Yes, I have a question, Chris: Who cares what your religious beliefs are?
ESPN has raised some eyebrows for the sports network’s unequivocal support of Chris Broussard, one of its NBA reporters, who in response to a request for his reaction to Jason Collins’ announcing that he was gay, becoming the first active NBA player ever to do so, said this on the ESPN show, “Outside the Lines”:
“I’m a Christian. I don’t agree with homosexuality. I think it’s a sin, as I think all sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is,” he said (transcript via Blazers Edge’s Ben Golliver). “L.Z. [Granderson, a gay sportswriter and ESPN contributor] knows that. He and I have played on basketball teams together for several years. We’ve gone out, had lunch together, we’ve had good conversations, good laughs together. He knows where I stand, and I know where he stands. I don’t criticize him, he doesn’t criticize me, and call me a bigot, call me ignorant, call me intolerant. In talking to some people around the league, there’s a lot of Christians in the NBA, and just because they disagree with that lifestyle, they don’t want to be called bigoted and intolerant and things like that. That’s what L.Z. was getting at. Just like I may tolerate someone whose lifestyle I disagree with, he can tolerate my beliefs. He disagrees with my beliefs and my lifestyle, but true tolerance and acceptance is being able to handle that as mature adults and not criticize each other and call each other names….
“Personally, I don’t believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle or an openly premarital sex between heterosexuals, if you’re openly living that type of lifestyle, then the Bible says you know them by their fruits, it says that’s a sin. If you’re openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality, adultery, fornication, premarital sex between heterosexuals, whatever it may be, I believe that’s walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. I would not characterize that person as a Christian because I do not think the Bible would characterize them as a Christian.”
ESPN diplomatically responded, In a statement, ESPN said: “We regret that a respectful discussion of personal viewpoints became a distraction from today’s news. ESPN is fully committed to diversity and welcomes Jason Collins’ announcement.”
I find it difficult to believe that ESPN would regard similar sentiments about the sinfulness of women failing to be subordinate to their husbands or inter-racial marriage as “a respectful discussion of personal viewpoints.” There is nothing respectful about calling someone’s legal and Constitutionally protected conduct an “open rebellion to God.” I have changed my position on Broussard’s kind of statement about homosexuality. In the past, I cautioned not to regard as bigotry what was in fact strict and good faith adherence to a Bible-based moral code. I think it is time to treat such statements as we would statements about racial and gender inferiority: it’s bigotry. Society does not tolerate denigrating citizens based on sexual orientation, and to do so publicly, based on religious views or not, should be condemned as wrong and harmful.
ESPN should reprimand Broussard. He has a right to his opinion, but his opinion was inappropriate for ESPN or a broadcast discussion of the Collins announcement in a sports context. He’s not a religious commentator, and his commentary on Collins had nothing to do with sports, basketball, or gays in the NBA. Who cares about Broussard’s personal opinion of homosexuality? What’s his point? That gays shouldn’t be able to make a living? That they shouldn’t be professional athletes? That telling the truth about himself is something Collins is wrong to do? Broussard is employed to analyze basketball, not spew his Bible interpretations and render pronouncements on who is a good Christian. ESPN wouldn’t tolerate him going off on a rant against the policies of Barack Obama: why is an equally off-topic discourse on his religious beliefs any more acceptable? Broussard used his position as a basketball analyst to tell the world that he thinks Jason Collins is a sinful individual and a bad Christian. That’s neither his job, nor the area of expertise that justifies his appearance on ESPN as an analyst.
Broussard has a right to his personal, non-sports opinions, ignorant, cruel and bigoted though they may be. He has no right to inflict those opinions on ESPN’s viewers. ESPN should tell him to shut up, or get out.
______________________________
Source: Washington Post
Ethics Alarms 
Wouldn’t the onus fall on whatever interviewer requested his response? From all I’ve been able to hear on the subject, he didn’t break in on SportsCenter to talk about it, he was asked for his opinion. What, then, is your take on how he should have responded? Should he have lied, waffled through a non-answer, or just said no comment?
I think he was perfectly right to answer. That his answer shows he was a bigot is something ESPN has to deal with.
When asked his personal opinions on the coming out, a proper answer would have been a quick blurb indicated how little this has to do with actual basketball and then move on to another question.
But Jaaaaack, cowering here beneath the shibboleth of diversity, everyone’s beliefs are of equal importance and require equal deference. Who are you to say your opinions are better than anyone else’s? It’s all just relative. It’s all good. You are disrespecting (Okay, I couldn’t resist using my favorite punk-fabricated quasi-gerund.) true believers. That’s not nice. Come on, get with the program. We need to roll back centuries of human thought and progress so we can turn ourselves into medieval morons so no one’s feelings are hurt. Now, say you’re sorry. Jackie. That’s better, but you’re still going to have to be in timeout. Bad boy.
So you are retracting your earlier statements on polygamy ?
If Warren Jeffs is proof that polygamy leads to child sexual abuse, then does not Jerry Sandusky prove that homosexuality leads to child sexual abuse?
The Supreme Court never held that buggery per se is constitutionally protected. Indeed, in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), the Supreme Court focused solely on the privacy aspects of the case. id. at 578. Thus, it leaves undisturbed cases like National Gay Task Force v. Board of Education, 729 F.2d 1270 (10th Cir. 1984), which deny that buggery is protected in a public context.
Would I be offended if a Muslim told me what God thinks about drinking beer?
Unfortunately, I guess we can only criminalize conduct after it occurs.
Which is a tough deal for the victims of that conduct.
Which conduct is that?
eg., child sexual abuse.
Child sexual abuse is criminalized.
Yes, but wasn’t being homosexual criminalized for centuries (or decades) at least arguably because the legislators thought being a homosexual would inevitably result in conduct deemed to be harmful to society? Eg., “buggery,” pedophelia, etc.? Wasn’t this the rational for why homosexuals were kept out of grade school teaching positions, scout leadership, camp counseling, etc.? Such legislation (or regulation) is deemed discriminatory and no longer permitted. My only (small) point.
I guess I’m just too old to be enthused about gay marriage. I still remember the ’70s when gay guys looked down their noses at married straights, calling them Philistine, repressed, unenlightened, bourgeoise breeders. I guess I’m not as intellectually and emotionally nimble as Jack. Maybe my conduct rises to the level of bigotry. I’m certainly guilty of being mystified.
Polygamy is demonstrably wrong, exploitive, abusive to women, and unethical. Please don’t use that terrible analogy here.
At least until society declares it to be ‘someone’s legal and Constitutionally protected conduct.’ Then it’ll be hunky-dory.
Why? If it is between consenting, informed adults, how is it unethical?
Justice Stephen Field:
Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 at 341 (1890)
Judge Barrett:
National Gay Task Force v. Board of Education, 729 F.2d 1270 at 1276 (10th Cir. 1984) (Barrett, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)
Michael, the first of your two judicial citations was 123 years ago – but only 43 years away in time from the Dred Scott decision, affirming that no black person could ever be a citizen. I find such antiquated citations completely unpersuasive; they predate women getting the vote, for example. Just relics of a bygone time. A racist, bigoted time, by today’s standards.
“Sodomy is malum in se, i.e., immoral and corruptible in its nature without regard to the fact of its being noticed or punished by the law of the state. [It is an] the abominable and detestable crime against nature”
Really? You think this is a valid argument?
Of course it is valid. Here is another valid argument (credit goes to Jason Salamone for compiling this from other sources).
Is it right to advocate a person towards a lifestyle that is unhealthy and causes a much shorter lifespan? A fulfilling relationship emotionally, psychologically, and sexually wouldn’t cause a much greater risk and spread of disease and a shorter lifespan now would it? All available evidence indicates that the life span of practicing homosexual persons is drastically shortened by their (sexual) behavior. No reliable study indicates otherwise. The lifespan topic is taboo among homosexual advocates, because the evidence is so damaging to their case.
This information represents a fair summary of the available evidence concerning homosexual life span. It indicates that on average, even apart from AIDS, homosexual persons will be extremely lucky live past their 40’s if and when they embrace the homosexual identity and lifestyle closer to their youth…an appalling loss of about anywhere from 8-30 years, or up to 40% of normal American life span, similar to life expectancy rates of the average person living in the 1800s…
http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/hosx_lifspn.htm
Another study found a decrease in lifespan. It basically says the only reason why there was some decrease in mortality rates of homosexual men is due to being able to jack themselves up on meds, but it is still considerably higher than the average person. Mortality for female homosexuals is over 30% higher too…
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19008504
——————————————————————————————
“We found that even if gay men behave the same way heterosexuals do — in terms of sexual partner numbers — “gay” men would still have a huge HIV epidemic,” Dr. Goodreau said.
Universities of Washington and New York
Sexually Transmitted Infections Journal
Sept. 13 2010
http://www.drugs.com/news/number-partners-doesn-t-explain-gay-hiv-rate-9307.html
—————————————————————————————————————–
Straight from the horses mouth…
Next time someone tries to downplay how high risk homosexual sex is simply refer them to the “Gay and Lesbian Medical Association’s” words on the topic:
http://www.glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageID=690
————————————————————————————————–
“The Myth of hetersexual AIDs” by Michael Fumento documents evidence from a vast amount of medical sources, including the politically correct Center For Disease Control, that dismisses the claim that AIDs has “broken out” in the heterosexual population and therefore a universal disease. Yes, heterosexuals can get AIDS; from shared needles, from tainted blood transfusions and other blood products (blood screening is never 100% effective), and sometimes from sexual intercourse with people who shared needles or have infected blood, or with people who have engaged in homosexual sexual conduct.
But the epidemic of heterosexuals infecting heterosexuals by sexual contact is a myth invented by activists and the media to capitalize on achieving as much funding as possible.
With hard facts and evidence, Michael Fumento explains thoroughly why these claims were publicized despite their truthlessness…
http://fumento.com/aids/pozaids.html
They scrubbed the above link, so here it is archived…
http://web.archive.org/web/20110711054228/http://fumento.com/aids/pozaids.html
http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Heterosexual-AIDS-Distorted-Partisan/dp/0895267292/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317147908&sr=8-1
This professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley states there is no HIV virus, AIDs is behavior-based….
http://www.duesberg.com/
Whatever happened to AIDs in straight males…
http://www.aliveandwell.org/html/risk_realities/whatever_happened.html
Michael,
You are clearly way, way out on the paranoid fringe. Here is verbatim some commentary from Wikipedia on one of the sources you cite, Peter Duesberg:
The scientific consensus is that HIV is the causal pathogen that leads to AIDS;[5] Duesberg’s HIV/AIDS claims have been rejected as incorrect and disproven by the scientific community.[6][7][8] Reviews of his opinions in Nature[9] and Science[10] asserted that they were unpersuasive and based on selective reading of the literature, and that although Duesberg had a right to a dissenting opinion, his failure to fairly review evidence that HIV causes AIDS meant that his opinion lacked credibility.[10][11]
Duesberg’s views on HIV/AIDS are cited as major influences on South African policy under the administration of Thabo Mbeki. Duesberg served on an advisory panel to Mbeki, convened in 2000. The failure of South Africa to provide antiretroviral drugs in a timely manner, due in part to the influence of AIDS denialism, is thought to be responsible for hundreds of thousands of preventable AIDS deaths and HIV infections.[12][13] Duesberg disputed these findings in an article in the journal Medical Hypotheses,[14] but the journal’s publisher, Elsevier, later retracted the article over accuracy and ethics concerns as well as its rejection during peer review.[15][16] The incident prompted several complaints to the University of California, Berkeley, which began a misconduct investigation of Duesberg in 2009.[17][18] The investigation was dropped in 2010, with University officials finding “insufficient evidence…to support a recommendation for disciplinary action.”[19][20]
Duesberg continues his research on cancer in both Berkeley and an alternative lab in Germany, as well as his activities within the AIDS denialist community.[6]
An AIDS denialist. Sounds about right.
Of course it is valid.
The quote was being used to back the point that homosexuality is unethical. Nothing you wrote in this long post explains how a judge stating that homosexuality is bad is actually an argument for homosexuality being bad. It was a direct appeal to authority.
Your post is a rant about homosexuality. It’s a non sequitur, and it should be treated as the bullshit attempt to change the subject that it is.
1) It is seldom between consenting adults, because it arises out of cultures where men are regarded as superior and dominant. Hence there is inherent inequality and coercion, and consent is impossible, legally and practically.
2) It undermines gender equality, a legitimate social value. (So does prostitution.)
3) It is so prone to abuse, and so without societal benefits, that there is no justification for society allowing it.
Monogamy also arose from cultures where men are regarded as superior and dominant.
Monogamous societies forbade women from voting or practicing law on the basis of sex. As a matter of fact, women were allowed to vote in the Utah territory, and the franchise was taken away from women as part of a law designed to fight polygamy in the territories.
Monogamous societies once oppressed women, so you think that proves that polygamous societies don’t oppress women more? Voting is hardly the benchmark. I seem to recall blacks being rather thoroughly oppressed and segregated well after they had the right to vote.
A thin reed.
You’re being a Poe, right? Heterosexual vaginal intercourse is not protected in public either, that doesn’t mean that heterosexual vaginal intercourse isn’t a protected right. Sheesh.
Would I be offended if a Muslim told me what God thinks about drinking beer?
Do you actually think that’s a parallel situation? Being gay isn’t a taste preference.
“If Warren Jeffs is proof that polygamy leads to child sexual abuse, then does not Jerry Sandusky prove that homosexuality leads to child sexual abuse?”
I will slap the next person that makes this warped statement in my presence. Homosexuality leads “only” to homosexuality. Pedophilia is quite different and involves abuse of children who are legally and morally unable to consent to the act. And, while I haven’t looked at recent stats, my understanding is that most pedophiles are heterosexual males who target female children.
The comparison was with polygamy, not pedophilia.
Jeffs and Sandusky were child abusers. But Jack here infers from Jeffs’s behavior that polygamy leads to child abuse, and yet does not infer from Sandusky’s behavior that homosexuality leads to child abuse.
It is odd that Sandusky’s homoerotic child abuse is dismissed as irrelevant to contentions about real dangers posed by homosexuality. After all, the attempt at reasoning seems to go, Sandusky was married to a woman – one more alleged point for the faulty conclusion that most homoerotic abusers of children are heterosexual. Jason Collins was not married to a woman, but was engaged to one for years; therefore by the same faulty reasoning, he, too, despite his personal conflicts, was heterosexual for at least as long as he was abusing the woman.
Also at issue is Jack Marshall’s outright hypocrisy with respect to polygamy, even going so far as to claim that it “routinely leads to … child sexual abuse”. (emphasis mine)
Ignorance. I think homosexuality is icky; pedophilia also is icky, so homosexuality must be linked to pedophilia. (Even though most pedophiles involve adult man/female child combos, but let’s not get facts get in the way.) I love hearing conservative politicians talk about this because they almost always then segue to bestiality. ‘Cause you know what, most people also think that bestiality is icky. Here’s the distinction — homosexuality is normal (despite the oh-so-persuasive 18th and 19th century references made here), not illegal, and involves consenting individuals. Pedophilia involves a monstrous crime, can never be consented to, and doesn’t belong in a gay rights debate.
My “slapping” comment above was not about the analogy as a whole, it was about the phrase homosexuality/chid abuse becase it is never true, regardless of the analogy you are attempting to make. But as for Jack’s reference to polygamy — he’s absolutely right, and it’s not a conclusion that he is drawing, he’s reporting on well documented facts. The fact that some conservative politicians like to reference the illegality of polygamy, pedophilia and bestiality to defend their moral stances on gay rights just shows how weak their moral positions are in the first place.
Oh, and for your reference to Sandusky’s personal child abuse, if true, you’re right. Child abusers often were abused as children. But they weren’t molested by homosexuals, they were molested by pedophiles (who may or may not have had a preference for female or male children). But it’s the abuse that is relevant there, not the gender.
Nor does it belong to a polygamists’ rights debate.
Documented by whom?
This applies with equal force when the abuser is a polygamist.
I think you and I are speaking past each other. This would be a proper analogy: “Homosexuality leads to pedophilia much like heterosexuality leads to pedophilia.” Or more accurately — insert “doesn’t” in the preceding sentence. Re polygamy, you can say “there is proof that many polygamists are pedophiles, just like many Catholic priests are pedophiles.” But, being a polygamist does not “cause” child abuse — what if the polygamist has no children for e.g.? Being a priest does not “cause” one to be a pedophile, but many pedophiles are drawn to the profession — just like other professions where adults have lots of unsupervised access to children.
Another fail.
That Sandusky was married to a woman isn’t the reason he is called straight. He’s called straight because that’s how he labels himself. Your parallel doesn’t work.
the faulty conclusion that most homoerotic abusers of children are heterosexual
Citation needed.
And if I label myself “Barack Obama”, I can order drone strikes?
That falls into the category of “not even wrong.”
He’s defining himself as being in a class of people, not impersonating a specific person. There are more drawbacks than benefits for such an othering, and actual confirmation is invasive, so we’re willing to believe people’s identification. He’s not getting abilities that others don’t have.
What makes this worse is that you normally understand a statement like yours is bullshit. Has your faith got you so blinkered that you need to resort this?
He would have been fine if he had stopped with:
“He disagrees with my beliefs and my lifestyle, but true tolerance and acceptance is being able to handle that as mature adults and not criticize each other and call each other names….”
I know Ive taken people on this site to task for being intolerant of people who beleive in a god , but I have to say the more and more I hear christians , muslims and jews spout off about how their beleifs are right and we who dont beleive have to kow tow to their narrow minded bigotry I’m convinved that them is to tell them to shut the hell up I dont take advice or orders from people who believe in fairy tales.
I’m pretty sure he didn’t say anything about expecting anyone to take his advice, kowtow, or accept orders. Sure, his second paragraph was less pleasant than his first, but I don’t see anthing in there about discriminating, banning, making illegal, or in any other way limiting people’s autonomy.
Now you, on the other hand, expect your opponent to not criticize or call names right before you demand he shut up, keep his belieft so himself, and refer to his beliefs as fairy tales.
Oh, and everyone “spouts off” about how their beliefs are right. If you believe it, you think it’s right- and unless you’re a liar, everything you say expresses your belief in the rightness of your opinion. Or do you feel that your beliefs are wrong?
I didnt say he said those things. Go back and read my post.
Sorry Ime too old to be tolerant of people who believe in a fairy tale or their beliefs. Im done. If someone said ” I dont think too people whould marry becuase tinker bell said it was wrong” we would dismiss them as touched in the head but change tinkerbell to “becuase God and the bible tells us so” and they get respect? Sorry not anymore.
If he didn’t say that his opionions should dictate others actions, and he didn’t say that he deserved kowtowing, then why are you taking your frustration with people who DO say those things out on him?
I am almost positive that we as americans have the right to free speech afforded to us in the first amendment. so he can believe in fairy tales and anything else he wishes and express them in any public forum, because you find it offensive he should be fired or forced to apologize for his beliefs? lets just create an environment where we all watch what we say so as not to offend anyone and have no real beliefs of faith and that way we can all just smile and get along.
It is sad that I can predict responses like yours, which show ignorance of logic, the Constitution, and ethics—such is the state of civic literacy in the U.S. 1) Broussard’s role with ESPN involves what ESPN designates as his proper expertise, and it can and should tell him to stay within in. This has nothing to do with First Amendment rights. 2) The First Amendment guarantees that the government can’t restrict speech. Do you see anything about the government in this story? You might educate yourself on the Constitution before presuming to cite it. 3) Because one has a right to say something doesn’t mean one has a right to do it on the job, or that doing so is fair, responsible, appropriate or ethical. 4) This is an ethics blog. Either learn the basics before you embarrass yourself, or visit Nickelodeon.
Yes he can , he can say anything he likes. But so can I, which at this point everytime a christian opens their mouth and states that they beleive something becuase the “bible” tells them so” I am going to laugh in their face and tell them they are idiots. The time of tolerating people believing fiary tales is done, and in this group I include anyone who believes in some magical outside force.
The fact that he uses this belief as a basis to judge another human being as being in “open rebellion” to his fairy tale master tells me this person is a bigot and and idiot.
The number of professional scientists who believe in a “magical” outside force is still at least 50% (depending on the survey) and the numbers of those who choose to believe so based entirely because of their work- observing the natural world- is rising. Maybe on your favorite atheist websites theism is all “fairy tales” and outmoded thinking for fools, but in the real world the questions of God/the supernatural remain compelling and important matters, and new evidence from the science continue to convince people on both sides. Your attitude demonstrates one major reason for the anti-theist cultural shift that has nothing to do with logic- the atheist side increasingly favors cultural bullying, name-calling, anti-intellectualism, and insults over informed debate. The time “has not come” for throwing away the rules of honest debate and logic in favor of playground tactics, unless you’ve run out of logical support for your hard-line atheism (and the use of “fairy tale” lingo implies that you personally have, though many atheists haven’t. Sorry that’s off-topic, but some kinds of shameless ignorance can’t be ignored.
The number of professional scientists who believe in a “magical” outside force is still at least 50% (depending on the survey) and the numbers of those who choose to believe so based entirely because of their work- observing the natural world- is rising.
1. Citation needed.
2. Your attempt to conflate the supposed 50% of scientists that believe in an outside force with those that believe in an outside force solely because of their work shows your bad faith.
3. Where’s the link between some “outside force” and any of the fairy tales? I see spiritual scientists using stupid Karen Armstrong’s stupid logic to say their could be something…but jumping to Jesus or any of the other fairy tales is a bridge too far.
Maybe on your favorite atheist websites theism is all “fairy tales” and outmoded thinking for fools, but in the real world the questions of God/the supernatural remain compelling and important matters, and new evidence from the science continue to convince people on both sides.
That people still find God compelling and an important matter in no way contradicts the statement that it’s fairy tales.
That people are swayed by bad arguments in no way supports the idea that their position is true.
Your attitude demonstrates one major reason for the anti-theist cultural shift that has nothing to do with logic- the atheist side increasingly favors cultural bullying, name-calling, anti-intellectualism, and insults over informed debate.
What anti-theist cultural shift? Atheists have been saying the same things for hundreds of years and the religious have made the same false complaints about them for hundreds of years. Your strawman is no more real today than it was when Bertrand Russell was writing.
. The time “has not come” for throwing away the rules of honest debate and logic in favor of playground tactics,
The atheists aren’t doing this.
unless you’ve run out of logical support for your hard-line atheism (and the use of “fairy tale” lingo implies that you personally have, though many atheists haven’t.
The religious have always ignored logic when it comes to religion. They’ve tried to look at it logically, but their “logic” has been anything but. Look at Pascal’s Wager. There’s a huge freight train of a logic error there. I suspect that this is because faith, itself, is illogical.
Sorry that’s off-topic, but some kinds of shameless ignorance can’t be ignored.
Like yours.
A rational debate? I’ve tried having rational debates with people who believe in a god and you know what it always comes back to? The “bible says so”. Its like having an argument with someone and their answer is “because I told you so”.
Ignorance? How is saying that mystical beings don’t exist being ignorant? If I insisted to you that Tinker Bell was a real being and that I lived my life by her teachings and that you would find peace by doing so also, I’d be locked up. What’s the difference? Just because people have been falling for this higher power clap trap for thousands of years doesn’t make it right.
I use to argue with the poster TGT here on this site about his treatment of christians, I found them abusive and mean spirited. But you want to know something? I was wrong. The only way to confront people believing in make believe beings is to look them in the eye and tell them that they are nuts.
If his opinion is immaterial to a sports discussion, what then, of the people who are lauding Collin’s bravery? Is not their opinion immaterial, as well? Does being gay make him a better, or more desirable athlete? There are those who are now calling that he be garunteed a spot on next year’s roster, simply because he is gay. Certainly it will appear quite bad if he’s dropped shortly after announcing this, regardless of his actual gameplay stats.
