OT: BG's new legacy, and Baylor (merged thread)

[DobbsRover2]

Outstanding piece on it by hoopfeed (no not me) here:

http://www.hoopfeed.com/content/201...rt-and-then-theres-noh8-prop-8-and-ken-starr/

Wow, that is incredible, and a great read. Baylor prez and Prop-8 supporting counsel Kenneth Starr actually said that it is basically the right of the people in a state (or maybe country) to strip other citizens of basic equal rights if they just raise a proposition and vote for it. "The right of the people is inalienable to change their constitution through the amendment process. The people are sovereign and they can do very unwise things, and things that tug at the equality principle."

That is a degree of slippery-slope and mendacious legal thought that is truly frightening. I hope BG can provide some more principled moral suasion to her alma mater than its president can. But yeah, in AZ and elsewhere there will be those who say she should just stick to basketball and leave those "human rights" issues to people like Starr who know better.

 

[EricLA]

I"ll tread on dangerous ground here, which will probably result in the thread being locked.

Perhaps if people didn't try to force their views and lifestyles on others, the acceptance would happen at a faster pace. Perhaps if some in the LGBT community were more tolerant of the views of the people that don't agree with their lifestyle, then their views would be more accepted. People are reluctant to change when they perceive they are being forced to accept something they don't agree with. Violence, bullying or other forms of destructive criticism should not be tolerated because of a person's lifestyle. However, because a person doesn't agree with a lifestyle and lets others live their lifestyle without any form of objection, then that person is not a bad person. Some in the LGBT community believe a person has to fully endorse their lifestyle and if they don't then that person is a bad or immoral person. Sorry I don't believe that.

I saw no reason for ESPN to address this issue with the 3 to See. Sports fans should only care about how they performed on the court in College and how they will perform in the WNBA.

Just a slight correction. Myself, and every single LGBT person I know (and I know a lot) have zero interest in "forcing our views and lifestyle" on anyone else. I'm not "out" at work, but most of my coworkers know I'm gay. Many of them are very religious as my company is actually a faith based organization. However, I no more try to force anything on them than any of my religions friends or coworkers try to force their religion on me. It's all about accepting people for who they are.

If you really believe we as a community are trying to "force our views and lifestyles on others", I'd like to try to correct that perception. This may be going down a path the mods don't want to, but there's a huge difference between pushing for equality in marriage and rights for our spouses etc. vs. forcing our views down the throats of others. I totally respect that most people are straight and have relationships with opposite sex partners. For those of us in the gay community, we don't care one iota if people "agree" with who we are (as our "lifestyle" is not a choice). We DO care that we aren't afforded equal rights under the law and thankfully, that is eventually going to change.

As cardfan pointed out, I still am very confused how a gay couple marrying affects a straight couple, as it's really irrelevant to their daily life in any way. Fortunately times are changing and I'm very proud when I read public opinion has completely shifted in the past 5-10 years on the issues that we are fighting for...

 

[easttexastrash]

I have sons that are 18 and 16. I asked them how they feel about gay marriage and they shrugged. I asked them how they feel about gays and they shrugged again. I'm glad to see that their generation isn't going to judge others by whom they date or marry.

Shows that you have done a great job raising accepting and open minded children and how times have changed.

 

[easttexastrash]

I'm not saying she was obliged to say something earlier. But -- leaving Griner aside -- I do get tired of the meme that college kids are too young to act like grown-ups. I and a dozen of my fellow students faced arrest in a non-violent anti-war protest my freshman year at UConn. Hundreds of my fellow students and I were arrested in a non-violent anti-racism sit-in my junior year. And, as head of the student government, I regularly had a beer at the Rathskellar on Gay and Lesbian night each week, just as I met with other interest groups. And all that was in the early 70s, mind you. Just because you are a teenager/young twenty-something doesn't mean you should skip out on your social responsibilities or subsidize the hypocrisy of the school you attend.

I'm not saying Griner HAD to speak up, but I do wish she had, and I would respect her a lot more if that had been the case. To paraphrase Luke 12:48, from those to whom much has been given, more is expected. I admire Griner's basketball talents, but I have more respect for the straight and GLBT students at Baylor like Samantha Jones and Susan Duty who had the courage to raise their voices within the belly of the beast.

BG was not a random student who was paying her own way through Baylor. She was a scholarship athlete also REPRESENTING the university and the athletic department. She was doing what she thought was right for her teammates and coaches.

 

[Adesmar123]

Shows that you have done a great job raising accepting and open minded children and how times have changed.

I imagine they would have shrugged at almost any question. They are 18 and 16 year old guys!!!!

