Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by Thriller, Apr 20, 2017 at 2:16 AM.
I'm sorry but I don't understand your point?
Surely if a person is offended then they do care.
I think she has no argument is my point to which I didn't articulate. In the past there may have been faux geuine reasons against same sex marriage such as the need for society to procreate (I don't think the state should be involved in marriage altogether but if they are I can only imagine the survival of the community being their only real interest). That is no longer valid and there are no secular arguments against homsexuality, only religious ones.
If Court and I sat down and she said she doesn't belive in same sex marriage and I asked why, she would say because its abominable in the eyes of god. I would simply say that's great for you but that's not going to convince me because I don't belive in her moral stance. But I would certainly allow her to hold her beliefs and to continue practicing the way she sees fit in her church.
I say pick your battles. Conservative christians are chastized today and I think there are other more worthy things to put the energy into fight.
I'm offended about lots of things but I'm not going to dictate what others should believe. They have their own liberty.
That's where we fundamentally differ: Yes, pick your battles, however I will always take a stance against promoting hate. I will admit that my attitude by events in Germany, and elsewhere, leading up to - and during the Second World War- has coloured my judgement. It's too easy to say nothing. Staying silent can be seen as complicity.
**** germany is a bit different wouldn't you say?
No. I wouldn't. Because it's evidence of what can happen when people stay silent.
It amazes me how people constantly question Margaret Smith-Court's record using her AO title count as an excuse. As mentioned prev. Smith-Court defeated the #1 player in the world at the time to win one of her AO titles. You can only play who you can play. She played and she won a lot more than anyone else at the time.
But what is not mentioned is that Smith-Court had to spend a lot of time away from her home base to be successful. Unlike many of her competitors who weren't prepared to travel down to Australia because it was seen to be "too far away" for many at the time. "What's good for the goose, is good for the gander!".
There is one thing Smith-Court rarely gets credit for except by those in the "know". She was pretty much the first female tennis player to adopt a professional fitness regime. She spent a lot of the time training and hitting with the male Australian elite players. Her movment around the court was breath-taking for the time. She was a trail-blazer in the women's game in that regard.
Smith-Court also had incredible mental prowess on court and that counts for a lot. A lot of the modern female players try to impose themselves on the court but the minute something goes wrong, they tend to go to water. Past players like Smith-Court, Evert and Graf were not like that. They let their racquets do the talking.
My point is the comparison you make is extremely unfair to people who have religious beliefs against same sex marriage. You can't compare what happened then to people who have religious beliefs which are NOT harming people.
Do you, or do you not, think that Margaret Court's views both as a public figure and a church leader can cause harm?
No. By harm I mean inciting violence fyi
She's allowed to believe what she wants, but she shouldn't be allowed to promote those beliefs if they discriminate against another group in society.
I do not think that Court hates Gays, but believes same gender sex is immoral, as does the Bible and most major religions. I have read that when the Aids epidemic broke out in her part of Australia, her church donated and delivered food and medical supplies to Gay men when others would not go near them. I am a year older than Court and I can tell you that when we were growing up, being Gay was considered sinful, disgusting and immoral. Even 10 years ago Gay marriage was unthinkable. Times Do change, some people do not.
Do you apply your view to all groups in society?
Ok. I will research whether her views/religion have incited any violence. If I find they have not, then I will change my view on her/her religion and give her (and her religion) the benefit of doubt that you do. And I'd much prefer that you are right and I've done Court a disservice.
I feel this is a trick question in some way....
But yes, if you mean do I think any group or person in society should be allowed to be discriminated against because of who they are, then I'd obviously be against that.
I absolutely understand what you mean (although I can see it might be twisted to support an argument you clearly don't mean).
And I absolutely agree with you.
Margaret Court is the greatest because she has a big stadium name after her! None of the others have that honor!
Billie Jean King does
And Henman has a Hill
But Margaret literally has a Court named after her. The others don't
Her surname is Court !!!
Saying court is not an all time great in flat out insulting to her. As it is she won 24 majors (the record), over 200 tournaments (depending on where you get your info), and has a win % of between 88-92% (again depending on where you get your information). I don't feel she is the GOAT, but she one of the elite 5 women in contention for the title with Nav, Evert, Graf and Serena.
Even if you threw out every Australian Open she won she still won 13 majors and a slew of other singles titles and would still be top 10 all time.
Granted, as a gay man I find her religious views offensive, but I won't hold that against her achievements on the court.
as for the GOAT, I've had to do a lot of rethinking to change Serena's place on the list, but right now I sort of lean this way
It's not a trick question. And I feel your answer is needlessly ambiguous.
A simple unqualified "Yes" or "No" would have sufficed.
How is it ambiguous? It was just a longer way of saying yes.
boredone, Excellent list.
I don't believe any one player is THE GOAT (too subjective/variables) but it's a nice list.
I think that judging by morals is what her stance is all about.
The real problem is that there is sometimes a disagreement about what constitutes moral behaviour.
There's a simple disagreement with what constitutes morals. Yes, to behave properly and accord people the same courtesies you would expect to receive yourself. And not to judge a person on colour, religion, sexuality alone. That to me is horrific and not the way I was brought up. Thankfully.
