PDA

View Full Version : Hatred stuns tennis great Margaret Court


Pages : [1] 2

Brett.
Jan 24th, 2012, 01:51 AM
http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2012/01/23/1226251/704986-margaret-court.jpg

MARGARET Court says she felt victimised and became the target of a relentless hate campaign for airing her views on gay marriage.

The former champion has admitted being stunned by the backlash after her controversial comments made headlines around the world.

The pastor, 70, who arrived in Melbourne last night, said it was never intended as an attack on the gay and lesbian community but rather a plea for the nation to retain its morals.

Momentum is building ahead of a protest by equal rights campaigners at the show court that bears her name.

Organisers hope to send a message of unity by wearing rainbow colours and waving flags on Friday.

Mrs Court said she would not back down from her views and had no concerns about attending the Open this week.

"To target me and the tennis is a political stunt," Court said.

"I love them, I even work with them ... but what concerns me so much is the amount of hatred that has been directed at me.

"There have been some awful things ... But I love my nation and I don't like seeing it in moral decline. I pray for it, I love it and I want to protect the young of the future. My heart is for the next generation."

Gays and lesbians could lead their life without touching marriage as ordained by God, she said.

But another tennis great, Martina Navratilova, repeated her disappointment yesterday, saying Mrs Court's views were outdated.

"It's not about any one person," Navratilova said.

"It's not about religious rights, it's about human rights. She's only seeing it from one viewpoint."

It is believed Mrs Court will not attend the tennis in an official capacity but will view plans for the redevelopment of the arena named in her honour.

Her huge collection of trophies will be moved from Western Australia and put on public display in the new centre.

Tennis Australia has said it did not support Mrs Court's views.

"Margaret has expressed a personal view," tournament director Craig Tiley said last week .

"(We) do not share that view and believe everyone should be treated equally and fairly."

Mrs Court said yesterday: "What I have said is what God has said in the Scriptures ... we are a Christian nation and we should be able to say that."

Go and cry me a river, bitch! I've always loathe her since she made a negative comment about equal marriage.

duhcity
Jan 24th, 2012, 01:57 AM
So over this.
That last bit is a new development though. Has she so bluntly stated her belief in Australia as a Christian nation before? I don't recall Australians being sold into slavery as teenagers, but I'm a fat dumb American so what do I know.

TheWizardHat
Jan 24th, 2012, 01:57 AM
Poor Court. She is getting victimized by liberals when all she tried to do is to preserve the sanctity of marriage and traditional family.

Helen Lawson
Jan 24th, 2012, 01:59 AM
It's always people spewing the hate who complain the loudest about the hate directed back to them.

GeeTee
Jan 24th, 2012, 02:00 AM
I'm over this too...

I think BJK has said it best...

BILLIE Jean King has dismissed suggestions Tennis Australia should remove Margaret Court's name from Melbourne Park because of her views on homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

King told the Sun that while she disagrees with Court's opposition to gay marriage, she does not think TA should rename its third show court, which is named after the 24-time grand slam singles champion.

"Get rid of her for that?" King said. "Because you don't agree with her? Are you kidding?

"Just because you don't agree with someone? Please. She deserves it. She's a great player."

King remains on friendly terms with Court and they dine together every year at Wimbledon and frequently debate issues.

"I totally respect her opinion, but I don't agree with her at all," King said.

Morning Morgan
Jan 24th, 2012, 02:02 AM
The sanctity of marriage is only greater when it is built upon the foundation of equal rights for everyone. It always shows how insecure some people are when their only source of identity amd validation lies solely in their religion.

Shafanovic.
Jan 24th, 2012, 02:05 AM
Moral decline.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lw3km8j5H61r3xdoj.gif

casholic
Jan 24th, 2012, 02:11 AM
The sanctity of marriage is only greater when it is built upon the foundation of equal rights for everyone. It always shows how insecure some people are when their only source of identity amd validation lies solely in their religion.

Well said. :worship:

RCCA
Jan 24th, 2012, 02:48 AM
If MC can't stand the heat then she needs to get out of the kitchen.

emotion
Jan 24th, 2012, 02:48 AM
This is very ironic

égalité
Jan 24th, 2012, 02:50 AM
it shouldn't be that "stunning" considering how much of it she does herself.

RenaSlam.
Jan 24th, 2012, 02:52 AM
Lol.

young_gunner913
Jan 24th, 2012, 02:58 AM
She's the one who feels victimized?! Piss off.

Yoncé
Jan 24th, 2012, 03:01 AM
So she can't feel victimized but the millions of people she has discriminated against can? Bitch please.

thegreendestiny
Jan 24th, 2012, 04:29 AM
My Gawd!

Navratilova should just shut her gay mouth up! She's so annoying and it doesn't help that she fans the flame. Margaret has the right to say her opinion for her country. Navratilova can go back to Czech Rep and be as lesbian as she wants to be. :o

Shafanovic.
Jan 24th, 2012, 04:47 AM
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lw4iu6v6G51r3rizv.gif

stromatolite
Jan 24th, 2012, 04:52 AM
The problem here is largely one of perception. In MC's perception she's just stating an obvious fact, as written in the scriptures, that there's something deeply wrong with gays and gayness. In her perception she really does love gays, and wants to help them find their way back to the true path of God. She genuinely doesn't understand how deeply offensive and damaging her comments are to gays, which is why she is so mystified and hurt at the backlash. Martina and BJK respect her as a person, and both have clearly stated that they don't want the MCA renamed. But both have also talked to her at length on the subject without making the slightest impression on her.

It's pretty clear that she's not going to change her mind on this. IMO the best the rainbow protest can hope to achieve is ensuring that a message is clearly sent that tennis players, fans and officials strongly disagree with her views. If that can be done in a respectful way, without resorting to ugliness that would give her the moral high ground in a lot of people's perception, it's a goal worth achieving.

Josh.
Jan 24th, 2012, 05:00 AM
She's the one who feels victimized?! Piss off.

So she can't feel victimized but the millions of people she has discriminated against can? Bitch please.

This.

bobito
Jan 24th, 2012, 05:08 AM
A hateful bigot seeks to persecute others and whines like spoiled child when they have the audacity to speak up fort themselves. Does she seriously expect people to have sympathy for her?

timafi
Jan 24th, 2012, 05:24 AM
oh yes another right wing loon playing "victim" again.How fucking predictable :rolleyes:

MB.
Jan 24th, 2012, 05:25 AM
http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lpkcdudiQL1qblzn3o1_500.gif

DeliriousPotato
Jan 24th, 2012, 05:30 AM
A christian nation?? Lol. Australia was also originally a prison colony, but I don't think that delinquency is a part of the country's tradition...

Mistress of Evil
Jan 24th, 2012, 05:31 AM
What goes around, comes around! :awww:

SilverPersian
Jan 24th, 2012, 05:32 AM
A christian nation?? Lol. Australia was also originally a prison colony, but I don't think that delinquency is a part of the country's tradition...

You obviously don't know many Australians...;)

bobbynorwich
Jan 24th, 2012, 07:05 AM
Margaret has the right to say her opinion for her country.

Yes, she has the right to her opinion, but others have the right to disagree with her --- including criticizing her disregard for the human rights of gays.

Her view that "marriage was ordained by God" is bull-crap. Marriage is a government-sanctioned legal arrangement, and an often temporary one at that. Anyone can get married without involving a church, so it is fundamentally a secular matter. If you want to have a religion sanction your marriage, that's fine but that's just a personal choice without any legal implications.

:hi5:

tennisbum79
Jan 24th, 2012, 07:08 AM
A christian nation?? Lol. Australia was also originally a prison colony, but I don't think that delinquency is a part of the country's tradition...
You know how people find religion in prison:devil:

stromatolite
Jan 24th, 2012, 07:14 AM
You obviously don't know many Australians...;)

:lol:

tennisbum79
Jan 24th, 2012, 07:15 AM
My Gawd!

Navratilova should just shut her gay mouth up! She's so annoying and it doesn't help that she fans the flame. Margaret has the right to say her opinion for her country. Navratilova can go back to Czech Rep and be as lesbian as she wants to be. :o
Martina is American.

I guess you'll tell gay Australian who were not born in Australian to go back to their country of origin.


BTW, what is a gay mouth?


Hope you are not saying because Martina made a critical statement about, saying no one this she is the true #1.

If you are giving this response in retaliation, you should know that our reaction is totally disproportionate

thegreendestiny
Jan 24th, 2012, 07:15 AM
Yes, she has the right to her opinion, but others have the right to disagree with her --- including criticizing her disregard for the human rights of gays.

Her view that "marriage was ordained by God" is bull-crap. Marriage is a government-sanctioned legal arrangement, and an often temporary one at that. Anyone can get married without involving a church, so it is fundamentally a secular matter. If you want to have a religion sanction your marriage, that's fine but that's just a personal choice without any legal implications.

:hi5:

Does that include personal attack and harassment? :confused:

Just because liberal countries have allowed same-sex marriage does not mean that they can impose their ideas in some sovereign nations. You are right, marriage is a secular matter, but as secular as it is, it should adhere to the natural law of beings.

Raiden
Jan 24th, 2012, 07:21 AM
Poor Court. She is getting victimized by liberals when all she tried to do is to preserve the sanctity of marriage and traditional family.Not all liberals belong in the so called "fag-hag" category. Believe it or not Obama's position on gay marriage is the exact same one as Margaret Court's. But gays have still not rallied against him and called him names like 'bigot', 'homophobe'... etc.

stromatolite
Jan 24th, 2012, 07:25 AM
^No, I think you're confusing the fact that Obama's formal stance is against gay marriage with the notion that he has anything against gays, regards them as unnatural in the eyes of God, etc.

chingching
Jan 24th, 2012, 07:48 AM
Is this because of the tennis forum petition, or just coincidence. Because if it is, it's cool to know we have so much influence

davidmario
Jan 24th, 2012, 08:05 AM
"I even work with them!" :lol: That's like saying "I even stop my car when I see one walking on the street!"

stromatolite
Jan 24th, 2012, 08:11 AM
"I even work with them!" :lol: That's like saying "I even stop my car when I see one walking on the street!"

:lol: In all seriousness, what she really means is that she has compassion for these poor lost souls and is trying to steer them back onto the one true path, much like she might do with an alcoholic or a compulsive gambler. It's actually a very scary mindset, much more so than that of out-and-out gay-bashers like the Westboro Baptist Church with their ridiculous "God hates fags" demos.

LoLex
Jan 24th, 2012, 08:28 AM
She's gone totally insane.

Morning Morgan
Jan 24th, 2012, 08:28 AM
You are right, marriage is a secular matter, but as secular as it is, it should adhere to the natural law of beings.
What are you, an animal? Can you not think and rationalize, or can you not go beyond the level one of functioning on animalistic instinct, your so-called "natural" mentality? The term natural law is not even well-defined here, but you throw it about as if it is sufficient to stand up to any arguments that are thrown at you.

Gay behavior has been observed in animals, and the irony is that is one aspect they have it better than us human gays. At least no one is hunting their asses if they are gay, because the rest of their animal beings have better things to do.

ranfurly
Jan 24th, 2012, 08:33 AM
LAWL!

Looks like this thread is trailing of down the same road as the other two threads about Maggie Court.

Anyway, Maggie's learned a valuable lesson from this.

Don't do unto others what you don't want others do unto you.

Whether she takes that on-board or not is a different story. It fits nicely.

Theodoropen
Jan 24th, 2012, 08:44 AM
Her sanctimonious use of religion to 'help', i.e., abuse others is what really pisses me off. It's so creepy, I'm reminded of the mother in 'Carrie'.

Pat Bateman
Jan 24th, 2012, 08:48 AM
Meh, tell somebody who cares, bitch.:bigcry:

GeeTee
Jan 24th, 2012, 09:35 AM
:lol: In all seriousness, what she really means is that she has compassion for these poor lost souls and is trying to steer them back onto the one true path, much like she might do with an alcoholic or a compulsive gambler. It's actually a very scary mindset, much more so than that of out-and-out gay-bashers like the Westboro Baptist Church with their ridiculous "God hates fags" demos.

I can just imagine the furore if Margaret took a sentence or two that Martina had said and warped or 'interpreted' it as some (many..) do in here with Margaret's words.

I mean really.... you cannot be 'in all seriousness'....

Thanks so much for explaining what Margaret means. Though I think her views are clear enough.....

Although I'm not in any way religious, I tend to think so many threads on TF that I've seen are 'fags hate God' demos...

Pot-Kettle-Black???

stromatolite
Jan 24th, 2012, 09:42 AM
I can just imagine the furore if Margaret took a sentence or two that Martina had said and warped or 'interpreted' it as some (many..) do in here with Margaret's words.

I mean really.... you cannot be 'in all seriousness'....

Thanks so much for explaining what Margaret means. Though I think her views are clear enough.....

Although I'm not in any way religious, I tend to think so many threads on TF that I've seen are 'fags hate God' demos...

Pot-Kettle-Black???

Okay, you explain, if Margaret's views are so clear, what exactly does she mean when she says she "loves" gays, even though she abhors their “alternative, unhealthy, unnatural unions” and “abominable sexual practices”, which violate “their very own God-given nature”? I think my interpretation was pretty charitable all things considered.

thegreendestiny
Jan 24th, 2012, 09:48 AM
What are you, an animal? Can you not think and rationalize, or can you not go beyond the level one of functioning on animalistic instinct, your so-called "natural" mentality? The term natural law is not even well-defined here, but you throw it about as if it is sufficient to stand up to any arguments that are thrown at you.

Gay behavior has been observed in animals, and the irony is that is one aspect they have it better than us human gays. At least no one is hunting their asses if they are gay, because the rest of their animal beings have better things to do.

On the contrary, you are the one who's acting and thinking like an animal. Yes, homosexual behavior exists in the animal world, but they are animals and they do not get married. In the civilized world, there is a reason why so many institutions, oppose the abominable union and I don't think you understand. Margaret Court's cause is to defend family values, which have existed in so many generations before her, for the next generation.

Miss Amor
Jan 24th, 2012, 09:51 AM
Bitch please.

GeeTee
Jan 24th, 2012, 10:00 AM
Okay, you explain, if Margaret's views are so clear, what exactly does she mean when she says she "loves" gays, even though she abhors their “alternative, unhealthy, unnatural unions” and “abominable sexual practices”, which violate “their very own God-given nature”? I think my interpretation was pretty charitable all things considered.

I don't need to explain what Margaret's words mean (or yours for that matter) - a person is responsible for their own words/views and don't need others to translate them.

Perhaps you feel ordinary people are stupid and they need you to explain what people who have said something 'really mean'...

She has her own opinions of the world. You have yours. I have mine.

But I won't call someone a 'bitch' or 'insane' or 'creepy' or 'an animal' or even 'abominable' because their views differ with mine.

Margaret (at the least) was quoting the bible when she used the word 'abominable'). I will give her the benefit of the doubt in this case. Who have some of these people been quoting when using other terms?

stromatolite
Jan 24th, 2012, 10:29 AM
I don't need to explain what Margaret's words mean (or yours for that matter) - a person is responsible for their own words/views and don't need others to translate them.

Perhaps you feel ordinary people are stupid and they need you to explain what people who have said something 'really mean'...

She has her own opinions of the world. You have yours. I have mine.

But I won't call someone a 'bitch' or 'insane' or 'creepy' or 'an animal' or even 'abominable' because their views differ with mine.

Margaret (at the least) was quoting the bible when she used the word 'abominable'). I will give her the benefit of the doubt in this case. Who have some of these people been quoting when using other terms?

I have never called her a bitch etc. I did call her scary, which I believe she is, and I don't apologise for not having quoted that from the bible (why on earth would that make it more acceptable?). As for translating her views, when she makes such comments I think it's only natural to try to make sense of them. I maintain I haven't done her any great injustice with my interpretation, any more than people like you have done an injustice to the intentions of people who oppose her views (check your own posts on the subject and tell me with a straight face you haven't done any interpreting of what those are).

Lord Choc Ice
Jan 24th, 2012, 10:38 AM
The scriptures also 'say' that women are supposed to be silent in church and she's a pastor :lol:.

Like so many similar to her she just picks and chooses what she wants to believe.

StephenUK
Jan 24th, 2012, 10:41 AM
No sympathy for Margaret Court - the fact is that if any public figure speaks out, they are bound to get criticised. If she can't stand the heat, she should keep her views to herself. It is not any of her business anyway, if she is not gay, what difference does it make to her if gays get married. The sad thing is that the bigotry of people like her leads to ruined lives - I have a friend who can't live with his life partner in the USA because the lack of any real gay marriage or civil partnership denies him the immigration rights that would be granted if they were a straight couple who wanted to marry, so their life is in complete limbo.

Anyway, I am sure Martina Navratilova and other exponents of gay marriage probably get death threats and harassment from some of those loony Churches or people like the notorious Phelps family.

danieln1
Jan 24th, 2012, 10:43 AM
Anyone has the right.to express their opinion, but she should be prepared to hear all the backlash she's going to receive.

Morning Morgan
Jan 24th, 2012, 01:49 PM
On the contrary, you are the one who's acting and thinking like an animal. Yes, homosexual behavior exists in the animal world, but they are animals and they do not get married. In the civilized world, there is a reason why so many institutions, oppose the abominable union and I don't think you understand. Margaret Court's cause is to defend family values, which have existed in so many generations before her, for the next generation.

Excuse me, you're the one who said that your argument is valid is because of "natural law", but now you're saying that this particular aspect that happens in nature is not acceptable? So, basically your notion of naturalness is heavily modified to suit your purposes, which sounds to me to be highly unnatural. And note that your argument has shift from natural law to family values, and hoping that people will not call you out on it. I'm here to call it out right now. First admit that your natural law argument is full of holes and bascially without basis, then we can move on to your new argument of "family values" (and trust me we have our ammo on that too).Or else, your logical deductions to your current viewpoint is just invalid.

Dokic_fan6060
Jan 24th, 2012, 01:57 PM
You slurry bitch stick my lesbian friends mutt in ur mouth hope you have to floss pubescent hairs out your teeth bishop

Wimbledon9
Jan 24th, 2012, 05:35 PM
Martina has both an american and czech passport. In the Czech republic they have civil union for gay people.

All the rumble is about the vicious things Margaret Court has said about gay people, marriage for gay people is now a bit of a sideshow. The fact that she wants to cure them shows she does not accept them.
Martina is trying to show gay youngsters that it is okay to be gay, remember she went already in the early nineties to schools and talked with kids the only person who was helping her was Dave Kopay. Of course the so called Christian schools did not allow them to speak with kids.

Billy Jean King went directly back in the closet after the lawsuit of her girlfriend in 1981 which was a big shock to her and everybody else and came out of the closet when she was 51 she said so herself.

I come from the Netherlands the first country were gays could marry legally, Martina stated very well it is secular marriage.
The country of Kim Clijsters Belgium was the second country. Both countries still excist we did not go down or got the seven plagues.

égalité
Jan 24th, 2012, 05:47 PM
The proper measure of whether something is "hate speech" isn't the intent of the person making the comments. It's the impact it has on the group targeted by the statements. Court following up her comments by "actually, I love gay people and I want to help them!" is no different from someone someone prefacing a racist statement with "I'm not racist, but..."

Dominic
Jan 24th, 2012, 05:59 PM
She has her own opinions of the world. You have yours. I have mine.

But I won't call someone a 'bitch' or 'insane' or 'creepy' or 'an animal' or even 'abominable' because their views differ with mine.


Are you really that stupid? Calling someone a "bitch" on a meaningless tennis forum is not the same as addressing the media and doing it. Have you seen BJK and Navratilova's response to Court's comments? They were very polite and respectful.

Anyway, I'm not sure why you think biggots should be taken in pity, they deserve ANY bashing they get. You shouldn't expect someone to say something that discriminates millions of ppl and getting no backlash.

GAGAlady
Jan 24th, 2012, 05:59 PM
Does that include personal attack and harassment? :confused:

Just because liberal countries have allowed same-sex marriage does not mean that they can impose their ideas in some sovereign nations. You are right, marriage is a secular matter, but as secular as it is, it should adhere to the natural law of beings.

The natural law of what? Nature does not have a law that dictates who you love. If it did we would know about this law by now. Right? Your an idiot and I'm gay and I would tell this to your face if I saw you. Why? Because its the truth. Get some education and make some gay friends and actually sit down with them for a few hours and learn something new. Good luck!

Dominic
Jan 24th, 2012, 06:03 PM
"actually, I love gay people and I want to help them!" is no different from someone someone prefacing a racist statement with "I'm not racist, but..."

"I want to help them make their skin white" :lol: Good comparison

miffedmax
Jan 24th, 2012, 07:17 PM
Oh, Margaret. I don't hate you. I hate your bigoted opinions. I hope and pray that someday you'll stumble across that passage in the book you're holding that says "Do unto others..."

JCTennisFan
Jan 24th, 2012, 09:15 PM
She is a dumb woman. Thankfully her close-mindedness and relative sour nature have gone a long way to downplay her results. Sorry Margaret but we are in the 21st century now, not the 19th.

Stamp Paid
Jan 24th, 2012, 09:16 PM
This is like people complaining over reverse racism.
Hilarious. :lol:

-Sonic-
Jan 24th, 2012, 09:31 PM
Wow, I didn't know she was that old.

Thats reassuring.

Chrissie-fan
Jan 24th, 2012, 09:56 PM
How many times more do we have to hear a politician or a preacher talk about 'family values' only to find out that they cheat on their wives before we say "mind your own business, clown" when another one tries to tell us how to live our lifes?

Stamp Paid
Jan 24th, 2012, 10:03 PM
How many times more do we have to hear a politician or a preacher talk about 'family values' only to find out that they cheat on their wives before we say "mind your own business, clown" when another one tries to tell us how to live our lifes?You think Court is a repressed lesbian?

bobbynorwich
Jan 25th, 2012, 03:38 AM
You think Court is a repressed lesbian?

Possibly, as in "methinks the lady doth protest too much."

:lol:



.

Nicolás89
Jan 25th, 2012, 03:48 AM
Mrs Court said yesterday: "What I have said is what God has said in the Scriptures ... we are a Christian nation and we should be able to say that."[/I][/B]


Separation of church and state? Isn't Australia a secular state?

thegreendestiny
Jan 25th, 2012, 08:46 AM
Excuse me, you're the one who said that your argument is valid is because of "natural law", but now you're saying that this particular aspect that happens in nature is not acceptable? So, basically your notion of naturalness is heavily modified to suit your purposes, which sounds to me to be highly unnatural. And note that your argument has shift from natural law to family values, and hoping that people will not call you out on it. I'm here to call it out right now. First admit that your natural law argument is full of holes and bascially without basis, then we can move on to your new argument of "family values" (and trust me we have our ammo on that too).Or else, your logical deductions to your current viewpoint is just invalid.

The natural law of what? Nature does not have a law that dictates who you love. If it did we would know about this law by now. Right? Your an idiot and I'm gay and I would tell this to your face if I saw you. Why? Because its the truth. Get some education and make some gay friends and actually sit down with them for a few hours and learn something new. Good luck!

Thank you for your insights and for allowing me to make my counter-argument. First of, I would like to say that I have gay friends whom I have a lot of respect and admiration for, some of which agree with my opinion about gay marriage surprisingly.

