Finally! A sex thread.
Weirdly, I have nothing to add.
I'm not touching this one.

"That's what she said."

Pete

Thanks.

I too am of the opinion that Margaret Court Arena should stay the same.I personally feel it would be a 'injustice' to Margaret after all she is a legend of our game.62 GS titles behind her name.I personally dont agree over the years with Margarets views.Though this is a democratic society last time I checked and she as others have a right to their own opinions.

Without Billi Jean King womens tennis would still be in the 'dark ages'

Thank goodness for Billie Jean King and she is admired not only for the continued work she is doing for the womens game.I feel she is her own person and takes up any challenge that is prestned to her past and present

Bille Jean King You Rock!

Now you've covered your arse , Pete, well done!

You forgot to mention the open letter Martina wrote after Margaret Court went on and on in at least 5 articles in the newspapers, she became worse and worse in her thoughts about gay people and finally Martina had enough and wrote the letter.
I personally think court 3 is the right place for Margaret Court suits me fine that Rod Laver has the biggest arena seems like being a very great tennisplayer and a more tolerant human being. In this case I must say Martina rocks.

"Laver Court Arena" might have been a bit confusing...

i just think its funny that the Bible says women shouldnt speak in church, and Margaret Court is a minister! sinner! lol the BIble pretty much onndemns everyone, so I wish Margaret would love people and get off her high horse...i think the term goes, judge not lest ye be judged...

bjk is 100 times the human being margaret is..

What activist has suggested renaming it Renae Stubbs arena? Im in Australia and a member of the Rainbows Over Margaret Court Arena and have read a lot on the subject and have never heard of that suggestion. Where is your evidence Pete? If you make a claim you could at least link to the evidence.

Naming stuff can't be about GLBT but needs to be about Tennis. More power to BJK for supporting this concept.

Margaret Court has always been, to me, the paragon of a tennis champion. It was her name that topped my list of greats when I was growing up, leading a short list of greats that included Rod Laver, Billie Jean King and, soon after, Arthur Ashe. While my personal beliefs and hers may differ widely, I respect her right to hold them and to fight for them. So long as none of her actions (and that does include words) are intended to cause harm to any individuals pr groups of individuals, I stand by her right to speak freely.

Billie Jean has, once again, shown how gracious and large is her spirit.

"No, no, no, don't get rid of her for that," King said. "Because you don’t agree with her? Are you kidding? Just because you don’t agree with someone? Please. She deserves it. She’s a great player."

This is VERY disappointing. It makes Billie Jean look gracious, or less petty, but it condones bigotry.

Imagine if a player had expressed the opinion that women should not be allowed to play for near the same money since they do not work as hard, and a woman's tournament was named after that player.

Would BJK feel the same way?

BJK should know this, she suffered through discrimination against women and against gays.

Great player or not, bigots should not be tolerated.

BJK does not know how gays in Australia feel about this, it is *their* battle, let them fight for it, don't get in their way. It is one thing for *you* not to fight bigotry, but it is another dismissing another's fight as less consequential because Court was a great player.

"While my personal beliefs differ widely.....I stand by her right to speak freely."

+1 (apologies for taking the easy way out SnD, but I just couldn't have said it better!)

I think they should just put up a statue at the entrance of the court showing margaret being fondled by Mauresmo and Martina.

Even more of this? One must wonder how strong GLBT thing is… This reminds me of historical and hysterical descriptions when in (bolshevism, fascism, tribalism, jihadism etc...) it was never enough. Not enough to clap, everyone must publicly confirm and loudly swear his belonging to “right cause”. Never mind this is not a tennis subject and this is Australia subject.
What is particularly bizarre and irritating is this “never enough” aspect. Hysteria of political correctness certainly political correctness is not. Equal pay is done – is it done right? I would say: pay girls more if they make more money. Why there is no equal pay in football, both European and American? Why don’t you try that? But if girls make less money and if this is as in finals of AO – this is disrespect and direct injustice to males. It is consequence of enforced and fake political correctness.
Even more cynical example of this “never enough” aspect are some girls in girls tennis. Simply, some girls (and boys) have less than average difference in female and male hormones. This is huge advantage, not only in muscle mass. They are less prone to biological oscillations that make rest of WTA such a roller coaster. Huge, huge advantage. Funny, they did not find to complain about this inequality.
There is only one next logical step. We must make equal right for gay players, by making this horrible macho disrespectful so hard hitting non-gay players wearing 11 avocados stuffed in pants during play against gay players. Who is politically incorrect and do not agree with me have to be banned from tennis.

