"Tell me about the last time you saw another man's sack." (1 Viewer)

[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?

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).

I'd say that you can't be serious, but I know your touch on reality is tenuous at best and that you are. You're telling me that you don't see the difference between saying things on a public stage as large as a major TV network vs having to actually attend a church to hear the words? I love it when Larry's around.

 

[pollardsvision]

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.

That's why Charles is so wrong.

People can dislike it, but there's absolutely no good reason to say so publicly.

 

[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).

I'd say that you can't be serious, but I know your touch on reality is tenuous at best and that you are. You're telling me that you don't see the difference between saying things on a public stage as large as a major TV network vs having to actually attend a church to hear the words? I love it when Larry's around.

Where did I say they were the same?

I said both were public. I didn't say that the audience was the same size. I said that Christians don't hide what they believe, and that when given opportunities to speak on things and proclaim what is sin and what is i not, they very rarely actually point out homosexuality.

My point was that no one is hiding what they're saying. You act like there's this huge Christian conspiracy to hide our doctrines and the only one publically proclaimed is that homosexuality is a sin, that's just not true (and you know it). We speak of doctrines and what God thinks often, and very rarely bring up homosexuality.

 

[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?

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).

I'd say that you can't be serious, but I know your touch on reality is tenuous at best and that you are. You're telling me that you don't see the difference between saying things on a public stage as large as a major TV network vs having to actually attend a church to hear the words? I love it when Larry's around.

Where did I say they were the same?

I said both were public. I didn't say that the audience was the same size. I said that Christians don't hide what they believe, and that when given opportunities to speak on things and proclaim what is sin and what is i not, they very rarely actually point out homosexuality.

My point was that no one is hiding what they're saying. You act like there's this huge Christian conspiracy to hide our doctrines and the only one publically proclaimed is that homosexuality is a sin, that's just not true (and you know it). We speak of doctrines and what God thinks often, and very rarely bring up homosexuality.

Your response to me indicated that you considered your pastor's comments to be public. There's this thing called context, see. And when we're talking about things in the media, and ESPN and whatever other number of "public" outlets, that's what we're talking about. Not a church meeting anyone can go to if they want. We're talking about public, as in mass communication.

Aaaaand you're not even close on what I am "acting like". Not even in the same ballpark. Never said anything remotely implying that conclusion.

 

[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).

I'd say that you can't be serious, but I know your touch on reality is tenuous at best and that you are. You're telling me that you don't see the difference between saying things on a public stage as large as a major TV network vs having to actually attend a church to hear the words? I love it when Larry's around.

Where did I say they were the same?

I said both were public. I didn't say that the audience was the same size. I said that Christians don't hide what they believe, and that when given opportunities to speak on things and proclaim what is sin and what is i not, they very rarely actually point out homosexuality.

My point was that no one is hiding what they're saying. You act like there's this huge Christian conspiracy to hide our doctrines and the only one publically proclaimed is that homosexuality is a sin, that's just not true (and you know it). We speak of doctrines and what God thinks often, and very rarely bring up homosexuality.

Your response to me indicated that you considered your pastor's comments to be public. There's this thing called context, see. And when we're talking about things in the media, and ESPN and whatever other number of "public" outlets, that's what we're talking about. Not a church meeting anyone can go to if they want. We're talking about public, as in mass communication.

Aaaaand you're not even close on what I am "acting like". Not even in the same ballpark. Never said anything remotely implying that conclusion.

OK, so where exactly are you expecting Christians to be talking against all these other sins? What platform exactly are we supposed to be doing it on?

 

[Disco Stu]

OK, so where exactly are you expecting Christians to be talking against all these other sins? What platform exactly are we supposed to be doing it on?

They've done some really good work with brochures and pamphlets. Let's stick with that for now.

 

[mad sweeney]

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).

I'd say that you can't be serious, but I know your touch on reality is tenuous at best and that you are. You're telling me that you don't see the difference between saying things on a public stage as large as a major TV network vs having to actually attend a church to hear the words? I love it when Larry's around.

Where did I say they were the same?

I said both were public. I didn't say that the audience was the same size. I said that Christians don't hide what they believe, and that when given opportunities to speak on things and proclaim what is sin and what is i not, they very rarely actually point out homosexuality.

My point was that no one is hiding what they're saying. You act like there's this huge Christian conspiracy to hide our doctrines and the only one publically proclaimed is that homosexuality is a sin, that's just not true (and you know it). We speak of doctrines and what God thinks often, and very rarely bring up homosexuality.

Your response to me indicated that you considered your pastor's comments to be public. There's this thing called context, see. And when we're talking about things in the media, and ESPN and whatever other number of "public" outlets, that's what we're talking about. Not a church meeting anyone can go to if they want. We're talking about public, as in mass communication.

Aaaaand you're not even close on what I am "acting like". Not even in the same ballpark. Never said anything remotely implying that conclusion.

OK, so where exactly are you expecting Christians to be talking against all these other sins? What platform exactly are we supposed to be doing it on?

Context homie, context. Where? How about the same places they're out there telling us how bad homosexuality is?

 

[Zow]

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.

I watched him during their pre-season camp when he played for the TWolves. He wasn't very good at free throws.

But for some reason I also got him mixed up with Darren Collison. Not sure why.

 

[Zow]

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.

Hey, you need to tolerate my intolerance, mister!

