I'm sure it was big for him and if he feels better then great, but hopefully the story doesn't get much press.
Really by tomorrow no one will care, and isn't that what the goal is for these things.

So you didn't listen to a word he said?

It's very important that professional athletes are able to be publicly open about their sexuality otherwise how are young people able to do so?

Good on Isaac and good on his team mates for supporting him.

Whilst it should be a societal norm that the response is something akin to "who cares", I don't think we are quite there yet. I agree with Mystro that it is important that professional athletes are able to be open with their sexuality, as it will allow us to get to that stage.

I understand what Melbourne Boy is getting at. I think that in men's sport is still has that taboo around it. I'm glad Isaac can be who is without hiding it.

I think one day MB will be right and this won't be a deal at all, which is the end goal. But to be the first, would have taken enormous courage. Good on him.

Was going to say, the "who cares"/“that's the goal”, it’s not to be dismissive or minimise or brush over how tough it is to come out or what he goes through.

It’s very easy for people to intentionally interpret comments in bad faith for anything remotely emotive.

I interpreted it as a view point that hopefully such a thing is unnecessary and that general societal acceptance is there to the point that it becomes like someone saying “I’m straight” - like ok, great for you, who cares?

The more people that do come out and say “this is who I am”, the less lonely people will feel and the less uncommon it will feel and we will get to the point where people just don’t care and it will cease to be a thing where people feel like it needs to be hidden or feel like an outcast.

That’s why my initial thoughts when reading the headline was very much “who cares” but also “power to you”.

Official NBA just tweeted to 40 million followers

Good on him.

Whether good or bad this may be the most press the NBL gets this season.

Let's just hope there's no conservatively religious players in the NBL who come out and have a go and say it's free speech and religious bias if anyone disagrees.

Nice article penned by Isaac himself.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/15/opinions/gay-australian-basketball-player-isaac-humphries/index.html?utm_content=2022-11-15T22%3A45%3A22&utm_source=twCNNi&utm_term=video&utm_medium=social

Very Brave Isaac. It may be 2022 but it still takes great courage, especially in men's sports, to be open about this. I am sure this will help many people.

Next minute there will be 50 million MAGAs harassing him

Official NBA just tweeted to 40 million followers

Honestly it felt like I'd gone back in time 20 years for this to be a top news story. I thought it should be just as significant news as preferring pineapple on pizza. But the fact it is such big news in the sporting community says a lot about how much there is still a stigma for athletes to come out. It's shameful on society that being gay can still feel like such a burden. Good on Humphries for taking us one more step towards this kind of announcement not being a news story. Total respect.

Yeah in much of society now, its not a big deal, but the fact that our biggest sporting leagues have almost no openly gay athletes shows it is still an issue there. The mental toll it took on him is further evidence. Glad for him that he can be his authentic self.

"But the fact it is such big news in the sporting community says a lot about how much there is still a stigma for athletes to come out."

By whom?

We had a reaction to say "So what? I'm completely indifferent to it".

How did that work out for him?

I thought it was well known already. It should not be a headline into days world, just get on with life.

Why is it even a big deal? The way society is these days. I'm talking in general here that’s why god made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve

Gk82 the argument can be made that God made neither, as god in many peoples eyes doesn't exist and is make believe..

No gays can have kid's period. Not arguing but too of the same can’t reproduce

Gk82 youre a bigger problem than gay people.

Gk82, you lost bro?

I wonder who the first imbecile to come up with "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" was. I bet they thought they thought it was comedic gold rhyming Eve with Steve.

And don't they always say that God made everyone and everything? But not all the Steves? Who made all the Steves?

As with most things, I blame Marduk.

None of what Isaac outlined is 'brave'.

It was completely un-necessary for him to tell us his choice of lifestyle.

Why does he feel threatened?

Is anyone really going to physically attack a 7fter? Would the Sixers or United have cancelled his contract? Would he really lose friends?

If he had just carried on his life, be seen at gay clubs, attend the Sixer's events with his BF, and openly support marriage equality people would just accept it and move on.