Going back to the "natural law" argument, as mentioned, it is a fact it does happen in the animal kingdom. This "abnormality" in nature has yet to have full and valid scientific explanation. So we can all agree that it is natural. However, if you look at the relationship that exists between those creatures, you will not find pairs of animals who engage in homosexual acts and actually stay together in a mutual life-long relationship as partners or "lovers", just like swans, wolves and turtle doves. Why? Because although homosexuality exists, merely to satisfy sexual desires, their "union" upsets the balance of the dynamics of their species and nature in general. Why? Because it defeats the purpose of procreation as a way to ensure survival.

Now if we apply the issue to humans, I believe I have never mentioned that I am against homosexuality, I am pretty sure Margaret is as well. It is the absolute right (natural and human right) of EVERYONE to love anyone. What sets humans apart from all other creatures is our ability of higher thinking and ability to create a society and civilization with laws to ensure order. Within our history, we have created social institutions to ensure that we curb our "animal" tendencies. Those institutions have allowed us to create social values to ensure that social deviance is kept at tolerable level. Now to discuss the institutionalization of gay marriage, different societies have different views about it. Again, it is consistent in all societies that there are institutions to ensure that values, which have been learned from generations and generations will be kept for the next. Margaret is one of those. Although ultra-liberal movements, that have spawned in modern times (which includes gay-rights movement) have continuously pushed the advancement of human rights, some of their advocacy are aimed at abolishing the crucial aspects of a civil society, one which includes morality and decency. Someone said that Margaret is stuck in the 20th century because of her conservative opinions. Please note that the level of human debauchery has reached new heights in the 21st century. Can we blame her for taking a stand on the possibility of social erosion?

Now let me say, since some of you feel that gay-marriage is a right? What about our right to be in a society free from immorality? (AGAIN, I'm not saying homosexuality is immoral) What about my future children's rights to live in a kind of society that has their parent's and parent's parent's social values. If they can tell my future son that one day it's socially and legally OK for him to marry his tennis doubles partner who is also a boy, how would all children feel, and how would it affect their perspective in life?

I applaud the successes and advocacy of LBGT movements for the further improvement of human rights, but like all things, there should be a limitation, which is what Margaret's position is all about.

BTW, wouldn't it be awesome if Margaret and Martina N. played doubles together for an exhibition? :lick:
(I had to insist that just in case the mods deem my post as non-tennis related) :lol:

LoLex
Jan 25th, 2012, 09:57 AM
Now let me say, since some of you feel that gay-marriage is a right? What about our right to be in a society free from immorality? (AGAIN, I'm not saying homosexuality is immoral) What about my future children's rights to live in a kind of society that has their parent's and parent's parent's social values. If they can tell my future son that one day it's socially and legally OK for him to marry his tennis doubles partner who is also a boy, how would all children feel, and how would it affect their perspective in life?


Sexual orientation has nothing to do with the morality and society standards. And how the hell gay marriages can affect children's life perspective. Sexuality is not a life value.

stromatolite
Jan 25th, 2012, 10:43 AM
Thank you for your insights and for allowing me to make my counter-argument. First of, I would like to say that I have gay friends whom I have a lot of respect and admiration for, some of which agree with my opinion about gay marriage surprisingly.

Going back to the "natural law" argument, as mentioned, it is a fact it does happen in the animal kingdom. This "abnormality" in nature has yet to have full and valid scientific explanation. So we can all agree that it is natural. However, if you look at the relationship that exists between those creatures, you will not find pairs of animals who engage in homosexual acts and actually stay together in a mutual life-long relationship as partners or "lovers", just like swans, wolves and turtle doves. Why? Because although homosexuality exists, merely to satisfy sexual desires, their "union" upsets the balance of the dynamics of their species and nature in general. Why? Because it defeats the purpose of procreation as a way to ensure survival.

Now if we apply the issue to humans, I believe I have never mentioned that I am against homosexuality, I am pretty sure Margaret is as well. It is the absolute right (natural and human right) of EVERYONE to love anyone. What sets humans apart from all other creatures is our ability of higher thinking and ability to create a society and civilization with laws to ensure order. Within our history, we have created social institutions to ensure that we curb our "animal" tendencies. Those institutions have allowed us to create social values to ensure that social deviance is kept at tolerable level. Now to discuss the institutionalization of gay marriage, different societies have different views about it. Again, it is consistent in all societies that there are institutions to ensure that values, which have been learned from generations and generations will be kept for the next. Margaret is one of those. Although ultra-liberal movements, that have spawned in modern times (which includes gay-rights movement) have continuously pushed the advancement of human rights, some of their advocacy are aimed at abolishing the crucial aspects of a civil society, one which includes morality and decency. Someone said that Margaret is stuck in the 20th century because of her conservative opinions. Please note that the level of human debauchery has reached new heights in the 21st century. Can we blame her for taking a stand on the possibility of social erosion?

Now let me say, since some of you feel that gay-marriage is a right? What about our right to be in a society free from immorality? (AGAIN, I'm not saying homosexuality is immoral) What about my future children's rights to live in a kind of society that has their parent's and parent's parent's social values. If they can tell my future son that one day it's socially and legally OK for him to marry his tennis doubles partner who is also a boy, how would all children feel, and how would it affect their perspective in life?

I applaud the successes and advocacy of LBGT movements for the further improvement of human rights, but like all things, there should be a limitation, which is what Margaret's position is all about.

BTW, wouldn't it be awesome if Margaret and Martina N. played doubles together for an exhibition? :lick:
(I had to insist that just in case the mods deem my post as non-tennis related) :lol:

This is a bit too confused to warrant a detailed rebuttal, but just a couple of points:

yes, animals do form life-long homosexual bonds
the idea that gays should be allowed to have random and loveless gay sex but that this shouldn't be institutionalized in marriage contradicts your wish to "ensure order" in society
nobody's forcing you, or your children, or their children, to marry someone of the same sex. If you really believe it's immoral, steer clear of it. There really is no need to impose your ideas about morality on people who don't share your views, and who don't expect you to share theirs
morality itself is a man-made concept. That doesn't mean it's arbitrary: a good rule of thumb to decide what is moral is to ask if the behaviour in question hurts anyone. The countless happily married gay couples in countries where it's allowed show that it doesn't hurt gays, and it certainly doesn't hurt straight people (despite the far-fetched claims of the religious right that it undermines the sanctity of marriage).

Adidas Dude
Jan 25th, 2012, 06:24 PM
It will blow her mind one day when Margaret Court discovers that God does not really exist, except in scriptures. I don't know, her head might explode.

Her views are so strange. She declared in a follow-up interview that her views are not her own personal views, but the views of God. If you believe in God and choose to preach his scriptures, they are YOUR personal views too! Are they not?

I respect her achievements as a tennis player, but as a person, I would be too embarrassed to even stand next to her. I can't even imagine what her proteges, Matt Ebden and Casey Dellacqua, must be feeling about all this. Especially Casey.

Sergius
Jan 25th, 2012, 06:41 PM
Let me get this straight.
You people don't like her intolerance (so do I) and ignorance, but you justify other people's intolerance to her?

LoLex
Jan 25th, 2012, 07:37 PM
Let me get this straight.
You people don't like her intolerance (so do I) and ignorance, but you justify other people's intolerance to her?

It isn't about not tolerating her as a person. She's got a problem with people's sexual orientation, you don't see the difference? It's about not agreeing with her and the whole theory she tries to spread around.

Kipling
Jan 25th, 2012, 07:55 PM
Without commenting on her specific viewpoint, I would think that the people so up in arms about her stance would be the last people on earth to take issue with her right to express her opinion publically. Talk about hypocrisy. That's just as myopic.

I think BJK has it right, TBH.

She's got the right to express her opinion, you've got the right not to listen, as well as to express yours. What you shouldn't have the right to do is censor.

Sergius
Jan 25th, 2012, 07:58 PM
It isn't about not tolerating her as a person. She's got a problem with people's sexual orientation, you don't see the difference? It's about not agreeing with her and the whole theory she tries to spread around.

There is a slight difference between not agreeing with her and showing hatred towards her. That's my point.

Whitehead's Boy
Jan 25th, 2012, 08:17 PM
Target of a relentless hate campaign? What happened, she looked at a mirror?

Where, when, how?

All players have been polite toward her.

Some name calling on the Internet is hardly a hate campaign. Virtually every celebrity in the world are called names. Not that it's right but it's not hate.

She's just playing the victim, which seems to be very common tactic of people of her kind.

Bartoli's Boy
Jan 25th, 2012, 09:02 PM
Let me get this straight.
You people don't like her intolerance (so do I) and ignorance, but you justify other people's intolerance to her?

It's a bit of a mind-bender, this one.

If your objective is individual tolerance, then being tolerant of intolerance is by definition, more tolerant than being intolerant of intolerance. :p

The problem is, if your objective is for the state and the rule of law to be tolerant of different people living their lives how they choose (as long as they aren't hurting anyone), then tolerance of intolerance within the institutions of the state (i.e. marriage rights, etc), results in the continuation of more intolerance. For example, if women's rights activists had been excessively tolerant of the widespread belief that women couldn't be trusted to vote, then they wouldn't have mounted a campaign to change state-level intolerance to the belief that women can be equals to men.

So sometimes being intolerant of intolerance is the best course of action, despite seeming to present a logical paradox.

pov
Jan 25th, 2012, 09:42 PM
I like that she's standing her ground. Not all bias is hate and her's doesn't appear to be. While my views are very different to hers, I think it twisted, hypocritical and ironic that some people do feel hate towards her because she believes same gender marriage is wrong.

roelc
Jan 25th, 2012, 10:29 PM
Let me get this straight.


:lol:

Whitehead's Boy
Jan 25th, 2012, 10:42 PM
I like that she's standing her ground. Not all bias is hate and her's doesn't appear to be. While my views are very different to hers, I think it twisted, hypocritical and ironic that some people do feel hate towards her because she believes same gender marriage is wrong.

Who "hates" her (in the real sense of the word, not in the "I hate Britney Spears' latest song" sense)?

People are annoyed with her speech and use colorful language as a reaction. It doesn't mean they wake up at night to "hate" her.

Whitehead's Boy
Jan 25th, 2012, 10:44 PM
Is there a shred of evidence Court is victim of a, quote, "relentless hate campaign"?

MyskinaManiac
Jan 25th, 2012, 11:10 PM
When asked who 'Nick' was, my 4 year old niece responded "Andy's (me) boyfriend". Without being told or given any previous insight to myself being gay, I wonder... if a 4 year old can fathom and accept love between the same sex due to her pure innocence and lack of influence, then why can't a grown woman like Court comprehend and accept the union and celebration of love between the same sex? Let us not forget, marriage predates Christianity by over 5000 years.

I don't care much for her opinion. She voices her, the gay community can voice theirs. Polls suggest that her view in Australia in relation to gay marriage is in the minority.

dragonflies
Jan 25th, 2012, 11:55 PM
I like that she's standing her ground. Not all bias is hate and her's doesn't appear to be. While my views are very different to hers, I think it twisted, hypocritical and ironic that some people do feel hate towards her because she believes same gender marriage is wrong.



We don't hate Maragret. Maybe there have been a few posts with agressive manners, but that is the nature of reponsive forms in a forum. If you are able to look far over that, you can see the majority of people who objected her" opinion", just wanted to share their views and fight for human equal rights that they are rightfuly desevered.





Opinions from people that are public figures like Court can do more damage than we can imagine. There are many of gay bashers, school bullies that beat or abuse others to death because they believe in those "respected" people that share their beliefs. Hearing those lines all the time, being encouraged by their religious families, so those agressive youngsters think they are doing a favor for the world by sweeping aside " the trash" just like when you kill a cockroach. Hearing those lines all the time, those legislators will have been influenced when it comes to making laws that can ruin lives of innocent people. Hearing those lines all the time, people can be emotionless watching a gay couple, a young boy got beaten to death/ abused, then walk away.




Individuals like Court can voice their" opinons" in public, so it's just right for those whom are being discriminated can voice their own and their stories to be heard. Yes, the main purpose is their stories will be heard by the general public, because the society's reactions will have more effects on the lives of gay/ lesbians more than Court. Court only, we couldn't careless.

Morning Morgan
Jan 26th, 2012, 02:49 AM
Thank you for your insights and for allowing me to make my counter-argument. First of, I
would like to say that I have gay friends whom I have a lot of respect and admiration for, some of which agree with my
opinion about gay marriage surprisingly.

Going back to the "natural law" argument, as mentioned, it is a fact it does happen in the animal kingdom. This
"abnormality" in nature has yet to have full and valid scientific explanation. So we can all agree that it is natural.
However, if you look at the relationship that exists between those creatures, you will not find pairs of animals who engage
in homosexual acts and actually stay together in a mutual life-long relationship as partners or "lovers", just like swans,
wolves and turtle doves. Why? Because although homosexuality exists, merely to satisfy sexual desires, their "union" upsets
the balance of the dynamics of their species and nature in general. Why? Because it defeats the purpose of procreation as a
way to ensure survival.

Now if we apply the issue to humans, I believe I have never mentioned that I am against homosexuality, I am pretty sure
Margaret is as well. It is the absolute right (natural and human right) of EVERYONE to love anyone. What sets humans apart
from all other creatures is our ability of higher thinking and ability to create a society and civilization with laws to
ensure order. Within our history, we have created social institutions to ensure that we curb our "animal" tendencies. Those
institutions have allowed us to create social values to ensure that social deviance is kept at tolerable level. Now to
discuss the institutionalization of gay marriage, different societies have different views about it. Again, it is consistent
in all societies that there are institutions to ensure that values, which have been learned from generations and generations
will be kept for the next. Margaret is one of those. Although ultra-liberal movements, that have spawned in modern times
(which includes gay-rights movement) have continuously pushed the advancement of human rights, some of their advocacy are
aimed at abolishing the crucial aspects of a civil society, one which includes morality and decency. Someone said that
Margaret is stuck in the 20th century because of her conservative opinions. Please note that the level of human debauchery
has reached new heights in the 21st century. Can we blame her for taking a stand on the possibility of social erosion?


Now let me say, since some of you feel that gay-marriage is a right? What about our right to be in a society free from
immorality? (AGAIN, I'm not saying homosexuality is immoral) What about my future children's rights to live in a kind of
society that has their parent's and parent's parent's social values. If they can tell my future son that one day it's
socially and legally OK for him to marry his tennis doubles partner who is also a boy, how would all children feel, and how
would it affect their perspective in life?

I applaud the successes and advocacy of LBGT movements for the further improvement of human rights, but like all things,
there should be a limitation, which is what Margaret's position is all about.

BTW, wouldn't it be awesome if Margaret and Martina N. played doubles together for an exhibition?
(I had to insist that just in case the mods deem my post as non-tennis related)

I respect the thoughtful response in a very civil tone, and this is a good start to any discussion. I'll just try to let you see my point of view.

The first point I need to rebut in your argument is that you cast homosexual acts in the natural world as "just satisfy[ing] sexual desires" in a very animalistic i.e. un-human way, and yet you paint animals who mate for life in a very favourable light as though it were a conscious and rational decision on their part. If homosexual acts were animalistic, there are also very animalistic reasons why some animals mate for life, depending on the environmental circumstances e.g. greater vulnerability to predators, and having both parents increase chances of survival. And if animals who mate for life somehow consciously do it out for reasons beyond sexual desires e.g. love, it doesn't mean that homosexual acts in nature are not for the same reasons, especially when many documented cases in zoos have homosexual animals staying together, suggesting that the main reason for them not staying together in the wild is environmental stress and danger. Either way, you need to compare apples with apples, and not put them on different standards for comparison. Furthermore, I feel that the entire point is moot because this does not naturally translate to how humans behave. We are special because we have evolved to a state where survival is nowhere as big a concern as animals, and this has given us the capability to rationalize and look beyond "natural" reasons for justifications of human issues.

The bulk of your argument revolves around the idea of morals, but I'll ask you have you ever thought about how these morals came about? I strongly believe that we, as humans, are constantly trying to make sense of the world we're living in, because this is critical in knowing our place in the world and building our identity. Naturally, in the past, religion held that dominant role because it was the only organization that had some offered some form of theories on how the universe worked. Science was infantile, if even existant, and religion held sway over how people thought and lived. It has been a almost a thousand years since religion has shaped societies, and naturally it is very institutionalized, to such an extent that it is basically a tacit assumption in many people's thought processes, an axiom that they have not even thought of questioning. It is such a strong part of some people's identity that the idea of questioning it just scares the shit out of them. But the modern times have come, and science has evolved so rapidly that it is offering another set of alternative theories, but with much greater empirical predictability that can be demonstrated to religion. Am I claming that religion does not have its purpose? No, I'm not, in fact every religion has their own great stories of goodness and compassion, and I for one think that Jesus' parables in the Bible hold so much wisdom. I am saying that organized religion is controlled by Man, and Man's fallabilities have tainted the spirit of religion. I am imploring you to question critically every religious teaching that you have been exposed to, and in MLK's words, differentiate between the just and unjust laws.

You may cast this as a freedom of speech/opinion issue, but I see it as far beyond that. Suppose (and I emphasize the suppose) that you are wrong, you are basically left with a very bruised ego, and perhaps an identity crisis, but nothing injurous will taint the life that you're currently living. But for us gays, the continued pressing of anti-gay sentiments makes us question the worth of our lives, and I'm sure that every gay at some point has been a bit fearful of the uncertainties of his/her future. Some have such a traumatic clash between unfair societal expectations and internal identity that they have taken their own lives. Specifically on the issue of marriage, denying us that right is essentially denying the true worth of the love we are capable of. Think about it this way, despite your claims that a homosexual relationship having no procreational role, isn't it all the amazing how homosexual couples can stay committed to each for the rest of their lives? Lust and sex can only keep that spark for that long, but our love keeps us together. The only way marriage can be exclusively heterosexual if it is defined to be having natural procreation between a couple. But it's not defined as that, else all infertile heterosexual couples would not be considered married. I do agree that marriage has its role in building a unit can contribute to society, and us as homosexual couples can. In fact, our love is so hard to come by given the smaller population and societal oppression, that when it comes we cherish it all the more. And I'm sure there are many homosexual couples who have more love that they can give, and would love to adopt children from orphanages and treat them as our own. We recognize that love is partly biological, but as humans, it goes far beyond that too. In fact, check out this clip where you can see gay couples adopting kids, and just looks at the children's faces to see how happy they are. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHnxt5UcxJY)

I recognize that we will always have our detractors, because the identity has been so strongly built that nothing less than a traumatic event can make them re-question their assumptions about the world, or the so-called truth. But think about it: the parents whose children came out to them. There are obviously a few cases where it ends badly, and naturally almost all had a very difficult beginning. But most of them come to accept it, and to such an extent that they realize there is nothing wrong with it, because it's all about love, love for their children, and the love that their child can show to another human being. I urge you to keep an open mind, critically examine your core values, but most of all understand that just words from a lot of people can take someone else's life.

I know that may be a case of tl'dr for some people, but a complex argument requires that length. So if you manage to get here reading through the whole thing, well done. :)

tennisvideos
Jan 26th, 2012, 03:36 AM
I like that she's standing her ground. Not all bias is hate and her's doesn't appear to be. While my views are very different to hers, I think it twisted, hypocritical and ironic that some people do feel hate towards her because she believes same gender marriage is wrong.

I like this post ...

Whitehead's Boy
Jan 26th, 2012, 03:42 AM
Who hates her? Who will answer this very simple question?

LoLex
Jan 26th, 2012, 01:33 PM
I like that she's standing her ground. Not all bias is hate and her's doesn't appear to be. While my views are very different to hers, I think it twisted, hypocritical and ironic that some people do feel hate towards her because she believes same gender marriage is wrong.

Who does really hate her and where is this all hate? How does it look like? What has someone done to her?

Morning Morgan
Jan 26th, 2012, 04:27 PM
Who does really hate her and where is this all hate? How does it look like? What has someone done to her?
It's a very Descartesian concept: "I think, therefore I am.". They think someone is hating on her (although there's no proof what-so-ever, probably their very small egos), and therefore there must be some people hating on her. The philosophy behind it is magical. :worship:

Wimbledon9
Jan 26th, 2012, 08:46 PM
I am very happy the australian gays and Martina stand their ground too.

Vespertine69
Jan 26th, 2012, 09:57 PM
Ahhh, Margaret Court at it again. She doesn't deserve to be hated of course, but I don't think anyone is genuinely hating her... I think most (myself included) just want her to understand that her views are not going to be aired without contest. This is NOT the same as hating her, nor is the same as wanting her to not have the right to speak out.

Someone has already pointed out the biggest logical fallacy in her corner... the Bible is very specific about women not having the station and rights she holds and wants to continue to hold... therefore there is no logical argument whatsoever for her to say that we must listen to her because the Bible says so. You don't get to cherry pick some sections and use them to deny some other people some rights.

Monica_Rules
Jan 26th, 2012, 10:27 PM
Serves the bitch right.

I hope someone destorys all her trophies, she doesn't deserve any acknowledgement as a 'champion' as she's such a vile human being.

I hope she finds peace with her 'god' when she dies, oh i forgot he doesn't exist

thrust
Jan 26th, 2012, 11:05 PM
Is there a shred of evidence Court is victim of a, quote, "relentless hate campaign"?

At least 90 per cent of the comments here have been viciously hateful towards Court the past several weeks. Self richeous Gays have been trashing her for years because she does not believe in their lifestyle, or especially, Gay marriage.

thrust
Jan 26th, 2012, 11:28 PM
It's always people spewing the hate who complain the loudest about the hate directed back to them.

Wrong! Court is speaking out against Gay marriage, something that was inconceivable during most of her lifetime. Not being Gay, she cannot understand why Gays,living together, need to be officially married. I am Gay, a year older than Margreat, an I agree with her. The hatred is coming from the Gays, not from Margreat. Some people just cannot disagree in a civil way.

stromatolite
Jan 27th, 2012, 01:00 AM
It's always people spewing the hate who complain the loudest about the hate directed back to them.

Wrong! Court is speaking out against Gay marriage, something that was inconceivable during most of her lifetime. Not being Gay, she cannot understand why Gays,living together, need to be officially married. I am Gay, a year older than Margreat, an I agree with her. The hatred is coming from the Gays, not from Margreat. Some people just cannot disagree in a civil way.

I'm afraid it’s you who’s wrong. It's not her opposition to gay marriage that has got people up in arms here, but her vilification of gays and gay relationships per se. As a gay, are you really comfortable with her characterization of gay relationships as “alternative, unhealthy, unnatural unions”, involving "what God calls abominable sexual practices” that violate “their very own God-given nature of what is right and what is wrong"? It’s maybe unfortunate that some people have resorted to personal insults aimed at MC, but TBH I think their anger is pretty understandable.

Morning Morgan
Jan 27th, 2012, 01:28 AM
Wrong! Court is speaking out against Gay marriage, something that was inconceivable during most of her lifetime. Not being Gay, she cannot understand why Gays,living together, need to be officially married. I am Gay, a year older than Margreat, an I agree with her. The hatred is coming from the Gays, not from Margreat. Some people just cannot disagree in a civil way.

