Footballer the latest celeb victim of militant homosexual outrage
Must not imply that anyone is a homosexual, apparently. What happened to "gay pride"?
"As Larry Johnson nears the Kansas City Chiefs' all-time rushing record, more than 10,000 fans have signed an online petition pleading for team officials to deactivate the running back after he posted homosexual slurs on his Twitter account.
The petition — which has garnered 10,716 signatures as of early Thursday — calls on general manager Scott Pioli to act before Johnson, 29, surpasses running back Priest Holmes for the team rushing record...
Johnson, a former Pro Bowler, was suspended late last month for conduct detrimental to the team after he questioned coach Todd Haley's qualifications and posted two homosexual slurs on his Twitter account, including one in which he called another user a "Christopher street boy," an apparent reference to New York City's Christopher Street, which is synonymous with the city's gay-pride movement....
Bob Moore, director of public relations for the Chiefs, said the team would not comment on the petition. Johnson will return to the team next week following his suspension and $315,000 penalty. "He's due to come back next Monday," Moore said.
Through a spokesman, Johnson apologized for the incident on Oct. 22. "I regret my actions," he said. "The words were used by me in frustration, and they were not appropriate. I did not intend to offend anyone, but that is no excuse for what I said."
Despite the apology, Kansas City fans [or their impersonators] are still calling for Johnson's helmet.
Source
The claim to have 10,000 signatures could well reduce to a few hundred activists using aliases
29 comments:
The Kansas City Chiefs suck. Go Broncos.
I feel no sympathy, if Larry Johnson had been white and decided to call someone a nigger on Twitter, the reaction could have been 100 times worse.
Athletes are overpaid employees, their behavior reflects on their companies. If they beat one of their ho's, if they post a picture of themselves with drugs, if they tweet something offensive, it reflects on the companies they work for.
Frankly, I'm glad that negro is getting what he deserves. Blacks are always bitching about being discriminated against yet they have no trouble putting down others in the most public ways.
I don't know why John Ray is so against gays, gays are nothing like blacks.
I guess statistics (like numbers of reported complaints) are suspect if it doesn't support your views and prejudices but good evidence when it does. Damn statistics!
I don't know why John Ray is so against gays, gays are nothing like blacks....you're right Garry, blacks don't get to choose their skin color but homosexuals and everyone for that matter, get to choose who or what they have sex with. It is a deviant lifestyle and that's simply the truth.
If Larry Johnson had been white and called someone a "nigger" on Twitter, one could count on his black teammates arranging retaliation against him. His blockers could just do a slipshod job of blocking on plays he is to get the ball. Black defenders would have extra motivation to hit him harder, perhaps even willing to take a penalty to do so. The players could very easily take care of any racism within the game. They could let their actions speak loudly.
One other thing here.....
John Ray has missed a good portion of this story. People don't want Johnson on the team or breaking a rushing record because not only the comments about gays, but the fact that since 2003, he has had 4 arrests and charges for domestic abuse.
Johnson has a lot of problems with a lot of people and the fans of the Chiefs would rather see him gone than be in their record boods.
Gary makes some very good (and accurate) points, although i'm a bit confused on how gay couples have babies. I guess he means when they buy babies, like the folks out in Commiewood have been doing?
Anyway, i couldn't care less about sports figures and their problems. What truly amazes me is how all these fools continue to put their lives out there on public places like Facebook, Utube, Tweeter, Twitter, Twatter, or whatever they call that crap. I mean, you put your personal stuff out there, don't you think people are gonna find it? DUH!!
Gay couples aren't necessarily sterile! They can have their own children from previous hetero marriages or relationships. Or by surrogate fathers if lesbian (a male friend or sperm bank). Or gay couples of opposite sexes can have children together if they want a family.
I'm not against homosexuals. I am against giving homsexuals a position of privilege, however and I certainly don't think it should be promoted to children -- as it is an unhealthy lifestyle
And people should be free to say what they like about it without being persecuted for it
"Persecuted"? - you mean like homosexuals have been for generations? "Priviliged"? - humbug!
JAMMING
The Militant Gay Hate Groups (MGHGs) are using their typical ploy of character assasination with a bonus petition that reads, in part, "Please do not let his name sit atop the all-time rushing leaders in Kansas City Chiefs history. He needs a mere 80 yards to surpass Priest. He doesn't deserve that opportunity."
