Thursday, March 04, 2010



NCAA Officials Cave to Homosexual Activists



We read:
"Celebrate Family. Celebrate Life. Unless, that is, you’re involved with the National Collegiate Athletic Association. According to the American Family Association, officials with the NCAA pulled a Focus on the Family advertisement containing that message from the organization’s web site recently after homosexual activists complained.

This Focus on the Family ad, believe it or not, has been yanked off the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) website for one simple reason: Focus on the Family supports natural marriage, believing that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

The NCAA, who apparently believes only in selective diversity – “Christians need not apply” – has censored this ad after homosexual activists complained.

Look at the message again. By scrubbing this ad, is the NCAA saying we want our sons to grow up knowing how to do the wrong thing? With the number of NCAA athletes who get in trouble with the law every week, you’d think the NCAA would enthusiastically support a message which urges fathers to be great role models for their sons and athletes-to-be.

Source

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

When a nation reaches the point where the majority are ruled by a minority, a minority that forces it's will on the people, that nation is finished.

mister SchmoeI said...

Well anon 1, nations such as UK, US and Canada is all ready done for.
Pretty soon people will demand the right to kill people, just out of sheer entertainment

Bobby said...

The NCAA has the right to reject advertising by anyone. In fact, nobody has the right to advertise, I should know, advertising is a paid privilege between the a company and a communications medium. The first amendment protects free speech, not paid speech. Try advertising condoms before 10pm (the indecency hour) and see if you don't get into trouble.

According to The New York Times, "The N.C.A.A. removed an ad placed by the evangelical group Focus on the Family from one of its Web sites this week after some members — including faculty and athletic directors — expressed concern that the evangelical group’s stance against gay and lesbian relationships conflicted with the N.C.A.A.’s policy of inclusion regardless of sexual orientation, said Bob Williams, an association spokesman"

So there you have it, the NCAA has different standards, the same can be said of The Boy Scouts, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, the NRA, etc.

I'm not gonna condemn a private organization for making decisions based on their own best interests.

It's just like the time they wouldn't let Rush Limbaugh buy a sports team. I was pissed off, but I understood that nobody has the right to buy anything.

IT happens to everyone, like this in example:

"Super Bowl network CBS rejected an ad Friday from ManCrunch.com, a gay dating Web site.
"After reviewing the ad, which is entirely commercial in nature, our standards and practices department decided not to accept this particular spot," said CBS spokeswoman Shannon Jacobs. "We are always open to working with a client on alternative submissions."
http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/29/news/companies/mancrunch_ad_super_bowl/

See? The mancrunch people had the money to pay for the ad but CBS didn't want to piss off the viewers. In this case, the NCAA isn't worried about the fans but about the athletes they represent.

Aspergers.life said...

"Homosexual Activists"

read

"Militant Gay Hate Groups"

Anonymous said...

Yes they hate being hated by people like you.

Anonymous said...

No, they hate being the abnormal, attention-hungry cretins they are. They also hate anyone who dares think differently than they want you to think. Gays, most of whom are radical activists, only have tolerence for their way of thinking, which is one of the main reasons their constant demands should "always" be swept aside. In spite of what they think, they are not better than the rest of us, even though they have been granted special laws to protect their "feelings".

Anonymous said...

2:28 AM - How can you say most gays are radical activists unless you are defining gays in that very way (rather than "homosexuals"). Such statements undermine your credibility.

Anonymous said...

Bobby,

Following your logic, are you willing to then allow an adult woman to have consensual sex with a minor?

Are you willing to then allow adult men to marry 4 year old girl or boys and then permit them to consummate the marriage?

Are you then willing to allow one woman to marry multiple men?

Or how about a group of four men marrying a group off four women and all being each others' spouses?

Are you willing to allow your son or daughter to marry a horse or a dog?

Please answer this:
Should society define morality or should morality define society?

Anonymous said...

3:51 AM - You are being very silly with the "slippery slope" fallacy.

Anonymous said...

