Tell us how you really feel Tim Hardaway!

[Deattribution]

Originally Posted by Shkspr

When an NBA player comes out as being gay, it's a newsworthy event. If it's a newsworthy event, someone will profit from that. The guy at risk of being called a faggot or having the shit beat out of him by homophobes after a night out at a bar seems to me to be the right person to get the money.

The other thing to consider in this "media circus" is that someone writes a memoir with the intention of having his story read, in Amaechi's or Billy Bean's case to show young gay athletes that they are not alone in their situation. How does not publicizing their story on as many news outlets as are interested further that goal?

If it's all for publicity for his reasons and wanting to further the cause he wouldn't need to charge for it and what he did gain, he'd give to charities to further his cause. He's no less or more gay now, he's just more known as a gay guy now. Nobody is going to be sitting around the watercooler talking about the good ole days of Amechi before he came out. He won't be anymore scrutinized than Elton John, or Ellen Degeneres or whoever that football guy was that came out and wrote a book that nobody remembers.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Wow... you don't hear many people say "I am a homophobe" much anymore. I thought being proud of being a bigot went out with the fall of the KKK? Oh well... looking forward to not hearing from Tim Hardaway anymore.

I'll tread carefully here. Isn't this thread full of bigots? Because his beliefs differ from your own, doesn't that make you a bigot as well? He never said that he wanted to hurt gays or kill gays. He just said that he wouldn't want to be teammates and further elaborated that he wouldn't want to be in the same locker room. I see nothing wrong with that.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I'll tread carefully here. Isn't this thread full of bigots? Because his beliefs differ from your own, doesn't that make you a bigot as well? He never said that he wanted to hurt gays or kill gays. He just said that he wouldn't want to be teammates and further elaborated that he wouldn't want to be in the same locker room. I see nothing wrong with that.

A good majority of soldiers in the US Army are unconfortable with having gays in their companies. Guess they're all bigots too, by Isiddiqui's reasoning.

[miami_fan]

Here we go!

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

A good majority of soldiers in the US Army are unconfortable with having gays in their companies. Guess they're all bigots too, by Isiddiqui's reasoning.

Although they weren't "gay" as such, mainly because tags like that didn't really exist back then, maybe the US Army should lecture its troops on the Greek & Macedonian views on man-on-man love in the military.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Although they weren't "gay" as such, mainly because tags like that didn't really exist back then, maybe the US Army should lecture its troops on the Greek & Macedonian views on man-on-man love in the military.

I'm not saying gays can't be good soldiers. I'm saying that a good portion of what makes a good company is the comraderie between the soldiers, and if someone's sexuality is causing that to be an issue, it needs to be addressed with the person causing the issue.

The same applies to a sports team. I'm a firm believer in what you do in the bedroom, regardless of your orientation, keep it to yourself.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I think Chris Broussard has a pretty good take in his ESPN article.

BTW Thanks. That was a very good piece. Unfortunately he is absolutely correct when he says that you can't have "real talk" in America today.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

I'm not saying gays can't be good soldiers. I'm saying that a good portion of what makes a good company is the comraderie between the soldiers, and if someone's sexuality is causing that to be an issue, it needs to be addressed with the person causing the issue.

The same applies to a sports team. I'm a firm believer in what you do in the bedroom, regardless of your orientation, keep it to yourself.

Like Wilt, Magic, MJ.......

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Like Wilt, Magic, MJ.......

Yep. Same applies to them, too.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Yep. Same applies to them, too.

I believe that you think that. But if you think most people believe that, or most people actually act that way, then you're pretty naive.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I believe that you think that. But if you think most people believe that, or most people actually act that way, then you're pretty naive.

True. One of the things I liked about Clinton's reign is the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. Same thing could apply in professional sports, but I don't think someone coming out will be good for any sports team, whether players are honest in their opinions like Hardaway was or politically correct, I'll betcha anything most athletes feel exactly like he does.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

I'm not saying gays can't be good soldiers. I'm saying that a good portion of what makes a good company is the comraderie between the soldiers, and if someone's sexuality is causing that to be an issue, it needs to be addressed with the person causing the issue.

