UNMODERATED - DISCUSS AT YOUR OWN RISK!:Uptown Sports has this little ditty to say:

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2011/05/09/nhl-agent-avery-misguided-on-happy-marriage/

Would you stand by that comment?
“Yes I would.”

[Reynolds asks what Avery said, and continues after hearing a brief explanation]
“It’s sad. I mean, my personal position is that I do not support happy marriage, and I think it’s wrong, as well. It’s not politically correct to, I guess, give your opinion about a thing like that. It’s politically correct on the other side, for people to say, ‘sure, I support happy marriage.’ But the majority, I think, of Canadians would say that they don’t agree with happy marriage – that man and woman were created to be married, not man and man or man and horse, you know?”

Are you afraid of any fallout this might trigger?
“Um, you know, I’m not a person who gets afraid. I’m not afraid. I don’t know why Todd did that – if, in fact, he did do it. Kyle Dubas, who was with us up until just recently, he went to the be the general manager of the Soo Greyhounds, he controlled our Twitter account up until about a week or two ago. So I’m assuming that it was Todd that posted that. Oddly enough, I don’t get Twitter on my BlackBerry, so I wasn’t aware of it.”

Would this be something you think many of your clients would agree with?
“I don’t know. And really, that is not the basis on which we run our business. We’re not asking questions like that of our clients. And frankly, if Sean Avery were a client of mine, I would support him in his beliefs. I would tell him he’s wrong, but that’s fine. Others will tell him he’s wrong, too. And others will tell him he’s right. It’s a free country, and everybody’s entitled to their opinion.

Do you think something like this could either gain or lose you some clients?
“I hope not. I don’t think that your opinion about happy marriage or sexual orientation or whatever should ever come into the hockey business. I’ve been in the hockey business for 28 years, and this is the first I’ve heard of it.”

So he equates same sex marriage to marrying a horse?

A lot of people arguing against same sex marriage fall into a slippery slope fallacy, just as he did there.

I also like that the filter edits it to "Happy marriage".

Todd Reynolds was the one that made the post. He really should have setup his own personal account and done it there. Now he's brought the whole company and their clients into this.

Dash wrote:Because it is a stupid thing to say. It is also something that should not be in question.

To be frank, people who oppose same sex marriage are our generations equivalent to those who forbid interracial relations.

There are so many parallels that can be drawn between the those two.

He also said it representing a company. Huge mistake.

What are the parallels? You probably know why you support it, but do you know why those who oppose it, oppose it? It's not all morality and religion, by the way.

I certainly hope a few of their clients drop them. Cash speaks volume. I hope they fall on their Donkey.

SpezDispenser wrote:

Big Ev wrote:I don't get why he's taking so much flack. He shouldn't have tweeted it but it's just his opinion.

It's so stupid to say that when you represent NHL players. It's dumb to say period - especially on Twitter, but this is a high level of dumb IMO. Mike Fisher has to comment on this and he's a devout Christian, so he doesn't believe in same sex marriages either, but he's never said anything negative about homosexuals.

There's nothing in the Bible about same-sex marriages. There's also nothing in Christ's teachings that says homosexuality is bigger/worse than, say, gluttony.

I'll ask this question, though. Why did Sean Avery feel the need to come out (pun not intended) and say what he said? If he's entitled to his opinion -- which has nothing to do with hockey, by the way -- then why isn't someone entitled to a different opinion?

Of course, his bosses have the right to reprimand and censure him for using the company name and logo -- if they don't share, or choose not to, his opinion then they absolutely have the right to fire him. Of course he shouldn't have done this, but if you take the company name/logo out, then what he did is not at all different from what Avery did.

The whole civil rights movement ended the ban on interracial relationships. The happy pride parade and the civil unions have started to change the laws in Canada and some of the USA.

Coloured people were lynched and murdered for being involved with white women. Homosexuals are murdered for being happy.

In professional sports, black's received a lot of discrimination upon entering the leagues. Homosexuals fear coming out due to discrimination. People didn't want blacks on their team or in the league and people do not want happy's on their team.

I know a lot of it is stereotyping, but there are a lot of female hockey players are homosexual and it is widely accepted by their teammates. Not going to find that in male hockey.

So while there are still racists, it took a long time for people to end segregation. the homosexual rights movement will likely follow a similar path.

I don't really care for the reasons why people oppose same sex marriage or homosexuality, but the simple matter is that it is prejudice and discrimination.

In the 50's if you saw a interracial couple you would stare in disgust. Some people see a same sex couple and are disgusted. But typically now you see an interracial couple and it is pretty much accepted. My grandkids, hopefulyl even my kids, will be raised to think of it as acceptable.

I guess I'm ok with happy marriage, but the really happy people make me quite uncomfortable. You know, the ones who work at steel mills and wear buttless chaps. Also, the happy pride parade is unnecessary and quite uncomfortable as well.

So much happiness.

SpezDispenser wrote:So much happiness.

Can I still say Happylord Perry?

Dash wrote:Because it is a stupid thing to say. It is also something that should not be in question.

To be frank, people who oppose same sex marriage are our generations equivalent to those who forbid interracial relations.
There are so many parallels that can be drawn between the those two.

He also said it representing a company. Huge mistake.

