The Ron Brown Religion & Persecution Thread

[krill]

Jesus said that marriage was between a man and woman in Romans 1:27. Why would they be penalized if it wasn't deemed wrong according to Paul?

 

Of course, then there is 1Corinthians 6:9-11 which says those who practice sexual immorality, idol worship, adultry, thieves, greedy men, drunkards, slanderers, swindlers, and "men who have sex with men" will inherit the kingdom of God. It also states that "things like these" practices won't be tolerated either leaving the door open to other related subjects.

 

So, it is in the new covenant through Jesus as well.

 

You aknowledge that these are the writings of Paul; I am not an expert on Christian theology, but was Paul, Jesus? Does Jesus say anything about homosexuality in the gospals?

 

I guess the thing that bothers me most about what coach Brown's actions is that he is in the camp that believes imposing his beliefs on others with laws, or the lack thereof, is the right thing do. Would anyone be ok with a Muslim coach going to a rally to speak about the need to stone adulterers?

[NUance]

That NUance. He's always stirring up trouble and eating popcorn. You gotta watch that guy.

I'm such a troublemaker.

[ZRod]

 

**fistbump**

 

 

Knap you bare a remarkable resemblance to Jay-Z.

 

I feel like Po did in another thread coming in at the end of the day and everything is settled, all you can do is read the replay.

[tschu]

It's a terrible argument. He might have well asked me "when did you choose to eat?" Humans are naturally programmed to eat, mate, and reproduce. Naturally, to mate and reproduce, it's done with the opposite sex. Whether it's God, evolution, or the flying spaghetti monster, it's a fact that's programmed into our DNA.

 

Whether or not gay people are programmed differently is heavily debated, and has yet to be proven one way or another. Hence why I asked if the gay gene has been discovered. Me? I tend to go with the viewpoint of the two gay people I actually have interaction with. They made a choice.

 

You sure think you know a lot don't you

Is anything I said above factually incorrect? If so, please let me know so I can re-evaluate.

You are assuming that all humans have certain behaviors and instincts programmed into our DNA, which may be partially true, but can be false. Instincts and basic things like attraction to the opposite sex may be programmed into our genetics, but not necessarily so. Natural selection has favored those who eat and mate with the opposite sex, which is why the majority of humans possess these traits. Those individuals displaying instincts to not eat and not mate will have their alleles removed from the gene pool. However, mutation, recombination, and other processes can cause maladaptive traits - in other words, genetically having no appetite or no desire to mate is entirely possible. But this isn't my main point.

 

The reason you are wrong is that the question of homosexuality among many uninformed people often comes down (very, very falsely) to CHOICE vs. GENES - which is 100% wrong in that it leaves out the most important factor: environment. Research has shown that environmental influences are BY FAR the most determining factor in whether a person is homosexual or not. Nobody makes a "choice" - you're either attracted to one sex or the other. Some environmental factor most likely causes homosexuality. See here. Now, like I said in the other thread, there may be some gene(s) that may increase your susceptibility to the environmental factors that cause homosexuality, but we have found no "gay gene" and most likely none will ever be found.

[JJ Husker]

I'm going to have to disagree with you. It does need to be listed as a protected status in Nebraska. Nebraska is a 'right to work' state (should be labeled 'right to fire' but anyway) and a gay employee could be outright fired if a superior had an issue with it. They could then also use the answer 'would not rehire' when that person is applying for a new job.

 

And at this point Brown is becoming a distraction. Him and his viewpoint are taking center stage, this story is on the front page of ESPN. Its an embarrassment, and could cause recruits for sports, as well as students for other fields to write Nebraska off their list of schools. Pearlman had to made a statement to the media after he appeared in front of the Omaha City Council (which was ridiculous anyway as he is not a resident of the City of Omaha)

Well I'm going to have to disagree with your interpretation of 'At Will' employment. Colorado is also an ;At Will' employment state and I happen to be an employer. There is no way in hell I, or any employer for that matter, could fire someone simply for being gay. If I or a supervisor has an "issue" with it has not one thing to do with it. You can find and/or create legitimate reasons to terminate anyones employment but their sexual preference is not one of them. I am curious- what on earth led you to make this statement "a gay employee could be outright fired if a superior had an issue with it."?

You can legally fire anyone for any reason other than one of the protected classes. Most companies don't, and will either use a paper trail or make a workplace so unpleasant the person will quit. But legally a person can be fired for being gay. Hell, think 'don't ask don't tell' for precedent. You could replace gay with any number of other adjectives and it would still be legal. The 'at will' thing protects employers from almost every reason of firing a worker. There is a reason why gender, religion and race are protected classes.