I am a Christian and I fully believe the Bible as inerrant and the only path that leads to salvation. I know many who comment here disagree and that is your right. The Bible says "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." I haven't read the exact words of Court, but if she is a good and honest Minister she really had no choice but to stand up for what she knows is right. King was right to not allow anti-Christian politics guide her in supporting a name change. Some may wish to see King's name removed for her lifestyle and I assume she was giving the honor for her tennis achievements, as was Court.

You know, I'm TORN!

I really support the idea of free speech, but I think we cannot always stand behind the shield that is free speech and ignore the consequences of our words. I think you can speak whatever you want, but if your words hurt other people, you might want to think about saying it out loud...

HOWEVER,

I also like that Court's words are in the open to allow a (hopefully) civilized conversation about the subject matter. At least she's true to her beliefs even though a lot of people (including me) might not agree. So you can see the debate could go both ways...

Sooooooo... really putting scare quotes around human rights?

There's no doubt that speech can be used to harm others. Ideas are active; they carry consequences, both for the one who holds them and for those at whom the ideas are aimed. However, I think we all can differentiate between what has been termed "hate speech" and "free speech" that espouses ideas that are an anathema to certain individuals or groups of individuals. And I seem to recall the words of Clarence Darrow, the defense attorney who devoted much of his life to trying, through the courts, to keep the state from the cold-blooded, premeditated killing of its own citizens. Darrow said, and I paraphrase, While I may condemn the sin, I must not condemn the sinner. We would all do well to heed these words, IMO.

And here is where it gets tricky. Margaret Court, from what I've been able to ascertain here on this board and in news reports, is vocal in her condemnation of the actions of gay and lesbian people, but harbors no personal ill-will toward the individuals who commit such acts. And the gay and lesbian people whom I know, as would Martina and Billie jean (I suspect), would counter that being gay or lesbian is not merely a matter of behavior, it is the essence of that person--it is who they are, not merely what they do.

And that blurs the line between condemning the act versus condemning the individual.

@Roddickfan - as a gay poster and tennis player I agree with Billie Jean King's stance, as well as her and Navratilova's criticism of Court's public stance.

I think you need to be very careful at generalizing the protest against Court as 'anti-Christian' - certainly many Christians support gay marriage and are not of the same mind as Court, so I would in no way lump them in with some of the vitriol Court has spewed.

I too would be curious, I have not heard anyone calling for the court to be renamed in Stubbs' honour, that would be pretty silly. Margaret's record as a tennis champion stands pretty untouchable and she should be rightfully honoured for it. But I have no qualms about criticizing her views as ignorant and bigoted.

Slice/Northernboy

Well said.

I have to ask this because I am curious what Pete and others might think, even though I know they are not the same thing, but:

What if Court was a racist instead of anti-gay? What if she spoke out against racially integrated society and bi-racial marriage instead of the "moral decline" brought on by gay people and gay marriage? Would her 62 GS titles still justify having a court named after her?

As a conservative Christian opposed to gay marriage, I have a new-found respect for BJK. I am so tired of the pro-gay marriage crowd trying to shut down debate on the topic by throwing around words like "hateful" or "ignorant" because someone disagrees with them on this topic. In my family, I have a close relative who is a lesbian. Her parents, siblings and many other relatives are Christians. Do we condone her lesbian lifestyle? No. Does she agree with our Christian beliefs? No. Do we love her anyway? Yes. Does she love us anyway? Yes. Do we let our disagreements about things like gay marriage lead to hatred or to silly name-calling like "ignorant" or "bigot" or "close-minded" or "pervert?" No.

