05-03-2013, 01:00 PM
|
#41
|
Golden Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,447
|
Really? Pointing out stupid verses in the Bible is bigotry?
|
|
|
05-03-2013, 01:12 PM
|
#42
|
Guru
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jthig32
Also, citing Levitical law to uphold your opinion is a waste of time and breath, unless you're also down with owning slaves and punishing people for sleeping with their wives while they're on their period.
If you're going to denounce homosexuality, at least use the verses in the New Testament, it makes for a far more interesting debate.
|
Most Christians I talk to believe that the New Testament is the "new covenant" so I would agree here. Especially with respect to the ancient Jewish religious laws that were probably just common sense at the time meant to teach folks a healthy way to live.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
|
|
|
05-03-2013, 01:13 PM
|
#43
|
Guru
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MavsFTR
Really? Pointing out stupid verses in the Bible is bigotry?
|
Not necessarily, but there is more underlying bigotry towards Christians in this thread than I saw with Broussard's comments.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
|
|
|
05-03-2013, 02:04 PM
|
#44
|
Golden Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,715
|
"Now y'all have a nice weekend, y'hear? I'll be prayin' for ya."
I've never thought much of Broussard, and I don't intend this as a defense of him, but from the first time I saw that exchange on OTL, I thought that the roots of the problem went well beyond him. The question was a total set-up, and his opinion about Jason Collins' professed Christianity was as irrelevant and inappropriate on a sports-oriented talk show as a lascivious discussion of Beyoncé's curves would be in a Sunday sermon.
I thought Ben Shapiro tagged a lot of the issues here:
Quote:
One (issue) is why on earth did ESPN feel the need to manufacture (and make no mistake about it, the pairing of Granderson and Broussard could not have been coincidental) a vitriol driven debate that ultimately lent a platform to views that are divisive and intolerant?
The other issue is one far more controversial than an openly gay player in the NBA. That issue is why do people in this Nation continue to embrace and defend extreme fundamentalist christian views that are unabashedly bigoted?
Not all Christians are in line with the views expressed by Broussard. In fact both LZ Granderson and Jason Collins are practicing Christians. This isn't a Christian issue as much as it is a fundamentalist Christian issue.
While it was nice that Broussard was insistent on mentioning that he viewed all people, gay or straight who engage in pre-maritial sex as sinners and in open-rebellion against god, that declaration does beg the question: "What era are you living in?"
Broussard and others who share the same views have every right to those views. We have freedom of religion in this nation, and that freedom must be applied to even those who we disagree with.
Freedom to practice one's religion is not the same as freedom to practice one's religion without having to put up with opposing and critical view points.
As a non-religious individual I find almost all religions to be somewhat archaic. There's still a huge difference between the Christianity practiced by Granderson and Collins which clearly does not exclude them due to their sexuality, and what Broussard subscribes to, which regardless of Broussard's personal feelings, unquestionably promotes homophobia.
The solutions to these problems won't be found in firing or punishing Chris Broussard.
Broussard is ultimately just another symptom of some far greater problems.
There are television networks who thrive not on reporting news, but on making news. ESPN's Outside The Lines program didn't report on any new angle dealing with Jason Collins and his bold and courageous decision.
In fact, up until ESPN aired Outside The Lines on Monday, the response to Collins declaration had been almost unanimously positive. Perhaps sensing that their programming wouldn't be able to report on any juicy stories of conflict over Collins coming out, they instead decided to create some of their own?
The station almost went so far as to own up to that charge when they released an apology not just for Broussard's remarks, but for the content of the entire program, and the controversy that it stirred up.
The other problem of course is that Chris Broussard practices a form of Christianity that promotes narrow-minded, and ultimately destructive viewpoints.
Telling an entire segment of the population that they can't get married, are living in sin, and are living in rebellion to god does absolutely nothing to bring the nation together.
To somehow imply that these people are entitled to their opinions, is a nice and easy way to skirt the issue.
What if their opinions were that interracial marriage was a rebellion against god? What about segregated schools? Embracing people who consistently disseminate biased and bigoted viewpoints because of their religion doesn't promote freedom of religion, it promotes religious conflict.
Do people such as Chris Broussard have a right to practice their religion and defend it? Of course they do, but that right doesn't protect them from critique, it doesn't protect them from being called out for their beliefs either.
Chris Broussard is a proud, born-again Christian, good for him. He's also promoting homophobia, and that's bad for all of us.
|
I agree with Shapiro that firing Broussard doesn't really seem to accomplish much. No point making him a martyr, and his views are so clownishly repugnant and transparently hypocritical that he does a lot to make his strain of fundamentalism terminally unappealing.
That said......
