PDA

View Full Version : Homosexuality, baseball's biggest taboo



savafan
02-27-2004, 07:06 PM
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sports/8052962.htm

DAN LE BATARD

dlebatard@herald.com

JUPITER -- The champion Marlins are stitched together tightly, not unlike the baseball around which they bond. The potential barriers, of religion and politics and language, all get toppled in the name of team and triumph.

So there is first baseman Hee Seop Choi, bowing politely upon meeting new Marlins teammates with whom he can't really speak. And there is big-bellied Armando Benitez, all Latin machismo, tossing a tin of Copenhagen across the clubhouse to Kid Rock-ian A.J. Burnett, with whom he has zero in common beyond an ability to throw a baseball very hard. And there is jovial Dontrelle Willis, going from locker to locker, making his way in and out of the white, black and Hispanic clubhouse cliques with laughter and hugs and enough wattage to light a stadium.

But what if one of them were gay?

Would this still be the tightest, most fun clubhouse in baseball?

''What it would be,'' Marlins pitcher Brad Penny says, ``is very uncomfortable in here.''

The caveman culture of sports, allowing adults to remain adolescents for a living, is not yet one of tolerance, enlightenment or understanding -- nor will it be anytime soon. You will find more homophobia per square foot in a professional sports locker room than you will find just about anywhere else in America outside of a Klan meeting, ''faggot'' remaining the most common and searing of slurs. So while homosexuality makes that arduous walk toward America's altars, more mainstream than ever from South Beach to San Francisco, found amid the laughter on prime-time television, you still won't find it anywhere near here, in the locker room where being a felon, rapist or cheat remains preferable to being gay.

''I wouldn't have a problem with it, but some people in here would,'' Marlins reliever Tim Spooneybarger says. ``This is a very personal work environment. Very intimate. Not many lawyers get together after work and shower with 30 other lawyers.''

CRUSADER NEEDED

It is very hard for one of today's athletes to become Muhammad Ali or Jackie Robinson, to have that kind of cultural impact from the sports section, but this is the final uncrossed horizon in sports. It's an odd and amazing thing to say in 2004, the year a 14-year-old female played among male golfers and a transsexual has entered an Australian golf tournament for females, but there has never been an active athlete in major American sports to announce he or she is gay.

FINAL BARRIER

Swimming? Tennis? Golf? Sure. But those are loner sports that don't require harmony, reliance, teammates. It gets appreciably more difficult to come out of the closet when it will turn the guy dressing next to you, in your colors, into the opponent, too. And there hasn't been anybody with the conviction to risk unemployment, physical harm and ostracizing in the name of this cause.

So pity poor Kazuhito Tadano this season. He's a young Cleveland Indians pitcher who starred in a gay pornographic movie three years ago. Shunned by Japanese baseball, he held an awkward press conference recently to announce he isn't gay but made the movie because he needed the money to get through college. His only solace is that, because of the language barrier, he might not understand some of the awful words about to come his way.

Asked once how he would react to a gay teammate, Atlanta outfielder Andruw Jones said he would begin with a simple, ''What the hell is wrong with you?'' That's about the kindest of what awaits the gay athlete with the courage to be today's Ali, today's Robinson, wherever he might be hiding, afraid to come out.

Red in Chicago
02-27-2004, 07:23 PM
why are most men so afraid of a gay man showering with them? do they think that he's going to attack them or get aroused in the shower? somehow, i doubt that they would. maybe they're afraid they won't "measure up":lol:

i can guarantee every guy has "sneaked a peak" at another guy in the shower or at the urinal, without anyone being converted to homosexuality.

some people of so closed minded.

J "Cooper"
02-27-2004, 08:51 PM
The thing that gets me is that most of the players are so verbal about their disdain for homosexuals. They are proud of their bigotry and close mindedness. Somehow they perceive themselves as being so much above the issue they don't even attempt an open discourse.

If even one player reported he was open to sharing the clubhouse with a gay player it would be a big deal and a huge step forward. It's pathetic the sharing would be that big of a deal.

The US military has to teach baseball how to handle these type of situations....baseball can never lead the way ...they have to wait for the most backward institution in the world (military) to show them how to get things done.

Unassisted
02-27-2004, 09:11 PM
If there were an openly gay employee of an MLB team who regularly had contact with players, it would be a slam-dunk of a lawsuit for that employee to claim that the sport or the organization condoned an atmosphere of hostility and win a corresponding claim of sexual harassment. If this article doesn't convince the Commish that it's time for some league-wide sensitivity training, I don't know what will.

Phoenix
02-27-2004, 09:24 PM
Why are so many people openly rooting for a gay baseball player to come out of the closet? Are they hoping for a "Gay Jackie Robinson" so we can eliminate the Gay Leagues? Who friggin' cares.

Team Clark
02-27-2004, 10:24 PM
Sneakin' a peek eh? I thought that was you!!! Not so bad yourself!:lol:

paulrichjr
02-28-2004, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by Red in Chicago
why are most men so afraid of a gay man showering with them? do they think that he's going to attack them or get aroused in the shower? somehow, i doubt that they would. maybe they're afraid they won't "measure up":lol:

i can guarantee every guy has "sneaked a peak" at another guy in the shower or at the urinal, without anyone being converted to homosexuality.

some people of so closed minded.

SO if a gay guys calls you up and wants to take a shower with you for the next 162 days you would be OK with this? Look I am not homophobic are what ever the "Hollywood" elite want to push down the throat and call people who don't agree with this lifestyle. In fact growing up, my parents allowed a homosexual to live in our house (because his burnt down) and right now an "in the closet with the public" homosexual is in the same office as I am. There are only 4 offices in the very small office and we are very good friends.

However, I would not want to take a shower with any of these guys. This is closed minded? I am assuming you also believe that they are "born that way" and it is natural. It is deviant bahavior pure and simple and I myself would be very uncomfortable taking a shower with a homosexual. Friends with them no problem.... Taking my clothes off with them? No way.

redsrule2500
02-28-2004, 01:49 AM
It could hurt the relations if someone is gay....very much so :eek:

Number_Fourteen
02-28-2004, 03:25 AM
However, I would not want to take a shower with any of these guys.

I don't know about you, but I have no desire to shower with my straight friends either - or any guys for that matter; regardless of their sexual orientation. But, I don't believe this is the real issue. IMHO, the underlying concern of gays in the clubhouse is the perceived threat to the "old boy's club" environment, enjoyed throughout the locker rooms of America.

Just as female, and minority hirings can vouch for in traditional white male bastions such as the fire & police departments throughout our country.

That said, what this boils down to is discriminatory in nature, and threatens one's right to earn a gainful living, i.e. the pursuit of happiness. Is this a good thing? I think not.

Personally, I'd hold a teammate of upstanding character who happens to be gay, in far higher esteem and respect, than some wife-beating dirtbag like Wil Cordero, and countless others who commit such heinous and reprehensible acts.

Unfortunately, the notion of being gay and of upstanding moral character is still an oxymoron to many in our society.

It boils down to stupidity, ignorance and homophobia, in the view of this non-PC straight white male. IMHO, if a man knows who and what he is, and is about, then his masculinity should not be so fragile.

As Americans, we're able to choose our friends and those whom we pass time with outside of work. However, most of us are unable to control the people we work amongst, that is, unless we seek out employment elsewhere.

Why should baseball players be any different?

RANDY IN INDY
02-28-2004, 08:50 AM
Maybe they just feel it is wrong and unnatural behavior. I know I wouldn't want to have to get undressed in the same room and shower with a homosexual. Sorry if that offends some of you.

1990WorldChamps
02-28-2004, 10:07 AM
I think Jeff Kent is gay. Mark my words....

Yachtzee
02-28-2004, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by 1990WorldChamps
I think Jeff Kent is gay. Mark my words....

Maybe that explains the mustache.:lol:

If players are concerned about showering with a gay man, why don't they just install individual shower stalls in the clubhouse? I lived in a college dorm where the floor shared one set of showers. We had girls on our floor and even, gasp, homosexuals. The issue never came up because the showers had individual stalls. About the only thing we had to worry about was the constant threat of having a garbage can of cold water dumped on you by the resident practical jokers.

Chip R
02-28-2004, 10:53 AM
I think some of you are missing the point here. The point isn't whether or not to allow gay players to play in the major leagues. Clearly there are and have been gay players in the majors and minors. The point is that gay players will not be open about their homosexuality because of the fear of their peers. You may not like to have them in the same locker room as you. But wouldn't you want to know if a teammate is gay? An that is the point he is trying to make. As long as there is a climate of fear and hatred towards them, gay players will remain in the closet. So you are going to never know if that player showering next to you is gay or straight.

creek14
02-28-2004, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by RANDY IN CHAR NC
I know I wouldn't want to have to get undressed in the same room and shower with a homosexual.
Well I am sure if you have ever taken a shower after a gym class or at a health club, you already have.

Why can't people just be secure about their own sexuality and not worry about others?

RANDY IN INDY
02-28-2004, 11:25 AM
I'm sure the comment will be some sort of joke, but seriously, would you want to have to take a shower in an open setting with a man or group of men who were ogling at your body, creek? Would you want your daughters or sons to share locker rooms and take showers with the opposite sex, just because they may be secure in their sexuality? If that is what you truly believe, is there really any difference? Imagine the uproar that would create. I'm pretty secure in my own sexuality, but that doesn't make me want to shower or get dressed with homosexuals, or members of the opposite sex, for that matter. (Before I was married, I wouldn't have agreed with the last part of that statement.;) )

I guess I'm probably in the minority these days, and described as old fashioned, close minded, and homophobic, and that's all well and good, but some things are just not right. I refuse to live in a make believe world that says there are no rights and wrongs, where everything is just gray. I'm ok, you're ok, we're all ok. Can't believe it, and won't accept it.

Michael Allred
02-28-2004, 03:36 PM
I just think this is damn funny.."OOOOOO! He might look at my body in the shower!" What is this? High school?

MLB players should be lucky, 90% are so damn ugly, nobody would *want* to look at them, clothed or otherwise.

Bud Selig? Stand up and do something instead of looking the other way.

Falls City Beer
02-28-2004, 03:44 PM
Next time I take a shower at the Y, I'm going to ask all the Republicans to leave because they offend my sensibility and might try to give me a bible.

paulrichjr
02-28-2004, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by Falls City Beer
Next time I take a shower at the Y, I'm going to ask all the Republicans to leave because they offend my sensibility and might try to give me a bible.

Sensibility???? How much sense does it make to be homosexual? Look at the female body and then look at the male body. Think about what they are supposed to do together. That makes sense.

Phhhl
02-28-2004, 05:10 PM
I believe in the concept that there is a way things ought to be, and then there is reality. If the majority of players are uncomfortable with something to the point that it becomes a distraction to a team's ability to play well, then it IS a problem. Nobody is likey to change that by giving sensitivity training or preaching tolerance. People really shouldn't give a damn about these guys' personal lives unless they are doing something illegal or something that is hurting their ability to play. But, we all know that is not the case. If a player is gay, I think he is best served to try and keep that out of the clubhouse... out of media. If it comes out and his teammates can deal, fine. But, more than likely, it will be a problem. It's a case by case thing. You can't just throw a blanket over it and say this is how people should react to it. That is naive.

BTW, if you live in Cincinnati, you may have heard rumors that a prominent member of the Big Red Machine was gay. Whether it's true or not, that apparently wasn't a problem.

BCubb2003
02-28-2004, 05:39 PM
It would be a problem and it wouldn't be easy, but Jackie Robinson didn't have it easy either. It wouldn't be easy having Dennis Rodman on your team, but the Bulls won championships that way. How does a team of rowdy partiers deal with having a born-again Christian in their midst, and vice versa? Here's a completely hypothetical question: If Albert Pujols were gay, would you trade him?

paulrichjr
02-28-2004, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by BCubb2003
It would be a problem and it wouldn't be easy, but Jackie Robinson didn't have it easy either. It wouldn't be easy having Dennis Rodman on your team, but the Bulls won championships that way. How does a team of rowdy partiers deal with having a born-again Christian in their midst, and vice versa? Here's a completely hypothetical question: If Albert Pujols were gay, would you trade him?

Yes if it distracted from the team then I would trade him. I'm not saying to kick a gay person off of the team. I think it would be a smart thing if they just don't tout it. As far as a born again Christian being in the midst of rowdy guys??? It happens all of the time. True (and I mean true) Christians usually don't try to stuff something down someones throat. They live by example. Not everyone is going to do this and they accept that.

This argument that always seems to lead to Jackie Robinson being discussed is ridiculous. Jackie was not doing behavior that is unnatural and wrong. Jackie's problem was that he was black. Racism is just as bad as being a homosexual. It should not be tolerated.

I don't think that homosexual activity should be singled out as the big thing that everyone gets all tore up about. It is no different than a drug addict or in my opinion a steriod user. All of these are behaviors that should not be tolerated. The clubhouse cannot and should not have to put up with any of these. People can "live with" some of the others and one can argue that people should learn how to live with a gay player... I personally think that the less distraction a team has the better.

Homosexuality would be a distraction and the clubhouse doesn't need it.

J "Cooper"
02-28-2004, 08:10 PM
So the gay guy should be quiet for the good of the team?

I see your point Santo, but eventually someone has to do something to move this thing forward. It's a little like saying the person/people that are repressed need to keep quiet so things can continue the way dominant society hopes they do. There are times when the individual must speak out.