The Express -

I sometimes feel the same about what might be considered a double standard. But seems to me though folks are willing to give a pass to those on what some think is the wrong side of a civil rights issue depending on what time period / generation they are from. And I can't say I blame them.

There are many stadiums, parks, even cities named after individuals that probably hold views that would be abhorrent today. Geoge Washington owned slaves, Teddy Roosevelt didn't exactly meet 21st century standards of thought, and although I have no evidence I'm not sure we want to hear what Roland Garros thought of Africans or Asians, or even Jews.

We're currently in what I would say is a transitional time with gay rights in the Western world. I doubt Pete would refer to outrage over a racial issue as a "black jihad" and posters would be irrate if he did. you certainly wouldn't call for respect and "tolerance" for someone wanting to ban-interracial marriage here. But since opinion is not settled on whether gays should have equal marriage rights, being against them isn't really considered a disqualifier for much of anything. Just an opinion. Similarly someone who thought women shouldn't be able to vote who lived in the US or Europe would be viewed with disdain, most don't consider everyone in Saudi Arabia who thinks that way to be some sort of barbarian.

Personally I wouldn't name anything after Margaret Court, but because the issue is not settled (and she's a little older) I'm guessing that's why she gets a semi-pass.

In 25 years if Steffi Graf is ranting and raving about how gays are forcing their beliefs on a helpless world at large (poor world!) you can be sure as hell there won't be anything named after her in Germany.

Excuse my ignorance: How many Grand Slam titles were won by Hisense? I can't find any...

more anti-Christian bigotry on this site. Can we please focus on tennis. i believe that is why it is called tennis dot com.

Change Hisense Arena to Margaret Court Arena.

There is a deeper issue. Usually, tennis players, either born into the upper middle class or having personalities formed by spending large amounts of time around members of the upper middle class easily qualify on terms of "moral character" to be put upon whatever pedestal their sporting achievements warrant.

(what a sentence. Pause.)

Anyway, other sports routinely struggle with (i) building up a player only to (ii) find out that such person has a serious character flaw, but this issue is a bit more rare in tennis.

So, Court is an interesting case. In many other sports, merely being prejudiced towards gays would not even be raised as an issue. That's not to say there is any merit in prejudice, just that other sports have a lower standard since many other sports draw from more "regular" people.

To cite an example -- no tennis location is going to be named the "Roscoe Tanner Arena" -- whereas I will bet there are still odds that something could be named after Michael Vick.

You could play this as a game all night long. Who is worse, Pete Rose or Margaret Court? Kobe Bryant or Margaret Court? Ty Cobb or Margaret Court (o.k., that one is easy.)

Court was a great tennis player, and was honored for that; NOT her religious or political beliefs. The fact that all these gay groups want to remove her name? it shows why they are pits of the society - they cannot reason and have no idea about context.

Better still, if they like to fight against straight people who don't agree them? let them fight and see who wins. That should settle all the bs about 'gay rights'. Having said that, i also know some straight idiots will join the gays instead so let them be.

Court was a tennis player. It always surprises me that we expect our sport stars to be the font of all wisdom! They had some talent, worked really hard and won a few things. Great ,really great, but does this then transfer into a broad wisdom on all subjects. No.

In my view, calling the Laver Arena the Laver Court Arena would be the same as saying Sharapova deserved the same prize money as Nadal. So that is an easy decision to make then!

