Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Charles Barkley: In sports, ability to play should outweigh sexual orientation
Washington Post ^ | May 17, 2011 | Mike Wise

Posted on 05/17/2011 10:33:21 AM PDT by ConservativeStatement

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last
To: rollo tomasi

LOL. Marilyn Manson is so freaking creepy.

I know guys get turned on by even seeing the average naked woman. But I’ve known gay guys who think it’s so silly that straight men fear them in the locker room. They are very picky and do not care about the bodies of most men.

We girls have had to change in front of obvious lesbian gym teachers forever. That’s worse.

41 posted on 05/17/2011 12:25:51 PM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

So your point is that only beautiful people should be concerned about modesty? Homely people aren’t entitled to a measure of privacy since nobody really cares anyway?

No! LOL. Everyone should be modest. But in a locker room, people should get on with what they need to do, change quickly, use a towel to the shower, whatever, and not worry if one of the people in there might be homosexual.

And if you look like a movie star, if your body is like that guy in the Old Spice commercials, get used to the fact that the gay guys WILL be staring. And talking to you in the parking lot. :) You might have to make your own gym at home!!

42 posted on 05/17/2011 12:29:25 PM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

Yeah, except the gays could claim sexual harassment by other gays.

Even that doesn’t work. They’d each need their very own locker room.

43 posted on 05/17/2011 12:54:33 PM PDT by bolobaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator; BenLurkin

44 posted on 05/17/2011 1:01:08 PM PDT by ErnBatavia (It's not the Obama's the "Obama Regime".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

Try in this thread here:;page=1

When I claimed that the people had a right to legislate against perverse behavior you argued that homosexuality was protected under the 14th Amendment. You continually tried to equate homosexual to heterosexual behavior in order to protect it throughout the discussion. You then went on to make the ‘consenting adults’ argument made by all supporters of perversion rights.

I am sure if I look further that this wasn’t the only time I encountered you defending perversion rights in support of homosexuality. It doesn’t surprise me at all that you now admit to working in a gay bar.

45 posted on 05/17/2011 1:23:14 PM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

The thread in questions was regarding an attempt in Montana to make homosexual acts illegal.

You appeared to advocate such a law that would make homosexual act illegal.

I simply stated that homosexual acts cannot be made illegal due to 14th Amendment and the Lawrence v. Texas ruling.

I don’t see how pointing to a Constitutional Amendment and a SCOTUS ruling deems one to be supportive a homosexuality.

Sorry, but I was not one of the six Justices on the SCOTUS who voted with the majority in Lawrence v. Texas.

46 posted on 05/17/2011 1:41:14 PM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

You didn’t simply state anything but argued it. You continually tried to equate homosexuality to heterosexuality as if they should be treated equally and used the argument always used by the left-wing claiming that we all should accept any perverse behavior as long as it is between two consenting adults.

Besides you why do you use the Lawrence case as a basis for your argument as if you agree with it? Being that it was a judicial activist decision I would think that you would oppose it if you do not support perversion rights.

47 posted on 05/17/2011 1:45:32 PM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

Like it or not, Lawrence is the Law of the Land.

And states cannot pass laws that are in direct violation of the US Constitution or SCOTUS Rulings.

48 posted on 05/17/2011 1:50:16 PM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

You and your buddies down at the gay bar keep telling yourselves that. Lawrence though will not stand for long.

49 posted on 05/17/2011 1:52:02 PM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle
Lol, a lesbian gym teacher, can't imagine the stares.

At least men have a “barometer” to tell if the stares cause “excitement”. There is this active duty nurse who showed how “proud” he was in the gym shower and no doubt a product of DADT (By the way the guy carried himself). Eventually people started to complain and he disappeared for awhile. He is back, but “waits his turn” now (This is a gym that has a lot of civilian contractors/dependents/retiree traffic).