 

[easttexastrash]

I imagine they would have shrugged at almost any question. They are 18 and 16 year old guys!!!!

come on...give Nan her due!

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

Two points -

Meyers - the Lutherans were not a good choice for your remarks about disagreeing with an organization, but joining / belonging. My congregation schismed just before we moved here, and the strongly anti-gay faction, led by the pastor, went and formed their own congregation in a different denomination (yes, there are more than one kind of Lutheran). Because folks stayed doesn't mean that they support gay marraige or would call a gay pastor - only that they believed affiliation with the ELCA branch of Lutheranism (which happens to permit gay pastors in committed relationships) and our congregation was more important than the exact shade of opinion they might have on that subject.

Second, I have never felt any pressure from anyone I know that is gay (includes 2 cousins, a couple of pastors, some fellow Rutgers fans including a former fan club prez, etc.) regarding these issues. I do understand that some folks feel that if they do not support gay marraige they are being "forced" into it if it becomes a law in their area - but that's the way democracy works. The 45% (say) that object to something ultimately have to accept what the majority has decided.

 

[Adesmar123]

Did anyone see the SI swimsuit issue? I wish they would do a gay women's issue. Wouldn't that be liberating?

 

[JS]

we don't care one iota if people "agree" with who we are (as our "lifestyle" is not a choice). We DO care that we aren't afforded equal rights under the law and thankfully, that is eventually going to change.

A debate on gay marriage is for another board, but your post kind of sums up the general dynamic.

Equal rights are worth fighting for. And it's VERY hard to see how equal rights adversely affect those who already have those rights or force anything down their throats. If they feel that way, it's regrettable, but equal rights are still worth fighting for.

As for personal attitudes, there's little reason, no duty, and not a whole lot of hope, in trying to change them. People, gay and straight, need to lead good lives and, as far as other people's sex lives are concerned, mind their own business.

Attitudes may evolve some, but the demographics (generational differences) are so stark as to suggest that the issue is on its way to becoming moot. It's my generation where most of the negative attitude resides, and we're going to die off. Not that I'm in any hurry.

 

[DobbsRover2]

The kind of quiet opening up on a national stage of a previously faintly disguised fact of Brittney Griner's status in the LGBT community by herself yesterday raised a host of interesting issues that will play out in the news in the future. They include among others:

• What effect will it have on the WNBA to have one of its biggest stars as possibly the most prominent face in sports of the lesbian athlete? The associations between women's pro ball and gay culture has always been out there and been debated as either a good or bad thing for the sport, but with BG now entering the league, the discussions will become stronger.
• How does a school like Baylor that defines homosexuality as a misuse of a divine gift and lumps it with incest, sexual assault, and sexual abuse deal with the out-and-out proclamation of one of its all-time top athletes that she was defying their sexual misconduct code while on campus. While the situations are 180 degress different, if PSU can be laid low by its inability to properly deal with serial child molestor on its campus, how will Baylor deal with its own college code of sexual propriety if it does put homosexuality and sexual abuse in the same category?
• What will be the new relationship between Baylor's president Kenneth Starr, who among other things has fought to nullify the marriages of gay couples in California, and the former Baylor WCBB star who he is apparently fairly chummy with?
• With Griner being a very large target for absorbing and deflecting any of the anti-gay invective coming from the usual sources, how many other lesbian athletes will be either coming out or becoming even more outspoken on gay rights?

There is one indication of a change that has probably been very huge since BG enrolled at her school. On the Baylor fourm's thread on her action yesterday, you would have to strain very hard to find a big nugget of anti-gay feeling. True the school has it's code of sexual misconduct, but it seems that it it mainly serves as a university ideal and is for the most part accorded lip service. As one poster noted when the question of whether Griner could be in danger of not being allowed to graduate for violating school policy, the main issue would be just the ban on sexual activity in general (not specifically homosexual vs heterosexual) which is obviously overlooked since a number of Baylor grads have fathered kids without being married. Though there is very much a "I wish her well anyway" and "I don't agree with the way she is but it's her business" attitude on the Baylor board, it appears that any attempt by anti-gay agitators to whip up hostility even on a school with professedly anti-gay ordinances like Baylor is not likely to gain much steam.

 

[Icebear]

Two points -

Meyers - the Lutherans were not a good choice for your remarks about disagreeing with an organization, but joining / belonging. My congregation schismed just before we moved here, and the strongly anti-gay faction, led by the pastor, went and formed their own congregation in a different denomination (yes, there are more than one kind of Lutheran). Because folks stayed doesn't mean that they support gay marraige or would call a gay pastor - only that they believed affiliation with the ELCA branch of Lutheranism (which happens to permit gay pastors in committed relationships) and our congregation was more important than the exact shade of opinion they might have on that subject.