I tend to agree with the spirit of what BJK said. I also believe that it's fine for Court to personally hold anti-gay sentiments, according to her religion, but she is the first to have "fired a bullet," so to speak, with some of her nastier anti-gay comments. It's only natural that the Australian gay community (to say nothing of the worldwide gay community) would leap up and defend themselves, their lifestyles, their identities, etc from a vocal attack by someone as prominent as Ms. Court. I don't agree that the court should be re-named but I do believe that the gay community should be allowed to defend themselves in public, as Margaret Court was given the freedom to spew her anti-gay vitriol in public in the first place.

That being said, I would like us to turn our eyes to the nation of France. The greatest tennis player they ever produced in the Open Era is openly gay. I speak of course of Amelie Mauresmo, my own favorite player of all time. She is, by and large, revered by the majority of the French population, and rightly so as she is the only No. 1 player they have ever produced and a 2-time Grand Slam champion to boot. There are rumors that the FFT is considering hiring her as the captain of the Davis Cup. No, that is not a typo. I did not mean to type Fed Cup. Ms. Mauresmo has been nominated, by the male French players themselves, as the next head of the Davis Cup team. She would be the first female Davis Cup captain of any nation if that comes to pass. Even the fact that she is being considered, let alone nominated by the players themselves, is remarkable. She has transcended gender and sexual barriers and all on the basis of her remarkable athletic accomplishments. So why can't Ms. Court bring herself to do the same?

I hope that when the time comes, the FFT will seriously consider naming a court, if not THE biggest court, at Roland Garros after Amelie Mauresmo, regardless of what anti-gay protesters may say (and there always will be some who arise at that time). This is not a "Christian" issue. This is a tennis issue. There are plenty of Christians who support gay marriage and there are plenty who don't. However, I think both sides can agree to the greatness of both Court and Mauresmo and put aside any anti-gay or even pro-gay sentiments to appreciate the beauty and grace that these women brought to the court in their eras.

The Margaret Court Arena should not be renamed. The FFT should honor Amelie Mauresmo in some meaningful way (perhaps with a statue, perhaps by naming a court after her at Roland Garros). I think both sides can agree to these sentiments. And, freedom of speech should be allowed for the gay community after the comments that Margaret Court made in the public arena. It's only fair.

This comments section has been very useful in polishing up the "who to scroll pass" list in my head

According to the book "The Owners Manual for The Brain":
Male homosexuals perform more like females on spatial tasks.

So, my question is - should those guys start a movement for equal rights and to play tennis with females?

"Because you don’t agree with her? Are you kidding? Just because you don’t agree with someone? Please."

So if she was saying black players have no business playing pro tennis, that would stil be just ok for Ms King ?

And wasn't it BJK who fought for the same prize money for men and women, even though it makes no sense any way you slice it ?

Posted by Cotton Jack 02/02/2012 at 04:57 AM

This comments section has been very useful in polishing up the "who to scroll pass" list in my head
---------------------------------------
So, you blacklisted some people, eh?
Everybody make their own black books – commies, McCarthyists, gays, Nazis, tennis.com...

Nole won the match by 2 points, that is all! This game could of gone either way

As far as I am concerned whether you believe in gay marriage or not, everyone is entitled to their beliefs. As someone from the Caribbean, a place where homosexuality is seriously frowned upon, it took me a long time to even be able to speak openly about homosexuality. People need to realise that it takes a long time to take the stench of something that you were taught for all your life was wrong and now accept it as normal, especially if you were raised with Christian beliefs, as Ms. Court is/was.

As someone pointed out up front the Bible does condemn a whole host of people but that is why we need to have due regard for Court's beliefs on this matter, whether we agree with her or not. This is what she believes. This is what a lot of people believe. It is not hate speech and it is not free speech. It is believe speech and that is something that you can't change.

@ Barmaleo: "So, you blacklisted some people, eh?
Everybody make their own black books – commies, McCarthyists, gays, Nazis, tennis.com..."

-----

Good grief, are some people really this dense? Do you really not understand the difference between blacklisting and disagreement?

When the Nazis, the communists or the McCarthyists blacklisted people, it meant that these people were no longer allowed to speak out. Worse, they were ostracised from society, lost their jobs, and were usually put in jail or killed.

