Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

    Originally posted by Smooth_for_Pres. View Post
    If you agree with Hardaway, you should just come out and say it.
    I don't agree with Hardaway. I don't 'hate' gays.

    I do think society crosses a line when things like "Gay Day" and "Gay Pride Parades" are glorified and encouraged.

    -Bball
    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

    Comment


    • Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

      Instead of weighing in on the whole 'gay - evil or natural' debate, I want to take this back to the court. (the irony of doing that in the 'Off the Court' section is not lost on me). Help me understand the whole 'no gays on the team' logic. What is the issue? That a gay man might see a non gay man naked? That a gay man might make goo-goo eyes at a teammate? I think a lot of people flatter themselves with that egocentric thinking. When I have been in the presence of a bevy of beautiful, half naked women (say ... at a beach), I didn't ogle all of them. (OK, some of them) But even that has changed since I have been married. Now, I might give a quick, subtle glance. It is called tact and knowing your place and the situation. That is the part I just don't get. Do you really think an openly gay male professional athlete would overtly stare at teammate in the locker room, or hit on one knowing what potential physical ramifications could occur? Remember, we are talking about young, entitled, armed males. I tend to believe that a John Amechi would know better than to do something that could put himself in harms way. But the real question is ... so what? So what that a gay person looks at a non gay person. So what that a gay person has a life outside of the team. As long as the person in question isn't openly flaunting himself and his/her lifestyle and making people uncomfortable, what of it. I just don't understand the logic. I have a number of gay co-workers. I could not care less about their chosen lifestyle. Much in the same way that I could not care less about the married co-workers lifestyles either. I don't want to hear about some new gay thing any more than I want to hear about how little Johnny can now pee in the potty. In a work situation, all that matters to me is getting the job done. Home life - gay or straight - is immaterial.

      I just don't get the idea that an athlete can be judged more on who they are attracted to off court than on their prowess and skills on the court.

      In my mind, a professional athlete who shoots up nightclubs, has a drug addiction, beats his spouse, etc is more morally suspect than someone who lives an alternative, non-threatening lifestyle.

      To badly paraphrase MLK: "I have a dream that my two little children will one day live in a nation where they (and others) will not be judged by the lifestyle but by the content of their character."

      Comment


      • Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

        Originally posted by Smooth_for_Pres. View Post
        If you agree with Hardaway, you should just come out and say it.
        Where did that come from? I've read all this thread and I don't remember anyone saying they hate gays. That's really an abnormal position.

        You can dislike what someone does and not hate them, just like you can dislike your unmarried daughter getting pregnant, but not hate her.

        I think Bball wrote a fine post!

        Comment


        • Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

          Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
          Where did that come from? I've read all this thread and I don't remember anyone saying they hate gays. That's really an abnormal position.
          If your stance is that all gay people are heinous sinners who are going to rot in hell for all eternity, you are pretty much implying that you hate gay people. And yes several people in this thread seem to have that opinion.
          "Ever wonder what it's like to wonder what it's like to wonder, they get up out of bed but can't awaken from their slumber, they know what they've been told by those who know what they've been told, you see this hand me down knowledge generated ages ago, and I know what they've been told because I've been told the same thing, I had to broaden my horizons to expand on greater things..." Many Styles

          Comment


          • Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

            After reading most of this thread, something re-ocurred to me;

            The entire discussion focus on "tolerance" nothing else.
            The can live the life they wis, not infringing on other's and not forcing their believes upon those who do not wish to share the same.

            It all comes across to me more and more that the USA, despite what it supposedly stands for, has become or becomes a more and more intolerant society, whether we use the excuse of terrorism or religion or welfare, people simply stop tolerating other people.

            It is not only gays, it's also immigrants, welfare, minorities etc.
            How come I have no trouble imagining Tim H saying "I hate all those immigrants"?
            How come that a coutry's credo can be "bring me your poor etc" and then close it's borders to those poor and etc?
            How come that one religion stops being tolerant of other religions instead of looking at the vast amount of overlap these have?
            How come that sex before marriage get's more attention then teenage pregnancies, how come that in the USA (just like in the UK) teenpregnancies are a social problem?
            Aren't we talking about a modern society?
            Do we really fail to see that "hate" does not solve anything?
            That typifying behaviour or religions or people does nothing but increase the problems?

