Johnny Weir v. former Olympic Gymnast, Peter Vidmar

Discussion in 'Great Skate Debate' started by olympic, May 7, 2011.

  1. GarrAarghHrumph

    GarrAarghHrumph I can kill you with my brain

    16,407
    2,329
    113
    Peter has stepped down from this post, as mentioned earlier. He said he feels his religious beliefs have taken center stage, and that his presence has become a detriment:
    http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/news?slug=ap-usoc-chefdemission

    And he's right - the attention was being placed on his beliefs, rather than on the work he was supposed to be doing in this role. It's best for him to step aside.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2011
  2. VALuvsMKwan

    VALuvsMKwan Wandering Goy

    5,027
    1,581
    113
    Does he not still not understand that the overt and public political actions he took, perceived by many to be in favor of discrimination against American citizens, are really the issue instead of his private beliefs? :duh:
     
  3. GarrAarghHrumph

    GarrAarghHrumph I can kill you with my brain

    16,407
    2,329
    113
    I think he feels that his public actions are part of his private beliefs. Making assumptions based on the expectations of some other religious groups, there can be an expectation that if one is in the public eye, one should or even must speak up about the things that the church is campaigning for or against. So to Peter, as an LDS, he may well see his having campaigned against gay marriage to have been part of his church work - part of his private beliefs. The two things cannot be separated.
     
  4. VALuvsMKwan

    VALuvsMKwan Wandering Goy

    5,027
    1,581
    113
    I can understand his having that point of view based on what I know of "evangelistic" religions, having grown up in one and living in the home state of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and our present Governor and Attorney General :rolleyes: (and regardless of technicalities, I consider the LDS church just that) - in fact, I thought of adding to my post the phrase "(of course I am fairly certain that he would never see it that way)." :blah:
     
  5. luCN

    luCN New Member

    471
    48
    0
    I don't understand why this thread can post here.Does it have anything with figure skating???

    I'm tired of those buzz Johnny created in order to remain in the limelight.Hope he can stop these things and just skating,Or,please leave skating complete,letting us remember his early years' performance forever...

    and for the topic,whether this person do it or not,is not because Johnny,it's just making a news.

    political,he always said that,but never know the real political...
     
  6. REO

    REO New Member

    667
    40
    0
    Well Johnny is relevant to the topic because he is a two time Olympian. As far as I see it, he was asked his opinion regarding this, gave his opinion, and somehow he became "responsible" for this little protest. I believe others were asked their opinions too, but they just didn't have the same impact. I don't think it was a bid for limelight in this instance. His opinion maybe holds a little more weight in this matter because he is the best known gay Olympian.
    You're right though, nothing in this issue is about skating except that it's an Olympic sport.
     
  7. judiz

    judiz Well-Known Member

    3,380
    581
    113

    Agreed, if any other skater or athlete had made the same comment, they would had been praised for standing up for others not accused of doing it to be in the limelight. By the way, I have yet to read of any athlete defending Vidmar's position.
     
  8. barbk

    barbk Well-Known Member

    6,023
    555
    113
    Just curious how many of you folks defending the railroading of Vidmar voted for Obama as president. The same Obama who said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

    He campaigned with this - repeatedly - as his stance on gay marriage -- and I'd have to believe that being president is a whole lot more important than being chef de mission for the Olympics. So does that mean that he -- and every other president still living and pretty much all of the Republican or Democratic nominees for President who weren't elected are similarly unqualified because they fail your litmus test on gay marriage?
     
  9. attyfan

    attyfan Well-Known Member

    7,480
    809
    113
    Marriage has traditionally been a state matter, so the opinion of any Presidential candidate is limited to politics (i.e., will the candidate's stance make it more or less likely that the candidate will win). Indeed, things like DOMA are arguably unconstitutional, not merely because of the equal rights issue, but because the federal government is interfereing in a traditionally state matter.

    Also, much of the President's job does not involve "advocacy" for the rights of specific people in the same way that a chef de mission at Olys may act as advocate for the athletes.
     