We don't need an announcement and we certainly didn't need to label it brave as if 'those people' are some down trodden cohort of the community that need rescuing.

I hope Isaac lives his best life, nothing has changed from yesterday for me pertaining to my view of Isaac.

You are a vile human being.

100% Lovebroker.

Funny how some people get all triggered at the acknowledgment that people who are not straight exist.

Anyway, glad for Isaac. He's a trailblazer!

LB probably thinks this makes Isaac the first actual gay man playing in the NBL.

LB probably thinks this makes Isaac the first actual gay man playing in the NBL.

You could just not think about it or discuss it. Maybe try that.

Exactly, it's their business, no one else’s. I don’t need to know if he’s straight, gay or anything else. There are so many horrible things happening in the world out there, I certainly don’t need a headline about it. As I’ve said previously most people in basketball circles new anyway.

You could just not think about it or discuss it. Maybe try that.

Fuck off.

I think the point some are missing is he hasn't come out to tell people that he is gay simply so those around him are aware. Its because people that happen to be gay/lesbian feel they still need to hide it and that its 'not ok to be gay'. So by him coming out and telling his teammates and I suppose the world is a way of showing those that are too scared to reveal it that its actually ok.

Yeah sure some people say "i don't care about his sexuality" and that's fine, but he is doing it for others not just for himself.

Spot on. It's great that lots of people will just shrug the shoulders because they see homosexuality as an accepted part of society, that's progress. But to people who are hiding who they are for fear of judgement, amongst other things, this is a role model making an important statement.

Its because people that happen to be gay/lesbian feel they still need to hide it and that its 'not ok to be gay'.

this is a role model

making an important statement.

"Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve"

You are on a basketball forum. I'm picking Steve over Eve any day. Create a Steve team vs an Eve team. Sorry, Steve's win easily. Steven Whitehead, Steve Lunardon, and I'm adding Stephen Hoare in there too, that's only 90s Tigers players. Now add in Steve Carfino and Steve Woodberry in the import spots, maybe Steve Breheny for experience. I grant Team Adam with Adam Ballinger, Adam Caporn, and Adam Gibson might be competitive, but I'm backing Team Steve.

Jason Collins came out after his playing days because he didn't feel comfortable doing it whilst playing.
Given this is the first professional basketball player in a top tier league to come out.
It’s groundbreaking, regardless of what you think of the statement.

As long as Big Ice gets the ball in the hole at John Cain Arena, we don't need to know what other holes he may be aiming for in his private time.

The people who troll gay sports people on social media are probably the same people who think Daniel Andrews ordered lockdowns so he could fly in his Chinese spy planes and install 5G towers. Ice will be fine, so no I don't consider this overly brave. Many people are going through battles internally and many people live bravely in their daily lives without being plastered across every sporting media in the world. If anything, Ice can expect some new endorsement opportunities from the same woke corporates who want to shore up their image, in this ultra-woke age of sporting stars critiquing the corporate source of their salaries.

Well done Isaac for revealing your mental health struggles though. Mental health issues are big, they affect many and that part of his statement I found particularly moving.

Man,

If you recruit Steve Adams from the Grizz, which team does he play for?

Rightly or wrongly, this is a big deal for Aussie male sports, I believe he's the first Aus male pro baller to come out??, and there's only a handful of Aussie pro male athletes(all sports) to come out as gay.

Isaac is a trailblazer!

"Neither is the 'statement' important"

To many people it is. That makes it important.

Wait a minute, you don't broker love at all! You're at least a decade early to the party, and way short-sighted. Hopefully this kind of news doesn't warrant coverage in 10 years or so, but you'd argue that society is not there yet. Let alone that sport is way further behind regular society. You're wrongly conflating the two, because sport is WAY behind.

Yes, Isaac should have said something, because if a well-adjusted, educated bloke sees himself as a worthless piece of shit just because of his sexuality, then who else feels that way? How many other athletes want to kill themselves right now?

Where's your threshold of should care/shouldn't care relating to number of athletes wanting to kill themselves because homosexuality is still taboo in sports?

Isaac is helping himself and others. This is a really good news story, and it is newsworthy whether you like it or not. Again, hopefully in a decade it wouldn't be newsworthy.