Bobby said, "So I support the NCAA in in this instance, as a private organization they have the right to lookout for their interests."

So if the NCAA, being a private organization, said, "We don't want any Whites playing" would you agree to that? If they said, "No Jews are allowed to attend any games" would you permit them to do that?

How many NCAA players are Christians who believe in and support the message promoted by Focus on the Family? Why should their views be not heard while those opposed get to air their views?

Bobby said...

"Should society define morality or should morality define society?"

---Do you want the government in your bedroom? What if me and my wife want to have a threesome, should that be a crime? Read your constitution, notice that our first amendment makes no mention of morality whatsoever. In fact, it's a progressive characteristic to impose morality on others:

"Susan B. Anthony was one of the many progressives who adopted the cause of prohibition. They claimed the consumption of alcohol limited mankind's potential for advancement. Progressives achieved success in this area with the enactment of the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1919."

"So if the NCAA, being a private organization, said, "We don't want any Whites playing" would you agree to that? If they said, "No Jews are allowed to attend any games" would you permit them to do that? "

---Actually, I would. As a libertarian I don't want the government telling companies how to run their businesses. Besides, why do you want to force the NCAA to accept advertising it doesn't want? That's like forcing the Boy Scouts to accept gays and atheists.

"How many NCAA players are Christians who believe in and support the message promoted by Focus on the Family? Why should their views be not heard while those opposed get to air their views?"

---How many athletes do drugs? Should the NCAA place advertising from drug-legalization advocates like NORML? Are you telling me the NCAA can't decide what views are aired in their own publication? That sounds like fascism to me.

If you believe in freedom then you'll support the freedom to choose even when you don't like the choices being made. You can disagree with what the NCAA did, you can even boycott their games, Christian athletes could choose not to play. And then, after the NCAA loses money, maybe they will print that advertisement. HOWEVER, just like I wouldn't want my NRA to print advertising from gun control advocates, I don't want the NCAA to print anything against their will.

In the end, it's not society that defines morality, it's INDIVIDUALS. Otherwise you end up with big government making moral choices for the rest of us. I want the NCAA to be free to make their own choices and to be held accountable by them.

Bobby said...

"Should society define morality or should morality define society?"

---Do you want the government in your bedroom? What if me and my wife want to have a threesome, should that be a crime? Read your constitution, notice that our first amendment makes no mention of morality whatsoever. In fact, it's a progressive characteristic to impose morality on others:

"Susan B. Anthony was one of the many progressives who adopted the cause of prohibition. They claimed the consumption of alcohol limited mankind's potential for advancement. Progressives achieved success in this area with the enactment of the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1919."

"So if the NCAA, being a private organization, said, "We don't want any Whites playing" would you agree to that? If they said, "No Jews are allowed to attend any games" would you permit them to do that? "

---Actually, I would. As a libertarian I don't want the government telling companies how to run their businesses. Besides, why do you want to force the NCAA to accept advertising it doesn't want? That's like forcing the Boy Scouts to accept gays and atheists.

"How many NCAA players are Christians who believe in and support the message promoted by Focus on the Family? Why should their views be not heard while those opposed get to air their views?"

---How many athletes do drugs? Should the NCAA place advertising from drug-legalization advocates like NORML? Are you telling me the NCAA can't decide what views are aired in their own publication? That sounds like fascism to me.

If you believe in freedom then you'll support the freedom to choose even when you don't like the choices being made. You can disagree with what the NCAA did, you can even boycott their games, Christian athletes could choose not to play. And then, after the NCAA loses money, maybe they will print that advertisement. HOWEVER, just like I wouldn't want my NRA to print advertising from gun control advocates, I don't want the NCAA to print anything against their will.

In the end, it's not society that defines morality, it's INDIVIDUALS. Otherwise you end up with big government making moral choices for the rest of us. I want the NCAA to be free to make their own choices and to be held accountable by them.

Anonymous said...

3:57 AM said, "You are being very silly with the "slippery slope" fallacy."