Nothing of the sort is happening to Court, or to other opponents of gay marriage. On the countrary, even the people who strongly disagree with Court support her right to speak her mind. What she says is still being published in the news. She even keeps the stadium being named in her honour.

Likewise, Cotton Jack (who made the comment about "scrolling past" some people) was not advocating that any opinions should be censored. He was merely remarking that he would no longer be reading the comments from certain people. That's his prerogative, and yours, and mine.

But thank you, at least, for providing another example of Godwin's law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." Of course, the party first bringing up such a comparison automatically loses the argument.

Cayman Karen... nicely done.

Del Pony... "She has transcended gender and sexual barriers and all on the basis of her remarkable athletic accomplishments. So why can't Ms. Court bring herself to do the same?

Not to nitpick, but I think we're talking apples and oranges, here. I say this because (1) Mauresmo is on the "left" side of history, so it is natural that she would be accepted for who she is, while Court is on the other side; and (2) Court, through her chosen vocation as a minister, is compelled by her beliefs to speak out to the social ills she sees. In other words, Mauresmo may "represent" the gay and lesbian community in so far as she is a public figure who is openly homosexual, but she is not in a public position of authority, whereas Court is, albeit in an apparently insignificant position (she has, what, 60 parishoners?).

If Mauresmo took a more publicly vocal and political stance as a leader of the gay and lesbian community in France, I suspect she would meet with more resistance from the French Tennis Federation. Even still, because she's on the "left" (or correct, by current popular consensus, if you will) side of history, she still would not receive the angry criticism that Court has.

Mister L: He was merely remarking that he would no longer be reading the comments from certain people.

By "merely remarking" he singled out the whole group of people, offended them as those whose opinions are not worthy of any regard. So why should his opinion to be considered at all? Or yours?

This article is gay

Yeah ok

Brian: This article is gay

I wonder if Mr. Bodo is also a gay, as he is quite frequent on this topic.
It is his #3 subject.
#2 is Sharapova's grunting.
#1 was Caro's illegitimate status as #1.

Poor guy just lost his #1.

@Northernboy...I do not know fully what Court has said, but if she only pointed out what the Bible says and said that she supports it's teachings and wants her country to stand by it's teachings, that is not vitriol. As for the fact that many mainline churches, their Ministers, and members no longer follow the scriptures, yet still like to call themselves Christian; that is where the "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" comes into play. The Lord allows free will among His creation, but He doesn't compromise with it. Jesus when He walked the earth meet with, eat with, stayed with, and taught sinners; He never lied to or compromised with them.

I have said I believe the Bible to be inerrant and true. Every scripture is Holy Spirit inspired and should be lived by and I try my best to live by it's words. Sometimes I come up short, but I ask for forgiveness and try harder the next time. I do not wish to offend in any way, but I did not feel I should be silent. I believe all of mankind will stand before the Judgement Seat of Christ someday and tho some may hate me here for what I believe, I do not feel the same towards those who disagree and I believe I have shown that in the 2 years I have posted here.

@ Barmaleo: Nice try, but not considering someone's opinion worthy of regard is an altogether differnt thing from blacklisting someone. So, your Nazi / communist / McCarthy analogy is still utter nonsense.

Mister L: So, your Nazi / communist / McCarthy analogy is still utter nonsense.

Not at all. If you are familiar with history, all - Christians, communists, Nazis initially were persecuted by the powers that be. Then, when they obtained the power, they persecuted others. I guess gays would do the same. Could you prove I am wrong? I would trust them less, than those they are trying to harass.

This post is both inaccurate and slyly inflammatory.

First, the inaccuracy: Court didn't just oppose marriage equality. Her remarks on that subject were tied to a wish that gays and lesbians would go back into the closet. She's more than once stated her agreement with the Biblical pronouncement that homosexuality is an "abomination." So under even a literal definition of "homophobe," she qualifies. Let's at least be clear about the full extent of her comments.

