ESPN’s Chris Broussard: Being Gay is ‘An Open Rebellion to God’

Earlier today, ESPN The Magazine writer Chris Broussard went on air to talk about NBA player Jason Collins‘ announcing that he’s gay and he made a fool of himself by talking about how he’s a Christian and therefore against it:

“Personally I don’t believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle or an openly premarital sex between heterosexuals… If you’re openly living that type of lifestyle, the Bible says you know them by their fruits, it says that’s a sin. If you’re openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality, adultery, fornication, premarital sex between heterosexuals, whatever it may be. I think that’s walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. I would not characterize that person as a Christian because I don’t think the Bible would characterize them as a Christian.

Broussard was obviously talking about the part of the Bible that says: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life… unless they’re homo.”

(Despite the crazy talk, I love the last line in that video from LZ Granderson)

The statement from Broussard wasn’t surprising given that he said something identical a few years ago when former NBA player John Amaechi came out (despite writing that “the NBA is ready for an openly gay player”), but it’s still amazing he’d say such a thing in this day and age:

I’m a born-again, Bible-believing Christian (no, I’m not a member of the Religious Right). And I’m against homosexuality (I believe it’s a sin) and same-sex marriage.

Millions of Christians who follow the Bible — and Muslims who follow the Koran and Jews who follow the Torah, as well as many nonreligious Americans — believe homosexuality is wrong.

That doesn’t mean they’re unenlightened. That just means their moral code doesn’t fluctuate based on society’s ever-changing standards. As long as we’re not being violent toward one another, as long as we can be civil, everything should be fine. We don’t have to agree.

First of all, don’t lump us in with Muslims and Christians. That’s like saying many non-religious Americans are Republicans. It’s true… but it’s really missing the point. When it comes to acceptance of homosexuality, the more you go to church, the less you accept it.

Second, I’m glad Broussard said this. Most of the anti-gay responses following today’s news came from conservative Christian already known for their bigotry. Broussard wasn’t in the same camp. Sure, he can have his opinion. Sure, he shouldn’t be fired over it. But his reputation has been ruined many times over thanks to his comments. Next time someone mentions his name, they’re going to link it with being Christian and being anti-gay. And we’re all better off when people link religion with irrational beliefs.

You have to wonder, though, why Broussard went into this particular industry if he’s opposed to people who have pre-marital sex and commit adultery… has he ever *met* professional athletes?

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • http://www.facebook.com/roger.bauman Roger Bauman

    While listening to the poorly thought out, inarticulate drivel pouring from Broussard’s mouth, I was dumbfounded to think that this is a man who makes his living as a writer.

  • Sven2547

    Apparently heteronormativity is a bigger part of being a Christian than, I dunno, believing in Jesus?

    • Mario Strada

      Isn’t that amazing? But “the bible says that”. Meaning “if it was up to me, maybe, but you know, the big guy said it and I gotta go with it”

      What a bunch of crap and this game they play” “xtian, xtian, xtian, not xtian, xtian” is getting really tiring. If you ask every christian, no one is a christian anymore. I’ll bet you that for each christian that negates another christian the label, I can find another 10 that will negate the first christian the same label.

      At least, with atheists the only requirement is not believing in god.

      • Sven2547

        It’s like these Catholics who say “real Catholics don’t use contraception”. Yeah well I got news for you pal, Catholicism is smaller than Sikhism if you go by that criteria.

        • jdm8

          That’s a “no true scotsman” argument, and you illustrate one problem with using it.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-W-Busch/578120211 Michael W Busch

        I have used “no true atheist” before. But that was for people who claimed both to be atheists and to believe in some sort of god (one was a pantheist, another was an misotheist).

        • John

          That’s the case where the argument isn’t a fallacy, when the group has one or more clearly defined criteria for membership. Perfectly valid use.

    • Stev84

      Also, being in the closet and lying is apparently perfectly ok, since he emphasized that the problem is “an openly homosexual lifestyle”. Typical Christian hypocrite.

    • http://northierthanthou.com/ Daniel Wall

      Honestly, I think Jesus is pretty far down the list of priorities for being a Christian, at least as far as the religious right defines it.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Kevin_Of_Bangor

    I’ve said this many times and I’ll say it again. In 20 years people are going to wonder why this was even an issue.

    • Reginald Selkirk

      And the religious will claim that they led the battle for gay rights.

