Kevin Baxter of the Los Angeles Times has written an insightful piece on the life of the gay athlete in professional sports. As part of his reporting, Baxter sought out comments from a number of straight athletes on the subject, and here’s how he summarized his conversation with veteran Tigers outfielder Torii Hunter:
Like in the New England Patriots’ locker room. Earlier this season linebacker Brandon Spikes sent out a tweet claiming to be homophobic “just like I’m arachnophobic. I have nothing against homosexuals or spiders but I’d still scream if I found one in my bathtub.”
Spikes later said he was joking. But former Angels outfielder Torii Hunter, among baseball’s most thoughtful and intelligent players, isn’t kidding when he says an “out” teammate could divide a team.
“For me, as a Christian … I will be uncomfortable because in all my teachings and all my learning, biblically, it’s not right,” he says. “It will be difficult and uncomfortable.”
Hunter is of course entitled to his personal beliefs (although one wonders whether he is similarly affronted by, say, shellfish and neatly maintained beards, which are also forbidden by the holiness code of Leviticus), and when he talks about potential problems within the clubhouse, he may well be correct.
Repoz
Posted: December 30, 2012 at 06:19 PM |
335 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags:
tigers
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Or, Torii and the rest of the faithful could just stop qualifying statements of personal belief with "As an X...." and own their prejudices, instead of excusing it as a built-in part of the faith.
"Scream"?
I dunno, Spikes. That sounds pretty gay to me.
I also wonder at the source of 'homophobia' for a guy who tweets about imagining gay men in his bathtub.
Talk about a guy with a weird career ...
I've never been able to put my finger on it, but that comment right there sums it up for me. Christians all the time are able to overcome their beliefs to do actions that are unchristianlike(I doubt that there are many Christians in pro sports who didn't have premarital sex) Why is this particular issue so much more unchristiany than other things? Isn't core christian principles to love your fellow man? That we are all sinners? That God is the only one to judge?
I have no problem with people of faith, but to use that faith to perform actions that goes contrary to the fundamental principles of that faith, is somewhat problematic.
"Hunter is of course entitled to his personal beliefs (although one wonders whether he is similarly affronted by, say, shellfish and neatly maintained beards, which are also forbidden by the holiness code of Leviticus),"
that add-in by the blogger is quite the invitation to a constructive conversation
#notreallyatall
The toilet, transubstantiated.
Torii is 37 years old and has college age children.
Ok?
I wasn't directing my comment towards Torii specifically, but to people who are Christians and seem to focus on one minor comment in their religion as it's the most important part of their religion, while accepting other actions by other people with no problem. As post 13 points out, what is the fundamental difference between adulterers and homosexuals as far as Christianity is concerned?
Was Torii pure when he got married? Is he married? Doesn't he have 4 kids by 4 different mothers? Not sure that he is the poster boy for Christian behavior, nor should he be pulling out Christian values when he talks.
There can be no constructive conversation on the matter. One side is completely bigoted and wrong. Pretending there are valid arguments for their position to have constructive conversation about just enables them, and allows them to propagate that viewpoint. Shaming them repeatedly, so they realize that those views have no place in a modern society, and future generations grow up knowing it is wrong, is about as constructive as you can get.
Well, I won't pretend to be an acknowledged theologian, but I don't think there is any.
There is, however, a difference between someone sneaking around guiltily being gay in the hope of not being found out, and an adulterer proclaiming their adulterous lifestyle as something wholly acceptable as a 'lifestyle choice'. The latter is much more deserving of being shunned.
EDIT: I ought to point out the 'love the sinner, hate the sin' clause here. Shunning is probably not the way to handle it.
Hey, ballplayers work hard and they play hard.
It happens in football too.
There is nothing wrong with this. Who wouldn't be scared to find a stranger in their bathtub?
What's the difference really in the examples the author cites? There aren't many qualifications in Leviticus - you're either holy or you're not. The point is, we qualify constantly what is good or not and what is moral or not and we do it primarily based on what's good for us. Being anti-gay as a matter of morality is easy morality - it costs a straight person nothing to be anti-gay, whereas it costs the gay person everything. You the straight person don't have to change - you're righteous just as you are. It's all those other people who have to change to become righteous and moral just like you.
I also believe that as soon as one person does, it'll open up the flood gates and many more will in the next 5 years after that.