Second, using the word "jihad" is a cheap (although reliable) way of demonizing those with whom you disagree. Because of its tie to a stripe of Islam that gets many people riled up, it's an easy, and lazy, rhetorical device that dispenses with the need for serious consideration of the issues raised. In this same light, consider the placement of "dignity" and "human rights" in scare quotes, indicating (without bothering to argue) that anyone who would try to tie Court's remarks to tangible consequences is not, in fact, furthering either of those important values.

Finally, the post takes refuge in BJK's remarks. After lauding her for her many accomplishments -- both on and off the court -- Bodo has set the stage for us to listen to King (after all, she should know, right?) along with him, not pausing to consider whether and when one's inflammatory comments should have consequences, and what those consequences should be.

And clearly the business about Rennae Stubbs is meant as a way for us to dismiss the whole controversy as silly. I'll confess that this is the first I've heard of this absurd suggestion, and I've been following the controversy fairly closely. (Here's my blog post on the matter:
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/1-the-australian-open-welcome-to-the-homophobe-arena/news/2012/01/15/33241) But why ignore it when it can be used to make the whole LGBT rights movement, or at least that part of it that's not that of the "quiet advocate," seem silly?

To recap Bodo's desired take-away messages: Anyone who is upset enough to suggest that Court's comments -- all of them, not selections -- are serious enough to warrant consideration of consequences is either zealous or silly (or both). BJK agrees: Only the tennis matters. QED.

The issue which many LGBT community supporters, whether they are members or not, is the hypocrisy which these "Christian leaders" are spouting hateful speech. Leviticus 18:21-22, the famous verse of The Bible which everyone spouts to support their anti-gay views, has been and continues to be constantly misinterpreted. The top scholars of all major Christian Denominations have espoused many times these verses does not condemn homosexuality (look it up for the full explanation as to why).

So "Christians," and I put those words in quotes because I do not feel these people embody Christ in any form, who are anti-gay, whether it be a simple disagreement with the lifestyle and not hatred for the person (Joel Osteen) or full out hate for the person and wish for their deaths (Hitler), these "Christians" completely forgo any other verses in Leviticus, which a few have already been pointed out like a woman shall not speak in church, it is an abomination, or a man who touches a bed with which a woman has had her period shall be put to death...and the list goes on and on.

These rules for living were set-out millenia ago and you would be hard pressed to find any Christian, or Jew, or Muslim in this world which follows every single one to the letter, and therefore, would be considered an abomination and sent to hell for all eternity. Most "Christians" simply blow this off and continue to perform these sins because they believe they will be saved.

TL;DR These Anti-Gay Christians are merely Hypocrites following an antequated code of laws. Eventually, just like with racism, women's rights, slavery, those who speak out against the LGBT community will be condemned, as they should be, and they can continue to spout their views at home where no one will rat them out to the public.

John Culhane:
"To recap Bodo's desired take-away messages: Anyone who is upset enough to suggest that Court's comments -- all of them, not selections -- are serious enough to warrant consideration of consequences is either zealous or silly (or both)."

Exactly as commies and Nazis used to do.

It seems the whole site is now becoming an extended
Racquet Reaction comment's section. A sad state of affairs.

BP, where's Slender Gaucho when we need him? ;-))

Billie jean is correct on all her points.

And, it should be Laver-Court arena.
Once again, the women were second fiddle.

Margaret Court is the greatest player of all time, men and women combined, even though I disagree with her fundamentalist opinions on gays.

Banana Peel (The Heart Wants What The Heart Wants): "It seems the whole site is now becoming an extended Racquet Reaction comment's section. A sad state of affairs."

It is still better than that part of the site where you are a frequent BS artist, and where everybody LOL at each other stupidity.

LOL

Same sex marriage is a disgrace and further proof that this world has gone mad. Margaret Court is a respectable woman, a great champion and is absolutely right to publicly criticise gay marriages.