Comments on: Intellectual Morons http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/09/23/morons/ Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:49:09 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: stan http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/09/23/morons/comment-page-1/#comment-5184 stan Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:50:30 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/09/23/morons/#comment-5184 I didn't feel like jumping in on this one but was encouraged to do so by someone else. Just a few thoughts hopefully offered in a spirit of humility. Re: homosexuality. Just from the standpoint of nature, it appears to be a rather obvious aberration. The function of the parts is quite obvious. In addition, even the animal kingdom, by design or chance, doesn't function this way. It seems nature is designed to reproduce... As a Christian, it appears to me that homosexuality is clearly a vile sin, which in the OT deserved death. There is a reason homosexuality is referred to as sodomy. Although God also destroyed that city for neglect of the poor, the homosexual act is called sodomy, not poverty. My Bible college rommate, who is now a liberal Presbyterian, disagrees with me but I must stand firm. Re: homosexuality as a condition, or sin or preference or "born that way"...or? Again as a Christian, it seems to be a choice but I think there is evidence that environment can determine that choice. I would rather not judge motives but I do have a hard time accepting the contention that homosexuals are born that way. In another sense, it is a sin like all others but I caution that there appear to not have been other cities destroyed and then named after their prime sin into perpetuity. It is also true, again from a Christian perspective, that God loves homosexuals not one whit less than those who sit in judgment on them. In God's sight, we're all the worst of sinners, not even one of us does good, not even one of us seeks after God. All the rough and rude talk directed against them is not from God, no matter how vile and disgusting their behavior might appear to us. God knows the secrets of our hearts and a lot of what we say and do is probably vile and disgusting to Him. But He looked beyond our fault and saw our need. That offer freely extends to homosexuals also. Re: homosexual marriage and unions First, it won't hurt marriage. That is a canard. How much more can marriage be hurt? I speak as one whose father left my mother for another woman when I was 12 after he served on the board of our fundamental church for 15 years. Apparently, divorce in the fundamental/evangelical church is at the same rate or only a little less than those in society at large. I would say to folks like Mr. Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, etc. "Be quiet and help us take care of our own house." Christians like to say that homosexuality and euthanasia are at or near the bottom of the slippery slope to destruction. This a canard. The destruction of a young, budding life in the place where it should be the most safe is the bottom of the slope. The shedding of innocent blood trumps other sins every time. My former roommate tried to equate abortion with the deaths in Iraq. This is near blasphemy. I speak as one who has stood in front of abortion clinics and gentley encouraged the moms to think about their choice one more time. Re: homosexual marriage with regards to the Constitution I believe it will sooner or later become law because science trumps religion and the Constituion is quiet on the issue. Most Christians think that the Constitution contains God's law and is a Christian document. This is also a canard. It is a thoroughly secular humanist document and was designed to be so. A defense of marriage amendment would settle the issue but will never happen because Republicans don't want it, including many in the Bush administration. The President will give it lip service, the VicePresident is ambivalent if not supportive and nothing will happen. Considering the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution, I'm surprised that the law in Massachusetts hasn't been extended to other states. I think efforts are being made in that direction. I am strongly in favor of that amendment but Republicans are divided and that will be the end of that. Re: the homosexual rights movement being equated with the Civil Rights movement, this is a monstrosity. As a white who cheerfully participated in that movement and followed it up by years of inner-city work, I take umbrage with those that even hint at a connection between the two It is an horrific affront to generations of blacks, some of the most noble people God ever made, who quietly suffered and worked to get the full rights of the Constituion and the principles of the Declaration extended to themselves and their posterity to the benefit of all of us. Stan in San Diego I didn’t feel like jumping in on this one but was encouraged to do so by someone else. Just a few thoughts hopefully offered in a spirit of humility.

Re: homosexuality. Just from the standpoint of nature, it appears to be a rather obvious aberration. The function of the parts is quite obvious. In addition, even the animal kingdom, by design or chance, doesn’t function this way. It seems nature is designed to reproduce…

As a Christian, it appears to me that homosexuality is clearly a vile sin, which in the OT deserved death. There is a reason homosexuality is referred to as sodomy. Although God also destroyed that city for neglect of the poor, the homosexual act is called sodomy, not poverty. My Bible college rommate, who is now a liberal Presbyterian, disagrees with me but I must stand firm.

