Major congrats to Britney & Glory Johnson (and a bit of surprise)

[reno tony]

thats what I like about VolNation... and they question each other on how the LV's can play like UConn, honesty. they dont hold each other hand

If you go to the VolNation on this particular topic, they have gone a different direction. Instead of the big "queer" issue like the Boneyard they have morphed into a religious discussion of the sins of being gay. It is quite amusing.

 

[ndmb]

Why does it matter to a coach, or anyone for that matter, [crude reference deleted] if someone is gay? It bothers me that someone thinks they deserve some extra attention because they are gay. Right now it seem chic to be the first to come out in some particular sport and profess your gayness. Whoooooooooo cares.

I hear these baloney quotes "He should be an inspiration", "She will be a role model". Go out and help people in need, feed the hungry, help the poor and ill. That makes you an inspiration to others and allows you to be a role model.

For all the world to know..... "I am a heteros e xual." There, I said it. Now let the bashing begin.

I actually like BG and think she is a nice person and am happy for her for that reason. Her se x ual preference has nothing to do with it either way.

Who exactly is it that wants this extra attention? Griner and Johnson announced their engagement on social media; so did I. I care when a professional athlete comes out because we need more LGBT role models, but also because it takes a lot of bravery in a world full of the kind of people who post on volnation. I would love to live in a world where someone coming out didn't make any headlines, but let's be real: we're less than ten years removed from Rene Portland coaching at Penn State, and there are a lot of others like her. It's a big deal.

 

[Zorro]

Unfortunately, Tony, a LOT of people care and it IS a big deal to a lot of people, and not just the late Rev. Phelps and his [crude reference self-deleted] crew. It shouldn't be, but it is. Much progress has been made since the not-so-long-ago days when homosexual acts were felonies, but there is still a long way to go. If you don't believe that, you must not be paying attention. And I don't think that wanting to be seen as "chic", or wanting extra attention, had anything to do with Britney's coming out, judging by the way it was done. With all due respect, it seems to me that you are projecting your own ideas about gay athletes onto them.

 

[Zorro]

The monitors, they watch the board and they monitor the sit-u-ation

When things start to get a little out of line, they suggest a little mod-er-ation.

Well I’m here to say, sometimes they have to slap me

But it’s ok, ‘cause sometimes I need a slap.

Good old Nancy, and Nancy’s two cronies

See-in me and Boo Radley, down by the Boneyard.

See-in me and Ol Boo, we’re down by the Boneyard.

(Channeling the Poet Lariat and with apologies to Paul Simon.)

 

[easttexastrash]

Hey, we all get on our so box from time to time.

This thread certainly rises above so-so status.

 

[easttexastrash]

I appreciate the dialogue about the word "queer." It is not a term that I would ever use to describe other gays, and I include both men and women when I say gay, or that I would want to have used to describe me. I don't like being included under an "umbrella" term that lumps me into a group. For me, the word is hurtful. It is a word that truly makes me sad to hear when used to describe any gay person. If a friend or family member referred to me as queer I would be hurt.

I am happy for the younger generation if they are accepting of that word, but just don't call ME a queer. And don't assume that because some organizations are using the term that any of your friends or family members are accepting of that term. You may hurt them unintentionally.

 

[HuskyNan]

I appreciate the dialogue about the word "queer." It is not a term that I would ever use to describe other gays, and I include both men and women when I say gay, or that I would want to have used to describe me. I don't like being included under an "umbrella" term that lumps me into a group. For me, the word is hurtful. It is a word that truly makes me sad to hear when used to describe any gay person. If a friend or family member referred to me as queer I would be hurt.

I am happy for the younger generation if they are accepting of that word, but just don't call ME a queer. And don't assume that because some organizations are using the term that any of your friends or family members are accepting of that term. You may hurt them unintentionally.

I always admire people who are inadvertently insulted but remark with quiet dignity, "I understand you didn't mean to be insulting. I do prefer not to be called [insulting term] ". Most "offenders" will apologize profusely as long as they don't feel attacked and they will have learned something valuable as well.

