Tim “I hate gay people” Hardaway has accepted an open-hearted bold offer from North Miami Mayor Kevin Burns — the official has invited the radioactive former NBA star to spend a routine day with him. (Miami Herald):
‘’We’re just trying to show him that there are living, breathing people that just happen to be gay,'’ said North Miami Mayor Kevin Burns, who lives with his partner of 23 years and an adopted daughter.Will it do anything to open Hardaway’s eyes? I’m not sure anyone with such a hard heart — and blunt honesty about his feelings about gays — is sincerely ready for change. But this humanization and reality check that gay people are simply everyday people cannot hurt.The plan is for Hardaway to join Burns and his family for a routine weekday at the mayor’s office and home — doing things like dropping off Burns’ child at school, meeting with constituents and dinner with the family.
Hardaway has been hit hard since the broadcast on the local AM radio station 790 The Ticket, in which he said, ‘’I don’t like to be around gay people'’ and `”it shouldn’t be in the U.S. or the world.'’
What do you think?
***
Watch Today’s Ann Curry crack up on the air laughing at Hardaway’s comments (via Good As You).
Related:
* The class of John Amaechi
* Tim Hardaway: ‘I hate gay people’
* Hardaway’s tortured apology
* ESPN message board topic: “Tim Hardaway is right.”
* ESPN’s Outside the Lines, featuring the full interview with infamous remarks, as well as comments from Amaechi.
Hat tip, PageOneQ.
40 Responses to “Gay mayor to Tim Hardaway: spend a day with my family”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
There may indeed be “living, breathing people that just happen to be gay” but are there “living, breathing people that just happen to be” Tim Hardaway?
Will it do anything to open Hardaway’s eyes? I’m not sure anyone with such a hard heart — and blunt honesty about his feelings about gays — is sincerely ready for change.
I think that is a good question for all of us. Let’s apply this to any concern, cause or interest. I wonder how many “hard hearted” extremely bigoted and hateful people here would be willing to enter into a conservative church with an open mind toward understanding that they are not all gay bashing, war-mongering haters of civil rights? How many of you with such blunt profane honesty about your feelings about Christians could be sincere and ready for an open dialogue or “change”?
I have to be honest. I never quite understand how so many here can hate people with such strong language only to find it objectionable when someone hates something that you believe in. There is a word for that…
What Tim said was stupid, but I find it little different than much of what is said here. Of course now, I will be wrongly labeled a fundi neo-con for expressing this, and as if they have anything to do with each other.
I have to be honest. I never quite understand how so many here can hate people with such strong language only to find it objectionable when someone hates something that you believe in. There is a word for that…
Oh, and you love everybody, right? What, one must love and accept what one hates and disagrees with? What the hell kind of logic is that?
So if I love God, and hate Satan, and I express my rabid hate of Satan, I’m being a hypocrite because I wish all people loved God like I do. If I firmly believe in democracy, and hate totalitarianism, I’m a hypocrite if I criticize a totalitarian regime because I’ve elswhere expressed my wish that all nations were democracies?
…Wha?
Jack, first off - there are several different posters here. It would be lovely if commenters could differentiate between them, instead of ascribing the views of one to everyone.
Second, I’ve been reading here for two years now. I rarely, if ever, encounter any generalized hatred about Christians - or any other religion. Rather there is open, and sometimes harsh criticism of politics and policies supported by various religious groups or organizations.
Third, I’ve had discussions many times with people on the right and on the religious right. As individuals, many of them are very decent human beings. Their organizations generally scare the bejeesus out of me. Some of the individuals likewise. Are all Catholics horrible because the heirarchy of the church has some reprehensible policies? Of course not. That doesn’t mean that those policies don’t warrent criticism.
Alix, love, can’t you just disagree with others? Why do you feel you have to hate people who aren’t like you? My stars. Me, I like 19th century novels and manga. I like Thai food and BBQ. I like sex with guys. But if you prefer movies where things blow up and going to prayer meetings, steak houses and sushi, and sex with whoever, I’m not going to get my hate on for you. It’s, well, nice, to have a world where lots of us do different things. That’s what freedom is about.
Will it do anything to open Hardaway’s eyes?
Nope. I think he’s about as sincere as House was when he apologized to Tritter. But it’s a publicity-friendly way out of having made a public spectacle of himself as a homophobe and lost a job over it. Hardaway will continue to be a bigoted idiot, but at least he’ll perhaps learn to be polite about it.
What might have been effective would be all the gay/bi men he’s ever shared a locker room with coming out to him… but I might not want to do that either.
