Tennis Forum banner

221 - 234 of 234 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,450 Posts
Like many of her generation she holds beliefs that gay relationships are wrong, but she hasn't and doesn't wish any harm on anyone. People need to stop treating her like some kind of pariah. What is far more dangerous to gay people today is the hatred being spewed out on social media, certain countries in the world that criminalise and often kill gay people and what is spread in most religious institutions in countries where it is not illegal in any way. Concentrate on those rather than pick on some elderly religious woman, who may not be saying things you like but deserves her place in sporting history. Anybody going after soft targets like her and ignoring vile regimes and not complaining when the WTA or ITF has an event in those regimes, is a hypocrite and somewhat selective as to what offends them.
I don't know if she wishes harm on gays, but she has admitted that she's "converted" people in her congregation at her church. You give an example of "hatred being spewed out on social media," and I know you're right to say that some cultures behave more harshly toward gays than what Court has done, but you're also forgetting that Court did shame a tennis player on social media for choosing to raise a child without a father. Court may phrase her beliefs in a nice way, as in, "I don't wish to hurt them," but that doesn't make her comments any less hurtful. Yes, others should be taken to task for spewing hatred, but Court, along with any other celebrity, will be given more criticism simply because she's famous. When you're in the public eye, any offensive comments will be heavily scrutinized.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,473 Posts
...but you're also forgetting that Court did shame a tennis player on social media for choosing to raise a child without a father....
Yep.

She also compared Gays to Nazis, and accused the WTA of being filled with Lesbians grooming minors.

She is allowed to say these things, and people are allowed to call it for what it is, homophobic behavior.

It has little to do with her belief against same-sex marriage, at least for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,754 Posts
In a world where Handke is receiving Nobel Prize despite his views on Srebrenica, why wouldn't Court be honoured with a ceremony?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,614 Posts
Lol, no. Homophobia like racism is not about freedom of opinion. In many countries, lgbti+ individuals are living their lives under constant threat because of bigots like Court. Intolerance doesn't deserve tolerance.
Actually what homophobia is, isn't always as absolute as you make it. There can be nuance.

The issue here is cultural understanding can lead to differences of opinion. Margert Court to many is saying homophobic things, but to her and many others she isn't as she isn't spewing out hate, only an opinion that marriage/kids/etc can only be between a man and a women.Meanwhile she bears no hate on gays. Clearly to her mind she isn't being hateful at all and culturally she doesn't understand the differences of opinion to her views.Likewise people can conclude Court means well but just doesn't get it.

Likewise dictating there is an absolute standard without context is in itself intolerant. We are moving towards a better more equal social view of society, but we should have understanding we are product of our environment and some people's beliefs of what they think is good is different to others.

Sometimes both sides could do with more understanding on a difference of opinion and try to meet in the middle or accept some people have incomparable ideas that won't always match-up, especially over generations. And airbrushing people out of history doesn't change that. Definitions of what is good and acceptable change over time and we must accept that. I'd personally negotiate with Court to say we will honor your tennis achievements if you keep quiet publically about your beliefs on sexuality. Try to create a win-win situation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37,422 Posts
Actually what homophobia is, isn't always as absolute as you make it. There can be nuance.

The issue here is cultural understanding can lead to differences of opinion. Margert Court to many is saying homophobic things, but to her and many others she isn't as she isn't spewing out hate, only an opinion that marriage/kids/etc can only be between a man and a women.Meanwhile she bears no hate on gays. Clearly to her mind she isn't being hateful at all and culturally she doesn't understand the differences of opinion to her views.Likewise people can conclude Court means well but just doesn't get it.

Likewise dictating there is an absolute standard without context is in itself intolerant. We are moving towards a better more equal social view of society, but we should have understanding we are product of our environment and some people's beliefs of what they think is good is different to others.

Sometimes both sides could do with more understanding on a difference of opinion and try to meet in the middle or accept some people have incomparable ideas that won't always match-up, especially over generations. And airbrushing people out of history doesn't change that. Definitions of what is good and acceptable change over time and we must accept that. I'd personally negotiate with Court to say we will honor your tennis achievements if you keep quiet publically about your beliefs on sexuality. Try to create a win-win situation.
No, sorry, accusing all lesbians of being predatory towards young girls and saying that trans children are possessed by the devil is the definition of hate. This woman is hateful and absolutely nuts, and in a not remotely nuanced way too.

Next up you'll be making excuses for the Westboro Baptist Church as well, because their beliefs are a product of their familial environment anyways.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
Court often choked there.
No evidence of that although it is often trumpeted.Possible exception 1962 when leading 5-2 30-15 3rd set in her 2nd round match against Silly Mean Thing who, Margaret admitted, hit a cross-court backhand which absolutely 'floored' her.She didn't win another game.

Her other defeats at Wimbledon, which were all in the later stages of the event, were at the hands of exceedingly accomplished opponents who all ended up as winner or finalist and simply outplayed her on the day and to whom she showed her customary sportsmanship.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
25,191 Posts
No evidence of that although it is often trumpeted.Possible exception 1962 when leading 5-2 30-15 3rd set in her 2nd round match against Silly Mean Thing who, Margaret admitted, hit a cross-court backhand which absolutely 'floored' her.She didn't win another game.

Her other defeats at Wimbledon, which were all in the later stages of the event, were at the hands of exceedingly accomplished opponents who all ended up as winner or finalist and simply outplayed her on the day and to whom she showed her customary sportsmanship.
I agree that her defeats were to quality foes.

Nonetheless it is quite evident to me that she was more nervous at Wimbledon than anywhere else. Court herself admits it. It was by far her least successful slam.

[On her first match ever on Centre Court]
As I walked out to play Nancy Richey, my knees shook.What people had told me about the power of Wimbledon's centre court to turn the toughest competitor to jelly.." (page 59 of her latest autobiography).

In 1962 vs Moffitt (later King): "as was usual for me at Wimbledon, I was racked with nerves for days before our match." (p 92)

Ted Tinling called her Wimbledon nerves "invisible vultures" hovering over centre court. Ann Jones noted she was apt to get more nervous than usual at the Big W. Both were keen observers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,445 Posts
I'd personally negotiate with Court to say we will honor your tennis achievements if you keep quiet publically about your beliefs on sexuality. Try to create a win-win situation.
Love thy neighbor.

It always amazes me how self professed god fearing people hold onto their "beliefs", outdated as they may be, about marriage yet reject passages in the bible that don't suit their ignorant and intolerant mindsets.

Court could also adapt her beliefs to the 21st century and educate herself to the fact that one's sexual orientation is not a sin and in no way encroaching upon the way she chooses to live her life. That would be a real win-win. Threatening or condemning entities because they are tolerant of same sex marriage is homophobic by definition. She had a hissy fit because Qantas Airlines moved forward with the rest of the world in this regard and called for a boycott.

It is 2019. She doesn't have to be an advocate for the LGBTQ+ community but she also doesn't have to espouse her intolerance for the community either.

As for "understanding eachother" and tolerating different beliefs, when the other side accepts marginalized groups humanity, doesn't denigrate them and is open to exposing themselves to people different than themselves and rejecting their ignorant mindsets that are a byproduct of environment and refusing to move forward with the rest of the world, sure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,803 Posts
In a world where Handke is receiving Nobel Prize despite his views on Srebrenica, why wouldn't Court be honoured with a ceremony?
That's blatant corruption by the Nobel guys — different. Unlike the Margaret court vis-à-vis AO situation, the Nobel does not owe that author any prize, they were not under expectation or pressure to give something to that one guy but they did it anyway.
 
221 - 234 of 234 Posts
Top