Ketch's 10 Thoughts From The Weekend (The weekend that left a mark)

[texasguy2310]

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by texasguy2310:
Ketch:

No honest observer of the draft could possibly say ESPN's coverage of Michael Sam was not gratuitous, at best, and exploitative, at worst.

From Sports Illustrated's Media reporter Richard Deitsch[/URL]



ESPN's coverage of Michael Sam's selection was the network at its best. Seth Markman, the network's senior coordinating producer for the NFL, said the discussion over how to handle the possibility of a Sam selection had occurred for months, and when the core draft production arrived in New York City last week, they spent the final 45 minutes of their production meeting Friday morning discussing Sam alone.

What happened at the crucial moment on Saturday night? Following Sam's seventh-round selection by St. Louis and a 10-minute examination of how Sam would fit in with the Rams both as a football player and a media curiosity, ESPN host Trey Wingo informed viewers that they were about to see footage of the moment Sam learned he had been drafted. (As you'll learn in my MMQB piece on Monday, neither Markman nor any of the on-air ESPN staffers had seen the tape of Sam learning of his selection prior to it airing for the audience.)

Wingo began to talk over the footage but abruptly pulled out and let the natural sound of Sam's weeping take over. The Missouri defensive lineman held the phone close to his ear as he spoke with Rams coach Jeff Fisher. Viewers saw Sam's boyfriend, Vito Cammisano, consoling him and then wiping his own tears. They heard Sam say "Yes, sir" twice and then "thank you." That was followed by Sam kissing his boyfriend and both men embracing. Then another kiss, more hugs and the raw footage running out. It was unlike anything viewers had ever seen at an NFL draft and remarkable, honest television.

Wingo then led the audience to analyst Bill Polian, the former Bills and Colts general manager who hit on the perfect tone. "One of the great parts of being a GM and head coach in this league is making that call," Polian said. "You get the player on the phone and you say here I am and I represent this team and we are about to draft you. You can hear the overwhelming joy and screams and tears because for the families and players their life-long dream has come true...It makes you feel so good to be part of it."

The conversation continued with new images of Sam, breathing heavy, and giving his boyfriend another kiss. Later, Sam and his boyfriend smashed cake into each other's faces and kissed again. "This is a draft unlike any other from what we just experienced," Wingo said. "Maybe one of the more relevant picks we have had in recent history -- Michael Sam crossing that barrier, becoming the first openly gay man drafted in the NFL."

ESPN went 17 minutes on the Sam selection, and it led up to the draft's final selection. Sensational work.

And?

Are you saying he's an honest observer of the draft? I heard Tim Cowlishaw say he thought the whole thing was gratuitous on Monday afternoon on his ESPN radio show in Dallas. So, what do we do with those conflicting opinions?

Again, ESPN began discussing Michael Sam in the first round of the draft. They continued to discuss him throughout the draft and they turned a near undrafted player into a draft story. Is it noteworthy that he's the first openly gay player to be drafted in major American sports? Yes. Was the coverage gratuitous and borderline exploitative? Yes. The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can comment on the story without providing it more media attention than the actual 1st overall pick in the draft.

The scene was not touching as much as it was awkward, contrived, and shoved down the viewers' throats for reactions and, more importantly, ratings. While this might have been exactly what someone wanted to see on another network, ESPN should understand its audience well enough to know the vast majority are not tuning into the NFL Draft to have their morals dictated to them on this particular subject matter. ESPN's coverage of Michael Sam was not without agenda.....Which is fine, but calling a spade a spade shouldn't be off limits here.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by texasguy2310:
And?

Are you saying he's an honest observer of the draft? I heard Tim Cowlishaw say he thought the whole thing was gratuitous on Monday afternoon on his ESPN radio show in Dallas. So, what do we do with those conflicting opinions?

Again, ESPN began discussing Michael Sam in the first round of the draft. They continued to discuss him throughout the draft and they turned a near undrafted player into a draft story. Is it noteworthy that he's the first openly gay player to be drafted in major American sports? Yes. Was the coverage gratuitous and borderline exploitative? Yes. The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can comment on the story without providing it more media attention than the actual 1st overall pick in the draft.