Second, I have never felt any pressure from anyone I know that is gay (includes 2 cousins, a couple of pastors, some fellow Rutgers fans including a former fan club prez, etc.) regarding these issues. I do understand that some folks feel that if they do not support gay marraige they are being "forced" into it if it becomes a law in their area - but that's the way democracy works. The 45% (say) that object to something ultimately have to accept what the majority has decided.

Thanks for expressing the reality of living in a denomination and tradition that we both know so well.

 

[meyers7]

What effect will it have on the WNBA to have one of its biggest stars as possibly the most prominent face in sports of the lesbian athlete?

The WNBA has other stars who are lesbians, and well known. Don't think it will change much.

The associations between women's pro ball and gay culture has always been out there and been debated as either a good or bad thing for the sport, but with BG now entering the league, the discussions will become stronger.

That's been there, and I don't think that will change either.

How does a school like Baylor ...deal with the out-and-out proclamation of one of its all-time top athletes that she was defying their sexual misconduct code while on campus.

the main issue would be just the ban on sexual activity in general (not specifically homosexual vs heterosexual) which is obviously overlooked since a number of Baylor grads have fathered kids without being married.

Well I don't think she was saying she was defying their code on "sexual activity". (she may well have, but then so have probably 60%+ of the student body, probably higher, but I figure there a few students who can't/won't or actually abide by the rules). And obviously Baylor isn't really doing anything about it with others, so I doubt they would about this one particular student.

 

[UcMiami]

As a society why does Sports and Sexuality need to be in the same conversation? Who cares which way athletes lean towards in their sexual lives. We as fans should only care about how the athlete perform in their chosen sports endeavor. I for one wish that we as a society didn't need or want to know what a person's sexual identify is.

For the same reason that sports and crime, sports and gambling, sports and _____ are in the same conversation. Sports in general and the players certainly in college and the pros are public figures and when they express themselves publicly on any subject it becomes part of the public discussion. This is a choice that these players (and management and owners) make. For college kids, this may come before they are really ready to handle it developmentally/emotionally - they are in that gray area where we as a society have issues in defining the line between adult and child.
The public actions and statements by all people associated in sports (and the private criminal actions) are part of our national conversation. It is naive to think this should not be true.

 

[rbny1]

Here is Baylor's "sexual misconduct" policy:

"In all disciplinary procedures, Baylor University will seek to be redemptive in the lives of the individuals involved and to witness to the high moral standards of the Christian faith. Baylor will be guided by the understanding that human sexuality is a gift from the creator God and that the purposes of this gift include (1) the procreation of human life and (2) the uniting and strengthening of the marital bond in self-giving love. These purposes are to be achieved through heterosexual relationships within marriage. Misuses of God's gift will be understood to include, but not be limited to, sexual abuse, sexual harassment, sexual assault, incest, adultery, fornication and homosexual acts.

"Baylor will strive to deal in a constructive and redemptive manner with all who fail to live up to this high standard. Nothing will be done to encourage abortions or other drastic actions that might bring great harm to those involved. Dealing individually with each case, efforts will be made to counsel and assist those involved. Constructive forgiveness will guide all efforts."

Note that "homosexual acts" are banned but not being gay in and of itself. Also, there is lots of room for "constructive forgiveness."

I think Griner has handled herself well in this matter, including the timing of her low-key announcement, and will have no problems with Baylor's administration -- at least I hope she won't. The folks at Baylor would look like absolute dopes if they didn't allow her to graduate.

 

[DobbsRover2]

The WNBA has other stars who are lesbians, and well known. Don't think it will change much.


That's been there, and I don't think that will change either.


Well I don't think she was saying she was defying their code on "sexual activity". (she may well have, but then so have probably 60%+ of the student body, probably higher, but I figure there a few students who can't/won't or actually abide by the rules). And obviously Baylor isn't really doing anything about it with others, so I doubt they would about this one particular student.

