If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?

Bigotry is irrational.

Separating the bigots from the rest of us: Tolerating bigotry is enabling that disease. Enabling that disease renders the enabler sick. They recommend friends/relatives of addicts go to AA/NA to cure them, too, of the disease.

You say that's excessive, etc. You could be wrong.

edit...oops, you're never "cured" of the "disease". One day at a time, and all that.

What's wrong then with formulating the thoughts into words and expressing them?

I guess it's better to be thought of as a bigot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

There's some delicious irony to what I'm suggesting: Jam those mofo bigots into the closet, and let the homosexuals out.

I can live with that.

How do the flat earthers explain the ability to sail around the world and end up where you started?

Well you do sail around the earth - just not on a sphere. You are sailing in a large circle.

Pretending that the pernicious effects of such attitudes don't go vastly beyond causing mere offense is dangerously deluded.

Lock me up, then 'round midnight you can hold a necktie party.

Aren't flat earthers basically taking relativity to the extreme...the Earth is flat because that is how I perceive it, therefore it must be flat?

Well. Not quite. If they were extreme relativists they would believe it is round for you and flat for me. They are ultimately extreme objectivists - the world is flat - only everyone has swallowed the "evidence" of "science" and ignored common sense.

Knew this thread was gonna get good when SBB joined it.

What's the line, Hunter defenders? Would it be alright if I went up to him and called him a n*gger?

I apologize to SBB. I started the "ad hominem" when I said he was unhinged.

edit...here's a better apology: SBB, I apologize. Better than a 3rd person apology.

Lock me up, then 'round midnight you can hold a necktie party.

Really, playing a faux martyr card is all you have? In the face of those actually suffering, this is more than a little pathetic.

Would it be alright if I went up to him and called him a n*gger?

No. Those would be fighting words and an incitement to immediate violence.

So him merely being uncomfortable around gays, even in the "workplace," is ok?

One problem here is the vague terms, be it weighty ones like "morally superior" or colloquial ones such as "ok." Hunter made the choice to bring his religious beliefs and the judgments thereof("biblically, it's not right") and his "discomfort" about male homosexuals into the public sphere and into the workplace by talking about it with a reporter and referencing his workplace space, the clubhouse. Given the issues faced historically and presently by gays, he is going to get hotly criticized for that. CBird and Vlad put it very differently, but their statements taken together(belief is all you get for free, and the right to free speech is not a get out of being called an asshat card) summarize it pretty well. If you are personally uncomfortable on an emotional level with people calling Hunter a bigot, that is understandable, but no one is "invading the private thoughts" of Hunter or anyone else.

i'd just like to point out that to my knowledge there have only been 2 homosexuals to post in this thread and neither of us have jumped down torii hunter's throat (phrasing) for his comments.


and personally, i'd add that there are multiple people in this thread who have made comments that are much more concerning than anything hunter originally said.

In the face of those actually suffering, this is more than a little pathetic.

The same utilitarian (*) calculus applies to gun nuttery, only far stronger. The guy who votes in the politician who keeps the unlimited assault weapons flowing is responsible more directly for far more innocent carnage -- even adjusting for the "cost" of gun control -- than Hunter.

(*) Since Hunter didn't personally harm anyone, you can only be applying some type of utilitarianism to justify attributing "suffering" to Hunter himself.

By whom and to what end?

By anyone who feels that the comments are worthy of censure, and to the end of demonstrating a dislike and desire to change the general public acceptance of a philosophy one finds repulsive. That's the whole point of free speech: we combat what we believe to be "bad speech" with what we believe to be "good speech." The collection of individual words fills the marketplace of ideas, and society tends to move in the most persuasive direction.

In thr effort to reduce harm on one end, people are willing to abrogate the equal protection of all to some basic first ammendment freedoms, in the practice of religion, speech, and assembly. Because we're not talking about stopping people from actually harming gays through their actions, but stopping them from giving offense. Censuring people for thoughtcrimes has a long and sordid history of being used against people of minority opinion, and that's the road suggested by many in this thread.

I can only speak for myself, but as it concerns me, this is outrageously false. I defend Torii Hunter's right to say hurtful things every bit as much as I defend my right to criticize his speech because it is hurtful.