50 posted on 05/17/2011 2:03:55 PM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

If you guys are so afraid of gays in the locker room, don’t be>>>>>>

Not afraid. Repulsed. Disgusted. How bout we send them into the woman’s restroom when you are inside?

51 posted on 05/17/2011 2:34:33 PM PDT by dennisw (NZT - "works better if you're already smart")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: wolfman23601

owners want teams that put people in the seats. A homosexual in the lockerroom/team is a clear negative.

just look at the women’s basketball for clear proof.

52 posted on 05/17/2011 2:39:50 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! and
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

seems Barkley is either protecting himself from the homosexual lobby or he is hiding something OR he is trying to out someone.

53 posted on 05/17/2011 2:43:04 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! and
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi
Lol, a lesbian gym teacher, can't imagine the stares.

I went to a public school once in 7th grade where showers were mandatory and you had to walk naked to them. These two gym teachers were both Army ladies and back then in the 70s a certain amount of the female soldiers were lesbians. You were only allowed to wear your gym shorts (no shirt) to the showers if you were on your period. All this at an age where girls' bodies were changing! It was humiliating. Both for the girls who had "blossomed" and the ones who had not. Those butch women "supervised" the showers too. SICK. Glad they put me in private school after that year.

54 posted on 05/17/2011 2:43:45 PM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

just more proof that homosexuals should not be around minors.

as a teacher OR a role model.

55 posted on 05/17/2011 2:46:37 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! and
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Neoliberalnot
Football is a man’s sport, not a fag’s.

It's tribal warfare entertainment. The goal is to dominate and humiliate the other tribe, and forced homosexuality is the ultimate degradation. In football there is a tremendous amount of homo-something going on: putting the cigar shaped ball in the other man's end zone, tight ends, wide receivers, hiking the ball under the butt, dances, huddles, hugs, butt patting, helmet kisses. A female performer at half time with a wardrobe malfunction causes extreme revulsion. I don't know what is going on but both tribal warfare and football incite a tremendous amount of repressed homosexual activity.

56 posted on 05/17/2011 2:59:51 PM PDT by Reeses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

“Lawrence though will not stand for long.”

This Court and no Court in the foreseeable future is going to do a 180 on any previous case that was decided based on the Equal Protection Clause.

57 posted on 05/17/2011 9:18:51 PM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

BS. I know that is your wish but Lawrence itself was a 180 and an activist decision. It wasn’t even really based upon the equal protection clause, it was completlely an activist decision.

Why dont you explain to me how, under the equal protection clause, any types of sexual behavior or sexual preferences must be treated equally under the law. I am sure you cant because it is a BS statement by you.

58 posted on 05/18/2011 4:18:09 AM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

Would you have any fear of a homoped taking a shower with your young boy? It isn’t fear with men—it is the forced association with disgusting perverts—these creatures are consumers of fecal material. Tell us, is there anything that disgusts you? Some of us just don’t buy the marketing of deviance no matter what the package is and we don’t want to associate with it. Do you buy every product promoted by Homowood—no, so understand other people have a free choice too.

59 posted on 05/18/2011 7:06:00 AM PDT by Neoliberalnot ((Read "The Grey Book" for an alternative to corruption in DC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Neoliberalnot; Yaelle

Yaelle’s claim that homosexual men have no interest in harassing or looking at other men is not backed up by fact at all anyway. She makes the claim based upon what her ‘gay’ friends tell her and that is it. The fact is that there already is plenty of evidence of harassment by homosexuals in bathrooms, public parks and other places. In my state New Jersey the ex-Governor even admitted that he was going around looking for sex in the public restrooms and other places. Who knows if he was molesting children in these public restrooms as well. Harassment in public restrooms is epidemic in many places by homosexuals. And this is not even to mention the constant attacks through threatened lawsuits by homosexuals if you do not like them acting out in public places. Yaelle would be one of those who would agree with the homosexuals, and claim that those who object to this perversion in public have the problem.

60 posted on 05/18/2011 7:21:27 AM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson