| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sbjules
Joined: 22 Dec 2004
Posts: 3476
Back to top |
 Posted: 03/22/05 10:57 am ::: |
Reply  |
|
| Quote: |
| Is there a place at the table for a player that unashamedly wears a WWJD bracelet in the WNBA Finals and wins the MVP over the last two seasons? |
Of course there is. I don't think Jesus would participate in homophobia, for example. His feelings on the matter of sexuality are not recorded in the Gospels. He embraced the poor, dismissed the Pharisees. He preached love, not hate.
People like Falwell have co-opted the Gospel to use for what I see as political purposes.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66932
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/05 11:07 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| 4ever_bball_fan wrote: |
| To bring this back closer to topic: should perceived homophobes be allowed to play/coach/administer women's basketball? |
Perceived by whom? What evidence would be required to fire someone under this system? How much money would the lawyers end up with after the wrongful termination suits were finally completed?
Perhaps a better question is whether this merits a life sentence. Rene Portland is about 15 years removed from any public anti-gay statement and has undergone sensitivity training on at least one occasion. She's still often labelled as a homophobe. Apparently there's no chance that someone could change their opinion on this matter.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/05 12:01 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
Perhaps a better question is whether this merits a life sentence. Rene Portland is about 15 years removed from any public anti-gay statement and has undergone sensitivity training on at least one occasion. She's still often labelled as a homophobe. Apparently there's no chance that someone could change their opinion on this matter. |
you're letting her off far too easily, my friend.
All Rene has to do is make a simple apology. Or even just say "I no longer feel the way I did in 1991." Or say "I welcome lesbians on my team." If she would do that, I'd never mention it again.
Instead, she says "I understand the school's policy and I will follow it because I am required to." She refuses to make any other comment.
It's not hard to read between the lines. Many people have changed their opinions on this matter in the last 15 years, but it appears that Rene isn't one of them.
Her policy was one of the most hideous and hateful instances of homophobia in the history of sport. Her former players who were gay talked about the fear they lived in while they played on her team. She owes an apology.
She still deserves the label.
|
|
inky
Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Posts: 879
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/05 2:32 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| 4ever_bball_fan wrote: |
Is there a place at the table for a player that unashamedly wears a WWJD bracelet in the WNBA Finals and wins the MVP over the last two seasons? |
I'm wondering who you're speaking of. There are two different league MVPs over the last two years, and for what it's worth, neither speaks publically about their sexual preference, which is, in truth, none of anyone's business but their own. Why would you assume that someone wearing a WWJD bracelet would be straight? Why would anyone perceive shame in wearing one?
Several gay people of my acquaintance wear this bracelet. Actually, they not only wear this bracelet, they live this bracelet. Do you have a place at your table for them?
|
|
4ever_bball_fan
Joined: 20 Dec 2004
Posts: 6125
Location: Houston
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/05 3:15 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
So now we have gay folk wearing bracelets primarily associated with evangelical Christianity, right inky? Would they call the coaching staff and administration at Liberty University a bunch of "homophobes", or would they apply to go to school there and walk along side like-minded Believers? You have just established that one's relationship with Jesus is the common denominator...so who is left to be afraid of whom?
Isn't that what the original emphasis of this thread? That a university basketball coaching staff whose team won a basketball game in the NCAA Tournament was afraid of homosexuals? Isn't that what a homophobe is?
I don't see where there is anything else to discuss since there are those on both sides of the issue that have made room for each other at the same table.
|
|
inky
Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Posts: 879
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/05 4:10 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| 4ever_bball_fan wrote: |
| So now we have gay folk wearing bracelets primarily associated with evangelical Christianity, right inky? Would they call the coaching staff and administration at Liberty University a bunch of "homophobes", or would they apply to go to school there and walk along side like-minded Believers? |
I would question the assumption that those at Liberty U. are like-minded to gay Christians. Wanting to be like Jesus seems to be diametrically opposed to what they preach there.
The relevant question is not would they apply to go to school there, but if they chose to, would they be accepted. I think you know the answer to that.
I get the feeling that you are dancing around what you'd really like to say. Why don't you just come out and say it. No pun intended.
|
|
4ever_bball_fan
Joined: 20 Dec 2004
Posts: 6125
Location: Houston
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/05 4:45 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| inky wrote: |
| 4ever_bball_fan wrote: |
| So now we have gay folk wearing bracelets primarily associated with evangelical Christianity, right inky? Would they call the coaching staff and administration at Liberty University a bunch of "homophobes", or would they apply to go to school there and walk along side like-minded Believers? |
I would question the assumption that those at Liberty U. are like-minded to gay Christians. Wanting to be like Jesus seems to be diametrically opposed to what they preach there.