The type of morality that Court and her church is founded on is a relationship with God, guided by scripture. Not human dynamics or group behaviour or politics.
Some people prefer to ignore the divine basis of morality and focus entirely on the human level.
I like your post. As another gay man, if I am capable of separating her bigotry, from her accomplishments, and even suggesting that bigots may be more than bigots, and may have positive attributes of character , then I expect others to be able see that as well. She makes a mistake if she turns me into a two dimensional caricature based on the label 'homosexual'. I make a mistake if I turn her into a two dimensional caricature based on the label 'homophobe'. The labels may be accurate, but they are not all inclusive.
It is also true that as a public figure who gained her wider fame from her tennis, she deserves to be denounced whenever she exploits it to promote a message of bigotry or intolerance. The sport should distance itself at every opportunity, from any comments by former champions that suggest that young gay and lesbian players, are not welcome and fully accepted in our sport. We do not have to distance our sport from her or what she achieved , however to do that. Its a fine line, but its the right one to walk.
Good list. Where was Serena on your list before you changed it?
Assuming every word you say above is true, what she preaches, is doing incredible harm to young vulnerable gay or lesbian youth, that those donations cannot wash away. This stuff is destructive in a way that is almost impossible to imagine, especially in conservative religious communities.
Court did win 6 majors in a row from the 1969 US Open to the 1971 Australian Open, which of course included the grand slam in 1970, notably that long, torturous Wimbledon final against King when both players were playing injured. In 9 majors from the 1969 AO to the 1971 AO, she won 8 of them with her only defeat coming against Ann Jones at Wimbledon in 1969.
Also she has the distinction of winning every type of major (singles, doubles and mixed doubles at every venue) at least twice.
One of the greatest players in history that's for sure.
I do not think that Court and her church are thinking in terms of "hate", which is probably an inaccurate term here.
They are more concerned with faithfulness to God. The motivation is not one of "hatred".
Very often, a commitment to God is misunderstood as an attack on the world.
Not necessarily the case.
I think it's a separate issue. There are people who believe homsexuality is sinful, but that doesn't mean they will treat them as lesser human beings. Remember there are lots of things that the church belives are sinful and yet it promotes helping those who need help. I agree churches in general have done a poor job at reaching out to the gay and lesbian community and I hope for their sake they can rectify this.
Where discrimination comes into practice is when laws advantage or disadvantage a particular group or when a particular group is denied something on the basis of their characteristics. In Courts church she has every right to stick to her moral principles regardless of what you think. It is her church and she can worhsip as she pleases. That is why the state bill for marriage equality around the world is contentious as it opens up the possiblity that every church will be forced to practice same sex marriage despite it going against their religious beliefs. That to me is illiberal which is why I would personally want the state out of marriage (that includes heterosexual marriage). Each individual church should have the right to choose how to worship and practice.
Most people today have no idea what happened in Germany that lead up to the Na zi regime. War and extreme poverty together with desperation lead people to turn over power to very dangerous people. That period in Germany is an extreme example of what can happen.
The most dangerous thing that can happen is complacency, the cocksure belief that "it can't happen here".
It can happen anywhere. And from time to time it does.
You are sort of dancing around what I think is the crux of the matter: do you personally believe that being gay is caused by abuse? And as a guy who loves tennis, would you like to have that conversation with BJK or Martina?
I'm not American, I'm Australian, but I think America along with Germany and some other European countries are extremely wary of government tyranny. That's part of the reason the second amendment is so heavily guarded. That's also why the first amendment is such a lovely paradox. You are entitled to offend, to be intolerant, to have views which are prejudiced because that's your right as long as you don't act out in violence because of them. In contrast, you can't silence these people. You can certainly advocate your point of view and do everything you can to persuade, but you cannot prevent them from their individual freedom.
Remember this, government is the enemy, not the people .
Whether or not it is related to environmental or genetic factors is not something for which I have seen definitive evidence.
But that is not the crux here, it is whether a commitment to God brings a Christian into conflict with the world and the political system.
Sometimes it does, for example, in 1930's and 1940's Germany many Christians opposed Hitler.
But the motivation for that conflict is not "hatred", as is often alleged, but rather an acceptance of moral guidance from God, rather than reliance on human wisdom.
Government becomes a much worse enemy when very stupid people vote in ignorance or simply choose a horrible person to lead their country.
Or preferably not to judge a person at all? Except at time perhaps when Laws are being broken. But even then?
That's far easier said than done. Indeed, is it possible?
To a degree yes. But it's all about government power that is the concern. Minimal government ensures less damage since there is less influence to yield.
The main thing is to try.
Saying that, with most things, only one person is required in order to form an opinion. But at least two people are required before an opinion can be considered a "judgement".
Gary, I agree that it can happen anywhere under a dictatorship. We saw it years ago in Yugoslavia and see it nowadays in North Korea. People anywhere can often be tempted to follow a dictator.
Bobby, I agree, and I'll leave it at that.
There are many in this World with much worse views than those of Mageret Court.
I agree completely.
In my view, in the U.S., discriminatory speech is constitutionally protected speech. Further, discriminatory speech arising out of religious belief is highly protected speech.
I'm trying very hard not to "judge" some of the views put forward in this thread.... Nah, impossible.
Separate names with a comma.