What Tim said was stupid, but I find it little different than much of what is said here. Of course now, I will be wrongly labeled a fundi neo-con for expressing this, and as if they have anything to do with each other.
Sorry, Jack. We’ll do what we tend to do around these parts with concern trolls.
Here’s step one which involves giving you the benefit of the doubt: please indicate who the “so many people here” are who hate people for who they are?
The hostility that is sometimes seen on this site (at least among non-trolls) is, so far as I can tell, entirely aimed at other people’s belief systems. Bigotry against people because of innate characteristics–ethnic group, skin color, sex, sexual orientation–is fundamentally different from hatred of irrational and bigoted belief systems and behavior. Nobody forces anyone to adopt bigoted belief systems. You’re welcome to defend such belief systems if you like, but they’re fair game. This is the distinction, which most folks around here are very careful to make, between attacking Michelle Malkin for being a hateful, lying racist and attacking her for being a Filipina. The former is not like Tim Hardaway’s bigotry; the latter is.
At limit cases, I actually think there’s some common ground here (pretending for the moment that you are not a concern troll). We can all agree, I think, that it’s ok to attack actual Nazis, and even to express hate for them.
So the relevant question is: what belief systems deserve our respect? You want to make a case for Christianism (by which I mean the particular, politicized brand of Evangelical Christianity that most people mean when they say “conservative church”….theologically conservative churches do not necessarily fall into this camp)? Go right ahead. But it simply doesn’t follow that because it’s wrong to attack people for being gay, it’s therefore wrong to attack people for any reason whatsoever.
Thanks for playing!
There is also a word for equating two things that are quite different. Criticising the misogynistic and intolerant practices of an organisation because they being are misogynistic and intolerant is NOT equitable to demonising an entire group of people or attempting to deny any entire group of people civil rights merely because your religion can be interpreted to vaguely condemn that group.
For anyone that equates the two above I have some serious concerns about their grasp of reality.
Not to mention of course that we have loads of Christians included in the progressive movement, hell they form the core in a lot of places … and there are nothing in fundamentalist evangelical churches but those that would deny me civil rights, call me immoral and say I was going to hell. Bigoted or not, that’s not merely a difference of opinion and how anyone could possibly advocate being exposed to such as being ‘tolerant’ is completely beyond me. It is the antithesis of tolerance to be tolerant of intolerance; it’s an oxymoron.
I am really sick and tired of people denigrating and dehumanising me just because I am me and being called intolerant for it because I don’t think that’s okay.
Oh, and btw, can I just crush on Ann Curry for a moment? Not only is she gorgeous, but she laughs at the stupidity of anti-gay and ridicules them
But we are “just disagreeing”. Loudly.
Slowly, for the reading-comprehension-impaired: Tim say bad thing. We say Tim say bad thing. We say that bad thing bad. Timmy have right to say bad thing, but we have right to say that bad thing bad.
All clear now?
Way back when, there was a theory in social psychology that stated that racism came from lack of exposure and if only racists were to come in close contact with people they hated, they would stop being racists. It’s been debunked since. I’ve never had much truck with it - it’s hard to believe that Hardaway has never met a gay person before. It’s a noble gesture on the part of the Mayor, but I don’t think it’ll do any good. Accepting the invitation makes Hardaway look like someone who is open to having his mind changed and I’m convinced that it’s nothing more than a ploy by his PR agent. His rant was vile and I hope that NBA stands by its decision, no matter what further PR attempts he makes.
I wonder how many “hard hearted� extremely bigoted and hateful people here would be willing to enter into a conservative church with an open mind toward understanding that they are not all gay bashing, war-mongering haters of civil rights?
Glad you asked that. I was just attended Mass at a conservative Catholic church in the deep South just over a week ago (and was the only black person there, and only one of two out gay people present). You’re correct, they are not all “gay bashing, war-mongering haters of civil rights.” But I’ve also been in the presence of a good number who are. I’ve never said “all (fill in your religion here)” should be colored with one brush.
“I don’t like gays” Hardaway said. Fine. I don’t like bigots. “I don’t think they should exist in the world.” That, right there, is where he crossed the line. That is the kind of attitude that leads to discrimination and permits violence against gay people, and even against people who are assumed to be gay because they don’t fit the gender norm. Many people felt, and in some places still feel, that about black people. I find it ironic that he doesn’t make that connection.
No one here is advocating the eradication of people who disagree with us. We are trying to persuade them otherwise, and we are trying to limit their ability to discriminate against others out of our own sense of fairness, justice and self-preservation.
Also, no one “beleives in” being gay. Gay people are a fact of life.
