Blazers & Timbers endorse same sex marriage

[Reep]

Can this thread be moved to off topic since it does not pertain to basketball?

 

[Boob-No-More]

You never did answer if you'd still support the team though.

I'd have to think long and hard about it. I love the Blazers, but I also believe very strongly in equal rights. I have since the 1960s. The night Reverend King was assassinated had a profound impact on my life. I don't wish to share the details. It's very personal and I've only told a few people very close to me exactly how the events of that night changed me forever.

But I'd give the EXACT same answer if they came out with a statement denying any group of law abiding citizens equal rights under the law. No one will ever come out with an anti straight marriage position. The right for straight people to marry is a non-issue. It's so entrenched that people don't even think about it. Granting gay couples the same rights as straight couples does not infringe on anyone's rights in any way. That's why I have a hard time sympathizing with the anti gay marriage crowd. They are hiding behind religion to justify their bigotry and deny their fellow law abiding citizens the same civil rights they enjoy - and that's just wrong.

BNM

 

[Natebishop3]

Can this thread be moved to off topic since it does not pertain to basketball?

It's specifically about the Blazers though. Yes, it's political, but this is a Blazers forum and this is specifically about the Blazers.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Do you not agree that gay marriage is a divisive issue in this country? There are people that support it and there are people that do not support it, no?

Sure it's divisive. Tough shit. So was equal rights for African American and women. Those who have rights always seem to want to hold down those who don't have equal treatment under the law. Oppression of minorities is just plain wrong. It's wrong on the basis of race, it's wrong on the basis of religion and it's wrong on the basis of sexual preference.

And no, supporting gay marriage does not oppress straight people in any way. It does not infringe on their religious freedoms. They are still free to believe what the choose and worship who they choose. Supporting gay marriage may offend them, but it does not take away any of their rights. Like I said earlier. Anyone who is offended by equal rights for for any minority deserves to be offended.

BNM

 

[Natebishop3]

I'd have to think long and hard about it. I love the Blazers, but I also believe very strongly in equal rights. I have since the 1960s. The night Reverend King was assassinated had a profound impact on my life. I don't wish to share the details. It's very personal and I've only told a few people very close to me exactly how the events of that night changed me forever.

But I'd give the EXACT same answer if they came out with a statement denying any group of law abiding citizens equal rights under the law. No one will ever come out with an anti straight marriage position. The right for straight people to marry is a non-issue. It's so entrenched that people don't even think about it. Granting gay couples the same rights as straight couples does not infringe on anyone's rights in any way. That's why I have a hard time sympathizing with the anti gay marriage crowd. They are hiding behind religion to justify their bigotry and deny their fellow law abiding citizens the same civil rights they enjoy - and that's just wrong.

BNM

I understand how you feel BNM. I really do. That's not what I'm debating at all. Is it wrong to deny people equal rights? Yes. Absolutely. 100%.

 

[Natebishop3]

Sure it's divisive. Tough shit. So was equal rights for African American and women. Those who have rights always seem to want to hold down those who don't have equal treatment under the law. Oppression of minorities is just plain wrong. It's wrong on the basis of race, it's wrong on the basis of religion and it's wrong on the basis of sexual preference.

And no, supporting gay marriage does not oppress straight people in any way. It does not infringe on their religious freedoms. They are still free to believe what the choose and worship who they choose. Supporting gay marriage may offend them, but it does not take away any of their rights. Like I said earlier. Anyone who is offended by equal rights for for any minority deserves to be offended.

BNM

Okay, I'm done. It's clear that you do not understand what I'm debating, and I'm not going to try to continue to explain it. I'm just talking in circles while you continue to talk about why gay marriage is good, even after I said that's not what I'm contesting. Cheers.

 

[Boob-No-More]

I understand how you feel BNM. I really do. That's not what I'm debating at all. Is it wrong to deny people equal rights? Yes. Absolutely. 100%.

Then speaking out against those who wish to deny equal rights should never be wrong, whether you are an individual, a corporation, a church or a sports team. That's my stance. The Blazers did the right thing and I applaud them for it.

And for those who say they should focus on winning and not politics (not you Nate), do you really think anyone who has anything to do with the basketball side of operations, any of the coaches, players or the GM spent one second preparing this statement? Really. You do understand there are people specifically hired to work in the public relations department. Relating to the public IS there job, not drawing up player or drafting or trading for players. Sheesh, really? Talk about strawman...