As for the shower stuff (eye roll), maybe it's time we put up individual stalls in the male showers. It's kinda gross that we never had those anyway. In a way, this arguement is more about the need for private showers space than it is for anything. And i'm all for that. In many male locker room it's just 6 shower heads in one big stall....heteosexual, homosexual, bi, etc...it's an uncomfortable setting that needs to change. I have no earthly idea why it's still this way. It's a form of denial. Men want the privacy, but are concerned that the implication is something is amiss if they ask for it.

1990WorldChamps
02-28-2004, 08:19 PM
You can all come watch me shower anytime you want. I don't care. Pictures will cost you extra.

paulrichjr
02-28-2004, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by J "Cooper"
So the gay guy should be quiet for the good of the team?

I see your point Santo, but eventually someone has to do something to move this thing forward. It's a little like saying the person/people that are repressed need to keep quiet so things can continue the way dominant society hopes they do. There are times when the individual must speak out.



Move what forward... Why do we need to "move it forward?" I have not seen even one case where a homosexual wanted to play baseball. Not one. It ain't like there is a AAA or college star out there that is wanting to play. Just how many poor "oppressed (roll eyes 2x)" gay baseball players are there in the world?

Unassisted
02-28-2004, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by paulrichjr
Move what forward... Why do we need to "move it forward?" I have not seen even one case where a homosexual wanted to play baseball. Not one. It ain't like there is a AAA or college star out there that is wanting to play. Just how many poor "oppressed (roll eyes 2x)" gay baseball players are there in the world?

Paul, it's time to start your list of gay baseball players. Put this name at the top of it.

Billy Bean (http://members.tripod.com/~homeo/billybean.html)

You might want to read his book if you don't believe he was "oppressed," as you put it.

westofyou
02-28-2004, 10:06 PM
Paul, it's time to start your list of gay baseball players. Put this name at the top of it.

Next put Glen Burke up there.

http://www.lambda.net/~maximum/burke.html

Number_Fourteen
02-28-2004, 11:12 PM
Funny you should mention Glenn Burke. I am a friend & neighbor of former Athletic pitcher, Mike Norris, who recently told me that he felt Burke was the best all-around athlete he ever saw from the Oakland / Berkeley area. In addition, Mike argued that Burke was even better than Rickey, in terms of all around athleticism. To those familiar w/ the quality of athletes the East Bay has produced over the years, that's quite a compliment.

westofyou
02-28-2004, 11:17 PM
Funny you should mention Glenn Burke.

Not really, I lived in the Bay Area for 20 years, I remember Billy Ball and Mike Norris very well. I've heard the same about Burke.

paulrichjr
02-29-2004, 12:36 AM
I stand corrected there has been 2 gay baseball players that have come out in the 150 year history of this game. Wow! We need to start a movement. Maybe we could organize a boycott. This is a real problem. These poor guys couldn't tell their buddies that they have a thing for the same sex. I have never read anything so sad in my life.

Am I being fecicious? Of course but no more than the quote about bibles and Republicans. I'm sorry but I just can't see what the big deal is... Why does Bud Selig or anyone else need to do something because someone doesn't feel comfortable coming out about their sexual preference?

I still stand by what I said before... this behavior is not normal/natural. Why should it be applauded?

TheManWith3Legs
02-29-2004, 01:32 AM
Well, I'm not homophobic. To be honest, I enjoy bisexual women. In fact, shower, urinal, whatever, I don't mind anyone, man or woman, looking at the third leg. Only rule different for the guys: They can look but they can't touch.

Number_Fourteen
02-29-2004, 01:53 AM
Funny you should mention Glenn Burke.

Originally posted by westofyou
Not really, I lived in the Bay Area for 20 years, I remember Billy Ball and Mike Norris very well. I've heard the same about Burke.

Well, not meant as "odd that you, in particular, should mention him" or "ha ha" funny... more along the lines of "what a coincidence" funny... but, I would not want to split hairs here. ;)

Tony Cloninger
02-29-2004, 12:45 PM
Dave Kopay....in football.....an even more "manly" sport.......wrote in his book that there was at least 1 or 2 gay men on every team. And he played for several of them.

In Washington he said he had an affair with an All-Pro receiver. Now about 10 years ago or so.......a TE for that team named Jerry Smith dies of AIDS. It was reported quickly and quitely on NBC during the pregame show. You can pretty much assume, just like i did that he was talking about this person.

But the main thing is that in the sport of football you have to be even more macho then baseball. It is the only way to survive.

He wrote that Vince Lombardi tolerated homosexuals on the team beacuse one of his own brothers or cousins was one. It was a family member for sure of his (I read this book by Kopay about 5-6 years ago) but i do remember alot of this.

I also remember reading LB Dave Megesseys (wrong speeling probably) book about this same subject. He was not gay. He was a counter culture football player type but he exposed football for it's drugs....and for a couple of pages...some of the gay men who played it.

In going back to Burke. There was an article in SPORT magazine several years back (It has to be beacuse that magazine is old) but Lopes and some Dodger players knew he was gay but it was no big deal to them. I think ALOT more players know when someone is gay and some are more tolerant than we think but they are not going to openly say this for fear of looking bad by other players.

Falls City Beer
02-29-2004, 12:48 PM
"I think ALOT more players know when someone is gay and some are more tolerant than we think but they are not going to openly say this for fear of looking bad by other players."

I think you're absolutely right, and I think that's a great observation.

WVRed
02-29-2004, 02:07 PM
I dont mind players coming out and saying that they are gay, its just when they come out and constantly throw it in your face. Its like, "Im gay, treat me special".

Compare Ellen Degeneres with Rosie O'Donnell, both are lesbians, but one doesnt flaunt it with the media every chance they get. Can you guess which one?;)

tremere
02-29-2004, 02:15 PM
I think that Ellen is far more dignified in the way she goes about representing herself than is Rosie. The other day when Rosie was doing that "lesbian marriage" thingy, you could just see her grasping for straws with the media, trying to get all the attention. Her career is going down the tubes, and this is her way of trying to resurrect it. Didn't Ellen's past wife do the same thing?

Hubba
02-29-2004, 06:33 PM
Does anyone think that there will be a Redszone wedding anytime
soon now that the closet doors have been opened.:lol:

Far East
02-29-2004, 07:22 PM
Jackie was not doing behavior that is unnatural and wrong... It is no different than a drug addict or in my opinion a steriod user. All of these are behaviors that should not be tolerated.
I've been out of town all weekend, I see that this thread is quite long, but feel that I can not let this opportunity slide.

First off, as you can tell from the foregoing diverse posts the "unnatural and wrong" concept is debatable.

Secondly, the drug addict and steroid user virtually have acted voluntarily (at least in the beginning) and have made a conscious decision having led them to their plight.

Conversely, there is strong evidence -- although not conclusive -- that male homosexuality may be genetic. Researchers early noted that the pedigrees (family trees) of homosexuals
showed that trait in the gay man's mother's brothers and in the sons of the mother's sisters significantly more frequently than in non-related males.

From Biology 101 you may recognize the above pattern as being almost identical to males' inheritance of color-blindness, hemophilia, and a few other traits via a single recessive gene on the one and only maternal X chromosome that the son has inherited (obviously he has gotten his Y chromosome from his father). If that is true, then the grandmother, mother and maternal aunts' X chromosomes become suspect. Some geneticists, Hamer et al. (1993) even think that they have pinpointed a site on the X chromosome. "This region is known as Xq28, because it is located at the 28th region of the right arm (q) of the X chromosome. In correlational studies, there was found to be a .82 correlation between homosexuality and Xq28, " as per an Ask Jeeves search.
Or see: www.netpci.com/~tttbbs/EPN-1/Articles/Articles-Homo/gaygene1.html

In short, the so called life style, IMHO, is not a style at all but is inherited not too unlike how we have inherited eye color, skin pigmentation, handedness, etc. and thus forms no natural foundation for discrimination, and it is they who discriminate who are the ones who have consciously and voluntarily chosen an "unatural and wrong" style.

savafan
02-29-2004, 07:32 PM
Dave Pallone was also a gay MLB umpire, and according to his book, I think it was titled Behind the Mask, he says there are a lot of homosexuals in baseball.

RANDY IN INDY
02-29-2004, 09:00 PM
Maybe it's what you do with your inheritance that matters.

Some people may have a gene that causes them to become alcoholics. That tends to run in families as well. Does that make it ok to be an alcaholic? Some have a gene that would cause them to have a terrible temper. Does that make it ok to beat their wives and children?

cincinnati chili
02-29-2004, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by RANDY IN CHAR NC
Maybe it's what you do with your inheritance that matters.

Some people may have a gene that causes them to become alcoholics. That tends to run in families as well. Does that make it ok to be an alcaholic? Some have a gene that would cause them to have a terrible temper. Does that make it ok to beat their wives and children?

All of those things hurt other people. Homosexuality hurts nobody.

I realize I'm not going to change your opinion or others who believe God thinks it's wrong. But there's a clear difference vis a vis the tradition that people should have the right to do things that don't infringe on the rights of othere.

Far East
03-01-2004, 12:11 AM
Maybe it's what you do with your inheritance that matters.
So ... if you've inherited a tendency to be heterosexual, I suppose you can abstain? Good luck! That's what you seem to be asking the gays to do.

Unassisted
03-01-2004, 12:31 AM
Well, I'm convinced that no opinions are going to change as a result of this thread. :yawn: I vote for the lock.

paulrichjr
03-01-2004, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by Far East
I've been out of town all weekend, I see that this thread is quite long, but feel that I can not let this opportunity slide.

First off, as you can tell from the foregoing diverse posts the "unnatural and wrong" concept is debatable.

Secondly, the drug addict and steroid user virtually have acted voluntarily (at least in the beginning) and have made a conscious decision having led them to their plight.

....., etc. and thus forms no natural foundation for discrimination, and it is they who discriminate who are the ones who have consciously and voluntarily chosen an "unatural and wrong" style.


Sorry but a lot of research done since this study says that this is bull....

Here is an example from ABC News...
ABC NEWS.com
April 22, 1999 Claudine Chamberlain



Where Did The 'Gay Gene' Go?
By Claudine Chamberlain
ABCNEWS.com
April 22 Its a seemingly endless debate: Why are some people attracted to the opposite sex, while others are drawn to their own gender? Thanks to new research published today, that question just got even harder to answer.
A team of researchers at the University of Western Ontario in Canada has found no evidence of the so-called gay gene, directly contradicting studies from 1993 and 95 that pinpointed a specific genetic marker on the X chromosome linked to homosexuality in men.
Whether genes play a part in sexual orientation has long been a hot button topic for people who support or oppose gay rights. If gays and lesbians are biologically predisposed to homosexuality through their genes or some other way that makes for a stronger case against discrimination.
Thats why the gay community welcomed the 1993 study by biologist Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute. Hamer found that in 40 pairs of gay brothers, 33 had the same set of DNA sequences in a region of the chromosome called Xq28....

You can read the rest here... http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a371fcd675dbd.htm

Here is another article written by a lesbian that basically says it is a choice not biology that makes us like we are... I found some of it interesting because she admits that she debunks a lot of the lesbians arguments and admits to doing so...

http://staffweb.lib.uiowa.edu/ktonella/oob/features/Biology.htm

There are many articles that dispute these claims on the internet to read as well in print. http://www.queerbychoice.com/gaygenelinks.html

This argument on biology does not hold because some similar research says that criminals are genetically predisposed to be rapists or other things. I realize that homosexuality is between two consenting adults (we hope) and a rapists is not but if it is unnatural which obviously it is if you just look at a male and females body then we do not have to accept it as normal behavior. Neither do we accept the rapists as normal behavior. I don't believe that laws should be passed to forbid it. I also don't think Bud Selig should force teams to accept it as normal when it is not.

I also don't understand the deal on this when not one player has ever come out while playing and stated that he was gay. What do we want to do? Have a coming out and tell all the players "Hey if you are gay come out in the open and we will applaud you." Why do we care? The best thing for the guy to do would be to shut up and play. It would be a distraction on his team and upon his entire career. Why should he feel the need to put himself or his team through this?

J "Cooper"
03-01-2004, 07:13 AM
So then we can assume that teammates who advocate anything for the good of the team, would not be oppossed to a fellow player "coming out". They would not say anything negative or derogatory towards the gay player, correct? I mean a good teammate wouldn't want to be a distraction to the team, right?

A good teammate would be like Davy Lopes and just shrug it off like no big deal so as not to make it a distraction to the team. Or would he instead be like a young John Rocker who sure as heck made it about the team. I guess he was worried about all this stuff becoming a distraction...uh...never mind.

Doc. Scott
03-01-2004, 07:56 AM
It's really strange that baseball clubhouses seem so much *less* progressive in 2004.

Anyone who's read Ball Four should remember the descriptions of the ways in which the '69 Pilots were clowning around in the locker room. And Jim Bouton acts like it happened on every team back then, and no one thought it was particularly weird. Could it be that the players assumed everyone was straight (of course, they weren't), and were therefore much more comfortable with themselves? Could the source of all this newfound homophobia be simply suspicion between teammates? (And say whatever you want through the rose-colored glasses, boomers, but mainstream society was not more liberal in 1969 than it is in 2004.)

TeamCasey
03-01-2004, 08:00 AM
How'd this thread get over here? :lol:

RANDY IN INDY
03-01-2004, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by Far East:

So ... if you've inherited a tendency to be heterosexual, I suppose you can abstain?

Why would I? There is nothing "unnatural" about being heterosexual. It was the way things were intended to be for "pro-creation" between a "married" man and a woman. I don't see anything to abstain from. If you can't understand that, I won't try to explain it to you, nor will I try and change your mind. You're entitled to your opinion, but your question is a bit of a stretch, and really proves nothing.



Originally posted by cincinnati chili:

All of those things hurt other people. Homosexuality hurts nobody.