 

[simmonjm]

Did Brossard speak out against out of wedlock children and abortions since this recently happened to Royce White (he reportedly paid $20,000 for a recent abortion and has 4 out of wedlock children)? Or is homosexuality just so appalling to him that he had to speak out against it?

 

[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.

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.

That's a good point. I have to admit that I agree with you that there's no compelling theological reason for Christians to push this one particular issue.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

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.

That's a good point. I have to admit that I agree with you that there's no compelling theological reason for Christians to push this one particular issue.

People don't even go to jail for some of the sins. How come no one speaks out against adultery when that is for sure one of the ten commandments?

 

[timschochet]

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.

Thanks for clarifying. The first time I watched a snippet; this time I watched the whole thing and you are correct that he does address my point.

That being said, he addresses my point in such a way as to his explain and attempt to justify his views on homosexuality: if the question were simply an athlete's adultery without any mention of homosexuality, I remain highly skeptical that Broussard would state that whoever performs adultery is not a Christian in the same way as whoever is a homosexual is not a Christian. He adds the adultery afterward as a way to show that it's not just homosexuality. But I don't believe him. With most of these guys (religious people who publicly state their opposition to homosexuality) it appears to be a much bigger focus than adultery or other sins. Even if Broussard is an exception to this rule (and I don't believe that to be true), it remains a rule IMO and my original point is still valid.

 

[timschochet]

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.

That's a good point. I have to admit that I agree with you that there's no compelling theological reason for Christians to push this one particular issue.

This is exactly the point I was trying to make earlier.

 

[Parrothead]

wait a second... he's black????????

 

[Fennis]

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.

Hey, you need to tolerate my intolerance, mister!

My Link

 

[Zow]

Did Brossard speak out against out of wedlock children and abortions since this recently happened to Royce White (he reportedly paid $20,000 for a recent abortion and has 4 out of wedlock children)? Or is homosexuality just so appalling to him that he had to speak out against it?

Why would he recently speak out about that issue when NBA stars have constantly been engaging in that type of thing? The issue isn't ripe anymore.

 

[Fennis]

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.

Hey, you need to tolerate my intolerance, mister!

My Link

 

[simmonjm]

Did Brossard speak out against out of wedlock children and abortions since this recently happened to Royce White (he reportedly paid $20,000 for a recent abortion and has 4 out of wedlock children)? Or is homosexuality just so appalling to him that he had to speak out against it?

Why would he recently speak out about that issue when NBA stars have constantly been engaging in that type of thing? The issue isn't ripe anymore.

Following this logic shouldnt an analyst have spoken out about the sin of Kobe and his rape charge? I don't seem to remember this happening.

 

[BobbyLayne]

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/9227052/collins-fiancee-reaction

Interesting read about the weeks leading up to coming out.

 

[larry_boy_44]

OK, so where exactly are you expecting Christians to be talking against all these other sins? What platform exactly are we supposed to be doing it on?

They've done some really good work with brochures and pamphlets. Let's stick with that for now.

we have dozens of those, not one about homosexuality.

looked on the denomination's web page, found none on homosexuality and only 2 or 3 that might mention it in passing, but I'd be surprised.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

Really? Ten pages? Wow!

 

[the moops]

OK, so where exactly are you expecting Christians to be talking against all these other sins? What platform exactly are we supposed to be doing it on?

They've done some really good work with brochures and pamphlets. Let's stick with that for now.

we have dozens of those, not one about homosexuality.

looked on the denomination's web page, found none on homosexuality and only 2 or 3 that might mention it in passing, but I'd be surprised.

Good thing you guys have tried to pass paws outlawing premarital sex and adultery and whatever else your pamphlets tell you is wrong

 

[Patrick Bateman]

Oh, Jesusguys are against homosexuality? Shocker!!!!

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Oh, Jesusguys are against homosexuality? Shocker!!!!

They also seem to be against Jesus and for the OT.

 

[Eephus]

Really? Ten pages? Wow!

Pages 6-10 have been more about Larry_boy than Collins

 

[Patrick Bateman]

I don't care. Jason Collins is a homosexual. Big freaking deal. Good for him. He was born that way! I don't care what your man made bible says. We are all created equal!

 

[gandalas]

The gay jokes in here really aren't funny.

Too bad he won't be in the league next year.

Actually, they are.

actually all star they are not funny at all and to all the super awesome internet tough guys who can make fun of him here without putting your name up i bet if you get in front of him you do not say a thing to him remember he is the seven foot guy who could probably snap you like a twig unless the pizza rolls have made your belly full of jelly which is likely so just stop cripes the internet has kept the jerk store in business for a lot of years but you guys take the cake and talk about a whole lot of hat but not cattle that describes the lot of you so i say good day to you and for those that are with me keep on keepin on and take it to the bank riders of brohan and that is one to grow on from the old swcer

amen brother

Brohans of the world, unite!

EDIT: Missed the SWC postings.

 

[SWC]

thanks brohans here is what i have been thinking about over the night like the song from jamaica says until there are no more first class second class citizensof any nation then all around us is war so i say stop with trying to lable people sinners or affronts to god or whatever just be good to your fellow brohans and realize that god does not want division he wants unity take that to the bank brochachos and sorry for posting so much in this thread but intolerance gets me worked up and i will not be quiet about it any more

 

[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

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.

that's not the point

there is no requirement to be tolerant of intolerance. What that really means is don't express your opinions about my intolerance.

the point is no one has a right to express their views and not have others express THEIR views as well. This includes Jason Collins. He has to expect people to speak out against him, and that is their right. But those people have to expect the same. The issue is the tide has turned and most of the voices are coming to the defense of Collins. This causes those who do not to play the victim card and say "we should not be crucified for our views". No one has freedom from the consequences of their speech.

