OT: Jason Collins Announcement

[Philly Cat]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/magazine/news/20130429/jason-collins-gay-nba-player/

Courageous. And I think the fact that he's a twin (who is apparently heterosexual) makes it even more interesting.

[CGWildcat]

Is it more brave/courageous to be gay when it's approved and defended by the medial, or pro-life when its ridiculed by the media?

[bigsky]

Let's ask Amos n Andy...

[elicat]

Is it more brave/courageous to be gay when it's approved and defended by the medial, or pro-life when its ridiculed by the media?

Exactly. It's either courageous or opportunistic.

[Krank]

Is it more brave/courageous to be gay when it's approved and defended by the medial, or pro-life when its ridiculed by the media?

In this society, it is always brave to come out, especially in an ultra-machismo environment like sports. Media coverage is irrelevant when one is subject to extreme prejudice on a daily basis on an individual and professional level.

I have no idea what a completely unrelated issue like abortion rights has to do with that so that comment just confuses me.

[Philly Cat]

I apologize for the post. I viewed the article as courageous, and I didn't think it begged any questions of "comparative courage," but I nonetheless realize that this is a charged topic for a lot of people. Probably better to focus on the things that unite us as UK fans and not sow conflict. Mods should feel free to remove the post, and my apologies again.

[Crazy4Blue]

I don't understand why anyone needs to "come out". You never hear anyone come out and announce they are straight. I could be wrong but it always appears to be an agenda thing when this occurs.

[elicat]

I don't understand why anyone needs to "come out". You never hear anyone come out and announce they are straight. I could be wrong but it always appears to be an agenda thing when this occurs.
Yes. That is exactly my view. Why do people feel the need to make such an issue out of this stuff? Not that I don't know: "Here's an empty spotlight, with guaranteed treatment as a courageous hero by CNN and ESPN. Wanna stand in it?" I completely agree with the idea that people should be allowed to have the life they want, but if they want me to stand up and cheer, too bad.

[suncat05]

I'm in agreement with elicat.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Yes. That is exactly my view. Why do people feel the need to make such an issue out of this stuff? Not that I don't know: "Here's an empty spotlight, with guaranteed treatment as a courageous hero by CNN and ESPN. Wanna stand in it?" I completely agree with the idea that people should be allowed to have the life they want, but if they want me to stand up and cheer, too bad.


Talk to gay people and ask them, it will make a whole lot of sense.

[ukpumacat]

I don't understand why anyone needs to "come out". You never hear anyone come out and announce they are straight.

Not the same in the least. As Stu said, sit down and have a conversation with a gay person. It will make way more sense.

[elicat]

Talk to gay people and ask them, it will make a whole lot of sense.

No, actually it won't. I was a graduate student at Yale in the early 90s (thus "Eli"). If it was ever going to make sense, it would have then and there. I assure you I have talked with very many gay people for many, many years. The whole quest for validation by "coming out" has never made sense to me and I suspect talking with one more gay person is unlikely to be the tipping point, though no doubt I will have that opportunity sooner rather than later.

[ukpumacat]

How about just take a logical approach to it:
In life, we announce change. We don't announce status quo (unless there was a distinct possibility of change). UK doesn't need to announce Cal is coming back next year. He is already here. It is assumed he is coming back.
If he were to leave, that would be a change, therefore an announcement.
In the world we live in, "straight" is the status quo. It is considered the normative. It is what people (the vast majority) assume by default (I am not going to spend the time explaining or defending that; there are obvious examples with children, etc).
So, it doesn't need to be announced someone is straight. Its what is already assumed.
Being gay is not assumed. Its a change in assumption (and a lot of other things). Therefore, an announcement. Seems pretty easy to understand to me. :confused0024:

[badrose]

How about just take a logical approach to it:
In life, we announce change. We don't announce status quo (unless there was a distinct possibility of change). UK doesn't need to announce Cal is coming back next year. He is already here. It is assumed he is coming back.
If he were to leave, that would be a change, therefore an announcement.
In the world we live in, "straight" is the status quo. It is considered the normative. It is what people (the vast majority) assume by default (I am not going to spend the time explaining or defending that; there are obvious examples with children, etc).
So, it doesn't need to be announced someone is straight. Its what is already assumed.
Being gay is not assumed. Its a change in assumption (and a lot of other things). Therefore, an announcement. Seems pretty easy to understand to me. :confused0024:

Couldn't he just as easily hold hands with his partner in public?

[ukpumacat]

Couldn't he just as easily hold hands with his partner in public?

I'm not defending or explaining him writing an article in SI. I am explaining why people "come out". 99% of gay people who do, do that to family (as he did), not in a magazine.
And in that case, its very wise to talk with family first (ie "coming out"), before doing anything public. I can assure you that is what almost every gay person, family of a gay person, and counselors would tell you.
Maybe there will be a day years down the road where its not an assumption that you are straight. Maybe there will be a day that you don't have to "come out", and you can take your advice and just "be". Just hold hands with your partner in public, and there is no shock factor or relational damage done with your family.
Today is not that day.

[Crazy4Blue]

How about just take a logical approach to it:
In life, we announce change. We don't announce status quo (unless there was a distinct possibility of change). UK doesn't need to announce Cal is coming back next year. He is already here. It is assumed he is coming back.
If he were to leave, that would be a change, therefore an announcement.
In the world we live in, "straight" is the status quo. It is considered the normative. It is what people (the vast majority) assume by default (I am not going to spend the time explaining or defending that; there are obvious examples with children, etc).
So, it doesn't need to be announced someone is straight. Its what is already assumed.
Being gay is not assumed. Its a change in assumption (and a lot of other things). Therefore, an announcement. Seems pretty easy to understand to me. :confused0024:

So everytime there is something we can't assume, we should announce it?

[MTcatfan]

The reason this is courageous and important is that he can now live his life as who he is and doesn't have to hide it. The reason he had to "come out"is because in the past society and probably a lot of his peers expected him to hide who he was, and now he doesn't. This thread I think illustrates to a T why this is important, to call finally feeling you can live life as who you are as "opportunistic" just shows why people like Jason have to come out. Hopefully someday this won't be necessary, but for now or is necessary as to help other athletes understand they can be gay and live their lives without hiding an important part of themselves.

[MTcatfan]

I'm not defending or explaining him writing an article in SI. I am explaining why people "come out". 99% of gay people who do, do that to family (as he did), not in a magazine.
And in that case, its very wise to talk with family first (ie "coming out"), before doing anything public. I can assure you that is what almost every gay person, family of a gay person, and counselors would tell you.
Maybe there will be a day years down the road where its not an assumption that you are straight. Maybe there will be a day that you don't have to "come out", and you can take your advice and just "be". Just hold hands with your partner in public, and there is no shock factor or relational damage done with your family.
Today is not that day.


Well said.

[ukpumacat]

So everytime there is something we can't assume, we should announce it?

You asked why someone "comes out" if they are gay, but not if they are straight. I answered you in a logical and simple way. I also answered you in a way that is not predicated on someone's viewpoint on the topic (which is nearly impossible to do). Obviously, my answer did not suffice (shocker!), and I doubt I could explain it in any way that would change your mind. You are, of course, completely entitled to your opinion, as am I.
I have worked with and counseled many gay people, and it is very clear to me why they need to come out to family and friends. Very, very clear.

[elicat]

How about just take a logical approach to it:

Okay, here's a logical approach: Live your life and quit being so d**n dependent. (That is all.)

[CGWildcat]

Philly, in NO way am I questioning your thoughts on the post. Please understand that. I live in Petaluma, CA, just above San Freaking Francisco. The "gay" factor out here is everywhere. It's a non-issue to me. I see it daily and quite honestly as long as anyone is a productive member of society and leaving me alone then go about your business. I used the pro-life simply as a comparative with all the talk of the Kermit Gosnell trial.

On another note, I had dinner with an UBER LIBERAL lady not long ago. We talked politics, beliefs etc. At the end of the night she said to me, speaking of herself, "I really thought I had an open mind but now I realize I really don't nor do a lot of my friends." Today she wrote to tell me she had coffee with other "uber lefties" (her words) and said, I can't believe how "right of center I really am of all their thoughts."