 

[j66kicker]

Just read the whole VolNation thread - hilarious! Here's one of my fav's:

"I really wish you would keep your redneck comments to yourself. Because that's exactly how the rest of the country perceives us. Posts like yours support the notion that Tennesseans are no different than toothless Alabama rednecks....."

And this - obviously from a TN PhD geneticist (long, but priceless - apparently they ARE now teaching evolution in TN):

"He didn't call you gay so chill brother. Another thing, not trying to be an a**, but it's a hard notion to believe someone is simply born gay. By making this statement you are going against everything we know in terms of reproduction in our biological world. The world, including all forms of life, work off the idea of natural selection. The central idea to life is to reproduce and gain as much fitness as possible. Natural selection selects for those individuals who are most fit, and this selection is directly correlated to the ability of the animal to survive in the wild. This survival can be based on a specific trait, aka a longer beak in a bird etc, and as the environment changes so does the need for new traits, which we gain through mutations. Point being, natural selection would abolish any gay gene in the wild within a few generations simply because it holds no fitness. We are simple geared to reproduce and be sexual attracted to the opposite sex, and if we weren't then our bodies as teenagers wouldnt go through the necessary changes to allow for reproduction. So, if there is a gay gene it seams it would stop any gay person from going fully through puberty, as the need for reproduction doesn't exist. The better argument for the gay community would be epigenetics. Through our environments we can have our genes altered. In the wild things like methylation occur that can turn off or on certain genes, but the effects are not transferred to their offspring. The mechanism behind those altered traits can be, but not the physical changes themselves. In other words, your environment can alter your genes to allow for a physical or psychological change, a mutation if you will, but the trait will not be passed on to its offspring because there was no change in the DNA sequence as a whole just the expression of it. Since there's no reproduction for gay people, the only way for them to have an influence in terms of reproduction would be placing a child in a very "gay friendly" environment. Still, it seams this doesn't have a huge effect on most people, and we can see that with guys like Kenneth Faired (spelling?) of the Denver Nuggets who was raised by two women but is not gay. So, either a mutation has occurred that is directly related to the environment of the mother of the gay person to alter their genes to make them gay, or it by choice. Since there's no conclusive evidence of one specific gene that makes you gay, which there shouldn't be on the bases of natural selection, then it seams that by choice should be heavily considered. Personally, I believe that there is psychological changes that occur to gay people that they can't control, but I believe those changes are due to imbalances of the brain that are directly influenced from their environment either during birth or after it. Basically, I believe that gay people may not be able to control gay thoughts, but those gay thoughts occurred because of something they were exposed to during or after birth. Not because of some random gay gene. Just my two cents and to each their own as I have nothing against the gay community as long as they are understanding that many people don't support that lifestyle, which personally I don't."

 

[ndmb]

Just read the whole VolNation thread - hilarious! Here's one of my fav's:

"I really wish you would keep your redneck comments to yourself. Because that's exactly how the rest of the country perceives us. Posts like yours support the notion that Tennesseans are no different than toothless Alabama rednecks....."

And this - obviously from a TN PhD geneticist (long, but priceless - apparently they ARE now teaching evolution in TN):