 

[larry_boy_44]

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.

that's not the point

there is no requirement to be tolerant of intolerance. What that really means is don't express your opinions about my intolerance.

the point is no one has a right to express their views and not have others express THEIR views as well. This includes Jason Collins. He has to expect people to speak out against him, and that is their right. But those people have to expect the same. The issue is the tide has turned and most of the voices are coming to the defense of Collins. This causes those who do not to play the victim card and say "we should not be crucified for our views". No one has freedom from the consequences of their speech.

But what is "intolerance" really?

Am I intolerant of people who are having premarital sex when i say it is sinful for them to be doing so? If not, why is it different when I say the same thing about people have homosexual sex? If so, why? Why does it matter?

I get why its a big deal to want gay marriage to be legal, I understand that. I don't understand the seeming need to attack people for saying that they believe homosexuality is immoral. If you don't care that I think smoking, drinking, recreational drug use, premarital sex, extramarital sex, gambling, and countless other things that the majority of Americans do is immoral, why do you care so much about this one?

Because I promise you that if you gave the majority of Christians the ability to criminalize adultery or gambling or alcohol, they would. Seriously, try and bring back prohibition and I bet you'd have the evangelicals behind you. I know they're very against legalizing marijuana because "its immoral

Why do you think they try to make abortions illegal? Try to stop schools from handing out condoms?

There have been multiple Christian schools and other orgs that have gotten in trouble in the last couple years for firing women who got pregnant out of marriage when they worked for them. This isn't just a gay thing, that's just the one that gets the most media attention and its the one that has the most people "firing back".

 

[TobiasFunke]

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.

that's not the point

there is no requirement to be tolerant of intolerance. What that really means is don't express your opinions about my intolerance.

the point is no one has a right to express their views and not have others express THEIR views as well. This includes Jason Collins. He has to expect people to speak out against him, and that is their right. But those people have to expect the same. The issue is the tide has turned and most of the voices are coming to the defense of Collins. This causes those who do not to play the victim card and say "we should not be crucified for our views". No one has freedom from the consequences of their speech.

But what is "intolerance" really?

Am I intolerant of people who are having premarital sex when i say it is sinful for them to be doing so? If not, why is it different when I say the same thing about people have homosexual sex? If so, why? Why does it matter?

I get why its a big deal to want gay marriage to be legal, I understand that. I don't understand the seeming need to attack people for saying that they believe homosexuality is immoral. If you don't care that I think smoking, drinking, recreational drug use, premarital sex, extramarital sex, gambling, and countless other things that the majority of Americans do is immoral, why do you care so much about this one?

Because I promise you that if you gave the majority of Christians the ability to criminalize adultery or gambling or alcohol, they would. Seriously, try and bring back prohibition and I bet you'd have the evangelicals behind you. I know they're very against legalizing marijuana because "its immoral

Why do you think they try to make abortions illegal? Try to stop schools from handing out condoms?

There have been multiple Christian schools and other orgs that have gotten in trouble in the last couple years for firing women who got pregnant out of marriage when they worked for them. This isn't just a gay thing, that's just the one that gets the most media attention and its the one that has the most people "firing back".

We have threads about premarital sex and gambling and other "sins" all the time around here. Why don't you feel the need to voice your opinion about that sinful behavior in those threads? Why is it only the gay threads?

I think you have the cause and effect wrong. You're not "firing back," you're firing the first shot by introducing your religious beliefs here.

 

[larry_boy_44]

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.

that's not the point

there is no requirement to be tolerant of intolerance. What that really means is don't express your opinions about my intolerance.

the point is no one has a right to express their views and not have others express THEIR views as well. This includes Jason Collins. He has to expect people to speak out against him, and that is their right. But those people have to expect the same. The issue is the tide has turned and most of the voices are coming to the defense of Collins. This causes those who do not to play the victim card and say "we should not be crucified for our views". No one has freedom from the consequences of their speech.

But what is "intolerance" really?

Am I intolerant of people who are having premarital sex when i say it is sinful for them to be doing so? If not, why is it different when I say the same thing about people have homosexual sex? If so, why? Why does it matter?

I get why its a big deal to want gay marriage to be legal, I understand that. I don't understand the seeming need to attack people for saying that they believe homosexuality is immoral. If you don't care that I think smoking, drinking, recreational drug use, premarital sex, extramarital sex, gambling, and countless other things that the majority of Americans do is immoral, why do you care so much about this one?

Because I promise you that if you gave the majority of Christians the ability to criminalize adultery or gambling or alcohol, they would. Seriously, try and bring back prohibition and I bet you'd have the evangelicals behind you. I know they're very against legalizing marijuana because "its immoral

Why do you think they try to make abortions illegal? Try to stop schools from handing out condoms?

There have been multiple Christian schools and other orgs that have gotten in trouble in the last couple years for firing women who got pregnant out of marriage when they worked for them. This isn't just a gay thing, that's just the one that gets the most media attention and its the one that has the most people "firing back".

We have threads about premarital sex and gambling and other "sins" all the time around here. Why don't you feel the need to voice your opinion about that sinful behavior in those threads? Why is it only the gay threads?

I think you have the cause and effect wrong. You're not "firing back," you're firing the first shot by introducing your religious beliefs here.