      • http://www.youtube.com/user/GodVlogger?feature=mhee GodVlogger (on YouTube)

        And this time the internet, YouTube, etc., will be there to haunt them!

      • http://twitter.com/jordan_olsen26 Jordan Olsen

        In all fairness, a few of them did. Gene Robinson is a good example.

        • Nate Frein

          I suspect we’ll hear names like his a lot in the future, while the bulk of names of theists are swept under the rug because they were on the wrong side of history.

          • Spuddie

            Much like the those who used religion to support slavery, segregation and fuel sectarian hatred.

      • Jaimie Bell

        Too true. Their ability to revise history is astounding. I remember watching some old news clips when the first black girl in the south was being led into a white school. She was surrounded by Christian people shouting, throwing things, one lady in her fifties housedress was kicking a bus. Now it has been revised to them leading the way to civil rights. Wow.

        • Spuddie

          When you are already in the habit of lying to people on a regular basis, what is a little revisionism mean to them?

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-W-Busch/578120211 Michael W Busch

          In fairness, many religious people were involved in the civil rights movement at the time. Many of those people were also not white.

    • http://twitter.com/WoodwindsRock Emma

      I’ve wondered why it is an issue for years, because it’s not one.

  • http://twitter.com/the_ewan Ewan

    “I’m a born-again, Bible-believing Christian (no, I’m not a member of the Religious Right)”

    - Walk like a duck? Check.
    - Quack like a duck? Check.

    Is it a religious right duck? Check.

    • jdm8

      I always thought that “born-again, Bible-believing” was the religious right’s code for being religious right.

      • Tweekus

        It is. He never got the memo.

      • Free

        No, born-again as Jesus himself defined it, was when a human being is born of the spirit. We are all born of the flesh. That’s why we so crazy! However, Jesus offers something more than life as we know it. Unfortunately, many people want to claim to have been born again but are just the religious folks you get so darn mad at. There is another category of people than religious and humanist or whatever label and that is truly born-again. Few of those type running around. Because they actually reveal through their lives that there the realities that Jesus taught are real.

        • jdm8

          You misquoted the phrase. It was “born-again, Bible-believing”. That phrase doesn’t get used much outside of evangelical circles, mainly Christian Conservatives.

  • jdm8

    OK, Mr. Preachy posing as an athletics commentator, or an athletics commentator posing as a preacher. I’m surprised he didn’t try to lead an altar call.

    And yes, apparently his willingness to speak out on sin only includes homosexuality, other sins, not so much. Civilization isn’t going to fall apart because of teh gay.

    • Kengi

      Hey, let’s not get crazy now. I mean we wouldn’t want to destroy the career of a promising athlete just because they raped a woman. Just so long as they marry whomever they rape, of course. And pay the father a fair price for the damaged property.

      • Tweekus

        What’s the exchange rate for Sheckels these days?

  • Rain

    He’s awful brave for spouting his dumb Bible crap and looking like an idiot. Usually such things are reserved for religious shows like the 700 club or something. Dumb Bible crap sticks out like a duck out of water unless it’s on a fundy religious program.

    • LesterBallard

      Brave? He’s just looking to feed his Christian persecution complex.

  • ortcutt

    But what do the Silver Surfer, Santa, Jabba the Hut and Aragorn think about being gay? It’s sad that a grown man is going on TV and spouting off on rebellion against a fictional character.

    • Spuddie

      Silver Surfer: been all around the universe and seen a lot of things in his life. It would not phase him in the least.

      Santa: Being homophobic would probably be detrimental to keeping his elf workforce happy.

      Jabba the Hut: Can’t even see his own member. His care about what people do with theirs is even less.

      Aragorn: Seemed to like the company of rough smelly guys over women. Probably in the closet or came out after Return of the King.

  • Stev84

    It was completely inappropriate to even bring up religion like that. The idiotic moderator asked the question, but the correct answer would have been that sports has nothing whatsoever to do with religion and that it’s not a debate that should be held on television. At least not right then.

    • Reginald Selkirk

      Yes, why does he think his Christian beliefs are worthy of mention? He is presumably being allowed to speak because he is a sports writer for ESPN.
      .
      Next question: why does he think he should be allowed to impose his religious beliefs on others?

      • Baby_Raptor

        Because God says he’s right! Duh! /snark

    • http://twitter.com/jordan_olsen26 Jordan Olsen

      Agreed. Mad at some idiot for spouting off nonsense? Maybe you should look at the idiot that asked him the question in the first place.