Setting aside the fact that, yes, your opinion is that there is nothing wrong with a homosexual lifestyle, go back and look at what he said. What is there hateful there? Where did he say Collins was a bad person, that gays were ruining the country, that now that Collins is gay, he cannot stand to be with him or even see him on the court? That Collins should be fired from his job as a basketball player because he is gay? (“What’s his point? That gays shouldn’t be able to make a living? That they shouldn’t be professional athletes?”) No, I see a statement by a man who is very carefully trying to walk the line between disapproval of what he believes to be a sin and love and tolerance for a person who he believes to be sinning. Very carefully stating that this is merely his opinion, and his view of the world, not condemming anyone for failing to adhere to it. Not to mention threading the needle between stating an unpopular opinion and remaining true to what he believes is true – you know, integrity?
If ESPN wishes to reprimand, punish, or demand that Broussard stick to sports, they may do so – it’s their air. If they hold all opinions and non-sports related discussion to the same measure. If, however they allow even one person to state ‘well, I just see him coming out as an incredible act of bravery’ or for that matter, mentioning it at all – it certainly isn’t going to impact his gameplay any, nor the season, nor the team, then they are inconsistant, fickle, and yes, can and should be accused of playing favorites and espousing a bias.
Christians do not believe gay people are sinners because they hate gay people, and it’s a wonderful little line of attack that allows them to really put the screws to ‘those people’. Christians (and not all of them) believe that gay people are sinners because there are instructions that can be easily read as saying simply that in the text that informs their faith. Meanwhile, those that support the homosexual lifestyle snarl and shake their fists at the ‘intolerance’ on display.
All animals are created equal. Apparently some animals are more equal than others. Tolerance for me, but none for thee, eh? How DO you see clearly to take a speck of sawdust out of your brother’s eye, when all the time there is this great plank in your own? Or is that too biblical for discussion, as well?
I’m with you, especially on your first paragraph. If the opnion has no germanity to a sports discussion, then the question shouldn’t have been asked on a sports show. It’s pretty bogus to as a question on the air if you’re only going to tolerate one response to it.
*Amendment- I’m really ONLY with you at the beginning. I have different beliefs about what constitutes sin, and feel that tolerance even of things you disagree with is pretty vital.
Glad to hear for that much. My opinions as to what is sin are simply that – mine. I’ve got enough on my tally sheet to worry about being called to task for when the roll is called up yonder to worry too much about what other people do or don’t do. I strongly believe that tolerance of other people’s opinions is vital to society functioning smoothly. I also happen to believe that demanding tolerance for all behavior is ulimately destructive to society. Seems logical to me, but it’s still ultimately only my opinion.
Huh? Collins is a player, there is presumed animus against gays in professional sports, he came out, it affects the league, other players, other sports, and his career. That is basketball, NBA relevant. His standing with God based on his sexuality? No relevance at all. “He’s courageous” relates to his trade and sport. “He’s fake Christian” does not. That’s for a religious program.
What is there hateful there?
“I think it’s a sin”
““Personally, I don’t believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle or an openly premarital sex between heterosexuals, if you’re openly living that type of lifestyle, then the Bible says you know them by their fruits, it says that’s a sin. If you’re openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality, adultery, fornication, premarital sex between heterosexuals, whatever it may be, I believe that’s walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. I would not characterize that person as a Christian because I do not think the Bible would characterize them as a Christian.”
Suggesting that being gay is a sin is pretty hateful.
No, I see a statement by a man who is very carefully trying to walk the line between disapproval of what he believes to be a sin and love and tolerance for a person who he believes to be sinning.
Why do you think tolerance overrides the hate? I tolerate women in the workplace, I just think they’re wretched creatures. Clearly, that’s not hate.
Very carefully stating that this is merely his opinion, and his view of the world, not condemming anyone for failing to adhere to it.
What now? Is saying something is a sin no longer a condemnation?
Not to mention threading the needle between stating an unpopular opinion and remaining true to what he believes is true – you know, integrity?
Bigots can have integrity, too. That he sticks to his beliefs does not make his beliefs any less horrible or his statement any less hateful.
If ESPN wishes to reprimand, punish, or demand that Broussard stick to sports, they may do so – it’s their air. If they hold all opinions and non-sports related discussion to the same measure. If, however they allow even one person to state ‘well, I just see him coming out as an incredible act of bravery’ or for that matter, mentioning it at all – it certainly isn’t going to impact his gameplay any, nor the season, nor the team, then they are inconsistant, fickle, and yes, can and should be accused of playing favorites and espousing a bias.
If they fire him because he didn’t stick to sports, that would be inconsistency. If they fire him for saying bigotted things, that would not be inconsistency.
Christians do not believe gay people are sinners because they hate gay people, and it’s a wonderful little line of attack that allows them to really put the screws to ‘those people’.
Strawman.
Christians (and not all of them) believe that gay people are sinners because there are instructions that can be easily read as saying simply that in the text that informs their faith.
And those beliefs are hateful.
Meanwhile, those that support the homosexual lifestyle snarl and shake their fists at the ‘intolerance’ on display.
Maybe because there is intolerance on display.
All animals are created equal. Apparently some animals are more equal than others. Tolerance for me, but none for thee, eh? How DO you see clearly to take a speck of sawdust out of your brother’s eye, when all the time there is this great plank in your own? Or is that too biblical for discussion, as well?
You are equating bigotry with criticism of bigotry. Nice try.
Exactly. Placing someone in opposition to God, to someone who believes in God, is the equivalent of calling them evil, and it is indeed hateful, personal, and completely inappropriate for a sports analyst referring only to personal, private, (and completely lawful)rather than professional conduct.
Read these words again.
He did not single out homosexuals. He did not say, “Queers will burn while all the idolaters and blasphemers get a free pass.”
The video below explains Mr. Broussard’s position more elegantly.Lyrics are below. (Emphases added)
Silence is Golden but there’s a time to speak,
And there are those shouting their views, but their arguments are weak
Let me get this out there and make it simple and plain
I never knew of anyone who found freedom from a hate speech in Jesus name
Reckless pastors, who judge, condemn and leave a soul to feel alone
Called to shepherd God’s people, not cast the first stone
And other leaders do no favors by cowardly choosing silence
They fail to speak the truth, and offer no guidance
A culture full of tension over the issue so where does that leave us?
Somewhere between awkward silence and gay bashing in the name of Jesus
And in the middle stands truth, a truth that can set us free
A God that calls us out of darkness to embrace our true identity
In a culture that glorifies sex and puts pleasure before all else
Is God the source of your identity or is it your sexual self?
And how do we identify and not accept a lie
Because sexual desire is just one piece of the pie
Identity is a choice a lifestyle is something you embrace
Same sex Attraction doesn’t define you and can be set in place.
A movement with semantics aimed to change and sway
There needs to be clarification when using the word gay
Does it mean one has attractions or that they choose to act them out?
Truth says there is a difference in the two that must be brought about
God loves you the way you are and the truth can set you free
There is a difference between unchosen sexual attraction and chosen identity
In marriage two become one flesh, open to life for propagation
Two of the same in union can’t reach this fulfillment of God’s creation
Nature or Nurture you didn’t choose this struggle
The Church understands and will walk with you in times of trouble
The same Church that says no when we fail to keep our sexual selves in check
Is the same Church that says no when others try to take your respect
You never are alone and the Church offers you a home as it stand for what is true.
Although the Church says no to gay marriage it still says Yes to you.
Fr. Claude (Dusty) Burns
Aka Pontifex
8/13/12
A Spirit Juice Studios Production
© 2012 Spirit Juice Films. All Rights Reserved.
So what? I don’t see the distinction you seem to think is crucial.
“There is nothing respectful about calling someone’s legal and Constitutionally protected conduct an “open rebellion to God”…I think it is time to treat such statements as we would statements about racial and gender inferiority: it’s bigotry.”
I think you’re quite right, and you do a service by so precisely and directly nailing the issue at hand. Well done.
The problem is that opinion based upon conduct can never be the same as opinions based on race or sex. Homosexuality is “behavorial”, High Tech Gays v. Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office, 895 F.2d 563 at 573 (9th Cir. 1990), a “choice of sexual partners”, National Gay Task Force v. Board of Education, 729 F.2d 1270 at 1273 (10th Cir. 1984)
Can being black or white be described as behavioral or a choice in skin color?
Michael, the behavioral vs. trait distinction is a valuable and good one. However, it appears the court finding you cite is from 1990, which is now 23 years in the rear-view mirror, and society has changed an enormous amount since then. Just to cite a few points:
1. What was called in 1990 a behavioral choice would have been widely accepted as such back then; today it’s wildly out of touch, because it amounts to saying heterosexuality is also a choice. Or that our sexual natures are entirely voluntary. Technically true, but then so is breathing. As a practical matter, I have no doubts the courts will follow the general society, as they did with regard to race and gender discrimination.
2. Note that violence against gay people was rarely based on their observed behaviors, but rather on their presumed behaviors. Guilty by association (hanging out in gay bars) was enough to condemn someone. That’s perilously close to condemning people based on race, i.e. as an innate characteristic, rather than behavioral.
The distinction sounds great on paper, but in practice I think it kind of crumbles apart in light of real world practice.
Charlesgreen, agree with everything you just said, but with a slight tweak to your first point. Undoubtedly, the vast majority of gay people, at least gay men, are born gay. It’s innate. I don’t like to take the choice/nature argument too far though because it does appear to be a “choice” for many women. While some women declare themselves clearly hetero or gay, there are others who say that, for them, sexuality is a spectrum. These women may not even identify as “bi” — but choose partners based on love for that particular individual regardless of gender. The stats back this up. Anecdotally, I know 2 women very well who used to identify themselves as lesbians but then entered into long term marriages with men. And I have a host of other bi female friends who still identify themselves as bi, but all have chosen to be in long term relationships with men. I think Jack has it right — it’s Constitutionally protected behavior, pure and simple. I don’t think we should be analyzing any further than that. And, in any event, we can choose our religion and that’s protected. Why should sexual preference be any different?
Beth, I totally agree with your tunings. Research has also suggested women’s orientation changes more over time than do men. And I do like the constitutional point, that seems the main thing.
I don’t see any reason to differentiate between men and women here. Both are on a spectrum from completely homosexual to completely heterosexual. That more women seem to be in the middle than men does not in any way suggest that it isn’t innate for women.
I also think the seeming difference between men and women can partially be understood by the differences in society. When I was in college (10 years ago), it wasn’t uncommon for a girl in my social circle to claim she was somewhere in the middle, but the guys tended to stay on the poles. Now, I see many more college age guys that are willing to say they’re in the middle.
TGT — You might be right that this is changing for men too. My point is that people may be on different places on the spectrum and those places may even shift over time. If that is the case, then I don’t think the morality of the argument should hinge on nature/choice. In all cases, it is consitutionally protected and moral behavior.
I don’t see how someone’s desires changing over time would sway the nature/choice issue. My hair will change color over time, but that’s still not a choice.
I don’t have a problem with a second valid argument for constitutionality, but I don’t see a need to retreat from the incredibly strong one.
Tgt, your statement is true for most people, but not all. For some (perhaps a small percentage), sexual preference is something that truly is a “choice” from one day to the next — much like my “enahnced” hair color.
My statement is true for everyone. Yes, bisexuals have a choice in who to sleep with, but they don’t have a choice in who they’re attracted to. They can’t just say “I’m no longer attracted to women” and have it be true.
Onward, Christian cowards. Shut up, get with the program, hide, and be sure to deceive all around you into thinking you’re not a Christian. You don’t want to be caught dead being “one of THEM.” Meanwhile, above all, be sure to tell everyone only what they want to hear about how they live. That, and only that, is tolerant and loving. Next to above all, welcome any and all bullying by anyone who hates Christ and Christians, and by anyone and everyone who never runs out of criticism for how Christians live and give advice on how Christians should live “instead,” with complete passivity, if not joyous celebration, lest you heap hot coals on your own head.
– First Epistle of Eeyoure to the Ethicsalarmians, 2013
Correction – an appeal to false gods for forgiveness: I beg forgiveness for my bigoted, intolerant, imperialistic, bullying and ignorant use of that now obsolete and utterly intolerable numbering system for calendar years.
Of course, everyone who is anyone now knows that today is in the year 4 B.C., as in, the fourth year Before Clinton (as in, Hillary). The new “A.D.” shall become effective sometime in the fourth January from now, and it shall refer to “All Democrats.” It shall remain so, until the year of Allah’s Deliverance. (Heh-heh, “Deliverance”…Start the banjo music, ye holy rolling hicks of today – bow, and then bend over.)
Bigotry, fighting “bigotry” – what “progress!”
Actually, if Western Europe is any indication, benign neglect will be the main reason religion falls by the wayside in the USA (if it does), not any sort of active persecution. It’s worth noting that support for gay marriage is not particularly motivated by anti-religious sentiment; secularists who don’t approve of gays (remember that the USSR was pretty anti-gay) tend to get the same reaction.
On a second note (this is directed more towards Jack), I wonder if we should create an (Arthur) Jensen-line with regards to the ethical way to discuss a group of people who are differentiated by some ethnically-neutral marker; being curious about whether there are any average differences is ok, but blanket-judging all individuals and advocating legal inequality is not, especially if you’re using nothing but gut feeling and bad research to support your opinion in the first place.
Julian, I have little quarrel with your comment (I am not being sarcastic now, unlike earlier): Benign neglect will continue to enable marginalizing of certain religions in the U.S., as it has been doing for perhaps a century or more. But neglect is merely a “gateway;” (human) nature abhors the “vacuum” of neglect, and usually rushes in with redoubled malice and other evils.
Moreover, new faiths have “taken root;” you can see their “fruits,” and the hard-to-resist “evangelism” that stems from the perceived benefits of, and from the insatiable cravings for and hopes for unfettered access to, those fruits, in just about every aspect of daily American life.
Along with the new faiths come new modes of arrogance and resultant believers’ detachment from “others;” new, groundless assumptions and false self-suppositions of “holiness” or relative superiority by individuals and groups, and all the resultant foundational thought (call those “fundamentals”) for enabling the active persecution of older religions by newer ones. The persecution is justified as “corrective,” and is done repetitively enough to gain acceptance as business as usual. But, we don’t dare call any new bigotry “bigotry.”
There may be better terminology to express this general, if inconvenient truth: We humans are, for the most part, whether we like it or not, prisoners and hostages of our own herding instincts. Bad comes with good; very bad is sure to come with very good. But then, “deviance” from the herd only puts “deviants” in different prisons, and also comes with no guarantee of good, bad, better or worse for anyone. Just don’t try explaining any of that and its relevance to the new-faiths believers; you’ll likely be demanded to shut up, and your employer bombarded with demands to fire you.
Julian I wish I could be sure I understand what-all you were talking about in your second paragraph above – especially the “(Arthur) Jensen-line.” I can only guess that you are relating to parts of that character’s “The World is a Business” speech – perhaps like, “There are no nations; there are no peoples.” (I have that speech mostly memorized.) Perhaps something about “advocating legal inequality” and “blanket-judging” poses a puzzle to solve about what is just and fair. Perhaps a Jensen should be telling a deranged representative of, and messenger to, the whole deranged world: “There is no differentiation; there is no inequality; there is no equality…the world…is a sex-shop.” Oh well – I tried to stay away from sarcasm this time, but, it’s “who I am.”
Actually, the late Arthur Jensen was a prominent psychologist during the 2nd half of the 20th century who argued that part of the gap between whites and blacks was due to average genetic differences. Not surprisingly, especially considering that he taught at Berkeley, none of this was received very well; Jack’s mentioned him a few times. Basically, for me, he represents the most “bigoted” opinions a person can openly express while still remaining ethical.
Also, I have no disagreement with the idea that the “religious”/superstitious instinct will never go away; the Europeans may not believe in God as much as we do, but a lot of that’s just been replaced with vague notions about “life spirits”, astrology, homeopathy, America-hate, etc, while in the old USSR, shrines to saints were replaced with statues of Stalin. As human beings, we will always hold oft-unsubstantiated opinions and beliefs about something, whether it be religion, politics, books, video games, etc. That said, human understanding is constantly changing, and with that will come new opinions about what’s acceptable or not, regardless of whatever ideology they dress themselves in; I think we’re too opinionated at heart to ever let any establishment (even the one you fear) completely monopolize the discussion space. Besides, I don’t think the majority will ever think it’s unethical to say that you believe in God (going into specifics might get you some flack, but hey, we all made fun of Harold Camping).
Julian, thanks for clarifying about which Arthur Jensen you meant. That caused me a hearty laugh at myself. I had probably heard about Berkeley’s Jensen at some point, learned a few things about him and then moved on in forgetfulness. I repent of my sin of failing to Google.
I especially appreciate your reply because I think it reinforces a point I am trying to make to Jack in this thread. I can never resent being reminded of the saying attributed to Mark Twain, about how everyone is ignorant, just on different subjects.
“I think we’re too opinionated at heart to ever let any establishment (even the one you fear) completely monopolize the discussion space.”
To me, that reflects a hopefulness and optimism that you and I simply do not share. I do not see history validating at all any expectation of such benignity in any establishment.
“…going into specifics [about beliefs in God] might get you some flack,…”
Again, I think it’s mighty clear what you have understated there.
Oh, it has nothing to do with my optimism about the people running the establishment, as much as simply that Western civilization has grown openly too fractious for any one group to control how it chooses to expresses itself (particularly with the rise of the internet); Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party may be on the wane for now, but the sentiments behind them are still commonly expressed, mocking all efforts to repress them.
Okay, but I think what you say there nevertheless reflects your susceptibility to an illusion.
Now more than ever, command and control over, and “victories” in, “culture wars” are feasible by ever smaller groups of ever more narrowly focused factions – particularly with the rise of the Internet. Given that a Darwinian model applies, ultimately one (or a very few and allied several) such factions will succeed in driving the culture in favor of those factions’ monopolistic control and toward oppressive homogeneity, conformity and uniformity (authoritarianism, not democracy). All the meanwhile, en route to that “paradise,” the ascendant control-monopolizers will be (and are) selling sentimental, even romantic, visions of “progress” toward (for example) “tolerance for diversity” (democracy, not authoritarianism).
But the progress is an illusion. Our interests, energies, passions, sentiments, emotions, aspirations, hopes – love, hate, joy, grief, courage, fear, anger, indifference – are being manipulated by forces which are not new, but which have new and menacing means and paths of vectoring. Where cultural cleansing and refinement of mores are being preached, intellectual and spiritual corruption and pollution are being practiced, propagated and perpetuated thereby. Were it not so, there would be scarcely enough goings-on worth Jack’s sustaining this blog.
The result, even where it is not the deliberate aim of “progressive” forces, is that our very humanness is being exploited to dehumanize us. Like never before, the individual is being devalued, repressed and subjugated to the group; “identity” is more group-dependent than ever. Groups (and worse, coalitions of similarly constituted groups) are taking advantage of the subjugation of individuals for purposes of advancing illusory democracy, namely, hyper-majoritarianism. Make no mistake: When someone like Barack Obama says, “We won the election,” he is really saying to anyone opposed to him and to his “we:” We are going to have everything our way, and you enemies are not going to have anything your way.” Thus ultimately, mobs rule; whoever controls the mobs controls the rules. Yes: There are mobs, they are making and enforcing rules, and despite appearances of chaos amidst the mobs, they are under control of/by fewer and fewer controlling persons – and are serving those few persons at the expense of virtually all in the mobs, and of all in the sphere of influence of the mobs.
You might deny that’s what’s going on, but that’s what’s going on. That’s why I am suggesting that your…if it isn’t hopefulness, then I guess it’s fatalism, or cynicism…may be the result of accepting an illusion as reality.
But all that of course is only about the “stage” for Jack’s “production;” I mean to criticize only his “lines” here. But sometimes, such criticism must also take the stage into account.
I retract one cautious half-step in deference to Jack on ethics, regarding any issue of whether Jack’s position is itself unethical. Jack’s condemnation of ESPN and Chris Broussard is counterproductive at best. I understand Jack’s denial, but he nevertheless shows confirmation bias, particularly when he refers to Chris Broussard’s remarks (in response to a question related to Jason Collins) as bigoted, harmful, demeaning, hateful etc.
The issue is bigotry, not Christianity. If you’re saying that Christianity is necessarily bigoted then I don’t see that ostracism would be a negative.
“The issue is bigotry, not Christianity.” Duh.
What you wrote only makes sense if Christianity implies bigotry. Are you saying that, or are you writing ridiculous non sequiturs?
No, what I wrote makes sense because something a Christian said was judged incorrectly as bigotry – and by association, the Christian who spoke was judged incorrectly a bigot.
Even making all your explicit assumptions, your comment doesn’t follow. This Christian was judged to be bigoted, therefore all Christians will be judged to be bigoted? That would work if he was judged to be bigoted because he was Christian, but that wasn’t the reason the bigot label was applied. There are lots of Christians who aren’t judged to be bigots. Why not? Well, they don’t say bigoted things.
Again, if you think this bigotry is inherent in Christianity, you’ve lost the point. If you think this isn’t bigotry because it’s Christianity, you’ve lost your marbles.
“big·ot·ry/ˈbɪgətri/ [big-uh-tree] noun, plural big·ot·ries.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.”
Unless one’s own beliefs happen to be right, in which case see “Valient champion” Also see, “hypocracy”
“Society does not tolerate denigrating citizens based on sexual orientation, and to do so publicly, based on religious views or not, should be condemned as wrong and harmful.”
Oh, well, if SOCIETY says it. This is the same Society that shrugs at the Kermit Gosnells, fawns over Obama’s incompetence, delights in terrifying children who even know the meaning of the word ‘gun’, and produces and embraces filth and vileness the likes of which continue to astound even we who have surely seen everything? The Society of Baucus, Clinton, Sandusky, and Steubenville? The same Society that daily is bemoaned and bewailed on this very website? That’s the authority on what should and should not be tolerated, huh? How many ‘signiture significance’ moments have come and gone to allow us to dismiss the authority of one such as ‘Society’? You can have it – I’ll take the teachings of my ‘invisible sky friend’ anyday – I’ve seen good come from following His commands, even if I don’t particularly like or understand them all, or if they’re commonly misapplied. I’ll take the 3% chance of successfully being a good person that Christ offers over the 100% certainty of being a reprehensible monster that giddily following the dictates of Society offers. Just me, though. I hope that Society thing works out for you, though.
Well stated. Among the many things I find puzzling is the “gay marriage is a constitutional right” train going down the societal tracks right next to and as speedily as the “the Catholic Church must be destroyed because it’s run by a cabal of pedophiles.” Personally, for the little it is worth, I’m on board the latter but I’m a little less enthused about the former. I just find the fact that both evidently have to be considered unassailable truths amazing.
For gay marriage to be a constitutional right by any manner other than explicit constitutional amendment, the Supreme Court would have to overrule centuries of legal precedent.
In order the understand the nature of a civil right, one must look into the nation’s history and tradition for a careful description of that right. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 at 710-719 (1997).
What was the careful description of that right?
The relationship of “husband and wife” is “founded in nature, but modified by civil society: the one directing man to continue.
and multiply his species, the other in which that natural impulse must be confined and regulated.”.
1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *410.
“the establishment of marriage in all civilized states is built on this natural obligation of the father to provide for his children”.
id. at *35.
Marriage is “is made by a voluntary compact between man and woman.”.
John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government § 78 (1690).
For the end of conjunction, between male and female, being not barely procreation, but the continuation of the species; this conjunction betwixt male and female ought to last, even after procreation, so long as is necessary to the nourishment and support of the young ones, who are to be sustained even after procreation, so long as is necessary to the nourishment and support of the young ones, who are to be sustained by those that got them, till they are able to shift and provide for themselves.
id. at § 79.
Marriage “was instituted … for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children”.
Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language.
(1st ed. ) (1828)
“Marriage between two persons of one sex could have no validity, as none of the ends of matrimony could be accomplished thereby. It has always, therefore, been deemed requisite to the entire validity of every marriage… that the parties should be of different sex.”.
Joel Prentiss Bishop, Commentaries on the Law of Marriage.
& Divorce § 225 (1st ed. 1852), quoted in Defendant Sally Howe Smith’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
and Brief in Support With Consolidated Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion.
for Summary Judgment, Bishop v. United States, 04-CV-848-TCK-TLW (N.D. Okla.), at 18.
Marriage is a “ contract, made in due form of law, by which a man and woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, and to discharge towards each other the duties imposed by law on the relation of husband and wife.”.