I didn't start the thread, I didn't even post in the first few pages.

And it isn't the only thread, I say things in other threads, too, but what's the point really?

could I rip Arizona Ron for his infidelity? Sure. But after a while, what's the point? Is anyone really arguing that its better to cheat on your wife than it is to be faithful? No.

Same with gambling threads. There aren't threads on if gambling should be allowed, there are threads on how to gamble, how to better gamble, etc.

Plus, the fact is, I didn't post to say homosexuality is awful. Is it a sin? Sure. It isn't worse than any other though. I posted because of the idiocy in the things that were being said (by people on "both sides") and because it isn't right to attack someone for answering a question asked of him as he was asked (Broussard). I don't care who's gay and who isn't, the only standing that really matters to me is "saved" or "not saved", and nothing in this thread is going to change those things.

 

[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.

that's not the point

there is no requirement to be tolerant of intolerance. What that really means is don't express your opinions about my intolerance.

the point is no one has a right to express their views and not have others express THEIR views as well. This includes Jason Collins. He has to expect people to speak out against him, and that is their right. But those people have to expect the same. The issue is the tide has turned and most of the voices are coming to the defense of Collins. This causes those who do not to play the victim card and say "we should not be crucified for our views". No one has freedom from the consequences of their speech.

So, someone not agreeing with you means they are intolerant?

As for the tide turning, you are correct, but largely because people in this country are sheep. Hell, even the president never publicly came out in favor of gay marriage until like a year or so ago, and that was because he could see that the public had turned in favor of it, so he, like a good sheep, followed right along. It's what people do. And why all of a sudden anyone who comes out as not being in favor of gay marriage or homosexuality in general is automatically judged and labeled a bigot or homophobe.

And again, for the record, I am in favor of gay marriage, but I just hate this rush to judgment so many make, just because someone doesn't agree with them.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

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.

that's not the point

there is no requirement to be tolerant of intolerance. What that really means is don't express your opinions about my intolerance.

the point is no one has a right to express their views and not have others express THEIR views as well. This includes Jason Collins. He has to expect people to speak out against him, and that is their right. But those people have to expect the same. The issue is the tide has turned and most of the voices are coming to the defense of Collins. This causes those who do not to play the victim card and say "we should not be crucified for our views". No one has freedom from the consequences of their speech.

So, someone not agreeing with you means they are intolerant?

As for the tide turning, you are correct, but largely because people in this country are sheep. Hell, even the president never publicly came out in favor of gay marriage until like a year or so ago, and that was because he could see that the public had turned in favor of it, so he, like a good sheep, followed right along. It's what people do. And why all of a sudden anyone who comes out as not being in favor of gay marriage or homosexuality in general is automatically judged and labeled a bigot or homophobe.

And again, for the record, I am in favor of gay marriage, but I just hate this rush to judgment so many make, just because someone doesn't agree with them.

Trying to deny a US citizen equal rights sure as hell does qualify.

 

[jonessed]

So, someone not agreeing with you means they are intolerant?

These threads always go the same way. They may start differently, but they always end up here. It just took a bit longer this time because the thread didn't get timschochet'd early on. (Edit: timschochet actually started the religious angle, so I guess he just did a hit and run).Collins came out, ESPN asked a Religious analyst to give his take on it as a Christian, and he did. There was nothing hateful in his comments. It was actually a pretty subdued Christian take on it.There is a large contingent of people around here that have a big chip on their shoulder towards Christianity and its general influence on our society.

 

[TobiasFunke]

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.

that's not the point

there is no requirement to be tolerant of intolerance. What that really means is don't express your opinions about my intolerance.

the point is no one has a right to express their views and not have others express THEIR views as well. This includes Jason Collins. He has to expect people to speak out against him, and that is their right. But those people have to expect the same. The issue is the tide has turned and most of the voices are coming to the defense of Collins. This causes those who do not to play the victim card and say "we should not be crucified for our views". No one has freedom from the consequences of their speech.

But what is "intolerance" really?

Am I intolerant of people who are having premarital sex when i say it is sinful for them to be doing so? If not, why is it different when I say the same thing about people have homosexual sex? If so, why? Why does it matter?

I get why its a big deal to want gay marriage to be legal, I understand that. I don't understand the seeming need to attack people for saying that they believe homosexuality is immoral. If you don't care that I think smoking, drinking, recreational drug use, premarital sex, extramarital sex, gambling, and countless other things that the majority of Americans do is immoral, why do you care so much about this one?

Because I promise you that if you gave the majority of Christians the ability to criminalize adultery or gambling or alcohol, they would. Seriously, try and bring back prohibition and I bet you'd have the evangelicals behind you. I know they're very against legalizing marijuana because "its immoral

Why do you think they try to make abortions illegal? Try to stop schools from handing out condoms?

There have been multiple Christian schools and other orgs that have gotten in trouble in the last couple years for firing women who got pregnant out of marriage when they worked for them. This isn't just a gay thing, that's just the one that gets the most media attention and its the one that has the most people "firing back".

We have threads about premarital sex and gambling and other "sins" all the time around here. Why don't you feel the need to voice your opinion about that sinful behavior in those threads? Why is it only the gay threads?

I think you have the cause and effect wrong. You're not "firing back," you're firing the first shot by introducing your religious beliefs here.

I didn't start the thread, I didn't even post in the first few pages.