I want to note that you're also creating a false distinction here: Torii Hunter's words are "actually harming gays." When you say that someone's sexual orientation "isn't right," you are fundamentally attacking that person's worth as a person, and such behavior is damaging to that group. I'm not saying it isn't permissible or even justified to engage in such speech; I have very clearly characterized religion (which is at least legitimately a choice, unlike sexual orientation) as irrational, dangerous, and a net evil to society.* The appropriate response if one thinks I am harming religious people through my speech is to call me on it or engage my position on the merits, but never to simply subvert my right to express my opinion.

*Torii Hunter's words being yet another example in support of this idea. If Torii Hunter merely said "I would be uncomfortable in the locker room around gay people," then I'd think he was foolish but I'd mind less. It's when he says "it's not right" that I really start to get annoyed. I'm pretty comfortable with nudity but I can understand and sympathize with not wanting to undress in front of someone that finds your particular brand of naughty bits attractive. I can't understand putting any bit of respect toward an authority that suggests that homosexuality is deviant, sinful behavior.

One problem here is the vague terms, be it weighty ones like "morally superior" or colloquial ones such as "ok." Hunter made the choice to bring his religious beliefs and the judgments thereof("biblically, it's not right") and his "discomfort" about male homosexuals into the public sphere and into the workplace by talking about it with a reporter and referencing his workplace space, the clubhouse. Given the issues faced historically and presently by gays, he is going to get hotly criticized for that. CBird and Vlad put it very differently, but their statements taken together(belief is all you get for free, and the right to free speech is not a get out of being called an asshat card) summarize it pretty well. If you are personally uncomfortable on an emotional level with people calling Hunter a bigot, that is understandable, but no one is "invading the private thoughts" of Hunter or anyone else.

It's not really a free speech issue, but more of a pluralism, respect for the individual conscience and dignity of all people issue. Whatever "discomfort" I have revolves around that.

The "workplace" part of the discussion is a red herring. Hunter isn't being criticized for giving his teammates donations to The Human Fund as their holiday gift. Let's not pretend he is.

Further, you seem to beg the question just as cheng did. You say that Paul believed heterosexual sex was "natural" without explaining the basis of that belief. My point is precisely that we have to understand the basis of that belief in order to understand Romans 1.

I think the simplest explanation for Paul's belief in the natural nature of heterosexual sex is that it is procreative.

1 Cor 7:3,5:

The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Paul talks continually in Corinthians about the virtues of marriage. Yes, Paul thinks it is better to remain unmarried, but "Because of the present crisis" not because of anything else. I think that saying that Paul is condemning homosexual sex due to his preference for hierarchy is probably reading from a modern perspective. The idea that heterosexual sex is normative drew strictly from the idea that it creates children.

And very tolerant and respectful of individual dignity to boot.

The natural state of tolerance only lasts until it is demonstrated to be undeserved. For centuries, various incarnations of Christianity has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate a poisonous, anti-intellectual, bigoted, and at times, murderous nature. I don't tolerate that.

I respect individual Christians despite their religion. I don't fear individual Christians, generally speaking. But collectively? Any non-Christian who isn't a little terrified is remarkably naive. (Not that I'm singling out Christianity here, mind you. I'm just responding to this particular context and this particular post.)

Aren't flat earthers basically taking relativity to the extreme yanking everyone's chain

FTFY

Steagles, I'm uncomfortable with your placing 2.5 on a continuum b/w 2 and 3, likely in part because I once viewed gay sex acts as a sin (I no longer do) - but no worse morally than, say, my own premarital hetero sex, and was also in favor of expanded civil rights / protected class status, advocated for GLBT orgs, and so on... If you'd care to regard people who held my former viewpoint as enabling or part of the problem, that's fine but I'd've thought that the type 3 folks would cause you more harm...

i would say that retconning the idea of homosexual sex being a sin in the eyes of god is every bit as important to achieving mainstream acceptance of homosexuality among practicing christians as the overturning of sodomy laws was to achieving mainstream acceptance of homosexuality among contemporary americans.


basically, for many years the justification for systemic discrimination against gays was rooted in the idea of us being deviant criminals due to the criminalization of sodomy. without that leg to stand on, there was a much clearer path for judicial and legislative (to say nothing of social) progress.

likewise, if homosexual sex in itself is removed from the list of sins, i believe the justification for religious discrimination against gays will also be on much shakier ground.



so for me personally, i feel that disconnecting the link between homosexual sex and sin should be priority #1 on our communities' collective agenda.