The scene was not touching as much as it was awkward, contrived, and shoved down the viewers' throats for reactions and, more importantly, ratings. While this might have been exactly what someone wanted to see on another network, ESPN should understand its audience well enough to know the vast majority are not tuning into the NFL Draft to have their morals dictated to them on this particular subject matter. ESPN's coverage of Michael Sam was not without agenda.....Which is fine, but calling a spade a spade shouldn't be off limits here.

a. Are you saying he's a dishonest observer? I'm a frequent reader of his work and I would oppose such a statement.

b. People can have various opinions, but you specifically stated that no honest observer could defend ESPN's coverage. I showed you an honest observer who did exactly that, Period.

c. Michael Sam was barely mentioned in the first two days of the draft, other than to remind he would be a story the next day. That's a fallacy.

d. I think you are totally and 100% complete off with all of your charges.

It's America. We are allowed to disagree.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by SMS777:

1. There are no words from Jesus on lots of issues, but those issues are just as valid and just as accepted, because Scripture speaks to them elsewhere.

2. Correct. No one is disputing that, and thankfully throughout history the church (as a whole) and individual Christians have taken this teaching and run with it, to the betterment of this world.

3. No one (that I know of) is claiming it is. But if it's said once that it is wrong, then guess what, it's wrong.

1. Considering it is a major discussion point in our history today, sure would have been nice if Jesus had a few words on the subject, just for full clarification. There's not complete agreement on how to interpret what IS in the bible. Hell, there's not even agreement that the Bible is truly referring to homosexuality in the way that it exists today.

It's a nuanced conversation to say the least.

2. Would like to see those ideals emphasized a little more.

3. Again, lot of interpretations.

 

[McGuapo]

Ironic all the butthurt in this thread from the straights.

 

[SkullSplitter]

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by SkullSplitter:

4.) Just give Dinklage the Emmy right now. Seriously, folks: it's over.

Woody and Aaron Paul will be stiff competition.

True, but they will still lose.

 

[texasguy2310]

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by texasguy2310:
And?

Are you saying he's an honest observer of the draft? I heard Tim Cowlishaw say he thought the whole thing was gratuitous on Monday afternoon on his ESPN radio show in Dallas. So, what do we do with those conflicting opinions?

Again, ESPN began discussing Michael Sam in the first round of the draft. They continued to discuss him throughout the draft and they turned a near undrafted player into a draft story. Is it noteworthy that he's the first openly gay player to be drafted in major American sports? Yes. Was the coverage gratuitous and borderline exploitative? Yes. The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can comment on the story without providing it more media attention than the actual 1st overall pick in the draft.

The scene was not touching as much as it was awkward, contrived, and shoved down the viewers' throats for reactions and, more importantly, ratings. While this might have been exactly what someone wanted to see on another network, ESPN should understand its audience well enough to know the vast majority are not tuning into the NFL Draft to have their morals dictated to them on this particular subject matter. ESPN's coverage of Michael Sam was not without agenda.....Which is fine, but calling a spade a spade shouldn't be off limits here.

a. Are you saying he's a dishonest observer? I'm a frequent reader of his work and I would oppose such a statement.

b. People can have various opinions, but you specifically stated that no honest observer could defend ESPN's coverage. I showed you an honest observer who did exactly that, Period.

c. Michael Sam was barely mentioned in the first two days of the draft, other than to remind he would be a story the next day. That's a fallacy.

d. I think you are totally and 100% complete off with all of your charges.

It's America. We are allowed to disagree.

A.) I don't know if he's an honest or dishonest observer. I don't know who he is. His opinion means nothing to me as I'm not addressing him or anything he had to say. I'm talking to you. So, right now, the only opinion that matters to me is yours. On the flip side, Tim Cowlishaw's opinion shouldn't matter to you in our discussion, since he's not a part of our discussion.

B.) People can certainly have varying opinions on a variety of topics. That doesn't mean they're all equal in merit or without bias.

