# RoH having to apologize for Jay Briscoe?



## TasteOfVenom (Sep 22, 2006)

> Ring of Honor Wrestling respects and appreciates every fan regardless of age, gender, race, religion or sexual preference. The recent post by Jay Briscoe does not represent the views or opinions of Ring of Honor Wrestling, its owners, management or employees.


Think they're going to make Jay drop the title as punishment?


----------



## EmbassyForever (Dec 29, 2011)

Jay apologized as well. And no, it's not going to happen.


----------



## JasonLives (Aug 20, 2008)

Cue the "I was hacked/my kids wrote it" excuse :kurt


----------



## TasteOfVenom (Sep 22, 2006)

EmbassyForever said:


> Jay apologized as well. And no, it's not going to happen.


Even apologizing I mean no supporter of the same sex marriage but he made threats of terrorism, which I'm not sure if you been following the news but Billy Currington country singer is facing prison time for making threats of terrorism this is bad press that RoH really doesn't need.


----------



## Phil_Mc_90 (Mar 3, 2008)

I saw this when he posted it and the first thing I thought was well that's his title run done. I like Jay a lot but really wouldn't be surprised if he dropped the belt now, it looks extremely bad on ROH to have their world champion posting things like this on twitter.


----------



## flag sabbath (Jun 28, 2011)

TasteOfVenom said:


> Think they're going to make Jay drop the title as punishment?


Yeah, to Maximo.


----------



## Genking48 (Feb 3, 2009)

First thing I thought about when I read that was a Louis CK Joke "It's your shitty child, you fucking tell him, why is that anyone else's problem!"

Did he delete his twitter after this, can't seem to find it, must've gotten a lot of hate post that tweet


----------



## seabs (Jun 16, 2007)

*Not enough people will care about what Jay Briscoe tweets to warrant action. TNA or WWE superstar then yeah, but not ROH. I don't mean this as a knock on ROH but really, nobody cares about they do. There's no media attention on them to give them bad press like TNA had with Bully Ray.*


----------



## Rah (Oct 11, 2010)

> "I feel very strongly about how and who should teach kids about certain things but I showed poor judgment by using that analogy and I'm sorry"


Swell apology.


----------



## TasteOfVenom (Sep 22, 2006)

Seabs said:


> *Not enough people will care about what Jay Briscoe tweets to warrant action. TNA or WWE superstar then yeah, but not ROH. I don't mean this as a knock on ROH but really, nobody cares about they do. There's no media attention on them to give them bad press like TNA had with Bully Ray.*


There is several places talking about it so could here their pr more then might think.


----------



## Theff (Aug 1, 2011)

Should be fired.


----------



## TullyB (Apr 3, 2012)

Theff said:


> Should be fired.


No he shouldn't. He said what he said and he has that right. Free speech *****.


----------



## EmbassyForever (Dec 29, 2011)

Gabe's response:










:lmao


----------



## Rah (Oct 11, 2010)

Gabe using RoH's controversies to get his product more views? Nothing new, I suppose.



TullyB said:


> No he shouldn't. He said what he said and he has that right. Free speech *****.


He does not have a right to blatantly state violence/murder on another human being, though. Say hi to Jay from me the next time you're in the locker rooms, though.


----------



## TullyB (Apr 3, 2012)

Will do. And what makes you think he doesn't have that right? He never threatened anyone specific. He can say what he wants and if need be, ROH will take appropriate action. I'm just sad that this may effect the Briscoes getting signed to the 'E.


----------



## Genking48 (Feb 3, 2009)

There's a right to free speech, sure and that is totally fair and should be respected, no question, but in my humble opinion if you've got that right then you also got the responsibility to think about what you are saying before you decide to just let out the first moronic thing that goes through your head.


----------



## sXeMope (Jul 23, 2012)

Blown way our of proportion. He's simply saying he wants his kids raised a certain way, and it's his right to do that. Could he have said it better than that? Yes. But I don't see it as that big of a deal. Especially when you look at who's saying it, and all the things he/they've said over the years. The Brosicoes aren't known for being politically correct.


----------



## dan the marino (Oct 22, 2006)

TullyB said:


> Will do. And what makes you think he doesn't have that right? He never threatened anyone specific. He can say what he wants and if need be, ROH will take appropriate action. I'm just sad that this may effect the Briscoes getting signed to the 'E.


Yes, he has the right to say what he wants to, but that doesn't mean freedom of consequence. He represents ROH on Twitter: I can tell you if I said something like that on twitter my boss would shove a ruler up my pee-hole.


----------



## TullyB (Apr 3, 2012)

dan the marino said:


> Yes, he has the right to say what he wants to, but that doesn't mean freedom of consequence. He represents ROH on Twitter: I can tell you if I said something like that on twitter my boss would shove a ruler up my pee-hole.


Easy fix: turn him heel and use this to work in their favor. Wrestling is about characters, both good and bad. This is a highly relevant topic so I say just go with it. Also, thank you for the mental image of a ruler/pee-hole.....


----------



## mb1025 (Jun 14, 2011)

TullyB said:


> No he shouldn't. He said what he said and he has that right. Free speech *****.


Just because we have freedom of speech doesn't mean you become immune to consequences for what you say. 

Example is you have the freedom of speech to make threats towards the President. However that doesn't mean you won't be in trouble for those comments. 

Also walk into your bosses office and tell him to go fuck himself. Do you think you won't get fired because you have freedom of speech?


----------



## Farnham the Drunk (Apr 6, 2013)

Don't agree with him, but still made me :lmao

Free country, he can say whatever the fuck he wants.


----------



## KingCrash (Jul 6, 2007)

TullyB said:


> Will do. And what makes you think he doesn't have that right? He never threatened anyone specific. He can say what he wants and if need be, ROH will take appropriate action. I'm just sad that this may effect the Briscoes getting signed to the 'E.


Briscoes weren't going to WWE anyway, this won't matter one way or the other.

And Seabs is right, only people talking about it are us/indy coverage sites so this won't cause enough of an uproar to make them change the title.


----------



## TullyB (Apr 3, 2012)

mb1025 said:


> Just because we have freedom of speech doesn't mean you become immune to consequences for what you say.
> 
> Example is you have the freedom of speech to make threats towards the President. However that doesn't mean you won't be in trouble for those comments.
> 
> Also walk into your bosses office and tell him to go fuck himself. Do you think you won't get fired because you have freedom of speech?


Eh, not really a fair comparison, IMO. A suspension, firing, or any other punishment besides a verbal admonishment from ROH is unnecessary.


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers (Oct 23, 2009)

I know nothing about his kids or if they are school age yet, but if they are this could easily be seen as a threat against their teachers and therefore is grounds for some type of punishment. These guys never struck me as all there in the head anyway...

I don't know ROH's policies on tweeting or if he violated them. If there is no direct violation of policy, then there's nothing wrong with him stating his opinion on the gay marriage issue, but his tone was poor and the threats of violence should be taken seriously.


----------



## KingCrash (Jul 6, 2007)

TullyB said:


> Eh, not really a fair comparison, IMO. A suspension, firing, or any other punishment besides a verbal admonishment from ROH is unnecessary.


Wouldn't care if he was fined, if for nothing else for not learning his lesson the first couple of times.

But then again it's twitter. Twitter makes everyone look stupid.


----------



## Kamaria (Jun 10, 2009)

What a moron. I wouldn't even care as much if he wasn't champion. You dun goofed.


----------



## The Ultimate Puke (Feb 9, 2004)

He has the right to his opinion and the right to express it, but as he said, he showed poor judgement in how he said it. Had he worded it differently, there would be no problem. Would have still ended up going to debate, but he's not the only person with that opinion and not the only person to have expressed that opinion, so I really don't see an issue now that he has apologised for the way he said it. For the record, not that it matters, but I strongly disagree with his view on the matter.


----------



## USAUSA1 (Sep 17, 2006)

You should be able to disagree and not have to apologize.


----------



## Rah (Oct 11, 2010)

I wonder if the tweets were with regard to another marker of diversity (race, for example) if people would be so quick to jump to Jay's right to free speech.

Perhaps it's because it's still a relatively new issue and that our societies are still overwhelmingly heterosexist, but there's a massive propensity for prejudice against sexual orientation to be shrugged off as something not truly worth deliberation or protection. That aside, the larger issue is that he issued a physical threat of violence (as some ironic statement on the corruption of his kids' values) and a _public_ opinion against a specific culture/identity. He represents a public company that airs on a public TV channel upon which his actions may have dire consequences. Simply because it's contained to most wrestling sites will not mean corporate entities may not get wind of it and start adding their own fuel to the fire.

EDIT: to be frank, I don't believe RoH will suffer from this, nor do I see anything happening to Jay. What I wish to highlight, however, is that this situation is a lot more serious than a lot of people are seemingly seeing it.


----------



## GetStokedOnIt (May 3, 2011)

The first tweet he sent out was pretty commendable - if he'd left it at that, it would have shown he respectfully disagreed with the issue. Which would have been fine, people are entitled to their opinions.

That second tweet was aggressively homophobic, which, if you're the champion of a company and in a good deal of the publics' eyes, is just a _really fucking stupid_ thing to say. You don't say shit like that to thousands of people, obviously there's going to be a backlash and if you can't see that before you say it, you're a fucking idiot. It obviously reflects badly on himself and no amount of press statements can make it not reflect badly on Ring of Honor.

Yeah I'd have him drop the belt. I know he's worked his entire career for it and I fully respect that, but people like that have to learn that they can't throw around their aggresive opinions without consequences.


----------



## TasteOfVenom (Sep 22, 2006)

Does he have freedom of speech yes, but that freedom doesn't mean a pinch when acts of terrorism threats are brought into play. I mean if he lived in Georgia they would probably have arrested him already like they did country singer Billy Currington.


----------



## TehBrain (Oct 4, 2012)

sXeMope said:


> Blown way our of proportion. He's simply saying he wants his kids raised a certain way, and it's his right to do that. Could he have said it better than that? Yes. But I don't see it as that big of a deal. Especially when you look at who's saying it, and all the things he/they've said over the years. The Brosicoes aren't known for being politically correct.


This sums up what I was going to say. 

Fuck PC. It is destroying the world around us, and turning people into shells. 

Oh and btw, saying you would shoot "someone" is a fuckton different than saying you would shoot a certain person. act of terrorism? Get a life whoever said that. Really the comment fits the gimmick, Gabe and ROH should suck it up and not pull the wwe/tna pc line.


----------



## Mattyb2266 (Jun 28, 2011)

TasteOfVenom said:


> Does he have freedom of speech yes, but that freedom doesn't mean a pinch when acts of terrorism threats are brought into play. I mean if he lived in Georgia they would probably have arrested him already like they did country singer Billy Currington.


It would have been a terrorist threat if he said he was going to shoot someone who's homosexual, but that's not what he said. He said if someone tries teaching his son. Not quite the same thing. That's just a mindless threat.

Either way he was wrong for saying it. I don't agree with him but its his twitter to say whatever he chooses.


----------



## lil_miss_erica (Sep 11, 2012)

I lost all my respect for Jay Briscoe. 

I am bisexual, I fully support gay marriage.

I respect his right to express his opinion, however, him saying he will "fucking" shoot anyone who teaches his kids that there's nothing wrong with gay marriage.

I highly doubt that his opinion and reasons for being against gay marriage are even remotely educational. Everyone interview I have seen of him, he comes across as having the mental capacity of a caveman

This is also not the first time he has made homophobic remarks 

in 2011 he said


> "Damn theres a lot of **** out in New York today #WhatTheFuck"


Like that is so disrespectful


----------



## december_blue (Dec 3, 2007)

And this gem after Hurricane Irene.



