Home Around the Web Chris Broussard, Political Correctness, and Staying True to Your Beliefs

Chris Broussard, Political Correctness, and Staying True to Your Beliefs


Chris Broussard ESPN

By now, most people have heard or read about veteran NBA player Jason Collins revealing that he is gay.  It’s only newsworthy because Collins is a current and not retired player, as John Amaechi was when he revealed that he was gay.  Generally, the news was met with congratulatory remarks and vows of support.  ESPN even did an Outside the Lines segment on the topic.

On the show, ESPN featured one of its senior basketball writers, Chris Broussard, and asked him to speak on the news about Jason Collins.  Broussard did just that.  However, what most of the media (including social media) zeroed in on was a 1 minute and 50 second clip of Broussard saying that the Bible, nor he, agrees with a homosexual lifestyle or pre-marital sex for that matter.  Except for the fact that we live in a politically correct climate, and anything that goes against the social tide is bad, this shouldn’t be newsworthy.

My personal feelings about Collins, Amaechi, and any other professional sports player, or random Joe Schmoe who might be gay is, “hey, it’s not my business.”  What that person eats doesn’t affect me one way or the other.  What does affect me is the lack of respect that Chris Broussard has been given based on his personal, spiritual beliefs!!!  The man didn’t come out and say he hates the LGBT community, thinks they all should burn in hell, or anything like that.  Granted, he did offer his own views on the topic; it’s debatable if that was…wise.  However, he is entitled to feel how he feels.

See Also:  Readjusting the NBA Championship Contenders at the All-Star Break

In any event, Broussard should be commended, not admonished.  He stated how he felt, and he has been consistent in those feelings.  How many of us would have the gumption to not waver, especially when we know that our opinions and convictions aren’t popular?  Further, what if we knew what we believe could put our employment in jeopardy?  Who can honestly say they are willing to deal with the possibility of being vilified for their beliefs? I’d like to think I would, but I’m not sure.

Another point of contention people will have is that Chris Broussard’s views are too traditional. Well my question is, “so what?”  Are his views any less correct just because he doesn’t see things the way society does? Society calls for tolerance of all views. The caveat is that those views have to align with the majority. That doesn’t seem very tolerant.

So what’s the answer? Perhaps we all need to take a look at what we really value and respect. If it’s all viewpoints and individualism, then society has a funny way of showing it. But, if it’s “group think” society prefers, then maybe we’re not as progressive as we’d all like to pretend.

– DarrkGable


  1. You can't commend ignorance. Comparing being gay – something that scientists generally agree is biological, to life choices like promiscuity and philandering is super ignorant and insensitive.

    By the standard of "he stuck to his beliefs," you can say that the slave masters who used christianity to justify slavery should have been commended for "sticking to their beliefs". Can't rock with this at all.

    I'm a Christian and as a Christian we're encouraged to 'wrestle with the scriptures.' Take some time and read through the New Testament scriptures that reference same sex relationships. Throughout history, theologians and bible scholars have debated what those scriptures really mean a lot more than the current, common interpretations might suggest. Personally, I'm 100% fine saying that I'm not really certain what God thinks about homosexuality. I do know he loves all his children.

    1. Actually there isn't any scientific proof that being gay is biological any more than they are scientist saying it isn't. It's pretty much 50/50 plus given that LGBT people only make up approximately 4% of the general population shouldn't be ignored either. I don't have a problem with gay people nor do I have a problem with people who don't feel comfortable around gay people. Plus sexuality can never be compared to race. You can hide your sexuality but you can't hide your race. And remember if you're a christian and you say God loves all his children I do certainly remember many nations of people being destroyed and burned to the ground according to the scriptures of the Bible. Me personally I don't know if you can pick and choose which scriptures you want to follow remember Chris Broussard said he thinks ALL SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE IS WRONG. That is biblical. Nothing ignorant about it.

      1. I don't know where you're getting it that "it's pretty much 50/50." I think the argument of whether homosexuality is genetic or just biological is 50/50, but I've never read anything scholarly that pushed the opinion that homosexuality was a choice in the same way that promiscuity is a choice or infidelity is a choice. Would love to read something – scholarly – if you could point me in that direction.

        Also – point me to a scripture that says sex outside of marriage is wrong? The bible says that each man should have one wife and each woman one husband. The bible also says that sexual immorality is wrong, but it most definitely does not say that "sex before marriage" is immoral.

        Seems to me like you're just regurgitating what you've heard people say about the scriptures instead of actually wrestling with and praying through the scriptures on your own.

        1. And on the subject of God destroying nations, again read the scriptures for yourself. The flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah were God's direct punishment for people's sin. That had nothing to do with hate, nor did his destruction mean he didn't still love those people. If you do wrong your father punishes … that's what those were. In the Old Testament, if man sinned on Earth, he was punished on Earth. Adam and Even ate the fruit, they got kicked out the garden. Cain Killed Abel and his offspring her cursed. Samson lost all his power. Sodom got destroyed. That's how things worked in the Old Testament.