C.) Agree to disagree on this one. He had little segments on him and his situation from the first round on. Further, there was an inordinate amount of discussion about him going into the draft and there's been an inordinate amount of discussion about him after. All of that discussion, of course, is driven 100% by his sexuality.....Which, of course, is the point of any of this discussion. The simple discussion of his situation is not necessarily gratuitous or exploitative. Having him covered as much or more than any player in the draft not named Manziel and including the living room scene for an almost undrafted player is, in my opinion, certainly gratuitous and possibly exploitative. Have you forgotten the backlash Tim Tebow got for basically being the opposite of Sam and receiving this kind of coverage?

D.) That's fine. I think you're 100% off on your take of the Sam coverage.

This is America. We can certainly disagree. However, all too often, in America, those with the biggest microphones dictate to what degree we're allowed to disagree before the side opposite the microphone's agenda is labeled a racist, a bigot, a homophobe, a sexist, etc. It's happened in this thread already from those coming at this from a religious point of view (which I am not).

 

[texasguy2310]

Also, while we're discussing other peoples' reactions to "The Kiss".....


ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith argued on Monday that suspending
and fining NFL players over their personal opinions is a "very, very
dangerous" thing. Miami Dolphins player Don Jones was fined, suspended and ordered to undergo "educational training"
after he tweeted "OMG" and "Horrible" in reaction to Michael Sam
kissing a man after being drafted by the St. Louis Rams over the
weekend.


(ESPN)

"I think it's a very, very dangerous thing when people see something
and they have a problem with what they're seeing and they express
themselves, and ultimately they're fined," Smith said.


While Smith admitted he hadn't seen the full footage of the kiss, he
also added that if the kissing happened as it's been described to him he
would have told them the same thing he would say to a heterosexual
couple: "Get a room." However, he made it clear that the act of a man
kissing another man does not bother him personally.


And even though Smith considers himself an "advocate for civil rights
for the gay community," he said people should "have the freedom to not
want to be associated with that or not want that in their face."


"I don't have a problem with it, but I do respect those that do," he added.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by texasguy2310:

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by texasguy2310:
And?

Are you saying he's an honest observer of the draft? I heard Tim Cowlishaw say he thought the whole thing was gratuitous on Monday afternoon on his ESPN radio show in Dallas. So, what do we do with those conflicting opinions?

Again, ESPN began discussing Michael Sam in the first round of the draft. They continued to discuss him throughout the draft and they turned a near undrafted player into a draft story. Is it noteworthy that he's the first openly gay player to be drafted in major American sports? Yes. Was the coverage gratuitous and borderline exploitative? Yes. The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can comment on the story without providing it more media attention than the actual 1st overall pick in the draft.

The scene was not touching as much as it was awkward, contrived, and shoved down the viewers' throats for reactions and, more importantly, ratings. While this might have been exactly what someone wanted to see on another network, ESPN should understand its audience well enough to know the vast majority are not tuning into the NFL Draft to have their morals dictated to them on this particular subject matter. ESPN's coverage of Michael Sam was not without agenda.....Which is fine, but calling a spade a spade shouldn't be off limits here.

a. Are you saying he's a dishonest observer? I'm a frequent reader of his work and I would oppose such a statement.

b. People can have various opinions, but you specifically stated that no honest observer could defend ESPN's coverage. I showed you an honest observer who did exactly that, Period.

c. Michael Sam was barely mentioned in the first two days of the draft, other than to remind he would be a story the next day. That's a fallacy.

d. I think you are totally and 100% complete off with all of your charges.

It's America. We are allowed to disagree.

A.) I don't know if he's an honest or dishonest observer. I don't know who he is. His opinion means nothing to me as I'm not addressing him or anything he had to say. I'm talking to you. So, right now, the only opinion that matters to me is yours. On the flip side, Tim Cowlishaw's opinion shouldn't matter to you in our discussion, since he's not a part of our discussion.

B.) People can certainly have varying opinions on a variety of topics. That doesn't mean they're all equal in merit or without bias.