*Sigh* yet another derail from someone who doesn’t realize that people of faith are featured on the front page, and are often praised in the comments.
Jack, isn’t equivocation considered a sin by the Catholic Church, at least?
I know that, in Judaism, it’s often considered a terrible sin. To equate two things that are fundamentally different, for the purpose of obscuring learning, is to obstruct other people in their quest to learn about the world and about God.
I can’t imagine that the Church, which despite its faults has a longstanding commitment to scholarship, would look on it fondly either.
I reserve the right to be intolerant of people who hate me simply for being a lesbian.
I will not apologize for it.
I noticed his “apology” was not for the hate he espoused, but that he had allowed his alligator mouth to overload his hummingbird a**. He has every right to say these things just as I and many others have every right to call bullsh*t on him for his idiocy. And being a native of Kentucky wh o has lived all over the country, I have spent large amounts of time with folks that I vehemently disagreed with on everything from religion through politics to sports. Although sometimes difficult to do, I try to NOT hate them (even NY Yankee fans) but I do decry their lunacy. As so many pseudo Christians forget, hate the sin, love the sinner. Even the mis-guided followers of Falwell/Robertson/Dobson can be hopefully led back to the teachings of Christ rather than staying with the hate mongers.
I remember an episode of the Simpons in which John Waters is the voice of a gay man that befriends the Simpsons, but Homer doesn’t realize he is gay right away and when he finally figures it out he goes crazy because he thinks Bart will turn gay. At the end of the episode, Homer finally comes to his senses when Waters saves his life. Homer tells Waters that because he has saved his life, he has changed his mind about him. And Waters responds “Well, Homer, I won your respect, and all I had to do was save your life. Now, if every gay man could just do the same, you’d be set.”
I think it is great that this mayor is willing to allow this bigot into his home. Maybe some real change will come of it and he can tell the world that he was wrong and the world might listen. But ultimately, this is a problem that must be addressed directly by heterosexuals. The burden isn’t on homosexuals to show heterosexuals that they are people too, the burden is on heterosexuals to be proactive and rid ourselves of homophobia.
Speaking of basketball players, I have never been much of a fan of Charles Barkley, he just rubs me the wrong way. But I just saw a video of him ripping Hardaway a new one and I think the NBA ought to edit it into a promotional commercial that should be played during every televised NBA game.
This might work in the long term, but I wouldn’t expect an overnight apology or change of mind.
There is a bit of false equivalence invoked here. Most LGBT people and religious minorities didn’t grow up in some strange mythical Eden only to be cast out among American culture at a late age. We are your children, your cousins, your neighbors, your co-workers, your youth choir. We live in your world, watch movies and read books based on your mythology. We break bread with you on holidays and office birthdays. IME most LGBT people still maintain religious ties, although they may seek out congregations less openly hostile to their identity.
The end result is that LGBTs and religious minorities have a much deeper understanding of Christianity than Christians have regarding LGBT experience. Some days, I think that some of us have a deeper understanding of Christian history and culture than many Christians.
And part of the false equivalence is that Christians are sitting with vast quantities of political power compared to everyone else in this culture. Humor poking at the more ludicrous aspects of Christian theology does not carry the same oppressive power as yelling about “teh gay” in the locker room.
I don’t think a lot of conservatives can differentiate between criticism and expressions of outright hate. People often criticize the encroachment of religion in public life. They criticize misogynistic ideas and policies of religious people. None here say “They should not exist and I hate them”. That is the difference between criticism and hate. It is really not all that hard, my dear wingnut trolls.
Oh and I think that that newscaster was laughing because Hardaway’s comments were so off the hook. I know that she is a newscaster and is supposed to have way better control, but I think I know why she laughed because I, do that all the time. When I hear someone say something supercrazyignorant, I sometimes laugh because it is so fucking surreal.
Here’s what I like about Jack: he loves his strawman, even though it clearly has a penis.
He also gives me another excuse to repost this.
I think it’s interesting that Timmyboy said “I’m homophobic.” Most homophobes will say, “I’m not homophobic, I just hate gay people,” (heads spin, I know), because ManlyMenâ„¢ don’t feel fear. I might be giving the guy too much credit with the idea that words might have been chosen with any thought at all, but it still strikes me and my inner linguistics nerd as interesting.
This thread is another point in favor of some sort of FAQ for people who want to rehash tired old points…haven’t we been talking about in/tolerance and explaining that disagreement ≠bigotry, like, all month? Or maybe some sort of shorthand. Ben Alpers put it really well:
but BAPBICEGSCSSOIFDFHIBBSBNFAABBSYWDSBSIYLBTFG just lacks that certain je ne sais quoi, you know?Speaking of teh gay, I’m trying to get my cat to come out of my closet, where he’s hiding behind some boxes.