BNM

 

[barfo]

I'm trying to have a respectful debate about the issue of involving politics in sports.
I for one do not want to talk about politics in sports.

Heh heh. Fun with quoting.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

"barf"o

 

[Boob-No-More]

Okay, I'm done. It's clear that you do not understand what I'm debating, and I'm not going to try to continue to explain it. I'm just talking in circles while you continue to talk about why gay marriage is good, even after I said that's not what I'm contesting. Cheers.

Oh, I understand completely what you're saying. You think the Blazers should sit on their hands and do nothing rather than risk annoying some people by doing the right thing and supporting equal rights for all law abiding citizens. I get it completely. You don't want the organization to have a conscience because it might alienate or annoy part of their fan base. I say too bad. Being right and being popular aren't always the same thing. Anyone who is annoyed or inconvenienced by the team supporting equal rights should take a long hard look in the mirror and ask themselves how they'd feel if their favorite sports team did not support their quest for equal treatment under the law.

BNM

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Oh, I understand completely what you're saying. You think the Blazers should sit on their hands and do nothing rather than risk annoying some people by doing the right thing and supporting equal rights for all law abiding citizens. I get it completely. You don't want the organization to have a conscience because it might alienate or annoy part of their fan base. I say too bad. Being right and being popular aren't always the same thing. Anyone who is annoyed or inconvenienced by the team supporting equal rights should take a long hard look in the mirror and ask themselves how they'd feel if their favorite sports team did not support their quest for equal treatment under the law.

BNM

seriously

 

[Denny Crane]

seriously

Most seriously.

 

[RR7]

Most seriously.

"This"

 

[Natebishop3]

Oh, I understand completely what you're saying. You think the Blazers should sit on their hands and do nothing rather than risk annoying some people by doing the right thing and supporting equal rights for all law abiding citizens. I get it completely. You don't want the organization to have a conscience because it might alienate or annoy part of their fan base. I say too bad. Being right and being popular aren't always the same thing. Anyone who is annoyed or inconvenienced by the team supporting equal rights should take a long hard look in the mirror and ask themselves how they'd feel if their favorite sports team did not support their quest for equal treatment under the law.

BNM

Don't make it out like the Blazers are the white knight who can charge in and save the day. There are plenty of organizations who support equal rights. Why can't the Blazers be doing the right thing by doing nothing? The Blazers serve a purpose. They are entertainers. It's not like there isn't anyone else is championing gay rights here, and let's not give them more credit than they deserve. Sly pointed out that the Timbers and Thorns were the first to support gay marriage, and only did the Blazers join in after the fact. It's pretty clear to me that the Blazers were facing a situation where they could either join in, or sit by and look bad for not doing anything. In this regard, we can give credit (or blame if that's how you feel) to the Timbers.

In your opinion, is there any organization that should remain apolitical?

I've said before that I think sports should be a unifier. It should be a place where everyone can go and enjoy some basketball without thinking about the troubles of the world. When you inject politics into sports, whether it's a great cause or not, it messes with that. Just my opinion.

 

[RR7]

Okay, I'm done.

[video=youtube;UPw-3e_pzqU]

 

[RR7]

all in good fun nate.

 

[julius]

Um . . . not the way "family" has been defined for thousands of years in every culture around the world.

So..what about the single parents out there? or the grandparents who are taking care of their grandkids? or aunts and uncles? or brothers or sisters who are caring for siblings?

I would bet there are FAR more families that fit the description above, than that of a gay marriage/have kids combo.

Yet, those aren't the way "family" has been defined for thousands of years in every culture around the world.

 

[julius]

crap..who did I quote when I said "family"?

Crap, I did it again..someone help me!

 

[RR7]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-b...me-first-nba-team-support-235350865--nba.html

In an era where the NBA appears most focused on increasing its market share both domestically and abroad, it's sometimes difficult to remember that each franchise represents a community. For many of these teams — particularly those in smaller markets — responsibilities include not just winning games and rewarding fan loyalty, but also broadcasting the character of a city to the rest of the country and world. A basketball fan in Miami, for instance, may only come to know Milwaukee through his experience of the Bucks. Profit typically comes first for every team in the league, but that doesn't mean that their civic duty is immaterial.