The relevant question is not would they apply to go to school there, but if they chose to, would they be accepted. I think you know the answer to that.
I get the feeling that you are dancing around what you'd really like to say. Why don't you just come out and say it. No pun intended. |
Sorry, inky, I think you are the one doing the dancing. Spin with someone else. You are the one that established what the two groups have in common and now you call it an assumption on my part.
What on earth will be said if the Flames (interesting name, don't you think) win against DePaul tonight?
|
|
inky
Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Posts: 879
Back to top |
|
Sass
Joined: 22 Mar 2005
Posts: 5576
Location: where it's sunny and warm
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/05 6:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| 4ever_bball_fan wrote: |
Isn't that what the original emphasis of this thread? That a university basketball coaching staff whose team won a basketball game in the NCAA Tournament was afraid of homosexuals? Isn't that what a homophobe is?
I don't see where there is anything else to discuss since there are those on both sides of the issue that have made room for each other at the same table. |
No Tammi, a homophobe is someone who holds hatred for gays and lesbians, and because of that, can also practice discrimination against them.
If you don't see anything further to discuss, then why are you still discussing it? It is interesting to me that christians and people that "used to" be gay are so preoccupied with discussing gays and lesbians.
|
|
Kelli
Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 3234
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/05 7:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| womens_hoops wrote: |
If we disagree radically about the underlying issue -- about the status of gay rights -- then there's no real point debating the ancillary issues.
I gather that you are in the "hate the sin, love the sinner" camp on gay rights. That's a position that many people hold, but it really makes no sense to me, since I'm so far on the other end.
The disagreement between you and me on the underlying issue seems to be so radical that we can't really have an intelligent -- or even an intelligible -- debate on any of the ancillary issues. So all we can do is try to scream at each other and throw insults around, accuse the other of hatred and bigotry, etc. (See posts above.)
What's the point? |
See that's just it. I have not weighed in either way on gay rights, but you jump to the conclusion that I am against them. My comments have been about lableing people that you don't know based on something as transitional as a college or employer.
What I'm trying to point out is that hating and screaming ISN'T the way to get things accomplished. Hating anybody associated (however remotely) with Falwell or calling them homophobes isn't going to improve things. (See my fourth post where I say "Seems to me that he [Cam] is painting them with the same brush that he thinks they are painting him with. How does that improve a situation? I don't see that it does; it just prolongs it.") By calling people names and screaming at them, you'll never get to the table together. The problem will never get resolved.
Based on his posts here, Cam is a bigot. (From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ He actually seems to take it a step further and hates those that he even THINKS feel differently than he does. I guess what it all boils down to is tht two wrongs don't make a right. Hating Falwell (and even remote associates) because he hates you is not only wrong, it lowers you to his level. And it's not healthy!
|
|
Kelli
Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 3234
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/05 7:37 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
[quote="CamrnCrz1974"][i]The fact that you cannot see the difference between a parochial institution run by a notorious bigot or something you disagree with is your own fault.[quote]
The fact that you titled this thread as you did indicates to me that you are calling people that you don't know homophobes based on a remote association with Falwell. Falwell does the same thing to homosexuals. He lables them without knowing them or what they're about and wishes to deny them the same privileges that he enjoys. Without knowing that they are just people who want, and believing that they deserve, the same basic things out of life that he does--to love, to be loved, to raise children, to live comfortably, etc. You even go a step further and want an earthquake to hit the area! You want to bring HARM to them (and all of the innocent people that are in the area just watching the game).
Cam, you can't see the fact that you're no different than him. You hate just as he does.
|
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/05 7:45 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Kelli wrote: |
See that's just it. I have not weighed in either way on gay rights, but you jump to the conclusion that I am against them. My comments have been about lableing people that you don't know based on something as transitional as a college or employer.
|
yes, you're very coy. You are unwilling to come out and say what you think about the underlying issue, which no doubt drives your opinion on the ancillary issues, as it does for the rest of us.
If I'm wrong, by all means, correct me.