You've got this almost correct. You can fire anyone for any reason but if you think protected class status helps trump that, you are fooling yourself. I could easily fire a (insert any protected class status you wish) person. I could make unreasonable demands of productivity or any other measurable condition and simply fire them. I could make their work schedule or conditions unpleasant and run them off. If you think adding gay/lesbian as a protected status really changes anything or helps those classes you are just being naive. And my original point still stands; Right now, I would no more list "being gay" as the reason to terminate someone than I would being black or female or anything else. If you think a company right now could fire someone and tell them, or document, that the reason was because they are gay, I could show you a company that would lose a wrongful termination case in a heartbeat. At Will employment or not, that would be just plain stupidity on the part of any employer. That is why I feel it is extremely dishonest to make the statement you did about it now being ok to fire someone for being gay. It is not ok now and protected status won't change anything. All it does is create a condition where; A) Stupid employers are made to pay for their own stupidity or B) disgruntled people can file a lawsuit more easily and with the help of the local civil rights office.

 

Disclosure- I would not ever consider firing someone because of "who they are". My employment decisions are solely based on what I feel the employee can or does contribute to my companies profitability. Period. I woul hire a female, black latino, gay, handicapped veteran, atheist, stuttering alcoholic, if I thought they would be an asset to my company. And I would run off or document out the door any white male Christian that was not helping my company achieve it's goals.

[Chimpsmack]

It's a terrible argument. He might have well asked me "when did you choose to eat?" Humans are naturally programmed to eat, mate, and reproduce. Naturally, to mate and reproduce, it's done with the opposite sex. Whether it's God, evolution, or the flying spaghetti monster, it's a fact that's programmed into our DNA.

 

Whether or not gay people are programmed differently is heavily debated, and has yet to be proven one way or another. Hence why I asked if the gay gene has been discovered. Me? I tend to go with the viewpoint of the two gay people I actually have interaction with. They made a choice.

 

You sure think you know a lot don't you

Is anything I said above factually incorrect? If so, please let me know so I can re-evaluate.

 

Yes, there is factual inaccuracy in your post, namely the implication that sexual behavior between members of the opposite sex is natural, and that sexual behavior between members of the same sex is unnatural. In truth, homosexual behavior is not uncommon in the natural world. A quick survey of the animal kingdom would show many species that engage in bisexual or homosexual behaviors to one degree or another. Bonobos, for example, happen to be both among humanities closest living relatives, and notoriously prone to engage in same-sex activities.

 

Further, the idea that a 'gay gene' might be found to explain entirely a person's sexual preference is inconsistent with the variation in sex-partner selection in different cultures throughout history. Instead, while genetics play a role, sexual practices are, in large part, learned social behaviors. Note that saying that sexual preference is largely social in nature is not the same as saying it is a choice.

[JJ Husker]

He absolutely wants to take away gays' inalienable rights. Those rights are currently being taken away due to shady hiring practices in Omaha. Omaha responds by making a specific law prohibiting this discriminatory practice - a law which restores the inalienable rights to gays that all people should have. Ron Brown spoke out against that law. By speaking out against that law, he's stating that it should be OK to take away their rights.

 

This is not ambiguous. At all.

 

Proof for the bolded statement? This was one of the questions that didn't really seem to be answered very well at all in the hearing process was exactly where the proof was that this indeed WAS a widespread problem. I'm not convinced the law was necessary. The law doesn't 'restore' any rights. The individuals HAVE those rights already. The law tries to ADD a preferential status based on a choice. Again, knapp, that's YOUR read on it, that it was 'restoring' rights, and that he's saying it should be OK to take away their rights. He did NOT say that in his testimony. That's you putting words in his mouth based on his testimony. Ultimately, you're stating your opinion on it, and trying to say it as fact, when it's anything but.

 

Purely anecdotal evidence from talking personally to people who allege they weren't hired based on their sexual preference, or weren't promoted, or were harassed.

 

And regarding the fact that they do have those rights already - yes, they do. They are inalienable rights, but those rights can be taken away.

 

You seem to be alleging that nobody is taking away rights from gays. On the same vein, you could allege that nobody is taking away rights from women, that the basis of Sex/Gender is useless in discrimination law because women already have the right to work, and earn the same wage for that work, as men. But if you think that those rights - which these women already have - are not being taken from them, you're living in a fantasy world. Discrimination laws exist for a reason. Nobody randomly picked some silly bases and said, "Let's throw these in here."

 

Shop owners have the right to run their business without being robbed. So let's do away with laws prohibiting robbery, right? Of course not, because despite their right, people rob stores.

 

This "there's no need for this law" is a pollyannaish worldview that is unsupported by reality. You may not see the need for these laws, but thankfully you're not the one making the decisions on them.

knapp- Please see my response to Stigori above. I believe the pollyannish view is that these protected status classes do any good at all. Sure they may keep an employer from listing the real reason they may have fired someone but they do virtually nothing to keep these people from being fired or not hired. If an employer wants you out of their employ, they will make it so whether it is for some bigoted, hateful reason or if it is legitimate. IMO, protected status classes of people are a joke, No law is going to change a persons bigotry. At best, it will only adjust how they implement it.