C.) Agree to disagree on this one. He had little segments on him and his situation from the first round on. Further, there was an inordinate amount of discussion about him going into the draft and there's been an inordinate amount of discussion about him after. All of that discussion, of course, is driven 100% by his sexuality.....Which, of course, is the point of any of this discussion. The simple discussion of his situation is not necessarily gratuitous or exploitative. Having him covered as much or more than any player in the draft not named Manziel and including the living room scene for an almost undrafted player is, in my opinion, certainly gratuitous and possibly exploitative. Have you forgotten the backlash Tim Tebow got for basically being the opposite of Sam and receiving this kind of coverage?

D.) That's fine. I think you're 100% off on your take of the Sam coverage.

This is America. We can certainly disagree. However, all too often, in America, those with the biggest microphones dictate to what degree we're allowed to disagree before the side opposite the microphone's agenda is labeled a racist, a bigot, a homophobe, a sexist, etc. It's happened in this thread already from those coming at this from a religious point of view (which I am not).

a. You should have stopped at, "I don't know." His opinion might mean nothing to you, but he is the answer to the quiz you apparently believed had few, if any, answers. Yes, he's an honest voice, as he basically serves as a media watch dog.

b. We completely agree, ironically.

c. How much time do you think ESPN spent on Sam on the first round? I have it on DVR and am willing to make a wager on it.

d. I expected nothing less.

Just as an FYI, I haven't viewed you with a label, just disagreement. I hope the situation is the same on your end. I enjoy the discussion because I think discussion over nuanced matters is a good thing.

 

[Baguette]

Originally posted by texasguy2310:
Ketch:

No honest observer of the draft could possibly say ESPN's coverage of Michael Sam was not gratuitous, at best, and exploitative, at worst. How many other borderline undrafted players were being covered like that? How many times was the infamous kiss aired and discussed? Don't put lipstick on a pig and tell me it's Elle McPherson. People are trying way too hard to prove their tolerance. Having honest dialogue about a subject is not hate speech.

The guy is gay. Good for him. I wish the "tolerant" folks could get over it. Again, it's the "tolerant" that are falling all over themselves to support or, probably more accurately, promote his sexuality. I would wager most people wouldn't care outside of the fact we're repeatedly told we must care. Just my $0.02 full of bigotry, I suppose.

You 'hit the nail on the head!"

 

[texasguy2310]

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by texasguy2310:

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by texasguy2310:
And?

Are you saying he's an honest observer of the draft? I heard Tim Cowlishaw say he thought the whole thing was gratuitous on Monday afternoon on his ESPN radio show in Dallas. So, what do we do with those conflicting opinions?

Again, ESPN began discussing Michael Sam in the first round of the draft. They continued to discuss him throughout the draft and they turned a near undrafted player into a draft story. Is it noteworthy that he's the first openly gay player to be drafted in major American sports? Yes. Was the coverage gratuitous and borderline exploitative? Yes. The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can comment on the story without providing it more media attention than the actual 1st overall pick in the draft.

The scene was not touching as much as it was awkward, contrived, and shoved down the viewers' throats for reactions and, more importantly, ratings. While this might have been exactly what someone wanted to see on another network, ESPN should understand its audience well enough to know the vast majority are not tuning into the NFL Draft to have their morals dictated to them on this particular subject matter. ESPN's coverage of Michael Sam was not without agenda.....Which is fine, but calling a spade a spade shouldn't be off limits here.

a. Are you saying he's a dishonest observer? I'm a frequent reader of his work and I would oppose such a statement.

b. People can have various opinions, but you specifically stated that no honest observer could defend ESPN's coverage. I showed you an honest observer who did exactly that, Period.

c. Michael Sam was barely mentioned in the first two days of the draft, other than to remind he would be a story the next day. That's a fallacy.

d. I think you are totally and 100% complete off with all of your charges.

It's America. We are allowed to disagree.

A.) I don't know if he's an honest or dishonest observer. I don't know who he is. His opinion means nothing to me as I'm not addressing him or anything he had to say. I'm talking to you. So, right now, the only opinion that matters to me is yours. On the flip side, Tim Cowlishaw's opinion shouldn't matter to you in our discussion, since he's not a part of our discussion.

