Devon Alexander Lobbies For Adam and Eve Over Adam and Steve

The Supreme Court ruling which made the right for two persons of the same sex to marry sent revertebrations through the nation, to put it mildly, and box nation as well.

By and large, active boxers were in line with those of their generations, those 30 and under, who see “gay rights” in a different way than previous generations of more “conservative” beings did.

Basically, a “live and let live” philosophy is seemingly held by most fight people who chose to make their stance on the SCOTUS decision public, via social media. But one hitter who is firmly in the dissenter camp, on the Scalia side of the aisle, is welterweight Devon Alexander.

The 26-3 St. Louis native posted a Tweet which made clear where he stands on the issue of two same-sex persons being able to enjoy the same privilege straights do, that being entering into a union recognized by the state as being legitimate.

Alexander has me blocked on Twitter, if I recall because I took him to task for using biased language against homosexuals last year, or thereabouts, so I saw the post second-hand.

You can see Devon’s theory, which basically holds that homosexuality (I suppose between two men only, not sure if he feels as strongly about vagina-owners) is unnatural, because of how the anatomy reacts to certain sex practices…as opposed to how the female anatomy reacts to the same act.

Alexander, who turns 29 in February, started with a less graphic post: “Adam and Eve Steve was supposed to be with another woman.”

The reaction to the reaction, the more graphic one, was swift and severe. Alexander was on more Twitter timelines than he’d been in recent years, which has seen him go 1-2, with losses to Shawn Porter and Amir Khan sandwiching a win vs. journeyman Jesus Soto Karass…and mostly, disagreers weighed in.

Alexander, who thought he had a scrap booked against Andre Berto in a forthcoming fight but hasn’t yet found a match for his next, held firm. He took to Instagram to say, the day after, “If I lose some followers over my belief and how it should be I’m OK with that. I stated my opinion do whatever you feel you should do.”

Noted…and agreed.

He surely will lose some followers, and respect among especially folks around his age, 28. This generation and ones behind it don’t hew to “tradition” so much and there is a heavy concentration on a “live and let live philosophy” there, especially as a vast majority understand that sexual preference isn’t something people sit down and decide, maybe off a coin flip, will I be gay or straight.

No, the preference is innate, we most all agree, we are born pre-disposed, though atmosphere and upbringing and circumstances can influence preference, just as we are born the skin color we wear today.

Does it make sense to bar someone from getting married because their skin is black? Hell no.

And it makes no sense to bar someone from getting married because they want to marry someone of their same sex.

Ah yes, fights, they break out in rings, and outside of rings, too. Many top tier rumbles are found on social media, where the barriers to communication are almost nil, and what an age we live in.

We now often know more truthfully the thoughts and ideals of people we might look up to, and surprise, surprise, we often don’t like what we see. And some will say what does this have to do with boxing. Well, many of us see our favorite fighters as athletic role models and are curious about their personalities outside the ring, so there is a curiosity factor at work…

Also, social media allows an ease of transmission of speech and ideals, and so those athletes disposed to running their own accounts and sharing their true beliefs will find themselves getting feedback; they are “public figures,” so everything they do, theoretically, can be fair game as a “news item.” Who A-Rod or Jeter is dating, what does that have to do with baseball, anyway? Same idea..

Best case scenario, this is how I hope this plays out: if Devon Alexander comes out in his next bout wearing “pride colors” trunks, with “Love Wins” stitched on his belt; fair to say I think he would be crowned Internet Champion of the Word that very instant, lol.

Follow Woods on Twitter. https://twitter.com/Woodsy1069

WATCH RELATED VIDEOS ON BOXINGCHANNEL.TV

COMMENTS

-amayseng :

I was waiting for this to pop up. As those who want to have free rights and freedom of speech then those who oppose those beliefs should have the same freedom to voice their opinions as well. It should not go one way only.


-deepwater2 :

I was waiting for this to pop up. As those who want to have free rights and freedom of speech then those who oppose those beliefs should have the same freedom to voice their opinions as well. It should not go one way only.
He is so boring to watch. It might actually be more exciting to watch him fend off attacks than watching one of his fights. People are allowed to think what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone or cause harm. Instead of worrying about his silly opinions, why not turn that attention to what our enemies are doing around the world. The iSIS people just threw 4 gays off of a roof to celebrate the decision.


