"Tell me about the last time you saw another man's sack." (3 Viewers)

[squistion]

If I can convince Jason that he was just goofing around and isn't really gay can one of the mods nuke this thread? Holy hell.

Gee, I dunno, if they did that we might miss insightful comments like this:

Posted by AAABatteries on Yesterday, 11:25 AM in Footballguys Free For All

I've always known he sucked, I guess I just didn't realize exactly how much.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Is this that Broussard guy?

 

[Moe.]

Is this that Broussard guy?

Yes. He is very very bad at his job. ESPN should use his comments as an excuse to can him.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

If Chris Broussard had been asked about an NBA player who committed adultery, would he have said, "Well, that guy can't be a Christian; that's my personal belief"? I strongly doubt it. My point here isn't that people like Broussard are wrong when they say that homosexuality is a sin against Christianity; it's how much time an energy they spend focusing on this particular sin compared to others which, according to Scripture, are equally sinful. So why so much time spent on this particular sin? I suspect the answer to that has nothing to do with religious belief.

. . . and here's another person who didn't actually watch the clip before expressing his opinion on it.

I watched it after it was posted here. Did I miss something?

Yeah, you missed the part where he explicitly addresses your point about adultery (he actually uses premarital sex as an example instead, but the point is the same), the part where he carefully makes it clear that there's nothing special or worse about homosexuality, and the part where he was asked about his opinion on this issue and didn't just bring it up on his own.

And he's volunteered to go on TV and cast stones at the adulterers, rapists and deadbeat dad's he covers daily how many times in the past?

 

[B-Deep]

If Chris Broussard had been asked about an NBA player who committed adultery, would he have said, "Well, that guy can't be a Christian; that's my personal belief"? I strongly doubt it. My point here isn't that people like Broussard are wrong when they say that homosexuality is a sin against Christianity; it's how much time an energy they spend focusing on this particular sin compared to others which, according to Scripture, are equally sinful. So why so much time spent on this particular sin? I suspect the answer to that has nothing to do with religious belief.

. . . and here's another person who didn't actually watch the clip before expressing his opinion on it.

I watched it after it was posted here. Did I miss something?

Yeah, you missed the part where he explicitly addresses your point about adultery (he actually uses premarital sex as an example instead, but the point is the same), the part where he carefully makes it clear that there's nothing special or worse about homosexuality, and the part where he was asked about his opinion on this issue and didn't just bring it up on his own.

And he's volunteered to go on TV and cast stones at the adulterers, rapists and deadbeat dad's he covers daily how many times in the past?

how many times has he been asked about an nba player deadbeat dad?



those aren't stories ESPN cares about

I don;t agree with him at all, but based on his comments Tim's remarks were off base

 

[AAABatteries]

If I can convince Jason that he was just goofing around and isn't really gay can one of the mods nuke this thread? Holy hell.

Gee, I dunno, if they did that we might miss insightful comments like this:

>

Posted by AAABatteries on Yesterday, 11:25 AM in Footballguys Free For All

I've always known he sucked, I guess I just didn't realize exactly how much.

Bad joke I'll admit but I don't see the comparison - evolving in to another political/religious debate was bound to happen but it's tiresome.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Broussard was asked his opinion and made the comments he did because he wanted to be asked and he wanted to make them.

Given the guys he covers on his beat he's had literally 100s of opportunities to make the same point. So you have to ask yourself why didn't he? Why was yesterday the first day he went on national TV and talked about "open rebellions against God"?

Rhetorical question. We all know why.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Broussard was asked his opinion and made the comments he did because he wanted to be asked and he wanted to make them.

Given the guys he covers on his beat he's had literally 100s of opportunities to make the same point. So you have to ask yourself why didn't he? Why was yesterday the first day he went on national TV and talked about "open rebellions against God"?

Rhetorical question. We all know why.

How do you know he hasn't? Have you read/watched every single thing he has written or said in his entire career? Have you been there for every personal conversation he's had with people about how they live their lives?

You don't have a clue if this is the first time he's made this opinion public.

 

[AAABatteries]

By the way, the SI article was really well done.

Jason has always been a very smart guy - he did a good job writing the piece - it was nice to read that he had an aunt and uncle who are very supportive, as well as friends. I think the response to him coming out was actually what I expected - I think it will make it easier for the next player until it's no longer a topic.

 

[larry_boy_44]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/espn-chris-broussard-clarifies-views-jason-collins-don-221941033.html

"I'm a Christian. I don't agree with homosexuality. I think it's a sin, as I think all sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is. [ESPN's] L.Z. [Granderson] knows that. He and I have played on basketball teams together for several years. We've gone out, had lunch together, we've had good conversations, good laughs together. He knows where I stand and I know where he stands. I don't criticize him, he doesn't criticize me, and call me a bigot, call me ignorant, call me intolerant.

"In talking to some people around the league, there's a lot Christians in the NBA and just because they disagree with that lifestyle, they don't want to be called bigoted and intolerant and things like that. That's what LZ was getting at. Just like I may tolerate someone whose lifestyle I disagree with, he can tolerate my beliefs. He disagrees with my beliefs and my lifestyle but true tolerance and acceptance is being able to handle that as mature adults and not criticize each other and call each other names.

"... Personally, I don't believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle or an openly premarital sex between heterosexuals, if you're openly living that type of lifestyle, then the Bible says you know them by their fruits, it says that's a sin. If you're openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality, adultery, fornication, premarital sex between heterosexuals, whatever it may be, I believe that's walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. I would not characterize that person as a Christian because I do not think the Bible would characterize them as a Christian."

 

[B-Deep]

By the way, the SI article was really well done.

Jason has always been a very smart guy - he did a good job writing the piece - it was nice to read that he had an aunt and uncle who are very supportive, as well as friends. I think the response to him coming out was actually what I expected - I think it will make it easier for the next player until it's no longer a topic.

agreed all around

and while I do not expect an avalanche of outings, another player or two in the near future would not surprise me

 

[eurotrashman]

Broussard was asked his opinion and made the comments he did because he wanted to be asked and he wanted to make them.

Given the guys he covers on his beat he's had literally 100s of opportunities to make the same point. So you have to ask yourself why didn't he? Why was yesterday the first day he went on national TV and talked about "open rebellions against God"?

Rhetorical question. We all know why.

Have you been there for every personal conversation he's had with people about how they live their lives?

What does this have to do with anything????

 

[B-Deep]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/espn-chris-broussard-clarifies-views-jason-collins-don-221941033.html

"I'm a Christian. I don't agree with homosexuality. I think it's a sin, as I think all sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is. [ESPN's] L.Z. [Granderson] knows that. He and I have played on basketball teams together for several years. We've gone out, had lunch together, we've had good conversations, good laughs together. He knows where I stand and I know where he stands. I don't criticize him, he doesn't criticize me, and call me a bigot, call me ignorant, call me intolerant.