      • Stev84

        We can be mad at both. There was no need to answer a stupid question with an even more stupid reply

    • joe

      why? jason collins mentioned his religious beliefs in the SI article.

  • Carmelita Spats

    Broussard mentions homosexuality, fornication, adultery but not divorce and REMARRIAGE. Last time I checked, Jeebus had a HELLUVA LOT to say about divorce and remarriage but not a SINGLE word in any of the Gospels about homosexuality. Jeebus equated REMARRIAGE with adultery and was MUCH harder on divorce than the Mosaic Law. Paul tells divorced women to remain SINGLE. One man, one woman, ONE time? What’s the divorce/remarriage rate in Christian churches? Also, take a good look at Broussard: 150 years ago, miscegenation was an affront to GAWD. He shouldn’t even be alive. Hypocrites.

    • jdm8

      Not even that long ago. Miscegenation was against the law in many US states until 1967, and the public opinion against miscegenation was still strong decades afterwords. 10% of evangelicals are still against it.

    • Reginald Selkirk

      One man, one woman, ONE time?

      Excuse me, but I’m going to have to ask you for chapter and verse, and what you think it says.

      Matt 5:31-32, for example, speaks clearly against a man divorcing his wife, and that woman getting remarried.Same thing in Matt 19:7-9. There is a clear double standard, and it says NOTHING about a man being married to only one woman.
      .
      Mark 10:2-12 – same thing, except without the double standard. (I.e. a woman is also forbidden to divorce her husband), but the message is against divorce, there is no mention against polygamy.
      .
      Luke 16 – similar again, although this could be interpreted as supporting monogamy, it is not unambiguously so.

      • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

        So you are saying divorce is OK then?

        • Reginald Selkirk

          Are you asking for my own opinion, or that of Jesus H. Christ as relayed in the canonical gospels?
          .
          My view is that divorce is OK, and is better than staying in a bad marriage.
          .
          Jesus H. Christ’s view is that divorce is not OK, but Carmelita Spats skipped a few steps in getting to “one man, one woman, one time” from there.

          • Matt D

            Why would your opinion differ from JHC when he is the authority on it? Is treating your faith like a salad bar how you maintain it’s legitimacy?

    • http://twitter.com/jordan_olsen26 Jordan Olsen

      He also hated figs and shrimp

      • Spuddie

        And shaving beards, working on weekends, wearing mixed fabrics and any meat and dairy combinations.

    • rwlawoffice

      Jesus didn’t say anything about bestiality either, does that make it moral according to Jesus? This idea that Jesus did not mention homosexuality explicitly and thus it must be ok in his eyes is nonsense.
      He was very clear that sexual relations between a man and a woman during the confines of a marriage was the only sexual acts Jesus deemed moral in God’s eyes.

  • C Peterson

    If God were real, and reasonably accurately represented by the Abrahamic religions, surely open rebellion would be the only possible action by a moral person.

    “Just following orders” didn’t justify following Hitler, Stalin, or any other vicious despot, and it doesn’t work any better for God.

    • http://northierthanthou.com/ Daniel Wall

      Amen!

    • liu

      I agree. The best thing to do in such a world would be to find some way to destroy God. Maybe surround him with iron chariots or something.

      • Guest

        Someone watches Supernatural.

        • liu

          I don’t, so I don’t get the reference. Please explain?

          I was actually referring to Judges 1:19.

  • TheG

    “That doesn’t mean they’re unenlightened. That just means their moral code doesn’t fluctuate based on society’s ever-changing standards.”

    You mean like those weak willed people that started believing less than five decades ago that black men should have the equal rights to… I dunno… be on TV and in print espousing their beliefs without fear of being lynched?

    (Did those people have fluctuating values?)

    It is funny how quickly those in power forget what it was like when they weren’t socially acceptable. Just ask Constantine or his son Constantius II. Or Irish descendants. Or Netanyahu. Everybody talks about how people in 20 years will feel differently about gay marriage and be embarrassed how the country acted today. But I’m worried the gay community will fall in the same trap very rapidly.

    • Obazervazi

      Wow, I never thought of that. It’s gonna be weird seeing gay bigots.

      • liu

        What will they be bigoted towards? What will be left when gay marriage is accepted?

        Alien-human marriage?

        • Spuddie

          Polygamists, illegal aliens, Anabaptists…

          Racism hasn’t gone out of style yet. Misogyny is still a viable campaign platform.

