Pardon the pun, but it would seem that homosexual groups are not very gay anymore — but instead are easily angered. They get angry when General Pace at the Pentagon refers to homosexuality as immoral, and now, they’re angry because Coach Dungy is scheduled to appear before a pro-family group that is opposed to gay marriage?
Jim Brown OneNewsNow.comMarch 15, 2007
Homosexual groups are criticizing Super Bowl champion coach Tony Dungy of the Indianapolis for his upcoming appearance before a pro-family group. Next Tuesday, the Indiana Family Institute will be honoring Coach Dungy with its “Friend of the Family” award, but homosexual activists are pressuring him not to attend because of the Institute’s opposition to same-sex marriage.
Indiana Family Institute president Curt Smith says the “Friend of the Family” award is given to a national leader involved in family ministry who “walks the talk,” and Dungy fits the bill. “We think he’s the living embodiment of the family ethic that we try to promote at the Indiana Family Institute,” Smith notes, “and it’s that ethic that we think is essential to a healthy, successful society.”
Obviously, this emphasis on family values “doesn’t mean that we’re perfect parents or perfect believers, but we know that family’s important,” the Institute spokesman points out. “We know that’s critical,” he says, “and in all of Coach’s work with his professional responsibilities with the Colts he exhibits that. And in his own life, he’s exhibited that through his work with All Pro Dads and organizations like that.”
Smith says his group is often castigated for its biblical opposition to homosexuality. “I’ve been stunned [to find] when we stand up and say we’re for marriage, that immediately we’re called a hate group, homophobes, we’re ’small-minded bigots,’ and it’s just shocking to me,” he observes.
The Indiana Family Institute president says he sometimes thinks these strong reactions from homosexuals may perhaps be “a reflection of some of the concerns those individuals feel about themselves.” Such bitter invective, he speculates, may derive from “some of the self-loathing that we understand, from the research and from the medical literature, can be an aspect of the homosexual lifestyle.”
Smith notes that in December, when the Family Institute announced it would be honoring Dungy, the group received hate calls, obscene messages and some of its corporate sponsors began getting pressure from homosexual activists.
Is it just me, or are we moving way past tolerance here? Now, you not only tolerate angry homosexuals (gays just no longer seems fitting) but you agree with them. Who would’ve ever thought it would come to this? Well, I did.

Hi w,
You are not alone in predicting this. It will not surprise me at all if public schools in liberal states start requiring students to experiment with alternative sexual practices so they can get the full experience of the human condition. I say we cut California and New York loose, and let them wallow in their own socialist / liberal pond.
the Grit
By: the Grit on March 15, 2007
at 2:28 pm
That’s pathetic.
By: totaltransformation on March 15, 2007
at 2:30 pm
I thought so, too. It is a fine line, one which I walk every day. Thanks for posting about this.
By: Kelly on March 15, 2007
at 2:51 pm
Yes, it is well past tolerance. I don’t know a single Christian personally who doesn’t take a live-and-let-live approach to homosexuals. But most of us don’t like it shoved in our faces, either. We don’t want it taught as normal behavior in schools. We don’t want illustrated gay fiction read to 2nd graders. We don’t want third graders to hear of how normal trangenderism is.
We also don’t appreciate being called ridiculous pejoratives like homophobe or hater. It is a classic but cheap ad hominem attack designed to silence our views. That’s why they are so keen on hate crimes protection.
By: Neil on March 15, 2007
at 3:36 pm
I’m still mad at that whole group for changing the meaning of having a ‘gay old time’. The Flinstones seem like a political statement now.
(just kidding
By: Kevin on March 15, 2007
at 7:34 pm
Tony Dungy has every right to go to this group and speak his share. However, there’s a huge difference of a public figure, due to his popularity, going to a function as a private citizen and speaking his private thoughts, and a governmental public figure, speaking his private thoughts with regard to policy with the authority of his office behind him.
Gen. Pace, certainly has a right to private thoughts, but to express them under the auspices of his office was improper. His comments would have been better served coming from a policy perspective and not his view of moral behavior – that is unless the armed forces will uphold the UCMJ with regard to adultery as well. Don’t count on that, as half the officer corps would be under charges. It is also very plain, that this breach of the UCMJ has little correlation to being an effective soldier or leader.
Gen. Pace forgot when you are the leader, EVERYTHING you say and do is up for scrutiny. Although he may be personally opposed to open homosexuals serving in the armed forces, his misfire may do a great deal to bring about its actualization had he not given his take on the subject not from a policy standpoint, but from a personal opinion vantage point.
While I agree with Neil when he says many Christians don’t care about homosexuals and their lifestyle, many also voice signficant hatred towards the lifestyle and those that practice it. Read some of the hard Right blogs, and that view is apparent.
By: avoiceofreason on March 15, 2007
at 8:20 pm
Voice – I’ll concede that some people hate gays. And a whole bunch of people hate Christians. The question is whether we classify either or both as “hate speech.” I vote no.
By: Neil on March 16, 2007
at 4:31 am
I think you are being a bit judgmental here. Many times, people who see nothing wrong with adultery, assume that no one else does either. I’m not saying that half the officer corps would not be under charges, but you don’t have the evidence to support that other than your not so humble opinion.
By: wytammic on March 16, 2007
at 6:42 am
Neil,
I always considered myself in the live and let live category. No longer. Of course I do not hate homosexuals, but they apparently cannot stop at live and let live. They are insisting that their lifestyle not be referred to as immoral. They are insisting that you are a bigot if you do not condone their lifestyle. Basically, you had better start encouraging everyone to try their lifestyle while agreeing with them that what they do is fine. No longer for me. It’s just too slippery of a slope and I refuse to condone. Let the name calling hatred begin.
By: wytammic on March 16, 2007
at 6:47 am
I missed in the First Amendment where someone in a public office is not entitled to Freedom of Speech.
By: wytammic on March 16, 2007
at 6:49 am
This modern era mistakes acceptance for tolerance. They conflate the two until all that is left is total acceptance- absent such a pledge you are considered intolerant.
By: totaltransformation on March 16, 2007
at 7:02 am
I always considered myself in the live and let live category. No longer. Of course I do not hate homosexuals, but they apparently cannot stop at live and let live. They are insisting that their lifestyle not be referred to as immoral. They are insisting that you are a bigot if you do not condone their lifestyle.
Bingo… I just had this very kind of argument the other day! If I called homosexuality Immoral; then I was really calling the individual Immoral; Which is intolerant – so I should not be allowed say ‘Homosexuality is Immoral’ because it is NOW HATE SPEECH…
Your right, live and let live no longer works.
By: kathy on March 16, 2007
at 9:01 am
yeh we recently talked about Dungy’s run ins with gay activists groups over at Highbrid Nation. I feel kinda bad for him because it puts in in a awkward position.
By: Evorgleb on March 20, 2007
at 9:19 am