Quote:
Originally Posted by jthig32
Simply saying you think homosexuality is a sin doesn't make anyone a bigot.
|
This says what you think bigotry isn't. What do you think the definition of bigotry is?
A person doesn't have to be committing physical violence against other people to be a bigot. I know plenty of little old sweet-smiled church ladies who will coo the Bible at you in sugared voices, but who don't regard you as their social equal (and will say so behind closed doors), and will vote to deny you your rights. And they're bigots, two-faced, hypocritical bigots. It's about attitudes, not just actions. And one of their favorite (passive-aggressive) ways of voicing and reinforcing their bigoted attitudes is to say that they'll 'pray for you', (as if you're defective) piously, self-righteously lifting themselves up, the better to look down on you--eye, speck, and plank. Just like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dirt_dobber
and I pray for them.
|
And then, like clockwork, you get some sniveling coward who comes wobbling up to put the fake-victim cap on:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394
Most of the bigotry I see in this thread is the bigotry towards Christians.
|
pretending that it's not fundamentalist evangelicals who invariably hurl the first stone, then shriek like a pig with a large pointed stick up his a$$ that they're being attacked when their targets defend themselves.
You can search this forum in vain for a single scripturally-based condemnation of Dirk's living with Crystal "Meth" Taylor prior to marriage, in open defiant rebellion to God. You won't find it (nor in my opinion, should you) You will, however, find countless posts and threads (by some of the very same hypocrites here "standing with Broussard" and defending his bigotry) extolling Dirk's greatness, despite the fact that he has lived his life with a different set of values to those of fundamentalist evangelicals. Double-standard?
But let one NBA player announce that he's gay (not that he's DOING anything, just that he exists and has existed for the last 12 years as an NBA player) and you get a nimrod talking head like Broussard condemning him as a sinner, and then like little scripture-spewing roaches, people scurrying out to "stand with Broussard" and "stand with scripture". That isn't just a double-standard, that is laughable hypocrisy.
It's a little like a hen's tooth search in the bible for verses condemning religious bigotry, because if you take away the double standards, hypocrisy, and bigotry from fundamental evangelicalism, what're you left with? A religion that's a lot less useful as a tool of coercion and control? What do they call that one? I might be interested, at least intellectually.
|
|
|
05-03-2013, 02:29 PM
|
#45
|
Golden Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,447
|
You do realize that most people here have relatives and/or friends who are Christians, right? Do you know bigotry means? No one here is trying to deny Christians any rights.
|
|
|
05-03-2013, 03:22 PM
|
#46
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 380
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr
his views are so clownishly repugnant and transparently hypocritical that he does a lot to make his strain of fundamentalism terminally unappealing.
....
pretending that it's not fundamentalist evangelicals who invariably hurl the first stone, then shriek like a pig with a large pointed stick up his a$$ that they're being attacked when their targets defend themselves.
.....
a nimrod talking head like Broussard condemning him as a sinner, and then like little scripture-spewing roaches, people scurrying out to "stand with Broussard" and "stand with scripture". That isn't just a double-standard, that is laughable hypocrisy.
|
That is a great example of bigotry. Thanks for clearing it up.
__________________
“you had nothing to say about it and yet made the nothing up into words.”
― C.S. Lewis, Perelandra
|
|
|
05-03-2013, 03:26 PM
|
#47
|
Golden Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,715
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Guy
That is a great example of bigotry. Thanks for clearing it up.
|
With apologies to the pig, I'm glad to've provided food for thought.
|
|
|
05-03-2013, 03:36 PM
|
#48
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 380
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MavsFTR
You do realize that most people here have relatives and/or friends who are Christians, right? Do you know bigotry means? No one here is trying to deny Christians any rights.
|
You think it is only bigotry when someone is denying rights?
I think that sounds like a way to be a bigot and still pretend like you aren't one. Then someone can 'regard or treat members of a group with hatred and intolerance' but still feel good about himself because he isn't "trying to deny Christians any rights".
Here is how merriam-webster.com defines bigot -
": 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 "
Question: What is the difference between these things -
1. Someone saying that homosexuality is wrong.
2. Someone saying that 'saying homosexuality is wrong' is wrong.
__________________
“you had nothing to say about it and yet made the nothing up into words.”
― C.S. Lewis, Perelandra
|
|
|
05-03-2013, 03:58 PM
|
#49
|
Golden Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,447
|
No, I'm not saying bigotry only occurs when people are denied rights. But do you know what this sounds like? It sounds like a Nazi bitching that people are bigoted against him and his ideology. It may be true, but it sure is something incredibly stupid to complain about.
|
|
|
05-03-2013, 04:07 PM
|
#50
|
Golden Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,447
|
And anyway, we're not bigoted. We're not against all Christians. Just the ones who tout their religion in an effort to deny others their rights.
|
|
|
05-03-2013, 04:39 PM
|
#51
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 380
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MavsFTR
And anyway, we're not bigoted. We're not against all Christians. Just the ones who tout their religion in an effort to deny others their rights.
|
So, it is or is not about denying rights?
