Around the 'Shoe

he is lobbying against a statute that would only allow them equal rights.

So, if he has a problem with the statute, he inherently has a problem with equal rights.

You see this mistake made often amongst a Christian community.

Yes it is an absolute truth that God thinks homosexuality to be an "abomination" to use his words. He is right in that accord. Homosexual acts in the eyes of God are no less sinfull than lying, cheating, gluttonous behavior, greed, and the multitude of other things we know to be against the will of God. God does not have catagories of sin. Its all the same and it only takes one be it either in thought or deed that will keep you out of heaven.

This is why we have grace. Grace. Its a beautifull thing. But I digress.

One of the big lessons in the bible is when Jesus speaks upon judgement and forgiveness. This is important because it explains why Brown is wrong even though the bible supports his stance. Brown's act was an act of judgement. Yes homosexuality is wrong but it isn't up to Brown to condemn those who practice it. Its God's job. Brown is not perfect therefore incapable of judging others. He has enough to worry about his own thoughts and actions. That is where his condemnation should end. God does not need our help. He judges just fine. We know this is true because of Mathew Chapter 7 where it says definitively "Judge not others"....doesn't get any more clear than that.."lest you also be judged". God says worry about your own mess. "Why do you point out the speck of sawdust in your brothers eye yet ignore the plank in your own". "How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye. You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye." And since we are sinfull creatures, we never effectively remove the plank from our own eyes.

Keep that in mind the next time you see a "christian" attempting to prop himself up with his own hypocrisy attempting to judge someone else for their short comings.

Mathew D. Staver, JD, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, in his Oct. 2002 article "Homosexual Behavior Should Not Be Accorded Special Protection," published by the National Law Journal Online and posted on Liberty Counsel's web site, wrote:

"The federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 laid the foundation for future civil rights laws.... Homosexual activists are attempting to hijack the civil rights train by claiming that homosexual behavior deserves the same special protection granted to racial and gender minorities....

The unifying characteristics of the protected classes within the Civil Rights Act of 1964 include (1) a history of longstanding, widespread discrimination, (2) economic disadvantage, and (3) immutable characteristics.... 'Sexual orientation' does not meet any of the three objective criteria shared by the historically protected civil irghts categories. Thus, 'sexual orientation' should not be elevated to the category of a protected civil right.....

History and reason illustrate the insanity of according special civil rights protection to a person's sexual preference. Once homosexual, bisexual and transgender behavior is elevated to a protected status, there is nothing to stop bigamy, pedophilia, or any other deviate sexual practice from receiving the same protection. It should be remembered that when elevating any activity to special status, opposing activities and viewpoints lose protection. If 'sexual orientation' laws become commonplace, then any person who speaks against deviant sexual practices will be vilified, their rights will be thwarted, and their freedom of religion and of conscious will be crushed."

Oct. 2002 - Mathew D. Staver, JD

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Tassell, Director of Governmental Affairs for the Greater Cincinnati Northern Kentucky Apartment Association, responded to the question "Should Article 12 of the Charter of the City of Cincinnati, which prohibits granting gays and lesbians protection from discrimination, be repealed?" in the Aug. 16, 2001 issue of CityBeat:

"The civil rights language that would be modified to include sexual orientation has a long and rich history of development, one that has forced Americans to wrestle with deep institutional social bias. While the wrestling was neither easy nor pleasant, it was done because of the public nature of the characteristics that were involved, so individuals would be free from institutionalized prejudice....

Arguments for the inclusion of sexual orientation typically overlook the very private nature of the thoughts and actions surrounding homosexual activity. In fact, to demand a form of recognition and governmental protection seems to beg the very question of privacy that the majority of the gay community wants. The deeper issue seems to be one of social acceptance of sexual behavior that is considered deviant.... However, the Constitutional tolerance (pursuit of happiness) of the homosexual agenda should also not be viewed as justification to make the leap from protecting publicly immutable issues like skin color or gender to the protection of one's sexual proclivities."

Aug. 16, 2001 - Charles Tassell

B-man, you do realize that the fact that the viewpoint is shared by others (not surprising) in no way impacts its validity, correct?

Also, Staver's slippery slope argument is profoundly retarded, especially for a guy who has been relatively successful in his career.

Thats disingenuous?! You said that the Declaration of Independence quoted SCRIPTURE and it in fact does not. I believe the technical term for you is hypocrite, lol.

I agree the man has the right to speak in a public forum as he sees fit and I don't begrudge his religious beliefs, nor do I think his opinions on these matters have anything to do with his ability to coach football.

This is an issue of inappropriate behavior, which is really what we are talking about. He is being imprudent in exercising his rights and stating opinions in a public forum that offended a substantial number of people and that could be construed as discriminatory. As a public official representing a state university, and an ambassador to the football program, this just isn't smart behavior.

Call me out for being PC if you want, but my opinion is that it wouldn't have been smart for him to have spoken out in favor of the ordinance either. Regardless of the position, he would be exercising poor judgement in wanting to carry the battle flag on a controversial, political issue.

Okay, Mods. Time to move this and the religious freaks off the football board. It stopped being about football pretty much after the first post.

I agree.

And better there than here because Columbus is a very gay-friendly city and Lincoln is in the "Heartland" where those values and views are more commonplace.

This guy focuses on a passage from Leviticus but ignores the teachings of Lord Jesus himself.

"Judge not lest ye be judged."

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

One can only wonder what makes this guy focus on the homosexuality issue when there are so many wonderful things in the teachings of Lord Jesus on which to focus.

Ok, I'm not sure if you think everybody Else is naive or you are. But I'll enlighten you. You say you've never seen gays get fired for being gay, Or openly denied a home etc. your probably right, nobody with half a brain would write on termination papers that ole joe blow was fired for being gay, black, female, Jewish, etc. if discrimination were that overt it would be easy to identify and handle. But it's not. It's usually more subtle, like realtors "steering" clients to or from neighborhoods. Or supervisors singling out and nitpicking and denying privileges and in many other underlying ways. And unless you've been discriminated against or are sensitive to it, you may never notice it if your not involved...

Two men walk into a restaurant holding hands. The restaurant owner tells them he will not serve them because they are gay. Based upon what I understand about the REAL issue here, the city is saying that the owner's act would be illegal. Brown's position seems to be the restaurant owner has a right not to serve. Either you agree with the city or you don't. If you don't then you could be considered discriminatory against gays. Plain and simple. The rest of the noise here is, well, .... Just noise.

This makes the most sense on here. Adding to this... If it's a state school, and there's separation of church and state, then I don't think he should be pushing religious views as a public official. And this is a religious view.

And talking about church and state, what the religious freaks on here and everywhere ignore is this basic law of separation. There is no bigger irony that in a country that allows freedom of religion many people only want freedom of religion as long as it's their own. All these anti-gay legal maneuvers by the religious extremists (including prohibiting marriage) are simply pushing their religious beliefs on the rest of the country. That is wrong. And illegal.

And as dominus pointed out, which is worth repeating:
"Judge not lest ye be judged."
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Getting back to the coach. I'm wondering if there's something in his contract or in the university code that demands a moral standard. If so, and this can be hugely debated and already has been, I think his actions are morally wrong. The intelligent people on here figured it out: the law is to allow equal rights and prevent discrimination. To go against that is simply wrong and un-American.

Respond to this as you wish. I really don't care. And I'm not going to argue with people who don't get it. That would be pointless – I see no hope in them being better people. They'll have to decide for themselves.