Jason Collins: first openly gay athlete in US Sports history

[OttoinGrotto]

I personally find that to be completely implausible and unrealistic beyond words, but this is America and I respect you and your right to believe that if you choose.

I'm not at all offended by the view that it's completely implausible and unrealistic beyond words. I believe the Son of God came to earth and was resurrected, so let's be honest, A LOT of things are in play in terms of what I'll believe and obviously, I'm comfortable with that. I very much appreciate your respect and the respect you have for the rights we enjoy to believe what we choose.

 

[moqui]

But I think the worst thing that has happened to religion is this relentless persecution of people who do not interpret holy texts, or follow religious dogma, exactly the same way you do.

Your phrase "relentless persecution" is easily applied to many non-religious interest groups constantly on the hunt for real or imagined slights that are often just attempts to delegitimize or even criminalize what are really just opposing points of view

just look at this thread and the whole hubbub surrounding the Collins announcement. Anyone who did not offer support for Collins, for whatever reason, was assailed. For the people controlling the discussion, there is only one acceptable response. "Don't be so judgmental," they judge. Or, as I noted above - you are perfectly free to be judgmental, so long as you judge in the affirmative. Otherwise, the mob explains, .

 

[KingOtis]

Your phrase "relentless persecution" is easily applied to many non-religious interest groups constantly on the hunt for real or imagined slights that are often just attempts to delegitimize or even criminalize what are really just opposing points of view

just look at this thread and the whole hubbub surrounding the Collins announcement. Anyone who did not offer support for Collins, for whatever reason, was assailed. For the people controlling the discussion, there is only one acceptable response. "Don't be so judgmental," they judge. Or, as I noted above - you are perfectly free to be judgmental, so long as you judge in the affirmative. Otherwise, the mob explains, .

You're right. People have very little tolerance for intolerance.

 

[moqui]

You're right. People have very little tolerance for intolerance.

Chris Broussard explained that he supported Jason Collins, but that his religion taught him that the behavior is a sin.

that is the opposite of intolerance.

it is not intolerance that you are raging against, Otis, as anyone with a critical eye can see. "Intolerance" is just the fig leaf that put over your otherwise naked bigotry.

 

[Eric15]

Chris Broussard explained that he supported Jason Collins, but that his religion taught him that the behavior is a sin.

that is the opposite of intolerance.

it is not intolerance that you are raging against, Otis, as anyone with a critical eye can see. "Intolerance" is just the fig leaf that put over your otherwise naked bigotry.

Being religious doesn't give you a free pass to be intolerant towards homosexuals. Chris Broussard is an adult, with a brain, and he can decide for himself what is right and what is wrong.

CTO and Sabach, for example, are Christians, and they both have voiced tolerance and respect for homosexuals. Broussard can do the same if he so chooses. He's chosen to be intolerant.

And in regards to Broussard saying that he supports Collins... if you asked Jason Collins, do you think he would consider Broussard a supporter?

 

[NKR1978]

Chris Broussard explained that he supported Jason Collins, but that his religion taught him that the behavior is a sin.

that is the opposite of intolerance.

it is not intolerance that you are raging against, Otis, as anyone with a critical eye can see. "Intolerance" is just the fig leaf that put over your otherwise naked bigotry.

If Broussard simply said "I support Jason Collins but my religion teaches me that homosexual acts are sinful," then I doubt this thread would be so long. Instead he used a far more expressive term that gays are "living in open rebellion of God."
That is pretty inflammatory and again it gets to the vitriol and the fact that many use their religion as a shield to justify their hatred of gays. And then we get to the circular argument of left wing intolerance of those who use their religion as a shield to tell gays they're perverts and are going to hell. I agree with KingOtis because I'm generally intolerant of others' intolerance, but I recognize how ridiculous that must sound.

As an aside, if you don't believe there are people who do that, check out the freerepublic.com "homosexual agenda" tab and read their threads. Pretty crazy levels of hatred among those there who profess their hate in the name of the god they worship.

But yeah, if Broussard didn't use such deliberately inflammatory language, this thread would have ended 15 pages ago.



Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk 2

 

[MCC]

Chris Broussard explained that he supported Jason Collins, but that his religion taught him that the behavior is a sin.

that is the opposite of intolerance.

it is not intolerance that you are raging against, Otis, as anyone with a critical eye can see. "Intolerance" is just the fig leaf that put over your otherwise naked bigotry.

