WWE 2K14 welcomes openly gay superstar Darren Young to this year's roster
A day before the entire WWE 2K14 roster is revealed, 2K Sports took to Twitter to publicly congratulate Darren Young for coming out and formally welcome the openly gay WWE Superstar to the playable lineup.
WWE Superstar Darren Young made headlines yesterday after publicly coming out as a gay athlete, making his the first openly gay member of the active WWE roster. He's been congratulated by many of his peers for his courage and 2K Sports is among them, as they've formally announced that Young will be a part of the WWE 2K14 lineup.
The publisher took to the WWE 2K Twitter account (via Polygon) to post, "We'd like to congratulate [Darren Young] on his brave personal announcement and welcome him to the WWE2K14 roster!" WWE 2K14 will mark Young's series debut and he will likely be joined by his Prime Time Players tag team partner, Titus O'Neil.
The full roster for WWE 2K14 will be revealed tomorrow during a Twitch live stream from SummerSlam Axxess by Jim Ross, Jerry "The King" Lawler, and Intellectual Savior of the Masses and Mr. Money in the Bank, Damien Sandow.
-
Shacknews
replyOzzie Mejia posted a new article, WWE 2K14 welcomes openly gay superstar Darren Young to this year's roster.
A day before the entire WWE 2K14 roster is revealed, 2K Sports took to Twitter to publicly congratulate Darren Young for coming out and formally welcome the openly gay WWE Superstar to the playable lineup.-
-
Welcome to the United States of 'Merica - where blowing shit up with explosives, firing off handguns and drinking cheap damn beer is a'ight, but you better not be doing 'nothin behind closed doors that doesn't fit within my narrow acceptance of human sex'ality!
-
Only the perverse and the deranged can defend what is clearly unnatural and immoral.
-
-
No gay stuff, but I'd probably tea-bag your corpse in Killing Floor out of man-appreciation.
-
-
You know what else is unnatural - fabric blends. Goddamn sinful Poly-Cotton blends and their unnatural agenda!
-
-
So, someone equates the right to self-defense with "blowing shit up," and I'm a "moron."
Brilliant.
Neither does stating basic, millennia-old moral principle make someone a "redneck" or fecal matter.
Worst of all, you blaspheme Christ by claiming that He would justify evil. He condemned sin. Nowhere do you find Him saying things like, "Oh, don't worry about it. You go ahead and be true to yourself. No, it's just an alternative lifestyle."
Instead, Christ preached repentance (turning from sin) and faith in Him.
(Perhaps you're confusing the legal right to do something with the moral right to do it. You'll notice that in another comment, I defended the wrestler's rights. I'm commenting merely on the morality of homosexuality and of coercing its acceptance.
No one I know wants homosexuals to be harmed or their rights curtailed. Indeed, if all sin were illegal, we'd all be in prison.) -
Having worked down through the thread, it looks like you misunderstood the target of "perverse and deranged."
I was not insulting Darren Young but replying to Nick's irrational hatred (and preemptively to others').
You made a lot of excellent points in your other comments.-
First, I apologize. I was completely off on tone here.
At this point in the discussion, I was more than frustrated with a few posters. Have you ever talked with someone who tripped over themselves so frequently in the discussion that it started to confuse you too?
My thoughts on your having called him deranged and perverse pinged on two things. Had you had interaction with him before, and what had been said in the topic up til that point. I do find this person to be irrationally opposed to someone holding a view that is not his own.
Anyway, I had a big reply typed out and my computer crashed.
You misunderstand my statement. I didn't say that Christ condoned sin, merely that he defended your right to do wrong, as your right to make the choice is pivotal to any kind of redemption from that sin.
Actions have consequences. Period. That's why moral relativism is so crazy. At the very least it is, in all practical terms, absolutely absurd. Anarchy.-
Thanks.
If you're willing to move away from the topic of religiophobic extremism for a moment and consider a couple of theological points, I'd like to offer two thoughts:
First, nowhere do I see Christ actively defending anyone's right to do wrong. Certainly, His theology of the Two Kingdoms ("Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's.") makes possible a civilization like ours in which people are free to live according to the dictates of their conscience free from government coercion, but He never said, "You have the right to adultery, but I wish you wouldn't," or, "I would never commit adultery, but I'll defend to the death your right to do so."