-Radam G :

Devon should really quit, though. He is not the sharpest knife in the draw. The ancient hero -- Alexander, The Great -- who he admires so much, and took a nickname after of, was a straight-up xy-to-xy chromosomes lover. Oh, YUP! The great general loved to sodomize. And to be sodomized even better. But I ain't hating him or judging him. To each his own. Devon should worry about his arse in dat squared jungle and not be worry about da haps in da bedroom or in front of a judge or preacher. Holla!


-brownsugar :

You can't legislate human behavior, thus passing a law against who can marry whom is counter productive to any society dumb enough to try. Just don't use the civil rights movement as an analogy. Preventing a people basic civil rights based on their genetic make up is in no way similar to regulating the sexual habits to people who can't even be identified unless they speak up are get caught in the act. However having any group of people abiding by a different set of laws breeds resistance and opposition. The government had to give up the marriage rights or start exterminating gays Hitler style to validate their position. My first girlfriend in high school was the homecoming queen and I later found out she was gay. Over 30 years later we still keep in touch. I wish her the best. I almost made some tasteless remarks on facebook when I heard about the ruling, then I decided to resist the urge when I realized she was on my friends list. The dam broke a long time ago, the gay population is too large and only getting bigger, I'd prefer not to be not at odds with my neighbors solely based on their sexual tendencies.


-amayseng :

He is so boring to watch. It might actually be more exciting to watch him fend off attacks than watching one of his fights. People are allowed to think what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone or cause harm. Instead of worrying about his silly opinions, why not turn that attention to what our enemies are doing around the world. The iSIS people just threw 4 gays off of a roof to celebrate the decision.
Well that is the problem now a days, if you dont agree with what is politically correct then you are harassed and slandered or degraded for being a horrible person, when in reality all you are doing is having an opinion just like those who are crucifying you are trying to do...though they berate you if yours is different. Here is my thinking, I dont care what you do, I have enough to deal with on my own in my own life. We all have to meet our maker at some point. I do not bash those for their opinions so I expect not to be bashed for mine. Lets say I am a bible crazed religious person where I only see marriage as a sacrament between man, woman and God and I dont agree with gay marriage though I have no problems with gays or them doing it. Should I be crucified for having such beliefs that only pertain to my thoughts and feelings? Or maybe I just dont buy into the whole lets be politically correct for the fact of being popular and fitting in like everyone does now a days. I dont say a word left or right to any one and like I said, I may not agree with it though it if happens I could honestly care less one way or another. I also dont agree with people cutting their grass Sunday morning at 7 am, though if they do it it doesnt change my day or life for a second. make sense?


-Domenic :

You can't legislate human behavior, thus passing a law against who can marry whom is counter productive to any society dumb enough to try. Just don't use the civil rights movement as an analogy. Preventing a people basic civil rights based on their genetic make up is in no way similar to regulating the sexual habits to people who can't even be identified unless they speak up are get caught in the act. However having any group of people abiding by a different set of laws breeds resistance and opposition. The government had to give up the marriage rights or start exterminating gays Hitler style to validate their position. My first girlfriend in high school was the homecoming queen and I later found out she was gay. Over 30 years later we still keep in touch. I wish her the best. I almost made some tasteless remarks on facebook when I heard about the ruling, then I decided to resist the urge when I realized she was on my friends list. The dam broke a long time ago, the gay population is too large and only getting bigger, I'd prefer not to be not at odds with my neighbors solely based on their sexual tendencies.
Nicely said. I'm in my early 40's, and man has the world changed on this subject. When I was growing up, being gay was maximum taboo. The thought of two men having sex is so repugnant and abhorrent to me, it almost induces vomit. But that's neither here nor there. What consenting adults do with each other in the privacy of their homes is their business. And I had no objection to allowing for gay marriage. If this improves lives and makes people happier, go for it. You only go round once. As for ISIS, who Deep referenced, it's time to bust out the daisy cutters and obliterate them, wherever the hell they are. On top of beheadings, they just released a mass drowning video, where they slowly lowered 5 guys in a cage into a swimming pool and videoed them fighting frantically for their lives. Then they lifted the cage out of the pool and they were all dead in a heap, foam coming out of their faces. It's out of control and getting worse. We don't even have a game plan, just pi$$ing in the wind. I do give credit to Alexander for stating his beliefs. His position isn't politically correct, which is the world we live in now the the nth degree, so he had to know there would be a backlash. Took some courage.