The same applies to a sports team. I'm a firm believer in what you do in the bedroom, regardless of your orientation, keep it to yourself.

Is it just limited to sexuality? What other personal characteristics need to be "addressed" if they cause a problem? Race? Religion?

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Is it just limited to sexuality? What other personal characteristics need to be "addressed" if they cause a problem? Race? Religion?

I doubt if race causes issues anymore on a sports team, at least in terms of comraderie.

Anything on a personal level that cause distrust with all the other players, yes, needs to be addressed. So if a majority of players on, say a football team has an issue with someone's religion ... yes, it should be addressed with that player.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

True. One of the things I liked about Clinton's reign is the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. Same thing could apply in professional sports, but I don't think someone coming out will be good for any sports team, whether players are honest in their opinions like Hardaway was or politically correct, I'll betcha anything most athletes feel exactly like he does.

Except "Don't Tell" did not apply to heterosexuals. Nor was the policy correctly practiced in the military.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Except "Don't Tell" did not apply to heterosexuals. Nor was the policy correctly practiced in the military.

How was it not correctly practiced? And of course it didn't apply to heterosexuals.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I'll tread carefully here. Isn't this thread full of bigots? Because his beliefs differ from your own, doesn't that make you a bigot as well? He never said that he wanted to hurt gays or kill gays. He just said that he wouldn't want to be teammates and further elaborated that he wouldn't want to be in the same locker room. I see nothing wrong with that.

Hardaway said, "I hate gay people." That's not a bigot?

Hardaway said, "I am homophobic." That's not a bigot?

Hardaway said, "[Homosexuality] shouldn't be in the world or in the United States." That's not a bigot?

I didn't realize that to be a bigot, you had to say "I am a bigot" while dragging by a noose the corpse of a gay man you just murdered on your way to burn down a gay bar.

Tim Hardaway is a freakin' bigot and to say otherwise is utter nonsense. It's sad that somebody would read what Hardaway said and "see nothing wrong with that."

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Hardaway said, "I hate gay people." That's not a bigot?

Hardaway said, "I am homophobic." That's not a bigot?

Hardaway said, "[Homosexuality] shouldn't be in the world or in the United States." That's not a bigot?

I didn't realize that to be a bigot, you had to say "I am a bigot" while dragging by a noose the corpse of a gay man you just murdered on your way to burn down a gay bar.

Tim Hardaway is a freakin' bigot and to say otherwise is utter nonsense. It's sad that somebody would read what Hardaway said and "see nothing wrong with that."

Check what I wrote. I never said he wasn't a bigot. He is. I'm just saying that the people condemning him are bigots as well.

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I'll tread carefully here. Isn't this thread full of bigots? Because his beliefs differ from your own, doesn't that make you a bigot as well? He never said that he wanted to hurt gays or kill gays. He just said that he wouldn't want to be teammates and further elaborated that he wouldn't want to be in the same locker room. I see nothing wrong with that.

Bolded for emphasis. Perhaps I should've changed the bolded part to "like he is" to be more clear.

I also see nothing wrong with what he said. He expressed his opinion. That was it. He didn't say that he wanted to castrate gays or kill them.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

He didn't say that he wanted to castrate gays or kill them.

"It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States."

That's pretty close.

[bhlloy]

And yet, he said that homosexuality shouldn't be in the world. That's almost as close as you can get to saying I want to kill all the gays in the world on a radio show without going to jail.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

"It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States."

That's pretty close.

You're extrapolating from his statement and taking it out of context. I could read that as they shouldn't exist but I'm not going to go out and kill them. Taking it all in perspective, the rest of his comments were somewhat benign as well. He didn't say that he wanted to kick the crap out of a gay in the locker room, did he? He said that he didn't want to be around them.

[JPhillips]

Deattribution: Come on, comparing him to OJ? But, really I don't care if OJ writes a book as long as the profits go to pay off the court judgment against him. OJ can write or say whatever the hell he wants, but if Murdoch won't publish him I think his options are limited.