Just keep in mind with LB he gets off on arguing a contrarian opinion every time he was doing the whole pearl-clutching thing in the Craig Randall thread too despite giving the impression he hadn't even watched him play with the Sixers yet. He was even trying to compare Randall to Cotton.

Glad for Humphries to show the courage with his announcement today. A couple of opinions above show why it's still a brave thing to admit especially as a man in men's sport. If it can save one person's life in future that's fantastic.

Also I do feel bad and apologise for shitting on Humphries the past couple of seasons at the Sixers for supposedly being soft or heartless I had no idea he was gay and what he was going through including thinking about suicide as an option. Thankfully he didn't and he can live his life free and happier now. Good on him a very courageous announcement and I wish him all the best in future.

Yeah good point Zodiac, LB is a wanker who doesn't deserve attention.

There are lots of things we dont need to hear, but Isaac is one that many do even if it isn't relevant to some people on here personally.

Power to him for opening up in the way that few, if any, could ever contemplate or have the strength to do.

Imagine going "public" with the public being millions of people? That’s a crazy scary proposition.

Good on him!

Absolutely warmed my heart to see this today.

The whole "this shouldn't need to be a thing in 2022" would make sense but it is still thing in 2022, and probably will be for another 20 years unless we embrace and normalise the lgbtqia+ community., and so long as we have deadshits like Lovebroker wasting oxygen on this earth we’ll be having many more of these conversations in the future.

I hope this begins to open doors for many other professional athletes, and kids in sports feel safe to to be themselves without fear of prejudice or repercussions.

So what is the next move? Does every gay basketballer, male or female come out and tell us who they prefer to sleep with?
I'm not certain why I need to know anyones sexual preference. I take people the way they are.

It is breaking news for the general public but it shouldn't be for anyone on Hoops who was paying attention.

Sadly he is estranged from his father over this issue and it was aired out on here a couple of years ago before eventually being deleted.

Dunkman/LoveBroker are failing to grasp that a lot more work needs to be done before we get to a point where people don't actually care - which is an endgame everyone wants.

What LoveBroker in particular doesn't seem to get is that for something to be 'normalised' it has to be 'common'. Say a couple major athletes have come out every decade or so, that's not exactly common. For someone as smart as he portrays himself to be, he should understand that. He seems very unreasonable and more emotional than normal here, so I hope homophobia isn't triggering him.

I don't need to know if he’s straight, gay or anything else.

With that weight off his shoulders no doubt giving him a huge confidence boost other teams could be in trouble! Good for him I hope he puts up big stats this season

He was even trying to compare Randall to Cotton.

Glad for Humphries to show the courage with his announcement today.

Also I do feel bad and apologise for shitting on Humphries the past couple of seasons at the Sixers for supposedly being soft or heartless I had no idea he was gay

He was even trying to compare Randall to Cotton.

probably will be for another 20 years unless we embrace and normalise the lgbtqia+ community

Lovebroker wasting oxygen

"Nobody is homophobic anymore so the gays should all go away" is quite the argument.

Did you just say their right to marry is a concession?

This is exactly why this is so important.

LB you are not factoring in to your argument the kids hating themselves/wanting to kill themselves. Your approach is jumping the gun. It's like, 'I've been lifting at the gym for a couple of months now so I should be massive'. Doesn't work like that.

It's simple mate, to get this to a 'normal' and accepted point, people/young athletes need encouragement. Less encouragement = more people hating themselves. The dribs and drabs like Jason Collins that you mentioned above ain't near good enough.

I'm somewhat a social conservative - perhaps a lot a social conservative the way western culture is going - but it's clear to see that you aren't fixing this problem by ignoring it. Not at this stage.

In short, while some may think it's normal enough to ignore, clearly others in that situation do not. Otherwise they wouldn't try to kill themselves for that one little thing. Yours is a dangerous self-centred approach, parallel with your character here, might I add.

LB and DM proving why it was such a big thing for Isaac to do. Concession, oh my god.

Take a break lads.