  10. VIETgrlTerifa

    VIETgrlTerifa Well-Known Member

    10,268
    2,187
    113
    Yes but Obama also did not publicly donate money to support anti-gay legislation the way Vidmar has. He also had his justice department stop defending cases brought up against DOMA. Not to mention he signed the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.

    Being the President of the United States is a political role and one has to take political stances. People accept that politicians, even ones you support, won't always align with you but people know that they have to sacrifice certain issues (that individuals feel can be sacrified) in order to support the most viable person who is closest to what one wants to be their representative. Being Chef de Mission is supposed to be a ceremonial role that is symbolic of the Olympic spirit. So basically, you have a false analogy.

    Listen, nobody is saying Vidmar or anybody for that matter needs to be above reproach or be apolitical, but Vidmar's actions are inconsistent with the Olympic Charter and his actions have politicized this office in a way that was beyond repair for many people.
     
    Allen and (deleted member) like this.
  11. Andora

    Andora Well-Known Member

    10,671
    2,215
    113
    Fair enough, Obama is not a champion of the gay marriage cause. I'm not American, and so I didn't vote. But if the choice was basically between him and John McCain, who is theoretically further to the right, I'm not sure the comparison is applicable.

    I was going to say maybe McCain's actually less staunch on this due to influence from his wife-- a face of the NOH8 campaign-- and daughter, but reading over his LBGT stance through time, I'd wager maybe not. :shuffle:
     
  12. VIETgrlTerifa

    VIETgrlTerifa Well-Known Member

    10,268
    2,187
    113
    Not to mention his reactions after the DADT repeal. Between him and Obama, it's quite clear who was more gay-friendly.
     
  13. julieann

    julieann Well-Known Member

    3,685
    339
    83
    or more politically savvy :shuffle:
     
    kwanette and (deleted member) like this.
  14. mag

    mag Well-Known Member

    7,626
    2,795
    113
  15. bek

    bek Guest

    But what does Chef de mission have to do with marriage? I mean last I checked he's not marrying anyone in this job, telilng people who can marry etc. I mean the Olympics have pretty much nothing to do with marriage, last I checked.

    Marriage for many people IS a religious thing, and comes with some deeply personal beliefs. This type of thing is always going to be controversial for some religions. Because some religions do operate with the concept of revealed/handed down truth.

    IF people with more traditional views get railroaded out of regular society thats only going to cause a further secular/religious divide. Is there evidence that Vidmar was actually treating gay athletes poorly?

    That's not really true though. The people argue for the Bible being against interracial/sex dating, have to use a lot of creative versus to get their point. There's no direct verse that says those of a different skin color cannot date/marry. Now there was talk about people of different religions not marrying, but never race. I know the Catholic Church was never really against interracial dating,(and found some of the versus used to be questionable).

    In contrast there are some direct versus we are dealing with, when it comes to the other subject. Now of course people will argue that they were really referring to idolatry etc. But there are some direct versus we are talking about it that makes it uncomfortable for some people. Even if they want to feel differently.

    People are entitled to feel the way they want about how the Bible should be interpreted. But it just not correct to say the same kind of arguments for both scenarios. When one scenario is more directly mentioned and another isn't.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 11, 2011
  16. Sparks

    Sparks Well-Known Member

    7,242
    2,004
    113
    ^^^ What a convoluted argument. :rolleyes:
     
    AJ Skatefan and (deleted member) like this.
  17. Allen

    Allen Glad to be back!