"In talking to some people around the league, there's a lot Christians in the NBA and just because they disagree with that lifestyle, they don't want to be called bigoted and intolerant and things like that. That's what LZ was getting at. Just like I may tolerate someone whose lifestyle I disagree with, he can tolerate my beliefs. He disagrees with my beliefs and my lifestyle but true tolerance and acceptance is being able to handle that as mature adults and not criticize each other and call each other names.

"... Personally, I don't believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle or an openly premarital sex between heterosexuals, if you're openly living that type of lifestyle, then the Bible says you know them by their fruits, it says that's a sin. If you're openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality, adultery, fornication, premarital sex between heterosexuals, whatever it may be, I believe that's walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. I would not characterize that person as a Christian because I do not think the Bible would characterize them as a Christian."

Gay young men and women have an impossibly tough time growing up and attempting to fit in, even as our culture shifts to become a more tolerant society. The last thing they need is to see someone like Chris Broussard, who ESPN (and by extension, the NBA) trusts as its voice both at games and in-studio, to be referring to them as sinners who are in “open rebellion to God.”

(And if you don’t much care that Broussard said as much about gays, those who might want to comment on this article should also understand that Chris Broussard also pointed out that he believes that “adultery, fornication, premarital sex between heterosexuals, whatever it may be, I believe that's walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ.”

So before you bash away, be reminded of the fact that if you had sex before marriage, or have had sex and are not married, Chris Broussard thinks that you are a sinner that is in defiance of God, and he used the pulpit of a sports talk show to remind you of such. Do you like him saying those sorts of things about you? Now imagine working through that frustration as a 14-year old high school student, tuning into ESPN to learn about a potential positive role model in Jason Collins, only to be told about how wrong they are as a person.)

Broussard is free to live his life as he sees fit, and admonish those that he sees as lacking in the face of his chosen god. We’re also free to question the centuries-old influence that created this line of thinking, and if an appearance on ESPN was the appropriate place to discuss his thoughts on the matter.

why did you link to that article exactly?

 

[cstu]

He has a twin brother too.

I thought about that - I wonder if that will start the whole "Are you born gay?" conversation.

Identical twins aren't completely identical. Even if they have the same DNA their genes can express themselves differently. Definitely a higher chance though.

 

[larry_boy_44]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/espn-chris-broussard-clarifies-views-jason-collins-don-221941033.html

"I'm a Christian. I don't agree with homosexuality. I think it's a sin, as I think all sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is. [ESPN's] L.Z. [Granderson] knows that. He and I have played on basketball teams together for several years. We've gone out, had lunch together, we've had good conversations, good laughs together. He knows where I stand and I know where he stands. I don't criticize him, he doesn't criticize me, and call me a bigot, call me ignorant, call me intolerant.

"In talking to some people around the league, there's a lot Christians in the NBA and just because they disagree with that lifestyle, they don't want to be called bigoted and intolerant and things like that. That's what LZ was getting at. Just like I may tolerate someone whose lifestyle I disagree with, he can tolerate my beliefs. He disagrees with my beliefs and my lifestyle but true tolerance and acceptance is being able to handle that as mature adults and not criticize each other and call each other names.

"... Personally, I don't believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle or an openly premarital sex between heterosexuals, if you're openly living that type of lifestyle, then the Bible says you know them by their fruits, it says that's a sin. If you're openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality, adultery, fornication, premarital sex between heterosexuals, whatever it may be, I believe that's walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. I would not characterize that person as a Christian because I do not think the Bible would characterize them as a Christian."

Gay young men and women have an impossibly tough time growing up and attempting to fit in, even as our culture shifts to become a more tolerant society. The last thing they need is to see someone like Chris Broussard, who ESPN (and by extension, the NBA) trusts as its voice both at games and in-studio, to be referring to them as sinners who are in “open rebellion to God.”

(And if you don’t much care that Broussard said as much about gays, those who might want to comment on this article should also understand that Chris Broussard also pointed out that he believes that “adultery, fornication, premarital sex between heterosexuals, whatever it may be, I believe that's walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ.”

So before you bash away, be reminded of the fact that if you had sex before marriage, or have had sex and are not married, Chris Broussard thinks that you are a sinner that is in defiance of God, and he used the pulpit of a sports talk show to remind you of such. Do you like him saying those sorts of things about you? Now imagine working through that frustration as a 14-year old high school student, tuning into ESPN to learn about a potential positive role model in Jason Collins, only to be told about how wrong they are as a person.)

Broussard is free to live his life as he sees fit, and admonish those that he sees as lacking in the face of his chosen god. We’re also free to question the centuries-old influence that created this line of thinking, and if an appearance on ESPN was the appropriate place to discuss his thoughts on the matter.

why did you link to that article exactly?

where I got the transcript from. Figured I'd give credit.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/espn-chris-broussard-clarifies-views-jason-collins-don-221941033.html

"In talking to some people around the league, there's a lot Christians in the NBA and just because they disagree with that lifestyle, they don't want to be called bigoted and intolerant and things like that.

Then they shouldn't be bigoted and intolerant.

 

[dgreen]

...be reminded of the fact that if you had sex before marriage, or have had sex and are not married, Chris Broussard thinks that you are a sinner that is in defiance of God...

That's just not true. There's a very important word missing from there that Broussard intentionally included. It's just one word, but, theologically, it's a huge deal.

 

[larry_boy_44]

...be reminded of the fact that if you had sex before marriage, or have had sex and are not married, Chris Broussard thinks that you are a sinner that is in defiance of God...

That's just not true. There's a very important word missing from there that Broussard intentionally included. It's just one word, but, theologically, it's a huge deal.

You mean that's not really what Broussard said? If so, I agree.

 

[eurotrashman]

Larry,

Are you gay?

 

[squistion]

Larry,

Are you gay?

He says he isn't. Wish I could find the link to the thread several years back where he says being gay is a choice and he could make that choice if he really wanted to and would be comfortable with it (something about banging dudes as I recall). His response was classic and somebody used it as a signature line (and I can't really give it justice by paraphrasing it).

 

[Ghost Rider]

Does anyone disagree with what Charles Barkley said here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=As-ITvXlTPI#t=145s

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

You can hide behind religion all you want, and you are entitled to believe whatever you want, but I am entitled to think that your beliefs are stupid, built on fables, wrong, and bigoted.

 

[squistion]

Does anyone disagree with what Charles Barkley said here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=As-ITvXlTPI#t=145s

Yeah, ain't it sad when someone publically expresses some anti-gay sentiment that they are called out on it.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Does anyone disagree with what Charles Barkley said here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=As-ITvXlTPI#t=145s

I do. Would Charles be singing the same tune if the controversy was about racism? Would he be worried about people being "cruxified" if they made racist statements?

 

[B-Deep]

Does anyone disagree with what Charles Barkley said here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=As-ITvXlTPI#t=145s

if people have the right to come out against this, people have the right to come out against people that come out against this

that's kind of how it works

 

[AAABatteries]

No YouTube at work - what did he say?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Good stuff here on the whole "who cares?" angle and the religion angle.

