Gay vs. Christian - Jason Collins vs. Tim Tebow

[afleitch]

Both are gay, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear they're both Christians too.

More than likely. One has been able to deal with it the other hasn't.

Bushie, don't start topics like this unless you can deal with the reaction. I don't see how it is possible to take a neutral stand on being a woman, black, hispanic, blue eyed or gay. And since it is very disturbing to take a stand against people being those things, one must think of them in a positive light.

[afleitch]

The point that needs to be made is that our media and pop culture make it acceptable to make fun of Christians, but when someone disagrees with the homosexual agenda they're called a bigot and forced to apologize. There's an undeniable double standard. Bravely standing up for what you believe in should be lauded no matter your belief. If you're an evangelical Christian (athlete or sportscaster) and are very open about your faith, congratulations. That takes courage in this society. If If you're a professional athlete who comes out as gay, you're also courageous. Both people have the right to opine. That's a perfect example of equality that so many people dislike.

You lost me at the part I highlighted in bold. Anyone who uses phraseology the lines of 'homosexual agenda' quite clearly does not advance 'a perfect example of equality.'

[afleitch]

The point that needs to be made is that our media and pop culture make it acceptable to make fun of Christians, but when someone disagrees with the homosexual agenda homosexuality on religious grounds, they're called a bigot and forced to apologize. There's an undeniable double standard. Bravely standing up for what you believe in should be lauded no matter your belief. If you're an evangelical Christian (athlete or sportscaster) and are very open about your faith, congratulations. That takes courage in this society. If If you're a professional athlete who comes out as gay, you're also courageous. Both people have the right to opine. That's a perfect example of equality that so many people dislike.

You lost me at the part I highlighted in bold. Anyone who uses phraseology the lines of 'homosexual agenda' quite clearly does not advance 'a perfect example of equality.'

Hows that?

You can't disagree with homosexuality, you really can't. As I said, it's like disagreeing with heterosexuality. Sexuality is what it is and is integral to people. You can criticise sexual behaviour if you must, though one has to be careful to apply similar standards. If you believe in equality then you cannot suspend that just for LGBT people. In terms of a hierarchy of rights you could argue that women, LGBT, blacks, left handers etc should have a higher protection than the religious. Religion is a choice philosophy.

[afleitch]

The point that needs to be made is that our media and pop culture make it acceptable to make fun of Christians, but when someone disagrees with the homosexual agenda homosexuality on religious grounds, they're called a bigot and forced to apologize. There's an undeniable double standard. Bravely standing up for what you believe in should be lauded no matter your belief. If you're an evangelical Christian (athlete or sportscaster) and are very open about your faith, congratulations. That takes courage in this society. If If you're a professional athlete who comes out as gay, you're also courageous. Both people have the right to opine. That's a perfect example of equality that so many people dislike.

You lost me at the part I highlighted in bold. Anyone who uses phraseology the lines of 'homosexual agenda' quite clearly does not advance 'a perfect example of equality.'

Hows that?

You can't disagree with homosexuality, you really can't. As I said, it's like disagreeing with heterosexuality. Sexuality is what it is and is integral to people. You can criticise sexual behaviour if you must, though one has to be careful to apply similar standards. If you believe in equality then you cannot suspend that just for LGBT people. In terms of a hierarchy of rights you could argue that women, LGBT, blacks, left handers etc should have a higher protection than the religious. Religion is a choice philosophy.

He believes it's a lifestyle choice, perhaps.  Of course he's wrong if he does, but he's not alone.

Even if it was a lifestyle choice, so too is being a Christian. Allowing rights to one group but denying them to another still would not make relative sense.

[afleitch]

There is a culture of Christian privilege that continues to exist in many rapidly secularising nominally Christian nations. It's a social and in some cases, political privilege that had simply always been there often hand in hand with the nation since it's foundation. Challenges to this norm are often perceived as being 'attacks' on Christianity particularly changed to the social norms. If I can talk about the UK for just a second, Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson said in 2011;

"We cannot avoid the need to re-state what ought to be, but seemingly are not, well understood principles regulating the relationship of religion and law in our society.

We live in this country in a democratic and pluralistic society, in a secular state not a theocracy.

Although historically this country is part of the Christian West, and although it has an established church which is Christian, there have been enormous changes in the social and religious life of our country over the last century.

Our society is now pluralistic and largely secular. We sit as secular judges serving a multi-cultural community of many faiths. The laws and usages of the realm do not include Christianity, in whatever form.

The aphorism that “Christianity is part of the common law of England” is mere rhetoric.
Religion – whatever the particular believer’s faith – is no doubt something to be encouraged but it is not the business of government or of the secular courts, though the courts will, of course, pay every respect and give great weight to the individual’s religious principles.

The present dispute is merely one of a number of recent cases where the tension has been between an individual’s Christian beliefs and discrimination law as enacted by Parliament."

This was in response to persistent failed legal challenges to discrimination law. The truth of the matter is that Christians have never in the past been told that the law does not merely reflect and in some cases serve their moral positions because for a long time Christian ethics were the foundation for law and society. The law is now re-iterating to them that they are bound to the same laws on equality with regards to gender and sexuality as everyone else. This is then perceived as discrimination; not the actual acts of discrimination in violation of the law that they have themselves committed. As religious adherence dwindles so that within 20-30 years a super majority of people in Britain (it is currently about 50%) will not consider themselves to be religious never mind Christian, Christians who are troubled by the times (and it is worth pointing out that the vast majority are not) will find themselves having to operate in a public sphere that may either belittle their faith and or consider their moral positions to be abhorrent. Christian groups have to face reality in the coming years and not appeals to historic tradition.

[afleitch]

To get back on topic, Tim Tebow is much more doable than Jason Collins in my humble opinion.

Tebow looks stupid. Not saying he is, but he looks it. And the dumb 'jock' look is not appealing to me.