Last thing, Marina Navratilova "came out" in 1981....Collins is 2nd. He will probably lead the NBA in rebounds next year though. :party0035:

I apologize for the post. I viewed the article as courageous, and I didn't think it begged any questions of "comparative courage," but I nonetheless realize that this is a charged topic for a lot of people. Probably better to focus on the things that unite us as UK fans and not sow conflict. Mods should feel free to remove the post, and my apologies again.

[suncat05]

I don't care what anyone's sexual orientation is. Just act like a civilized human being, that's all I want. If you're gay, good for you, live your life as you see fit and I wish you all the happiness in the world.

[Krank]

I have worked with and counseled many gay people, and it is very clear to me why they need to come out to family and friends. Very, very clear.

Me too. I have had, for many many years, a number of GBLT friends. The frequency of disturbingly true stories that I have been told by so many of them (and seen confirmed with my own eyes on many many occasions) concerning how dreadfully they have been treated, either upon coming out or even prior to that, depending on the person, makes it an easy thing to understand.

I have been saddened to many times by situations told to me that involve being in constant fear for one's life, just for being SUSPECTED of being gay, bi, lesbian, or transgendered. Why would anyone want to live in fear for their life because of a simple human feeling like sexual identity?

Why does anyone deserve to be legally hated for freely and consensually choosing to have sex with who they want? Why has it been necessary for public service announcements to be broadcast to combat the shockingly accepted and always extremely negatively slanted "that's so gay!!!" phrase popular with children across the country?

The hatred of GBLT folks is obvious and all around us. I don't understand why it is not as obvious to others, although my guess is that many prefer to imagine that it is not as bad as they would like to think.

In any event, the fear is real and the idea that homophobia is not a very strong and real problem in our culture has very little, IMO, to do with typical "us vs. them" politics, the type that is so overly and lazily promoted that folks seem to relish buying into it more than questioning the relative logic of complex issues being boiled down to TWO extreme options, and more to do with REAL personal experiences that GBLT folks have had in their past, see everyday in their present, and hope to improve in their future.

I don't have a problem with their "agenda" because I know how difficult it is for them to simply live as equally respected citizens in this country. The homophobic masses have given them no choice but to have a political agenda. What minority has NOT had to develop one?

[ukpumacat]

Okay, here's a logical approach: Live your life and quit being so d**n dependent. (That is all.)

The majority of time a person comes out it is not for them; it is for the benefit of their family and friends. The family and friends (or teammates) are the ones who make it difficult to "come out" and are also the ones who need the "announcement".
It would only take one time for someone to be a fly on the wall when someone comes out to their family (depending on the situation), and you will very quickly discover why there is a need for it (before going public), and why it is so difficult. I have been there several times for it, and it can be gut-wrenching.

[MTcatfan]

I guess I will go there, but the reason the people are coming out is to make it okay for everyone else to live as who they are. It is a sad state of affairs that in todays society this is happening, but in athletics until recently it was basically Martina Navratilova and that was it. I guess I see it similar to someone in the 60's asking the following:



"Why do they want to drink from our water fountains, their water fountains work just as good."



Now the gay people have it tons and tons better than the black people did during the civil right movement, but to me the fact that not all gays can be who they are and live life as free as everyone else means that people like Jason Collins have to "come out" to be role models for other gay athletes. I most certainly hope that some day no one has to "come out" and it can just be 90% of the time, just as it is for color of skin minorities.

[ukpumacat]

means that people like Jason Collins have to "come out" to be role models for other gay athletes.

I wanted to make that point earlier, but wanted to avoid anyone feeling "attacked" on here for their viewpoint. I just think its interesting that Collins writes that article in SI, and some make an assumption that it is for money, promotion, etc., and no one (until now) considers that it is for the sake of other young, gay athletes. Glad you said it.

[CGWildcat]

On a lighter note, as someone on twitter said.....now if we can just get someone from the WNBA to come out as "openly straight!"

[bigsky]

Not the same in the least. As Stu said, sit down and have a conversation with a gay person. It will make way more sense.

Yes. It if you live in a community where a gay teenager has killed himself. You'll get the reasons for as many life affirming role models and accepting community statements as possible.

This is big sports news, but its big
Impact will be on people who might not otherwise survive their adolescence.

[MickintheHam]

I apologize for the post. I viewed the article as courageous, and I didn't think it begged any questions of "comparative courage," but I nonetheless realize that this is a charged topic for a lot of people. Probably better to focus on the things that unite us as UK fans and not sow conflict. Mods should feel free to remove the post, and my apologies again.

You know, I just yawn when I hear this type of stuff. So, someone who is an athlete is gay. What's the big deal? I've worked with people all my life who are gay. The only thing of value is the gossip it creates for those who will exploit it for their personal financial gain. That's all SI is doing. Blogs will be full of it for a week and then it dies. I think this was an attempt to get out in front of the NFL's "Big Announcement", which apparently is imminent.

I frankly think it is a shame that people can't live their lives in private as they see fit. I'm still not sure why our entire society now feels compelled to go public with their sexual preferences. It truly does not matter.

[MickintheHam]

I guess I will go there, but the reason the people are coming out is to make it okay for everyone else to live as who they are. It is a sad state of affairs that in todays society this is happening, but in athletics until recently it was basically Martina Navratilova and that was it. I guess I see it similar to someone in the 60's asking the following:



"Why do they want to drink from our water fountains, their water fountains work just as good."



Now the gay people have it tons and tons better than the black people did during the civil right movement, but to me the fact that not all gays can be who they are and live life as free as everyone else means that people like Jason Collins have to "come out" to be role models for other gay athletes. I most certainly hope that some day no one has to "come out" and it can just be 90% of the time, just as it is for color of skin minorities.

For the record it was Billie Jean Moffitt King who was the first in women's tennis. That was likely in the 70s. But, there have also been several retired male football and basketball players who have come out. There was a former NFL player who right after he retired announced his orientation. I believe it was David Kopay. From my perspective Gays have had models for a long time that they could pattern their lives after. And people who served to say it is ok. It just so happens none was an active player in MLB, the NFL, or NBA. In every other walk of life there have been role models for a long time.

[MTcatfan]

You know, I just yawn when I hear this type of stuff. So, someone who is an athlete is gay. What's the big deal? I've worked with people all my life who are gay. The only thing of value is the gossip it creates for those who will exploit it for their personal financial gain. That's all SI is doing. Blogs will be full of it for a week and then it dies. I think this was an attempt to get out in front of the NFL's "Big Announcement", which apparently is imminent.

I frankly think it is a shame that people can't live their lives in private as they see fit. I'm still not sure why our entire society now feels compelled to go public with their sexual preferences. It truly does not matter. I don't care. For the record any of us who played HS sports or belongs to the YMCA has taken a shower with someone who is gay. Would knowing specifically who was gay have made a difference in your life? I don't get it.


No it would not have, but really what Jason did is not about your or me, it is about making life better for those that are afraid to be who they are, that is why this is a big deal. When this stuff is brought out into the open, and the MAJORITY yawn like you do, then it shows those that are afraid to be themselves, that it really isn't a big deal. Well in the nonathletic venues we have had plenty of people telling others that it doesn't matter, but we need ATHLETES and more specifically MALE ATHLETES to show it doesn't matter to help those athletes that are suffering with their sexuality to see that it doesn't matter. When we finally get to this point then we won't get stories about athletes coming out.

For the male athlete we need to get to the point where were were a couple weeks ago when Brittney Griner was asked about her sexuality and she was like who cares I have always been out everyone always knew, and it was a story for about 5 seconds. Unfortunately in the male athletic world we are not there yet, and people like Jason Collins are going to help us eventually get to the point that no one actually cares. I mean in the male athletic world we are still at the point where the tabloid media starts a mainstream media buzz when it catches the SON of a male athlete with his male partner. Apparently there has to be an issue when the fact that Magic Johnsons KID makes mainstream news because TMZ takes a picture of him holding his boyfriends hand. When the male athletic world gets to your point Mick, of not caring then a male athletes kid being gay will never even make it to print, but we are not there yet.