If you are someone who truly believes in equality for gay and lesbian people, but you are still willing to say that we have no right to criticize anyone at Liberty, then your position is potentially complicated and interesting. If you don't believe in equality, then your defense of the folks at Liberty is pretty boring, nothing new, just the same old political debate cloaked in different garb.
|
|
Kelli
Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 3234
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/05 8:30 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| womens_hoops wrote: |
| Kelli wrote: |
See that's just it. I have not weighed in either way on gay rights, but you jump to the conclusion that I am against them. My comments have been about lableing people that you don't know based on something as transitional as a college or employer.
|
yes, you're very coy. You are unwilling to come out and say what you think about the underlying issue, which no doubt drives your opinion on the ancillary issues, as it does for the rest of us.
If I'm wrong, by all means, correct me.
If you are someone who truly believes in equality for gay and lesbian people, but you are still willing to say that we have no right to criticize anyone at Liberty, then your position is potentially complicated and interesting. If you don't believe in equality, then your defense of the folks at Liberty is pretty boring, nothing new, just the same old political debate cloaked in different garb. |
My position on gay rights has nothing to do with this. You seem to be basing my right (my credibility as you were so eager to assess in an earlier thread) to an opinion on whether I support your cause or not.
I have no problem with criticizing some who has made their posiition known, as Jerry, Rene, and Cam have done. What you can't, or won't, see is that it is wrong to carry that over to people who are remotely associated with one of them and haven't made their views known. Where is all of the criticism of the players and staff of PSU?? They are more associated with Rene, than a coach or player at Liberty is with Jerry. See, your logic isn't making sense.
Until you see that this isn't about homophobia or homosexuals, there really isn't anything for us to discuss. (Much to the delight of others on the board, I'm sure.  )
|
|
momma hoops
Joined: 16 Feb 2005
Posts: 23
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/05 8:31 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| 4ever_bball_fan wrote: |
So now we have gay folk wearing bracelets primarily associated with evangelical Christianity, right inky? Would they call the coaching staff and administration at Liberty University a bunch of "homophobes", or would they apply to go to school there and walk along side like-minded Believers? You have just established that one's relationship with Jesus is the common denominator...so who is left to be afraid of whom?
Isn't that what the original emphasis of this thread? That a university basketball coaching staff whose team won a basketball game in the NCAA Tournament was afraid of homosexuals? Isn't that what a homophobe is?
|
Wow, you are certainly making a LOT of veiled judgement calls, aren't you? "Gay folk"? Would you refer to a race as "Black folk"? And if you have a dictionary, look up the meaning of the word 'phobia' - it's an IRRATIONAL fear.
_________________
All hail big momma!
|
|
momma hoops
Joined: 16 Feb 2005
Posts: 23
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/05 9:03 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Kelli wrote: |
| What you can't, or won't, see is that it is wrong to carry that over to people who are remotely associated with one of them and haven't made their views known. |
These people are more than "remotely associated" with falwell - they are choosing to support him!
As another example, Dominos Pizza is famously run by a staunch right-to-lifer. Therefore I will not buy pizza from them, nor would I ever work for them. If I did either, then even if I don't agree with the CEO's feelings, I'm not doing anything *against* him. So if someone chooses to play for Falwell then I think it's safe to assume that others will berate them for supporting him and that people will assume that they are indeed also homophobes.
_________________
All hail big momma!
|
|
Kelli
Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 3234
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/05 9:40 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| momma hoops wrote: |
| Kelli wrote: |
| What you can't, or won't, see is that it is wrong to carry that over to people who are remotely associated with one of them and haven't made their views known. |
These people are more than "remotely associated" with falwell - they are choosing to support him!
As another example, Dominos Pizza is famously run by a staunch right-to-lifer. Therefore I will not buy pizza from them, nor would I ever work for them. If I did either, then even if I don't agree with the CEO's feelings, I'm not doing anything *against* him. So if someone chooses to play for Falwell then I think it's safe to assume that others will berate them for supporting him and that people will assume that they are indeed also homophobes. |
I just don't buy the 'guilt by association' line of thinking. Apparently you do. You have my sympathy.
You REFUSE to see any POV other than your own. That's not my fault and you are losing out because of it. Again, you have my sympathy.
I'll let you have your narrow view of the world. Just don't forget that we're all in this together. There is no other world that those that we disagree with can move to (yet).
You may think that you have beaten me. You haven't. If you think that shouting down an opponent is progress, you have a lot to learn. More than I can teach you in this forum.
I wish you luck in being able to open a dialogue with people that disagree with you. Until you are able to accomplish that, you will always be on the losing end. As I said to Cam, you are no better than the people that you rail against.