This radio caller I talked to said that homosexuality was an "affliction," but that he didn't mean anything "hateful" by it. That, to me, gets to the heart of why people are being so pushy about this cause. If you're a gay teenager and you come out to your parents and they tell you, "Son, you have an affliction--we're going to pray for your sins and hope you find the right path," you're gonna go jump off a ####### building. This is why the cause has been imbued with such urgency. If it's overbearing at times, well, perhaps it has to be in order to overcome the idea that there's still some sort of bizarre ethical loophole that allows you to condemn homosexuality but do it out of love and compassion. That kind of thinking has been institutionalized across wide swaths of the country, so perhaps it takes a healthy dose of persistence to break that groupthink. Gay rights advocates aren't stupid. They know America isn't just gonna change on its own. Sometimes, you have to annoy people.

There will come a time when a sports star comes out of the closet and no one will care. Not the media. Not the internet. Not teammates. Nobody. But that will be a different kind of indifference. An accepting indifference, not the ######## macho posturing that Mike Francesa is offering up right now. You can hear the contempt in his voice. You can hear him thinking, "I'm tired of hearing about these people." Take it from a reformed homophobe: I know the playbook. I know exactly what the strategy is there. The problem is that it's a losing one.

 

[B-Deep]

No YouTube at work - what did he say?

people should have the right to come out against this without being crucified

if he means literally that people should not be nailed to a cross for coming out against homosexuals I completely agree

if he means people should be able to come out against homosexuals and no one should criticize them for it I completely disagree.

 

[squistion]

No YouTube at work - what did he say?

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1623672-charles-barkley-and-inside-the-nba-team-discuss-jason-collins-coming-out

Washington Wizards center Jason Collins made a groundbreaking announcement on Monday as he became the first athlete in major American team sports to come out as gay. There has been no shortage of opinions on the matter, including reaction from TNT's "Inside the NBA" crew with Charles Barkley.

Barkley was especially supportive of Collins' decision and had plenty of interesting things to say regarding his status. While Barkley doesn't believe that it's anyone's business what Collins' sexual orientation is, he said that he is happy for Collins.

Barkley also said that he believes that gay players have been in the NBA for years, but Collins is the first one to make it known.

"I've said this many times, we've all played with gay players," said Sir Charles.

At the same time, Barkley was very diplomatic in his approach. While he expressed unwavering support for Collins, he also admitted that there are people who may not like Collins' choice. While he doesn't agree with the detractors, he doesn't feel as though they should be dismissed.

"People should be able to disagree if they don't like it and not get crucified," he said.

Kenny Smith was similarly supportive and discussed why his race would make it hypocritical for him to not accept and stand by Collins in the aftermath of his announcement.

"As an African American I could never, ever discredit inclusion because that's the one thing that we always wanted," said Smith.

Collins specifically mentioned Shaquille O'Neal in the article that will be published in the next edition of Sports Illustrated. As a 12-year veteran of the NBA, Collins and O'Neal went head-to-head on many occasions, and Shaq has nothing but respect for Collins and his lifestyle.

"I've always liked his character," Shaq said. "Character is found in those who lead. I commend you, Jason, for coming out and showing us what leadership looks like."

It isn't uncommon for Barkley, Smith and O'Neal to disagree on certain matters, but it is clear that they are all on the same page when it comes to Collins. All of them support the decision and are hopeful that it will lead to more openness in the NBA moving forward.

 

[B-Deep]

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd ESPN backs away. I find it hard to believe they were not aware of his thoughts and were not aware what he would say.

NEW YORK (AP) -- ESPN says that it regrets the ''distraction'' caused by one of its reporters who described Jason Collins as a sinner after the NBA center publicly revealed that he was gay.

Chris Broussard, who covers the NBA for ESPN, had said on the air that Collins and others in the NBA who engage in premarital sex or adultery were ''walking in open rebellion to God, and to Jesus Christ.'' Broussard, a former reporter for The New York Times, spoke during ESPN's ''Outside the Lines'' program Monday discussing Collins' announcement.

In an article in Sports Illustrated, Collins became the first male athlete in one of the country's four major sports to come out as gay.

ESPN's Josh Krulewitz said the network regrets that a discussion of personal viewpoints became a ''distraction.'' The network offered its own view of Collins' news: ''ESPN is fully committed to diversity and welcomes Jason Collins' announcement,'' he said.

During his on-the-air discussion, Broussard described himself as a Christian.

''I don't agree with homosexuality,'' he said. ''I think it's a sin, as I think all sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is.''

Broussard in an online message on Tuesday said that he had previously discussed his point of view about homosexuality publicly.

''I realize that some people disagree with my opinion, and I accept and respect that,'' he wrote. ''As has been the case in the past, my beliefs have not and will not impact my ability to report on the NBA. I believe Jason Collins displayed bravery with his announcement ... and I have no objection to him or anyone else playing in the NBA.''

 

[B-Deep]

the endorsement angle, will he get more now?

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba---nba-s-jason-collins-comes-out--will-endorsements-follow--184500927.html

(and please lets not go with the 'he only did this for the money' argument ok?)

 

[dgreen]

Does anyone disagree with what Charles Barkley said here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=As-ITvXlTPI#t=145s

I do. Would Charles be singing the same tune if the controversy was about racism? Would he be worried about people being "cruxified" if they made racist statements?

Charles doesn't strike me as the type of person who would change his tune just because the topic changes.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Does anyone disagree with what Charles Barkley said here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=As-ITvXlTPI#t=145s

if people have the right to come out against this, people have the right to come out against people that come out against this

that's kind of how it works

I agree, but that is kind of the whole point: tolerance has to work both ways. Sadly, intolerance exists way too often on both sides of this topic.

 

[dgreen]

Good stuff here on the whole "who cares?" angle and the religion angle.

This radio caller I talked to said that homosexuality was an "affliction," but that he didn't mean anything "hateful" by it. That, to me, gets to the heart of why people are being so pushy about this cause. If you're a gay teenager and you come out to your parents and they tell you, "Son, you have an affliction--we're going to pray for your sins and hope you find the right path," you're gonna go jump off a ####### building. This is why the cause has been imbued with such urgency. If it's overbearing at times, well, perhaps it has to be in order to overcome the idea that there's still some sort of bizarre ethical loophole that allows you to condemn homosexuality but do it out of love and compassion. That kind of thinking has been institutionalized across wide swaths of the country, so perhaps it takes a healthy dose of persistence to break that groupthink. Gay rights advocates aren't stupid. They know America isn't just gonna change on its own. Sometimes, you have to annoy people.

There will come a time when a sports star comes out of the closet and no one will care. Not the media. Not the internet. Not teammates. Nobody. But that will be a different kind of indifference. An accepting indifference, not the ######## macho posturing that Mike Francesa is offering up right now. You can hear the contempt in his voice. You can hear him thinking, "I'm tired of hearing about these people." Take it from a reformed homophobe: I know the playbook. I know exactly what the strategy is there. The problem is that it's a losing one.

