Nebraska assistant coach Ron Brown says if his job at stake for his anti-gay stand, so be it

[IlliniKat91]

Originally Posted by Calilama

And the most evil guy on Justified is definitely gay and totally twisted...a great television show nonetheless

If we're naming gay TV characters... the President's Chief of Staff on "Scandal" is gay and married, quite the twist when you consider he's CoS for a Republican president on the show. Then again, the show was created by the same woman who made "Grey's Anatomy" so maybe not much of a twist.

What about getting to the day when we can portray someone as a protagonist or antagonist without getting into whether their race/religion/sexuality/gender has anything to do with it? (Hint: it usually doesn't. Some people just suck, regardless of those previously mentioned factors.)

[Fighting Billini]

Originally Posted by Calilama

American Taliban....I thank the Founders everyday I don't live in a theocracy

This statement shows you are either willfully ignorant or an imbecile. Go look at some of the stuff on radical Islam in Track 5. Honor rapes, honor killings, female circumcision, executing someone for selling their home to someone of another faith, executing people for being gay. Clearly, not supporting gay marriage is just as bad. Maybe even worse!

[AngryOrange]

Originally Posted by ryls

I don't know that I can give you evidence to hold up in court, I think the problems with it are pretty obvious.

Do you think it would help society, teaching kids in school about the homosexual lifestyle and it is just as normal and another option to heterosexual relationships, this is happening in Massachusetts and other states, how does this benefit society, we can't even teach kids how to read and write but now we take school time to teach this. I would say that would hurt society, everyone should be treated with dignity but the radical gay lobby goes way beyond this and possibly doesn't even represent the average gay person.

Sorry for being late to the party, I had to go to church earlier
Not to belabor the point, but the first line is what I was referring to in the bolded underlined rights argument earlier. As others have pointed out, the crux of the rights movement is equal standing under the law.
The second part of what you are saying goes back to the statement ILL_INI made earlier I had originally responded to, and is a totally separate argument based on diversity.

[illinicb]

Originally Posted by ryls

Do you think it would help society, teaching kids in school about the homosexual lifestyle

I'm not sure what the "homosexual lifestyle" is other than the performance of sex is different. My kids are in high school and I don't think they've been taught anything in the classroom about homosexuality. They have learned from their mother and I that being gay it is meaningless in our minds. They know we have friends and colleagues that are gay only because they have met them with their partners or seen pictures of them with partners. My kids know a number of kids that are gay or have friends whose brother or sister are gay and in their mind they would wonder why anyone would care. They are people to them. Big yawn. In general the younger generation probably wonders why what the big deal is. Not all, but in general.

[Ransom Stoddard]

I sense a thread locking very very soon.

[IlliniKat91]

Originally Posted by Ransom Stoddard

I sense a thread locking very very soon.

Which was your first clue?

Honestly, I just think this is one of those topics that cannot be unleashed on the internet without people on either end of the spectrum totally flipping out. It just begs for people to unleash whatever vitriol they have stored up, conceivably justified or not.

[illinicb]

Originally Posted by IlliniKat91

Which was your first clue?

Honestly, I just think this is one of those topics that cannot be unleashed on the internet without people on either end of the spectrum totally flipping out. It just begs for people to unleash whatever vitriol they have stored up, conceivably justified or not.

Actually I have found this thread fairly "well mannered". Probably drifted away from the football coaching aspect of the original, but that is to be expected.

Speaking of which, here is a column by Gene Wojciechowski that has some quotes from UNL officials that address (for the moment) some of the questions raised here and also touches on some of the issues discussed here.

In a March 30 statement, Perlman (chancellor) said he was "personally offended" by Brown's stance relative to gays and lesbians. "Whether intended to do so or not, they reflect poorly on the university, on our athletic programs, and I am certain they cause pain and discomfort among a valued and productive segment of our community."

But Perlman added: "Unless and until I have evidence that Coach Brown has engaged in conduct beyond speech that many of us find offensive, I do not intend to do more than seek to assure that he speaks only for himself and to disassociate myself and this university from his position."

Wojo on Ron Brown

The reality, there probably isn't much/enough public outcry to force the university to respond as of yet.

[IlliniKat91]

Originally Posted by illinicb

Actually I have found this thread fairly "well mannered". Probably drifted away from the football coaching aspect of the original, but that is to be expected.