          Now, if you're a Christian and you believe in Christ and understand what the New Testament is about, then you understand that whole point of Jesus' crucifixion, death and resurrection was so that we'd no longer have to bare the punishment for our sins. He took the punishment so that we wouldn't have to. That's whole point. And again, had nothing to do with hate and everything to do with God loving us. He loved us so much that he gave his son.

          My point is, I'm not picking scriptures, I'm taking the book as a whole and making my own decisions, though prayer and my own individual relationship with my maker … and I'm definitely not concerning myself with the judgment or condemnation of others. That's God's job, not ours. I'm trying take this log out of my own eye before I nitpick someone else's splinter.

        2. Mr Spradley it seems from various posts you are, to say the least supportive in what is considered immoral behavior. I appreciate you mentioning both Old and New Testament but you missed a point. God's Love. And in Love there is correction. As it has been stated, love the sinner hate the sin. We love the bros. and sis' of the LBGT community but remind them that the life style is described as an abomination. You want scriptures? But this same attitude goes to the fornicator , the back slider, etc.
          Once more I am thankful for your mention on the public sphere of the sacrifice of the savior. But I ask you sir, do you abuse grace? Do you abuse the forgiveness? And by that I mean we strive to do right daily or attempt to. If we do wrong , confess, remiss, and do better. So once the population control propaganda settles, and the matter of what folks do in private and why its made a headline? , perhaps you all of SBM will do a piece on faith and where it stands amongst the "New Black" millennials. No longer it seems we are the all believing , all thumping , sun up sun down church goers of our ancestors. Because I seen a bit of cynical-ism among our generation when it comes to faith. And as always in the End we will see what it will be!….. Peace to you.

      2. there are several studies on chromosomes through out the years, each finding different markers. Science will answer this question way before god does.. so don't rush to conclusions

    2. "I'm a Christian and as a Christian we're encouraged to 'wrestle with the scriptures.' Take some time and read through the New Testament scriptures that reference same sex relationships. "

      i have.
      i came to the conclusion that for me, marriage is a vow, a covenant between a man and a woman.
      i came to the conclusion that we all sin, that, for me personally, there isn't a difference between homosexuality and any other sin. we all sin, we all ask for forgiveness, and we do our best to..and i paraphrase "go and sin no more".
      i've also come to the conclusion that we live in a country where everyone has the right to live as they wish, and everyone should have the same rights and benefits. so while i may not agree with lifestyles, that i don't have the right to swing it over someone's head. running around calling people "sinners", and shaming them, doesn't work in the long run, in my opinion. with that being said, stifling others disagreement with the same shaming techniques (from my pov) is unfortunate.
      so while it's my hope that Collins can live his life openly and in peace (and more practice time on his jumpshot) i hope that we can live in a society where opposite viewpoints can function, without trying to beat the other into submission.

      i apologize if my thoughts offended anyone.

      1. The Bible, like all literary works, is always open to interpretation. It is not infallible. I said that to mean, obviously since we all have different views on it, it cannot be as clear you may think.

        1. So, God destroying a nation because of the acts of lasciviousness that are actually named in the Bible aren't a hint??
          It's not open to interpretation really. People change it or interpret it to mean what they WANT it to mean, but all in all, it's pretty clear.
          My recent post Teams Aren’t Just For Men Anymore

        2. Are you referring to Sodom and Gomorrah? Most research will give a clear understanding of what was going on at that time. It was an orgy fest where sex become people's god. Daughters were getting their fathers drunk so that he could get them pregnant. People stopped caring about each other. They stopped caring about the strangers that came through town. Isaiah makes reference about the people of S&G being liars and cheaters and full of deceit. No mention of homosexuality.

          The idea that S&G was referring to homosexuality didn't come until many centuries later (10th or 11th) by an actual theologian. Oddly enough the interpreted word up for debate was 'sarkos heteras.' Which can be interpreted to mean 'other flesh.' But somewhere along the lines people decided to think it meant homosexuality. Which is funny since 'heteras' is where we get heterosexual from.

          Please find the scripture that talks about homosexuality in reference to Sodom and Gomorrah. Jesus himself references that is it worse for a person not to welcome you into their home, than the sins committed at S&G (matt 10).

          Sodom and Gamorrah had nothing to do with people falling in love with each. I know people want to chalk up homosexuality to nothing more than a 'sex act' but these are people have genuine feelings, love and attraction to other people whom happen to be the same sex as them. God never destroyed any nation for showing love and affection to each other.

          Scripture is always going to be open to interpretation because it has been translated a many times through many languages. The second someone decides to infuse their own biases and stereotypes, the message will be construed. Which is why, I wholehearted agree with MrSpradley in his stance that one must 'wrestle with scripture.' It is imperative that you understand as much as you can about the author, the time period, the people being spoken too and all the translations that have happened in between.

        3. As I do not have access to a Bible at the moment to properly reference the scripture I am referring to, I will say this. Homosexuality biologically goes against our purpose on this earth which is to be fruitful and multiply. It is considered sexual immorality. This is why Mormons don't believe in birth control because sex was supposed to be an act performed between a man and woman (husband and wife) for the purpose of procreation, nothing more. Similar to why masturbation can also be considered a sin.

