Just wanted to extend a congratulations and mad respect to Jason Collins, who today became the first openly gay player in North American pro sports.

You can read the full, first-person article here, and I highly recommend it.


Share this:
  • Coincidentally, some friends and I were just having a conversation this morning about how common it is for women to come out in sports (talking specifically about Brittney Griner), but how no male athletes have come out, except for John Amechi, who did it years after he retired. it will be interesting to see what the reaction is among players. Hopefully fewer like TIm Hardaway’s reaction to Amechi’s coming out and more like Collins’ friends and family.

  • Paul Stevens

    Good on him. Hopefully others will take this as a signal they can come out as well. How silly it all is. Just come out and stop worrying about it. sure there is going to be some bulls**t, but I have to think any athlete (or person for that matter) who comes out can start living a more stress free life. Probably easier to deal with the a**holes than have to worry about being outed all the time.

    • DumbassKicker

      “How silly it all is. Just come out and stop worrying about it.”

      Silly? Such sentiment belittles the psychological pain and pressure that gays face all the time. Poor choice of words/view.

  • Fair89

    According to RealGM/Mark Jackson comments, some feel uncomfortable playing with Collins.

    The stigma that gay people are highly sexualized compared to heterosexuals is probably the biggest worry because the assumption is he’ll want to sleep with every man he comes across. Reality is heterosexuals are just as sexually driven, no more or less, but since he’s gay it makes it uncomfortable? What the heck.

    • Fair89

      some feel uncomfortable (potentially) playing with Collins.*

    • Ironically, that was a similar sentiment playing and working with black people, back when the colour barriers were being broken.

    • BlakeMurphy

      It’s stupid in this case (and probably most/all), because he’s not JUST gay now, he always has been. His behavior won’t change.

    • Nilanka15

      Yup, that “worry” comes from pure ignorance.

  • hotshot

    Wouldn’t be funny if it was Rudy Gay that came out….

    • raptorspoo

      lol… it’s funny just thinking about it~

  • morons

    who gives a shit. he likes dudes, big deal

  • thegloveinrapsuniform

    im happy for him and commend him for coming out, but i dont think it was necessary to “announce it to the whole world”. I think its ok to tell your family, relatives and close friends, but announcing it to the whole world, to me, is just a pitch for attention.

    • DumbassKicker

      Cynicism has no bounds here, it seems. Yes, it is a “pitch for attention”, but at a much higher level than the cynical “look at me” attention you imply. It’s about paying attention to a societal problem of discrimination and misguided views toward gay people in general, and in sport particularly. He’s doing his part to open the doors for other gay people in sport to not have to hide from the neanderthals of the world.

      • thegloveinrapsuniform

        i think its fair to be cynical. why only now after 14 years in the NBA? specially if you consider the fact that he’s an FA in the NBA and apparently (“apprently” because i am not 100% sure on this statement) not getting any offers. Rick Welts, who is the Warriors GM and a gay man himself, said that this will certainly “open doors for him” . Although he didnt specify if those doors will lead to signing with an NBA team or spokesman for the gay community, fact of the matter is, by announcing this to the world, he instantly put himself in the spotlight. I guess its open to interpretation, but IMO, it doesnt just stop with “im doing this for all the athletes who want to come out”.

        • DumbassKicker

          We’re all entitled to an opinion. You have my sympathies, and I hope you find a better/kinder place some day.

          • thegloveinrapsuniform


          • thegloveinrapsuniform

            Arter reading through all this, let me just make it clear that i do not have an issue with Collins coming out as a gay man, i was questioning the timing, and the fact that an announcement was even made. Your last comment makes me seem like i hate the fact the he’s gay, and that is totally false. That would be an incorrect label. The fact that Anderon Cooper and Ellen DeGeneres came out durng the pinnacle of their careers, i dare not question the timing. If Collins came out a lot earlier, would he have been more influential? I believe so. And definitely, nobody would have even bother to question his motives.