        • http://twitter.com/KevinSagui Kevin Sagui

          Bi-sexuals, transgendered and asexuals.

      • CottonBlimp

        They already exist. Plenty of gays are racist, classist, misogynistic. Christian gays hate atheists. Most gays of all stripes hate trans people.

  • http://www.twitter.com/alansimpson jediofpool

    Funny that he’s not openly against tattoos (also from Leviticus) and I’m pretty sure he’s not pro-slavery. Wait. He’s not cherry-picking is he?

    • debbiedoesreality

      Oh no, that would never happen.

    • Spuddie

      Well technically any position in favor of the NCAA is pro-slavery. =)

    • Guest

      The tattoos talked about in the bible were markings for the dead. God was saying to not participate in pagan rituals. Eating bloody meats, fortune telling/divination, marking your body for the dead, etc. Paganism is worshiping false gods. And what is the first commandment? You shall have no other gods before Me. If a person wants to glorify the one and only true God by getting a tattoo that represents Him in some way, so be it if that’s His will for that person. Also, please show me what you mean by “pro-slavery”…Show me the scripture. I’d love to clarify it for you, I really would. We must know the context and study deeper to gain understanding of His word.

      A lot of people are so focused on hatred. If someone is judgmental, love them anyway. If someone is being hateful, love them anyway. If someone is gay, love them anyway. GOD LOVES EVERYONE. You, me, the lost, the broken, the saved, the unsaved, the righteous, the unrighteous, murderers, thieves, homosexuals, those that believe He doesn’t exist…everyone. EVERYONE. He made you, jediofpool. You weren’t a mistake. You weren’t an accident. You didn’t “just happen.” He loves you like..more than you’ve ever been loved before. Even in your spitefulness or hatred. In your anger, in your despair, in your joy, in your peace. His love is unconditional. Do you know what that means? NO CONDITIONS. NO IFS OR BUTS. He loves you when you hate Him. He loves you when you blame Him. When you say no to Him. When you ignore Him. When you say He doesn’t exist.

      Christians are/will be hated by many because of Jesus’ name. But as long as we are following Him, there is nothing to be afraid of. Nothing to be ashamed of. And I am not afraid of hateful comments. I am not afraid of looking like a fool. And I don’t think Broussard was afraid of that, either. “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” 1 Corinthians 1:18

      God bless you all. Seriously.

  • LesterBallard

    They’re losing. And those who can’t face that they are losing will get uglier and uglier as we go along.

    • http://pfoct.blogspot.com/ James Knauer

      Thus is the true power of our First Amendment revealed: we know who they are. Please proceed, Mr. Broussard.

      • pRinzler

        Exactly. Free speech will let us hear more of Mr. Broussard, and his odd thoughts. The more he speaks, the less we agree.

    • debbiedoesreality

      Indeed. So ugly that they’re going to need to alter the definition of love even worse than they already do.

  • http://twitter.com/jordan_olsen26 Jordan Olsen

    Many non-religious Americans who believe homosexuality is wrong? I would love to see the numbers on that one! I wonder what their argument would be? ‘You’re not religious, so what is your reasoning for believing homosexuality is wrong?’ Um…it’s icky.

    • Nate Frein

      I suspect it’s phrased as a “survival of the species” argument.

      “They can’t make babies that way ergo it’s wrong”

      • baal

        Oddly enough, same sex sex acts is not the limiting factor of reproductive fitness of any species I’m aware of that engages in it. Other constraints such as habitat or food availability get in the way first. Also, so far as humans are concerned, I think 7 billion is more than enough of them. I wouldn’t even mind a slow decline in total human population down to even 1 billion (fast declines are problematic).

        • Nate Frein

          You’re absolutely right. I think the argument is ridiculous (if I hadn’t made that clear in my post).

          • baal

            i should work on my signalling. I was agreeing / adding detail for the folks who could use more detail.

  • Rain

    I think that’s walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ.

    He forgot Tina Fey, the third person of the godhead trinity. He is walking in open rebellion to Tina Fey. How’s “godhead” for a medieval word. Religion can come up with some crazy medieval words sometimes.

  • http://northierthanthou.com/ Daniel Wall

    their moral code doesn’t fluctuate? …for OTHER people.

  • Baby_Raptor

    You cannot be civil while telling someone that they’re innately dysfunctional and headed for hell, and trying to deny them the right to be treated as a human being.