It's certainly not fallacy when it become truth. Has our society really evolved so much that traditional values cannot be upheld? Of course not! It just requires that people to exert some self-control, which most people simply don't want to do. In fact, many are actually offended that I propose self-control.


Bobby said, "---Do you want the government in your bedroom?"

No I don't, but it doesn't just stop at the bedroom. It reaches deeply into many aspects of society that cost me, the taxpayer. And I if I am in the majority, i don't believe that I should have to support aspects of society that go against the majority's values.

Robert said...

HOWEVER, just like I wouldn't want my NRA to print advertising from gun control advocates, I don't want the NCAA to print anything against their will.

This Focus on the Family ad, believe it or not, has been yanked off the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) website for one simple reason: Focus on the Family supports natural marriage, believing that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

The NCAA, who apparently believes only in selective diversity – “Christians need not apply” – has censored this ad after homosexual activists complained.

It looks to me as if the NCAA was happy to carry the ad on their own website, until the homosexual activists complained. Considering the nature of those activists, the NCAA may well have felt bullied and coerced into yanking it. Certainly while the ad was up, the NCAA wasn't publishing anything against their will.

Bobby said...

"Has our society really evolved so much that traditional values cannot be upheld?"

---I think so. For example, on my Comcast cable there's "on demand" and I'm free to order legal porn. Traditionalists are free to boycott Comcast but in the end it's that company that should be free to see if the benefits of offering porn outweight the liabilities of pissing off porn haters. That's freedom!


"No I don't, but it doesn't just stop at the bedroom. It reaches deeply into many aspects of society that cost me, the taxpayer."

---That's the same argument used against smoking, obesity, drugs and plenty of other issues. Should we ban booze just because Saudi Arabia rarely has to deal with drunk drivers? The cost of not being free to do what you want is greater. Saudi Arabians may be safe, but they are not free.


Furthermore, I don't see the government punishing lose women. We don't tie the tubes of women that have no business having children, we don't fine them or confiscate their property when their children become criminals.

Should we ban women from the military just because a small number of them may choose to get pregnant to get out of the service? Should we force them to take the pill everyday while they're on active duty? Even the military with all its power doesn't go that far.

Laws must be made on realities, no possibilities. We don't want the government enforcing traditional values because that's not the role of the government, I want neither a welfare state nor a moral state. Freedom must be preserved no matter the cost.

Bobby said...

"Has our society really evolved so much that traditional values cannot be upheld?"

---I think so. For example, on my Comcast cable there's "on demand" and I'm free to order legal porn. Traditionalists are free to boycott Comcast but in the end it's that company that should be free to see if the benefits of offering porn outweight the liabilities of pissing off porn haters. That's freedom!


"No I don't, but it doesn't just stop at the bedroom. It reaches deeply into many aspects of society that cost me, the taxpayer."

---That's the same argument used against smoking, obesity, drugs and plenty of other issues. Should we ban booze just because Saudi Arabia rarely has to deal with drunk drivers? The cost of not being free to do what you want is greater. Saudi Arabians may be safe, but they are not free.


Furthermore, I don't see the government punishing lose women. We don't tie the tubes of women that have no business having children, we don't fine them or confiscate their property when their children become criminals.

Should we ban women from the military just because a small number of them may choose to get pregnant to get out of the service? Should we force them to take the pill everyday while they're on active duty? Even the military with all its power doesn't go that far.

Laws must be made on realities, no possibilities. We don't want the government enforcing traditional values because that's not the role of the government, I want neither a welfare state nor a moral state. Freedom must be preserved no matter the cost.

Anonymous said...

"isn't meant" ? - Organs can have more than one function or be put to more than one function. The penis is a conduit for both semen and urine. Was the heart "meant" to be bypassed with artificial tubes? Was the foot "meant" to press pedals in automobiles?

Anonymous said...

Who decides what is a useful purpose?

Bobby said...

"Who decides what is a useful purpose?"