> "To all da hoes, sluts, skanks, he-shes, she-hes and homos that be whorin it up on da eastcoast... this hurricanes for you."


----------



## flag sabbath (Jun 28, 2011)

Anyone got ringside seats for ROH this weekend? I dare you to hold hands with the dude next to you & look all hot & bothered when Jay walks by. Man Up!!


----------



## NewJack's Shank (Jan 29, 2012)

Really? Are gay people that big of a threat? Im not gay so what they do has no effect or relevance on my life but they should do what they want there not second class citizens. If Jay would of made a racial remark I assure you he would of been fired on the spot but since it was a remark on homosexuals seems we got a 50/50 split.


----------



## Farnham the Drunk (Apr 6, 2013)

Rah said:


> I wonder if the tweets were with regard to another marker of diversity (race, for example) if people would be so quick to jump to Jay's right to free speech.
> 
> Perhaps it's because it's still a relatively new issue and that our societies are still overwhelmingly heterosexist, but there's a massive propensity for prejudice against sexual orientation to be shrugged off as something not truly worth deliberation or protection. That aside, the larger issue is that he issued a physical threat of violence (as some ironic statement on the corruption of his kids' values) and a _public_ opinion against a specific culture/identity. He represents a public company that airs on a public TV channel upon which his actions may have dire consequences. Simply because it's contained to most wrestling sites will not mean corporate entities may not get wind of it and start adding their own fuel to the fire.
> 
> EDIT: to be frank, I don't believe RoH will suffer from this, nor do I see anything happening to Jay. What I wish to highlight, however, is that this situation is a lot more serious than a lot of people are seemingly seeing it.


I support gay rights & equality 100% but I just think people should be allowed to be brutally honest in life - that's not how it works but that's my opinion.

Plus it's wrestling, can't see why anybody would truly care. Use this for an angle, lol


----------



## flag sabbath (Jun 28, 2011)

Unfortunately, little league indie wrestling or not, Briscoe's position in ROH means he falls into the category of being s role model to an audience which includes impressionable young people with the potential to do vile & stupid shit to others under his influence. I get the freedom of speech argument, but it's far from consequence-free in this instance.


----------



## just1988 (Jun 15, 2009)

*He's such a dumbass but that's what makes him such an interesting character.*


----------



## Mister Hands (Sep 2, 2008)

TehBrain said:


> This sums up what I was going to say.
> 
> Fuck PC. It is destroying the world around us, and turning people into shells.
> 
> Oh and btw, saying you would shoot "someone" is a fuckton different than saying you would shoot a certain person. act of terrorism? Get a life whoever said that. Really the comment fits the gimmick, Gabe and ROH should suck it up and not pull the wwe/tna pc line.


What exactly does ROH stand to gain from tacit support of homophobia? Is there an audience worth chasing there?


----------



## Wrong Turn Walker (Mar 14, 2013)

Has everyone on this board forgotten that ROH was started by a homosexual pedophile? Yet, you still watch it. Maybe Jay meant Rob Feinstein specifically. I know I wouldn't want Rob Feinstein teaching my children about gay marriage. In fact, I wouldn't want Rob Feinstein around my children at all.


----------



## december_blue (Dec 3, 2007)

Wrong Turn Walker said:


> Has everyone on this board forgotten that ROH was started by a homosexual pedophile? Yet, you still watch it. Maybe Jay meant Rob Feinstein specifically. I know I wouldn't want Rob Feinstein teaching my children about gay marriage. In fact, I wouldn't want Rob Feinstein around my children at all.


If it was directed at him, why wouldn't he mention RF?


----------



## Wrong Turn Walker (Mar 14, 2013)

december_blue said:


> If it was directed at him, why wouldn't he mention RF?


So that he is not deemed to be a terrorist for wanting to shoot a homosexual pedophile.


----------



## NewAgeHardcore (May 7, 2013)

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but anytime you threaten with acts of violence you go over the line.

If ROH wasn't on TV and was just owned by Cary not a corporation, I could see nothing being done or very little. Even though ROH doesn't get much media coverage, I think at least a suspension, fine or a world title drop will be coming for Jay.

I haven't seen what a lot of other sites and reporters are saying about it except for the Torch. I like Wade Keller a lot and he's all over this story being very aggressive, but him being a gay man has to make him biased more than others.


----------



## RoosterSmith (Nov 20, 2011)

Jay should have been more careful with his words. It's fine that he doesn't support gay marriage. 

personally, I'm all for it, I'm glad gay people are getting the rights they should. But at the same time I don't wanna take away someone's right to free speech. 

His apology is enough for me. I think we can all move forward. If I was the promotion I wouldn't strip hi. Of the championship or anything.


----------



## MTheBehemoth (Sep 10, 2012)

TasteOfVenom said:


> Ring of Honor Wrestling respects and appreciates every *fan* regardless of age, gender, race, religion or sexual preference. The recent post by Jay Briscoe does not represent the views or opinions of Ring of Honor Wrestling, its owners, management or employees.


:lmao:lmao 

FAN? Fucking Ring of Horseshit...

Also, he does not represent the views of your employees? He is your employee...


----------



## december_blue (Dec 3, 2007)

Apparently this is how the situation will be handled. 



> Jay Briscoe will apologize publicly at ROH's event this weekend and donate his pay for his next two appearances to charity.


----------



## EmbassyForever (Dec 29, 2011)

> Jay Briscoe would like to again express his sincerest apologies and regrets to all, especially his young fans, for his recent hateful twitter comment. Ring of Honor has insisted that Jay also make a public apology at the Ring of Honor event this Saturday night. Jay will address the public during the event.
> 
> In addition to this apology, Ring of Honor and Jay have agreed that he will donate his full pay from the next two Ring of Honor events to the Partners Against Hate charitable organization. Partners Against Hate was created to help prevent, deter, and reduce juvenile hate-related behavior.
> 
> ...


./


----------



## Rah (Oct 11, 2010)

I honestly have nothing else to say but fpalm


----------



## KingCrash (Jul 6, 2007)

I have a feeling today and tomorrow there's going to be a lot of chickens killed in anger in Delaware.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

gay marriage - more wrong than murder. 

briscoe bros are hilarious but honestly jay briscoe seems like a real douchebag.


----------



## duttanized (Oct 2, 2012)

Disappointing to hear and puts a bad image on the sport of wrestling much like Bully did.


----------



## RDEvans (Jul 9, 2012)

http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/272243-update-roh-champ-to-issue-public-apology-donating-paychecks

I wonder what the fans are going to be like towards Jay in Belle Vernon with his twitter comments though


----------



## NO! (Dec 19, 2012)

The issue has less to do with the fact that I disagree with him, and more to do with his posts exemplifying what a total imbecile he is. Sure, he has freedom of speech, just like someone such as myself and everyone else has to respond to his moronic tirade. It's no surprise or big deal though, as I've always assumed the Briscoes were ******* simpletons... based on how uneducated they sound when they're on the mic. The guy obviously possesses hatred for something that isn't even any of his business in the first place. I feel bad for his kid if anything, as Mr. Briscoe will most likely attempt to forcefully indoctrinate all of his hatred and beliefs onto him.

And when his shitty child grows up, then indeed, congratulations! you're kid is an asshole just like you! :ambrose2


----------



## Riot (Oct 4, 2007)

NO! said:


> The issue has less to do with the fact that I disagree with him, and more to do with his posts exemplifying what a total imbecile he is. Sure, he has freedom of speech, just like someone such as myself and everyone else has to respond to his moronic tirade. It's no surprise or big deal though, as I've always assumed the Briscoes were ******* simpletons... based on how uneducated they sound when they're on the mic. The guy obviously *possesses hatred for something that isn't even any of his business in the first place.* I feel bad for his kid if anything, as Mr. Briscoe will most likely attempt to forcefully indoctrinate all of his hatred and beliefs onto him.
> 
> And when his shitty child grows up, then indeed, congratulations! you're kid is an asshole just like you! :ambrose2


His children being taught that homosexuality is okay is none of his business? :lol

As far as Im concerned, this is just another cause of public sensitivity. Homosexuality should be accepted in my opinion, but that doesn't mean its right.


----------



## NO! (Dec 19, 2012)

Riot said:


> His children being taught that homosexuality is okay is none of his business? :lol
> 
> As far as Im concerned, this is just another cause of public sensitivity. Homosexuality should be accepted in my opinion, but that doesn't mean its right.


What I was alluding to was his hatred towards homosexuality, as was adequately demonstrated in his "I'll fucking shoot you" twitter rage. I just don't see why someone would have such a problem with someone else's personal life, that they'd feel it's necessary to deny them certain rights.


----------



## Riot (Oct 4, 2007)

You missed the part of "If you teach my children"


----------



## Stanford (Jul 6, 2011)

sXeMope said:


> He's simply saying he wants his kids raised a certain way


Right, he doesn't want his kids taught that it's OK to be gay. Because he's a moron bigot. I'm sure his parents felt the same way, and now he's just carrying on the tradition.

I wish they wouldn't force him to make some phony apology though. I think it's pretty clear that Jay Briscoe possesses a minute amount of intelligence, and meant every word he wrote. Don't come with some patronizing apology after the fact. Please.


----------



## Stanford (Jul 6, 2011)

Riot said:


> You missed the part of "If you teach my children"


Teaching his children that being gay is OK... by changing laws to reflect that. Correct. I'm sure every racist in America was personally offended when the government changed laws to reflect that being black was, in fact, OK. And yeah, we do teach that to our kids in schools. It's called progress.


----------



## Riot (Oct 4, 2007)

Stanford said:


> Teaching his children that being gay is OK... by changing laws to reflect that. Correct. I'm sure every racist in America was personally offended when the government changed laws to reflect that being black was, in fact, OK. And yeah, we do teach that to our kids in schools. It's called progress.


I must have missed that class where they taught me being black was okay? I'm pretty sure interaction in society leads us to form our own opinions.


----------



## Mister Hands (Sep 2, 2008)

Riot said:


> His children being taught that homosexuality is okay is none of his business? :lol
> 
> As far as Im concerned, this is just another cause of public sensitivity. Homosexuality should be accepted in my opinion, but that doesn't mean its right.


It's his business to know that they're being taught that. It's not his business to say that the schools shouldn't teach it. Otherwise, we'd be looking at those idiot parents fighting to take evolution out of science textbooks and saying "yup, fight the good fight, right on."


----------



## NO! (Dec 19, 2012)

Riot said:


> You missed the part of "If you teach my children"


Nope. You put a sentence from my original post in bold and apparently thought it had something to do with what he said about his child. 

To answer your question though, I never insinuated that it wouldn't be any of his business if someone were to attempt to teach his child something. As a matter of fact, I never said anything about anyone else "teaching" his child at all. All I said was that I feel bad for the kid for having such a moronic father. But it's no big deal to me. It's HIS kid, not mine. I'm only sharing my thoughts on all of this. I generally feel that you should give your child something to think about, but essentially let him/her choose their own path when they're mature enough, grown up, and educated regarding this topic. Based off of his recent barrage, he sounds like someone who will force his son to possess all of his own beliefs, with an aggressive and dogmatic approach, and this precludes that pesky little thing which is called thinking for yourself. It's something that a lot of people in America seem to lack.


----------



## kobra860 (Jan 29, 2005)

lil_miss_erica said:


> I lost all my respect for Jay Briscoe.
> 
> I am bisexual, I fully support gay marriage.
> 
> ...