I didn't watch the interview - was Broussard making an effort to deny someone their rights?
From what I can tell in this thread, you (the group) are against Christians who believe that homosexuality is wrong. When you "regard or treat the members of a group with hatred and intolerance", then you are being a bigot.
If saying "what 'you' are doing is wrong" makes someone a bigot, then saying "what 'fundamentalist christians' are doing is wrong" makes someone a bigot.
Being bigoted against a bigot is still bigotry.
__________________
“you had nothing to say about it and yet made the nothing up into words.”
― C.S. Lewis, Perelandra
Last edited by Some Guy; 05-03-2013 at 04:40 PM.
|
|
|
05-03-2013, 04:48 PM
|
#52
|
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MavsFTR
We're not against all Christians.
|
I would never hate an entire group of people, but some Christians are total assholes:
- Christian Bale hit his mother.
- Christian Dior designed clothes for the Nazis.
- Christian Slater tried to make a career out of impersonating Jack Nicholson.
- Christian Laettner was given a roster spot on the Original Dream Team over Isiah Thomas.
__________________
These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.
Last edited by Underdog; 05-03-2013 at 05:08 PM.
Reason: typo
|
|
|
05-03-2013, 06:11 PM
|
#53
|
Golden Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,447
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Guy
So, it is or is not about denying rights?
I didn't watch the interview - was Broussard making an effort to deny someone their rights?
From what I can tell in this thread, you (the group) are against Christians who believe that homosexuality is wrong. When you "regard or treat the members of a group with hatred and intolerance", then you are being a bigot.
If saying "what 'you' are doing is wrong" makes someone a bigot, then saying "what 'fundamentalist christians' are doing is wrong" makes someone a bigot.
Being bigoted against a bigot is still bigotry.
|
Smh. I can't even dignify this with a proper response. You realize what you're essentially saying is we're intolerant of intolerance, right? If that's what you want to go with, fine by me.
|
|
|
05-03-2013, 06:34 PM
|
#54
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bee Cave, Texas
Posts: 3,239
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog
I would never hate an entire group of people, but some Christians are total assholes:
- Christian Bale hit his mother.
- Christian Dior designed clothes for the Nazis.
- Christian Slater tried to make a career out of impersonating Jack Nicholson.
- Christian Laettner was given a roster spot on the Original Dream Team over Isiah Thomas.
|
genius!
wiki definition:
A genius is a person who displays exceptional intellectual ability, creativity, or originality.
|
|
|
05-03-2013, 08:08 PM
|
#55
|
Guru
Join Date: May 2001
Location: sport
Posts: 39,422
|
What a load of hogwash from Shapiro.
|
|
|
05-03-2013, 08:47 PM
|
#56
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,586
|
Winning a rational argument against a bigot is as hopeless as trying to cure a gay person. There is no point in even trying cause religion is never rational and homosexuality is not a disease.
End of thread.
__________________
At the end of each practice, the Mavs conduct a competition and ring a bell whenever someone makes 20 of 25 3-point attempts.
“He’s always around 23 or 24,” West said. “The bell rings every day.”
|
|
|
05-04-2013, 02:02 AM
|
#57
|
Lazy Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Lazytown
Posts: 18,721
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr
This says what you think bigotry isn't. What do you think the definition of bigotry is?
A person doesn't have to be committing physical violence against other people to be a bigot. I know plenty of little old sweet-smiled church ladies who will coo the Bible at you in sugared voices, but who don't regard you as their social equal (and will say so behind closed doors), and will vote to deny you your rights. And they're bigots, two-faced, hypocritical bigots. It's about attitudes, not just actions. And one of their favorite (passive-aggressive) ways of voicing and reinforcing their bigoted attitudes is to say that they'll 'pray for you', (as if you're defective) piously, self-righteously lifting themselves up, the better to look down on you--eye, speck, and plank. Just like this
|
Obviously bigotry doesn't require physical violence of any kind. And it's quite possible that Broussard is in fact, a bigot, who thinks less of homosexuals. But simply saying that you believe something to be wrong doesn't make you one. It is, indeed, all about attitude.
As others have pointed out, some of your comments certainly might lead someone to believe that you're completely bigoted against anyone that might call themselves a fundamental Christian. If you hear that someone has strong religious beliefs, do you automatically assume that they are pious and self-righteous, as stated above? If so, then you are yourself a bigot. If you required proof of said self righteousness before judging someone then I would say that you are not.
|
|
|
05-04-2013, 04:20 AM
|
#58
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 5,476
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog
I would never hate an entire group of people, but some Christians are total assholes:
- Christian Bale hit his mother.