John Bouvier, A Law.
Dictionary Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United.
States
105 (1868)
“For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate states of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement. ”
Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 at 45 (1885), quoted in.
Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 at 344, 345 (1890) ,
United States v. Bitty , 208 U.S. 393 at 401 (1908), and Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d 169 at 205 (2nd Cir. 2012) (Straub, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
In this case, we know that the information the precedent was based on is false. That seems like an ideal time to override precedent.
Gay marriage is a constitutional right because (1) the constitution promises equality and (2) The constitution protects our liberty. It’s been well decided that the second thing protects heterosexual marriage. Once that’s in place, the equality kicks in.
. This is the same Society that shrugs at the Kermit Gosnells
Strawman.
fawns over Obama’s incompetence
Pure opinion.
delights in terrifying children who even know the meaning of the word ‘gun
Strawman.
, and produces and embraces filth and vileness the likes of which continue to astound even we who have surely seen everything
Too generic to be meaningful, and appears to include a bit of question begging.
The Society of Baucus, Clinton, Sandusky, and Steubenville?
Since society is generally against Sandusky and Steubenville, those are bad examples. For Baucus and Clinton, partisans are for them…just like partisans are for horrible behaving republicans.
You can have it – I’ll take the teachings of my ‘invisible sky friend’ anyday – I’ve seen good come from following His commands, even if I don’t particularly like or understand them all, or if they’re commonly misapplied.
Special pleading. Begging the question.
I’ll take the 3% chance of successfully being a good person that Christ offers over the 100% certainty of being a reprehensible monster that giddily following the dictates of Society offers.
Lying.
When people run behind their flag or their religion to espouse their own narrow viewpoints, it screams COWARD. If you don’t approve of gay people then say so, then live with the backlash.
Many Christian sects like Episcopalians openly welcome gay marriage and gay deacons… Are they not Christians? Do they not understand the Bible?
Are Muslims who openly accept alcohol drinking really Muslims?
Yup. Are you claiming there’s only 1 true Christianity, and you just happen to know better than 99% of the population?
There’s a lot of ‘sins’ (which aren’t in the ten commandments) being claimed by some people. Condemning people around you for existing or having a lifestyle doesn’t fit in with ‘Love they neighbor’ either. Everyone is a sinner and he needs to note the plank in his own eye before getting het up about a ‘lifestyle,; if that is how he belittles what he sees as an unending sin. Calling it a lifestyle choice and saying it’s a big, perpetual sin as it it’s bad as murder is wanting it both ways. It really can’t be both…
Jack,
Normally when I don’t agree with your conclusion I can at least follow your logic, in this all I see is emotion.
“I have changed my position on Broussard’s kind of statement about homosexuality. In the past, I cautioned not to regard as bigotry what was in fact strict and good faith adherence to a Bible-based moral code.”
What has changed? His position is a Bible based moral code, I can understand that you may not except that code or may even disdain it but if you found it ethical before not to regard it as a basis of a bigotry charge how does Broussard’s statement change it? He did not call for a stoning, boycott or any other harm to come to Jason Collins, nor did he single out homosexuals in his stated belief.
“I think it is time to treat such statements as we would statements about racial and gender inferiority: it’s bigotry.”
So the timing is correct in changing ethical standards? Is this a determination that society as a whole or in large part has changed values in regards to homosexuality? I can understand and even see how you could make this determination based on polls stating the majority of the population believes gays should be allowed to marry but I personally do not believe that a true shift in values has occurred, rather I see it as the population accepting that gays may be harmed by not allowing them to marry and applying the Golden rule. I do not believe that the majority approve or applaud homosexuality. Regardless if your faith is placed in nature, nurture or combo, homosexuality has behavior traits (that have cause and effect) that racial and gender discrimination largely does not and as a movement should stand on its own merits.
As a whole the gay community does not suffer from the same damages that women and nonwhites did, the comparison continues to be false. It is not economic as studies show that homosexuals do very well, it is not criminally as every law criminalizing homosexual behaviors has been struck down on one basis or another and it’s not political as the gay community has significant backing and support. I will grant you that gay marriage is a legitimate debate, and you and tgt have really swayed me but I see no basis for condemnation with this case. Unless you propose that the freedom to associate must curtailed as it pertains to homosexuals then there is not much more the gay community can really ask for, unless the true aim is to become a protected class.
“Society does not tolerate denigrating citizens based on sexual orientation, and to do so publicly, based on religious views or not, should be condemned as wrong and harmful.”
Society does denigrate citizens based on sexual behaviors, as it does with countless other behaviors, some criminalized, some that are not, you do it yourself everyday based on your own codes. Why this case should Broussard’s beliefs be condemned as wrong and harmful when nothing that was stated was in fact out of line of his moral code nor was it harmful? What harm was done here? Where are the damages?
In this society we believe that every American has the right to live by the moral code they choose, religious based or not just so long as it does not violate the rights of another, what Broussard’s said was not unethical, and in my opinion it was not bigoted, he was not admonishing nor was he calling for any action against those who did not live by his moral code, to me he seemed to be saying he was not going to celebrate with the rest of them because based on his moral code there was nothing to celebrate. As for ESPN being the proper forum for his views or their decision to retain him it is their call, I don’t believe that his views were inappropriate when prompted nor harmful.
Although it pertains to the other related post
“My guess is that Collins may be signed because of his basketball skills, but that the NBA will make certain that some team signs him for the other reason…so the league won’t look like a cabal of hypocrites. If I were NBA Commissioner, I would. “
This troubles me as you seem to be putting political/social ends before merit in a situation where merit should be the deciding factor, this as I think most affirmative action plans are, is inherently unethical, or am I misreading and you believe his skill warrants him being signed?
Steve, very well stated point of view.
Nice to see modelled here such clarity and composure.
See my equally measured response. I also admire the form of Steve’s comment, as usual, but I think he is almost 100% wrong here.
Why did this change your view?
Jack never said it did. He said his position has changed, not that this changed it. I suspect his position changed after multiple situations and inputs. For instance, the “this is my religion” defense of bigotry has been brought up in multiple long threads this past Spring. You reference below how input over time has changed your mind on gay marriage… I think it’s like that.
Regardless if your faith is placed in nature, nurture or combo, homosexuality has behavior traits (that have cause and effect) that racial and gender discrimination largely does not and as a movement should stand on its own merits.
Like what? What are the behavior traits of homosexuality that do not apply equally to heterosexuality?
As a whole the gay community does not suffer from the same damages that women and nonwhites did, the comparison continues to be false.
Nobody claims the damages are the exact same. They say the damages are of the same type, and are significant. Strawman.
It is not economic as studies show that homosexuals do very well,
So…the tax inequalities aren’t built into law?
it’s not political as the gay community has significant backing and support.
Women and blacks have had significant backing and support for centures. That means they weren’t suffering, right?
. I will grant you that gay marriage is a legitimate debate, and you and tgt have really swayed me but I see no basis for condemnation with this case. Unless you propose that the freedom to associate must curtailed as it pertains to homosexuals then there is not much more the gay community can really ask for, unless the true aim is to become a protected class.
You’re looking at it backward. The aim isn’t to become a protected class; the aim is equal treatment under the law and equal protection. If people are going to discriminate against gays because of their gayness, then a protected class designation may be necessary.
In this society we believe that every American has the right to live by the moral code they choose, religious based or not just so long as it does not violate the rights of another,[…]
Yup.
[…]what Broussard’s said was not unethical, and in my opinion it was not bigoted, he was not admonishing nor was he calling for any action against those who did not live by his moral code, to me he seemed to be saying he was not going to celebrate with the rest of them because based on his moral code there was nothing to celebrate.
He condemned an inherent trait. That’s the definition of bigotry. He called it sinful. That’s clearly admonishment.
As for ESPN being the proper forum for his views or their decision to retain him it is their call, I don’t believe that his views were inappropriate when prompted nor harmful.
His views are inappropriate. The context for their expression should be immaterial.
Keeping Collins for social reasons
The NBA is not just about on-court merit. If it was, The heat never would have signed Juwan Howard for the playoffs. He was signed to be a locker room influence and practice psuedo-coach. I, too, don’t like the idea of the commissioner forcing a team to pick up Collins, but I don’t see this being affirmative action, I see this as a good PR move.
“Jack never said it did. He said his position has changed, not that this changed it. I suspect his position changed after multiple situations and inputs. For instance, the “this is my religion” defense of bigotry has been brought up in multiple long threads this past Spring. You reference below how input over time has changed your mind on gay marriage… I think it’s like that.”
If that is the case I will buy it.
“Like what? What are the behavior traits of homosexuality that do not apply equally to heterosexuality? “
If you are black or a woman how are you identified?
“Nobody claims the damages are the exact same. They say the damages are of the same type, and are significant. Strawman.”
How are the damages not the same but of the same type? Significant how? I won’t tell you what you can do with your stawman obfuscation.
“So…the tax inequalities aren’t built into law?”
Only as it pertains to marriage, one reason why I would buy into the gay marriage argument.
“Women and blacks have had significant backing and support for centures. That means they weren’t suffering, right?”
No they didn’t.
“You’re looking at it backward. The aim isn’t to become a protected class; the aim is equal treatment under the law and equal protection. If people are going to discriminate against gays because of their gayness, then a protected class designation may be necessary.”
They have equal protection, it will be decided if marriage applies. If you haven’t realized at this point that institutionalized discrimination (exception is possibly Marriage) is not major issue for them then you are not looking at this objectively. Regardless of how many laws are put on the books you can’t regulate if someone likes or approves of how you live your life. You don’t like religion and their practices; no one can force you to like it, or live by their moral codes. You may not like their exemptions but you are free to set up an equal nonprofit institution. You also can not take away the freedom to associate, I don’t like people who curse (pick your behavior) around me, I guess I am bigoted that way, so I don’t associate with them. Now if they have Tourette syndrome I shouldn’t discriminate against them but that does not make me obligated to associate with them.
“He condemned an inherent trait. “
What trait?
“That’s the definition of bigotry. “
No that is not the definition, most define bigot as one who has prejudices AND is intolerant, the second part does not appear to be true, and it should be said the primary defining element is intolerance, as everyone has prejudices.
“He called it sinful. That’s clearly admonishment.”
It is sinful by his moral code, and it would be an admonishment for anyone who subscribe to his moral code, Jason Collins apparently does not.
“His views are inappropriate.”
How so? He is a commenter who was asked to comment.
“The context for their expression should be immaterial.”
They are material in as they pertain to the claim of bigotry
“Keeping Collins for social reasons
The NBA is not just about on-court merit. If it was, The heat never would have signed Juwan Howard for the playoffs. He was signed to be a locker room influence and practice psuedo-coach. I, too, don’t like the idea of the commissioner forcing a team to pick up Collins, but I don’t see this being affirmative action, I see this as a good PR move.”
In the case of Juwan Howard there is a direct impact on performance as a team, how does Collins gayness improve performance?
“Like what? What are the behavior traits of homosexuality that do not apply equally to heterosexuality? “
If you are black or a woman how are you identified?
You said this: “[H]omosexuality has behavior traits (that have cause and effect) that racial and gender discrimination largely does not and as a movement should stand on its own merits”
I want to know what behavior traits of homosexuals legitimizes treating them differently than heterosexuals. How does a lack of immediate visual appearance back up your point?
“Nobody claims the damages are the exact same. They say the damages are of the same type, and are significant. Strawman.”
How are the damages not the same but of the same type? Significant how? I won’t tell you what you can do with your stawman obfuscation.
Same type of damages: Not given equal rights. Being refused services. Being treated as lesser.
Not same damages: The rights denied to blacks and women were of larger scale. Same goes for discrimination and refused services.
Think of it like a closed polygon with sides of length 3, 4, and 5, and another with sides of length 5, 12, and 13. They’re both the same type of object (right triangles), but they’re not the same object, and one is bigger than the other
I think that the denial of federal marriage benefits (and state benefits in many states) is pretty significant. My ex and I paid a couple thousand dollars less in taxes the year after we got married compared to the year before, despite our combined salary going up about 20%.
There was no obfuscation.
“So…the tax inequalities aren’t built into law?”
Only as it pertains to marriage, one reason why I would buy into the gay marriage argument.
So there’s a counter example that shows that there are economic damages. That you are right on gay marriage doesn’t mean that these economic damages don’t exist.
“Women and blacks have had significant backing and support for centures. That means they weren’t suffering, right?”
No they didn’t.
Significant is a nonspecific word, but I think blacks have had 20% support for equality for the entire history of our nation. I’d consider that significant. If you want to set it somewhere near 40%, then 150 years’ll do. For women, I can say we’ve been over 50% equality and support forever. And we don’t even need equality, we just need significant backing for their rights in general, and that’s existed forever.
Instead of the multiple centuries language, maybe I should have just pointed out that even when there were majorities for equality, there was still discrimination by near majorities.
Having a considerable amount of backing doesn’t mean that one is by any means not being politically discriminated against.
“You’re looking at it backward. The aim isn’t to become a protected class; the aim is equal treatment under the law and equal protection. If people are going to discriminate against gays because of their gayness, then a protected class designation may be necessary.”
They have equal protection, it will be decided if marriage applies.
That’s not equal protection. If there’s a question of if they deserve equal protection, then they don’t have equal protection. By your logic, blacks were equally protected by the law during the Jim Crow era because the courts decided on it.
If you haven’t realized at this point that institutionalized discrimination (exception is possibly Marriage) is not major issue for them then you are not looking at this objectively.
What? The institutionalized discrimination has resulted in different behaviors, but it’s there. Gays have had to hide who they are. Was DOMA not institutionalized discrimination? The same thing happens unoffically in offices country-wide. Being scared to put up a picture of your girlfriend. Having to refer to the person you’ve been in a 10 year committed relationship to as your roomate.
Regardless of how many laws are put on the books you can’t regulate if someone likes or approves of how you live your life. You don’t like religion and their practices; no one can force you to like it, or live by their moral codes. You may not like their exemptions but you are free to set up an equal nonprofit institution. You also can not take away the freedom to associate, I don’t like people who curse (pick your behavior) around me, I guess I am bigoted that way, so I don’t associate with them. Now if they have Tourette syndrome I shouldn’t discriminate against them but that does not make me obligated to associate with them.
(1) Using what people believe (religion) as a proxy for what people are (gay) doesn’t work.
(2) Using what people do (curse) as a proxy for what people are (gay) doesn’t work.
(2) Nobody is trying to regulate how people live their lives. They’re trying to ensure equality from the government and business services.
“He condemned an inherent trait. “
What trait?
Being gay.
“That’s the definition of bigotry. “
No that is not the definition, most define bigot as one who has prejudices AND is intolerant, the second part does not appear to be true, and it should be said the primary defining element is intolerance, as everyone has prejudices.
Calling something a sin is intolerance. If it was tolerated, it wouldn’t be a sin. See how that works?
“He called it sinful. That’s clearly admonishment.”
It is sinful by his moral code, and it would be an admonishment for anyone who subscribe to his moral code, Jason Collins apparently does not.
Uh…it’s an admonishment. If I say that it’s morally wrong for person X to eat babies, then I’m admonishing them. It doesn’t matter if their moral code is cool with baby eating.
“His views are inappropriate.”
How so? He is a commenter who was asked to comment.
You seem confused. That he was asked to comment means that the act of commenting was appropriate. It saying nothing about the propriety of his views. Same goes for his status as a commenter.
The views are inappropriate in the same way it’s inappropriate to think being black means someone is lesser than someone who is white.
“The context for their expression should be immaterial.”
They are material in as they pertain to the claim of bigotry.
How do they pertain to the claim of bigotry? His views are his views in any setting. And whether he spoke the views or not, so long as he held them, he would be a bigot. The only change that happened when we spoke the views is that we all learned he was a bigot.
In the case of Juwan Howard there is a direct impact on performance as a team, how does Collins gayness improve performance?
Performance of the team on the court is the wrong metric. Profitability is the right metric. Performance does greatly predict profitability, but “Collins ’98” jerseys are going to sell considerably better than a usual end of bencher’s jerseys and more press does lead to more fans (which buy things).
tgt,
My apologies for the bad formatting, my computer is not cooperating, the site is acting up or I am just lousy at doing it? I am not sure which but it is likely my skill.
“You said this: “[H]omosexuality has behavior traits (that have cause and effect) that racial and gender discrimination largely does not and as a movement should stand on its own merits”
Where is the confusion here?
“I want to know what behavior traits of homosexuals legitimizes treating them differently than heterosexuals. How does a lack of immediate visual appearance back up your point?”
Oh is see you want me to make a ridiculous statement so you can dismiss everything I have said. I am not supportive of discriminating against the gay community. I would not say I am supportive of their efforts, and I am completely against creating a protected class. My point is that the waters should not be muddied by equating an almost completely superficial discrimination with one of behavior. Where you would say that behavior is unimportant I would largely agree but I am skeptical of the long term effects on our nation and where equal will stop. I have seen the goal post move several times and I don’t think this is an anomaly. I am also a skeptic of “born this way”, it seems to gives license to do whatever one wishes and to ignore and denigrate any values society may hold that are contrary to said behavior.
“Same type of damages: Not given equal rights. Being refused services. Being treated as lesser.”
Beyond marriage, what equal rights issues are there? Any refusals of services I can think of have been referred to the courts and are being adjudicated. Where is the problem? How is the system broken? Can you give me an example of being treated lesser other than marriage? I am not sure if you are referring to discrimination, association or something I haven’t considered.
“Not same damages: The rights denied to blacks and women were of larger scale. Same goes for discrimination and refused services.
“Think of it like a closed polygon with sides of length 3, 4, and 5, and another with sides of length 5, 12, and 13. They’re both the same type of object (right triangles), but they’re not the same object, and one is bigger than the other”
“I think that the denial of federal marriage benefits (and state benefits in many states) is pretty significant. My ex and I paid a couple thousand dollars less in taxes the year after we got married compared to the year before, despite our combined salary going up about 20%.”
I think you a stretching big time, as I have said gay marriage is a legitimate argument, where are the segregated schools, the drinking fountains, the wide spread refusal of services? I think too many want to make the situation into something it is not, they want to be part of a historic civil rights movement but either were on the wrong side then or where too young. That is not to say that there are not legitimate problems, but it is a disservice to those fights and champions to act as if this movement is the same. When was the last police raid on a gay bar just because it was a gay bar? Where is the blackout on media coverage about these injustices? Where is the police and government corruption?
“Only as it pertains to marriage, one reason why I would buy into the gay marriage argument. “
“So there’s a counter example that shows that there are economic damages. That you are right on gay marriage doesn’t mean that these economic damages don’t exist.”
What? What damages are you talking about?
“Women and blacks have had significant backing and support for centures. That means they weren’t suffering, right?”
No they didn’t.
“Significant is a nonspecific word, but I think blacks have had 20% support for equality for the entire history of our nation. I’d consider that significant. If you want to set it somewhere near 40%, then 150 years’ll do. For women, I can say we’ve been over 50% equality and support forever. And we don’t even need equality, we just need significant backing for their rights in general, and that’s existed forever.”
I would like to see the polls.
“Instead of the multiple centuries language, maybe I should have just pointed out that even when there were majorities for equality, there was still discrimination by near majorities.
Having a considerable amount of backing doesn’t mean that one is by any means not being politically discriminated against. “
I find your argument on this topic bogus. Here are a few points for your consideration,
1) With the rare exceptions of a few, a very few, Hollywood actors largely ignored the issue even at the height of the civil rights movement.
2) The news media focused largely on the destruction caused be the movement and not the injustice
3) The judicial system ignored and even covered up many incidents
4) The internet and cable TV did not exists, the media, including publishers where tightly held by a few.
5) We have gay politicians and pro gay republicans/democrats who address and advocate daily for the community.
“You’re looking at it backward. The aim isn’t to become a protected class; the aim is equal treatment under the law and equal protection. If people are going to discriminate against gays because of their gayness, then a protected class designation may be necessary.”
“They have equal protection, it will be decided if marriage applies. “
That’s not equal protection. If there’s a question of if they deserve equal protection, then they don’t have equal protection. By your logic, blacks were equally protected by the law during the Jim Crow era because the courts decided on it.
What? Where else is the gay community not receiving equal protection? I think we have addressed gay marriage enough in this post that you should understand that by now that I granted you the example, which is being decided, but is not as simplistic as you would make it out to be. But to make it clear for argument sake I grant you it is a terrible injustice. What other equal protection issues exist?
“If you haven’t realized at this point that institutionalized discrimination (exception is possibly Marriage) is not major issue for them then you are not looking at this objectively. “
“What? The institutionalized discrimination has resulted in different behaviors, but it’s there. Gays have had to hide who they are. Was DOMA not institutionalized discrimination?”
It depends on if the definition stands legal scrutiny, we will soon find out, but for the argument I grant you Marriage.
“ The same thing happens unoffically in offices country-wide. Being scared to put up a picture of your girlfriend. Having to refer to the person you’ve been in a 10 year committed relationship to as your roomate. “
No legal, political or media recourse exist for these people? Is that what you are saying?
“Regardless of how many laws are put on the books you can’t regulate if someone likes or approves of how you live your life. You don’t like religion and their practices; no one can force you to like it, or live by their moral codes. You may not like their exemptions but you are free to set up an equal nonprofit institution. You also can not take away the freedom to associate, I don’t like people who curse (pick your behavior) around me, I guess I am bigoted that way, so I don’t associate with them. Now if they have Tourette syndrome I shouldn’t discriminate against them but that does not make me obligated to associate with them.
(1) Using what people believe (religion) as a proxy for what people are (gay) doesn’t work.
(2) Using what people do (curse) as a proxy for what people are (gay) doesn’t work.
(2) Nobody is trying to regulate how people live their lives. They’re trying to ensure equality from the government and business services. “
1) It works fine. Belief of either, as well behavior can easily be equated.
2) It is direct comparison; it works fine unless you want to force associations.
3) Show me the damages.
“Calling something a sin is intolerance. If it was tolerated, it wouldn’t be a sin. See how that works?”
Nope I don’t, you are stretching and trying make something out of nothing.
“Uh…it’s an admonishment. If I say that it’s morally wrong for person X to eat babies, then I’m admonishing them. It doesn’t matter if their moral code is cool with baby eating.”
You stretching again, he never told Collins that he couldn’t eat babies, he said he didn’t believe that eating babies was morally acceptable to him because his moral code said it was a sin.
“You seem confused. That he was asked to comment means that the act of commenting was appropriate. It saying nothing about the propriety of his views. Same goes for his status as a commenter.”
“The views are inappropriate in the same way it’s inappropriate to think being black means someone is lesser than someone who is white.”
Hogwash, I will grant the forum may have been bad but he was asked his thoughts on a morality issue and he gave an honest answer. He never said anything about anyone being lesser, or less capable. If you want to outlaw thought and religious based morality codes then you should just say as much. His morality code makes not one difference if he is not using it as a weapon or to justify discriminate against anyone. His code is for him to live by and I thought he was clear on that. Your whole argument against what he said is hollow and amounts to policing thought.
“How do they pertain to the claim of bigotry? His views are his views in any setting. And whether he spoke the views or not, so long as he held them, he would be a bigot. The only change that happened when we spoke the views is that we all learned he was a bigot.”
If you want to lessen the word bigot to include any thought or idea you don’t like then that is fine. I prefer to reserve it for those who are intolerant idiots who seek to force others to conform to their ideas and wishes where damage and denigration is truly a risk. I can equally apply it to many on either side of any issue but I won’t use it against someone who may not hold my views but do not seek to damage or force me accept theirs.
“Performance of the team on the court is the wrong metric. Profitability is the right metric. Performance does greatly predict profitability, but “Collins ’98″ jerseys are going to sell considerably better than a usual end of bencher’s jerseys and more press does lead to more fans (which buy things).”
Nonsense, by your metric just so long as you’re making money it is inherently good.
Steve,
warning
I start off pretty nice, but I don’t pull any punches, and there’s plenty of places where you need to be punched.
Formatting
Pretend the brackets below are angle-brackets (shift-, and shift-.)