Tell that to the families that it has torn apart. I also believe that the AIDS epidemic that is rampant in the gay community would refute that statement.

I realize that I won't change anyone's mind, and I knew that I wouldn't when this one started, but I feel that homosexuality is not natural and plain wrong. Everyone has a right to believe what they want, and I respect that. I won't bang my head against the wall on this one. There's really nothing left to say that would make any difference.

Blondini
03-01-2004, 12:04 PM
If any of you somehow got conned into reading ESPN: The Magazine, there's an article in the Feb. 16th issue about Lindsy McLean, the SF 49ers trainer who "officially" outed recently after his partner's death (from AIDS), but whose homosexuality was an "open secret" in football for years. I have no idea how to find the article online...ESPNTMag. doesn't have any handy-dandy links to previous articles, and it sure ain't free...but see below for a suggested alternate.

Anyway, the gist of the article was that McLean's professional life was hell, apparently, from the time it was surmised the guy who occasionally visited him in the 49ers' clubhouse was his life partner...

If you don't have a subscription to ESPNTMag, there's an article in a San Francisco newspaper about the guy (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/06/BAGIQ4PRJ212.DTL&type=gaylesbian), and how the 49er players treated him. Badly.

Evidently the 49ers ORGANIZATION was quite respectful of him and his life choices, though.

------------------------

I think it's a shame how people in general can be so judgmental about other people's most personal choices, usually couched in terms of religious righteousness or moral superiority...

Blondini
03-01-2004, 12:15 PM
I had a lot more problem with this excerpt from one of paulrichjr's post on Page 1 of this thread than I have ever had with any person who's declared his/her homosexuality.


This argument that always seems to lead to Jackie Robinson being discussed is ridiculous. Jackie was not doing behavior that is unnatural and wrong. Jackie's problem was that he was black. Racism is just as bad as being a homosexual. It should not be tolerated.

Just like the issue of gay-ness, blacks DIDN'T HAVE THE PROBLEM.

The people who judged Jackie Robinson based on his color, ex: the people who've restricted the freedom of blacks (and Native Americans, and those of Asian/East Indian/Hispanic heritage) to live like those of lighter-color skin who are the majority in positions of power in this country, they are the ones with the problem.

Grow up, Americans. Stop being so narrow-minded. Stop being so judgmental.

TeamCasey
03-01-2004, 12:29 PM
"Racism is just as bad as being a homosexual. It should not be tolerated."

Isn't intolerance REALLY what shouldn't be tolerated? Isn't the statement "Racism is just as bad as being a homosexual." a racist statement in itself?

TeamDunn
03-01-2004, 12:35 PM
Ya know, I have to wonder how the anti-homosexual group is going to act if one of their children come home one day and tell them they are gay.

Are you going to turn your back on your child if he/she decides to only date the same sex?

And what exactly would rip the family apart? The child being gay or the family not accepting it and getting pissed off because their child will not change and conform to what THEY think their child should be?

Just curious. :)

Far East
03-01-2004, 12:40 PM
Sorry but a lot of research done since this study says that this is bull....
Aside from the Xq28 theory of inheritance of sexual orientation are some about its being controlled by the prenatal intrauterine environment:
www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/1995papers/satinover.html

...and some about its control by inheritance of a gene on the mother's
mitochondrial DNA:
www.evolutionary-economics.org/ KSH-Postings-Econ/074.html.

In effect, the orientation, I'm convinced, is inherited or at least congenital -- not a chosen "lifestlye".

I know that the question is overused but for those who have not heard it it goes something like this: If you are heterosexual, do you recall precisely when you chose to be that way? If you have trouble answering , could it possibly be that you were born that way and that is not a matter of choice at all?

Chip R
03-01-2004, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by TeamDunn
And what exactly would rip the family apart? The child being gay or the family not accepting it and getting pissed off because their child will not change and conform to what THEY think their child should be?

Just curious. :) I wouldn't want to put words into anybody's mouth but perhaps what Randy means by "tearing the family apart" is that one person of a married couple decides to leave his or her family for a gay relationship. Or perhaps what he means is that in the example listed, one of the persons contracts AIDS while in that relationship and passes it on to their spouse.

BTW, I'm glad to see that this thread hasn't degenerated to the point where it would have to be closed. It's good we can discuss a topic that people have such strong feelings about civilly.

traderumor
03-01-2004, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by TeamDunn
Ya know, I have to wonder how the anti-homosexual group is going to act if one of their children come home one day and tell them they are gay.

Are you going to turn your back on your child if he/she decides to only date the same sex?

And what exactly would rip the family apart? The child being gay or the family not accepting it and getting pissed off because their child will not change and conform to what THEY think their child should be?

Just curious. :)

I disagree with homosexuality because my religious beliefs consider it sin. Therefore, if my child made a conscious decision to pursue that lifestyle, I would treat the decision just as if they had chosen any other sinful lifestyle. I would attempt to share parental wisdom based on Scriptural principles and let them decide what to do with the advice. They would know that I loved them because sin is sin. All of my children are sinful, regardless of the particular wrongdoings, so if I would shun them from my family for that particular sin, then I would have to shun the rest of them for their sin also. I don't get to pick and choose what sins my children are going to commit. But I do get the opportunity to keep leading them to the Savior, whom ultimately they belong to anyway.

Honestly, I do think about things like that and prepare a response, even though I hope to never have to use it. I think about how I will respond to any of my children if they walk in one day as a teenager and say "dad, I'm pregnant" or "dad, I got my girlfriend pregnant." The same goes for if my child one day came to me and said "dad, I'm homosexual." They will get a response along the lines of the above and a lot of love, which hopefully will lead them to or back to their Savior and away from the sin that so easily besets us all.

RANDY IN INDY
03-01-2004, 01:03 PM
I wasn't going to say any more on this thread, but Chip hit my thoughts right on the nose. I know a family where recently, the father left them to pursue a gay relationship. It has been traumatic on the wife and kids, and the wife was so terribly afraid that she possibly could have contracted HIV. It's a real sad situation.

A lot of you may want to defend such a thing, but I just can't find it in myself to do it. It is flat out"wrong."

RANDY IN INDY
03-01-2004, 01:05 PM
That was a great response, traderumor, and my feelings exactly.

princeton
03-01-2004, 01:06 PM
I like openness. I mean, it's a bit uncomfortable and I certainly don't want details, but secrets bother me more than declarations

I've never met anyone who was open and a threat. I HAVE met at least one person that was both secretive and threatening. And while it admittedly took too long for me to realize not to hold the latter against the homo world, I do now recognize that we have a lot more of the secretive, threatening individuals in the hetero world.

give me a world where we don't force suppression

go, openness

Far East
03-01-2004, 01:12 PM
There is nothing "unnatural" about being heterosexual I guess it depends upon one's definition of natural to begin with. I guess I'm using Encarta's definition #6: "innate: inborn, rather than acquired".

My contention is that if -- and I realize that is a big "if" to you -- sexual orientation is genetic or even only congenital, then it is by definition natural, no less so than Downs syndrome, dyslexia, inborn immunities, or baldness are natural.

So from my perspective here is nothing "unnatural" about any sexual orientation.

RANDY IN INDY
03-01-2004, 01:16 PM
Whatever. It just seems to me that sex is ultimately for pro-creation and two individuals of the same sex cannot, naturally, create a child. It just doesn't work that way. Not a natural kind of thing from where I sit.

Far East
03-01-2004, 01:21 PM
I know a family where recently, the father left them to pursue a gay relationship. It has been traumatic on the wife and kids... On the other hand, more than half of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, frequently with one (or both) "straight" souse(s) pursuing another partner and with much trauma to perhaps millions of children.

traderumor
03-01-2004, 01:26 PM
Far East,

You may find this hard to believe, but I agree with you...in part. Unfortunately, sexual immorality is all too natural. It is a part of our sin nature that all of us are born with. And in a limited sense, I also see the possibility that one person is bent more toward expressing sexual desire with the same sex as another. I don't think that position is antithetical to the Scriptural position on sin. We all do not have the same struggles. We are all fallen creatures and our sexuality has to be redeemed the same as any other area of our life. The problems come in when we don't want to acknowledge that a particular behavior is sinful when it is clearly called so by the One who decides what's sin and what isn't. And that ain't the pope and it ain't me, its God Almighty, the King of kings and Lord of lords. The Creator gets to decide what is natural and unnatural, not the creatures.


On the other hand, more than half of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, frequently with one (or both) "straight" souse(s) pursuing another partner and with much trauma to perhaps millions of children.

Right. Which is why adultery, whether homo or hetero sexual is wrong. So can we call that a moral absolute now?

Far East
03-01-2004, 01:33 PM
...sex is ultimately for pro-creation... I hope this doesn't sound elitist, because some so called experts have been often been proven wrong later, but many if not all anthropologists rank pair-bonding, not procreation, as the primary function of sex in humans.

See some of these results from a Google search:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=human+sex+pair+bond&btnG=Google+Search

Blondini
03-01-2004, 01:40 PM
I know a family where recently, the father left them to pursue a gay relationship. It has been traumatic on the wife and kids, and the wife was so terribly afraid that she possibly could have contracted HIV. It's a real sad situation.
I know a family where the father, as straight a heterosexual male as any of you "real men", 'way back in the early 80s (before AIDS was identified as a STD killer), was in SanFran for a while, and with the times and the place being the way they were (free love, hippies, flower children), he had a one-time same-sex encounter, just for the experience and experimentation. He died 11 years later from terminal AIDS. True story.

Ya see, it's not just gays who "have a problem". It's just stupid people. And the ability of some diseases to mutate into lethal epidemics.

Whatever. It just seems to me that sex is ultimately for pro-creation
Just for curiosity's sake (and to hijack this thread a bit ;) ), RandyinCharNC, how do you feel about people who've been married for 30+ years who found out early on that they cannot have children due to some kind of infertility problem? Do you think it's a sin for them to continue to enjoy sex throughout the rest of their marriage?

Unassisted
03-01-2004, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by paulrichjr
I also don't understand the deal on this when not one player has ever come out while playing and stated that he was gay. Billy Bean has explained why he didn't come out while playing. He feared physical retribution in a form that might lead to a career-ending injury. Injuries happen all the time on the diamond. It would be next to impossible to prove that another player caused one intentionally.

The "deal on this" is that the openly-expressed slurs create a hostile environment that bears little difference to you or I going around at our workplaces and saying things that are degrading to the opposite sex. That is called "hate speech." It is offensive to the people depicted and they would have a legal right to sue us and our employers for creating a hostile work environment.

Surely you can relate to this. Put yourself in the shoes of the slurred. What if the slurs were against people who wear glasses or have big noses or whatever stands out about you?

There is no need for individuals to be slurring any group of people - whether they are present at the time the slur is uttered or not. As a society, we have progressed beyond that. For those in the workplace who have not progressed, fortunately, there are legal remedies.

RANDY IN INDY
03-01-2004, 01:44 PM
Traderumor is right on the mark with his comments about sin. We can't put varying degrees on sin, and pick and choose the ones we like, or want to uphold. Ultimately, only God can condemn sin, but he has given us a roadmap for living if we only will pick it up and read it and ask for his discernment for understanding it.

traderumor
03-01-2004, 01:49 PM
What if the slurs were against people who wear glasses or have big noses or whatever stands out about you?

Or Christian, the one slur that its ok to hurl insults at in our culture?

Far East
03-01-2004, 02:06 PM
..if my child made a conscious decision to pursue that lifestyle...
traderumor,

First:The civility and respect shown by you and all other posters on this thread on such a controversial subject as this is genuinely encouraging.

Second:There's a chance that you are right about this hypothetical sin by your child, but please remember if that ever happens to you or a friend or relative that there's also the chance that the child's genetics -- beyond his control -- is at work, not something selected as one would choose a wardrobe, a favorite restaurant, of a favorite sports team.:redcap:

TeamDunn
03-01-2004, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by RANDY IN CHAR NC
Whatever. It just seems to me that sex is ultimately for pro-creation and two individuals of the same sex cannot, naturally, create a child. It just doesn't work that way. Not a natural kind of thing from where I sit.

I'm not picking you out Randy...honest!!! You just say things that make me think of questions...I guess that means I read more of your posts or they prompt me to ask questions more...I'm not picking on you. I like you!!! :)

Anywho, by what you say above does that mean that a couple that either can't have children due to health reasons or couples that choose not to have children for whatever reason...does that mean they should not bother to have sex or get married?

Again, not picking on you and my question is not just directed at you! It is anyone that thinks marriage and sex are for procreation only. :)

TeamDunn
03-01-2004, 02:15 PM
Thank you TR!

Wonderful post!

:)


Originally posted by traderumor
I disagree with homosexuality because my religious beliefs consider it sin. Therefore, if my child made a conscious decision to pursue that lifestyle, I would treat the decision just as if they had chosen any other sinful lifestyle. I would attempt to share parental wisdom based on Scriptural principles and let them decide what to do with the advice. They would know that I loved them because sin is sin. All of my children are sinful, regardless of the particular wrongdoings, so if I would shun them from my family for that particular sin, then I would have to shun the rest of them for their sin also. I don't get to pick and choose what sins my children are going to commit. But I do get the opportunity to keep leading them to the Savior, whom ultimately they belong to anyway.

Honestly, I do think about things like that and prepare a response, even though I hope to never have to use it. I think about how I will respond to any of my children if they walk in one day as a teenager and say "dad, I'm pregnant" or "dad, I got my girlfriend pregnant." The same goes for if my child one day came to me and said "dad, I'm homosexual." They will get a response along the lines of the above and a lot of love, which hopefully will lead them to or back to their Savior and away from the sin that so easily besets us all.

cincinnati chili
03-01-2004, 02:18 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by cincinnati chili:

All of those things hurt other people. Homosexuality hurts nobody.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Originally posted by RANDY IN CHAR NC
Tell that to the families that it has torn apart. I also believe that the AIDS epidemic that is rampant in the gay community would refute that statement.