Eh. I take issue with both extremes. I'm a moderate. I don't care for snide remarks that are meant to needle either those who do follow a particular religion (and may be more conservative) any more than those that out of hand condemn those that are outside the majority.

The way certain members on this thread have taken their arguments irk me, but that's the internet in a nutshell. You don't always like everything you read. I've done the best I can to respond in a civil manner, which is all anyone can ever do.

[OrangeFever]

Perlman's comments are pandering. In response to a few other posts here, I have difficulty understanding why a position that runs counter to current cultural trends automatically is "conservative". The counter-cultural viewpoint may, in fact, be the progressive one. Terms like "conservative" and "liberal", anyway, are often just ways to avoid the real issues. Terms like that mean little and avoid the substance of the discussion.

Brown speaks on principle, as a matter of conscience, and it's not a matter of personal opinion, but one of firm religious conviction. His right to speak and the protection of that right, is at the center of American constitutional freedom. If he can lose his job over statements that are not incindiary, prurient, or treasonous, that is a serious intrusion on protected rights.

[Holdemall]

tell me the last movie or tv show that portrayed a gay character in a negative light, they are always the most well adjusted person on the show or movie

Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs
Alby in Big Love

[Holdemall]

. If he can lose his job over statements that are not incindiary, prurient, or treasonous, that is a serious intrusion on protected rights.

Sure, but doesn't his job involve interacting with young people, some of whom might be gay?

[ILL_INI]

Originally Posted by 07Illini

Really?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...yanimal_2.html

Not really.

Seriously? An eight year old article? Well, just to update you, the male penguins at the zoo broke up after being ostracized by the other penguins and one left for a female. And the two "wild" flamingos the article mentioned are really on a reserve in England which one reviewer called "great big dirty bird zoos, effectively." I don't mean to imply that your article was biased in any way.

So let me rephrase: in the wild, no other sexually active animal pairs off with another of the same sex to live together for any extended period of time.

[ILL_INI]

Originally Posted by AngryOrange

Nope, not at all. The whole point if the Gay RIGHTS movement, is about being treated equally under the law of the land. Thus the word RIGHTS. I have never been asked by anyone in the Gay Rights Movement to accept what they do in the bedroom, just the right to be treated as people who can be legally recognized as a couple who has entered a contract by the government, the same as straight married people.

Well, they still have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Every unmarried person of age still has this right. But the gay rights activists are seeking to redefine to whom they may get married, or in other words, to redefine the very nature of marriage. And to that, I ask of the gay rights supporters, what is your view on the nature of marriage? Also, what role should it play in society and how does redefining it help society?

If a homosexual relationship should be treated the equal of a heterosexual relationship, wouldn't that necessitate, if we were to be fair, that homosexual sexual acts and heterosexual sexual acts would be equal? But only heterosexual sexual acts can result in the reproduction of the species, so they are not equal.

And does not the state have an interest in supporting the regeneration and upbringing of its citizens? And is not the best option for a child to have both a mother and a father who have promised to stay together, which is the very foundation of society?

But if the special perks, primarily designed to benefit children, given by the state to married heterosexuals are given to everyone, then they aren't special.

[ILL_INI]

Originally Posted by IlliniKat91

Catholic teaching actually says homosexuality is biological, not a choice, and therefore God-given.

Catholic teaching does not say this. In fact, the Catholic Church's most recent catechism states, "Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained."

[AngryOrange]

Originally Posted by ILL_INI

Well, they still have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Every unmarried person of age still has this right. But the gay rights activists are seeking to redefine to whom they may get married, or in other words, to redefine the very nature of marriage. And to that, I ask of the gay rights supporters, what is your view on the nature of marriage? Also, what role should it play in society and how does redefining it help society?

If a homosexual relationship should be treated the equal of a heterosexual relationship, wouldn't that necessitate, if we were to be fair, that homosexual sexual acts and heterosexual sexual acts would be equal? But only heterosexual sexual acts can result in the reproduction of the species, so they are not equal.

And does not the state have an interest in supporting the regeneration and upbringing of its citizens? And is not the best option for a child to have both a mother and a father who have promised to stay together, which is the very foundation of society?

But if the special perks, primarily designed to benefit children, given by the state to married heterosexuals are given to everyone, then they aren't special.