"He didn't call you gay so chill brother. Another thing, not trying to be an a**, but it's a hard notion to believe someone is simply born gay. By making this statement you are going against everything we know in terms of reproduction in our biological world. The world, including all forms of life, work off the idea of natural selection. The central idea to life is to reproduce and gain as much fitness as possible. Natural selection selects for those individuals who are most fit, and this selection is directly correlated to the ability of the animal to survive in the wild. This survival can be based on a specific trait, aka a longer beak in a bird etc, and as the environment changes so does the need for new traits, which we gain through mutations. Point being, natural selection would abolish any gay gene in the wild within a few generations simply because it holds no fitness. We are simple geared to reproduce and be s e xual attracted to the opposite s e x, and if we weren't then our bodies as teenagers wouldnt go through the necessary changes to allow for reproduction. So, if there is a gay gene it seams it would stop any gay person from going fully through puberty, as the need for reproduction doesn't exist. The better argument for the gay community would be epigenetics. Through our environments we can have our genes altered. In the wild things like methylation occur that can turn off or on certain genes, but the effects are not transferred to their offspring. The mechanism behind those altered traits can be, but not the physical changes themselves. In other words, your environment can alter your genes to allow for a physical or psychological change, a mutation if you will, but the trait will not be passed on to its offspring because there was no change in the DNA sequence as a whole just the expression of it. Since there's no reproduction for gay people, the only way for them to have an influence in terms of reproduction would be placing a child in a very "gay friendly" environment. Still, it seams this doesn't have a huge effect on most people, and we can see that with guys like Kenneth Faired (spelling?) of the Denver Nuggets who was raised by two women but is not gay. So, either a mutation has occurred that is directly related to the environment of the mother of the gay person to alter their genes to make them gay, or it by choice. Since there's no conclusive evidence of one specific gene that makes you gay, which there shouldn't be on the bases of natural selection, then it seams that by choice should be heavily considered. Personally, I believe that there is psychological changes that occur to gay people that they can't control, but I believe those changes are due to imbalances of the brain that are directly influenced from their environment either during birth or after it. Basically, I believe that gay people may not be able to control gay thoughts, but those gay thoughts occurred because of something they were exposed to during or after birth. Not because of some random gay gene. Just my two cents and to each their own as I have nothing against the gay community as long as they are understanding that many people don't support that lifestyle, which personally I don't."

I saw that. Yet another case of thinking you're really smart getting in the way of having any intellectual rigor.

 

[Paul1969]

Why does it matter to a coach, or anyone for that matter, [crude reference deleted] if someone is gay? It bothers me that someone thinks they deserve some extra attention because they are gay. Right now it seem chic to be the first to come out in some particular sport and profess your gayness. Whoooooooooo cares.

I hear these baloney quotes "He should be an inspiration", "She will be a role model". Go out and help people in need, feed the hungry, help the poor and ill. That makes you an inspiration to others and allows you to be a role model.

For all the world to know..... "I am a heteros e xual." There, I said it. Now let the bashing begin.

I actually like BG and think she is a nice person and am happy for her for that reason. Her se x ual preference has nothing to do with it either way.

This should have been kept to youself!

 

[reno tony]

This should have been kept to youself!

Why should opinions that are less mainstream be muffled. It wasn't that many years ago that most of the posts on this thread would have been frowned upon by the majority. I am not ashamed of my opinion, no matter how misconstrued they are. Please enlighten me by messaging me any offensive comments in my post that I may have overlooked.

 

[Zorro]

Just read the whole VolNation thread - hilarious! Here's one of my fav's:

"I really wish you would keep your redneck comments to yourself. Because that's exactly how the rest of the country perceives us. Posts like yours support the notion that Tennesseans are no different than toothless Alabama rednecks....."

And this - obviously from a TN PhD geneticist (long, but priceless - apparently they ARE now teaching evolution in TN):