    Civility requires that you at least have basic respect for someone, which the anti-gay side is not capable of having for anyone who disagrees with them.

    But its not like this was unexpected. To Christians, “civil” means “agreeing with me 100% and never saying anything that hurts my fee-fees.”

    • Rwlawoffice

      Good lord do you project much? What you have posted is exactly what those that believe homosexuality is moral say. “Believe like I do or you are a bigot.” And yet in your normally curse and insult ridden tirades you are claiming to be tolerant and civil.

      Civility and respect does not mean agreeing.

      • TheG

        Which do you find more polite?

        “We disagree, therefore I think you are a morally bankrupt person.”

        Or…

        “We disagree, therefore you will be denied rights for the rest of your life and then tortured for all eternity.”

        One is saying that there are social ramifications for having certain opinions (true for anything) and the other is so spiteful, arrogant, and uncaring that the conversation is either concluded or futile.

        • Matt D

          If he was concerned about politeness, he wouldn’t spend his remaining days trolling atheist websites.

          • rwlawoffice

            So in order to polite to atheists, you cannot pose questions or disagreements with them? Thank you for proving my point.

        • rwlawoffice

          I can disagree with those that believe homosexuality is moral and that same sex marriage is a correct position for society and be polite. I can also believe that all who do no accept Jesus Christ as their savior will spend eternity in Hell (which would be their choice by the way) and still be polite and civil. So your question is irrelevant.

          • TheG

            Sure, but you are missing the point. You can believe it and still be civil. But you forgot the original statement. It’s okay. It is more expedient like that.

            Raptor said, “You cannot be civil while telling someone that they’re innately dysfunctional and headed for hell, and trying to deny them the right to be treated as a human being.”

            I gave quotes, implying a statement. Not a belief.

            How do you TELL someone they are going to burn and be tortured for all eternity, while still being polite and civil?

            • Rwlawoffice

              His statement was more than the theology on hell. I can be very polite and say that in order to have eternal life, I believe you must accept Jesus Christ as your savior. Why is the standard that I can’t disagree with your choices without being considered impolite?

              • TheG

                It is a religious standard. Created by religious folk to protect religious folk. I don’t agree with it and don’t live my life that way (except when encountering followers of the aforementioned standard).

      • CottonBlimp

        It does mean not whining when someone calls you a dick when you act like a dick.

        Just a reminder: people are born gay. Broussard CHOSE to be an asswipe.

        • Rwlawoffice

          And Broussard for answering a question and stating his religious beliefs is automatically an asswipe? You people amaze me.

  • Edmond

    AAGH, this useless, archaic, primitive concept of “sin”! What the hell IS it, and what good is it? Why do we bother with the concept of “crimes”, when “sin” supposedly does the job?

    You know, Mr Broussard, homosexuality may be a “sin” (whatever that means to you), but it ISN’T a “crime” anymore. Why is that, do you think? Why has our man-made criminal justice system been able to “fluctuate based on society’s ever-changing standards”, but sin hasn’t?

    The idea of “sin” may be the single-most destructive element of religion (Abrahamic ones, anyway), and it does serious damage to the moral systems of millions of people. It doesn’t enable anyone to distinguish ACTUAL right from wrong, or motivate them to treat others with a sense of empathy or justice. It simply leads them to obey an old book, a book which is egregiously wrong in many of its “moral” examples. It calls on them to condemn anyone who follows society’s values rather than their own cherry-picked interpretation of what the book says.

    Broussard needs to listen to his own words, and take his own advice. “As long as we’re not being violent toward one another, as long as we can be civil, everything should be fine.” EXACTLY. Full stop. If someone is civil and non-violent, then there’s no reason to consider them a “sinner” OR a criminal. Everyone else, and their gods, need to get their noses OUT of the sex lives of consenting adults.

    • Anna

      The idea of “sin” may be the single-most destructive element of religion (Abrahamic ones, anyway), and it does serious damage to the moral systems of millions of people. It doesn’t enable anyone to distinguish ACTUAL right from wrong, or motivate them to treat others with a sense of empathy or justice.

      Well said. Another problem is that it’s not confined to right-wingers like Broussard. Even liberal Christians support the notion of “sin.” They just disagree about what constitutes it. I’d really like to see liberal Christians stand up and repudiate both sin and hell. Then I’d have some hope that Christianity might actually move in a better, more humane direction.