Before you get too high up on that horse, please re-read what I responded to initially. You stated the Gay Rights Movement "is for acceptance of what they do in their bedrooms." Now you have taken my response that is about rights and changed your argument. Well played, but nice try.
Since we are changing the argument. Marriage in the eyes of the state is not the same as in the eyes of different churches. There are churches that will marry gay people, yet that is not recognized by the state.
Marriage in the eyes of the state is simply a contract between two people, does not recognize it an act for the regeneration of children, and the benefits are not all towards the regeneration of children.
An example: Taxable healthcare for a person you are in a union with in the eyes of the state. Healthcare is not expressly intended for having kids. In a state approved marriage, employer provided healthcare is a benefit, yet not taxed. For a gay couple, this is not seen as tax exempt, and they pay income taxes on a benefit given to me.
Nowhere in my medical papers does it say this perk is for the regeneration of children. Yet I enjoy tax exempt status for it.
Secondly, the marriage from the state is not a promise to stay together. If it were, the act of divorce would not be allowed. Also, "mothers and fathers" I assume would need to have children in this scenario. I know plenty of people for whom that is not the case.

[Holdemall]

they still have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Well, as I recall, anti-"miscegnation" laws prevented folks of different races from getting married. That was ok, though, because they could still marry people who looked more like themselves. No harm, no foul, right?

Marriage in the eyes of the state is simply a contract between two people, does not recognize it an act for the regeneration of children, and the benefits are not all towards the regeneration of children.

Ding ding ding! Most of the benefits have nothing to do with children: right of survivorship, community property, etc, etc.

then they aren't special.

And that seems to be the crux of the argument for the anti-gay marriage crowd. They want to be special, to have some sort of privilege. I don't know if you're married or straight or whatever. You may not have much experience with the institution. It seems to me, as a married guy with a kid (turns 2 today!) that if a couple of dudes down the street want to have a party, publicize their desire to stay together, and merge their finances, it doesn't make my family any weaker. It could even be argued that it benefits me in the long run-their relationship is more stable and committed, so the neighborhood benefits.

[OrangeFever]

Originally Posted by Holdemall

Well, as I recall, anti-"miscegnation" laws prevented folks of different races from getting married. That was ok, though, because they could still marry people who looked more like themselves. No harm, no foul, right?

Ding ding ding! Most of the benefits have nothing to do with children: right of survivorship, community property, etc, etc.

And that seems to be the crux of the argument for the anti-gay marriage crowd. They want to be special, to have some sort of privilege. I don't know if you're married or straight or whatever. You may not have much experience with the institution. It seems to me, as a married guy with a kid (turns 2 today!) that if a couple of dudes down the street want to have a party, publicize their desire to stay together, and merge their finances, it doesn't make my family any weaker. It could even be argued that it benefits me in the long run-their relationship is more stable and committed, so the neighborhood benefits.

So much depends on our perspective. From a secular perspective only, your comments make sense. If you look at the situation also from a Biblical perspective, there are very different, central, and overriding questions.

Still, it's certainly true that a nation, and its government, neither being religious entities, are free to legislate without regard for Christian doctrine, or any religious doctrine, and routinely do just that. Individual legislators who are people of faith, do not have that liberty.

In the end, what a government determines constitutes "marriage" for purposes of legal status, benefits, inheritance, and the like, is entirely divorced from the Biblical definition, unless the government tries to justify or explain its actions by reference to the Bible. The Bible unequivocally defines a marriage as a life-long, three-party covenant involving one man and one woman, a key aspect of which is the procreation and rearing of future generations of believers.

The issue in this thread isn't substantive, it's rights based and procedural--can this coach share his personal opinions, grounded in religious conviction, concerning marriage, in a public setting? The answer clearly is "yes". Then, can he lose his job over it? The issues are First Amendment, State constitutional rights, and employment law requirements. There are others, but those are the primary ones.

Of course, it spills over into substance, as it should, because that's the core issue. The Bible states that followers of Christ are to honor those in authority over them, whether governments, employers, teachers, or others, to the point where their orders or requirements frontally oppose God's standards as set forth in Scripture. At the same time, it is incumbent on Christians to address political and cultural issues that are at odds with Christian doctrine as specified in the Bible, even if they are not directly, personally affected. That is what Ron Brown is doing, in a nutshell, and his right to do so is established by law. His imperative is the Word of God.

[KBLEE]

Originally Posted by OrangeFever

The issue in this thread isn't substantive, it's rights based and procedural--can this coach share his personal opinions, grounded in religious conviction, concerning marriage, in a public setting? The answer clearly is "yes". Then, can he lose his job over it? The issues are First Amendment, State constitutional rights, and employment law requirements. There are others, but those are the primary ones.