And it isn't the only thread, I say things in other threads, too, but what's the point really?

could I rip Arizona Ron for his infidelity? Sure. But after a while, what's the point? Is anyone really arguing that its better to cheat on your wife than it is to be faithful? No.

Same with gambling threads. There aren't threads on if gambling should be allowed, there are threads on how to gamble, how to better gamble, etc.

Plus, the fact is, I didn't post to say homosexuality is awful. Is it a sin? Sure. It isn't worse than any other though. I posted because of the idiocy in the things that were being said (by people on "both sides") and because it isn't right to attack someone for answering a question asked of him as he was asked (Broussard). I don't care who's gay and who isn't, the only standing that really matters to me is "saved" or "not saved", and nothing in this thread is going to change those things.

OK, then same question for Broussard. Why doesn't he feel the need to go on ESPN talking head shows and condemn the sinfulness of other types of activities? Why is Collins coming out of the closet the event that triggers this response? Doesn't that seem like quite a coincidence to you?

I don't care what you call a sin. I mean, I do think it's sad that there are so many people on this planet who blindly accept this kind of bigotry and intolerance in their choice of religion instead of questioning it, but I understand that only time and progress can change that.

What I DO care about is the ridiculous notion you and others seem to be pushing that Christian views are "under attack" on the issue of homosexuality. Christians are the ones bringing their beliefs to the public on this issue, not vice versa. It's true of Broussard, and it's true of your decision to enter this thread to defend him. If you truly treated this "sin" the way you treated the rest of them- condemn it in church teachings and leave it at that- nobody would be attacking you. But that's not what's been going on. There aren't a lot of people organizing marches and protests and writing articles or going on TV shows to condemn glottony.

 

[jonessed]

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.

that's not the pointthere is no requirement to be tolerant of intolerance. What that really means is don't express your opinions about my intolerance.

the point is no one has a right to express their views and not have others express THEIR views as well. This includes Jason Collins. He has to expect people to speak out against him, and that is their right. But those people have to expect the same. The issue is the tide has turned and most of the voices are coming to the defense of Collins. This causes those who do not to play the victim card and say "we should not be crucified for our views". No one has freedom from the consequences of their speech.

But what is "intolerance" really?

Am I intolerant of people who are having premarital sex when i say it is sinful for them to be doing so? If not, why is it different when I say the same thing about people have homosexual sex? If so, why? Why does it matter?

I get why its a big deal to want gay marriage to be legal, I understand that. I don't understand the seeming need to attack people for saying that they believe homosexuality is immoral. If you don't care that I think smoking, drinking, recreational drug use, premarital sex, extramarital sex, gambling, and countless other things that the majority of Americans do is immoral, why do you care so much about this one?

Because I promise you that if you gave the majority of Christians the ability to criminalize adultery or gambling or alcohol, they would. Seriously, try and bring back prohibition and I bet you'd have the evangelicals behind you. I know they're very against legalizing marijuana because "its immoral

Why do you think they try to make abortions illegal? Try to stop schools from handing out condoms?

There have been multiple Christian schools and other orgs that have gotten in trouble in the last couple years for firing women who got pregnant out of marriage when they worked for them. This isn't just a gay thing, that's just the one that gets the most media attention and its the one that has the most people "firing back".

We have threads about premarital sex and gambling and other "sins" all the time around here. Why don't you feel the need to voice your opinion about that sinful behavior in those threads? Why is it only the gay threads?

I think you have the cause and effect wrong. You're not "firing back," you're firing the first shot by introducing your religious beliefs here.

I didn't start the thread, I didn't even post in the first few pages.

And it isn't the only thread, I say things in other threads, too, but what's the point really?

could I rip Arizona Ron for his infidelity? Sure. But after a while, what's the point? Is anyone really arguing that its better to cheat on your wife than it is to be faithful? No.

Same with gambling threads. There aren't threads on if gambling should be allowed, there are threads on how to gamble, how to better gamble, etc.

Plus, the fact is, I didn't post to say homosexuality is awful. Is it a sin? Sure. It isn't worse than any other though. I posted because of the idiocy in the things that were being said (by people on "both sides") and because it isn't right to attack someone for answering a question asked of him as he was asked (Broussard). I don't care who's gay and who isn't, the only standing that really matters to me is "saved" or "not saved", and nothing in this thread is going to change those things.

OK, then same question for Broussard. Why doesn't he feel the need to go on ESPN talking head shows and condemn the sinfulness of other types of activities? Why is Collins coming out of the closet the event that triggers this response? Doesn't that seem like quite a coincidence to you?

I don't care what you call a sin. I mean, I do think it's sad that there are so many people on this planet who blindly accept this kind of bigotry and intolerance in their choice of religion instead of questioning it, but I understand that only time and progress can change that.

What I DO care about is the ridiculous notion you and others seem to be pushing that Christian views are "under attack" on the issue of homosexuality. Christians are the ones bringing their beliefs to the public on this issue, not vice versa. It's true of Broussard, and it's true of your decision to enter this thread to defend him. If you truly treated this "sin" the way you treated the rest of them- condemn it in church teachings and leave it at that- nobody would be attacking you. But that's not what's been going on. There aren't a lot of people organizing marches and protests and writing articles or going on TV shows to condemn glottony.

He was specifically asked to give his religious take on it. Go bash ESPN if you don't like the question.

