Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, December 30, 2012

Perry: Torii Hunter: Having gay teammate would be ‘difficult’

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.

Thanks to Carlos.

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.

Page 2 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 
   101. Fancy Pants Handle doesn't need no water Posted: December 31, 2012 at 02:59 AM (#4335101)
I wonder if Torii had said having a Jewish teammate or a Chinese teammate or a deaf teammate would be difficult he would be getting this same defense.

Well, we already know how he feels about those Latino black imposters.
   102. vivaelpujols Posted: December 31, 2012 at 03:03 AM (#4335104)
I wonder if Torii had said having a Jewish teammate or a Chinese teammate or a deaf teammate would be difficult he would be getting this same defense.


There we go. No one in their right mind is gonna defend Nazi sympathizers.

   103. epoc Posted: December 31, 2012 at 03:10 AM (#4335107)
Lonely housewives do not look like porn stars, whether or not they are horny.


In my many years of pizza delivery, I was propositioned twice. They are two of the most depressing experiences of my life. It's not just that real people don't look like porn stars, I don't think. It's also that there's some really fundamentally sad things about being propositioned by total strangers who have chosen you completely at random. It's not like you're being hit on at a bar or something like that. These people just decided they'd call a number and then try to **** whoever showed up at their door. I can't overemphasize how sad this experience is. A good lesson about the difference between movies (porn especially) and real life.


Also, yeah, bigotry isn't cool. And calling out bigots isn't itself bigoted. Should be self-evident.
   104. Bhaakon Posted: December 31, 2012 at 03:14 AM (#4335109)
I wonder if Torii had said having a Jewish teammate or a Chinese teammate or a deaf teammate would be difficult he would be getting this same defense.


Sure, because having a deaf teammate might actually present legitimate difficulties. There are enough defensive collisions between players who can actually hear one another calling for the ball.
   105. smileyy Posted: December 31, 2012 at 03:22 AM (#4335112)
[104] Sure, and what about the guy who tries to *($# your *($# while you're camping out underneath a fly ball?

   106. Bhaakon Posted: December 31, 2012 at 03:26 AM (#4335113)
[104] Sure, and what about the guy who tries to *($# your *($# while you're camping out underneath a fly ball?


Considering some of the aggressive ass grabbing I've seen in the dugout, that hardly merits notice.
   107. Perro(s) Posted: December 31, 2012 at 03:34 AM (#4335115)
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?


What does 'feeling superior' have to do with morality? Perhaps everything...

You have every right to demonize people for holding views you find to being abhorent
...

Makes it a lot easier to treat them as less than human when you do.

Ray Bradbury wrote a simple little story "The Other Foot". Check it out.

   108. Dave Spiwak Posted: December 31, 2012 at 04:06 AM (#4335122)
Seems like about half the posts so far are people who illustrate their problem with Torii Hunter's bigotry by making their own bigoted complaints about Christians.
   109. Fancy Pants Handle doesn't need no water Posted: December 31, 2012 at 04:12 AM (#4335124)
Seems like about half the posts so far are people who illustrate their problem with Torii Hunter's bigotry by making their own bigoted complaints about Christians.

I am prejudiced against assholes. If you think people are sinners for making the mistake of existing, you are in fact an asshole. I know many, many Christians who are not assholes. If you can't separate being a Christian from being an asshole, that is your problem, not mine.
   110. Tilden Katz Posted: December 31, 2012 at 04:23 AM (#4335130)
Seems like about half the posts so far are people who illustrate their problem with Torii Hunter's bigotry by making their own bigoted complaints about Christians.


As has been mentioned several times earlier in this thread, there are plenty of Christian churches that do not consider homosexuality to be a sin. And just because a belief is based in religion doesn't mean it should be free from criticism, or that it's bigotry to do so.
   111. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 31, 2012 at 04:28 AM (#4335131)
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?

Yes, it was inappropriate for the Civil Rights marchers to feel superior to anyone, and as far as I can tell they didn't feel superior to anyone. That was a great thing about Martin Luther King. It is OK to disagree with people on the topic of interracial marriage, but as far as I am concerned there is no moral high ground on any side of the issue. Yes, it is "bigotry" to call those people out just because you disagree with them. Is it OK for me to call abortion rights people vile murderers and feel superior to them? I think no. You seem to think yes. I guess you are entitled to that opinion, but you would think that you are not entitled to that opinion.

You have every right to demonize people for holding views you find to being abhorrent

I choose not to think that abortion rights people are disgusting murderers of helpless babies. You seem to think I should think that.

I wonder if Torii had said having a Jewish teammate or a Chinese teammate or a deaf teammate would be difficult he would be getting this same defense.

He would from me. Look at my handle.

[95] (and others) seems to be making the moral relativist argument, where as [96] (and others) seems to be making a fundamental human rights argument.

I disagree. I am 100% in favor of fundamental human rights. I am 100% against judging others for holding different views than I do. As far as I can tell nowhere does Torii Hunter say gay players should not have human rights. Part of having fundamental human rights is that you have them whether or not people approve of you or like you. I 100% disapprove of Giants fans, well OK maybe only 58%, but even they still deserve fundamental human rights.
   112. smileyy Posted: December 31, 2012 at 05:02 AM (#4335135)
As far as I can tell nowhere does Torii Hunter say gay players should not have human rights.


