Yeah, sports is supposed to be a distraction from everyday life. I don’t like them promoting LGBT but I also don’t like the NFL’s breast cancer month. In general I think there is too much promotion of causes unrelated to the purpose of particular organizations. But the reality is entertainment has been and is used by TBTB to push agendas and the agendas are never good.
It appears “homophobia in sports” does not mean that at all. I was at my doctor’s office when an out athlete appeared on CNN and told everybody watching to “stop being homophobic.” The 80 year old woman in the wheelchair next to me was homophobic? It is very clear that the message is a dictator’s message: “You will do what we tell you to do, including wearing gay pride jerseys.” But it’s plainly obvious that a decision to not participate is branded as totally wrong as the State within a State brands anyone who does not accept affirmation of what they want. You, meaning anybody, are automatically called a hater if you refuse the dictatorship.
Sports are out the window now. Better to grab a bat and ball and go to the local play field. But no. A lot of eyeballs during sports broadcasts has become another way to promote. Watch less sports on TV/streaming. No agendas.
I support the NFL’s Breast Cancer awareness month. It’s an unobjectionable cause.
What does gay pride mean? What does ‘homophobic’ mean? The problem is if you don’t accept gay ‘marriage’ or recognize gay sex (as with all sex outside of marriage) is sin, you are by default ‘homophobic’ in the eyes of many. Activists tie the marriage issue with the colour scheme and the result is many are reluctant to wear them. Had the rainbow been *only *about gay people being treated no differently than other people and etc. then many of these conflicts wouldn’t even happen. Would this athlete have responded differently if such a link didn’t occur?
It’s an insincere marketing ploy.
That’s right. It’s just marketing/ get people to do what you want them to do. People can donate on their own to the cause of their choice.It’s an insincere marketing ploy.
Though business wise it’s effective.
Now if all those guys who wore pink treated women like thier own mother had breast cancer I could understand. Still don’t understand how pink socks cures cancer though…
A mandatory wardrobe rarely has changed the world. Unless it’s a military uniform.
I would also like to add, if this player has her “entire sports career” ended for refusing to wear a gay pride jersey, that says a whole lot more about US Women’s Soccer than it does about her. I don’t recall any Women’s Soccer player having their career ended for refusing to stand for the national anthem for the entirety of last year out of some vague sense of injustice.
I object to all the various causes, but I find this especially objectionable. The reason is you have men who sacrifice their bodies and brains for their profession supporting a cancer that basically only women get. If anything they should be supporting brain injury research or prostate cancer. The reason they support breast cancer is the NFL’s big push to expand their female fan base. Ironically many of the players are more of a threat to women than breast cancer.
I think it’s the same thing in baseball. I support breast cancer awareness, support for the military, and prostate cancer awareness. I think it will be a good day when both diseases are gone forever. The fact remains, however, that I cannot stand those god-awful pink, camo, and light blue letters and logos that replace the normal jerseys the teams wear. As a Cleveland native, I would also like to throw in my objection to the fact that the league then tries to foist a PC agenda on the Indians and puts that lame block C logo on the sleeve of the Indians jerseys as opposed to Chief Wahoo. I was especially supportive of the recent Supreme Court decision that can strike the patent office’s denial to the Redskins.It’s an insincere marketing ploy.
Though business wise it’s effective.
Now if all those guys who wore pink treated women like thier own mother had breast cancer I could understand. Still don’t understand how pink socks cures cancer though…
A mandatory wardrobe rarely has changed the world. Unless it’s a military uniform.
Yes, there will always be such people.
I’m generally on your side here, but a significant number of men get breast cancer.
Amen! God bless her and keep her resolute!
The whole pink thing is intertwined with Komen, which is a donor to planned “parenthood.”
I was responding specifically to your statement that this move would end her entire career, which I bolded. No, she hasn’t been kicked out of the league, but if it so happened that her career ends because of this, as you insinuated, again that reflects more on Women’s Soccer than on the player.
Thanks for that additional info. I wonder how things would have gone if she had only refused to wear the rainbow-numbered jersy, rather than pulling out of those matches. I guess we’ll never know.
Do I treat an unmarried straight couple differently than a married straight couple, inasmuch as I regard sex to be a moral act for the latter but not the former?
To which I would add law enforcement uniforns, among others Of course, these are two occupations that the radical leftists loath. Until they’re needed, that is.A mandatory wardrobe rarely has changed the world. Unless it’s a military uniform.
‘Differently’ there was about dignity so my answer is no. Marriage has little to do with a person’s dignity. Another way of looking at it is a single person can claim to be ‘married’ to one’s self but clearly that’s not a marriage.