These factors factors help explain why, in rare cases, a team feels the need to make a political statement on behalf of its city and fans. During the 2010 NBA Playoffs, the Phoenix Suns spoke out against Arizona's controversial SB 1070 bill, which effectively allowed law enforcement officials to stop anyone on the suspicion of being an illegal immigrant. In their view, it was important enough to support their Latino fans and make a statement on behalf of equality in Arizona.

The Portland Trail Blazers have now made a similarly bold move. As activists in Oregon prepare to place a constitutional amendment in support of marriage equality on the November 2014 ballot, various Portland business and political organizations have thrown their support behind the measure. On Friday, Major League Soccer's Portland Timbers and the National Women's Soccer League's Portland Thorns FC voiced their endorsement of the efforts. Shortly thereafter, the Blazers became the first NBA team (and, although confirmation does not exist, likely the first team from one of the four major North American sports leagues) to support marriage equality and this prospective ballot measure. Here's their short statement:

“The Portland Trail Blazers are in support of the Freedom to Marry and Religious Protection ballot initiative. We do so as believers in individual choice as a fundamental right of all people.”
Although the statement consists of only 32 words and employs quasi-libertarian rhetoric rather than unabashedly liberal language, this is a bold statement. While the aftermath of Jason Collins's coming-out announcement in April changed the course of the NBA forever, the league retains many old prejudices in various forms. It's difficult to argue that Collins currently lacks an NBA job solely because of his sexual orientation, but that fact still plays into any team's consideration of whether he should be added to the roster. When an organization announces its support for marriage equality (or any LGBT cause), it speeds up the normalization of that behavior and creates a more open climate within an institution. With this announcement, the Blazers have told the world that they wish to be at the forefront of accepting gay and lesbian employees in the world of sports.

At the same time, it's perhaps best to view the statement in terms of Portland rather than of the NBA as a whole. The city conceives of itself as a haven for progressive-minded people. Its relationship with LGBTQ causes is strong, as well: when Sam Adams won election in 2008, it became the largest American city to elect a gay mayor. Despite the fact that the Blazers surely have fans who do not support marriage equality, it's absolutely the case that this announcement would be met more kindly in Portland than in most other NBA cities. In some way, the Blazers were able to make this statement because it broadly expresses the belief of the city they call home.

By this view, the Blazers have done little more than express an increasingly common sentiment in American society. If it's a bold statement in the context of sports, then it's worth wondering exactly why such barriers exist. Perhaps the Blazers, in making history in such simple fashion, have proven just how uncontroversial this issue can be under the right circumstances.

 

[e_blazer]

I'd say that the yahoo commentary is pretty much spot on.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-b...me-first-nba-team-support-235350865--nba.html

Wow, most of the comments are just vile and crude. What a bunch of homophobic losers.

 

[Shooter]

This whole idea of "equal rights" is misleading, and a classic example of the perversion of language. Who could possibly argue against "equal rights" for anyone? The same thing is done in the abortion argument when people talk about "women's choice." Who could possibly be against something so important as "choice"?

But when you elevate a woman's choice above everything else you overlook the fact that the child inside of her has no choice at all. And when you defend her right to do what she chooses with her own body, you're overlooking the fact that there is a separate body inside of her, and that she is taking life away from it. All of this is cloaked in the politically correct and sanctioned language that we use.

So it is in the gay marriage argument. Language has been so perverted that we don't even recognize it anymore. There is nothing intrinsically "gay" about homosexuality, and it 's not a natural "right" for homosexuals to marry. No one is advocating that brothers and sisters should be able to marry, or that parents should be able to marry their children, or that grandparents should be able to marry their grandchildren. So why is it a natural right of homosexuals?

As a society we are moving in a dangerous direction. The perversion of language is part of a larger perversion all around us.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

This whole idea of "equal rights" is misleading, and a classic example of the perversion of language. Who could possibly argue against "equal rights" for anyone? The same thing is done in the abortion argument when people talk about "women's choice." Who could possibly be against something so important as "choice"?

But when you elevate a woman's choice above everything else you overlook the fact that the child inside of her has no choice at all. And when you defend her right to do what she chooses with her own body, you're overlooking the fact that there is a separate body inside of her, and that she is taking life away from it. All of this is cloaked in the politically correct and sanctioned language that we use.

