Bubba Watson Gets Involved in the Gay Professional Athlete Debate

[newtogolf]

I'll steer clear of the topic being debated and offer this comment.

Professional athletes know that within this age of social media anything they say, tweet, e-mail or post on Facebook can and will likely be used against them.  Bubba knew this and made the comment anyway, like Phil, he'll have to suffer the consequences of broadcasting his personal opinions and convictions.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by boogielicious

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamo

A regular glass mason jar would implode if it just contained vacuum. So if those are my only options and the jar is still in one piece, I'd guess it's full of air.

Not exactly sure what that says about religion...

You must have some wimpy Mason jars out there Jamo.  I guess they make better ones inside the 495 belt.

Did I ever in  any post say anything about a "Mason" jar?  I was actually thinking about a laboratory bell jar like we used in school to do vacuum experiments.

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

If I take a sealed glass jar and tell that there is air in it, you have to take my word for it because you cant see it.  If I tell you that it is a pure vacuum in the jar, you have to take my word for that too.  It may very well be neither, but you have to take my word on faith if we want an intelligent dialog based on its contents.  There is no way to prove the nonexistence of something just by saying that you haven't seen any proof that it does exist.

There are a number of tests I could actually conduct to measure whether there is air in the jar. In fact, without testing it, I can tell you what kind of air (regular air, pure Nitrogen, etc.?) is in the jar. Not the best example. I think we all get your point, but I couldn't let that slide. :)

But again, all the discussion I was replying to said was that he couldn't see any evidence of God.  My contention was simply that by visual evidence you can't tell which of many possible gasses might be in a bell jar.  That didn't prove that there was none present.

[SloverUT]

Some of you guys are ridiculous.

We live in a country where we can believe in or whoever we want.

Collins came out as gay.  Good for him.  It is his right to do so and I applaud him for doing so.

Broussard said what he did and good for him as well.  It is his right to do so and I applaud him for doing so.  He may have to answer to ESPN because he works for them but individually it was within his right to say and believe what he wants.

Bubba is the same as Broussard.  Bubba can believe what he wants and support whomever he wants.  It is his right do so.

The best thing about our country in the past has been the ability to think, do, worship/not worship, and act as we believe as long as it isn't against the law.  Our politically correct world is attempting to change that.  If you believe anything that is against the media norm then you are going to be outcast and punished.

Get over it and here this:  Not everyone agrees with everything that you do, just like you don't agree with everyone either.

[SloverUT]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Let's be real for a second: you don't show general support for an action while at the same time condemning the merit of the action unless you make that clear.  And the same goes for a message.  If you say "well-done speaking your thoughts" there is an implied support for the message.  If not, there should be a clarification or qualifying statement supplementing it.  I have no doubt that Bubba concurs with Broussard's statements.  If he doesn't, he will say so.

I don't believe this to be true at all.  I applaud Collins for coming out as a gay man as I don't think anyone should have to be ashamed of their sexuality.  Regardless of my thoughts on homosexuality I support Collins for his actions and generally hope he is happier now that he came out.  It took a lot of courage for him to do what he did.

At the same time I also applaud Bubba and Broussard for making the comments they did and sticking to what they believe and not being embarrassed or afraid to do so.

If you want to be real for a second, lets try this.  Collins is coming out in a day and age of political correctness where he is overwhelmingly going to get support for coming out as a homosexual.  Bubb and Broussard are sticking to their faith in a public manner in a day where religion is progressively condemned, particularly Christianity.

If we are going to applaud Collins for his courage then we should also applaud Bubba and Broussard.  Not believing in what they have to say has nothing to do with the courage it took to say it, especially knowing you will face backlash.

Most importantly, I do not consider you a man if you act and/or speak differently because you fear what others may say or think.  Like many of you, I say and think as I see fit and will continue to do so.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by SloverUT

I don't believe this to be true at all.