    13,141
    2,378
    113
    I'm sorry, religious views or not, supporting discrimination is not okay. That's what Vidmar is doing. If I was a potential Olympic athlete, I wouldn't want someone who had been present at anti-marriage equality rallies representing me. Vidmar resigned of his own accord, so I'm over the argument that he was "railroaded" in any way :violin:
     
  18. bek

    bek Guest

    Sounds railroaded to me. Look I'm a fairly conservative Catholic, and I'm never going to go against my Church's beliefs on the subject. But the way I see it currently there are tons of marriages going on that my Church wouldn't regard as valid that are perfectly legal in the US. I'm not picketing or protesting those marriages, so it feels hypocritcal to protest gay marriages. I think the rambatent divorce is doing far more to destroy the institution of marriage then gay marriage is. This being said People are entitled to different views than mine, live their lives, have rights etc.

    But here's the thing I feel like the other side needs to accept the fact that many ancient religions DO prohibit these types of things. And that they have fairly clearly prohibited it. Now people are totally entitled to feel our religions are wrong etc. But when your getting into religions/people's personal relationships with God, your getting into somethng deeply personal. And for some of they REALLY feel their religion prohbits something, they feel their religion prohibits, and that's kind of the final say.

    It feels like some of you guys not only want us to be like okay yes gay marriage should be allowed, but also to literally change our religions teachings. I can't help wonder what's next. I just feel this type of thing is going to only further strengthen the divide between the religions/non religious in this country.

    And once again I'd ask what who people are sleeping with has anything to do with the Olympics anyways. I highly doubt you'll find an Olympic chief who agrees with everything, everyone on the team is doing. all of their beliefs/actions. As long as that chief is willing to treat everyone with respect, equally (once again marriage not an Olympic sport). I'm not sure the issue. In fact I always thought part of the OLympics was to get people with diverse/beliefs to come together for a common cause.

    I mean in the end that's the thing. Tolerance isn't agreeing with everything everyone does. It will never happen. Tolerance though is willing to treat everyone with kindness/respect and the way you'd want to be treated.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 11, 2011
  19. Prancer

    Prancer Jawwalking Staff Member

    39,012
    6,738
    113
    Which is a great argument for supporting gay marriage.

    Unless, of course, you would just accept it if the predominant religion decreed that Catholics couldn't marry.
     
  20. mag

    mag Well-Known Member

    7,626
    2,795
    113
    And there is the rub. By not allowing gay marriage you are not treating people the way you would like to be treated. Say, for the sake of argument, we said that people married in the Catholic church are no longer considered married for the purposes of spousal benefits etc. How would you feel about that? Would you be okay with giving up all those benefits you come to expect and enjoy just because a segment of the population arbitrarily decided you cannot be married? Don't worry, it is not that they don't like Catholics, and they don't really mind what you do behind closed doors, in fact, they have many Catholic friends. They just don't feel comfortable with you being married.
     
  21. Sparks

    Sparks Well-Known Member

    7,242
    2,004
    113
    No. Literally? You are not being asked to change your religious beliefs. And you should not ask anyone to change theirs. You don't believe in gay marriage, then don't have a gay marriage. That simple. Marriage b/n 2 consenting adults doesn't hurt you. Leave it alone.
     
  22. bek

    bek Guest

    Thats why I'm inclined to let gay marriage happen civally and I'm not really into the protesting. I'm inclined to let the State define marriage the way it wants to define it. And have my Church define marriage the way it defines marriage. But I'm just not so convinced this will stop at States define marriage one way, Churches/another. Not convinced at all.

    Where did I say I was asking anyone to change theirs. But it absolutely feels that people are asking some people to change their opinions. If Vidmar said I'm personally opposed to gay marriage, but okay with the state defining civil unions/marriage the way it wants. I'm not convinced everyone will be okay with that. I'm quite convinced there would be some who would still have issues with Vidmar having personal issues.

    Reading some of the posts here it goes quite beyond "why can't people just let us live our lives the way we want" and more into people are crazy for just not agreeing.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 11, 2011
  23. Prancer

    Prancer Jawwalking Staff Member

    39,012
    6,738
    113
    I don't know why not. Churches now refuse to marry divorced people, interracial couples, interfaith couples, people who don't belong to their parishes, etc. They have that right as private entities. Why would gay marriage be any different?
     