When the plebiscite occurred, the majority of eligible Australians didn't support changing the definition of marriage.

I dare suggest, many of that majority would label changing the definition of an age-old, core social institution as a "concession".

But, the idea that you can't support individuals like Isaac Humphries while also believing in a traditional idea of marriage, is simplistic, ill-considered nonsense.

I'm sure they would view it as a concession. Says plenty about them.

"When the plebiscite occurred, the majority of eligible Australians didn't support changing the definition of marriage."

That's not accurate at all though. What a weird comment to make given it passed and 61.6% voted to support it, that’s not just a majority but an overwhelming majority.

Close to every single poll in the lead-up showed a majority support, and most by significant margins, a basic wiki search literally lists all the main polls that were conducted.

You can’t assume those that didn’t bother to vote “didn’t support” change or had an Intention either way, you can only accurately assume that they couldn’t be bothered to vote. If there was another plebiscite, you can safely assume most who didn’t vote then wouldn’t vote now and that wouldn’t necessarily mean they support keeping marriage how it is now.

If you really wanted to force an analysis of those that didn’t vote, Opinion polling vs result would show the obvious: many who didn’t bother to vote would have supported it if forced to vote, which is not uncommon that those who are passionate (conservatives) rockup to vote at a higher rate than indifferent moderates who, if pressed for an answer, would vote in support but simply cannot be bothered to rockup and vote.

LV is correct in that only those who voted yes can be said to have supported it, but KET is also correct that there is a lot of unknowns in the non-voting cohort.

The world must be a confusing and scary place for people devoid of empathy & logic.
I would urge people to have some sympathy for the homophobes. They think differently to most people, so standard lines of argument don't get through to them.


Much respect to Isaac for taking this leap of faith. It's a shame that it still takes courage to do this, but every person in every walk of life that does it makes it that bit more normalised and less scary for the next person.

I think the irony though is LV trying to emphasise that the change was made without majority support when the process was no different as to when Howard made the change ie. it wasn't a referendum, it was simply majority support of the legislature at the time.

There’s no reason to suggest Howard’s change had majority support at the time either and it probably didn’t.

The difference is this time is they attempted to reflect the will of the people, supposedly, but then didn’t anyway when people like Abbott voted against the will of his constituency. He was then voted out by his own people - go figure.

So if LV wants to spin it about support, there’s no reason to suggest the support was there to be "traditional" in the first place. If he wants to rely on opinion polls, then it goes against him because they were one-way traffic before the plebiscite.

"Firstly, most people are completely fine with gay people, homophobia is dead. Secondly, the majority of Australians oppose same-sex marriage."

All sorts of winning arguments in this thread.

There's no spin- I simply made a factual statement. The majority of Australians chose not to support the YES vote

There were 3 options

I support changing the definition (YES)
I don't care (no vote)
I support retaining the traditional definition (NO)

People had their say. The majority failed to support a change.

This doesn't mean the majority was opposed, of course. Clearly, of those who cared enough to vote, the strong majority supported change. But the fact remains that the majority of Australians failed to support the change.

This is worth noting, because in some quarters, listening to people discuss or mention these issues you'd think anybody who failed to wholeheartedly jump towards "marriage equality" was some kind of bizarre outlier. Not the case at all.

As I said, there is no inconsistency between supporting individuals to "be who they want to be" while maintaining that society is better served by retaining a specific title for male-female relationships- something that has existed in literally every historical society, everywhere, until about 20 years ago. And still in the majority of the world to this day.

"There's no spin- I simply made a factual statement. The majority of Australians chose not to support the YES vote"

That's spin, it’s like Fox News saying fair and balanced and proceed to make anything but a fair and balanced statement.

You’re trying to push a slant that the change was against the support of society, when those that bothered to vote overwhelmingly supported yes and the “traditional” never had the so-called definition of majority support in the first place.

If you had a plebiscite for literally anything where it’s voluntary to vote, nothing would ever achieve “majority support”.

So it’s a completely irrelevant point given there was never any semblance of a greater mandate for the “traditional” version.

It’s also a non-controversial argument to say if it was a referendum, it would have passed with flying (rainbow) colours.