If I had to guess, it'll first be a hockey player, and it'll be on a Canadian team (probably the Maple Leafs).
I think the last league to have a gay player come out (or be "out" before being drafted) will be the NBA.
Is this really true? I mean, sure, if you live in a place full of people who don't care, but if there are enough jackasses around...
though i don't regard being homos8xual as being a sin.
scr8wing around on your wife, yes.
or your girlfriend. or your boyfriend if that's your thing
keep a promise already
But if it was a bench player who was perpetually having to fight for a roster spot every spring? That's an entirely different story.
I think if it were A-Rod or LeBron James or someone else equally despised then he might catch a lot more ####.
Well, coming out would be one surefire way for A-Rod to get good publicity for once.
Was Jon Amaechi out when he was playing, or not until after?
(Or am I just imagining that he's even gay?....)
Okay, that's true. But what if it was somebody like Mike Trout or Kevin Durant?
(Note: I am not saying that Mike Trout or Kevin Durant are gay. Not like I'd have a problem with that.)
AROD, if you're reading this, and you're gay, STAY IN THE CLOSET. Not for your sake, but for the sake of all the other gay folks on the planet. Because we really don't need to give Ralph Reed and company the "centaur" angle, Chief.
I think Torii should keep in mind that every person in his locker room does and says things that make God "uncomfortable", including Torii Hunter. And yet, God loves those people anyway, and points them toward a way of life that will result in peace and wholeness. If Torii focuses on following that example, everything will work out in God's timing.
And, I think Christians, including Torii Hunter, should get used to not being in the majority, and accept that this ultimately leads to greater discomfort than sharing a locker room with other millionaires who do things you find distasteful.
I'm not sure about the "flood gates" part. It seems like someone would have been outed by now if there were more than a very small number of closeted gays in the Big Four sports.
35 - amaechi was not out during his career. Probably best that he wasn't that trailblazer - unpopular dude who was regarded as soft.
38 - what sect/denomination?
I'm a tolerant political moderate, and some of you people need to be constantly aware that when you are being intolerant of people who are intolerant of homosexuals you are - no kidding - being every bit as intolerant and self-righteous as they are.
People have the right to choose to be what they want and to hold whatever opinions they choose to hold, no matter whether they are Left, Right or centrist or if they are atheists, agnostics, or believers. And that specifically includes the right to be intolerant in ways that you don't approve of.
"I know you are, but what am I?" :-)
This is such a counterproductive starting point for any dialogue. "You are a bigot. Nice to meet you."
I have gay friends that like I very much like and respect. I also believe, as a Catholic, that homosexual behavior is a sin against God. We're all sinners, and I certainly have my hands full with my own weaknesses. That's my top priority rather than judging other people. Christians would do well to remember that homosexuality is a sin rather than the sin of all sins. So, while I may be "completely bigoted and wrong" in your view, I am also sympathetic toward homosexuals for how they are scapegoated.
I would never treat a gay person differently than anyone else. We all deserve respect and dignity. Torii Hunter doesn't speak for all Christians, and I hope you'll also rethink the wisdom of "shaming" people.
Obligatory XKCD response.
This is a really good way to put it. Homosexuality is a sin in most (all?) Christian denominations. The right way to gain tolerance is not to fight that - Christian dogma and beliefs are unlikely to change.
It's to remind those who are intolerant that homosexuals are just like any other sinners - which includes everyone on the planet - and go from there.
I promise not to sneak into Brandon Spikes' bathtub.
Well, technically *being gay* is not a sin. Acting on your homosexual desires is. At least that's more or less official dogma these days. It's not a sin to exist as a gay person. It's a sin to have "objectively disordered" sex. Which encompasses all gay sex.
There's probably already a girl in there anyway. Perhaps alive.
And of course, how dare anyone be intolerant of intolerance? White slave holders were merely doing what they felt was the most moral thing possible in caring for, and beating to death, members of "inferior" races.
I can't believe someone actually went with the "you don't tolerate my bigotry. that makes you a bigot, too." I guess it is the best argument they've got.
You missed the point, which is there is no way to have a constructive dialogue, and here is why:
You think people having the audacity to exist is some sort of affront. You might as well claim that being black is a sin. It is a point of view, that people should be ashamed of, and the best way to achieve that is by shaming people who hold it.
And I also promise to stay away from Brandon Spikes' bathtub. Unless he invites me there. Because he wants to scream. Or moan. Who knows?