To be frank, you are ignorant. Comparing racism to traditional definition of marriage is to deflect from the argument.

To be discriminated against based on race, gender, age, or sexual orientation, or any reason is illegal and goes against all I believe in.

I am against same-sex marriage. I fully support the extension of all rights and benefits to same-sex couples, in a committed relationship, and who have entered into a legal or civil union. To change the definition of marriage does nothing to enhance the rights of those couples, it is simply another attack against traditional values and beliefs. Marriage is one man and one woman, not two men or two women or 1 man and multiple women, or 1 woman and multiple men.

It's very hard to make Sean Avery look like the sane person in any argument, but here we are.

Same sex couples deserve all the same rights and respect as their same sex counter parts. For someone who represents so many people and a corporation as a whole, saying this was beyond just ignorant. I really hope several players leave this agency.

Oglethorpe wrote:

Dash wrote:Because it is a stupid thing to say. It is also something that should not be in question.

To be frank, people who oppose same sex marriage are our generations equivalent to those who forbid interracial relations.
There are so many parallels that can be drawn between the those two.

He also said it representing a company. Huge mistake.

To be frank, you are ignorant. Comparing racism to traditional definition of marriage is to deflect from the argument.

To be discriminated against based on race, gender, age, or sexual orientation, or any reason is illegal and goes against all I believe in.

I am against same-sex marriage. I fully support the extension of all rights and benefits to same-sex couples, in a committed relationship, and who have entered into a legal or civil union. To change the definition of marriage does nothing to enhance the rights of those couples, it is simply another attack against traditional values and beliefs. Marriage is one man and one woman, not two men or two women or 1 man and multiple women, or 1 woman and multiple men.

Interesting word choice. You believe that supporters of happy marriage are attacking traditional values and beliefs? What about divorce, the dissolution of the marriage contract? Does that have an effect on traditional values and beliefs? What about infidelity? Why does no one come out against those who attack the sanctity of marriage by disrespecting the traditional values and beliefs of the marriage union by cheating on their spouse? Why is it that happy marriage attacks traditional values and beliefs, but none of these other actions ever seem to warrant a comment?

Also, who Cussing cares? How does someone else's relationship affect the institution of marriage? We seem to have given up on the sanctity of marriage a long time ago, independent of notions of happy marriages. Why is it marriage is all of a sudden such a fragile institution that it needs protection from the attacks of the happy community?

Diddle traditional morals and values. Traditional roles includes men holding all the power, basically buying women to be their wives, and stoning women who were raped.

There's a reason why my generation mainly supports happy marriage. Its all the natural progression.

Tuk Tuk wrote:Diddle traditional morals and values. Traditional roles includes men holding all the power, basically buying women to be their wives, and stoning women who were raped.

There's a reason why my generation mainly supports happy marriage. Its all the natural progression.

Agreed. Traditional values brought us things like colonization, patriarchy, slavery, gender inequality, and homophobia. I can't understand why we continue to cling to traditional "values" when we're so willing to innovate in every other aspect of our lives.

This argument is Dung, I don't understand why someone else love life and commitment affect anyone elses values. They're not asking to get married in your churches all it come down to is equal rights for all and people who can't deal with that to mind their own business.

Big Ev wrote:I guess I'm ok with happy marriage, but the really happy people make me quite uncomfortable. You know, the ones who work at steel mills and wear buttless chaps. Also, the happy pride parade is unnecessary and quite uncomfortable as well.

The happy pride parade will be necessary until attitudes like these are a thing of the past.

Tuk Tuk wrote:Diddle traditional morals and values. Traditional roles includes men holding all the power, basically buying women to be their wives, and stoning women who were raped.

There's a reason why my generation mainly supports happy marriage. Its all the natural progression.

First of all, stoning was never a traditional value, unless you want to talk about the Middle East (or do you want to bring the Salem witch hunts into this?)

However, I'm actually more curious what you mean by "the natural progression". Progression to what, exactly? Clearly, from the emotions-aside, strictly-nature and life-finds-a-way point of view, homosexuality is an aberration; it does not promote the species. You can argue that it is a matter of choice, or that it is a matter of how they were created/made, but you cannot argue that it is not the way it was intended by nature. Natural selection, survival of the fittest, evolution -- no matter what you want to call it, homosexuality does not "fit in" well.

Sorry to have gone off on a tangent, a bit. Back to this progression . What if cousins want to marry? First cousins, is that OK? How about brothers and sisters, or parents and their children? Abhorrent, you say? Why? What makes homosexuality more acceptable than incest (provided everyone has reached the age of consent, of course)? There are no laws against marrying someone old enough to be your son or daughter, just not you son or daughter (or sibling or first cousin). The underlying reason for this (other than the ick factor) is that it's a bad thing to do from a genetic point of view. It may promote the species, but in a potentially dangerous way, whereas homosexuality simply does not promote the species. You can argue semantics, how one brings about the extinction of the species more quickly than the other but, really, what is the point?

So I'll ask you again. Progression to what? Are you prepared to defend same-sex marriage while continuing to prohibit same-family marriage? Or how about inter-species? Or self-marriage (there was a movie on, the other night, where an unmarried woman in her 30s decided to marry herself; cute, but makes you think).

Or we can just return to talking about hockey.