Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Nuttin' but Net' started by akaGatorhoops, May 12, 2014.
Well stated seabud
Deliberate attempt to dilute the argument. This is about ESPN's coverage of a circus and people's objections to it. It's really that simple. If this was one of the Gator's starting five I bet there would be a little hypocrisy here, but just a guess on my part.
I have no idea what your point is here???
Are you saying that you still know some people who would find an interracial kiss offensive? I am lost on your premise.
As for mine . . . yes, I think Henderson is an idiot.
I have no intention of "shutting him down". I am quite sure I don't even have the power to do that. I just wanted to exercise my right to call him an idiot.
You can feel free to challenge that opinion.
I am not comparing the how each group has been discriminated against, but if you think gays have not historically been treated poorly. . . you have been living on a different planet than me.
But again . . I am not comparing the level of discrimination, nor using one as a barometer for the other. My only point was that there was a time most of our society would recoil from an interracial kiss . . . . as people thought it was 'unnatural' or 'not right'.
Today, many feel much the same about a same-sex kiss . . . and much of the same rhetoric is used.
Though we have hardly moved past all prejudices. . . I think television can safely, without backlash . . .broadcast an interracial couple kissing. How did we get to that point?
Well, not by shrinking away from it . . . but rather by acknowledging it as something that should be acceptable.
Now . . .if a person does not feel two men kissing is right, or acceptable . . . or is morally 'wrong'. Fine . . .that is that person's opinion. But if you have the opinion that there is nothing wrong with it . . . I am not sure how you can then turn and say, "but we should hide it".
Very well said.
And you would lose that bet.
Actually. . . my point was this:
Henderson did not suggest he had any moral issue with homosexuality, but that he objected to the kiss being aired on television.
This is an odd position to me, and one wrought with inconsistency.
If someone states that he/she opposes homosexuality . . . for any number of reasons . . .fine. That person's stance . . . that it should not be aired would be in keeping with his/her position. And I would not argue that position or opinion.
But for someone to suggest not having issue with homosexuality, and/or endorsing gay equality/rights. . . well, I am not sure how that same person then turns around and suggests, "but we have to hide it".
So, for those who support the advancement of gay rights. . . me included . . . .there may be some awkward moments along the way. I will be entirely honest. . . I absolutely find it a bit awkward, and dare I say even uncomfortable to see men kissing. But if I feel there is nothing morally wrong with it - - - well, I think it would be hypocritical for me to suggest they hide their actions rather than me learn to become more comfortable with them.
That was my point.
Do yourself a favor and stop guessing other people's opinions, feelings or actions.
Why? Do you believe Marshall's second tweet about the experiment was not honest? If you think it was not honest, aren't you doing some guess work yourself?
Why? I was straight forward and said it outright. I simply said I would bet on it which means I could lose or win. I been around enough to see how selective fans can be with their objectivity.
It looks quite clear to me, many minorities reject the comparison with international marriages as it's used ad nauseam and doesn't relate for clear historical reasons. I myself am in an interracial marriage and many people I know including my family reject the comparison. Tilly laid out the argument pretty effectively. I believe this has been used because it's the lack of a coherent argument to make certain cases. I'm curious of the need to castigate those who disagree. It always seems to come down to name calling. Yes, of course there are those in power that will punish an individual by way of threatening their livelihood. Awesome society we're turning into.
No . . . not from my perspective.
I think there is a difference between reading/hearing someone's comments and evaluating those as lies -versus- guessing entirely what a person may say, think or feel an in unknown circumstance.
And yes, I believe he was lying.
Where did I do this?
I find myself wondering, if the "experiment" story were being put forth by a UF player rather than Marshall Henderson, how many people on this board would actually believe it? Scary to contemplate.
I think people earn trust and credibility by past actions and behaviors. Others . . . Gator or not . . . may carry a bit more believe-ability than Marshall.
Even if it were an experiment. . . I'd still consider Marshall a dingbat. He would have to know that his past would lend itself to a diminished likelihood of people believing his explanation, however it true it may be. And thus . . . . still a dingbat.
Just to clarify AKA, my post wasn't really aimed at you, but more so the popular notion by some out there that have compared this to the civil rights movement and such. Didnt want you thinking I was taking you to task. That was not my intention
As one who does have a moral issue with it, I don't like it being put on display like that.
But its fair to say that I have a moral dilemma with a lot of things on TV these days. I just guard the little eye in my house as much as possible, until they are mature enough to have real conversations about these things.
With all due respect, the fact that you reject it . . . does not make it any less viable.
My sister is in an interracial marriage. Does that somehow add validity to my point?
That comparison either stands or fails on its own merits. If you think the latter. . . so be it.
You are also somewhat bastardizing my point/comparison, which I have explained a few times in the thread.
No worries. . . I didn't take it that way.
I was not intending to compare the two movements for equality, but rather just the similar backlash a 'kiss' would/does create in each scenario.
As for your moral issue. . . I respect, even if disagree with it. As a Catholic who attends Mass each and every Sunday, it is something I have wrangled with . . . as the Bible passages are oft discussed in the debate.
I have come to my position not without struggle, and I can hardly say that I am comfortable with the image of men kissing.
I do agree about guarding the eyes of children. But believe it or not, I think I would have a far easier time explaining to my son that kiss, than I would some of the graphic violence and language that pervades the television.
In fact, I took time to think . . . "how would I explain that to my 4-year old son if he saw and asked?".
My answer: "Well . . . I love you and give you kisses. When people love each other, they sometimes give kisses.".
I think I would leave it at that . . . and my answer would be the same had he asked about a man and woman kissing on television.
Your number is off. Its actually much higher. I think only 17 states prohibit hiring freedom in the private sector.
Your number is the states that require government hiring of LGBT persons. A large majority (33 states) still allow PRIVATE business to make the choice that coincides with their beliefs on the matter.
The map below shows the dark purple states blue states as the only ones that offer full protection.
The lighter purple and light blue is only state government agencies.
You have to remember, for many this is a religious conviction. REQUIRING them to hire or participate in ceremonies can violate their religious convictions to some extent.
I never said you did, however quick you were to post his tweet and call him names. Do you agree with colleges or the pro's reprimanding players for their opinion? There was nothing wrong with MH's tweet. I'm only talking about the initial tweet because the second tweet (I'm going to say it again) I'm guessing was him trying to back away from the first tweet. Why is there a need to start calling people name with which we disagree? Thankfully I was not sitting around watching the draft but it was a display I would rather not see. For this I will be called every name in the book in this forum, not that my skin is that thin. The so called crowed of tolerance is really anything but.