- Christian Dior designed clothes for the Nazis.
- Christian Slater tried to make a career out of impersonating Jack Nicholson.
- Christian Laettner was given a roster spot on the Original Dream Team over Isiah Thomas.
|
Lol. Jack Nickolson was too old for Heathers.
|
|
|
05-04-2013, 07:10 PM
|
#59
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394
Most of the bigotry I see in this thread is the bigotry towards Christians.
|
LOL. If Christians don't like be called a bigot they should stop saying bigoted hateful things about gay people.
|
|
|
05-05-2013, 12:01 AM
|
#60
|
Guru
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
|
I'm just calling it like I see it. I don't care bout being called a bigot, that crap gets thrown around like candy.
The biggest bigotry being shown is not being shown by Broussard.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
|
|
|
05-05-2013, 09:09 AM
|
#61
|
Lazy Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Lazytown
Posts: 18,721
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanL
LOL. If Christians don't like be called a bigot they should stop saying bigoted hateful things about gay people.
|
I hate to keep beating a dead horse here, but I just want to reiterate:
There's no doubt that tons of Christians express hate towards homosexuals, which is tragic needs to change, very soon. But in this specific instance, unless I missed something, Broussard simply stated that in his opinion, it is a sin. He also mentioned heterosexuals that have sex outside of wedlock and lumped them in the same bucket.
Stating that you believe something is wrong is NOT the same as being hateful. It can be accompanied with hate, and often is, but is not always.
Last edited by jthig32; 05-05-2013 at 09:10 AM.
|
|
|
05-05-2013, 12:07 PM
|
#62
|
Guru
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
|
If you are not in lockstep with libs, you'd best get used to being called racist, bigot, etc. it's what they do.
All the while being some of the bigger bigots around.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
|
|
|
05-05-2013, 10:00 PM
|
#63
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jthig32
I hate to keep beating a dead horse here, but I just want to reiterate:
There's no doubt that tons of Christians express hate towards homosexuals, which is tragic needs to change, very soon. But in this specific instance, unless I missed something, Broussard simply stated that in his opinion, it is a sin. He also mentioned heterosexuals that have sex outside of wedlock and lumped them in the same bucket.
Stating that you believe something is wrong is NOT the same as being hateful. It can be accompanied with hate, and often is, but is not always.
|
Calling someone's existence a sin is pretty negative. In fact I would say it is rather bigoted.
|
|
|
05-05-2013, 10:03 PM
|
#64
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394
If you are not in lockstep with libs, you'd best get used to being called racist, bigot, etc. it's what they do.
All the while being some of the bigger bigots around.
|
No. Just that you shouldn't deny a whole group of people their rights or call their existence a sin, or use some other pejorative when referring to them. If you don't do that then you won't be called a bigot. I don't think that is so unreasonable.
Last edited by SeanL; 05-05-2013 at 10:04 PM.
|
|
|
05-05-2013, 10:16 PM
|
#65
|
Lazy Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Lazytown
Posts: 18,721
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanL
Calling someone's existence a sin is pretty negative. In fact I would say it is rather bigoted.
|
That doesn't really make any sense. I would think most people would be pretty offended at the idea that their sexuality defines them to the point that someone believing it's wrong believes that their entire life is wrong.
Anyone calling for homosexuals to die is obviously a bigot, no argument there. I don't believe I saw Broussard make those comments.
For the record, I'm not a fan at all of the the timing of Broussard's comments, or the people that setup the debate in the first place. I think it was out of place and an attempt to sensationalize a news topic that was rightly met with resounding support and positivity. I feel the need to say that since I find myself defending someone's right to speak a belief without being labeled a beacon of hatred, despite my not agreeing with the timing or content of what he said.
Last edited by jthig32; 05-05-2013 at 10:17 PM.
|
|
|
05-05-2013, 10:48 PM
|
#66
|
Guru
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanL
No. Just that you shouldn't deny a whole group of people their rights or call their existence a sin, or use some other pejorative when referring to them. If you don't do that then you won't be called a bigot. I don't think that is so unreasonable.
|
Brousard isn't advocating denying anyone their rights.. He doesn't call his "exisitence" a sin, but his action a sin. A sin just like any other sin, theft, adultery, dishonoring your mother/father, etc.
I cannot believe anyone saying that adultery is a sin is a bigot. But you would I suppose.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
|
|
|
05-06-2013, 12:20 AM
|
#67
|
Platinum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,348
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jthig32
That doesn't really make any sense. I would think most people would be pretty offended at the idea that their sexuality defines them to the point that someone believing it's wrong believes that their entire life is wrong.