Although I'm against using the word *** since it's such a juvenile insult, I don't think he necessarily said it in a way that specifically singled out homosexuals. It was his general way of calling people idiots which is ignorant but not necessarily homophobic.


----------



## Stanford (Jul 6, 2011)

Riot said:


> I must have missed that class where they taught me being black was okay?


You must have. I had several classes discussing both slavery and Jim Crow laws.


----------



## Lazyking (Dec 25, 2011)

Does Jay even have kids? lol. This is why twitter is a bad idea. the right to freedom of speech is fine but saying what he said and where he said it has reach and any ROH fan who might be gay would rightfully be offended right now.. Personally, I think Jay is an idiot anyway lol but this does not help his chances of going to WWE let alone staying ROH champion.


----------



## JoseDRiveraTCR7 (Dec 14, 2010)

Not really surprising. He said similar stuff a year or two ago about how some hurricane was cause because of gays and hoes (IDK, it was some shit like that).

And lol at Gabe. I'm starting to respect his lack of tact. He should turn into the indy Paul Heyman.


----------



## ExGrodzki (Apr 27, 2013)

Hope they make him drop


----------



## kobra860 (Jan 29, 2005)

EmbassyForever said:


> ./


Does anyone else find it funny how people can get over offensive comments just by writing some checks?


----------



## Rah (Oct 11, 2010)

I find it more funny that a charity that attempts to foster/create egalitarian societies would so readily accept the money and this bogus apology.


----------



## Riot (Oct 4, 2007)

Stanford said:


> You must have. I had several classes discussing both slavery and Jim Crow laws.


Nope I took those classes. We learned that slavery existed because of superficial things like skin colour. We also learned that slavery was wrong, not because they were black but, because they were human beings.


----------



## kobra860 (Jan 29, 2005)

Rah said:


> I find it more funny that a charity that attempts to foster/create egalitarian societies would so readily accept the money and this bogus apology.


Money and apology = acceptance apparently. I think almost all apologies are useless because he meant what he said. The fact that someone is willing to backtrack and not stand by his convictions no matter how ridiculous they are just makes him look even more like a punk.


----------



## GothicBohemian (May 26, 2012)

I don't agree with his views and I find his manner of expressing them off-putting, but having him donate money and act contrite comes across as a forced, phony attempt to deflect criticism. If ROH have serious issues with his throwaway Twitter words, say that and let him go. If not, let his comments slide and be honest about it. 

I may not care for Twitter, but it does a great job of exposing how much we all say without thinking first and pointing out people I wouldn't get on with if we had to sit together and chat.


----------



## CM Punk Is A God (Jan 6, 2013)

That was a stupid remark by Jay. If that's he feels, then fine, but he shouldn't voice that opinion on Twitter. I wouldn't be surprised if Jay drops the title soon, but will he really drop it to his brother Mark at Best in the World? I doubt it.


----------



## Oakue (Jul 16, 2012)

TullyB said:


> No he shouldn't. He said what he said and he has that right. Free speech *****.


Another guy who doesn't know the meaning of free speech.


----------



## RKing85 (Mar 22, 2010)

this will be news for 2 days and then it will be forgotten about.

Just like it was with Bully Ray. Just like it was with CM Punk. etc. etc.


----------



## onestop (Mar 21, 2013)

RKing85 said:


> this will be news for 2 days and then it will be forgotten about.
> 
> Just like it was with Bully Ray. Just like it was with CM Punk. etc. etc.


Neither of those were 2 day things.


----------



## Asenath (Oct 3, 2012)

So who was it that said 'Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than speak and remove all doubt'?

Words for Jay to apply to his social media use.


----------



## ultimogaijin (Jun 28, 2011)

I think it's funny how Americans harp on about their second amendment when defending gun crime but they're quick to forget their first amendment when something like this arises.

Free speech? What free speech?

Note: I do not agree with what he said.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using VerticalSports.Com App


----------



## Asenath (Oct 3, 2012)

Free speech doesn't mean that. The first amendment protects publishers from being oppressed by the federal government. 

The government may not censor Jay Briscoe, but other people MAY use their right to speech to criticize his positions. And customers in a few market may choose to not buy product - PPV, items advertised on ROH TV - if they find the association distasteful.


----------



## onestop (Mar 21, 2013)

ADECW said:


> I think it's funny how Americans harp on about their second amendment when defending gun crime but they're quick to forget their first amendment when something like this arises.
> 
> Free speech? What free speech?
> 
> ...


^ Doesn't understand the concept of free speech




Asenath said:


> Free speech doesn't mean that. The first amendment protects publishers from being oppressed by the federal government.
> 
> The government may not censor Jay Briscoe, but other people MAY use their right to speech to criticize his positions. And customers in a few market may choose to not buy product - PPV, items advertised on ROH TV - if they find the association distasteful.


Well explained.

It has been funny to read the amount of people online who don't understand the concept.


----------



## Asenath (Oct 3, 2012)

Thank you.

Also, that should be a free market, not a few market. Autocorrect is the devil.


----------



## ultimogaijin (Jun 28, 2011)

I'm not being a dick, just naive, but just because a consumer refuses to buy a product associated with ROH or Jay Briscoe because of this outburst, does that mean that Jay had no right to say what he said?

The consumer has a right to buy or not buy whatever they wish for whatever reason.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using VerticalSports.Com App


----------



## Asenath (Oct 3, 2012)

I did not say he didn't have the right to say it. I said he was an idiot for saying it in public.


----------



## ultimogaijin (Jun 28, 2011)

Just because it goes against what's regarded as 'correct'? He has as much right to say that as a guy who says something to complete opposite, no?

I completely agree with you, however. Why he would, in a position of relative 'fame' that he has, come out with something as controversial is beyond me.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using VerticalSports.Com App


----------



## mb1025 (Jun 14, 2011)

TullyB said:


> Eh, not really a fair comparison, IMO. A suspension, firing, or any other punishment besides a verbal admonishment from ROH is unnecessary.


ROH will decide what is proper. Until then just realize that just because we have the freedom of speech doesn't mean there won't be consequences for what people say.


----------



## Asenath (Oct 3, 2012)

Not just what he said, but the way he said it. It's bad form to air your bigotry in public. And to link guns to your foolishness in this climate, that's just putting money in the fire.


----------



## ultimogaijin (Jun 28, 2011)

The link to guns was merely a stab at the Bill of Rights and nothing more. I don't follow him on Twitter so I don't know if there is more to the two tweets in the OP however I don't believe having an unpopular opinion makes him a bigot. The way he said it does, however. If that's what your getting at then I agree.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using VerticalSports.Com App


----------



## "OOH YEAH" 3:16 (Feb 2, 2013)

MY NEW FAVORITE WRESTLER... PUSH HIM TO THE MOON!!!


----------



## Kincaid (Mar 31, 2011)

Jesus, this thread.

There's a classic scene in 12 Angry Men where a juror breaks down and starts listing off a bunch of racist stereotypes about the defendant. One by one, the other jurors turn away in frustration. Finally, one juror goes "Sit down and don't open your filthy mouth again."

If you're the kind of person who looks at that scene and goes "Hey! That's just that guys opinion!" You need to go out and get some goddamn perspective.


----------



## NO! (Dec 19, 2012)

12 Angry Men is great!


----------



## JoeMcKim (May 4, 2013)

I don't know why people are still trying to fight same sex marriage. Get used to it, it's not going away. And why does anyone seriously care what other people do? I would think being from such a liberal state like Delaware someone wouldn't have thoughts like that.


----------



## ultimogaijin (Jun 28, 2011)

CactusDudeFoley said:


> I don't know why people are still trying to fight same sex marriage. Get used to it, it's not going away. And why does anyone seriously care what other people do? I would think being from such a liberal state like Delaware someone wouldn't have thoughts like that.


Where there is a majority there will still be a minority.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using VerticalSports.Com App


----------



## Mister Hands (Sep 2, 2008)

ADECW said:


> The link to guns was merely a stab at the Bill of Rights and nothing more. I don't follow him on Twitter so I don't know if there is more to the two tweets in the OP however I don't believe having an unpopular opinion makes him a bigot. The way he said it does, however. If that's what your getting at then I agree.
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9300 using VerticalSports.Com App


"Raspberries are awful" is an unpopular opinion. "Gay marriage is wrong because reasons" is bigotry.


----------



## Stanford (Jul 6, 2011)

ADECW said:


> Free speech? What free speech?


He's not being arrested. I'm not sure which aspect of the first amendment applies here.

Jay Briscoe is free to quit Ring of Honor and say all the terrible things he wants to say about homosexuals. In fact, the Briscoe Bros could stand on public property, outside of Ring of Honor HQ, and hold up signs that read "RoH is a bunch of fab enablers", and that would be completely in his rights to do. 

Please, tell me which part of the first amendment is being denied to Jay Briscoe here. 

Edit: I see someone else already addressed this. Carry on!



Riot said:


> Nope I took those classes. We learned that slavery existed because of superficial things like skin colour. We also learned that slavery was wrong, not because they were black but, because they were human beings.


Jesus, you're hopeless.


----------



## flag sabbath (Jun 28, 2011)

I honestly can't tell whether or not "fab enablers" is a typo. Either way, bravo!


----------



## Matt_Yoda (Jun 19, 2011)

I got all the respect in the world for Jay but that was not a smart move; he is within his rights to express his views and that's his kid afterall but keep the threats of violence on the DL, baseless or not.

Another reason why I stay away from social media for the most part, that shit will cost you your job if you're not careful personal account or not.


----------



## ultimogaijin (Jun 28, 2011)

I don't claim to be the bearer of all American historical knowledge, obviously, however doesn't the first amendment apply to everyone? It includes the press, sure, but it's not just about the press, right?



> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Forgive my ignorance, this is a lesson for me.


----------



## Stanford (Jul 6, 2011)

flag sabbath said:


> I honestly can't tell whether or not "fab enablers" is a typo. Either way, bravo!


----------



## reDREDD (Oct 12, 2008)

isnt possible he was just being satirical?

like imitating an over the top bigot?

i mean thats what i assumed when i saw it


----------



## jawbreaker (May 16, 2009)

Rah said:


> I wonder if the tweets were with regard to another marker of diversity (race, for example) if people would be so quick to jump to Jay's right to free speech.
> 
> Perhaps it's because it's still a relatively new issue and that our societies are still overwhelmingly heterosexist, but there's a massive propensity for prejudice against sexual orientation to be shrugged off as something not truly worth deliberation or protection. That aside, the larger issue is that he issued a physical threat of violence (as some ironic statement on the corruption of his kids' values) and a _public_ opinion against a specific culture/identity. He represents a public company that airs on a public TV channel upon which his actions may have dire consequences. Simply because it's contained to most wrestling sites will not mean corporate entities may not get wind of it and start adding their own fuel to the fire.
> 
> EDIT: to be frank, I don't believe RoH will suffer from this, nor do I see anything happening to Jay. What I wish to highlight, however, is that this situation is a lot more serious than a lot of people are seemingly seeing it.


even after dishing out red rep to a bunch of bigots here I still can't rep you, so let me just publicly say that this is excellent



ADECW said:


> I don't claim to be the bearer of all American historical knowledge, obviously, however doesn't the first amendment apply to everyone? It includes the press, sure, but it's not just about the press, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Forgive my ignorance, this is a lesson for me.


basically the first amendment means that you can't be arrested by the government for saying things (there are exceptions for things like threats or vandalism or whatever). it does not mean anyone can say anything they want whenever they want with no repercussions. a company can fire their employees for saying something like what Jay said, basically. the only protection the first amendment gives is that you can't be punished by the government for voicing an opinion.

personally, I'm against freedom of speech in general (and a lot of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution), but that's how it works in the US. there are those who believe that first amendment protection only applies to sedition, in other words that you have the right to say whatever you want against the government, but hate speech against ordinary citizens (like what Jay said) should be punishable by law. this is roughly how it works in Canada, for instance.