          "Sodom and Gamorrah had nothing to do with people falling in love with each. I know people want to chalk up homosexuality to nothing more than a 'sex act' but these are people have genuine feelings, love and attraction to other people whom happen to be the same sex as them. God never destroyed any nation for showing love and affection to each other."

          I really didn't want to get into my whole belief about homosexuality because it really isn't a discussion that ever leads to anything, but all I'll say is that homosexuality is biologically, if nothing more, wrong. Let's take religion completely out of it. How do you reconcile this behavior biologically? Wrestle with that.

          My recent post My Issues with Fighting the Gay Fight

        4. Did you just use the biology argument because your biblical one didn't hold up? Also, did you even enter mormonism into the argument? Please read up on the history of that sect please. PLEASE. They have a very interesting history in regards to black people, but be my guest and use them for the sake of your argument, I don't want to spoil the surprise.

          How do infertile women and men fall into this argument? Are they part of this sexual immorality? Because honestly, if you can't be fruitful and multiply then you must be immoral. Is there a special clause to exclude infertile men and women?

          I definitely need to go back to biology classes again. Apparently I missed the chapter where it is used to "prove" that homosexuality is wrong. Do you realize that there are actually instances of homosexuality in animals (other than humans)? I cannot….

        5. Introducing an ideology (mormonism) does not mean that I agree with or follow a certain religion. I simply mentioned them with regards to their stance on birth control to help you understand my point. Let's clear that up first and stop reaching.

          Furthermore, I thought I made it clear why I didn't go into my Biblical stance on the issue, because I do not want to improperly cite any scriptures and cannot do so at the moment.

          I am simply stating what sex is for, infertile women and men have little to do with that argument. Bringing up men and women who can't bear children doesn't take away from it's original purpose or the purpose for which God intended. Some people use chairs to stand on, does that mean it was not intended at first for people to sit?

          There are a lot of things which occur biologically that are not normal, dear. There are genetic mutations, cells that split/don't split, but that doesn't make the result of those abnormalities, normal. So, to your point about animals, if this is true, so what? It doesn't make it normal.

          I don't care about homosexuality. I'm actually getting tired of the topic. People are going to do what they want, and that's their prerogative, but to say that is normal or right, is a stretch.

          My recent post Teams Aren’t Just For Men Anymore

        6. You mentioned procreation. That is why I mentioned infertile men and women. If you are infertile and cannot procreate, are you still under this umbrella of "sexual immorality"? Yes, it actually does affect your argument because if God intended it that way, then why did he create infertile people?

          Also, why wouldn't genetic mutations be of God? If he is the creator would he not be in charge of that aspect of the human condition as well? Tricky arguments there. Did God not make "abnormalities" as you call them? Very tricky.

          Also, citing scriptures only works if you believe the bible is a valid reference point. I do not. Also, while there are some of these scriptures in the new testament that people claim make a case against homosexuality, I have seen a lot of citing of scriptures from the old testament. Maybe it is just me, but I always thought christianity is based on the teachings of the new testament not the old testament?

        7. I mentioned procreation as the reason for sex. Whether God created infertile people has nothing to do with anything. I don't even care to get into your notion that God creates "infertile people."

          Who said genetic mutations were or were not of God? Again, you're mentioning things that have nothing to do with my original statement which is that homosexuality is sexual immorality AND sex is to procreate. The discussion you are attempting is far more difficult and deep than a discussion of homosexuality. Are you asking me to tell you the meaning of life? I don't purport to have all the answers, but I do realize, and hope you do as well, that just because things happen in nature doesn't make them normal or right. What God's role in all this is still not quite clear, but that much I know.
          My recent post My Issues with Fighting the Gay Fight

        8. Yeah, if you can't figure out why I added infertility into the conversation then there is little hope for you. I think I figured that out in your first post. Thanks.

        9. Also, if you'll notice, the whole reason for my comment was to reference the Bible as stating that homosexuality is wrong. If you don't believe in it, or know much about it, how can you even intelligently argue against what I am saying? You really have nothing to add to the discussion.

        10. I was raised believing in the bible so yeah, my addition to the discussion comes from someone who was raised to believe those things and now does not. In fact, I would say I come from a pretty good point of view because I broke away and started figuring out things on my own.

          I wouldn't say you don't have anything to add to the discussion, but what you do add isn't much and it seems like you don't even know enough about the bible or biology to make an articulate point. You have jumped from bible to biology, all the while making crazy references and assumptions along the way. It has all been a bit bizarre.

        11. My discussion was not about homosexuality and how it happens or who created homosexual people or infertile people. It was that homosexuality according to the Bible is wrong. My biological reference seeks to take religion out of it, and dare anyone to reconcile homosexuality as being normal to humans or to animals as you suggest.

          "crazy references" huh? What was a crazy reference? Don't get upset. It's just a debate.
          My recent post Teams Aren’t Just For Men Anymore

        12. Not upset, but yeah boo, definitely a little bit of crazy assumptions over there. Crazy is the key word. I read further down that you believe homosexuality is an illness/issue. Whew. That is a different level right there…

          Yeah, I wouldn't really call this a debate. This has been something else, that is for sure, but wouldn't call it a debate.