I'll explain at least where I'm coming from. I strongly believe that freedom of speech is strongly rooted in protecting individuality, or at least that was the original intention. Individuality occurs because everyone has his own unique circumstances and mental ability, and what works for one does not work for another. The freedom of speech is just a cover for what Court is attempting to do: quashing the individuality of every gay out there. Her freedom of speech wants a pervasively dangerous end result in terms of individuality, imposing the will of an institutionalized concept even though it can never be applicable to everyone's circumstances and character. We are using our freedom of speech to seek a end result that enforces the protection of individuality, that every person should have the rights to allow him to live out his life the way he wants to, We could not be less concerned how she wants to run her household, or what she speaks to people who freely chooses to seek her opinion. But when she starts crossing that boundary, we have to speak up and protect our individual territory.

Cajka
Jan 27th, 2012, 03:05 AM
She uses misinterpreted parts of Bible to prove her point, sooo... Why would anyone hate someone so obsessed with dogma?! She's not even a hater, she's just terribly wrong and probably not only about this.

thegreendestiny
Jan 27th, 2012, 03:11 AM
Serves the bitch right.

I hope someone destorys all her trophies, she doesn't deserve any acknowledgement as a 'champion' as she's such a vile human being.

I hope she finds peace with her 'god' when she dies, oh i forgot he doesn't exist

This is exactly the reason why gays will never be fully appreciated in a civil society. Their vileness and self-righteous attitude where they always play victim hinders their full integration. I am not saying all gays are like this idiot but strong comments like that paint their entire tribe, continuing the cycle of hatred. :o

Dominic
Jan 27th, 2012, 03:15 AM
an I agree with her.

That gays shouldn't be allowed to get married?? really? why?

Seyz
Jan 27th, 2012, 03:24 AM
She really does deserve everything she is getting, probably not enough of it.
She can't expect to go around spewing propaganda against gay marriages and ruining the lives of gay people who want to get married and directly affecting them and not
expect them to stand up for their own rights. What? She expects gay people to just lay down and let her steam roll over their rights.

Brett.
Jan 27th, 2012, 04:48 AM
Margaret Court's views increase gay suicide risk: health advocate
BY: CHIP LE GRAND From: The Australian January 26, 2012 12:00AM

ONE of Australia's leading mental health advocates has accused Margaret Court of "spreading misery" and putting young gay people at greater risk of suicide with her public comments about homosexuality.

Headspace chief executive Chris Tanti, whose national network of youth mental health centres is funded by the Gillard government, said yesterday Court was perpetuating a discredited view that homosexuality was a psychiatric disorder.

Mr Tanti said he was angered by Court's public comments on sexuality, most recently in an article written by the former tennis great and published in the Herald Sun, in which Court argued that young people chose to be gay because of a moral decline in Australian society. "If there is one more young person who feels hopeless about being same-sex-attracted and feels that it is wrong, then we have another young person at risk," Mr Tanti said.


"Given that the risk is four times higher than the average, I am extremely concerned that this is getting airplay.
"In a culture like ours, which values our sports legends, you need to be really careful about what you say. She knows what it is like to experience depression. She knows how difficult that is. And basically what she is doing is making people feel bad about themselves. I think she is spreading misery."

Court, the winner of more grand-slam titles than any tennis player in history and a senior pastor at the evangelical Victory Life Centre in Perth, yesterday made her first appearance at this year's Australian Open, where gay rights activists have donned rainbow colours to protest against her views.

Tennis Australia has distanced itself from Court's views, while defending her right to hold them. For yesterday's centre-court matches, Court and her husband, Barry, were given the best seats in the Rod Laver Arena.

This guy made it very clear of what Margaret is putting those gay teens at risk. Her views really disgusted me!

thegreendestiny
Jan 27th, 2012, 05:01 AM
Wait, so gays will kill themselves because Rev. Court said she does not agree with gay marriage, like all church officials everywhere? :haha:

That has to be the poorest correlation of any argumentative assumption. People can be desperate to justify their excuse. :help:

Morning Morgan
Jan 27th, 2012, 05:11 AM
Wait, so gays will kill themselves because Rev. Court said she does not agree with gay marriage, like all church officials everywhere? :haha:

That has to be the poorest correlation of any argumentative assumption. People can be desperate to justify their excuse. :help:

I notice you have not responded to my post. Take me on with well constructed arguments if you can, instead of random snarky remarks. Or, if you wish, admit you're a bigot and I'll be perfectly happy with that.

thegreendestiny
Jan 27th, 2012, 05:30 AM
I notice you have not responded to my post. Take me on with well constructed arguments if you can, instead of random snarky remarks. Or, if you wish, admit you're a bigot and I'll be perfectly happy with that.

Honestly, I read your lengthy response and realized that if I try to refute it once more you'd do the same and so on and will just balloon to absurdity. You made your point (I commend your effort), I made mine, obviously none of us will give in. You have your advocacy, I have mine. Doesn't mean we can't be show respect for each other.

PS. You'd assume I have a tendency to be one based on how I react. I can assure you I am not a bigot. Conservative but not a bigot. :wavey:

calou
Jan 27th, 2012, 06:15 AM
A wonderful letter from Martina Navratilova :http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/dont-deny-us-same-sex-marraige-laws-says-martina-navratilova/story-fn6bn88w-1226254744774

Lord Choc Ice
Jan 27th, 2012, 06:20 AM
A wonderful letter from Martina Navratilova :http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/dont-deny-us-same-sex-marraige-laws-says-martina-navratilova/story-fn6bn88w-1226254744774

Navrat :bowdown:. She tried but it will undoubtedly fall on deaf ears.

Dominic
Jan 27th, 2012, 06:25 AM
Wait, so gays will kill themselves because Rev. Court said she does not agree with gay marriage, like all church officials everywhere? :haha:

That has to be the poorest correlation of any argumentative assumption. People can be desperate to justify their excuse. :help:

Ok it's probably hopeless here but I'm gonna try to have you make the links in your own head. Why do gays, in your opinion, kill themselves?

tennisvideos
Jan 27th, 2012, 06:37 AM
A wonderful letter from Martina Navratilova :http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/dont-deny-us-same-sex-marraige-laws-says-martina-navratilova/story-fn6bn88w-1226254744774

It's a wonderful letter and I agree with her totally.

The thing is, Margaret Court has her own belief system and IMO she is totally entitled to that and I am comfortable in allowing her to live (and speak up) according to those beliefs. I also am ok with others challenging those beliefs in a public forum like this or other mediums, as long as it is done respectfully.

All is well. The universe is big enough for everyone. Live and let be ... you don't have to be affected by other's beliefs ... what you focus on you attract into your experience. Look for hatred, oppression, discrimination etc and you will find it. Look for love, acceptance, and freedom and you will find it. Not only will you find it, it will grow with your continued focus in that direction. It's that simple. That is how life works at it's most basic. What is your choice?

stromatolite
Jan 27th, 2012, 06:44 AM
Margaret Court's views increase gay suicide risk: health advocate
BY: CHIP LE GRAND From: The Australian January 26, 2012 12:00AM

ONE of Australia's leading mental health advocates has accused Margaret Court of "spreading misery" and putting young gay people at greater risk of suicide with her public comments about homosexuality.

Headspace chief executive Chris Tanti, whose national network of youth mental health centres is funded by the Gillard government, said yesterday Court was perpetuating a discredited view that homosexuality was a psychiatric disorder.

Mr Tanti said he was angered by Court's public comments on sexuality, most recently in an article written by the former tennis great and published in the Herald Sun, in which Court argued that young people chose to be gay because of a moral decline in Australian society. "If there is one more young person who feels hopeless about being same-sex-attracted and feels that it is wrong, then we have another young person at risk," Mr Tanti said.


"Given that the risk is four times higher than the average, I am extremely concerned that this is getting airplay.
"In a culture like ours, which values our sports legends, you need to be really careful about what you say. She knows what it is like to experience depression. She knows how difficult that is. And basically what she is doing is making people feel bad about themselves. I think she is spreading misery."

Court, the winner of more grand-slam titles than any tennis player in history and a senior pastor at the evangelical Victory Life Centre in Perth, yesterday made her first appearance at this year's Australian Open, where gay rights activists have donned rainbow colours to protest against her views.

Tennis Australia has distanced itself from Court's views, while defending her right to hold them. For yesterday's centre-court matches, Court and her husband, Barry, were given the best seats in the Rod Laver Arena.

This guy made it very clear of what Margaret is putting those gay teens at risk. Her views really disgusted me!

I think you have to be careful what point you're trying to make here. It's okay to point out that many gays struggle with severe depression due to unwarranted feelings of social inadequacy, and that public statements like those of Court help perpetuate this (this is a fact), but I don't think the cause is helped by suggestions that people are killing themselves because of what she said (this is speculation). This only polarises the discussion and provides ammunition to her and her supporters who want to paint the rainbow protest as a radical fringe group rather than as a serious social movement.

stromatolite
Jan 27th, 2012, 06:50 AM
A wonderful letter from Martina Navratilova :http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/dont-deny-us-same-sex-marraige-laws-says-martina-navratilova/story-fn6bn88w-1226254744774

Not much to add to this. It will not change MC's mind, but it may help undo a bit of the damage done.

Asif_Nawaz
Jan 27th, 2012, 06:57 AM
Honestly, guys, while I may not agree with what she says, it doesn't mean she isn't worthy of respect or honour for her achievements in tennis. You can tell that massive double standards exist when people are criticized for maintaining an opinion, just because it is divergent from what others think.

Theodoropen
Jan 27th, 2012, 07:01 AM
Wait, so gays will kill themselves because Rev. Court said she does not agree with gay marriage, like all church officials everywhere? :haha:

That has to be the poorest correlation of any argumentative assumption. People can be desperate to justify their excuse. :help:

The fact that you find this hilarious says a lot about you. Nevermind, for now, the 'correlation' that you speak of - the topic is suicide, and you find that to be a laughing matter?

As for the ‘correlation’ – you scoff at the idea that MC’s views contribute to suicide among LGBT youth simply because you fail to see a linear causal relationship? Please direct me to the statistics wizard who's able to run the multivariate analyses required for you to stop ‘laughing’ about LGBT teen suicide.

The fact is that LGBT people kill themselves (or at least try to) every day. I certainly had persistent thoughts of suicide throughout my teen years, believing that I had absolutely no right to exist. That's what institutionalized (and social) homophobia does to people. I don't expect you to empathize with that - nor do I expect you to understand the effects of institutionalized homophobia and how people like Margaret Court contribute to it. What I do expect, however, is to be allowed to support at risk LGBT teens by repeatedly emphasizing how completely and irrefutably WRONG MC’s views truly are. It’s not just my right to do that – it’s my RESPONSIBILITY.

And btw, as another poster said, our issue with MC's views is not limited to her opposition to same-sex marriage. It's about her views of homosexuality (and yes, homosexuals) in general.

Apoleb
Jan 27th, 2012, 07:05 AM
You say it is a choice to be gay; do you mean to say you had feelings for women as well as men and chose men? That might explain your certainty on the issue.

No she didn't.

stromatolite
Jan 27th, 2012, 07:09 AM
No she didn't.

It's an open letter, and Martina asked Margaret a question. If anyone knows the answer to that question it's Margaret. I'm pretty sure you don't.

stromatolite
Jan 27th, 2012, 07:10 AM
Honestly, guys, while I may not agree with what she says, it doesn't mean she isn't worthy of respect or honour for her achievements in tennis. You can tell that massive double standards exist when people are criticized for maintaining an opinion, just because it is divergent from what others think.

This misconception has already been discussed at length. Read the earlier posts.

Apoleb
Jan 27th, 2012, 07:11 AM
It's an open letter, and Martina asked Margaret a question. If anyone knows the answer to that question it's Margaret. I'm pretty sure you don't.

:lol::lol::lol:

I wasn't trying to answer the question. "No she didn't" is just a way of rhetorically saying, "she didn't really go there".

thegreendestiny
Jan 27th, 2012, 07:12 AM
The fact that you find this hilarious says a lot about you. Nevermind, for now, the 'correlation' that you speak of - the topic is suicide, and you find that to be a laughing matter?

I did not mock or laugh at the fact that gays kill themselves because of fear and oppression. What I found funny is the way the article desperately makes MC's view somehow directly responsible for suicide. Read through the lines please. :rolleyes:

stromatolite
Jan 27th, 2012, 07:12 AM
:lol::lol::lol:

I wasn't trying to answer the question. "No she didn't" is just a way of rhetorically saying, "she didn't really go there".

Okay, misunderstanding. Not fully fluent in TF-speak yet :lol:

Theodoropen
Jan 27th, 2012, 07:19 AM
All is well. The universe is big enough for everyone. Live and let be ... you don't have to be affected by other's beliefs ... what you focus on you attract into your experience. Look for hatred, oppression, discrimination etc and you will find it. Look for love, acceptance, and freedom and you will find it. Not only will you find it, it will grow with your continued focus in that direction. It's that simple. That is how life works at it's most basic. What is your choice?

This exemplifies the classic 'blame the victim' mentality.

Theodoropen
Jan 27th, 2012, 07:23 AM
I did not mock or laugh at the fact that gays kill themselves because of fear and oppression. What I found funny is the way the article desperately makes MC's view somehow directly responsible for suicide. Read through the lines please. :rolleyes:

I addressed this assertion of yours in my post. "Read through the lines please."

tennisvideos
Jan 27th, 2012, 11:54 AM
This exemplifies the classic 'blame the victim' mentality.

Yes it does - because I believe that we all create our own reality whether we realise it or not, whether we take responsibility for it or not. Live in fear or with hatred in your heart and you will attract more things that energetically are attracted to that vibration.

Because most of us don't know that we create our own reality we just drift along observing life and the things that 'happen to us' and sometimes we feel good about these things, and sometimes we feel bad about them. And therefore we get a mix of good and bad things continuing to 'happen to us' seemingly out of our control. We are auto-pilot but not using our creative power deliberately. And so you are right, in that regard most people are 'victims' per se. But I don't blame anyone for that. I have lived most of my life that way too!

But by deliberately choosing more loving, compassionate, hopeful thoughts etc you can create a more positive experience. And how can you tell if you are choosing better thoughts? Your feelings. They are your guide to your future experience. If you consistently harbour thoughts that make you feel fear, anger, hatred, powerless etc then your experience will mirror those energies. But the reverse is also true.

That is why I try to focus on the good side of people - we are not all black and white or good / bad. We all have multiple facets. Including Margaret Court. And no matter that I am gay, I will always continue to see the good in her. Her great career, which has always been an inspiration to me, her charity work for the poor, homeless and needy etc. She does a lot of good. Just because I don't agree with her beliefs on sexuality doesn't mean I am going to hate her or put her down. That would only be hurting myself and generating negative emotions and creating a less than joyful future experience. Best thing is to allow everyone their beliefs and lifestyle and get on with mine in the best way I know how.

stromatolite
Jan 27th, 2012, 12:55 PM
Yes it does - because I believe that we all create our own reality whether we realise it or not, whether we take responsibility for it or not. Live in fear or with hatred in your heart and you will attract more things that energetically are attracted to that vibration.

Because most of us don't know that we create our own reality we just drift along observing life and the things that 'happen to us' and sometimes we feel good about these things, and sometimes we feel bad about them. And therefore we get a mix of good and bad things continuing to 'happen to us' seemingly out of our control. We are auto-pilot but not using our creative power deliberately. And so you are right, in that regard most people are 'victims' per se. But I don't blame anyone for that. I have lived most of my life that way too!

But by deliberately choosing more loving, compassionate, hopeful thoughts etc you can create a more positive experience. And how can you tell if you are choosing better thoughts? Your feelings. They are your guide to your future experience. If you consistently harbour thoughts that make you feel fear, anger, hatred, powerless etc then your experience will mirror those energies. But the reverse is also true.

That is why I try to focus on the good side of people - we are not all black and white or good / bad. We all have multiple facets. Including Margaret Court. And no matter that I am gay, I will always continue to see the good in her. Her great career, which has always been an inspiration to me, her charity work for the poor, homeless and needy etc. She does a lot of good. Just because I don't agree with her beliefs on sexuality doesn't mean I am going to hate her or put her down. That would only be hurting myself and generating negative emotions and creating a less than joyful future experience. Best thing is to allow everyone their beliefs and lifestyle and get on with mine in the best way I know how.

I'm all for peace and love up to a point, but this is a bit too new-age-all-is-well-in-the-benevolent-universe for my liking. Sometimes it's good to get angry, especially when someone has screwed you like MC has screwed gay people here. Throughout history, the emancipation of oppressed groups has been gained by determined resistance by the oppressed to the oppressors. Preferably that should take the form of peaceful resistance, but even Ghandi made clear in his own non-violent way that he wanted the British to get the fuck out of India. We have to be realistic here: the universe doesn't give a shit about MC OR about gays, so if gays want equal rights they need to stand up and be heard.

tennisvideos
Jan 27th, 2012, 01:04 PM
I'm all for peace and love up to a point, but this is a bit too new-age-all-is-well-in-the-benevolent-universe for my liking. Sometimes it's good to get angry, especially when someone has screwed you like MC has screwed gay people here. Throughout history, the emancipation of oppressed groups has been gained by determined resistance by the oppressed to the oppressors. Preferably that should take the form of peaceful resistance, but even Ghandi made clear in his own non-violent way that he wanted the British to get the fuck out of India. We have to be realistic here: the universe doesn't give a shit about MC OR about gays, so if gays want equal rights they need to stand up and be heard.

And I believe the best way to affect change or to help sway opinions is with humour, respect, peace, love and dignity.

Getting angry only turns people off supporting the cause IMO.

Also, I believe that outspoken conservative right wing politicians and religious people only hurt their own cause more by the way many of them express themselves. So I actually think that Margaret Court and her outspoken beliefs actually would encourage more people in our nation to support the case for equality.

Of course my beliefs are 'way out' for most people to accept. Even my other half thinks I am a nut case sometimes. :lol: But it's all good. We all have our own beliefs and opinions on a myriad of subjects and as long as we all respect each other than that is the main thing. :)

By the way, I have seen so many positive changes in our great country for Gays and Lesbians and other minority groups under the umbrella banner that they now fall under. It is no longer illegal to have homosexual relations in our country and now my partner and I have (for the most part) the same legal rights in terms of wills, estate etc. I believe it is only a matter of time before ANYONE can marry WHOEVER they choose in this country. The world is constantly evolving ... people's attitudes are changing. And much of these changes are the result of people being more exposed to positive gay and lesbian role models in society and local communities, the workplace etc. People realise that we are not from another planet - that we have the same basic needs and motivations as they have. That we aren't threatening - we do laugh at the same things they do, we do eat the same things they do etc etc. Of course I am generalising. But what I am saying in a broad sense is that we are being accepted and the younger generations generally are always more tolerant than the older generations (just look at the votes on gay marriage to see this). It's a natural evolution. That's why I live in hope, NO, CONFIDENCE that things will continue to change for the better for our G&L community.

PS: I have participated in many of the wonderful peaceful rallies (some people call them protests but I never call them protests) over the years for G&L equality. I believe the fun and peaceful ones do a lot more good than any aggressive forms of protest. One can tell from the people witnessing the events and the positive and fun reactions you get from families and the average person in the crowd as you go past what sort of an effect you are having. :)

Cajka
Jan 27th, 2012, 01:24 PM
And I believe the best way to affect change or to help sway opinions is with humour, respect, peace, love and dignity.

Getting angry only turns people off supporting the cause IMO.


Controlled anger is OK. It's actually completely normal to feel angry about some injustice. Of course, I don't support any kind of violence (verbal or physical), but I expect gay people to react when people deny them their rights. But not only gay people, it's completely useless if straight people don't support them in their fight. Wrong things should affect people, at least those whose blood pressure isn't 70/40.

tennisvideos
Jan 27th, 2012, 01:33 PM
Controlled anger is OK. It's actually completely normal to feel angry about some injustice. Of course, I don't support any kind of violence (verbal or physical), but I expect gay people to react when people deny them their rights. But not only gay people, it's completely useless if straight people don't support them in their fight. Wrong things should affect people, at least those whose blood pressure isn't 70/40.

Well getting angry could be a good place to get one motivated to action. But then what I am trying to say is that I believe that the action (eg. rallies, protests etc) that are done with humour, peace, respect and dignity are more effective than any action DONE in anger (or expressing anger) as far as gathering support. Just my opinion.

stromatolite
Jan 27th, 2012, 01:47 PM
And I believe the best way to affect change or to help sway opinions is with humour, respect, peace, love and dignity.

Getting angry only turns people off supporting the cause IMO.

Also, I believe that outspoken conservative right wing politicians and religious people only hurt their own cause more by the way many of them express themselves. So I actually think that Margaret Court and her outspoken beliefs actually would encourage more people in our nation to support the case for equality.

Of course my beliefs are 'way out' for most people to accept. Even my other half thinks I am a nut case sometimes. :lol: But it's all good. We all have our own beliefs and opinions on a myriad of subjects and as long as we all respect each other than that is the main thing. :)

By the way, I have seen so many positive changes in our great country for Gays and Lesbians and other minority groups under the umbrella banner that they now fall under. It is no longer illegal to have homosexual relations in our country and now my partner and I have (for the most part) the same legal rights in terms of wills, estate etc. I believe it is only a matter of time before ANYONE can marry WHOEVER they choose in this country. The world is constantly evolving ... people's attitudes are changing. And much of these changes are the result of people being more exposed to positive gay and lesbian role models in society and local communities, the workplace etc. People realise that we are not from another planet - that we have the same basic needs and motivations as they have. That we aren't threatening - we do laugh at the same things they do, we do eat the same things they do etc etc. Of course I am generalising. But what I am saying in a broad sense is that we are being accepted and the younger generations generally are always more tolerant than the older generations (just look at the votes on gay marriage to see this). It's a natural evolution. That's why I live in hope, NO, CONFIDENCE that things will continue to change for the better for our G&L community.

PS: I have participated in many of the wonderful peaceful rallies (some people call them protests but I never call them protests) over the years for G&L equality. I believe the fun and peaceful ones do a lot more good than any aggressive forms of protest. One can tell from the people witnessing the events and the positive and fun reactions you get from families and the average person in the crowd as you go past what sort of an effect you are having. :)

I think we agree that protest is more effective when it's relatively peaceful, we just disagree on the difference it can make to inject a little venom into it from time to time. I think that can help, because if humour, respect, peace, love and dignity is all you've got on offer the people you're trying to convince are entitled to wonder whether you're really serious. And to be blunt I think it's wishful thinking to believe that conservatives only hurt themselves with their statements. Especially on controversial issues like this there are more than enough people willing to take the word of an icon like Court, especially if nobody appears to be angered by it. The progress that has been made in the area of gay rights has not come cheaply in that respect. But live and let live, you protest in your way and others protest in theirs, no harm done either way I'd say.

Navratil
Jan 27th, 2012, 03:30 PM
It's a shame for Australia that a court in Melbourne Park is still named after such a person!

terjw
Jan 27th, 2012, 05:05 PM
I'm over this too...

I think BJK has said it best...

BILLIE Jean King has dismissed suggestions Tennis Australia should remove Margaret Court's name from Melbourne Park because of her views on homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

King told the Sun that while she disagrees with Court's opposition to gay marriage, she does not think TA should rename its third show court, which is named after the 24-time grand slam singles champion.

"Get rid of her for that?" King said. "Because you don't agree with her? Are you kidding?

"Just because you don't agree with someone? Please. She deserves it. She's a great player."

King remains on friendly terms with Court and they dine together every year at Wimbledon and frequently debate issues.

"I totally respect her opinion, but I don't agree with her at all," King said.