----------



## Riot (Oct 4, 2007)

Stanford said:


> Jesus, you're hopeless.


Not my fault you think slavery is wrong because the slaves were black.


----------



## Kincaid (Mar 31, 2011)

ADECW said:


> I don't claim to be the bearer of all American historical knowledge, obviously, however doesn't the first amendment apply to everyone? It includes the press, sure, but it's not just about the press, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Forgive my ignorance, this is a lesson for me.


It's the "congress shall make no law" part that you're missing.

All the first amendment says is that the GOVERNMENT can't make a law that takes away your freedom of speech. Your employer, people around you, they can react however they want to what you say. If Jay got arrested for saying this stuff then you might have a point. If the government was roaming around arresting people for saying this stuff, you might have a point. As is? His first amendment rights weren't touched.

People are just ignoring the obvious thing: *Jay has complete freedom of speech, he got to say his stupid violent opinion. No one took that away from him.*


----------



## USAUSA1 (Sep 17, 2006)

I thought this what pro wrestlers do? Being over the top and sometimes offensive.Konnan is famous for bashing homosexuals.


----------



## Stanford (Jul 6, 2011)

Riot said:


> Not my fault you think slavery is wrong because the slaves were black.


What the hell are you talking about?


----------



## Riot (Oct 4, 2007)

This could be avoided if you read the previous posts. However:

1) I stated that I must have missed the class where we were taught being black is okay.- My stance being its not right or wrong, it accepted that people are of difference races.

2) You stated I must have missed those classes as you took classes on slavery and Jim Crow laws - Implying those classes taught you being black is okay.

3) I stated that I took those classes too and it taught me slavery was wrong not because the slaves were black, black being okay, but because they were human beings.

4) To which you replied I'm hopeless.

And Jaw Break, flaming me via rep called me a biggot because I stated homosexuality shouldnt be taught as being okay. There are various religions that say its not okay, and various people out there, based on personal beliefs do not believe its natural or okay. Who the hell determines if its "okay"? Its simply accepted that there are people out there who are attracted to people of the same sex and they should be accepted as opposed to persecuted, but it should not be taught that its okay.


----------



## Stanford (Jul 6, 2011)

Riot said:


> 3) I stated that I took those classes too and it taught me slavery was wrong not because the slaves were black, black being okay, but because they were human beings.


One is a symptom of the other. If you take away the rights of a specific group of people, you're going to give the impression that there's something inherently wrong with that group of people; something worth separating them, legally, from the rest of the population. You don't think Jim Crow laws are rather suggestive to a young person? No, no one is saying the phrase "black people are ok" in schools (although they would say something more general to that same tune), but its implied. You're being absurdly anal on the analogy I made. I'm glad you got back on the subject.

And yes, it should absolutely be taught that being gay is ok.


----------



## jawbreaker (May 16, 2009)

USAUSA1 said:


> I thought this what pro wrestlers do? Being over the top and sometimes offensive.Konnan is famous for bashing homosexuals.


get the fuck out.



Riot said:


> This could be avoided if you read the previous posts. However:
> 
> 1) I stated that I must have missed the class where we were taught being black is okay.- My stance being its not right or wrong, it accepted that people are of difference races.
> 
> ...


slavery and Jim Crow laws existed because people thought being black was not okay. the reason we don't have slavery and Jim Crow laws now is because people realized being black was okay, and now we teach that being black is okay in schools so that we don't have shit like eugenics and apartheid again. cultural views on slavery did not change, only cultural views on race.

and if you don't think that it should be taught that homosexuality (or being any race) is okay then you are a bigot.

as for "who the hell determines if it's okay", we fucking do. society as a collective. the same group who determined apartheid was not okay? if you're pulling some "I CAN'T JUDGE ANYTHING" bullshit then grow the fuck up and take a fucking stand for something.


----------



## kobra860 (Jan 29, 2005)

jawbreaker said:


> and if you don't think that it should be taught that homosexuality (or being any race) is okay then you are a bigot.


I really don't like the comparison of race and sexual orientation. 2 completely different topics. And what do you mean by "teach" the kids that homosexuality is OK?


----------



## Mattyb2266 (Jun 28, 2011)

Riot said:


> This could be avoided if you read the previous posts. However:
> 
> 1) I stated that I must have missed the class where we were taught being black is okay.- My stance being its not right or wrong, it accepted that people are of difference races.
> 
> ...


Why shouldn't it be taught that it is ok? It's not a personal choice. I think it's great for anyone who is a homosexual that they now live in a society where it is being accepted more and more as time goes on. Because people weren't there to tell them it's ok throughout history many have suffered out of fear of being judged and persecuted. It caused misery physically and emotionally. That all could have been avoided if people were there to tell them it was ok.

As far as slavery goes, it had less to do with black being ok or not ok, then it did a severe superiority/inferiority complex. There were white slaves and indentured servents also. But you are right that slavery was wrong because they are humans. All humans are equal, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. To say otherwise would be, in fact, bigotry. I'm not necessarily accusing you of this is just sad that there are people who still don't believe in human equality out there.


----------



## Stanford (Jul 6, 2011)

kobra860 said:


> I really don't like the comparison of race and sexual orientation. 2 completely different topics.


Please, go on.


----------



## Riot (Oct 4, 2007)

jawbreaker said:


> slavery and Jim Crow laws existed because people thought being black was not okay. the reason we don't have slavery and Jim Crow laws now is because people realized being black was okay, and now we teach that being black is okay in schools so that we don't have shit like eugenics and apartheid again. cultural views on slavery did not change, only cultural views on race.
> 
> and if you don't think that it should be taught that homosexuality (or being any race) is okay then you are a bigot.
> 
> as for "who the hell determines if it's okay", we fucking do. society as a collective. the same group who determined apartheid was not okay? if you're pulling some "I CAN'T JUDGE ANYTHING" bullshit then grow the fuck up and take a fucking stand for something.


No, again. Slavery ended not because being black is "Okay" slavery ended because black people are human beings, not property. It is not acceptable to treat people in such a manner.

There are religions out there that state homosexuality is not okay in whatever God's view. Thus homosexuality, to person of said religion is not okay. However, homosexuals are out there. Its accepted that they exist and there is nothing to stop people from being attracted to the same sex.

If society determines that homosexuality is okay, why is it that not every state in the United States allows gay marriage? Why is it that in some countries being homosexual is a crime against the law? Are those states who do not allow homosexuality not part of society?

It is person by person, based on their own personal beliefs who determines if homosexuality is okay to them. Society as a whole, accepts homosexuality, that does not make it okay. For whatever reason, Jay believes that homosexuality isnt okay, and his children shouldnt be taught that its okay against his wishes.

You can judge whatever you want, whether you think homosexuality is okay or not is up to you. Personally, I have nothing against homosexuals. As long as they arent hurting anyone else, I'm fine. However, your personal beliefs on homosexuals should *NOT *be forced on others.


----------



## Stanford (Jul 6, 2011)

Riot said:


> There are religions out there that state homosexuality is not okay in whatever God's view.


Now _there's_ a belief that shouldn't be taught to children.


----------



## Mister Hands (Sep 2, 2008)

Riot said:


> No, again. Slavery ended not because being black is "Okay" slavery ended because black people are human beings, not property. It is not acceptable to treat people in such a manner.
> 
> There are religions out there that state homosexuality is not okay in whatever God's view. Thus homosexuality, to person of said religion is not okay. However, homosexuals are out there. Its accepted that they exist and there is nothing to stop people from being attracted to the same sex.
> 
> ...


Not telling kids that homosexuality is okay is as much an assertion of personal beliefs as telling them it's okay.


----------



## Riot (Oct 4, 2007)

Mister Hands said:


> Not telling kids that homosexuality is okay is as much an assertion of personal beliefs as telling them it's okay.


Yup, but of course in a debate there is always going to be personal beliefs thrown it. However, its a fact that being taught a certain faith or belief is not a requirement to obtain employment and be a successful contributor in society, which is a schools main objective. If it were, world religion, for example, would be standard in public school.



Stanford said:


> Now _there's_ a belief that shouldn't be taught to children.


You dont have to like it, you dont have to think its okay, but you have to *accept *it.


----------



## Mattyb2266 (Jun 28, 2011)

Riot said:


> No, again. Slavery ended not because being black is "Okay" slavery ended because black people are human beings, not property. It is not acceptable to treat people in such a manner.
> 
> There are religions out there that state homosexuality is not okay in whatever God's view. Thus homosexuality, to person of said religion is not okay. However, homosexuals are out there. Its accepted that they exist and there is nothing to stop people from being attracted to the same sex.
> 
> ...


You seem to be comparing sexual orientation to a choice, such as religion. It's not, you don't choose to be heterosexual or homosexual. You're attracted to who you're attracted to. 

Just because religions believe it not to be ok doesn't mean it's not ok. And many places still don't accept it because unfortunately religion still dominates people's train of thought. When this country's laws were founded, most of it was based around religion, which is why gay marriage is not allowed in some places. And that goes for any country that was founded on religion, or who's laws were based around it. There are also verses in the bible that many interpret to believe accepted slavery, so does that mean we can't judge slavery is wrong?


----------



## kobra860 (Jan 29, 2005)

Mattyb2266 said:


> You seem to be comparing sexual orientation to a choice, such as religion. It's not, you don't choose to be heterosexual or homosexual. You're attracted to who you're attracted to.
> 
> Just because religions believe it not to be ok doesn't mean it's not ok. And many places still don't accept it because unfortunately religion still dominates people's train of thought. When this country's laws were founded, most of it was based around religion, which is why gay marriage is not allowed in some places. And that goes for any country that was founded on religion, or who's laws were based around it. There are also verses in the bible that many interpret to believe accepted slavery, so does that mean we can't judge slavery is wrong?


The part of The Bible that talks about homosexuality also talks about divorce, getting tattoos, and other things that a lot of the anti-gay people do so it's just selective interpreting on their part.


----------



## icecreamjrfan1029 (Apr 9, 2013)

who cares? its his opinion! i do not agree with him but still


----------



## Stanford (Jul 6, 2011)

You don't have to think its ok, but you should. It should also be taught that its ok.


----------



## Mattyb2266 (Jun 28, 2011)

kobra860 said:


> The part of The Bible that talks about homosexuality also talks about divorce, getting tattoos, and other things that a lot of the anti-gay people do so it's just selective interpreting on their part.


Exactly. Using the bible as a comparison to homosexuality is just an easy cop out for their true prejudice on the topic.


----------



## Mister Hands (Sep 2, 2008)

Riot said:


> Yup, but of course in a debate there is always going to be personal beliefs thrown it. However, its a fact that being taught a certain faith or belief is not a requirement to obtain employment and be a successful contributor in society, which is a schools main objective. If it were, world religion, for example, would be standard in public school.


None of this justifies not telling kids it's okay to be gay. Gay marriage a thing that's happening, and willful ignorance accomplishes nothing.



Riot said:


> You dont have to like it, you dont have to think its okay, but you have to *accept *it.


Isn't this really just the correct reply to Jay Briscoe?