        13. bellatrice, this is your convo, and I'll let you have at it, but here's something for you since you don't have access to a Bible right now.

          "Please find the scripture that talks about homosexuality in reference to Sodom and Gomorrah."

          Genesis 19.

        14. Could you provide the exact scripture you are referring to that talks about homosexuality? A simple copy and paste from biblegateway will suffice.

        15. The entire story.

          God talks to Abraham and tells him, Sodom is wicked, I'm going to destroy it. Abraham says, wait, hear me out for a second Lord, if you can find X many righteous people, will you spare the city. God tells him sure.

          Angels go to Sodom and visit Abraham's nephew, Lot. The men of the city see the angels. At nightfall, they go to Lot's house saying, we saw those foine men that came up in your house. Bring them out, we're about to make sweet lovin' to them!

          Paraphrasing, of course.

        16. But no where is homosexuality as we know it referenced. Lust? Sure. Men who wanted to know what it was like to experience 'angels' sure. An orgy fest of people having sex with anything and everything? Absolutely. Most biblical evidence has shown that to be the problem. If this was a story about two men meeting each other, getting to know each other, falling in love with each other, etc do you really think the same 'destruction' would have ensured?

          Any time the Bible references s&g and the sins of the city, homosexuality is never mentioned as one of the issues including anytime Jesus speaks on it. I feel like that alone speaks volumes.

        17. Really? That's the defense?

          Genesis 19:4-5 – But before they lay down, the MEN of the city, even the MEN of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

          5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the MEN which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, THAT WE MAY KNOW THEM.

          And no, they weren't talking about a stroll on the beach, having an intimate talk get to know them. It's men basically trying to r@pe other men. If the justification is "it's not g@y because it's male humans and male divine creatures," I honestly don't know what to tell you.

        18. That wasn't my point. My point was to say that these were men trying to have sex with angels purely out of lust. And that was what was going on in all of s&g. People having sex with animals, each other, etc for absolutely not rhyme or reason. Again, orgy fest.

          That's not what homosexuality is. Gay people don't just have sex with each other for no reason. Now is that is what you believe homosexuality is, then this discussion isn't going to go any further.

        19. I suppose if men having $ex with men isn't hom0$exuality, you're right, it's not going to go further.

        20. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Even straight people think the only purpose of relationships is sex. Gay relationships aren't just sex with random people. These are people that actually care for one another. That is not what was happening in s&g.

        21. Of course. Straight relationships aren't either. But if your argument really is, "the men having $ex with each other was perfectly fine, it was the other stuff, even though God said hom0$exuality is abomination," then I really just don't know what to tell you.

        22. I didn't say it wasn't fine. But the reasoning it wasn't fine has nothing to do with gay relationships and how they actually work.

          Again, these were men that trying to have sex with angels likely because they thought it would make them gods. Something people tended to do often back then. Hence the tower of babble. God does not do well when people decide to try to be God.

          So again, where does this story explicitly talk about the problem being sex with men? Jesus certainly didn't think so.

        23. "Again, these were men that trying to have sex with angels likely because they thought it would make them gods."

          Really. Where does it even say the men recognized the beings were angels, much less believing boinking them would turn them into gods? (keep Hebrews 13:2 in mind). That's a lot of stretching just to get past the obvious message.

          The filter ate my previous comment, but Jesus didn't say anything about c@nnabalism or !nce$t either. I guess He's cool with that too, despite the New Testament saying it's wrong.

        24. Doesn't say specifically but it has happened before in the Bible, so why would this time be any different? These men recognized there was something to be in 'awe' about given their response. There is no obvious. There was a lot going on in s&g that led it its destruction.

          Jesus does make specific references to s&g and never once does he say the sins committed had to do with gay relationships, nor does Ezekiel or Jude which also references s&g. S&g is referenced many times as well as the sins committed, not once are gay relationships mentioned. A lot of rudeness, idol worship, and sex with anything that moved.

          Not a stretch. It's been researched much.

        25. And again, saying things like 'The new testament said it was wrong' isn't quite the best way to approach it. Who said it? Paul. What are some other things Paul said? Women should not speak in church. Do you still believe that to be true today? And if not, how do you determine which of Paul's writings we should use today and which ones we shouldn't. Paul wrote based off of his experience. The same way two people of the same sex freaks men out today is likely the same way it freaked people out then and so they wrote it. Paul had issues with women so he was forever telling them to be quiet, go somewhere else and not try to take any leadership roles over men.

          This isn't the New Testament talking. This is Paul talking to a certain group of people. Now maybe Paul had a reason. Maybe the women really were getting out of pocket and needed rules. But even still, I'd argue that was meant for a specific group of people for a specific time. Unless you still believe all of this to be relevant today.

        26. So if I'm reading this correctly, these men came to Lot's house, demanded to see the angles so they could "know" them…and Lot offers his virgin daughters instead?

          Specifically verses 5-8.

          How'd you leave that out of your synopsis? Or am I off base?

