I am not mixing up anything. I understand perfectly well what you are talking about. I just don't agree with you on it. While you choose to use gay, homosexual clearly states what I mean. I always thought "gay" could also mean being "happy". I think "homosexual" is the more relevant term and states clearly what people are discriminated against for. No one is going around reading people's minds to see who they are attracted to so that they can be discriminated against.
75K for saying 'no homo', but Jason Collins gets an Oprah special, numerous articles, and Good Morning America etc etc etc etc and notorious praise for coming out the closet....What a effin joke.
Whenever somebody feels the need to add a 'no homo' to denote that they do not mean for that particular sentence to be interpreted as having any homosexual connotations whatsoever, I ask myself: "Does that mean that every time they do not declare 'no homo' they intend for us to interpret their meaning in the most homosexual way possible?" I'm going to assume so. First Jason Collins, now Roy Hibbert! I'm glad to see the NBA becoming a more gay friendly place!
I guess you also thought it was a joke that the white players who referred to black people as the n-word deserved the same recognition and praise as Jackie Robinson. WHAT UNIVERSE DO YOU LIVE IN SO I CAN STAY FAR, FAR AWAY FROM IT?
So you are trying to equate "homo" as short for "homosexual" as being equivalent to the "n-word" being short for African-American? FAIL Also, in all my life, I don't think I have ever heard anyone use "no n-word" after making a comment. I have heard many people say "i'm not African-American" when they have darker skin in the US, but they are from some where else. I don't recall any black people getting offended or anyone being fined $75k.
It's not exactly the same thing. But it's discrimination regardless. One did something heroic. The other did something bigoted and offensive - even if he intended no harm. One thing people forget is that there are/were actually white people who used the n-word without even considering themselves racist or thinking there was anything wrong with it. My own grandfather was such a man. He claimed that he grew up with the word and that there was nothing wrong with it.
How is saying "no homo" being discriminatory? Would saying "no homosexual" be discriminatory as well? If so, why is saying I'm a homosexual "heroic", but saying I'm not a homosexual discriminatory? I fail to understand this type of logic!
It implies that there is something wrong with being a homosexual. And yes, it would still be bigoted and offensive if they didn't shorten 'homosexual' because it would still imply that there is something wrong with being gay. I don't want to go on and on and on about this. People can and will debate these sorts of things until eternity. But this is different than somebody asking him about his sexual orientation and him saying, "I'm heterosexual" (or someone else answering that they are gay). He wasn't explaining what he is. He was explaining what he is not - and doing so as if there is something inherently wrong with being that. And, what's more, that it should be laughed about. That isn't cool. It isn't the worst thing that has ever happened. And, to be honest, I could care less if Hibbert says these things with his friends in private. Free speech and all of that. But it was appropriate for the league to fine him, because that sort of remark shouldn't be deemed acceptable in public.
Oh no, we've got ourselves another young, backwoods, southern dumbass, inbred for generations with ignorance. Hopefully in 10-20 years a light will pop on in that hollow skull of yours and you'll realize that you're views and arguments, which you are truly most passionate about, are very sad and embarrassing. You remind me of all of the anti-black, anti-woman proponents throughout history trying to justify their warped conviction, that neither blacks or women are as good as a white man and are not deserving of equal rights. In your arguments, you're basically saying that a homosexual man is not as good as a heterosexual man and doesn't deserve the same rights. Do you honestly believe that it's okay for a heterosexual man to be attracted to a women and to openly act on that attraction and it's okay for a homosexual man to be attracted to man but not okay if he openly acts on that attraction? Do you honestly believe that being heterosexual or homosexual is a choice? With all that's been learned in the field of genetics and the fact that there are people who are actually born with both male and female genitalia? Do you honestly feel a homosexual should stay locked in the closet, much like keeping a slave in chains? Do you bury your nose in the bible and ignore science along with human and social rights? Also, for the record, stating that you're not a homosexual is not offensive to anyone if used in the right context. However, the term "no homo" is clearly offensive anytime it's used because it's always used in the context of a little inside joke between heterosexuals. Can't you see the difference and how it can be belittling and degrading to homosexuals?
I would respectfully disagree. If a gay man was stating how sexy or fine that a woman is and then turned around to his gay friends and said "no hetero", I think they would all laugh and understand the joke. Most importantly, I don't think any heterosexual people would feel offended that he said it because they inherently know that there is nothing wrong with being heterosexual. Again, I disagree that saying you are not something is also implying that there is inherently something wrong with being that. What it does insinuate is that those that feel this way are being way too overly sensitive, imho. It denotes something in the minds of those that are that, or those that are supposedly protecting that, that they may feel they themselves are not normal. I understand your point of view, even if I don't agree with it. I think he was right to make an apology for those that may feel he was being discriminatory, although I don't think he meant to be. I feel the league should have been satisfied with that and made a similar statement, but I don't feel it was right to fine him $75k. That doesn't make your opinion or my opinion wrong.