B.) People can certainly have varying opinions on a variety of topics. That doesn't mean they're all equal in merit or without bias.

C.) Agree to disagree on this one. He had little segments on him and his situation from the first round on. Further, there was an inordinate amount of discussion about him going into the draft and there's been an inordinate amount of discussion about him after. All of that discussion, of course, is driven 100% by his sexuality.....Which, of course, is the point of any of this discussion. The simple discussion of his situation is not necessarily gratuitous or exploitative. Having him covered as much or more than any player in the draft not named Manziel and including the living room scene for an almost undrafted player is, in my opinion, certainly gratuitous and possibly exploitative. Have you forgotten the backlash Tim Tebow got for basically being the opposite of Sam and receiving this kind of coverage?

D.) That's fine. I think you're 100% off on your take of the Sam coverage.

This is America. We can certainly disagree. However, all too often, in America, those with the biggest microphones dictate to what degree we're allowed to disagree before the side opposite the microphone's agenda is labeled a racist, a bigot, a homophobe, a sexist, etc. It's happened in this thread already from those coming at this from a religious point of view (which I am not).

a. You should have stopped at, "I don't know." His opinion might mean nothing to you, but he is the answer to the quiz you apparently believed had few, if any, answers. Yes, he's an honest voice, as he basically serves as a media watch dog.

b. We completely agree, ironically.

c. How much time do you think ESPN spent on Sam on the first round? I have it on DVR and am willing to make a wager on it.

d. I expected nothing less.

Just as an FYI, I haven't viewed you with a label, just disagreement. I hope the situation is the same on your end. I enjoy the discussion because I think discussion over nuanced matters is a good thing.

A.) Don't be condescending. Again, as for discussion on this guy and his opinions, I have no idea where he's coming from or what his deal is. Rather than spending time addressing him, I'm addressing you. Same as you not addressing Cowlishaw or Steven A. Smith. We're talking not about those individuals and their opinions. We're talking about our opinions on the subject matter. If you're hung up on the fact that I said NO HONEST VIEWER, then let's stop being sidetracked and rephrase. How about ALMOST no honest viewer or something to that effect.....Let's not swerve into the ditches of this conversation on account of semantics and technicalities. We're discussing a larger matter here.

C.) I don't know. What I can tell you is that it was enough (when paired with the pre-draft coverage) to make several of us take notice. Is 5 total minutes the threshold that makes that happen? Is it 10? I don't know. I do know that I believe an almost undrafted player received an inordinate amount of attention that ultimately led to gratuitous and possibly exploitative coverage. Would you agree he received as much, if not more, coverage in this draft than did any other single player not named Manziel?

As for your last paragraph:

 

[borna'horn]

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by SpaceCityWrangler:

Back to Savage, a "JAG with non-JAG physical tools." So you're saying he's a JAG with elite or great physical tools? I agree on the physical tools. Arguably the best arm in the draft. I like kids that have been humbled. I think you're going to be surprised by him.

I'm saying he's a JAG and if he were anywhere in the conversation of being the future of my team at quarterback, I'd lower my expectations of the future of the team.

In a draft that was full of meh quarterback options IMO, he was a fourth round option for a reason. They waited too long.

I heard Chris Simms before the draft declare on the radio that Savage was the 1st QB he would pick. A bit of irony there. Like attracts like.

 

[SMS777]

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by SMS777:

1. There are no words from Jesus on lots of issues, but those issues are just as valid and just as accepted, because Scripture speaks to them elsewhere.

2. Correct. No one is disputing that, and thankfully throughout history the church (as a whole) and individual Christians have taken this teaching and run with it, to the betterment of this world.

3. No one (that I know of) is claiming it is. But if it's said once that it is wrong, then guess what, it's wrong.

1. Considering it is a major discussion point in our history today, sure would have been nice if Jesus had a few words on the subject, just for full clarification. There's not complete agreement on how to interpret what IS in the bible. Hell, there's not even agreement that the Bible is truly referring to homosexuality in the way that it exists today.