(FYI, I am not attacking you Mick at all, I commend your attitude of not caring, I wish more people were like you, I am just explaining I feel you are actually in the minority with this issue)

[TonyRay]

I thought I was going to stay away from this but here it goes. All my Christian life I have been taught it was a sin, whether it is or not is not my judgement but I have also been taught to hate the sin but not the person too. I don't understand it but don't hate someone who is but also think it is ones personal choice. He will be celebrated but not sure why and some will put him up there with the likes of Jackie Robinson but I don't think in today's time it is even close. It doesn't matter to me when I watch someone play sports what their sexual orientation is but rather how well they play. I don't like the term homophobic because I truly don't believe anyone has an actual fear of a homosexual. It is hard for one who leans conservative and is old fashioned in how he thinks one ought to act and work to not be attacked for their views in today's world. Really I just don't care that he came out at this time.

[elicat]

Yep. Anybody remember that gym that ages ago used to be at the intersection of the Circle and Richmond Road? A karate instructor owned it. When I was in Jr. High and High school I used to swim and work out there. There were several then-current NFL players whose homosexuality was an open secret who worked out there. It was not that big a deal. Now people seem to feel that everyone has to acknowledge it or it doesn't quite count. I worked at the old Darryl's restaurant with the wife of one of them, and her affairs with various managers were just as open and just as secret. More or less decent, more or less flawed people just lived their lives. There was not some perfect camelot back in the old days, but at least athletes and others didn't think they had to be on TV or in Sports Illustrated for their private choices to be valid.

[Edward100]

We all know this is a chosen life style by those who practice it. Why do people feel the need to “Come out” at all? I don’t condone being gay any quite frankly don’t want to know who is gay. The people involved know and that should be enough. There is no need to make a statement public or private.

[bigsky]

We all know this is a chosen life style by those who practice it. Why do people feel the need to “Come out” at all? I don’t condone being gay any quite frankly don’t want to know who is gay. The people involved know and that should be enough. There is no need to make a statement public or private.

When did you "choose" to be a heterosexual?

[ukpumacat]

We all know this is a chosen life style by those who practice it.

And there the thread goes.

[MTcatfan]

We all know this is a chosen life style by those who practice it. Why do people feel the need to “Come out” at all? I don’t condone being gay any quite frankly don’t want to know who is gay. The people involved know and that should be enough. There is no need to make a statement public or private.

Really...

[CitizenBBN]

When did you "choose" to be a heterosexual?

I was 15. From time to time I regret it.

[BigBlueBrock]

We all know this is a chosen life style by those who practice it. Why do people feel the need to “Come out” at all? I don’t condone being gay any quite frankly don’t want to know who is gay. The people involved know and that should be enough. There is no need to make a statement public or private.

Actually, no, we don't all know that. Some believe it because it allows them to marginalize, castigate, and/or terrorize a subset of the population they believe to be engaging in "deviant" behavior "because the Bible tells them so." These people choose to be ignorant because it makes their lives more simplistic and easier to understand.

[bigsky]

+1 bbb

[Edward100]

Anything we do is by choice. However, we all have to deal with our choices. A person doesn’t have to get out of bed, eat or do anything but if he does he chooses to do so. A person’s life style is by choice. If it’s not then it is called rape, human trafficking or some other title. Being said he chooses his life style is a true statement, is it not?


There is no need for “Coming out” for any life style including drug abuse, alcoholism or a number of others. I don’t have to answer for anyone’s choices but my own. I really don’t want to know about anyone’s choices if they don’t affect me or my family. “Don’t ask; don’t tell” works for me.

[BigBlueBrock]

Anything we do is by choice. However, we all have to deal with our choices. A person doesn’t have to get out of bed, eat or do anything but if he does he chooses to do so. A person’s life style is by choice. If it’s not then it is called rape, human trafficking or some other title. Being said he chooses his life style is a true statement, is it not?


There is no need for “Coming out” for any life style including drug abuse, alcoholism or a number of others. I don’t have to answer for anyone’s choices but my own. I really don’t want to know about anyone’s choices if they don’t affect me or my family. “Don’t ask; don’t tell” works for me.

This is all wrong.

[TonyRay]

When did you "choose" to be a heterosexual?

When I was a young lad and saw this,
2067

I don't think it is a choice, there could be a few but for 99% no, and I don't want to condemn them for it. Hard decision to do so but not nearly as hard as it would have been say his first year in the league and definitely not as hard as it would have been 30-40 years ago.

[MTcatfan]

It is not a choice, period. This is something determined by genetics, and while I truly believe God has a hand in genetics, sexual orientation is determined by genetics.

Let me tell you a story about myself...I am adopted, and at the age of 30 I found my birth parents. When I met my birth mother and we talked about our lives and likes and dislikes, it became apparent to me that genetics have a HUGE factor in determining our lives. Why else is there is woman, who gave birth to me, but I never met for THIRTY years, so similar to myself. She is a history teacher, I came very, very close to becoming a history teacher, but I could get out of UK sooner with a business degree so I went the business route. We both like the same sports, we both have the same interest in history outside our professions, we both read the same authors, we are both very musical, we both love to debate and discuss political and sports issues, and there are tons of other things that we are almost exactly alike. So how in the heck did this happen? Is is coincidence? Was it environment? I don't think so, I grew up in a house where no one was musical, dad was a doctor, mom a homemaker, no one was really that interested in reading for fun, so how would my environment make me who I am? As far as my birth father goes my personality is almost exactly like his, and again environmentally speaking I grew up mostly with my mother, who was a very outgoing Lucielle Ball type personallity, but I am a quiet, reserved person.

So imho, I view so much of myself as determined by genetics, that I just can't believe that something so huge as to sexual orientation is a true "choice", so many trivial things had to have been genetics in my case, that I just can't see anything that isn't trivial about ourselves being a "choice"

I guess to me the only "choice" you have with sexual orientation is you could "choose" to ignore an important part of yourself, but in all reality you are what your body and your mind tells you no matter how you act. To be forced by relationships, religion or society to feel you should "choose" to be what you are not is deplorable to me.

[ukpumacat]

I don't ever visit this particular board, but since I am now engaged in the conversation (from before it was moved) I simply want to add one thing. I hope this discussion does not become a religious one. I say that because when it does, it tends to go downhill very, very quickly. It also tends to get more passionate and hurtful. I know some on here are Christians, and many are not. I simply want to say one thing that there is no way I could defend or explain on a forum (I could in person):
You can absolutely be a Christian and believe the Bible and not hate gay people (not that any on here do), be against gay marriage, or think its a choice (or even a "sin" for that matter). Many people believe that is not a possibility, but it absolutely is.
Just wanted to throw that out there...carry on.

[CGWildcat]

Thanks for the added input Puma. To take it just a step farther......some on here are Christians, and many are not.....as you said. I wonder how many on here (I have no idea nor care either way) are gay and still not out? Could any of our words be hurtful to them and make them more reclusive? Perhaps someone on here looks at Jason Collins as "the" person to make them stand up and speak up for themselves within their lives.

Let's remember our respect for each other and what brings us together as our own little crazy ass community.


I don't ever visit this particular board, but since I am now engaged in the conversation (from before it was moved) I simply want to add one thing. I hope this discussion does not become a religious one. I say that because when it does, it tends to go downhill very, very quickly. It also tends to get more passionate and hurtful. I know some on here are Christians, and many are not. I simply want to say one thing that there is no way I could defend or explain on a forum (I could in person):
You can absolutely be a Christian and believe the Bible and not hate gay people (not that any on here do), be against gay marriage, or think its a choice (or even a "sin" for that matter). Many people believe that is not a possibility, but it absolutely is.
Just wanted to throw that out there...carry on.