Anyone calling for homosexuals to die is obviously a bigot, no argument there. I don't believe I saw Broussard make those comments.
For the record, I'm not a fan at all of the the timing of Broussard's comments, or the people that setup the debate in the first place. I think it was out of place and an attempt to sensationalize a news topic that was rightly met with resounding support and positivity. I feel the need to say that since I find myself defending someone's right to speak a belief without being labeled a beacon of hatred, despite my not agreeing with the timing or content of what he said.
|
Oh My God Becky. A voice of reason. Shut him down, he cannot be allowed to speak. Enact SOPA. These reasonable rational people who look at both sides of the issue will not be tolerated. I repeat will not be tolerated.
My view.
While I don't agree with Chris I do respect his opinion b/c that's what it is, just like other opinions are that homosexuals are not sinning. All opinion, who can prove which is right or wrong? Chris pretty much grouped homosexuals and straight people in the came category and everyone is up in arms. I thought homosexuals wanted to have the same rights as straight couples? Welcome to equality.
__________________
![](http://i.imgur.com/IId3Y.jpg)
"What Dirk is doing is legendary stuff, this is a joke how good this man is" - JVG
|
|
|
05-06-2013, 08:39 AM
|
#68
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394
Brousard isn't advocating denying anyone their rights.. He doesn't call his "exisitence" a sin, but his action a sin. A sin just like any other sin, theft, adultery, dishonoring your mother/father, etc.
I cannot believe anyone saying that adultery is a sin is a bigot. But you would I suppose.
|
Nobody is born an adulterer but people a born gay. Broussard is in fact saying their entire existence is a sin whether you want to believe it or not.
Saying someone is a sinner for acting the way they were born is disgusting.
|
|
|
05-06-2013, 08:42 AM
|
#69
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jthig32
That doesn't really make any sense. I would think most people would be pretty offended at the idea that their sexuality defines them to the point that someone believing it's wrong believes that their entire life is wrong.
Anyone calling for homosexuals to die is obviously a bigot, no argument there. I don't believe I saw Broussard make those comments.
For the record, I'm not a fan at all of the the timing of Broussard's comments, or the people that setup the debate in the first place. I think it was out of place and an attempt to sensationalize a news topic that was rightly met with resounding support and positivity. I feel the need to say that since I find myself defending someone's right to speak a belief without being labeled a beacon of hatred, despite my not agreeing with the timing or content of what he said.
|
Broussard is saying the are a sinner for the way the were born. Sin is a rather negative word. He and others are trying to shame them for the way they were born. That is disgusting.
|
|
|
05-06-2013, 09:00 AM
|
#70
|
Guru
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanL
Nobody is born an adulterer but people a born gay. Broussard is in fact saying their entire existence is a sin whether you want to believe it or not.
Saying someone is a sinner for acting the way they were born is disgusting.
|
Why not, about as easily believed as being born gay. It just doesn't have a voting bloc yet.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
Last edited by dude1394; 05-06-2013 at 09:01 AM.
|
|
|
05-06-2013, 11:54 AM
|
#71
|
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanL
Nobody is born an adulterer but people a born gay.
|
Nobody is born gay - sexuality is all about personal experience and opportunity... I'd say bisexuals pretty much kill the "gay gene" theory.
I have a friend who was genuinely attracted to the opposite sex earlier in life. They weren't closeted, they weren't confused - they were straight... Then, later in life, they developed a strong friendship with someone of the same sex and started having sexual feelings for this person. Those feelings were reciprocated. A switch was flipped in their psyche... They became gay.
Sexuality is no different than any other preference in life. I used to hate rap music when I was younger, but then I heard A Tribe Called Quest when I was in college. A switch was flipped in my psyche and I started to seek out similar bands... I became a hip hop fan.
Don't get me wrong - some people are gay from the moment they discover sexuality (young children have no concept either way outside of social programming)... But it seems to me that the primary reason for the "born gay" agenda is to remove any sort of blame for their choices. So I ask, is being gay something that deserves blame in the first place? It's a choice... If you don't like being gay, then don't be gay. But don't judge others for the choices they make, especially when those choices don't really affect you.
In my opinion, homosexuals don't owe Christians any sort of apology for their choices... Especially since the vague passages in the Bible that condemn homosexuality are in the Old Testament, which really only applies to the Jews (and newsflash: modern Jews have no problem with homosexuals). Christians need to start behaving like Christians and follow Jesus' Commandment:
"Love your neighbor as yourself." --Matthew 22:39
Personally, I've rarely encountered any sort of problems in life when I follow that philosophy... It seems like common sense, but it's a lot harder to do than to say. In the end, I think protesting and lobbying to restrict the fairly benign actions of your fellow man is a far greater "sin" than homosexuality. Plus, everybody's sh!t stinks:
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?" --Matthew 7:3-4
__________________
These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.