  • AlaJack

    Hi, I’m Chris Collins and I like porking male booty holes………….. crickets………… now what?

    • baal

      While I agree with your point that it’s pretty darn irrelevant what Chris Collins does in his free time, you’re a bit reductionist on what being gay means.

  • http://twitter.com/ictcowgrrl Nita

    Chris Broussard seems to forget that it wasn’t that long ago when “Bible believing, born again Christians” said the exact thing when opposing interracial marriages and opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1964 and desegration.

  • Rain

    If you’re openly living that type of lifestyle, the Bible says you know them by their fruits, it says that’s a sin.

    That’s a bit of a non-sequitur since the fruits verses were talking about false prophets. Also, “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” is false and is perfect for con-artists since they can just have good fruit all the time and nobody would be the wiser. The gullible people would think Jesus gave them the ol’ thumbs up since they don’t have any bad fruit. Jesus the dumb philosopher always did have trouble seeing past his own nose.

    Incidentally the chapter on fruits is the same chapter with the “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” verses. LOL.

    • Rwlawoffice

      I’m sure he was referring to the scripture that refers to the fruit of the spirit, not false prophets. Galatians 5:22

      • TheG

        It doesn’t matter if he’s referring to the voice of God that he heard in his head fifteen minutes ago. Mean is mean.

    • Stev84

      We certainly know Christians by their nuts

  • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

    Millions of Christians who follow the Bible — and Muslims who follow the
    Koran and Jews who follow the Torah, as well as many nonreligious
    Americans — believe homosexuality is wrong.

    –believe that women should be considered livestock.
    –believe that good people burn in hell.
    –believe that the Earth is younger than tree ring records and varves.
    –believe that light used to travel millions of times faster than it does now.
    –believe that dinosaurs lived on a wooden boat.
    –believe that their holy book must be followed to the letter, except for the parts that happen to be inconvenient just for them personally.
    (Add more, ad nauseum.)

    That doesn’t mean they’re unenlightened

    Uh, yes it does.

  • AxeGrrl

    Sure, he can have his opinion. Sure, he shouldn’t be fired over it.

    The same way that Don Imus and Jimmy ‘The Greek’ “shouldn’t have been fired” for making controversial/bigoted comments on air?

    Their employer(s) felt that they didn’t want those bigoted comments to represent them, and so, they fired the on-air personalities who uttered them. And had every right to do so.

    How is this case any different?

    • stop2wonder

      I don’t agree with what he said one bit, but this one was different. Imus’s and Greeks comments were off the cuff, spontaneous, and unplanned.

      Broussard’s comments were made in a round table panel discussion about homosexuality and sports and they knew his stance on homosexuality from earlier comments. He was brought into the discussion as a dissenting voice. To do that and then fire him for it would be classless by espn.

      • AxeGrrl

        Totally agree with that. If they knew his stance before hand (and brought him in to represent that stance), then all bets are off.

        • stop2wonder

          Exactly. I don’t agree with his stance nor do I believe it was necessarily smart on ESPN’s part to have him in on the conversation, but they knew his feelings on the matter and invited him anyway. You can’t fire him for that.

      • Stev84

        Not all things have two sides. Reports aren’t always enhanced by inviting some token opposing POV. They don’t need to invite Tony Perkins or Chris Broussard every time homosexuality is discussed to provide some artificial “balance”.

        • Anna

          Talk shows used to do that a lot. I don’t know if some of them still do, but my DVR recently picked up two episodes of Jeff Probst and Ricki Lake’s shows in which they were discussing gay parents and other modern families. I was so pleased that the entire discussion was with the families themselves, and they didn’t bring in some raging homophobe to provide “balance.”

  • Geoff Boulton

    “That doesn’t mean they’re unenlightened. That just means their moral
    code doesn’t fluctuate based on society’s ever-changing standards.”

    Of course their moral code fluctuates. When was the last time someone was stoned to death in America for working on a Sunday?

  • Beutelratti

    I just uttered this on JT’s blog, but again, how do these people not realise how small they are making their supposedly all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving god? Why the heck would this god care when somewhere somehow a penis ends up in a butthole and not in a vagina? Why? Why? Why? Whyyyy?
    Similarly, why would the almighty creator of the universe™ care if a woman does not want penis. Why? Why? Why? Whyyyyy?
    Why can’t this god be happy that people have orgasms? And why the fuck can’t this god be happy that people find unconditional love in all kinds of ways? Isn’t that supposed to be HIS job?