Good night.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66932
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/05 9:46 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| momma hoops wrote: |
| As another example, Dominos Pizza is famously run by a staunch right-to-lifer. Therefore I will not buy pizza from them, nor would I ever work for them. If I did either, then even if I don't agree with the CEO's feelings, I'm not doing anything *against* him. So if someone chooses to play for Falwell then I think it's safe to assume that others will berate them for supporting him and that people will assume that they are indeed also homophobes. |
So, by that reasoning, you think everyone that works for Dominos is a right-to-lifer? That's the equivalent of saying every Liberty student is a homophobe.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18371
Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/05 10:55 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
It's not about guilt by association. It's about being held accountable for supporting institutions like Liberty who are so devoted to the cause of gay apartheid.
Oh, you say, Liberty is a university, just because it's founder is anti-gay doesn't mean the school is.
Wrong.
Read Cam's links. Liberty isn't a place of diversity -- it is a place self-consciously devoted to pursuing a cause. As Falwell himself has said "we want to be as far to the right as Harvard is to the left." Liberty does not hire any factulty member until that person has completed a "rigorous interview process" confirming that his or her views are in accord with the school's.
The Liberty Counsel, funded in part by the University, located on the campus, is one of the largest and most powerful legal orgainizations in the fight against gay marriage.
And what is life like at Liberty?
Well, look around the web. Search google. Read some of the stories of gay students who went to Liberty and the hell and hatred they experienced there.
http://www.jimgilliam.com/2002/03/once_again_pulled.php
http://gaytoday.badpuppy.com/garchive/people/022398pe.htm
http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2004/10/10_404.html
If you come out as gay or are caught with gay literature, you may be expelled.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_n769/ai_21152502
Oh no, says Liberty, we only expel sexually active gay students.
http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/847/847_colleges.asp
As if that's any better.
Yes, Kelli, this is about homosexuality. It's fighting homophobic institutions like Liberty. I will do whatever I can to fight it. I don't even understand anymore exactly what you're fighting for or what you're defending.
You say we shouldn't criticize anyone who goes there or works there because we don't really know what they believe. That's such an incredible cop-out. Is it ok to criticize someone who donates money to Falwell's Moral Majority? Liberty University is just a school pushing the same agenda -- indeed, it is a school whose raison d'etre is to support that same agenda. Why isn't it ok to criticize someone who supports that institution?
The Domino's analogy isn't particularly apt (though it will be soon -- that crazy old freak is taking his billions and starting a huge new conservative Catholic school in a swamp somewhere outside Naples). Domino's isn't devoted to a cause -- it's devoted to pizza. It just so happens that the guy who used to own it (no longer does) was a very conservative guy who poured his money into conservative causes.
It's fair for momma_hoops not to buy Domino's. I used to do the same thing before it was sold. But I wouldn't criticize people who work there -- most of them probably had no idea about their owner's politics.
Everyone at Liberty knows what that school stands for. The school is itself an advocacy organization. It stands firmly opposed to gay rights. Everyone who goes there knows it.
Probably there are a few who quietly or silently disagree. Most don't. The people who support that place are well deserving of our scorn.
It comes to this:
Everyone knows what Liberty University stands for. I find it hard to believe that anyone committed to gay rights would attend that place or work there. If they do, they have a moral obligation to stand up and oppose their school's terrible mission.
Until they do, they've lost my respect.
|
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/05 10:59 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| oh, and did you see Jerry at the game tonight? Looked pretty happy, running around after the game on the floor with team and coaches...
|
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/05 11:47 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Certain sorts of debates serve to mask other debates.
The classic example in our recent history is the "states' rights" debate of the 50s and 60s. Conservatives supported states' rights; liberals opposed the idea; there was a lot of debate. But the real debate was about civil rights. Conservatives only supported states' rights because they opposed the civil rights movement; liberals did the opposite. The states' rights debate was just a mask. (And note how the conservative/liberal positions on states rights have reversed now that structure of political power in this country has shifted.)
My hypothesis is that our debate on Liberty is all about homosexuality. Those of us who criticize players and coaches do so because of our commitment to gay equality. Those who do not share the same commitment defend the players and coaches, but on indirect grounds.
Kelli's hypothesis is that this has nothing to do with homosexuality.
We can test these competing hypotheses by posing analogous hypotheticals that don't involve homosexuality.
Number 1.
Suppose I have a friend who joins a country club that doesn't allow black, Jewish, or women members. I criticize him for doing so. His response is: "You don't know my position on these issues. You can't criticize me just for being associated with these people and this institution -- that's guilt by association."
Is his response valid?
Number 2.
Suppose I have a friend who goes to work in the office of the Ku Klux Klan. I criticize her for doing so. Her response is: "You don't know my position on issues of race. You can't criticize me just for working here."
