NBA C Jason Collins comes out as gay

[illwauk]

http://www.buzzfeed....2180258_1120719

I'll probably get bashed for this but I don't think anything Chris said is wrong. As a fellow Christian, I'm glad he is pointing out his beliefs on television. I also believe he did it in a very good way, he didn't bash Collins or anything like that, he just says that he disagrees with the lifestyle. I may not agree with homosexuality but I am not gonna judge any person on that because it really isn't my place to, that is God's judgement so that is how I view it. I think its good for Chris to stand up for his beliefs though just like most people support Jason Collins for his. I'm not trying to say Collins is wrong or bash him for being gay but I, like Chris, would say that I disagree with it just based on my beliefs.

I'm jumping in here with bigmike. Chris expressed HIS views on television. This is no different than Collins expressing his to SI. Tolerance should be universal. If Collins is applauded for voicing his views to SI, then Chris should be applauded for not giving in to Big Brother and expressing his. Chris never said that being gay was wrong, he said he BELIEVED it to be wrong. Kudos to Chris for laying his job on the line for his beliefs. I just hope it works out better than the last time a sports reporter did the same thing. http://life.national...om-free-speech/

I'm so sick of hearing stuff like this... as if it's somehow hypocritical to not tolerate bigotry (you know, the exact opposite of tolerance).

And no, I don't think you're a consciously hateful person, but calling someone's sexuality a "lifestyle" is perpetuating the discrimination LGBT people face by implying that being gay is a choice, and therefore fair game to call their morality into question. I don't suppose you'd like it if someone were to take your decision to remain a person of faith in spite of all the pedophilia scandals that have been exposed in the church as a passive endorsement of child abuse.

[BlueSky]

@ illwauk, in my opinion it IS equally reprehensible. Feel free to disagree with the understanding that it doesn't make you right.

As for relevant to the discussion, we passed that exit ten miles back.

Sorry, but I really don't see how someone losing their livelihood because of their sexuality is comparable to unwarranted claims of discrimination... especially when there's so many politicians and an entire AM talk radio-listening segment of the population willing to undermine even the most obviously legitimate claims.

Taking it another direction, I agree that it's reprehensible. I'll even agree that it is equally so.

But why can't it ever just be "Firing someone for being gay is wrong" and leave it at that? Why does it have to be "Sure, firing someone for being gay is wrong, but they do it too!" I don't get that.

Because if you want to look at something fairly it's important to consider both sides - in this case, the system and those who would abuse it. For example, gay marriage. I believe gay people should have the same legal rights as any married couple. At the same time, I understand the objections of those who believe (and have a right to believe) that marriage is defined as between a man and woman. So in my opinion civil unions would be a reasonable compromise.

Others will trot out the "separate but equal" argument et al and I respect their opinions even though I disagree. What I don't respect are people to whom compromise is a dirty word. They want everything their way and are convinced they alone are the righteous among us.

[Needschat]

In America, the First Amendment protects free speech, most importantly the speech we disagree with. While Broussard acknowledged his beliefs of homosexuality, as well as the lifestyle of most NBA players of unwed fornication and extramarital affairs - a fact a MAJORITY of people seemed to miss - is wrong, I have to disagree with him on the simple basis of him being a typical 21st century American Christian: He chose to use Christ in his disagreement. Christ NEVER came down on homosexuals, or even sexuality. It was in the OLD Testament, as well as the letters of St Paul, which touch on it.

To those that played high school and/college sports and say they NEVER had a gay teammate, and would know if they did, don't fool yourself. Odds are that you had at least ONE gay teammate, and guess what, odds are even greater that he was never attracted to you.

[IceCap]

To those that played high school and/college sports and say they NEVER had a gay teammate, and would know if they did, don't fool yourself. Odds are that you had at least ONE gay teammate, and guess what, odds are even greater that he was never attracted to you.