[CitizenBBN]

Thanks for the added input Puma. To take it just a step farther......some on here are Christians, and many are not.....as you said. I wonder how many on here (I have no idea nor care either way) are gay and still not out? Could any of our words be hurtful to them and make them more reclusive? Perhaps someone on here looks at Jason Collins as "the" person to make them stand up and speak up for themselves within their lives.

Let's remember our respect for each other and what brings us together as our own little crazy ass community.

It's a dead mortal lock some of our members are gay, and some are not public about it. All but a given statistically.

As for Collins, it's "brave" in that within the profession he works I guarantee there is some strong anti-homosexual sentiment, but obviously outside of that interaction the broader media and such will laud him so he doesn't face complete castigation. So I see it as a mixed bag in terms of "bravery". As for purpose I can't speak to that, only he can.

[Padukacat]

Whether or not one is genetically determined to be something does not necessarily mean they have become such until they act upon it. I do not know this but I would assume there are many Christian people genetically inclined to be homosexuals that have fought the urge because they are committed to their religion, and I would assume those individuals do not want to be called homosexual because they've not acted upon it. Does the mere suppressed desire make them homosexuals? I lived with two twin brothers in college, total opposites and one just came out finally after years of hiding it. Thought that was worth mentioning because its similar to this story. It's a tough situation, even when you aren't in the spotlight. So what do you people say, are you a homosexual if you are not acting on it? Ill hang up and listen I'm really interested in the response because most of the above argument is based upon this answer and I'm not sure we've answered.

[Doc]

I don't understand why anyone needs to "come out". You never hear anyone come out and announce they are straight. I could be wrong but it always appears to be an agenda thing when this occurs.

I'd decided to confess to all on this site that I am ........... heterosexual. Yes, I love a woman with a nice butt and big ol' ######. Please don't hate on me for that.

As for Jason Collins, put me in the category that "couldn't not care less".

[Doc]

Talk to gay people and ask them, it will make a whole lot of sense.

I don't know if I know any "gay people". I'm sure I do, I'm sure I've talked to them but their sexuality has never come up.

[Doc]

Last thing, Marina Navratilova "came out" in 1981....Collins is 2nd.

Several others have "come out". Johnny Weir for example. Here (http://www.policymic.com/articles/21621/10-courageous-athletes-who-came-out-as-gay-in-2012) is a list from last year. Brittany Griner a few weeks ago along with several in the WNBA. Earliest reference I could find was Bill Tilden who won Wimbledon in the 20's.

[BigBlueBrock]

Whether or not one is genetically determined to be something does not necessarily mean they have become such until they act upon it. I do not know this but I would assume there are many Christian people genetically inclined to be homosexuals that have fought the urge because they are committed to their religion, and I would assume those individuals do not want to be called homosexual because they've not acted upon it. Does the mere suppressed desire make them homosexuals? I lived with two twin brothers in college, total opposites and one just came out finally after years of hiding it. Thought that was worth mentioning because its similar to this story. It's a tough situation, even when you aren't in the spotlight. So what do you people say, are you a homosexual if you are not acting on it? Ill hang up and listen I'm really interested in the response because most of the above argument is based upon this answer and I'm not sure we've answered.

If you are a man and are exclusively attracted to other men, then you are a homosexual regardless of whether or not you "suppress" your urges in order to conform to backwards religious intolerance.

[Edward100]

This is all wrong.

Please explain that what we do is not by choice. Being forced to do something can’t be in the conversation because it doesn’t give you a choice. A person is shot by a drive-by shooter; the victim doesn’t have a choice. Robbing a bank does give a person a choice to the robber. He has to make the choice and has to live with the consequences. The man who kills the kids in the classroom did so by choice.


A person life style is by choice. If my dad was an alcoholic, does that mean I will be one, too? If my mother was a drug addict, does that mean I have no choice? If I lived in a slum, does that mean I can’t get out and better myself? Absolutely not!

Generics define many of our attributes but our life style is by choice. If not by choice then a person is likely to be in prison of a slave to someone.

[Catmandrew]

We all know this is a chosen life style by those who practice it. Why do people feel the need to “Come out” at all? I don’t condone being gay any quite frankly don’t want to know who is gay. The people involved know and that should be enough. There is no need to make a statement public or private.

FACEPALM......That is all.

[elicat]

You can absolutely be a Christian and believe the Bible and not hate gay people

2068

[blueboss]

Back in the day I worked in the restaurant and bar biz, most of my stints were behind the bar and on the beverage side. Not trying to stereotype but there were a lot of gay waiters on the food side.

A group of us employees at one particular restaurant get together for brunch quarterly just to stay in touch, just a couple of weeks ago we met for brunch and of course there were a mix of both gays and straights. A conversation was started about the marriage debate and the general consensus amongst the gays was "who cares" - "quit be drama queens and be happy". They also touched on the coming out thing and it was more about being accepted/understood among family members and basically no one cared about what anybody else knows/thinks to make a statement. These guys are all professionals and make very good livings and are very comfortable in their own skin and can navigate just fine in a world with varying degrees of tolerance.

[Edward100]

Back in the day I worked in the restaurant and bar biz, most of my stints were behind the bar and on the beverage side. Not trying to stereotype but there were a lot of gay waiters on the food side.

A group of us employees at one particular restaurant get together for brunch quarterly just to stay in touch, just a couple of weeks ago we met for brunch and of course there were a mix of both gays and straights. A conversation was started about the marriage debate and the general consensus amongst the gays was "who cares" - "quit be drama queens and be happy". They also touched on the coming out thing and it was more about being accepted/understood among family members and basically no one cared about what anybody else knows/thinks to make a statement. These guys are all professionals and make very good livings and are very comfortable in their own skin and can navigate just fine in a world with varying degrees of tolerance.

Exactly, their choice. There is no need to tell the world.

[blueboss]

If I walked into a women's locker room and went into the showers and started showering with the women that were in there showering I would more than likely be arrested and at the very minimum be thrown out with force. What's the difference if a man that is attracted to men like I am attracted to women walks into a men's locker room and begins showering with other men?

Just a question......... I personally would feel as uncomfortable as I imagine a woman would feel if a guy walked into her shower.

[ukpumacat]

Please explain that what we do is not by choice.

Because gay is not something you do...its something you are.
As Brock has already stated: people are not gay because of what they do, they are gay because of who they love, who they are attracted to, and how they feel. At least one of those is not a choice (I would argue more).
I have met several gay virgins. They "choose" not to date, have sex, etc. They don't do so because its wrong (someday they will). They do so because they are focused on work, school, etc. But they are absolutely gay. They would say they are gay. Because they are attracted to the same sex. They didn't choose that. Its just who they are. No more than you chose to be attracted to the opposite sex. You can choose not to date or have sex. That is your choice. But you didn't choose to be attracted to the opposite sex. You just were.

[ukpumacat]

There is no need to tell the world.

If this debate was only about Jason Collins coming out in SI, then you could make an argument on either side of the debate imo of whether he should and what his motivation was. But its not. Other posters made statements about any gay person "coming out".
There is a huge difference in those two things. Jason Collins came out to the "world". You would have to ask him why he did that and what his motivation was.
But, 99% of gay people do not come out to the "world". They typically come out to close family and friends, as they should. And as I have stated before, the reason for that is very, very clear to me.

[BigBlueBrock]

If I walked into a women's locker room and went into the showers and started showering with the women that were in there showering I would more than likely be arrested and at the very minimum be thrown out with force. What's the difference if a man that is attracted to men like I am attracted to women walks into a men's locker room and begins showering with other men?

Just a question......... I personally would feel as uncomfortable as I imagine a woman would feel if a guy walked into her shower.

The sexual dynamics of all-male locker rooms are completely different than theoretical coed locker rooms. Unless you mean to tell me male locker rooms aren't already one of the gayest places on the planet. I mean, they've been showering with him for years already and suddenly, now that they KNOW he's gay (if any of his teammates didn't already know), it's an issue? Please. Asking this question displays a fundamental misunderstanding of how human beings are around their own sex vs the opposite, at least as far as men's behavior goes.