[Chimpsmack]

He absolutely wants to take away gays' inalienable rights. Those rights are currently being taken away due to shady hiring practices in Omaha. Omaha responds by making a specific law prohibiting this discriminatory practice - a law which restores the inalienable rights to gays that all people should have. Ron Brown spoke out against that law. By speaking out against that law, he's stating that it should be OK to take away their rights.

 

This is not ambiguous. At all.

 

Proof for the bolded statement? This was one of the questions that didn't really seem to be answered very well at all in the hearing process was exactly where the proof was that this indeed WAS a widespread problem. I'm not convinced the law was necessary. The law doesn't 'restore' any rights. The individuals HAVE those rights already. The law tries to ADD a preferential status based on a choice. Again, knapp, that's YOUR read on it, that it was 'restoring' rights, and that he's saying it should be OK to take away their rights. He did NOT say that in his testimony. That's you putting words in his mouth based on his testimony. Ultimately, you're stating your opinion on it, and trying to say it as fact, when it's anything but.

 

Purely anecdotal evidence from talking personally to people who allege they weren't hired based on their sexual preference, or weren't promoted, or were harassed.

 

And regarding the fact that they do have those rights already - yes, they do. They are inalienable rights, but those rights can be taken away.

 

You seem to be alleging that nobody is taking away rights from gays. On the same vein, you could allege that nobody is taking away rights from women, that the basis of Sex/Gender is useless in discrimination law because women already have the right to work, and earn the same wage for that work, as men. But if you think that those rights - which these women already have - are not being taken from them, you're living in a fantasy world. Discrimination laws exist for a reason. Nobody randomly picked some silly bases and said, "Let's throw these in here."

 

Shop owners have the right to run their business without being robbed. So let's do away with laws prohibiting robbery, right? Of course not, because despite their right, people rob stores.

 

This "there's no need for this law" is a pollyannaish worldview that is unsupported by reality. You may not see the need for these laws, but thankfully you're not the one making the decisions on them.

knapp- Please see my response to Stigori above. I believe the pollyannish view is that these protected status classes do any good at all. Sure they may keep an employer from listing the real reason they may have fired someone but they do virtually nothing to keep these people from being fired or not hired. If an employer wants you out of their employ, they will make it so whether it is for some bigoted, hateful reason or if it is legitimate. IMO, protected status classes of people are a joke, No law is going to change a persons bigotry. At best, it will only adjust how they implement it.

 

That being the case, I guess we can just go ahead and repeal all the rest of the civil rights legislation?

[JJ Husker]

Also, I have a request for anyone who could provide the information.

 

1- On how many occasions and where has Ron Brown identified himself as a NU coach (or listed memorial stadium as his address) and spoken publically about his views on homosexuality? I am only aware of the 1 occasion in Omaha and possibly 1 additional time where he spoke on the issue but made it clear his views did not represent those of the University.

 

All other related cases I am aware of were initiated by members of the press, where he was simply responding to their questions about his statements or position on the issue. I'm sorry, but I do not buy that he is out there, out of control, advancing this agenda. It seems much more like some media and some people are just not letting it go. Seriously, my mind could be changed if I thought this issue was at the top of his list but I would need to be convinced that he is initiating the issue and not simply answering for what occurred only 1 or 2 times. I think this question should be able to be answered by those who have suggested it is time for Brown to move on, or stated that he is an embarrassment and the like. I can understand disagreeing with his stance but I just don't see this as being as big of a deal as some of you or some in the media are making it. Change my mind.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

I agree, he needs to can it with the religious stuff. If not, hit the door................

[JJ Husker]

 

knapp- Please see my response to Stigori above. I believe the pollyannish view is that these protected status classes do any good at all. Sure they may keep an employer from listing the real reason they may have fired someone but they do virtually nothing to keep these people from being fired or not hired. If an employer wants you out of their employ, they will make it so whether it is for some bigoted, hateful reason or if it is legitimate. IMO, protected status classes of people are a joke, No law is going to change a persons bigotry. At best, it will only adjust how they implement it.

 

That being the case, I guess we can just go ahead and repeal all the rest of the civil rights legislation?

That is just childish. You are distorting my point entirely and intentionally. Much of the civil rights act was needed and still makes sense. You do remember the "back of the bus", business not serving or allowing blacks, etc.? Please show me evidence of similar, current, bigotry perpetrated on members of the GLBT community. You know, like a business that has a sign that says "Gays not welcome or served here". Would you like a standard double queen room, king sutie, or one of the gay rooms out back? I'm not seeing it if it's there I guess. Does anyone have certifiable evidence of a gay person being terminated simply for being gay?

[Saunders]

I deleted my response... Some folks here don't want to discuss facts, so I'm sticking with the issue at hand.

[HuskerShark]

Why is this discussion even still going on?...

[Saunders]

Why is this discussion even still going on?...

You're right. I deleted my response to above posts, am not going to get drug into it....

[The Dude]

Why is this discussion even still going on?...

Because it's relevant not only to Husker football, but society in general.