            • Guest

              Worrying about people questioning his motives was probably the farthest thing from his mind when he kept his sexuality a secret. I mean, seriously. You make it seem like there were no obstacles to his coming out.

              DumbassKicker is too nice. Your second post says it all: nothing but pure and irresponsible speculation. “Apparently” he’s not getting any offers? Has any upcoming free agent received an offer? I’m glad you admit you have no clue on your own statement, but you could have just saved everyone the time and kept made up tidbits to yourself.

              • thegloveinrapsuniform

                Again, its the timing. Not the fact that he came out.
                But you are right, i probably need to read more into it.

                • The timing: Did you read the article? He talks about the timing. If you think he’s doing this to make a buck, then I don’t know what to say. Who are we to say he should have done it earlier? The timing is right for him.

                  As for him not receiving any offers from teams, that’s because he’s still under contract for the Washington Wizards He’s not allowed to receive any offers from other teams.

  • Nilanka15

    Then we’ve got the fundamental Christian right who make a mockery of reason and logic:

    “Personally, I don’t believe that you can live an openly homosexual
    lifestyle or an opnely premarital sex between heterosexuals, if you’re
    openly living that type of lifestyle, then the Bible says you know them
    by their fruits, it says that’s a sin. If you’re openly living in
    unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality, adultery,
    fornication, premarital sex between heterosexuals, whatever it may be, I
    believe that’s walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. I
    would not characterize that person as a Christian because I do not think
    the Bible would characterize them as a Christian.” – Chris Broussard (ESPN)

    • Has Chris Broussard ever:

      – Eaten shellfish

      – Worn clothes of mixed fabric

      – Had sex with a woman during her period

      – Touched an unclean animal

      – Ate fat

      – Let his hair become unkempt

      – Eaten an animal which doesn’t both chew cud and has a divided hoof (like pig, for example)

      – Lied

      – Beared a grudge

      – Trimmed his beard

      – Cut his hair at the sides

      – Gotten a tattoo?

      Because if he has, the Bible forbids those things, too, and he really shouldn’t throw stones in glass houses.

      • typical atheist ‘thinks he knows it all’

        Why don’t you just stick with the New Testament that abrogated a shit ton of Mosaic Laws so that Gentiles can be Christian? Because you don’t want to bother even thinking.

        Some laws never stopped making sense though. homosex brings it’s own punishment. One only needs to look at the CDC stats to understand the high risks involved in homosex behavior.

        • thead

          Why do you care what risks are involved? Why do you get to decide which parts of the bible are correct when the entire thing is written by God himself in the King’s English? The thing about being an atheist, which hardcore religious zealots just can’t seem to understand is, we are entirely comfortable with the fact that there are things we don’t know. We just choose not to make a bunch of shit up so we can sleep at night.

          • Nilanka15

            Yeah, I never really understood the “I only follow the new testament” argument either. Such a convenient cop-out

          • You atheists also get to make up morals as you go along. Everything is great for an Atheist in a culture that is based on Christianity.It’s cool though, as long as your fellow travelers the marxists don’t gain absolute control. As the schools these days try to avoid teaching, Atheists in power leads to massive genocides based on whatever the Atheists decide is the morality of the day.

            In any case, I’ll leave you with this. Atheists would not exist in the world had Christians like Charles Martel through to Jan III Sobieski lost to the constantly attacking muslim hordes.

            Stay ignorant bud.

            • Nilanka15

              Atheists’ morals are quite simple. If you don’t like it done to you, don’t do it to others. That’s it.

              One doesn’t need ancient books written in code to be a moral human being.

            • thead

              Empathy is a human quality. Most have it, some don’t. I don’t need a religion to tell me that killing someone is bad. Empathy was not downloaded into you via a church The difference between a religious genocide, and an atheist one, is that a religious nut has a religious cause, the atheist nut, is just a nut.

              Pretty much every country western colonialists visited was followed by a genocide. I believe most of the Colonialists were some form of Christians. Working on behalf of kings and queens that were in power solely because God chose them.