It's a nuanced conversation to say the least.

2. Would like to see those ideals emphasized a little more.

3. Again, lot of interpretations.

It's a "nuanced conversation" to those who don't like what the Bible point blank says on the issue. There were no differing interpretations until recent decades. Did these new "interpretations" come out of some new revelation of the Greek or Hebrew texts? No, not at all. Did they come from highly respected biblical scholars who brought new relevant insights to the table? No, not at all. The new "interpretations" come solely from those who have trouble with the text, and would prefer for it to say something other than what it says.

 

[richinaustin]

Originally posted by SMS777:

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by SMS777:

1. There are no words from Jesus on lots of issues, but those issues are just as valid and just as accepted, because Scripture speaks to them elsewhere.

2. Correct. No one is disputing that, and thankfully throughout history the church (as a whole) and individual Christians have taken this teaching and run with it, to the betterment of this world.

3. No one (that I know of) is claiming it is. But if it's said once that it is wrong, then guess what, it's wrong.

1. Considering it is a major discussion point in our history today, sure would have been nice if Jesus had a few words on the subject, just for full clarification. There's not complete agreement on how to interpret what IS in the bible. Hell, there's not even agreement that the Bible is truly referring to homosexuality in the way that it exists today.

It's a nuanced conversation to say the least.

2. Would like to see those ideals emphasized a little more.

3. Again, lot of interpretations.

It's a "nuanced conversation" to those who don't like what the Bible point blank says on the issue. There were no differing interpretations until recent decades. Did these new "interpretations" come out of some new revelation of the Greek or Hebrew texts? No, not at all. Did they come from highly respected biblical scholars who brought new relevant insights to the table? No, not at all. The new "interpretations" come solely from those who have trouble with the text, and would prefer for it to say something other than what it says.

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by SMS777:

1. There are no words from Jesus on lots of issues, but those issues are just as valid and just as accepted, because Scripture speaks to them elsewhere.

2. Correct. No one is disputing that, and thankfully throughout history the church (as a whole) and individual Christians have taken this teaching and run with it, to the betterment of this world.

3. No one (that I know of) is claiming it is. But if it's said once that it is wrong, then guess what, it's wrong.

1. Considering it is a major discussion point in our history today, sure would have been nice if Jesus had a few words on the subject, just for full clarification. There's not complete agreement on how to interpret what IS in the bible. Hell, there's not even agreement that the Bible is truly referring to homosexuality in the way that it exists today.

Well lets see whats in the Bible:

Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
[/I]
Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
[/I]
Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."[/I]

It's a nuanced conversation to say the least.

Definitely a bit gray.

2. Would like to see those ideals emphasized a little more.

3. Again, lot of interpretations.

See above.


Maybe it would just be better to stick to Sports as opposed to these threads. Discussions such as these have ruined many a friendship.

This post was edited on 5/13 3:17 PM by richinaustin

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by borna'horn:

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by SpaceCityWrangler:

Back to Savage, a "JAG with non-JAG physical tools." So you're saying he's a JAG with elite or great physical tools? I agree on the physical tools. Arguably the best arm in the draft. I like kids that have been humbled. I think you're going to be surprised by him.

I'm saying he's a JAG and if he were anywhere in the conversation of being the future of my team at quarterback, I'd lower my expectations of the future of the team.

In a draft that was full of meh quarterback options IMO, he was a fourth round option for a reason. They waited too long.

I heard Chris Simms before the draft declare on the radio that Savage was the 1st QB he would pick. A bit of irony there. Like attracts like.

That's cold.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by SMS777:
It's a "nuanced conversation" to those who don't like what the Bible point blank says on the issue. There were no differing interpretations until recent decades. Did these new "interpretations" come out of some new revelation of the Greek or Hebrew texts? No, not at all. Did they come from highly respected biblical scholars who brought new relevant insights to the table? No, not at all. The new "interpretations" come solely from those who have trouble with the text, and would prefer for it to say something other than what it says.