"He didn't call you gay so chill brother. Another thing, not trying to be an a**, but it's a hard notion to believe someone is simply born gay. By making this statement you are going against everything we know in terms of reproduction in our biological world. The world, including all forms of life, work off the idea of natural selection. The central idea to life is to reproduce and gain as much fitness as possible. Natural selection selects for those individuals who are most fit, and this selection is directly correlated to the ability of the animal to survive in the wild. This survival can be based on a specific trait, aka a longer beak in a bird etc, and as the environment changes so does the need for new traits, which we gain through mutations. Point being, natural selection would abolish any gay gene in the wild within a few generations simply because it holds no fitness. We are simple geared to reproduce and be s e xual attracted to the opposite s e x, and if we weren't then our bodies as teenagers wouldnt go through the necessary changes to allow for reproduction. So, if there is a gay gene it seams it would stop any gay person from going fully through puberty, as the need for reproduction doesn't exist. The better argument for the gay community would be epigenetics. Through our environments we can have our genes altered. In the wild things like methylation occur that can turn off or on certain genes, but the effects are not transferred to their offspring. The mechanism behind those altered traits can be, but not the physical changes themselves. In other words, your environment can alter your genes to allow for a physical or psychological change, a mutation if you will, but the trait will not be passed on to its offspring because there was no change in the DNA sequence as a whole just the expression of it. Since there's no reproduction for gay people, the only way for them to have an influence in terms of reproduction would be placing a child in a very "gay friendly" environment. Still, it seams this doesn't have a huge effect on most people, and we can see that with guys like Kenneth Faired (spelling?) of the Denver Nuggets who was raised by two women but is not gay. So, either a mutation has occurred that is directly related to the environment of the mother of the gay person to alter their genes to make them gay, or it by choice. Since there's no conclusive evidence of one specific gene that makes you gay, which there shouldn't be on the bases of natural selection, then it seams that by choice should be heavily considered. Personally, I believe that there is psychological changes that occur to gay people that they can't control, but I believe those changes are due to imbalances of the brain that are directly influenced from their environment either during birth or after it. Basically, I believe that gay people may not be able to control gay thoughts, but those gay thoughts occurred because of something they were exposed to during or after birth. Not because of some random gay gene. Just my two cents and to each their own as I have nothing against the gay community as long as they are understanding that many people don't support that lifestyle, which personally I don't."

Yeah, I read that, and it almost made me willing to sign up for that board just to reply. Almost. The issue has been thoroughly dealt with in the evolutionary biology literature. The issue is far to complex to go into here, but suffice it to say that the above was written by a person of little learning but much self-importance. And you are right, it is, in its own pitiful way, hilarious.

 

[HoopsFan21]

Yeah, I read that, and it almost made me willing to sign up for that board just to reply. Almost. The issue has been thoroughly dealt with in the evolutionary biology literature. The issue is far to complex to go into here, but suffice it to say that the above was written by a person of little learning but much self-importance. And you are right, it is, in its own pitiful way, hilarious.

That thread is disgusting. I can't believe some of the things being said about Brittney.

 

[caravaggio]

RTony:

In response to your comments regarding your claim that [some] gay people are seeking "extra attention" by coming out, I have a few questions for you:

Do you think these people also should not be "entitled" to the "extra attention" of having slurs screamed at them, have things thrown at them, being beaten up, or being discriminated for doing exactly the same thing you do everyday such as walk down the streets with their partners. Because the first two things happened to me all recently. Indeed, just last night, as my partner and I walked home from dinner, we had very malicious epithets screamed at us, and the possibility of worse. This was in the heart of Chicago; so I can't imagine how much worse it could have been if we had been somewhere less metropolitan.

And if you don't think my partner and I should have to experience any of this "extra attention" because of the person with whom we choose to share our lives, for doing the very same things that you, any day and any place, can do completely free of such dangers; then are you willing to give up your rights to do those things so that you can claim we are are all treated equally--and therefore my partner and I should not seek "extra attention?" Are you willing to live without ever being able to walk down the street holding hands with your wife/girlfriend? Are you willing to live without ever discussing your wife (and even children, since that would lead to revealing that the children have two dads/moms) at work? Are you willing to live without the right to visit your beloved in a hospital when they are ill? Or the right to wear whatever clothes you want, the ones that make you feel as if you are truly being yourself?

If so, then I respect your frustration with anyone demanding "extra attention" for expressing their sexuality?

However, if you are not willing to give up those rights, so that you and all lgbtq people are both free of "extra attention," then I would ask you to rethink whether there may be a difference in the impact/need/significance of someone lgbtq coming out versus you coming out.