              How many people did the Ottoman Empire kill?(Islam) Genghis Khan?
              Armenian genocide? Assyrian genocide? Kurds in Iraq?
              13 Crusades? (I might have this number wrong)
              Genocide isn’t a pissing contest between the religious and non religious leaders. Genocide is one person in power picking a reason and killing a lot of people.

            • DumbassKicker

              The next thing you know, Christian moralists are going to burn people on the stake for not living by their rules. Oh wait, that’s been tried. At least gays don’t have to worry about that anymore.

              I must say though, that at least Pope Leo XIII was flexible as he trumpeted his favourite elixer that he carried around with him and indulged in whenever prayer was insufficient : cocaine infused wine.

            • FLUXLAND

              “Stay ignorant bud” – sweet, sweet irony. Thanks for the laughs, though.

      • thead

        for the record I’m guilty of ten out of the twelve

        • I scored 8 out of 12.

          • thead

            see you in hell. wanna hang out if we end up in the same circle? I’ll bring my POGS

    • DumbassKicker

      I just read that too. I hope it leads to even fewer people paying attention to Broussard, and the blowhard winds up selling bibles door to door for a living.

      • Nilanka15


    • thegloveinrapsuniform

      I dont think its wrong for Broussard to believe this since this is what his religion and probably upbriging made him believe. What i think was wrong was saying it out loud for everybody to hear.

      • Nilanka15

        Right. Individual beliefs are exactly that….beliefs.

        It’s when fanatics think their beliefs are irrefutable truths, that problems occur.

        • “It’s when fanatics think their beliefs are irrefutable truths, that problems occur.”

          Atheists should know best what happens when atheistic fanatics make problems occur.
          “but.. but.. but.. muh it’s never been done rite”


          • Nilanka15

            What atheist fanatics???

    • “fundamental Christian right who make a mockery of reason and logic”


      Keep believing in whatever you want. but you can’t change the history of reason and logic.

      • Nilanka15

        Are you suggesting that reason and logic is derived from religion?

        • http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html
          To the popular mind, science is completely inimical to religion: science embraces facts and evidence while religion professes blind faith. Like many simplistic popular notions, this view is mistaken. Modern science is not only compatible with Christianity, it in fact finds its origins in Christianity. This is not to say that the Bible is a science textbook that contains raw scientific truths, as some evangelical Christians would have us believe. The Christian faith contains deeper truths– truths with philosophical consequences that make conceivable the mind’s exploration of nature: man’s place in God’s creation, who God is and how he freely created a cosmos.

          In large part, the modern mind thinks little of these notions in much the same way that the last thing on a fish’s mind is the water it breathes. It is difficult for those raised in a scientific world to appreciate the plight of the ancient mind trapped within an eternal and arbitrary world. It is difficult for those raised in a post-Christian world to appreciate the radical novelty and liberation Christian ideas presented to the ancient mind.

          • Nilanka15

            There were countless “modern” societies long before the Christian doctrine was ever fabricated. Just ask the Egyptians, Chinese and Indians.

            Regardless, faith, by definition, is the belief in the absence of evidence (i.e. the exact opposite of science).

            Anyway, back to my original post. Broussard spouting religious scripture as if it’s truth, and condemning Collins’ behaviour as immoral, was in poor taste (and yes, a complete mockery to reason and logic).

            • “There were countless “modern” societies long before the Christian
              doctrine was ever fabricated. Just ask the Egyptians, Chinese and
              Modern experimental science was rendered possible, Jaki has shown, as a result of the Christian philosophical atmosphere of the Middle Ages. Although a talent for science was certainly present in the ancient world (for example in the design and construction of the Egyptian pyramids), nevertheless the philosophical and psychological climate was hostile to a self-sustaining scientific process. Thus science suffered still-births in the cultures of ancient China, India, Egypt and Babylonia. It also failed to come to fruition among the Maya, Incas and Aztecs of the Americas. Even though ancient Greece came closer to achieving a continuous scientific enterprise than any other ancient culture, science was not born there either. Science did not come to birth among the medieval Muslim heirs to Aristotle.