[b]bold[/b]
[i]italics[/i]
[cite]Also italics, but always jumps to a new line and puts anything afterwards on a newline[/cite]
I don’t know how Michael Ejercito does the indents.
Behavior differences of gays compared to straights justifying discrimination
You made a ridiculous statement. I’m asking you to back it up or repudiate your statement. Refusing to back it up and then repeating it again (“Where you would say that behavior is unimportant I would largely agree but I am skeptical of the long term effects on our nation and where equal will stop.”) makes me think that you only care about being right.
types of damages
Gay marriage would be enough to substantiate the point.
Not thinking gay marriage is enough
The secondary harms of gay marriage are pretty wide spread, from the monetary penalties, to the legal ramifications of health care and death, to the incredible hoops around child care, and the crazy laws around adopted children.
You also seemed to have missed out on the multiple posts on ethicsalarms about people actually being denied service by businesses.
Completely missing the point
I think you a stretching big time, as I have said gay marriage is a legitimate argument, where are the segregated schools, the drinking fountains, the wide spread refusal of services?
They aren’t there. The damages aren’t the same. As I said, they’re of the same type. I explained what that means. Continuing to argue that the damages aren’t the same is a strawman.
Random assumptions of bad faith
I think too many want to make the situation into something it is not, they want to be part of a historic civil rights movement but either were on the wrong side then or where too young.
This is horrible. There are injustices. People are fighting them. To you, this suggests that they just want to be part of historic movement. Why is fighting injustice not a good enough reason to fight injustice?
Again not understanding the difference between exactly the same and same type
That is not to say that there are not legitimate problems, but it is a disservice to those fights and champions to act as if this movement is the same. When was the last police raid on a gay bar just because it was a gay bar? Where is the blackout on media coverage about these injustices? Where is the police and government corruption?
That’s only being quoted to highlight that this seems to be a serious issue for you.
Your claim of there being no economic damages
You: As a whole the gay community does not suffer from the same damages that women and nonwhites did, the comparison continues to be false. It is not economic as studies show that homosexuals do very well
Me: So…the tax inequalities aren’t built into law?
You: Only as it pertains to marriage, one reason why I would buy into the gay marriage argument.
Me: So there’s a counter example that shows that there are economic damages. That you are right on gay marriage doesn’t mean that these economic damages don’t exist.
You: What? What damages are you talking about?
Like I said, I’m talking about the tax inequalities. Those are economic damages that contradict your claim.
Denial that there was historic support for blacks and women
I would like to see the polls.
Do you really need a primary source for this? This isn’t something that people argue about.
More denial that there was support for blacks and women
You created a nice numbered list that was simply moving the goalposts. You’re original statement was “it’s not political as the gay community has significant backing and support.”
I’ve pointed to significant support. No, the prior supports weren’t as good as the current support, but that’s not necessary to refute your claim. If you had claimed that the increased support now is a big factor, I would have responded to that.
equal protection
I’m flabbergasted here.
I pointed out that the court deciding if equal protection applies to a group is not the same as the group having equal protection. I backed it up with an example. You ignored it completely and reiterated your point.
You followed that up with a request for other specific cases where equal protection doesn’t apply. While I can give examples, there’s no need to. The question itself is irrelevant. If the court still has to decide if equal protection applies, then there is no equal protection under the law (like you claim there is).
Institutionalized discrimination
You don’t seem to understand what this means. When one group is treated differently than others by the government OR by society, there is institutionalized discrimination. You don’t seem to understand the society part of the definition, and I have no idea why you think the result of a court case will have any bearing on whether or not the prior and current behavior counts as institutionalized discrimination
MOre institutionalized discrimination and a non sequitur
Me: The same thing happens unoffically in offices country-wide. Being scared to put up a picture of your girlfriend. Having to refer to the person you’ve been in a 10 year committed relationship to as your roomate.
You:No legal, political or media recourse exist for these people? Is that what you are saying?
I’m not saying that in the least. That’s irrelevant. I gave an example of institionalized discrimination. Having the ability to speak out against it doesn’t mean it’s not discrimination. Even having a legal remedy doesn’t mean it’s not discrimination (and no, there wasn’t usually a legal remedy).
Regulating thought
This one’s going to be ugly:
You:Regardless of how many laws are put on the books you can’t regulate if someone likes or approves of how you live your life. You don’t like religion and their practices; no one can force you to like it, or live by their moral codes. You may not like their exemptions but you are free to set up an equal nonprofit institution. You also can not take away the freedom to associate, I don’t like people who curse (pick your behavior) around me, I guess I am bigoted that way, so I don’t associate with them. Now if they have Tourette syndrome I shouldn’t discriminate against them but that does not make me obligated to associate with them.
Me:
(1) Using what people believe (religion) as a proxy for what people are (gay) doesn’t work.
(2) Using what people do (curse) as a proxy for what people are (gay) doesn’t work.
(2) Nobody is trying to regulate how people live their lives. They’re trying to ensure equality from the government and business services. “
You:
1) It works fine. Belief of either, as well behavior can easily be equated.
2) It is direct comparison; it works fine unless you want to force associations.
3) Show me the damages.
Now:
1) “belief of belief” is, again, not parallel to “belief of is”, no matter how much you want it to be. Denial of this is shocking.
2) Similarly, this is insane. Disapproving of someone’s conduct is fine. Disapproving that someone is black is bigoted. DO you not understand this?
3) Now I’m just going to call you an ass. The damages have been shown repeatedly. The discrimination at stores. The hiding of relationships. The tax differences. The considerable rights that are imbued with marriage. These all exist.
Sin and intolerance
Me:Calling something a sin is intolerance. If it was tolerated, it wouldn’t be a sin. See how that works?
You:Nope I don’t, you are stretching and trying make something out of nothing.
Sins are things that God doesn’t tolerate. They’re the nonos. If you tolerate something, it’s not a nono. Honestly, if you don’t understand this, you’re completely unqualified to discuss this topic.
sin and admonishment
Me: “Uh…it’s an admonishment. If I say that it’s morally wrong for person X to eat babies, then I’m admonishing them. It doesn’t matter if their moral code is cool with baby eating.”
You:You stretching again, he never told Collins that he couldn’t eat babies, he said he didn’t believe that eating babies was morally acceptable to him because his moral code said it was a sin.
Fuck this is stupid. Admonishment isn’t telling someone they can’t do something. It’s telling them they shouldn’t do something. That’s what Broussard did.
inappropriate vs illegal
Me: You seem confused. That he was asked to comment means that the act of commenting was appropriate. It saying nothing about the propriety of his views. Same goes for his status as a commenter.
…
The views are inappropriate in the same way it’s inappropriate to think being black means someone is lesser than someone who is white.”
You:Hogwash, I will grant the forum may have been bad but he was asked his thoughts on a morality issue and he gave an honest answer. He never said anything about anyone being lesser, or less capable. If you want to outlaw thought and religious based morality codes then you should just say as much. His morality code makes not one difference if he is not using it as a weapon or to justify discriminate against anyone. His code is for him to live by and I thought he was clear on that. Your whole argument against what he said is hollow and amounts to policing thought.
The first sentence is an agreement with me.
The second sentence is bullshit. Saying someone is inherently a sinner does say they are lesser.
The third sentence is a random strawman. Nobody has suggested outlawing thought or religious codes. Legal is not the same as appropriate.
The fourth and fifth sentences are out of left field, but they’re also stupid. Calling something a sin is admonishment. There’s an aim of stopping the behavior, whether he’s doing something other than speech or not. It’s not just something for him to live by. Broussard said that it applies to everyone.
The sixth sentence is a combination of misrepresentation, and the horrible idea that criticism of bad ideas is the same as forcing people to not think a certain way.
bigoted beliefs and use of the word bigot
If you want to lessen the word bigot to include any thought or idea you don’t like then that is fine.
What did I say to earn this approprium? This: “How do they pertain to the claim of bigotry? His views are his views in any setting. And whether he spoke the views or not, so long as he held them, he would be a bigot. The only change that happened when we spoke the views is that we all learned he was a bigot.”
Where do I suggest that bigotry is views I don’t like? I said that his specific views were bigoted whether he expressed them or not. Do you not understand conceptual permanence?
You follow that up with this nice bit:
I prefer to reserve it for those who are intolerant idiots who seek to force others to conform to their ideas and wishes where damage and denigration is truly a risk.
You seem to be confusing bigotry with delusions of grandeur and authoritarianism They aren’t close to the same thing. Bigotry applies to things people are, but you’re talking trying to control what people do.
It gets worse:
I can equally apply it to many on either side of any issue but I won’t use it against someone who may not hold my views but do not seek to damage or force me accept theirs.
You clearly have no idea what bigotry is. Is anyone on the pro-gay side thinking less of (or hating) the anti-gay side due to the pro-gay side’s false beliefs about inate traits about the anti-gay side? No.
What sports are based on
Nonsense, by your metric just so long as you’re making money it is inherently good.
You lost track of this back and forth. Do you remember your original comment here? Let me help: “This troubles me as you seem to be putting political/social ends before merit in a situation where merit should be the deciding factor, this as I think most affirmative action plans are, is inherently unethical, or am I misreading and you believe his skill warrants him being signed?”
I pointed out Juwann Howard didn’t have the playing ability merit that you clearly referred to. You came back and said he has other merits that help the team win. I pointed out that making the team win isn’t the actual goal. Making money is the goal, and Collins contributes to making money. Nowhere did I claim that making money implies the means used to make money are ethical. In this case, there’s nothing unethical with hiring/signing a gay guy. If it makes the team more money than hiring a different random 12th man (or that it’s at least reasonable to think so), then hiring Collins is the proper thing to do.
My theater company produced “The Boys in the Band” about a decade ago, the first time it had been seen in this area in a very long time. At the various talk-backs after the performances, the stories told by the middle-aged an senior gay men in the audience often had me and everyone else near tears. The environment for gays in the US until very, very recently was unambiguously horrible, cruel and inhuman, and the statement that they have been any less mistreated than other discriminated-against groups can only arise from lack of research or a narrowness in association.
I can also say, without question, that avoiding association with gays is a self-inflicted wound. This is an awfully large number wonderful people and terrific co-workers and friends to miss out on knowing, caring about, and loving.
the statement that they have been any less mistreated than other discriminated-against groups can only arise from lack of research or a narrowness in association.
I think the “currently discriminated against group didn’t have it as bad as discriminated against group 50 years ago” idea will always occur. The discrimination in the old group was settled, so we learned the truth about it. The discrimination in the current group is still mainstream, so we get torn in multiple directions. We hear minimizations about the current discrimination that we didn’t hear about the previous discrimination. This makes our minds think there was a difference. It’s the way our minds are built.
I also think that we generally normalize behavior that occurs during our lifetimes. We tend to need overwhelming evidence that our beliefs are wrong, even if we have no idea why we originally held those beliefs.
We should fight it, of course, but we don’t need bad faith or narrowness in association to reach the inappropriate conclusion.
tgt,
I am out for a few days, I will respond once I get back.
tgt,
Apologies for the delay, I was busy with an event over the last few days.
Formatting
Thanks
Behavior differences of gays compared to straights justifying discrimination
You made a ridiculous statement. I’m asking you to back it up or repudiate your statement. Refusing to back it up and then repeating it again (“Where you would say that behavior is unimportant I would largely agree but I am skeptical of the long term effects on our nation and where equal will stop.”) makes me think that you only care about being right.
I think you read a different meaning in my statement, so let me try to clear it up.
The point was not to justify discrimination. Both you and Jack read it that way and after rereading it I agree that it didn’t represent what I intended. My point was simply that that the gay community should not adopt and utilize only the arguments that brought equality to women and blacks but should utilize their own. To continually compare behavior to appearance does not change that a behavior is taking place, one that many object too and would not promote to their children. The gay community has a valid argument in that their behavior should not lead them to be discriminated against. I agree with that argument, but stop at promoting the behavior. Does this make me a bigot? The gay acquaintances and family that I have don’t seem to think so. Their behavior is never an issue as they don’t have sex in front of my kids, nor is their or my sexual conduct ever a topic of conversation. I am a traditional guy; I am not big into PDA nor are they, so again not much of an issue. As for their partners none of them really need much defining as none are in a long term relationship, when the time comes to define why Susan and Julie live together the short answer is because they want to, just as any other adult can choose to live with whomever they like. As for race or gender, my family has always looked at ones actions to define someone, not ones appearance, so maybe that is why I see a distinction, again I will say that the behavior itself does not justify discrimination.
As for “Where you would say that behavior is unimportant I would largely agree but I am skeptical of the long term effects on our nation and where equal will stop.” I am skeptical, but that is not to say that skepticism would justify discrimination of homosexuals. Where I would draw a line is the same that I would for any individual behavior, if it is counter to society and the health (physical and moral) of that society then it is society’s duty to reject that behavior. I lean towards individual liberty; hence I would grant freedom to marry over restricting it, but as many other behaviors that can be said to be hard wired into an individual the determining restrictive factor must be if that behavior causes harm to others. As of right now it seems as though individual sexual preferences as it pertains to adults may not be detrimental to society, but this behavior outcome is yet to be firmly established through normalization, so I remain skeptical, ask me in 10-20 years and I may be decided.
types of damages
Gay marriage would be enough to substantiate the point.
That was not what I was asking, I was asking what other corrective actions must be taken beyond gay marriage for “equality” to be realized?
Not thinking gay marriage is enough
The secondary harms of gay marriage are pretty wide spread, from the monetary penalties, to the legal ramifications of health care and death, to the incredible hoops around child care, and the crazy laws around adopted children.
Not the case at all, I recognize the farther reaching implications of marriage, I just don’t think marriage is a silver bullet, nor is it the only way to address the mostly bureaucratic restriction in place. What I wanted to know was what other inequalities you see as needing correcting and what that correction is.
You also seemed to have missed out on the multiple posts on ethicsalarms about people actually being denied service by businesses.
I may have missed some, I just happen to believe that when it happens that society itself is best to handle most situations such as these. I think as demonstrated in most of the cases society, although outliers on both sides are ridiculous, the balance of the reaction was appropriate. When something truly harmful happens generally legal action can be initiated. I am however not in favor of anyone being a protected class or being provided special tools that are often abused to wield against others. I think there are sufficient resources in today’s society to right most wrongs.
Completely missing the point
I think you a stretching big time, as I have said gay marriage is a legitimate argument, where are the segregated schools, the drinking fountains, the wide spread refusal of services?
They aren’t there. The damages aren’t the same. As I said, they’re of the same type. I explained what that means. Continuing to argue that the damages aren’t the same is a strawman.
I think you are missing my point, the damages are not the same, so the solution is not the same, how is that so hard for you to grasp?
Random assumptions of bad faith
I think too many want to make the situation into something it is not, they want to be part of a historic civil rights movement but either were on the wrong side then or where too young.
This is horrible. There are injustices. People are fighting them. To you, this suggests that they just want to be part of historic movement. Why is fighting injustice not a good enough reason to fight injustice?
That is a good reason, I just detect that too many are not true believers and are more in it for the fight then the cause. To me they are not fighting injustice but society, in which their own notoriety comes first, which is naturally corrupting. Some injustices do exist, and society is working to correct those but it is not the same movement and to act as if it is ignores the reality of where society really is. The case in point, a Christian expresses that homosexuality is a sin under his faith; he is demonized by many as if he demanded that Jason Collins be incarcerated and castrated. I don’t believe that you or Jack are motivated by anything but the injustice but you have to admit that this is not reflective of a society that ignores injustices done to a minority.
Again not understanding the difference between exactly the same and same type
That is not to say that there are not legitimate problems, but it is a disservice to those fights and champions to act as if this movement is the same. When was the last police raid on a gay bar just because it was a gay bar? Where is the blackout on media coverage about these injustices? Where is the police and government corruption?
That’s only being quoted to highlight that this seems to be a serious issue for you.
I guess it is, I said it to highlight that the injustice in our current society is not the same, but for the sake of argument say the they are the same type, just not as far reaching. The point is the language remains the same yet ignores progress and belittles beliefs of supporters. This is not the most productive way sway a diverse public to support your efforts for equality. The fact that a Christians can believe something is a sin but not prohibit someone from conducting that behavior is not good enough? The doctrine must be changed so that it is inoffensive to those who do not subscribe to that doctrine? This movement has seemed to cross from equality to demanding not only tolerance but approval.
Your claim of there being no economic damages
You: As a whole the gay community does not suffer from the same damages that women and nonwhites did, the comparison continues to be false. It is not economic as studies show that homosexuals do very well
Me: So…the tax inequalities aren’t built into law?
You: Only as it pertains to marriage, one reason why I would buy into the gay marriage argument.
Me: So there’s a counter example that shows that there are economic damages. That you are right on gay marriage doesn’t mean that these economic damages don’t exist.
You: What? What damages are you talking about?
Like I said, I’m talking about the tax inequalities. Those are economic damages that contradict your claim.
Your last statement confused me, I thought there was another economic disadvantage you were talking about. Yes I agree there is damage as it pertains to marriage.
Denial that there was historic support for blacks and women
I would like to see the polls.
Do you really need a primary source for this? This isn’t something that people argue about.
More denial that there was support for blacks and women
You created a nice numbered list that was simply moving the goalposts. You’re original statement was “it’s not political as the gay community has significant backing and support.”
I’ve pointed to significant support. No, the prior supports weren’t as good as the current support, but that’s not necessary to refute your claim. If you had claimed that the increased support now is a big factor, I would have responded to that.
What is your intention in trying to refute my point? My point is that the community is not politically disadvantaged or underrepresented as a group because they have huge backing and support. Is this what you object to? Am I correct that you refute this because Blacks and Women had support and were politically disadvantaged therefore the gay community must be?
equal protection
I’m flabbergasted here.
I pointed out that the court deciding if equal protection applies to a group is not the same as the group having equal protection. I backed it up with an example. You ignored it completely and reiterated your point.
You followed that up with a request for other specific cases where equal protection doesn’t apply. While I can give examples, there’s no need to. The question itself is irrelevant. If the court still has to decide if equal protection applies, then there is no equal protection under the law (like you claim there is).
Institutionalized discrimination
You don’t seem to understand what this means. When one group is treated differently than others by the government OR by society, there is institutionalized discrimination. You don’t seem to understand the society part of the definition, and I have no idea why you think the result of a court case will have any bearing on whether or not the prior and current behavior counts as institutionalized discrimination
Again I will grant that gay marriage is a legitimate argument and if coming up for a vote I would side with granting rights rather than withholding them. The whole gay marriage issue and equal protection in which it may not even be decided on makes my head spin. But the bottom line is I agree with you on gay marriage. What I have asked you for is any other laws other than gay marriage and the secondary effects that need addressed in the name of equality. The one you gave me was refusal of services, I thought I had answered it, there are legal remedies in place and of course public outrage is a powerful tool of change if wielded fairly. What am I missing?
MOre institutionalized discrimination and a non sequitur
Me: The same thing happens unoffically in offices country-wide. Being scared to put up a picture of your girlfriend. Having to refer to the person you’ve been in a 10 year committed relationship to as your roomate.
You:No legal, political or media recourse exist for these people? Is that what you are saying?
I’m not saying that in the least. That’s irrelevant. I gave an example of institionalized discrimination. Having the ability to speak out against it doesn’t mean it’s not discrimination. Even having a legal remedy doesn’t mean it’s not discrimination (and no, there wasn’t usually a legal remedy).
Feel free to enlighten me on the subject and appropriate remedies because in my limited knowledge if your at will, then it sucks for you, otherwise there are legal remedies in every state for Negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress, Harassment, Sexual harassment, Assault, Battery, Invasion of Privacy, Defamation, Interference with an employment contract and Wrongful termination. Over half the states have some form of sexual orientation protection. The point was that discriminating against the gay community is not legal with the few exceptions as it pertains to private entities including religious institutions. I was talking about discrimination being institutionalized as in procedurally or legally and you’re talking “unofficially”. So being able to speak out is not an effective tool?
Regulating thought
This one’s going to be ugly:
You:Regardless of how many laws are put on the books you can’t regulate if someone likes or approves of how you live your life. You don’t like religion and their practices; no one can force you to like it, or live by their moral codes. You may not like their exemptions but you are free to set up an equal nonprofit institution. You also can not take away the freedom to associate, I don’t like people who curse (pick your behavior) around me, I guess I am bigoted that way, so I don’t associate with them. Now if they have Tourette syndrome I shouldn’t discriminate against them but that does not make me obligated to associate with them.
Me:
(1) Using what people believe (religion) as a proxy for what people are (gay) doesn’t work.
(2) Using what people do (curse) as a proxy for what people are (gay) doesn’t work.
(2) Nobody is trying to regulate how people live their lives. They’re trying to ensure equality from the government and business services. “
You:
1) It works fine. Belief of either, as well behavior can easily be equated.
2) It is direct comparison; it works fine unless you want to force associations.
3) Show me the damages.
Now:
1) “belief of belief” is, again, not parallel to “belief of is”, no matter how much you want it to be. Denial of this is shocking.
1)This is where we are the farthest apart and will likely never reconcile, your faith that there is no component of choice and mine is that there is.
2) Similarly, this is insane. Disapproving of someone’s conduct is fine. Disapproving that someone is black is bigoted. DO you not understand this?
2)I do but you apparently don’t, in the case of the serial curser it is choice, in the case of the syndrome it is not. In the case of the homosexual there is behavior, you state the associated behavior is not a choice and I believe it is. I believe they are free to do as they wish as long as it is not harming another, what you propose is universal approval of the behavior. You again try to equate ones appearance with ones conduct and fail to see that there is a difference.
3) Now I’m just going to call you an ass. The damages have been shown repeatedly. The discrimination at stores. The hiding of relationships. The tax differences. The considerable rights that are imbued with marriage. These all exist.
I will accept the ass designation as you have shown damages. I think it was just the frustration with your contradictions “Nobody is trying to regulate how people live their lives. They’re trying to ensure equality from the government and business services. “. I have agreed on gay marriage, the rest I think I have already answered. Again it looks as if you are proposing regulating thought to insure the “correct” thoughts are the only ones allowed into the light, other than gay marriage, this is the only solution you propose that I can glean from your comments.
Sin and intolerance
Me:Calling something a sin is intolerance. If it was tolerated, it wouldn’t be a sin. See how that works?
You:Nope I don’t, you are stretching and trying make something out of nothing.
Sins are things that God doesn’t tolerate. They’re the nonos. If you tolerate something, it’s not a nono. Honestly, if you don’t understand this, you’re completely unqualified to discuss this topic.
I must have missed Broussard being God announcement, but apparently since you’re an atheist you’re more qualified than anyone else to discuss theology.
sin and admonishment
Me: “Uh…it’s an admonishment. If I say that it’s morally wrong for person X to eat babies, then I’m admonishing them. It doesn’t matter if their moral code is cool with baby eating.”
You:You stretching again, he never told Collins that he couldn’t eat babies, he said he didn’t believe that eating babies was morally acceptable to him because his moral code said it was a sin.
Fuck this is stupid. Admonishment isn’t telling someone they can’t do something. It’s telling them they shouldn’t do something. That’s what Broussard did.
I agree that admonishment isn’t telling someone they can’t do something. It’s telling them they shouldn’t do something. In this context it is based on those who subscribe of Broussard’s code.
inappropriate vs illegal
Me: You seem confused. That he was asked to comment means that the act of commenting was appropriate. It saying nothing about the propriety of his views. Same goes for his status as a commenter.
…
The views are inappropriate in the same way it’s inappropriate to think being black means someone is lesser than someone who is white.”
You:Hogwash, I will grant the forum may have been bad but he was asked his thoughts on a morality issue and he gave an honest answer. He never said anything about anyone being lesser, or less capable. If you want to outlaw thought and religious based morality codes then you should just say as much. His morality code makes not one difference if he is not using it as a weapon or to justify discriminate against anyone. His code is for him to live by and I thought he was clear on that. Your whole argument against what he said is hollow and amounts to policing thought.
The first sentence is an agreement with me.
The second sentence is bullshit. Saying someone is inherently a sinner does say they are lesser.
The third sentence is a random strawman. Nobody has suggested outlawing thought or religious codes. Legal is not the same as appropriate.