 

[larry_boy_44]

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.

that's not the point

there is no requirement to be tolerant of intolerance. What that really means is don't express your opinions about my intolerance.

the point is no one has a right to express their views and not have others express THEIR views as well. This includes Jason Collins. He has to expect people to speak out against him, and that is their right. But those people have to expect the same. The issue is the tide has turned and most of the voices are coming to the defense of Collins. This causes those who do not to play the victim card and say "we should not be crucified for our views". No one has freedom from the consequences of their speech.

So, someone not agreeing with you means they are intolerant?

As for the tide turning, you are correct, but largely because people in this country are sheep. Hell, even the president never publicly came out in favor of gay marriage until like a year or so ago, and that was because he could see that the public had turned in favor of it, so he, like a good sheep, followed right along. It's what people do. And why all of a sudden anyone who comes out as not being in favor of gay marriage or homosexuality in general is automatically judged and labeled a bigot or homophobe.

And again, for the record, I am in favor of gay marriage, but I just hate this rush to judgment so many make, just because someone doesn't agree with them.

Trying to deny a US citizen equal rights sure as hell does qualify.

there is no "right" to marry whomever you want. There is only the right to marry who it is legally defined as who you can marry.

For instance, in most states you don't have the "legal right" to marry your sibling. Why? Because we deemed it icky and said you can't do it!

Every American has equal rights, in the states where marriage is defined without gender, they all have the right to marry whomever they want (except siblings, parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents, and most of the time first cousins). In states where marriage is defined as between one man and one woman, everyone is allowed to marry whoever they want within that states' definition of marriage.

this whole "WE DON'T HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS!" thing is nonsense and you know it. It has NEVER nor will it EVER be legal to marry literally whomever you want.

 

[TobiasFunke]

He was explicitly asked to give his religious take on it. Go bash ESPN if you don't like the question.

Absolutely, ESPN deserves some of the blame for that particular farce. But he agreed to go on the show. I seriously doubt he had to do that. It's not part of his normal job. He made the choice to bring his feelings about homosexuality to a public forum.

And he's just one example of literally thousands. Do you seriously think that when it comes to gay rights the fight is being brought to the Christians, or do you think the Christians are bringing the fight to the public? I think it's the latter. I think that's incredibly obvious when you compare it to their public behavior (or lack thereof) on the litany of other "sins" they condemn. If you disagree with what I and many others consider to be self-evident, I'm not sure what else to say to you.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

You are denying an adult American Citizen the rights of marriage based upon gender.

And further more the religious also try to do it on the basis of sexual orientation.

These are identical to not allowing inter-racial marriage right up until 1967 in some states.

 

[larry_boy_44]

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.

that's not the point

there is no requirement to be tolerant of intolerance. What that really means is don't express your opinions about my intolerance.

the point is no one has a right to express their views and not have others express THEIR views as well. This includes Jason Collins. He has to expect people to speak out against him, and that is their right. But those people have to expect the same. The issue is the tide has turned and most of the voices are coming to the defense of Collins. This causes those who do not to play the victim card and say "we should not be crucified for our views". No one has freedom from the consequences of their speech.

But what is "intolerance" really?

Am I intolerant of people who are having premarital sex when i say it is sinful for them to be doing so? If not, why is it different when I say the same thing about people have homosexual sex? If so, why? Why does it matter?

I get why its a big deal to want gay marriage to be legal, I understand that. I don't understand the seeming need to attack people for saying that they believe homosexuality is immoral. If you don't care that I think smoking, drinking, recreational drug use, premarital sex, extramarital sex, gambling, and countless other things that the majority of Americans do is immoral, why do you care so much about this one?

Because I promise you that if you gave the majority of Christians the ability to criminalize adultery or gambling or alcohol, they would. Seriously, try and bring back prohibition and I bet you'd have the evangelicals behind you. I know they're very against legalizing marijuana because "its immoral

Why do you think they try to make abortions illegal? Try to stop schools from handing out condoms?

There have been multiple Christian schools and other orgs that have gotten in trouble in the last couple years for firing women who got pregnant out of marriage when they worked for them. This isn't just a gay thing, that's just the one that gets the most media attention and its the one that has the most people "firing back".

We have threads about premarital sex and gambling and other "sins" all the time around here. Why don't you feel the need to voice your opinion about that sinful behavior in those threads? Why is it only the gay threads?

I think you have the cause and effect wrong. You're not "firing back," you're firing the first shot by introducing your religious beliefs here.

I didn't start the thread, I didn't even post in the first few pages.

And it isn't the only thread, I say things in other threads, too, but what's the point really?

could I rip Arizona Ron for his infidelity? Sure. But after a while, what's the point? Is anyone really arguing that its better to cheat on your wife than it is to be faithful? No.

Same with gambling threads. There aren't threads on if gambling should be allowed, there are threads on how to gamble, how to better gamble, etc.

Plus, the fact is, I didn't post to say homosexuality is awful. Is it a sin? Sure. It isn't worse than any other though. I posted because of the idiocy in the things that were being said (by people on "both sides") and because it isn't right to attack someone for answering a question asked of him as he was asked (Broussard). I don't care who's gay and who isn't, the only standing that really matters to me is "saved" or "not saved", and nothing in this thread is going to change those things.

OK, then same question for Broussard. Why doesn't he feel the need to go on ESPN talking head shows and condemn the sinfulness of other types of activities? Why is Collins coming out of the closet the event that triggers this response? Doesn't that seem like quite a coincidence to you?

I don't care what you call a sin. I mean, I do think it's sad that there are so many people on this planet who blindly accept this kind of bigotry and intolerance in their choice of religion instead of questioning it, but I understand that only time and progress can change that.