WVU: Is there anything that the majority should have to accept without forcing the minority to change?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I also see nothing wrong with what he said. He expressed his opinion. That was it. He didn't say that he wanted to castrate gays or kill them.

I also see nothing wrong with the people condemning him. They expressed their opinions. They didn't say that they wanted to castrate Tim Hardaway or kill him.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I also see nothing wrong with the people condemning him. They expressed their opinions. They didn't say that they wanted to castrate Tim Hardaway or kill him.

Me neither. I was merely pointing out the fact that bigotry is in everyone.

[JPhillips]

RA: Bigotry applies to a class of people, be they gay, black, Muslim, cat lovers, whatever. Look at this definition:

Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion

We can overlook the "irrational" part if you'd like, but it's clear that we're talking about groups, not individuals.

Saying I hate gay people is bigotry, because it applies to all persons that are gay. Saying I hate Tim Hardaway isn't bigotry because it only applies to Tim Hardaway.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

WVU: Is there anything that the majority should have to accept without forcing the minority to change?

What if it wasn't homosexuality, but beastiality or necrophilia or other deviant sex? The question here is where do you draw the line between good order and discipline and allowing individual freedoms. In this day and age in the United States Armed forces there is very little latitude in what is allowed. Sodomy is still punishable under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

RA: Bigotry applies to a class of people, be they gay, black, Muslim, cat lovers, whatever. Look at this definition:



We can overlook the "irrational" part if you'd like, but it's clear that we're talking about groups, not individuals.

Saying I hate gay people is bigotry, because it applies to all persons that are gay. Saying I hate Tim Hardaway isn't bigotry because it only applies to Tim Hardaway.

True, but I think most people are expressing their disdain for homophobes, not just Tim Hardaway, correct?

[JPhillips]

RA: I'm not talking about sexuality here. WVU made it clear that the minority is responsible for behavior that upsets the majority. I want to know if this applies in every case or if there is a limit.

I should also add that there's a big difference between gay sex which is consensual and bestiality/necrophilia which is non-consensual.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

WVU: Is there anything that the majority should have to accept without forcing the minority to change?

In the military or in professional sports? No.

EDIT: Lemme explain why. In regular normal life, what you do in your bedroom has absolutely no affect on me. In an environment like the military or in professional sports, when teamwork is ABSOLUTELY key, how you live your life does affect me, as it affect my confidence in you. If you have a company of 50 people, and a good bit of them are no longer confident in you because you're gay, then the company DOES NOT need to change -- you do. This isn't an environment where minorities have the right to act how they will. Same thing applies in professional sports.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

RA: I'm not talking about sexuality here. WVU made it clear that the minority is responsible for behavior that upsets the majority. I want to know if this applies in every case or if there is a limit.

Okay. I'm not sure if I read it that way nor am I sure of what you mean by your last sentence.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I should also add that there's a big difference between gay sex which is consensual and bestiality/necrophilia which is non-consensual.

Ah, good point. Although some might argue that the donkey consents in some situations.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

In the military or in professional sports? No.

I disagree somewhat here. The military was a model for integration of races (although I still maintain we're all one race: the human race).

[JPhillips]

WVU: So religion, political beliefs, etc, are all valid reasons to dismiss someone from a professional team and the league?

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

WVU: So religion, political beliefs, etc, are all valid reasons to dismiss someone from a professional team and the league?

Yes.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

What if it wasn't homosexuality, but beastiality or necrophilia or other deviant sex? The question here is where do you draw the line between good order and discipline and allowing individual freedoms. In this day and age in the United States Armed forces there is very little latitude in what is allowed. Sodomy is still punishable under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.

I always find it interesting that when a discussion about homosexuality comes up, it generally doesn't take too long before beastiality and necrophilia are brough up of the "next logical step" in the discussion.

I have to say that homosexuality and beastiality/necrophilia are not only not in the same ballpark, but they aren't even in the same league...or the same sport.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

In the military or in professional sports? No.