              ….The psychological climate of such ancient cultures, with their belief that the universe was infinite and time an endless repetition of historical cycles, was often either hopelessness or complacency (hardly what is needed to spur and sustain scientific progress); and in either case there was a failure to arrive at a belief in the existence of God the Creator and of creation itself as therefore rational and intelligible. Thus their inability to produce a self-sustaining scientific enterprise.

            • “long before the Christian doctrine was ever fabricated”

              the deep seated hate for Christianity just can’t be suppressed.

              • Nilanka15

                I don’t have a problem specifically with Christianity. I have a problem with dogma and scripture that hinders progress.

  • I think that he’s just looking for a new paycheck using the currently vogue Affirmative Action angle that seeks to elevate homosexuals above actually qualified non-homo people.

    Since this is a political thread… some OT to consider while Western culture progresses steadily down the poop chute.


    The subject of gay marriage stirs powerful reactions on both sides of the argument. There are those who argue that legalizing it would diminish traditional marriage. And those advocating for gay marriage have long stated that the issue will not harm traditional marriage. Ms. Gessen’s comments on the subject seem to contradict the pro-gay-marriage party lines.

    Gessen shared her views on the subject and very specifically stated;

    “Gay marriage is a lie.”
    “Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there.”
    “It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.” (This statement is met with very loud applause.)

    As mentioned above, Gessen also talked about redefining the traditional family. This may have something to do with the fact that she has “three children with five parents”:

    “I don’t see why they (her children) shouldn’t have five parents legally. I don’t see why we should choose two of those parents and make them a sanctioned couple.”

    • thead

      I don’t understand the mindset of a person that tells another person they can or can’t do something with another consenting adult that harms quite literally nobody. The only person that can diminish the value or your marriage is you or your partner, by not being faithful, loving and kind to each other. I’m not going to start cheating on my wife because gay people get married. The things that diminish our culture have literally nothing to do with homosexuality and everything to do with an eroding sense of community and shared responsibility. Live your own life and mind your own business.

  • coming out

    I decided to come out and say it. I am a…… Christian.

    Has it gotten to the point where you’re considered a bigot to be Christian? There’s no freedom of speech anymore when you have an opinion that’s against popular culture.

    I find a lot of these comments – particularly those anti-Christian ones – to be very hypocritical. On
    one hand you’re standing up for Collins’ ‘rights’ to hold his beliefs but then you’re judgmental on those that maintain their Christian beliefs – with this point I assume then that you are also against Judaism and Muslim as they share
    the same opinions when it comes to homosexuality. I also find that a lot of your comments/views on Christianity are very ignorant.

    Mind you, I don’t really agree with the approach that Broussard took. I do find that it was very judgmental and lacking
    in the basic fundamental of Christianity which is love.

    I think Collins or any gay persons are brothers and sisters and should be shown love by the Christian community. At
    the same time I do agree with Broussard that homosexuality is a sin. BUT we all
    sin (even Christians) and are sinners therefore we should not judge the people
    rather do all thing in love for your fellow brothers and sister.

    It’s like having a friend or family that’s an alcoholic or a smoker (or thinks weed is ok). I may hate my father’s
    alcoholic habits but I may be a smoker. Just because I’m a smoker doesn’t mean
    that I don’t have the right to not want my father to be an alcoholic. You
    should love your brother or sister who is gay but just don’t need to love the

    With regards to homosexuality… I would like to see a pro-gay person argue that bestiality is not ok when the two parties (one an animal) mutually desire the relationship. How can you say that one is natural and one is unnatural? Where do you draw the line?

    I will not judge the person but judge the deed. All things in love.


    • thead

      You lose respect when you compare gay men to animals.

      You have the right to think whatever you want.

      When you try to push your ignorant repressive views on people, don’t be surprised when someone stands up and calls you an idiot.

      Back to the bestiality claim. If you are too dumb to see the difference between two consenting adults and an adult abusing an animal (they can’t desire the relationship nor can they consent) any further discussion with you is a lost cause.