Very nice words by BJK. It shows that they can be friends but both find each others views distasteful.

Incidentally lots of claims in this thread with no basis of fact that she hates gays or only talks to them so she can convert them. If they won't see the errors of their ways where's the evidence she hates them or won't be friends with them?

That (or Nav's response sticking to the actual facts and replying to the views on gay marriage without making things up) should be the proper response. 80% of the posts here are OTT, hateful and/or attributing hate as her motive. All those posts do for me is drive me to have sympathy for her receiving all this.

allhailwilliams
Jan 27th, 2012, 05:52 PM
Leave court alone. Every thing she said is in the Bible, if u don't like it take it up with Jesus.

Whitehead's Boy
Jan 27th, 2012, 06:17 PM
Leave court alone. Every thing she said is in the Bible, if u don't like it take it up with Jesus.

Do you have his contact information by chance?

Monzanator
Jan 27th, 2012, 06:30 PM
I think we agree that protest is more effective when it's relatively peaceful, we just disagree on the difference it can make to inject a little venom into it from time to time. I think that can help, because if humour, respect, peace, love and dignity is all you've got on offer the people you're trying to convince are entitled to wonder whether you're really serious. And to be blunt I think it's wishful thinking to believe that conservatives only hurt themselves with their statements. Especially on controversial issues like this there are more than enough people willing to take the word of an icon like Court, especially if nobody appears to be angered by it. The progress that has been made in the area of gay rights has not come cheaply in that respect. But live and let live, you protest in your way and others protest in theirs, no harm done either way I'd say.

C'mon! Little venom? Admit you want to flush all the naysayers down the toilet and join them on the dark side. No need to pretend LGBT supporters are all for love, peace and whatever. It's not the sixties anymore. They can hate the alleged close-minded people and wish them all the worse just as well as the close-minded people hate gay people. We're supposedly all equal so hate can be felt from both sides.

stromatolite
Jan 27th, 2012, 06:38 PM
C'mon! Little venom? Admit you want to flush all the naysayers down the toilet and join them on the dark side. No need to pretend LGBT supporters are all for love, peace and whatever. It's not the sixties anymore. They can hate the alleged close-minded people and wish them all the worse just as well as the close-minded people hate gay people. We're supposedly all equal so hate can be felt from both sides.

It'd be nice if just for once you'd take the time to read the posts on a thread and at least try to understand what point people are trying to make before just jumping in randomly reacting to whatever words happen to catch your attention. Sorry, I've tried in the past to have a conversation with you, I haven't got the energy this time around. Find somebody else to pester.

allhailwilliams
Jan 27th, 2012, 07:21 PM
Do you have his contact information by chance?

Yes. Drop on your knees and pray.

Whitehead's Boy
Jan 27th, 2012, 07:43 PM
Yes. Drop on your knees and pray.

And?

Olórin
Jan 27th, 2012, 07:44 PM
Leave court alone. Every thing she said is in the Bible, if u don't like it take it up with Jesus.

Jesus didn't write the Bible, munchkin.

Less than 5% of what's in the bible is directly attributable to the historical figure of Jesus. I swear all hardcore,reactionary Christians need to take a History degree module in early Christianity or something.

Monzanator
Jan 27th, 2012, 07:52 PM
It'd be nice if just for once you'd take the time to read the posts on a thread and at least try to understand what point people are trying to make before just jumping in randomly reacting to whatever words happen to catch your attention. Sorry, I've tried in the past to have a conversation with you, I haven't got the energy this time around. Find somebody else to pester.

I guess this equals to that little dose of venom then. If that's fine with you, it's fine with me as well :wavey: Your previous posts in various threads indicate clearly you have very little respect for people opposing your point of view on gay marriage and no matter how nice and polite you're trying to be or whatever I say on whatever matter, we never seem to agree on anything. You even flushed me down when I said Stosur lost to Cirstea because of the pressure to win. I mean, I even found something in common with the WS fans in the most impressive slam thread some time ago and that was the toughest debate I ever had over here, but with you I can't find one damn thing in common :o Pretty unique!

stromatolite
Jan 27th, 2012, 08:17 PM
I guess this equals to that little dose of venom then. If that's fine with you, it's fine with me as well :wavey: Your previous posts in various threads indicate clearly you have very little respect for people opposing your point of view on gay marriage and no matter how nice and polite you're trying to be or whatever I say on whatever matter, we never seem to agree on anything. You even flushed me down when I said Stosur lost to Cirstea because of the pressure to win. I mean, I even found something in common with the WS fans in the most impressive slam thread some time ago and that was the toughest debate I ever had over here, but with you I can't find one damn thing in common :o Pretty unique!

I have no problem at all with people opposing my point of view, but you drive me nuts because you mostly have no idea what my point of view is, let alone come up with anything coherent that challenges it. You seem to see yourself as some kind of independent spirit who dares to go against the grain of all the politically correct folks here like me, but to the extent that I can make any sense out of your posts, there's nothing really shocking or upsetting about them at all. Mildly reactionary is the word I'd use, run-of-the-mill pub talk. Seriously, it's time for a reality check: you're driving not just me but pretty well everybody here nuts with your blather. Give us a break.

LoLex
Jan 27th, 2012, 09:23 PM
C'mon! Little venom? Admit you want to flush all the naysayers down the toilet and join them on the dark side. No need to pretend LGBT supporters are all for love, peace and whatever. It's not the sixties anymore. They can hate the alleged close-minded people and wish them all the worse just as well as the close-minded people hate gay people. We're supposedly all equal so hate can be felt from both sides.

If the hate is felt from "both sides", then why someone even bothers to say it's the gay people who hates her. This is just putting a label on someone.

Monzanator
Jan 27th, 2012, 09:56 PM
I have no problem at all with people opposing my point of view, but you drive me nuts because you mostly have no idea what my point of view is, let alone come up with anything coherent that challenges it. You seem to see yourself as some kind of independent spirit who dares to go against the grain of all the politically correct folks here like me, but to the extent that I can make any sense out of your posts, there's nothing really shocking or upsetting about them at all. Mildly reactionary is the word I'd use, run-of-the-mill pub talk. Seriously, it's time for a reality check: you're driving not just me but pretty well everybody here nuts with your blather. Give us a break.

My main point is that marriage is a relationship between man & woman (and it doesn't have anything to do with religion, cause I'm not a religious person myself) and I don't care how much that offends the so-called equal rights :shrug: I don't call LGBT people ill, mentally fragile or anything else and if you haven't figured that out already, I don't know how to put it more simple for you to understand :shrug: Just because I agree with Court's main statement, it doesn't mean I support her reasoning, because it's mainly based around religion and that's not my kettle of fish.

If the hate is felt from "both sides", then why someone even bothers to say it's the gay people who hates her. This is just putting a label on someone.

You don't have to be gay to support gay rights :shrug: These days I get the feeling every little damn thing is being hooked up with all kinds of human/equal rights. And people claiming the gay marriage issue worse than racism and slavery is truly pathetic (I've read such comments on GM) :facepalm:

dragonflies
Jan 27th, 2012, 10:48 PM
My main point is that marriage is a relationship between man & woman (and it doesn't have anything to do with religion, cause I'm not a religious person myself) and I don't care how much that offends the so-called equal rights :shrug: I don't call LGBT people ill, mentally fragile or anything else and if you haven't figured that out already, I don't know how to put it more simple for you to understand :shrug: Just because I agree with Court's main statement, it doesn't mean I support her reasoning, because it's mainly based around religion and that's not my kettle of fish.



You don't have to be gay to support gay rights :shrug: These days I get the feeling every little damn thing is being hooked up with all kinds of human/equal rights. And people claiming the gay marriage issue worse than racism and slavery is truly pathetic (I've read such comments on GM) :facepalm:





You have all the rights in the world to agree with Court and think about marriage the way you do. Actually, you contradicted yourself because people here voiced their oppinions that they took issues with Court for calling publicly homosexual "abormination" and denied same sex marriage rights by saying " legally marriage is not theirs to take". They did not care about her religious belief or wanted to change hers.



We all already know your definition of marriage and your side on this matter, no need to repeat. So, unless you agree with her statements above which is the main thing to ignite the debate in here, we have heard enough from you.




About the comparison of homophobic to slavery and racism, it's a valid comparison. It's all about the prejudice/ discrimination to some groups of people on natural matters that they have no control over, such as the color of their skins, or sexual orientation. Not about which one is worse, the vital matter is whether they are related which they are. Sorry that you are unable to see that.

Navratilova also mentioned of it in her article by stating the Bible was a foundation in the past to encourage Christians against interacial marriage and slavery. These false beliefs were proven wrong in the modern days. It's time for them to finally "see the light" as they usually say and take care of their own business before trying to dictate how others should live.

LoLex
Jan 27th, 2012, 10:56 PM
My main point is that marriage is a relationship between man & woman (and it doesn't have anything to do with religion, cause I'm not a religious person myself) and I don't care how much that offends the so-called equal rights :shrug: I don't call LGBT people ill, mentally fragile or anything else and if you haven't figured that out already, I don't know how to put it more simple for you to understand :shrug: Just because I agree with Court's main statement, it doesn't mean I support her reasoning, because it's mainly based around religion and that's not my kettle of fish.

Please, I would like to know how gay marriages can affect your life? In what way?

dragonflies
Jan 27th, 2012, 11:09 PM
Well getting angry could be a good place to get one motivated to action. But then what I am trying to say is that I believe that the action (eg. rallies, protests etc) that are done with humour, peace, respect and dignity are more effective than any action DONE in anger (or expressing anger) as far as gathering support. Just my opinion.





The process of fighting for gay rights have been occurring so far in all over the world in various ways. Mostly in a respectful manner, sometimes even passive. I agree that actions are more effective accompany with humor, dignity and calm, but with an issue such as this, being serious, bold, relentless is sometimes necessary as humor and indirectly can sometimes can easily be overlooked and have little impact.




You are lucky that you live in a developed country which is tolerant to GLBT. Yeah, it's good that you gays can still live together and keep your jobs, only sometimes being called publicly "aborminations" and be told you are not worthy, just second rated citizens with limited rights. Sadly, GLBT in other countries, even here in the US, are not that fortunate, so we are continue to have our voices and try to reason with the general public until they understand about gay and lesbians properly.


From your previous posts, you seem appeared to be a secured gay man that is happy with your life and it's all good for you. I have never felt doubted, suffering, shameful, confused, hiding, etc... about my sexual orientation. I haven't been abused/bullied over this matter either ( except once in highschool, a classmate teased me something like" sister", then it was also his first/last time as I chased him around, strangled him to the ground, untill he appolozied, lol. That guy must have been blinded to say such thing). Unfortunally, a lot of other younger ones out there who aren't that fortunate or being secured enough about themselves. They got abandoned/abused by their familes/ schoolmates, so it's necessary to let them know there are people on their side out there, before they start making wrong decisions.

dragonflies
Jan 28th, 2012, 01:14 AM
Wait, so gays will kill themselves because Rev. Court said she does not agree with gay marriage, like all church officials everywhere? :haha:

That has to be the poorest correlation of any argumentative assumption. People can be desperate to justify their excuse. :help:







Again, a dumb comment from this poster, and judging from the "intelligent" level in your previous posts, I never expected anything less from you.




Teen gays don't kill themselves over some silly comments. There was a teenager quit school and attempt ( unsucessfully) to suicide b/c he got beaten up and got his pants pulled off, called degrading names when he went to school. His bullies must believed in the samething as Court does ie gays are abormination and being gay is immoral.

Monzanator
Jan 28th, 2012, 12:14 PM
You have all the rights in the world to agree with Court and think about marriage the way you do. Actually, you contradicted yourself because people here voiced their oppinions that they took issues with Court for calling publicly homosexual "abormination" and denied same sex marriage rights by saying " legally marriage is not theirs to take". They did not care about her religious belief or wanted to change hers.

We all already know your definition of marriage and your side on this matter, no need to repeat. So, unless you agree with her statements above which is the main thing to ignite the debate in here, we have heard enough from you.

About the comparison of homophobic to slavery and racism, it's a valid comparison. It's all about the prejudice/ discrimination to some groups of people on natural matters that they have no control over, such as the color of their skins, or sexual orientation. Not about which one is worse, the vital matter is whether they are related which they are. Sorry that you are unable to see that.

Navratilova also mentioned of it in her article by stating the Bible was a foundation in the past to encourage Christians against interacial marriage and slavery. These false beliefs were proven wrong in the modern days. It's time for them to finally "see the light" as they usually say and take care of their own business before trying to dictate how others should live.

Why then the Church and all forms of religion haven't been outlawed yet if the Bible is wrong with the modern world and causing trouble time and time again? Is Bible against equal right and supporting homophobia? Why then not transfer all the money which various Churches earn to people who really need it, like gay couples who can't afford paying the surrogate mother to bear them a child? We've seen Romney's tax papers recently, he donated 9 milion (est) to the Mormon church. Why isn't he stopped and kicked out of the political life after such a travesty?

Please, I would like to know how gay marriages can affect your life? In what way?

They don't. It's the same feeling what people get when seeing Wozniacki as #1 without a slam. You may despise it, but it doesn't really affect your life in a significant matter. Same goes for straight people who are supporting this though, they aren't really affected apart from a moral feeling inside their head.

LoLex
Jan 28th, 2012, 12:25 PM
WThey don't. It's the same feeling what people get when seeing Wozniacki as #1 without a slam. You may despise it, but it doesn't really affect your life in a significant matter. Same goes for straight people who are supporting this though, they aren't really affected apart from a moral feeling inside their head.

Exactly. And then why is this such a case for some straight people.

This should not be discussed. People should rather make reflections in their own mind about it and really stop complaining about gay people and their rights.

Monzanator
Jan 28th, 2012, 12:27 PM
Must have something to do with psychology or something. But I'm not an expert in that so I won't elaborate further :)

Brett.
Jan 31st, 2012, 03:13 AM
Margaret just started off being stupid and ridiculous again! "sigh"

Margaret Court says being gay result of sexual abuse

http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2012/01/28/1226256/233676-margaret-court.jpg

MARGARET Court is now claiming homosexuality is often the result of sexual abuse.

Amid a growing backlash over her opposition to same-sex marriage, the three-time Wimbledon champion told the Sunday Herald Sun that "many, many" gay and lesbian people she knew of had "been abused" - and this had led to their sexual orientation.

Court, a senior minister at Perth's Victory Life Centre, has already sparked fury among gay and equal rights activists for recent comments including that the push for gay marriage was trying "to legitimise what God calls abominable sexual practices".

When asked whether she felt such abuse led people to homosexuality, Court said: "Yes. You look at a lot of them, that's happened."

Peter Rosengren, editor of the Catholic Church's The Record newspaper, batted away her latest claims, saying he had "never heard of any scientific study" linking abuse and homosexuality, and that "everyone has to be respected".
In a wide-ranging interview, Court also said:

* "The word of God is our TV guide to life. It's not out to get you, it's not the fear book, it's a wonderful love book and it tells us how to live our lives".

* "I would have won six Wimbledons not three ... if I'd known what I know now from the scriptures, on the area of the mind".

* She had "nothing against" immigrants, but many expected Australians "to change our laws to embrace what they have, and I don't feel that's right".

* "Christianity is a way forward" for Aboriginal people.

Court also said she did not regret speaking out against same-sex marriage.

"I say what God says, and that's why I've spoken out," she said.

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

"I have a right as a minister to say that. I believe it's important for young people to know that.

"You look at the decline in the world today I think it's so important for values and morals and righteousness to come forth like never before."

Seyz
Jan 31st, 2012, 05:06 AM
Well on the reverse side there are thankfully a lot of straight people that also support gay marriage.
Maybe we should just look at the bright side... Reading about people like Margaret just ruins everyone's day. Talk about a walking black cloud.

Dav.
Jan 31st, 2012, 05:12 AM
How insulting. :o

She clearly has no grasp of psychology and should probably educate herself further before continuing this tirade. As for her latest comments, she should probably talk to those of us who went through denial and depression before finally coming to terms with who we are, and then judge for herself if being homosexual is a choice. I had the best up-bringing possible, with two loving parents, an economically comfortable setting, and 16 years of Catholic school education. I'm sorry, but maybe it's time to accept that people are the way they are and the fact that diversity is something to be celebrated so that children who are fundamentally different can feel like they belong.

Morning Morgan
Jan 31st, 2012, 07:34 AM
I like this latest sermon from Court actually. First time she really shot herself in the foot. :oh:

ranfurly
Jan 31st, 2012, 07:47 AM
Margaret needs to let it slide now.

She has said what she has said to say.

She is just now digging a even bigger hole for herself, and her attempts to pull herself out are becoming futile.

It's not a matter of Court sharing her views, it's a matter of defending them now, and she's getting herself tied in a knot.

Let it rest Maggie, and save yourself the embarrassment now.

You've done what you set out for, it's time to let it go and go back to potting your flower bed and other eldery woman activities that your generation exercises.

Londoner
Jan 31st, 2012, 07:54 AM
I always laugh when people equate God with personal success! She's saying she would have won 6 Wimbledons! Just like Sue Barker who claimed she was playing for God (when she was hooked up with CLiff Richards!). As if God would care about such things! And as if she speaks for God or knows God's mind - every religious document is written by a human.

Look, the woman is obviously now a sandwich short of a picnic, and no one will ever change her mind. Best to ignore her. She really has very little influence.

bandabou
Jan 31st, 2012, 11:46 AM
About the comparison of homophobic to slavery and racism, it's a valid comparison. It's all about the prejudice/ discrimination to some groups of people on natural matters that they have no control over, such as the color of their skins, or sexual orientation. Not about which one is worse, the vital matter is whether they are related which they are. Sorry that you are unable to see that.

Navratilova also mentioned of it in her article by stating the Bible was a foundation in the past to encourage Christians against interacial marriage and slavery. These false beliefs were proven wrong in the modern days. It's time for them to finally "see the light" as they usually say and take care of their own business before trying to dictate how others should live.

Totally wrong...nowhere in the Bible is there any discrimination about race...the only thing that matters: is if the person believes in Jaweh, Jehova, as God.

Cajka
Jan 31st, 2012, 12:42 PM
Margaret just started off being stupid and ridiculous again! "sigh"

Margaret Court says being gay result of sexual abuse

http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2012/01/28/1226256/233676-margaret-court.jpg

MARGARET Court is now claiming homosexuality is often the result of sexual abuse.

Amid a growing backlash over her opposition to same-sex marriage, the three-time Wimbledon champion told the Sunday Herald Sun that "many, many" gay and lesbian people she knew of had "been abused" - and this had led to their sexual orientation.

Court, a senior minister at Perth's Victory Life Centre, has already sparked fury among gay and equal rights activists for recent comments including that the push for gay marriage was trying "to legitimise what God calls abominable sexual practices".

When asked whether she felt such abuse led people to homosexuality, Court said: "Yes. You look at a lot of them, that's happened."

Peter Rosengren, editor of the Catholic Church's The Record newspaper, batted away her latest claims, saying he had "never heard of any scientific study" linking abuse and homosexuality, and that "everyone has to be respected".
In a wide-ranging interview, Court also said:

* "The word of God is our TV guide to life. It's not out to get you, it's not the fear book, it's a wonderful love book and it tells us how to live our lives".

* "I would have won six Wimbledons not three ... if I'd known what I know now from the scriptures, on the area of the mind".

* She had "nothing against" immigrants, but many expected Australians "to change our laws to embrace what they have, and I don't feel that's right".

* "Christianity is a way forward" for Aboriginal people.

Court also said she did not regret speaking out against same-sex marriage.

"I say what God says, and that's why I've spoken out," she said.

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

"I have a right as a minister to say that. I believe it's important for young people to know that.

"You look at the decline in the world today I think it's so important for values and morals and righteousness to come forth like never before."

I don't believe in God, but this lady keeps on insulting those who do. Why can't she simply admit that she has her own prejudices. It's so annoying that she mentions God all the time to justify her bigotry.
And now she said that gay people were sexually abused as children. She's a very mean old lady.

Maria rocks
Jan 31st, 2012, 12:44 PM
http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2012/01/23/1226251/704986-margaret-court.jpg

MARGARET Court says she felt victimised and became the target of a relentless hate campaign for airing her views on gay marriage.

The former champion has admitted being stunned by the backlash after her controversial comments made headlines around the world.

The pastor, 70, who arrived in Melbourne last night, said it was never intended as an attack on the gay and lesbian community but rather a plea for the nation to retain its morals.

Momentum is building ahead of a protest by equal rights campaigners at the show court that bears her name.

Organisers hope to send a message of unity by wearing rainbow colours and waving flags on Friday.

Mrs Court said she would not back down from her views and had no concerns about attending the Open this week.

"To target me and the tennis is a political stunt," Court said.

"I love them, I even work with them ... but what concerns me so much is the amount of hatred that has been directed at me.

"There have been some awful things ... But I love my nation and I don't like seeing it in moral decline. I pray for it, I love it and I want to protect the young of the future. My heart is for the next generation."

Gays and lesbians could lead their life without touching marriage as ordained by God, she said.

But another tennis great, Martina Navratilova, repeated her disappointment yesterday, saying Mrs Court's views were outdated.

"It's not about any one person," Navratilova said.

"It's not about religious rights, it's about human rights. She's only seeing it from one viewpoint."

It is believed Mrs Court will not attend the tennis in an official capacity but will view plans for the redevelopment of the arena named in her honour.

Her huge collection of trophies will be moved from Western Australia and put on public display in the new centre.

Tennis Australia has said it did not support Mrs Court's views.

"Margaret has expressed a personal view," tournament director Craig Tiley said last week .

"(We) do not share that view and believe everyone should be treated equally and fairly."

Mrs Court said yesterday: "What I have said is what God has said in the Scriptures ... we are a Christian nation and we should be able to say that."

Go and cry me a river, bitch! I've always loathe her since she made a negative comment about equal marriage.

The thing is if you say this stuff surely you expect a reaction.

tennisbum79
Jan 31st, 2012, 02:28 PM
I always laugh when people equate God with personal success! She's saying she would have won 6 Wimbledons! Just like Sue Barker who claimed she was playing for God (when she was hooked up with CLiff Richards!). As if God would care about such things! And as if she speaks for God or knows God's mind - every religious document is written by a human.


Most people who hold that view also think those unfortunate who are NOT as successful as they are, have not shown enough devotion to God to merit a reward.
This view is driven home daily by many TV preachers.


I don't know how they reconcile that view with the New Testament, where Jesus seems much more closer to the poor people and destitute than the rich.

it is the heights of arrogance when some christians have convinced themselves God cares about their little day-to-day activities such as playing a tennis and football where there are wars, natural disasters, famine, diseases in the world.
God has enough on his plate.

Beat
Jan 31st, 2012, 02:36 PM
MARGARET Court is now claiming homosexuality is often the result of sexual abuse.

Amid a growing backlash over her opposition to same-sex marriage, the three-time Wimbledon champion told the Sunday Herald Sun that "many, many" gay and lesbian people she knew of had "been abused" - and this had led to their sexual orientation.

okay, she's obviously not very bright, if any more proof was needed.

tennisvideos
Jan 31st, 2012, 02:42 PM
Maybe many of the gays and lesbians who have gone to her church have been sexually abused in their past. Has any of you who have posted on this point reflected to consider that?

From my perspective, the judgemental ones are no better than Margaret and her opinions. It is hypocritical.

stromatolite
Jan 31st, 2012, 02:45 PM
Margaret needs to let it slide now.