#269.

Some are chain yankers.
Some are biblical literalists.
Some are just very very open minded.

I like the third group.

The natural state of tolerance only lasts until it is demonstrated to be undeserved.

In other words, tolerance is entirely conditional on whether it's "deserved."

Which really isn't "tolerance" under any serious definition.

i'd just like to point out that to my knowledge there have only been 2 homosexuals to post in this thread and neither of us have jumped down torii hunter's throat (phrasing) for his comments.

Acknowledged, and appreciated.

and personally, i'd add that there are multiple people in this thread who have made comments that are much more concerning than anything hunter originally said.

People are interesting creatures.

It's not really a free speech issue, but more of a pluralism, respect for the individual conscience and dignity of all people issue. Whatever "discomfort" I have revolves around that.

Screw pluralism. While many issues have a healthy gray area, let's not pretend that there are not issues where one side is right and the other is wrong. We do not tolerate the attitude that blacks are inferior to whites, or women inferior to men, and we should not.

Similar to what I said before: the right to hold whatever opinion you wish is the sum total of the "respect for the individual conscience" that you get for free. Respect for the details of that position? That must be earned.

Screw pluralism. While many issues have a healthy gray area, let's not pretend that there are not issues where one side is right and the other is wrong. We do not tolerate the attitude that blacks are inferior to whites, or women inferior to men, and we should not.

Tolerance is your word, not mine. As noted, it really isn't the right word to describe what it's purporting to describe.

We do not tolerate the attitude that blacks are inferior to whites, or women inferior to men, and we should not.

We don't "tolerate" murderers, either, but we do maintain our respect for their humanity and dignity.

People are not affording Hunter due respect for things that are uniquely his and more importantly, due respect for his right to possess them. They're invading and violating his personal space.

In other words, tolerance is entirely conditional on whether it's "deserved."

With a high presumption of "deserved," absolutely.

Which really isn't "tolerance" under any serious definition.

It most certainly is. It simply isn't an absolute guarantee; there are limits to what reasonable human beings will tolerate. Tolerance is, as I see it, about moving your threshold of rejection from "this is different, so less worthy" to "this is different, but that is not sufficient on its own to conclude it's one bit less worthy."

I don't reject anti-homosexual bigotry because I disagree with it; I reject anti-homosexual bigotry because it is morally repugnant, harmful, and without a credible bit of rational support to justify the harm it causes. That anti-homosexual bigotry is, practically speaking, almost exclusively based on a hypocritically and inconsistently applied adherence to ancient unsourced texts outlining primitive tribal beliefs is its own extra mark against the position.

I respect individual Christians despite their religion. I don't fear individual Christians, generally speaking. But collectively? Any non-Christian who isn't a little terrified is remarkably naive.

In your experience, when have you ever been terrorized by Christians? I grew up and reside in Bible Belt America, I've been proselytized more than a coupla times, but I've not once started shaking in my boots in groups of Christians, groups I work with nearly every week of the year, many hardcore fundamentalists. What you do have is an increasing divide across which people can't talk to others of different beliefs and opinions out of fear. It's fear which generates much of Christian backlash against encroaching secular society.

I also have long lived, worked, and socialized with gays and lesbians my entire adult life. You can only be seduced if that's your desire...

I don't reject anti-homosexual bigotry because I disagree with it; I reject anti-homosexual bigotry because it is morally repugnant, harmful, and without a credible bit of rational support to justify the harm it causes. That anti-homosexual bigotry is, practically speaking, almost exclusively based on a hypocritically and inconsistently applied adherence to ancient unsourced texts outlining primitive tribal beliefs is its own extra mark against the position.

I basically agree with that, but it really isn't the issue posed here. The question is whether you "tolerate" Torii Hunter. I do.

I think that saying that Paul is condemning homosexual sex due to his preference for hierarchy is probably reading from a modern perspective. The idea that heterosexual sex is normative drew strictly from the idea that it creates children.

