Wednesday, June 12, 2013




Athletes’ remarks about homosexuality are often overstated

Following the Indiana Pacers’ Game 6 victory in the NBA Eastern Conference Finals on June 1, star center Roy Hibbert made comments that many people deemed offensive.

When asked about assisting teammate Paul George with guarding Miami Heat superstar LeBron James, according to Yahoo! Sports, Hibbert said, “I really felt that I let Paul down in terms of having his back when LeBron was scoring in the post or getting to the paint, because they stretched me out so much. No homo.”

“No homo” is a slang expression used prominently in mainstream rap music and by young American males as a way of distancing themselves from words or actions that could be viewed as homosexual.

After he released what appears to be a sincere apology, Hibbert was fined $75,000 and is receiving harsh criticism from members of the media, league officials and fans alike, according to Yahoo! Sports.

While I cannot begin to understand how hurtful homophobic slurs can be to members of the gay community, I believe categorizing Hibbert as a homophobic villain is overkill. The comments were certainly in poor taste and as someone in the spotlight, Hibbert should have known that joking about such a sensitive topic would not be warmly received.

But to me, Hibbert’s “no homo” statement was nothing more than an off-color joke and clearly does not reflect his genuine beliefs with regard to homosexual lifestyle. Sure, he should have to accept the consequences, but there is simply no reason to villainize someone for making an off-the-cuff joke after winning the biggest game of his life.

Source


9 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Homosexual lifestyle"? It suggests a casual fad like the "Hippy lifestyle". Homosexuality is ingrained re the whole personality of a genuine homosexual. Bi-sexuality may just reflect a spectrum of sexuality along which length everyone ends up - anywhere from 100% homo to 100% hetero, according to a mixture of genetic and environmental variables.

Anonymous said...

Along with suppressing things like free speech, thought, and opinion, political correctness has also managed to make a sense of humor taboo unless it's been pre-approved.

It reminds us of just how much abuse people will tolerate, especially from gays who demand total tolerance from everyone.

Anonymous said...

Political correctness knows. No bounds. Liberals preach "tolerance" but don't practice it. Everything they disagree with is either "racist" or "hate" speech.

Anonymous said...

Quite right Anon 12;30. All the more reason for everyone to see those terms as irrelevant.

Stefan v said...

Hmmm, does anyone remember the Monty Python sketch where Cleese and his fellow subversives played a bunch of Aussie academics? They were all called Bruce and guzzled Fosters (shows the British lack of understanding of Oz culture, seeing as how Fosters is popular the world around except in OZ, but I digress). The "professors" in their corked Akubras were welcoming a new faculty member, and Cleese was reading the campus rules. Just about every rule was "No Poofters!". Look it up on Utoob if it's still there...and consider what a mauling a red comedy troupe would get these days if they dared such a stunt. I actually like the skit, in a way...

Anonymous said...

Surely the skit about "No Poofters!" was satirizing the image then of Australians as being what is now called homophobic. Using Fosters beer corresponded to the adverts shown in the UK that it was a typical Australian beer drunk by the stereotypical macho types (the equivalent of rednecks).

Stefan v said...

Yes, as I said, MP were red subversives...that skit was an example of the cultural warfare they waged. Times have changed now, because there is so much less of the former somewhat healthier civilisation to attack. Now their tactic is consolidation, and mopping up isolated resistance. It means reinforcing the synthesis that has been achieved and introducing a fresh antithesis to provoke yet another synthesis. Hegel's diabolical nonsense at work. We need wisdom to discern between true conservatism that upholds righteousness and moral absolutes, and the false kind that merely defends past gains of the subversive spirit. The new borders of perversion are bestiality, necophilia and paedophilia...in time they too will fall and there's not really much else left, or is there? The mind boggles. Similarly, we are now seeing euthanasia being extended to children here in the enlightened EU. Where will the satanic "do what thou wilt" doctrine end? Without God's imminent intervention, there is no depravity beyond the ability and ambition of human evil. Getting back to the thread topic and some application.....we need to be aware of when we are baited into defending an untenable position, and beware of trying to reverse old defeats or re-winning old victories that aren't being fought. Instead of denying or justifying "homophobia", refuse the label altogether. MP would not be able to make such a skit today, because it would remind too many people that the poofs were once a reviled minority and that they STILL ARE and ALWAYS WILL BE a minority...it is the perception and expression of natural revulsion of a filthy behaviour that they have seized and suppressed. Everyone knows it's wrong but we're being brainwashed into speaking good of it and incriminating ourselves by doing so. Repeat a lie often enough and one begins to believe it, but it will bever be actual Truth. We need to turn the perverts' weapons back on them. Intead of capitulating to false shame and the nebulous public opinion of an imaginary hypothetical "public", stick to the solid ground of established Divine decree....Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman, it is abomination. End of story. Sure, they'll kill some of us for saying it, but there is a far worse fate than merely having your soul temporarily parted from your body, by those who are also mere mortals subject to the same unbreakable rule. Fear God! Dare to be a "Bruce" and say plainly "No Poofters!", and be neither ashamed nor proud of it, rather fear lest you also fall into deception. Let the heathen rage, it's all BS....don't interfere with your enemy when he is digging his own grave, and don't put on the fool's cap he offers you. Let him wear it, it suits him.

Stefan v said...

p.s. to my previous reply...due to limitations of post size

Note to the so called atheists:....there is no such thing as a moral argument without an Ultimate Authority to define what right and wrong is, let alone how to recognise their various manifestations. If you maintain there is no such Authority, you are out of the race and have self-excluded from any discussion of right and wrong, and are displaying your hypocrisy with any utterance on the subject at all. If however you declare yourself to be Right and your opponent Wrong, you are elevating yourself to Authority and had better show proof of your divinity. Good luck with that, it's a tough act to follow. If you take the only other alternative and declare yourself Wrong and your opponent Right, you are self condemned. There isn't a middle ground in that particular metaphysical argument....and I hope you're honest enough to admit it at least to yourself. If not, I await your pitchfork and gallows; I'll still be me after you're done and you'll still be you, because Someone Else determines that. Scary stuff, but it's what we're really arguing about when we ponder the puzzling and perturbing events of our time. God is Right and we are Wrong. Praise and thank Him if He has set your path aright, and tremble if He has passed you by...He isn't obliged to do either and can and will do as He pleases. Just wanted to make sure you don't assume I'm automatically on your side if you claim to oppose sexual immorality yet try to deny the One that set the standards and gave us the equipment to begin with.

Anonymous said...

Stefan. Thank you for your sermon. However, the only meaningful authority in practice is that which is recognized by people and the laws which society upholds. Divine law is one thing for Christians, one thing for Jews, one thing for Muslims, Hindus, etc.etc. and not all can be the law of an ultimate divinity, much less a universal law for all humanity. If there is a devine or objective morality, it is plainly not universally recognized nor ever can be in practice, and the only practical morality is that which the law of any country or society establishes for itself, or which an individual is able to exercise in conscience.