Yes, the questions about the interpretations about the passes we're talking about come from a number of different places, including bible scholars and not just gay people looking for a gay pass.

If there's not an acknowledgement of some nuance, then we're probably wasting our time discussing it. I'm not sure you that you really want to listen.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by richinaustin:

1. Considering it is a major discussion point in our history today, sure would have been nice if Jesus had a few words on the subject, just for full clarification. There's not complete agreement on how to interpret what IS in the bible. Hell, there's not even agreement that the Bible is truly referring to homosexuality in the way that it exists today.

Well lets see whats in the Bible:

Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
[/I]
Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
[/I]
Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."[/I]

It's a nuanced conversation to say the least.

Definitely a bit gray.

2. Would like to see those ideals emphasized a little more.

3. Again, lot of interpretations.

See above.


Maybe it would just be better to stick to Sports as opposed to these threads. Discussions such as these have ruined many a friendship.

there are literally hundreds of these discussions all over the Internet, but I'll reference this article from the liberal rag website that is the Huffington Post because it does come from an actual respected Bible scholar.

There are two verses in the book of Leviticus that refer to homosexual behavior. The first reads, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (18:22). While the second goes even further: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them" (20:13). Again, there is considerable agreement that both of these passages are portions ofwhat is commonly called the holiness code, a set of rules and regulations spanning chapters 17-26 that are intended to set Israel apart from the Egyptians they fled and the Canaanites they were now living among. (There is also overwhelming agreement, thankfully, that however one feels about homosexuality, the death penalty is an extreme and unwarranted response!)

There is considerable debate, however, about three matters. 1) Do these passages refer to consensual homosexual practice (contingent because they derive from particular challenges and situations the Israelites faced at that time (the importance of procreation, for instance, given that Israel was a nomadic people dependent on increasing its population for survival), or do they intend to establish universal sexual norms? And 3) even if these regulations were normative for Israelites, do they continue to be for Christians given how many other Levitical codes are contradicted later in the New Testament or have historically been ignored by Christians.

*********

I'd say that's fairly nuanced.




This post was edited on 5/13 4:06 PM by Ketchum

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by texasguy2310:
A.) Don't be condescending. Again, as for discussion on this guy and his opinions, I have no idea where he's coming from or what his deal is. Rather than spending time addressing him, I'm addressing you. Same as you not addressing Cowlishaw or Steven A. Smith. We're talking not about those individuals and their opinions. We're talking about our opinions on the subject matter. If you're hung up on the fact that I said NO HONEST VIEWER, then let's stop being sidetracked and rephrase. How about ALMOST no honest viewer or something to that effect.....Let's not swerve into the ditches of this conversation on account of semantics and technicalities. We're discussing a larger matter here.

C.) I don't know. What I can tell you is that it was enough (when paired with the pre-draft coverage) to make several of us take notice. Is 5 total minutes the threshold that makes that happen? Is it 10? I don't know. I do know that I believe an almost undrafted player received an inordinate amount of attention that ultimately led to gratuitous and possibly exploitative coverage. Would you agree he received as much, if not more, coverage in this draft than did any other single player not named Manziel?

As for your last paragraph:

a. Don't blame me for showing how silly your original statement was over there not being anyone impartial that would stand by ESPN's coverage. You made a statement and I showed an article from a respected member of the media from most circles and you pretty much dismissed his opinion because you were uneducated about his standing in this profession and disagreed with him. That kind of lends itself to being condescended at least a little.

You might want to start reading Richard Deitsch's stuff before you dismiss his work out of a lack of knowledge.

c. Feels like you're back-tracking from your original statements about how they flooded the airwaves. Why don't you tell me the threshold and tell me if they eclipsed it?

Yes, I would agree he received as much drat coverage as anyone that wasn't one of the three first round quarterbacks or Clowney. Again, there are historical reasons for that and I think most understand that.