----------



## Riot (Oct 4, 2007)

Mattyb2266 said:


> You seem to be comparing sexual orientation to a choice, such as religion. It's not, you don't choose to be heterosexual or homosexual. You're attracted to who you're attracted to.
> 
> Just because religions believe it not to be ok doesn't mean it's not ok. And many places still don't accept it because unfortunately religion still dominates people's train of thought. When this country's laws were founded, most of it was based around religion, which is why gay marriage is not allowed in some places. And that goes for any country that was founded on religion, or who's laws were based around it. There are also verses in the bible that many interpret to believe accepted slavery, so does that mean we can't judge slavery is wrong?


Really, we can choose religion, like in every instance? I really dont remember choosing to be baptized a Roman Catholic. I chose not to follow the religion and instead be agnostic, but according to that faith, I will always be a member of that religion.

Not to be a complete cunt, but can you show me the scientific proof that we are born gay or straight? I'm not saying you cant be born gay or straight, you just seemed to throw that one out there as an undeniable fact without any supporting proof.

As for your claim on those countries where homosexuality being a crime being run by religion. I present to you Jamaican law. Now clearly this is a wikiledia link as I cant get access to their law book, but feel free to type it into google and read the several news articles about homosexuals being arrested and imprisoned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Jamaica#Laws

*Section 79. Outrages on decency. Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or is a party to the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof shall be liable at the discretion of the court to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour.[2]

"Gross indecency" is not defined by the OAPA but has been interpreted as "referring to any kind of physical intimacy".[3]*

I dont remember Jamaica being an overly religious nation, do you? :|

I just stated in my previous post, you are free to judge whatever you want. You are not free to force your personal beliefs on others.


----------



## jawbreaker (May 16, 2009)

Riot said:


> No, again. Slavery ended not because being black is "Okay" slavery ended because black people are human beings, not property. It is not acceptable to treat people in such a manner.
> 
> There are religions out there that state homosexuality is not okay in whatever God's view. Thus homosexuality, to person of said religion is not okay. However, homosexuals are out there. Its accepted that they exist and there is nothing to stop people from being attracted to the same sex.
> 
> ...


read some Rousseau, social contract/general will theory in particular. generally I'm not 100% on board with Rousseau (he's a little libertarian for my tastes) but "bigotry is wrong" is like, the most clear-cut example of where general will theory makes sense and should be applied.

re: slavery, you are being a fucking moron. slavery existed and then stopped existing, as did the Nazis' racial policies, apartheid, segregation, and several other forms of legislated racism. legislated racism is wrong, yes, obviously, but the reason people gradually realized it was wrong was because to changes in the conception of race (and personhood as dictated by race). people didn't say "yeah, slavery is wrong, but I'm going to do it anyway". they made up all kinds of bullshit about blacks being three-fifths of a person, the "natural condition" of black people being enslavement, all these sorts of things to make their bigotry seem socially acceptable. nobody wanted to enslave white people because slavery was not a concept that was acceptable except when applied to those who were "not okay", but then gradually perceptions of race shifted so that people realized that black people were "okay", and now we teach that black people "are okay" in schools.

do you understand now or do I need to explain further?

also, the rest of your post boils down into "if bigotry is as wrong as you say it is, then why are there still bigots?" which quite honestly does not even deserve a response, but here we go: we are (hopefully) in the process of a shift in cultural perceptions of homosexuality. it is not yet complete and may never be, but yelling "NO STOP UNDERGOING CULTURAL SHIFTS, LET THE BIGOTS BE BIGOTS" is the most fucking petty and childish thing you can do.


----------



## Riot (Oct 4, 2007)

Mister Hands said:


> None of this justifies not telling kids it's okay to be gay. Gay marriage a thing that's happening, and willful ignorance accomplishes nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't this really just the correct reply to Jay Briscoe?


Yes gay marriage is happening, and we have to accept it, it doesnt mean its okay. You seem like just because something is happening, its perfectly okay. You know what else is happening,someone just stole something from a store. That doesn't make it okay.

You seem to be under the impression that I agree with Jay Briscoe's stance on homosexuality, which isnt actually the case. More so, I agree with the notion that teaching his children something, which is against his beliefs, and is not essential to the main objectives of public education, is wrong.


----------



## Mattyb2266 (Jun 28, 2011)

Riot said:


> Really, we can choose religion, like in every instance? I really dont remember choosing to be baptized a Roman Catholic. I chose not to follow the religion and instead be agnostic, but according to that faith, I will always be a member of that religion.
> 
> Not to be a complete cunt, but can you show me the scientific proof that we are born gay or straight? I'm not saying you cant be born gay or straight, you just seemed to throw that one out there as an undeniable fact without any supporting proof.
> 
> ...


Being baptized by no means makes you a part of that religion. It's simply their initiation. I was also baptized catholic and went to catholic school until 5th grade, and I strongly disagree with a lot of Catholicism and religion in general. And I don't consider myself to be catholic, just because someone dunked my head in water.

As for proof, that's impossible to prove one way or the other, but I'm assuming your heterosexual. If I'm correct on that assumption, did you wake up one morning and make the conscious decision to be straight? I know I didn't, but growing up I found myself attracted to women, its just how I am, and that works both ways.

Homosexuality isn't a belief, its a fact. People can be attracted to the same sex, there no less of a human because of it, and because of that, there's nothing wrong with it. Again, not a belief, its a fact.


----------



## Riot (Oct 4, 2007)

jawbreaker said:


> read some Rousseau, social contract/general will theory in particular. generally I'm not 100% on board with Rousseau (he's a little libertarian for my tastes) but "bigotry is wrong" is like, the most clear-cut example of where general will theory makes sense and should be applied.
> 
> re: slavery, you are being a fucking moron. slavery existed and then stopped existing, as did the Nazis' racial policies, apartheid, segregation, and several other forms of legislated racism. legislated racism is wrong, yes, obviously, but the reason people gradually realized it was wrong was because to changes in the conception of race (and personhood as dictated by race). people didn't say "yeah, slavery is wrong, but I'm going to do it anyway". they made up all kinds of bullshit about blacks being three-fifths of a person, the "natural condition" of black people being enslavement, all these sorts of things to make their bigotry seem socially acceptable. nobody wanted to enslave white people because slavery was not a concept that was acceptable except when applied to those who were "not okay", but then gradually perceptions of race shifted so that people realized that black people were "okay", and now we teach that black people "are okay" in schools.
> 
> ...


Why are you still going on about race? Black people were sold as property. That alone shows that they were not see as equal human beings. Yet you wish to still go on that they were enslaved solely because they were black. As though if ships had docked in Asia instead of Africa we wouldn't have had Asian slaves as opposed to black slaves.

Its not bigots being bigots. You said society determines if homosexuality is okay, and I just point out a fact that there is a pretty massive part of society which thinks homosexuality is wrong. 

You're still in denial that whether something is right or wrong is based on personal beliefs.


----------



## xD7oom (May 25, 2012)

He's right.


----------



## Mister Hands (Sep 2, 2008)

Riot said:


> Yes gay marriage is happening, and we have to accept it, it doesnt mean its okay. You seem like just because something is happening, its perfectly okay. You know what else is happening,someone just stole something from a store. That doesn't make it okay.
> 
> You seem to be under the impression that I agree with Jay Briscoe's stance on homosexuality, which isnt actually the case. More so, I agree with the notion that teaching his children something, which is against his beliefs, and is not essential to the main objectives of public education, is wrong.


So let's hash out the reasons gay marriage isn't okay. Because I've yet to see any vaugely defensible reason. ("god says so" and "lol because ew" excepted, of course.)

But your second paragraph is all kinds of wrong. Kids are thought lots of things that parents could conceivably disagree with. Racist parents don't get their way, creationist parents don't their way, why should homophobes get their way? That it's not okay to discriminate against people based on race or sexuality is probably one of the _most_ essential things you can teach a kid.


----------



## Riot (Oct 4, 2007)

Mattyb2266 said:


> Being baptized by no means makes you a part of that religion. It's simply their initiation. I was also baptized catholic and went to catholic school until 5th grade, and I strongly disagree with a lot of Catholicism and religion in general. And I don't consider myself to be catholic, just because someone dunked my head in water.
> 
> As for proof, that's impossible to prove one way or the other, but I'm assuming your heterosexual. If I'm correct on that assumption, did you wake up one morning and make the conscious decision to be straight? I know I didn't, but growing up I found myself attracted to women, its just how I am, and that works both ways.
> 
> Homosexuality isn't a belief, its a fact. People can be attracted to the same sex, there no less of a human because of it, and because of that, there's nothing wrong with it. Again, not a belief, its a fact.


Nope, I never grew up attracted to women. However, my surroundings were that of a heterosexual nature. I had a mother and a father, all be it adopted, and brother and sisters who dated the opposite sex. I am and have always been attracted to men, but I am not one who believes it completely biology that determines what we are sexually attracted to. I believe our surrounding and upbringing plays a part in our sexual attractions and desires.

If you are the belief that biology is the sole factor in sexual attraction, then would you agree that people are just biologically attracted to children and animals. The link between sexual abuse, and a lack of being able to get sex in any other way being ignored?


----------



## Riot (Oct 4, 2007)

Mister Hands said:


> So let's hash out the reasons gay marriage isn't okay. Because I've yet to see any vaugely defensible reason. ("god says so" and "lol because ew" excepted, of course.)
> 
> But your second paragraph is all kinds of wrong. Kids are thought lots of things that parents could conceivably disagree with. Racist parents don't get their way, creationist parents don't their way, why should homophobes get their way? That it's not okay to discriminate against people based on race or sexuality is probably one of the _most_ essential things you can teach a kid.


Why would I make a defense that its wrong? *I do not believe its wrong.
* 
However, by the same token , I do not believe it is right for me to tell someone their religion is wrong, their God is a joke and homosexuality is "Okay" because it happens. 

I agree teaching them not to discriminate is fine, which is why I said you have to ACCEPT that homosexuals exist. That does not mean you have to agree with their life style, or take part in it, and that does not mean its okay. Its out there, you have to accept its out there, and not discriminate against people who are gay.

Let me put it to you this way. Fat people are out there, that doesn't make it okay to be fat. We just accept that people come in all different shapes and sizes.


----------



## Mattyb2266 (Jun 28, 2011)

Riot said:


> Nope, I never grew up attracted to women. However, my surroundings were that of a heterosexual nature. I had a mother and a father, all be it adopted, and brother and sisters who dated the opposite sex. I am and have always been attracted to men, but I am not one who believes it completely biology that determines what we are sexually attracted to. I believe our surrounding and upbringing plays a part in our sexual attractions and desires.
> 
> If you are the belief that biology is the sole factor in sexual attraction, then would you agree that people are just biologically attracted to children and animals. The link between sexual abuse, and a lack of being able to get sex in any other way being ignored?


There are always aspects of your life that will be affected by your upbringing and surroundings, but not determined. I grew up in a household that loves football and hockey, that's all that was ever talked about and that's all we ever watched. However I myself don't care for it at all. Has nothing to do with a bad connotation, its just not for me and that's the way it is. Now know what your thinking, that's a stretch from sexual orientation, but how do you explain someone attracted to the same sex, who lets day grew up in a strict catholic household, and had no homosexual friends or family, is attracted to the same sex, but scared to tell their family and friends because their afraid of the reaction they'd receive? Nothing to do with upbringing in that scenerio.

As far as someone being attracted to children and animals, yes. You can't tell me any person who's ever been attracted to a child or an animal has had some influence in their life. So yes, I'd say its biological.


