"The NBA’s Jason Collins says he’s gay"

[Spider-Dan]

You appear to be saying that we should base legislation on reinforcing biological functionality.  Is this correct?

I think we're also getting sidetracked.  Any argument for biological functionality speaks to homosexuality itself, not the legal recognizance of a marriage contract.  And since few politicians are brave enough to suggest re-criminalizing homosexuality, all the talk of biological functionality is a smokescreen.  The "functionless" sex will continue among homosexuals (and millions of contraceptive-using heterosexuals) regardless of whether or not the government recognizes the legal status of a homosexual relationship.

That is the question at hand: whether the government should grant legally-recognized status to an existing relationship.  If you want to make the argument that the government makes (or should make) that determination based on biological functionality, then:

a) childless marriages should not be permitted to exist
b) lesbians who are artificially inseminated should be permitted to marry

[Fau Teixeira]

I'm on my phone so a full reply will wait. But briefly...

Homosexuality is normal from a population standpoint. Evolutionary biology is practiced at a population level not an individual level.

A good example of this is a queen bee only accounts for 0.0001% of a hive but every hive has one. Abnormal? I think not.

[stinkyfish]

You appear to be saying that we should base legislation on reinforcing biological functionality.  Is this correct?

I think we're also getting sidetracked.  Any argument for biological functionality speaks to homosexuality itself, not the legal recognizance of a marriage contract.  And since few politicians are brave enough to suggest re-criminalizing homosexuality, all the talk of biological functionality is a smokescreen.  The "functionless" sex will continue among homosexuals (and millions of contraceptive-using heterosexuals) regardless of whether or not the government recognizes the legal status of a homosexual relationship.

That is the question at hand: whether the government should grant legally-recognized status to an existing relationship.  If you want to make the argument that the government makes (or should make) that determination based on biological functionality, then:

a) childless marriages should not be permitted to exist
b) lesbians who are artificially inseminated should be permitted to marry

Again, Fau brought up the "homosexuality is not abnormal from a biological standpoint". That has been refuted. As far as legislation, I don't care either way.  The point of this thread is about some dude in the NBA that says he's gay. Why did he do this? Why should anyone care? I don't hate or dislike gay people. However, to me homosexuality is abnormal,strange,sick,and I don't agree with it.

Someone said earlier something about this being "a proud moment for the movement". I'm not religious, but if this was some dude coming out saying that he was a born again christian, I'm sure he would be flamed and ridiculed like Tebow has been for his beliefs. At least be equal in your treatment of people. Like I said, If you don't want someone to criticize or disagree with your life choices, don't tell the whole world your personal business. This "movement" wants  attention more than anything, otherwise they would drop the 24/7 publicity push and quietly go about their personal business.

[stinkyfish]

I'm on my phone so a full reply will wait. But briefly...

Homosexuality is normal from a population standpoint. Evolutionary biology is practiced at a population level not an individual level.

A good example of this is a queen bee only accounts for 0.0001% of a hive but every hive has one. Abnormal? I think not.

No sir, you are wrong! The natural function of sex is reproduction. Aside from propagation of the species, nature has no use for sex, hence homosexuality is naturally abnormal. Males are programed to spread their genes as far as possible. Spreading genes doesn't work too well for homosexuality. In fact, I may be mistaken, but judging from the higher infection rates among homosexuals, the only thing that is spread through homosexuality is STDs.

[Spider-Dan]

Someone said earlier something about this being "a proud moment for the movement". I'm not religious, but if this was some dude coming out saying that he was a born again christian, I'm sure he would be flamed and ridiculed like Tebow has been for his beliefs.

And by "flamed and ridiculed," you mean "a player who's been in the league for over 3 years, never started a complete season, yet has led the league in jersey sales."

If only other players could be so persecuted!

[stinkyfish]

And by "flamed and ridiculed," you mean "a player who's been in the league for over 3 years, never started a complete season, yet has led the league in jersey sales."

If only other players could be so persecuted!

We're not discussing his stats or jersey sales, you are changing the subject again. Tebow's religious beliefs and public promotion of those beliefs is no different than some gay guy in the NBA promoting and advertising his abnormal sexual lifestyle. I'm sure that I can pull up plenty of quotes of people ridiculing and berating Tebow for it. Yet, this unknown gay guy is some "kind of hero in the movement" to these same people. Seems like some kind of agenda driven double standard to me.