Re: homosexuality as a condition, or sin or preference or “born that way”…or?
Again as a Christian, it seems to be a choice but I think there is evidence that environment can determine that choice. I would rather not judge motives but I do have a hard time accepting the contention that homosexuals are born that way. In another sense, it is a sin like all others but I caution that there appear to not have been other cities destroyed and then named after their prime sin into perpetuity. It is also true, again from a Christian perspective, that God loves homosexuals not one whit less than those who sit in judgment on them. In God’s sight, we’re all the worst of sinners, not even one of us does good, not even one of us seeks after God. All the rough and rude talk directed against them is not from God, no matter how vile and disgusting their behavior might appear to us. God knows the secrets of our hearts and a lot of what we say and do is probably vile and disgusting to Him. But He looked beyond our fault and saw our need. That offer freely extends to homosexuals also.

Re: homosexual marriage and unions
First, it won’t hurt marriage. That is a canard. How much more can marriage be hurt? I speak as one whose father left my mother for another woman when I was 12 after he served on the board of our fundamental church for 15 years. Apparently, divorce in the fundamental/evangelical church is at the same rate or only a little less than those in society at large. I would say to folks like Mr. Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, etc. “Be quiet and help us take care of our own house.” Christians like to say that homosexuality and euthanasia are at or near the bottom of the slippery slope to destruction. This a canard. The destruction of a young, budding life in the place where it should be the most safe is the bottom of the slope. The shedding of innocent blood trumps other sins every time. My former roommate tried to equate abortion with the deaths in Iraq. This is near blasphemy. I speak as one who has stood in front of abortion clinics and gentley encouraged the moms to think about their choice one more time.

Re: homosexual marriage with regards to the Constitution
I believe it will sooner or later become law because science trumps religion and the Constituion is quiet on the issue. Most Christians think that the Constitution contains God’s law and is a Christian document. This is also a canard. It is a thoroughly secular humanist document and was designed to be so. A defense of marriage amendment would settle the issue but will never happen because Republicans don’t want it, including many in the Bush administration. The President will give it lip service, the VicePresident is ambivalent if not supportive and nothing will happen. Considering the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution, I’m surprised that the law in Massachusetts hasn’t been extended to other states. I think efforts are being made in that direction. I am strongly in favor of that amendment but Republicans are divided and that will be the end of that.

Re: the homosexual rights movement being equated with the Civil Rights movement, this is a monstrosity. As a white who cheerfully participated in that movement and followed it up by years of inner-city work, I take umbrage with those that even hint at a connection between the two It is an horrific affront to generations of blacks, some of the most noble people God ever made, who quietly suffered and worked to get the full rights of the Constituion and the principles of the Declaration extended to themselves and their posterity to the benefit of all of us.