    • Nilanka15

      First, Collins is telling the world who he is. Broussard is telling the world that Collins is wrong to be who he is. Collins is stating a fact about himself. Broussard is stating an opinion about Collins. Where is the hypocrisy?

      Second, the bestiality claim is a “slippery slope” logical fallacy. The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand (homosexuality and tolerance), and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals (bestiality). Because there is no proof that homosexuality leads to bestiality, this fallacy has the form of an “appeal to emotion fallacy” by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.

      You’re saying that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen. In reality, there’s no connection between A and Z.

      • coming out

        You seem to have done a good job of twisting my words so I’ll exaborate.

        1. What I mean by hypocrisy is that many of the same people who support Collins by standing by his beliefs are the same people that will cut down a Christian for standing by theirs.

        2. I don’t mean that if you are gay that you will engage in bestiality. What I mean by this is that you’ll have a hard time arguing that bestiality is wrong. As if you’re belief is in science (without the religion) then your opinion is that we are all animals, no? The same argument for homosexuality can be made by those that support bestiality. My question to you is, what dictates the fact that homosexuality is ok but certain things that are not popular culture (at the moment), like bestiality, are not ok? What dictates what the boundaries of what ok or not ok is for you? Is it popular movement? Media?… If so, then these boundaries are move-able and the popular support for bestiality in the near future is not as far fetch as you might think.

        • Nilanka15

          1. Collins is not “standing by his belief”. Being gay is not a belief, just as being tall isn’t a belief. It’s a fundamental fact about one’s self. Broussard’s belief is equivalent to saying that being tall is wrong. I hope that clears up any perceived hypocrisy.

          2. Yes, we’re all animals. But for the sake of clarity, when I refer to animals in this post, I’m referring to species who are not Homo sapiens.

          Animals do not have the mental capacity to weigh the pros/cons of their actions. Animals cannot speak for themselves. There is no pop-culture/media influence dictating this. A sexual act with an animal would be abusive to the animal because the animal doesn’t know any better.

          As I mentioned in a previous post, a non-theist’s morality comes from the golden rule. If you don’t like it done to you, don’t do it to others. That’s all there is to it.

          • coming out

            1. Being gay is a choice, a way of thinking, meaning it’s a belief. Homo sapiens are the only species that frequently engage is homosexuality act so an argument can be made that it is not natural and you aren’t just ‘gay’ like you are ‘tall’.

            2. I beg to differ on your point about animals. Animals do that the mental capacity to communicate and weigh the pros/cons of their action. Have you ever owned a pet?

            And for those that want to argue that sex between man/woman and animal can not be consensual they must have never owned a dog and/or had a dog on their legs. There can be consensual sex between human and animal but doesn’t mean that it’s right.

            Those rules that you live by are very lose and vague – and just to emphasize my point – it doesn’t seem to oppose consensual bestiality.

            • 1. Actually, the idea that being gay is a belief or choice is a belief. There’s a lot of scientific evidence to support the fact that people are born gay, just as they are born white or black. You really think that a kid in a small town in Arkansas is CHOOSING to be gay, but desperately trying to hide that choice from everyone else because he knows that he could be in danger physically because of it, or lose all his friends and family? You think people really choose to be part of a segment of society that a number of people literally hate? How does that make sense? Ask a gay person whether it was a choice.

              2. You really think a dog has the same ability to understand that a human does? Really? Do you think that dogs should be granted the right to vote? Or ban the use of leashes because it’s cruel? You wouldn’t put a person on a leash, would you? Why would you do it to a dog, if they can understand things so well?

              As for what is unnatural in the animal kingdom, shall we also ban art, writing, democracy, capitalism, etc, because those things certainly don’t occur much in nature.

              • coming out

                I’m sorry but it’s hard to respond to your argument as it is all over the place.

                People make choices all the time that society will be against eg. choosing to be Christian in a Muslim country. Again, human are the only species that engage in frequent homosexual acts while many other species also have a male and female gender.

