BuzzerBeater Forums

This thread sure drifts off topic quickly.
I dont think the original poster asked us to debate homosexuality, rather he asked if it was courageous and/or relevant.

Courageous? Yes. Not for the same reason most of you state. I think being steadfast in your beliefs (whatever they are) independent of social acceptability or popularity or how others will respond is courageous.

Relevant? Not in the slightest. He plays basketball professionaly; his job is to entertain. I couldn't care less about his sexual orientation and dont see how it could be relevant to his ability to entertain (limited as it may be).


P.S: This whole homosexuality debate is a waste of time. You exchange points but both sides refuse to see the other sides views and valid because you disagree upon the base premise (The Bible).
With that said, can future posts actually respond to the original question?

I just cannot accept belief in fictional beings as a basis for ethics.

Interesting Tangosz. That could be quite offensive to those that do believe. You obviously dont believe but is it necessary to start insulting those that do?


Not that youre the only one that has done so but you just happened to post that as I replied myself.

Like I said, free will. But like CrazyHunter said, let's try to keep this from turning personal and get back to the original question.

I don't accept the notion that peoples' emotional reactions to arguments, such as being offended by something someone says, are at all relevant to the argument per se. I'm offended when a person trots out a book written by people thousands of years ago and uses it in discussions about current day events. But I don't expect them to refrain from doing so because I feel offended. (in fact I agree with Jason and those who've said that just because God created something, or allowed it to come into existence, doesn't mean he endorses it -

And I also don't accept your attempt to control where the discussion in thread evolves towards. It belongs to all of us, not just the original poster. It's not as though the discussion that's ongoing is completely unrelated to the initial posts (all of the discussion about being gay is directly related to the question of how courageous it is to admit it).

I wasnt claiming to be offended. I was simply pointing out that it could be construed as offensive. Basically it was the most recent example of belittling comments or insults or whatever you want to call it that people are slipping into their posts in this thread be it intentional or not. I just dont think it's necessary or helpful for discussion. Thats all.

It's not as though the discussion that's ongoing is completely unrelated to the initial posts (all of the discussion about being gay is directly related to the question of how courageous it is to admit it).

Fair enough. Was not trying to "control" the thread. My apologies.

Ok, maybe my response was a bit strong. And I actually didn't take your comment as you yourself being offended; it was more for anyone who who might feel that way.

Is Jason Collins coming out relevant to basketball or is it just relevant to society? Apparently it triggered a lengthy discussion between random people on the internet on a fake basketball simulation game website, so I'd say thats proof its relevant to society. Is Jason Collins a relevant basketball player, of course not, but I don't think that was the question.

Do athletes coming out make any difference? From my own limited HS and college sports experience as a player, sports culture in general harbors more homophobia than other parts of American culture. Maybe if more athletes at all levels come out in might make a difference in combating that.

Well God created the Head Hunter Tribes, murderers, rapists, child molesters, and even Los Angeles Laker Fans....that doesn't mean he is "in support" of them.

Lol +1

Homosexuality is also rampant in the animal kingdom, even among creatures to which we ascribe very little in the way of "choice" in their actions. Certainly the animals aren't picking sex partners with a knowledge of the Bible's teachings. It's instinct in some form. I think we can agree on that.

So it's very common in nature, which would make it "natural" by definition.

We don't have to know the exact gene to observe and understand this.

Although I do agree some people are born with homosexual feelings (acting on those feelings seems to be the issue of the discussion), I don't know think the animal kingdom should be the source of whether something is "natural" or not. If an animal is cannibalistic does that mean that cannibalism is natural?

Does that mean if an animal does this (insert action) then it is "natural" for a human to do so too?

Some animals do some weird stuff? But then again so do some humans...

This has exploded exponentially. As it would have when your in a room with different people.
But instead of wondering if an action of one person is relevant. ..ie the OP question. Instead the bible such has been downgraded by one poster here as some book written thousands of years ago.
Funny. . We think because there were no cell phones, computers,air travel. .. modern comforts that only the extreemly wealthy had (running water). In the first century when the new testament was complete. .. the thing is that if you read what problems the first century Christians had in their time we have now. ... so what they went through and how they overcame difficult situations with the assistance of heavenly inspired men can help us now.The old testament shows how our heavy father felt about this topic. .. he destroyed two cities (Sodom and Gomorah , backed up by archaeological support of where the cities were supposed to be. )
In the New testament based on the lives of first century Christians who has the same problems that we do now. .. the just did not have the tech we do now. . But the same issues. .. on how to carry ourselves.
But people want to know how God felt about the issue if you wish to dismiss my Sodom and Gomorah reference. This is what people today cannot accept because it deals with how we live, and simply put many people don't like to be told how to live.
Look in your own copy of the bible if you have one...I respectfully ask all you to read Leviticus 20:13 and there will be no question on how God feels on the matter.
I will not say anything more on this matter. Bash me if you will. .... but it is not me you are bashing.

Last edited by BarryS at 5/1/2013 8:01:38 AM

Oh, for crying out loud.

In the New testament based on the lives of first century Christians who has the same problems that we do now. .. the just did not have the tech we do now. . But the same issues. .. on how to carry ourselves.
But people want to know how God felt about the issue if you wish to dismiss my Sodom and Gomorah reference. This is what people today cannot accept because it deals with how we live, and simply put many people don't like to be told how to live.
Look in your own copy of the bible if you have one...I respectfully ask all you to read Leviticus 20:13 and there will be no question on how God feels on the matter.

Leviticus is from the Old Testament (which is utterly filled with wonderful suggestions on "how to live," as you put it), but not from the New Testament. Look in your own copy of the bible if you have one...I respectfully ask you to find a single mention of homosexuality outside of the book of Leviticus.

Last edited by darykjozef at 5/1/2013 9:20:14 AM