But...but I was so pretty

[The Six]

To those that played high school and/college sports and say they NEVER had a gay teammate, and would know if they did, don't fool yourself. Odds are that you had at least ONE gay teammate, and guess what, odds are even greater that he was never attracted to you.

This makes sense, except for the last part. Statistically at least one teammate on any given team would be gay. But there are no "odds" to guess who that person may be attracted to. I've always found the "just because he's gay doesn't mean he likes showering with men" canard silly.

[BlueSky]

To those that played high school and/college sports and say they NEVER had a gay teammate, and would know if they did, don't fool yourself. Odds are that you had at least ONE gay teammate, and guess what, odds are even greater that he was never attracted to you.

But...but I was so pretty

This thread needed some humor so thanks.

[Needschat]

To those that played high school and/college sports and say they NEVER had a gay teammate, and would know if they did, don't fool yourself. Odds are that you had at least ONE gay teammate, and guess what, odds are even greater that he was never attracted to you.

But...but I was so pretty

Maybe that's why, you were pretty, not ruggedly handsome, like a lumberjack

(Cue Monty Python)

[Needschat]

To those that played high school and/college sports and say they NEVER had a gay teammate, and would know if they did, don't fool yourself. Odds are that you had at least ONE gay teammate, and guess what, odds are even greater that he was never attracted to you.

This makes sense, except for the last part. Statistically at least one teammate on any given team would be gay. But there are no "odds" to guess who that person may be attracted to. I've always found the "just because he's gay doesn't mean he likes showering with men" canard silly.

It was the way a former teammate explained to a group of us, after one jackass asked if he was gay why didn't he come on to us. The better way would have been that the teammate(s) thought of you as a brother.

[-kj]

The phrase I like is "don't flatter yourself".

I was going to go on a long rant calling out the people who "disagree with homosexuality", as if that were actually possible. Instead, I think I'll just quote this:

I'm happy that the first athlete came out of the closet on his own and wasn't dragged out kicking and screaming. Best of luck to Jason Collins. But what is this "gay lifestyle" that people disagree with? As far as I can tell, the gay lifestyle is awfully similar to the straight lifestyle: wake up, go to work or school, come home, eat dinner, spend time with family and friends, maybe hit the town on weekends or something. They watch or play sports, might play some video games, see some movies, read some books. Just like straight people, gay people are students, teachers, athletes, police officers, writers, actors, truck drivers, politicians, whatever. Gay people and straight people do the same things, except gay people are attracted to people of the same gender, and straight people are attracted to people of the opposite gender. That's such a small part of someone's lifestyle. Are there flamboyant, feminine gay men? Of course. But as we see with Collins and countless other gay men, they are many, many more who act just like straight men, except for their sex partners.

Oh, and include this:

[illwauk]

@ illwauk, in my opinion it IS equally reprehensible. Feel free to disagree with the understanding that it doesn't make you right.

As for relevant to the discussion, we passed that exit ten miles back.

Sorry, but I really don't see how someone losing their livelihood because of their sexuality is comparable to unwarranted claims of discrimination... especially when there's so many politicians and an entire AM talk radio-listening segment of the population willing to undermine even the most obviously legitimate claims.

Taking it another direction, I agree that it's reprehensible. I'll even agree that it is equally so.

But why can't it ever just be "Firing someone for being gay is wrong" and leave it at that? Why does it have to be "Sure, firing someone for being gay is wrong, but they do it too!" I don't get that.

Because if you want to look at something fairly it's important to consider both sides - in this case, the system and those who would abuse it. For example, gay marriage. I believe gay people should have the same legal rights as any married couple. At the same time, I understand the objections of those who believe (and have a right to believe) that marriage is defined as between a man and woman. So in my opinion civil unions would be a reasonable compromise.

Others will trot out the "separate but equal" argument et al and I respect their opinions even though I disagree. What I don't respect are people to whom compromise is a dirty word. They want everything their way and are convinced they alone are the righteous among us.