You also speak of what constitutes "help[ing] people in need." Do you think children who commit suicide because they are bullied for their sexual identities are not people in need? Or the people who get beaten up every day in this country because of the choice of whom they love are not people in need; or adults who spend all/most of their lives repressing their desires and capacity to love, because they have been forced to believe that they would otherwise be sinful are not people in need? Unless you think these people absolutely have no need for assistance, then I would suggest that the people, particularly those in the public eye, who come out, are indeed making a big difference and can be important role models.

I would also like to note that I speak of this as someone whose classmates from law school (many with lower grades/accomplishments etc) earn almost 10 times as much money as I do because I chose to work in disadvantaged communities to provide free legal services to low-income people. I do so because I see the need and inequality experiences by groups of people with whom I share no direct relationship. Many of these people make lifestyle decisions with which I don't necessarily agree. But I'm able to see that they don't have the same advantages as I, often leading to the differences in lifestyle decisions, so I'm willing to work in order to ensure they do end up with the same rights as I. Maybe when they and I have all the same rights and advantages, then I would be in a position to judge how they choose to live.

Have you been fighting to ensure that lgbtq people--the ones you feel are asking for all these "extra attentions"-- are all treated equally as you and have all the same rights?

 

[RadyLady]

Why does it matter to a coach, or anyone for that matter, [crude reference deleted] if someone is gay? It bothers me that someone thinks they deserve some extra attention because they are gay. Right now it seem chic to be the first to come out in some particular sport and profess your gayness. Whoooooooooo cares.

I hear these baloney quotes "He should be an inspiration", "She will be a role model". Go out and help people in need, feed the hungry, help the poor and ill. That makes you an inspiration to others and allows you to be a role model.

For all the world to know..... "I am a heteros e xual." There, I said it. Now let the bashing begin.

I actually like BG and think she is a nice person and am happy for her for that reason. Her se x ual preference has nothing to do with it either way.

Someone thinks they deserve extra attention? How many people, gay or straight post video or pictures of their proposals? Is that looking for attention? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe it's just as simple as being so joyful that they want to share their happiness. Maybe orientation has nothing to do with this.

I must say that some of the folks reacting to this appear to want to throw attention on it by copying the texts and pictures and posting them on social media along with their - um - take on it, and in newsfeeds, in news reports and so on.

As I think about this, I have some great respect for people already in the public eye for other reasons who do step out and state their orientation, likely for two reasons - to silence the endless ruminating and guesswork about this very subject, and show others in the the closet (if I may use the phrase) that it's ok to be who they are. I also think that it is very brave of them, especially the trailblazers, the ones who do it first because of the likelihood of negativity that may occur as some people struggle to deal with something that compromises their beliefs and (hopefully) change a few minds. That to me is a role model, and a positive one at that.

If some think that this is an act that demonstrates a need for attention, well then, we must agree to disagree on the topic.

 

[RadyLady]

I saw that. Yet another case of thinking you're really smart getting in the way of having any intellectual rigor.

Yeah, I read that, and it almost made me willing to sign up for that board just to reply. Almost. The issue has been thoroughly dealt with in the evolutionary biology literature. The issue is far to complex to go into here, but suffice it to say that the above was written by a person of little learning but much self-importance. And you are right, it is, in its own pitiful way, hilarious.

I saw this the other day and commented upon it as being "rubbish" and it is. I didn't bring it over because I didn't want to sully the board. I believe responding to the writer would prove to be futile. Best leave it over there...and wash your hands after leaving the page

 

[BooRadley]

RTony:

In response to your comments regarding your claim that [some] gay people are seeking "extra attention" by coming out, I have a few questions for you:

Do you think these people also should not be "entitled" to the "extra attention" of having slurs screamed at them, have things thrown at them, being beaten up, or being discriminated for doing exactly the same thing you do everyday such as walk down the streets with their partners. Because the first two things happened to me all recently. Indeed, just last night, as my partner and I walked home from dinner, we had very malicious epithets screamed at us, and the possibility of worse. This was in the heart of Chicago; so I can't imagine how much worse it could have been if we had been somewhere less metropolitan.

