Former Nebraska Kicker Says He Was Openly Gay, Loved By Teammates

[Ulty]

I think the comparison in this thread to Ameer Abdullah is ridiculous. Sure Ameer has a good relationship with his position coach, who is a damn good coach, regardless of the fact that Ron is Christian and Ammer is Muslim. But I bet Ameer would feel much differently if Ron Brown had gone to a public meeting to openly advocate that Muslims should be discriminated against.

 

Ron did say that about gays.

[74Hunter]

I think the comparison in this thread to Ameer Abdullah is ridiculous. Sure Ameer has a good relationship with his position coach, who is a damn good coach, regardless of the fact that Ron is Christian and Ammer is Muslim. But I bet Ameer would feel much differently if Ron Brown had gone to a public meeting to openly advocate that Muslims should be discriminated against.

 

Ron did say that about gays.

I read his statements, and unless I missed something, I don't recall RB saying that gays shouldn't have the same rights as the rest of us or that they shouldn't have access to certain rights that the rest of us have or that they are second class citizens.

[sd'sker]

I read his statements, and unless I missed something, I don't recall RB saying that gays shouldn't have the same rights as the rest of us or that they shouldn't have access to certain rights that the rest of us have.

you missed something.

[74Hunter]

I read his statements, and unless I missed something, I don't recall RB saying that gays shouldn't have the same rights as the rest of us or that they shouldn't have access to certain rights that the rest of us have.

you missed something.

 

interesting. I'd have to know more about those protections he was speaking of before i retract that statement. I recall that ordinance being voted on in the city council, but i don't recall all of the details.

[BigRedBuster]

Does this perhaps say something about the tolerance for this in the state of Nebraska being less than we thought it was?

 

Yes

 

Not just Nebraska.

[Guy Chamberlin]

He believes it is a sin and basically stated it is no different than other sins that may be prevalent in the locker room. Basically, in Ron's view, it is no different than any other sin you or I may engage in. That seems to be a pretty fair position to hold on sin IMO. It only bothers some people because they may not want to accept that others view it as sin.

 

"Only?"

 

Well that's the entire rub, isn't it? If you walk through sin as a transgression against God and the unrepentenant sinner as doomed for eternity, then it might feel a tad uncomfortable knowing that your coach believes you will burn in hell for a choice you didn't make. Unlike the axe murder he just lumped you in with.

 

It's not a fair position to hold. Actually it's hugely insulting. I accept that others may view it this way. But that's hardly a reason to let it go unchallenged.

 

Maybe I missed Ron Brown's stirring testimony about Husker players who had sex with unmarried women.

 

That would certainly keep Deadspin busy.

[Landlord]

Unlike the axe murder he just lumped you in with.

 

It's not a fair position to hold. Actually it's hugely insulting. I accept that others may view it this way. But that's hardly a reason to let it go unchallenged.

 

Maybe I missed Ron Brown's stirring testimony about Husker players who had sex with unmarried women.

 

 

You did miss it while you were busy caricaturing him, considering he never referenced axe murderers, but did reference people guilty of lust, which is the sin behind sex outside of marriage.

 

Next.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Unlike the axe murder he just lumped you in with.

 

It's not a fair position to hold. Actually it's hugely insulting. I accept that others may view it this way. But that's hardly a reason to let it go unchallenged.

 

Maybe I missed Ron Brown's stirring testimony about Husker players who had sex with unmarried women.

 

 

You did miss it while you were busy caricaturing him, considering he never referenced axe murderers, but did reference people guilty of lust, which is the sin behind sex outside of marriage.

 

Next.

 

You missed the paragraph above it, and several other well-worded posts by multiple posters. Or maybe that's just the part you have to keep dancing around.

 

Actually Ron Brown's own words speak perfectly well for themself.

[Junior]

Here's a point that I think has been a little glossed over. I actually intended to make it earlier, but forgot. Brown's stance is that gays should not be afforded anti-discrimination protection by law, meaning gays should be able to be fired for being gay (that's the ordinance he testified against in Omaha a couple of years ago). It's not a huge leap, if you are a player, to think that your status on the football team could be terminated simply because you are gay.

[Mavric]

Here's a point that I think has been a little glossed over. I actually intended to make it earlier, but forgot. Brown's stance is that gays should not be afforded anti-discrimination protection by law, meaning gays should be able to be fired for being gay (that's the ordinance he testified against in Omaha a couple of years ago). It's not a huge leap, if you are a player, to think that your status on the football team could be terminated simply because you are gay.