That isn't to say that his teammates don't have a right to feel uncomfortable showering with him and if they CHOOSE not to do so, that's fine. But Collins shouldn't be forced to shower alone simply because he's now an outed homosexual. If his behavior remains within the limits of what already happens in men's locker rooms, then there shouldn't be an issue.

And if, one day, we as a society grow out of the current rape culture that has existed for decades, then you'll see coed locker rooms and showers. Unfortunately, we haven't gotten there as a society, yet.

[Edward100]

My friend(s), I see we have different opinion on this subject. I will leave this conversation with this thought, “Each person will have to answer for the choices they make on any given subject throughout their life be it good, bad or otherwise. In the end we all reap what we sow be it good, bad or otherwise. Thank you and have a nice day.

[BigBlueBrock]

My friend(s), I see we have different opinion on this subject. I will leave this conversation with this thought, “Each person will have to answer for the choices they make on any given subject throughout their life be it good, bad or otherwise. In the end we all reap what we sow be it good, bad or otherwise. Thank you and have a nice day.

What does this even mean?

[bigsky]

In the end we're all dead.

[Edward100]

Big Blue Brock, I’m implying that no matter what we do in life we have to live with the circumstances created by our actions/choices. To agree or disagree on any subject is everyone’s right. A man kills 23 girls and is caught. He is sentenced to be hung by the neck until dead. His actions/choices made by him merited the sentence he got. He has to be accountable for his actions/choices.

Sowing and reaping is a natural fact. You plant corn seeds and you harvest corn. You can’t plant corn seeds and expect grapes. The same principal can be applied to ANY action/choice. Weather we agree or disagree has nothing to do with this statement.

[BigBlueBrock]

Big Blue Brock, I’m implying that no matter what we do in life we have to live with the circumstances created by our actions/choices. To agree or disagree on any subject is everyone’s right. A man kills 23 girls and is caught. He is sentenced to be hung by the neck until dead. His actions/choices made by him merited the sentence he got. He has to be accountable for his actions/choices.

Sowing and reaping is a natural fact. You plant corn seeds and you harvest corn. You can’t plant corn seeds and expect grapes. The same principal can be applied to ANY action/choice. Weather we agree or disagree has nothing to do with this statement.

That's all dandy. But what in the blue frick does any of that have to do with who a person likes to boff? Are you saying that having sex with those of your own gender is something for which a person would have to pay in the future? How? Why? Who is exacting a price for someone's sexuality in this scenario, pray tell?

[badrose]

But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

I'm a Christian and I'm afraid we've really missed the boat on this. We're supposed to be the salt of the earth through being the embodiment of those two verses. It is way too easy to condemn, judge, and legislate than love convincingly enough to make a difference in others' lives. I've been guilty of all of that and hypocritical at the same time. Jesus defined 'neighbor' as pretty much everybody and nothing at any time disqualifies. Loving means getting to know, without judgement or condemnation, caring, being patient, non-sexually affectionate (if that is your nature), finding common ground, making yourself approachable and available, careful not to hurt, and trying to put yourself in their position. All of this puts you in the position to allow others to see the peace that goes beyond their understanding and they would naturally ask you where it comes from. At that point you are free to share and explain. Understanding God's grace allows us to do these things from the heart and not worry about whatever response we may get in return because we are compelled to love and forgive just as God continues to love and forgive us.

More later...

[BigBlueBrock]

Good post, badrose. I'm an agnostic theist, but if more Christians were like you and more interested in spreading the teachings of Christ (i.e., love, peace, good will, kindness, no judgment, etc), as opposed to the intolerance of the Old Testament, then we'd be in a much better place as a society.

[bigsky]

But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

I'm a Christian and I'm afraid we've really missed the boat on this. We're supposed to be the salt of the earth through being the embodiment of those two verses. It is way too easy to condemn, judge, and legislate than love convincingly enough to make a difference in others' lives. I've been guilty of all of that and hypocritical at the same time. Jesus defined 'neighbor' as pretty much everybody and nothing at any time disqualifies. Loving means getting to know, without judgement or condemnation, caring, being patient, non-sexually affectionate (if that is your nature), finding common ground, making yourself approachable and available, careful not to hurt, and trying to put yourself in their position. All of this puts you in the position to allow others to see the peace that goes beyond their understanding and they would naturally ask you where it comes from. At that point you are free to share and explain. Understanding God's grace allows us to do these things from the heart and not worry about whatever response we may get in return because we are compelled to love and forgive just as God continues to love and forgive us.

More later...

You've grown wise, young Padewan. Neighbor was the possibly dead guy in need of help by the side of the road...

[badrose]

You've grown wise, young Padewan. Neighbor was the possibly dead guy in need of help by the side of the road...

You guys need to be careful. I ain't done yet. ;)

BTW the neighbor wasn't dead. He was presumed dead by the priest, and Levite because it was considered "unclean" for them to touch him if he was and thus didn't bother to check and see in case they might actually have to go out of their way to help him. Jesus knew his audience well.

[bigsky]

Big Blue Brock, I’m implying that no matter what we do in life we have to live with the circumstances created by our actions/choices. To agree or disagree on any subject is everyone’s right. A man kills 23 girls and is caught. He is sentenced to be hung by the neck until dead. His actions/choices made by him merited the sentence he got. He has to be accountable for his actions/choices.

Sowing and reaping is a natural fact. You plant corn seeds and you harvest corn. You can’t plant corn seeds and expect grapes. The same principal can be applied to ANY action/choice. Weather we agree or disagree has nothing to do with this statement.

If you get right down to it, the doctrines emphasizing "whosoever believeth" ignore works. And "foreordained" and "predestined" remove choice.

The two precepts badrose quotes provide a guide for living in the material world, not imagining a vengeful Jehovah picking winners and losers.

[bigsky]

You guys need to be careful. I ain't done yet. ;)

BTW the neighbor wasn't dead. He was presumed dead by the priest, and Levite because it was considered "unclean" for them to touch him and thus didn't bother to check and see in case they might actually have to go out of their way to help him. Jesus knew his audience well.

The Samaritan risked it all; in this life and "the next". Now, go and do likewise, eh?

I get it. Just doesn't need all the other to get there.

[ukpumacat]

I’m implying that no matter what we do in life we have to live with the circumstances created by our actions/choices.

I think we all agree with that. Where we disagree is that you (and others) believe it is a choice to be gay, and I (and others) do not. Therefore, your point is moot in this discussion (from my perspective). A gay person will not live with the "choice" to be gay any more than I will live with the choice that I am a dude. I didn't choose it. I just am. I was born and I had a penis. Didn't choose it, just did. And when I was old enough to look at a girl in my class, that penis got excited. I didn't choose for it to behave that way when I saw a girl, it just did (and I had to cover it up with textbooks). And when I looked at boys, it didn't move. Didn't choose it that way. It just did.
Now, it is my choice who I look at and how often. Its my choice who I have sex with. Its my choice if its protected or now. And all of those choices have consequences. But, if you locked me down and made me watch 2 dudes humping (against my choice), my penis would still not move. Because I am straight. Didn't choose it. Just am.

[jazyd]

Unless I have missed something here, no one has condemned Collins for what he is, but Christians have voiced their opinion about the sin which those that do not believe or have decided to only accept the teachings of their church that go along with how they personallly believe, have not accepted as a sin. The Bible teaches us to love the sinner but hate the sin. Those of us that are Christians and accept wholly the teachings of the Bible regard homosexuality as a sin and it has been state here. Unfortunately there are those that would rather criticize Christians for their beliefs and act as if only they and their beliefs are to be accepted.

Collins could choose to change, there have been many that have done just that.

[Krank]

Collins could choose to change, there have been many that have done just that.

The vast majority of those who have "been saved from" homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality, and transgenderism have found that they have been lying to themselves after, typically, not too much time. If the opposite were true, there would be a lot more testimonials from gay Christians, especially after a fair amount of time to test the two theories, who claimed long-lasting success in "converting" to heterosexuality.