                I’ll just say this… God DID give us a choice. That is the beauty of what God created in humans. Now the question is if we make the right or wrong choice and ultimately what the consequences of our choices are.

                • I’m pretty sure my argument is pretty clear and concise. Please don’t take the tact that it is in order for you to gloss over my arguments. It shouldn’t be difficult to debate the few points I made.

                  Other species have homosexual behaviour. Whether or not they do to the extent of humans is not the point. As I mentioned, there are lots of things that don’t occur at all in the animal kingdom, but you don’t seem to have a problem with them. Why?

                  So if this God of yours gave us a choice, did he give black people a choice to be black?

            • Nilanka15

              Being gay is not a choice, just as being heterosexual is not a choice. One cannot control what gender s/he is attracted to.

        • DumbassKicker

          “If so, then these boundaries are move-able”

          Do you not think the scriptures you trumpet have been moveable over centuries/millennia? They came from disputable translations of ancient languages, that have been interpreted very differently over time, usually to suit those wielding, and desiring to maintain a hold, of power over people through fear. What the heck do we know what someone really meant in some of these passages? Words and phrases change meaning over time. Hell, the word “gay” itself meant something entirely different just a couple of decades ago.

        • 1. As Nilanka15 stated, we aren’t supporting Collins for standing by his beliefs. We are supporting him for doing something courageous and doing his part to advance civil rights and being a good example to others. I also support Kobe and all the other NBA players who publicly supported him and thus did their part to advance civil rights and for being a good example to others.

          I don’t support ANYONE who holds racist, misogynist, or homophobic views, no matter why they hold those views.

          And the fact is, claiming you believe homosexuality is a sin because you are a Christian is a bit of a cheat because Jesus, himself, said nothing against homosexuality. Leviticus did, but he also had problems with a whole lot of things we deem normal (some of which I listed above), so picking and choosing which ones you think are sins and which aren’t has nothing to do with your Christianity.

          Leviticus expressly forbids eating pig, but I’ve never heard of Christians complaining about people eating bacon, or boycotting Maple Leaf Foods. Why is that?

          The fact is that most Christians who talk about homosexuality being a sin seem to be doing so because they simply don’t like it. Not because they are Christian. It’s just that it’s a convenient veil to stand behind.

          2. Non-human animals aren’t self aware and don’t have the right to vote, drive, etc. Sex between consenting adults is not the same as sex between a person and an animal who doesn’t have the intelligence to understand what is going on. The whole bestiality debate, related to homosexuality is such a flawed argument it actually hurts your case to bring it up.

          • coming out

            First off, I am not racist, misogynist or homophobic and don’t support people with those views either. As Abraham Lincoln said, “we are all created equal under God”. I love people of different ethnicity as I love people that are gay. I too have gay friends but doesn’t mean I have to agree with their actions or choices.

            Sad to say… nowadays, it may be more courageous to stand up for your Christian beliefs than what Collins did – even by just looking at this forum.

            Just because I don’t like smoking doesn’t mean I hate people who smoke. Same thing can be said with homosexuality.

            Also, you seem to quote the bible without understanding the bible. There are many references in the bible with regards to homosexuality and with regards to the food choices, it’s like asking the question, “why don’t people sacrifice lamb when they sin anymore?”. I’ll let you look that one up. I suggest you refrain from using the bible for your own interests when you don’t understand its meaning.

            Uneducated people are unable to drive and if you live in North Korea, you don’t have the right to vote. An animal is similar to humans that they have a desire for sex.

            Now my argument has more to do with where your boundary lies with regards to your morality. If you say homosexuality is ok then what dictates what’s right and wrong for you? What is the basis for your morality?

            • The next time a non-Christian is able to run for President or Prime Minister and it doesn’t become an issue, then I’ll believe Christians are as persecuted as you seem to believe.