            Muslims are terrorist,gays are sick or "lesser people", smokers are outcast, immigrants are trespassers.

            Did or do we forget history that quick? How many generations ago did your family land in the USA as one of those poor and huddled masses?
            What has changed in the world that all of a sudden those same poor huddled masses have become a threat?
            That judaism and its extremes are acceptable but muslims a threat?
            That teen pregnancies are ok but gays a threat?

            Where did tolerance go?

            If a gay man marries a woman to not be gay, to not be an outcast in modern society, the marriage wont work as the loving relationship it should be, marriage (and that coming from a man who did it more then once) should not be something that is done for convenience or to adhere to civil pressure, but a confirmation of your love towards each other, whether you are doing that via a civil union, to show the world, or in a church to show god and the world, depending on your own view of the world.

            Tolerance of what others do is the grounds on which freedom of speech is born, tolerance of others views, customs, behaviours and religions.

            Tolerance is what society should build upon and tolerance has little room for bigotry.
            So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

            If you've done 6 impossible things today?
            Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

            Comment


            • Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

              Originally posted by Bball View Post
              Ok... I'm going to wade into this discussion.

              First, let me say that the gay lobby has done a good job of integrating their cause into society. This ongoing discussion certainly shows that.

              While there is still a stigma much of it has been removed. Even when someone like Hardaway speaks his mind you'll get several people (including the media) lining up to destroy his position and tell us how unenlightened he is- He's a 'homophobe'. He's a bigot. Etc...

              What I'd like to insert is to ask whether the argument is really being properly framed in the first place. Shouldn't this really be framed as whether anything goes between 2 consenting adults? And why shouldn't this be looked at on a societal level, not a 'sexual' level?

              I keep seeing the argument 'They're born this way'... 'Why should we think differently of them just because they have different feelings toward gender?' et al.

              If you put the argument on those terms IMHO you're opening a door to other arguments. Examples: Pedophilia and Necrophilia...
              "Hey, they're born that way". "Who are we to tell them their sexual attractions are wrong?" "This guy likes dead people... this guys likes children... That's just the way they are wired. Some of us are wired to like the opposite sex but we didn't choose that just like they didn't choose their attractions either"

              I just can't buy into the argument when it's presented on the simplistic 'born that way' type terms because it opens a 'whole 'nother can o worms' IMHO. That argument is only a few feet shy of what you'll find NAMBLA (ewww) tried arguing:
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nambla

              Personally, I don't think society should be encouraging a gay lifestyle. I don't think it's good for society. The media shouldn't glorify it. There still should be some stigma attached. Obviously there should be laws protecting people... but in many cases there already are. When I say stigma, I don't mean to the point of beatings etc. I do mean it in the same way that there should be some stigma on teen pregnancy, unwed mothers, etc.. It simply shouldn't be a thing that is encouraged. Understood, accepted? Sure. Encouraged or glorified... no.

              'Don't ask, don't tell' seems like a fine place for society to be.

              -Bball
              Great Point!!!
              "I'm not looking for the best players, I'm looking for the right ones."

              -Herb Brooks

              Comment


              • Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

                Don't tell?

                What are you supposed to say when you're intrducing your life long committed partner. "This is Bball ... uh ... my uh ... friend ..."

                You know what? People find out anyway.

                "Don't tell" is as dumb as a bag of hammers and just a practical.
                “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                Comment


                • Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

                  Great point?





                  I can't believe that anyone thinks being intolerant of the outright and open HATRED of gay people is on the slippery slope to accepting NAMBLA, necrophilia, and pedophilia.

                  As far as I know, Mr. Amaechi has sex with consenting adult males. There is no criminal act involved with consenting adults. Pedophilia and necrophilia do not involve any legal consent. There are VICTIMS involved.

                  The "they are born that way" angle doesn't apply to people preying on innocent victims. Isn't that OBVIOUS?
                  The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                  Comment


                  • Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

                    OK...I'll open myself up to charges of being some kinda whacko here, but I'll try to explain this simply.