You say that, but you qualified all of your statements.  You were also specific that you were applauding the action and not the message.  That removes the certainty of the implication.

Now, while I agree with most of what you wrote, I still would put money on Bubba agreeing with the message that he tweeted support for.  Let's not pretend that these athletes aren't also being "PC" by intentionally being vague when they're tweeting about applauding people for sharing their faith while at the same time hamming it up with Ellen.  They still smell the endorsement dollars on both sides of the aisle.  If you think Bubba is the genuine article because of this tweet and not being "PC", he is more successful than Shorty would ever have been able to stomach.

[boogielicious]

I think the mason jar example is a metaphor for what happens when athletes like Bubba use twitter.  Twitter seems like a good idea.  Hey, I can talk to my fans!  I can express my opinions.

But what generally happens is your good intentions collapse on you (like the metaphorical mason jar) because people interpret what you say in different ways.  People who don't support your opinion respond like Joe Pesci in Goodfellas .  People who support your position argue for you like Joe Pesci in My Cousin Vinnie .  It all blows out of proportion.

It is amazing that 117 characters can create gigabytes of responses, opinions, debates and hostility.

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

You say that, but you qualified all of your statements.  You were also specific that you were applauding the action and not the message.  That removes the certainty of the implication.

Now, while I agree with most of what you wrote, I still would put money on Bubba agreeing with the message that he tweeted support for.  Let's not pretend that these athletes aren't also being "PC" by intentionally being vague when they're tweeting about applauding people for sharing their faith while at the same time hamming it up with Ellen.  They still smell the endorsement dollars on both sides of the aisle.  If you think Bubba is the genuine article because of this tweet and not being "PC", he is more successful than Shorty would ever have been able to stomach.

There's nothing wrong with Collins being gay just as there's nothing wrong with Broussard and Bubba holding the belief that Collins lifestyle is not supported by their religion.  Here in the US we are all getting a bit too sensitive about these issues.  When someone advertises their particular lifestyle,  they leave themselves open for criticism.  Let's remember, criticizing or disagreeing with someone's lifestyle or life choices is not discrimination, it's freedom of speech.

Collins felt the need to promote his sexual preference, but there are 1000's of players in / from the NBA that did not feel the need to publicly state theirs.  When you take something that should be private into the public you have to expect some negative reactions, just ask Tiger.  The same goes for Bubba, making the comments he did opens himself up to criticism, that's the choice he made.

[jmurder]

The times we live in are really sad. I can't believe there is so much time being spent on Collins. He isn't the only homosexual on the planet. I am with Mike Wallace. Do whatever you feel like you need to, but I don't understand it either. I can't believe the POTUS would call him and congratulate him. I just wish Scotty would beam me up some days.

[SloverUT]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

You say that, but you qualified all of your statements.  You were also specific that you were applauding the action and not the message.  That removes the certainty of the implication.

Now, while I agree with most of what you wrote, I still would put money on Bubba agreeing with the message that he tweeted support for.  Let's not pretend that these athletes aren't also being "PC" by intentionally being vague when they're tweeting about applauding people for sharing their faith while at the same time hamming it up with Ellen.  They still smell the endorsement dollars on both sides of the aisle.  If you think Bubba is the genuine article because of this tweet and not being "PC", he is more successful than Shorty would ever have been able to stomach.

The reason I did or did not qualify the message is because I don't believe TST to be the place to state my beliefs on homosexuality.  Bubba likely does believe in the message in this particular statement.  However, there are many times in the past where people have made public statements that I disagree with but I applaud their willingness to go against the status quo.  Or sometimes, even though I disagree with their statement overall, it is well said and thoughtful and at least makes me think.

It is very possible that in this particular instance Bubba is supporting Broussard for sticking to his beliefs and not being scared to air them out and face the backlash.  End of story.  It could go either way because both are possible.