Stan in San Diego

]]> By: SCSIwuzzy http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/09/23/morons/comment-page-1/#comment-5173 SCSIwuzzy Mon, 27 Sep 2004 21:24:46 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/09/23/morons/#comment-5173 Phil, I can only speak for myself, and as a former democrat, I know I don't speak for all conservatives. But here goes, my objections to gay marriage: (in order of how much it bunches my boxers, greatest to least) 1). How they are going about it. In CA, there is an actual law, brought about by one of CAs beloved ballot props, that explicitely defines marriage as = 1 man + 1 woman. Rather than working to change the law or repeal it, activists in politics and the judiciary decided to break the law. Including members of the executive branches (mayors etc), whose main job is to administer and enforce the law. They could have challenged the law in court, or brought about a campaign for change (and some are working down the right path) but instead decided to ignore the rule of law. And I am pissed the Ahnold didn't take a stand to uphold the law. 2)The way Soc. Sec and other systems treat marriage weren't designed for many gay couples. This applies to many straight couples as well. Being mostly DINKs, with decent jobs and retirement options, the last thing this broken system needs is another group drawing on deceased loved ones SS payoffs. I think the system needs massive reform anyway, to account for the straight DIWKs and DINKs, as well as a host of other flaws. So it is fair to say that objection 2 has more to do with SS being FUBAR than anything the gay community has done/proposed etc. 3) Marriage, by definition, is a man and woman etc. It has had this meaning since jump, and please, nobody get semantic by finding a definition that omits the word heterosexual or the like. I am fine with the notion of a civil union, to work out issues of inheritance, power of attorney, medical choices etc. This keeps the fundies from getting too huffy, after all, as well as providing for most of what the gay couples are asking for (the rest falls into the 'we want it called this because you don't want us to' category, from what I see) 4) the slippery slope arguement. If you are going to change the meaning of marriage, best take special care in doing so. Polygamy, for one, is currently illegal (and has objection 2 issues as well), but if M/M and F/F are okay, why not M/F/F or F/M/M etc? I won't get into where I feel about these combos, but where is the line drawn, and why? And the way the gay rights folks are going about it (activists judges etc), they are following a Pandora's box route of potential precedents. For once I won't go down the path of silliness or extreme situations, and I'll leave off the potential challenges to the age of consent or folks that love their pets too much. *** Now there are some that oppose all things gay on a matter of principle. Many of them always will. I don't take much of a side on this, since my actions cannot really effect those who wish to live this lifestyle one way or another. Any action I take to prevent it, to me, is probably worse than letting them live their lives in peace. Notice the in peace part... I expect to be left in peace as well :) If I see gay person acting a sick manner in public, I will call them on it, just as I would anyone else doing the same/similar thing. As for the "God don't like it" argument, who am I to say? The 10 Commandments doesn't cover this one, though there are passages in the Bible that support the notion that God is not pleased. But I think this is a case where God can sort this all out after we all die. If I spend an extra century in purgatory for not knowing God's exact intent on this one, I can live with that. Chances are I'll be spending time there as it is... and while I may be my brother's keeper here and there, a line must be drawn IMO. Well, Phil, I hope that comae out as cogent on screen as it sounded when I was typing. Phil,
I can only speak for myself, and as a former democrat, I know I don’t speak for all conservatives. But here goes, my objections to gay marriage: (in order of how much it bunches my boxers, greatest to least)
1). How they are going about it. In CA, there is an actual law, brought about by one of CAs beloved ballot props, that explicitely defines marriage as = 1 man + 1 woman. Rather than working to change the law or repeal it, activists in politics and the judiciary decided to break the law. Including members of the executive branches (mayors etc), whose main job is to administer and enforce the law.
They could have challenged the law in court, or brought about a campaign for change (and some are working down the right path) but instead decided to ignore the rule of law. And I am pissed the Ahnold didn’t take a stand to uphold the law.
2)The way Soc. Sec and other systems treat marriage weren’t designed for many gay couples. This applies to many straight couples as well. Being mostly DINKs, with decent jobs and retirement options, the last thing this broken system needs is another group drawing on deceased loved ones SS payoffs. I think the system needs massive reform anyway, to account for the straight DIWKs and DINKs, as well as a host of other flaws. So it is fair to say that objection 2 has more to do with SS being FUBAR than anything the gay community has done/proposed etc.
3) Marriage, by definition, is a man and woman etc. It has had this meaning since jump, and please, nobody get semantic by finding a definition that omits the word heterosexual or the like. I am fine with the notion of a civil union, to work out issues of inheritance, power of attorney, medical choices etc. This keeps the fundies from getting too huffy, after all, as well as providing for most of what the gay couples are asking for (the rest falls into the ‘we want it called this because you don’t want us to’ category, from what I see)
4) the slippery slope arguement. If you are going to change the meaning of marriage, best take special care in doing so. Polygamy, for one, is currently illegal (and has objection 2 issues as well), but if M/M and F/F are okay, why not M/F/F or F/M/M etc? I won’t get into where I feel about these combos, but where is the line drawn, and why? And the way the gay rights folks are going about it (activists judges etc), they are following a Pandora’s box route of potential precedents. For once I won’t go down the path of silliness or extreme situations, and I’ll leave off the potential challenges to the age of consent or folks that love their pets too much.
***
Now there are some that oppose all things gay on a matter of principle. Many of them always will. I don’t take much of a side on this, since my actions cannot really effect those who wish to live this lifestyle one way or another. Any action I take to prevent it, to me, is probably worse than letting them live their lives in peace. Notice the in peace part… I expect to be left in peace as well :) If I see gay person acting a sick manner in public, I will call them on it, just as I would anyone else doing the same/similar thing.
As for the “God don’t like it” argument, who am I to say? The 10 Commandments doesn’t cover this one, though there are passages in the Bible that support the notion that God is not pleased. But I think this is a case where God can sort this all out after we all die. If I spend an extra century in purgatory for not knowing God’s exact intent on this one, I can live with that. Chances are I’ll be spending time there as it is… and while I may be my brother’s keeper here and there, a line must be drawn IMO.
Well, Phil, I hope that comae out as cogent on screen as it sounded when I was typing.