I think religious people can be pretty open to discussing how they can treat homosexuals differently than they have been. But, what those people aren't open to is someone trying to convince them that homosexuality is not a sin. Those are two different discussions and I don't understand the desire for the latter. Notice there's no great push to convince Christians that premarital sex is ok? That's because Christians do a better job of how they treat those sinners, so people who are ok with premarital sex really don't care whether it's a "sin" or not. Why would they care if those beliefs aren't affecting them legally or in society? There are many sins that Christians treat much better than homosexuality and nobody seems to care that Christians see those things as being sinful. The same goal should be true for homosexuality.

I fully understand, and agree with, the desire to be treated equally, both under the law and within society. And, I think that can be accomplished without arguing against the sin status of homosexuality. I think most Christians will get a little combative if a non-believer attempts to define "sin" for them. It's an argument that just creates anger among both ends of the spectrum.

 

[MaxThreshold]

the endorsement angle, will he get more now?

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba---nba-s-jason-collins-comes-out--will-endorsements-follow--184500927.html

(and please lets not go with the 'he only did this for the money' argument ok?)

I think there is a strong possibility he did it just for that. He's at the end of his career, isn't really relevant anymore so the "risk" he took really wasn't risky at all.

You want to take a risk? Do it when you're just coming into the league as a rookie.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Good stuff here on the whole "who cares?" angle and the religion angle.

This radio caller I talked to said that homosexuality was an "affliction," but that he didn't mean anything "hateful" by it. That, to me, gets to the heart of why people are being so pushy about this cause. If you're a gay teenager and you come out to your parents and they tell you, "Son, you have an affliction--we're going to pray for your sins and hope you find the right path," you're gonna go jump off a ####### building. This is why the cause has been imbued with such urgency. If it's overbearing at times, well, perhaps it has to be in order to overcome the idea that there's still some sort of bizarre ethical loophole that allows you to condemn homosexuality but do it out of love and compassion. That kind of thinking has been institutionalized across wide swaths of the country, so perhaps it takes a healthy dose of persistence to break that groupthink. Gay rights advocates aren't stupid. They know America isn't just gonna change on its own. Sometimes, you have to annoy people.

There will come a time when a sports star comes out of the closet and no one will care. Not the media. Not the internet. Not teammates. Nobody. But that will be a different kind of indifference. An accepting indifference, not the ######## macho posturing that Mike Francesa is offering up right now. You can hear the contempt in his voice. You can hear him thinking, "I'm tired of hearing about these people." Take it from a reformed homophobe: I know the playbook. I know exactly what the strategy is there. The problem is that it's a losing one.

I think religious people can be pretty open to discussing how they can treat homosexuals differently than they have been. But, what those people aren't open to is someone trying to convince them that homosexuality is not a sin. Those are two different discussions and I don't understand the desire for the latter. Notice there's no great push to convince Christians that premarital sex is ok? That's because Christians do a better job of how they treat those sinners, so people who are ok with premarital sex really don't care whether it's a "sin" or not. Why would they care if those beliefs aren't affecting them legally or in society? There are many sins that Christians treat much better than homosexuality and nobody seems to care that Christians see those things as being sinful. The same goal should be true for homosexuality.

I fully understand, and agree with, the desire to be treated equally, both under the law and within society. And, I think that can be accomplished without arguing against the sin status of homosexuality. I think most Christians will get a little combative if a non-believer attempts to define "sin" for them. It's an argument that just creates anger among both ends of the spectrum.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Good stuff here on the whole "who cares?" angle and the religion angle.

This radio caller I talked to said that homosexuality was an "affliction," but that he didn't mean anything "hateful" by it. That, to me, gets to the heart of why people are being so pushy about this cause. If you're a gay teenager and you come out to your parents and they tell you, "Son, you have an affliction--we're going to pray for your sins and hope you find the right path," you're gonna go jump off a ####### building. This is why the cause has been imbued with such urgency. If it's overbearing at times, well, perhaps it has to be in order to overcome the idea that there's still some sort of bizarre ethical loophole that allows you to condemn homosexuality but do it out of love and compassion. That kind of thinking has been institutionalized across wide swaths of the country, so perhaps it takes a healthy dose of persistence to break that groupthink. Gay rights advocates aren't stupid. They know America isn't just gonna change on its own. Sometimes, you have to annoy people.

There will come a time when a sports star comes out of the closet and no one will care. Not the media. Not the internet. Not teammates. Nobody. But that will be a different kind of indifference. An accepting indifference, not the ######## macho posturing that Mike Francesa is offering up right now. You can hear the contempt in his voice. You can hear him thinking, "I'm tired of hearing about these people." Take it from a reformed homophobe: I know the playbook. I know exactly what the strategy is there. The problem is that it's a losing one.

I think religious people can be pretty open to discussing how they can treat homosexuals differently than they have been. But, what those people aren't open to is someone trying to convince them that homosexuality is not a sin. Those are two different discussions and I don't understand the desire for the latter. Notice there's no great push to convince Christians that premarital sex is ok? That's because Christians do a better job of how they treat those sinners, so people who are ok with premarital sex really don't care whether it's a "sin" or not. Why would they care if those beliefs aren't affecting them legally or in society? There are many sins that Christians treat much better than homosexuality and nobody seems to care that Christians see those things as being sinful. The same goal should be true for homosexuality.

I fully understand, and agree with, the desire to be treated equally, both under the law and within society. And, I think that can be accomplished without arguing against the sin status of homosexuality. I think most Christians will get a little combative if a non-believer attempts to define "sin" for them. It's an argument that just creates anger among both ends of the spectrum.

Sure, I can buy that. I think Christians, and anyone else who feels the need, should be free to define sin however they like.

But surely you see how it's perceived when this is the only sin they feel they need to make public declarations about, when there's literally thousands of sins to choose from. Why doesn't Broussard- or any Christian, for that matter- feel the need to make public declarations of their beliefs and to point out that there's some sinnin' goin' on every time an NBA player exhibits greed or sloth or pride or fornication? Certainly they have plenty of examples of that to choose from. There's hundreds of examples in the career of Andray Blatche alone. Where were all the people saying they had a right to condemn Blatche when he showed up too fat to play or when he went whoring on Thomas Circle? Couldn't be bothered to talk about those sins?

 

[larry_boy_44]

Good stuff here on the whole "who cares?" angle and the religion angle.

This radio caller I talked to said that homosexuality was an "affliction," but that he didn't mean anything "hateful" by it. That, to me, gets to the heart of why people are being so pushy about this cause. If you're a gay teenager and you come out to your parents and they tell you, "Son, you have an affliction--we're going to pray for your sins and hope you find the right path," you're gonna go jump off a ####### building. This is why the cause has been imbued with such urgency. If it's overbearing at times, well, perhaps it has to be in order to overcome the idea that there's still some sort of bizarre ethical loophole that allows you to condemn homosexuality but do it out of love and compassion. That kind of thinking has been institutionalized across wide swaths of the country, so perhaps it takes a healthy dose of persistence to break that groupthink. Gay rights advocates aren't stupid. They know America isn't just gonna change on its own. Sometimes, you have to annoy people.