Disagree. We (I'll presume to speak for King Otis, and will certainly stand corrected if he opines to the contrary) are intolerant of the lack of critical thinking that allows people to use religious beliefs as an excuse for bigotry. If you can't read the texts and apply critical thinking to determine for yourself that the bible is fomenting bigotry in this instance, well... then you're just not thinking. The unquestioning adherence to beliefs that enable unfair treatment of our fellow man is inexcusable.

 

[KingOtis]

Chris Broussard explained that he supported Jason Collins, but that his religion taught him that the behavior is a sin.

that is the opposite of intolerance.

it is not intolerance that you are raging against, Otis, as anyone with a critical eye can see. "Intolerance" is just the fig leaf that put over your otherwise naked bigotry.

No, it's intolerance. He's not supporting Collins when he says the behavior is a sin.

The "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense is not going to work.

 

[IthacaMatt]

If you take that view, this is an argument that dead ends. I don't know what to tell you - not everyone has that view. Speaking at least for the church I belong to, changes to doctrine and the commandments occur due to revelations from God and not for political and social reasons.

Does your paster / priest talk about current events and politics during his sermons? If so, he is interpreting scripture and applying it to current times. He may not THINK that he's changing church doctrine in doing so, but you know, there is very little in the bible that is so on point with current events, and yet people quote to it all the time to justify (or criticize) some behavior.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Your phrase "relentless persecution" is easily applied to many non-religious interest groups constantly on the hunt for real or imagined slights that are often just attempts to delegitimize or even criminalize what are really just opposing points of view

just look at this thread and the whole hubbub surrounding the Collins announcement. Anyone who did not offer support for Collins, for whatever reason, was assailed. For the people controlling the discussion, there is only one acceptable response. "Don't be so judgmental," they judge. Or, as I noted above - you are perfectly free to be judgmental, so long as you judge in the affirmative. Otherwise, the mob explains, .

I agree with your first paragraph, but not your second.

Someone can feel that someone else's behavior is sinful, even if it is their status that makes them a sinner.

But I'm saying that no one should be judging someone else - whether positive or negative.

This whole Jason Collins thing shouldn't even be a news story - at least until another team signs him, now that he's out. (Let's see if someone does - otherwise, he's just another player who came out after his playing days were over, and there have been a handful of them already.)

But the "judge not lest ye be judged" concept is not the same thing as you posit - it doesn't mean that "it's OK to judge if your judgment is supportive or positive".

It means "don't judge other people, or you're an and you're not going to heaven, either, because you don't have love in your heart toward others."

 

[Eric15]

It's great to see this from Karl Malone, who is a rural Southerner, and who took some heat 20 years ago for his views on AIDS...


Let's just cut through the skinny... I'm proud of the young man. Isn't it about time that we stopped wasting so much time on what a person prefers?

Yes, Mailman, yes it is.

 

[sabach]

Disagree. We (I'll presume to speak for King Otis, and will certainly stand corrected if he opines to the contrary) are intolerant of the lack of critical thinking that allows people to use religious beliefs as an excuse for bigotry. If you can't read the texts and apply critical thinking to determine for yourself that the bible is fomenting bigotry in this instance, well... then you're just not thinking. The unquestioning adherence to beliefs that enable unfair treatment of our fellow man is inexcusable.

MCC - it works both ways. I believe that it is a lack of critical thinking that allows people to justify in their minds that it is acceptable to unfairly kill unborn children in the womb. IMO, people who support abortion are no less bigots to the unborn than those who think that homosexuals should be treated unfairly differerent than straights (a position that IMO is not supported by the Bible). At least homosexuals are allowed the chance to be born. As I have said before on this board, I long for the day when a smart scientist claims to have found the gene which causes homosexuality and that said gene can be determined in utero. You youself have claimed in this thread that homosexuality is in part caused by genetics. Will the left support a woman whose only reason to abort is that she doesn't want to bring a gay child into the world and raise it. MCO- honest question - what does your critical thinking say - should an unborn child with a genetic pre-disposition to being gay be allowed to be eliminated from this world solely because that child will be born gay?

 

[CuseFaninVT]

MCC - it works both ways. I believe that it is a lack of critical thinking that allows people to justify in their minds that it is acceptable to unfairly kill unborn children in the womb. IMO, people who support abortion are no less bigots to the unborn than those who think that homosexuals should be treated unfairly differerent than straights (a position that IMO is not supported by the Bible). At least homosexuals are allowed the chance to be born. As I have said before on this board, I long for the day when a smart scientist claims to have found the gene which causes homosexuality and that said gene can be determined in utero. You youself have claimed in this thread that homosexuality is in part caused by genetics. Will the left support a woman whose only reason to abort is that she doesn't want to bring a gay child into the world and raise it. MCO- honest question - what does your critical thinking say - should an unborn child with a genetic pre-disposition to being gay be allowed to be eliminated from this world solely because that child will be born gay?