I realize that I won't change anyone's mind, and I knew that I wouldn't when this one started, but I feel that homosexuality is not natural and plain wrong. Everyone has a right to believe what they want, and I respect that. I won't bang my head against the wall on this one. There's really nothing left to say that would make any difference.

Homosexuality hasn't caused families to be "torn apart." I know this from experience from having a gay person in my immediate family.

I can believe that people's overrecation to homosexuality can tear families apart (e.g. father disowns son because he's gay). I can believe that marital INFIDELITY (hetero or homo) can tear families apart.

I don't like families being torn apart any more than you do, but I don't think you can equate this to some of the things that really tear families apart (alcohol, drugs, abuse, infidelity). I also think that gays and lesbians are less likely to enter into doomed heterosexual marriages if society makes them feel more comfortable to come out of the closet sooner rather than later.

Getting back to the primary topic though, I have to agree that this IS the #1 taboo in men's sports - rightly or wrongly. Most athletes, for better or for worse, seem to be more comfortable playing with a convicted felon than they do playing with an openly gay teammate. Personally, if I were on the Cleveland Indians, I'd fear Milton Bradley (not yet a felon, but heading in that direction) more than Mr. Tedano. But I think I'd be in the minority.

traderumor
03-01-2004, 02:21 PM
Second:There's a chance that you are right about this hypothetical sin by your child, but please remember if that ever happens to you or a friend or relative that there's also the chance that the child's genetics -- beyond his control -- is at work, not something selected as one would choose a wardrobe, a favorite restaurant, of a favorite sports team.

Far East,

I have already acknowledged that it is genetics. Since Adam, genetics has ensured that we all inherit a sin nature, and the choice as to what we struggle with is not always up to us and is often beyond our ability to shake them. That's what Christ (the second Adam) died for. To redeem fallen men and women, whether they be homosexual, idolators, fornicators, liars, God haters, and a whole lot more things that Paul listed out in several of his episitles. A discussion such as this always takes me back to one of Christ's teachings http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=lu+13:3&version=kjv&context=1&showtools=1
It is always real easy to look at a sinful lifestyle that we have no desire to engage in and wag our fingers, but we must all repent of our sins, whatever those may be, or we shall all likewise perish.

deltachi8
03-01-2004, 03:04 PM
Interesting read, and thank you to everyone, which ever "side" you are on for being civil.

Personally, I could not care less if one is gay/straight/bi/tri whatever, it is ther business, not mine. My place on earth does not ivolve judgement, that is saved for someone far more important than I.

When I was younger, I felt different. I threw around the barbs and insults. I didn't know anyone (or at least I thought I didn't) that was gay. Then I grew older and found out that I had friends and fraternity brothers who were gay and said, what difference does it make, its the same person.

I think many people have anti-homosexual feelings because of fear...fear of being associated with one (so that you become labled a fag, homo, etc), even fear of being "converted." I still remember my grandmother telling me to "watch for the homosexuals, they will try to get you."

In all honesty, what do we have to fear from a homosexual?

So, I say, to each thier own, it may not be my bag, but it has zero effect on me at the same time.

Unassisted
03-01-2004, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by traderumor
Or Christian, the one slur that its ok to hurl insults at in our culture? Forgive the hijack, folks. :)

Using network TV as a reference point and "The Simpsons" in particular, I'd say you have a point. Overall, I think that overweight people are more likely to be on the receiving end of this type of insult. And isn't it ironic, since the majority of people in this country fall into one or both of those categories?

Falls City Beer
03-01-2004, 03:24 PM
"Or Christian, the one slur that its ok to hurl insults at in our culture?"

Puh-leeze.

Yeah, Christians are REALLY backed into a corner in this country.

Next time the "Passion of Allah" shows at the multiplex, PM me.

traderumor
03-01-2004, 03:25 PM
Ok, what do I win unassisted. I'm both. I betcha no one has seen a thread on gluttony over on the other board, have they? :p:

FCB, I wasn't trying to be combative with that statement (although I knew it would sound like a pity party), but it is ironic that as a Christian that I am considered intolerant when expressing my opinion based on Biblical principals simply because I am using Scripture to support my conclusions. In other words, intolerance is the Biblical opinion, while all others views must be "tolerated." That was my point.

As for the passion of Allah, since there is no historical basis for such a thing, it would be kinda silly to make such a movie. But when was the last time you heard a derisive comment directed at Muslims from a member of the media? Yet you could find a quote daily where someone has slurred the historic Christian faith.

princeton
03-01-2004, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by Unassisted
Overall, I think that overweight people are more likely to be on the receiving end of this type of insult.

nah, the most frequent "slurs" on TV are about being a man-- especially a married man.

but that's just TV. In real life I'm guessing that wife slurs are no. 1. I wouldn't be surprised if overweight slurs trump homosexual slurs for no. 2, but it might be the other order. Christian slurs are probably pretty far down

paulrichjr
03-01-2004, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by Blondini
I had a lot more problem with this excerpt from one of paulrichjr's post on Page 1 of this thread than I have ever had with any person who's declared his/her homosexuality.

paulrichjr's quote...
This argument that always seems to lead to Jackie Robinson being discussed is ridiculous. Jackie was not doing behavior that is unnatural and wrong. Jackie's problem was that he was black. Racism is just as bad as being a homosexual. It should not be tolerated.

Just like the issue of gay-ness, blacks DIDN'T HAVE THE PROBLEM.....

....Grow up, Americans. Stop being so narrow-minded. Stop being so judgmental.

I hope that you did not read into my quote that I felt that Jackie Robinson's "problem" was that he was black and I felt that this was truly a problem... I even said in the next sentence that racisim is just as bad in my eyes as being a homosexual. I should have put quotations around the word problem but I neglected to do so... I am appalled at racism just as I do not agree with being mean to gays. I want anyone who didn't read the first page to realize that as far as I know I am the only one that has actually admitted to having homosexuals close to me in my life... Once when one lived at my home (I was a teenager) for I believe over a year and now one in my office. I am very friendly and respect them as people - they are friends. I don't treat them any different than I treated an 18 year old friend of my family who got caught Friday night drinking and driving. I don't accept the behavior as normal or correct behavior. I still am friends with them and do not shun them.

I believe that Chili made the comment that homosexuality does not tear homes apart but that simply isn't true. The guy that works in my office who is gay recently had his entire family (wife and 2 very beautiful daughters) move out on him. They have now divorced and he has to drive 5 hours one way just to see his kids. He chose sex with a man over raising his two kids. I'm sorry but this is wrong pure and simple. By the way his ex-wife doesn't even know he is gay. Why did she leave? Because he was arrested for contributing to the deliquency of a minor. He use to hang around 16 year old boys a lot for some reason and buy them beer... (No idea why) He is a 42 year old CPA who at one time was a very respected member of my small community and still is to some extent. Almost no one knows that he is gay. I truly feel sorry for him and his kids.

I also want to say that I am happy that this thread has not been closed. I would hope someone doesn't see this as a Christians against gays because that is simply not what being a Christian is about. As many others have stated... We do not persecute them we simply want to see them turn their lives around. We don't hate them.. we hate the sin that they are committing.

TeamDunn
03-01-2004, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by princeton
nah, the most frequent "slurs" on TV are about being a man-- especially a married man.

I think that is real life too. And you know what we (females) do not even consider it male bashing, we are not intentionally trying to knock you guys.

My friends and I always end up talking about boyfriends, spouses, fathers, brothers, or just male friends and coworkers. It comes out like bashing them (of course we discuss the female family members and coworkers as well! :evilgrin: ).

I wonder if it is because in general women will talk about things with other women that men do not bother to even think about bringing up with another man?

We will gripe about a mans maners, clothing, selfishness (as we see it)...stuff like that. I don't think I have been around any men that will waste the time they have for male bonding by talking about how much their wives, girlfriends, mothers, sisters drive them completely nuts or over the edge.

Do you guys do that?

:)

This thread has stretched to all sorts of corners!

:p:

princeton
03-01-2004, 04:00 PM
TD, I was equating slurs with jokes. In real life, there aren't many husband slurs because a wife can't tell a good joke, right? ;)

(preparing to duck creek's comment...)

M2
03-01-2004, 04:16 PM
Here's the thing about acting like there's only one set of moral absolutes and that they happen to be the set in your posession. For all those who come into a thread like this and make definitive statements about homosexuality being a sin and what not, there are those of us who are just as certain that you're morally, ethically and biblically wrong.

I'm willing to kick around the public aspects of something like homosexuality because that's a societal issue, but when we get down to individual morality, I couldn't be less interested. I think Randy, with whom I disagree completely on this matter, was right about not being able to change anyone's mind on this one. When you've got conflicting moral certitudes at play, there isn't much room for discussion. At some point you've got to live and let live.

As for gays in the clubhouse, the entire topic amuses me. Anyone who played enough organized sports has been on teams, in locker rooms and in the showers with someone who's gay. That's just simple math. There were 100+ guys on my high school track team and close to that on the football team. Now multiply that by four years. Toss in a decade-plus of swimming at the Y and I don't see the point in getting uptight over something that, despite the fact that I can't specifically say who's been gay in those locker rooms, has been a fairly consistent aspect of partaking in athletics.

It's probably more of an issue with younger guys and sheltered athletes because they're naive and don't always have perspective from outside the bubble of their existence, but at the point where I'm at in life, I couldn't care less if a gay guy saw me getting changed at some point in the past. And if he had untoward thoughts about me afterward, I'll take that as a compliment.

cincinnati chili
03-01-2004, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by paulrichjr
I believe that Chili made the comment that homosexuality does not tear homes apart but that simply isn't true. The guy that works in my office who is gay recently had his entire family (wife and 2 very beautiful daughters) move out on him...

That's an infidelity issue, not a homosexuality issue. I agree that infidelity tears families apart.

Gays and lesbians would be less likely to enter into doomed heterosexual marriages if society made them feel more comfortable about exiting the closet.

This doesn't excuse cheating on your wife. But I think you would agree that homosexuality does not equal marital infidelity.

traderumor
03-01-2004, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by M2
Here's the thing about acting like there's only one set of moral absolutes and that they happen to be the set in your posession. For all those who come into a thread like this and make definitive statements about homosexuality being a sin and what not, there are those of us who are just as certain that you're morally, ethically and biblically wrong.

Isn't what you stated an absolute statement? Isn't one opinion just as narrow as the other? Why can M2 make absolute statements in a thread but others with opinions with which he disagrees cannot? Or do you just want to goad to get the topic closed?

J "Cooper"
03-01-2004, 04:38 PM
I was raised in a very religious family --a family that beleived in "moral absolutes"....a funny thing happened on th eway toward rightousness. The absolutes changed!!

See my church (when i was a kid-i don't attend anymore) was Nazarene and Nazarenes dint believe in dancing or going to movies. My parents and the church were dead set against both of these practices. I couldn't go to gym class for 2 weeks cause we were learning how to square dance (im not kidding). I had to go home from 2 or 3 over nights cause my parents found out that the other parents were going to take me to a movie (a john wayne movie, no less).

Anyways, i digress....many biblical principles were offered as reasons we did not attend these events. Many scriptures were quoted. Attending these functions were considered sins.

10 years later the church changed its mind. They decided that attending these functions weren't taking you toward a life of destruction. What seemed to be a moral absolute 10 years earlier turned into soemthing less --and well, all the people that were condemned to serve a life in hell--they got a a reprieve.

I said it on the other board --if we as humans have the grace to over look others and not judge --then surely a God can do the same --give him/her some credit. And if you believe that God doesn't have enough grace to overlook perceived sins -than what kind of faith do you have ...really.

paulrichjr
03-01-2004, 04:40 PM
OK M2 here is my "big" question. Who should have to change? Should 25 guys who would rather not have a homosexual bonding with them change or should the homosexual just keep quiet and live his sex life behind closed doors? Why should a baseball team of 24 people be forced to accept this? That is the big issue of this thread. I know that my beliefs while maybe just slightly in the majority in national polls (I have seen it go either way), are not going to sway you and I don't intend to, but if a team of 24 players that are straight +1 gay would rather not have an open homosexual playing for them then why can't you and the homosexual accept that?

Let me guess, "They feel like they can't express themselves or be themselves, or feel under bondage." WHy does the homosexual have to be allowed to let his sex life come out? There are lots of hidden things in a clubhouse and many of them are best left unsaid... How many rapists, burgulars, wife beaters, child abusers, steriod users, drug users, adulterers whatever are keeping secrets and don't feel the need to "come out." I know you don't think that homosexuality is wrong so therefore they shouldn't feel bad about telling, but- and here is an important point - slightly over 50% +or - of the population doesn't agree with you and will never agree with you.

TeamDunn
03-01-2004, 04:42 PM
My friend that I went to see Passion with Friday night told me that at one time her church did not allow people to see movies, she attends a Nazarene church. I thought that was kind of odd...and I wonder if the *rules* were not already changed if this movie would have changed it.

As society changes and new generations enter adulthood (the decision makers) many *rules* and laws are going to change. With each generation things get more accepting....it will continue on instead of going backwards (at least in my opinion).

:)

paulrichjr
03-01-2004, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by J "Cooper"
I was raised in a very religious family --a family that beleived in "moral absolutes"....a funny thing happened on th eway toward rightousness. The absolutes changed!!