I do not have statistics handy and, frankly, have to go offline now, but just wanted to mention that the phenomenon you mention has been studied thoroughly from a variety of angles and the one consistency is that one's sexual choice comes naturally, NOT as a choice.

Religious folks who DO deem ANY form of non-heterosexual behavior to be "sinful" and a sentence to eternal "hell" if they do not "repent" may not like that, but science and actual human experiences back that up with very rare exceptions, and even those usually are found to be in such turmoil that admitting to their biological reality is either too painful or would cause too much strife in their complicated personal, religious, and professional lives.

BTW, I would be very curious to know how the Biblical literalists who claim their knowledge and understanding of Judeo-Christian gospels is unassailable would identify hermaphroditic folks and who THEY choose to be with on a sexual/relationship level.

Any takers on that?

[BigBlueBrock]

Unfortunately there are those that would rather criticize Christians for their beliefs and act as if only they and their beliefs are to be accepted.


Well, one belief system begets intolerance and bigotry, whereas the other belief system is inclusive and doesn't judge a person simply because they are attracted to their own sex. Why should Collins choose to change who he is simply because the narrow-minded think he's "icky"? You use the Bible as your moral compass. I wonder, did you ever try to sell your daughter into slavery? Because, you know, that's perfectly OK according to Bible. Do you let women talk in your church? Because they're supposed to keep quiet according to the Bible. Do you hang a man for working on the Sabbath? Because you're supposed to according to the Bible.

Many many things are "sanctioned" by the Bible that society has long since recognized as being draconian both in principle and in application. It simply happens that homosexuality is one of the few remaining Old Testament "sins" some Christians use as justification for being bigoted and intolerant.

[BigBlueBrock]

And ya know, I wouldn't have a problem with some Christians continuing to believe that homosexuality is a sin so long as they kept it within their congregation and didn't use it as justification to legislate their particular theocratic morality and deny rights and privileges to LGBT couples.

[ukpumacat]

Sorry, this is a long post...feel free to skip down and read my summary at the bottom.
Not that it makes any difference to the conversation, but I am a Christian who believes the Bible. And I do not believe the Bible teaches it is a sin (no way I can explain that on here...but it is a gross mis-interpretation). So, let me comment from a Christian view (since I tried a logical approach):
Even if a Christian does believe its a sin, 1 Corinthians 5:12 is as clear as can be about how this issue should be handled by those who do believe it is a sin:
"What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?".
Somehow, that verse (and entire passage) has been completely ignored by the vast majority of the Christian community. If you have someone who has chosen to go to your church...sure, feel free to talk with them about what you believe they are doing is wrong. But as for those outside your church, what business is it of yours? That's Paul saying that.
By the way, the Bible doesn't teach us to love the sinner and hate the sin. That's a phrase that is used often by Christians, but is not found in the Bible. The Bible teaches us to love others and put them above ourselves.
For me, this issue was decided when I read how Jesus lived. And that is true no matter what you believe about being gay (sin or not). On one hand, He never said a word about it. That doesn't conclusively mean he thought it was not a sin, but its significant to me historically (which is a whole other can of worms).
Second, for those that do believe its a sin...You will not find many examples of Jesus walking up to anyone and telling them what they are doing is wrong. Or stopping them from doing wrong. And He knew. He knew better than anyone else. But that wasn't His approach or mission. He didn't lead from a power or political standpoint, and He didn't change people by telling them their behavior (or not) was wrong. He loved them. Served instead of ruled. He valued people just as they were.
And as I am sure you have heard a hundred times, the only people He clearly "Judged", was the religious people who told others what they did was wrong (you know, like the Pharisee who prayed and said, "God, thank you I am not like that guy (a "sinner")." He couldn't stand those people.
For me, as a Christian, its pretty simple. Which side of this fence would Jesus be on? How would He treat people, even if He thought they were wrong? How would He vote (Answer: He wouldn't)?
Summary: You can be a Christian, believe the Bible, and not believe its a sin.
Even if you do believe its a sin, its not any of your business what other people are doing outside your church.

P.S. Brock, you would probably like my church. Just sayin.

[ukpumacat]

BTW, I would be very curious to know how the Biblical literalists who claim their knowledge and understanding of Judeo-Christian gospels is unassailable would identify hermaphroditic folks and who THEY choose to be with on a sexual/relationship level.

Any takers on that?

:happy0100:

[elicat]

This thread has become a UCC echo chamber.

[badrose]

And ya know, I wouldn't have a problem with some Christians continuing to believe that homosexuality is a sin so long as they kept it within their congregation and didn't use it as justification to legislate their particular theocratic morality and deny rights and privileges to LGBT couples.

I agree with that 100% Legislation changes nothing, sin or no sin, merely strengthens resolve.

[badrose]

BTW, I would be very curious to know how the Biblical literalists who claim their knowledge and understanding of Judeo-Christian gospels is unassailable would identify hermaphroditic folks and who THEY choose to be with on a sexual/relationship level.

Any takers on that?

Not a literalist. Context is everything. Probably would get chastized from my brethren, but I would say go with the way you lean, or check out both ways, pray about it, and pick one.

[jazyd]

But those like Brock want to legislate their beliefs or feelings, seems the 'progressives' always look down their nose or other things at those who choose to believe different than they do but somehow only those that are 'progessive' in their thinking know what the heck is going on. I always laugh at people like brock or just ignore them.

I also find it interesting as I said before about Christians who only believe what they want to believe in the Bible as long as it pertains to how they think. Homosexuality is a sin, just as many other things that we all do is a sin. It is not a natural act.

Now I could care less what Collins does or doesn't do, it is his life so live it like he wants but just don't go around trying to force his thought process on young children. Now, courageous what he did, heck no. If he had told the world 8 years ago he was a homosexual, it would be a little more courageous, now, nope too many love the homosexuals and their way of life and believe they should have extra benefits because of what they do in their beds. Courageous is jumping on a live grenade to save your military buddies, courageous is jumping in front of a bus and pushing someone out of the way to save their life, courageous is jumping in water to rescue someone trapped in a car under water, it is not telling the world you like men better than women.

As far as love the sinner but not the sin, no that exact wording is not in the Bible, good phrase, one evidently puma doesn't believe in. But tell me where the Bible and its teachings tell us we are to love sin, because if you can show me that, then why do we have the ten commandments. Why do we even have any teachings what so ever about sin? Why doesn't the Bible just tell us to have a great time on earth and we will see everyone in heaven? We are told to love one another, we are told there is sin in the world and that each of us is a sinner and we are to confess our sins. And we are told there is one way to heaven, and it isn't thru works. And in the Old Testament and the New we are told what homosexual behavior is. And while it is human nature to judge people on so many ways, we are also told that only One will have the final judgment. If puma is right then all who live in daily sin, never repent, and thumb their noses at the teachings of God thru the Old and New Testaments will end up in the same place as Billy Graham when they die. The person who murders a child is just as good as the homosexual, no difference according to puma.


Now what I think he did was this. He is 34, makes way too much for what little he does, such as averaging less than 2 pts and less than 2 boards a game and more than likely does not get a contract next year for his big salary since he will be a free agent this summer. But if he finally gets around to telling the world he is a homosexual there is no way the NBA can not give him a contract in spite of the fact he isn't needed any longer and any NBA team can get someone who can produce what little he did for half the lprice, someone like Josh H at min wage contract. Too many who know nothing about basketball would scream bloddy mary, including your progessive president, if this guy doesn't get a contract now and he knew it. He played the game, now gets a big contract next year for sitting on his butt at the end of the bench, might play 20 games if he is lucky. Smart guy. And all these players claiming it makes no difference to have a known homosexual in their locker room parading around naked, I dont' believe it for a second when it comes to reality.

Like edward said, we are each accountable for our actions but on judgement day, I would not want to be in the shoes of Collins or others who daily live in sin on purpose, who thumb their nose at God and the teachings of the Bible and who try to convince people they are Christians but it is okay to change the way the Bible is to their way of thinking. I have done enough sin in my life w/o worrying about things like that. I am a sinner, do it daily because I am weak, and i ask forgiveness each night and for strength to change.