On all points, I would just say that the stakes are raised and the publicity heightened with BG being such an icon for WNBA now. That's different than Sue Wicks, and if Holdsclaw and Swoopes were active major stars in the sport the change might be smaller, but this is not only in some ways the biggest face in the WNBA but also the newest. Much of what is relevant in the news world revolves around what just happened, and Griner will be continuing to happen right off the bat. And well yeah, she was just coming out about her sexual orientation and not talking about any particular activity maybe happening in Ken Starr's office, but for most people the idea that the orientatation and the activity go together is pretty much clear when you have your main squeeze frequently in company (yes I know there are some abstinence till marriage folks down there, though in this case Ken Starr and TX would say no-no-no to that marriage part), and in this case she would have two feet out-of-bounds as far as Baylor is concerned. Gotta be a little messy for the Bears to have some of its rivals down there pointing to it as the "lesbian school" when it defines gay as being like incest and sex abuse. Maybe Starr can twinkle up some nice twisty piece of reasoning to make Baylor's rules seem to fit its actions.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Here is Baylor's "sexual misconduct" policy:

"In all disciplinary procedures, Baylor University will seek to be redemptive in the lives of the individuals involved and to witness to the high moral standards of the Christian faith. Baylor will be guided by the understanding that human sexuality is a gift from the creator God and that the purposes of this gift include (1) the procreation of human life and (2) the uniting and strengthening of the marital bond in self-giving love. These purposes are to be achieved through heterosexual relationships within marriage. Misuses of God's gift will be understood to include, but not be limited to, sexual abuse, sexual harassment, sexual assault, incest, adultery, fornication and homosexual acts.

"Baylor will strive to deal in a constructive and redemptive manner with all who fail to live up to this high standard. Nothing will be done to encourage abortions or other drastic actions that might bring great harm to those involved. Dealing individually with each case, efforts will be made to counsel and assist those involved. Constructive forgiveness will guide all efforts."

Note that "homosexual acts" are banned but not being gay in and of itself. Also, there is lots of room for "constructive forgiveness."

I think Griner has handled herself well in this matter, including the timing of her low-key announcement, and will have no problems with Baylor's administration -- at least I hope she won't. The folks at Baylor would look like absolute dopes if they didn't allow her to graduate.

But yes they're still saying that though being gay can be constructively forgiven, doing anything about it is still at least a misdemeanor against God. So effectively they are in the position of telling Griner that they will try to forgive her for being lesbian which is the gift God gave her, but she does need to restrict herself from any of those restricted activities that would be misusing the gift, such as say kissing a GF at a future Bears game. Maybe Kenny can be the referee in the spectator area to insure that nothing goes as far as hand-holding or nuzzle-nuzzles.

 

[meyers7]

This may be going down a path the mods don't want to, but there's a huge difference between pushing for equality in marriage and rights for our spouses etc. vs. forcing our views down the throats of others. .

That's where I would have to disagree with you eric. Pushing for equality in marriage is forcing a view. It's trying to redefine what marriage is.

I don't have a problem with rights. I do wish we could get government out of the marriage business and the church out of the rights business. They should be separate things. If you want certain rights from the government, you should have to go to the government and sign some contract with whomever.

(as our "lifestyle" is not a choice)

Have to disagree with this also. Lifestyle is a choice.

I may be attracted to many, many women. That's not a choice, just the way I am. (like I'm much more attracted to redheads than blondes or brunettes). However if I choose to sleep with all the women I find attractive, then that is a lifestyle and a choice.

(hypothetical of course. With my bald head and fat gut, I'm lucky if I can get my wife to sleep with me )

 

[RadyLady]

Did she simply come out as being homosexual or did she come out and say that she had an active sex life during her school years?

Sent from my SGH-T769 using Tapatalk 2

 

[UcMiami]

I"ll tread on dangerous ground here, which will probably result in the thread being locked.

Perhaps if people didn't try to force their views and lifestyles on others, the acceptance would happen at a faster pace. Perhaps if some in the LGBT community were more tolerant of the views of the people that don't agree with their lifestyle, then their views would be more accepted. People are reluctant to change when they perceive they are being forced to accept something they don't agree with. Violence, bullying or other forms of destructive criticism should not be tolerated because of a person's lifestyle. However, because a person doesn't agree with a lifestyle and lets others live their lifestyle without any form of objection, then that person is not a bad person. Some in the LGBT community believe a person has to fully endorse their lifestyle and if they don't then that person is a bad or immoral person. Sorry I don't believe that.

I saw no reason for ESPN to address this issue with the 3 to See. Sports fans should only care about how they performed on the court in College and how they will perform in the WNBA.