EDIT: Lemme explain why. In regular normal life, what you do in your bedroom has absolutely no affect on me. In an environment like the military or in professional sports, when teamwork is ABSOLUTELY key, how you live your life does affect me, as it affect my confidence in you. If you have a company of 50 people, and a good bit of them are no longer confident in you because you're gay, then the company DOES NOT need to change -- you do. This isn't an environment where minorities have the right to act how they will. Same thing applies in professional sports.

How would you suggest the gay person change? Should they not be allowed to serve in the military or play professional sports?

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

WVU: So religion, political beliefs, etc, are all valid reasons to dismiss someone from a professional team and the league?

I hate to butt in again, but I think they are valid reasons to dismiss someone from a professional team and the league. Hell, Tim Hardaway was dismissed from his appearance because of his beliefs! Are you arguing that the NBA shouldn't have dismissed him?

From a military perspective, I think they are valid reasons...until widesweeping changes are made beginning with the leadership. If the top of the ladder doesn't support tolerance, then it will never work. It's hard enough to get soldiers to wear berets instead of their patrol caps, much less convince them to sleep in the same tent or shower with a gay.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I always find it interesting that when a discussion about homosexuality comes up, it generally doesn't take too long before beastiality and necrophilia are brough up of the "next logical step" in the discussion.

I have to say that homosexuality and beastiality/necrophilia are not only not in the same ballpark, but they aren't even in the same league...or the same sport.

I'd say it depends on your perspective; none of these acts perpetuate the species. JPhillips brought up a good point about consenual sex. What if a 14 year old girl and a 38 year old man had consensual sex and both told the media they were in love? If someone said, "That guy should be castrated," nobody would blink an eye, right?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I'd say it depends on your perspective; none of these acts perpetuate the species. JPhillips brought up a good point about consenual sex. What if a 14 year old girl and a 38 year old man had consensual sex and both told the media they were in love? If someone said, "That guy should be castrated," nobody would blink an eye, right?

From a legal sense, the 14 year old girl can't give consent, so I'm not sure that is the same thing.

Do people really think the difference between homosexuality and beastiality is just a matter of perspective? I suppose this is one of those fundamental core belief issues where you can never expect to have a real debate since you can't agree on a common ground to start from.

In my mind, this world is filled with so much pain and misery that if you are lucky enough to find anyone you really love, it should be celebrated...no matter the orientation.

Anyone that says homosexuals are deviant since their act can't perpetuate the species is basically telling me that my wife and I are deviant since we are choosing to not have kids.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by BrianD

From a legal sense, the 14 year old girl can't give consent, so I'm not sure that is the same thing.

Do people really think the difference between homosexuality and beastiality is just a matter of perspective? I suppose this is one of those fundamental core belief issues where you can never expect to have a real debate since you can't agree on a common ground to start from.
In my mind, this world is filled with so much pain and misery that if you are lucky enough to find anyone you really love, it should be celebrated...no matter the orientation.

Anyone that says homosexuals are deviant since their act can't perpetuate the species is basically telling me that my wife and I are deviant since we are choosing to not have kids.

Bolded part mine. I think that this is correct wholeheartedly. That being said, I find this discussion quite interesting and helpful. It's nice that it hasn't degraded into name-calling and the like.

Frankly, I'd tell you that probably a few years ago I was extremely intolerant of a lot of things, including gays. I've made some comments on FOFC that I regret, but at the same time I'm somewhat glad that I made them because the responses caused me to grow as a person. I'm probably still somewhat intolerant of different lifestyles (whether that's the nosestuds or other weird piercings), but discussion on stuff like this really makes you think about what other people feel and take their feelings into account.

[JPhillips]

Is masturbation deviant? Non-procreative sex?

If this is just about procreation we need to include a lot more than gay sex.

WVU: What your saying means it's okay to exclude not just gays, but blacks, Catholics, Mexicans or anyone else. Isn't there some point when we as a society want to say that a team needs to look beyond it's own biases? Certainly given public financing of most pro sports stadiums my feeling is that the teams need to adhere to rules that society has accepted.