Note the objective of jamming is to "show them as being criticized, hated, and shunned," according to the book, After the Ball (Kirk and Madsen, p. 150-153).
The paragraph reads:
"Jamming (heterosexuals) is more active and aggressive than desensitization: by the same token it is also more enjoyable and heartening (to homosexuals). Jamming makes use of the rule of associative conditioning (according to the authors)--the psychological process whereby when two things are repeatedly juxtaposed--one's feelings about one are transferred to the other. An incompatible emotional response is directed to make people feel shame when they perceive that they are not feeling, thinking, or acting like one of the pack [the homosexual pack]. The trick is to get the average heterosexual into the position of feeling a twinge of shame so that, via repeated exposure to pictorial images or verbal statements, any thinking or expression as regards the abnormality of homosexuality--will come to be incompatible with his inner image as a well-liked person--one who fits in with the rest of the crowd. Thus propagandistic advertising can depict all opponents of the gay movement as homophobic bigots who are 'not Christian' and the propaganda can further show them as being criticized, hated, and shunned (Kirk and Madsen, p. 150-153)."
Sometimes it backfires.
When I was jammed, it did little more than drive up my web hits.
Oh that's right - don't feel empathy for anyone (using the last poster's confused psycho-babble)- just love your hate!
And re previous posts - all children are in effect "victims" of who raised them!
Why do gays care what larry johnson has to say?
Who the heck gets so upset that a football player offends them that they take the time to start up a petition calling for his firing.
Time and effort better spent elsewhere....
~darko
People have the right to read into this more than there is, but to say that not wanting Larry Johnson to be the Chiefs all time leading rusher simply because of some homosexual slurs is a gross distortion.
Johnson has a criminal record of domestic abuse and assault. He has insulted the fans of the Chiefs. He has made statements that the coaches are incompetent and not worthy of their positions. He has constantly criticized the organization and his teammates.
The final straw was a series of tweets in which he made some homosexual slurs as well as statements critical of the Chiefs.
This guy's actions are in stark contrast to those of the current record holder, Priest Holmes. Holmes was a 3 time All Pro and Pro Bowler. He was the NFL Player of the year. His charity foundation is recognized as one of the best in the country.
To have the records of Priest Holmes eclipsed by some moron like Larry Johnson is like having Ronald McDonald replaced by John Wayne Gacy.
To say that this petition is only about the homosexual slurs is a distortion of the truth and a statement made in ignorance.
As a side note, the Chiefs have released Johnson. He will not get the record. Comments made in KC by talk radio, writers and fans indicate that they all feel good riddance to Johnson.
John,
This has to be one of your all-time best posts.
Expect the gaysters to pile on you (figurative speaking, of course) for exposing their childish crap.
Keep up the good work!!!!
-- Charlie
1989 - Salman Rushdie was condemned (jammed) by militant Muslims for unacceptable speech.
2002 - Andrew "Dice" Clay Silverstein is condemned (jammed) by militant gays for unacceptable speech.
2005 - Jyllands-Posten Dutch newspaper is condemned (jammed) by militant Muslims for unacceptable speech.
2009 - Larry Johnson was condemned by militant gays for speaking his mind.
Seems the militant gays and militant Muslims have something in common: Mutual hatred for anyone who doesn't agree with them.
"Gary makes some very good (and accurate) points."
---Thanks Annonymous, I try.
And for the record I'm not interested in seeing Larry Johnson fired although I do believe in free speech which includes the right to set up petitions and pressure people to do your bidding.
And let's all remember that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. When blacks behave badly they need to be treated just like whites.
Being black is not a choice but being an asshole is.
Looks like you guys got your wish. Larry was fired today.
When the day comes that two people of the same sex can have a child together, "naturally", i will then change my position on same-sex marriage.
Who cares what your position is?
7:08 AM - please don't confuse Dutch and Danish!
Speaking of Danish . . .
The Danish Experience
In Denmark, a form of homosexual marriage has been legal since 1989
. Through 1995, less than 5% of Danish homosexuals had gotten married, and 28% of these marriages had already ended in divorce or death.(12)
The Danish experience provides no evidence that gay 'marriage' is baneficial. Men who married men were three times more apt to be widowers before the age of 55 than men who married women! Similarly, a woman who married a woman was three times more apt to be a widow than a woman who married a man."