Second, we make all sorts of choices every day, but when it comes to salvation, the only choice we have is to reject God's gift. You might recall Christ declaring to His apostles, "You did not choose Me, but I chose you ...." Also, the Apostle John states plainly in the first chapter of his Gospel that those who are "born of God" are not born of a human decision. St. Paul also writes that we are "dead" in our trespasses and sins. What does a dead man choose?
When Christ raised Lazarus, what decision did Lazarus make? He could have killed himself after the fact, but his resurrection was totally the work of God, just as our salvation is wholly His.
Perhaps you'll recall also St. Paul's exhortation to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling." Out of context, it seems like Paul is preaching works righteousness, but he finishes his thought with, "knowing that it is God working in you to will and to do."
Salvation is always and only the work of Christ. We contribute to it with neither our decisions (a lot of American Evangelicalism) nor our deeds (Roman Catholicism).
-
-
-
-
I can't tell what exactly you're trying to get at here. I mean, was this ever a question if this guy was going to be in this game?
It isn't a problem anymore, to a very freaking large degree. So much so that it often enhances the career of those who "come out." Welcome to 'Merica where it's a financial benefit to announce your personal sexual preferences.
Who gives a damn what you do in your home if you're not constantly leaning out your window screaming, "I'm having anal sex right now, see how enlightened I am?"
Not many people. "where blowing shit up with explosives, firing off handguns... " *rolls eyes*
-
-
-
If he's entertaining, then he's entertaining.
Sin should not be glorified.-
[deleted]
-
-
-
I'm sure [insert-higher-power-here] put the plethora of pleasure transmitting nerves into (and around) our anuses only for... like, not pleasure.
-
-
Of course he cares about what we do.
-
-
-
How tolerant and enlightened of you.
Don't glory in your shame.-
The problematic part of your comment, which you seem to not grasp, is that when you say "it's a sin", what you're ACTUALLY doing is condemning someone's morals because of some rules handed down to you by your favourite mythology.
Which is funny, being as God is supposed to be love, right? As long as it's the sort of love you agree with.-
Don't you realize what an irrational hypocrite you are? What you're ACTUALLY doing is condemning my morals because of some rules handed down to you by your favorite mythology.
That's the absurdity of moral relativism.
If there exists no objective morality outside of personal preference, then you have no right to criticize my statements because "it's true for me."
But there is an objective measure of right and wrong. Sin is sin, regardless of whatever you and I might prefer.
How is it "loving" for you to stand by and do nothing while those for whom you care harm themselves? In fact, to remain silent while a friend or loved one engages in destructive behavior is completely unloving.
Sin is not "love."
-
-
-
-
I couldn't disagree with the way this was stated more, but do you think he's doing anything different than WWE?
He didn't call this guy a "faggot" or some name. He said that if he's good at doing his job, that should be what he's held up for, not because he doing something that some people consider a sin.
In fact, is precisely because some people consider this a sin that he felt the need to announce his homosexuality. I don't think anyone would care if I announced on twitter that I adore sexy redhead woman.
How's 'bout you guys take a deep breath.-
Your message is wrong, if there weren't backwards ass people who consider it wrong and a sin no one would give two shits and this wouldn't be an announcement. It's because there's still plenty of hate in the world for people who are different that people stay closeted for various lengths of time and then have to come out, though most will not make national news.
While all that still happens we should glorify the shit out of athletes and celebrities announcing they're homosexual. If it helps other people not give a shit what the bigots think and say it's a great thing.-
So despite the fact that biologically it's an illogical activity, people who think it's wrong are the backwards ones? And consider that it's quite different to think it's wrong and merely state that opinion vs. being mean or hateful to someone because of that belief.
I know the Shack is full-blown liberal insanity x10 so I don't expect a rational answer...-
Why the fuck should people care if it's biologically illogical? So are blow jobs, or anal sex with a member of the opposite sex or having wax poured on their genitals.
And sure, people absolutely can state they think it's wrong, and i can think those people are idiots and call'em on it.-
-
Holding an opinion on a sexual act as 'I'm not interested and do not see the appeal' is one thing.
Thinking 'damn, you are fundamentally flawed and wrong to the core of your being' is another.