Last edited by Underdog; 05-06-2013 at 12:36 PM.
|
|
|
05-06-2013, 12:13 PM
|
#72
|
Golden Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,715
|
Scorpions in a box. Getcha popcorn ready.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394
I'm just calling it like I see it. I don't care bout being called a bigot, that crap gets thrown around like candy.
|
Candy, huh. In your case, Dude, I'd say it's 'sweets for the sweet'. [/quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394
The biggest bigotry being shown is not being shown by Broussard.
|
It's hilarious to me to see fundamentalists put on their victim cap (and matching panties) when people stand up to them and point out their bigotry and hypocrisy.
It's almost as funny as seeing religiionists (of all stripes) start fighting among themselves. Like Pat Robertson's recent comments that Satan was trying to destroy Israel, but that Jews didn't understand this because they didn't believe in Jesus.
Robertson's comment was recent, but it brings to mind the comments of a former head of the Southern Baptist Convention, Bailey Smith (circa 1980), who said that God doesn't hear the prayer of a Jew. Just a couple of years later, fundamenatlist Muslim minister Louis Farrakhan referred to Judaism as a "gutter religion".
And then you have Mormons, secretly baptizing lists of long-dead Jews, Christians and other non-Mormons into the faith posthumously, despite objections from the dead people's families, and demands that they stop the practice.
Jews and Judaism have of course been the targets of abuse and annihilation, but that didn't stop Iranian President Ahmadinejad from alleging that the holocaust was a myth, designed to create sympathy for Jews and a pretext for the state of Israel. (Ahmadinejad also took time out from Jew-bashing to opine that homosexuality was evil, and to declare that there were no homosexuals in all of Iran.)
Obviously, cross-religious slurs are not limited to Judaism-- just about a year and a half ago, Dallas' own fundamentalist Baptist preacher Robert Jeffress (presumably in support of Rick Perry) offered his own particular Christian perspective that Mormonism was a cult, and that Mitt Romney wasn't a Christian.
And not to be left out of the fray, we have the Catholic Pope Benedict (and admitted former Nazi no less) saying that Catholicism was the one "true" church and the only true path to salvation, and that other churches and denominations were defective. He also quoted a 14th century Persian scholar saying that Mohammed's contributions to Islam were evil and inhuman, and the spreading of religion by violence. (And then Ratzinger/Benedict quits the poping gig early to go live with his younger male (platonic?) companion.)
*Updating this to point out that, just yesterday, in the true spirit of Christian love, the Archbishop of Rhode Island wrote in response to recently passed marriage equality legistlation in his state to remind his faithful that "...homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered", and to urge Catholics to think twice before attending a same-sex marriage ceremony.
And of course, there's Westboro Baptist, who hates everybody all the time for everything.
It's all sweetness and light in the name of ....Jesus, Moroni, Mohammed......whoever.
Last edited by Jack.Kerr; 05-06-2013 at 02:07 PM.
|
|
|
05-06-2013, 12:16 PM
|
#73
|
Golden Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,715
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394
Why not, about as easily believed as being born gay. It just doesn't have a voting bloc yet.
|
How about bigots? Are they born bigoted? Unfortunately they DO have a voting bloc.
|
|
|
05-06-2013, 02:02 PM
|
#74
|
Golden Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,715
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jthig32
I hate to keep beating a dead horse here, but I just want to reiterate:
There's no doubt that tons of Christians express hate towards homosexuals, which is tragic needs to change, very soon. But in this specific instance, unless I missed something, Broussard simply stated that in his opinion, it is a sin. He also mentioned heterosexuals that have sex outside of wedlock and lumped them in the same bucket.
Stating that you believe something is wrong is NOT the same as being hateful. It can be accompanied with hate, and often is, but is not always.
|
Jthig, your comments here and elsewhere on this subject are pretty moderate, and while I sincerely appreciate that, I think you're falling into the trap of 'false equivalence'. That's not a dead horse-argument you're beating, it's more of a jackass's argument, and frankly you seem a lot more intelligent than that. I'm going to disagree that Broussard's comments don't reveal underlying bigotry. Here's why.
If someone says to you: "I think it's a sin for people of different races to get married.", or "I believe it goes against biblical teaching for a woman to work outside the home, or for a woman to have a position of authority over a man.", do you fail to understand what they're saying and where they're coming from? Do you reserve judgment about such a person's racial bigotry or religious sexism, and assume that they have a reasoned basis for their views, even if they don't go on to explain that basis to you?
I can't believe that you would. In fact, I think that most people, whether they agree with such views or not, understand immediately what the person saying such things thinks about matters of race and gender equality. And I also think that most people today would regard such views as racially bigoted and sexually chauvinistic, whether the speaker grounds the views in scripture or not.