I agree with that 100% Legislation changes nothing, sin or no sin, merely strengthens resolve.

[ukpumacat]

I appreciate your viewpoint Jazy. I don't agree, but I appreciate you sharing it.

[BigBlueBrock]

You know what? Not even worth the effort. Gay marriage will slowly be recognized as equal under the law across the country and there's naught people like jazy or Edward can do about it but piss and moan on message boards. I wonder if this is how it felt to argue on the side of equal rights and protections under the law for blacks in the 60s...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8JsRx2lois

[dan_bgblue]

puma I did not want to quote your entire post so everyone would know which one I was responding to, so


Sorry, this is a long post...feel free to skip down and read my summary at the bottom.

Outstanding thoughts

[elicat]

It's amateur hour on the theology board, apparently.

[Padukacat]

Its not about intolerance, its about truth is it not? There is only one truth, and that truth could care less about tolerance. Its the method by which the truth is taught or debated which causes human beings to allow feelings to enter and muddy the waters.....as seen above by the judgements being thrown out by both sides. But in the end, there are not two right answers, there is only One.

[elicat]

How about some Wolfhart Pannenberg (http://holytrinitynewrochelle.org/yourti92881.html), just to bring the voice of someone who isn't making it up as he goes along into this discussion.

[jazyd]

Puma, I could not find the word rape in my Bible so according to you since it wasn't specifically mentioned, as far as we know since none of the writers mentioned it, by Jesus then it must be okay to rape a child or anyone else.

I Corinthians 6:9. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor the idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor 'homosexual' offenders 10 not thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what so e of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of The Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our Lord.

Gal 5:16-24. So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
The acts of sinful nature are obvious sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery, idolatry and witchcraft, hatred.
, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy, drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of a God.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.
6:7-8. Do not be deceived. God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction, the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.

Puma, that is from the New Testament and I am pretty sure it is very explicit and maybe your church doesn't teach that nor believes that part of the Bible. Paul didnt mince any words there. Just because they didnt come directly from Jesus himself doesn't mean He wasn't involved with that teaching as I am pretty sure Paul was teaching from what he learned.

From the Old Testamlent

Lev 18-22
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, that is detestable.
18-30. Keep my requirements, and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and donor defile yourselves with them. I am the lLord your God.

Since I accept the teachings of the Bible and feel they are Gods words given to us on how we are to live and treat people, I love the sinner but hate the sin.

You questioned whether homosexuality is a sin because Jesus didnt speak directly about it, so using your reasoning I can't find where Jesus said directly for a man not to rape a child so it must not be a sin since He had other things on His mind at that time.

I know those that have told me they are Christians but don't take the Bible as being perfect and that it should be a living word that changes as they wish, you seem to beone of those. That is fine, do as you want but you and others should not criticize those of us that that take these words as they are written and accept them. The Old Testament is clear about homosexuality and so is the New Testament. Unlike those like Brock I am not going to say you must believe my way or you are a kook. For those that are Catholic, and one I have ad long discussions in the past reading how he said he was so strong in his belief in the church, I smile when they write words here that they believe is okay that is in direct conflict with the teachings of be Catholic Church.

Colin's can do what he wants, he played a smart hand to insure himself a million dollar contract.

[blueboss]

OT: if there are any UNC-CH students who read this entire thread you will receive full credit (4 credit hrs) which you can apply to your required credit hours for the degree you are seeking. Athletes will receive only two credit hours so there will be no presumption of special benefits, however if the aforementioned athletes are actually capable of reading the entire thread you can apply for extra credit.

To receive accreditation for the course just PM...........lets go with badrose, eh hmm that's Professor badrose and be prepared to answer a few short questions concerning the topic.

[bigsky]

Re: amateurs. Good thing the reformation happened, eh?

[elicat]

Stanley Hauerwas has been saying lately that the work of the Reformation was to put the Bible in the hands of the people, and the work of our time is to take it away from them (because now everyone thinks they're experts, and all interpretations are equal, which is utter nonsense).

[Krank]

Originally Posted by Krank:
"BTW, I would be very curious to know how the Biblical literalists who claim their knowledge and understanding of Judeo-Christian gospels is unassailable would identify hermaphroditic folks and who THEY choose to be with on a sexual/relationship level.

Any takers on that?"


Not a literalist. Context is everything. Probably would get chastized from my brethren, but I would say go with the way you lean, or check out both ways, pray about it, and pick one.

Appreciate the reply, badrose, and I tend to agree (and props to puma, who has been EXCELLENT on this thread, not saying that because I tend to agree with him, but because I feel his thoughts are extremely logical and organized, as well as attempting to buffer the typical "either with us or against us" political BULLSPIT that ALWAYS garbles these sorts of discussions, i.e. he is trying to bring real life experience AND his religious beliefs into the fray).

The reason I asked the question about hermaphroditic individuals is that such an example, IMO, perfectly shows that the issue of GLBT rights is not as simple as many would like to make it out to be. If a person has BOTH sets of genitalia, then the answer to "what is natural?" becomes not so easy and certainly not definable by a religious doctrine (or at least any that I am familiar with).

So I ask, again, this time pointing a further fleshed out question towards the most conservative biblical literalists on this thread...

If a hermaphroditic individual, allegedly loved every bit as much by your deity of choice as any other human being would be, chooses to have sexual relationships with someone who is NOT hermaphroditic, then are they gay when they use their male genitalia with a male?

or are they lesbian if they use their female genitalia with a female?

or are they "gay sinners" simply because they are NEITHER completely male or female, thus dooming their partners AND themselves to "everlasting hellfire" by simply being involved with a uni-gendered partner (how does one check on that, BTW, should the government/church of your choice appoint a secret service agent for god that hides in the closets of hermaphrodites so as to guide them once they sin with each and every sexual act that is not the missionary position between individuals who are clearly ONE gender or "the OTHER"?)?

or are they given a pass because the human writers of the bible forgot to mention them, thus NOT being divinely inspired by a perfect "creator/god"?

or do you concede that biological reality on an issue such as this trumps unprovable mythology that insists that all words in a bible are directly inspired by "god"?

One might assume that I am attempting to embarrass the folks that this question is pointed toward, but I consider it a completely rational question that deals with real life individuals, folks you would NEVER know are hermaphroditic, thus it is NOT my attempt to bait or embarrass anyone. I am just curious to see if any of said folks have the guts to think about it and give a rational response.

Thanks in advance.

Peace.

[ukpumacat]

Puma, that is from the New Testament and I am pretty sure it is very explicit and maybe your church doesn't teach that nor believes that part of the Bible.

Jazy, I apologize for not taking the time to respond to your entire post. I obviously know those verses are there and what they say. As I said earlier, I believe the whole Bible. I just don't believe it teaches what you are using those passages to teach. I just don't have the energy or the desire to go down that road. I would never be able to fully explain my viewpoint in a thread, so won't try. I disagree with how you are using them, but I will just keep it at that. I certainly understand why you believe what you do, and I certainly understand why you used those passages. I used to as well. There are other passages by the way that support your viewpoint, and I could list them if it helped.
To your comment about rape: First, rape is condemned in the BIble (several times...and ironically enough one is a time that people misunderstand as being about homosexuality). Secondly, if you re-read my post, I made it very clear that Jesus not mentioning it does not mean its not a sin. I said I think its significant historically. And it is. Culturally and historically. But, not theologically. In other words, Him not mentioning it doesn't mean its not a sin (we agree), but Him not mentioning it is very significant to why I believe what I do about what the Bible has to say about being gay (I know that doesn't make sense, but I promise it does to me). Again, I just don't have the time or the bandwidth to fully explain that.