I do think it's important to note that Christian theology and social practice is moving steadily (in some cases more quickly than others) toward a proper embrance of gay men and women. I could recommend books.
But that is entirely separate from the idiotic line spouted by JR Wolf.And following on to that, Christians would do well to remember that homosexuality is not a sin. There are tons of books making this clear argument, one of my favorites, because it's also a cracking good history, is Mark Jordan, The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology. Patrick Cheng, Radical Love is a good general introduction to queer theology.
Yes, the backlash there is always fascinating.
Except the Braves' new batting practice hats. Those are made of 100% live injun skin.
Put my money in your meter baby so it won't run down
You caught me in the squeeze play on the cheesy side of town
Throw me a dime, throw me a line...
I hear you moan, I hear you moan, I hear you moan...
Brilliant.
If it's not objectively disordered, it's probably not much fun.
Intolerance is intolerance. Hate gays? Intolerance. Hate people who hate gays? Intolerance at the same level. (Exception: declaring up front that people who don't tolerate gays are "bigoted and wrong" actually makes the declarer even less tolerant than the opposition.)
People have the right to believe as they wish and you thought control bigots out there need to learn the very toleration that you think that your opponents are so lacking in.
I disagree. The first is being intolerant of someone for being the way they are. The second is being intolerant of the way someone has chosen to act.
Is the second perfectly fine? No. The goal is to educate and help people become more tolerant. But just letting it go and saying, "you can feel however you want," is not the right way to go about it.
Sure but that isn't what is happening when people are unhappy with people like Torii when they say the things they say. It's a strawman argument.
False equivalence. I can't stop you from believing what you want, however silly it may be, nor am I interested in doing so. But if you guys get your way, I get discriminated against. Possibly put in prison.
Does this make sense? Don't think about it, just drink.
Well of course it is, biblically. It great that some folks have found a novel way to move some books but it's not ambiguous language. The thing is that we all sin, biblically, thousands of times daily, homosexually isn't the unforgivable sin, and there is still a clear way for sinful man to be right with the Christian God.
You callin' me fat?!
It may only be my particular reaction to this word. But "Tolerance", to me, says "I know the best way, and you choose not to think it with me. But I accept this."
There's a twinge of paternalism and self-righteousness to it.
I'm sure you think this sounds perfectly reasonable.
The problem with this line of thinking is it requires me to accept your notion that homosexuality is a sin.
That is the very point I would be debating with you.
When you stop viewing gay people as sinners just for being gay and you stop lumping them in the same group as adulterers, theives, child-molesting priests, frauds and loan sharks, you'll have made a great deal of progress. We can go from there.
and you know how those athletes are always patting/rubbing each others butts - and doing other things too - just think about canseco/mcgwire in the bathroom stalls giving each other "injections" in the butt.
yes indeedy, those homosex guys are dangerous to baseball - put em in the locker room, and next thing you know, all them 3rd base players be stealin home, you feelin me here.
oh yeah - and the reason you ignore most of leviticus is because cotton/poly blends are comfy, genetically modified mixed breed seeds are the only ones you can buy, shellfish/bacon are delicious - however, buttsex is icky-poo.
oh yeah - if the rest of the conservatives were like harveys instead of like huckaster, this country wouldn't be so effed up
Tubby.
Sadly, it is not.
Also, we've been showering with breeder dudes all thru high school and college and the minors, well, those of us who get there anyway. I'd say that we learn to keep our urges under control, but it's not even that, really. The gym shower is not really a sexualized situation. I realize that the adult film industry does not view it that way, but I also once delivered pizzas and the adult film industry doesn't portray that profession accurately either. Go figure.
"Is it in yet?"
"I dunno, I can't feel it, I think you need to spread apart the fat first. You know what, nevermind, lets just do it in the mouth. I haven't had a sausage in years".
That would really tear Tori up!
I don't think so. I suspect as long as the guy is a respected pro, not an AJ or Arod type, he'll be fine. When ballplayers are asked about having a gay teammate, they don't think of a specific guy as being gay, but as a hypothetical person whose only known characteristic is his homosexuality. It's much easier to think this hypothetical guy will be a problem.
But that won't be the case. The first openly gay player will be someone who has, presumably, already demonstrated himself as a ballplayer and teammate and hearty fellow, etc., and thus his sexual preference will be just a small part of him. And while it will obviously be news for a while, I doubt it will be much of an issue in most clubhouses.
so are you trying to tell me that when you delivered pizzas all these hot dudes didn't suddenly realize what they'd been missing and you were makin a delivery you didn't expect?