There will come a time when a sports star comes out of the closet and no one will care. Not the media. Not the internet. Not teammates. Nobody. But that will be a different kind of indifference. An accepting indifference, not the ######## macho posturing that Mike Francesa is offering up right now. You can hear the contempt in his voice. You can hear him thinking, "I'm tired of hearing about these people." Take it from a reformed homophobe: I know the playbook. I know exactly what the strategy is there. The problem is that it's a losing one.

I think religious people can be pretty open to discussing how they can treat homosexuals differently than they have been. But, what those people aren't open to is someone trying to convince them that homosexuality is not a sin. Those are two different discussions and I don't understand the desire for the latter. Notice there's no great push to convince Christians that premarital sex is ok? That's because Christians do a better job of how they treat those sinners, so people who are ok with premarital sex really don't care whether it's a "sin" or not. Why would they care if those beliefs aren't affecting them legally or in society? There are many sins that Christians treat much better than homosexuality and nobody seems to care that Christians see those things as being sinful. The same goal should be true for homosexuality.

I fully understand, and agree with, the desire to be treated equally, both under the law and within society. And, I think that can be accomplished without arguing against the sin status of homosexuality. I think most Christians will get a little combative if a non-believer attempts to define "sin" for them. It's an argument that just creates anger among both ends of the spectrum.

Sure, I can buy that. I think Christians, and anyone else who feels the need, should be free to define sin however they like.

But surely you see how it's perceived when this is the only sin they feel they need to make public declarations about, when there's literally thousands of sins to choose from. Why doesn't Broussard- or any Christian, for that matter- feel the need to make public declarations of their beliefs and to point out that there's some sinnin' goin' on every time an NBA player exhibits greed or sloth or pride or fornication? Certainly they have plenty of examples of that to choose from. There's hundreds of examples in the career of Andray Blatche alone. Where were all the people saying they had a right to condemn Blatche when he showed up too fat to play or when he went whoring on Thomas Circle? Couldn't be bothered to talk about those sins?

At my church a minister (generally my Pastor) makes declarations about things that are sin or how a Christian should live their life at least 3 times a week in our main services, in every Sunday School class (at least 1 during each service and like 5 on Sunday morning), during multiple church sponsored "home Bible Studies" and small groups throughout the week. At the VAST majority (in fact almost every single one) of these meetings/lessons, homosexuality is not brought up.

You are 100% wrong in saying that Christians only make public statements about homosexuality. The issue is that the media only publicizes those statements. But whose fault is that? The media or the people making the statement?

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Good stuff here on the whole "who cares?" angle and the religion angle.

This radio caller I talked to said that homosexuality was an "affliction," but that he didn't mean anything "hateful" by it. That, to me, gets to the heart of why people are being so pushy about this cause. If you're a gay teenager and you come out to your parents and they tell you, "Son, you have an affliction--we're going to pray for your sins and hope you find the right path," you're gonna go jump off a ####### building. This is why the cause has been imbued with such urgency. If it's overbearing at times, well, perhaps it has to be in order to overcome the idea that there's still some sort of bizarre ethical loophole that allows you to condemn homosexuality but do it out of love and compassion. That kind of thinking has been institutionalized across wide swaths of the country, so perhaps it takes a healthy dose of persistence to break that groupthink. Gay rights advocates aren't stupid. They know America isn't just gonna change on its own. Sometimes, you have to annoy people.

There will come a time when a sports star comes out of the closet and no one will care. Not the media. Not the internet. Not teammates. Nobody. But that will be a different kind of indifference. An accepting indifference, not the ######## macho posturing that Mike Francesa is offering up right now. You can hear the contempt in his voice. You can hear him thinking, "I'm tired of hearing about these people." Take it from a reformed homophobe: I know the playbook. I know exactly what the strategy is there. The problem is that it's a losing one.

I think religious people can be pretty open to discussing how they can treat homosexuals differently than they have been. But, what those people aren't open to is someone trying to convince them that homosexuality is not a sin. Those are two different discussions and I don't understand the desire for the latter. Notice there's no great push to convince Christians that premarital sex is ok? That's because Christians do a better job of how they treat those sinners, so people who are ok with premarital sex really don't care whether it's a "sin" or not. Why would they care if those beliefs aren't affecting them legally or in society? There are many sins that Christians treat much better than homosexuality and nobody seems to care that Christians see those things as being sinful. The same goal should be true for homosexuality.

I fully understand, and agree with, the desire to be treated equally, both under the law and within society. And, I think that can be accomplished without arguing against the sin status of homosexuality. I think most Christians will get a little combative if a non-believer attempts to define "sin" for them. It's an argument that just creates anger among both ends of the spectrum.

Pre-marital sex is a choice. Being gay isn't. It's like saying being black or a woman is a sin.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

At my church a minister (generally my Pastor) makes declarations about things that are sin or how a Christian should live their life at least 3 times a week in our main services

Wonderful

 

[TobiasFunke]

Good stuff here on the whole "who cares?" angle and the religion angle.

This radio caller I talked to said that homosexuality was an "affliction," but that he didn't mean anything "hateful" by it. That, to me, gets to the heart of why people are being so pushy about this cause. If you're a gay teenager and you come out to your parents and they tell you, "Son, you have an affliction--we're going to pray for your sins and hope you find the right path," you're gonna go jump off a ####### building. This is why the cause has been imbued with such urgency. If it's overbearing at times, well, perhaps it has to be in order to overcome the idea that there's still some sort of bizarre ethical loophole that allows you to condemn homosexuality but do it out of love and compassion. That kind of thinking has been institutionalized across wide swaths of the country, so perhaps it takes a healthy dose of persistence to break that groupthink. Gay rights advocates aren't stupid. They know America isn't just gonna change on its own. Sometimes, you have to annoy people.

There will come a time when a sports star comes out of the closet and no one will care. Not the media. Not the internet. Not teammates. Nobody. But that will be a different kind of indifference. An accepting indifference, not the ######## macho posturing that Mike Francesa is offering up right now. You can hear the contempt in his voice. You can hear him thinking, "I'm tired of hearing about these people." Take it from a reformed homophobe: I know the playbook. I know exactly what the strategy is there. The problem is that it's a losing one.

I think religious people can be pretty open to discussing how they can treat homosexuals differently than they have been. But, what those people aren't open to is someone trying to convince them that homosexuality is not a sin. Those are two different discussions and I don't understand the desire for the latter. Notice there's no great push to convince Christians that premarital sex is ok? That's because Christians do a better job of how they treat those sinners, so people who are ok with premarital sex really don't care whether it's a "sin" or not. Why would they care if those beliefs aren't affecting them legally or in society? There are many sins that Christians treat much better than homosexuality and nobody seems to care that Christians see those things as being sinful. The same goal should be true for homosexuality.

I fully understand, and agree with, the desire to be treated equally, both under the law and within society. And, I think that can be accomplished without arguing against the sin status of homosexuality. I think most Christians will get a little combative if a non-believer attempts to define "sin" for them. It's an argument that just creates anger among both ends of the spectrum.

Sure, I can buy that. I think Christians, and anyone else who feels the need, should be free to define sin however they like.