Lisa -
I also don’t get how wingnut fundies think they can go from “Religiously I don’t like that” to “Because of that I don’t think they should get civil rights”.
Sure, if someone thinks us queers are disgusting it’s not something I particularly like, but hey, it’s their opinion, no matter how fucked up it is, and they are welcome to having it (though I do reserve the right to criticise such for it’s hate and intolerance).
However, going from that to “because my bible says it’s wrong, I get to place that in civil law” just steps over a line. The whole point of a secular pluralistic society is that one can only participate in the civil space of such if one’s arguments are based on reason, rationality and religiously neutral argument.
In pointing out that one cannot use the bible as a reason to establish civil law we are not stamping on one’s right to be religious and holding a religious position; we’re just saying you can’t impose your religion/beliefs on everyone else. Just like I can’t tell them to like gays and lesbians, which is not what we are talking about.
Similarly, okay Hardaway hates gay people. Fine. That’s his right. But the moment he advocates that we shouldn’t exist, he crossed a line. He went from stating a personal moral position, as disgusting as it is, to advocating for our eradication from the world.
As you say Lisa … it’s really not that hard … don’t get it why this basic stuff goes past them …
I think that Jack’s point is hysterically funny. What on earth makes jack think that most of us *haven’t* been in conservative churches–either for social or familial reasons? I have and I’m *jewish* for g-d’s sake. Not only do I know conservative people but I even like some conservative people. I don’t like the ones who are virulently anti-gay or anti-semitic, or too republican. That’s not because I think they aren’t nice people to the people they love–its because by their own words and deeds they don’t think it necessary to be nice people to the people I know and love, or to me personally. I’m not even gay but I find ” god hates fags” kind of…well…evil. I don’t have to go to hardaway’s church to find hardaway’s beliefs repulsive-he’s shouting them for the world to hear. And that goes for all the so called christian conservatives. If they weren’t making their christianity an issue no one would bother criticizing it. I’ve never, ever, been known to comment on , alaskan fishing rights for inuit people, or the obscure (but real) narcotic snuff inhaled by the yanomami indians. Why is that? Because its none of those groups are trying to legislate the lives of me and my neighbors, friends, or relatives.
aimai
Pam - You’re correct, they are not all “gay bashing, war-mongering haters of civil rights.� But I’ve also been in the presence of a good number who are. I’ve never said “all (fill in your religion here)� should be colored with one brush.
Pam , as you admit here, I never meant to say “all” “here” are Christian hating, bigots… I simply was making the point that you now have confirmed–not at all Christians are. But the real point was for me to agree with what you said and to simply add can we apply this to other areas in our life that we have disagreements with others on?
For those who see, something inconsistent, trollish, sinful, hypocritical you need to get a grip. My comment was not ultimately about Christianity is was about taking Pam’s good question and applying it across the board. But of course, there are “those” “here” “not all” that will find some “hidden agenda” in anything someone says that they don’t like.
Nope. I think he’s about as sincere as House was when he apologized to Tritter. But it’s a publicity-friendly way out of having made a public spectacle of himself as a homophobe and lost a job over it. Hardaway will continue to be a bigoted idiot, but at least he’ll perhaps learn to be polite about it.
Ack!!! My irony meter just pegged!
Actually, one can base one’s arguments, and one’s vote on any criteria, and ofentimes, people do. I have heard countless people who voted for presidents because of how their wives dressed, or how handsome the president is.
If I’m pushing for a change in public policy, I can base my desire for that change on the Bible, the Koran, the teachings of the Buddha. I can base my desire for that change on the writings of Dr. Suess or the voices in my head. This is the beauty of this country.
I cannot however, push for change in public policy forcing you to worship the God I worship, or not allow you to worship the God you worship as you see fit (at least with the Constitution as it is currently written). There is no requirement for secular reasoning in the decision to either vote for lawmakers, or as a lawmaker propose a law, unless I’ve woken up in some country that is not the United States.
But that’s the thing, IF you are having legislation created based on your interpretation of your sacred book, then you ARE forcing me to worship as you are. You’re making me live my life (or not live my life as the case is here) based on YOUR religion.
It is the establishment of religion that is enshrined in the constitution as being excluded, NOT merely worship, though worship is certainly covered by such. I think your reading is narrow to the point of being outside of the intent.
Bruce - I read an article on the weekend which said something like “things are getting weird when *Charles Barkley* is the voice of reason and calm”. Heh. I liked what he said as well.