But I’m guessing that would be too unpalatable for a conservative to admit?

"while maintaining that society is better served by retaining a specific title for male-female relationships- something that has existed in literally every historical society, everywhere, until about 20 years ago. And still in the majority of the world to this day."

Waste of time paragraph IMO, and this is why:

Person 1 says “I love my religion therefore my view is X”
Person 2 says “I love my atheism therefore my view is Y”
Person 1 says “things should be x because that's how they’ve always been”
Person 2 says “things should be y because progress isn’t always bad and history isn’t always good”
Person 1 says “don’t interfere with my religion”
Person 2 says “it’s not, you can do what you like just let others do what they like”
Person 1 says “no that interferes with my religion”
Person 2 says “that’s you interfering with my rights”
Person 1 says “not letting me interfere with your rights interferes with my rights”

And then there’s an irreconcilable difference because person 1 believes in a god given right to interfere with person 2’s rights and person 2 doesn’t believe in god and therefore doesn’t believe in a god given right to interfere in others rights and that creates a grand chasm that will never come to an agreement and mean there can be no reset of expectations.

And the two proceed to argue and neither will give an inch in any way shape or form.
And yet both must, without fail, forcefully make their point and emphasise their view is “factual” and “no spin”, because it’s important to convince yourself of that for lack of being able to convince others.

/end the never-ending fight

As I said, there is no inconsistency between supporting individuals to "be who they want to be" while maintaining that society is better served by retaining a specific title for male-female relationships

It's asinine to suggest a majority YES was unattainable. They only needed a couple of percent more.

As it stands, a majority of voters said yes, but not a majority of eligible Australians. I realise it grinds the gears of many to admit that, or even contemplate it, but that's the facts

I have no idea what your next post was about. Are you in the right thread?

Ps- I'm a social conservative, not a conservative. FWIW. The distinction is important.

It's asinine to suggest a majority NO was unattainable. They only needed a large percent more.

As it stands, a small minority of voters said no, and not even close to a majority of eligible Australians. I realise it grinds the gears of many to admit that, or even contemplate it, but that's the facts

Social conservative is code for homophobic, bigoted and unenlightened individual who believes they have a right to be heard on everything, and have the right to judge and belittle someone else because of their different life experiences that do not affect them in any way.

IMO this forum should perma ban some of the hateful uninformed people in this thread. It might help make this forum something worth actually visting for a constructive conversation rather than just a bitch fest between a half dozen people which the majority of posts have become.

" I realise it grinds the gears of many to admit that, or even contemplate it, but that's the facts"

You're confused - people get annoyed at you pretending you’re talking facts and pragmatism and no spin and then proceed to be unashamedly the opposite. That grinds anyone’s gears.

It grinds yours enough to fight everytime people tell you you’re wrong.
You’re as open to getting baited by inflammatory comments as anyone here, you just haven’t realised it.

I’m assuming you couldn’t care less about a majority mandate given the traditional version never got it, so why would anyone else care?

People just simply don’t view it that it doesn’t have societal support because nobody expects a grand showing to a voluntary vote and If it went to a referendum everyone knows it would pass.

There isn’t some grand push to revert it, everyone knows religion is dying in this country and not enough people care to save it, so there’s no threat to same-sex marriage.

So given that 1) it’s the law now no matter anyone’s view, 2) the traditional version never had a mandate and 3) the opposition is dying both figuratively and literally, why would you assume people care?

Much safer assumption that the way you argue is simply very annoying because it’s so comically “I’m right you’re wrong, I speak facts you speak lies”

[I'm assuming you couldn’t care less about a majority mandate given the traditional version never got it, so why would anyone else care?]

Already mentioned my rationale for pointing out the numerical fact from the vote

"This is worth noting, because in some quarters, listening to people discuss or mention these issues you'd think anybody who failed to wholeheartedly jump towards "marriage equality" was some kind of bizarre outlier. Not the case at all."

The responses in this thread continue to demonstrate my point.

" Already mentioned my rationale for pointing out the numerical fact from the vote"

You're not that stupid, you know that you’re trying to get under peoples skin by pushing the idea the mandate isn’t there.