She has said what she has said to say.

She is just now digging a even bigger hole for herself, and her attempts to pull herself out are becoming futile.

It's not a matter of Court sharing her views, it's a matter of defending them now, and she's getting herself tied in a knot.

Let it rest Maggie, and save yourself the embarrassment now.

You've done what you set out for, it's time to let it go and go back to potting your flower bed and other eldery woman activities that your generation exercises.

:lol: Yes, now that she's moved from the Bible to folk psychology as a basis for her beliefs she's looking even more out of her depth than ever.

I always laugh when people equate God with personal success! She's saying she would have won 6 Wimbledons! Just like Sue Barker who claimed she was playing for God (when she was hooked up with CLiff Richards!). As if God would care about such things! And as if she speaks for God or knows God's mind - every religious document is written by a human.

Look, the woman is obviously now a sandwich short of a picnic, and no one will ever change her mind. Best to ignore her. She really has very little influence.

I think you're right. If she had quit after her first statement there were probably still some people who were prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt, but this latest stuff is just silly.

:lol: at your comments about people who equate God with personal success. I always cringe when people cross themselves after winning a match (even though I actually like some of the players who do it). Do they really believe that God is a tennis fan, and has decided to use his almighty powers to influence the outcome of tennis matches (as opposed to, say, ending world poverty or protecting people from violent crimes)?

dragonflies
Jan 31st, 2012, 03:02 PM
Maybe many of the gays and lesbians who have gone to her church have been sexually abused in their past. Has any of you who have posted on this point reflected to consider that?

From my perspective, the judgemental ones are no better than Margaret and her opinions. It is hypocritical.





Making a statement publicly to conclude a sexual trend based on a few/some random cases that she knew is ignorant, to say the least.




I've met countless gay guys/ girls from decades, and I honestly haven't known anyone who was a victim of sexual abuse so far in America. Sometimes on the news, but they were appeared as the anomalies. So, there are suddently many of abused gay people came to her church? The rates of gay sexually abused in Australia is that great? Court's church is the only place that they can go to ask for help? Do you really think there are that many abused gay came to her church and not to some of the organizations that run by gay? Are there that many gay guys in Australia that are so shallow and prideless that come to someone who had called them "aborminations" to ask for help? Think about it.

dragonflies
Jan 31st, 2012, 03:14 PM
Totally wrong...nowhere in the Bible is there any discrimination about race...the only thing that matters: is if the person believes in Jaweh, Jehova, as God.




I'm not Christian, so I only read a part of a Bible when I was in my childhood, out of curious. The statement in my post that regards race and slavery in the Bible was originaly from Navratilova's letter which publicly posted worldwide. She claimed that she studied the Bible before making her statement and I take her words for that.



I hope you studied the Bible carefuly like Navratilova did and be responsible for what you said this time, differently with most of the posts you have made so far on this board which were usually pointless and silly.

dragonflies
Jan 31st, 2012, 03:35 PM
Maybe many of the gays and lesbians who have gone to her church have been sexually abused in their past. Has any of you who have posted on this point reflected to consider that?

From my perspective, the judgemental ones are no better than Margaret and her opinions. It is hypocritical.





As it has been repeated times after times in these threads, the majority of people here are not against MC personally, just her "opinions". Sure there were some posters who reacted strongly, but only on a tennis message board and you would have expected that's a nature of message forum. I'm sure if they were asked about their opinions publicly, they would respond in a different manner. We are voicing for the society to hear about gay people and expecting they will have a more appropriate understanding about GLBT and have a properly knowledge about sexual orientation. The main issue is not about MC, not personally.

dragonflies
Jan 31st, 2012, 03:40 PM
Why then the Church and all forms of religion haven't been outlawed yet if the Bible is wrong with the modern world and causing trouble time and time again? Is Bible against equal right and supporting homophobia? Why then not transfer all the money which various Churches earn to people who really need it, like gay couples who can't afford paying the surrogate mother to bear them a child? We've seen Romney's tax papers recently, he donated 9 milion (est) to the Mormon church. Why isn't he stopped and kicked out of the political life after such a travesty?



They don't. It's the same feeling what people get when seeing Wozniacki as #1 without a slam. You may despise it, but it doesn't really affect your life in a significant matter. Same goes for straight people who are supporting this though, they aren't really affected apart from a moral feeling inside their head.




This post has so many holes in concept understanding, perception, rational skills, knowledges... that it would be hard to start to write a fully reponse to this one. Everyone who is sane can easily spot them though. I have other things to do now and I would go back to this post later then.

thrust
Jan 31st, 2012, 04:01 PM
BJK had the most fair and reasonable response to Court's statements. This is supposed to be a tennis forum, not a discussion of Gay rights or anyones religious beliefs.

Rollo
Jan 31st, 2012, 04:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonflies http://imgsrv2.tennisuniverse.com/wtaworld/images/buttons/blue/viewpost.gif (http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?p=20854725#post20854725)
About the comparison of homophobic to slavery and racism, it's a valid comparison. It's all about the prejudice/ discrimination to some groups of people on natural matters that they have no control over, such as the color of their skins, or sexual orientation. Not about which one is worse, the vital matter is whether they are related which they are. Sorry that you are unable to see that.

Navratilova also mentioned of it in her article by stating the Bible was a foundation in the past to encourage Christians against interacial marriage and slavery. These false beliefs were proven wrong in the modern days. It's time for them to finally "see the light" as they usually say and take care of their own business before trying to dictate how others should live.

Totally wrong...nowhere in the Bible is there any discrimination about race...the only thing that matters: is if the person believes in Jaweh, Jehova, as God.

Hey there Bandy:wavey: Perhaps...but I recall an uncle of mine using the curse of Ham to justify some racial discrimination. Apparently Ham was cursed (not sure for what) and his descendents were associated with Africa.

I'm not saying that the Bible is discriminatory in that fashion, but that doesn't
prevent people from using it to fit their own agendas.

Interestingly enough there is also a Biblical passage about the second wife of Moses. She would have been what we consider "black" as she was Ethiopian. When Moses' sister Miriam objected to her God made it clear he was displeased with Miriam.

dragonflies
Jan 31st, 2012, 04:57 PM
BJK had the most fair and reasonable response to Court's statements. This is supposed to be a tennis forum, not a discussion of Gay rights or anyones religious beliefs.



BJK might or might not " had the most fair and reasonable respond to Court's statement". That is so far your own observation and perhaps you can give some reasons, analysing,etc... than just come in and saying some random things.



This thread is about an issue which is greatly concerned by many TF members here. It's related to some tennis legends, other tennis players and was making headline news during a Grandslam, so for sure it's tennis related. It generated many responses and is being viewed by a great amount of members eventhough it's only one thread out of hundreds threads in GM. The ultimate purpose of having a thread here is drawing the interest from TFers which this one is.



There are tons of other threads are running on GM atm ie" is X hot?" " who has bigger boobs?", etc... ( some only has a few responses), if you think they are more tennis related, and like to participate in them than discussing in this thread, then more power to you.

Towanda
Jan 31st, 2012, 09:01 PM
My main point is that marriage is a relationship between man & woman (and it doesn't have anything to do with religion, cause I'm not a religious person myself) and I don't care how much that offends the so-called equal rights :shrug: I don't call LGBT people ill, mentally fragile or anything else and if you haven't figured that out already, I don't know how to put it more simple for you to understand :shrug: Just because I agree with Court's main statement, it doesn't mean I support her reasoning, because it's mainly based around religion and that's not my kettle of fish.

You don't have to be gay to support gay rights :shrug: These days I get the feeling every little damn thing is being hooked up with all kinds of human/equal rights. And people claiming the gay marriage issue worse than racism and slavery is truly pathetic (I've read such comments on GM) :facepalm:

First of all, I commend you for not viewing this issue through religion. The thing that many Christians who are against gay marriage seem to forget, particularly here in the U.S., is that we have freedom of religion, and there is a separation of church and state. Law is not, and should not be based on any religion.

I must ask then, if you do not oppose gay marriage for religious reasons, then what it your reason for opposing it? All I can get from your posts is that it should not be allowed because marriage is between a man and a woman, that's just the way it is, it's tradition and should never be changed. It was also once tradition for people to own slaves; would you argue that that, or many other heinous traditions should have been continued because that's just the way it is?

Secondly, the fact that you don't recognize this as an equal rights issue indicates just how ignorant you are. This isn't about gay couples wanting to get married so they can get a nice set of tupperware as a wedding gift. Certainly a part of it is that, just like straight couples, we want to be able to marry as a sign of our love and commitment. But, there are also many legal and financial benefits to marriage. We do not get the tax breaks that heterosexuals get because we cannot file joint taxes. We can be barred from seeing our partners in the hospital because we are not "related." We often cannot name our partners as beneficiaries on our pension funds, or insurance.

There are countless cases of situations in which a gay person was severely injured and the partner was not allowed to see the injured person because some staff member had an issue with homosexuality and denied the partner admittance due to not being related. Even if you have a power of attorney, you can be refused admittance. I remember a case from a year or so ago where a woman was critically injured in a car accident and her partner of over 20 years was denied admittance, despite having power of attorney, because the nurse had an issue with gays. The injured woman died alone in in the hospital. In other cases, the parents of the injured party do not allow the partner to visit the injured. In another case last year, a woman was paralyzed in an accident and her parents refused to let her partner of more than ten years see the injured woman. The parents took their paralyzed daughter home with them, and never allwoed her to have contact with her partner. About 25 years ago, a friend of mine died, and her family with whom she had no contact with for nearly 30 years took her home with them and buried her in the family plot. Her partner of 30 years was not even allowed to go to the funeral. As I said, there are countless cases of this sort of thing. If we were allowed to be married, this could not happen.

Many years ago, my partner applied for a life insurance policy and named me as the beneficary. There should have been no problem, as the owner of an insurance policy can name anyone as the beneficiary. One of the employees at the insurance company saw on the form that I was listed as "partner" and came to our house at 11:00 at night, insisting that my partner make her mother the beneficiary. I explained to this woman that my partner has every right to name whomever she wants, but that did not stop this woman from screaming that she will not leave until we change it. We ended up having to take this to the department of insurance to get me reinstated as beneficiary. A few years ago, my partner passed away. If we were a married couple, her pension would have automatically paid out to me a 50% joint and survivor annuity, but because we were not able to be married, there was no benefit payable. Again, if we were married, we would not have had these issues. These are not isolated incidents; every gay couple I know goes through similar problems because of our inability to marry.

It seems to be very easy for you, and others with your anti-gay marriage stance to just laugh at gays for thinking our inability to marry is an issue of equal rights. That is because you have not considered the legal and financial benefits that go some with being married. This is clearly an issue of equal rights.

As far as comparing gay rights to racism, you once again are ignoring the reality of being gay. In many places, we do not have civil rights. Here in the U.S., unless we live in a state or a city that includes sexual orientation as a protected class, we can be discriminated against. Can you imagine if an employer or a business or what have you said "no blacks allowed?" Obviously they can't do that, but they can say, "no gays allowed." A few years ago, one of my co-workers who was upset that I gave her a bad review wrote "dyke" on the outside of my door. When I reported it, I was told they could do nothing because sexual orientation is not a protected class, so that is not considered discriminatory. You can bet that if she had written a racial epithet it would have been considered discriminatory and she would have been reprimanded. For the next two years, she continued writing "dyke" on my door and on my desk with no reprimand at all.

While I have not experienced it, there are many cases of gays being beaten, sometimes to death, because of anti-gay views. While you may consider your anti-gay marriage views, or Martgaret Court's views as having no impact on gay bashing, there is a connection. Your views encourage the idea that gays are lesser than heterosexuals - less deserving of civil rights, less deserving of the benefits that heterosexuals get. Being considered lesser people leads to greater hatred being directed toward us, and that leads to greater bashing.

Again, I don't expect you to ever get this. From your point of view, we're all just a bunch of whiny gays whining that we can't get married. I would bet though, that, assuming you are married, you would be up in arms in someone told you, "sorry, you can't file joint taxes, and sorry, you can't have your wife as beneficiary on your insurance policy, and whoops, your wife was just in an accident and she's dying but you can't go see her, and oh no, she just died, sorry, you can't go to the funeral, and by the way, the pension she accumulated before she died? That just reverts back to the pension fund, and you don't get anything. Oh, you've been together for 30 years? Oh well, too bad..." And after hearing all of that, you would be told that you should just stop complaining, and just accept it because that's just the way it is.

JCTennisFan
Jan 31st, 2012, 09:38 PM
LOL @ Brett.'s avatar. That's classic :spit: :eek: :haha:

bandabou
Jan 31st, 2012, 10:02 PM
I'm not Christian, so I only read a part of a Bible when I was in my childhood, out of curious. The statement in my post that regards race and slavery in the Bible was originaly from Navratilova's letter which publicly posted worldwide. She claimed that she studied the Bible before making her statement and I take her words for that.



I hope you studied the Bible carefuly like Navratilova did and be responsible for what you said this time, differently with most of the posts you have made so far on this board which were usually pointless and silly.

You aren't a christian, but I am. Nowhere in the Bible it states anything about distinction due to race.
And if Navratilova refered to the Bible to support claims about racism, then I wonder which Bible she's been studying.

My other posts are usually pointless, huh?! :lol: Okayy, I guess I'll have to work a bit harder to impress you. :lol: :wavey:

bandabou
Jan 31st, 2012, 10:20 PM
Hey there Bandy:wavey: Perhaps...but I recall an uncle of mine using the curse of Ham to justify some racial discrimination. Apparently Ham was cursed (not sure for what) and his descendents were associated with Africa.

I'm not saying that the Bible is discriminatory in that fashion, but that doesn't
prevent people from using it to fit their own agendas.

Interestingly enough there is also a Biblical passage about the second wife of Moses. She would have been what we consider "black" as she was Ethiopian. When Moses' sister Miriam objected to her God made it clear he was displeased with Miriam.

Hi Rollo. I read about that theory too..I don't believe it to be true, because the Bible itself doesn't speak in those terms...as your own example clearly illustrates.

I agree that the Bible can be misused for many things, but that's the arrogance of the human. :(

Moveyourfeet
Jan 31st, 2012, 10:45 PM
You aren't a christian, but I am. Nowhere in the Bible it states anything about distinction due to race.


Look deeper. If you believe god created the world, then it follows that god is the author of racism.
According to the bible, god created Adam and Eve. So it follows that all peoples throughout the history of the bible could trace their lineage to this couple. Yet only those born into one of the tribes of Judah were god's chosen people. If you were Egyptian, Hittite, Ammonite, Moabite etc but wanted covering of sin, tough. That was only available annually when the priests of the tribe of Levi, performed it for all Israelites.

god preferentially treated one group at the expense of the others. he is the first entity to have done so (if you believe the bible) and thus, the author of bias, prejudice and racism.

Cajka
Jan 31st, 2012, 11:20 PM
Maybe many of the gays and lesbians who have gone to her church have been sexually abused in their past. Has any of you who have posted on this point reflected to consider that?

From my perspective, the judgemental ones are no better than Margaret and her opinions. It is hypocritical.

Judgemental? Look, this woman tried to explain her opinion with some pseudo-religion. In that moment I thought that she was just an ignorant.

But it wasn't enough for her. Now, she even found her own pseudoscientific explanation for the root of homosexuality. In that article she was clearly suggesting that you can't become homosexual if you had a normal life. So, she basically wants to convince people that there's something seriously wrong with gay people. She makes it sound as if they are serial killers or something, you know, like there must be some very dark event in the past that made them homosexual. She didn't say it just like that. After all negative reactions, she was obviously very angry, she wanted to insult them, that's why she created this new theory. Very, very mean.

And the best part. She thinks that young people must hear what she has to say. Dear Lord. Why does anyone have to hear it? What makes her think that her opinion about this issue is so important? She's a former tennis player, not a God. There are psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists... People who made the researches and who know much more than she does. But she doesn't care. She keeps on with her bullshit.

I'm not judgemental when it comes to many, many things. But enough is enough. Insulting people publicly like she does is not OK. And it can't be justified by saying that she's entitled to her own opinion. There's a different between opinion and hate speech.

homogenius
Jan 31st, 2012, 11:59 PM
Margaret just started off being stupid and ridiculous again! "sigh"

Margaret Court says being gay result of sexual abuse

http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2012/01/28/1226256/233676-margaret-court.jpg

MARGARET Court is now claiming homosexuality is often the result of sexual abuse.

Amid a growing backlash over her opposition to same-sex marriage, the three-time Wimbledon champion told the Sunday Herald Sun that "many, many" gay and lesbian people she knew of had "been abused" - and this had led to their sexual orientation.

Court, a senior minister at Perth's Victory Life Centre, has already sparked fury among gay and equal rights activists for recent comments including that the push for gay marriage was trying "to legitimise what God calls abominable sexual practices".

When asked whether she felt such abuse led people to homosexuality, Court said: "Yes. You look at a lot of them, that's happened."

Peter Rosengren, editor of the Catholic Church's The Record newspaper, batted away her latest claims, saying he had "never heard of any scientific study" linking abuse and homosexuality, and that "everyone has to be respected".
In a wide-ranging interview, Court also said:

* "The word of God is our TV guide to life. It's not out to get you, it's not the fear book, it's a wonderful love book and it tells us how to live our lives".

* "I would have won six Wimbledons not three ... if I'd known what I know now from the scriptures, on the area of the mind".

* She had "nothing against" immigrants, but many expected Australians "to change our laws to embrace what they have, and I don't feel that's right".

* "Christianity is a way forward" for Aboriginal people.

Court also said she did not regret speaking out against same-sex marriage.

"I say what God says, and that's why I've spoken out," she said.

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

"I have a right as a minister to say that. I believe it's important for young people to know that.

"You look at the decline in the world today I think it's so important for values and morals and righteousness to come forth like never before."


:facepalm: @ everything that comes out of her mouth, especially the bolded part.

theFutureisNow
Feb 1st, 2012, 12:25 AM
* "The word of God is our TV guide to life. It's not out to get you, it's not the fear book, it's a wonderful love book and it tells us how to live our lives".


"I have a right as a minister to say that. I believe it's important for young people to know that.


Someone should make a link exposing the "bible of love" idiocy for what it is- Oh wait- they did. http://www.evilbible.com/

Of course we have the right to call her a brainwashed bigoted moron. I guess we'll see whose opinion wins out.

Lord Choc Ice
Feb 1st, 2012, 12:30 AM
:facepalm: @ everything that comes out of her mouth, especially the bolded part.
Couldn't you have edited out her picture at least? :facepalm::lol:

Helen Lawson
Feb 1st, 2012, 01:18 AM
Maybe many of the gays and lesbians who have gone to her church have been sexually abused in their past. Has any of you who have posted on this point reflected to consider that?

From my perspective, the judgemental ones are no better than Margaret and her opinions. It is hypocritical.

Are you one of these people from her church? You want people to consider that, but have you? Your defense of her is getting as ridiculous as her comments are getting as time goes on. How about the people who were molested who were already gay, did you ever think how Court's comments impact on them and the worldwide stage she enjoys due to her career to spread her message?

The so-called judgmental hypocrites in this thread don't get threads closed and moved because they don't like seeing them or reading them. That's the judgmental hypocrite from my perspective.

Towanda
Feb 1st, 2012, 03:13 AM
Are you one of these people from her church? You want people to consider that, but have you? Your defense of her is getting as ridiculous as her comments are getting as time goes on. How about the people who were molested who were already gay, did you ever think how Court's comments impact on them and the worldwide stage she enjoys due to her career to spread her message?

The so-called judgmental hypocrites in this thread don't get threads closed and moved because they don't like seeing them or reading them. That's the judgmental hypocrite from my perspective.


And what about the straight people who are molested but remain straight? I wonder how she would explain that? Why would some molested people turn gay and others would remain straight?

tennisvideos
Feb 1st, 2012, 03:27 AM
Are you one of these people from her church? You want people to consider that, but have you? Your defense of her is getting as ridiculous as her comments are getting as time goes on. How about the people who were molested who were already gay, did you ever think how Court's comments impact on them and the worldwide stage she enjoys due to her career to spread her message?

The so-called judgmental hypocrites in this thread don't get threads closed and moved because they don't like seeing them or reading them. That's the judgmental hypocrite from my perspective.

Have another cocktail love.

Oh, and I stand by my assertion that this thread belongs in a religious or gay forum. Or a hate forum. But that's ok for it to stay here too. After all, life is about freedom and we can all choose love or hate in everything we do and say. :)

moby
Feb 1st, 2012, 03:41 AM
^I don't know if you got the memo. But WTAworld doubles as a gay forum.

tennisvideos
Feb 1st, 2012, 04:03 AM
^I don't know if you got the memo. But WTAworld doubles as a gay forum.

Well I guess you are right there! :)

Dominic
Feb 1st, 2012, 04:14 AM
They don't. It's the same feeling what people get when seeing Wozniacki as #1 without a slam. You may despise it, but it doesn't really affect your life in a significant matter. Same goes for straight people who are supporting this though, they aren't really affected apart from a moral feeling inside their head.

So why are you against it then if it doesn't affect your or anyone's life and will make the couple happy?

tkutsaar
Feb 1st, 2012, 05:04 AM
Margaret Court’s tennis playing career occurred during the Viet Nam War. The draft was in place to ensure there would be sufficient manpower to prosecute the war. A surefire way to avoid the draft was to declare one was a homosexual to the draft board. Such declaration would lead to an automatic exemption without even requiring providing proof for the assertion. Societal atmosphere in that era was so homophobic that gays stayed mostly in the closet. Thus the military could not countenance that someone would purposely lie and since the military did not wish any gays to participate so ergo the automatic exemption. Flash forward some forty years and now we have openly gays allowed to serve in the military.

I mention this anecdote to suggest that Margaret Court’s views on gays were mainstream when she was young. It is not remarkable that she has retained such views throughout her life and thus should be given some slack. There is no denying that she is a legend in women’s tennis.

bandabou
Feb 1st, 2012, 05:27 AM
Look deeper. If you believe god created the world, then it follows that god is the author of racism.
According to the bible, god created Adam and Eve. So it follows that all peoples throughout the history of the bible could trace their lineage to this couple. Yet only those born into one of the tribes of Judah were god's chosen people. If you were Egyptian, Hittite, Ammonite, Moabite etc but wanted covering of sin, tough. That was only available annually when the priests of the tribe of Levi, performed it for all Israelites.

god preferentially treated one group at the expense of the others. he is the first entity to have done so (if you believe the bible) and thus, the author of bias, prejudice and racism.

God not god..;) Remember..Adam and Eve were expelled from Paradise because they didn't obey God's orders.
Then God made a convenant with Abram ( later Abraham) that he would make him a man of many nations...so the blessings of the tribe of Israel, runs from Abraham.

