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

"No solid evidence" for evolution.
Am I engaging in disrespect for the poster in question if I point out that that statement is four kinds of ignorant?

 

Objection sustained. You got a a little science on your side.

 

Your honor, a five minute recess? I think my colleague is drunk as an owl.

 

I actually hope Broussard really believes his drivel; I would hate to think of ESPN management telling him, "Act borderline homophobic to stir up some debate for our book across our platforms," and him saying, "OK boss, whatever you say."

And could it be that any biblical declarations about homosexuality might have a context regarding ancient times, too? Or are passages anachronistic only when they suit your agenda for them to be so?

 

Here's my problem: Disapporving of homosexuality is no different than disapproving of, say, mixed marriages or Jews in public school or anything of the sort. Just because one relies on the bible as his moral code doesn't mean that moral code isn't hateful and wrongheaded. I thought Chris wrote a good column, but this isn't a two-sided issue where both are opinions that can be debated. Factally, thinking gays are sinful is wrong. All of the world just hasn't caught up yet ...

 

[

You know I don't post much here. Generally, I like to watch the debate and you folks were going at it pretty good. But I was wondering how long before this rather interesting take on evolution slammed the breaks on the give and take.
Usually, when someone breaks into evolution bashing, I find it best just to stop, nod and walk away.

 

my question about broussard:

if the Scriptures define his "belief system" about gays, don't the Scriptures also compel him to act on his belief system?

how does he square his rejection of homosexuality with his tolerance for Granderson? isn't it contradictory?

what is the use of a "belief system" if we don't act on it?

 

It's unfortunate that Broussard is crucified for his open comments that weren't hate-mongering or dishonest. He expressed an opinion -- one that is on the losing side of American history -- but one he truly believes. I think Broussard provided a thought-provoking opinion, right or wrong.

I think people should be allowed to debate openly and honestly and respectfully of others' beliefs. Unfortunately through years of Bush condemning anti-war demonstrators as liberal traitors and the PC police destroying anyone against total humanist beliefs, we can't discuss any issues debating race, gender, sexual orientation or religion. Freedom of speech has deteriorated into a mind-numbing tattle-tale game where it's allowed, only if it fits my beliefs.

Unfortunately, if this debate doesn't take a more pragmatic shape, there's going to be an underground of anti-gay activity. That could result in more harm than anything we've witnessed.

 

I don't think Broussard was being "crucified" (an unfortunate choice of words). I haven't read a post here -- at least so far -- that suggested that Broussard's argument was half-assed or cockeyed (OK, I got a little carried away there). I think it was pompous and patronizing, but I don't think he fired off something off the top of his head.

Go back and read Fenian's post. This isn't about Broussard not being allowed to have an opinion. It's that he's somehow equated being gay with being black, when they are not the same issue at all. Broussard came pretty close to saying that gays shouldn't have the same legal rights because homosexuality is a sin, or an abomination.

He's allowed to say that, but that's only on the fringe of the debate. Fenian said it much better than I could.

 

This is a remarkably difficult issue. As a Christian, I assure you, I am grateful that God has not put it on my heart to resolve it for the world, if, in fact, it is to be resolved.

At the heart of it is the importance we put on sex. To suggest someone's identity equates to their sexual preference, is, as a Christian, to demean the creation God has made. There is much sexual sin in the world, the result, overwhemingly, of supposedly heterosexual people perverting the gift of sensuality

If a person never had sex, not once, not ever, he or she would not be diminished in the eyes of God. It's purposful that Mary is a virgin when she is given Jesus, and equally purposeful that the Apostle Paul proclaims it's better to be single - and sexless - than married, and equally purposeful that Hagar is tossed out of Abraham's home, her offspring being the first of the enemies who plagued Jews until the arrival of Christ. There is, of course, a lot more to it, and even more beyond that, which, because marriage is essentially a mystery, we don't and can't know or understand. And marriage is meant one way, for reasons partially outlined, but, again, mostly a mystery. However the world legislates it, I assure you, it's semantics in the eyes of a Christian. Call gay unions whatever you like. Have them sanctioned by whoever you like. The United States has no covenant with God. He does not judge "it" anymore than he judged Rome in the time of Christ. Whose hands was the blood on? Not Pilate's. These things pain me to say, but they're true nonetheless. My faith does not always sit comfortably within me. But, then, David's Psalms exist for a purpose.

These kinds of things only really matter when non-Christians are serious about understanding the Christian faith.

What does any of it matter in the Amaechi case? Christianity is used in this debate tangentially at best and, even then, essentially as a bogeyman. It's the fault of Christians, of course, for failing to spread their salvation through the only currency that matters: Love. Hardaway is an ass and a scoundrel, and Amaechi is a wounded man trying, charitably but misguidedly, to give a generation of gay athletes a little courage and hope. It's not, in my estimation, the kind of everlasting courage and hope they need, but, then, this is the world.

 

Loki is quite amused at all of this, no doubt.

the old norse called him the god of mischief.

 

All right, fine. I agree. The problem is that it is nominative Christians, acting within the secular law and within the profane mechanisms of temporal politics, and justifying these actions through what they maintain is their faith, that are standing in the way of marriage, or civil unions, or whatever the legal term of art may be. If you bring your faith into the secular debate, even as a justification for your political position, that faith is going to get dinged up in the debate like any other argument. Which is what seems to bother Broussard the most.