Not to Godwin this thread, but that's exactly the argument used by holocaust deniers.

I understand your want for compromise, and that's the right way to go in many instances; but there are certain issues where it's just plain dishonest, morally and intellectually, to justify certian ideas and perpectives... particularly when they're outright discriminatory based on something the discriminated group has no control over. The idea that it's okay to deny LGBT people the same rights granted to the rest of us happens to be one of those instances.

[Lights Out]

As I said before, I'm Christian myself and fully disagree with a gay lifestyle. I also disagree with cheating on taxes.

Utterly ridiculous comparison.

[BlueSky]

@ illwauk, in my opinion it IS equally reprehensible. Feel free to disagree with the understanding that it doesn't make you right.

As for relevant to the discussion, we passed that exit ten miles back.

Sorry, but I really don't see how someone losing their livelihood because of their sexuality is comparable to unwarranted claims of discrimination... especially when there's so many politicians and an entire AM talk radio-listening segment of the population willing to undermine even the most obviously legitimate claims.

Taking it another direction, I agree that it's reprehensible. I'll even agree that it is equally so.

But why can't it ever just be "Firing someone for being gay is wrong" and leave it at that? Why does it have to be "Sure, firing someone for being gay is wrong, but they do it too!" I don't get that.

Because if you want to look at something fairly it's important to consider both sides - in this case, the system and those who would abuse it. For example, gay marriage. I believe gay people should have the same legal rights as any married couple. At the same time, I understand the objections of those who believe (and have a right to believe) that marriage is defined as between a man and woman. So in my opinion civil unions would be a reasonable compromise.

Others will trot out the "separate but equal" argument et al and I respect their opinions even though I disagree. What I don't respect are people to whom compromise is a dirty word. They want everything their way and are convinced they alone are the righteous among us.

Not to Godwin this thread, but that's exactly the argument used by holocaust deniers.

I understand your want for compromise, and that's the right way to go in many instances; but there are certain issues where it's just plain dishonest, morally and intellectually, to give credence to an argument. The idea that it's okay to deny LGBT people the same rights granted to the rest of us happens to be one of those instances.

In your opinion.

[illwauk]

Well, I think the fact that we live in a society where "bigotry = wrong" is a matter of opinion for such a large segment of the population is pretty damn unfortunate.

[BlueSky]

Well, I think the fact that we live in a society where the idea of bigotry being wrong is a matter of opinion for such a large segment of the population is pretty damn unfortunate.

That's not the issue at all. You said this isn't an issue on which to compromise. That's your opinion. I know gay people who would be fine with civil unions. Others insist on it being marriage. I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. But if I had to pick, as I said the compromise seems reasonable and would probably be far more expeditious.

Still, I recognize that my opinion is only that. Contrary to what some (not necessarily you) think, the depth of their belief in an opinion does not render it a fact.

[The Six]

To those that played high school and/college sports and say they NEVER had a gay teammate, and would know if they did, don't fool yourself. Odds are that you had at least ONE gay teammate, and guess what, odds are even greater that he was never attracted to you.

This makes sense, except for the last part. Statistically at least one teammate on any given team would be gay. But there are no "odds" to guess who that person may be attracted to. I've always found the "just because he's gay doesn't mean he likes showering with men" canard silly.

It was the way a former teammate explained to a group of us, after one jackass asked if he was gay why didn't he come on to us. The better way would have been that the teammate(s) thought of you as a brother.

I'm not saying a gay athlete will turn into a raging horndog in the showers, but it's lilely he'll find someone on his team attractive.

[njmeadowlanders]

Well, I think the fact that we live in a society where the idea of bigotry being wrong is a matter of opinion for such a large segment of the population is pretty damn unfortunate.