But surely you see how it's perceived when this is the only sin they feel they need to make public declarations about, when there's literally thousands of sins to choose from. Why doesn't Broussard- or any Christian, for that matter- feel the need to make public declarations of their beliefs and to point out that there's some sinnin' goin' on every time an NBA player exhibits greed or sloth or pride or fornication? Certainly they have plenty of examples of that to choose from. There's hundreds of examples in the career of Andray Blatche alone. Where were all the people saying they had a right to condemn Blatche when he showed up too fat to play or when he went whoring on Thomas Circle? Couldn't be bothered to talk about those sins?

At my church a minister (generally my Pastor) makes declarations about things that are sin or how a Christian should live their life at least 3 times a week in our main services, in every Sunday School class (at least 1 during each service and like 5 on Sunday morning), during multiple church sponsored "home Bible Studies" and small groups throughout the week, and at many small groups and other breakout groups. At the VAST majority (in fact almost every single one) homosexuality is not brought up.

You are 100% wrong in saying that Christians only make public statements about homosexuality. The issue is that the media only publicizes those statements. But whose fault is that? The media or the people making the statement?

I don't think you know what "public statement" means.

The media only publicizes things that are said publicly. Since the Collins story broke, has anyone pulled a quote from a sermon or a home Bible study? No, they're pulling stuff people say on radio shows or talking head TV programs or on twitter. Where are the comments in those fora about all those other sins committed by basketball players?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

But surely you see how it's perceived when this is the only sin they feel they need to make public declarations about, when there's literally thousands of sins to choose from. Why doesn't Broussard- or any Christian, for that matter- feel the need to make public declarations of their beliefs and to point out that there's some sinnin' goin' on every time an NBA player exhibits greed or sloth or pride or fornication? Certainly they have plenty of examples of that to choose from. There's hundreds of examples in the career of Andray Blatche alone. Where were all the people saying they had a right to condemn Blatche when he showed up too fat to play or when he went whoring on Thomas Circle? Couldn't be bothered to talk about those sins?

I think homosexuality is the only "sin" you listed that anybody disputes. If people were consistently making the argument that open marriages, for example, were a-okay within Christianity, you'd see Christians push back against that idea too. But nobody every argues that greed and lust and pride are consistent with what Christians should aim for, so there's no reason for it to ever come up.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Good stuff here on the whole "who cares?" angle and the religion angle.

This radio caller I talked to said that homosexuality was an "affliction," but that he didn't mean anything "hateful" by it. That, to me, gets to the heart of why people are being so pushy about this cause. If you're a gay teenager and you come out to your parents and they tell you, "Son, you have an affliction--we're going to pray for your sins and hope you find the right path," you're gonna go jump off a ####### building. This is why the cause has been imbued with such urgency. If it's overbearing at times, well, perhaps it has to be in order to overcome the idea that there's still some sort of bizarre ethical loophole that allows you to condemn homosexuality but do it out of love and compassion. That kind of thinking has been institutionalized across wide swaths of the country, so perhaps it takes a healthy dose of persistence to break that groupthink. Gay rights advocates aren't stupid. They know America isn't just gonna change on its own. Sometimes, you have to annoy people.

There will come a time when a sports star comes out of the closet and no one will care. Not the media. Not the internet. Not teammates. Nobody. But that will be a different kind of indifference. An accepting indifference, not the ######## macho posturing that Mike Francesa is offering up right now. You can hear the contempt in his voice. You can hear him thinking, "I'm tired of hearing about these people." Take it from a reformed homophobe: I know the playbook. I know exactly what the strategy is there. The problem is that it's a losing one.

I think religious people can be pretty open to discussing how they can treat homosexuals differently than they have been. But, what those people aren't open to is someone trying to convince them that homosexuality is not a sin. Those are two different discussions and I don't understand the desire for the latter. Notice there's no great push to convince Christians that premarital sex is ok? That's because Christians do a better job of how they treat those sinners, so people who are ok with premarital sex really don't care whether it's a "sin" or not. Why would they care if those beliefs aren't affecting them legally or in society? There are many sins that Christians treat much better than homosexuality and nobody seems to care that Christians see those things as being sinful. The same goal should be true for homosexuality.

I fully understand, and agree with, the desire to be treated equally, both under the law and within society. And, I think that can be accomplished without arguing against the sin status of homosexuality. I think most Christians will get a little combative if a non-believer attempts to define "sin" for them. It's an argument that just creates anger among both ends of the spectrum.

Sure, I can buy that. I think Christians, and anyone else who feels the need, should be free to define sin however they like.

But surely you see how it's perceived when this is the only sin they feel they need to make public declarations about, when there's literally thousands of sins to choose from. Why doesn't Broussard- or any Christian, for that matter- feel the need to make public declarations of their beliefs and to point out that there's some sinnin' goin' on every time an NBA player exhibits greed or sloth or pride or fornication? Certainly they have plenty of examples of that to choose from. There's hundreds of examples in the career of Andray Blatche alone. Where were all the people saying they had a right to condemn Blatche when he showed up too fat to play or when he went whoring on Thomas Circle? Couldn't be bothered to talk about those sins?

At my church a minister (generally my Pastor) makes declarations about things that are sin or how a Christian should live their life at least 3 times a week in our main services, in every Sunday School class (at least 1 during each service and like 5 on Sunday morning), during multiple church sponsored "home Bible Studies" and small groups throughout the week, and at many small groups and other breakout groups. At the VAST majority (in fact almost every single one) homosexuality is not brought up.

You are 100% wrong in saying that Christians only make public statements about homosexuality. The issue is that the media only publicizes those statements. But whose fault is that? The media or the people making the statement?

I don't think you know what "public statement" means.

The media only publicizes things that are said publicly. Since the Collins story broke, has anyone pulled a quote from a sermon or a home Bible study? No, they're pulling stuff people say on radio shows or talking head TV programs or on twitter. Where are the comments in those fora about all those other sins committed by basketball players?

We broadcast the sermons, not our fault no one picks them up.

We post stuff on twitter all the time, not our fault that no one picks them up.

You're making a circular definition of what is public. What is public is what the media decides is public which is what makes it public.

If you aren't given the opportunity to comment, you can't. But that doesn't mean statements are made publically (even if not as wide spread) or they aren't willing to be made publically.

 

[dgreen]

Good stuff here on the whole "who cares?" angle and the religion angle.

This radio caller I talked to said that homosexuality was an "affliction," but that he didn't mean anything "hateful" by it. That, to me, gets to the heart of why people are being so pushy about this cause. If you're a gay teenager and you come out to your parents and they tell you, "Son, you have an affliction--we're going to pray for your sins and hope you find the right path," you're gonna go jump off a ####### building. This is why the cause has been imbued with such urgency. If it's overbearing at times, well, perhaps it has to be in order to overcome the idea that there's still some sort of bizarre ethical loophole that allows you to condemn homosexuality but do it out of love and compassion. That kind of thinking has been institutionalized across wide swaths of the country, so perhaps it takes a healthy dose of persistence to break that groupthink. Gay rights advocates aren't stupid. They know America isn't just gonna change on its own. Sometimes, you have to annoy people.