-amayseng :

Nicely said. I'm in my early 40's, and man has the world changed on this subject. When I was growing up, being gay was maximum taboo. The thought of two men having sex is so repugnant and abhorrent to me, it almost induces vomit. But that's neither here nor there. What consenting adults do with each other in the privacy of their homes is their business. And I had no objection to allowing for gay marriage. If this improves lives and makes people happier, go for it. You only go round once. As for ISIS, who Deep referenced, it's time to bust out the daisy cutters and obliterate them, wherever the hell they are. On top of beheadings, they just released a mass drowning video, where they slowly lowered 5 guys in a cage into a swimming pool and videoed them fighting frantically for their lives. Then they lifted the cage out of the pool and they were all dead in a heap, foam coming out of their faces. It's out of control and getting worse. We don't even have a game plan, just pi$$ing in the wind. I do give credit to Alexander for stating his beliefs. His position isn't politically correct, which is the world we live in now the the nth degree, so he had to know there would be a backlash. Took some courage.
I agree with all of this Domenic and if I had the button to push to start dropping bombs on ISIS I would wear that mothaf***** out..


-Radam G :

Well that is the problem now a days, if you dont agree with what is politically correct then you are harassed and slandered or degraded for being a horrible person, when in reality all you are doing is having an opinion just like those who are crucifying you are trying to do...though they berate you if yours is different. Here is my thinking, I dont care what you do, I have enough to deal with on my own in my own life. We all have to meet our maker at some point. I do not bash those for their opinions so I expect not to be bashed for mine. Lets say I am a bible crazed religious person where I only see marriage as a sacrament between man, woman and God and I dont agree with gay marriage though I have no problems with gays or them doing it. Should I be crucified for having such beliefs that only pertain to my thoughts and feelings? Or maybe I just dont buy into the whole lets be politically correct for the fact of being popular and fitting in like everyone does now a days. I dont say a word left or right to any one and like I said, I may not agree with it though it if happens I could honestly care less one way or another. I also dont agree with people cutting their grass Sunday morning at 7 am, though if they do it it doesnt change my day or life for a second. make sense?
Don't forget that the LBGs are/were fighting for legal (politically-correct) marriage to get benefits. They are not messing with culture or religious rituals and ceremonies. They are politricking. Let them pay too for all that goes with marriage and divorce. Holla!


-amayseng :

Don't forget that the LBGs are/were fighting for legal (politically-correct) marriage to get benefits. They are not messing with culture or religious rituals and ceremonies. They are politricking. Let them pay too for all that goes with marriage and divorce. Holla!
agreed


-deepwater2 :

Well that is the problem now a days, if you dont agree with what is politically correct then you are harassed and slandered or degraded for being a horrible person, when in reality all you are doing is having an opinion just like those who are crucifying you are trying to do...though they berate you if yours is different. Here is my thinking, I dont care what you do, I have enough to deal with on my own in my own life. We all have to meet our maker at some point. I do not bash those for their opinions so I expect not to be bashed for mine. Lets say I am a bible crazed religious person where I only see marriage as a sacrament between man, woman and God and I dont agree with gay marriage though I have no problems with gays or them doing it. Should I be crucified for having such beliefs that only pertain to my thoughts and feelings? Or maybe I just dont buy into the whole lets be politically correct for the fact of being popular and fitting in like everyone does now a days. I dont say a word left or right to any one and like I said, I may not agree with it though it if happens I could honestly care less one way or another. I also dont agree with people cutting their grass Sunday morning at 7 am, though if they do it it doesnt change my day or life for a second. make sense?
It's a weird time in the USA. The freedom of speech used to protect people no matter if they said almost anything, stupid or not you were protected.Now if you don't go along with the politically correct thing you are attacked and possibly ruined. Live and let live has changed into you better accept what I say or we will ruin you. Try going on Facebook and saying the catholic or Jewish religion is a joke. Not much would happen. Say you don't agree with gay marriage based on your religious beliefs and you will probably lose your job. Try saying you don't like lil Floyd's style of fighting and you will be called a hater.