That's not the issue at all. You said this isn't an issue on which to compromise. That's your opinion. I know gay people who would be fine with civil unions. Others insist on it being marriage. I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. But if I had to pick, as I said the compromise seems reasonable and would probably be far more expeditious.

Still, I recognize that my opinion is only that. Contrary to what some (not necessarily you) think, the depth of their belief in an opinion does not render it a fact.

But why should there have to be a compromise on this particular issue? Does a gay marriage make a straight marriage any less valid? Will gay marriage have an adverse affect on heterosexual people? This isn't gun control or a health insurance mandate or a budget battle. It's about people and rights. It's not like if you allow gay marriage then that is the ONLY type of marriage there can be. Marriage should be two PEOPLE period--gender irrelevant.

I'd liken a compromise on this issue to be something that limited women's rights to vote or civil rights for minorities be conditional to some degree. Like "yeah, we'll allow it, BUT.......". Rights shouldn't have to be conditional.

And why are "sham" marriages OK just because they're between a man and woman? Isn't that actually making a mockery of the entire thing? So green card marriages or "stunt" marriages are cool I guess...

[Breakwood]

To those that played high school and/college sports and say they NEVER had a gay teammate, and would know if they did, don't fool yourself. Odds are that you had at least ONE gay teammate, and guess what, odds are even greater that he was never attracted to you.

This makes sense, except for the last part. Statistically at least one teammate on any given team would be gay. But there are no "odds" to guess who that person may be attracted to. I've always found the "just because he's gay doesn't mean he likes showering with men" canard silly.

It was the way a former teammate explained to a group of us, after one jackass asked if he was gay why didn't he come on to us. The better way would have been that the teammate(s) thought of you as a brother.

I'm not saying a gay athlete will turn into a raging horndog in the showers, but it's lilely he'll find someone on his team attractive.

I may find the occasional co-worker attractive. However they may never know it, it also has never affected the way they or I do our jobs. Just because a person finds another attractive doesn't mean they have to hit on them.

[BlueSky]

@ njmeadowlanders, all I said was that civil unions are a reasonable compromise in my opinion. If you feel otherwise, more power to you. You make some valid points. Other people have valid points too. I'm not here to argue for or against.

[njmeadowlanders]

@ njmeadowlanders, all I said was that civil unions are a reasonable compromise in my opinion. If you feel otherwise, more power to you. You make some valid points. Other people have valid points too. I'm not here to argue for or against.

No I completely understand that its your opinion. I was just countering it with my own. Nothing wrong with having one.

The third paragraph by the way was my own expounding on my opinion, not tying it into anything you or anyone else here previously had said.

[riki]

riki, on April 30, 2013 - 05:50, said:

The Bible Brunch Club have discovered a new way to claim victimhood on an issue that has absolutely no direct affect on them!

Tell me more about how much you "believe in" the Bible.

I found the comments that I knew I would find. You are bigoted, ignorant, and uneducated.

That stupid attitude of "We Christians are tired of being called bigoted, ignorant, and uneducated for merely disagreeing with homosexuality."

Choke on it.

Name calling - check

Personal attacks - check

Refusing side of argument they don't agree with - check

If I am these things, how are you different

So sorry, Christians. I didn't mean to call you names, attack you "personally," or disagree with you...I just REALLY believe that what I am saying is 100% the WORD OF GOD...

I am not like you because you would base your judgements of all people (completely uncalled-for, illogical, unfounded) on a single source so obviously not subjective, not capable of being fully understood, or admissable in court.

I get frustrated that my opinion counts as much as a hillbilly who's never-left-"Barnville" and those Barnvillians believe they have the true word of God.

There's so much more than the Bible.

Why aren't the Catholic priest pedophiles subjected to the laws they have become "authorities" of?

Basically, Christians/religious people haven't recognized that "interpretation" (and their amateur, hillbilly "method") is their raison d'etre, and all the adults of the world have to listen to these children talk about "the only book that matters."

God doesn't even believe in himself (Book of Job).