The fourth and fifth sentences are out of left field, but they’re also stupid. Calling something a sin is admonishment. There’s an aim of stopping the behavior, whether he’s doing something other than speech or not. It’s not just something for him to live by. Broussard said that it applies to everyone.
The sixth sentence is a combination of misrepresentation, and the horrible idea that criticism of bad ideas is the same as forcing people to not think a certain way.
The only thing I will add is Hogwash breaks down to meaning, there you go again with the false analogy.
bigoted beliefs and use of the word bigot
If you want to lessen the word bigot to include any thought or idea you don’t like then that is fine.
What did I say to earn this approprium? This: “How do they pertain to the claim of bigotry? His views are his views in any setting. And whether he spoke the views or not, so long as he held them, he would be a bigot. The only change that happened when we spoke the views is that we all learned he was a bigot.”
Where do I suggest that bigotry is views I don’t like? I said that his specific views were bigoted whether he expressed them or not. Do you not understand conceptual permanence?
You suggest it throughout your comments, I will come back to this below
You follow that up with this nice bit:
I prefer to reserve it for those who are intolerant idiots who seek to force others to conform to their ideas and wishes where damage and denigration is truly a risk.
You seem to be confusing bigotry with delusions of grandeur and authoritarianism They aren’t close to the same thing. Bigotry applies to things people are, but you’re talking trying to control what people do.
Again you miss, a bigot has a component of intolerance, thus far you have applied the tag to someone’s ideas, you’re still lacking the other component. More on this below.
It gets worse:
I can equally apply it to many on either side of any issue but I won’t use it against someone who may not hold my views but do not seek to damage or force me accept theirs.
You clearly have no idea what bigotry is. Is anyone on the pro-gay side thinking less of (or hating) the anti-gay side due to the pro-gay side’s false beliefs about inate traits about the anti-gay side? No.
Huh? I am not sure you know what a bigot is. It is not simply a distaste or even a hatred, again, more on this below.
What sports are based on
Nonsense, by your metric just so long as you’re making money it is inherently good.
You lost track of this back and forth. Do you remember your original comment here? Let me help: “This troubles me as you seem to be putting political/social ends before merit in a situation where merit should be the deciding factor, this as I think most affirmative action plans are, is inherently unethical, or am I misreading and you believe his skill warrants him being signed?”
I pointed out Juwann Howard didn’t have the playing ability merit that you clearly referred to. You came back and said he has other merits that help the team win. I pointed out that making the team win isn’t the actual goal. Making money is the goal, and Collins contributes to making money. Nowhere did I claim that making money implies the means used to make money are ethical. In this case, there’s nothing unethical with hiring/signing a gay guy. If it makes the team more money than hiring a different random 12th man (or that it’s at least reasonable to think so), then hiring Collins is the proper thing to do.
You changed the goal post, not I. The merit I was talking about was performance which to me meant on court. Your metric is different than mine.
Most of our disagreement comes down to terms and application. Your use and mine differ a great deal and likely cannot be reconciled.
Gay, Sin, Admonishment, Bigotry and Tolerance.
The biggest sticking points (beyond gay) are that you see any mention of sin as an admonishment to those who practice that sin, even to those who do not subscribe to that religious code, I do not. How you use admonishment identifies to you intolerance. As you see things there is both a negative opinion of gay behavior AND intolerance for such, so by looking at it from your perspective I see where you could say bigot, but your statement of only thinking “less of “ does not = bigot. Where I differ is that I don’t think him stating his moral code is intolerant and when his actions are taken into account it strengthens this conviction. To me the lack of intolerance means he is not a bigot.
I do appreciate the discussion as well as your and Jacks insight.
tgt, Looks like my formatting failed part way through. Hopfully you can make it out.
It showed up pretty well in my email notice, and I don’t think I was confused anywhere (at least, not by formatting). If you think I messed something up, let me know, and I’ll respond to what it was supposed to be.
Steve,
No need to apologize for the delay.
behavioral differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals
You missed the point. You claim that people are comparing behavior to looks, but nobody is. We’re comparing innate sexual attraction to other innate things (like skin tone).
You have repeated your claim (again) that there are behavioral differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals. Please back that up.
types of damages
Me: Gay marriage would be enough to substantiate the point.
You: That was not what I was asking, I was asking what other corrective actions must be taken beyond gay marriage for “equality” to be realized?
That was irrelevant to this subpoint. It’s a non sequitur. Anyway, That idea was already responded to where it came up naturally.
Not thinking gay marriage is enough
Not the case at all, I recognize the farther reaching implications of marriage, I just don’t think marriage is a silver bullet, nor is it the only way to address the mostly bureaucratic restriction in place. What I wanted to know was what other inequalities you see as needing correcting and what that correction is.
You’ve changed topics mid subthread. The question was whether the injustices of gay marriage meet the definition of discrimination. They do. I’m not going to follow your non sequitur tangents.
societal response to misbehavior
I may have missed some [discussions of specific cases of discrimination against gays], I just happen to believe that when it happens that society itself is best to handle most situations such as these. I think as demonstrated in most of the cases society, although outliers on both sides are ridiculous, the balance of the reaction was appropriate. When something truly harmful happens generally legal action can be initiated. I am however not in favor of anyone being a protected class or being provided special tools that are often abused to wield against others. I think there are sufficient resources in today’s society to right most wrongs.
What is “society itself”? YOu know what? I don’t care here. You keep bringing up non sequitur responses. The subpoint here was your claim that discrimination against gays doesn’t occur. You were shown to be wrong. Everything past that is an attempt to move the goalposts from your original argument. You might have a valid argument about there not being need of a protected class, but that’s completely irrelevant to my debunking of specific claims of yours.
type of damages => type of response
I think you are missing my point, the damages are not the same, so the solution is not the same, how is that so hard for you to grasp?
Nobody has asked for the same solution, just the same TYPE of solution. You know, a direct parallel. For instance, there’s no push for affirmative action for homosexuals because homosexuals have not had the same employment and educational damage as was done to blacks. That specific remedy is not necessary, but the idea of fighting for rights in all three branches of government and society at large is the same.
Random bad faith assumptions
I just detect that too many [pro-gay rights backers] are not true believers and are more in it for the fight then the cause. To me they are not fighting injustice but society, in which their own notoriety comes first, which is naturally corrupting.
How do you determine this? Who do you suggest fits this bill? Who do you think believes gays should be subjugated, yet fights for gays to have equal rights? This is ridiculous. It’s ad hominem generalization with no specifics that can be debunked.
Some injustices do exist, and society is working to correct those but it is not the same movement and to act as if it is ignores the reality of where society really is.
How do you split the narcissist gay rights movement from society’s good gay rights movement? You don’t explain this.
The case in point, a Christian expresses that homosexuality is a sin under his faith; he is demonized by many as if he demanded that Jason Collins be incarcerated and castrated.
He’s not demonized any more than a Christian who expresses that jews are lesser people under his faith, or a Christian who expresses that blacks are lesser people under his faith. This is pure special pleading as you don’t believe that being gay is innate and irrelevant like being black.
I don’t believe that you or Jack are motivated by anything but the injustice but you have to admit that this is not reflective of a society that ignores injustices done to a minority.
Society latches onto injustices and then often later ignores them. Rational ignorance, and there’s just too much to be angry about. What’s different between society getting behind this injustice and society getting behind racial injustice in the 50s? I just see special pleading here.
Again not understanding the difference between exactly the same and same type
I guess it is, I said it to highlight that the injustice in our current society is not the same, but for the sake of argument say the they are the same type, just not as far reaching. The point is the language remains the same yet ignores progress and belittles beliefs of supporters.
Citation needed.
The fact that a Christians can believe something is a sin but not prohibit someone from conducting that behavior is not good enough?
For law, it’s good enough. For society, it’s not.
The doctrine must be changed so that it is inoffensive to those who do not subscribe to that doctrine?
Only if they don’t want to be called bigots.
This movement has seemed to cross from equality to demanding not only tolerance but approval.
Just like blacks wanted to be tolerated and have their innate black skin approved of. I don’t see the problem here.
—-
Your claim of there being no economic damages
Your last statement confused me, I thought there was another economic disadvantage you were talking about. Yes I agree there is damage as it pertains to marriage.
I only referenced economic damages that dealt with marriage, as that was enough to prove my point that your claim that there are no economic damages is false.
denial that there was historic support for blacks and women
What is your intention in trying to refute my point? My point is that the community is not politically disadvantaged or underrepresented as a group because they have huge backing and support. Is this what you object to? Am I correct that you refute this because Blacks and Women had support and were politically disadvantaged therefore the gay community must be?
You moved the goalpost. Your original claim was: “it’s not political as the gay community has significant backing and support.”
I showed significant backing and support, and I did it with overkill going back centuries prior to equal rights. Now you are claiming your point was that gays are fairly represented by size (which is both false and irrelevent) and that they aren’t politically disadvantaged because they have alot of support. By that logics, blacks in the 50s were not politically disadvantaged. They had alot of the populace on their side and lots of legislators backing equality. Gays barely had any legislators until the last few months.
—–
equal protection:
But the bottom line is I agree with you on gay marriage. What I have asked you for is any other laws other than gay marriage and the secondary effects that need addressed in the name of equality. The one you gave me was refusal of services, I thought I had answered it, there are legal remedies in place and of course public outrage is a powerful tool of change if wielded fairly. What am I missing?
Oh my god. If the court has not decided that the gays are allowed equal protection, then they don’t have equal protection. Saying that gays can go to the courts for relief is invalid.
What you are missing is what “equal protection under the law” means. It means not having to go to court to get the right to do something.
institutionalized discrimination
Feel free to enlighten me on the subject and appropriate remedies because in my limited knowledge if your at will, then it sucks for you, otherwise there are legal remedies in every state for Negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress, Harassment, Sexual harassment, Assault, Battery, Invasion of Privacy, Defamation, Interference with an employment contract and Wrongful termination. Over half the states have some form of sexual orientation protection. The point was that discriminating against the gay community is not legal with the few exceptions as it pertains to private entities including religious institutions. I was talking about discrimination being institutionalized as in procedurally or legally and you’re talking “unofficially”. So being able to speak out is not an effective tool?
Okay. You don’t understand the term “institutional discrimination”. Based on your definition here, I can refute you WITH YOUR OWN EXAMPLE: “Over half the states have some form of sexual orientation protection.” That means that some of the states have no protection and discrimination against gays because they’re gay is legal. QED.
Regulating thought
1)This is where we are the farthest apart and will likely never reconcile, your faith that there is no component of choice and mine is that there is.
I’m backed by science, not faith. Sorry, but your attempt to bring me down to your irrational level fails.
2)I do but you apparently don’t, in the case of the serial curser it is choice, in the case of the syndrome it is not. In the case of the homosexual there is behavior, you state the associated behavior is not a choice and I believe it is. I believe they are free to do as they wish as long as it is not harming another, what you propose is universal approval of the behavior. You again try to equate ones appearance with ones conduct and fail to see that there is a difference.
No syndrome was brought up previously. I assume you mean Tourrette’s, and then I’d agree.
The rest is just your invalid faith that homosexuality is a choice. When you rely on faith, you’ve admitted that you have no rational argument.
[3)] I will accept the ass designation as you have shown damages.
Thank you.
I think it was just the frustration with your contradictions “Nobody is trying to regulate how people live their lives. They’re trying to ensure equality from the government and business services. “.
I don’t see a contradiction here any more than the government is “regulating how people live their lives” when they outlaw lying in ads. Technically, it’s a regulation, but it’s not what people mean when they say “regulating how people live their lives”.
I have agreed on gay marriage, the rest I think I have already answered. Again it looks as if you are proposing regulating thought to insure the “correct” thoughts are the only ones allowed into the light, other than gay marriage, this is the only solution you propose that I can glean from your comments.
What have I suggested that regulates thought? People can legally think anything they want. Hell, they can legally say nearly anything they want in nearly any situation. I support that freedom. Do not (1) confuse what people can legally say with what people can legally do, (2) confuse law with ethics, and (3) suggest that if you have the right to do something, doing it shouldn’t be criticized.
My solution was fighting for equal legal protections. Fighting against discrimination, and calling out bigotry. Where is there thought control in that?
Sin and intolerance
Me: Calling something a sin is intolerance. If it was tolerated, it wouldn’t be a sin. See how that works?
You: Nope I don’t, you are stretching and trying make something out of nothing.
Me: Sins are things that God doesn’t tolerate. They’re the nonos. If you tolerate something, it’s not a nono. Honestly, if you don’t understand this, you’re completely unqualified to discuss this topic.
You: I must have missed Broussard being God announcement, but apparently since you’re an atheist you’re more qualified than anyone else to discuss theology.
1) When a person says something’s a sin, they’re saying God says it’s wrong. That’s what a sin is.
2) Being an atheist doesn’t in any way disqualify me from discussing theology. This is a pretty poor attempt at the courtisan’s reply. You didn’t even name a theologian I have to read. If you want silly qualifications: (a) I was raised Catholic by a father who spent more than half a decade studying to be a Jesuit, (b) I have a philosophy minor, and (c) I read up on the latest theological musings from everyone from Karen Armstrong to Nancy Murphy to Karl Gibberson to the Pope. I’m informed in my disbelief.
3) Theology is a red herring. the meaning of calling something a sin is well defined. If Broussard meant anything other than the usual meaning, at minimum he would be responsible for explaining his meaning. He didn’t.
sin and admonishment
I agree that admonishment isn’t telling someone they can’t do something. It’s telling them they shouldn’t do something. In this context it is based on those who subscribe of Broussard’s code.
And again, it doesn’t matter what Broussard bases his code on. He said Collins shouldn’t be gay. This was the very definition of an admonishment.
You shouldn’t try to use bullshit to escape a clear point. Now, does it matter what school of thought I’m basing my statement on? Whatever it is, I’m admonishing you.
inappropriate vs illegal
The only thing I will add is Hogwash breaks down to meaning, there you go again with the false analogy.
I had a devil of a time parsing this statement. I think you intended: The only thing I will add is Hogwash meant “there you go again with the false analogy.” so that’s what I’m going to respond to. If I’m wrong, please tell me what you meant.
The false analogy you now claim I made was this: “The views are inappropriate in the same way it’s inappropriate to think being black means someone is lesser than someone who is white.”
If this is what you meant, then it’s again your irrational faith that says being gay is not innate.
Also, failing to respond to my rebuttals seems to leave my rebuttals as accurate. We have covered some of them elsewhere, but you didn’t even bother to reference those discussions.
bigoted beliefs and use of the word bigot
Me: Where do I suggest that bigotry is views I don’t like? I said that his specific views were bigoted whether he expressed them or not. Do you not understand conceptual permanence?
You: You suggest it throughout your comments, I will come back to this below
I look forward to it.
Me: You seem to be confusing bigotry with delusions of grandeur and authoritarianism They aren’t close to the same thing. Bigotry applies to things people are, but you’re talking trying to control what people do.
You:Again you miss, a bigot has a component of intolerance, thus far you have applied the tag to someone’s ideas, you’re still lacking the other component. More on this below.
Allowing jews their rights does not make a neo-nazi not a bigot. As I said, you using the word bigot to mean something other than bigot.
You:I can equally apply it to many on either side of any issue but I won’t use it against someone who may not hold my views but do not seek to damage or force me accept theirs.
Me:You clearly have no idea what bigotry is. Is anyone on the pro-gay side thinking less of (or hating) the anti-gay side due to the pro-gay side’s false beliefs about inate traits about the anti-gay side? No.
You:Huh? I am not sure you know what a bigot is. It is not simply a distaste or even a hatred, again, more on this below.
No, it’s not simply a distaste or a hatred of someone. It’s an irrational distaste or a hatred of someone based on false beliefs about their grouping (usually innate), that someone obstinately sticks to. You claimed that the definition I’m using could be applied to both sides. That’s part of why you don’t use it. I showed that the definition can’t be applied to both sides. You didn’t respond at all to that point.
What sports are based on
You changed the goal post, not I. The merit I was talking about was performance which to me meant on court. Your metric is different than mine.
In that case, your idea of what is meritorious for sports business is flat out wrong. There goal is to make money.
Most of our disagreement comes down to terms and application. Your use and mine differ a great deal and likely cannot be reconciled.
Gay, Sin, Admonishment, Bigotry and Tolerance.
The biggest sticking points (beyond gay) are that you see any mention of sin as an admonishment to those who practice that sin, even to those who do not subscribe to that religious code, I do not. How you use admonishment identifies to you intolerance. As you see things there is both a negative opinion of gay behavior AND intolerance for such, so by looking at it from your perspective I see where you could say bigot, but your statement of only thinking “less of “ does not = bigot. Where I differ is that I don’t think him stating his moral code is intolerant and when his actions are taken into account it strengthens this conviction. To me the lack of intolerance means he is not a bigot.
Basically, you ignore the english language and just make shit up. That’s not a very good argument. You’re trying to carve an exception for faith based beliefs so that their horribleness is not horrible. It’s special pleading, and extremely tortured special pleading at that.
I do appreciate the discussion as well as your and Jacks insight.
Well, that’s one of us. About the only think I enjoyed here was your random redefinition of sin to mean…well…I still haven’t figured out what you want it to mean, but something other than an appeal to authority condemnation of God.
behavioral differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals
You missed the point. You claim that people are comparing behavior to looks, but nobody is. We’re comparing innate sexual attraction to other innate things (like skin tone).
You have repeated your claim (again) that there are behavioral differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals. Please back that up.
You have chosen to ignore my point, put words in my mouth and change the subject.
We’re comparing innate sexual attraction to other innate things (like skin tone).
No that is what you want to use and to say “nobody is” is complete intellectual dishonesty. You want to argue only on the basis of attraction and ignore behavior because inaction is unobjectionable.
“You have repeated your claim (again) that there are behavioral differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals. Please back that up.”
No that is your claim, I never made a comparison between the two, my argument was that of utilizing behavior, which has cause and effect, as a direct comparison to appearance is stupid. To ignore that the behavior is what most object to does nothing to further the argument, that was my point in saying that utilizing the same argument for race is a bad analogy. Your method to argue against this point is to ignore the behavior because both heterosexuals and homosexuals have sex therefore in your mind it is the same. It is not the same to most as the majority of the population is heterosexual and have never had sex with a same sex partner. You attribute to me the wrong value judgment that was being made. Let’s see if you can grasp this point this time, for now forget the cause of homosexuality, forget even the merits of the argument, it is the behavior that is generally being argued against, and my point is that by utilizing race and gender as the definitive argument for, ignores the primary argument against. That was my point, and still is my point as it pertains to the reliance of the race argument. Before you waste time trying massage what I said into something else, I understand your argument and I understand you think it is the ultimate answer, that it nullifies any behavior considerations. I disagree based on the fact that behavior is evaluated by effect. That effect is what is mostly being debated.
types of damages
Me: Gay marriage would be enough to substantiate the point.
You: That was not what I was asking, I was asking what other corrective actions must be taken beyond gay marriage for “equality” to be realized?
That was irrelevant to this subpoint. It’s a non sequitur. Anyway, That idea was already responded to where it came up naturally.
I was simply clarifying as you seemed to miss the point or intended to.
Not thinking gay marriage is enough
Not the case at all, I recognize the farther reaching implications of marriage, I just don’t think marriage is a silver bullet, nor is it the only way to address the mostly bureaucratic restriction in place. What I wanted to know was what other inequalities you see as needing correcting and what that correction is.
You’ve changed topics mid subthread. The question was whether the injustices of gay marriage meet the definition of discrimination. They do. I’m not going to follow your non sequitur tangents.
That was clarification based on your distortion of my position. Your being dishonest and manipulative, you have changed the topic and I should have known better then to trust you to actually answer something substantially and not torture my words. The argument wasn’t gay marriage, which was given over from the start; it was what equality issues remain OTHER than gay marriage, you gave me a couple examples later but you continue to misrepresent my position.
societal response to misbehavior
I may have missed some [discussions of specific cases of discrimination against gays], I just happen to believe that when it happens that society itself is best to handle most situations such as these. I think as demonstrated in most of the cases society, although outliers on both sides are ridiculous, the balance of the reaction was appropriate. When something truly harmful happens generally legal action can be initiated. I am however not in favor of anyone being a protected class or being provided special tools that are often abused to wield against others. I think there are sufficient resources in today’s society to right most wrongs.
What is “society itself”? YOu know what? I don’t care here. You keep bringing up non sequitur responses. The subpoint here was your claim that discrimination against gays doesn’t occur. You were shown to be wrong. Everything past that is an attempt to move the goalposts from your original argument. You might have a valid argument about there not being need of a protected class, but that’s completely irrelevant to my debunking of specific claims of yours.
You’re being an ass, I did not say discrimination against gays didn’t occur. Nothing in that statement says discrimination doesn’t exist.
type of damages => type of response
I think you are missing my point, the damages are not the same, so the solution is not the same, how is that so hard for you to grasp?
Nobody has asked for the same solution, just the same TYPE of solution. You know, a direct parallel. For instance, there’s no push for affirmative action for homosexuals because homosexuals have not had the same employment and educational damage as was done to blacks. That specific remedy is not necessary, but the idea of fighting for rights in all three branches of government and society at large is the same.
Ok, despite your torture of terms I think we are mostly on the same page here
Random bad faith assumptions
I just detect that too many [pro-gay rights backers] are not true believers and are more in it for the fight then the cause. To me they are not fighting injustice but society, in which their own notoriety comes first, which is naturally corrupting.
How do you determine this? Who do you suggest fits this bill? Who do you think believes gays should be subjugated, yet fights for gays to have equal rights? This is ridiculous. It’s ad hominem generalization with no specifics that can be debunked.
I will withdraw this statement as 1)Not germane and it is an assumption 2) You will misrepresent what I say 3) I don’t have time to expand into more arguments.
Some injustices do exist, and society is working to correct those but it is not the same movement and to act as if it is ignores the reality of where society really is.
How do you split the narcissist gay rights movement from society’s good gay rights movement? You don’t explain this.
The reference to same movement is not one of “narcissist gay rights” to “good gay rights”.
The case in point, a Christian expresses that homosexuality is a sin under his faith; he is demonized by many as if he demanded that Jason Collins be incarcerated and castrated.
He’s not demonized any more than a Christian who expresses that jews are lesser people under his faith, or a Christian who expresses that blacks are lesser people under his faith. This is pure special pleading as you don’t believe that being gay is innate and irrelevant like being black.
Bullshit and you know it; his statement is being interpreted far beyond reason and is used by too many to define him as a bigot, regardless of the contrary evidence of the fact. You can use any device you want to dismiss my point, but it doesn’t change the fact that you unreasonably assert that Chris Broussard’s statement contains a ridiculous amount of personal hatred and ill will towards gays. You have elevated this case to be equal to one in which a black man is spite on and told he is incapable of succeeding. The vehemence directed against a man whose description would be far closer to benign then malignant by any reasonable standard demonstrates that the gay rights movement has progressed to the point in which true outrages are unlikely to go unnoticed and corrected.
I don’t believe that you or Jack are motivated by anything but the injustice but you have to admit that this is not reflective of a society that ignores injustices done to a minority.
Society latches onto injustices and then often later ignores them. Rational ignorance, and there’s just too much to be angry about. What’s different between society getting behind this injustice and society getting behind racial injustice in the 50s? I just see special pleading here.
I see a lack of reading comprehension here. That you think there is so much to be angry about explains a great deal, I think your anger is clouding your rationality.
Again not understanding the difference between exactly the same and same type
I guess it is, I said it to highlight that the injustice in our current society is not the same, but for the sake of argument say the they are the same type, just not as far reaching. The point is the language remains the same yet ignores progress and belittles beliefs of supporters.
Citation needed
See your own comments IRT language remains the same. If you can’t see progress has been made then nothing I can provide will help. As for belittling the beliefs of supporters, most do not support based on the premise of “born that way” (4%) or approval of the behavior but based on Equal rights and Personal choice/Pursuit of happiness (combined 64% , gallup), those polled are likely a diverse group of individuals, some undoubtedly believe practicing homosexuality is a sin, but that is not stopping them from supporting the gay community’s fight for equality, but by your standard they also must be bigots.
http://www.statista.com/statistics/248072/reasons-to-favor-same-sex-marriage-in-the-united-states/
The fact that a Christians can believe something is a sin but not prohibit someone from conducting that behavior is not good enough?