        27. Yeah, pretty much. I left it off because it wasn't relevant to the point being made, but yes, Lot was about to sellout his daughters to save his own butt.

        28. "Wrestle with that." Hmm interesting. Well us discussing biology is a moot point. I presume you believe homosexuality is a choice. I do not.

          I'm just waiting to see which scripture references you are using to make the assumption that sodom and gomorrah was an issue of homosexuality.

        29. @Laney False assumption. I actually do not believe in all cases that homosexuality is a choice. I see it as a psychological, sometimes biological issue/illness.

          As far as S&G, you asked me if that was what I was referring to and without hearing my answer, assumed that S&G was what I was referring to when I spoke of God destroying a nation. I was moreso referring to any and all scripture that shows God's disdain for homosexuality. One being Leviticus 20:13. I think that is pretty clear.
          S&G represents other acts of lasciviousness for which it was destroyed. I don't know that it was specifically in reference to homosexuality, but sexual immorality, nonetheless. I do intend to look at Genesis 19 though referenced by Hugh.
          My recent post My Issues with Fighting the Gay Fight

        30. So you believe that people can be born gay but you still believe that is wrong? Interesting.

          Leviticus also tells men not to trim their beard and for people not to wear fabric with mixed cloth. It also says that if your son does not work, he is to be stoned. So what system do you use to determine which scripture in Leviticus is relevant to now and which ones are not? And which stories of nations being destroyed are you referring to if not s&g?

        31. None of it is relevant to Christians, outside of seeing a glimpse of God's wrath without the divine buffer of His Son, Jesus Christ. We are not Jews, and not under the Mosaic Law. Leviticus is not applicable to Christians.

          To the next question that is likely to follow, Christians still believe hom0$exuality is wrong, via Romans 1:20-28, and other supporting New Testament scriptures.

        32. Romans. Love romans. Written likely by Paul. Paul is one of my favorite writers but many scholars would argue that Paul had issues of his own that persuaded a lot of what he wrote. Paul was the same man that told women not to speak, to try to have authority over men in any capacity.

          Paul wrote to specific group of people explaining what he perceived to be going on. But even Thomas Jefferson quotes "Paul was the greatest Coryphaeus and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus." Paul was hung up on lust issues (likely due to his own lust issues) and therefore kind of went on rants telling people what they should and should not do with their sex lives. He even told told men they just shouldn't have sex at all. Where is the support from Jesus himself in reference to homosexuality?

        33. A third of the New Testament was written by Paul. Besides, Paul did a decent job on saying what is scripture and what was his opinion.

          You are right, based on text in Romans and in 1 Corinthians, it appeared Paul did struggle with lust. But he said he brought his body under subjection. (Now, what was the original topic of this post about…)

          Thomas Jefferson was a deist. Not exactly an authority on Christianity.

        34. "Where is the support from Jesus himself in reference to homosexuality?"

          Jesus didn't say you couldn't have $ex with your dead three-year old son while eating his leg either. That doesn't mean he was ok with necrophilia, incest or cannabalism.

          But Jesus did refer to other scriptures, which means there is obviously more to it than just the words in red. Otherwise, the Bible would just be the four Gospels, part of Acts and part of Revelations.

        35. Oh come on?!?! All the alphanumeric substitutions and my comment still gets sent to moderation?

        36. Paul is great. Again, one of my favorite writers in the Bible. He does some of the best introspection to realize his own flaws. But everything he said was filtered through his own paradigm of life. To take all of what he says from a literal standpoint isn't something I would do. If you would, cool, then this is also a discussion that won't go any further.

          And you don't have to claim christianity to have a relationship with God and believe in the Bible. Who should be an authority on Christianity? Christians? lol. I am one but again, if that's how you feel, another discussion going no where.

        37. Let me just make sure I have this right:

          The Apostle Paul: can't take his word for it.
          Thomas Jefferson: can take his word for it.

        38. Paul said plenty of great things I will always treasure. Thomas Jefferson said many great things. Both also said things that yes, I take with a grain of salt.

        39. We are born into sin…period. All of us are sinners. Whether I act on my sinful nature is what determines whether I have sinned.

          I like men. It is a sin to have sex before marriage. I desire to have sex before marriage with a particular man. I have sex with the man before we are married (the sin).

          The funny thing about arguing with non-Christians is that you will find any way to dismiss what is clearly being communicated. There are numerous references to homosexuality being wrong in the Bible. That's why I stated earlier that I don't understand how anyone could "wrestle with" the fact that it is wrong in the Bible. I don't have time to list them ALL, but I list one and you take the surrounding text to ask me if I believe that too?? @Laney Just say you don't want homosexuality to be wrong, and be done with the discussion.
          My recent post Teams Aren’t Just For Men Anymore

        40. It's not a matter of me wanting. I do not believe it do be wrong and I do not believe that is the message of the Bible. I believe Jesus called for us to rightly divide everything written. That we are suppose to look at all scripture in context. Taking one scripture and using it to push an agenda is dangerous territory for me. This is the reason Jesus was forever getting in the Pharisees' faces. That is exactly what they did on a regular basis. They tried to use scripture single passages out of context against Jesus and he called their bluff every time.