The Egyptians, etc..they all worshiped other Gods and so Jehova had no convenant with them. Anybody who was willing to accept Jehova as the ONLY God, was blessed.

ico4498
Feb 1st, 2012, 05:46 AM
Look deeper. If you believe god created the world, then it follows that god is the author of racism.
According to the bible, god created Adam and Eve. So it follows that all peoples throughout the history of the bible could trace their lineage to this couple. Yet only those born into one of the tribes of Judah were god's chosen people. If you were Egyptian, Hittite, Ammonite, Moabite etc but wanted covering of sin, tough. That was only available annually when the priests of the tribe of Levi, performed it for all Israelites.

god preferentially treated one group at the expense of the others. he is the first entity to have done so (if you believe the bible) and thus, the author of bias, prejudice and racism.

and folks say there's no humor in GM.:lol:

Theodoropen
Feb 1st, 2012, 06:01 AM
Again, I don't expect you to ever get this. From your point of view, we're all just a bunch of whiny gays whining that we can't get married. I would bet though, that, assuming you are married, you would be up in arms in someone told you, "sorry, you can't file joint taxes, and sorry, you can't have your wife as beneficiary on your insurance policy, and whoops, your wife was just in an accident and she's dying but you can't go see her, and oh no, she just died, sorry, you can't go to the funeral, and by the way, the pension she accumulated before she died? That just reverts back to the pension fund, and you don't get anything. Oh, you've been together for 30 years? Oh well, too bad..." And after hearing all of that, you would be told that you should just stop complaining, and just accept it because that's just the way it is.

Anyone who reads your entire post and *still* opposes same sex marriage clearly has no heart.

Moveyourfeet
Feb 1st, 2012, 06:18 AM
The Egyptians, etc..they all worshiped other Gods and so Jehova had no convenant with them. Anybody who was willing to accept Jehova as the ONLY God, was blessed.

No.
1. According to the bible, the Israelites also worshipped alternative gods several times. This did not change their standing as god's chosen people. They were the chosen people even though they did the same things the others did.
Precursor to disproportionate sentencing of blacks and white perpetrators of similar crimes.

2. One who was not an Israelite could not have his/her sin covered. If you weren't a jew, it was hot ass hell for you. Cleansing of sin was provisioned only for the Jews until the death of Jesus.
Even after that salvation was for "the Jew first, then to the Greek".

god operates on a back of the bus ideology.

CrossCourt~Rally
Feb 1st, 2012, 06:21 AM
Couldn't you have edited out her picture at least? :facepalm::lol:

:oh:

bandabou
Feb 1st, 2012, 07:05 AM
No.
1. According to the bible, the Israelites also worshipped alternative gods several times. This did not change their standing as god's chosen people. They were the chosen people even though they did the same things the others did.
Precursor to disproportionate sentencing of blacks and white perpetrators of similar crimes.

2. One who was not an Israelite could not have his/her sin covered. If you weren't a jew, it was hot ass hell for you. Cleansing of sin was provisioned only for the Jews until the death of Jesus.
Even after that salvation was for "the Jew first, then to the Greek".

god operates on a back of the bus ideology.

1.Everytime the people of Israel started worshipping other Gods, look what happened to them. Their ways became less prosperous: slavery, under the ruling of foreign countries, etc..only when they repented of their sins and started worshipping God again and keeping his commandments, that they were successful.

2. That's why we should make Jesus the Lord of our lives. He died so that ALL people can have eternal life..if they just believe that he died for them.

Moveyourfeet
Feb 1st, 2012, 07:33 AM
1.Everytime the people of Israel started worshipping other Gods, look what happened to them. Their ways became less prosperous: slavery, under the ruling of foreign countries, etc..only when they repented of their sins and started worshipping God again and keeping his commandments, that they were successful.

This is besides the point. They were god's chosen people regardless of who they worshiped and their outcome. The Hittites, Moabites, etc could never enter into the covenant even if they decided to be the best people on earth, simply because they weren't born Israelites. One would think, god, of all people, would be able to look past tribal/cultural/racial differences but apparently not.
This is blatant discrimination.

2. That's why we should make Jesus the Lord of our lives. He died so that ALL people can have eternal life..if they just believe that he died for them.

Oh how nice. What about the millions of people who died before 'jesus' came into the picture?
They demand reparations.

stromatolite
Feb 1st, 2012, 08:27 AM
I don't agree with those that want this thread shifted to non-tennis, but this debate on the merits or otherwise of the Bible is making it harder to maintain that it should be kept here. Can't you guys take this somewhere else?

bandabou
Feb 1st, 2012, 09:33 AM
This is besides the point. They were god's chosen people regardless of who they worshiped and their outcome. The Hittites, Moabites, etc could never enter into the covenant even if they decided to be the best people on earth, simply because they weren't born Israelites. One would think, god, of all people, would be able to look past tribal/cultural/racial differences but apparently not.
This is blatant discrimination.



Oh how nice. What about the millions of people who died before 'jesus' came into the picture?
They demand reparations.

The Jews were chosen to spread the word of God so that the other folks would learn about His great works.
And many non-Jews have been saved when they accepted God: Job, Ruth ( great grandmother of King David), Jethro. God shows great compasion for the city of Nineveh.

Salvation comes through Jesus...and he has wiped ALL sins, not just form the ones that came after him.

Morning Morgan
Feb 1st, 2012, 10:01 AM
The Jews were chosen to spread the word of God so that the other folks would learn about His great works.
And many non-Jews have been saved when they accepted God: Job, Ruth ( great grandmother of King David), Jethro. God shows great compasion for the city of Nineveh.

Salvation comes through Jesus...and he has wiped ALL sins, not just form the ones that came after him.

Cool story bro

bandabou
Feb 1st, 2012, 10:20 AM
Cool story bro

;) Look at Israel..all God's promises to them DID turn out to come to pass AND all the countries/empires who persucuted them have been destroyed ( Roman empire, Nazi-Germany, Assyrian empire, Persian empire, etc..)

Dominic
Feb 1st, 2012, 04:18 PM
Hmm after reading a couple things about God here, he seems like a pretty judgmental, egocentric, megalomaniac being/person (if he existed)

stromatolite
Feb 1st, 2012, 05:08 PM
Hmm after reading a couple things about God here, he seems like a pretty judgmental, egocentric, megalomaniac being/person (if he existed)

Yes, so if he ever gets bored with his day job of presiding over the fate of the universe, he should give TF a try. He should fit right in :lol:

bandabou
Feb 1st, 2012, 05:08 PM
Hmm after reading a couple things about God here, he seems like a pretty judgmental, egocentric, megalomaniac being/person (if he existed)

:sobbing: why, why?! :sobbing:

Nahh..more like a father who expects his children to follow his commandments. Sure you'll expect the same from your own children. :wavey:

austinrunner
Feb 1st, 2012, 10:42 PM
First of all, I commend you for not viewing this issue through religion. The thing that many Christians who are against gay marriage seem to forget, particularly here in the U.S., is that we have freedom of religion, and there is a separation of church and state. Law is not, and should not be based on any religion.

I must ask then, if you do not oppose gay marriage for religious reasons, then what it your reason for opposing it? All I can get from your posts is that it should not be allowed because marriage is between a man and a woman, that's just the way it is, it's tradition and should never be changed. It was also once tradition for people to own slaves; would you argue that that, or many other heinous traditions should have been continued because that's just the way it is?

Secondly, the fact that you don't recognize this as an equal rights issue indicates just how ignorant you are. This isn't about gay couples wanting to get married so they can get a nice set of tupperware as a wedding gift. Certainly a part of it is that, just like straight couples, we want to be able to marry as a sign of our love and commitment. But, there are also many legal and financial benefits to marriage. We do not get the tax breaks that heterosexuals get because we cannot file joint taxes. We can be barred from seeing our partners in the hospital because we are not "related." We often cannot name our partners as beneficiaries on our pension funds, or insurance.

There are countless cases of situations in which a gay person was severely injured and the partner was not allowed to see the injured person because some staff member had an issue with homosexuality and denied the partner admittance due to not being related. Even if you have a power of attorney, you can be refused admittance. I remember a case from a year or so ago where a woman was critically injured in a car accident and her partner of over 20 years was denied admittance, despite having power of attorney, because the nurse had an issue with gays. The injured woman died alone in in the hospital. In other cases, the parents of the injured party do not allow the partner to visit the injured. In another case last year, a woman was paralyzed in an accident and her parents refused to let her partner of more than ten years see the injured woman. The parents took their paralyzed daughter home with them, and never allwoed her to have contact with her partner. About 25 years ago, a friend of mine died, and her family with whom she had no contact with for nearly 30 years took her home with them and buried her in the family plot. Her partner of 30 years was not even allowed to go to the funeral. As I said, there are countless cases of this sort of thing. If we were allowed to be married, this could not happen.

Many years ago, my partner applied for a life insurance policy and named me as the beneficary. There should have been no problem, as the owner of an insurance policy can name anyone as the beneficiary. One of the employees at the insurance company saw on the form that I was listed as "partner" and came to our house at 11:00 at night, insisting that my partner make her mother the beneficiary. I explained to this woman that my partner has every right to name whomever she wants, but that did not stop this woman from screaming that she will not leave until we change it. We ended up having to take this to the department of insurance to get me reinstated as beneficiary. A few years ago, my partner passed away. If we were a married couple, her pension would have automatically paid out to me a 50% joint and survivor annuity, but because we were not able to be married, there was no benefit payable. Again, if we were married, we would not have had these issues. These are not isolated incidents; every gay couple I know goes through similar problems because of our inability to marry.

It seems to be very easy for you, and others with your anti-gay marriage stance to just laugh at gays for thinking our inability to marry is an issue of equal rights. That is because you have not considered the legal and financial benefits that go some with being married. This is clearly an issue of equal rights.

As far as comparing gay rights to racism, you once again are ignoring the reality of being gay. In many places, we do not have civil rights. Here in the U.S., unless we live in a state or a city that includes sexual orientation as a protected class, we can be discriminated against. Can you imagine if an employer or a business or what have you said "no blacks allowed?" Obviously they can't do that, but they can say, "no gays allowed." A few years ago, one of my co-workers who was upset that I gave her a bad review wrote "dyke" on the outside of my door. When I reported it, I was told they could do nothing because sexual orientation is not a protected class, so that is not considered discriminatory. You can bet that if she had written a racial epithet it would have been considered discriminatory and she would have been reprimanded. For the next two years, she continued writing "dyke" on my door and on my desk with no reprimand at all.

While I have not experienced it, there are many cases of gays being beaten, sometimes to death, because of anti-gay views. While you may consider your anti-gay marriage views, or Martgaret Court's views as having no impact on gay bashing, there is a connection. Your views encourage the idea that gays are lesser than heterosexuals - less deserving of civil rights, less deserving of the benefits that heterosexuals get. Being considered lesser people leads to greater hatred being directed toward us, and that leads to greater bashing.

Again, I don't expect you to ever get this. From your point of view, we're all just a bunch of whiny gays whining that we can't get married. I would bet though, that, assuming you are married, you would be up in arms in someone told you, "sorry, you can't file joint taxes, and sorry, you can't have your wife as beneficiary on your insurance policy, and whoops, your wife was just in an accident and she's dying but you can't go see her, and oh no, she just died, sorry, you can't go to the funeral, and by the way, the pension she accumulated before she died? That just reverts back to the pension fund, and you don't get anything. Oh, you've been together for 30 years? Oh well, too bad..." And after hearing all of that, you would be told that you should just stop complaining, and just accept it because that's just the way it is.

This was a spectacular post, one of the best I've ever seen about this issue anywhere, anytime. My profession is human rights advocacy, and the injustices you've related are very common in the United States. Things are much worse in most of the rest of the world. Without people like you who are willing to publicly oppose hate speech in all its forms, the human rights situation will only get worse. Human rights have to be defended and advocated everyday lest they disappear and people die. The view of tennisvideos and people like him that humor and flowers are more effective than protests, written or otherwise, is naive. History has proven that repeatedly. Recent examples include Uganda's and Nigeria's proposed laws to impose the death penalty for being homosexual. Or in the more distant past, the genocides in Rwanda, Burundi, the former Yugoslavia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The argument that Mrs. Court is not advocating the death of homosexuals is beside the point. There simply is no acceptable level of denying basic human rights, of any kind. That includes the right to marry, to form families, to be safe in one's home, and to form partnerships, sexual or romantic, with who one chooses.

The moderator (self-professed "owner") of the Blast from the Past forum has banned me from that forum because tennisvideos has a big problem with anyone criticizing Mrs. Court. I put the criticism in its own thread to soothe his peculiar sensibilities, but that was not good enough for tennisvideos. He got upset with just seeing the thread title, even when he never opened the thread to look at it. So, he prevailed on the moderator (Rollo, a close friend of his) to lock the thread and move it to another forum. (You can't see exactly what happened by perusing the forum because Rollo, the moderator/owner, has censored most of it.) Because I opposed Rollo on this, I got banned, as if I were a troll or poster of nude photos, despite my many years of contributions to that forum. You can readily see how people like tennisvideos can use the system to get what they want. That's what makes Mrs. Court and him the same. Being silent in the face of Mrs. Court's efforts or tennisvideo's brand of pacifism would be tragic. Best regards, everyone.

austinrunner
Feb 1st, 2012, 11:01 PM
Excerpts from a wonderful blog about the issues we're discussing, the entire portion of which is available at http://benpobjie.blogspot.com/2012/01/thinking-bit-more.html
... Margaret Court doesn't really matter, being as she ... thinks it's reasonable to cite the number of Wimbledons won as proof of the correctness [of] one's views on homosexuality. However, I think it does matter how we think of [her].

Because the thing is, Margaret Court is ... not just a loveable daffy old goose who's not quite "up to date". ... She's not your grandma. She's nasty and she's hateful and she wants to ruin the lives of perfectly nice, decent human beings.... t's important we remember this.

And it's important that we remember that in remembering this, we do not get sidetracked by red herrings about "freedom of speech" ... and ... "censorship". It's important to not give ground to those who claim, when a person is given a public platform in Australia's most-read newspaper to spread vicious, senseless hatred, that the "real issue" is whether she's entitled to her opinion. Everyone already knows she's entitled to her opinion, and we're entitled to ours. Which is that her opinion is repellent.

It's important to remember this because this is a matter of progress. The fact is, if Margaret Court had written a column about how, as a 3-time Wimbledon champion, she is absolutely certain that blacks and Asians are disobeying [G]od's law and were an abomination to good Christians, nobody would be wringing their hands about the mean lefties who won't leave ... Margaret alone. They'd just call her a racist bitch, and rightly so. That's because consensus is that blacks and Asians are people. It would seem that we're not quite there with gay people. It would seem that we still believe that any rights we grant them are our "favour" to the gays. Because gays don't actually [I]deserve any rights or privileges or respect - we're just nice enough to give them a few if we're feeling magnanimous. So if they complain, they're just being whiny. If they object to being labelled evil, or a lesser form of life, they're being ungrateful.... We apparently have not progressed to the point where we're willing to say, those folks who like sexytimes with members of their own genital persuasion merit the same rights as any of us purely by virtue of the fact they exist as human beings. They don't need to earn it, they don't need to play nice, or pipe down and smile politely - they just need to be treated the same as everyone else, because that's what they are.

But we're not there yet. And that's why Margaret Court can vomit up the trash that she does, and that's why she can be defended by ... [those] hiding behind the skimpy veil of free speech. And that's why we've got to slash that veil to ribbons....

... Margaret Court and her cohorts lash out like this, because they know we're winning. We're winning and they're losing and every time they scream about immorality or redefining marriage it's nothing but the strangled yelp of a battered old dog that knows it's never going to win this fight. ... Our world will move on. Our species will skip happily into the future, and ... Margaret Court knows it. They all do. That's why they scream so loud, and cry so pitifully about bullying and censorship when their screaming is treated with the contempt it deserves.

The history of the human race is the long, slow, painful story of society trying to catch up to decency. We're closer than ever, but there's still so far to go. But we're going to get there. We'll reach that peak. As long as we know, when confronted by the bigots and hatemongers who want to drag us backwards, to shout aloud, to call them what they are, take them head-on ... and leave them in the dust where they can't hinder us any more.

That's why it's important what we think of ... Margaret Court. And it's important to say what we think. Because every time we tell the truth about these people, we move that tiniest bit further forward.

To the victory that both sides know is coming.

AlwaysGraf
Feb 1st, 2012, 11:19 PM
Towanda that was such a great response you wrote- I'm going to print that off in work tomorrow-if you read that and still are opposed to gay marriage- then you truly are a bigot and homophobic

Towanda
Feb 1st, 2012, 11:31 PM
austinrunner and AlwaysGraf - Thanks! I had been lurking in this thread since it started with no intention of posting but it reached a point that I just couldn't stop myself from posting. The ignorance of people never ceases to amaze me.

tennisphilia
Feb 1st, 2012, 11:40 PM
SO, one famous player expresses her views on marriage and she gets HATE targetted toward her? What gives? Personally, I have a lot of gay friends. 2 god-parents of my children are gay. But, I don't agree with their lifestyle. They're still my friends though. I love them as people. But I still think what they do is morally wrong. What happens with being able to voice your own opinion? Billie Jean had a perfectly respectful response. Navratilova, NOT!

Number19
Feb 2nd, 2012, 12:01 AM
:sobbing: why, why?! :sobbing:

Nahh..more like a father who expects his children to follow his commandments. Sure you'll expect the same from your own children. :wavey:

God is more like a psychopath. If you don't follow him he'll disown you, kill you, send you to hell to suffer forever. There are fathers on this planet now who are bad as this, like muslim "honour killings" for not following, mormons who disown their children if they don't follow, amish who banish their children to never see them again if they don't follow, orthodox jews who would call their daughter a whore for not following.

When I become a father I will never ever been this hateful, hurtful, intolerant, unforgiving, mean-spirited, disrespectful and horrible to my child.

Towanda
Feb 2nd, 2012, 12:06 AM
SO, one famous player expresses her views on marriage and she gets HATE targetted toward her? What gives? Personally, I have a lot of gay friends. 2 god-parents of my children are gay. But, I don't agree with their lifestyle. They're still my friends though. I love them as people. But I still think what they do is morally wrong. What happens with being able to voice your own opinion? Billie Jean had a perfectly respectful response. Navratilova, NOT!

What she is doing is more than expressing her views on gay-marriage. When you are speaking out against a group that already experiences a great deal of hatred and judgement it often crosses over into hate speech. Having said that, my issue is less with her religious views on gays than it is with her outward advicating against gay marriage. In countries with freedom of religion, laws are not based on the texts of any particular religion. Why then, should gays be denied the right to marry because of the views of many Christians? Why should YOUR religion define my rights? The fact that you think that what we do is morally wrong is YOUR issue, and should not define my rights.

Consider racism for example - if someone says, "I hate blacks" then I think we can assume they are racist, but we could argue that they are exercising their right to free speech. What if they say, "I think blacks are an abomination, unacceptable, and must have had some horrible abuse that caused them to be the way they are." Can you see the difference there? When you are talking publicly about a group that already gets a great deal of hatred directed toward them, you fuel the hatred others have. Finally, let's say that this person says, "I hate blacks, they are an abomination, and they should not be able to vote, or get married." This is not just free speech; it is advocating for the denial of rights to a specific group. The fact that you and others continue to defend this sort of talk as "free speech" and nothing more is just a cover for your lack of acceptance of gays. Frankly, I couldn't care less about your non-acceptance; what I do care about is that you want to deny me the same right you have just because I fell in love with a woman.


Now, about this "gay lifestyle" to which you refer - can you explain to me what that is? I'm gay, and I don't even know what that is. When I think of my "lifestyle," the things that I think of are that I like to spend time with my family, going to movies, going to church, traveling, and hiking. I play guitar, I run in the park, I am a vegetarian, I play tennis, I volunteer, etc, etc. Those are the things that I believe define my lifestyle. There is nothing that I see in thoss things that screams "gay lifestyle." Maybe you could define for me your "heterosexual lifestyle" and detail the specific things that make that a "heterosexual lifestyle" as opposed to just your "lifestyle" without regard to sexual orientation. If you can do that, then maybe I will be able to understand the difference.

tennisvideos
Feb 2nd, 2012, 12:08 AM
Towanda - that is a beautifully written post. It certainly seems like most of the gay and lesbian community in the USA have it far worse than we do in Australia. I am pretty sure we have most of the legal rights of normal straight couples except the right to marriage.

I guess I need to make it clear that I am all for equal rights on everything for everyone. I do participate in peaceful rallies to support equality (and gay marriage) and have for a number of years. Many of these I have found very moving and inspirational and I am sure they have been to some of the onlookers as well (or I hope they have). But while I am all for equal rights, I am also supportive of Margaret Court, or anyone else, to have their opinion and be able to express it without being attacked for their beliefs. And I haven't seen you attack anyone, but there have been attacks from others on this thread. IMO that is more destructive to the cause of trying to garner support. Anger fuels more anger and hatred and it's just a vicious cycle in my opinion. For me, it's about respecting others and allowing everyone the right to their beliefs and the right to express them. And yes, that includes people in here expressing that they disagree with Court. That's fine - but I would like to see it done in a respectful way and not one that attacks the person. When it is not, and one of my tennis idols is attacked, then I feel the need to defend her rights.

A certain poster has misquoted me time and again in various forums, so let me reiterate another point. I believe that Gay & Lesbian rights rallies that are done with peace, dignity, respect, and humour are probably going to get more support from the straight community than a hostile or anger fuelled one. Just my observation. It's just like watching someone on TV in an interview or a debate- if they are peaceful, respectful, dignified and have a sense of humour I am sure they can sway more people than someone who is angry, aggressive etc. To me it's common sense. I may be wrong. I am not saying I am right. I guess I just like the approach that Ghandi took - non-violent, peaceful and respectful.

Bottom line - I am all for equality - for we are all in this game called life together and all come from the same source. But I am also about respecting others and their beliefs.

AmeDevotee
Feb 2nd, 2012, 12:12 AM
First of all, I commend you for not viewing this issue through religion. The thing that many Christians who are against gay marriage seem to forget, particularly here in the U.S., is that we have freedom of religion, and there is a separation of church and state. Law is not, and should not be based on any religion.

I must ask then, if you do not oppose gay marriage for religious reasons, then what it your reason for opposing it? All I can get from your posts is that it should not be allowed because marriage is between a man and a woman, that's just the way it is, it's tradition and should never be changed. It was also once tradition for people to own slaves; would you argue that that, or many other heinous traditions should have been continued because that's just the way it is?

Secondly, the fact that you don't recognize this as an equal rights issue indicates just how ignorant you are. This isn't about gay couples wanting to get married so they can get a nice set of tupperware as a wedding gift. Certainly a part of it is that, just like straight couples, we want to be able to marry as a sign of our love and commitment. But, there are also many legal and financial benefits to marriage. We do not get the tax breaks that heterosexuals get because we cannot file joint taxes. We can be barred from seeing our partners in the hospital because we are not "related." We often cannot name our partners as beneficiaries on our pension funds, or insurance.

There are countless cases of situations in which a gay person was severely injured and the partner was not allowed to see the injured person because some staff member had an issue with homosexuality and denied the partner admittance due to not being related. Even if you have a power of attorney, you can be refused admittance. I remember a case from a year or so ago where a woman was critically injured in a car accident and her partner of over 20 years was denied admittance, despite having power of attorney, because the nurse had an issue with gays. The injured woman died alone in in the hospital. In other cases, the parents of the injured party do not allow the partner to visit the injured. In another case last year, a woman was paralyzed in an accident and her parents refused to let her partner of more than ten years see the injured woman. The parents took their paralyzed daughter home with them, and never allwoed her to have contact with her partner. About 25 years ago, a friend of mine died, and her family with whom she had no contact with for nearly 30 years took her home with them and buried her in the family plot. Her partner of 30 years was not even allowed to go to the funeral. As I said, there are countless cases of this sort of thing. If we were allowed to be married, this could not happen.