-
All of us sin. That doesn't mean we should advertise it in an attempt to gain sympathy or acceptance.
And no one defending men lusting after other men should call anyone "idiot."
-
-
You're such a disgusting bigot.
-
I'm going to go ahead and pin the tail on your donkey and say you're the bigot here. It isn't bigoted to think that this is a sin. Hating someone because they are gay would be, but simply disagreeing with someone's actions is not even in the same universe as being a bigot.
Sorry.
The only ones expressing any kind of viciousness here are the people calling this guy names.-
I cannot condemn anyone for their sin, because I am a sinner too.
-
-
So telling someone to get fucked and calling him ass-backwards for making a religious and social statement that is different than yours escaped your infinite grasp?
He said that this wrestler should be judged, good or bad, based on his skill at his profession, not his sexual orientation. Hmm...
It seems like someone had a dream about this once...-
Stop trying to hide behind religion like it makes it alright to demean someone because of their sexual preference.
No one is saying this makes the dude a better wrestler or more entertaining, but he's being praised because there's still ignorant fuck sticks around who think of him as a lesser person because he's gay. And yeah i'm gonna calle'm what i want because sitting around saying it's ok for those people to be like that is bullshit.-
Stop trying to hide behind the facade of liberal "tolerance" like you're so noble, so superior and accepting of other life-styles or beliefs......oh, except when it comes to someone's religious beliefs. The part that doesn't make sense is where some liberal science-worshipper acts like people who have some sort of religious faith just decided to make up the tenets of their religion.
If you DO believe in a diety, it's not like you made up the rules that the diety created.-
I think it's safe to say that we'd all get along better if we could be as tolerant as possible but the difficulty is when hypocrisy creeps in OR if there's some moral reason why you feel you cannot, in good conscience (key part that) accept or condone a specific type of behavior or activity.
For example, we all pretty much agree that we will not, as a society, be tolerant of murder or rape. And no, I'm not trying to equate the sexual behavior of Homosexuality to those terrible crimes but I am drawing the comparison that someone who stands by their beliefs while not being mean or cruel, should in no way, ever, have to face ridiculously hypocritical vitriol such as you have seen here. Pathetic.
-
-
It's a religious matter. Plain and simple.
He said exactly the opposite of what you're laying at his feet. He said he should be praised for his merits, not glorified for being something some people oppose. The headline was about an openly gay player being included. Was this even a question, or did WWE go out of their way to say, "look how awesome we are for not being mean to gay people."
Really, do any of you even think, or are you just shooting your mouth off about people on the internet being ignorant fucks without engaging your brain.
If you don't believe in this principal, than what do you care if he thinks this is a sin? His basic message was about not hating this man for being gay, but liking him for being good at his profession.
Also, it would take an ass to misunderstand how religious people feel about sin and sinners. Hate doesn't factor into it, unless you're some dumb douche like the westburough baptist jerks.
-
-
I would agree with the poster currently being to 'get fucked' had they only posted what you keep referring to and not, you know this too.
Only the perverse and the deranged can defend what is clearly unnatural and immoral.
I think everyone agrees with the sentiment that 'one human being should be judged for the content of their character not the color of their skin / sexual preference / held religious belief' but it's quite clear that this mouth-breather views this wrestler and those in support of them as varying shades of 'perverse or deranged'.
I encourage you to take the entirety of this thread and their participation into account. It's just as much fun as a Creationist Science Museum, Yaweh!-
I could make a case for the benign nature of his comments, and how stating something is a sin is not the same as saying the sinner is corrupt to the core of their being, or that you hate them, but I don't think he would even agree with my defense of him.
Whatever. I can't even tell what came first in this thread anymore. I'll just eat both. -
Oh, that's it.
I wasn't attacking the wrestler; as noted, I defended his right to work.
I don't know him at all. I imagine that if he's been able to hold a job in WWE, he's got a lot going for him personally. More than that, I can only sympathize with someone struggling with what must be very difficult.
I was referring to those who rage in defense of what is immoral and do so with special hatred and venom.
You know, like several of those commenting here.
Thanks for proving my point!
(By the way, equating skin color with lust is irrational. Melanin content is unavoidable; behavior is a choice.)
