The Ron Brown Religion & Persecution Thread

[knapplc]

The problem is, I don't think that's what he's saying. He's saying that homosexuality, the act/choice/whatever is bad, and he doesn't believe the government should condone it. People don't chose to be black or white (unless you're michael jackson), just like people don't (normally) chose their gender. That's why those are protected from discrimination. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they haven't found the "gay gene" yet, no?

 

When did you choose to be heterosexual? When is that choice made?

 

Do we really need to have this conversation again?

[Comish]

It's not OK to discriminate against people in the name of your faith. I think that's a pretty easy concept to grasp. Coach Brown is very welcome to think what he thinks, but when he states that gays are "bad" (paraphrasing) that creates a hostile environment. And it's not for Coach Brown to say if it is or isn't, it's for the people saying it's hostile to make that call.

 

In much the same way that I have striven to temper the religious debates on this forum from "you are bad" to "I don't believe what you believe," I fully support Coach Brown if he says that he believes that homosexuality is contrary to God's teachings. But when he tries to advocate taking away rights from Gays, which he did in that Omaha council meeting, that's a problem.

 

I have been both a Christian and a non-believer during my time here at HuskerBoard. In both instances I have done my best to express my views in a non-threatening, non-accusatory way. But I don't get to tell people they are not offended by what I say, they get to tell me that my comments are offensive, and it's on me to change my delivery. Same goes for Coach Brown.

 

Even though you qualified this by stating (paraphrasing)....."gays are bad"..........I don't think he has ever crossed the threshold between .......(paraphrasing)......"hate the sin, love the sinner".......

 

On the contrary, what Coach Brown has down with his life does not suggest hate in any form.

 

Isn't his focus more on the inherent consequences of creating more and more "protected classes" of people? And at what point does any group get told they and/or their agenda are not qualified for "protected class"? Who ultimately makes those calls? And what does it say to those who don't "make the cut"?

[Saunders]

The problem is, I don't think that's what he's saying. He's saying that homosexuality, the act/choice/whatever is bad, and he doesn't believe the government should condone it. People don't chose to be black or white (unless you're michael jackson), just like people don't (normally) chose their gender. That's why those are protected from discrimination. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they haven't found the "gay gene" yet, no?

 

When did you choose to be heterosexual? When is that choice made?

 

Do we really need to have this conversation again?

The only 2 openly gay people I personally know were both married for over a decade, and had multiple children each. One is a man (wife's uncle), the other a woman (family friend), and both are now in their late 40's.

 

Both have told me that they didn't "become gay" (don't think that's the correct phrase) until the year they got divorced. This is also after having a heterosexual relationship for over a decade, and having children.

 

So, that's the only real world knowledge I have on it.

[HuskerFanChuck]

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.

[HuskerFanChuck]

I'm probably done with this, because ultimately, people aren't going to see eye to eye on it. While I don't mind having the discussion, it becomes pointless when people are set in their views, and those views are pretty much unalterable (mine certainly included as much if not moreso than anyone else's). I think at that point it becomes time to agree to disagree. Thanks for the thoughts, folks.

[robsker]

I'm probably done with this, because ultimately, people aren't going to see eye to eye on it. While I don't mind having the discussion, it becomes pointless when people are set in their views, and those views are pretty much unalterable (mine certainly included as much if not moreso than anyone else's). I think at that point it becomes time to agree to disagree. Thanks for the thoughts, folks.

I'm probably done with this, because ultimately, people aren't going to see eye to eye on it. While I don't mind having the discussion, it becomes pointless when people are set in their views, and those views are pretty much unalterable (mine certainly included as much if not moreso than anyone else's). I think at that point it becomes time to agree to disagree. Thanks for the thoughts, folks.

 

HuskerFanChuck:

 

An aside.... but I am glad you post here, your maturity, demeanor and reasoned responses and posts are refreshing to read. You are comparatively new here and quite the nice addition. Thanks for your input.

[kchusker_chris]

too much non-football drama on this coaching staff if you ask me.

 

(especially when Bo is hiring "his guys" - you'd think it would be calmer)

of this there can be no doubt.