]]> By: James Lamb, Jr. http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/09/23/morons/comment-page-1/#comment-5172 James Lamb, Jr. Mon, 27 Sep 2004 21:10:07 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/09/23/morons/#comment-5172 "Allow me to clarify my issue here. I havent heard any arguments against gay marriage other than ‘i dont like it’ and ‘my religion doesnt like it’, and i dont see either of those as proper justification for outlawing something. There are a lot people speaking of this bond-weakening phenominon, and i just want to hear what that means. Feel free to ht me with some facts, we can see if i burst into flames or something." - Phil You won't. There's nothing really wrong, impractical, amiss, or otherwise problematic with homosexual marriage. No bonds weakened, no social fabric unraveled. Given America's ever-expanding civil rights and civil liberties protections (present Administration excluded, of course), present-day prohibitions against homosexual marriage will, I believe, one day shatter under the overwhelming historical momentum of American perceptions of a just society. Ever since the Civil War, our nation has, over time, tried to expand freedom and justice for all its citizenry, rather than contract those ideals and shut out various minorities deemed unacceptable and untouchable by other groups. My fervent hope is that soon America will realize that its fighting a losing battle against its national character with the fruitless attempts of some of its citizens to engender difference in our national population through the continued banning of homosexual marriage. We can't effectively discuss homosexual political issues in the classroom if our law promotes a gay vs. straight divide in our body politic. We can’t even unify to combat terrorism while remaining that divided. “Allow me to clarify my issue here. I havent heard any arguments against gay marriage other than ‘i dont like it’ and ‘my religion doesnt like it’, and i dont see either of those as proper justification for outlawing something. There are a lot people speaking of this bond-weakening phenominon, and i just want to hear what that means. Feel free to ht me with some facts, we can see if i burst into flames or something.” – Phil

You won’t.

There’s nothing really wrong, impractical, amiss, or otherwise problematic with homosexual marriage.

No bonds weakened, no social fabric unraveled.

Given America’s ever-expanding civil rights and civil liberties protections (present Administration excluded, of course), present-day prohibitions against homosexual marriage will, I believe, one day shatter under the overwhelming historical momentum of American perceptions of a just society.

Ever since the Civil War, our nation has, over time, tried to expand freedom and justice for all its citizenry, rather than contract those ideals and shut out various minorities deemed unacceptable and untouchable by other groups.

My fervent hope is that soon America will realize that its fighting a losing battle against its national character with the fruitless attempts of some of its citizens to engender difference in our national population through the continued banning of homosexual marriage.

We can’t effectively discuss homosexual political issues in the classroom if our law promotes a gay vs. straight divide in our body politic. We can’t even unify to combat terrorism while remaining that divided.

]]> By: Raymond C. Coleman http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/09/23/morons/comment-page-1/#comment-5171 Raymond C. Coleman Mon, 27 Sep 2004 21:09:14 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/09/23/morons/#comment-5171 It doesn't weaken it. It destroys it. If I change to now allow any one available to take confession does that change the ritual? If we allow Ferraris to be made on the Civic assembly line and they come out looking like Civics are they still Ferraris and would anyone buy it that they were? By the way, there is no such thing as straight marriage. There is MARRIAGE and then there are perversions of marriage. It doesn’t weaken it. It destroys it. If I change to now allow any one available to take confession does that change the ritual?

If we allow Ferraris to be made on the Civic assembly line and they come out looking like Civics are they still Ferraris and would anyone buy it that they were?

By the way, there is no such thing as straight marriage. There is MARRIAGE and then there are perversions of marriage.