                    I'm Catholic. The truely devout Catholic follow the precept that sex is meant for procreation and abstain from sex at other times (that's why families used to be so big ). Of course there is the rythum method of determining when sex with lessened chance of procreation can be determined but if a child is concieved it is because God willed it. But still, the basic concept is that sex is for procreation not recreation and that the sex organs, including the uterus and birth canal etc. were designed for that purpose.

                    Homosexual feelings and tendencies per se are not wrong but because it involves sex without the possibility of procreation, acting out on the homosexuality IS wrong. Same as couples having sex using diaphrams, condoms, birth control pills, and/or vasectomys. More wrong would be IUD's and "morning after" medication as those have the possibility of destroying a life that was created the night before. It all comes down to PUTTING YOUR WILL ABOVE THE WILL OF GOD.

                    Is it wrong to hate the gay community....yes. Love the person... but disapprove of their actions. I have a son in prison...I love him but fully disapprove of what he did.

                    Now I must say....why does ANYBODY feel the need to discuss their sex lives?
                    Sometimes the old taboos are best left intact.
                    Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

                      Churches used to teach that masturbation was a sin; maybe some still do.

                      Should anyone who has ever masturbated be condemned? I say we herd 'em all up and leave the world to...

                      NOBODY?
                      The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                      Comment


                      • Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

                        Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                        Churches used to teach that masturbation was a sin; maybe some still do.

                        Should anyone who has ever masturbated be condemned? I say we herd 'em all up and leave the world to...

                        NOBODY?
                        Everyone sins everyday - every hour of the day. As far as being separated from god, any little sin is just as "separating" as any big sin. Just having an unpure thought will do it - a momentary unpure thought. In God's eyes my sins are no worse or no better than a serial killer. We both need forgiveness from God through the death of Jesus Christ.

                        My only poiont is to say god does not put homosexual sex into a separate category. In God's eyes my momentary unpure thought that I had really no control over is the exact same thing.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

                          Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                          Great point?





                          I can't believe that anyone thinks being intolerant of the outright and open HATRED of gay people is on the slippery slope to accepting NAMBLA, necrophilia, and pedophilia.

                          As far as I know, Mr. Amaechi has sex with consenting adult males. There is no criminal act involved with consenting adults. Pedophilia and necrophilia do not involve any legal consent. There are VICTIMS involved.

                          The "they are born that way" angle doesn't apply to people preying on innocent victims. Isn't that OBVIOUS?

                          Exactly. I'll say it again:

                          TWO CONSENTING ADULTS.
                          The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                          http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                          RSS Feed
                          Subscribe via iTunes

                          Comment


                          • Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

                            How, we've gotten to the point where you think we're saying gays will go to hell?

                            I challenge you to find where that's been said in this thread one time.

                            Being gay is just as much of a sin as using god's name in vein. People have a serious distortion of what the bible says, and what Christians believe, yet use it as an argument for why the bible is so wrong.

                            Being gay DOESN'T condemn them to hell.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

                              Originally posted by PostArtestEra View Post
                              I don't think anything was skewed, the bible is anything but ambiguous when it comes to homosexuality:
                              Leviticus 20:13 "If a man has sex with another man, kill them both..."
                              Interestingly enough, after reading this I decided to take a look.

                              Here's what you're citing:

                              Originally posted by Leviticus 20:13
                              If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
                              Back up a little and there's this:

                              Originally posted by Leviticus 20:10
                              If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
                              So, those using the Bible as their source for being anti-gay (in one form or another), do you agree with the Bible here? Gays should be put to death? Adulterers/adulteress should be put to death?

                              I mean be honest: If the Bible's word is good enough for you to be homophobic, then it should be good enough to want these people executed. You can't have it both ways: Either you should want them to be put to death, or you can pick and choose, and in such case you can choose to accept gay people just as you choose not to pursue the deaths of those the Bible says SHOULD be put to death.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

                                If all the adulterers, gays, and people living together without being married are executed, traffic will be a lot less.

                                But there probably wouldn't be an NBA.

                                The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X