And if you don't think my partner and I should have to experience any of this "extra attention" because of the person with whom we choose to share our lives, for doing the very same things that you, any day and any place, can do completely free of such dangers; then are you willing to give up your rights to do those things so that you can claim we are are all treated equally--and therefore my partner and I should not seek "extra attention?" Are you willing to live without ever being able to walk down the street holding hands with your wife/girlfriend? Are you willing to live without ever discussing your wife (and even children, since that would lead to revealing that the children have two dads/moms) at work? Are you willing to live without the right to visit your beloved in a hospital when they are ill? Or the right to wear whatever clothes you want, the ones that make you feel as if you are truly being yourself?

If so, then I respect your frustration with anyone demanding "extra attention" for expressing their s e xuality?

However, if you are not willing to give up those rights, so that you and all lgbtq people are both free of "extra attention," then I would ask you to rethink whether there may be a difference in the impact/need/significance of someone lgbtq coming out versus you coming out.

You also speak of what constitutes "help[ing] people in need." Do you think children who commit suicide because they are bullied for their s e xual identities are not people in need? Or the people who get beaten up every day in this country because of the choice of whom they love are not people in need; or adults who spend all/most of their lives repressing their desires and capacity to love, because they have been forced to believe that they would otherwise be sinful are not people in need? Unless you think these people absolutely have no need for assistance, then I would suggest that the people, particularly those in the public eye, who come out, are indeed making a big difference and can be important role models.

I would also like to note that I speak of this as someone whose classmates from law school (many with lower grades/accomplishments etc) earn almost 10 times as much money as I do because I chose to work in disadvantaged communities to provide free legal services to low-income people. I do so because I see the need and inequality experiences by groups of people with whom I share no direct relationship. Many of these people make lifestyle decisions with which I don't necessarily agree. But I'm able to see that they don't have the same advantages as I, often leading to the differences in lifestyle decisions, so I'm willing to work in order to ensure they do end up with the same rights as I. Maybe when they and I have all the same rights and advantages, then I would be in a position to judge how they choose to live.

Have you been fighting to ensure that lgbtq people--the ones you feel are asking for all these "extra attentions"-- are all treated equally as you and have all the same rights?

Over the years I've met a fair number of folks that have similar life stories to yours, folks that share your talents, wisdom and perspective... each and every time I have had that opportunity, I have come away impressed.

I was going to PM you to tell you how much I admired your earlier posts but this last post of yours gave me the excuse that I needed to tell you this in a more public forum. I am impressed by your character and wisdom.

Boo

 

[Zorro]

For anyone who is interested, here is the url of an article in the Journal of Higher Education which pretty well sums up current scientific thinking on the question of homosexuality and natural selection.

http://chronicle.com/article/The-Evolutionary-Mystery-of/135762/

 

[HuskyNan]

As I think about this, I have some great respect for people already in the public eye for other reasons who do step out and state their orientation, likely for two reasons - to silence the endless ruminating and guesswork about this very subject, and show others in the the closet (if I may use the phrase) that it's ok to be who they are. I also think that it is very brave of them, especially the trailblazers, the ones who do it first because of the likelihood of negativity that may occur as some people struggle to deal with something that compromises their beliefs and (hopefully) change a few minds. That to me is a role model, and a positive one at that.

Billie Jean King was a very courageous woman. She paid dearly for coming out, both literally and figuratively.

 

[Paul1969]

RTony:

In response to your comments regarding your claim that [some] gay people are seeking "extra attention" by coming out, I have a few questions for you:

Do you think these people also should not be "entitled" to the "extra attention" of having slurs screamed at them, have things thrown at them, being beaten up, or being discriminated for doing exactly the same thing you do everyday such as walk down the streets with their partners. Because the first two things happened to me all recently. Indeed, just last night, as my partner and I walked home from dinner, we had very malicious epithets screamed at us, and the possibility of worse. This was in the heart of Chicago; so I can't imagine how much worse it could have been if we had been somewhere less metropolitan.