Same with Broussard's comments. True, he didn't equate homosexuality with pedophilia, bestiality or polygamy as bigots of old would have (and as many still do). He has moderated his views for public consumption such that he only equates homosexuality with the lighter, milder 'sins' of sex outside marriage, adultery, and whatever he understands 'fornication' to mean. (According to some fundamentalists, he could've added the sins of contraception and masturbation, but he might've been laughed off the public stage.) But he still couches the rationale for his views as being from a religious perspective, by saying "As a Christian....", and by condemning homosexuality as "unrepentant sin" and "living in open rebellion to God". He doesn't nuance his opinion as to whether it was based on Old Testament Levitical law, or New Testament (just to make things interesting), but it doesn't matter--either way, resorting to religious texts as a justification for condemning social behavior just makes the bigotry religiously-grounded bigotry. And as we all know, that's the most traditional kind. (FYI: I imagine you know this already, but the origin of the term 'bigot' in 16th-century France referred to people who held particularly sanctimonious religious views, and who observed them hypocritically; thus bigotry, religion and hypocrisy have long been intimately intertwined in a kind of vile three-way.)
So you say, "Okay, big deal. He made an ill-advised, ill-timed comment. You say it's bigotry, I say it's not. No harm, no foul. We'll just have to agree to disagree." And to a point, I can agree. In the bigger scheme of things, Broussard's comments probably only added to the list of slurs and hateful comments that closeted gay teens endure every day, and because they came from a distance, the sting was probably minimal, or at least one among many for the day. Broussard's comments, while repugnant, probably don't shift the public debate in anti-gay bigots' favor. His comments only resonated with the shrinking audience of anti-gay fundamentalist evangelical bigots, and he looked like such an utter fool, that in the big picture he probably turned off more neutral people. ESPN apologizes (sort of) and Broussard tries to sidestep the blowback by fake-apologizing (sort of).
But as you point out, Jthig, public condemnations of homosexuality as 'sin', 'evil' and 'disordered' DO have consequences, sometimes violent, sometimes fatal. In the recent marriage equality debate in France, the archbishop of Paris observed that extending marriage rights to homosexuals would be how "..a violent society develops...". About the same time, the leader of the main political group opposing the impending marriage equality legislation threatened French President Hollande by saying: "Hollande wants blood, and he will get it." Bullets and gunpowder were mailed to some French legislators, and shortly thereafter there occurred in France a spate of extremely violent gay bashings in which gay men were attacked, and had their faces beaten into bloody pulp while having anti-gay slurs shouted at them. An as of Friday, the Archbishop of San Francisco (and convicted drunk driver) Salvatore Cordileone published a response to passage of marriage equality in Rhode Island in which he asserted that secular law can mean nothing over church tradition and teaching. A religious leader stacks the kindling, a political extremist pours the gas, and thugs on the street light the match.
Even worse, are the involvements of Western anti-gay fundamentalist groups in countries like Uganda and Ethiopia, who go and stir up hatred against gays and lesbians, and help anti-gay politicians in these countries craft legislation criminalizing homosexuality (not homosexual acts, homosexual EXISTENCE), punishable by death. And this is not just something from years back, it's ongoing, and going on today.
And it makes you wonder, whether some of the proud and unabashed bigots posting here (Dude?) would vote for such legislation in their state, or in the United States, if they thought they could get by with it, if they thought they had the support for it. Is the only thing holding people like this back broader public support? Will they just resort to individual acts of violence against individual gays or lesbians instead? I'm not that concerned about a guy like Dude. He sounds like he's too old to be very dangerous, even if he wanted to. But what about his impressionable teen-aged son(s), with still-developing impulse control? What about the kids he indoctrinates in Sunday School, or in his Boy Scout troop, or the ones he coaches on a youth basketball team? How will the teen-aged kids react to the derogatory slurs that you can be sure he throws around in their presence? Will it make them think it's okay to bully that gay kid at school? Or if they get a little alcohol in them when they're older, will they go beat up a gay man somewhere? Just for kicks?
Words matter. Just dressing up your bigoted views to make them more respectable for public airing doesn't obviate the underlying bigotry. And bigotry (or even just the dissemination of negative attitudes towards gays and lesbians, if that's what you want to call it) breeds hate. Hate corrodes, sometimes slowly, sometimes explosively. I can't imagine that a truly decent person of whatever faith would want to stand by while words like 'sin' and 'evil' and 'disordered' get rained down on gay teens, or on impressionable young teens who might grow up to harm them.