All of that to get to your comment above. I just wanted to be clear about one thing. My church does not have a viewpoint on being gay. Some in my church believe exactly like you do. Many believe like I do. We don't have ones views on homosexuality on our litmus test. Most churches do in an unwritten way. Our church is what most would consider a standard, evangelical church. We are certainly not a UCC or anything close to it (an "amateur" guess?). My church is distinctly not a political church by choice, and we focus on loving as Jesus loves and serving the needy as Jesus taught (as well as a slew of other things I'm sure your church teaches). I just didn't want to paint a picture that said my church's viewpoint is________. We don't have one. I do. As do many of my friends, and people in my community group, etc.

[ukpumacat]

It's amateur hour on the theology board, apparently.

I know I really should not respond to your post (I know better), but I will. Just a couple of things: It would be nice if instead of making critical comments toward everyone else and yelling from the cheap seats, you actually made a significant comment either way. You have added nothing to this thread except for insults and barbs. What is your opinion? Why? Since you call others amateurs, let's hear your viewpoint (I know, you are "above" this discussion, right?).
Secondly, I am not sure what you qualify as "amateur hour on the theology board", but I am guessing I am the only one here with the degree I have. Maybe that doesn't make me an expert by any means, but I spent a lot of years studying to become an "amateur" then.

[ukpumacat]

Stanley Hauerwas

The Dukie is something we have common ground on. I don't agree with everything he has written, but do like much of what he teaches. A little odd that you use his name based on your viewpoint in this thread, but I digress.

[badrose]

Originally Posted by Krank:
"BTW, I would be very curious to know how the Biblical literalists who claim their knowledge and understanding of Judeo-Christian gospels is unassailable would identify hermaphroditic folks and who THEY choose to be with on a sexual/relationship level.

Any takers on that?"



Appreciate the reply, badrose, and I tend to agree (and props to puma, who has been EXCELLENT on this thread, not saying that because I tend to agree with him, but because I feel his thoughts are extremely logical and organized, as well as attempting to buffer the typical "either with us or against us" political BULLSPIT that ALWAYS garbles these sorts of discussions, i.e. he is trying to bring real life experience AND his religious beliefs into the fray).

The reason I asked the question about hermaphroditic individuals is that such an example, IMO, perfectly shows that the issue of GLBT rights is not as simple as many would like to make it out to be. If a person has BOTH sets of genitalia, then the answer to "what is natural?" becomes not so easy and certainly not definable by a religious doctrine (or at least any that I am familiar with).

So I ask, again, this time pointing a further fleshed out question towards the most conservative biblical literalists on this thread...

If a hermaphroditic individual, allegedly loved every bit as much by your deity of choice as any other human being would be, chooses to have sexual relationships with someone who is NOT hermaphroditic, then are they gay when they use their male genitalia with a male?

or are they lesbian if they use their female genitalia with a female?

or are they "gay sinners" simply because they are NEITHER completely male or female, thus dooming their partners AND themselves to "everlasting hellfire" by simply being involved with a uni-gendered partner (how does one check on that, BTW, should the government/church of your choice appoint a secret service agent for god that hides in the closets of hermaphrodites so as to guide them once they sin with each and every sexual act that is not the missionary position between individuals who are clearly ONE gender or "the OTHER"?)?

or are they given a pass because the human writers of the bible forgot to mention them, thus NOT being divinely inspired by a perfect "creator/god"?

or do you concede that biological reality on an issue such as this trumps unprovable mythology that insists that all words in a bible are directly inspired by "god"?

One might assume that I am attempting to embarrass the folks that this question is pointed toward, but I consider it a completely rational question that deals with real life individuals, folks you would NEVER know are hermaphroditic, thus it is NOT my attempt to bait or embarrass anyone. I am just curious to see if any of said folks have the guts to think about it and give a rational response.

Thanks in advance.

Peace.

Krank, it's a legitimate question. I used to be a real B&W guy, had it all figured out and not without considerable thought. I don't know why God brought the hammer down on MY head instead of someone whom I could have read and came to the same readjusted conclusions but I think He did it because of my nature and knew I wouldn't waste it.

I believe God created a perfect world with two physically perfect humans, male and female, with the freedom to make moral choices. He knew ahead of time that no one would score 100% on those choices so He gave us laws that included those that would not allow us to forget Him in the process of trying to follow the rest. Being human, we broke them, bringing about changes in our DNA and and an imperfect environment. Our inability to keep the Law necessitated grace, a perfect sacrifice, his own perfect Son, who knew our brokenness and was full of compassion, not willing that any of us would perish. All of that to say that physical abnormalities are a result of human behavior but none of us have been forgotten by our creator Who desires our fellowship so long as we desire His based on our obedience to His instruction even knowing we will stumble in trying to do so.

I think the Bible is unique in all of literature in that it provides the most beneficial instruction on human behavior and survival. Others have come to the same conclusion. Of course the world is full of those who would try to reinvent the wheel whether it be those who would stone a woman who shows her ankles, those who would seek holiness by isolating themselves on top of a mountain, etc. It makes the most sense of who we are and our experiences. Grace with a code; can't beat it. I would go further here to say that our Constitution is the closest thing to an inspired document that exists outside of the Bible. (For another discussion and hopefully no time soon. I'm sooo ready for the Silly Season.)

Oops, I forgot the main purpose of my response. I would say that the question addresses legalistic tendencies of many who follow the bible while being legalistic in its own purpose. My answer would be to those considered here, Congratulations on having someone with whom you can share intimacy. Knock your socks off! All of this assuming they seek a relationship with their Creator, otherwise none of it really matters.

[elicat]

I know I really should not respond to your post (I know better), but I will. Just a couple of things: It would be nice if instead of making critical comments toward everyone else and yelling from the cheap seats, you actually made a significant comment either way. You have added nothing to this thread except for insults and barbs. What is your opinion? Why? Since you call others amateurs, let's hear your viewpoint (I know, you are "above" this discussion, right?).
Secondly, I am not sure what you qualify as "amateur hour on the theology board", but I am guessing I am the only one here with the degree I have. Maybe that doesn't make me an expert by any means, but I spent a lot of years studying to become an "amateur" then.

I responded to this backchannel, and I don't know what degree you have, but just going by what seems probable I doubt very much that you are the only one.

[ukpumacat]

I responded to this backchannel, and I don't know what degree you have, but just going by what seems probable I doubt very much that you are the only one.

Dang dude...I stand corrected. I'm actually cracking up after reading your PM. Thanks for sending it.
I love this community of people on here. We all may have different viewpoints, but I would down a beer with anyone and talk UK all night long.

[Edward100]

I’ve been gone a few days and just finished reading your comments. I must “Come out” admit that I am a “Born Again” Christian and am proud to make that statement. As I tried to say; whether you believe homosexuality is right, wrong or indifferent has nothing to do with my statements. I am not saying you have to agree with me or anyone else on this board about anything on this board. I am saying we all have to account for our choices. Each of us made our choice on this subject, did we not? Then, so be it.

IMHO, when we get to the “End of days” there will be only two groups of people left, those who KNOW Jesus and those with NO Jesus. There is no door number three. And…we will all account for our choices.

[jazyd]

Edward see you in the BLUE room in heaven, glad you are a brother


I’ve been gone a few days and just finished reading your comments. I must “Come out” admit that I am a “Born Again” Christian and am proud to make that statement. As I tried to say; whether you believe homosexuality is right, wrong or indifferent has nothing to do with my statements. I am not saying you have to agree with me or anyone else on this board about anything on this board. I am saying we all have to account for our choices. Each of us made our choice on this subject, did we not? Then, so be it.

IMHO, when we get to the “End of days” there will be only two groups of people left, those who KNOW Jesus and those with NO Jesus. There is no door number three. And…we will all account for our choices.

[Edward100]

Thank you brother, jazyd

[BigBluePappy]

Mark 12:31

And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Enough for me. (A Baptist by the way)

Just thankful we live in a country where these things can be openly debated and the sides presented don't have to be in lock-step.
I have a beloved family member who is a homosexual and it never has been an issue with us; he is how he is just like a beagle chases rabbits or a retriever loves the water, and it doesn't make a bit of difference, and I love him harder than thunder can bump a stump, but it has never an issue with me, he is my family. Period.