          I'm just trying to understand why certain scriptures in Leviticus are relevant now and others are not?

        41. Then how can you possibly take that one scripture and interpret it to mean anything else except that homosexuality is wrong? Please enlighten me! It's as plain as day. And it isn't just that one scripture…
          My recent post Teams Aren’t Just For Men Anymore

        42. Is wearing clothing with mixed fabric wrong? Because the scripture you are using right now is located in a book of the Bible that says it is. So again, why is one relevant to now and the other is not?

        43. Which scripture? Leviticus? Do you believe it is wrong for a person to wear clothing with mixed fabric? That scripture is in the same book as the one you are referencing. You have yet to give me an answer as to why one is relevant and the other is not.

        44. One must know the differences in what was for, as the saying goes, “a reason, a season, and a lifetime”. What I mean is certain scriptures were meant to be for the Israelite society, and some were meant to be eternal truths. The saying, “rightly dividing The Word” comes into play here. If one can’t, or doesn’t want to understand the meaning and context of the verses, it really won’t make a difference if they agree with it or not.

        45. "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

          So I'm supposed to read that and think Broussard can still be friends with Collins, LZ Granderson, or anyone else like it's no big deal?

          I dunno, if I were gay and my friend read me this, then said, 'but we can still be friends,' I'd be wary, lol.

    3. To your last point, yes, God does love all His children. That doesn’t mean that He loves, nor likes what they always do. He is a loving, forgiving God. However, people tend to forget that He can be a vengeful God as well. Ideally, nobody has a Heaven or Hell to out anyone in. We all have our vices, and things we struggle with. But to say that God hasn’t spoken on the many sins that people commit, is foolhardy at best, and dangerous at worst.

      I respect where you’re coming from, but I can’t get agree with it. Especially as a person who does study the Bible, and pray for clarity of it, as you suggest people should do.

      1. I respect your opinion. But where did I say God hasn't spoken on the many sins that people commit? I listed specific 'sins' that God apparently took issue with; trimming beards was a sin, wearing clothing with mixed fabric was a sin… I've seen and read them.

        1. Seriously, go read Romans and Hebrews. You're still having a great deal of difficulty with the concept of new covenant and new testament.

          Can you understand why you as a United States citizen aren't subject to the laws of England, even though the US used to be a colony of England? Then you should understand why Christians aren't bound by the Torah, even though Christianity was birthed out of Judaism.

  2. I personally saw nothing wrong with Broussard’s comments, OTL is not Sportcenter, the format is one where you would expect someone to speak their beliefs However, I’m afraid it might be a wrap for Broussard, just like it was for Rob Parker after “cornball”.

  3. I see people are still struggling with the idea of tolerance. We should be tolerant of people's religious views and respect the fact that they are discriminate against a demographic. Most referenced slave owners using religious views to justify slavery. I just watched 42 this weekend, was Ben Chapman right to say a black player didn't belong in white baseball? I mean… it was his view? Shouldn't we be tolerant of his view? Heck the non Honorable Louis Farrakhan has an opinion on Jews, should we respect that? Jesus doesn't tolerant Gentiles…. he included them. I'm not going to tolerant the putting down of another people. But Chris thinks its ok, bc his pastor told him so.

  4. People have a right to an opinion just like people have a right to a reaction. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom of criticism/others opinion or debate. I don’t think SOME Christians hear themselves when they start on this topic, I don’t think some hear the hate and disgust in their own voice when they say “I don’t agree and you’re in an open rebellion to God”. That’s a whole lot different then “his personal views don’t align with what I personally believe but too each its own”. Maybe gay people or people who don’t completely agree with certain Christian views respond the way they do because of how you put them out there. If I feel like I’m being attacked of course I’m going to strike back.

    1. “You’re in an open rebellion to God”. That’s where Chris Broussard lost me. He can disagree with the “lifestyle” but adding these declarations like he’s getting direct messages for God….miss me.

      It seems homosexuality is the only topic people are comfortable telling people the judgement that will be bestowed upon them at the gates. When people get caught cheating, does anybody say “it’s a sin to comment adultery and open rebellion to God” (translation: you are going to h-e-l-l). No, people don’t and that one of the Ten Commandments.

      Disagree but don’t add extra commentary…..because that’s just your interpretation (not law or coming directly from whoever your god may be).

    2. Good point, but I think it goes both ways sometimes. Some christians do sound incredibly hateful when expressing views on homosexuality. But there are some gay people who are going to feel offended if you disagree with the lifestyle period, no matter how a christian frames the message. Respect has to go both ways. Homosexuals are entitled to live their lives in peace as they see fit, but christians are also entitled to our opinions just like everyone else.

  5. I support CB and his stance on the subject matter, just as I did Chik-Fil-a stance. Comparing race to sexuality is comparing apples to alligators. In this great country of ours, it's ok to have a difference on opinion and beliefs. It doesn't make me or anyone else "ignorant" as much as it makes you "tolerant and forward thinking".

    Live and let Live.