Of course the answer to your question is no. And you're a bigot for even asking the question (I'm totally kidding about that - no one get inflamed here). Being gay isn't a medical condition that will cause a life of pain and lead to what some may believe is a less than complete life.

Why do you long for the day when a scientist will be able to genetically determine if a child is gay before that child is born? I find this phrasing to be interesting, and potentially troubling. Is it because this will give proof once and for all that this child is as God has created and therefore being gay can't be considered anything but something that God approves of?

 

[sabach]

Of course the answer to your question is no. And you're a bigot for even asking the question (I'm totally kidding about that - no one get inflamed here). Being gay isn't a medical condition that will cause a life of pain and lead to what some may believe is a less than complete life.

Why do you long for the day when a scientist will be able to genetically determine if a child is gay before that child is born? I find this phrasing to be interesting, and potentially troubling. Is it because this will give proof once and for all that this child is as God has created and therefore being gay can't be considered anything but something that God approves of?

First of all, I certainly do not agree that a child with a genetic pre-disposition to homosexuality should be allowed to be aborted. Then again, I don't think any child should be aborted even if that child has a medical condition that will cause a life of pain and lead to what some may believe is a less than complete life.
I think your answer is why I long for that day. I think that it will be an interesting debate in this country when pro-abortion people will have to support women who are such bigots against gays that they do not even want them to be born. IMO, if you support a such a woman's "choice", you have forfeited the right from there on out to ever criticize anyone else for being bigotted to homosexuals. Supporting death is the ultimate bigotry. Moreover, if a gay gene causes people to rethink whether or not an unborn child is a separate person, then this may cause some to rethink their support of abortion in general.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

First of all, I certainly do not agree that a child with a genetic pre-disposition to homosexuality should be allowed to be aborted. Then again, I don't think any child should be aborted even if that child has a medical condition that will cause a life of pain and lead to what some may believe is a less than complete life.
I think your answer is why I long for that day. I think that it will be an interesting debate in this country when pro-abortion people will have to support women who are such bigots against gays that they do not even want them to be born. IMO, if you support a such a woman's "choice", you have forfeited the right from there on out to ever criticize anyone else for being bigotted to homosexuals. Supporting death is the ultimate bigotry.

I see where you are going with this now. My wife and I support abortion. That doesn't mean we would ever choose that for ourselves. Passive support if you will. We didn't have all the tests for determining if our child had down's syndrome because we knew we would not take action to end the pregnancy. But we made that choice. For ourselves.

I understand your position on this. I really do. But I'm not going to work to take the choice away from other couples and single women. I prefer front-end education to prevent the need for abortion.

But I also don't think there will be much call for abortions of pre-born (love that term) children who are gay. First off, the major consumer for this would be religious fundamentalist types. And they would likely be the last ones to go for an abortion in the first place. Although now that I think of it, I wonder if some of the more extreme religious types would look at one abortion as a lesser evil than bringing one more of those gays into the world. Then we would see who really is hypocritical by their actual actions.

 

[KingOtis]

no less bigots to the unborn than those who think that homosexuals should be treated unfairly differerent than straights (a position that IMO is not supported by the Bible).?

Would you clarify this, please?

 

[sabach]

I see where you are going with this now. My wife and I support abortion. That doesn't mean we would ever choose that for ourselves. Passive support if you will. We didn't have all the tests for determining if our child had down's syndrome because we knew we would not take action to end the pregnancy. But we made that choice. For ourselves.

I understand your position on this. I really do. But I'm not going to work to take the choice away from other couples and single women. I prefer front-end education to prevent the need for abortion.

But I also don't think there will be much call for abortions of pre-born (love that term) children who are gay. First off, the major consumer for this would be religious fundamentalist types. And they would likely be the last ones to go for an abortion in the first place. Although now that I think of it, I wonder if some of the more extreme religious types would look at one abortion as a lesser evil than bringing one more of those gays into the world. Then we would see who really is hypocritical by their actual actions.

You are probably right on the lack of a call for such an abortion, which is a good thing. I just find it interesting that "religious fundamentalist" people who object to abortion are constantly called bigots by people who support the elimination of over one million children per year through abortion. If any of these unborn children were given a say, I wonder who they would call the bigot.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

You are probably right on the lack of a call for such an abortion, which is a good thing. I just find it interesting that "religious fundamentalist" people who object to abortion are constantly called bigots by people who support the elimination of over one million children per year through abortion. If any of these unborn children were given a say, I wonder who they would call the bigot.