Many years ago, my partner applied for a life insurance policy and named me as the beneficary. There should have been no problem, as the owner of an insurance policy can name anyone as the beneficiary. One of the employees at the insurance company saw on the form that I was listed as "partner" and came to our house at 11:00 at night, insisting that my partner make her mother the beneficiary. I explained to this woman that my partner has every right to name whomever she wants, but that did not stop this woman from screaming that she will not leave until we change it. We ended up having to take this to the department of insurance to get me reinstated as beneficiary. A few years ago, my partner passed away. If we were a married couple, her pension would have automatically paid out to me a 50% joint and survivor annuity, but because we were not able to be married, there was no benefit payable. Again, if we were married, we would not have had these issues. These are not isolated incidents; every gay couple I know goes through similar problems because of our inability to marry.

It seems to be very easy for you, and others with your anti-gay marriage stance to just laugh at gays for thinking our inability to marry is an issue of equal rights. That is because you have not considered the legal and financial benefits that go some with being married. This is clearly an issue of equal rights.

As far as comparing gay rights to racism, you once again are ignoring the reality of being gay. In many places, we do not have civil rights. Here in the U.S., unless we live in a state or a city that includes sexual orientation as a protected class, we can be discriminated against. Can you imagine if an employer or a business or what have you said "no blacks allowed?" Obviously they can't do that, but they can say, "no gays allowed." A few years ago, one of my co-workers who was upset that I gave her a bad review wrote "dyke" on the outside of my door. When I reported it, I was told they could do nothing because sexual orientation is not a protected class, so that is not considered discriminatory. You can bet that if she had written a racial epithet it would have been considered discriminatory and she would have been reprimanded. For the next two years, she continued writing "dyke" on my door and on my desk with no reprimand at all.

While I have not experienced it, there are many cases of gays being beaten, sometimes to death, because of anti-gay views. While you may consider your anti-gay marriage views, or Martgaret Court's views as having no impact on gay bashing, there is a connection. Your views encourage the idea that gays are lesser than heterosexuals - less deserving of civil rights, less deserving of the benefits that heterosexuals get. Being considered lesser people leads to greater hatred being directed toward us, and that leads to greater bashing.

Again, I don't expect you to ever get this. From your point of view, we're all just a bunch of whiny gays whining that we can't get married. I would bet though, that, assuming you are married, you would be up in arms in someone told you, "sorry, you can't file joint taxes, and sorry, you can't have your wife as beneficiary on your insurance policy, and whoops, your wife was just in an accident and she's dying but you can't go see her, and oh no, she just died, sorry, you can't go to the funeral, and by the way, the pension she accumulated before she died? That just reverts back to the pension fund, and you don't get anything. Oh, you've been together for 30 years? Oh well, too bad..." And after hearing all of that, you would be told that you should just stop complaining, and just accept it because that's just the way it is.

Anyone who reads this post properly and still disagrees has no soul. :worship:

Helen Lawson
Feb 2nd, 2012, 12:39 AM
Towanda - that is a beautifully written post. It certainly seems like most of the gay and lesbian community in the USA have it far worse than we do in Australia. I am pretty sure we have most of the legal rights of normal straight couples except the right to marriage.

I guess I need to make it clear that I am all for equal rights on everything for everyone. I do participate in peaceful rallies to support equality (and gay marriage) and have for a number of years. Many of these I have found very moving and inspirational and I am sure they have been to some of the onlookers as well (or I hope they have). But while I am all for equal rights, I am also supportive of Margaret Court, or anyone else, to have their opinion and be able to express it without being attacked for their beliefs. And I haven't seen you attack anyone, but there have been attacks from others on this thread. IMO that is more destructive to the cause of trying to garner support. Anger fuels more anger and hatred and it's just a vicious cycle in my opinion. For me, it's about respecting others and allowing everyone the right to their beliefs and the right to express them. And yes, that includes people in here expressing that they disagree with Court. That's fine - but I would like to see it done in a respectful way and not one that attacks the person. When it is not, and one of my tennis idols is attacked, then I feel the need to defend her rights.

A certain poster has misquoted me time and again in various forums, so let me reiterate another point. I believe that Gay & Lesbian rights rallies that are done with peace, dignity, respect, and humour are probably going to get more support from the straight community than a hostile or anger fuelled one. Just my observation. It's just like watching someone on TV in an interview or a debate- if they are peaceful, respectful, dignified and have a sense of humour I am sure they can sway more people than someone who is angry, aggressive etc. To me it's common sense. I may be wrong. I am not saying I am right. I guess I just like the approach that Ghandi took - non-violent, peaceful and respectful.

Bottom line - I am all for equality - for we are all in this game called life together and all come from the same source. But I am also about respecting others and their beliefs.

Is that really true? Asking for a thread to be closed and moved because you don't like the content so you don't have to read it and see it may not be an "attack" but it certainly isn't supportive of the right of someone to express their opinions. Supporting someone expressing their opinions so long as you don't have to read it and see it doesn't really make any sense. That's not respecting others and their beliefs at all. It's easy to be "peaceful" and "respectful" when someone else does the dirty work for you.

Towanda
Feb 2nd, 2012, 12:42 AM
Towanda - that is a beautifully written post. It certainly seems like most of the gay and lesbian community in the USA have it far worse than we do in Australia. I am pretty sure we have most of the legal rights of normal straight couples except the right to marriage.

I guess I need to make it clear that I am all for equal rights on everything for everyone. I do participate in peaceful rallies to support equality (and gay marriage) and have for a number of years. Many of these I have found very moving and inspirational and I am sure they have been to some of the onlookers as well (or I hope they have). But while I am all for equal rights, I am also supportive of Margaret Court, or anyone else, to have their opinion and be able to express it without being attacked for their beliefs. And I haven't seen you attack anyone, but there have been attacks from others on this thread. IMO that is more destructive to the cause of trying to garner support. Anger fuels more anger and hatred and it's just a vicious cycle in my opinion. For me, it's about respecting others and allowing everyone the right to their beliefs and the right to express them. And yes, that includes people in here expressing that they disagree with Court. That's fine - but I would like to see it done in a respectful way and not one that attacks the person. When it is not, and one of my tennis idols is attacked, then I feel the need to defend her rights.

A certain poster has misquoted me time and again, so let me reiterate another point. I believe that Gay & Lesbian rights rallies that are done with peace, dignity, respect, and humour are probably going to get more support from the straight community than a hostile or anger fuelled one. Just my observation. It's just like watching someone on TV in an interview or a debate- if they are peaceful, respectful, dignified and have a sense of humour I am sure they can sway more people than someone who is angry, aggressive etc. To me it's common sense. I may be wrong. I am not saying I am right. I guess I just like the approach that Ghandi took - non-violent, peaceful and respectful.

Bottom line - I am all for equality - for we are all in this game called life together and all come from the same source. But I am also about respecting others and their beliefs.


tennisvideos -

Thanks for clarifying. I agree that rallies, etc, should be undertaken in a peaceful and respectful way. I think people just get frustrated that, while gay marriage has been enacted in a few states in the U.S., there is always such an uproar over it. The more we fight for gay marriage, the more those opposed start screaming about what an abomination we are. In the U.S. we have had an upsurge in extremely conservative Christianity over the last few years. I fully support anyone's right to follow whatever religion they believe. Heck, I went to Catholic High School, a conservative Christian college, and I am now a Buddhist. I just don't understand why some people insist that everyone be subject to the rules of their own religious beliefs. Beyond that, people seem to pick and choose whatever passages in the bible support their views. I don't see anyone railing away about the sin of eating shellfish, but they sure can go off about how gays are an abomination.

I have always been a fan of Margaret Court. I still think she was one of the greatest tennis players ever, but I wish she would just shut up about this. She surely does have the right to express her views, but in general, I just wish people would stop acting as if their religious views should define law for everyone. In saying that gay marriage should not be legalized, she is advocating that her religious beliefs should define the lives of gays. Also, because she is a public person, others hear her views and for some, it may feed into their own hatred. When you're talking about a group that already gets quite a bit of hatred and judgement directed toward them, it is probably not a good idea to speak out publicly. Just look at this thread for example - many people here posted about how Court is right, gays are an abomination, how we have such poor morality, and how awful our "gay lifestyle" is. I am still waiting to learn what this awful gay lifestyle I'm apparently living consists of.

Again, I do agree with you that we should strive for rights in a peaceful and respectful way. I personally try to live in a way that is respectful of others. I doubt anyone could look at my life and think I am a horrible person living a wicked lifestyle. I, and other gays, live in a way that is no different then heterosexuals; our relationships, activities, interests, etc. are no different. The problem is that people don't even notice that - they'd prefer to continue thinking that we are the scourge of the earth. It gets frustrating, and sometimes when people get frustrated with what often feels like one step forward and two steps back, it becomes more difficult to keep fighting in a peaceful and respectful way.

tennisvideos
Feb 2nd, 2012, 01:00 AM
Is that really true? Asking for a thread to be closed and moved because you don't like the content so you don't have to read it and see it may not be an "attack" but it certainly isn't supportive of the right of someone to express their opinions. Supporting someone expressing their opinions so long as you don't have to read it and see it doesn't really make any sense. That's not respecting others and their beliefs at all. It's easy to be "peaceful" and "respectful" when someone else does the dirty work for you.

Helen, I don't believe that the thread belonged in the Blast From the Past forum which IMO, is all about celebrating tennis history and the accomplishments of the greats and I don't believe that thread was relevant in that forum. Knowing how that one got started and seeing some of the negativity in that thread made me want to avoid it and even seeing it there in the BFTP did grieve me I will admit. I don't believe it was handled with respect.

I still think this thread is more suited to the non-tennis forum, or a gay and lesbian forum, but there are links to tennis so I can understand it being here. And I am perfectly fine with people expressing their beliefs that they think Margaret Court is wrong - respectfully. In fact I BELIEVE she is wrong on many levels eg. she thinks gay people CHOOSE to be gay whereas I believe we are BORN gay. Certainly I didn't choose to be gay! And she also thinks they shouldn't be able to marry because she thinks it should be between a man and a woman as written in the Bible. Well to be honest I think the Bible is a load of old hogwash (although the early meanings may be been honourable) much of it has been edited by humans who wanted to control the masses by instilling fear in people. So I disagree completely with her there. And I also disagree with her and I think if gay or lesbian people (myself included) wish to marry than we should be able to. Not that I would want to, but we should have the right to! And certainly in all countries we deserve the same rights to finances, insurance etc.

But just because I disagree with her doesn't mean I am going to demonise her or attack her. She believes she is right and who am I to say otherwise. Everyone thinks they are right and guess what - in their minds they are. I actually think that she, and other right wing fundamentalists turn more people off their cause with their speeches about restricting laws to the privileged. Yes, they probably have widespread support from the already converted, but I think these days most people are becoming more aware and are more aligned with the voice of equality. That is shown out in the surveys conducted in Australia recently where I think around 60% support gay and lesbian marriage. I big jump in recent years.

So I am ok with all of this as long as it is done respectfully and people aren't attacked or misquoted / misrepresented.

tennisvideos
Feb 2nd, 2012, 01:13 AM
tennisvideos -

Thanks for clarifying. I agree that rallies, etc, should be undertaken in a peaceful and respectful way. I think people just get frustrated that, while gay marriage has been enacted in a few states in the U.S., there is always such an uproar over it. The more we fight for gay marriage, the more those opposed start screaming about what an abomination we are. In the U.S. we have had an upsurge in extremely conservative Christianity over the last few years. I fully support anyone's right to follow whatever religion they believe. Heck, I went to Catholic High School, a conservative Christian college, and I am now a Buddhist. I just don't understand why some people insist that everyone be subject to the rules of their own religious beliefs. Beyond that, people seem to pick and choose whatever passages in the bible support their views. I don't see anyone railing away about the sin of eating shellfish, but they sure can go off about how gays are an abomination.

I have always been a fan of Margaret Court. I still think she was one of the greatest tennis players ever, but I wish she would just shut up about this. She surely does have the right to express her views, but in general, I just wish people would stop acting as if their religious views should define law for everyone. In saying that gay marriage should not be legalized, she is advocating that her religious beliefs should define the lives of gays. Also, because she is a public person, others hear her views and for some, it may feed into their own hatred. When you're talking about a group that already gets quite a bit of hatred and judgement directed toward them, it is probably not a good idea to speak out publicly. Just look at this thread for example - many people here posted about how Court is right, gays are an abomination, how we have such poor morality, and how awful our "gay lifestyle" is. I am still waiting to learn what this awful gay lifestyle I'm apparently living consists of.

Again, I do agree with you that we should strive for rights in a peaceful and respectful way. I personally try to live in a way that is respectful of others. I doubt anyone could look at my life and think I am a horrible person living a wicked lifestyle. I, and other gays, live in a way that is no different then heterosexuals; our relationships, activities, interests, etc. are no different. The problem is that people don't even notice that - they'd prefer to continue thinking that we are the scourge of the earth. It gets frustrating, and sometimes when people get frustrated with what often feels like one step forward and two steps back, it becomes more difficult to keep fighting in a peaceful and respectful way.

Hi Towanda - nice post. I agree with you on so many levels. I too wished Margaret would just shut up :lol: ... but what can one do. I respect her as a player, and as the person who I have had the pleasure of meeting a few times, but I do not agree with her opinions on gays and lesbians. But I respect her right to those beliefs.

I was brought up as a Roman Catholic and had the fear of God instilled in me. And judgement about heaven and hell and homosexuality was wrong etc etc. Well after a while I broke free of those chains and realised that isn't who I am ... and now I am more aligned with spiritual teachings like the channelled teachings of Abraham (through Esther Hicks) and Neale Donald Walshe etc. And these are much more closely aligned with the Hindu teachings than other religions. They are all about freedom, love, non-judgement, peace, allowing others to be as they want etc. So we are aligned on many levels I can see. :)

Pat Bateman
Feb 2nd, 2012, 01:18 AM
Is that really true? Asking for a thread to be closed and moved because you don't like the content so you don't have to read it and see it may not be an "attack" but it certainly isn't supportive of the right of someone to express their opinions. Supporting someone expressing their opinions so long as you don't have to read it and see it doesn't really make any sense. That's not respecting others and their beliefs at all. It's easy to be "peaceful" and "respectful" when someone else does the dirty work for you.

This what passive-aggressive personalities do, Helen. They fear confrontation and avoid it at all costs. Use passive, deferential language (eg "I love and respect everybody") while acting aggressively. Provoke others to anger and play the victim when the other person gets mad.

But I'm sure you've gotten the picture by now.

tennisvideos
Feb 2nd, 2012, 01:22 AM
This what passive-aggressive personalities do, Helen. They fear confrontation and avoid it at all costs. Use passive, deferential language (eg "I love and respect everybody") while acting aggressively. Provoke others to anger and play the victim when the other person gets mad.

But I'm sure you've gotten the picture by now.

:lol: Good old Pat's back. Well let me state quite categorically - I do not love you. But you are entitled to keep having a go at me. It's quite funny really. :lol:

Cajka
Feb 2nd, 2012, 01:33 AM
But just because I disagree with her doesn't mean I am going to demonise her or attack her. She believes she is right and who am I to say otherwise. Everyone thinks they are right and guess what - in their minds they are. I actually think that she, and other right wing fundamentalists turn more people off their cause with their speeches about restricting laws to the privileged. Yes, they probably have widespread support from the already converted, but I think these days most people are becoming more aware and are more aligned with the voice of equality. That is shown out in the surveys conducted in Australia recently where I think around 60% support gay and lesbian marriage. I big jump in recent years.

So I am ok with all of this as long as it is done respectfully and people aren't attacked or misquoted / misrepresented.

Oh, in Australia. For example, I live in Serbia and I believe that there are maybe 30% of people who support gay marriages or, at least, don't mind them. You know why? Because there are still too many people with a big influence who don't support it. Serbs are big Christians, or at least they pretend they are. Two years ago before pride parade, some church ministers publicly spoke against that event. They were saying exactly the same bs like Court. "We are not against them, but... the sanctity of family blah, blah..." As a result of that campaign, some big Serbs and Christians (hooliggans, of course) made a mess in Belgrade during the pride parade. Please, tell me, is it possible to handle such situation with humour? Any kind of humour would be in really horrible taste.

Court repeats this bs all the time. It's not that she said it once and let it go. She wants to be heard. As a gay, don't you think that your life would be easier if the smart asses like Court would shut up finally. What she said is not just hate speech and mean, it's very, very rude. Commenting on someone's intimacy is very rude.

As we speak of intimacy, I'm a straight female and I'm sorry but I really don't understand that you're not upset about this. I'm more upset than you. :lol:

Helen Lawson
Feb 2nd, 2012, 01:40 AM
Helen, I don't believe that the thread belonged in the Blast From the Past forum which IMO, is all about celebrating tennis history and the accomplishments of the greats and I don't believe that thread was relevant in that forum. Knowing how that one got started and seeing some of the negativity in that thread made me want to avoid it and even seeing it there in the BFTP did grieve me I will admit. I don't believe it was handled with respect.

I still think this thread is more suited to the non-tennis forum, or a gay and lesbian forum, but there are links to tennis so I can understand it being here. And I am perfectly fine with people expressing their beliefs that they think Margaret Court is wrong - respectfully. In fact I BELIEVE she is wrong on many levels eg. she thinks gay people CHOOSE to be gay whereas I believe we are BORN gay. Certainly I didn't choose to be gay! And she also thinks they shouldn't be able to marry because she thinks it should be between a man and a woman as written in the Bible. Well to be honest I think the Bible is a load of old hogwash (although the early meanings may be been honourable) much of it has been edited by humans who wanted to control the masses by instilling fear in people. So I disagree completely with her there. And I also disagree with her and I think if gay or lesbian people (myself included) wish to marry than we should be able to. Not that I would want to, but we should have the right to! And certainly in all countries we deserve the same rights to finances, insurance etc.

But just because I disagree with her doesn't mean I am going to demonise her or attack her. She believes she is right and who am I to say otherwise. Everyone thinks they are right and guess what - in their minds they are. I actually think that she, and other right wing fundamentalists turn more people off their cause with their speeches about restricting laws to the privileged. Yes, they probably have widespread support from the already converted, but I think these days most people are becoming more aware and are more aligned with the voice of equality. That is shown out in the surveys conducted in Australia recently where I think around 60% support gay and lesbian marriage. I big jump in recent years.

So I am ok with all of this as long as it is done respectfully and people aren't attacked or misquoted / misrepresented.

Thank you for explaining that.

SilverPersian
Feb 2nd, 2012, 01:42 AM
Towanda is my hero :sobbing:

Whitehead's Boy
Feb 2nd, 2012, 01:45 AM
Court views are pretty close to hate speech at this point. She's making up stuff about gays that isn't backed up with studies, only her imagination and own limited experience. It's not really different than the "jews control hollywood" or "black people love fried chicken" crap. The only difference is that a lot of the hate speech toward gays is still tolerated behind the "she's entitled to her opinion" BS.

Wimbledon9
Feb 2nd, 2012, 01:47 AM
Martina Navratilova never had a problem with being gay Billy Jean King had. Martina will always react a bit sharper but there was no hate in her letter.
I read from a gay person, Martina has been in the trenches with us. She spoke at the marches in Washington at least twice, she was there with amendment 2 in Colorado she went to schools to talk with youngsters in the early nineties.
Margaret Court was the attacking person again and again and Martina probably had enough like the rest of the gays who were in Australia, remember Martina was in Autralia and when her rainbowshirts were not enough she wrote the letter.

Helen Lawson
Feb 2nd, 2012, 01:53 AM
Court views are pretty close to hate speech at this point. She's making up stuff about gays that isn't backed up with studies, only her imagination and own limited experience. It's not really different than the "jews control hollywood" or "black people love fried chicken" crap. The only difference is that a lot of the hate speech toward gays is still tolerated behind the "she's entitled to her opinion" BS.

This is actually quite true, the things she is saying are the same thing many hate-groups are saying in the US. The more she talks the worse it gets.

Pat Bateman
Feb 2nd, 2012, 01:56 AM
:lol: Good old Pat's back. Well let me state quite categorically - I do not love you. But you are entitled to keep having a go at me. It's quite funny really. :lol:

It is funny actually, since you claimed a few hours ago you were no longer talking to me. What happened to that???

Just another in a long line of differences between what you say and what you actually do, then. Business as usual.

austinrunner
Feb 2nd, 2012, 01:59 AM
Blast From the Past forum which IMO, is all about celebrating tennis history and the accomplishments of the greats....

Wrong. The purpose of that forum is to get people to do the moderator / owner's research on tennis history. Once he's done with you, you're out UNLESS you have become good buddies with him. But you know all about that already.

Knowing how that one got started and seeing some of the negativity in that thread made me want to avoid it and even seeing it there in the BFTP did grieve me I will admit.

The thread got started out of my misplaced respect for your odd sensibilities. That's the pure, unadulterated truth you'll have to find some way to live with.

... she thinks gay people CHOOSE to be gay whereas I believe we are BORN gay. Certainly I didn't choose to be gay!

Good for you! I'm relieved that you're merely a victim of genetics. Because anyone who CHOOSES to have same gender sex must be stoned to death.

I actually think that she, and other right wing fundamentalists turn more people off their cause with their speeches about restricting laws to the privileged.

As if anyone needed more evidence of your naive nature.

So I am ok with all of this as long as it is done respectfully and people aren't attacked or misquoted / misrepresented.

Uhmmm, no, you aren't.

Pat Bateman
Feb 2nd, 2012, 02:06 AM
SO, one famous player expresses her views on marriage and she gets HATE targetted toward her? What gives? Personally, I have a lot of gay friends. 2 god-parents of my children are gay. But, I don't agree with their lifestyle. They're still my friends though. I love them as people. But I still think what they do is morally wrong. What happens with being able to voice your own opinion? Billie Jean had a perfectly respectful response. Navratilova, NOT!

OMG,not the "I have a lot of gay friends" BS.:rolleyes: You have a lot of 'colored' friends too, I imagine.

Martina's response was quite dignified, if you read her letter and her previous statements. Margaret's statements have been so extreme that she's exposed her looniness for all the world to see. As someone said "Tis better to be thought a fool than open your mouth and erase all doubt"

Margaret has voiced her opinion. Over and over again. Not only is nobody stopping her from doing that, the media are actually encouraging her to do it. They know a good headline when they see one.

tennisphilia
Feb 2nd, 2012, 02:16 AM
"Margaret's statements have been so extreme" --- I respect your opinion. I don't agree with you though. Defining marriage as between that of a man and a woman is not extreme.

Helen Lawson
Feb 2nd, 2012, 02:16 AM
She's doing a lot more than merely expressing her views, she's actively trying to prevent gays from getting rights she doesn't think God wants them to have. She's not just the "old lady" with outdated views you can shake your head at behind her back. She's trying to stop people from having basic rights because she says God wouldn't want it. I don't think she's violent, but violent groups say the same things she is and because she is famous, hate-filled people take her statements as validation and that can and in her case may have or lead to violence. Famous people should be more circumspect on their public statements and just shrugging it off as "just her beliefs" is exceedingly naive.

Towanda
Feb 2nd, 2012, 02:35 AM
"Margaret's statements have been so extreme" --- I respect your opinion. I don't agree with you though. Defining marriage as between that of a man and a woman is not extreme.