 

That said, is this a function of the social media/internet context simply highlighting and placing on center stage what has always been there? I do not know. Drama in any organization is ever present (to varying degrees) --- when that drama is placed in the media constantly, the impression may be that the issues are greater than they are.

 

Again, I do not know which is the case here. But... I do agree that a great deal of non-football stuff is out there re: our staff.

i'd say there is a massive amount of truth to this. just like everything with this football team (and all others). boy I'd love to take the teams of the mid-90's and plop them down in todays world. social media would have a field day w/ that crew

[carlfense]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they haven't found the "gay gene" yet, no?

Do you remember the day when you chose to be attracted to women? That must have been quite the occasion. Did you announce it?

 

Edit: and now I see that knapplc beat me to that point.

[knapplc]

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.

[knapplc]

I'm probably done with this, because ultimately, people aren't going to see eye to eye on it. While I don't mind having the discussion, it becomes pointless when people are set in their views, and those views are pretty much unalterable (mine certainly included as much if not moreso than anyone else's). I think at that point it becomes time to agree to disagree. Thanks for the thoughts, folks.

 

I agree, and it saddens me that people are so closed-minded. But I will not stop fighting for equality. It's worth fighting for, even if that equality isn't reached in my lifetime.

[Saunders]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they haven't found the "gay gene" yet, no?

Do you remember the day when you chose to be attracted to women? That must have been quite the occasion. Did you announce it?

 

Edit: and now I see that knapplc beat me to that point.

That's a terrible argument. I asked a question, and got zero response. I also responded to knappics statement with what I was told by the only two gay people I know. Both went from being in heterosexual relationships, got divorced, and chose to enter homosexual relationships. Bother also stated that they hadn't entertained the idea of being gay until shortly before they decided to leave their spouse.

[knapplc]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they haven't found the "gay gene" yet, no?

Do you remember the day when you chose to be attracted to women? That must have been quite the occasion. Did you announce it?

 

Edit: and now I see that knapplc beat me to that point.

I love this logical fallacy. I asked a question, and got zero response. I also responded to knappics statement with what I was told by the only two gay people I know. Both went from being in heterosexual relationships, got divorced, and chose to enter homosexual relationships. Bother also stated that they hadn't entertained the idea of being gay until shortly before they decided to leave their spouse.

 

It is not a logical fallacy, it is a simple question. The fact that you don't like the answer you're forced to give means you impugn the question, but it's not an improper question.

 

Regarding the bold: You should speak to more gay people. That kind of epiphany is rare among gays. Most knew from a very early age that they were gay. Some hid it, some have lived it their whole life. That kind of epiphany is also conveniently trotted out in conversations like this by people opposed to homosexuality. Kind of like the Canadian model girlfriend the nerd always has.

[tschu]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they haven't found the "gay gene" yet, no?

 

[Saunders]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they haven't found the "gay gene" yet, no?

Do you remember the day when you chose to be attracted to women? That must have been quite the occasion. Did you announce it?

 

Edit: and now I see that knapplc beat me to that point.

I love this logical fallacy. I asked a question, and got zero response. I also responded to knappics statement with what I was told by the only two gay people I know. Both went from being in heterosexual relationships, got divorced, and chose to enter homosexual relationships. Bother also stated that they hadn't entertained the idea of being gay until shortly before they decided to leave their spouse.

 

It is not a logical fallacy, it is a simple question. The fact that you don't like the answer you're forced to give means you impugn the question, but it's not an improper question.

 

Regarding the bold: You should speak to more gay people. That kind of epiphany is rare among gays. Most knew from a very early age that they were gay. Some hid it, some have lived it their whole life. That kind of epiphany is also conveniently trotted out in conversations like this by people opposed to homosexuality. Kind of like the Canadian model girlfriend the nerd always has.

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.

 

By the way, I never said I was opposed to homosexuality, but thanks for assuming you know me.

 

This argument has gotten way off track. The whole reason we went down this rabbit trail, is because there's been way too much paraphrasing and "interpretation" of what Ron Brown said.

[COMPTON]

As someone who has followed coach Brown a long time it's hard for me to see him spread a message of hate and not love. Everyone deserves equal rights and shouldn't be discriminated against because of race/ethnicity/culture/and sexual orientation.