Other athletes line up to support Kluwe, Ayanbadejo brief on marriage equality

[NaTaS+ 958]

via PFT

 

 

Last month, Vikings punter Chris Kluwe and Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejosubmitted a legal brief regarding the issue of same-sex marriage.

 

This month, plenty of other athletes are lining up to support the effort to overturn California’s ban on persons of the same gender legally marrying.

 

Those joining the cause include free-agent linebacker Scott Fujita, Eagles linebacker Connor Barwin, NFLPA president Dominique Foxworth, free-agent tackle Eric Winston, Browns center Alex Mack, Browns linebacker Chris Gocong, Browns linebacker D’Qwell Jackson, Bears punter Adam Podlesh, and free-agent linebacker Scott Shanle. The brief also is being supported by NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith.

 

“Brendon and I have emphasized all along that athletes have a special message when it comes to welcoming others as friends and teammates, without regard for their sexual orientation — we’ve made that point before in some unique ways, and we felt we had a special perspective to offer the Court in a very serious case about equality,” Kluwe said in a press release.

 

Next Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will entertain arguments on the question of whether the ban on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution.

 

 

 

 

Love to see my Browns out supporting this. I know the gym I work out in has gay dudes in it, doesnt bother me any. At some point in history we're going to look back at this era and laugh at how odd it was that people cared about sexual orientation.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

If you are a straight guy and are worried about gay dudes there are two reasons. You are dumb, or you secretly are afraid dicks are delicious.

[RazorStar 4,025]

They taste salty. Surprise.

[RANGA+ 1,210]

Great to see this happening.

 

It's kinda funny actually; there was this bitch the other day talking about how she is against gay marriage because she is a supporter of "traditional values" and "traditional marriage". So I asked her whether she also supported "traditional democracy", where women weren't allowed to vote, and "traditional education", where children were segregated based on skin colour. She couldn't come up with a response lol...

[Glanvilles Grits 142]

Love seeing this. Being someone that has gay friends, I think it's a great thing - both for the sport, and for the world in general that people are standing up for what they believe in. If you have a problem with how or who someone else loves, then it obviously shows you're insecure with yourself. It's not anyones business.

 

A lot of people that are against equality are simply compensating for the fact that they believe every gay man or women is attracted to them, just because they are gay. That's not how it works. Generally, if someone is gay, and you aren't, they aren't going to be attracted to you. Not sure what NFL Players don't get about that. Bunch of insecure jock straps if you ask me.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

Love seeing this. Being someone that has gay friends, I think it's a great thing - both for the sport, and for the world in general that people are standing up for what they believe in. If you have a problem with how or who someone else loves, then it obviously shows you're insecure with yourself. It's not anyones business.

 

A lot of people that are against equality are simply compensating for the fact that they believe every gay man or women is attracted to them, just because they are gay. That's not how it works. Generally, if someone is gay, and you aren't, they aren't going to be attracted to you. Not sure what NFL Players don't get about that. Bunch of insecure jock straps if you ask me.

 

 

Not gonna turn this into another one of "those threads" but I think this is one of the most narrow-minded opinion I've seen in a while.

 

That's really it?

 

So, if you were bought up being taught that it's wrong, you wouldn't have a problem with it?

 

If the culture you were bought up in is against it you wouldn't/shouldn't have a problem against it?

 

If your religion is against it, you wouldn't have a problem against it?

[SteelersNation36 128]

Not gonna turn this into another one of "those threads" but I think this is one of the most narrow-minded opinion I've seen in a while.

 

That's really it?

 

So, if you were bought up being taught that it's wrong, you wouldn't have a problem with it?

 

If the culture you were bought up in is against it you wouldn't/shouldn't have a problem against it?

 

If your religion is against it, you wouldn't have a problem against it?

 

 

I was a Jehovah's Witness for the first 16 or 17 years of my life and one of their teachings is that homosexuality is wrong but I don't care who people want to love or marry. I don't think it's wrong. There's better things to be worrying about than who is marrying who. I'm not saying I agree with the reasoning rain man gave.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Oh boy! Here we go again!