-
-
-
-
-
I have no idea, I just followed the links and watched the same vid you have available. I would guess there was a suspicion, but I'm also guessing the guy asking didn't expect him to just come out right then.
You gotta figure some of the other wrestlers knew.
I think the last wrestling match I watched was sometime in the Bill Goldberg era.
I was always more of a SE-TX fan. NWA was my jam. Dusty Rhodes & Ric Flair, The Andersons, Road Warriors, Jake The Snake, Ron Garvin, Teddy Atlas, etc.
-
-
-
I don't think anyone would care if I announced on twitter that I adore sexy redhead woman.
That's probably because we don't have a percentage of the population, those being people who 'adore sexy redheaded women' treated like second-class citizens in America. But hey - when we start putting up roadblocks to marriages between 'any heterosexual male' and 'sexy redheaded women' - I encourage you to try that argument again.
Thanks for playing,
The Internet-
You're actually going out of your way to treat someone who has a religious view on this matter as a second class citizen.
The act of marriage is a religious concept, one that should have nothing to do with the government either way. By the way, this concept was codified by the same progressives that are telling you how small minded the religious are now.
Telling someone to get fucked and going as far as taking legal action for the very display of their religious beliefs is the definition of bigotry, not to mention treating them like a second class citizen.
When you and all the other morons in this country stop persecuting people who you disagree with, including making marriage a legal status, then we can talk about who is a second class citizen.
Thanks for playing,
Anyone with a fucking brain-
The act of marriage as recognized by any 'chosen place of worship' and the legally recognized status of 'marriage' are two independent things. We also have a little thing called the 'Separation of Church and State'. Having the Government hold a differing set of requirements for a legally recognized marriage is harmful to the 'chosen place of worship', which is a separate institute... how?
-
Look, you're the one who made this a discussion about marriage.
It should not be a legal status, because marriage is a religious matter. How about you think about your bullshit before you let it out of your mouth. The "Separation of Church and State" is the absence of government in religion, not the other way around.
So stop trying to force homosexuals to have to fight God for a legal status that shouldn't exist, FOR ANYONE. The only people who want to control other people's personal lives are religious bigots like you.-
religious bigots like you.
LOL. Yes - because the Government recognizing the rights of homosexuals is really going to put a damper on the rights of the Church. Damn, you got me there.-
No, you're a religious bigot because you seem to irrationally hate people who believe and practice a faith that condemns the sin of homosexuality, even if they don't condemn the sinner. That is not their place to pass judgment on the person.
You misunderstand the concept that most religious people have of sin. It doesn't equate to someone you're supposed to hate.
Your lack of understanding and irrational hatred of these people makes you by definition a bigot. Your vitriol doesn't help your image either. -
And the solution, again, is not to go back and rework the law each time a new group complains enough.
Marriage, as a legal matter, was established specifically to limit who could get married. It was not made to protect the rights of different groups.
You see, I don't want marriage to be a legal matter. No marriage law at all. Then all couples have the same rights, because they are just all citizens the same.
This is the tact the equal rights movement should be taking. Not only does it have a constitutional basis, but you don't ever have to go back and change it again after a century of cultural backlash to get a specific group the same rights.
-
-
-
The federal government has no place, under the Constitution, messing with marriage. If anything, it would be a state matter.
As for "separation of Church and state," that is a fiction fabricated by godless tyrants. The phrase doesn't even exist in our Founding documents.
What we do have is Thomas Jefferson assuring Baptist preachers that a "wall of separation" exists to protect religion from the government.
Pretty much the opposite of what most people mean when they refer to it.
-
-
-
-
-
-
That's absurd.
A moral code does not make announcing violations of it necessary.
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
"Publicly congratulate darren young for admitting he loves dick." What a world we live in.
-
-
-
Amillennialist, you're precisely why *Adults with imaginary friends* shouldn't hold power or be taken seriously on anything.
1500+ Animal species show homosexual behavior and one of our closet cousins (oh I'm sorry is the *Flying Spaghetti Monster* more authentic to you than Evolution?) the Bonobo primate is completely bisexual.
Take your *Moral* and *Natural* arguments and go spiel to low IQ hicks, then you might have a chance of convincing them your tripe is accurate.
-