Also, I never said Bubba was a genuine article.  I don't know the guy so I can't make that judgement.  However, I do have respect for people who don't crumble to the media just because they believe something different.  He refuses to be censored and I applaud anyone who is man/woman enough to speak their mind and stick to what they believe.

There are probably many atheletes who support what Broussard said and yet they are afraid to support him publicly.  I hate that.

[RonTheSavage]

Originally Posted by jmurder

The times we live in are really sad. I can't believe there is so much time being spent on Collins. He isn't the only homosexual on the planet. I am with Mike Wallace. Do whatever you feel like you need to, but I don't understand it either. I can't believe the POTUS would call him and congratulate him. I just wish Scotty would beam me up some days.

Yeah I had the same thought on this myself. Is anyone calling and offering support to Carolyn Moos who he strung along for 8 years before calling off their engagement? Dont get me wrong good for Collins for finally coming out, but he's no hero. I cant wait for the next news cycle so we can discuss something else.

As for Bubba, good for him for being honest...............thats what we want from these guys right? Or do we?

[divot dave]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Let's be real for a second: you don't show general support for an action while at the same time condemning the merit of the action unless you make that clear.  And the same goes for a message.  If you say "well-done speaking your thoughts" there is an implied support for the message.  If not, there should be a clarification or qualifying statement supplementing it.  I have no doubt that Bubba concurs with Broussard's statements.  If he doesn't, he will say so.

Likewise, Broussard's context was clear: Collins is a sinner who may not call himself Christian, because he is not Christian by a standard that Broussard defined.  It can very well be assumed that since Broussard has never condemned other athletes for their adultery, that the primary goal of this message was to let people know that gay people are not Christians, and vice versa....which he has every right to believe as long as his religious doctrine corroborates that.

you didn't actually listen to all of Broussard's comments, or did you? If you did, i don't know how you came up with the above as his context.

Originally Posted by bplewis24

That's a pretty common tactic attempted by evangelicals which is pure bull nine times out of ten.  First off, if they can't handle people pecking at the merits of their beliefs they need to grow thicker skin or simply ignore it...

Interesting point in and of itself... can't really disagree with that... I wonder though if you're willing to apply this logic to all those who are offended by brousard's comments? According to you, shouldn't they just grow thicker skin or simply ignore it??? no??? double standard???

Originally Posted by bplewis24

And the contempt that IS shown is for those that would use their religious beliefs in attempts to alter public policy in hypocritical or discriminatory ways, which deserves as much contempt as possible.

not gonna disagree with you here either.

but... lets be real for a second: while this may be true for you, the contempt "shown in this thread" is toward "those embracing the christian faith" who were not attempting to alter public policy in hypocritical or discriminatory ways. If I missed examples of that, then I rescind on those examples.

[Wisguy]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

You make this flippant statement, smugly confident that you are smarter than those who believe in God, because you believe that your logic is more pure than theirs.  However, your belief is based solely on a lack of evidence, while theirs is based on tangible evidence.  That actually puts them on a firmer footing than you.  They have faith in the Book, while you have put your faith in nothing.  In your case it isn't a jar of air, it is simply an empty jar.

??? What?  Have I missed something?  Was there actually a scrap of proof newer than two millenium old that a deity exists?

Here's an interesting observation:  I don't know what the exact numbers are, but a lot higher percentage of the US population believes in a god than believes in bigfoot/sasquatch.  Yet there are many thousands of eyewitness accounts of sasquatch sightings (some by highly reliable persons including law enforcement officers), there are hundreds of footprint casts, and there is photographic/video proof of the existence of the alleged creature.  Now some of this evidence is unquestionably faked, and some of it is confusion with bears or other animals.  But is it all a hoax or confusion?   Let's contrast that with the proof of the existence of the traditional monotheistic god, at least the evidence that is modern:

There, I've listed it all.  Or rather, there is none to list.  All evidence of a deity relies on not second-hand, but ten-thousandth-hand accounts from millenia ago of so-called miracles, all or nearly all of of which can be explained by modern science or is simply the work of people seeking power and attention and are not above fictionalizing accounts to achieve it.  The evidence to support the existence of a deity isn't enough to meet the burden of proof necessary to convict someone of shoplifting a candybar.  Heck, it's not even enough to meet the burden of proof to win a lawsuit over an old $20 sandwedge.