    1. Even with the Chick Fila thing I didn’t think people who didn’t stop eating there or protested had a hatred for gays or anything completely negative, but when I saw people were purposely going there and that picture with the church full of people holding chick fila sandwiches I was like… Come on that’s hate/ignorance

    2. density. carbon based. decomposition. All things apples have in common with alligators. The comparison is there.. you just have to want to see it.

  6. I respect Chris Broussard’s right to express his opinion, and I respect Jason Collins right to be both homosexual and now “openly” gay. I really don’t have much else to say on the subject because neither one of their decisions affect me personally. This seems like a simple concept but clearly it is not.

  7. He was asked a question….he gave his personal views on the subject matter. End of story.

    I listened to his full answer and I really didn't give it much thought because I wasn't really surprised at his answer. Just shrugged and kept it moving.

  8. The Bible Condemns Homosexuality PERIOD, it does. As a Gay man i accept that,& as an Atheist i don't CARE, because it is BS to me. However, it pains me to see Gay Christan's run through fire trying to reconcile beliefs that are CLEARLY against them.

  9. "Scripture is always going to be open to interpretation because it has been translated a many times through many languages."

    I let the comment slide numerous times on this site, because I generally don't care what people believe. But since it keeps getting repeated, some people genuinely believe it and are tricking others to believe it, I guess I'll say something now.

    This isn't true. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and converted to Greek when the Septuagint was written. A grand total of one translation. The New Testament was written in Aramaic and Greek. Many English translations are from those Greek originals, many early copies of those Greek documents are still in existence. That's why, although annoying, so many preachers say "and this word is Greek for this," because they are referring to the original texts.

    1. The Bible, as of right now, has been translated into pretty much every language in existence which is what I was referring to. Never heard of the Bible being translated into French? It's actually pretty fun to read even though I don't understand it.

      1. Yes, I have to admit that it is entertaining reading about EL SENOR in Spanish. I'm saying several translations are made directly from the original Koine Greek. There is difficulty in that some words and themes aren't perfectly translated into other languages. For example, English would make a lot more sense if we had as many words for love as the Greeks did, to distinguish between romantic love, familial love, etc. That can cause some confusion.

        But it is true that has been translated into many languages.

        1. Understood. I probably should not have used the word 'through' in my statement.

          "For example, English would make a lot more sense if we had as many words for love as the Greeks did, to distinguish between romantic love, familial love, etc. That can cause some confusion. "

          Exaaccttlyyy. English language disappoints in so many ways really. Doesn't even sound cool.

        2. But wouldn't you say, based on "English would make a lot more sense if we had as many words for love as the Greeks did, to distinguish between romantic love, familial love, etc. " that even though it hasn't been translated hundereds of times, there can still be interpritation?

          Like, if we read the word "love" in English, that could fork three different ways based on the original word/meaning. Multiply that across the entire Bible, and we could end up pretty far from one another.

        3. For some things, yes. That's why Paul wrote we see through a glass darkly, meaning clarity on some issues aren't known. But there certainly is on many issues.

          Again, that is why people reference the original Greek words. For example, if someone reads love in an English translation, they may ask what type of love? But if they reference the Greek and it says philios (spelling might be wrong), we know that means a brotherly love, not a $exual love.

  10. As always, the dialogue the subject sparks is interesting. The overall point of the topic however, is that agree or disagree, we’ve gotta do a better job of respecting people’s opinions and feelings, even if we don’t agree with it.

    1. So are we supposed to respect everybody's opinion?
      racist opinion, sexist opinion, homophobic opinion… i let people say all the *sh they want to, because i have to be respectful? I wonder who have to do a better job, the people saying *sh or the people who don't accept the *sh?

    2. A lady in the comments expressed her opinion about homosexuality being an illness. I refuse to respect that opinion. It is an ignorant opinion. If you make an ignorant statement best believe you would be chastised, and rightfully so.

  11. I feel Christians get a bad rap about homosexuality and that is basically because most of the country is considered Christian. Honestly homosexuality is condemned by most of the other major religions too and I think that should be pointed out too. What bothers me is that even if you don't agree with the lifestyle gays confuse that with hate. For me the transgender thing is too much for me and I think its a mental illness. You have men wanting to be women and want to date men and not tell the man. What's worse is you have men turning into women and wanting to fight women in mixed martial arts. That's too much for me.

    1. "Honestly homosexuality is condemned by most of the other major religions too and I think that should be pointed out too."

      Here's the key thing: most PEOPLE think hom0$exuality is abhorrent, if not wrong. In every part of the world, throughout the history of the world. Again, there's only one reason the church is consistently brought up: they need to look like victims to get empathy from society, and to be a victim, you need an attacker. They know most churches are not going to waver in their stance, so the church is a perfect pawn. After society accepts hom0$exuality, no one will pay attention to the church on it anymore. They served their purpose and can be ignored.

      1. "Here's the key thing: most PEOPLE think hom0$exuality is abhorrent, if not wrong. In every part of the world, throughout the history of the world."

        Now, I'm a cynic, but I've long thought that the reason we even have Bible verses on the matter to quote is that they guys who wrote the Bible feel this way. Similarly, if I had the chance to contribute, the NBA Finals would be an ordained holiday.