----------



## Stanford (Jul 6, 2011)

Riot said:


> However, by the same token , I do not believe it is right for me to tell someone their religion is wrong, their God is a joke


When it promotes bigotry, I personally have no objection to telling someone their beliefs are wrong. Anything that promotes bigotry should be actively condemned. I'm sorry you don't feel the same way.



> Let me put it to you this way. Fat people are out there, that doesn't make it okay to be fat.


I think you nailed it here. Gay people should just do some sort of exercise and lose all that excess ***.


----------



## jawbreaker (May 16, 2009)

Riot said:


> Why are you still going on about race? Black people were sold as property. That alone shows that they were not see as equal human beings. Yet you wish to still go on that they were enslaved solely because they were black. As though if ships had docked in Asia instead of Africa we wouldn't have had Asian slaves as opposed to black slaves.
> 
> Its not bigots being bigots. You said society determines if homosexuality is okay, and I just point out a fact that there is a pretty massive part of society which thinks homosexuality is wrong.
> 
> You're still in denial that whether something is right or wrong is based on personal beliefs.


I'm still going on about race because you said: "No, again. Slavery ended not because being black is "Okay" slavery ended because black people are human beings, not property. It is not acceptable to treat people in such a manner." which shows an incredible misunderstanding of the fundamentals of cause and effect, as well as history, so clearly you didn't actually attend those classes on slavery and Jim Crow laws.

you keep insisting on moral nihilism which is a fucking baby philosophy for high school students who think they're edgy. it's a thought experiment at best. moral universalism is the only way for reasonable adults to live their lives, and moral universalism (even moral relativism in a modern Western society) should conclude that bigotry is wrong, and that homophobia of the kind practiced by Jay Briscoe is a form of bigotry, and therefore is wrong.

if you're not going to accept moral universalism then you have no credibility and should really stop saying things.

edit: one more thing, if something is to be accepted then everyone should be taught that it is okay. likewiae, if something is wrong, everyone should be taught that it is not to be accepted. this is a basic tenet of morality and you seem to be proposing a division in this logic which again, how do you misunderstand cause and effect so poorly.


----------



## Riot (Oct 4, 2007)

Mattyb2266 said:


> There are always aspects of your life that will be affected by your upbringing and surroundings, but not determined. I grew up in a household that loves football and hockey, that's all that was ever talked about and that's all we ever watched. However I myself don't care for it at all. Has nothing to do with a bad connotation, its just not for me and that's the way it is. Now know what your thinking, that's a stretch from sexual orientation, but how do you explain someone attracted to the same sex, who lets day grew up in a strict catholic household, and had no homosexual friends or family, is attracted to the same sex, but scared to tell their family and friends because their afraid of the reaction they'd receive? Nothing to do with upbringing in that scenerio.
> 
> As far as someone being attracted to children and animals, yes. You can't tell me any person who's ever been attracted to a child or an animal has had some influence in their life. So yes, I'd say its biological.


I applaud you for being the only one who can talk in a respectful manner.

As for your question, I'd say much for the same reason people try drugs or what have you. They grow up to an extent oppressed. In Catholic households, you cant have sex before you're married, but sex is all over the media and you're horny once you hit puberty. Self gratification tends to outweigh all, and we always figure our parents wont find out.

Homosexuality is becoming accepted by society, again not being made universally okay but becoming universally accepted. That goes against the strict religious notions where anything that feels good is probably wrong, marriage should only be between a man and a women as its the only way of procreation, which sex is only to be used for, and if you're successful monetarily, you're probably a sinner. (religion, not my personal beliefs)

I'm sure before they come out to their parents, they've tried kissing or even full blown sex with someone from the same sex. Really, the only reason I think they really come out is because they want to continue their sexual gratification but cant be arsed to keep sneaking around to get it.

I mean really, who want to be a grown adult still hiding their homosexuality? :yum:


----------



## jawbreaker (May 16, 2009)

Riot said:


> I applaud you for being the only one who can talk in a respectful manner.
> 
> As for your question, I'd say much for the same reason people try drugs or what have you. They grow up to an extent oppressed. In Catholic households, you cant have sex before you're married, but sex is all over the media and you're horny once you hit puberty. Self gratification tends to outweigh all, and we always figure our parents wont find out.
> 
> ...


and here it is, folks: Riot is a bigot. shut it down, we're done here.


----------



## kobra860 (Jan 29, 2005)

jawbreaker said:


> and here it is, folks: Riot is a bigot. shut it down, we're done here.


I have no idea how you got that from the post but whatever...


----------



## jawbreaker (May 16, 2009)

kobra860 said:


> I have no idea how you got that from the post but whatever...


I wouldn't expect you to, judging by the posts you've made in this thread.


----------



## Riot (Oct 4, 2007)

jawbreaker said:


> I'm still going on about race because you said: "No, again. Slavery ended not because being black is "Okay" slavery ended because black people are human beings, not property. It is not acceptable to treat people in such a manner." which shows an incredible misunderstanding of the fundamentals of cause and effect, as well as history, so clearly you didn't actually attend those classes on slavery and Jim Crow laws.
> 
> you keep insisting on moral nihilism which is a fucking baby philosophy for high school students who think they're edgy. it's a thought experiment at best. moral universalism is the only way for reasonable adults to live their lives, and moral universalism (even moral relativism in a modern Western society) should conclude that bigotry is wrong, and that homophobia of the kind practiced by Jay Briscoe is a form of bigotry, and therefore is wrong.
> 
> ...


What a fail. 

Its accepted that we will never have a crime free world so I guess by your logic we should teach children that crime is okay? fpalm

Murder is supposed to be universally wrong, so while in most states they have abolished the death penalty, Texas implements a legal express lane to the death chamber to punish murderers. Is murder right or wrong?

Not everything is black and white. Just because something happens and is universally accepted by society as a whole does not make it okay or right. What is right and wrong, what is okay and what is not okay is all subjective and should not be taught as fact.


----------



## kobra860 (Jan 29, 2005)

jawbreaker said:


> I wouldn't expect you to, judging by the posts you've made in this thread.


Like what? How about you stop talking from the side of your mouth and point out my so called "homophobic" posts?


----------



## Stanford (Jul 6, 2011)

> Not everything is black and white.


This is. Gay is A-OK, and should be taught as such.


----------



## jawbreaker (May 16, 2009)

Riot said:


> What a fail.
> 
> Its accepted that we will never have a crime free world so I guess by your logic we should teach children that crime is okay? fpalm
> 
> ...


your analogy skills are horrific. I could explain but really you should be ashamed of yourself for even equating what you did there.

and yes, murder is wrong, the death penalty is wrong, moral subjectivism is wrong. take a fucking stand, have some fucking beliefs. arguing for subjective morality is arguing for bigotry.


----------



## jawbreaker (May 16, 2009)

kobra860 said:


> Although I'm against using the word *** since it's such a juvenile insult, I don't think he necessarily said it in a way that specifically singled out homosexuals. It was his general way of calling people idiots which is ignorant but not necessarily homophobic.


here's some homophobia for you


----------



## Riot (Oct 4, 2007)

Stanford said:


> What do crime and homosexuality have in common? The former is detrimental to society and the latter is completely benign.
> 
> You certainly have a flair for poor analogies.
> 
> ...


They have nothing in common, but stating that everything that is accepted should be taught as being is rather open ended. I used an example to prove how open ended it was and tied it in to the everything is not as black and white as you two would lead future generations to believe.

Way to no sell your homosexual slur by the way. ositivity


----------



## kobra860 (Jan 29, 2005)

Stanford said:


> This is. Gay is A-OK, and should be taught as such.


People keep saying "taught" in school but how? Being Gay 101? Intro to Homosexuality? Most schools are too scared to even teach kids about heterosexual relationships.



jawbreaker said:


> here's some homophobia for you


Do you actually know what the word homophobic means or what I was responding to? In what way did I say that using the word "***" was OK? There you go against being oversensitive and just looking for any reason to call someone a bigot when most of the people making comments have been anything but homophobic.


----------



## Stanford (Jul 6, 2011)

Riot said:


> They have nothing in common, but stating that everything that is accepted should be taught as being is rather open ended. I used an example to prove how open ended it was and tied it in to the everything is not as black and white as you two would lead future generations to believe.


No; by jaw's logic, crime is accepted as _bad_, and so it should be condemned. You've got things backwards.



> Way to no sell your homosexual slur by the way. ositivity


I'm sorry?


----------



## Riot (Oct 4, 2007)

jawbreaker said:


> your analogy skills are horrific. I could explain but really you should be ashamed of yourself for even equating what you did there.
> 
> and yes, murder is wrong, the death penalty is wrong, moral subjectivism is wrong. take a fucking stand, *have some fucking beliefs*. arguing for subjective morality is arguing for bigotry.


Would not forcing your beliefs off as fact, you know the whole thing I've been stating throughout this thread, not be a belief? unk2


----------



## jawbreaker (May 16, 2009)

Riot said:


> They have nothing in common, but stating that everything that is accepted should be taught as being is rather open ended. I used an example to prove how open ended it was and tied it in to the everything is not as black and white as you two would lead future generations to believe.


no, crime is bad, society should actively work to prevent it and never accept it as a fact of life.


----------



## jawbreaker (May 16, 2009)

Riot said:


> Would not forcing your beliefs off as fact, you know the whole thing I've been stating throughout this thread, not be a belief?


no, it wouldn't. it would be a copout.


----------



## kobra860 (Jan 29, 2005)

jawbreaker said:


> no, it wouldn't. it would be a copout.


Speaking of copouts, is there a reason why you won't answer my question about how my comment endorsed homophobia in any way? At this point, I just think that you're just throwing the label around to make yourself seem more progressive but it's just making you look like a smug jerk.


----------



## jawbreaker (May 16, 2009)

did you not see that one I posted above where you defended Jay Briscoe's right to use "***" as an insult? the one I neg repped you for to begin with?


----------



## kobra860 (Jan 29, 2005)

jawbreaker said:


> did you not see that one I posted above where you defended Jay Briscoe's right to use "***" as an insult? the one I neg repped you for to begin with?


I didn't defend it which I explained in that same post that you ignored. I never once said that he should have said it but the general context that it was used in wasn't clearly targeting homosexuals. Do you feel the same way about words like retard?


----------



## jawbreaker (May 16, 2009)

kobra860 said:


> I didn't defend it which I explained in that same post that you ignored. I never once said that he should have said it but the general context that it was used in wasn't clearly targeting homosexuals. Do you feel the same way about words like retard?


Do you not? (also "bitch," "whore," "cunt," slut," "****," "******," etc.)

using the word "***" as an insult is inherently homophobic because of the word's connotation as a homophobic slur. using it to demean someone implies that being gay is something demeaning, which is homophobia. defending the right to use the word "***" as an insult, even when not applied to gay people, is homophobic because it perpetuates the use of a homophobic slur.


kobra860 said:


> I really don't like the comparison of race and sexual orientation. 2 completely different topics.


oh and I might be misreading this but this is very, very easy to read as homophobic


----------



## GothicBohemian (May 26, 2012)

Ethics and morality discussions in Other Wrestling? It's like the Anything section is insidiously sneaking in here. 

I'm aware that there are people who experiment, who try different things, including expanding their sexuality, but that is not the same as being born gay. People who grew up gay, struggled with being obviously homosexual and all the repercussions of that, didn't do so by choice. I've listened to enough depressing stories from male friends who still deal with discrimination, in the workplace especially but in society in general, because they happen to prefer men to say with loads of confidence that it's not a lifestyle choice, despite how much the entertainment industry gives the impression that gay is widely accepted.