Heh. My guess is that this expression is common, but being unhip and uncool, I had never heard it. Pretty funny.
I agree with most of what SoSH said, and as discussed before, I think it is likely that the first active player to come out, whatever the sport, will be a guy who is pretty damn good to great and therefore secure.
Walt -
I think that's more of a counter-argument towards people who think homosexuality is a sin. You don't need to accept that homosexuality is a sin to make the argument to those who do that we're all sinners, homosexual behaviour isn't some sort of special unforgivable sin (at least in Catholicism) and that they ought not to any more hung up on it than they are adulterers.
Not to mention who will have a substantial number of teammates who don't care about him being gay -- who *very actively* want it to be the non-issue it should be, where a guy like Torii turns out to be the disruptive divisive presence in the clubhouse.
Edit: "non-issue" isn't the right way to put it, because it will be a big deal. More that there will be teammates who will be all: "Hey, don't be an #######..."
Morever, I suspect that a lot of the Torii types will change their views when this gay teammate is a guy they happen to like/respect.
Lonely housewives do not look like porn stars, whether or not they are horny.
I am guessing that the local gays were not ordering pizza delivery, or at least were not doing so as a means of obtaining sexual gratification.
A preacher who excoriates adulterers or gamblers is uncomfortably talking about a big chunk of his flock. A preacher who goes after homosexuals is maybe talking about a few relatives of his flock who likely don't go to his church.
OK I have never viewed gay people as sinners just for being gay, and have never lumped them in with those other people. I have also made no progress since I have never thought differently. I still think that people can think whatever they like and I do not have the right to demonize them for disapproving of whatever they want to disapprove of. For example, I do not believe that polygamy is a sin, nor prostitution. I expect that there will be several posters here who think that they are. As far as I'm concerned you can all disapprove of whatever you like and I'm willing to tolerate you. OTOH I do believe that abortion is a sin. I expect that several posters who think it is not. If I am not extended the same tolerance for disapproving of something that you do not disapprove of you are, whether Walt likes it or not, just as bigoted as Torii Hunter. Further your brand of bigotry, wherein you believe you are somehow "superior" for being "tolerant" because you do not disapprove of something that I do disapprove of, irritates me far more than that of Torii Hunter, who is just saying what he thinks. He is not saying that he is a superior human being. You people are.
I said homosexuality is not sinful.
I will also say that Jack Morris does not deserve to be a Hall of Famer.
I am not saying I am superior to those who disagree with me, I am saying, on these topics, that they are wrong, incorrect, misguided, what have you.
Now, you may disagree with me that the Who were better than the Beatles and I will not call you wrong. You might prefer Chinese food to Indian and I will not call you wrong.
But, in any of those cases, the notion that the best way for to engage someone is to grant the assumption that they are correct is a pointless non-starter. #88 is saying that I should engage people by pointing out their hypocrisy (this is questionable strategy but whatever). This is the approach that people are taking by noting that Hunter has probably played with many adulterers and should be as or more bothered by them than by any homosexuals he plays with. (For all we know Torii is very uncomfortable with the adulterers.)
Those positions are wrong. Those positions make the claim that homosexuality is a sin but that you should "love the sinner" or be more annoyed with adulterers. Those positions allow bigots to be comfortable in their bigotry.
Homosexuality is not a sin. There is NOTHING wrong with homosexuality. Not a single god-damned thing. The position of the Catholic Church (and many other religions and Christian sects) with regard to homosexuality is wrong. The position of many religions with regard to women is wrong. Major League Baseball was wrong to exclude black players. Slavery was wrong, Jim Crow was wrong, denying women the vote was wrong, monarchies and dictatorships are wrong. These are not hard questions.
That they are also often hypocritical in their castigation of some "sinners" and not others is just icing on the cake.
Was it inappropriate for the Civil Rights marchers to feel superior to the Bull Connors and George Wallaces of the world? There are still people in this country that are against interracial marriage, it it OK to criticize them? Is it "bigotry" to call those people out?
You have every right to demonize people for holding views you find to be abhorrent. There is no justifiable reason to be against homosexuality or gay sex.
FWIW, I'm in the "fundamental human rights" camp.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main