Is her response valid?
Number 3.
Suppose that the extremely wealthy founder of the KKK starts a university that is committed to supporting his ideals. He starts a basketball team. One of my friends is hired as coach. I criticize him for accepting the job. His response is: "You don't know my position on race issues. You have no right to criticize me just because I just to coach at this racist school. That's guilt by association."
Is his response valid?
Number 4.
If you think #3 is too extreme, we can modify and transplant it to the real world. Suppose that Bob Jones University -- which prohibits interracial dating -- starts a basketball team, and an old friend of mine goes to work there as an assistant coach. I run into her and I say "Good god, I'm so disappointed in you. How can you support that racist institution? Do you really believe that stuff? If you don't, you shouldn't be working there, and if you do work there, you have an obligation to stand up and fight that terrible policy!"
Her response: "How dare you criticize me! You have no idea what I believe. You can't criticize me just because I'm remotely associated with Rev. Bob Jones. That's guilt by association. Your criticism of me really has nothing to do with race -- you are just a weird and hateful sort of bigot who judges people based on where they work."
Is her response valid?
|
|
momma hoops
Joined: 16 Feb 2005
Posts: 23
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/05 11:51 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
people like womens_hoops save me from having to explain myself to people like kelli and 4ever_bball_fan. nails it right here with this: "It's not about guilt by association. It's about being held accountable for supporting institutions like Liberty who are so devoted to the cause of gay apartheid."
thank you for understanding.
kelli, if you want to go work for the nazi party even though you don't believe in their cause, yet you want to be free from any association with the way the nazis think then by all means, have a nice fairy tale life.
_________________
All hail big momma!
|
|
momma hoops
Joined: 16 Feb 2005
Posts: 23
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/05 12:26 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Kelli wrote: |
I just don't buy the 'guilt by association' line of thinking. Apparently you do. You have my sympathy.
You REFUSE to see any POV other than your own. That's not my fault and you are losing out because of it. Again, you have my sympathy.
|
You are SO greatly misusing and oversimplifying the term "guilt by association", it's sort of sad. And I don't know where you got the idea that I refuse to see any POV other than my own, I see many points of view. If you had a valid one that had a lick of sense associated with it, I might give it some credence.
_________________
All hail big momma!
|
|
Alepp03
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 1385
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/05 12:33 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I don't know how valid or useful what I have to say will be, but I am gonna give it a shot.
I think Kelli has the right intentions. She is trying to put every person into their own separate category, intstead of bunching people up and stereotyping them, in the same way these people stereotype gays and lesbians etc. Kelli wants to hold every person accountable for their own agenda and feelings, not the feelings of every person they associate with. If you were to hold against the me the agenda of my grandfather, who has worked with George Bush and is a Republican, then you would be requiring me not to allow myself love and contact with my grandpa. Also, you would be ignoring the possiblity that my grandpa disagrees with Bush on certain issues and has tried to persuade him in certain ways. No elaboration will be given, but that is the case.
Still, Cam, motherhoops, and others also have the right idea. They are going for the deep facts, they are doing their homework, they are finding direct correlations between coaches, players, mission statements, and things along these lines. I don't think it's Kelli's fault she didn't do all these things, she just wanted people to be held accountable for themselves, not everything they are associated with.
I will say I absolutely HATE the Dominos analogy. I think pilight is on target, and not buying pizza from Dominos is minute. But I understand what you mean motherhoops.
Basically, what I am getting at is just have an open mind. Maybe there is a flaw in the mindset and mission of Liberty, and possibly their players and coaches, but I think that it would be short-sighted to assume everyone affiliated with the university and even the basketball program would share every aspect of this agenda. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I got.
_________________
In a world full of people only some want to fly, isn't that crazy?
|
|
inky
Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Posts: 879
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/05 12:36 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Kelli wrote: |
| You haven't. If you think that shouting down an opponent is progress, you have a lot to learn. More than I can teach you in this forum. |
I hope this is a lesson you learn soon. You seem very bitter and shrill.
As one who gives lip service to the need for common ground, why do you preclude it ever existing by coming out without a shred of empathy or compassion for those with whom you disagree, those whom you claim should be taking a higher road? All I see from you is anger and hatred, so you're clearly not expressing your philosophy well, if it is as I understand it.
In the beginning, I wondered if you had a valid point I ought to listen to. Now I just feel kind of sorry for you, that you hold all that venom inside you. I'm afraid what I've learned from you is not at all what you've intended.
|
|
|
|