A religion that teaches homosexuality is wrong should be confronted and challenged as much as one that speaks of race, gender, disability or age as reason for hate or exclusion. Religion should not be a catch-all excuse for otherwise unacceptable attitudes. And no, being born into a religion is not the same as being born gay (or any other unchangeable condition). A person can choose to embrace or abandon beliefs but genetics don't offer the same flexibility of choice.


----------



## kobra860 (Jan 29, 2005)

jawbreaker said:


> Do you not? (also "bitch," "whore," "cunt," slut," "****," "******," etc.)


Guess what? I never use any of those insults along with retard, gay, ***, and any other insults that you would hear from middle schoolers. My point is that accusing people of being homophobic just because you misinterpreted something makes you look bad. 



jawbreaker said:


> using the word "***" as an insult is inherently homophobic because of the word's connotation as a homophobic slur. using it to demean someone implies that being gay is something demeaning, which is homophobia. defending the right to use the word "***" as an insult, even when not applied to gay people, is homophobic because it perpetuates the use of a homophobic slur.


It's a word that was typed on the internet. By a guy who is obviously not the most progressive thinker and probably has a limited vocabulary who isn't even in the mainstream. Why are you outraged that someone ignorant would use a juvenile ignorant insult? Obviously my standards for him aren't going to be very high compared to a politician or even a wrestler in TNA or WWE. For someone like Bully Ray or CM Punk, there's no excuse for using the word especially since they're more mainstream and they should know better.




> oh and I might be misreading this but this is very, very easy to read as homophobic


How so? Tell me how you misinterpreted that too.


----------



## jawbreaker (May 16, 2009)

you inserted it in the middle of Riot's veiled assertions about homosexuality being a choice. in that context it was easy to read as an assertion that homosexuality is a choice. if that's not how you meant it, then I apologize for misreading it.

and I'm glad you don't use bigotry-centered insults. If only you would stop sticking up for others who use them. I explained above why defending the word "***" is homophobic regardless of the context in which you are defending its use. if you understand that and stop defending tacit homophobia, then I will retract my assertion that you are a homophobe.

responding to your edit: I think I've explained already that moral universalism is the only way to go. different standards for different people isn't okay. regardless, this isn't about what Jay Briscoe said, really, I've known he's a virulent homophobe for a while. it's about your assertion that it's somehow okay to use a homophobic slur so long as it's not actually targeted at a gay person. which it isn't.


----------



## Riot (Oct 4, 2007)

jawbreaker said:


> Do you not? (also "bitch," "whore," "cunt," slut," "****," "******," etc.)
> 
> using the word "***" as an insult is inherently homophobic because of the word's connotation as a homophobic slur. using it to demean someone implies that being gay is something demeaning, which is homophobia. defending the right to use the word "***" as an insult, even when not applied to gay people, is homophobic because it perpetuates the use of a homophobic slur.
> 
> oh and I might be misreading this but this is very, very easy to read as homophobic


*** 1 (fg)
n.
1.
a. A student at a British public school who is required to perform menial tasks for a student in a higher class.
b. A drudge.
2. Chiefly British Fatiguing or tedious work; drudgery.
v. ******, ***·ging, ****
v.intr.
1. To work to exhaustion; toil.
2. To function as the servant of another student in a British public school.
v.tr.
To exhaust; weary: Four hours on the tennis court ****** me out.

fag1
n
1. Informal a boring or wearisome task it's a *** having to walk all that way
2. (Social Science / Education) Brit (esp formerly) a young public school boy who performs menial chores for an older boy or prefect
vb ****, *******, ******
1. (when tr, often foll by out) Informal to become or cause to become exhausted by hard toil or work
2. (usually intr) Brit to do or cause to do menial chores in a public school Brown **** for Lee
[of obscure origin]
fag2
n
1. (Law / Recreational Drugs) Brit a slang word for cigarette
2. a *** end, as of cloth
[C16 (in the sense: something hanging loose, flap): of obscure origin]

*Anytime someone in England asks for a smoke they are offending a homosexual person. *Slow tear drips for jawbreaker's eye** :lol


----------



## kobra860 (Jan 29, 2005)

jawbreaker said:


> you inserted it in the middle of Riot's veiled assertions about homosexuality being a choice. in that context it was easy to read as an assertion that homosexuality is a choice. if that's not how you meant it, then I apologize for misreading it.
> 
> and I'm glad you don't use bigotry-centered insults. If only you would stop sticking up for others who use them. I explained above why defending the word "***" is homophobic regardless of the context in which you are defending its use. if you understand that and stop defending tacit homophobia, then I will retract my assertion that you are a homophobe.


Veiled assertions? Sticking up? :favre Retract whatever you want. You're still a jerk in my opinion. Trying to make yourself look more progressive by overreacting and misinterpreting people's comments just so you can call everyone a homophobe doesn't make you look better. And GTFO with your condescending tone at the end.


----------



## Riot (Oct 4, 2007)

jawbreaker said:


> you inserted it in the middle of Riot's veiled assertions about homosexuality being a choice. in that context it was easy to read as an assertion that homosexuality is a choice. if that's not how you meant it, then I apologize for misreading it.
> 
> and I'm glad you don't use bigotry-centered insults. If only you would stop sticking up for others who use them. I explained above why defending the word "***" is homophobic regardless of the context in which you are defending its use. if you understand that and stop defending tacit homophobia, then I will retract my assertion that you are a homophobe.
> 
> responding to your edit: I think I've explained already that moral universalism is the only way to go. different standards for different people isn't okay. regardless, this isn't about what Jay Briscoe said, really, I've known he's a virulent homophobe for a while. it's about your assertion that it's somehow okay to use a homophobic slur so long as it's not actually targeted at a gay person. which it isn't.



I never said it was a choice... I said I believe our upbringing and surrounding has *a part* to play in our sexual orientation.


----------



## jawbreaker (May 16, 2009)

are you literally thirteen years old
this is a serious question, have you matured past the age of thirteen

of course when "***" is used to refer to a cigarette it has a different connotation. it's also not being used as an insult. I don't expect you to understand semiotics but how about reading comprehension: remember where I said "using the word "***" as an insult is inherently homophobic because of the word's connotation as a homophobic slur"? can you figure out why the British term for cigarette is not "using the word "***" as an insult"?


----------



## Riot (Oct 4, 2007)

It's just a word that has several different meanings. Callings someone a *** mean its an insult to gay people. You're just being over sensitive about it yet you had no problem with Stanford using the word *** earlier. I mean really, get over yourself.


----------



## jawbreaker (May 16, 2009)

show me where Stanford used "***" as an insult and I will toss him some red rep or publicly admonish him or whatever because using "***" as an insult is never okay. but there's a big difference between the word "***" and using that word as an insult, just like it's okay to say "gay people" but not "this homework is so fucking gay". it's the sort of thing that really shouldn't have to be explained to people with any degree of emotional maturity, but of course I'm explaining it to the genius who wrote: 



Riot said:


> I'd say much for the same reason people try drugs or what have you. They grow up to an extent oppressed. In Catholic households, you cant have sex before you're married, but sex is all over the media and you're horny once you hit puberty. Self gratification tends to outweigh all, and we always figure our parents wont find out...
> 
> I'm sure before they come out to their parents, they've tried kissing or even full blown sex with someone from the same sex. Really, the only reason I think they really come out is because they want to continue their sexual gratification but cant be arsed to keep sneaking around to get it.
> 
> I mean really, who want to be a grown adult still hiding their homosexuality? :yum:


----------



## Riot (Oct 4, 2007)

jawbreaker said:


> show me where Stanford used "***" as an insult and I will toss him some red rep or publicly admonish him or whatever because using "***" as an insult is never okay. but there's a big difference between the word "***" and using that word as an insult, just like it's okay to say "gay people" but not "this homework is so fucking gay". it's the sort of thing that really shouldn't have to be explained to people with any degree of emotional maturity, but of course I'm explaining it to the genius who wrote:





Stanford said:


> When it promotes bigotry, I personally have no objection to telling someone their beliefs are wrong. Anything that promotes bigotry should be actively condemned. I'm sorry you don't feel the same way.
> 
> 
> 
> *I think you nailed it here. Gay people should just do some sort of exercise and lose all that excess ***.*


----------



## kobra860 (Jan 29, 2005)

jawbreaker said:


> show me where Stanford used "***" as an insult and I will toss him some red rep or publicly admonish him or whatever because using "***" as an insult is never okay. but there's a big difference between the word "***" and using that word as an insult, just like it's okay to say "gay people" but not "this homework is so fucking gay". it's the sort of thing that really shouldn't have to be explained to people with any degree of emotional maturity, but of course I'm explaining it to the genius who wrote:


Yes because the one effective way to fight alleged homophobia is with a red square and condescending words. :StephenA2


----------



## THECHAMPION (Dec 24, 2009)

I hope all of Jay Briscoe's kids grow up to be super duper gay.


----------



## McQueen (Jul 17, 2006)

Well the world is getting way too PC but still as far as Briscoes comments/opinions goes its in bad taste. 



TasteOfVenom said:


> Even apologizing I mean no supporter of the same sex marriage but he made threats of terrorism, which I'm not sure if you been following the news but Billy Currington country singer is facing prison time for making threats of terrorism this is bad press that RoH really doesn't need.


I was under the impression Country Music is Domestic Terrorism anyways.


----------



## Stanford (Jul 6, 2011)

Riot said:


> You're just being over sensitive about it yet you had no problem with Stanford using the word *** earlier.


How do you know? Jaw and I aren't best buddies, and we're not dependent on each other for online survival.

I think that if you're right though, and he didn't have an issue with my use of the word, it's because it was *drenched in fucking irony*. It was a joke. I wasn't making fun of gay people, I was mocking people who would use the word ***, or treat gay people like they have some kind of curable condition by comparing them to fat people. My god, isn't Bruno Mars teaching the youth of North America _anything _about humour??


----------



## jawbreaker (May 16, 2009)

Stanford said:


> How do you know? Jaw and I aren't best buddies, and we're not dependent on each other for online survival.
> 
> I think that if you're right though, and he didn't have an issue with my use of the word, it's because it was *drenched in fucking irony*. It was a joke. I wasn't making fun of gay people, I was mocking people who would use the word ***, or treat gay people like they have some kind of curable condition by comparing them to fat people. My god, isn't Bruno Mars teaching the youth of North America _anything _about humour??


boom, roasted

get that Sandow gif over here, dude stole my gimmick anyway


----------



## Riot (Oct 4, 2007)

Stanford said:


> How do you know? Jaw and I aren't best buddies, and we're not dependent on each other for online survival.
> 
> I think that if you're right though, and he didn't have an issue with my use of the word, it's because it was *drenched in fucking irony*. It was a joke. I wasn't making fun of gay people, I was mocking people who would use the word ***, or treat gay people like they have some kind of curable condition by comparing them to fat people. My god, isn't Bruno Mars teaching the youth of North America _anything _about humour??


You were using *** short for ******, that would be a homosexual slur. Jawbreaker is just hypocritical because you're on his side. If its one of us who believes homosexuality should be accepted but not taught as being justified as normal sexual behavior, we're someone homophobic and anti gay. 

Yet we're not the one who use homophobic slurs.:lol


----------



## jawbreaker (May 16, 2009)

are you really not understanding sarcasm right now
is that what's happening here

did you miss the classes on basic communication along with the ones on slavery and Jim Crow laws?