For law, it’s good enough. For society, it’s not.
Which means society needs to be able to identify improper conduct.
The doctrine must be changed so that it is inoffensive to those who do not subscribe to that doctrine?
Only if they don’t want to be called bigots.
Just a correction, Only if they don’t want to be unreasonably called bigots.
This movement has seemed to cross from equality to demanding not only tolerance but approval.
Just like blacks wanted to be tolerated and have their innate black skin approved of. I don’t see the problem here.
Your blind to reason then, see comments in regards to behavior and individual moral codes.
—-
Your claim of there being no economic damages
Your last statement confused me, I thought there was another economic disadvantage you were talking about. Yes I agree there is damage as it pertains to marriage.
I only referenced economic damages that dealt with marriage, as that was enough to prove my point that your claim that there are no economic damages is false.
No you are a liar, this goes far beyond misrepresenting my position, there cannot be any mistake in the fact that from the start I said marriage was an economic disadvantage. I will tolerate your smugness, condensation, vastly different world views and even a little twisting of words but not the lying.
denial that there was historic support for blacks and women
What is your intention in trying to refute my point? My point is that the community is not politically disadvantaged or underrepresented as a group because they have huge backing and support. Is this what you object to? Am I correct that you refute this because Blacks and Women had support and were politically disadvantaged therefore the gay community must be?
You moved the goalpost. Your original claim was: “it’s not political as the gay community has significant backing and support.”
I showed significant backing and support, and I did it with overkill going back centuries prior to equal rights. Now you are claiming your point was that gays are fairly represented by size (which is both false and irrelevent) and that they aren’t politically disadvantaged because they have alot of support. By that logics, blacks in the 50s were not politically disadvantaged. They had alot of the populace on their side and lots of legislators backing equality. Gays barely had any legislators until the last few months.
You have got to be kidding me, you really can’t get your head around this? Is my writing style and reasoning really that hard to follow? I have never had so much of an issue in relaying fairly obvious fact to someone who purports to be so deep and knowledgeable. No goal post was moved, the statement “As a whole the gay community DOES not suffer from the same damages that women and nonwhites DID, the comparison continues to be false, proceeds “it’s not political as the gay community has significant backing and support. You then throw some uncited bullshit against the wall that you think somehow refutes what I said, from that you then try to draw some parallels that are complete garbage and do nothing to actually demonstrate my statement is false. You need to understand that because I clarified my original statement because you seemed to be unable to grasp it does not equate it to moving the goal post
—–
equal protection:
But the bottom line is I agree with you on gay marriage. What I have asked you for is any other laws other than gay marriage and the secondary effects that need addressed in the name of equality. The one you gave me was refusal of services, I thought I had answered it, there are legal remedies in place and of course public outrage is a powerful tool of change if wielded fairly. What am I missing?
Oh my god. If the court has not decided that the gays are allowed equal protection, then they don’t have equal protection. Saying that gays can go to the courts for relief is invalid.
What you are missing is what “equal protection under the law” means. It means not having to go to court to get the right to do something.
Oh, so that’s what equal protection under the law means….. no kidding? you mean the magical equal rights fairy will come down and fix it so that you don’t have to use legal recourse when your rights are violated? Can you not comprehend what I have said, at this point your beyond an ass.
institutionalized discrimination
Feel free to enlighten me on the subject and appropriate remedies because in my limited knowledge if your at will, then it sucks for you, otherwise there are legal remedies in every state for Negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress, Harassment, Sexual harassment, Assault, Battery, Invasion of Privacy, Defamation, Interference with an employment contract and Wrongful termination. Over half the states have some form of sexual orientation protection. The point was that discriminating against the gay community is not legal with the few exceptions as it pertains to private entities including religious institutions. I was talking about discrimination being institutionalized as in procedurally or legally and you’re talking “unofficially”. So being able to speak out is not an effective tool?
Okay. You don’t understand the term “institutional discrimination”. Based on your definition here, I can refute you WITH YOUR OWN EXAMPLE: “Over half the states have some form of sexual orientation protection.” That means that some of the states have no protection and discrimination against gays because they’re gay is legal. QED.
I acknowledge the misuse of “institutionalized discrimination” in my previous statement, my last statement is reflective of what I intended to say. The premise behind your argument is sound but I don’t know if it is true, that’s to say that those states that don’t have that special protection are allowing discrimination, I think it is leap to say they are not using the other protections to resolve discrimination. When I get some time I will try to research it unless someone knows off hand.
Regulating thought
1)This is where we are the farthest apart and will likely never reconcile, your faith that there is no component of choice and mine is that there is.
I’m backed by science, not faith. Sorry, but your attempt to bring me down to your irrational level fails.
Unfortunately you are not, I wish you were, it would make things much easier, but the best guess is that it is a combo of biological and environmental factors based on the body of research of the subject and even that seems to be an answer designed to hedge. It drives me crazy but either way I am resigned to err on the side freedom. But as an aside, that you believe that one has no control over ones conduct still astounds me, desires I will grant you, conduct I will not. The bottom line is it’s easier for me to support based on equal protection/personal choice. I will remain reserved as it pertains to harm of the behavior, the research is even more biased on this subject, but since many professional organizations seem to think any harm will be minimal it is not enough for me to outright object to “change”, just to exercise a bit of restraint.
2)I do but you apparently don’t, in the case of the serial curser it is choice, in the case of the syndrome it is not. In the case of the homosexual there is behavior, you state the associated behavior is not a choice and I believe it is. I believe they are free to do as they wish as long as it is not harming another, what you propose is universal approval of the behavior. You again try to equate ones appearance with ones conduct and fail to see that there is a difference.
No syndrome was brought up previously. I assume you mean Tourrette’s, and then I’d agree.
The rest is just your invalid faith that homosexuality is a choice. When you rely on faith, you’ve admitted that you have no rational argument.
Citation needed, preferably one that has not been thoroughly refuted and has reproducible results. At this point you are likely operating more on faith then I am, I just can’t tell with you, are you being truthful with your beliefs? Have you actually look at any research or do you just want to set yourself up to be contradictory to any opinion that may be aligned with those of Christians?
[3)] I will accept the ass designation as you have shown damages.
Thank you.
I think it was just the frustration with your contradictions “Nobody is trying to regulate how people live their lives. They’re trying to ensure equality from the government and business services. “.
I don’t see a contradiction here any more than the government is “regulating how people live their lives” when they outlaw lying in ads. Technically, it’s a regulation, but it’s not what people mean when they say “regulating how people live their lives”.
The contradiction is your demand that society must approve of homosexual behavior with “Nobody is trying to regulate how people live their lives. They’re trying to ensure equality from the government and business services.” You further that by continually dismissing equally unharmful behavior by trying to categorize it as harmful. I am wholeheartedly with you on ensuring” equality from the government and business services” and I would be with you in expressing societal outrage if we were talking about someone who proposed to take action against the gay community, to interfere with their pursuit of happiness or to limit their rights, but that is not the case here. To say that his statement was one that enables bigotry is not bigotry.
I have agreed on gay marriage, the rest I think I have already answered. Again it looks as if you are proposing regulating thought to insure the “correct” thoughts are the only ones allowed into the light, other than gay marriage, this is the only solution you propose that I can glean from your comments.
What have I suggested that regulates thought? People can legally think anything they want. Hell, they can legally say nearly anything they want in nearly any situation. I support that freedom. Do not (1) confuse what people can legally say with what people can legally do, (2) confuse law with ethics, and (3) suggest that if you have the right to do something, doing it shouldn’t be criticized.
My solution was fighting for equal legal protections. Fighting against discrimination, and calling out bigotry. Where is there thought control in that?
I am good with the first two and even the last, but you seem to want to take it to the level of shutting down any kind of dissenting speech regardless of validity or harm. We have already seen the outcome of this with race. Anyone who dares to speak about race, regardless of their argument is shouted down as a racist. This results in legitimate issues in the community going unaddressed or ignored for fear of picking up the racist label. This is the result of the logic you propose to use to combat “bigotry” towards the gay community. This case demonstrates people can’t distinguish between real bigotry and harmless personal moral codes.
Sin and intolerance
Me: Calling something a sin is intolerance. If it was tolerated, it wouldn’t be a sin. See how that works?
You: Nope I don’t, you are stretching and trying make something out of nothing.
Me: Sins are things that God doesn’t tolerate. They’re the nonos. If you tolerate something, it’s not a nono. Honestly, if you don’t understand this, you’re completely unqualified to discuss this topic.
You: I must have missed Broussard being God announcement, but apparently since you’re an atheist you’re more qualified than anyone else to discuss theology.
1) When a person says something’s a sin, they’re saying God says it’s wrong. That’s what a sin is.
2) Being an atheist doesn’t in any way disqualify me from discussing theology. This is a pretty poor attempt at the courtisan’s reply. You didn’t even name a theologian I have to read. If you want silly qualifications: (a) I was raised Catholic by a father who spent more than half a decade studying to be a Jesuit, (b) I have a philosophy minor, and (c) I read up on the latest theological musings from everyone from Karen Armstrong to Nancy Murphy to Karl Gibberson to the Pope. I’m informed in my disbelief.
3) Theology is a red herring. the meaning of calling something a sin is well defined. If Broussard meant anything other than the usual meaning, at minimum he would be responsible for explaining his meaning. He didn’t.
I am tired of this discussion, it has moved nowhere and I will now resort to name calling, you are a douchebag, you are the one who brought up qualification based on the disagreement that to follow “sin” based moral code is the same as being intolerant to someone who doesn’t. As for your self proclaimed qualifications, you have already established that you are dishonest, so your qualifications are meaningless.
Steven,
behavior
This subtopic was created when you suggested that there were negative results of homosexual behavior, and those negative effects might justify discrimination. For multiple back and forths, I’ve been asking you to tell me what those negative effects are (in comparison to behavior of heterosexuals). You have repeatedly failed to do so. You’ve claimed that request was trying to get you to say something stupid. You’ve claimed that request was comparing behavior to looks. You’ve claimed I’m trying to ignore the behavioral differences.
Not once have you actually answered my question. If you don’t say what the negative effects of the behavioral differences are, you really have to concede that they don’t exist. They’re figments.
Types of damages
Gay marriage substantiated the point. Asking for other things isn’t clarification. It’s moving the goalposts.
Not thinking gay marriage is enough
This subpoint started when you claimed there wasn’t discrimination. I pointed out that there was with the gay marriage example. That’s it. Trace the path back up and that’s what you’ll see. Your agreement that gay marriage is discrimination came after you claimed there was no discrimination. That should have ended this point. Your accusation that I misrepresented you is wrong.
societal response to misbehavior
TGT:The subpoint here was your claim that discrimination against gays doesn’t occur. You were shown to be wrong.
SteveYou’re being an ass, I did not say discrimination against gays didn’t occur. Nothing in that statement says discrimination doesn’t exist.
No, your last comment didn’t say discrimination doesn’t exist. I didn’t claim it did. The subpoint that got us on this tangent was that discrimination against gays didn’t exist. It’s all the way back here: “As a whole the gay community does not suffer from the same damages that women and nonwhites did, the comparison continues to be false. It is not economic as studies show that homosexuals do very well…”
Gay marriage defeated your argument that there aren’t economic damages for gays. There was some back and forth originally before we got on the same page that I was referencing gay marriage, but once we got that ironed out, the point was over. Instead of ceding it, you asked for more examples. There was no need for more examples. The one was enough to show that your point was false.
type of damages => type of response
Ok, despite your torture of terms I think we are mostly on the same page here
So, this tracks back to: “As a whole the gay community does not suffer from the same damages that women and nonwhites did, the comparison continues to be false.”
If you’re anywhere near the same page as me, then you’d see that this comparison was a strawman. Are you agreed?
Random bad faith assumptions
1. I think this statement is germane to your state of thought on this topic, but okay
2. Accusation of future bad response. Clearly a fallacy, but I’m not sure if it’s ad hominem or something else.
3. The margins aren’t big enough, huh? (If you’re not a math geek, that’s a reference to Fermat’s Last Theorem. Fermat made a note in the margins that he had a proof, but it was too small for the margins. That was in the 1600s. We still don’t have a proof.) In other words: You can’t defend your position, you’re just trying to get out of it..)
The reference to same movement is not one of “narcissist gay rights” to “good gay rights”.
While you had this heading, you didn’t respond to my comment asking you how you split the movements between those that were fighting properly, and those that just wanted to be part of a civil rights movement.
Broussard treated like other bigots?
You can use any device you want to dismiss my point, but it doesn’t change the fact that you unreasonably assert that Chris Broussard’s statement contains a ridiculous amount of personal hatred and ill will towards gays.
I used a parallel that pointed out that if this hadn’t been about gays, you wouldn’t have bat an eyelash at the condemnation. If you can’t find a problem with my parallel, just admit that you’re wrong. Simply reclaiming your view is fact is invalid.
You have elevated this case to be equal to one in which a black man is spite on and told he is incapable of succeeding.
No I haven’t. Both are bigotry. That would be worse bigotry.
The vehemence directed against a man whose description would be far closer to benign then malignant by any reasonable standard demonstrates that the gay rights movement has progressed to the point in which true outrages are unlikely to go unnoticed and corrected.
Begging the question, restating your supposition despite not being able to rebut points that showed it false, moving the goalposts.
demonizing society
SteveI don’t believe that you or Jack are motivated by anything but the injustice but you have to admit that this is not reflective of a society that ignores injustices done to a minority.
TGT:Society latches onto injustices and then often later ignores them. Rational ignorance, and there’s just too much to be angry about. What’s different between society getting behind this injustice and society getting behind racial injustice in the 50s? I just see special pleading here.
SteveI see a lack of reading comprehension here. That you think there is so much to be angry about explains a great deal, I think your anger is clouding your rationality.
I don’t see what my problem was. Can you explain it to me? You were again impugning the motives of society as it referred to this movement. I suggest your reasoning applies similarly to previous rights movements that you think were good. What did I do wrong?
Point of not same
The point is the language remains the same yet ignores progress and belittles beliefs of supporters.
…
If you don’t see progress has been made then nothing I can provide will help.
Yes, progress has been made. What I don’t see is that progress being ignored. Just like Blacks that got some, but not all rights, they recognize progress has been made, but if it’s not equality, then it’s not equality. You seem to be claiming that once movements gain something, they should be happy and dial down their rhetoric for equality. I think that’s ridiculous.
As for belittling the beliefs of supporters, most do not support based on the premise of “born that way” (4%) or approval of the behavior but based on Equal rights and Personal choice/Pursuit of happiness (combined 64% , gallup), those polled are likely a diverse group of individuals, some undoubtedly believe practicing homosexuality is a sin, but that is not stopping them from supporting the gay community’s fight for equality, but by your standard they also must be bigots.
First, the personal choice group likely includes much of the “born that way” group.
Second, your undoubtedly, doesn’t say how many. What I’ve found is that the Christians who support equal rights tend to say that it’s not a sin.
Third, yes, you can have bigots that support giving specific rights to a group they are bigoted against. I don’t see why you find this amazing. Lots of people who voted to do away with slavery still thought blacks were lesser than whites…just not that much lesser.
Sin but allow?
Steve: The fact that a Christians can believe something is a sin but not prohibit someone from conducting that behavior is not good enough?
TGT: For law, it’s good enough. For society, it’s not.
Steve: Which means society needs to be able to identify improper conduct.
Yes? I don’t understand what you’re driving at. Saying gays are sinful is not proper conduct.
Forcing people to change their mind: not
Steve: The doctrine must be changed so that it is inoffensive to those who do not subscribe to that doctrine?
TGT: Only if they don’t want to be called bigots.
SteveJust a correction, Only if they don’t want to be unreasonably called bigots.
That you think it’s unreasonable doesn’t change the calculus of what’s happening. Nobody has to change any of their doctrines. People can still believe whatever they want. Their beliefs just aren’t free from criticism.
Demanding tolerance
Steve: This movement has seemed to cross from equality to demanding not only tolerance but approval.
TGT: Just like blacks wanted to be tolerated and have their innate black skin approved of. I don’t see the problem here.
Steve: Your blind to reason then, see comments in regards to behavior and individual moral codes.
The individual moral codes would apply equally to blacks, so that’s stupid. The behavioral comment you still haven’t supported. I’m not engaging it again here.
Your claim of there being no economic damages
No you are a liar, this goes far beyond misrepresenting my position, there cannot be any mistake in the fact that from the start I said marriage was an economic disadvantage. I will tolerate your smugness, condensation, vastly different world views and even a little twisting of words but not the lying.
Bullshit. Again, we go back here: “As a whole the gay community does not suffer from the same damages that women and nonwhites did, the comparison continues to be false. It is not economic as studies show that homosexuals do very well…”
Your only comment on gay marriage in that comment was: “I will grant you that gay marriage is a legitimate debate, and you and tgt have really swayed me but I see no basis for condemnation with this case. ” There’s nothing about economic damages there. Instead of going back to the original claim, you seem to be going back to your movement of the goalposts after I countered the claim.
denial that there was historic support for blacks and women
You have got to be kidding me, you really can’t get your head around this? Is my writing style and reasoning really that hard to follow? I have never had so much of an issue in relaying fairly obvious fact to someone who purports to be so deep and knowledgeable. No goal post was moved, the statement “As a whole the gay community DOES not suffer from the same damages that women and nonwhites DID, the comparison continues to be false, proceeds “it’s not political as the gay community has significant backing and support. You then throw some uncited bullshit against the wall that you think somehow refutes what I said, from that you then try to draw some parallels that are complete garbage and do nothing to actually demonstrate my statement is false.
What I did was show there was point out there was significant support for other groups. You didn’t explain significant, so I didn’t have to match exactly. I just needed something, and I gave you something. Your statement that the gays have significant support and the blacks didn’t was debunked. If you had said specific things about lawmakers, interest groups, and polls, I would have dealt with them. You didn’t. Don’t blame me for the your too general argument.
You need to understand that because I clarified my original statement because you seemed to be unable to grasp it does not equate it to moving the goal post
if you note, once you clarified what you meant, I didn’t accuse you of moving the goalposts. At that time, I debunked my new understanding of your argument: “Now you are claiming your point was that gays are fairly represented by size (which is both false and irrelevent) and that they aren’t politically disadvantaged because they have alot of support. By that logics, blacks in the 50s were not politically disadvantaged. They had alot of the populace on their side and lots of legislators backing equality. Gays barely had any legislators until the last few months.”
equal protection:
Oh, so that’s what equal protection under the law means….. no kidding? you mean the magical equal rights fairy will come down and fix it so that you don’t have to use legal recourse when your rights are violated? Can you not comprehend what I have said, at this point your beyond an ass.
I can’t tell if this is a non sequitur or a strawman. I don’t claim that equal rights means you don’t need protection of the law. I said that equal rights means that you HAVE equal protection of the law. You have been saying that if the court is willing to decide if you have equal protection, then you have equal protection. I’ve roundly criticized that idea. You have been demanding evidence of cases other than marriage where gays don’t have equal protection, but even in your demands, you gave an example of cases where they don’t currently have equal protection under the law (various states and employment).
I think I’ve comprehended what you’ve said, I just don’t see how it supports what you think it supports.
institutionalized discrimination definition
I acknowledge the misuse of “institutionalized discrimination” in my previous statement, my last statement is reflective of what I intended to say.
I don’t see the acknowledgement that you misued the term until now. You did clarify what you meant, and I should have replied to that clarification. That’s my bad.
State employment protection laws
Just giving some details. Wikipedia says 21 states + the district have laws with some employee protection for gays. Assuming it’s correct (I give it +/- 2) That means a majority of states don’t have any protections.
institutionalized discrimination.
The premise behind your argument is sound but I don’t know if it is true, that’s to say that those states that don’t have that special protection are allowing discrimination, I think it is leap to say they are not using the other protections to resolve discrimination. When I get some time I will try to research it unless someone knows off hand.
Yes, they are using the other tools when they apply. I didn’t suggest they weren’t. Those tools don’t allow a legal response for being fired because you’re gay, so they don’t amount to equal protection. I think there’s a state that’s trying to make equal protection for gays illegal right now, so that local ordinances of equal protection would be struck down, but I can’t find it right now. Maybe I imagined it.
Regulating thought
The flow works here, and the subpoint is now:
scientific backing
Unfortunately you are not [backed by science], I wish you were, it would make things much easier, but the best guess is that it is a combo of biological and environmental factors based on the body of research of the subject and even that seems to be an answer designed to hedge.
Yes, that’s what science says. All of which suggest that it is inherent. The environmental factors are things that force, not things that suggest. You can’t be taught or change your sexuality. It’s the same type of of environmental factors that affect height and a million other traits. Myabe there was a language miscommunication, but it looks to me that your statement backs my position.
drives me crazy but either way I am resigned to err on the side freedom.
This doesn’t have much meaning. It’s a platitude.
The bottom line is it’s easier for me to support based on equal protection/personal choice. I will remain reserved as it pertains to harm of the behavior, the research is even more biased on this subject, but since many professional organizations seem to think any harm will be minimal it is not enough for me to outright object to “change”, just to exercise a bit of restraint.
I’m glad that you support it on a personal choice line, though I still want to see the supposed negative externalities. Even without research, there’s no mechanism for why gay marriage (or other rights) would cause problems.
Controlling conduct
This was reordered as I think it needed it’s own header, and was in the middle of two related statements
But as an aside, that you believe that one has no control over ones conduct still astounds me, desires I will grant you, conduct I will not.
I haven’t claimed that we don’t have control of our conduct. That’s a strawman. I have said that their are no material differences in the conduct between gays and straights that would justify discrimination, and that’s where I think the onus needs to be: equality until we show there’s a difference
[2)] — Faith
You: In the case of the homosexual there is behavior, you state the associated behavior is not a choice and I believe it is.
Me: The rest is just your invalid faith that homosexuality is a choice. When you rely on faith, you’ve admitted that you have no rational argument.
You: Citation needed, preferably one that has not been thoroughly refuted and has reproducible results. At this point you are likely operating more on faith then I am, I just can’t tell with you, are you being truthful with your beliefs? Have you actually look at any research or do you just want to set yourself up to be contradictory to any opinion that may be aligned with those of Christians?
The science is handled above. No need to create a parallel thread. For the other accusations:
* Yes, I have looked at the research.
* Yes, I am truthful in my beliefs.
* No, I am not automatically contrary to Christians. That’s uncalled for. My values line up with Christian values all over the place. This might be a visibility bias. I don’t get into knock down drag out arguments with tex, SMP, and others when my values overlap Christianity. We may agree on 95% of an issue, but the 5% we don’t agree on, that’s 99% of the comments.
[3)] — Contraction
The contradiction is your demand that society must approve of homosexual behavior
It’s an ethics demand, not a legal demand. Regulating is legality.
You further that by continually dismissing equally unharmful behavior by trying to categorize it as harmful. […] I would be with you in expressing societal outrage if we were talking about someone who proposed to take action against the gay community, to interfere with their pursuit of happiness or to limit their rights, but that is not the case here.
Your position suggests that if someone says “niggers are lazy / muslims are just terrorists / women suck”, but doesn’t otherwise act on that belief, we shouldn’t criticize that person. They aren’t talking about taking action against blacks, or interfering with their pursuit of happiness or muslims or limiting the rights of women. I think it’s an ethical duty to criticize them. Their statements validate the bad actions of other people.
To say that his statement was one that enables bigotry is not bigotry.
Again, bigotry doesn’t require action.
Dissenting speech
am good with the first two and even the last, but you seem to want to take it to the level of shutting down any kind of dissenting speech regardless of validity or harm.
Criticizing speech isn’t shutting down speech.
Anyone who dares to speak about race, regardless of their argument is shouted down as a racist. This results in legitimate issues in the community going unaddressed or ignored for fear of picking up the racist label.
And that’s bad. I agree with you there. That doesn’t suggest that we shouldn’t criticize bad ideas. If you put a moratorium on that criticism, then you’re doing the same thing you’re complaining about, just from the other end.