Or perhaps he was just saying he didn't believe that it belonged in the same class as race, color, sex, age, etc. and you are making a pretty good leap.

[Junior]

Here's a point that I think has been a little glossed over. I actually intended to make it earlier, but forgot. Brown's stance is that gays should not be afforded anti-discrimination protection by law, meaning gays should be able to be fired for being gay (that's the ordinance he testified against in Omaha a couple of years ago). It's not a huge leap, if you are a player, to think that your status on the football team could be terminated simply because you are gay.

Or perhaps he was just saying he didn't believe that it belonged in the same class as race, color, sex, age, etc. and you are making a pretty good leap.

 

Yea... Not really.

 

He was pretty explicitly clear. To protect homosexuals would be to take away rights of Christians. Being gay is a sin, and if you vote for the ordinance you are like Pilate and will have to atone to God.

[74Hunter]

Here's a point that I think has been a little glossed over. I actually intended to make it earlier, but forgot. Brown's stance is that gays should not be afforded anti-discrimination protection by law, meaning gays should be able to be fired for being gay (that's the ordinance he testified against in Omaha a couple of years ago). It's not a huge leap, if you are a player, to think that your status on the football team could be terminated simply because you are gay.

Or perhaps he was just saying he didn't believe that it belonged in the same class as race, color, sex, age, etc. and you are making a pretty good leap.

 

Yea... Not really.

 

He was pretty explicitly clear. To protect homosexuals would be to take away rights of Christians. Being gay is a sin, and if you vote for the ordinance you are like Pilate and will have to atone to God.

If I recall correctly, opponents said that the language in that proposal was vague and ambiguous. They also argued (iirc) that gays were protected from discrimination by state law anyhow, thus this proposal was unnecessary because it was a duplicate, essentially.

 

I'm going to trust the man's word in saying that he feels homosexuality is a sin, but he still loves gays like anyone else. Until he states otherwise, I'm not going to concoct a "well, we know what he means"(wink, wink) stance just so that I can push an agenda.

 

Good day.

[knapplc]

They also argued (iirc) that gays were protected from discrimination by state law anyhow, thus this proposal was unnecessary because it was a duplicate, essentially.

 

This is not true. I don't want to harp on the "intellectual dishonesty" statement, but for someone who threw that argument into the conversation, it seems quite odd that a five-second google wasn't done before making this assertion.

 

NOTE - I presume you're talking about Nebraska state law. If there's another state being discussed, just ignore all this.

[Junior]

Here's a point that I think has been a little glossed over. I actually intended to make it earlier, but forgot. Brown's stance is that gays should not be afforded anti-discrimination protection by law, meaning gays should be able to be fired for being gay (that's the ordinance he testified against in Omaha a couple of years ago). It's not a huge leap, if you are a player, to think that your status on the football team could be terminated simply because you are gay.

Or perhaps he was just saying he didn't believe that it belonged in the same class as race, color, sex, age, etc. and you are making a pretty good leap.

 

Yea... Not really.

 

He was pretty explicitly clear. To protect homosexuals would be to take away rights of Christians. Being gay is a sin, and if you vote for the ordinance you are like Pilate and will have to atone to God.

If I recall correctly, opponents said that the language in that proposal was vague and ambiguous. They also argued (iirc) that gays were protected from discrimination by state law anyhow, thus this proposal was unnecessary because it was a duplicate, essentially.

 

I'm going to trust the man's word in saying that he feels homosexuality is a sin, but he still loves gays like anyone else. Until he states otherwise, I'm not going to concoct a "well, we know what he means"(wink, wink) stance just so that I can push an agenda.

 

Good day.

 

If you think that the agenda I'm pushing is that it is reasonable to think that a homosexual player might be uncomfortable around Ron Brown given his past statements... well... guilty. That's the argument I've been making the entire time. I'm not "interpreting" or reading anything into his comments at all. I'm taking them at face value, by the definitions of the words he used. He said those words, I did not.

[74Hunter]

They also argued (iirc) that gays were protected from discrimination by state law anyhow, thus this proposal was unnecessary because it was a duplicate, essentially.

 

This is not true. I don't want to harp on the "intellectual dishonesty" statement, but for someone who threw that argument into the conversation, it seems quite odd that a five-second google wasn't done before making this assertion.

 

NOTE - I presume you're talking about Nebraska state law. If there's another state being discussed, just ignore all this.

You could be correct, I may not be remembering this correctly, hence using the iirc.

 

After a little more searching, Apparently there isn't such a law at the state level, but there was a proposed law at that time that was supposed to make any gay discrimination laws go through the state capitol, not through municipalities throughout the state.