That's where you and I are reading him differently.
   113. vivaelpujols Posted: December 31, 2012 at 05:14 AM (#4335139)
Is it OK for me to call abortion rights people vile murderers and feel superior to them?


Abortion is a different matter. I'm unequivocally for gay rights, but am not sure about abortion. The reason being that gay marriage hurts nobody, while abortion is definitely balancing the rights of the mother with the life of the fetus. Completely different issues that are unfortunately lumped together.

That's the key difference between being gay and being anti gay. Being gay hurts nobody but yourself. Being anti gay hurts gay people if you are actively protesting against their rights or are against gay marriage. Tori is not necessarily doing that, but by speaking out against gays he's discouraging players to come out of the closet. And guess what Tori, you've probably been in the clubhouse with 100 different players over your career. Chances are at least one of them was gay and was afraid to come out because of ######## like you.

Now I don't hold it against anyone for hating gays, just like I don't hold it against anyone for liking 14 year old girls. The problems happen when your views start to effect other people. Publicly denouncing gays in the clubhouse hurts gays, just like hitting on a 14 year old girl (if you are like 20 or something) hurts that girl. Both of those things are immoral.
   114. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 31, 2012 at 05:22 AM (#4335141)
Tolerance includes tolerating the ALL of the political, religious and lifestyle views and viewpoints of others, not just those of atheists, agnosticists and Leftists. Being intolerant of Christians and conservatives is intolerance on a level that is every bit as bad as them being intolerant of homosexuals.
Aw, sweet fucking Jesus, not this.

Well, it's progress, I guess, that it took us 43 posts to get there.

I'm a tolerant political moderate,...


No you're not. You're being intolerant of the intolerance of intolerance you're claiming is so despicable. See how that works (and doesn't)?

No one gives a damn, really, if in the privacy of his own home some grubby buffoon loathes homosexuals, and even if he says it's okay to hate because his God told him he could.

It's when that loathing gets taken into the public sphere and is used to divide, to deny rights, as an excuse for hatred and vilification and murder--as it has in various guises, and aimed at so many groups--over millennia, that it deserves to be called exactly what it is: ignorance, intolerance, bigotry.

And that specifically includes the right to be intolerant in ways that you don't approve of.
Sure--just keep it in your sour house. If you bring it out of doors, expect to be treated with the militance and contempt you deserve.

-----------------------------------------------------------

There can be no constructive conversation on the matter. One side is completely bigoted and wrong.

"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."


So--it sounds like you'd prefer to be treated as bigoted, wrong, and also not grown up enough to accept an honest assessment of your position? :-)

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.


You bet. People trying to claim there's something natural in their bigotry because it has god's endorsement would do well to substitute "black" for "gay" in their assertions. Maybe that will help them understand how shameful their belief is.

Intolerance is intolerance. Hate gays? Intolerance. Hate people who hate gays? Intolerance at the same level.

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.


Indeed it is (though, see below). JRW's pretending that his distaste for homosexuality is somehow natural and innate, therefore contempt for it is contempt for something he can't help.

It's mildly clever, and as it takes a little work to sort through it's a card that gets played a lot. It should be skewered whenever it comes up, like, say, claims that the Bible endorses and therefore legitimizes race slavery.

It's always good to point out that the word play is pretty mindless. Holding intolerance for homosexuality up for scrutiny and contempt is not intolerance, per se. It's an intellectual and emotional rejection of a destructive and pernicious choice of beliefs. There's nothing destructive or pernicious about contempt for and the rejection of intolerance. In fact, it's one of the great drivers of human progress and liberty.

-----------------------------------------------------------

And as I looked along the sand, I saw that sometimes there were two sets of footprints side by side, but at other times there was only one. And I realized that the single set of footprints coincided with some of the most painful and uncomfortable moments of my life. So I said, "Why did you abandon me during the times when I was laid low?" In a soft voice came the answer: "Those were the times I was banging the #### out of you. Sorry about the sand and grit, beach sex is way overrated."


I knew this was going to go way off course. I didn't know it was going to go way, way off course.
   115. Everybody Loves Tyrus Raymond Posted: December 31, 2012 at 05:39 AM (#4335144)
I tried to choose my words carefully in my earlier post, but I inadvertently typed "Christians would do well to remember homosexuality is a sin, not the sin of all sins." I should have said homosexual behavior rather than homosexuality. Homosexuality as an inclination, unpracticed, is not sinful in the eyes of the Church. Those who pointed that out are correct.

My intention in participating is thread is not/was not to convince anyone that I'm right or that the Catholic Church is right. I do wish, however, to point out there are many of us out there who believe homosexual behavior is a sin but would also gladly stand with our gay friends in the event anyone tried to harm them or treat them unjustly based on their sexual orientation.