Personally, I like the good-ol' Golden Rule.  In this case, it would say don't judge others unless you want to be judged.

[Kieran123]

Originally Posted by Wisguy

??? What?  Have I missed something?  Was there actually a scrap of proof newer than two millenium old that a deity exists?

Here's an interesting observation:  I don't know what the exact numbers are, but a lot higher percentage of the US population believes in a god than believes in bigfoot/sasquatch.  Yet there are many thousands of eyewitness accounts of sasquatch sightings (some by highly reliable persons including law enforcement officers), there are hundreds of footprint casts, and there is photographic/video proof of the existence of the alleged creature.  Now some of this evidence is unquestionably faked, and some of it is confusion with bears or other animals.  But is it all a hoax or confusion?   Let's contrast that with the proof of the existence of the traditional monotheistic god, at least the evidence that is modern:

There, I've listed it all.  Or rather, there is none to list.  All evidence of a deity relies on not second-hand, but ten-thousandth-hand accounts from millenia ago of so-called miracles, all or nearly all of of which can be explained by modern science or is simply the work of people seeking power and attention and are not above fictionalizing accounts to achieve it.  The evidence to support the existence of a deity isn't enough to meet the burden of proof necessary to convict someone of shoplifting a candybar.  Heck, it's not even enough to meet the burden of proof to win a lawsuit over an old $20 sandwedge.

Personally, I like the good-ol' Golden Rule.  In this case, it would say don't judge others unless you want to be judged.

The difference between believing in a sasquatch and believing in god, is that if you choose not to believe in the sasquatch - so be it, but if you choose not to believe in god, well, you can to straight to hell, do not pass go, do not collect $200

Therein lies the reason most people believe in god - fear.

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by Wisguy

There, I've listed it all.  Or rather, there is none to list.  All evidence of a deity relies on not second-hand, but ten-thousandth-hand accounts from millenia ago of so-called miracles, all or nearly all of of which can be explained by modern science or is simply the work of people seeking power and attention and are not above fictionalizing accounts to achieve it.  The evidence to support the existence of a deity isn't enough to meet the burden of proof necessary to convict someone of shoplifting a candybar.  Heck, it's not even enough to meet the burden of proof to win a lawsuit over an old $20 sandwedge.

Personally, I like the good-ol' Golden Rule.  In this case, it would say don't judge others unless you want to be judged.

I'm agnostic and have no use for modern religions but I don't deny the potential existence of a deity / God.  Science has not proven how life began, the big bang theory, etc address how the universe was created, but not life.  Evolution theory doesn't explain how the first single cell organism came to be living.  Until that is known, you, I and science cannot rule out there was/is a deity.

[Kieran123]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I'm agnostic and have no use for modern religions but I don't deny the potential existence of a deity / God.  Science has not proven how life began, the big bang theory, etc address how the universe was created, but not life.  Evolution theory doesn't explain how the first single cell organism came to be living.  Until that is known, you, I and science cannot rule out there was/is a deity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

[14ledo81]

Originally Posted by Wisguy

Personally, I like the good-ol' Golden Rule.  In this case, it would say don't judge others unless you want to be judged.

I probably should not respond because it appears you have quite a bit of hatred for religion or religious beliefs, as such it does not appear you would like to have a civil discussion on the subject.

Here goes anyway:

I don't believe it is right to judge people (not my place to do so).  I can believe that homosexuality is wrong though.  I would also want to be rebuked (with love) if someone notices something about myself.

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by Kieran123

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Hypotheses are not facts.

[iacas]

Topic, please…