1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Finally someone at ESPN with a rational take on the Amechie non-story

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by zagoshe, Feb 15, 2007.

  1. zagoshe

    zagoshe Well-Known Member


    I'm sure this puts Chris's career at the always politically correct, all the time ESPN in jeopardy but it was refreshing to read someone who had the courage to write a column without trying to turn this whole thing into a "homophobic witch hunt" the shameless way a blow-hard company man like Dan Lebatard has done.

    I don't care if you agree with Broussard or not, the most important thing he wrote is that basically, tolerance is a two-way street - it means I don't have to agree with your views, you don't have to agree with mine, but that doesn't make you any more enlightened than me or vice versa -- and that is a fact that the politically correct among us can't seem to grasp.
  2. Good for him.
  3. keef spoon

    keef spoon Member

  4. I wouldn't agree that this is a non-story, but I thought Broussard did a fairly good job on this piece.
  5. Lugnuts

    Lugnuts Well-Known Member

    I highly doubt his "career is in jeopardy" over this. ::) Gimme a break.

    "Tolerance is a two-way street." What happens when one side is just plain wrong? Are we supposed to "two-way" tolerate that?

    Example: Should the world have been tolerant of the Nazis? What about white slave owners before the Civil War?

    But I don't feel intolerant of his views, I just feel sorry for him that he's ignorant.
  6. It is very simple. Chris Broussard can believe whatever he wants about gay people. He can even gussy it up with as much Scripture as he wants. But what he can't do, or ought not to be able to do, is write his beliefs into the civil law in such a way as to deny the equal protection of those laws to gay people. That's not opinion. That's action. And it is contrary to the principles of the secular political order of this country.
    That column's a ragbag of different arguments. His personal principles extend as far as his personal conscience does. Period. Homosexuality is not a "belief system." Christianity is a "belief system." Gay people are not gay because they believe themselves to be. They're gay because it's part of what they are. So, unfortunately for Broussard's tolerance argument, this is not a clash of "belief systems." It's a clash between his belief system and someone else's identity, so that "tolerance" argument, based as it is on the notion of some sort of conflict of ideas and beliefs is, a priori, foolish.
    And this passage:

    Since Amaechi came out, I've read lots of columns about being "progressive." The implication -- or outright assertion -- is that anyone who believes homosexuality is wrong is not progressive or enlightened.
    That's where this thing becomes problematic, because those who hold to that view are saying I must change my entire belief system/religion because of your belief system. Where's the diversity in that? Those folks don't want diversity. They want everyone to agree with their "enlightened" opinion."

    ..is just paranoid nitwittery.
  7. Double Down

    Double Down Well-Known Member

    I would agree with this, but to an extent. It's perfectly fine if you think homosexuality is a sin. I understand why people might feel that way, even if I don't. We don't have to agree and I will respect that we simply have a difference of opinion on the subject.

    Where we differ is when people say, "I'm just being civil, don't take it personally" and then try to deny the basic rights to gay people THEY already have as straight people. Broussard has no problem hugging, high-fiving and hooping his homboy LZ Granderson, but he very clearly couldn't bring himself to say in this article he'd have no problem if Granderson got married, even though that would not affect Broussard and his born-again views in any way.

    This blog post was, I guess, well thought-out (though the fact that he thinks anyone would go into a PC-inspired rage over his comments is rather strange), but it's still not completely honest. It's not dishonest, but he's withholding information that will weaken his argument of tolerance. It's not about "I'm gay, and you have to love gays or you're a bigot and wrong." It's about respecting other people's lifestyle choices even when you don't agree and not, as a society, denying 10 percent of the population certain rights simply because the majority thinks what you do in your bedroom is gross. 99 percent of gay people just want what Broussard, even as a black man, already has: The opportunity to get married, serve in the military, adopt kids, have the person they love be covered by the health insurance offered by their employer, have the person they love by their side in the hospital if they get sick, have the opportunity to pass on their assets to the person they love when they die.

    You don't have to like someone or agree with someone or even understand someone to give them those things, things that they should already be guaranteed as American citizens. You just have to have some compassion as a human being.

    And that takes a lot more courage and tolerance than agreeing to pass the basketball to them in a pick-up game.
  8. slappy4428

    slappy4428 Active Member

  9. Double Down

    Double Down Well-Known Member

    Shoot. Fenian beat me to it, and said it much better than I could.
  10. The ancient mystic runes of the north country, lad.
  11. fishwrapper

    fishwrapper Active Member

    Who is Amechie? I'm lost.
  12. Frank_Ridgeway

    Frank_Ridgeway Well-Known Member

    I would be much more uncomfortable with Broussard's man-hugs than I would be sharing a locker room with a gay man. My dislike of man-hugs has nothing to do with homophobia and everything to do with cultural differences and the way I was brought up: Uptight, WASPy straight men don't hug other men! I am not even that fond of hugging women who are not romantic interests, friends or family. There used to be a female acquaintance who would blip across my radar periodically: Oh cripes, here she comes from across the room to handle me again.

    Now I don't know Broussard, but if he were to approach me with a man-hug, there are several ways I could respond:

    1.) I could recoil and yell at him, "Don't touch me, queer man."

    2.) I could embrace him to that degree of tightness and duration and zeal that would make him uncomfortable, figuring at least he would never, ever, ever try to hug me ever, ever again. Ever.

    3.) Or I could give him his one-second man-hug, understanding that Broussard and I may have grown up differently, so don't make a big deal out of it and make him self-conscious or uncomfortable just because I am not comfortable with a little huggy action.

    Likely I would choose Option No. 3 and I wish he would, too. Broussard may have religious convictions against gays, but he ought to shut up about them instead of using a vast forum to say to gay people, I don't hate you, but I consider you icky. As a journalist I try to keep my personal beliefs and my professional behavior separate.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page