First of all, I'm not young, nor from the woods, not really southern, and definitely not inbred. Your insults only show how bigoted you are in your handling of people that disagree with your world view. You obviously have no idea since I am a black man. Also, you obviously have not read the portions of my comments where I support laws to protect against discriminating against gay and homosexual people. You simply can not stand rational arguments that don't fit your own view, so you therefore want to lump me with a group of bigots and people who hate gay people in order to try to make arguments against me that simply do not exist. FAIL Why are you making up a false argument that doesn't exist? Have I ever said anything even remotely similar to this failed make believe argument that you are trying to make? SMH Yes I do believe it is a choice, even if some people are predisposed to lean a certain way in attraction. Having attraction and having sex are two separate things. Many people have attractions that they do not act upon. But what a person chooses to act upon sexually is their own business, not mine, as long as it isn't against the law. The last time I checked, homosexuality isn't against the law anymore, so it isn't any of my business and I don't need people coming out to tell me how they are having sex behind closed doors and expecting me to feel like they are a hero for doing so. Where do you get this crap from? Your own mind? Or are you still continuing some discussion that you had with someone else? When did I ever say anything remotely close to a homosexual should stay locked in a closet? Are you serious dude? What is your problem? For you to compare a slave in chains to someone telling the world who they like to have sex with, is utterly ridiculous. No, I don't bury my head in the bible. I think there are many factual errors in the bible and that it has been written mostly by man. I bet that surprises you huh? You act as if all of science has agreed in unison that homosexuality is a choice, which isn't true. As far as social rights are concerned, I am on record numerous times in this thread and a couple of others as supporting laws against discriminating or committing crimes against gay or homosexual people because of their sexuality. Is it really that hard for your brain to follow the real and actual arguments in this thread? Or are you just trying to make up new ones to fit your own agenda? No I can not, because it shouldn't be. They clearly state when they are making their public declarations that they are NOT heterosexual, so we should be able to clearly state that we are NOT homosexual without them being offended. You must be a homosexual sir. But trust me, even if I was (I publicly declare that I am NOT a homosexual [offended?], I would never let you close to my pretty mouth(what some women think at least), because to me your thinking is warped and degraded. Sexual practices, desires and attractions are not things that need a public disclosure. The bottom line is that it's no one's business but that person and their partners, unless they are breaking some law. For example, prostitution is against the law, while it is mostly done by heterosexual people, obviously it is done by homosexual people as well. They should both be treated, or rather prosecuted equally under the law for any prostitution crime. (Although I don't think it should be against the law) Strip club workers, p*rn stars and just plain old whores (male and females) are sexual practices and preferences of how those people choose to live their lives. Maybe a man or woman is a nymphomaniac and just loves having so much sex that they choose to do those things. The bottom line is that no matter if it is legal or not, it is still against the moral values of many other people in how they choose to live their lives. Those who choose to have moral values that disagree with others, should also NOT be persecuted for having a different set of moral values. There is no movement to make it seem normal or get our kids to accept that being a w****, strip club dancer, or p*rn star as being okay. While many people and families have determined that it is okay for those that they love, to try and push this on society is a cause doomed to fail. But that is not the same as saying that the people who choose those lifestyles should not be protected against discrimination and crimes for their lifestyle choices. How many ex p*rn stars could run for government office and get elected? Probably not many. It's not a crime or discriminatory if a person doesn't want to vote for them because their moral values differ from the choices that they made in their life. Gay and homosexual people are, and should be, free to live their lives how they want to. You will never get everyone to agree with and LOVE their lifestyle choices. All you can hope to do is to make sure that they are not discriminated against and that laws are there to protect them against crimes committed against them simply because of their sexual choices. Your campaign to make everyone who doesn't love their lifestyle choice seem like an idiot or ignorant will fail.
He didn't feel the need to add it. It was a joke to point out the sexual (in this case gay sexual) innuendo in his comment. It is the exact same thing as saying "thats what she said" or "pause."
Hibbert's comment was not a "slur." He was not verbally attacking a gay person or verbally attacking gay people. It was a joke about his word choice within a sentence and how funny it sounded.
The fact that LeBron said the same thing in an interview and didn't get the same punishment shows what the NBA is about.
I definitely agree that league has a right to fine him, however, i absolutely disagree with the notion that someone merely saying I'm not homosexual is a slur or bigoted or discriminatory. Saying no HOMO may be consider in some regards as using a slur as the word "HOMO" may or may not be considered a slur. However to infer that saying "no homosexual" is equivalent to saying there is something wrong with being homosexual is entirely caused by the one making the inference. The statement, "not homosexual or no homosexual" does not implicitly or explicitly imply anything, but merely states as a fact a negative. Choosing to infer something negative from such a statement seems to me, the fault of overly sensitive political correctness.
No... A number of times that someone or a group on this forum has complained of being discriminated against, you chime in with how it doesn't compare to the the discrimination experienced by black people. First, I didn't know it was a contest, and second, all you do is lose credibility on the topic because black people do not have the market cornered on injustice. Second, the point is that regardless of what Hibbert mean't it was offensive and at a minimum insensitive. It is no different than someone in the 1970's using negro, or stating they are not of African ancestory. All the "I didn't mean it" cries only carry so much weight. I suppose that other poster had alterior motives, but I certainly didn't take his comments that way. His example, from my reading, was to point out that we would not allow similar comments against another discriminated group, so why against homosexuals. I agree with you on many issues, including many political and racially charged topics, but respectfully, not this one.