[masterfins]

Sure they are!  Look at Wallace being hammered by the media simply becasue he says he doesn't understand why a man would want to be with a man when there are so many beautiful women around.  He didn't even say he was against gay marriage, nor that he even disapproved of the lifesyle.
Context matters.

Is it racist to tweet statistics on the black vote for black candidates?  Not particularly.
Is it racist to tweet them the day Obama wins the election?  It sure doesn't help.
Wallace's timing was poor, to say the least.

That all being said, I don't believe in any such thing as bigotry when it comes to one's personal preference in mates.  Whether you're a Hispanic man who exclusively dates Asian women or a white woman who only dates within her race, I say: whatever floats your boat.  I believe Wallace's statements were meant to apply to his own personal preferences, but it was dumb to tweet that right after the first player in a major pro sport comes out.  The timing implies malice, even though I don't think that was the intent.

In your World when would you "allow" people to voice their opinions??  The timing DOES NOT imply malice, it is the PC media world that wants to grab a headline that implies what he said, without actually stating what he said, or offering to ask him what he meant.

[Dave Gray]

No sir, you are wrong! The natural function of sex is reproduction. Aside from propagation of the species, nature has no use for sex.

This is categorically false.

[masterfins]

I'm on my phone so a full reply will wait. But briefly...

Homosexuality is normal from a population standpoint. Evolutionary biology is practiced at a population level not an individual level.

A good example of this is a queen bee only accounts for 0.0001% of a hive but every hive has one. Abnormal? I think not.

That is not a good example, it is a terrible example.

[Fau Teixeira]

No sir, you are wrong! The natural function of sex is reproduction. Aside from propagation of the species, nature has no use for sex, hence homosexuality is naturally abnormal. Males are programed to spread their genes as far as possible. Spreading genes doesn't work too well for homosexuality. In fact, I may be mistaken, but judging from the higher infection rates among homosexuals, the only thing that is spread through homosexuality is STDs.

you are wrong.. i suspect it's through ignorance of the subject, which is nothing to be ashamed of.

If you have the willingness, check out this italian study http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002282#s3

That tackles exactly the misconception you have that homosexuality is a evolutionary negative.

[Fau Teixeira]

Terrible example Fau and I think you understand that. While I do appreciate black women and have had encounters with them, personally I prefer white women. Now, If I am attracted to white women more and do not "understand" why other people prefer black women I am not a bigot. I just do not feel the same way. I said nothing against the practice.

it wasn't an example, it was a litmus test, if you don't feel like the test held up then you have your original answer.

[Spider-Dan]

We're not discussing his stats or jersey sales, you are changing the subject again. Tebow's religious beliefs and public promotion of those beliefs is no different than some gay guy in the NBA promoting and advertising his abnormal sexual lifestyle. I'm sure that I can pull up plenty of quotes of people ridiculing and berating Tebow for it. Yet, this unknown gay guy is some "kind of hero in the movement" to these same people. Seems like some kind of agenda driven double standard to me.

The point is, for all the "ridiculing" and "berating" that you claim Tebow received, he was the most popular player in the league.  So whatever persecution he supposedly received for his beliefs was easily overwhelmed by the tsunami of devotion he received from Christians (not least because Christians seem to love the idea of being the persecuted minority even when they are, in fact, the overwhelming majority).

In contrast, you claim that Collins is being lionized and propped up by the media, yet the idea that a gay player (who had never started a full season!) would lead the league in jersey sales, at any time in the foreseeable future, is so laughable as to be absurd.

[Spider-Dan]

In your World when would you "allow" people to voice their opinions??

When was anyone "prevented" from voicing their opinion?

You are allowed to say (nearly) whatever stupid things you want to at any time, and the First Amendment ensures that you will not be jailed for doing so.  It does not, however, ensure that other people will not criticize you for your statements... because the First Amendment also protects their right to criticize you.

The timing DOES NOT imply malice, it is the PC media world that wants to grab a headline that implies what he said, without actually stating what he said, or offering to ask him what he meant.

Like I said, if you decide to spontaneously question whether women voters choose their preferred candidates based on gender immediately after the first female president is elected, you will likely experience a similar effect.

Timing matters.

[CF DolFan]

Homosexual is not "normal", but neither is believing that Jesus walked on water. 

Considering more than 1 in 3 believe I'd say you were very wrong. How common does something have to be to be considered normal?

[Dave Gray]

You are mistaking the words normal and common.  They are not interchangeable.