  • Greg

    Thank you, Chris Broussard, for reminding the whole world what atheists have been saying all along.
    The bible is full of shit and even most Christians would think so.

    They just don’t actually read it.

  • cipher

    I think that’s walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. I would not characterize that person as a Christian because I don’t think the Bible would characterize them as a Christian.”

    Well, I don’t think a blithering idiot should be on television making a six-figure salary.

    I guess neither of us gets what he wants.

  • CelticWhisper

    “Being gay is an open rebellion to God.”

    Good.

  • http://www.summerseale.com/ Summer Seale

    I notice that believers like him use the words “I *believe*…” one hell of a lot. It’s amazing what these two words can mean to them. Religious people apparently think that they can close their eyes and figure out the entire universe just by “believing”, and that their “beliefs” trump actual facts, reason, and rational thinking.

    Imagine if he had said, instead, “I *believe* that Elvis is alive.” Or “I *believe* that the earth is flat.” Those statements are just as wrong as “I *believe* that homosexuality is wrong.”

    When they use those words, they represent the very definition of ignorance.

  • Spuddie

    Actually playing on a Saturday or Sunday would constitute open rebellion against God a lot more closely than being gay. If one is to be using the same source for the opinion. That would entail breaking an actual commandment.

    Jesus railed against people who blindly followed religious law without concern for humanity or justice. Many of his followers chose to ignore such advice.

    • baal

      I’m sure the whole ‘keep holy the sabbath’ is optional. I’m sure the 62 cites noted on this page agree.

      • Spuddie

        4th Commandment says otherwise.
        “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy”

        Actual text beats dicta any day of the week.

        A commandment is of greater authority than a minor section of Leviticus detailing things considered “the practice of foreigners”.

        • baal

          (the 62 cites in dicta support your contention spuddie) -baal

          • Spuddie

            My sarcasm filter is as faulty as the webfilter in my office.

            I could not read the site. My bad. =)

  • Matt D

    I don’t care that I’m rebelling against their idea of “god”, so I don’t see his point. Does he think saying those words makes him a better christian, or is he looking to identify with bigots to keep his congregation fearful?

    • rwlawoffice

      He was answering a question by the moderator that asked him what he thought of Collins saying both that he is gay and a devout Christian.

  • joe

    did any of you read the SI article? jason collins mentioned his religious/spiritual background. while he didn’t straight out say he was a christian, he did say he tries to follow jesus’ teachings. to me this seems like a fair point of discussion based off of that.

  • Barry

    ” If you’re openly living that type of lifestyle, the Bible says you know them by their fruits, it says that’s a sin.”

    Yes, always better to keep it hidden. ;-)

  • Phemmert

    What is with these people who feel like they are the judge, and speaking on behalf of their god? The entire conversation is rendered moot when these idiots start casting stones as though they are entitled to judge their fellow human beings on so-called standards dictated by a bronze-age document that supposedly guides their religion. At the very least, they are foolish if they they think that anyone with half a brain can’t see through the fallacy.

  • questioner

    It is funny to me that it would seem everyone commenting here believes that Broussard is in the wrong. Regardless of whether or not you agree with him, if you believe that someone is ‘allowed’ to be homosexual, then you must believe that Broussard is ‘allowed’ to say anything that he chooses.

  • Steven Wright

    The announcement from Jason Collins was treated as news. Broussard was attending to news, indicated his own personal beliefs, and did it all without being offensive.
    Sorry you’re upset about it, but Broussard did nothing wrong. You’re the one who is wrong, Mr. Mehta. Clearly, you don’t understand or accept the Bible as an authority, and as a result, can’t understand that there are sinful practices that will not be accepted by God. No amount of denial will change the truth: homosexuality is sinful because God has declared it to be sinful. He’s God; you’re not.

  • Mike

    Hemant, you’re a math teach what do you know about scripture? This man spoke the truth. Your article was not academic at all. It didn’t prove anything except show me you can speak against someone. Read the bible bro!

  • Elliot

    I find it interesting that anytime someone says they believe what the bible says that the left calls them a fool or a bigot. Broussard didn’t say hateful things all he said was, this is what I believe on this issue. And that was in response to a question that he was asked.

    If you claim to be tolerant than you must tolerate others. Calling people fools or bigots or hatemongers for expressing their (un-hateful) beliefs is not tolerant.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X