There will come a time when a sports star comes out of the closet and no one will care. Not the media. Not the internet. Not teammates. Nobody. But that will be a different kind of indifference. An accepting indifference, not the ######## macho posturing that Mike Francesa is offering up right now. You can hear the contempt in his voice. You can hear him thinking, "I'm tired of hearing about these people." Take it from a reformed homophobe: I know the playbook. I know exactly what the strategy is there. The problem is that it's a losing one.

I think religious people can be pretty open to discussing how they can treat homosexuals differently than they have been. But, what those people aren't open to is someone trying to convince them that homosexuality is not a sin. Those are two different discussions and I don't understand the desire for the latter. Notice there's no great push to convince Christians that premarital sex is ok? That's because Christians do a better job of how they treat those sinners, so people who are ok with premarital sex really don't care whether it's a "sin" or not. Why would they care if those beliefs aren't affecting them legally or in society? There are many sins that Christians treat much better than homosexuality and nobody seems to care that Christians see those things as being sinful. The same goal should be true for homosexuality.

I fully understand, and agree with, the desire to be treated equally, both under the law and within society. And, I think that can be accomplished without arguing against the sin status of homosexuality. I think most Christians will get a little combative if a non-believer attempts to define "sin" for them. It's an argument that just creates anger among both ends of the spectrum.

Sure, I can buy that. I think Christians, and anyone else who feels the need, should be free to define sin however they like.

But surely you see how it's perceived when this is the only sin they feel they need to make public declarations about, when there's literally thousands of sins to choose from. Why doesn't Broussard- or any Christian, for that matter- feel the need to make public declarations of their beliefs and to point out that there's some sinnin' goin' on every time an NBA player exhibits greed or sloth or pride or fornication? Certainly they have plenty of examples of that to choose from. There's hundreds of examples in the career of Andray Blatche alone. Where were all the people saying they had a right to condemn Blatche when he showed up too fat to play or when he went whoring on Thomas Circle? Couldn't be bothered to talk about those sins?

Definitely. I think the discussion should be focused on how Christians treat homosexuals in comparison to other people they claim are sinning. And, really, the very few sermons I've ever heard regarding homosexuality have had that as the focus. It really comes down to the idea that the worst sins are the ones I don't struggle with. That's a mindset that needs to change.

 

[TobiasFunke]

But surely you see how it's perceived when this is the only sin they feel they need to make public declarations about, when there's literally thousands of sins to choose from. Why doesn't Broussard- or any Christian, for that matter- feel the need to make public declarations of their beliefs and to point out that there's some sinnin' goin' on every time an NBA player exhibits greed or sloth or pride or fornication? Certainly they have plenty of examples of that to choose from. There's hundreds of examples in the career of Andray Blatche alone. Where were all the people saying they had a right to condemn Blatche when he showed up too fat to play or when he went whoring on Thomas Circle? Couldn't be bothered to talk about those sins?

I think homosexuality is the only "sin" you listed that anybody disputes. If people were consistently making the argument that open marriages, for example, were a-okay within Christianity, you'd see Christians push back against that idea too. But nobody every argues that greed and lust and pride are consistent with what Christians should aim for, so there's no reason for it to ever come up.

I don't think Christians are "pushing back" on this. I think they're choosing to defend their views on sin publicly. If Christians quietly condemned homosexuality and never said anything about it on talk shows or in print or social media or whatever, nobody would seriously object. I mean lots of people would disagree, but they'd disagree the same way they disagree with Christians who think premarital sex is a sin. This "sin" is viewed differently because Christians chose to take their objection to the public, not because the public chose to press the Christians on it.

 

[dgreen]

Good stuff here on the whole "who cares?" angle and the religion angle.

This radio caller I talked to said that homosexuality was an "affliction," but that he didn't mean anything "hateful" by it. That, to me, gets to the heart of why people are being so pushy about this cause. If you're a gay teenager and you come out to your parents and they tell you, "Son, you have an affliction--we're going to pray for your sins and hope you find the right path," you're gonna go jump off a ####### building. This is why the cause has been imbued with such urgency. If it's overbearing at times, well, perhaps it has to be in order to overcome the idea that there's still some sort of bizarre ethical loophole that allows you to condemn homosexuality but do it out of love and compassion. That kind of thinking has been institutionalized across wide swaths of the country, so perhaps it takes a healthy dose of persistence to break that groupthink. Gay rights advocates aren't stupid. They know America isn't just gonna change on its own. Sometimes, you have to annoy people.

There will come a time when a sports star comes out of the closet and no one will care. Not the media. Not the internet. Not teammates. Nobody. But that will be a different kind of indifference. An accepting indifference, not the ######## macho posturing that Mike Francesa is offering up right now. You can hear the contempt in his voice. You can hear him thinking, "I'm tired of hearing about these people." Take it from a reformed homophobe: I know the playbook. I know exactly what the strategy is there. The problem is that it's a losing one.

I think religious people can be pretty open to discussing how they can treat homosexuals differently than they have been. But, what those people aren't open to is someone trying to convince them that homosexuality is not a sin. Those are two different discussions and I don't understand the desire for the latter. Notice there's no great push to convince Christians that premarital sex is ok? That's because Christians do a better job of how they treat those sinners, so people who are ok with premarital sex really don't care whether it's a "sin" or not. Why would they care if those beliefs aren't affecting them legally or in society? There are many sins that Christians treat much better than homosexuality and nobody seems to care that Christians see those things as being sinful. The same goal should be true for homosexuality.

I fully understand, and agree with, the desire to be treated equally, both under the law and within society. And, I think that can be accomplished without arguing against the sin status of homosexuality. I think most Christians will get a little combative if a non-believer attempts to define "sin" for them. It's an argument that just creates anger among both ends of the spectrum.

Pre-marital sex is a choice. Being gay isn't. It's like saying being black or a woman is a sin.

That's semantics, although very important semantics.

"Being gay" can be defined different ways. To one person it might only imply that someone is attracted to someone of the same sex. To someone else it might imply that someone is having the gay sex. While some might say the former is a sin, I think you'll find many Christians who agree that attraction, on its own, is not sinful. However, the latter will almost always lead to a Christian fighting back.

 

[mad sweeney]

Good stuff here on the whole "who cares?" angle and the religion angle.

This radio caller I talked to said that homosexuality was an "affliction," but that he didn't mean anything "hateful" by it. That, to me, gets to the heart of why people are being so pushy about this cause. If you're a gay teenager and you come out to your parents and they tell you, "Son, you have an affliction--we're going to pray for your sins and hope you find the right path," you're gonna go jump off a ####### building. This is why the cause has been imbued with such urgency. If it's overbearing at times, well, perhaps it has to be in order to overcome the idea that there's still some sort of bizarre ethical loophole that allows you to condemn homosexuality but do it out of love and compassion. That kind of thinking has been institutionalized across wide swaths of the country, so perhaps it takes a healthy dose of persistence to break that groupthink. Gay rights advocates aren't stupid. They know America isn't just gonna change on its own. Sometimes, you have to annoy people.