But it has nothing to do with “worship”. There is not a single God that I’m making you bow to. Certain legislative offerings such as “blue laws”, are common to a number of different religions. So who am I making you worship? God or Allah?
Then you are welcome to challenge any attempt at legislation in court as to its Constitutionality. Should a it work it’s way through the court system and fail, then it is not legal. But please, don’t try to tell me that I can’t vote for religious people who will use the tenets of their religion as a moral framework to pass legislation.
You, of course, are encouraged to vote for people who will pass legislation you like. That’s how the United States works.
Anne Curry and crew’s laughter somewhat surprises me. Perhaps they are in on the sentiment of Hardaway. That would be typical of the politically correct liberals. If they disagreed strongly with Hardaway wouldn’t they be frowning with disapproval?
Most liberals laugh at the homosexuals behind their backs. Most conservatives lament homosexual behaviour to the face of homosexuals. Therein lies the difference.
Jack,
It’s my experience that churches of whatever denomination located in conservative, Republican neighborhoods have conservative, Republican parishioners. Churches located in liberal, Democratic neighborhoods are full of liberals and Democrats. You might see some liberals against abortion, but they’ll also be the ones inveighing against war and the death penalty.
The conservatives who are “gay bashing, war-mongering haters of civil rights” aren’t bigots because they’re religious. They’re conservative because they’re “gay bashing, war-mongering haters of civil rights.”
I think it is a great idea. Tim Hardaway will see the reality of peoples’ lives.
I’m part of a vast clan that lied to itself, in order to do what needed to be done for dying loved ones in the nineties. Aged fathers and their sons were losing their health battles, and unable to talk to one another. Mothers could not confide in their husbands, and daughters and sons, and brothers and sisters guarded their words and carried the secrets of people they loved to the end. I will always be grateful to the Wellness Network of Michigan for giving the women and men in my family a safe place to speak and grieve openly.
But that was then. It is 2007. Yes, we still demand that the young’uns in the family respect the sensibilities of our few remaining octogenarians, but it is time to insist that people learn to “deal.” I think that Mayor Burns’ offer is a fine idea, and I’m eager to hear about what comes of it.
I hope he’s seen this.
Thomas Shawn:
Um. No. For those who are unclear: The newscasters were quite certainly laughing for the same reason one might laugh at the latter part of this comment: completely out-there bigotry to the point of being absolutely ridiculous.
The laughter is a good thing. It means that normal people see statements like Hardaway’s as being as disconnected from reality as they are. The idea that “most liberals laugh at the homosexuals behind their backs” misses the point so much it’s breathtaking.
Anne Curry and crew’s laughter somewhat surprises me. Perhaps they are in on the sentiment of Hardaway. That would be typical of the politically correct liberals. If they disagreed strongly with Hardaway wouldn’t they be frowning with disapproval?
You know, I thought it was a little weird that they started laughing too, but I doubt that they agree with Hardaway. Maybe they did want to go on national television in front of their millions of viewers and say “Hating someone for being homosexual is wrong. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. All you heterosexuals out there, get over your obsession with other people’s sex lives”, but they either felt they couldn’t or were told that they couldn’t because it would alienate too many of their bigoted viewers. So maybe laughter was their way of trying to get that message across without upsetting the management too much.
Most liberals laugh at the homosexuals behind their backs. Most conservatives lament homosexual behaviour to the face of homosexuals. Therein lies the difference.
Ahhhh, the old “Yeah, we don’t like homosexuality, but neither do you. At least we are strong enough to speak up for our convictions, you’re just too spineless to admit it.” Laughing and hating are too different emotions here. It is disingenuous to try and equate the two. Also, I think we should stop using the liberal/conservative paradigm. I have plenty of “conservative” friends who don’t think homosexuality is wrong, bad, evil, etc… and yes I have known a few “liberals” who can’t quite kick their early childhood indoctrination and voted yes on our state’s “protect the sanctity of marriage” ballot measure a few years ago. So what I think you were trying to say is:
“People who claim that they have no problem with homosexuality, but really do deep down inside, are hypocrites but try to keep it to themselves so they don’t look bad to others. Homophobes don’t care how they look to others, they are just doing what they think is right and gawd-dangit, it’s a free country, so more power to them for following their convictions.”
Epiphany happens…
Redemption often lagging but a step behind.
Give Curry some credit. What you could hardly understand through her laughter was her saying several times “that is so over the line.”
I saw this live and I actually think Ann Curry started to choke up w/ tears - not laughter. I definitely heard her say that the comment “was so over the line.” It was definitely not something they approved of.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-me8KUtXIWo