happened, then I think we have a problem.

For the people arguing the gay vs child molester angle, do you honestly see no difference between the two. Yes being gay may be a "choice" (my personal view actually) but being gay is a) legal in almost every single Western civilization and b) there is the whole issue of consent.

Who gives a shit what adults do as long as it's consentual. Seems like from the Christian angle pre-marital and extra-marital sex is just as condemned by the Bible, but nobody is going to call out or refuse to work with a guy who gets laid a couple of times a night in Vegas while his wife and kids are back home. If you think a gay guy is going to fondle you in the shower or give you gay disease by being in close contact then you really need to grow up. Hopefully in 20 or 30 years we will all be mature enough to get over it and move on.

Your words, not mine. You are making gay people out to be different. I'm not. And who the hell makes Tim Hardaway a "public figure"?

Gays are no more a minority than nerds, jocks, transvestites, red heads, obese people, etc. I don't have a problem with what Hardaway said, just like I don't have a problem with the NBA firing him. It's his choice to express his opinion, so he pays the consequences of an overboard politically correct society.

What the fuck? Are you out of central casting for a homophobe or what?

[...] who the hell makes Tim Hardaway a "public figure"?
Well, he was a star in college and in the NBA for many years. I think that's enough to make him a public figure right there.

What the fuck? Are you out of central casting for a homophobe or what?

No. I'm someone who thinks gays don't deserve a minority status. Because I don't think of them as "different". Just because some people show a disdain towards the lifestyle, the choice or what have you, doesn't mean they should be a "minority" in my book. I never said I supported Hardaway's opinion. I said I didn't have problem with the fact he said it. That's his opinion. And he paid the price for saying it.

Good for Timmy, I'm very happy to hear he's making strides against his prejudice.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3039947&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines

Some in Miami gay community accept Hardaway's efforts

MIAMI -- The topic was finding ways to keep transgender children safe, and someone asked for volunteers to share an idea.

Tim Hardaway was the first to raise his hand.

"He was so genuine," said Martha Fugate, the director of the YES Institute, a children's advocacy group based in South Miami which hosted that discussion. "He gave the perfect answer."

Seven months ago, that simply wouldn't have happened.

Hardaway would have made a joke or said something hurtful, like his infamous "I hate gay people" answer when a radio host asked him how he'd respond to having a gay teammate. That led to the former star point guard's banishment from NBA All-Star weekend and dealt his reputation an embarrassing blow.

Yet there he was, in a classroom with about 40 people, mostly strangers and some of them gay, talking about the importance of education and awareness -- pointing to himself as the perfect example of how attitudes can be reshaped with a little bit of knowledge.

"I just wanted to go in and get educated, that's all. Get educated on what I said and why I said those things," Hardaway said Thursday in an interview with The Associated Press. "I'm working on understanding it now. I'm not really trying to make amends. I've been there trying to get help."

Hardaway has declined many interview requests in recent months, saying he didn't want to make his work with advocacy groups seem like a publicity stunt or a quick-fix to an image problem.

"I had no idea how much I hurt people," said Hardaway, who spent most of his NBA career with the Golden State Warriors and Miami Heat, and still makes his home in South Florida. "A lot of people."

In the weeks that followed his Feb. 14 comments, stories circled that Hardaway's home was in foreclosure (he denies it) and that a car wash he owned was unable to pay its bills (he denies that, too).

Neighbors even asked about rumors that his wife and children were leaving him, which never happened.

For Hardaway, it was all a few weeks of "hell."

"I've always told my family, there's going to be bumps in the road," Hardaway said. "And I caused a huge bump, the biggest bump in my life. But I'm going to do whatever I can to correct it. That's all I can do. So that's where I am."

That process began in earnest when he learned of the institute, which has classes and programs designed to raise awareness on issues facing "gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and all youth."

The group, founded in 1996, seeks to prevent teen suicides while boosting the self-esteem of children and keeping them free of violence and discrimination.

"I was scared out of my ... mind," Hardaway said of his first visit. "I didn't know how they were going to act toward me. But you know what? They welcomed me with open arms. That eased a lot of my nervousness."

So he went back a second time, then a third, then a fourth.

And that early apprehension is now gone. His photo appears on the group's Web site, smiling alongside some members of the institute's staff.

"We were surprised how real our relationship with Tim got," Fugate said.

He's now considered a friend there, and his presence is so valued that Fugate released a letter earlier this month touting the work Hardaway has done.

"Thanks to his honest albeit misguided reaction, Tim did find his way to YES Institute and the education he got was not just about others, but about himself," Fugate wrote. "Because he is a role model, perhaps other people will also learn -- hopefully before bad consequences happen to them."

NBA commissioner David Stern met with Hardaway about a week after asking him to leave the league's All-Star festivities. He is aware of the changes Hardaway is trying to make.

"We appreciate Tim's efforts at education and promoting understanding," Stern said Thursday.

Hardaway wants to get back into the NBA some day as a coach or personnel director, yet readily acknowledges that he did those plans a major disservice with his comments.

Over time, he hopes that'll change.

"I have taken steps and I'm happy that I did," Hardaway said. "If I didn't, I'd still be naive about it, ignorant about the whole thing. But I can talk about it now. I'm a polite person. That's how I am."

Wow....good to hear.

Wait... transgender children? What, if your son plays with dolls you give him a penectomy now? Used to be you just prayed he was about to rip the head off or tape a firecracker to it to torment his sister...