There will come a time when a sports star comes out of the closet and no one will care. Not the media. Not the internet. Not teammates. Nobody. But that will be a different kind of indifference. An accepting indifference, not the ######## macho posturing that Mike Francesa is offering up right now. You can hear the contempt in his voice. You can hear him thinking, "I'm tired of hearing about these people." Take it from a reformed homophobe: I know the playbook. I know exactly what the strategy is there. The problem is that it's a losing one.

I think religious people can be pretty open to discussing how they can treat homosexuals differently than they have been. But, what those people aren't open to is someone trying to convince them that homosexuality is not a sin. Those are two different discussions and I don't understand the desire for the latter. Notice there's no great push to convince Christians that premarital sex is ok? That's because Christians do a better job of how they treat those sinners, so people who are ok with premarital sex really don't care whether it's a "sin" or not. Why would they care if those beliefs aren't affecting them legally or in society? There are many sins that Christians treat much better than homosexuality and nobody seems to care that Christians see those things as being sinful. The same goal should be true for homosexuality.I fully understand, and agree with, the desire to be treated equally, both under the law and within society. And, I think that can be accomplished without arguing against the sin status of homosexuality. I think most Christians will get a little combative if a non-believer attempts to define "sin" for them. It's an argument that just creates anger among both ends of the spectrum.

Sure, I can buy that. I think Christians, and anyone else who feels the need, should be free to define sin however they like.

But surely you see how it's perceived when this is the only sin they feel they need to make public declarations about, when there's literally thousands of sins to choose from. Why doesn't Broussard- or any Christian, for that matter- feel the need to make public declarations of their beliefs and to point out that there's some sinnin' goin' on every time an NBA player exhibits greed or sloth or pride or fornication? Certainly they have plenty of examples of that to choose from. There's hundreds of examples in the career of Andray Blatche alone. Where were all the people saying they had a right to condemn Blatche when he showed up too fat to play or when he went whoring on Thomas Circle? Couldn't be bothered to talk about those sins?

At my church a minister (generally my Pastor) makes declarations about things that are sin or how a Christian should live their life at least 3 times a week in our main services, in every Sunday School class (at least 1 during each service and like 5 on Sunday morning), during multiple church sponsored "home Bible Studies" and small groups throughout the week. At the VAST majority (in fact almost every single one) of these meetings/lessons, homosexuality is not brought up.

You are 100% wrong in saying that Christians only make public statements about homosexuality. The issue is that the media only publicizes those statements. But whose fault is that? The media or the people making the statement?

How does anything said by your pastor at church equal to public statements?

 

[larry_boy_44]

Good stuff here on the whole "who cares?" angle and the religion angle.

This radio caller I talked to said that homosexuality was an "affliction," but that he didn't mean anything "hateful" by it. That, to me, gets to the heart of why people are being so pushy about this cause. If you're a gay teenager and you come out to your parents and they tell you, "Son, you have an affliction--we're going to pray for your sins and hope you find the right path," you're gonna go jump off a ####### building. This is why the cause has been imbued with such urgency. If it's overbearing at times, well, perhaps it has to be in order to overcome the idea that there's still some sort of bizarre ethical loophole that allows you to condemn homosexuality but do it out of love and compassion. That kind of thinking has been institutionalized across wide swaths of the country, so perhaps it takes a healthy dose of persistence to break that groupthink. Gay rights advocates aren't stupid. They know America isn't just gonna change on its own. Sometimes, you have to annoy people.

There will come a time when a sports star comes out of the closet and no one will care. Not the media. Not the internet. Not teammates. Nobody. But that will be a different kind of indifference. An accepting indifference, not the ######## macho posturing that Mike Francesa is offering up right now. You can hear the contempt in his voice. You can hear him thinking, "I'm tired of hearing about these people." Take it from a reformed homophobe: I know the playbook. I know exactly what the strategy is there. The problem is that it's a losing one.

I think religious people can be pretty open to discussing how they can treat homosexuals differently than they have been. But, what those people aren't open to is someone trying to convince them that homosexuality is not a sin. Those are two different discussions and I don't understand the desire for the latter. Notice there's no great push to convince Christians that premarital sex is ok? That's because Christians do a better job of how they treat those sinners, so people who are ok with premarital sex really don't care whether it's a "sin" or not. Why would they care if those beliefs aren't affecting them legally or in society? There are many sins that Christians treat much better than homosexuality and nobody seems to care that Christians see those things as being sinful. The same goal should be true for homosexuality.I fully understand, and agree with, the desire to be treated equally, both under the law and within society. And, I think that can be accomplished without arguing against the sin status of homosexuality. I think most Christians will get a little combative if a non-believer attempts to define "sin" for them. It's an argument that just creates anger among both ends of the spectrum.

Sure, I can buy that. I think Christians, and anyone else who feels the need, should be free to define sin however they like.

But surely you see how it's perceived when this is the only sin they feel they need to make public declarations about, when there's literally thousands of sins to choose from. Why doesn't Broussard- or any Christian, for that matter- feel the need to make public declarations of their beliefs and to point out that there's some sinnin' goin' on every time an NBA player exhibits greed or sloth or pride or fornication? Certainly they have plenty of examples of that to choose from. There's hundreds of examples in the career of Andray Blatche alone. Where were all the people saying they had a right to condemn Blatche when he showed up too fat to play or when he went whoring on Thomas Circle? Couldn't be bothered to talk about those sins?

At my church a minister (generally my Pastor) makes declarations about things that are sin or how a Christian should live their life at least 3 times a week in our main services, in every Sunday School class (at least 1 during each service and like 5 on Sunday morning), during multiple church sponsored "home Bible Studies" and small groups throughout the week. At the VAST majority (in fact almost every single one) of these meetings/lessons, homosexuality is not brought up.

You are 100% wrong in saying that Christians only make public statements about homosexuality. The issue is that the media only publicizes those statements. But whose fault is that? The media or the people making the statement?

How does anything said by your pastor at church equal to public statements?

How is it not? Its not a private meeting, anyone can come.

Either way, my point is that Christians are willing to say TONS of things at any level of public or private about tons of sins, and VERY RARELY talk about homosexuality. It just happens to be the topic of the moment and the one that gets the most attention and $$ in the media (well, and abortion).

 

[SWC]

i am a catholic life long and remember when some masses were still in latin done the alter boy thing when we still rang alter bells been an usher and so on i have been around brohans and i am telling you that it is guys like larry boy and broussard who are acting in defiance of god because they are saying they know his will when we can never know his will we should only come to him like babes but hey some people will pick up that good book and use it to support hatred against anything they do not understand or fear well brohans i am here to tell you that there is nothing wrong with being gay it is not a sin and neither is being black or being a woman it is just a bunch of hipocrate meatheads on the wrong side of history using the bible to cover hate is disgraceful brohans tkae that to the bank

 

[BobbyLayne]

Had anybody heard of Jason Collins before this? What an excellent PR move. Well done.

I do remember him and his twin brother when they were at Staanford. I was aware he was with the Nets and in the rotation for many years. But honestly, I had forgotten he was still in the league until yesterrday.