        To your second point, you say "… there's only one reason the church is consistently brought up: they need to look like victims to get empathy from society, and to be a victim, you need an attacker." as though gays are the ones bringing religion into the discussion. Isn't Broussard cutting his off his nose to spite his face by propping his argument on a religious pillar? I mean, he brought religion into the discussion. So based on this comment, he's doing a lot to increase empathy and make Collins a victim…and that empathy could lead to acceptance. WHAT IS WE GON' DO?!

        1. "as though gays are the ones bringing religion into the discussion."

          Both sides do. The point is, they never say society at large is wrong for not accepting them, but they will quickly say the church is wrong.

          I mentioned this earlier, but I honestly believe some people use the Bible just to defend their own hom0phobia. For example, a preacher can be preaching, and the congregation just isn't responding to them message. He'll throw in a jab at g@ys, and suddenly there's all these "AMEN PREACHA!" shouts. Is that because that's the only part of the Bible they read and agree with? Or is it because they don't like g@ys, and they think the Bible helps solidify that dislike?

        2. "I mentioned this earlier, but I honestly believe some people use the Bible just to defend their own hom0phobia. "

          On this we agree 100000%, lol.

      2. I'm a little confused at your comment honestly. In my experience, straight people are the ones bringing up the church. Most gay pepole I've come across would prefer not to have to defend themselves against Bible verses. "Defend themselves" being the key words there.

  12. It's one thing to say "that's his business" or whatever, but making such a critical jab at someone's entire being based on their sexual preference is way over the edge. Broussard should be ashamed of himself.

    If the majority of Christians roll like that, than I'm glad I'm not a Christian.
    My recent post Forbidden Tech #6 – Fridges

    1. He didn't say anything critical, all he said that homosexuality defined in the bible is a sin, so is premarital sex among straight people among other sins. Living those unrepentant lifestyles or sin doesn't characterize a person as a Christian. Not only did he address gays but different lifestyles that straight people live but of coarse all people heard was the homosexual part.

      1. I hear what you're saying, but he's never spoken out against Dwight Howard. Howard came into the league saying he wanted to bring Christianity to the forefront of the league. Since then he's fathered five children by four (or five) women.

        Broussard can cover his bases by saying 'any unrepentent lifestyle is a sin'. HOW-EVAH, when he brings up Dwight Howard next, it'll be to talk about his impending free agency…NOT his 'sinful' lifestyle.

        Not that I care either way about Howard. But don't give Broussard a pass. He's still a hypocrite until he speaks out against the straight guy humping his way through his career.

  13. I'm clearly not very religious but why does anyone care about if you're following the bible. You don't even have to abide by the bible to be accepted by God into heaven, you just have to accept Jesus Christ as Lord & Savior. If Jesus already saved us from our sins, why people still worried about it? Honestly?

    1. not the preach, cause i dang sure dont fit the criteria, but the bible states ur not a true follower unless u give it ur all to follow Christ and his teachings…yes he knows we will slip along the way and will forgive us, but he still expects an all-or-nothing attitude..a "deciple" if you will…folks try to look over that…im guilty myself

  14. I truely can care less about somebody being gay as long as they dont come my way talking crazy or flaunting their PDA around in public. (I dont even like straight couples doing that, makes me feel un comfortable). But as far as the argument of it being wrong i think so and here is why

    1) for the bible tells me so: its clearly a sin-but as a christian, Jesus told us to love and accept. on top of that i myself am a sinner, whose probaly gonna sin again *kendrick lamar voice* so who am i to judge? all sin is the same in God's eyes, be it murder or lying or fornication.

    2) biologically- sex was made for reproduction..the penis is anatomically made to be put into a vagina, not an anus .

    as far as loving one another? thats not wrong at all, and im sure its not to God either…if they werent boinking each other.

    and the argument of it not being a choice? i believe some people make the choice to be, like women all of a sudden going gay after a few failed relationships. but i also believe there are truely some ppl who may be biologically susceptible to it. the same way with any other disease/disorder. there's proof that some people are biologically susceptible to schizophrenia, personality disorders, etc. but dont we still try to offer clinical help to help them cope with those issues if not cure them? something to think about.

    p.s- stop comparing the LGT and what ever letter im missing movement to the black civil rights movement, i can not hide my skin color, but sexuality can be. if youre not f*cking them than its your decision whether or not you want to open yourself up to the ridicule, ignorance, and all the other negatives that come with being "out" .

    There are people who are chronic masturbators and other deviance..should they be allowed their own movement too?

  15. Hello there, I discovered your web site by means of Google at the same time as searching for
    a comparable subject, your web site came up, it appears to be like good.
    I’ve bookmarked it in my google bookmarks.
    Hi there, just became aware of your blog thru Google, and located that it’s truly informative.
    I’m gonna be careful for brussels. I will be grateful in the event you proceed this in future. A lot of people can be benefited from your writing. Cheers!


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Get SBM Delivered

Get SBM Delivered

Single Black Male provides dating and relationship
advice for today's single looking for love

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This