This case demonstrates people can’t distinguish between real bigotry and harmless personal moral codes.
You keep repeating the personal moral codes can’t be bigotry, and that’s still completely wrong.
Sin and Intolerance
I am tired of this discussion, it has moved nowhere and I will now resort to name calling, you are a douchebag,
I started that. Touche.
you are the one who brought up qualification based on the disagreement that to follow “sin” based moral code is the same as being intolerant to someone who doesn’t.
This goes in the not even wrong category.
1) Saying something is a sin is still intolerance. That’s pretty much the definition.
2) I don’t understand the phrasing. Yes, I said what Broussard said was intolerance… what does that matter? I didn’t accuse you of saying that.
As for your self proclaimed qualifications, you have already established that you are dishonest, so your qualifications are meaningless.
The qualifications were due to your courtisan’s reply. As noted, there’s no need for them, as the attack itself is invalid.
The attacks on my honesty are uncalled for. I haven’t intentionally said anything false.
Even if I had been dishonest, I’m not sure how that would invalidate qualifications.
As for your self proclaimed qualifications, you have already established that you are dishonest, so your qualifications are meaningless.
Epic!!! Bravo to you both!
A special salute to you, tgt, for the classy response to “douchebag.“
Jack,
Nearly 3500 words. And there are multiple typos. I only see one content error: “I haven’t claimed that we don’t have control of our conduct.”
It might be hair splitting, but that’s technically false. I haven’t claimed the lack of control here, but I have done so in the free will arguments.
In those arguments, I’ve also said that we have apparent control, and that we should be judged on our apparent control, so there’s no change in my confusion with the accusation.
“I can understand and even see how you could make this determination based on polls stating the majority of the population believes gays should be allowed to marry but I personally do not believe that a true shift in values has occurred, rather I see it as the population accepting that gays may be harmed by not allowing them to marry and applying the Golden rule.”
And even then, what is and is not ethical behavior cannot be swayed by the whims of what is popular at any given time. Particularly when by every other measure applied, society’s approvals are clearly not in any sort of alignment with what is ethical – at best, you might prove they are completely untethered to thoughts of ethics, at worst, directly inverse to ethical behavior these days.
And well put – delightful post.
And even then, what is and is not ethical behavior cannot be swayed by the whims of what is popular at any given time.
Agreed. I don’t think anyone suggested that though. Your suggestion that this is whimsy was a strawman.
Society tends to move TOWARD ethical standards over time. It does sometimes move backwards, but that’s rare.
Particularly when by every other measure applied, society’s approvals are clearly not in any sort of alignment with what is ethical – at best, you might prove they are completely untethered to thoughts of ethics, at worst, directly inverse to ethical behavior these days.
Society is significantly more aligned with ethical standards now than it was 50 years ago, more so than 100 years ago, and more so than 200 years ago.
Equality and fairness are way up. What ethical measures are you using (note, appeals to authority will not be accepted as ethical measures).
All non-italicized above but your first paragraph is pure garbage.
What ethical standards are you using?
As noted, equality and fairness were my main ones. Do you deny that they should be used, or that equality and fairness have not increased?
I suspect that you are using biblical morality to determine if we’re closer or farther away from standards. That wouldn’t be valid.
Steve…
“Normally when I don’t agree with your conclusion I can at least follow your logic, in this all I see is emotion.”
If you detect emotion, it’s all projection, my friend. My heartbeat is steady, my eye is clear, I have no anger or animus whatsoever. And when i fired Broussard, in I was his boss, it would be with objectivity and good will. His choosing to turn a sports question into a personal statement of faith and moral condemnation was unprofessional. But I’m not upset by it. It has no impact on me at all. I write assertively, often too assertively, but that is style and choice, not emotion.
“What has changed? His position is a Bible based moral code, I can understand that you may not except that code or may even disdain it but if you found it ethical before not to regard it as a basis of a bigotry charge how does Broussard’s statement change it? He did not call for a stoning, boycott or any other harm to come to Jason Collins, nor did he single out homosexuals in his stated belief.”
What has changed? Society has changed. The ethical standard has changed. The norm has changed, and what is intolerable has changed. There are still kicking moral codes that hold that inter-racial marriage is a sin. Should ESPN let him expound on that? That women should be barefoot and pregnant. Is that acceptable public discourse, as long as a moral code supports it? There are people who believe that the Bible decrees that whites are superior. The belief, we have decided, is destructive, wrong and un-American, so we call people who espouse it “bigots,’ in part to stigmatize the belief.
With gays fighting for equal treatment under the law, and a majority of society finally coming around to the belief that there is no valid reason to withhold that, the morality based assertion that gays are “sinners” is now in the category of the above disapproved and invalid beliefs—they no longer can or should be accorded respect or tolerance, because the are in direct violation of societal standards and social norms, as well as basic fairness. Once this is know, insisting on such views amounts to an attempt at willful harm to a group that is vulnerable and innocent. At that point, I’m willing to uses “bigotry” for the lack of a better term, even though, being religion-based, it is technically inaccurate. If you have a better one, make sure you are willing to use it to describe white supremacists and Klansmen as well.
“So the timing is correct in changing ethical standards? Is this a determination that society as a whole or in large part has changed values in regards to homosexuality? I can understand and even see how you could make this determination based on polls stating the majority of the population believes gays should be allowed to marry but I personally do not believe that a true shift in values has occurred, rather I see it as the population accepting that gays may be harmed by not allowing them to marry and applying the Golden rule. I do not believe that the majority approve or applaud homosexuality. Regardless if your faith is placed in nature, nurture or combo, homosexuality has behavior traits (that have cause and effect) that racial and gender discrimination largely does not and as a movement should stand on its own merits.”
You’re just wrong, Steve. You’re wrong because nobody can articulate any more a reason not to “approve” of homosexuality that has any basis in logic or fact. As I have written here before, the taboo against homosexuality in primitive societies made sense—it was basic Kant: if everybody did it, humanity was doomed. That meant it was wrong, unethical because it endangered society. Social disapproval, including religion, was necessary. It isn’t any more. I have never said that homosexuality should be “applauded” or even encouraged. Encouraging it is potentially suicidal—back to Kant. Allowing it, respecting it, not stigmatizing it—the opposition has run out of valid excuses.
“As a whole the gay community does not suffer from the same damages that women and nonwhites did, the comparison continues to be false.”
Steve, with great respect, you do not know what you are talking about. In some ways, gays have suffered more than these abused groups. They have been regarded as lower on the social scale than these groups, for one thing. Go read “The Boys in the Band.” Talk to any gay man or woman over the age of 50, and ask what life was like before Stonewall. Hitler exterminated gays, you know, and nobody much cared. Doesn’t that suggest anything to you?
“It is not economic as studies show that homosexuals do very well, it is not criminally as every law criminalizing homosexual behaviors has been struck down on one basis or another and it’s not political as the gay community has significant backing and support. I will grant you that gay marriage is a legitimate debate, and you and tgt have really swayed me but I see no basis for condemnation with this case. Unless you propose that the freedom to associate must curtailed as it pertains to homosexuals then there is not much more the gay community can really ask for, unless the true aim is to become a protected class.”
Please stop—this is embarrassing. Listen to yourself. Yes, many Jews do very well financially too. Do you really want to try that rationalization? Do you really want to channel Plessy v. Fergusen? Are there really no openly gay readers of Ethics Alarms who will respond to this? That’s disappointing in itself.
“Society does denigrate citizens based on sexual behaviors, as it does with countless other behaviors, some criminalized, some that are not, you do it yourself everyday based on your own codes. Why this case should Broussard’s beliefs be condemned as wrong and harmful when nothing that was stated was in fact out of line of his moral code nor was it harmful? What harm was done here? Where are the damages?”
1) Society properly denigrates harmful conduct, sexual or otherwise. Since homosexuality is not harmful to modern society or individuals, society mays not ethically denigrate gays. 2) The harm is that Collins and millions of Americans are labeled as evil on national TV! That’s pretty harmful. Whether Broussard is a bigot or not, his statement fuels bigotry and discrimination. You can’t see the harm?
In this society we believe that every American has the right to live by the moral code they choose, religious based or not just so long as it does not violate the rights of another, what Broussard’s said was not unethical, and in my opinion it was not bigoted, he was not admonishing nor was he calling for any action against those who did not live by his moral code, to me he seemed to be saying he was not going to celebrate with the rest of them because based on his moral code there was nothing to celebrate. As for ESPN being the proper forum for his views or their decision to retain him it is their call, I don’t believe that his views were inappropriate when prompted nor harmful.
Let me see: Wrong….perhaps, but it doesn’t matter…wrong…huh, and wrong? 1) People can live by whatever moral code they choose, but when it causes them to behave unethically, discriminate, be cruel, be unfair, or disadvantaging other, either the law or social disapproval should step in. Parents who arte fundamentalists have the right to raise their children to be ignorant and crippled in the modern world by rejecting genetics, evolution and physics, and we have a duty to call what they are doing irresponsible and child abuse. 2) At this point, it makes no difference whether he is bigoted or just out of step with society’s values. He’s wrong. 3) When you point to a group of individuals and say they are in opposition to God, you are justifying discrimination and hate. That’s harm. 4) Good job putting words in his mouth, but that’s not what he said. Or meant. 5.) He was not asked to give a discourse on his religious faith or public morality. That’s not his beat.
“My guess is that Collins may be signed because of his basketball skills, but that the NBA will make certain that some team signs him for the other reason…so the league won’t look like a cabal of hypocrites. If I were NBA Commissioner, I would. “
This troubles me as you seem to be putting political/social ends before merit in a situation where merit should be the deciding factor, this as I think most affirmative action plans are, is inherently unethical, or am I misreading and you believe his skill warrants him being signed?
A Commissioner is responsible for the league’s marketability and reputation, and both will suffer if the perception is that the NBA publicly supported Collins but privately blackballed him. His position in basketball is like that of lefty relievers and reserve infielders in baseball. There are always jobs for them, and they are largely fungible. Obviously he should only be signed if he can play, but every year, reserve players who are getting on in years fall out of the league while others who are indistinguishable don’t. I’m saying that in a close call, the reputation of the NBA should get him a job, at least for a while.
Jack,
The site is showing me the email and name boxes over the text window, my apologies for format, hopefully it comes out clear.
S-“Normally when I don’t agree with your conclusion I can at least follow your logic, in this all I see is emotion.”
J-“If you detect emotion, it’s all projection, my friend. My heartbeat is steady, my eye is clear, I have no anger or animus whatsoever. And when i fired Broussard, in I was his boss, it would be with objectivity and good will. His choosing to turn a sports question into a personal statement of faith and moral condemnation was unprofessional. But I’m not upset by it. It has no impact on me at all. I write assertively, often too assertively, but that is style and choice, not emotion.”
If you say so I will take your word, but your style and assertions without laying a down your basis is what lead me to that conclusion.
S-“What has changed? His position is a Bible based moral code, I can understand that you may not except that code or may even disdain it but if you found it ethical before not to regard it as a basis of a bigotry charge how does Broussard’s statement change it? He did not call for a stoning, boycott or any other harm to come to Jason Collins, nor did he single out homosexuals in his stated belief.”
J-What has changed? Society has changed. The ethical standard has changed. The norm has changed, and what is intolerable has changed. There are still kicking moral codes that hold that inter-racial marriage is a sin. Should ESPN let him expound on that? That women should be barefoot and pregnant. Is that acceptable public discourse, as long as a moral code supports it? There are people who believe that the Bible decrees that whites are superior. The belief, we have decided, is destructice, wrong and un-American, so we call people who espouse it “bigots,’ in part to stigmaize the belief.
I don’t think society has changed as much as you think, surly there have been some great leaps but I don’t think it is as far as you believe. Based on this I think it is a dangerous notion to alienate a large portion of the population, a large majority of which are with advancing the rights of the gay community but are reserved on the effect of this change on society. In fact I find it increasingly repulsive and disingenuous to use outliers to denigrate a vast population that is already neutral or supportive of the gay rights movement, just as repulsive and disingenuous as the use of bestiality, incest or pedophilia against the homosexual community. The issue should stand on its own merit and not be a threat to others. It should be about insuring equal rights, not attacking those who live by a different code.
J-With gays fighting for equal treatment under the law, and a majority of society finally coming around to the belief that there is no valid reason to withhold that, the morality based assertion that gays are “sinners” is now in the category of the above disapproved and invalid beliefs—they no longer can or should be accorded respect or tolerance, because the are in direct violation of societal standards and social norms, as well as basic fairness. Once this is know, insisting on such views amounts to an attempt at willful harm to a group that is vulnerable and innocent. At that point, I’m willing to uses “bigotry” for the lack of a better term, even though, being religion-based, it is technically inaccurate. If you have a better one, make sure you are willing to use it to describe white supremacists and Klansmen as well.
I don’t have an issue with going to a source that is working against the movement and challenging them on their merits of their argument. I could even buy off on “bigot” which I think is mostly used just to quash dialog. But to direct it at someone who shows tolerance but who does not subscribe to the same beliefs smacks of thought policing. I draw the line with the bigot label with tolerance, if a person’s morality can be demeaning to a segment of the population but they are not aspiring to force anyone to accept their creed then I give them a pass especially if it is demonstrable that they are in fact tolerant of dissenting codes, it is a violation of the golden rule is it not? More so if in fact that individual despite the fact that his code does not permit that behavior but the support equal rights? That is purely conjecture as it pertains to his support of equal rights, I have no idea but as a general rule this is where I am at. As for apply the term to Klansmen and the like I have no conflict in how I use it, but I can easily combat their ideas without the use.
S-“So the timing is correct in changing ethical standards? Is this a determination that society as a whole or in large part has changed values in regards to homosexuality? I can understand and even see how you could make this determination based on polls stating the majority of the population believes gays should be allowed to marry but I personally do not believe that a true shift in values has occurred, rather I see it as the population accepting that gays may be harmed by not allowing them to marry and applying the Golden rule. I do not believe that the majority approve or applaud homosexuality. Regardless if your faith is placed in nature, nurture or combo, homosexuality has behavior traits (that have cause and effect) that racial and gender discrimination largely does not and as a movement should stand on its own merits.”
J-You’re just wrong, Steve. You’re wrong because nobody can articulate any more a reason not to “approve” of homosexuality that has any basis in logic or fact. As I have written here before, the taboo against homosexuality in primative societies made sense—it was basic Kant: if everybody did it, humanity was doomed. That meant it was wrong, unethical because it endangered society. Social disapproval, including religion, was necessary. It isn’t any more. I have never said that homosexuality should be “applauded” or even encouraged. Encouraging it is potentially suicidal—back to Kant. Allowing it, respecting it, not stigmatizing it—the opposition has run out of valid excuses.
I think plenty do articulate reasons not to approve and some have basis. But that was not exactly my point; my point is I don’t think there has been a full value shift, particularly as a component of “Values” is harm, I think society can see that harm may be caused to the gay community by not allowing gay marriage but are also reserved as to if the gay community will cause harm to society. As a side note, stigmatizing it not necessarily bad, the argument of removing it from divorce was solid in that it allowed women who were in bad situation the ability to escape and not be the town pariah, but the unintended consequences is marriage is nearly meaningless and entered into with very little thought by many. Now I am not trying to muddy the waters or trying to break away from the topic of the post but to provide how I look at things. You look to turn the tables and stigmatize someone who has a moral code he lives by that Collins may not subscribe too. What benefit is in stigmatizing him? I understand your views may be that his religion enables many to denigrate and discriminate those in the gay community but separating those few individuals and combating them not with labels but arguments is essential. Why burn down the apple tree when a little pruning will do? The support is there for the gay community, largely won on merit of their argument, it is senseless to attack and turn neutrals or even supporters into enemies because of indiscriminate targeting.
S-“As a whole the gay community does not suffer from the same damages that women and nonwhites did, the comparison continues to be false.”
J-Steve, with great respect, you do not know what you are talking about. In some ways, gays have suffered more than these abused groups. They have been regarded as lower on the social scale than these groups, for one thing. Go read “The Boys in the Band.” Talk to any gay man or woman over the age of 50, and ask what life was like before Stonewall. Hitler exterminated gays, you know, and nobody much cared. Doesn’t that suggest anything to you?
Are reparation payments due? I didn’t intend on starting a “whose a bigger victim debate. I am talking about the current society and values; my reference in moving away from the comparison is they are not in the same state of inequality as women and blacks were at the height of the civil rights movements. They are also often utilizing terms of superficial identification when it does not apply. That is not giving license for discrimination the point is that they are identified by behavior or admission, which is not a judgment call. The point is as Beth said there is an ick factor to it, the argument being phrased in terms of race and gender does nothing to combat that.
S-“It is not economic as studies show that homosexuals do very well, it is not criminally as every law criminalizing homosexual behaviors has been struck down on one basis or another and it’s not political as the gay community has significant backing and support. I will grant you that gay marriage is a legitimate debate, and you and tgt have really swayed me but I see no basis for condemnation with this case. Unless you propose that the freedom to associate must curtailed as it pertains to homosexuals then there is not much more the gay community can really ask for, unless the true aim is to become a protected class.”
J-Please stop—this is embarrassing. Listen to yourself. Yes, many Jews do very well financially too. Do you really want to try that rationalization? Do you really want to channel Plessy v. Fergusen? Are there really no openly gay readers of Ethics Alarms who will respond to this? That’s disappointing in itself.
Was that an answer? What are the equalities that still need to be addressed?
S-“Society does denigrate citizens based on sexual behaviors, as it does with countless other behaviors, some criminalized, some that are not, you do it yourself everyday based on your own codes. Why this case should Broussard’s beliefs be condemned as wrong and harmful when nothing that was stated was in fact out of line of his moral code nor was it harmful? What harm was done here? Where are the damages?”
J-1) Society properly denigrates harmful conduct, sexual or otherwise. Since homosexuality is not harmful to modern society or individuals, society mays not ethically denigrate gays. 2) The harm is that Collins and millions of Americans are labeled as evil on national TV! That’s pretty harmful. Whether Broussard is a bigot or not, his statement fuels bigotry and discrimination. You can’t see the harm?
I think you are misrepresnting his statement and way overstating effect if any.
S-In this society we believe that every American has the right to live by the moral code they choose, religious based or not just so long as it does not violate the rights of another, what Broussard’s said was not unethical, and in my opinion it was not bigoted, he was not admonishing nor was he calling for any action against those who did not live by his moral code, to me he seemed to be saying he was not going to celebrate with the rest of them because based on his moral code there was nothing to celebrate. As for ESPN being the proper forum for his views or their decision to retain him it is their call, I don’t believe that his views were inappropriate when prompted nor harmful.
J-Let me see: Wrong….perhaps, but it doesn’t matter…wrong…huh, and wrong? 1) People can live by whatever moral code they choose, but when it causes them to behave unethically, discriminate, be cruel, be unfair, or disadvantaging other, either the law or social disapproval should step in. Parents who arte fundamentalists have the right to raise their children to be ignorant and crippled in the modern world by rejecting genetics, evolution and physics, and we have a duty to call what they are doing irresponsible and child abuse. 2) At this point, it makes no difference whether he is bigoted or just out of step with society’s values. He’s wrong. 3) When you point to a group of individuals and say they are in opposition to God, you are justifying discrimination and hate. That’s harm. 4) Good job putting words in his mouth, but that’s not what he said. Or meant. 5.) He was not asked to give a discourse on his religious faith or public morality. That’s not his beat.
1,2 and 3 all sound like policing thought and takes his personal code and stretches it unbelievably far, his statement is not child abuse, nor is it a threat to the gay community, to treat it as such is counterproductive. 4, maybe. 5, he was asked as a Christian, what the hell do you think they expected?
Jack,
The site is showing me the email and name boxes over the text window, my apologies for format, hopefully it comes out clear.
Looks fine from here.
“I don’t think society has changed as much as you think, surly there have been some great leaps but I don’t think it is as far as you believe. Based on this I think it is a dangerous notion to alienate a large portion of the population, a large majority of which are with advancing the rights of the gay community but are reserved on the effect of this change on society. In fact I find it increasingly repulsive and disingenuous to use outliers to denigrate a vast population that is already neutral or supportive of the gay rights movement, just as repulsive and disingenuous as the use of bestiality, incest or pedophilia against the homosexual community. The issue should stand on its own merit and not be a threat to others. It should be about insuring equal rights, not attacking those who live by a different code.”
You’re talking about polls. This has little to do with percentages, but rather relentless wisdom. The Declaration and the Constitution explicitly reject the kind of stigmatization that the treatment of gays has consisted of, and all the arguments and myths supporting it are gone—the same happened to slavery. American ideals and law ALWAYS dictated respect and equal treatment of gays, it just too a while to realize it. Government and law often leads society in ethical matters. What outliers???? We, the US, reject bigotry, and condemning a man or woman for the person they were born to be is bigotry by definition. If one’s religious beliefs involve encouraging or spreading bigotry, society has an interest in telling you to mitigate the harm. My parents died being unable to accept homosexuality, but I didn’t allow them to denigrate my friends who are gay in my presence, and I argued the issue with them for years. That’s not attacking them. That’s bringing them out of the Stone Age, and on this issue, that’s where the nation has been.
J-With gays fighting for equal treatment under the law, and a majority of society finally coming around to the belief that there is no valid reason to withhold that, the morality based assertion that gays are “sinners” is now in the category of the above disapproved and invalid beliefs—they no longer can or should be accorded respect or tolerance, because the are in direct violation of societal standards and social norms, as well as basic fairness. Once this is know, insisting on such views amounts to an attempt at willful harm to a group that is vulnerable and innocent. At that point, I’m willing to uses “bigotry” for the lack of a better term, even though, being religion-based, it is technically inaccurate. If you have a better one, make sure you are willing to use it to describe white supremacists and Klansmen as well.
“I draw the line with the bigot label with tolerance, if a person’s morality can be demeaning to a segment of the population but they are not aspiring to force anyone to accept their creed then I give them a pass especially if it is demonstrable that they are in fact tolerant of dissenting codes, it is a violation of the golden rule is it not?”
No. That doesn’t apply here. Going on national television and calling someone ans a whole segment of the population the spawn of Satan isn’t “not aspiring to force anyone to accept their creed” or being “tolerant of dissenting codes.” Tolerance of that sort is pure pretense. I tolerate you, but you’re the scum of the earth?
“More so if in fact that individual despite the fact that his code does not permit that behavior but the support equal rights?”
This is Plessy. You don’t support equal rights if you want a group hidden away and sequestered.
“I think plenty do articulate reasons not to approve and some have basis. But that was not exactly my point; my point is I don’t think there has been a full value shift, particularly as a component of “Values” is harm, I think society can see that harm may be caused to the gay community by not allowing gay marriage but are also reserved as to if the gay community will cause harm to society.”
See above. The value shift was always there–it just didn’t have enough political power to enforce what was in the nation’s ideals.
“Are reparation payments due? I didn’t intend on starting a “whose a bigger victim debate. I am talking about the current society and values; my reference in moving away from the comparison is they are not in the same state of inequality as women and blacks were at the height of the civil rights movements. They are also often utilizing terms of superficial identification when it does not apply. That is not giving license for discrimination the point is that they are identified by behavior or admission, which is not a judgment call.”
Reparations payments aren’t due to anyone, black or female, but if they were, they would be due to gays as well. Your distinction makes no sense to me. Women have been treated significantly less badly than gays, and they were subjugated pretty badly for a long time. The gays, they just killed.
Was that an answer? What are the equalities that still need to be addressed?
You mean Plessy? Sure, that’s a an answer. You want to have gays isolated and acknowledged as second class, immoral, less than the rest citizens, but sure, they can do everything we do. Negro Leagues, women’s clubs, segregated schools—hey, what inequalities?
Nobody can say, in public, without utter rejection, we can’t vote for this guy—he’s black! We can’t make her an executive—she’s a woman! When it is clearly unacceptable to reject someone for office, a job or association because they are gay, then the inequalities would have been addressed. Broussard’s statement answers your question.
“1,2 and 3 all sound like policing thought and takes his personal code and stretches it unbelievably far, his statement is not child abuse, nor is it a threat to the gay community, to treat it as such is counterproductive. 4, maybe. 5, he was asked as a Christian, what the hell do you think they expected?”