So it is in the gay marriage argument. Language has been so perverted that we don't even recognize it anymore. There is nothing intrinsically "gay" about homosexuality, and it 's not a natural "right" for homosexuals to marry. No one is advocating that brothers and sisters should be able to marry, or that parents should be able to marry their children, or that grandparents should be able to marry their grandchildren. So why is it a natural right of homosexuals?

As a society we are moving in a dangerous direction. The perversion of language is part of a larger perversion all around us.

Wow, so you equate same sex marriage with abortion and incest. Now that is a perversion of language.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Isn't incest just two humans making a choice for love?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Isn't incest just two humans making a choice for love?

Incest is cool in the bible, I don't know why anyone would have a problem with it.

 

[Shooter]

So..what about the single parents out there? or the grandparents who are taking care of their grandkids? or aunts and uncles? or brothers or sisters who are caring for siblings?

I would bet there are FAR more families that fit the description above, than that of a gay marriage/have kids combo.

Yet, those aren't the way "family" has been defined for thousands of years in every culture around the world.

And in what culture in the history of mankind has the word "family" been used to describe the union of two homosexuals? Please provide examples.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Why a straight person would care enough to oppose it is telling of deeper sexual issues. Like super deep

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Deep as fuck

 

[Shooter]

Wow, so you equate same sex marriage with abortion and incest. Now that is a perversion of language.

Wow. You completely missed the point.

 

[julius]

This whole idea of "equal rights" is misleading, and a classic example of the perversion of language. Who could possibly argue against "equal rights" for anyone? The same thing is done in the abortion argument when people talk about "women's choice." Who could possibly be against something so important as "choice"?

But when you elevate a woman's choice above everything else you overlook the fact that the child inside of her has no choice at all.

That is true. But at the same time, in the case where the health of the baby or the mother is in jeopardy, I think it's a choice she has to be the one who makes, not you or me.


AND since I don't agree with abortion as a form of birth control (I personally don't know what the #'s bore out to be with that though), I agree with what you're getting at.

And when you defend her right to do what she chooses with her own body, you're overlooking the fact that there is a separate body inside of her, and that she is taking life away from it. All of this is cloaked in the politically correct and sanctioned language that we use.

Very true. However, it's charged no matter what side you are on. I would rather give up a child for adoption (if the health of the child or the mother wasn't in jeopardy, and for some reason she/we decided not to keep the child as our own..but that goes against my personal belief that if I'm mature enough to do the act, I'm mature enough to be a parent).

So it is in the gay marriage argument. Language has been so perverted that we don't even recognize it anymore. There is nothing intrinsically "gay" about homosexuality, and it 's not a natural "right" for homosexuals to marry.

Not sure it's really anyones "naturual right" to get married then.

No one is advocating that brothers and sisters should be able to marry, or that parents should be able to marry their children, or that grandparents should be able to marry their grandchildren. So why is it a natural right of homosexuals?

Because, for starters, we're talking consenting adults, who are not wanting to have a sexual relationship with someone who they are related to. Being gay is not the same as being sexually attracted to your own family members. That IS an illness/perversion.

As a society we are moving in a dangerous direction. The perversion of language is part of a larger perversion all around us.

I'm not sure if I'd consider it a dangerous direction. Maybe one you're uncomfortable with, sure. I get that, and respect it. But it's a direction where people are afforded legal, and financial equality. Should a couple, who have been living together for say...50 years, not be given the same rights as two other people who have been living together for the same period of time, but were straight?

It really boils down to this. Marriage comes with rights. If my dad dies before my mom dies (they own their own house), she gets it. She gets his assets, his retirement/401K, a portion of his social security (I don't remember how much, but it's more than what she's making with her SS). She has the right to make decisions on his behalf if he's lying in hospital bed, dying.

But if it was my dad and my other dad, he wouldn't get it IF one of my siblings (or I) decided to contend that they aren't married to each other, so we should get his assets. He wouldn't be able to make decisions on my fathers behalf, or get his retirement/social security, etc.

Are there ways around it? Sure. You can place items in the name of someone else, but why shouldn't they just have the same legal equality as straight people/couples do?

Don't like gay people? So what. Two women getting married, or two men getting married, doesn't have any impact on the validity of your marriage, or what it means to get married.


I appreciate that you had a really well thought out and productive response shooter. After the flustercuck we had a few weeks ago, I forgot what it's like. repped