[Rizon]

Timmy should be banned because he was the only player I've ever remembered that consistently missed layups.

And he went like 2 for 30 one time.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Bolded part mine. I think that this is correct wholeheartedly. That being said, I find this discussion quite interesting and helpful. It's nice that it hasn't degraded into name-calling and the like.

Frankly, I'd tell you that probably a few years ago I was extremely intolerant of a lot of things, including gays. I've made some comments on FOFC that I regret, but at the same time I'm somewhat glad that I made them because the responses caused me to grow as a person. I'm probably still somewhat intolerant of different lifestyles (whether that's the nosestuds or other weird piercings), but discussion on stuff like this really makes you think about what other people feel and take their feelings into account.

I think there is a difference between an opinion based on faulty logic and one based on different core beliefs, and I am trying to learn to avoid arguments involving core beliefs. Plenty of people believe that being gay is morally wrong, and plenty of people believe that being gay is a choice. I don't happen to believe either of these things, but they can't really be proven either way. I wonder if arguments will change if science can ever point to a gay-gene or anything like that?

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I think there is a difference between an opinion based on faulty logic and one based on different core beliefs, and I am trying to learn to avoid arguments involving core beliefs. Plenty of people believe that being gay is morally wrong, and plenty of people believe that being gay is a choice. I don't happen to believe either of these things, but they can't really be proven either way. I wonder if arguments will change if science can ever point to a gay-gene or anything like that?

I suppose the arguments based on faulty logic would change if there was the discovery of a gay-gene, but the arguments based on core beliefs would not. That being said, I don't think a person who bases their argument on faulty logic would admit it if they were wrong. (Maybe that's me, LOL)

I don't think that being gay is morally wrong just like I don't think that being a miser or being a conservationalist is morally wrong. Based on those examples you can safely assume that I believe that being gay is a choice. Am I wrong? Possibly. Like my belief in God, I leave my mind open.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

In the military or in professional sports? No.

EDIT: Lemme explain why. In regular normal life, what you do in your bedroom has absolutely no affect on me. In an environment like the military or in professional sports, when teamwork is ABSOLUTELY key, how you live your life does affect me, as it affect my confidence in you. If you have a company of 50 people, and a good bit of them are no longer confident in you because you're gay, then the company DOES NOT need to change -- you do. This isn't an environment where minorities have the right to act how they will. Same thing applies in professional sports.

Whatever. You do know it wasn't that long ago that the majority white soldiers were very uncomfortable with black soldiers in their ranks. It no doubt had a negative effect on their teamwork and ability to survive. Under your logic, the black soldiers should have changed (paint themselves white I guess) or left the military. Under your logic, we would have an all-white military still today. Hmm, same thing with baseball and all professional sports in dealing with integration.

And I guess you fall into the group that believes the gay employee in your example should change, I guess by fucking the opposite sex. Or I guess the christian working alongside fellow employees who were scientologists should change by switching religions? Your statement just makes no sense. Even applied to professional sports teams or the military.

If I owned a company and had a bunch of my employees whine to me that they couldn't work with a gay person, I'd say "quit being whiny weak little-minded fools. I want people who work hard at their jobs regardless, so get over it or hit the road." And I certainly don't want any employee who can't work hard through the "adversity" of working with a gay person.

[Ragone]

Maybe Bill parcells can consult with Timmy on some new Gay jap plays..


regardless of all this, if Timmy had said something along the lines of "I hate white people" and gotten fired.. Jesse Jackson and the whole naacp would have been down by his side within the hour to defend his right to say what he did..

Was what Timmy said ignorant and down right naive.. Yes
Did timmy have a right to say what he did.. Yes

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

If I owned a company and had a bunch of my employees whine to me that they couldn't work with a gay person, I'd say "quit being whiny weak little-minded fools. I want people who work hard at their jobs regardless, so get over it or hit the road." And I certainly don't want any employee who can't work hard through the "adversity" of working with a gay person.