No, you've got this precisely backwards. The valuation of procreative sex is the modern perspective. You don't see the "only procreative sex is ok" argument take hold in Christianity until well into late antiquity, and it's really only in modernity that you get a concept of "heterosexuality" based on the procreative couple.

There's an extensive literature on this. I can offer bibliography. The ancients didn't understand sex in the way that you think they did.

We don't "tolerate" murderers, either, but we do maintain our respect for their humanity and dignity.

People are not affording Hunter due respect for things that are uniquely his and more importantly, due respect for his right to possess them. They're invading and violating his personal space.

I'm doing a lot less to "invade and violate" Hunter's personal space that we do to murderers. You can correct me if I am mistaken, but I don't recall seeing anyone suggest that we lock Hunter in a cage and perhaps execute him for his opinion. I respect Hunter's humanity and dignity; I challenge the intellectual and moral legitimacy of his opinions, not his intrinsic worth as a person. He's free to be ignorant and, in this case, a little bit evil. He's not free to demonstrate that ignorance and evil without a response.

By the way, has the source article been linked here? In pro sports, gay athletes still feel unwelcome.

A good way, it seems to me, to determine how procreative sex and heterosexuality and homosexuality are view at the bedrock level would be to look at how tribal (ancient, primitive, elemental--choose the term that soothes your psyche) societies view them--and we still have some of those in the present as well as studies and accounts.

Let's go back to 1 Cor 7.3-5, because it illustrates, I think, how you're reading Paul through modern eyes and missing his plain meaning. You quoted the text:

The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

And you said it was about procreation. There's not a single word there about procreation. What Paul says is that couples should not "deprive each other", "so that you may devote yourselves to prayer." His argument has nothing to do with making babies, and everything to do with managing one's passions so that one can carry out religious duties unaffected by desires. Married couples should #### not in order to make babies, but in order to let off passionate steam. It's better to be like Paul and not have to have sex in order to manage one's passions, but for those who can't be as he is, they should use sex as a passion release valve.

For Paul, the operative questions are about the control of the passions, and for men especially, the maintenance of self-control and proper masculinity. You're reading ideas about procreation into Paul that just aren't there.

In your experience, when have you ever been terrorized by Christians?

I wouldn't call it terrorized, but the collapse of my marriage was, in large part because my ex-wife believed that raising our children non-Catholic would lead them to hell.

Although I did not use the word terrorize, but terrify. When political candidates proudly raise their hand to demonstrate their rejection of the theory of evolution, and a significant part of the audience cheers, that is a profound ignorance that terrifies me. When a college roommate at Carnegie Mellon, one of the top schools in this country, said that he didn't believe God would allow him to contract HIV because that's God's punishment for homosexuals and IV-drug users, that's something that frightens me.

Also, I'm pretty insulated, most of the time. I'm a reasonably wealthy straight white Jewish male living in Manhattan. The sort of ideology that frightens me is pretty marginalized here.

The question is whether you "tolerate" Torii Hunter. I do.

I do as well. He's welcome in my society. But I don't have to like him to tolerate him.

EDIT: Since I don't know him, and the source of his belief is religion, I am more inclined to blame that pernicious influence rather than his personality. He might just be yet another one of those generally quite good people that was shamefully indoctrinated before his rational development.

Some are chain yankers.
Some are biblical literalists.
Some are just very very open minded.

I like the third group.

There is such a thing as being so open minded that your brain falls out. And I would argue there is a lot of that on display in this thread.

Ex-wives can be terrifying. Wives even moreso.

The "workplace" part of the discussion is a red herring

I disagree, obviously. Suppose that there is a borderline guy on the Tigers' 40-man right now, who is going to be trying to make the roster in a couple of months, and that that guy is gay. He knows that Respected Veteran and New Acquisition Torii Hunter feels this way and has said so publicly; I see that as a negative thing and not something I would want in the clubhouse if I ran the Tigers or were involved with them, and I think it is fair to assume that these comments would make it harder for that player to come out. If Hunter doesn't want gays in his own house, well, I think that's dumb and nasty, but it is his house. The clubhouse is the team's house, and everyone on the team should feel welcome in it. Part of the team ethic in sports (or in business, or in government, or in education) is putting your personal differences, prejudices, and emotions aside to work together for the success of the organization. Hunter went against that by saying these things.