And if you don't think my partner and I should have to experience any of this "extra attention" because of the person with whom we choose to share our lives, for doing the very same things that you, any day and any place, can do completely free of such dangers; then are you willing to give up your rights to do those things so that you can claim we are are all treated equally--and therefore my partner and I should not seek "extra attention?" Are you willing to live without ever being able to walk down the street holding hands with your wife/girlfriend? Are you willing to live without ever discussing your wife (and even children, since that would lead to revealing that the children have two dads/moms) at work? Are you willing to live without the right to visit your beloved in a hospital when they are ill? Or the right to wear whatever clothes you want, the ones that make you feel as if you are truly being yourself?

If so, then I respect your frustration with anyone demanding "extra attention" for expressing their s e xuality?

However, if you are not willing to give up those rights, so that you and all lgbtq people are both free of "extra attention," then I would ask you to rethink whether there may be a difference in the impact/need/significance of someone lgbtq coming out versus you coming out.

You also speak of what constitutes "help[ing] people in need." Do you think children who commit suicide because they are bullied for their s e xual identities are not people in need? Or the people who get beaten up every day in this country because of the choice of whom they love are not people in need; or adults who spend all/most of their lives repressing their desires and capacity to love, because they have been forced to believe that they would otherwise be sinful are not people in need? Unless you think these people absolutely have no need for assistance, then I would suggest that the people, particularly those in the public eye, who come out, are indeed making a big difference and can be important role models.

I would also like to note that I speak of this as someone whose classmates from law school (many with lower grades/accomplishments etc) earn almost 10 times as much money as I do because I chose to work in disadvantaged communities to provide free legal services to low-income people. I do so because I see the need and inequality experiences by groups of people with whom I share no direct relationship. Many of these people make lifestyle decisions with which I don't necessarily agree. But I'm able to see that they don't have the same advantages as I, often leading to the differences in lifestyle decisions, so I'm willing to work in order to ensure they do end up with the same rights as I. Maybe when they and I have all the same rights and advantages, then I would be in a position to judge how they choose to live.

Have you been fighting to ensure that lgbtq people--the ones you feel are asking for all these "extra attentions"-- are all treated equally as you and have all the same rights?

Zing.

 

[LadyVols9]

I hate to break it to some of you but ignorant attitudes are not exclusive to TN or the Volnation board. People are ignorant in every state and every school has knucklehead fans who are sexist, racist, homophobic, or just plain nuts. It's not just a "Tennessee" thing. In many ways, it's a generational or religious point of view. I am just glad I live in an era where ignorant attitudes are no longer being tolerated by a majority of people.

Notably, the Lady Vols have always been a very tolerate program with many gay players and staff. I think we all know that.

 

[Zorro]

No one has said, I think, that the Summitt and VolNation have a monopoly on ignorance, hatefulness and libel, only that they, and especially the Summitt, have considerably more than their fair share, especially where Geno is concerned. Actually, there are some very reasonable people posting on the former, although there are also some "pink elephant" folks and other serious nutballs. The Summitt I have not visited since considerably before they went private, but the last I knew they not only had some serious nut cases, but a board monitor who was constantly fanning the flames of calumny, innuendo and conspiracy theory. That "pink elephant" crapola is about the silliest thing I have ever seen, but I guess that since all other hypotheses have come up empty, that one is all that is left. (To believe it you would have to not only believe that Geno would stoop to such tactics, but that Maya and her mom were both naive enough to fall for it, and also that one of the three participants blabbed. Simply idiotic.)

 

[LadyVols9]

I am just gonna stick to the subject of the thread. Not going to discuss Maya, her mom, or Geno. My point is that a lot of TN fans are happy and supportive of Glory and Brittney. I hope they last forever.

 

[Zorro]

Me too.

 

[LadyVols9]

i found this interesting too. http://www.knoxnews.com/news/local-news/knoxville-makes-list-gayest-cities-america