]]> By: Raymond C. Coleman http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/09/23/morons/comment-page-1/#comment-5170 Raymond C. Coleman Mon, 27 Sep 2004 21:04:00 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/09/23/morons/#comment-5170 Phil, It appears you have those I don't want to hear the answer bliders on. You can't understand how the redefinition of mariage destroys it because you do not want to. I'll give you an example you may be able to understand. I am a member of a professional business FRATERNITY. It used to actually be a a FRATernity and then someone got the bright idea to let girls in soooooo please tell me how an organization that was once all me and correctly defined as a FRATernity is still a fraternity is girls are now allowed in? It is of course NOT a fraternity. It is now an abomination of the former much in the same way marriage would be if it is allowed to be infected with homosexuality. Like previous writers have explained, gays are trying to redefine marriage and that action redefines the family and the traditional family structure is the foundation for EVERYTHING American. Homosexuality on the other hand is a sick lifestyle choice and moral abomination encasing a set of definat rules and values anathema to a healthy and prosperous society. Homosexuals by definition are unable or unwilling to produce life yet their number seem to increase let them tell it. How is that? It is done through the recruitment of children and by redefining the filthy practice into one that is accpeted and normal. In fact, the AMerican Psychological Association (APA) waited until they could get a 4 vote majority on their board and without the application of scentific methods VOTED homosexuality and other sexually deviant mental ilnesses off the list of those types of illnesses. My religion doesn't like it is as legitimate if not more so than you trying to force people to defend marriage. The burden of proof my man is on you as to why one should replace the tried and true with the disgusting and unhealthy. Phil,

It appears you have those I don’t want to hear the answer bliders on. You can’t understand how the redefinition of mariage destroys it because you do not want to.

I’ll give you an example you may be able to understand. I am a member of a professional business FRATERNITY. It used to actually be a a FRATernity and then someone got the bright idea to let girls in soooooo please tell me how an organization that was once all me and correctly defined as a FRATernity is still a fraternity is girls are now allowed in?

It is of course NOT a fraternity. It is now an abomination of the former much in the same way marriage would be if it is allowed to be infected with homosexuality.

Like previous writers have explained, gays are trying to redefine marriage and that action redefines the family and the traditional family structure is the foundation for EVERYTHING American. Homosexuality on the other hand is a sick lifestyle choice and moral abomination encasing a set of definat rules and values anathema to a healthy and prosperous society.

Homosexuals by definition are unable or unwilling to produce life yet their number seem to increase let them tell it. How is that? It is done through the recruitment of children and by redefining the filthy practice into one that is accpeted and normal. In fact, the AMerican Psychological Association (APA) waited until they could get a 4 vote majority on their board and without the application of scentific methods VOTED homosexuality and other sexually deviant mental ilnesses off the list of those types of illnesses.

My religion doesn’t like it is as legitimate if not more so than you trying to force people to defend marriage. The burden of proof my man is on you as to why one should replace the tried and true with the disgusting and unhealthy.

]]> By: Phil http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/09/23/morons/comment-page-1/#comment-5169 Phil Mon, 27 Sep 2004 21:03:10 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/09/23/morons/#comment-5169 Lets drop the sport analogies, cause we arent getting anywhere. All im looking for is an explanation of how two people of the same gender getting married weakens straight marriage. Can someone give me a straight answer? Lets drop the sport analogies, cause we arent getting anywhere. All im looking for is an explanation of how two people of the same gender getting married weakens straight marriage. Can someone give me a straight answer?

]]> By: Raymond C. Coleman http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/09/23/morons/comment-page-1/#comment-5167 Raymond C. Coleman Mon, 27 Sep 2004 20:54:09 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/09/23/morons/#comment-5167 They don't hurt Jordan's legacy because what they do is not what Jordan does. It is something else. Women's" basketball is no more basketball than gay marriage is real marriage. To think it is is silly. When I watch a WNBA game. I watch the couple of minutes out of curiosity, but I in no way equate it with basketball. It is a perverted, lower level version of the real thing. Sorry. The Williams Sisters CANNOT hurt the legacy of Arthur Ashe because they are not playing the same game. The are playing a game with the same name. They don’t hurt Jordan’s legacy because what they do is not what Jordan does. It is something else. Women’s” basketball is no more basketball than gay marriage is real marriage. To think it is is silly.

When I watch a WNBA game. I watch the couple of minutes out of curiosity, but I in no way equate it with basketball. It is a perverted, lower level version of the real thing. Sorry.

The Williams Sisters CANNOT hurt the legacy of Arthur Ashe because they are not playing the same game. The are playing a game with the same name.