I want to ask you a question, and I do not mean this in a negative way, more of an honest question: have you ever been in the military?

The reason I ask is because you're comparing work in a business sense with military duty, and it's not that way at all. Morale is EVERYTHING. Teamwork and interractions with your fellow soldiers are EVERYTHING. Especially if you're in a front-line unit, you HAVE to have assurances that your fellow soldier has your back. I don't care what the issue is ... whether the unit is wary of you because your religion is outside the norm, or because you're outwardly gay, or because you're hardcore liberal or convservative ... that stuff HAS to not be a part of the unit .. it can't affect what the other soldiers are doing.

In a logical, regular world where people live their own lives and they can do practically whatever they want, your line of reasoning works. It doesn't in the military. I would surmise, from the standpoint of morale and team interaction, professional sports teams are EXACTLY the same way.

You can quote the racial integrations all you want, but that was more to do with society change than change in the military. It's not the same with gays. It would cause unit chaos if outwardly gays were allowed in the military. You can justify it how you want, but at least when it comes to the military you HAVE to be in a unit to fully understand what I'm trying to say.

That's as plain as I can make it. The military has always been about adapting yourself to the standard, to be part of the unit. You separate yourself by proclaiming your gayness for no reason does not work in the military. I do not believe they have a place in professional sports, not when their presence causes a distraction to the goals of the team. Most soldiers and athletes would agree.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I took you on in both your hypos as you can see. You mentioned the 50-employee company with a gay person and said that the gay person needs to change. You didn't even address that.

In terms of the military, I've heard that one before. And the same things were said about black soldiers in the past (and there was no doubt a loss of morale and cohesion because of the presence), yet the military "survived" it. So, your second hypo has shown to be false by historical fact. And in case you missed it, societal change related to gays right now is FAR AHEAD of where societal change was in terms of african-americans when they first began joining the military. So, your casual comment in that respect is simply false.

And finally, to equate the military to professional sports as a reason for "intolerance" is completely off the mark. I mean completely.

I would like however for you to actually rebut some of what I say because as it turns out you never really do - whether its this thread or another one. Instead you usually change the subject (although you're good at doing it with subtlety).

[Vinatieri for Prez]

For what it's worth, Tim Hardaway's comments actually made the national news up in Canada. It warranted about a 3-4 minute story that started out with archival footage of Jackie Robinson and described Hardaway's comments as an "angry outburst."

[molson]

This Hardaway thing is now THE front page story on CNN.com, the fact that he's been banned from the All-Star game. I know people thought the press Anna Nicole was getting was irritating, but this is incredible.

I'm fascinated more than irritated. I wonder if gay rights groups have some kind of voice in media outlets' ear about the way they cover news.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

I took you on in both your hypos as you can see. You mentioned the 50-employee company with a gay person and said that the gay person needs to change. You didn't even address that.

By the way, by "50 person company" I mean a military company (typically 4 to 5 platoons, ranging from 40 to 150 soldiers strong), not a business.

And you're right, if there's a 50 soldier company and 49 of them are one way, and 1 person is counter to that, you're damn right the one person needs to change. I don't give two cents what's different.

In terms of the military, I've heard that one before. And the same things were said about black soldiers in the past (and there was no doubt a loss of morale and cohesion because of the presence), yet the military "survived" it. So, your second hypo has shown to be false by historical fact. And in case you missed it, societal change related to gays right now is FAR AHEAD of where societal change was in terms of african-americans when they first began joining the military. So, your casual comment in that respect is simply false.

Well, you can quote stats all you want. I've been in a front-line company, and I can tell you from first hand experience it wouldn't work.

And finally, to equate the military to professional sports as a reason for "intolerance" is completely off the mark. I mean completely.

Neither are places where one should assert individuality. Both are team-oriented. Both rely on morale. Both have much the same attitudes on work ethics and team accomplishments over individual. I would say they're both very similar.

Honestly, you can continue to spout off how "intolerant" athletes and soldiers are, and that's probably right. It's not the place you go and proclaim your gayness. It has no place there.

[