It isn't extreme to think that other people should not have the same rights you have? What if someone said that interracial marriage should not be legal? Or that infertile couples should not be allowed to marry? Would those be acceptable to you?

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to tell me about your "heterosexual lifestyle" so that I might be able to recognize the characteristics of my "homosexual lifestyle."

tennisvideos
Feb 2nd, 2012, 03:02 AM
It is funny actually, since you claimed a few hours ago you were no longer talking to me. What happened to that???

Just another in a long line of differences between what you say and what you actually do, then. Business as usual.

Ummmm I wasn't going to respond to you in the BFTP. We were going around in endless circles on Rollo's thread about respect and his rules. I also said I was happy to reply to you via PM. So it wasn't that I was no longer talking to you per se. But once again, thanks for the judgement call. Just another observation. ;)

SilverPersian
Feb 2nd, 2012, 03:23 AM
"Margaret's statements have been so extreme" --- I respect your opinion. I don't agree with you though. Defining marriage as between that of a man and a woman is not extreme.

What about saying that homosexuality is caused by sexual abuse, that gays and lesbians can "overcome" their "perversions" with the help of Christianity, or that lesbian players have "ruined" the WTA? Are those extreme statements?

tennisvideos
Feb 2nd, 2012, 03:28 AM
What about saying that homosexuality is caused by sexual abuse, that gays and lesbians can "overcome" their "perversions" with the help of Christianity, or that lesbian players have "ruined" the WTA? Are those extreme statements?

Well I do think the lesbians compromised the WTA fashion arena ... think Betty Stove and Wendy Turnbull. What was Teddy Tinling supposed to do for them? ;)

And Christianity and the Bible certainly turns me off sex. So I guess that could overcome any perversion. ;)

TheWizardHat
Feb 2nd, 2012, 03:31 AM
Meh, tell somebody who cares, bitch.:bigcry:

Apparently a lot of butthurt posters on this forum do :shrug: Otherwise they wouldn't feel the need for the vile personal attacks :shrug:

austinrunner
Feb 2nd, 2012, 03:31 AM
Ummmm I wasn't going to respond to you in the BFTP. We were going around in endless circles....

tennisvideos, when you're not obfuscating your true intentions with flower power language and thereby causing others to spin around in circles, you go behind their backs with your influential buddy and stab them. That's the very definition of passive aggressivity. How long did it take you to get the owner of BFTP to sanitize the "Rollo's house" thread to avoid offending your sensitive nature? Have you heard of "Man-Up Pills"? Please take a few and report back.

Towanda
Feb 2nd, 2012, 03:39 AM
Well I do think the lesbians compromised the WTA fashion arena ... think Betty Stove and Wendy Turnbull. What was Teddy Tinling supposed to do for them? ;)

And Christianity and the Bible certainly turns me off sex. So I guess that could overcome any perversion. ;)

I remember back in the 70's when I was playing Jr. tennis, a lot of the girls were talking about how Martina didn't dress girly enough, and that that she was ruining the image that Evert, with her little pink panties, set. They also said that Martina was ruining tennis by bringing weight lifting into it, because women, even athletes, should not be muscular. And or course the talk eventually turned to, "she's like that because she's a lesbian."

miffedmax
Feb 2nd, 2012, 04:12 AM
I understand that this is a topic that people--including myself, having a gay brother and brother-in-law--are quite passionate about. However, passionate debate is possible without childish name-calling.

I will be checking this thread again and if I see any more insults-as opposed to discussion-I will close it and I will issue infractions as necessary.

I don't want to stifle debate, but the days of just throwing insults at each other in GM are over.

Hurley
Feb 2nd, 2012, 04:31 AM
I will be checking this thread again and if I see any more insults-as opposed to discussion-I will close it

The problem though -- as I read it -- is that intentional antagonism by at least one poster (or faction) seems to be purposely pointed towards fulfilling exactly that goal.

But it really doesn't matter; topics like this cannot exist on a message board of this size without degrading into personal attacks (cf. the now defunct political forum in Non-Tennis). Unfortunately, if the end result will always be cessation of the discussion, perhaps threads like these should just be deleted from the very beginning.

Moveyourfeet
Feb 2nd, 2012, 05:00 AM
Personally, I have a lot of gay friends. 2 god-parents of my children are gay. But, I don't agree with their lifestyle. They're still my friends though. I love them as people. But I still think what they do is morally wrong.

I think your lifestyle is pretty daft. I mean who exposes their children to people they find morally reprehensible? Or purposely befriends them?

"I love them as people"... what does this bs even mean? bye

ranfurly
Feb 2nd, 2012, 05:03 AM
The important thing is to remember Court needs to stop smoking,

she has a bad grill.

stromatolite
Feb 2nd, 2012, 06:43 AM
I understand that this is a topic that people--including myself, having a gay brother and brother-in-law--are quite passionate about. However, passionate debate is possible without childish name-calling.

I will be checking this thread again and if I see any more insults-as opposed to discussion-I will close it and I will issue infractions as necessary.

I don't want to stifle debate, but the days of just throwing insults at each other in GM are over.

I applaud your aim to keep the discussions civilized, but please keep in mind that closing the thread would mostly punish those who are just legitimately expressing their opinions. TBH I've seen much worse insults being hurled back and forth on player-related threads that go on ad infinitum. The main difference is that on this thread there are actually some really interesting ideas being expressed in between the petty name-calling.

bandabou
Feb 2nd, 2012, 08:14 AM
God is more like a psychopath. If you don't follow him he'll disown you, kill you, send you to hell to suffer forever. There are fathers on this planet now who are bad as this, like muslim "honour killings" for not following, mormons who disown their children if they don't follow, amish who banish their children to never see them again if they don't follow, orthodox jews who would call their daughter a whore for not following.

When I become a father I will never ever been this hateful, hurtful, intolerant, unforgiving, mean-spirited, disrespectful and horrible to my child.

Really? Well what Father sacrifices his only child and let him die on a cross so million of others can be saved? Only our God!That's all you need to know...so great is His love for us. :wavey:

bandabou
Feb 2nd, 2012, 09:33 AM
What she is doing is more than expressing her views on gay-marriage. When you are speaking out against a group that already experiences a great deal of hatred and judgement it often crosses over into hate speech. Having said that, my issue is less with her religious views on gays than it is with her outward advicating against gay marriage. In countries with freedom of religion, laws are not based on the texts of any particular religion. Why then, should gays be denied the right to marry because of the views of many Christians? Why should YOUR religion define my rights? The fact that you think that what we do is morally wrong is YOUR issue, and should not define my rights.

Consider racism for example - if someone says, "I hate blacks" then I think we can assume they are racist, but we could argue that they are exercising their right to free speech. What if they say, "I think blacks are an abomination, unacceptable, and must have had some horrible abuse that caused them to be the way they are." Can you see the difference there? When you are talking publicly about a group that already gets a great deal of hatred directed toward them, you fuel the hatred others have. Finally, let's say that this person says, "I hate blacks, they are an abomination, and they should not be able to vote, or get married." This is not just free speech; it is advocating for the denial of rights to a specific group. The fact that you and others continue to defend this sort of talk as "free speech" and nothing more is just a cover for your lack of acceptance of gays. Frankly, I couldn't care less about your non-acceptance; what I do care about is that you want to deny me the same right you have just because I fell in love with a woman.


Now, about this "gay lifestyle" to which you refer - can you explain to me what that is? I'm gay, and I don't even know what that is. When I think of my "lifestyle," the things that I think of are that I like to spend time with my family, going to movies, going to church, traveling, and hiking. I play guitar, I run in the park, I am a vegetarian, I play tennis, I volunteer, etc, etc. Those are the things that I believe define my lifestyle. There is nothing that I see in thoss things that screams "gay lifestyle." Maybe you could define for me your "heterosexual lifestyle" and detail the specific things that make that a "heterosexual lifestyle" as opposed to just your "lifestyle" without regard to sexual orientation. If you can do that, then maybe I will be able to understand the difference.

First of all: kudos for a brilliant post! I pretty much agree with your points...only thing I'd say: It's true blacks might have it better now than gays..but gays were never slaves either or brought to a whole new continent against their will to perform forced labor either.

What the black race had to endure for almost 4 centuries, now I don't think the gays were ever in such a bad position to begin with.

austinrunner
Feb 2nd, 2012, 10:22 AM
Nazi Germany tried to exterminate gays in Europe. Life sentences for a single same-sex act are still possible in several countries, particularly in Africa. Because of prison conditions in Africa, those sentences are the equivalent of the death penalty. Lesbian women get raped to "convert" them to straight. Gay men in many parts of Africa are considered the scum of the scum. Gay (and straight) men in the Democratic Republic of the Congo are used as sex slaves by insurgent armies. These barbarities are not a modern invention.

Which countries still officially penalize someone just for being black?

stromatolite
Feb 2nd, 2012, 10:35 AM
Nazi Germany tried to exterminate gays in Europe. Life sentences for a single same-sex act are still possible in several countries, particularly in Africa. Because of prison conditions in Africa, those sentences are the equivalent of the death penalty. Lesbian women get raped to "convert" them to straight. Gay men in many parts of Africa are considered the scum of the scum. Gay (and straight) men in the Democratic Republic of the Congo are used as sex slaves by insurgent armies. These barbarities are not a modern invention.

Which countries still officially penalize someone just for being black?

I don't think it's in anybody's interest to try to prove whether gays or blacks have been treated worse throughout history or in modern times. Both groups have been treated appallingly, and still are in many parts of the world. Whatever suffering one group has undergone doesn't diminish the injustice done to the other in the slightest.

bandabou
Feb 2nd, 2012, 11:03 AM
Nazi Germany tried to exterminate gays in Europe. Life sentences for a single same-sex act are still possible in several countries, particularly in Africa. Because of prison conditions in Africa, those sentences are the equivalent of the death penalty. Lesbian women get raped to "convert" them to straight. Gay men in many parts of Africa are considered the scum of the scum. Gay (and straight) men in the Democratic Republic of the Congo are used as sex slaves by insurgent armies. These barbarities are not a modern invention.

Which countries still officially penalize someone just for being black?

Excellent points, but..nothing worse than being forced to work, to live without freedom, without rights.
A gay person can hide, as long as nobody see him/her do anything..you can't tell.

Blacks had no choice, nowhere to hide. That's my point.

austinrunner
Feb 2nd, 2012, 11:52 AM
Gay people can't always hide. Gay people are often outed by family members, former partners, co-workers, or so-called friends. Many countries don't offer due process when people are accused of being gay. Vigilantes frequently take matters into their own hands, often resulting in gay people losing their jobs and all their property, if not their lives. Troll around on Google for information about the plight of gay people (or people perceived to be gay) in much of Africa and Asia. You'll be shocked.

The danger posed by Mrs. Court is not limited to Australia. Her words have worldwide impact, intentionally or not. Plus she trains missionaries to send to third world countries. Guess what those missionaries teach - the same hateful things that Mrs. Court does. Do some research on the impact that Christian missionaries have had recently in Uganda concerning gay people. Those missionaries have spawned vigilante violence against gay people, the publishing of the names and addresses of gay people under sensationalist headlines in mainstream newspapers, the prevelant view that all gay people are pedophiles, and the movement in parliament to enact a death penalty law for same-gender sex.

The world moves forward on human rights only when there is absolute vigilance among everyone to ensure that it does. This is why the International Criminal Court, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, and the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia exist. This is also why there are numerous international treaties about human rights and regular reviews of each country's compliance with those treaties. But all these formal processes are not enough. The public (you and me) have the greatest role in ensuring that the human rights of everyone are respected. Being a pacifist about these issues never has and never will work. Millions of dead people have proven this inescapable fact.

tennisphilia
Feb 2nd, 2012, 12:23 PM
Really? Well what Father sacrifices his only child and let him die on a cross so million of others can be saved? Only our God!That's all you need to know...so great is His love for us. :wavey:

AMEN to this!

tennisphilia
Feb 2nd, 2012, 12:25 PM
I think your lifestyle is pretty daft. I mean who exposes their children to people they find morally reprehensible? Or purposely befriends them?

"I love them as people"... what does this bs even mean? bye

This kind of myopic thinking boggles me. And it invites extremism. You can disagree respectfully. The word is RESPECT. Obviously, even in a tennis forum, it's not there any more.

austinrunner
Feb 2nd, 2012, 12:28 PM
It certainly seems like most of the gay and lesbian community in the USA have it far worse than we do in Australia. I am pretty sure we have most of the legal rights of normal straight couples except the right to marriage.

Nope. Here are some examples of continuing discrimination:

Queensland, the Northern Territory, Tasmania, Victoria, and South Australia do not allow same-sex couples to adopt children.

South Australia and the Northern Territory do not allow a non-partnered gay person to adopt children.

Queensland, Victoria, the Northern Territory, and South Australia do not allow a gay person to adopt the child of his or her partner.

The Northern Territory, Tasmania, and South Australia do not allow a male couple to use a surrogate to conceive their child. South Australia has a similar prohibition for a female couple.

The Northern Territory, Tasmania, and South Australia do not automatically recognize a man as the parent of his male partner's child when that child is born.

Your hero Mrs. Court would overturn all the progress that's been made to date and vigorously opposes all efforts to get rid of existing discrimination in state and commonwealth law.

pka_liloo
Feb 2nd, 2012, 03:19 PM
First of all, I commend you for not viewing this issue through religion. The thing that many Christians who are against gay marriage seem to forget, particularly here in the U.S., is that we have freedom of religion, and there is a separation of church and state. Law is not, and should not be based on any religion.

I must ask then, if you do not oppose gay marriage for religious reasons, then what it your reason for opposing it? All I can get from your posts is that it should not be allowed because marriage is between a man and a woman, that's just the way it is, it's tradition and should never be changed. It was also once tradition for people to own slaves; would you argue that that, or many other heinous traditions should have been continued because that's just the way it is?

Secondly, the fact that you don't recognize this as an equal rights issue indicates just how ignorant you are. This isn't about gay couples wanting to get married so they can get a nice set of tupperware as a wedding gift. Certainly a part of it is that, just like straight couples, we want to be able to marry as a sign of our love and commitment. But, there are also many legal and financial benefits to marriage. We do not get the tax breaks that heterosexuals get because we cannot file joint taxes. We can be barred from seeing our partners in the hospital because we are not "related." We often cannot name our partners as beneficiaries on our pension funds, or insurance.

There are countless cases of situations in which a gay person was severely injured and the partner was not allowed to see the injured person because some staff member had an issue with homosexuality and denied the partner admittance due to not being related. Even if you have a power of attorney, you can be refused admittance. I remember a case from a year or so ago where a woman was critically injured in a car accident and her partner of over 20 years was denied admittance, despite having power of attorney, because the nurse had an issue with gays. The injured woman died alone in in the hospital. In other cases, the parents of the injured party do not allow the partner to visit the injured. In another case last year, a woman was paralyzed in an accident and her parents refused to let her partner of more than ten years see the injured woman. The parents took their paralyzed daughter home with them, and never allwoed her to have contact with her partner. About 25 years ago, a friend of mine died, and her family with whom she had no contact with for nearly 30 years took her home with them and buried her in the family plot. Her partner of 30 years was not even allowed to go to the funeral. As I said, there are countless cases of this sort of thing. If we were allowed to be married, this could not happen.

Many years ago, my partner applied for a life insurance policy and named me as the beneficary. There should have been no problem, as the owner of an insurance policy can name anyone as the beneficiary. One of the employees at the insurance company saw on the form that I was listed as "partner" and came to our house at 11:00 at night, insisting that my partner make her mother the beneficiary. I explained to this woman that my partner has every right to name whomever she wants, but that did not stop this woman from screaming that she will not leave until we change it. We ended up having to take this to the department of insurance to get me reinstated as beneficiary. A few years ago, my partner passed away. If we were a married couple, her pension would have automatically paid out to me a 50% joint and survivor annuity, but because we were not able to be married, there was no benefit payable. Again, if we were married, we would not have had these issues. These are not isolated incidents; every gay couple I know goes through similar problems because of our inability to marry.

It seems to be very easy for you, and others with your anti-gay marriage stance to just laugh at gays for thinking our inability to marry is an issue of equal rights. That is because you have not considered the legal and financial benefits that go some with being married. This is clearly an issue of equal rights.

As far as comparing gay rights to racism, you once again are ignoring the reality of being gay. In many places, we do not have civil rights. Here in the U.S., unless we live in a state or a city that includes sexual orientation as a protected class, we can be discriminated against. Can you imagine if an employer or a business or what have you said "no blacks allowed?" Obviously they can't do that, but they can say, "no gays allowed." A few years ago, one of my co-workers who was upset that I gave her a bad review wrote "dyke" on the outside of my door. When I reported it, I was told they could do nothing because sexual orientation is not a protected class, so that is not considered discriminatory. You can bet that if she had written a racial epithet it would have been considered discriminatory and she would have been reprimanded. For the next two years, she continued writing "dyke" on my door and on my desk with no reprimand at all.

While I have not experienced it, there are many cases of gays being beaten, sometimes to death, because of anti-gay views. While you may consider your anti-gay marriage views, or Martgaret Court's views as having no impact on gay bashing, there is a connection. Your views encourage the idea that gays are lesser than heterosexuals - less deserving of civil rights, less deserving of the benefits that heterosexuals get. Being considered lesser people leads to greater hatred being directed toward us, and that leads to greater bashing.

Again, I don't expect you to ever get this. From your point of view, we're all just a bunch of whiny gays whining that we can't get married. I would bet though, that, assuming you are married, you would be up in arms in someone told you, "sorry, you can't file joint taxes, and sorry, you can't have your wife as beneficiary on your insurance policy, and whoops, your wife was just in an accident and she's dying but you can't go see her, and oh no, she just died, sorry, you can't go to the funeral, and by the way, the pension she accumulated before she died? That just reverts back to the pension fund, and you don't get anything. Oh, you've been together for 30 years? Oh well, too bad..." And after hearing all of that, you would be told that you should just stop complaining, and just accept it because that's just the way it is.

this needs to be fully quoted. again.

... and I'm still waiting for the description of this "lifestyle" that tennisphilia "doesn't agree with"



As we speak of intimacy, I'm a straight female and I'm sorry but I really don't understand that you're not upset about this. I'm more upset than you. :lol:
:lol:

as for "people becoming homosexual because of abuse", based on "You look at a lot of them, that's happened" that is equal to saying that Catholic church makes boys become transvestites or sexually confused based on watching Almodovar movies - just as scientifically and statistically "legitimate".

and one more thing, sadly I can't find the initial post, but there was something about an uncle talking about his little niece being able to tolerate gays as opposed to Mrs. Court being so old and not so tolerant. Just wanted to say that the girl being so open-minded isn't necessarily the result of her being so young and thus so innocent and thus so tolerant, but more like a result of her up-bringing. And I thank this person's sister or brother for being so tolerant towards homosexuality to actually raise their child to be unbiased.

roelc
Feb 2nd, 2012, 04:10 PM
Really? Well what Father sacrifices his only child and let him die on a cross so million of others can be saved? Only our God!That's all you need to know...so great is His love for us. :wavey:

and he created heaven and the earth IN THE DARK! how amazing is that! :eek:
the snake was a mistake though

(quote RG)

Moveyourfeet
Feb 2nd, 2012, 05:21 PM
Really? Well what Father sacrifices his only child and let him die on a cross so million of others can be saved? Only our God!That's all you need to know...so great is His love for us. :wavey:

So great is his love that he allowed a man's wife and children to be killed, and allowed said man to suffer all kinds of disease to win a bet :help:
It's so loving to ask a man to kill his only child in order to test him :tape:

If god hadn't fucked up in the first place by being racist and extending salvation for all regardless of race, he wouldn't have needed his son to die.
And he is also racist to angels. The angels who defied weren't allowed any route to redemption, but humans eventually were. I wonder if there are angels defecting as we speak. Some more back of the bus stuff.

Moveyourfeet
Feb 2nd, 2012, 05:21 PM
and he created heaven and the earth IN THE DARK! how amazing is that! :eek:
the snake was a mistake though

:lol:

Dominic
Feb 2nd, 2012, 08:05 PM
:sobbing: why, why?! :sobbing:

Nahh..more like a father who expects his children to follow his commandments. Sure you'll expect the same from your own children. :wavey:

Sure, my commandments would be something like "respect everyone and treat others like you would wanna be treated", not "gays are an abomination, They shall be punished, there is not logic behind this BUT I SAID SO! "

bandabou
Feb 2nd, 2012, 09:50 PM
So great is his love that he allowed a man's wife and children to be killed, and allowed said man to suffer all kinds of disease to win a bet :help:
It's so loving to ask a man to kill his only child in order to test him :tape:

If god hadn't fucked up in the first place by being racist and extending salvation for all regardless of race, he wouldn't have needed his son to die.
And he is also racist to angels. The angels who defied weren't allowed any route to redemption, but humans eventually were. I wonder if there are angels defecting as we speak. Some more back of the bus stuff.

I think you're talking about Job? Job's wife didn't die.. but anyways: Job stood the challenge and afterwards became TWICE more wealthy, lived for 140 years and his daughters were the most beautiful of the world. That's the reward for remaining true to God.

The same with Abraham and Isaac...remember: Sarah wasn't even supposed to could have had a child at her age, but for God nothing is impossible...and Abraham was blessed.

You don't know what you're talking about. God messed up? We messed up..we were living in Paradise, but didn't respect God's rule...and he still's willing to forgive us: just believe in Jesus.

bandabou
Feb 2nd, 2012, 09:53 PM
Sure, my commandments would be something like "respect everyone and treat others like you would wanna be treated", not "gays are an abomination, They shall be punished, there is not logic behind this BUT I SAID SO! "

There's logic behind it: He created man and woman and said to them: go and make yourselves fruitful.
Not gonna go the whole thing about gays, but the God's logic for not agreeing with it..is pretty understandable.

Moveyourfeet
Feb 2nd, 2012, 11:01 PM
Job stood the challenge and afterwards became TWICE more wealthy, lived for 140 years and his daughters were the most beautiful of the world. That's the reward for remaining true to God.

:haha:
god nearly killed him, did kill his children and took away everything he owned, but it's ok because he gave him twice more stuff and hotter kids. :lol::worship:

We messed up..we were living in Paradise, but didn't respect God's rule...and he still's willing to forgive us:

I could get into being naked and having sex while a perv talking snake watches but I don't know if I'd call it paradise.
Anyway, he's willing to forgive, but only after cursing women to painful child labor (bet he's pissed off we invented the epidural :lol:)

Moveyourfeet
Feb 2nd, 2012, 11:02 PM
There's logic behind it:

You got that right.

jameshazza
Feb 2nd, 2012, 11:08 PM
:confused: :confused: :confused:

WTF has this thread descended into, this isn't a biblical scholar competition. It's about human rights and equality.

Moveyourfeet
Feb 2nd, 2012, 11:12 PM
It's about human rights and equality.

human rights and equality that are often denied due to a local interpretation of scriptures. See bandabou's explanation of god's 'logic' :facepalm: behind disagreeing with gays.

austinrunner
Feb 2nd, 2012, 11:44 PM
If the biblical purpose of sex is procreation, why does the church approve of hot marital sex after the wife has gone through menopause? I guess there's always the possibility that God would enact a miracle and she would become pregnant. But He could also enact a miracle so that a male could become pregnant with his male partner's child.