 

[Fanofhorns]

If any of you are interested in hearing the opinion of someone with credibility and not the opinion of someone who just likes to push a liberal agenda, download the ticket sportsday app and listen to the Sam segment from yesterday. Very interesting stuff.
Posted from wireless.rivals.com[/URL]

 

[Fanofhorns]

Sorry, the segment I was talking about was done on BAD radio
Posted from wireless.rivals.com[/URL]

 

[SMS777]

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by SMS777:
It's a "nuanced conversation" to those who don't like what the Bible point blank says on the issue. There were no differing interpretations until recent decades. Did these new "interpretations" come out of some new revelation of the Greek or Hebrew texts? No, not at all. Did they come from highly respected biblical scholars who brought new relevant insights to the table? No, not at all. The new "interpretations" come solely from those who have trouble with the text, and would prefer for it to say something other than what it says.

Yes, the questions about the interpretations about the passes we're talking about come from a number of different places, including bible scholars and not just gay people looking for a gay pass.

If there's not an acknowledgement of some nuance, then we're probably wasting our time discussing it. I'm not sure you that you really want to listen.

Listening, just disagreeing. Maybe it's you that doesn't really want to listen, since you disagree with me? C'mon Ketch, you're better than that!

David Lose is not a respected bible scholar, except maybe to those on the far left wing of the church in America. He doesn't believe in the actual biblical account of Adam & Eve, doesn't believe the biblical account of the Flood, the virgin birth, etc. etc. He brings no real insights to the Hebrew & Greeks texts (actual insights - not just generalized questions and ponderings about the text).

In fact, Lose is one of many that speak to my point of modern "popular culture" scholars that read into the text the current thinking of their culture, rather than simply reading out what is in the text, and knowing these original words and how they were used in both the bible and extra-biblical literature.

And interestingly, they are ALL in the last 50 years. Century after century after century of genuinely great bible scholars, and not one of them to agree with the position of today's pseudo-scholars. That's worth pondering. Is it because they are better scholars than those of the past? Surely no one believes that.



This post was edited on 5/13 5:21 PM by SMS777

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by SMS777:

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by SMS777:
It's a "nuanced conversation" to those who don't like what the Bible point blank says on the issue. There were no differing interpretations until recent decades. Did these new "interpretations" come out of some new revelation of the Greek or Hebrew texts? No, not at all. Did they come from highly respected biblical scholars who brought new relevant insights to the table? No, not at all. The new "interpretations" come solely from those who have trouble with the text, and would prefer for it to say something other than what it says.

Yes, the questions about the interpretations about the passes we're talking about come from a number of different places, including bible scholars and not just gay people looking for a gay pass.

If there's not an acknowledgement of some nuance, then we're probably wasting our time discussing it. I'm not sure you that you really want to listen.

Listening, just disagreeing. Maybe it's you that doesn't really want to listen, since you disagree with me? C'mon Ketch, you're better than that!

I believe this is what they call an impasse.

 

[richinaustin]

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by SMS777:

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by SMS777:
It's a "nuanced conversation" to those who don't like what the Bible point blank says on the issue. There were no differing interpretations until recent decades. Did these new "interpretations" come out of some new revelation of the Greek or Hebrew texts? No, not at all. Did they come from highly respected biblical scholars who brought new relevant insights to the table? No, not at all. The new "interpretations" come solely from those who have trouble with the text, and would prefer for it to say something other than what it says.

Yes, the questions about the interpretations about the passes we're talking about come from a number of different places, including bible scholars and not just gay people looking for a gay pass.

If there's not an acknowledgement of some nuance, then we're probably wasting our time discussing it. I'm not sure you that you really want to listen.

Listening, just disagreeing. Maybe it's you that doesn't really want to listen, since you disagree with me? C'mon Ketch, you're better than that!

I believe this is what they call an impasse.

Amazing what you draw a line in the sand on.

 

[Kronic22]

Are you guys really quoting a poorly written work of fiction to back up your views?

The bible is no more the word of god than this post is.

Personally, I think all forms of PDA are unacceptable. I don't want to see any one mugging down (unless it two hot lesbians).

I can't imagine a bigger waste of time than watching the NFL draft. It's about 4 hours worth of content (1 min / pick) stretched into three days.

 

[richinaustin]

This dropped off the radar screen quickly. SB Bump.