See my church (when i was a kid-i don't attend anymore) was Nazarene and Nazarenes dint believe in dancing or going to movies...... And if you believe that God doesn't have enough grace to overlook perceived sins -than what kind of faith do you have ...really.


One major problem with your idea here. God did not destroy an entire city for watching a movie or dancing. He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for well you know what already. Many churches practice radical ideas such as not allowing dancing but they are not grounded in any kind of scripture. In fact numerous times in the Bible people danced including David. Man can come up with opinions and try to squeeze their ideas into the Bible. It is impossible to do a study of the Bible and not see his feeling toward homosexuality.

Chip R
03-01-2004, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by traderumor
Why can M2 make absolute statements in a thread but others with opinions with which he disagrees cannot? Whom is being censored, traderumor? Everyone has had many opportunities to express their opinions. :confused:

TeamDunn
03-01-2004, 04:54 PM
I'm sure the questions you asked were asked many times with regards to Blacks. Why should whites have to share a public water fountain or restroom with blacks? Why should whites have to sit on a bus with blacks, move the blacks to the back.

That stuff was not right and in years to come the same questions you asked will not be considered right.

Why should *normal* kids have to put up with having a mentally retarted child in their class? I would hope the majority of people would think I just made a HORRIBLE statement and that the statement is WRONG!

It is not a matter of changing. It is a matter of accepting people for who they are so long as who they are does not threaten you or your loved ones. Accepting a child molester to run a day care, I would never ask that!!!!! Why is it so difficult to accept someone who is attracted to or has relationships with people of the same sex?

I would rather see a man be honest with himself and admit that he is gay rather than put on some charade and fake it, just for the sake of people that are uncomfortable with homosexuality.

I realize there is no changing anyones minds that have strong convictions one way or the other. I am just curious what the root is to not agreeing with it or why you think what someone else does is bad for you and your family.

Oh, and that attitude of keeping things that are *embarrassing* to yourself and not sharing the truth with others is why generations of child molesting has occurred. Passed on from parent to child or grandparent to child (or other relative but you get the point). These were things that you just did not discuss. Wives overlooked what their husbands did. We have ended up with some seriously damaged children and adults because of people not being able to tell the truth because most of society does not want to deal with those issues.



Originally posted by paulrichjr
OK M2 here is my "big" question. Who should have to change? Should 25 guys who would rather not have a homosexual bonding with them change or should the homosexual just keep quiet and live his sex life behind closed doors? Why should a baseball team of 24 people be forced to accept this? That is the big issue of this thread. I know that my beliefs while maybe just slightly in the majority in national polls (I have seen it go either way), are not going to sway you and I don't intend to, but if a team of 24 players that are straight +1 gay would rather not have an open homosexual playing for them then why can't you and the homosexual accept that?

paulrichjr
03-01-2004, 05:03 PM
It use to be a major problem in society when someone "stepped out" on their spouse. Today it is no big deal. Does this make it right? Just because we change doesn't mean it is for the good.

M2
03-01-2004, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by traderumor
Isn't what you stated an absolute statement? Isn't one opinion just as narrow as the other? Why can M2 make absolute statements in a thread but others with opinions with which he disagrees cannot? Or do you just want to goad to get the topic closed?

All I stated was that my absolutes and yours differ and that they're never going to coincide. Obviously one view is as narrow as the other, which was my point in the first place, thus my "live and let live" statement.

Paul, you seem to think that every non-gay athlete in the locker room would agree with you. I can guarantee you that's wrong. You'd get a mix of people who'd be fine with it, others who don't care, others who are a little uneasy yet can deal with it and others who completely flip out about it. Quite frankly, I'm not so sure the flipped out group would form the majority or anything close to it. They'd whine the loudest, but that would elicit a quick "shut your hole and do your job" if I was coaching. I'm a firm believer that whiny teams are losing teams.

And, as I said, I've been in plenty of locker rooms and I'm not so naive as to think there haven't been plenty of gay guys in those locker rooms while I was there. So how nutty should I get about something that's probably happened more times than I can count? Hasn't affected my life one way or the other.

traderumor
03-01-2004, 05:09 PM
For all those who come into a thread like this and make definitive statements about homosexuality being a sin and what not, there are those of us who are just as certain that you're morally, ethically and biblically wrong.

Chip,

Wasn't concerned about censorship. I was addressing M2s hand smacking of those espousing the historic Christian position regarding the topic (including the Roman Catholic position. It isn't just the Bible thumping Fundamentalists), daring to speak up and make an absolute statement.

As for the topic, if ballplayers do have problems with being in the same locker room as a homosexual, I agree with the position that it is not a real mature response. I've never understood what gives folks the willies with homosexuals in a lockerroom. It isn't like you're going to get propositioned or raped. If you do receive unwelcome advances, handle it with respect and move on. Getting hit on should be flattering, whether it be from the same or the opposite sex :evilgrin: Is that outside the Christian worldview? :confused:

TeamDunn
03-01-2004, 05:13 PM
No, stepping out on your spouse is not good.

But also, just because something changes that you do not see as *good* because it goes against your particular beliefs does not mean that it is not good for the parties actually effected by the change. (not talking about cheating here...talking about giving equal rights to people or giving them the freedom to be able to express themselves and live the life they believe they are destined to live).




Originally posted by paulrichjr
It use to be a major problem in society when someone "stepped out" on their spouse. Today it is no big deal. Does this make it right? Just because we change doesn't mean it is for the good.

M2
03-01-2004, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by traderumor
Chip,

Wasn't concerned about censorship. I was addressing M2s hand smacking of those espousing the historic Christian position regarding the topic (including the Roman Catholic position. It isn't just the Bible thumping Fundamentalists), daring to speak up and make an absolute statement.

Hand smacking?

You think A and I think B. Never said more than that.

traderumor
03-01-2004, 05:17 PM
Ok, sorry M2. Took what you said wrong.

M2
03-01-2004, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by traderumor
Ok, sorry M2. Took what you said wrong.

It even sounds like we agree as it applies to baseball.

J "Cooper"
03-01-2004, 05:25 PM
What bothers me most is the lack of grace given towards those that are perceived to be wrong. God must be a real son of a *itch while the rest of us have enough empathy to not judge --God just can't pull it off.

traderumor
03-01-2004, 05:25 PM
Basically, yes we do. It is also a bit hypocritical since some of their lockerroom buddies are married and have girlfriends on the road, the single guys are likely to be sleeping with many women, including prostitutes, and others ( or the same ones) are doing illegal drugs. Kind of funny to pick out a homosexual as not worthy of their company.

Johnny Footstool
03-01-2004, 05:42 PM
I said it on the other board --if we as humans have the grace to over look others and not judge --then surely a God can do the same --give him/her some credit. And if you believe that God doesn't have enough grace to overlook perceived sins -than what kind of faith do you have ...really.

Very well put, Cooper.

traderumor
03-01-2004, 06:14 PM
I said it on the other board --if we as humans have the grace to over look others and not judge --then surely a God can do the same --give him/her some credit. And if you believe that God doesn't have enough grace to overlook perceived sins -than what kind of faith do you have ...really.

I must've missed this one. I would ask what kind of God you have that "overlooks" sin? The God revealed in Scripture perfectly names sin, so there can be no misperception. Grace does not overlook sin. It is, in a technical sense, one with authority, bestowing undeserved kindness toward a subordinate. It is not overlooking sin. Perhaps the term you are referring to is mercy? Another attribute of God, but it isn't representing that God overlooks sin, but that according to his good pleasure, he does not always (but can) judge sin immediately and demand payment--which as the book of Romans warns us is death. God is never portrayed as overlooking Scripture. He has always required that sin debts be paid in full. The Israelites did this imperfectly with the sacrificial system, Christ accomplished this perfectly with his death on the cross. But not one sin has ever been overlooked. It will be paid for.

Johnny Footstool
03-01-2004, 06:27 PM
I would ask what kind of God you have that "overlooks" sin?

A loving God who loves his children, even with all their faults.


Another attribute of God, but it isn't representing that God overlooks sin, but that according to his good pleasure, he does not always (but can) judge sin immediately and demand payment--which as the book of Romans warns us is death.

That sounds more like an earthly tyrant than an omnipotent diety.

I cannot believe that God would condemn people for doing what they feel in their hearts is right.

1990WorldChamps
03-01-2004, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by paulrichjr
The guy that works in my office who is gay recently had his entire family (wife and 2 very beautiful daughters) move out on him.

How old are the daughters? Over 18?

1990WorldChamps
03-01-2004, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by Johnny Footstool
A loving God who loves his children, even with all their faults.



That sounds more like an earthly tyrant than an omnipotent diety.

I cannot believe that God would condemn people for doing what they feel in their hearts is right.

That pretty much sums up my thoughts, Johnny.

Redsland
03-01-2004, 06:54 PM
God is love. God is mercy. God is just. God is light. God is peace. God hates fags.

See anything there that doesn't belong?

Hubba
03-01-2004, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by Redsland
God is love. God is mercy. God is just. God is light. God is peace. God hates fags.

See anything there that doesn't belong?

WVRed
03-01-2004, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by Redsland
God hates fags.

That is actually a church website:)

PS. Its Dr. Fred Phelps church, for those interested. Im of protestant belief, but this guy has crossed a fine line.

Johnny Footstool
03-01-2004, 08:23 PM
God hates sin

Does God *hate*, or does mankind hate and attribute it to God?



But anyway, before we get too far off-topic, I don't think anything can be done about *forcing* players to accept a homosexual teammate any more than you could force a player to accept a player who's an egotistic jerk.

paulrichjr
03-01-2004, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by Redsland
God is love. God is mercy. God is just. God is light. God is peace. God hates fags.

See anything there that doesn't belong?


God loves homosexuals... Somewhere along the lines you think that saying something is wrong means you hate them. I will repeat that I nor God hates the sinner just what they do. How is saying that someones actions are wrong get you to the point that now I or God hates them. A parent that says no to their child hates them I guess also...

From Johnny Footstool..
That sounds more like an earthly tyrant than an omnipotent diety.

I cannot believe that God would condemn people for doing what they feel in their hearts is right.

You know this sounds really good but is probably the weakest argument that I have ever heard on the subject. I'm sorry that this will probably sound really bad but this logic would mean that nothing is wrong. All sinners could justify their sin because they feel in their heart that is is right. By your logic Hitler was not wrong. All racist are correct. A murderer and rapists would not be wrong. There would be chaos. Your logic is what God has turned out to be to a lot of people but it is not the God that is in the Bible.

Johnny Footstool
03-01-2004, 08:54 PM
I'm sorry that this will probably sound really bad but this logic would mean that nothing is wrong. All sinners could justify their sin because they feel in their heart that is is right.

I don't subscribe to relativism -- I do believe that there are some absolutes. For instance, I believe it is a sin to hurt another person. But I don't believe that God is going to condemn everyone who hurts anyone else. Punish, yes, but the punishment will be tempered with mercy accordingly. I don't believe in eternal damnation.


Your logic is what God has turned out to be to a lot of people but it is not the God that is in the Bible

The God that is in the Bible is full of human qualities and contradictions. Jealousy and vengence, IMO, are not divine qualities.

Far East
03-01-2004, 08:56 PM
Why does the homosexual have to be allowed to let his sex life come out? But what if the tables were turned? Although it's far-fetched, assume that every baseball roster included just one "straight" player and 24 homosexual players? Would you then still say, "Why does the heterosexual have to be allowed to let his sex life come out?"?

It's the old "Walk A Mile In My Shoes"adage.

traderumor
03-01-2004, 09:02 PM
The God that is in the Bible is full of human qualities and contradictions. Jealousy and vengence, IMO, are not divine qualities.

This is totally backwards. How ironic, the creature telling the Creator that He has qualities that aren't divine. The Bible says that we are made in the image of God.

paulrichjr
03-01-2004, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by traderumor
This is totally backwards. How ironic, the creature telling the Creator that He has qualities that aren't divine. The Bible says that we are made in the image of God.


That is really good.

Far East
03-01-2004, 09:08 PM
This is totally backwards. How ironic, the creature telling the Creator that He has qualities that aren't divine. The Bible says that we are made in the image of God. Again, you may be right, but there's a whole other school of thought which maintains that every god (ever since the early animists, at least) has been the invention in the human image and by the human brain; in short, that man created God, not vice versa.

SteelSD
03-01-2004, 09:17 PM
Hmn. Interesting topic.

Personally, I do buy the concept that some folks may be genetically predispositioned for a certain behavior.

I don't buy that behavior itself is caused by genetic predisposition.

It's not the same as a child being born blind. He/she doesn't choose not to see. It's not the same as some other genetic defect affecting an individual absent of choice.

That's the crux to me. Behavior and choice.

A child can be born with a predisposition for alcoholism. But that doesn't mean that a later-in-life drunk-driving episode while suffering from chronic alcoholism is a necessary result of that predisposition.

It's a result of choice based on preference.

Having sex with anyone- male or female- is a choice. I'm not talking about expecting anyone to abstain from sexual activity, even though there are those who choose to do that against natural predispositions (i.e. heterosexual relationships).

I can absolutely understand the point of view of those who feel that homosexual behavior is a deviant lifestyle choice.

I want to be VERY clear that I use that word only because the behavior in question deviates from the norm.

Of course, we also choose to believe and worship necessary based on what we've learned. God gave us that ability to choose. Above all else, the ability to choose, while being fully aware of right and wrong, is His greatest gift.

Hmn. Right and wrong. Geez, that's a slippery slope.

I know what I feel to be morally and ethically right and wrong. But my personal belief system doesn't allow me to impose those moral and ethical constrictions on someone else who may reasonably believe the opposite. Nor does my belief system allow me to accept that my interpretation of Scripture is the only acceptable reasonable interpretation.