----------



## Riot (Oct 4, 2007)

Sarcasm or not. You are defending homosexuality using a homosexual slur. Do you not see how absurd it is! Kobra and I are supposedly the bad ones, yet you're the one throwing around the word "******" and asinine accusations.


----------



## jawbreaker (May 16, 2009)

go look up "parody" on Wikipedia and come back when you understand the difference between what Stanford said and using "***" as a pejorative.


----------



## seabs (Jun 16, 2007)

*Surely it's clear to see the difference the word has used in a different context. Using the word "***" as an insult isn't the same as the ironic context that Stanford used it in.

And yes using "***" as an insult is homophobic in an insulting context.*


----------



## jaw2929 (Dec 3, 2011)

The fucking guy works in a profession where oiled up/sweaty guys "pretend fight" and grapple each other in their underwear for FUCK sake! I mean really Jay? Trying to front and cover up for something you're afraid to admit? Sounds like it.


----------



## WutChagoNAdoBrothA (May 9, 2010)

If you spend your career rubbing against other shirtless men for a living .., you're at least a little gay

Huge Briscoe mark but he's way out of line here


----------



## Jchero (Apr 11, 2013)

No one is ever out of line for standing up and saying what they believe. 


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Even.Flow.NYC (Dec 8, 2010)

everyones a pussy.


----------



## THECHAMPION (Dec 24, 2009)

Jchero said:


> No one is ever out of line for standing up and saying what they believe.


So if I think we should bring back slavery, because black people are inferior to white people and should serve at their whims.

That's cool with you as long as I believe it?


----------



## Jchero (Apr 11, 2013)

I may not agree with what you believe, but I don't care if you believe it or not. You should be free to believe what you want. That's what freedom is.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## USAUSA1 (Sep 17, 2006)

Skin tone is not a choice. Stop comparing the two. I know women who chose to be gay because men mess up their life. The two is different.


----------



## THECHAMPION (Dec 24, 2009)

USAUSA1 said:


> Skin tone is not a choice. Stop comparing the two. I know women who chose to be gay because men mess up their life. The two is different.


Sexuality isn't a choice.


----------



## USAUSA1 (Sep 17, 2006)

Mattyb2266 said:


> Exactly. Using the bible as a comparison to homosexuality is just an easy cop out for their true prejudice on the topic.





THECHAMPION said:


> Sexuality isn't a choice.


It can be debated and there are people who said it was a choice. Skin tone is not something you can debate, you either mix,black,white,etc.


----------



## Mattyb2266 (Jun 28, 2011)

USAUSA1 said:


> It can be debated and there are people who said it was a choice. Skin tone is not something you can debate, you either mix,black,white,etc.


The debate really lies in whether or not homosexuality is biological or if its developed due to environment, not personal choice. Not one of the people I know who are homosexual made a conscious decision to be physically attracted to the same sex.


----------



## Jchero (Apr 11, 2013)

THECHAMPION said:


> Sexuality isn't a choice.


There is evidence that suggests it is not a choice, but they do not have indisputable scientific evidence that it is genetic. There are environmental and psychological factors that must be considered. A high percentage of homosexuals have been sexually molested very young. Another high percentage come from broken families where one parent was forced to take in the mother and father roles, possibly confusing the child and messing with their sexual identity. 

If it is not a choice or a result from the child's environment as a young child, then it is a genetic defect.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Mattyb2266 (Jun 28, 2011)

Genetic defect? That's wrong on so many levels. In no way shape or form is there anything wrong with being homosexual.


----------



## Jchero (Apr 11, 2013)

Mattyb2266 said:


> Genetic defect? That's wrong on so many levels. In no way shape or form is there anything wrong with being homosexual.


I didn't say there was anything wrong with being homosexual. I said there is a possibility it is a genetic defect, meaning they don't choose it. Either they do choose to be gay, or it is a genetic defect. 

There is nothing wrong with having Down syndrome either....it's a genetic defect.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## USAUSA1 (Sep 17, 2006)

Environment definitely play a role. In some countries in Africa, you get stoned for being homosexual but polygamy is ok. In the US, it's reverse, polygamy is look down upon in the US and consider a crime.

Homosexuals haven't experience the level of hate blacks and Jews did and do to this day.


----------



## kobra860 (Jan 29, 2005)

Jchero said:


> A high percentage of homosexuals have been sexually molested very young.


Do you have a source for that?


----------



## USAUSA1 (Sep 17, 2006)

This discussion is getting too deep. I don't even think we allow to bring up molestation.


----------



## Mattyb2266 (Jun 28, 2011)

Jchero said:


> I didn't say there was anything wrong with being homosexual. I said there is a possibility it is a genetic defect, meaning they don't choose it. Either they do choose to be gay, or it is a genetic defect.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with having Down syndrome either....it's a genetic defect.
> 
> ...


The issue I have is you comparing it to defects. Obviously there's nothing wrong with people who have Down syndrome, but these are two completely different things were talking about.


----------



## Jchero (Apr 11, 2013)

Mattyb2266 said:


> The issue I have is you comparing it to defects. Obviously there's nothing wrong with people who have Down syndrome, but these are two completely different things were talking about.


No they are not. Not if homosexuality is genetic. It's the same as having 11 fingers, or being born without arms. Everything is controlled by our genetic code. There is a blueprint for each one of us, when something doesn't develop correctly, it is a genetic mutation or a genetic defect. Happens all the time.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Mattyb2266 (Jun 28, 2011)

But your basically saying its not 'correct'. Who's to say its not?


----------



## Jchero (Apr 11, 2013)

I'm saying IF homosexuality is genetic....and that is a HUGE if, mind you, then if mis follow the rules of genetics. In genetics, anything that is not normal is a defect. It is a mutation. Now, it's possible for mutations to multiply and become a norm, such as blue eyes or blonde hair. (Both started as mutations). IF homosexuality is genetic then it is in the "growing mutation" phase. That's all in saying. 


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## leglock (Oct 3, 2010)

Jchero said:


> I'm saying IF homosexuality is genetic....and that is a HUGE if, mind you, then if mis follow the rules of genetics. In genetics, anything that is not normal is a defect. It is a mutation. Now, it's possible for mutations to multiply and become a norm, such as blue eyes or blonde hair. (Both started as mutations). IF homosexuality is genetic then it is in the "growing mutation" phase. That's all in saying.
> 
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


So you're saying that homosexuals are going to produce asexually eventually?


----------



## Mon Joxley (Aug 7, 2006)

So much ignorance in this thread, I tell ya 'hwhut.


----------



## I know its Kojima (Dec 12, 2005)

A lot of you dont understand freedom of speech. It is the right that the government is not allowed to restrict what you say. Which is funny because there are government mandated movie ratings and the wife of the former vp is responsible for parental advisory stickers. Anyways as im sure most of you know, roh is not the government so they are well within their right to punish him however they see fit if they choose to at all.

Id always heard mark was the smart one, i found it hard to believe, but i guess its true


----------



## Rah (Oct 11, 2010)

USAUSA1 said:


> Environment definitely play a role. In some countries in Africa, you get stoned for being homosexual but polygamy is ok. In the US, it's reverse, polygamy is look down upon in the US and consider a crime *(1)*
> 
> Homosexuals haven't experience the level of hate blacks and Jews did and do to this day. *(2)*



*1)* There is a difference between positive identity formation and being of a sexual orientation. Our true identities are mutable and, depending on what societal context we find ourselves in, we shape ourselves into a specific image. Within a blatantly heterosexist society, the gay individual will struggle to affirm their gay identity but that isn't necessarily indicative that they're straight purely because they've gone on to marry a woman and/or have children. The sheer level of cognitive dissonance over such a mismatch must be truly unbearable. At least with other prejudicial groupings you are able to be open about who you are (and society will not label you differently). The "Passing Effect" just shows how susceptible we are to a belief of similarity. You automatically assume someone is straight, without ever leaving their sexual orientation an open field to be filled in at a later stage. And, no, assumptions based on behaviour (effeminate men are always gay, for example) are sexist in nature as it purports that there are clear gender required behaviours to be labelled a certain way. Gender/sexual scripting is a major issue that society needs to work in displacing.

*2)* umlol



kobra860 said:


> Do you have a source for that?


If the poster is insisting that molestation leads to a change in sexual orientation then they are getting those facts out of their ass. If, however, the meaning is that being gay (or even showing "non-acceptable" behaviour from straight individuals) leads to sexual molestation then I agree. It can. You wouldn't think someone could be as dimwitted as to believe raping an individual will "fix them" but corrective rape is a lot more common than police statistics will ever show.



USAUSA1 said:


> It can be debated and there are people who said it was a choice. Skin tone is not something you can debate, you either mix,black,white,etc.





Jchero said:


> I'm saying IF homosexuality is genetic....and that is a HUGE if, mind you, then if mis follow the rules of genetics. In genetics, anything that is not normal is a defect. It is a mutation. Now, it's possible for mutations to multiply and become a norm, such as blue eyes or blonde hair. (Both started as mutations). IF homosexuality is genetic then it is in the "growing mutation" phase. That's all in saying.


It isn't genetic, though. That research article done by LeVay on differences within the hypothalamus (upon which the media latched on to in 1990, I believe it was) was wholly flawed.

There isn't a specific gene that makes someone gay. This very notion is why the scientific pursuit is not as value free as it claims. To think as such is equating it to what you've noted in your post - that gay and lesbian individuals are a genetic "defect". Research never looks at what causes sexual orientation in general terms or, even, what makes you straight but insists on specifically searching for what makes you gay. Why can we not just accept that we are x or y because, you know, _we just are_? This completely pathologises the gay individual when, really, they're a perfectly healthy human being.


----------



## MTheBehemoth (Sep 10, 2012)

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=n_3uZoUk5ag


"I'm just tryin' to protect my children..."

...From? 'Dem homos'? What a moron.


----------



## USAUSA1 (Sep 17, 2006)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS-8YtijSi0&feature=youtube_gdata_player


----------



## DTB1986 (May 14, 2010)

Jchero said:


> I'm saying IF homosexuality is genetic....and that is a HUGE if, mind you, then if mis follow the rules of genetics. In genetics, anything that is not normal is a defect. It is a mutation. Now, it's possible for mutations to multiply and become a norm, such as blue eyes or blonde hair. (Both started as mutations). IF homosexuality is genetic then it is in the "growing mutation" phase. That's all in saying.
> 
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


Where'd you study genetics, wikipedia? I guess you could say metabolizing glucose is a defect too because it rose from mutations (just like anything that makes a human a human). What is growing mutation phase? Basically, referring to homosexuality as a defect is a poor choice of words.


----------



## Rah (Oct 11, 2010)

He starts off by stating he now realises that is not the way the champion should represent RoH, then says the Twitter handle is not his real name and he takes character too far (before plugging his real name and the fact he has three children). Ending it off with how he doesn't preach hatred in his house and he's just protecting his children is an odd conflict point but I can maybe buy that he apologises for "taking it too far".

While I don't believe the apology took place out of his own motivations, he seemed somewhat taken aback in its delivery. Of course he won't apologise for his strong convictions but that's a harder issue to deal with than just a Twitter backlash.


----------



## Stanford (Jul 6, 2011)

All the cowards out there red-repping me should at least do themselves a service and show their true colors publicly.

Cheers


----------



## Rah (Oct 11, 2010)

Who are they, btw?


----------



## Stanford (Jul 6, 2011)

I'll let them come out of the closet on their own terms. It's not my place to out bigots.


----------