Looking at the definition of bigot, I would say that all of us are in part bigots. Especially the first part of the definition. Many of us who post here are fairly obstinate.

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

 

[sabach]

Would you clarify this, please?

Sure. You think it is wrong that people support legally treating homosexuals differently because of the fact that they are gay and to the extent that they do support this treatment, they are bigots. (FWIW, I agree with you on this).
However, you simultaneuously think it is acceptable to legally treat unborn children different than children outside of the womb just because of the fact that they are unborn.
Now, you may think that my comparison is apples and oranges, but for those of us who believe that unborn children are entitled to be considered people under the 14th amendment, the comparison is dead on.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

 

[MCC]

MCC - it works both ways. I believe that it is a lack of critical thinking that allows people to justify in their minds that it is acceptable to unfairly kill unborn children in the womb. IMO, people who support abortion are no less bigots to the unborn than those who think that homosexuals should be treated unfairly differerent than straights (a position that IMO is not supported by the Bible). At least homosexuals are allowed the chance to be born. As I have said before on this board, I long for the day when a smart scientist claims to have found the gene which causes homosexuality and that said gene can be determined in utero. You youself have claimed in this thread that homosexuality is in part caused by genetics. Will the left support a woman whose only reason to abort is that she doesn't want to bring a gay child into the world and raise it. MCO- honest question - what does your critical thinking say - should an unborn child with a genetic pre-disposition to being gay be allowed to be eliminated from this world solely because that child will be born gay?

I can't speak for the left. I'm not a leftist. I'm also not pro-choice in toto. I concur that "blanket" pro-choice is a difficult position to rationalize.

However, I can't equate the total abdication of critical thought in favor of an unsubstantiated book promulgating truly pyrhhic morality with an irrational position arising from a de minimis but at least non-zero thought cycle.

The question you pose is so rhetorical as to not merit an answer.

(N.B. I'm not aiming for acrimony here; you've always been civil and I hope you realize I'm not trivializing the issue.)

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

If Broussard simply said "I support Jason Collins but my religion teaches me that homosexual acts are sinful," then I doubt this thread would be so long. Instead he used a far more expressive term that gays are "living in open rebellion of God."
That is pretty inflammatory and again it gets to the vitriol and the fact that many use their religion as a shield to justify their hatred of gays. And then we get to the circular argument of left wing intolerance of those who use their religion as a shield to tell gays they're perverts and are going to hell. I agree with KingOtis because I'm generally intolerant of others' intolerance, but I recognize how ridiculous that must sound.

As an aside, if you don't believe there are people who do that, check out the freerepublic.com "homosexual agenda" tab and read their threads. Pretty crazy levels of hatred among those there who profess their hate in the name of the god they worship.

But yeah, if Broussard didn't use such deliberately inflammatory language, this thread would have ended 15 pages ago.
So by your logic if I were to say well I support Ted Bundy on my religion teaches me then killing is wrong its in violation of God's laws I would be intolerant of Ted Bundy or murders in general. Whatever happened to the concept of disagreeing with what someone says with supporting fully the right to say it. They are not logically inconsistent. One does not have to acquiesce to another point of view in order to be tolerant of it.


Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk 2

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk 2

 

[MCC]

"...nor strap bombs to itself." L. O. L.

 

[sabach]

I can't speak for the left. I'm not a leftist. I'm also not pro-choice in toto. I concur that "blanket" pro-choice is a difficult position to rationalize.

However, I can't equate the total abdication of critical thought in favor of an unsubstantiated book promulgating truly pyrhhic morality with an irrational position arising from a de minimis but at least non-zero thought cycle.

The question you pose is so rhetorical as to not merit an answer.

(N.B. I'm not aiming for acrimony here; you've always been civil and I hope you realize I'm not trivializing the issue.)

Thanks for the response. I always look forward to your position. I guess my question was pretty rhetorical, but then again that was its purpose.

 

[Eric15]

You are probably right on the lack of a call for such an abortion, which is a good thing. I just find it interesting that "religious fundamentalist" people who object to abortion are constantly called bigots by people who support the elimination of over one million children per year through abortion. If any of these unborn children were given a say, I wonder who they would call the bigot.

I'm pro-choice, and I don't think pro-life folks are bigots at all. Not even close. I disagree with their position, but I respect it.