  24. bek

    bek Guest

    I just fair it might not be that society is getting in general to politically correct. And really the main thing is traditional views/being marginilized.

    I was going to ask whats next a school teacher getting fired for stating their beliefs about marriage. But then I thought about it, and I thought how I probably really wouldn't want to get into that subject at all with my students, if I was a teacher, because I wouldn't want any students to feel excluded. I.e that I cared about them less, respected them less because of their sexual orientation etc. So I can see that point with Vidmar.
     
  25. VALuvsMKwan

    VALuvsMKwan Wandering Goy

    5,027
    1,581
    113
    Politically correct about denial of civil rights? :mad:

    BTW, thanks for the last paragraph - but extend your reasoning involving students a little further, if you will. How do you think any 2 people wanting to be in a committed relationship feel when denied the same rights and privileges as 2 other people in the same situation, solely because of their being of the same gender and different orientation from the second couple?

    Would the word "excluded" come to mind, at the very least? One hopes so. :rolleyes:

    ETA: After reading Allen's response, just one more thing...

    When any change to allow gay marriage affects, in a negative way, your choice on whom you want to, and are able to, marry, or anything else about how you personally are able to exercise your religious beliefs, come back to me and, to quote Julia Sugarbaker one more time, THEN we'll talk. :shuffle:
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2011
    skatemomaz and (deleted member) like this.
  26. Allen

    Allen Glad to be back!

    13,141
    2,378
    113
    I honestly don't care about your religious teachings or how you feel about gay marriage. I just don't want anyone to infringe on the right for gay people to marry in this country. The people who believe that gay marriage is wrong based on religion, fine, but don't impede on the lives of others because your own religious belief. No one needs to change their beliefs, they just need to live and let others live. And before someone says it, allow gay people to marry is not impeding on anyone's religious beliefs. Why? Because what anyone does in their own personal life that doesn't harm anyone or isn't illegal is no one else's f*cking business.
     
  27. Prancer

    Prancer Jawwalking Staff Member

    39,012
    6,738
    113
    You want to treat others as you want to be treated. You don't want to be marginalized for your traditional views. And yet, you are only inclined to think civil gay marriages should be allowed.

    A school teacher might be fired for expressing views on marriage--if that teacher works in the public schools. A teacher at a private religious school would not be, if her beliefs about marriage follow the teachings of the school's religion.

    Society might be getting more "politically correct," but why would you think that churches would suddenly have to be?
     
  28. genevieve

    genevieve drinky typo pbp, closet hugger Staff Member

    30,834
    6,447
    113
  29. dinakt

    dinakt Well-Known Member

    3,902
    816
    113
    Yes.
    Eliminate discrimination, and then anybody in the privacy of their homes has a right to believe what they want to believe. But when the discrimination exists, an active (sic!) advocate for that discrimination should not represent a very diverse group of people. Some of those people are the ones whose rights he wants to squish.
     
  30. bek

    bek Guest

    Your assuming that marriage is an ultimate right. I'm not sure marriage IS. Society still determines who can and cannot get married. Which is why in some states I'm allowed to marry my First Cousin, and some states, I am not. Why shouldn't Mormons and Muslims be allowed to have more than one wife/ How fair is it for Muslims who come into this country who have multiple wives, that only one wife gets recognized. Aren't the other wives being excluded?
    To be quite frank if anything I think our country should make it more difficult for folks to get married-just in general.

    Marriage isn't just as "personal thing" The institution of marriage involves a form of public acceptance.
    There are a lot of things I'm only "inclined to think" should be allowed. I wouldn't be a Christian if I didn't think there was a reason for the rules and that society would ultimately be better off if it was following them. Do I accept though that I live in a multipluralistic society and that its way better to accept other people and live in peace then to fight yes. And do I also understand that in the end you have to give people free will to make their own choices and not dictate them-yes that too. And do I also see how perhaps my religion has been in the past unkind and uncaring to those who differ from us and we need to be better about that yes.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 11, 2011