- Dr. Paul Cameron
http://www.narth.com/docs/journalsummary.html
The American Psychological Association (APA) and other mental health organizations have objected to providing psychological care to those who are distressed by unwanted homosexual attractions2 on a number of grounds. These objections include scientifically unsupportable claims that:
There is no conclusive or convincing evidence that sexual orientation may be changed through reorientation therapy.
Efforts to change sexual orientation are shown to be harmful and can lead to greater self-hatred, depression, and other self-destructive behaviors.
There is no greater pathology in the homosexual population than in the general population.
In What Research Shows, we offer a landscape review of more than one hundred years of experiential evidence, clinical studies, and research studies that demonstrate that it is possible for men and women to diminish their unwanted homosexual attractions and develop their heterosexual potential; that efforts to change unwanted homosexual attractions are not generally harmful; and that homosexual men and women do indeed have substantially greater experiences of and risk factors for medical, psychological and relational pathology than do the general population. Based on our review of 600 reports of clinicians, researchers, and former clients—primarily from professional and peer-reviewed scientific journals, we conclude that reorientation treatment has been helpful to many and should continue to be available to those who seek it. Further, mental health professionals competent to provide such care ethically may do so.
I. There is substantial evidence that sexual orientation may be changed through reorientation therapy.
II. Efforts to change sexual orientation have not been shown to be consistently harmful or to regularly lead to greater self-hatred, depression, and other self-destructive behaviors.
III. There is significantly greater medical, psychological, and relational pathology in the homosexual population than the general population.
Conclusion:
In What Research Shows, over a century of experiential evidence, clinical reports, and research evidence demonstrate that it is possible for both men and women to change from homosexuality to heterosexuality; that efforts to change are not generally harmful; and that homosexual men and women do indeed have greater risk factors for medical, psychological and relational pathology than do the general population.
It's easier to just hang them.
Gary makes several great points about how in so many ways gays would make much more pleasant neighbors than most blacks. I believe it was Oprah who once said something along the lines of "Excellence conquers bigotry." Gay neighbors who keep their property neat and tidy would indeed be an asset for a neighborhood. They can practice their lifestyle behind closed doors and closed curtains, and few if any will care about it.
The big problem comes from what someone called the Militant Gay Hate Groups. I take that to mean the gays who aren't content to practice their lifestyle in private, but seem to want to force exposure to it on everybody else, whether others want to see it or not. That's what really stirs up big-time offense among the vast heterosexual majority, and gives so many gays a bad name in their eyes. The members of the MGHG's would undoubtedly also be the ones who want to get government-backed same-sex marriage, the highest form of social approval imaginable. As a column by Frank Turek said:
Once they get that legal and social approval, no one disagreeing with them will be safe. Schools, businesses, churches, and charities will be bludgeoned with threats and lawsuits until they abandon their convictions and agree to promote what is pleasantly called “diversity.” Ironically, the only view allowed by the coming diversity police is the narrow view that you must celebrate homosexuality. No other view will be tolerated.
And it's the MGHG's that want to violate the vast majority's right to their own conscience with forced moral approval, and not tolerating mere tolerance. One only has to look at what the MGHG's have done in Massachusetts to know their plans for any other place that takes the bait. And the predatory tactics of the MGHG's don't even consider the deleterious domino effects of cheapening marriage by reducing it to mere coupling. So while a gay neighbor who keeps his place tidy, and perhaps even helps revitalize a neighborhood through hard work, and keeps his lifestyle out of public view, should find himself welcome most anywhere, the members of the Militant Gay Hate Groups that get in your face are about as welcome as a fly constantly buzzing right in front of your face. And they provoke similar hostility.
Robert nails it!
Militant Gay Hate Group open advocates violence on web site to achieve equality.
Someone needs to report this to the FBI, Dept of Homeland Security, NSA!!!
READ THE COMMENTS:
http://www.bilerico.com/2009/11/is_violence_inevitable_in_our_fight_for_equality.php
Well if you believe in free speech you just have to put up with "militant" groups, but action can be taken against them if they specifically incite violence. It was probably annoying to a lot of people when women campaigned aggressively for votes and other equal rights, and when "blacks" did the same.
When women and blacks campaigned aggressively for equal rights, it may indeed have made some uncomfortable. But note that they were campaigning for exactly the same rights as human beings that men and whites had, not additional special factional privileges aimed at government-endorsed supremacy.
Post a Comment