Talking on television isn’t “thinking.” He can think whatever nonsense he chooses, but watch out: see my post today on bigotry.As I wrote elsewhere, the fact he was asked to opine on something he should not be opining on doesn’t excuse his answer. I don’t know or care what the questioner expected. Maybe he was trying to get Broussard to be offensive and controversial.
Jack,
I think we may still be too far apart on this one, although you and tgt have moved me a good way I am not yet ready to be assimilated. Maybe I am not expressing myself clearly, you apparently have come to the conclusion that I am putting forward separate but equal, which was not the intent, maybe it was due to my association line. At any rate, I just cannot get on board that Chris Broussard is the scum of the earth or that he has caused irreparable harm.
Just a correction, Steve..he implied that Collins was the scum of the earth. If I thought Broussard was scum of the earth, I would have suggested he be fired, not just told to keep his religious judgments off the air.
The writer of this column is a coward and bigot! Chris Broussard was well within his constitutional rights to speak on this subject after being asked by the host of the show. If he had said, “I’m proud of Jason Collins”, you wouldn’t have written this stupid piece for anyone to hear your howling. Why not grow your butt up and keep your mouth shut as you are probably a closet case yourself!
Observe, class, the bleat of the uninformed but opinionated Ignoramus Americanus, who 1) believes this story has anything to do with the First Amendment 2) didn’t comprehend the post he presumes to comment on and 3) doesn’t understand the workplace, broadcast journalism, or, it’s just a guess, but a safe one, pretty much anything. Note how he flags his confident and combative stupidity for all to see…using a fake name, of course. We don’t see much of Tony’s kind in these parts. What a thrill!
Jack: You have erred big-time here. You need to reconsider, and you should retract a great deal of what you have “inflicted” here.
If you don’t, you are advocating perpetuation of bigotry – not confronting it (though you think you are), not diminishing it and, “God knows,” not helping anyone to avoid it.
When you start “inflicting” ethics tests on spoken opinions – concluding that one’s speech is ethical, and that the freedom of such speech is a right, but only if and when the speaker refrains from “inflicting opinions” that may be perceived as “ignorant,” “cruel,” or “harmful” – you are inflicting harm on ethics itself, and on anyone who may benefit from considering ethics.
You give the impression that ultimately, you are agreeable with prosecuting “thought crime.” If opinion speech is so harmful that freedom of such speech warrants regulation, i.e., censorship, then it is not a leap of imagination to project that regulators will punish people, even proactively, for the thought, or mere suspicion of the thought, of uttering such speech, even if they stay silent.
I will resist with every force I can bring to bear against the relegation to second-class citizenship (non-citizenship, really) that your position here naturally “progresses” to. If my resistance fails, then you can be assured that I will strive for turnabout, for such will be the new fair play – and you’ll be able to pat yourself on the back for my practicing ethics as you teach them.
What? Have you taken leave of your senses? The misconduct is abuse of position and exposure, not some absolute opinion litmus test. Broussard has every right to his opinion—it’s just an abuse of his role on ESPN to display it on the air, on a sports show, in a sports context, when his only jurisdiction is sports. If I went on Bill O’Reilly’s show to talk about Beyonce’s lip-synching ethics and started criticizing her looks, singing or political opinions, do you not think that Bill would have had an obligation to tell ME to shut up? Broussard’s issue was the player’s decision and its basketball, sports and even social impact. His opinion of who is a good Christian is out of line, irrelevant, and an intrusion.
It’s pretty obvious, I think.
He was a guest on a show designed to discuss sports issues both on and off the field, is apparently fairly well known for holding firm religious beliefs, was chosenand specifically invited onto the show to discuss the topic at hand, and then was asked the question: Host: “Now Chris, he mentioned in his article, Jason, that he’s a Christian as well. So what’s your take on that?”
And it’s an abuse of his role to answer that question honestly.
Or you just really don’t like his opinion, and think he should be punished for daring to state it.
No, its an abuse to answer the question the way he answered it. And the Christian component of the question was also inappropriate. Just because you are asked an inappropriate question doesn’t mean you are obligated to compound the offense.
“Or you just really don’t like his opinion, and think he should be punished for daring to state it.”
Watch it, Aaron, and I only give this warning once. I have no dog in this hunt, and I do not, and have never, advocated stifling opinions I disagree with or that disagree with mine. My field is professional ethics, and I’m rendering a professional opinion that a broadcast journalist shouldn’t be condemning OR PRAISING an individual according to religious beliefs and the individual’s practice of them, when the story has nothing to do with morality or religion, and the journalist is an authority on neither.
How should he have answered it, then? In an open forum, a Christian was invited to speak and asked about his views on the morality of the situation. He responded by correctly identifying the tenets of his faith, and then asserted that while feeling no animosity towards Collins himself, open defiance of the tenets of a faith disqualify one from claiming to be an adherant to the faith – all sound doctrine. There was nothing new, nothing hateful, just an open admission of opinion, as well as a broadly accepted statement of basic church doctrine. What response to that question, on that forum, on that topic, without prevaricating or backing down from his own beliefs would have satisfied you here?
If Chris Broussard was hired because he was a Christian, and if Chritianity was the basis of his commentary in other instances, then that’s something else again. Here’s his Wiki bio. In no source, including ESPN, is Christianity or morality noted as his beat, or even an area of special expertise. His faith is irrelevant, off-topic, out of bounds here. I’ll say it again—if, when I was on The O’Reilly Factor to talk about lip-synching, Bil O had asked me my opinion of her as a singer, I would have passed on the question–and I am a credentialed director of musicals. That was not my area for that appearance, and if I had gone on to slam Beyonce, I would have been way out of line—and so would O’Reilly.
Brousard has neither the power nor the authority to define what being a Christian is—this is presumptuous privately, and in a public forum, outrageous. One reason ESPN should tell Broussard to shut up is that his comment is objectively offensive to a lot of people, including non-gays, who resent this kind of arrogant hoilier-than-thou offal. This hurts ESPN.
Nothing new: “Everybody does it.”
Nothing hateful: So you say. I say calling anyone out as opposed to God is by definition hateful, despite Broussard’s disingenuous “some of my best friends are God-defying sinners” obfuscations.
“I have my private views on this topic, and in this forum, it’s appropriate for them to remain private. Obviously Collins has made a difficult personal choice with some career risks, and he deserves respect for that. A player’s sexual proclivities shouldn’t have any impact on the assessment of his abilities on the court by fans, players or coaches, so this has, perhaps, more significance in the realm of American society than it does in the realm of sports. My realm is sports.”
In no source, including ESPN, is Christianity or morality noted as his beat, or even an area of special expertise. His faith is irrelevant, off-topic, out of bounds here.
Jack, your arguments here don’t make sense. OTL is about non-sports related things. It’s about seeing popular reaction and unpopular reaction to stories. It’s about digging into the greater impact sports has on our communities and the way our communities impact sports. Both good and bad. Broussard was supposed to tell the truth about his beliefs. It was proper for him to do so in this context. That he said his beliefs here isn’t an issue. What his beliefs are is the problem.
Here’s an example: “Brousard has neither the power nor the authority to define what being a Christian is—this is presumptuous privately, and in a public forum, outrageous. ”
Whether Broussard mentions those beliefs or not, he still holds them. No, he doesn’t have the authority to make that decision, but that’s an issue with his beliefs, not with his expression of the beliefs.
I don’t see it that way. I watch the show—it is always about sports. It doesn’t get into foreign policy or tax issues—there is always a sports nexus. Broussard’s comments were irrelevant to sports AND offensive. Do you really think Rob Parker’s comments about RG III being a “cornball brother” would have gotten a pass on OTL? I sure don’t…amd I think Broussard’s comments were worse.
It’s the intersection of sports and culture. If tax issues overlap with sports, it will get into tax issues. I’ve seen OTLs that dive into small town racial issues. I’ve seen OTLs that talk about our justice system. I’ve seen OTLs that talk about how we treat the disabled.
Wherever there is an intersection between sports and something social, there’s an OTL.
Do you really think Rob Parker’s comments about RG III being a “cornball brother” would have gotten a pass on OTL? I sure don’t…amd I think Broussard’s comments were worse.
If the topic of the OTL was RG III and race, then talking about RGIII’s relationship with race would be appropriate. The comments themselves, would be in the same general place as Broussard’s.
When talking about gays and sports, the bigoted Christian perspective is mainstream, so airing it on OTL is appropriate. I think OTL should have immediately called it bigoted (like they would have needed to pushback on “cornball brother”), but the view should be aired. Pretending like the view doesn’t exist (and doesn’t exist extremely widely in the black community (this is basketball after all)) would be inappropriate. Collins coming out was a big deal and deserved an OTL specifically because of how common the bigoted views are.
“What? Have you taken leave of your senses?”
That was one question for you underlying my thinking when I commented May 1-10:44 pm.
“The misconduct is abuse of position and exposure, not some absolute opinion litmus test.”
Chris Broussard’s comments were not misconduct, let alone abuse of anything. Chris Broussard was offered virtually unbounded opportunity to opine, specifically because of his position and exposure. He offended. (Surprise!)
“… – it’s just an abuse of his role on ESPN to display it on the air, on a sports show, in a sports context, when his only jurisdiction is sports.”
That’s ridiculous. It’s the same as saying of a sports fan picked out of a crowd, who is allowed to opine on ESPN while wearing a “Boston Strong” t-shirt, who is called to the mic with a “Hey, you – with the Boston Strong shirt (and never mind the specific question cueing the offer to opine):” “It’s just an abuse of his role on ESPN to display it on the air, on a sports show, in a sports context, when his only jurisdiction is fandom.” (Never mind specifically why “Boston Strong” might be offensive speech to anyone.)
“If I went on Bill O’Reilly’s show to talk about Beyonce’s lip-synching ethics and started criticizing her looks, singing or political opinions, do you not think that Bill would have had an obligation to tell ME to shut up?”
I have no doubt that Bill O’Reilly would interrupt you, if he first gave you the chance to opine on something, or someone, or something that someone did, and you began to exceed the bounds he intended (and expected you to recognize) while you opined. (He would probably interrupt you in any case because of how he works, despite anything about you or what you say.) O’Reilly’s format is significantly different from the OTL format, as I understand (I watch O’Reilly rarely, and can’t recall the last time I watched OTL.) But I take your example as being as irrelevant as me asking you: “If I had a blog on WordPress, and you in your own blog started opining about something that WordPress was compelled to publish some kind of regretful disclaimer about, how would you respond to my blog post that “WordPress should tell Jack Marshall to shut up”?
“His opinion of who is a good Christian is out of line, irrelevant, and an intrusion.”
There’s your confirmation bias. Broussard was being Christian. Whether speaking or not, publicly or not, Christians are inescapably offensive, even between and among themselves, let alone between and among themselves and non-Christians. I said offensive, not bigoted (though no doubt many are bigoted, and many are mistakenly perceived as such and falsely accused as such). I did not say biased, or unbiased; I do agree with you that every person has biases.
You’re missing, somehow, something essential about Christian culture, and it’s really not very different at all from life in other cultures: Relationships. Relating. Commun…ity. Commun…ication. Iron sharpening iron. It doesn’t all go perfectly; “intrusion” is intrinsic and inevitable, because the “lines” for characterizing “out of line” are mostly either unclear, or clear but ever disputable, or nonexistent. The “goers” are not all perfect; they don’t all claim to be. Nor do they all claim to be any “holier” than anyone they are communicating with, though it may be all too easy to mistake one Christian’s upbraiding of another for “holier-than-thou” speech.
“Shut up!” is neither the ideal nor a sufficient educational or correctional communication, for Christians or anyone else; it’s about as anti-social a blunt tool of “socialization” as can be imagined. “Shut up” is simply shouting-down; it does have its proper place under might-makes-right utilitarianism, where the right has sufficient might and does not abuse its power. But – not to go all reductio ad Nazium/reductio ad Hitlerum here – “Shut up!” is particularly insidious, as it can be used as an oppressive expression-inhibiting device whereby anti-social forces control the social.
“Scum of the earth” or “spawn of Satan” is not the Christian’s implied or explicit characterization of a fellow sinner (i.e., human being, whether or not that human is Christian), regardless of whatever is being discussed, confronted, disputed or judged (and regardless of whether or not it is truly a sin). Again, it’s too easy to misjudge a Christian’s offensiveness. The person who has a plank in his eye while noting the speck in the other’s eye is nevertheless, and not any less, in need of the speck being out of the other’s, lest his plank remain overlooked.
Now, I am not appealing for a “sinner’s pass.” I am appealing for reconsideration in honor of, and for the sake of, a few truths. Not all criticism is hateful. Not all tolerance is loving; not all intolerance is hateful. Not all “loving” is worthy of encouragement; not all “hating” is worthy of discouragement. Not all delivery of impact or pain is harmful or cruelty; not all withholding or avoidance of delivering impact or pain is edifying or kindness. I imagine that I am not alone in commending you, Jack, for sustaining an information space that honors those truths, perhaps more reliably than any other I have visited or followed. I have not participated anywhere else on the Internet where I have been more graciously and constructively challenged, disagreed with, admonished, scolded, upbraided, criticized, confronted, reprimanded, rejected, judged and offended as I have experienced while following your blog. I don’t want you to shut up, and I am especially wary of those who would tell you, or appeal for someone else to tell you, to shut up.
Please try to do this: Go on NPR, or better, O’Reilly, with or without Jason Collins and/or Chris Broussard, but preferably, with both of them. Flush-out this controversy some more. I have not heard Collins respond to what Broussard said. What is out there that I might have missed? Has Collins renounced or disclaimed friendship with Broussard for Broussard’s comments on ESPN? Has Collins renounced his Christian faith (yet? – or, am I mistaken that Collins declares himself Christian?)? What else, if anything, have Broussard and Collins said in follow-ups? What more are we finding out about Collins from his past girlfriends? Past boyfriends? Whither the relationship between ESPN and Broussard, and why?
“It’s pretty obvious, I think.” Ditto, in contradiction. (I see now where tgt covered it well.)
I so wish I could continue engaging with other commenters in this thread. I feel especially compelled to “rudely interrupt” that “group hug” of tgt, Charles Green and Beth. Unless I am mistaken or there is impending unforeseen misfortune, none of us will be going away for good anytime soon. But for now, I must be away and for longer than I prefer.
Wow! You have never been a member of the long form club! It almost makes me wish you were right!
“Chris Broussard’s comments were not misconduct, let alone abuse of anything. Chris Broussard was offered virtually unbounded opportunity to opine, specifically because of his position and exposure. He offended. (Surprise!)”
Opportunity does not confer carte blanche permission to violate ethical standards. It was a de facto bigoted opinion, gratuitous, and beyond his authority. Yes, he was given an opportunity to be offensive. And that makes being offensive ethical to you?
“It’s the same as saying of a sports fan picked out of a crowd, who is allowed to opine on ESPN while wearing a “Boston Strong” t-shirt, who is called to the mic with a “Hey, you – with the Boston Strong shirt (and never mind the specific question cueing the offer to opine):”
Surely you don’t believe this! He’s a professional. He has an obligation to stay within professional bounds. The random fan only has a general ethical obligation not to be cruel, and even HE would be unethical to say what Broussard did.
“I have no doubt that Bill O’Reilly would interrupt you, if he first gave you the chance to opine on something, or someone, or something that someone did, and you began to exceed the bounds he intended (and expected you to recognize) while you opined.”
Come on. So as long as one knows one will be interrupted if one says something inappropriate, it’s ethical not to do so, but if one knows one will be allowed to say something offensive, it’s ethical to do so? That’s exactly backward!
“But I take your example as being as irrelevant as me asking you: “If I had a blog on WordPress, and you in your own blog started opining about something that WordPress was compelled to publish some kind of regretful disclaimer about, how would you respond to my blog post that “WordPress should tell Jack Marshall to shut up”?”
Completely wrong. I don’t work for WordPress. WordPress works for me! You are beyond confused, or just foundering desperately
“His opinion of who is a good Christian is out of line, irrelevant, and an intrusion.” There’s your confirmation bias. Broussard was being Christian.
Right, and it’s not his job to be Christian. I’ve seen his job description—it says nothing about religion. It is not lawyers’ jobs to be Christian, or Santors, or doctors, or police officers either. Nor is it Christian to call someone a sinner and in opposition to God on national TV for just telling the truth.
“Shut up!” is neither the ideal nor a sufficient educational or correctional communication, for Christians or anyone else; it’s about as anti-social a blunt tool of “socialization” as can be imagined. “Shut up” is simply shouting-down; it does have its proper place under might-makes-right utilitarianism, where the right has sufficient might and does not abuse its power. But – not to go all reductio ad Nazium/reductio ad Hitlerum here – “Shut up!” is particularly insidious, as it can be used as an oppressive expression-inhibiting device whereby anti-social forces control the social.
Now you are being deliberately dense. I was not talking literally, as you know. Employers have the right and responsibility to tell employyees who are making inappropriate public statements to stop, or, in effect, “shut up.” I doubt many readers misunderstood me.
“Scum of the earth” or “spawn of Satan” is not the Christian’s implied or explicit characterization of a fellow sinner (i.e., human being, whether or not that human is Christian), regardless of whatever is being discussed, confronted, disputed or judged (and regardless of whether or not it is truly a sin). Again, it’s too easy to misjudge a Christian’s offensiveness. The person who has a plank in his eye while noting the speck in the other’s eye is nevertheless, and not any less, in need of the speck being out of the other’s, lest his plank remain overlooked.
Rationalizing. “Opposing God” is much stronger than “fellow sinner,” and you know it.
. Not all criticism is hateful.
Never said otherwise. THIS criticism was. I have yet to find a gay man who does not regard it as hateful. I’d say that is dispositive. If the object of the hate feels that hate is being directed his way, then the expression is full of hate, or hateful.
Good comment though!
“Broussard’s issue was the player’s decision and its basketball, sports and even social impact. His opinion of who is a good Christian is out of line, irrelevant, and an intrusion.”
***********
The distinction here is subtle but it is a distinction nonetheless.
Out on the net to further my reading on the matter I see there are several Christian groups protesting Broussard’s statements; I wonder what can we take from that?
Bigotry aside, I can’t shake the icky feeling that this was a planned ratings grab / image spin.
Now everyone can ooh and aah over how stodgy old ESPN has become all hip, urban and edgy.
Just like our president, they “evolved”.
@@
Good thought; I doubt it. I think ESPN’s reaction was wimpy and stupid, vaguely saying they regretted the distraction, but not having the guts to say Broussard was out of line. If it was a plan, it was an astoundingly bad one.
*I meant to paragraph after “nonetheless”.
Two different thoughts.
Not to confuse anyone.
Fixed it!
Thanks for the correction.
Does being a bigot based on your religious beliefs make you any less of a bigot?
That is my question for the day.
For myself or anyone.
Does being a bigot based on your religious beliefs make you any less of a bigot?
Of course not. Religious beliefs are just like any other strongly held, irrational beliefs. I can’t think of a good reason to grant them an exception.
—
As an aside, if you use the bottom reply button, it will start a new reply thread. Using the reply button at the bottom of a comment will group your comment after that comment in the same thread. That tends to be the standard here.
You may recall that I disagree with this, at least technically. “Bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, and intolerance on the basis of a person’s race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, language, socioeconomic status, or other status.” If the mindset results from a moral code of religious teaching, the individual is following divine orders, not being bigot.
Results: identical.
If the mindset results from a moral code of religious teaching, the individual is following divine orders, not being bigot.
And you still have yet to show how beliefs that someone sees are based on divine orders are different than beliefs that someone just thinks.
If your moral code is based on Yahweh or your moral code is based on Looney Tunes, they’re still just invalid, faith based beliefs.
They are both invalid.
But bigotry is volitional, while faith is mandatory. You don’t need to believe in the tenet of the faith, just believe that you should not violate the code.
A lot of the Nazis weren’t bigoted against Jews. They just cared about their following orders more.
You’re missing the point. Faith is only mandatory because the person believes it’s mandatory…just like anything else they believe.
Your nazi analogy is flawed. The Nazi has someone forcing him to act, and his beliefs are different from the actions. The faith based person doesn’t have an outside force forcing him to act, and his beliefs are identical to his actions.
I’m only weighing in on this because I skimmed through most of this discussion since it was already unwieldy by the time I joined it. Your comment happened to be at the bottom and very easy to read.
The Nazi analogy is apt. Thinking that Nazi’s acted because they were forced from above betrays a lack of knowledge of German cultural values of that time.
The whole point of religion,as a form of social control, is that one’s beliefs are irrelevant. All one has to do is believe that the authority is valid, and that it knows best—and that there will be rewards for obeying and penalties for not. That ensures conduct. When I argue with people who believe, because of religion, that gays are engaged in sin, and ask why, the answer is, as often as not, “Because God says so, and I believe in God.” Not “Because I believe all gays are sinners.”
“What God says” is completely determined by the person claiming it. They choose the beliefs.
Then Jack’s setup fails.
Why? because you didn’t get it?
No, because Jack’s example was specifically of a Nazi being forced to act against his beliefs. “A lot of the Nazis weren’t bigoted against Jews. They just cared about their following orders more.”
Except you are wrong again and as you so bemoan, repeating an argument after having been shown how yours is wrong.
The Nazi’s weren’t forced…
I’m not repeating a debunked argument. The setup for Jack’s example included nonbigoted Nazis. If the Nazi’s were bigoted, then his example either isn’t relevant, or was a hypothetical where the actual beliefs of Nazis didn’t exist.
That made absolutely no sense whatsoever.
His analogy is still appropriate and you still don’t realize that some people may value the virtue of duty over other virtues.
tex,
I assumed you were saying that the people had bigoted beliefs. My mistake.
That the people had a sense of duty doesn’t make Jack’s analogy valid. The duty creates the force. This is different from faith because faith is internally chosen, and the Nazi commands were externally decided.
The argument seems to be that ESPN should reprimand Broussard for denigrating comments about gays. The problem is that I dont see denigrating comments about gays…nor do I see him inflicting his viewpoint on anyone. If read correctly, he was asked for his opinion and he delivered it as respectfully as I’ve ever seen the classic “homosexuality is a sin” bit be delivered.
I agree that, if he was denigrating gays he should be reprimanded. So I guess what Im looking for is, exactly how his speech was denigrating, or if other factors went into to the ethics foul call.
You don’t see saying that a group is in opposition to God as denigrating? Do religious people like, respect or admire those who are in opposition to God? God is Good—opposition to God is opposing Good, ergo one who is a member of such a group is not Good, but the opposite: Evil.
This was diplomatically phrased hate, but it was hate, encourages hateful beliefs and validates hateful conduct.
Of course Broussard was denigrating gays, and fully intended to.
Im rushing a bit for an appointment that I have today but…
I can see it being denigrating if the group isnt in opposition to God. That would clearly be an unfair criticism. But its fairly well established in the Christian religion that homosexuality opposes God’s will. So its a fair criticism for a Christian to make. If you disagree with the God’s will idea, that’s cool but you must also be tolerant of other’s interpretations of God’s will, especially when that interpretation is consistent with a religion that our society affords a great deal of legitimacy to (versus for example a no name religion: what Algothor the One True God says).
Since the language was not directly denigrating, and the sentiment expressed cannot reasonably be characterized as unfair, and because the language used was certainly diplomatic in its delivery I think its a bit of a stretch to say unethical here.
This doesn’t work, Jeremy. You are saying, essentially, that if your belief is that a group is the scum of the earth, then its not denigration to say so. The KKK sincerely believes that Jews and blacks are the scum of the earth, but if they say so publicly, it’s still denigration. The words and perceived meaning by the public is what counts, not whatever authority, myths, misconceptions or traditions are behind the remarks. “In opposition to God” is pretty unequivocal.
“The words and perceived meaning by the public is what counts”
Exactly right. That’s why I included the clause about legitimacy. Christianity as a set of beliefs is seen as being far more legitimate than would another less established religion (like Scientology) or in this case the KKK. So when Christianity says that homosexuality is against God’d will, that is a factual statement for them, and its one that carries a lot of weight in our society.
“factual statement for them
There’s your fail.
If I read correctly…