Call a spade a spade LV.

Nobody seriously takes issue with people deciding not to vote and nobody is scared that a referendum wouldn’t deliver a majority support vote, it clearly would, and nobody fears it will revert because the societal support is far too strong in favour.

So the mandate is there for this iteration more than any other iteration ever, and there’s no threat it will change.
No parliament is going to revert it, and given its not subject of a referendum, that’s the greatest mandate of all.

Those that oppose can just continue to try to word things to try and justify their opinions and make themselves feel better after losing, whilst others can go get married without issue :)

Who is the real winner here?

The bigger point being there is huge diversity in our society. Diversity of thought and viewpoints.

My initial comment was a response to a couple of posters complaining about the language by LB that SSM was a "concession". Of course it was- in the eyes of many. Doesn't make those people bigots.

And that creates change that social conservatives can't handle, clearly.

Isn’t it nice when there’s diversity that can trigger change :)

" Of course it was- in the eyes of many. "
Many, but a minority. Definitely not a majority.

A concession is clearly an inflammatory comment, in the “eyes” of people or not. Lots of people can have an inflammatory view, doesn't make it not inflammatory.

And it can work both ways, a lot of people would consider a lot of things a “concession”.

I have high hopes that you LV will start ditching the inflammatory, under the skin approach and play more of a nuanced straight bat when advocating your social conservative views.

I don’t expect LB to do that, I’ve debated about the 36ers with LB and it’s just too maddening. As the 36ers were close to bottom all season LB was “we can do it we can do it!”

Talk about blind faith, fuck.

I am going to probably surprise some people on this forum by saying the opposite of what they'd expect me to say. The right-wing mock would be that Isaac is "stunning and brave", but he quite literally is brave. We live in an age where it is "socially acceptable" to be gay, but is it really? It's a thing that is fine as long as "go do it over there and don't disturb me with it". Locker room taunts and school yard sprays are still about gay people. In the hypermasculine world of male athletics it would be hard for someone like Isaac to come out. There is a reason why he's the first active male basketball player to do it in a big league for 20 something years. His statement echoes beyond sexuality though. If you listen to what he actually said, it is about being okay with who and what you are. People with disabilities will resonate with that. People of different religious and racial backgrounds will resonate with that. As someone with a disability, I know what it is to have to go through life masking, and having to live by standards that are made for people who aren't like me. Now we see progress, in things like sensory rooms in sporting stadiums for people who experience sensory overload - a common symptom of autism. In a modern world we should do our best to accommodate and be open to everyone (witin reason, of course). What Isaac said has the potential to make a real difference.

Love is Love and I LOVE that LV is still crying about the vote his team lost 5 years ago.

We live in an age where it is "socially acceptable" to be gay, but is it really?

Yeah, so celebrated that gay kids fear coming out to their backward parents, or a player keeps it quiet for most of his life while locker rooms make jokes about it, etc. Kids and adults alike end their lives over this stuff. If you're oblivious to that, maybe just hold your tongue. It is absolutely not adequately acceptable in the community just because professional media are courteous.

LoveBroker is correct that it is more celebrated than frowned upon, but there are still those who frown upon it, and the unknown of what reaction people will have is what can cause such mental harm.

Acts like Humphries' help show many people do celebrate it, or just simply accept it as a normal part of society, helping to change mindsets of those who don't and give courage to others who live in fear of those unknown reactions.

"Doesn't this lean towards general acceptance of that community ?"

It leans to media celebration and acceptance. In day to day life, not so much.

The fact that it becomes a heated thread every time kind of tells you that society is yet to reach that normalisation right?

There's always some that have views which are hurtful and provocative and when there’s such a significant critical mass of that it creates that extra effect on people feeling vulnerable.

If someone took a shot at someone else for being straight it would be laughed off as being bizarre because it’s just not a thing, but evidently the remnants of homophobia are still there even if some people don’t pay attention to it or feel it in their own bubble.

We will get to a point where people will have enough sexual freedom where being bi or gay feels far more common/normal because people will be gradually be more open to saying it matter-of-factly and others won’t react with convulsions to the extent people used to and still do now.