[Sarge+ 3,436]

It's absolutely ridiculous that people feel the need to care enough about who someone wants to marry to try to prevent it. My logic has always been this: There are gay people who want to get married. They aren't asking for everyone to be gay, so your rights aren't being infringed upon, although theirs are. I believe we were endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Gays want to get married. It would make them happy to be married, and it wouldn't affect anyone outside the marriage at all. Religion/morals have no place deciding the laws that everyone should abide by.

 

Don't believe in gay marriage? Fine. Nobody is forcing you to get married to a gay person, and you have the choice whether or not you want to love someone of the same sex. Sounds pretty straightforward, no?

 

This pic should be drilled into the minds of everyone until they finally get over their self-righteous, religion-influenced views of the world and stop acting as if everyone should live their lives the same way.

 

Edited March 24, 2013 by Sarge

[SteelersNation36 128]

But this book says it's naughty.

[OSUViking 505]

I still laugh when people bring up "conserving family values" as a reason to forbid gay marriage. That definitely explains the ridiculous divorce rates. What is that rate btw? Like 50%? Yeah; let's conserve the "family values" that include two people obviously not loving each other getting married (cough cough KIM KARDASHIAN) and the divorce rates. Great family values there.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Yeah, everything that could ever be said about gay marriage boils down to Sarge's point vs Dmac's point.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Not gonna turn this into another one of "those threads" but I think this is one of the most narrow-minded opinion I've seen in a while.

 

That's really it?

 

So, if you were bought up being taught that it's wrong, you wouldn't have a problem with it?

 

If the culture you were bought up in is against it you wouldn't/shouldn't have a problem against it?

 

If your religion is against it, you wouldn't have a problem against it?

 

Edit.

Edited March 24, 2013 by Ngata_Chance

[NaTaS+ 958]

Not gonna turn this into another one of "those threads" but I think this is one of the most narrow-minded opinion I've seen in a while.

 

That's really it?

 

So, if you were bought up being taught that it's wrong, you wouldn't have a problem with it?

 

If the culture you were bought up in is against it you wouldn't/shouldn't have a problem against it?

 

If your religion is against it, you wouldn't have a problem against it?

 

I know there were plenty of folks that were brought up to think niggers mixing with white folks was wrong. I know there were plenty of folks that were brought up in a culture that thought niggers were less than human.

 

Who was more narrow-minded? The people that sought equality or the people that thought blacks were animals?

 

Remember, it's all perception here. I know this argument has been made before and it seems so crystal clear to me. I know internet arguments usually do not end in changing another's opinion, rather it usually ends up strengthening it. I just needed to respond for my own sake .

 

Those that know me know that I do not use the word "nigger", I added it to make a point.

[BwareDWare94 723]

You can oppose the practice all you want, but you cannot use your religion/culture/whateverthefuck to form the general basis of a belief that denies the rights of other individuals. I'm sorry, but it is that black and white; you can oppose the practice of homosexuality, but you have no right to withhold basic human rights from homosexuals.

[OSUViking 505]

I also hope we push for more than just civil unions. Civil unions literally scream "separate but equal", and why states and cities think that concept is still acceptable is beyond me.

 

EDIT: I ran into someone on FB who claims that giving gays the right to marry is discriminatory toward straights. He also claims that the right for gays to marry is a "manufactured right" that doesn't exist and never should.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Vikingfan465

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

I know there were plenty of folks that were brought up to think niggers mixing with white folks was wrong. I know there were plenty of folks that were brought up in a culture that thought niggers were less than human.

 

Who was more narrow-minded? The people that sought equality or the people that thought blacks were animals?

 

Remember, it's all perception here. I know this argument has been made before and it seems so crystal clear to me. I know internet arguments usually do not end in changing another's opinion, rather it usually ends up strengthening it. I just needed to respond for my own sake .

 

Those that know me know that I do not use the word "nigger", I added it to make a point.

 

Except I'm not even talking about whether it's narrow-minded, or right or wrong to be bought up/taught that way.