What I DO care about is the ridiculous notion you and others seem to be pushing that Christian views are "under attack" on the issue of homosexuality. Christians are the ones bringing their beliefs to the public on this issue, not vice versa. It's true of Broussard, and it's true of your decision to enter this thread to defend him. If you truly treated this "sin" the way you treated the rest of them- condemn it in church teachings and leave it at that- nobody would be attacking you. But that's not what's been going on. There aren't a lot of people organizing marches and protests and writing articles or going on TV shows to condemn glottony.

I'm sure he would. But ESPN won't let him. He was brought on that show to talk, with his gay reporter friend, to describe their views on the subject and admit that they're still friends. I have no idea how it was pitched, but that's what it was.

Collins coming out triggered the response because it was when the network wanted him on the air, and he decided not to turn them down (that or wasn't given the option).

As far as "under attack", it is. Why? Not because gay marriage is slowly becoming legal everywhere, but because the entire idea that Christians have the right to believe that an act is sinful is under attack.

And you show me where the protest saying that it is not a sin or harmful in any way to be gluttonous and I'll get together a group of Christians and we'll protest it. Until that happens, you're being ridiculous.

We have gay pride parades where, quite frankly, children shouldn't be present going down main streets in American cities every summer. We have every Christian who dares think that homosexuality is a sin still being labelled a bigot and demonized at every opportunity. OF COURSE the church is speaking loudest about homosexuality, its the thing that's being shoved down everyone's throat the most. The fact is Christians do protest and march and do everything else they can about premarital sex (abstinence ring a bell?), about abortion, about the death penalty, and tons of other things they believe. But no one marches when everyone agrees something is a negative thing, especially when its a difficult to define grey area kind of thing (you wanna be the one to draw the absolute line where gluttony is for everyone? Because I don't.)

 

[BigSteelThrill]

You are denying an adult American Citizen the rights of marriage based upon gender.

And further more the religious also try to do it on the basis of sexual orientation.

These are identical to not allowing inter-racial marriage right up until 1967 in some states.

Which the Supreme Court said was UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

 

[larry_boy_44]

He was explicitly asked to give his religious take on it. Go bash ESPN if you don't like the question.

Absolutely, ESPN deserves some of the blame for that particular farce. But he agreed to go on the show. I seriously doubt he had to do that. It's not part of his normal job. He made the choice to bring his feelings about homosexuality to a public forum.

And he's just one example of literally thousands. Do you seriously think that when it comes to gay rights the fight is being brought to the Christians, or do you think the Christians are bringing the fight to the public? I think it's the latter. I think that's incredibly obvious when you compare it to their public behavior (or lack thereof) on the litany of other "sins" they condemn. If you disagree with what I and many others consider to be self-evident, I'm not sure what else to say to you.

you really think Christians are the loudest side of this discussion? Really?

And I love the "if you disagree with me, I don't know what else to say to you because you're obviously just too dumb to have a conversation" line. Way to stay above the belt

 

[larry_boy_44]

You are denying an adult American Citizen the rights of marriage based upon gender.

And further more the religious also try to do it on the basis of sexual orientation.

These are identical to not allowing inter-racial marriage right up until 1967 in some states.

No, they're not.

Marriage was never defined as "between white man and white woman". It is defined in most places as "between man and woman".

They're not seeking to change the laws, they're seeking to change the actual definition of something. Everyone has equal marriage rights in every state.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

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.

that's not the point

there is no requirement to be tolerant of intolerance. What that really means is don't express your opinions about my intolerance.

the point is no one has a right to express their views and not have others express THEIR views as well. This includes Jason Collins. He has to expect people to speak out against him, and that is their right. But those people have to expect the same. The issue is the tide has turned and most of the voices are coming to the defense of Collins. This causes those who do not to play the victim card and say "we should not be crucified for our views". No one has freedom from the consequences of their speech.

But what is "intolerance" really?

Am I intolerant of people who are having premarital sex when i say it is sinful for them to be doing so? If not, why is it different when I say the same thing about people have homosexual sex? If so, why? Why does it matter?

I get why its a big deal to want gay marriage to be legal, I understand that. I don't understand the seeming need to attack people for saying that they believe homosexuality is immoral. If you don't care that I think smoking, drinking, recreational drug use, premarital sex, extramarital sex, gambling, and countless other things that the majority of Americans do is immoral, why do you care so much about this one?

Because I promise you that if you gave the majority of Christians the ability to criminalize adultery or gambling or alcohol, they would. Seriously, try and bring back prohibition and I bet you'd have the evangelicals behind you. I know they're very against legalizing marijuana because "its immoral

Why do you think they try to make abortions illegal? Try to stop schools from handing out condoms?

There have been multiple Christian schools and other orgs that have gotten in trouble in the last couple years for firing women who got pregnant out of marriage when they worked for them. This isn't just a gay thing, that's just the one that gets the most media attention and its the one that has the most people "firing back".

We have threads about premarital sex and gambling and other "sins" all the time around here. Why don't you feel the need to voice your opinion about that sinful behavior in those threads? Why is it only the gay threads?

I think you have the cause and effect wrong. You're not "firing back," you're firing the first shot by introducing your religious beliefs here.

I didn't start the thread, I didn't even post in the first few pages.