I understand the minority concept that the choice of a homosexual lifestyle is driven by God's will simply because humans possess the ability to choose. I believe choice-based decisions to be reasonable as long as those choices do not interfere with another's ability to choose (i.e. choices resulting in injury to others). If decisions are made with full knowledge that you will knowingly and willingly harm others, all bets are off.

I simply don't see a homosexual lifestyle to be a choice that knowingly and willingly harms others even if I don't choose that lifestyle based on preference. Whether or not they are doing God's will is immaterial to me.

I completely understand this logic pattern:

1) I prefer
2) I choose
3) God gives me the ability to choose
4) I do not knowingly or willingly harm

If homosexuality is a sin, they will atone. But atonement is not necessarily payment or punishment. It's making things right. That includes asking for forgiveness at the appropriate time when the Truth is revealed.

IMO, that holds true for Catholics and Methodists, Lutherans and Baptists, Buddhists and Muslims, Jews and Mormons, Agnostics and Athiests- whether they be heterosexual or homosexual.

I don't believe for a second that I'll know that Truth until I meet God. Until then, I choose to tolerate and forgive and accept. Because, in my humble ignrorance, I feel that's what God wants me to do.

He'll tell me if I'm wrong.

Ravenlord
03-01-2004, 09:26 PM
perfect post on the subject Steel. i agree whole heartedly.

paulrichjr
03-01-2004, 09:31 PM
SteelSD

God doesn't have to tell you that some things are right or wrong again. He already did so in the Bible. Most everyone agrees that killing is a sin. Why? because it is in black white and red in the Bible and because thousands of years of law and moral standards have dictated this. It is no different with homosexuality. It is very clear that God did not like the sin of homosexuality. We have only recently as a society changed our philosophies toward this. Until just last year I believe some states had laws against this. As stated earlier, many "sins" are just man's ideas such as dancing or going to the movies. Sexual immorality is not an opinion... it is detailed throughout the scriptures.

Ravenlord
03-01-2004, 09:36 PM
it is a sin, the Bible says it i think 14 times. but to wheather or not it is a choice or a pre-disposition, we'll probably never know. it's probabl a little from column A and little from column B.

SteelSD
03-01-2004, 09:56 PM
God doesn't have to tell you that some things are right or wrong again. He already did so in the Bible. Most everyone agrees that killing is a sin. Why? because it is in black white and red in the Bible and because thousands of years of law and moral standards have dictated this.

I think I've adequately covered this:

I believe choice-based decisions to be reasonable as long as those choices do not interfere with another's ability to choose (i.e. choices resulting in injury to others)


It is no different with homosexuality. It is very clear that God did not like the sin of homosexuality. We have only recently as a society changed our philosophies toward this. Until just last year I believe some states had laws against this. As stated earlier, many "sins" are just man's ideas such as dancing or going to the movies. Sexual immorality is not an opinion... it is detailed throughout the scriptures.

Ah yes, as is the demand that all male homosexuals be summarily executed. Is that what you truly believe? Female homosexuals? There's no real reference to that behavior, but should we lump them in with the guys?

If not, I'm assuming that you're not interpreting the scriptures as direct reflections of God's word.

BTW- There have also been laws on the books allowing folks who saw Native Americans congregating in a group to shoot them because they qualified as an "uprising".

"Immorality" is dependant on belief system. I have absolutely no issue with allowing you your belief system, as long as it's not imposed on me as fact.

Falls City Beer
03-01-2004, 11:26 PM
"But when was the last time you heard a derisive comment directed at Muslims from a member of the media?"

This illustrates "concretely" that nothing in this universe exists except as a perception. We live in essentially the same culture and I see slur after misrepresentation after slur after propagandizing against Muslims and you see Christian-slurring. The twain, I suspect shall never meet on this issue. Best to walk away from it I suppose.

MWM
03-01-2004, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by paulrichjr
God doesn't have to tell you that some things are right or wrong again. He already did so in the Bible.
Do you realize that most people in this world do not believe in the divinity of the Bible, myself included? Are we just left out in the cold and forced to adhere to a value system coming from a source we have no belief in?

As hard as this is to believe, I think killing is wrong and I didn't need the Bible to tell me so.

Falls City Beer
03-02-2004, 12:06 AM
"As hard as this is to believe, I think killing is wrong and I didn't need the Bible to tell me so."

Absolutely. Great post, MWM.

Non-sectarian morality exists. It's called the law, the categorical imperative, the spirit that drives the social contract.

Redsfaithful
03-02-2004, 12:56 AM
They'd whine the loudest, but that would elicit a quick "shut your hole and do your job" if I was coaching.

Sorry to go back to a quote from a page ago, but I thought this brought up an interesting point.

Everyone in a major league clubhouse is there to do a JOB.

That's forgotten constantly.

Everyone dreams of being a major league baseball player their entire life, so they forget that the people that make it are employees.

Adam Dunn gets a paycheck every two weeks, and sticks it in the bank. Just like you. Just like everyone.

How would it work out if an employee of IBM was gay and his co-workers flipped out?

The co-workers would be fired. And quickly I imagine.

But with baseball we talk about the chemistry, and the bonding, and the blah blah blah.

As far as the basic rules go, a position as a major league baseball player shouldn't be any different than a position in an office. Or a factory. Or a restaurant.

Anyone thinking otherwise is forgetting that these people are employees.

Johnny Footstool
03-02-2004, 02:21 AM
This is totally backwards. How ironic, the creature telling the Creator that He has qualities that aren't divine. The Bible says that we are made in the image of God.

You've got it totally backwards. I didn't say God isn't divine -- quite the contrary. God is perfection.

I said the Bible portrays God with *human* qualities such as jealousy and rage.

Aren't jealousy and rage parts of "The Seven Deadly Sins"?

traderumor
03-02-2004, 08:03 AM
Johnny,

It seems you misunderstand that God reveals himself in the Scriptures. The Scriptures are God-breathed, which is known as the principal of inspiration. So whatever is revealed about God in Scripture He is saying about Himself. As for "seven deadly sins," the Bible does not name any such thing. There is one deadly sin. The first one is sufficient to demand divine justice from a Holy God.

Furthermore, God speaks of Himself as "jealous" in the sense that He demands that He alone be worshiped, in the sense of the second commandment that says one should worship no other gods. As for God exhibiting rage or wrath, He is not some out of control tyrant that wakes up in a bad mood one day and starts knocking off sinners. His anger is always just and is fueled by sin, which He hates. His anger is always righteous and based on justice.

Red Heeler
03-02-2004, 10:15 AM
Personally, I do buy the concept that some folks may be genetically predispositioned for a certain behavior.

I find it rather ironic that you feel this way. You are one of the loudest voices on the board in favor of statistical evaluation of baseball. The statistical evidence that some behaviors (including homosexuality) are genetic is very strong.

It has long been accepted that spousal abuse runs in families. It has generally been assumed that the children saw the mother (usually) being abused and learned that the behavior was acceptable. There is a growing body of evidence that the biochemical "off switch" that most of us have is deficient in these people. Their anger control mechanism simply does not work.

A very small portion of men are born with 2 "Y" chromasomes. However, you would almost never meet one on the street and should be glad that you don't. Nearly all of them are in prison for violent crime at a young age.

Anyway, my point here is that genetics certainly does control behavior. The statistical evidence shows that homosexuality occurs at a rate that would be suggestive of a heritable trait.

Oh, one other point. I've seen AIDS used several times as showing that homosexuallity is harmful to other people. AIDS is indeed more prevalent in the United States in the homosexual population. That is due to the fact that the "Typhoid Mary" of AIDS in the U.S. was homosexual. In Africa, where the virus originated, it is equally distributed among homo- and heterosexuals.

Johnny Footstool
03-02-2004, 10:25 AM
traderumor,

I understand that we are taught the Bible is the one true word of God. I also know that every religion has their own Bible, and they all claim theirs to be the one true word of God, too. If we were born and raised in India, or Saudi Arabia, we would be arguing just as vehemently for a different religion.

Maybe there is some truth that goes beyond just what's in the Bible.

paulrichjr
03-02-2004, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by MWM
Do you realize that most people in this world do not believe in the divinity of the Bible, myself included? Are we just left out in the cold and forced to adhere to a value system coming from a source we have no belief in?

As hard as this is to believe, I think killing is wrong and I didn't need the Bible to tell me so.

Did you read my post? I know some people don't believe in the Bible and that is fine. I know that but did you continue reading my post? I said

God doesn't have to tell you that some things are right or wrong again. He already did so in the Bible. Most everyone agrees that killing is a sin. Why? because it is in black white and red in the Bible and because thousands of years of law and moral standards have dictated this.

The rest of the post says just what you said... thousands of years of law and moral standards.....

traderumor
03-02-2004, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by Johnny Footstool
traderumor,

I understand that we are taught the Bible is the one true word of God. I also know that every religion has their own Bible, and they all claim theirs to be the one true word of God, too. If we were born and raised in India, or Saudi Arabia, we would be arguing just as vehemently for a different religion.

Maybe there is some truth that goes beyond just what's in the Bible.

Johnny,

That is obviously the response I expected. The only problem with your thoughts is that the canon of Scriptures known as the Holy Bible stand up to scrutiny while other religions holy books do not. A simple search engine would reveal hundreds of links that provide evidence that the Scriptures are divine rather than human in origin and many, many links detailing problems with other religions' holy books.

However, I realize that at the end of the day, there is always a faith element to accepting the infallibility and inspiration of Scripture that it claims itself to be (see II Timothy 3:15-16). But that faith is not a blind leap into a dark chasm, but is based on historical factual evidence that is so overwhelming that skeptics who have started out attempting to once and for all show that the Bible does not stand up to scrutiny have come away convinced that the Bible is indeed what it claims to be. One name that comes to mind immediately is a man named Josh McDowell, an atheist attorney who set out to disprove the claims of Scripture and came away writing a classic treatise on the subject known as "Evidence That Demands a Verdict." He would be a great place to start for any skeptic that has a problem with Scripture's claim that it is God's Word, God's only Word.

Redsland
03-02-2004, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by paulrichjr
The rest of the post says just what you said... thousands of years of law and moral standards.....
For thousands of years the law and moral standards permitted people to buy and sell slaves. The Bible (in Leviticus) not only condones slave ownership, but provides a smattering of rules to regulate it.

Today we know that slavery makes baby Jesus cry. Despite "thousands of years" of precedence.

We learn. We grow.

M2
03-02-2004, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by paulrichjr
Most everyone agrees that killing is a sin. Why? because it is in black white and red in the Bible and because thousands of years of law and moral standards have dictated this.

Not for for nothing, but killing was illegal in most cultures long before Judaism (and later Christianity) showed up on the map.

traderumor
03-02-2004, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by Redsland
For thousands of years the law and moral standards permitted people to buy and sell slaves. The Bible (in Leviticus) not only condones slave ownership, but provides a smattering of rules to regulate it.

Today we know that slavery makes baby Jesus cry. Despite "thousands of years" of precedence.

We learn. We grow.

Here you go Redsland, an answer I gave to this issue a while back. It seems to be a common but easily explainable misconception about slavery
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20050&perpage=10&highlight=slavery&pagenumber=17

Johnny,

There's also a link to the issue of the divine origin of the Holy Bible at the top of the page I think.

Chip R
03-02-2004, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Redsland
Today we know that slavery makes baby Jesus cry. Despite "thousands of years" of precedence. I thought it was lies that made baby Jesus cry? ;)

I think what we have established here is that some people don't want an openly gay player in the locker room because they are afraid of being "converted" or getting "checked out" or even asked out on a date by the player. It certainly can't be because of any moral qualms because adulterers, drug users, alcoholics, wife beaters, racists and thieves, among others, are welcomed and even figuratively embraced by other players, fans, the media and front office types.

traderumor
03-02-2004, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by M2
Not for for nothing, but killing was illegal in most cultures long before Judaism (and later Christianity) showed up on the map.

Which speaks to a basic moral law that is written on all of our hearts that is put there by the Creator. Plus, as we see with Cain's killing of Able, he did not have the 10 commandments to tell him killing was wrong. What was his source, as the first children born to the first couple? There are only a few options. And I don't recall Cain debating with God about not knowing it was wrong to kill his brother. He just didn't like the consequences.

MWM
03-02-2004, 11:22 AM
Simple question: should legislators consult the Bible when making or changing law?

It's not a difficult question. And please don't respond with the boiler plate, "you can't expect these people to check their religion at the door when they are elected." I certaily don't expect them to forget their religious values when they serve in office. BUt this is very specific: should they consult the Bible when deciding law? In other words, if proposed legislation doesn't coincide with the Bible's teachings, should that be the basis for a vote of "NO"?

Johnny Footstool
03-02-2004, 11:26 AM
A simple search engine would reveal hundreds of links that provide evidence that the Scriptures are divine rather than human in origin and many, many links detailing problems with other religions' holy books.

No offense, traderumor, but I've heard many of those arguments before, and they are as circular and slanted as they come. The only "proof" most of them offer is that the Bible says it is divine, so it must be.

traderumor
03-02-2004, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by Johnny Footstool
No offense, traderumor, but I've heard many of those arguments before, and they are as circular and slanted as they come. The only "proof" most of them offer is that the Bible says it is divine, so it must be.

No offense taken. If you have heard fulfillment of prophecies, esp. those regarding Christ, archaeolgical evidence, internal consistency despite many writers writing over a wide time span, and the evidence of changed lives, I'm not sure how you could conclude those are circular arguments. Those are objective, verifiable proofs which provide a mountain of evidence regarding the veracity of Scripture. Did you see the link I mentioned above?