 

I'm talking about this mindset that people would only appose something like this, or be completely against it if they were "scared of homosexuals" or "insecure about their own sexuality". It's extremely ignorant.

 

It completely throws out the fact that there are multiple cultures around the world, multiple religions around the world where homosexuality is looked down upon, and that all sorts of people have been taught this.

Edited March 25, 2013 by DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F

[OSUViking 505]

Some countries take persecution of gays beyond denying them the same rights as straights or just cultural persecution. Some countries imprison gays. Hell, some countries execute gays. Is all of this justified because their cultures say that homosexuality is wrong?

[Guest Phailadelphia]

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Except I'm not even talking about whether it's narrow-minded, or right or wrong to be bought up/taught that way.

 

I'm talking about this mindset that people would only appose something like this, or be completely against it if they were "scared of homosexuals" or "insecure about their own sexuality". It's extremely ignorant.

 

It completely throws out the fact that there are multiple cultures around the world, multiple religions around the world where homosexuality is looked down upon, and that all sorts of people have been taught this.

 

I think it is more to the point that if you are indeed brought up that way it does not make it an less wrong.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

It completely throws out the fact that there are multiple cultures around the world, multiple religions around the world where homosexuality is looked down upon, and that all sorts of people have been taught this.

 

That doesn't make it right.

[Thanatos 2,847]

You guys are entirely missing Dmac's point, which is simple: there are reasons other than their own insecurities for why people are against homosexuals being allowed to marry.

 

He's not making a claim as to the rightness or wrongness of that reason, merely that Rain Man's statement is factually incorrect.

 

*snip*

 

Take the abortion one out of there, and then yeah. But standing up against abortion is not taking away someone else's rights, it's defending those who can't defend themselves.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Thanatos19

[OSUViking 505]

Oh... my bad Dmac I read your post wrong.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

You guys are entirely missing Dmac's point, which is simple: there are reasons other than their own insecurities for why people are against homosexuals being allowed to marry.

 

He's not making a claim as to the rightness or wrongness of that reason, merely that Rain Man's statement is factually incorrect.

 

 

 

Take the abortion one out of there, and then yeah. But standing up against abortion is not taking away someone else's rights, it's defending those who can't defend themselves.

 

You're right and wrong imo.

 

Gay rights is not taking their rights away. Truth. They never had them so by a technicality you are right.

 

I think You are wrong as to imply that there is a difference. A baby can not defend itself from the Doctor. The gay community can not protect themselves from government oppression and public ridicule.

 

Every time we say we are taking their rights away it is a fallacy. You have to be given rights for them to be taken away. We should try that and then if the world does not magically blow up from God's vengeance against us godless heathens who think people should live their lives how they see fit as long as it hurts nobody, then leave it alone. If it does than everybody who thinks that we are gay loving hippies and the gay community themselves will be gone and the rest will inherit the earth so then people are free to outlaw and cripple individual freedom any way they see fit.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Ngata_Chance

[Thanatos 2,847]

You're right and wrong imo.

 

Gay rights is not taking their rights away. Truth. They never had them so by a technicality you are right.

 

I think You are wrong as to imply that there is a difference. A baby can not defend itself from the Doctor. The gay community can not protect themselves from government oppression and public ridicule.

 

Every time we say we are taking their rights away it is a fallacy. You have to be given rights for them to be taken away. We should try that and then if the world does not magically blow up from God's vengeance against us godless heathens who think people should live their lives how they see fit as long as it hurts nobody, then leave it alone. If it does than everybody who thinks that we are gay loving hippies and the gay community themselves will be gone and the rest will inherit the earth so then people are free to outlaw and cripple individual freedom any way they see fit.

 

I think you misread my post. I'm agreeing with Sarge's sign, with the exception of abortion, which I don't see as taking away someone's rights, (except for that child's rights that were just ignored when it was killed), but rather defending the innocent. Abortion is out of place on there. The difference being, the rest of them do not harm another human being in any way.

 

I don't think the Feds have any business telling people who they can and cannot marry, unless there is a secular, practical reason for it. Basing it on religious ones is going down a path that can lead to lots of abuses.