]]> By: Phil http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/09/23/morons/comment-page-1/#comment-5160 Phil Mon, 27 Sep 2004 20:02:42 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/09/23/morons/#comment-5160 Allow me to clarify my issue here. I havent heard any arguments against gay marriage other than 'i dont like it' and 'my religion doesnt like it', and i dont see either of those as proper justification for outlawing something. There are a lot people speaking of this bond-weakening phenominon, and i just want to hear what that means. Feel free to ht me with some facts, we can see if i burst into flames or something. Allow me to clarify my issue here. I havent heard any arguments against gay marriage other than ‘i dont like it’ and ‘my religion doesnt like it’, and i dont see either of those as proper justification for outlawing something. There are a lot people speaking of this bond-weakening phenominon, and i just want to hear what that means. Feel free to ht me with some facts, we can see if i burst into flames or something.

]]> By: Phil http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/09/23/morons/comment-page-1/#comment-5158 Phil Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:56:21 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/09/23/morons/#comment-5158 Well, sexist comments aside, i dont feel my questions have been answered. Women playing basket ball doesnt make Jordan any less of a terrific player. The williams sisters dont hurt the legacy of ash. I still dont see how allowing gays to marry weakens the bonds of straight marriages. Well, sexist comments aside, i dont feel my questions have been answered. Women playing basket ball doesnt make Jordan any less of a terrific player. The williams sisters dont hurt the legacy of ash. I still dont see how allowing gays to marry weakens the bonds of straight marriages.

]]> By: Raymond C. Coleman http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/09/23/morons/comment-page-1/#comment-5135 Raymond C. Coleman Mon, 27 Sep 2004 17:46:29 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/09/23/morons/#comment-5135 I have a daughter as well and I hope she can reward daddy's portfolio with a scholarship, but it will not drive her. You do of course realize you morphed the discussion. LOL!! I am all for women participating in athletics, but not at the expense of real sports. In otherwords. ABOLISH Title IX. This still leaves the girlie man sports like gymnastics and field hockey. If women want TRUE equality as they claim then they will work harder and get strong enough to complete at THE standard and try to get on the teams that happen to be populated with mostly men and not beg for lower standards. Isn't this what we tell Dependent Americans who think they are entitled simply because of who they are? It just drives me nutz to be at an NCAA football game and hear the announcer ask fans to support THE soccer team when there are no men on it nor are they allowed to compete for slots on it. How is that equal? And the biggest pet peeve of all: When did CHEERLEADING become a sport? I guess when some idiot propose Title IX. I have a daughter as well and I hope she can reward daddy’s portfolio with a scholarship, but it will not drive her.

You do of course realize you morphed the discussion. LOL!! I am all for women participating in athletics, but not at the expense of real sports. In otherwords. ABOLISH Title IX. This still leaves the girlie man sports like gymnastics and field hockey.

If women want TRUE equality as they claim then they will work harder and get strong enough to complete at THE standard and try to get on the teams that happen to be populated with mostly men and not beg for lower standards. Isn’t this what we tell Dependent Americans who think they are entitled simply because of who they are?

It just drives me nutz to be at an NCAA football game and hear the announcer ask fans to support THE soccer team when there are no men on it nor are they allowed to compete for slots on it. How is that equal?

And the biggest pet peeve of all: When did CHEERLEADING become a sport? I guess when some idiot propose Title IX.

]]> By: Alex http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/09/23/morons/comment-page-1/#comment-5132 Alex Mon, 27 Sep 2004 17:15:37 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/09/23/morons/#comment-5132 Raymond - Come on! Your're joking, right? I don't think there is anybody who will disagree that there are substantive differences between men and women in a number of areas, but I for one am looking forward to having my daughter participate in athletics when she gets old enough. Just because she probably won't ever be able to dunk on a guy doesn't mean there aren't terrific benefits to her participating in organized athletics. Raymond -

Come on! Your’re joking, right? I don’t think there is anybody who will disagree that there are substantive differences between men and women in a number of areas, but I for one am looking forward to having my daughter participate in athletics when she gets old enough. Just because she probably won’t ever be able to dunk on a guy doesn’t mean there aren’t terrific benefits to her participating in organized athletics.

]]> By: Raymond C. Coleman http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/09/23/morons/comment-page-1/#comment-5131 Raymond C. Coleman Mon, 27 Sep 2004 16:58:59 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/09/23/morons/#comment-5131 When Lisa Leslie dunks on Shaq or ANY NBA or COLLEGE or even most HIGH SCHOOL players for that matter, THEN and ONLY THEN will I retract my comments regarding women's sports being legislated dilutions of the real thing. Women seem to think that leaving them out of sports and the military and the police stations and the firehouse is some kind of conspiracy. Nonsense. These entities were not created with the exclusion of girls in mind. They are what they are and the only way women are capable of participating in them as a whole is by LOWERING THE STANDARDS! When Lisa Leslie dunks on Shaq or ANY NBA or COLLEGE or even most HIGH SCHOOL players for that matter, THEN and ONLY THEN will I retract my comments regarding women’s sports being legislated dilutions of the real thing.