              Smoking is a choice. Homosexuality isn’t, and no one who really knows a homosexual would say it is. I already outlined the ridiculousness of believing homosexuality is a choice in another comment to you. So basically you are disagreeing with someone because of what they are. Whether you do that to someone who is black, short or homosexual, that’s wrong to me and I don’t need a book to tell me that. It’s pretty obvious to me.

              As for my understanding of the bible, I understand enough to know that a lot of Christians seem to pick and choose what they want to believe are sins. Bottom line, Jesus never came out against homosexuality. Never said anything about it. So why do you bring up your Christianity when you say you choose to believe homosexuality is wrong?

              As for who is allowed to drive in North Korea, I’m not sure of your point. I wouldn’t look to North Korea for what or what not to do.

              Do you believe dogs are cognizant beings capable of abstract reasoning understanding? If not, then your bestiality argument has absolutely no merit. if you do, then I would think you would be far more worried about giving the same rights human s have to other animals than worrying about whether two men or two women are in love.

              As for my beliefs about what is right and what is wrong, I have a moral compass that tells me that if two cognizant, self aware and consenting adults want to have the same relationship I have with my wife, then it shouldn’t matter in the least to me. In fact, I’m proud to live in a neighbourhood where, when a local pre-school teacher, who happened to be gay, got promoted and left the pre-school he was teaching at, a lot of parents took their kids OUT of the school because he was no longer there. No one cared that he was in a long term relationship with another guy and they are raising two kids together. They cared that he was a great pre-school teacher and that the quality of the school went down when he left.

              • coming out

                Tim. What I meant is that we’re talking about a few things at once here but I’ll focus on one.

                You seem to have this hate for Christians. I was born a Christian as were many but there are those that have choose another path. It wasn’t my choice that God made me but I was made. But, there are choices that I can make.

                You generalize what Christian are, that Christians choose what is sin and what is not. God dictates what is sin and what is not and the bible tell us but people sin (yes, we Christians too). You seem to judge Christians by their sins rather than their fundamental beliefs. People are people and will make the same mistakes whether they are Christian or not. You comments seem to pick out those mistakes all people make and emphasis them because they are Christians.

                Sick people go to hospitals. Sinners go to church. If there were no sick people then you wouldn’t need a hospital would you? Christian are average people – like you, Tim. We don’t all of a sudden become saints because we become Christian. It’s a daily struggle.

                I’ll make this statement loud and clear: I LOVE GAY PEOPLE. I just don’t agree with their ways. I am happy for that school principle too. I don’t have an once of ill will towards gay people. I wish you wouldn’t generalize Christians as people who hate gay people because God teaches us to love everyone. If Christians are preaching hate upon others then they aren’t good Christians, are they?

                • I don’t hate Christians in the least. I’ve got friends who are Christians. I don’t agree with them, but I don’t have any ill will towards them.

                  What I don’t like is when people use religion as an excuse to discriminate and judge people. I think it’s wrong and I think it’s hateful and cowardly.

                  If the historical Jesus existed today, I’m willing to bet he’d look at what Christianity has become as a complete bastardization of his teachings. As I said, he never said anything about homosexuality, yet you claim it’s your Christian beliefs that tell you that homosexuality is a sin.

                  Your love of gay people shouldn’t even be in question, if you’re a Christian, but through your actions and words it often is. You ever wonder why that is?

                  You really don’t think Jesus would be for gay marriage if he was around today? I do.

                  Now, why don’t you focus one on of my many other points.

                • coming out

                  Again, it’s sad to see but you are generalizing Christians as racists generalize different ethnicity.

                  Are you taking your incomprehension of why Christians are against homosexuality and basing your bastardization argument on that? There are many many Christians around the world who are feeding the hungry, protecting the weak, sharing love with people the way God intended (more than any other religion or organization) and you pick and choose some minor things that you don’t agree with and say Christianity is a complete bastardization?

                  With your ‘Jesus never said’ argument… yes, you are correct that Jesus didn’t say outright that homosexuality is not right but consider: since Jesus was born and lived under the Law of Moses, and since He endorsed the Law of Moses, and since the Law of Moses explicitly condemned homosexuality, then could we correctly say that Jesus also condemned it.