---Thank you! In a free society it's consenting adults that decide what to do with their bodies. So if Jenna Jameson makes porn movies where she gets penetrated in the ass, she shouldn't be arrested for that.

I don't want the government going after adults.

According to John Stossel, there are 80,000 people waiting for a kidney transplant yet only 20,000 donors and it's a CRIME for an individual to sell his kidney to someone who needs it. Why? You can get paid for donating sperm, you get free movie tickets for donating blood at some places, why should the government stop me from profiting from my own body?

Bobby said...

Just like the NCAA has the right to reject a Focus on the Family ad, the same goes for a Catholic school in boulder.

"BOULDER - A preschool student at a Catholic school in Boulder will not be allowed to return next school year because of what is going on at home.
The student's parents are two women and the Denver Archdiocese says their homosexual relationship violates the school's beliefs and policy."
http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=133945&catid=339

Freedom goes both ways.

Anonymous said...

ha ha - just seen on the news that a close assistant of the Pope has been found by the Italian police to be procuring male prostitutes. Religious people are often such hypocrites, and Catholic priests in particular. They can't resolve their ridiculous predicament! They need a psychiatrist.

Anonymous said...

"They can't resolve their ridiculous predicament! They need a psychiatrist."

Its funny you would say that about the Catholic church.. Seeing as how you take offense to them describing gay people like you in that same manner.

Bobby said...

"ha ha - just seen on the news that a close assistant of the Pope has been found by the Italian police to be procuring male prostitutes."

---That's one of the reasons I don't trust people who scream about morality too much. Give me a sinner over a hypocrite any day.

Anonymous said...

The "ridiculous predicament" of catholic priests is of their own making or rather of the institution they choose to serve - whereas the predicament of gays is living with a hostile society and hostile religions like the Roman Catholic Church. The RC priests need a psychiatrist or better still leave the Church; the gays need a less bigotted environment to live in, and then they wouldn't need a psychiatrist.

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:13 said, "the gays need a less bigoted environment to live in, and then they wouldn't need a psychiatrist."

So by extension, if an adult woman wants to have sex with a 10 year-old boy, and society (a society that largely adheres to Judeo-Christian values) deems that to be unacceptable and/or immoral, then are you saying that she needs a less bigoted environment to live in?

Or if an adult male wants to have sex with his (or your) 6 year-old daughter, and the same society deems that to be unacceptable and/or immoral, are you saying that he needs a less bigoted environment to live in?

The problem is that in drawing a line of morality, someone always wants to be able to cross it without any ramifications.

Anonymous said...

This is the "slippery slope" logical fallacy again!
The examples you quote involve pre-pubescent children which society deems as incapable of sexual consent. The moves or campaigns to give sexual freedoms or same-sex marriage to gays only concern consenting adults. If you think consenting adults shouldn't have sex with each other or marry each other, that's your opinion. At the moment there is no significant pressure to change the law to allow adults to have sex with underage children or animals.

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:32 AM said, "This is the "slippery slope" logical fallacy again! The examples you quote involve pre-pubescent children which society deems as incapable of sexual consent. The moves or campaigns to give sexual freedoms or same-sex marriage to gays only concern consenting adults. If you think consenting adults shouldn't have sex with each other or marry each other, that's your opinion. At the moment there is no significant pressure to change the law to allow adults to have sex with underage children or animals."

It's the difference between relative and absolute morality. By your relative logic, morality is based simply on what society currently deems acceptable. If a society deems f*cking children as acceptable, then in that society, it's morally OK. If a society deems killing people for sport acceptable, then in that society, it's morally OK.

On the other hand, you have those who believe in absolute morality which means that things are right or wrong regardless of what society deems.

It is a FACT that the United States was founded upon Judeo-Christian ideals and morals, and it is a FACT that recently (most notably in the past 60ish years) the united States has taken a morality swing WAY in the opposite direction toward relative morality.

Anonymous said...

"Absolute morality" can only remain a matter of opinion or argument, if it is not universally accepted. In practice, societies change their moral values over time.