MWM
03-02-2004, 11:48 AM
There's also a mountain of evidence in the other direction, tr. I don't know if this holds true for you or not, but my experience has been that most believers have no interest in hearing about such evidence, but they soak up the evidence you speak of. If you believe in the divinity of the Bible, you do so on faith. Why is that such a bad thing? All religious beliefs are based on faith. There's nothing wrong with that, but believers undermine that faith when they try to point to "evidence" as to why they choose to believe. It's faith, plain and simple.

M2
03-02-2004, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by traderumor
Which speaks to a basic moral law that is written on all of our hearts that is put there by the Creator. Plus, as we see with Cain's killing of Able, he did not have the 10 commandments to tell him killing was wrong. What was his source, as the first children born to the first couple? There are only a few options. And I don't recall Cain debating with God about not knowing it was wrong to kill his brother. He just didn't like the consequences.

That's certainly a fair take on it. My issue was with Paul's seeming assertion that the Bible was the cause to the effect of knowing that killing is a bad thing. Perhaps he was driving at the same thing you are here, but it didn't read that way to me.

Of course your take on it does raise a theological question. If there are natural laws that predate and exist outside of the Bible, then can we state with surety that the Bible is the perfect statement of those laws?

For instance, we know the Old Testament is a collection of stories passed down through the oral tradition over the course of generations. Some of it we know is historically inaccurate. The entire world did not flood and some guy named Noah did not restart humanity and the animal kingdom with what he preserved on his boat. That doesn't mean that there wasn't a guy named Noah who had a boat and took an important voyage, but the provided specifics of that voyage don't past any sort of sniff test.

So the telephone game of the oral tradition clearly embellished some of the content in the book. It doesn't mean that you toss out the baby with the bathwater, but at some point you have to acknowledge that flawed creatures using a flawed method of passing down information would create a text with some flaws.

And we know that the New Testament was created by assimilating various second, third and fourth-hand texts. None of the documents used was the actual work of the Apostles who are credited with their authorship. They are scribed copies. The Catholic Church still owns the source documents. We also know that conflicting documents (the Gnostics for instance) were left out in the editing process. On top of that, we know that the concept of the Trinty didn't emerge until almost 400 years after the birth of Christ.

Beyond that, there parts of both texts that clearly involve the culture of the time when they were written and that no sane or devout person today would argue reflects proper or right-minded morality.

And, once you get past all of that, more people disagree about what the Bible says than agree on it. For instance, you and I have radically different interpretations of the book. Catholics and Protestants don't even agree on the fundamental cosmology of the Christian universe. Clearly it does not say one thing, to be taken only one way.

This doesn't even touch upon ironies such as the most famous version of the English Bible being named after a British king who was most likely a homosexual. And if God was micromanaging the holy text to such a fine degree and considered homosexuality such a grievous sin, then surely that would have been something He/She would have avoided.

I mean, imagine the confusion created by the ambiguity of the Carson Kressley Bible if such as thing were passed down to future generations.

What I'm driving at is that it certainly seems like some of our imperfections rubbed off on the Bible. If it's only our best attempt to capture the overarching moral law of the Divine, then I think it's fair to assert that we should strive to do better, to get closer to that natural law, especially when the topic at hand encompasses tolerance, civility, compassion and love.

RedsBaron
03-02-2004, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by M2


And we know that the New Testament was created by assimilating various second, thrid and fourth-hand texts. None of the documents used to create was the actual work of the Apostles who are created with their authorship. They are scribed copies. The Catholic Church still owns the source documents. We also know that conflicting documents (the Gnostics for instance) were left out in the editing process. On top of that, we know that the concept of the Trinty didn't emerge until almost 400 years after the birth of Christ.


M2 had so many statements setting forth his opinions that he presumed were established facts which "we all know" that I hardly know where to begin. I finally decided to begin with the above paragraph.
The four gospels were written between sometime between the 50s A.D. and the 90s A.D. Matthew is credited with being the author of the gospel which bears his name; he was an apostle. Mark, the writer of the second gospel, was not an apostle, but was a friend of both Peter and Paul. Luke, the writer of the third gospel, traveled with Paul on many of Paul's missionary journeys. John, the writer of the fourth gospel, was part of Jesus's inner circle of disciples.
The trinity is depicted in the account of Jesus's baptism by John the Baptist. In Matthew 3:16-17 we are told that as Jesus went out of the River Jordan the Spirit of God descended upon him as a voice from Heaven proclaimed Jesus to be God's beloved Son.
Paul wrote that all Scripture is inspired by God, 2 Timothy 3:16. Paul also wrote that the Holy Spirit gives guidance in the interpretation of Scripture, 1 Corinthians 2:10-13.
In the end though, the debate over the Bible is probably pointless, at least here. Someone who regards the Bible as being just a flawed, man-made text will not be convinced otherwise by my posts. So I shall post no more on this topic.

Redsland
03-02-2004, 12:33 PM
Killer post, M2. :thumbup:

M2
03-02-2004, 12:58 PM
"Matthew is credited with being the author of the gospel which bears his name"

IIRC, the Catholic Church, which owns the source texts, has never officially claimed that to be the case. No such claims are made on the books of Mark, Luke and John. Those are scribed copies and I believe most of the source texts for the gospels fall well past the 50-90 A.D. timeframe you mention. In some cases the source texts for the New Testment came 300 years after the birth of Christ. This also touches upon another matter, that there aren't single sources for the gospels. What they are is compilations of documents created over the course of more than a century by four different branches of Christianity, each one of which considered itself to be in possession of THE gospel. In fact, it wasn't until 185 A.D. when the Bishop Irenaeus, in what could best be described as a peacemaking venture, issued a proclamation that established the authority of the four gospels, that Christians began to accept those as the chief texts of the religion and to refer to them as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

You can say the Trinity is depicted all over the place, but it didn't become doctrine until the First Council of Constantinople in 381. Prior to that, the equality of Father, Son and Holy Spirit was an area of contentious debate. Actually it was even after that. Many of the barbarians who opposed Rome over the next century were Arian heretics, who didn't accept the Trinity. Though "emerge" was a poor choice of words on my part, it's really more a matter when it became established by the Athanasian Creed.

There are extensive records on how the Bible was compiled and how the religion came into being thanks to the compulsive record-keeping of the Catholic Church (something it inherited from the Romans after Constantine converted the Empire). It was a lengthy and convoluted process and to claim that the gospels were taken from the pristine works of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John simply isn't true. In fact, it's completely false. At best the gospels are a later written record of the sermons that originated with those men.

paulrichjr
03-02-2004, 01:03 PM
M2

I am not sure how you read into my statement that because of the bible "only" do we know that killing is wrong. I stated that it is just one reason but laws and morals are also reasons. That was in my original post. Maybe I worded it wrong. Without teaching morals... which many do come from religion but not all...we would have a scary world to live in.

Again I am not sure how you read this into what I said but you did so I am sorry for the confusion.

To everyone else...

I realize that homosexuality is an issue that many people have strong opinions on and I am not going to be able to persuade them differently. That is OK with me. Personally even if I weren't a Christian I don't think I would believe in homosexuality because of the - well just plain weirdness of it. I go back to what I have already said before... just look at a female and look at a male body.... do you see a plan to this or not? If you can't see an amazing God in just this let alone not even counting the moon, earth, oxygen, leaves, eyes, heart .................... I could go on a long time. I can't believe how delicate this world is and all the cool stuff that works and someone can still say "I don't believe in a creator."

Am I right on all my beliefs? No. I know this. That is why I discuss things and well also pray. I don't codemn the homosexual or even you for believing that it is OK. I truly believe that it is not God's will for a man to have a sexual relationship with another man or a woman to have a sexual relationship with another woman. I am not going to say that all homosexuals are doomed to hell. I truly don't believe that this sin is any bigger than lying. I believe that both are equally wrong. My son lies to me fairly often it seems, but I don't hate him. If my son were to come home and say that he was engaging in homosexual activities, I would not hate him then either. I would pray that he would change because I can assure you that it would be by choice not passed down from me or my wifes genes.

Now to be honest I am starting to miss the discussions on the Reds. I hope that all of us can agree on one thing. Go REDS!

Johnny Footstool
03-02-2004, 01:03 PM
Did you see the link I mentioned above?

If you mean the link to johnankerberg.org, yes, I have visited it. It focused on homosexuality, not the origins of the bible.


If you believe in the divinity of the Bible, you do so on faith. Why is that such a bad thing? All religious beliefs are based on faith. There's nothing wrong with that, but believers undermine that faith when they try to point to "evidence" as to why they choose to believe. It's faith, plain and simple.

MWM's quote pretty much sums up my opinion about attempts to prove or disprove faith using science. IMO, they simply don't mix, and attempts to blend the two make both weaker. Darwin can't disprove the existence of God any more than the Bible can prove that Darwin was wrong.

Redsland
03-02-2004, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by Johnny Footstool
Darwin can't disprove the existence of God any more than the Bible can prove that Darwin was wrong.
Yep. Only Kansas school boards have that kind of power.

;)

traderumor
03-02-2004, 01:16 PM
For instance, we know the Old Testament is a collection of stories passed down through the oral tradition over the course of generations. Some of it we know is historically inaccurate. The entire world did not flood and some guy named Noah did not restart humanity and the animal kingdom with what he preserved on his boat. That doesn't mean that there wasn't a guy named Noah who had a boat and took an important voyage, but the provided specifics of that voyage don't past any sort of sniff test.

No, we don't know that the Bible is based on oral tradition. That is liberal scholarship that sprung from "The Enlightenment" that some accept as the way it is, but we don't know that. I disagree on that point. Supposed historical inaccuracies have been supported by archaeological evidence. There is an ample body of evidence to support that claim, again that any interested party could find volumes upon volumes to examine.




And we know that the New Testament was created by assimilating various second, thrid and fourth-hand texts. None of the documents used to create was the actual work of the Apostles who are created with their authorship. They are scribed copies. The Catholic Church still owns the source documents. We also know that conflicting documents (the Gnostics for instance) were left out in the editing process. On top of that, we know that the concept of the Trinty didn't emerge until almost 400 years after the birth of Christ.

That entire paragraph is contrary to church history. Not the RCC version of church history, but the orthodox version of church history.

Johnny Footstool
03-02-2004, 01:32 PM
Yep. Only Kansas school boards have that kind of power.

Thanks for mentioning that shining example of enlightenment in my home state. :)

Between that and Topeka's own Reverend Fred Phelps, we've forged a great little niche for ourselves.

Far East
03-02-2004, 01:36 PM
A simple search engine would reveal hundreds of links that provide evidence that the Scriptures are divine rather than human in origin
Here are just 3 quotes and their links which indicate otherwise:

"The assigning of the authorship to the gospels was likely a matter of guesswork and the desire of later church officials to impart the gospels with apostolic authority." Found in -- http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/testament.html

"Greenberg spells out 101 theories about certain Bible stories, and then shows what their Egyptian antecedents may have been." Found in --
http://www.religion1.com/101_Myths_of_the_Bible_How_Ancient_Scribes_Invente d_Biblical_History_1570718423.html

"The writing of the Gospels has thus not come about from an inquiry into the historical Jesus but rather as a result of the Gospel writers creating a legend that fits in with their communities view of the personality and nature of Jesus."
Found in --
http://www.religion1.com/Gospel_Fictions_0879755725.html

Red Heeler
03-02-2004, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by traderumor
No, we don't know that the Bible is based on oral tradition. That is liberal scholarship that sprung from "The Enlightenment" that some accept as the way it is, but we don't know that. I disagree on that point. Supposed historical inaccuracies have been supported by archaeological evidence. There is an ample body of evidence to support that claim, again that any interested party could find volumes upon volumes to examine.


I don't care to dispute whether or not Noah existed, nor whether or not he may have survived a big flood by building a boat. However, surely you aren't arguing that the Noah story in the Bible is a historically accurate account. From the Bible itself, we have the measurements of the ark. We also know that a pair of all of the land dwelling animals in the world would not fit on a ship that size (not thousands of ships that size).

M2
03-02-2004, 01:39 PM
tr,

A) The RCC owns the documents, kept the records and did the work to produce what we now call the New Testament in the first place. Those who weren't there and for whom it's expedient to reinvent the history can claim otherwise, but the Catholics were there, they wrote down everything did and they've preserved it. It's kind of like arguing the U.S.A. went straight from revolution to Constitution. It's a nice romantic notion, but the record of events states otherwise.

And there's very good reason why the RCC kept those records and makes them widely accessible in the first place. It's the belief that religion has to built on a foundation of truth, that you can't pretend everything came together in this nice, neat package from day one just to make the faith convenient. In short, the strength of faith should be able to withstand the light of truth and reason.

B) There is no evidence that since the advent of land-based lifeforms that the entire planet has been covered by a flood. This goes past the dawn of humanity, past the dawn of mammalian dominance and past the dawn of the dinosaurs. There is also zero evidence to suggest that the animal kingdom had ever been whittled down to single ur-pairs located on a single spot of the globe at any point during the time period in which something that looked generally like a human walked the globe. That isn't liberal scholarship, that's a simple statement of facts. There is no viable evidence to the contrary and the archaelogical record on these points is overwhelming.

I have no problem with people having a strong belief in the moral primacy of the Bible. What bugs me is when people want to ignore documented history and established science in an untenable stand for literalism. Nowhere in that good book will you read passages exhorting the virtues of self-deception.

44Magnum
03-02-2004, 01:43 PM
"Unfortunately, the notion of being gay and of upstanding moral character is still an oxymoron to many in our society."

