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

[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.

 

[meyers7]

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.

True, but still don't think it will change much.

 

[DobbsRover2]

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

I think for most sports fans the second element is considered to be maybe a little TMI, and you'd also have to define "active." But generally when an adult says something like "I love horror movies," the supposition is that they've actually seen one, or if they say "I'm a hockey player" that they've actually played the sport, or if they say they're a thrill-seeker, that they not only have sought out thrills but have the right to do so. If the idea is that Baylor now has a "Don't Ask, You Can Tell, But Just Don't Do It" policy which is the preferred route to go to keeps things running smoothly, then I guess BG just shouldn't wear any Nike gear on campus.

 

[DobbsRover2]

True, but still don't think it will change much.

Well I think Arlo addressed that point in Alice's Restaurant, which also touched in the 'two people" part with this very topic. It depends on how much follow-up occurs, as to whether the situation is not much changed, or an organization, or a movement. And it could happen fast. My two kids who are now 22 and 18 were dumbstruck when I told them what the seeming national consensus on gay marriage had been 10 or 15 years ago. When the tipping point is hit, the water starts to flow.

 

[RadyLady]

I think for most sports fans the second element is considered to be maybe a little TMI, and you'd also have to define "active." But generally when an adult says something like "I love horror movies," the supposition is that they've actually seen one, or if they say "I'm a hockey player" that they've actually played the sport, or if they say they're a thrill-seeker, that they not only have sought out thrills but have the right to do so. If the idea is that Baylor now has a "Don't Ask, You Can Tell, But Just Don't Do It" policy which is the preferred route to go to keeps things running smoothly, then I guess BG just shouldn't wear any Nike gear on campus.

not necessarily. I knew I was straight even before I tested the waters so to speak.
My point was did she admit to being gay or did she actually say she experimented because Baylor's policy states:".... 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."

I am sure some of the BY law learned many would say that this is not the complete list, but she admitted to being gay. She didn't say anything about an active sex life. As I see it, she didn't actually break the policy...strictly speaking....

will take my lumps now...

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

I think for most sports fans the second element is considered to be maybe a little TMI, and you'd also have to define "active."

Don't feel I ever need to know who someone's partner (hetero or otherwise) is and certainly don't need to know what they are or are not doing behind closed doors.

That is, unfortunately, one of the big issues today - the need to know such things and the idea that it is somehow our "right" to know them.

On a separate, totally irrelevant issue - I just was reading a column and saw that the referee Violet Palmer (1st woman NBA official, with Dee Kantner) is also an out lesbian. Which is also none of my business and not something I needed to know, but none the less mildly interesting, I thought.

 

[RadyLady]

I pray that the day will come soon when the issue of sexual orientation is not an issue.

 

[meyers7]

not necessarily. I knew I was straight even before I tested the waters so to speak.
My point was did she admit to being gay or did she actually say she experimented because Baylor's policy states:".... 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."

I am sure some of the BY law learned many would say that this is not the complete list, but she admitted to being gay. She didn't say anything about an active sex life. As I see it, she didn't actually break the policy...strictly speaking....

will take my lumps now...

Agreed. That was my point in the other thread when people wondered WWBD?, that she never said she broke the policy. So I don't think Baylor has anything to do. Not that they would anyway. I mean they have lots of people breaking that "fornication" part I assume.

 

[meyers7]

It depends on how much follow-up occurs, as to whether the situation is not much changed, or an organization, or a movement.

Well I'm hoping a big deal is not made of it. Just let people live their lives. At least their private sexual lives.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Well I'm hoping a big deal is not made of it. Just let people live their lives. At least their private sexual lives.

Live and let live? Wish I could view that as the way most of the world works, but I think not. Rules such as the fornication/homosexual acts part of Baylor's code or Cal's Prop 8 are not necessarily built on letting the affected people live life the way they would like to. And for those who do wish for change if no big deal is made, their bad deal remains. I too would assume that fornication is practiced by some Baylor students even though they know that Ken Starr thinks they're misusing each other, but breeding hypocrisy is the wrong way to live.