Finally someone at ESPN with a rational take on the Amechie non-story

He was the old guy in Cocoon.

 

DON AMECHE JOHN AMAECHI

 

Fenian, Double Down and Frank Ridgeway's posts were outstanding.

I was disappointed with the column, because I thought it would be much more thought-provoking. Broussard, to me, got himself into big trouble when he wrote the line about the hug. It came across to me as amazingly patronizing -- almost like a white person saying, "I like people no matter if they're green, purple or orange." Yes, black people can't hide their ethnicity, but many, or most, gays aren't comfortable making their sexuality public. These aren't even remotely similar.

 

Fenian's post was the best thing I've ever seen on this board, with the possible exception of 21's Jessica Rabbit sig.

 

Hear, hear to Fenian's take. I'll only add that the left spent years making the tactical, not to mention intellectual, mistake of calling for "diversity" when what we really meant was "equality." The bitch of it is that now we have to suffer wankers like Chris Broussard here, feeling quite proud of himself for scoring debate points.

 

Broussard gambled by putting his beliefs in print, but the piece begs another thought - there's "real talk," as Broussard states, and there's hate speech. You can state things eloquently and civilized, or barbarically.

 

True 'dat.

 

That was OK. It's not hate speech and it's not enlightening, change-your-view writing. Basically Broussard is letting us know that he, the noble born-again Christian, thinks homosexuality is bad but he's cool high-fiving gay dudes. Hate the sin, love the sinner. He is mirroring how a lot of people think.

 

The problem is when it becomes "Hate the sin. Love the sinner, but don't give them equal protection of the laws.

 

Really, I have nothing against gay people. See, one of my best friends is gay!

 

Laws or tax codes?

 

From the post:

That doesn't mean they're unenlightened. That just means their moral code doesn't fluctuate based on society's ever-changing standards. As long as we're not being violent toward one another, as long as we can be civil, everything should be fine. We don't have to agree.

I'd argue that it precisely means they're unenlightened. Being gay isn't a part of a moral code. Morality is how you treat others, and how your actions affect those around you. Being gay is a part of somebody that can't be changed, much like him being black or me being Jewish.

The liberals being judgemental for those not being enlightened drivel works when people rip into people for not liking art flicks. Or sushi. Not for not liking a group of people. That's hatred, and that's discrimination. Huge difference.