-stormcentre :

Amayseng, this thread is your ideal chance to come out of the closet, and discuss your feelings and genetic morphology. Doing so will (should?) also explain why you love (Hating)flogging a dead (Floyd)Horse so much; Sex Pistols style. Hey look, there's plenty of support here too, so you needn't feel "alone". After all, really, there's at all nothing wrong with you (cross dressing and/or) wearing bright pink jocks, just below the knee riding boots, a double dose of spray tan, and a policeman's hat; as you dance on the back of a farm truck that makes its way through a gay and lesbian mardi-gra parade. :) See, I'm always thinking of ya. ;)
PS: Oscar say's hi and want's to know if you're OK for "gear" and translucent black "diamondte" stockings this weekend?


-stormcentre :

It's a weird time in the USA. The freedom of speech used to protect people no matter if they said almost anything, stupid or not you were protected.Now if you don't go along with the politically correct thing you are attacked and possibly ruined. Live and let live has changed into you better accept what I say or we will ruin you. Try going on Facebook and saying the catholic or Jewish religion is a joke. Not much would happen. Say you don't agree with gay marriage based on your religious beliefs and you will probably lose your job. Try saying you don't like lil Floyd's style of fighting and you will be called a hater.
You hater. :)


-New York Tony :

It says a great deal (and nothing good) that Alexander is praised for having the guts to speak truth to "gay" power, for doing so does indeed take plenty of intestinal fortitude. And that's awfully bad news for a people who once upon a time took it as a given that they had the freedom to speak their mind without dread of consequence.


-amayseng :

It's a weird time in the USA. The freedom of speech used to protect people no matter if they said almost anything, stupid or not you were protected.Now if you don't go along with the politically correct thing you are attacked and possibly ruined. Live and let live has changed into you better accept what I say or we will ruin you. Try going on Facebook and saying the catholic or Jewish religion is a joke. Not much would happen. Say you don't agree with gay marriage based on your religious beliefs and you will probably lose your job. Try saying you don't like lil Floyd's style of fighting and you will be called a hater.
That is exactly my point. We should be allowed to agree or disagree even if it is legit or ignorant. One's thoughts and feelings are their own to have and is true freedom. Chastising one for not being in popular agreement is an attack of freedom and liberty.


-Bernie Campbell :

The definition and legal interpretation of law in regards to marriage anywhere, not only in this land is consumation! Physical Consumation, a spouse can get a divorce faster than you can say Jack Robinson without reprucussion if the other spouse cannot or will not consumate! How can Gay people consumate? Impossible! Consume by the vagina! Is this forum a dictatorship that one cant express reality! Manny Pacquiao was ostrasized in the press and with the moguls of boxing to express this same belief! He was robbed of an obvious favorable decision against Timothy Bradley because of it. Now its time to flog Devon Alexander. I suggest you take this controversial subject to a more left wing and liberal publication specializing in these agendas that have nothing to do with Pro Boxing Mr Woods1


-leon30001 :

Bernie Campbell is correct; "gay marriage" is, in fact, a contradiction in terms. It cannot exist. Ergo, I have "nothing" against it, much like I also have nothing against dry water, or cold warmth. No doubt that makes me a racist, misogynist Islamophobe. Or something.


-Radam G :

Bernie Campbell is correct; "gay marriage" is, in fact, a contradiction in terms. It cannot exist. Ergo, I have "nothing" against it, much like I also have nothing against dry water, or cold warmth. No doubt that makes me a racist, misogynist Islamophobe. Or something.
Hehehehehe! You are crazy! Funny as heck! Holla!