And it isn't the only thread, I say things in other threads, too, but what's the point really?

could I rip Arizona Ron for his infidelity? Sure. But after a while, what's the point? Is anyone really arguing that its better to cheat on your wife than it is to be faithful? No.

Same with gambling threads. There aren't threads on if gambling should be allowed, there are threads on how to gamble, how to better gamble, etc.

Plus, the fact is, I didn't post to say homosexuality is awful. Is it a sin? Sure. It isn't worse than any other though. I posted because of the idiocy in the things that were being said (by people on "both sides") and because it isn't right to attack someone for answering a question asked of him as he was asked (Broussard). I don't care who's gay and who isn't, the only standing that really matters to me is "saved" or "not saved", and nothing in this thread is going to change those things.

OK, then same question for Broussard. Why doesn't he feel the need to go on ESPN talking head shows and condemn the sinfulness of other types of activities? Why is Collins coming out of the closet the event that triggers this response? Doesn't that seem like quite a coincidence to you?

I don't care what you call a sin. I mean, I do think it's sad that there are so many people on this planet who blindly accept this kind of bigotry and intolerance in their choice of religion instead of questioning it, but I understand that only time and progress can change that.

What I DO care about is the ridiculous notion you and others seem to be pushing that Christian views are "under attack" on the issue of homosexuality. Christians are the ones bringing their beliefs to the public on this issue, not vice versa. It's true of Broussard, and it's true of your decision to enter this thread to defend him. If you truly treated this "sin" the way you treated the rest of them- condemn it in church teachings and leave it at that- nobody would be attacking you. But that's not what's been going on. There aren't a lot of people organizing marches and protests and writing articles or going on TV shows to condemn glottony.

I'm sure he would. But ESPN won't let him. He was brought on that show to talk, with his gay reporter friend, to describe their views on the subject and admit that they're still friends. I have no idea how it was pitched, but that's what it was.

Collins coming out triggered the response because it was when the network wanted him on the air, and he decided not to turn them down (that or wasn't given the option).

As far as "under attack", it is. Why? Not because gay marriage is slowly becoming legal everywhere, but because the entire idea that Christians have the right to believe that an act is sinful is under attack.

And you show me where the protest saying that it is not a sin or harmful in any way to be gluttonous and I'll get together a group of Christians and we'll protest it. Until that happens, you're being ridiculous.

We have gay pride parades where, quite frankly, children shouldn't be present going down main streets in American cities every summer. We have every Christian who dares think that homosexuality is a sin still being labelled a bigot and demonized at every opportunity. OF COURSE the church is speaking loudest about homosexuality, its the thing that's being shoved down everyone's throat the most. The fact is Christians do protest and march and do everything else they can about premarital sex (abstinence ring a bell?), about abortion, about the death penalty, and tons of other things they believe. But no one marches when everyone agrees something is a negative thing, especially when its a difficult to define grey area kind of thing (you wanna be the one to draw the absolute line where gluttony is for everyone? Because I don't.)

You're free to call being gay a sin. Just as everyone else is free to call your views bigoted and outdated.

 

[TobiasFunke]

We have every Christian who dares think that homosexuality is a sin still being labelled a bigot and demonized at every opportunity. OF COURSE the church is speaking loudest about homosexuality, its the thing that's being shoved down everyone's throat the most.

The reason this happens is because it's the truth. It is bigoted to consider something as involuntary as sexual orientation a "sin." Hiding behind religion doesn't excuse bigotry for Christians any more than hiding behind religion excuses misogyny for Muslims and Orthodox Jews. If Christians can't confront the truth regarding their beliefs, then they are free to keep them private. The decision to make those views public and debate them in public fora is theirs alone. Nobody is forced into public debate in this country.

 

[joffer]

There is a large contingent of people around here that have a big chip on their shoulder towards Christianity and its general influence on our society.

all you have to do is read LB's posts to understand why

 

[TobiasFunke]

He was explicitly asked to give his religious take on it. Go bash ESPN if you don't like the question.

Absolutely, ESPN deserves some of the blame for that particular farce. But he agreed to go on the show. I seriously doubt he had to do that. It's not part of his normal job. He made the choice to bring his feelings about homosexuality to a public forum.

And he's just one example of literally thousands. Do you seriously think that when it comes to gay rights the fight is being brought to the Christians, or do you think the Christians are bringing the fight to the public? I think it's the latter. I think that's incredibly obvious when you compare it to their public behavior (or lack thereof) on the litany of other "sins" they condemn. If you disagree with what I and many others consider to be self-evident, I'm not sure what else to say to you.

you really think Christians are the loudest side of this discussion? Really?

And I love the "if you disagree with me, I don't know what else to say to you because you're obviously just too dumb to have a conversation" line. Way to stay above the belt

They're absolutely the loudest regarding the "sinfulness" of homosexuality. They're choosing to make their religious beliefs part of the public discussion. That is something they chose to do, not something that was forced upon them. And yes, I think this is obvious.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

You are denying an adult American Citizen the rights of marriage based upon gender.

And further more the religious also try to do it on the basis of sexual orientation.

These are identical to not allowing inter-racial marriage right up until 1967 in some states.

No, they're not.

Marriage was never defined as "between white man and white woman". It is defined in most places as "between man and woman".

They're not seeking to change the laws, they're seeking to change the actual definition of something. Everyone has equal marriage rights in every state.

Theyre equal because you deemed you needed to know what ones race is before allowing them to marry. Or denying them marriage.

Or ones religion.

Or ones gender.

Or ones sexual orientation.