Last edited by Jack.Kerr; 05-06-2013 at 02:33 PM.
|
|
|
05-06-2013, 02:58 PM
|
#75
|
Golden Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,715
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog
Nobody is born gay - sexuality is all about personal experience and opportunity... I'd say bisexuals pretty much kill the "gay gene" theory.
|
Reading your post, I see that we agree on a lot more than we disagree on, but I both agree and disagree with you on this point. It doesn't make sense (to me) to assume that there is one and only one path to the development of sexual identity/attraction, and there is a large variety of research that is identifying the genetic basis for sexuality. But yes, sexual identiy/attraction is based on exposure to outside influences and experiences AND how a person's genetic endowment gets exposed to them. Most children, of course, grow up to be heterosexual. But I have also seen children who showed evidence of same-sex attraction as pre-adolescents, and who grew up on the express track to being adult homosexuals.
Then there are people who are born intersex, and children who identify as the opposite sex. I've also seen one particular instance of a child who was born male, but who from a very early age identified as female. He is just hitting adolescence now, so I guess we'll know pretty soon which way things are going to go. You're right though, that some people move from one side to the other of the sexual attraction spectrum during the course of their lives (and some people move back and forth).
Ultimately, I think that social influences hold a lot more people back from expressing their innate sexual identity than push people into one of the less numerically frequent categories. Sexuality as social fad just doesn't ring true to me.
Either way, if religion or political affiliation (which are choices and definitely NOT genetically based), or physical handicap (which is not necessarily genetically based) can be legally protected choices/classes, then it makes no sense to exclude sexual identity/attraction, which seems to be at least partially genetically based.
Last edited by Jack.Kerr; 05-06-2013 at 03:22 PM.
|
|
|
05-06-2013, 03:22 PM
|
#76
|
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr
Reading your post, I see that we agree on a lot more than we disagree on, but I both agree and disagree with you on this point. It doesn't make sense (to me) to assume that there is one and only one path to the development of sexual identity/attraction, and there is a large variety of research that is identifying the genetic basis for sexuality. But yes, sexual identiy/attraction is based on exposure to outside influences and experiences AND how a person's genetic endowment gets exposed to them. Most children, of course, grow up to be heterosexual. But I have also seen children who showed evidence of same-sex attraction as pre-adolescents, and who grew up on the express track to being adult homosexuals.
Then there are people who are born intersex, and children who identify as the opposite sex. I've also seen one particular instance of a child who was born male, but who from a very early age identified as female. He is just hitting adolescence now, so I guess we'll know pretty soon which way things are going to go. You're right though, that some people move from one side to the other of the sexual attraction spectrum during the course of their lives (and some people move back and forth).
Ultimately, I think that social influences hold a lot more people back from expressing their innate sexual identity than push people into one of the less numerically frequent categories. Sexuality as social fad just doesn't ring true to me.
Either way, if religion or political affiliation (which are choices and definitely NOT genetically based), or physical handicap (which is not necessarily genetically based) can be legally protected choices, then it makes no sense to exclude sexual identity/attraction, which seems to be at least partially genetically based.
|
The United States penal system would disagree with you.
There are a lot of people who go into prison having never been attracted to the same sex and end up having a lot of (consensual) sex with people of their own gender... Some never do it again when they get out, while others are changed for life.
The same could be said about the military (especially in times past).
That's circumstantial, not genetic. And it happens all the time.
__________________
These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.
Last edited by Underdog; 05-06-2013 at 03:22 PM.
|
|
|
05-06-2013, 03:24 PM
|
#77
|
Golden Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,715
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog
The United States penal system would disagree with you.
There are a lot of people who go into prison having never been attracted to the same sex and end up having a lot of (consensual) sex with people of their own gender... Some never do it again when they get out, while others are changed for life.
The same could be said about the military (especially in times past).
That's circumstantial, not genetic. And it happens all the time.
|
Yeah, but that's the point-- circumstantial is one of several possibilities, not the ONLY possibility.
|
|
|
05-06-2013, 03:59 PM
|
#78
|
Guru
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr
How about bigots? Are they born bigoted? Unfortunately they DO have a voting bloc.
|
Well quite frankly I think born this way or that way is bullsnot, but if you say so then I guess there are born adulterers as well.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
|
|
|
05-06-2013, 04:57 PM
|
#79
|
Golden Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: McLean, VA
Posts: 1,970
|
the arguments against the O.P. were going quite fine without pulling out the "christians are soo persecuted" card
|
|
|
05-06-2013, 05:36 PM
|
#80
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394
Why not, about as easily believed as being born gay. It just doesn't have a voting bloc yet.
|
I know you're a really religious, and that is fine. That is your right. But just for future reference there is something called science, which has proven sexuality to be congenital. So comparing it to aldutery is not only offensive but ignorant. But I expect no less from a fundie
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:51 AM.
|