                  Jesus did have this to say: “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ “and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’” (Matt. 19:4.)

                  I do encourage you to gain a better understanding of the bible and would have a more meaningful conversation, otherwise you are stating your interpretation of the bible without having read the bible.

                  I come to the sense that you see a few prominent figures that state that they are Christian, say things in anger and hatred (essentially in sin), and generalize that to the overall attitudes of Christian towards gay people. It’s like how the Florida pastor burned the Kuran – Jesus didn’t teach us to be jerks or to incite hatred. Please do not look at the deeds of a few people, as people are imperfect – non-Christians also – and look at the fundamental teachings of the bible. But, if you are looking for Christians to accept homosexuality then sorry, it won’t happen because a sin is a sin. Doesn’t matter if you sugar coat it and put toppings on it. We don’t mold God into our liking.

                  I’ll repeat, as a Christian, all thing should be done in love but please don’t expect Christians to compromise their beliefs in God’s law for sake of your convenience. For now, we can agree to disagree but all things start with love… and we can start by agreeing with that.

                • DumbassKicker

                  You haven’t responded to any of my previous posts, so I don’t expect you will now. None the less, here goes. Being someone who puts so much faith in the bible, and is so knowledgeable about it, perhaps you can answer a simple question or two.

                  My understanding is that the Bible has gone through a lot of transformation over the centuries, starting with original sources in ancient languages, then going through all kinds of different translations and modifications, often imposed by kings and conquerors of various stripe. You might say some powerful people got their hands on it, and “molded God” to their liking. Some say. Would you know when Mathew 19:4 first appeared in the bible, written as you’ve quoted?

                  You speak of “love” a great deal, and profess to practice it as best you can, while condemning gays as sinners. Many subscribe to the philosophy that there are only two base emotions felt by man. LOVE and FEAR. All other emotions are derived from those two. In homosexuality, we are most often speaking of love between two gentle, kind, giving, loving human beings. Is calling that sin rooted in love or fear?

                • I’m not generalizing about anyone. I’m simply saying the Christian religion, as it is today, bears very little resemblance to what he espoused. I’m speaking of the organized religion of Christianity. I don’t think I’m saying anything too controversial, here. Churches are not a very Christian thing, neither are most of the rituals that go along with them.

                  As for the bible, I have a good enough understanding of the bible. I don’t really wish to have a more of an understanding. It’s not a book I really have all that much interest in. It’s a half decent historical record of the times, but that’s about it.

                  The idea that the bible is an ACCURATE historic record of the times is ludicrous. Trying to quote what a man said 50 years before in another language, and believing that the quote is even accurate makes little sense. As you should know, the Gospels from the New Testament were written, at the earliest, decades after Jesus supposedly died and some even longer. And most of the writers never even met Jesus. So the Bible is little more than a record of bad hearsay. And that doesn’t even get into the fact that it was a man who chose which gospels were admitted and which weren’t, so it’ not only inaccurate, it’s most likely incomplete.

                  And the Old Testament is a bizarre mix of contradictions, stories based on historic events and fantastical myths stolen from older civilizations, featuring a vengeful and insecure god. Why they would include Leviticus is completely beyond me.

                  That said, Jesus’ teachings make a whole lot of sense, and many of them are taken from Eastern religions. I think everyone should follow most of his teachings. But none of those teachings include that homosexuality is a sin.

            • DumbassKicker

              The more I read about you bringing in beastiality, dogs humping legs, choice, etc., I realize that seem to have difficulty accepting that there’s more to the intimacy of homosexual relationships than sexual intercourse, just as there is more to hetrosexual relationships. The concept that homosexuality is a choice of sexual behaviour is preposterous. Studies have shown that other people, not just the homosexuals themselves, notice the difference in young kids before those kids even have a clue what sex is. Elderly people finally overcome their fear of misguided society and become committed partners long after they’re capable of sex. It’s not a bloody choice of sexual activity like S&M or beastiality!