That is the most ignorant comment I have ever seen on any forum. You can't be upstanding morally if you are a sinner. Like it or not, that's the way it is.

savafan
03-02-2004, 01:45 PM
Topic: Homosexuality, baseball's biggest taboo


Homosexuality is no where near the Bible's biggest taboo!

Chip R
03-02-2004, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by 44Magnum
That is the most ignorant comment I have ever seen on any forum. You can't be upstanding morally if you are a sinner. Like it or not, that's the way it is. But aren't we all sinners? That is what the Bible and church teaches us. So I guess in your book, no one is morally upstanding.

traderumor
03-02-2004, 02:13 PM
M2,

I know you're RC, so I know you are reading Rome's version of church history. I call your historical source revisionist, you call mine revisionist. I'm Protestant, you're Catholic. Looks like we come to another impasse, so it will really not matter.

Sorry, Johnny for referring you to the wrong link. Let me follow up on that for ya.

M2
03-02-2004, 03:02 PM
tr, I'm hardly doctrinaire when it comes to the RCC. I'm sure there's an official Roman version of Church history, but I've never seen it. And if you Google "Bible" and "source texts" or "gospels" and "source texts" there's a universe of scholarship on the subject and the things I've been talking about are dates and a general description of the compiliation process which no one much disputes.

All I'm noting is that the people who put the book together kept extensive notes on how they did it and where they got their material from. It so happens those people were the early RCC and there's nothing either one of us can do about that. It doesn't matter if you're Protestant, Orthodox or Coptic, if you're interested in the origins of the Bible, the Catholics are the ones in possession of the relevant materials. There's nearly 2,000 years of scholarship devoted to those materials. In short, there's nothing secretive about them. The record is wide open for anyone who wants to look into it.

BTW, please don't read my posts as an argument that Catholics are right and Protestants are wrong. What I've been trying to make a case for here is that once you recognize a broad moral authority to the universe that exists outside of scripture, then you've kicked open the door to the possibility that scripture is not the end point of the discussion on morality. In other words, morality isn't necessarily a closed topic, we may still have more to learn. Even if you don't believe that, even if your faith instructs you otherwise, I'd like to think that you could allow for decent, fair-minded people holding that opinion.

Michael Allred
03-02-2004, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by paulrichjr
I hope that you did not read into my quote that I felt that Jackie Robinson's "problem" was that he was black and I felt that this was truly a problem... I even said in the next sentence that racisim is just as bad in my eyes as being a homosexual. I should have put quotations around the word problem but I neglected to do so... I am appalled at racism just as I do not agree with being mean to gays. I want anyone who didn't read the first page to realize that as far as I know I am the only one that has actually admitted to having homosexuals close to me in my life... Once when one lived at my home (I was a teenager) for I believe over a year and now one in my office. I am very friendly and respect them as people - they are friends. I don't treat them any different than I treated an 18 year old friend of my family who got caught Friday night drinking and driving. I don't accept the behavior as normal or correct behavior. I still am friends with them and do not shun them.

I believe that Chili made the comment that homosexuality does not tear homes apart but that simply isn't true. The guy that works in my office who is gay recently had his entire family (wife and 2 very beautiful daughters) move out on him. They have now divorced and he has to drive 5 hours one way just to see his kids. He chose sex with a man over raising his two kids. I'm sorry but this is wrong pure and simple. By the way his ex-wife doesn't even know he is gay. Why did she leave? Because he was arrested for contributing to the deliquency of a minor. He use to hang around 16 year old boys a lot for some reason and buy them beer... (No idea why) He is a 42 year old CPA who at one time was a very respected member of my small community and still is to some extent. Almost no one knows that he is gay. I truly feel sorry for him and his kids.

I also want to say that I am happy that this thread has not been closed. I would hope someone doesn't see this as a Christians against gays because that is simply not what being a Christian is about. As many others have stated... We do not persecute them we simply want to see them turn their lives around. We don't hate them.. we hate the sin that they are committing.

Aww, you don't hate them, you just wanna change who they are. How sweet.

I shall now begin my attempts to turn every christian into a satanist.

RedsFan74
03-02-2004, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by paulrichjr
He chose sex with a man over raising his two kids.

If only it was this simple...it wasn't an issue of whom he wanted to simply have sex with, it was an issue of whom he wanted to spend the rest of his life with and be happy...plain and simple. I agree with the fact that walking our on your children is simply wrong, on all levels...but this has nothing to do with one's sexual orientation.

paulrichjr
03-02-2004, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by Michael Allred
Aww, you don't hate them, you just wanna change who they are. How sweet.

I shall now begin my attempts to turn every christian into a satanist.


We have a difference of opinion. It's that simple. I don't believe that this is "WHO THEY ARE." I believe that they are engaging in activities that are wrong. You think they can't help themselves. I think they can. I don't want a drunk to be a drunk. I don't want a rapist to rape. I don't want a liar to lie. I don't want a homosexual to have sex with men. We don't agree and won't agree...so let's agree to disagree.

TeamCasey
03-02-2004, 08:28 PM
This topic has really diverted from baseball. Any chance it can be moved to the other board?

paulrichjr
03-02-2004, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by RedsFan74
If only it was this simple...it wasn't an issue of whom he wanted to simply have sex with, it was an issue of whom he wanted to spend the rest of his life with and be happy...plain and simple. I agree with the fact that walking our on your children is simply wrong, on all levels...but this has nothing to do with one's sexual orientation.


I actually think it is "that simple." He chose to leave his wife and kids for sex with guys. Not just one guy but many guys.... He would rather have sex with guys than raise his kids that he brought into the world.

Far East
03-02-2004, 08:33 PM
You think they can't help themselves. I think they can.
Those who think they can't help themselves have cited evidence from X chromosome studies (albeit inclusive ones), from pedigrees matching maternal mitochondrial DNA inheritance, and from prenatal intrauterine chemistry.
www.netpci.com/~tttbbs/EPN-1/Articles/Articles-Homo/gaygene1.html
or
www.evolutionary-economics.org/ KSH-Postings-Econ/074.html.
or
www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/1995papers/satinover.html

What's your evidence that supports your thought that they can? I hope it's more than the so-called conversions of alleged homosexuals into alleged heterosexuality.

Far East
03-02-2004, 08:50 PM
I don't want a homosexual to have sex with men.
Interesting ... I've never heard homosexuals state a policy that they didn't want "straights" to have sex with the opposite sex.

From all that I can gather they preach and practice, "Live and let live," which probably should have been the 13th commandment for us all!

paulrichjr
03-02-2004, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by Far East
Interesting ... I've never heard homosexuals state a policy that they didn't want "straights" to have sex with the opposite sex.

From all that I can gather they preach and practice, "Live and let live," which probably should have been the 13th commandment for us all!

Just curious...what is the 11th and 12th commandment?

Chip R
03-02-2004, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by TeamCasey
This topic has really diverted from baseball. Any chance it can be moved to the other board? Good idea. I don't think there's any chance of getting this back to baseball.

M2
03-02-2004, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by paulrichjr
I don't want a homosexual to have sex with men.

Better they find a woman they don't truly love and start a family that eventually comes crashing down when they can no longer live a lie.

You've spent this whole thread talking about a specific case where a guy tried going straight with disastrous results and yet you type something like the above quote. What's the goal here? That the maximum number of people should be made miserable?

Aside from that, shouldn't there be some sort of internal circuit breaker on each of us where we stop trying to lead other people's live for them? Maybe it's just me, but dictating other people's sexual practices strikes me as more than a bit over the line. Should we heteros stick to certain positions? What time of day would you like to see people have their sex at? Should I treat sex like an unpleasant household chore or can I take some time to do it right? Do I have to keep my eyes closed?


Originally posted by paulrichjr
He chose to leave his wife and kids for sex with guys. Not just one guy but many guys.... He would rather have sex with guys than raise his kids that he brought into the world.

Here's what confuses me. You're saying this guy gave up the responsibility and commitment of family for the thrill ride of gay sex. It's almost like you're saying that if we don't put a stop to this everyone's going to want to do it.

Seems to me gay sex is only a thrill ride if you're a homosexual. For the vast majority of us who aren't homosexuals, this is a non-issue. The reason why he left his family to lead a gay lifestyle is because he's gay. Those of us who aren't gay won't be following in his footsteps.

Plus, what do you think was easier for this guy from a social standpoint, being a well-respected member of the community and a family man or being considered a homosexual pariah?

I mean, if you were making a choice as to which road seemed the most appealing and least complicated, which one would you choose?

Redsfaithful
03-03-2004, 01:02 AM
Plus, what do you think was easier for this guy from a social standpoint, being a well-respected member of the community and a family man or being considered a homosexual pariah?

And this is exactly what kills me.

Its a "choice" in so many people's opinion ... but I've never heard a rationale for why someone would want to choose a more difficult way of life.

But then there are the people who believe people really are born gay ... but should live a heterosexual life, since their gayness is their "cross to bear" in life.

I'm not sure which of the above is more twisted.

Michael Allred
03-03-2004, 01:05 AM
Instead of believing silly religious backed notions that being gay is a "choice", how about you actually ask a homosexual?

I'm right here, ask away! Everything you wanted to know about homosexuality but were afraid to ask!

Chip R
03-03-2004, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by Michael Allred
Instead of believing silly religious backed notions that being gay is a "choice", how about you actually ask a homosexual?

I'm right here, ask away! Everything you wanted to know about homosexuality but were afraid to ask! You've done it now, Michael. Now these guys aren't going to want to post here any more cause they are going to be worried you're gonna try to convert them or ask them out on a date or even check them out. ;)

SteelSD
03-03-2004, 01:21 AM
I find it rather ironic that you feel this way. You are one of the loudest voices on the board in favor of statistical evaluation of baseball. The statistical evidence that some behaviors (including homosexuality) are genetic is very strong.

Red Heeler, you may want to check the passage you quoted from my post, because I actually do buy into the arguement that some folks may be more inclined to behavioral preferences due to hereditary genetic factors.

I'm thinking that maybe you saw a "not" between "do" and "buy" in that quote, but there wasn't one.

However, I do want to be very clear that I believe most human behavior to be choice-driven regardless of said preference predisposition, including the decision to have sex with anyone- regardless of preference.

IMO, preference is one thing. Choice is another.

I'm not suggesting that anyone choose a lifestyle of abstinence. Just pointing out that there are those who do so of their own volition regardless of their own predisposition. To me, that fully demonstrates that free will is the primary behavioral driver in all but the most extreme cases (mental handicaps, mental disease, etc.).

SteelSD
03-03-2004, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by Michael Allred
Instead of believing silly religious backed notions that being gay is a "choice", how about you actually ask a homosexual?

I'm right here, ask away! Everything you wanted to know about homosexuality but were afraid to ask!

That took guts, sir.

BTW- Love your work. X-Statix cracked me up. Does your wife, Laura, know?;)

Buckaholic
03-03-2004, 03:26 AM
I can't believe some of you are that worried about a junior high mentality that you'd be afraid to shower knowing someone might be gay. Who cares? You've probably all showered in junior high, high school, the local YMCA, or whatever in front of a gay guy, and obviously you survived. I think that's a pretty irrelevant thing to be worried about.

I am of a religious background, I don't condone homosexuality, and don't agree with it. But at the same time, I also don't believe homosexuals were born with the choice. Something in their genetics or their upbringing caused their sexuality to be the way it is. I don't agree with the act of having sex with another male, but I also dont think they can just choose to be attracted to a female.

None of this should really matter. If you're in a professional work environment, you better be able to tolerate things you don't personally agree with. This would be one of them.

Far East
03-03-2004, 09:02 AM
Just curious...what is the 11th and 12th commandment?
Paul,
Oops -- My error. Don't know why I was thinking 12 commandments instead of 10.
Although I really meant 10, there is a very small amount of contention in some "clumping or splitting" circles, as per:
http://www.cin.org/mateo/9108151.html:
Textually, there are twelve commandments if one observes only the sentence structure: vv.2-7 show the formula 'you shall not' four times; vv.8-12 are easily divided into two: "remember to keep holy..." and "honor your father..."; vv.13-17 show 6 more "you shall nots."

MWM
03-03-2004, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by Buckaholic
I am of a religious background, I don't condone homosexuality, and don't agree with it. But at the same time, I also don't believe homosexuals were born with the choice. Something in their genetics or their upbringing caused their sexuality to be the way it is. I don't agree with the act of having sex with another male, but I also dont think they can just choose to be attracted to a female.
Nothing personal, but this seems to be an entirely contradictory statement. You say you think it's wrong, yet you say that they have no choice. How can that be?

macro
03-03-2004, 11:57 AM
He's not contradicting himself. Being born homosexual is not a choice. Carrying out homosexual acts is a choice. Contrary to popular opinion, humans can survive without sexual intercourse, regardless of what Maslow said.

M2
03-03-2004, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by macro
He's not contradicting himself. Being born homosexual is not a choice. Carrying out homosexual acts is a choice. Contrary to popular opinion, humans can survive without sexual intercourse, regardless of what Maslow said.

Humans can survive without sunlight too. Doesn't mean I'd recommend it.

roby
03-03-2004, 06:03 PM
If they have the right to be homos then people should have the right to be uncomfortable around them, it seems to me, the people who are so open minded about the gays are the same ones who are ridiculing the people who aren't comfortable around them.

Michael Allred
03-03-2004, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by Chip R
You've done it now, Michael. Now these guys aren't going to want to post here any more cause they are going to be worried you're gonna try to convert them or ask them out on a date or even check them out. ;)

HAHA.

See, the funny thing is, the only evidence there is of people trying to "convert" others resides right in this very thread. Our dear christians trying to change others to *their* side.

Whoops! I guess projection doesn't only happen in theaters.