Of course, it spills over into substance, as it should, because that's the core issue. The Bible states that followers of Christ are to honor those in authority over them, whether governments, employers, teachers, or others, to the point where their orders or requirements frontally oppose God's standards as set forth in Scripture. At the same time, it is incumbent on Christians to address political and cultural issues that are at odds with Christian doctrine as specified in the Bible, even if they are not directly, personally affected. That is what Ron Brown is doing, in a nutshell, and his right to do so is established by law. His imperative is the Word of God.

Very well stated.

[Holdemall]

Then, can he lose his job over it?

And the answer to that question is probably yes, if he allows his beliefs to create a hostile environment for co-workers or students.

[07Illini]

Originally Posted by ILL_INI

Seriously? An eight year old article? Well, just to update you, the male penguins at the zoo broke up after being ostracized by the other penguins and one left for a female. And the two "wild" flamingos the article mentioned are really on a reserve in England which one reviewer called "great big dirty bird zoos, effectively." I don't mean to imply that your article was biased in any way.

So let me rephrase: in the wild, no other sexually active animal pairs off with another of the same sex to live together for any extended period of time.

Have a source?

[OrangeFever]

Originally Posted by Holdemall

And the answer to that question is probably yes, if he allows his beliefs to create a hostile environment for co-workers or students.

Contentions of that ilk would be the make weight, yes. Justification always can be found, even for violating someone's constitutionally protected rights. The question is whether those supposed grounds would hold up in court. As the nation and its states continue legislating away from Biblical principles, I suspect we'll see more civil and employment "disobedience". I'm guessing, also, that Nebraska has no specific, targeted prohibitions, but that this falls in the category of "conduct unbecoming". The University wants to be seen as current, tolerant, irreligious, and, above all, politically correct. Mr. Brown's position and actions, though more altruistically based, are an interference with those institutional objectives.

This sort of thing, sadly, is very much consistent with Scriptural prophesy, also, and, to Christians, neither surprising nor unexpected.

[Holdemall]

Originally Posted by OrangeFever

Contentions of that ilk would be the make weight, yes. Justification always can be found, even for violating someone's constitutionally protected rights. The question is whether those supposed grounds would hold up in court. As the nation and its states continue legislating away from Biblical principles, I suspect we'll see more civil and employment "disobedience". I'm guessing, also, that Nebraska has no specific, targeted prohibitions, but that this falls in the category of "conduct unbecoming". The University wants to be seen as current, tolerant, irreligious, and, above all, politically correct. Mr. Brown's position and actions, though more altruistically based, are an interference with those institutional objectives.

This sort of thing, sadly, is very much consistent with Scriptural prophesy, also, and, to Christians, neither surprising nor unexpected.

Ok, Eeyore.

[mattcoldagelli]

Is Dan alive? How has this gone on for 6 pages?

[OrangeFever]

Originally Posted by Holdemall

Ok, Eeyore.

Such a thoughtful and intelligent response . . . Don't outdo yourself.

[Calvin]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

Putting aside the subject matter (because it's not about football) I doubt we want to fire coaches for having religious views or testifying openly against a proposed law. Seriously? Is that where you want to go? We ought to be able to express ourselves about a law without fear of being fired over it. That right is every bit as important as anti-discrimination laws which by the way do not protect gays in Nebraska or at the federal level as far as I know.

Most enlightened states, like Ohio, do protect gays from discrimination however.

Here's their anti-discrimination stance:

"The University of Nebraska-Lincoln is a public university committed to providing a quality education to a diverse student body. One aspect of this commitment is to foster a climate of inclusion and mutual support that will enhance our ability to achieve our overall goals of recruiting and retaining good faculty and staff while allowing all of us to focus our energies and talents on our important missions of education, research and service. To this end, it is the policy of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln not to discriminate based upon age, race, ethnicity, color, national origin, gender, sex, pregnancy, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, veteran’s status, marital status, religion or political affiliation. This policy is applicable to all University administered programs including educational programs, financial aid, admission policies and employment policies."

I am not a lawyer.

I read this, however, and it seems that an employee who claims that religion trumps the rest of the statement would be on very thin ice, indeed. Whether they enforce their policy is another matter, as gays are not a protected class under the law (most places anyway), and the authorities at UNL would have considerable discretion on what constitutes a violation, and what sanctions they might apply.

My guess is they're hoping the whole thing blows over.