Women seem to think that leaving them out of sports and the military and the police stations and the firehouse is some kind of conspiracy.

Nonsense. These entities were not created with the exclusion of girls in mind. They are what they are and the only way women are capable of participating in them as a whole is by LOWERING THE STANDARDS!

]]> By: Raymond C. Coleman http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/09/23/morons/comment-page-1/#comment-5130 Raymond C. Coleman Mon, 27 Sep 2004 16:55:04 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/09/23/morons/#comment-5130 Oh yes! ABSOLUTELY it is sexist. Did you for some reason think you were on the Politically Correct Blog Site? LOL!! "Sexist", "homophobe", "abortion", etc. Other examples of those politically charged buzz words designed to perjor and indict simply by the label. If sexist means that I recognize the physical and emotional differences between men and women then I am most certainly an UNABASHED sexist. Oh yes! ABSOLUTELY it is sexist. Did you for some reason think you were on the Politically Correct Blog Site? LOL!!

“Sexist”, “homophobe”, “abortion”, etc. Other examples of those politically charged buzz words designed to perjor and indict simply by the label.

If sexist means that I recognize the physical and emotional differences between men and women then I am most certainly an UNABASHED sexist.

]]> By: James Lamb, Jr. http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/09/23/morons/comment-page-1/#comment-5127 James Lamb, Jr. Mon, 27 Sep 2004 16:41:22 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/09/23/morons/#comment-5127 "There is marriage and then there is something else. There is basketball and then there is women’s “basketball.” There is tennis and then there is women’s “tennis.” There is baseball and then there is women’s fast-pitch softball. In general, there are sports and then there are weakened, diluted, redefinitions, alterations and versions thereof." - Raymond C. Coleman Leaving the anti-gay rhetoric aside for a moment, don't you think this is kinda sexist? No, wait. Flagrantly sexist? I wouldn't tell Lisa Leslie or Venus and Serena Williams that their sports are merely "weakened, diluted, redefinitions, alterations and versions" of male sports. It wouldn't be true. “There is marriage and then there is something else. There is basketball and then there is women’s “basketball.” There is tennis and then there is women’s “tennis.” There is baseball and then there is women’s fast-pitch softball.
In general, there are sports and then there are weakened, diluted, redefinitions, alterations and versions thereof.” – Raymond C. Coleman

Leaving the anti-gay rhetoric aside for a moment, don’t you think this is kinda sexist?

No, wait. Flagrantly sexist?

I wouldn’t tell Lisa Leslie or Venus and Serena Williams that their sports are merely “weakened, diluted, redefinitions, alterations and versions” of male sports.

It wouldn’t be true.

]]> By: Raymond C. Coleman http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/09/23/morons/comment-page-1/#comment-5118 Raymond C. Coleman Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:50:25 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/09/23/morons/#comment-5118 Gay "marriage" is a foul perjorative term in and of itself in that you don't have to destroy REAL marriage to create whatever type of sick union homosexuals feel they are entitled to. Just leave marriage out of it. There is marrigae and then there is something else. There is basketball and then there is women's "basketball." There is tennis and then there is women's "tennis." There is baseball and then there is women's fast-pitch softball. In general, there are sports and then there are weakened, diluted, redefinitions, alterations and versions thereof. Calling gay "marriage" marriage doesn't make it marriage, but redefining it does hurt the true meaning and the people sacredly bonded by its requirements. Gay “marriage” is a foul perjorative term in and of itself in that you don’t have to destroy REAL marriage to create whatever type of sick union homosexuals feel they are entitled to. Just leave marriage out of it.

There is marrigae and then there is something else. There is basketball and then there is women’s “basketball.” There is tennis and then there is women’s “tennis.” There is baseball and then there is women’s fast-pitch softball.
In general, there are sports and then there are weakened, diluted, redefinitions, alterations and versions thereof.

Calling gay “marriage” marriage doesn’t make it marriage, but redefining it does hurt the true meaning and the people sacredly bonded by its requirements.

]]>