Others have replied to this in ways I agree with, but I feel I should as well.
'Force their views' is entirely inappropriate in this context. If anything, I would say those trying to create laws, or defend laws already created, that discriminate against any section of society and especially a minority are the ones 'enforcing their views'. This is not a question of public safety, controlled substances, crimes against the state, or any of the other legitimate reasons laws may be passed to restrict the rights of individuals or portions of society for the greater general welfare of that society.
There are specific benefits conveyed on people in the legally defined state of 'marriage' on a federal and state level, that are not available to couples that are not in a marriage. And the definition of marriage in state and federal law is not connected to any religion as civil marriages performed by judges, etc. are recognized as the same (as I believe are common law marriages.) To exclude these legal rights to couples who wish to enter that state based on sexual orientation is discrimination.
As for requiring any religion to perform these marriages (or recognize them) - I do not believe anyone is advocating this (except within their faith communities, or perhaps on the far fringe.) The Catholic church still does not recognize divorce and does not sanction the marriage of a divorced person. Most religions impose specific restriction on what marriages they recognize, who they will marry, etc.) And congregations and their ministers have fairly wide latitude to set their own parameters within many denominations.
This is not nor should it be a question decided on 'faith' or 'moral' grounds as it is a legal issue of discrimination.

Mods - please delete this post if it oversteps the accepted standards for the board.

 

[meyers7]

Two points -

Meyers - the Lutherans were not a good choice for your remarks about disagreeing with an organization, but joining / belonging. My congregation schismed just before we moved here, and the strongly anti-gay faction, led by the pastor, went and formed their own congregation in a different denomination (yes, there are more than one kind of Lutheran). Because folks stayed doesn't mean that they support gay marraige or would call a gay pastor - only that they believed affiliation with the ELCA branch of Lutheranism (which happens to permit gay pastors in committed relationships) and our congregation was more important than the exact shade of opinion they might have on that subject.

Actually that would support my point. Schisms in an organization. Not something a pastor, as your post proved, is going to promote. And I was speaking to a more specific organization (i.e. a church or a college, or a LGBT group), not the many factions of a religion.

 

[UcMiami]

I posted two specific responses but also just wanted to say generally that there are a lot of very good posts in this thread. It is an interesting discussion, and I appreciate some of the personal experiences related by people. I respect the quality of most of the posts here. And I believe that the opinions of most of the younger population of this country are truly refreshing as many things that have been heatedly debated by older generations are simply accepted by the younger. In general this is a good thing.
By the way - there is an interesting thread on the Baylor site on this topic and they have included a link to our discussion here.

I would also relate an personal experience. My Uncle was a Bishop in the Episcopal faith. His younger brother married a divorced woman in 1955 and he was asked to preside or attend and be best man. He was a fairly young priest at the time and had never been asked to be involved in the marriage of a divorcee and struggled with the issue. He ended up not attending the marriage. In later years he apologized to his brother and his wife and said it was the biggest single regret in a generally well lived life. After he retired he had a second crisis of faith - his daughter wanted to become an Episcopal minister before the Episcopal church sanctioned female ministers and he was asked to be one of the ordaining bishops. It was not until the night before the ceremony that his struggle ended and he decided that the church hierarchy to whom he had always been faithful was wrong. His faith and his conscience demanded he be a part of that ceremony. I believe part of that decisions was based on the struggle and regret from the earlier episode.
Not an LGBT issues but an issue of faith, belief, and changes in society.

 

[Icebear]

There is no gay lifestyle. Among gays as among straights there is promiscuity, monogamy, conservatism, liberalism, bohemianism, asceticism and almost everything else. There are homosexual relationships and persons who fit in almost any and every category of human culture, including faithful, exclusive relationships, and celibate individual lives.

The very attempt to confine LGBT individuals to a definable "lifestyle" is an act of futility and bigotry. it is an attempt to demean it as simply a matter of choice, readily changeable, and a category not worthy of recognition or rights.

 

[SWHuskyFan]

I congratulate those who have raised children who don't have hate, for any group of people really. I was lucky enough to be raised by parents who didn't have it and didn't pass it to me. I imagine it's hard to change those types of thoughts once they've been reinforced thru your entire childhood.

It says a lot about the change we've already had that we haven't had any open anti-gay opinions expressed in this thread. Hopefully the rest of the country can get to be as enlightened as the 'yard.

 

[JS]

I posted two specific responses but also just wanted to say generally that there are a lot of very good posts in this thread. It is an interesting discussion, and I appreciate some of the personal experiences related by people. I respect the quality of most of the posts here.

I feel likewise. Have had only a couple of complaints about the thread, one from each side of the fence, but am aware that contentiousness is waiting in the wings and think we'd best quit this one while we're ahead.

Maybe we'll go here again one of these days. Thanks to all who participated.

 

[HGN]

Did she simply come out as being homosexual or did she come out and say that she had an active sex life during her school years?

Sent from my SGH-T769 using Tapatalk 2

She simply came out and said she was a lesbian.