That’s when you know we are at peak not-care factor, which is the sweet spot.

Yeah, so celebrated that gay kids fear coming out to their backward parents,

a player keeps it quiet for most of his life while locker rooms make jokes about it

It is absolutely not adequately acceptable in the community just because professional media are courteous.

but there are still those who frown upon it,

It leans to media celebration and acceptance. In day to day life, not so much.

The fact that it becomes a heated thread every time kind of tells you that society is yet to reach that normalisation right?

There's always some that have views which are hurtful and provocative and when there's such a significant critical mass of that it creates that extra effect on people feeling vulnerable.

f someone took a shot at someone else for being straight it would be laughed off as being bizarre because it’s just not a thing, but evidently the remnants of homophobia are still there even if some people don’t pay attention to it or feel it in their own bubble.

We will get to a point where people will have enough sexual freedom where being bi or gay feels far more common/normal because people will be gradually be more open to saying it matter-of-factly and others won’t react with convulsions to the extent people used to and still do now.

That’s when you know we are at peak not-care factor, which is the sweet spot.

It's only been a couple of months since a professional rugby team decided they'd rather take a week off than wear pride jerseys but sure, universal acceptance.

Haha dude lives with the blinkers on KR. Must think society is entirely represented by what he sees right in front of his face, and mustn't be capable of seeing sport and non-sport differently.

Blatantly ignoring people having destructive thoughts on the basis of, 'it shouldn't happen' and 'I think it's all good'. The first quoted comment and your response is strawmanning, just grabbing at stupid shit.

Sorry LoveBroker, just try to be analytical mate. I hope you understand it at some point. I think society definitely needs to get tougher mentally, and resilience training is sorely lacking, but it's a two-way street.

How the F did you interpret that I said Universal acceptance?

LB my post wasn't directed as a reply to anything you’ve said, I wasn’t trying to engage you because your comments are hard to understand and not overly coherent, sorry.

I’ll try my best for you.

All I can really gauge from your words is that it appears you are essentially contradicting Humphries’ experience by saying how you view the world in your bubble. You might also be using your experience to contradict others’ experience?

Ultimately, you aren’t in a position to contradict someone else’s personal experience or a lot of the stuff it appears you’e contradicting. It leaves no scope for anyone you’re debating to conclude anything other than ignorance.

The bad faith interpretation argument doesn’t operate to absolve objectively inflammatory remarks.
The bane and antidote approach of saying it’s not meant to be inflammatory doesn’t make a remark not inflammatory.

Given you have afforded people limited scope to adopt your argument, what do you expect from people exactly?
You can’t be compelling how do you expect people to be compelled?

All I can really gauge from your words is that it appears you are essentially contradicting Humphries' experience by saying how you view the world in your bubble.

You might also be using your experience to contradict others’ experience?

Ultimately, you aren’t in a position to contradict someone else’s personal experience

or a lot of the stuff it appears you’e contradicting. It leaves no scope for anyone you’re debating to conclude anything other than ignorance.

The bad faith interpretation argument doesn’t operate to absolve objectively inflammatory remarks.

The bane and antidote approach of saying it’s not meant to be inflammatory doesn’t make a remark not inflammatory.

Given you have afforded people limited scope to adopt your argument, what do you expect from people exactly?

I've been around a while but this is the first time I've heard anybody claim a comment could be "objectively" classed as inflammatory

Perhaps something like "I'm going to smash your face in" could potentially be classed as "objectively" inflammatory, given any person in any context would interpret it such. But a description such as "concessiom" describing a legal change is not in the same world. The same galaxy even.

This I have done...I haven't done that.

Concession*

The interpretation of that word entirely depends on one's prior beliefs and view on the marriage laws. Making it the *opposite* of something that could reasonably be described as "objectively" anything

If by "its objectively inflammatory" you simply mean "someone, somewhere will certainly find it inflammatory" fine, but that's a pretty benign statement and a low bar to set, and not the usual definition when you claim a word has an objectively true interpretation. Quite the opposite.