-stormcentre :

The only problem with these stances and viewpoints - of which I don't necessarily support or oppose - that suggest the definition and legal interpretation of law in regards to marriage is obstructed with gay marriage and the claim that gay men can't consummate their relationship/marriage, is that the definition has actually changed. Not in the least as, within law and legislative terms, clauses, paragraphs, and even chapters can be implied; implied terms. This means that a contract or piece of legislation can have a greater meaning than the actual words represents. Therefore, for the purpose of the above discussed/referred law and insofar as much as "consummation" can be considered essential to marriage and inferred; in the very least it can now (if it was not the case before, which I doubt) be implied to include rectal activities. Such (rectal) activities are by no means only confined to men/men relationships; in fact they are prevalent in men/female relationships. The term consummation largely refers to the term/definition of sexual intercourse, of which most courts recognize that actual act (for all non genetically female/female lesbian relationships {it is possible to have a male/female lesbian relationship}) to be non-digital sexual penetration of one of the orifices below the hips and/or fellatio. Therefore male and/or female gay people - of which I am not one - can - by law - consummate; without using any shared or absent vagina. However, if they do it whilst sucking watermelon seeds I am not sure where the law stands on that matter of extreme equivocation; of which I am sure that no Obama legislation can probably explain or prevent. The age of openly gay families and possibly children is upon us; whether we like, accept, and understand it or not. Implied terms is an old, sometimes tricky, and frequently used legal mechanism that could be - but probably isn't even - required to ensure that the definition of gay marriage is sound; regardless of any previous definition of "consummation" and/or how it may or may not have related to marriage and only a vagina. The times they are a changing. It's all good though, because despite the fact that the times may well be a changing, for the most part (at least on this subject) we can all pretend they're not with almost complete impunity. :) :)


-Bernie Campbell :

Stormcenter, your talking sh**. and by the way I believe Alexanders next fight should be with Saddam Ali! (good matchup)!


-stormcentre :

Stormcenter, your talking sh**. and by the way I believe Alexanders next fight should be with Saddam Ali! (good matchup)!
Nope, sorry BC it's as real as it may be unpopular and/or unsavoury. :) Implied terms are a part of law and legislation. Consumation by way of the pussy cat (only) is not the only way a relationship - in law is deemed - to be consumed; otherwise how are gay marriages in, say New Zealand for instance, consumated my friend? People that may look like and be legally considered females - that still have legacy men bits - due to their stage of transition - can be in legally recognised lesbian relationships, too. And, therefore the rest stands. Happy, to take a download from you on what part of my post is wrong, and will then go back to my lawyer friend from whom most of that information comes from, and ask and correct. Anyone that stood up in court now and said that 2 gay men cant consumate their marriage would be hammered by a lawyer who wanted to make a name for himself and tell of how the "Obama decision" in itself widens the definition of consumation; if indeed it was not - in the first place - wide enough. It's a crazy world Bernie and fact is often less popular and more amazing than fiction. :)


-stormcentre :

Stormcenter, your talking sh**. and by the way I believe Alexanders next fight should be with Saddam Ali! (good matchup)!
Nope, sorry BC it's as real as it may be unpopular and/or unsavoury. :) Implied terms are a part of law and legislation. Consumation by way of the pussy cat (only) is not the only way a relationship - in law is deemed - to be consumed; otherwise how are gay marriages in, say New Zealand for instance, consumated my friend? People that may look like and be legally considered females - that still have legacy men bits - due to their stage of transition - can be in legally recognised lesbian relationships, too. And, therefore the rest stands. Happy, to take a download from you on what part of my post is wrong, and will then go back to my lawyer friend from whom most of that information comes from, and ask and correct. Anyone that stood up in court now and said that 2 gay men cant consumate their marriage would be hammered by a lawyer who wanted to make a name for himself and tell of how the "Obama decision" in itself widens the definition of consumation; if indeed it was not - in the first place - wide enough. It's a crazy world Bernie and fact is often less popular and more amazing than fiction. And, if that's not bad/good enough, children at primary and/or secondary schools now are being treated for what is called gender specific genetic disorders, creating situations - that have been reported about on reputable documentaries that are created with the sole intention of trying to educate the public and the issue and also lessen the devastating impact for the children whom suffer - where students that were boys last year are now recognised as girls this year, and as such they use the girls toilets and dormitories. Use Google and you will see the StormCentre is not speaking defecation, and I accept your apology for insinuating such. This stuff is sweeping through legal and legislative circles like a tornado. The definitions are changing even if the ink doesn't always reflect it, and that's because some legal/legislative decisions supercede others before them and the law must acknowledge this even if the printers of various publications (legal and otherwise) can't keep up. IT and bullying (and interesting topic) is another area where the same situation arise.
Alexander; Ali or Provodkinov is fine by me. Most likely though is that he will challenge someone like Vargas or Lopez. :)