There is such a thing as being so open minded that your brain falls out. And I would argue there is a lot of that on display in this thread.

This sounds like the close-minded and self-righteous attitude common with round-earther thinking.

I wouldn't suggest that the Politically Correct Police charge into Torii Hunter's home and arrest him for his beliefs, but I would suggest that his belief is significantly harmful to society and worthy of censure.

As usual, though, the PC police are on the right. There've been a lot of posts telling people objecting on principled grounds to Torii's bigoted remarks how they should and shouldn't talk.

Wolf is right, the intolerance of homophobes mirrors the intolerance of homosexuals. People have their honest responses, for instance, Torii Hunter. It's much, much better for everyone if we work as people to understand one another and not go into the same old shame/blame ######## that's self righteousness in sheep's clothing.

Grow up already. Nobody cares if you are holier than thou.

Jesus, Perros. You break out of your somnolent, performance art-fortune cookie posting with this?? Don't encourage him.

No. Those would be fighting words and an incitement to immediate violence.

Horsefuckingshit. There's nothing inherent about ###### that is a "fighting word". You're just making #### up.

This sounds like the close-minded and self-righteous attitude common with round-earther thinking.

I hold the truth self-evident, that the earth is shaped like a klein bottle.

*Torii Hunter's words being yet another example in support of this idea. If Torii Hunter merely said "I would be uncomfortable in the locker room around gay people," then I'd think he was foolish but I'd mind less. It's when he says "it's not right" that I really start to get annoyed. I'm pretty comfortable with nudity but I can understand and sympathize with not wanting to undress in front of someone that finds your particular brand of naughty bits attractive. I can't understand putting any bit of respect toward an authority that suggests that homosexuality is deviant, sinful behavior.

This is exactly how I feel.

Horsefuckingshit. There's nothing inherent about ###### that is a "fighting word". You're just making #### up.

And even if it is a fighting word, how does that violate your ethics? I have the right to say whatever I want, right? If he wants to fight me over it that's his perogotive.

I hold the truth self-evident, that the earth is shaped like a klein bottle.

Hmm. Go on.

Not in those words, but in making ad hominem attacks on Hunter ("bigot", "d-bag", etc.), they are presuming to be qualified to judge him, which they are not.

This is silly. "Bigot" can be entirely descriptive; definitional. Objective even.

I guess this is part of why you've been ranting about people thinking they're better than Torii. If you don't understand that "bigot" can be used simply as a descriptive term, I imagine it gives you an excuse to take umbrage.

Not really about the direction that the thread has taken, but I was intrigued by this assertion, attributed via paraphrase to Hunter by Kevin Baxter in the linked article:

an “out” teammate could divide a team

And this isn't loaded? This isn't placing the burden for dissension on the homosexual?

How about, "Our bigoted attitude towards men who put their penises into other mens' mouths and assholes is likely to divide a team between those who hold that attitude and the grown-ups".

This is silly. "Bigot" can be entirely descriptive; definitional. Objective even.

I think you and I mean different things by 'bigot'. What do you mean by that word?

Jesus, Perros. You break out of your somnolent, performance art-fortune cookie posting with this??

What was your handle before this one, Sybil?

I hold the truth self-evident, that the earth is shaped like a klein bottle.

Hmm. Go on.

There are 2 indisputable facts about the earth.
1)If you travel for a long enough distance in any direction, you will eventually reach your point of origin.
2)Different places on earth have line of sight with the sun at different times.

Only a klein bottle can explain both of those phenomena concurrently.

if homosexual sex in itself is removed from the list of sins, i believe the justification for religious discrimination against gays will also be on much shakier ground.
so for me personally, i feel that disconnecting the link between homosexual sex and sin should be priority #1 on our communities' collective agenda.

i'd make a distinction between 'homosexual sex as a special kind of sin' and 'homosexual sex as a sin, on a par with loads and loads of other stuff'. the latter implies equivalency in a small (insufficient way) in that the real issue was that it was sex out of wedlock (where, of course, wedlock wasn't an option - that was what first got me in favor of civil unions back then) - not same-sex sex.
granted, i'm arguing for the me of 15-20 years ago, may not be indicative of where many Christians stood then or now.