That's really all I have to say. God bless and Happy New Year to everyone reading this thread whether you're gay, straight, Christian, atheist, whatever. We're all in this together, and I extend my friendship to each and every one of you.



   116. Squash Posted: December 31, 2012 at 05:43 AM (#4335145)
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.

I personally find this explanation/defense generally non-compelling because there seem to clearly be tiers of sin, with homosexuality quite clearly being at the bottom/top/whichever is worst. Evangelicals and conservative Catholics, for example, aren't pushing for laws that make being rude to your neighbor a crime or adultery punishable by prison, but we desperately need a constitutional amendment saying that gay people can't get married and sodomy laws on the books. I'm not saying you personally (to the person who wrote this post) - you do seem genuinely compassionate about the issue. But it usually seems like a smokescreen to try to get the sayer off the hook by supposedly equivalating all sin, even though the sayer doesn't actually believe that.

EDIT: That's really all I have to say. God bless and Happy New Year to everyone reading this thread whether you're gay, straight, Christian, atheist, whatever. We're all in this together, and I extend my friendship to each and every one of you.

And to you too. Like I said, I'm not applying the above to you personally - I can completely understand your stance. That's just my general reaction when someone who clearly thinks homosexuality is really really bad then follows up with that statement - it just doesn't seem authentic.
   117. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 31, 2012 at 06:00 AM (#4335147)
Yes, it was inappropriate for the Civil Rights marchers to feel superior to anyone, and as far as I can tell they didn't feel superior to anyone. That was a great thing about Martin Luther King. It is OK to disagree with people on the topic of interracial marriage, but as far as I am concerned there is no moral high ground on any side of the issue.

Seriously?

Opposing interracial marriage is just as moral a position to take as being accepting of it?


My intention in participating is thread is not/was not to convince anyone that I'm right or that the Catholic Church is right. I do wish, however, to point out there are many of us out there who believe homosexual behavior is a sin but would also gladly stand with our gay friends in the event anyone tried to harm them or treat them unjustly based on their sexual orientation.

That's great, but it constrains me to note that huge numbers of people who believe the way you do, and who consider homosexuality a sin, in fact believe homosexuals should be second class citizens, with limited rights. And that's when they're not of the belief that it's okay to beat and intimidate and kill homosexuals, to keep them out of sight, and out of our schools and churches.

That you've adapted your belief to a philosophy of kindness is great, but by and large that belief is pernicious, and the root of many evils.


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.

Become Buddhist?

I'll be here all week.
   118. vivaelpujols Posted: December 31, 2012 at 06:07 AM (#4335149)
My intention in participating is thread is not/was not to convince anyone that I'm right or that the Catholic Church is right. I do wish, however, to point out there are many of us out there who believe homosexual behavior is a sin but would also gladly stand with our gay friends in the event anyone tried to harm them or treat them unjustly based on their sexual orientation.


If you oppose gay marriage and vote against it you are harming gay people. I find it really hard to believe that a gay person would actually be good friends with someone who thinks being gay is a sin. Unless they are a masochist I guess...
   119. Everybody Loves Tyrus Raymond Posted: December 31, 2012 at 07:07 AM (#4335154)
If you oppose gay marriage and vote against it you are harming gay people. I find it really hard to believe that a gay person would actually be good friends with someone who thinks being gay is a sin. Unless they are a masochist I guess...


I think sex outside marriage is a sin. I think masturbation is a sin. I think adultery is a sin. I think stealing is a sin. I think lying is a sin. I think it's a sin to take the Lord's name in vain. If people chose to associate with me based solely on what behaviors they engage in on occasion that I think are a sinful, I'd have no friends. Nor would I tolerate myself very well! :-)

I do not think "being gay" is a sin, btw. Sexual attraction is something over which one has no control. The sin is in the act. But, again, I'm also a sinner (as we all are) so I don't think I'm better than a gay person. For all I know, some of my sins are worse in the eyes of God. First and foremost, I am accountable for my own actions.



   120. vivaelpujols Posted: December 31, 2012 at 07:22 AM (#4335156)
Ok then it sounds the word "sin" has been diluted to the point of uselessness. And Tori Hunter obviously doesn't think like that, or else he would have said "it would be difficult to be in the clubhouse with any person, including myself. It's just not right"
   121. Everybody Loves Tyrus Raymond Posted: December 31, 2012 at 08:17 AM (#4335167)
Ok then it sounds the word "sin" has been diluted to the point of uselessness. And Tori Hunter obviously doesn't think like that, or else he would have said "it would be difficult to be in the clubhouse with any person, including myself. It's just not right"


Well, I'm not Torii Hunter. :-) And I have no problem with you and others calling him out. His comments were insensitive and imply that being gay is somehow worse than a multitude of other things that should also concern Christians. I believe he's dead wrong to single out gays and, insofar as some may look at his views and incorrectly assume all Christians share them, it's doubly unfortunate.

   122. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 31, 2012 at 08:34 AM (#4335172)
And following on to that, Christians would do well to remember that homosexuality is not a sin

Well of course it is, biblically.
If you want to play Bible, I can play Bible.

I'm going to assume you're talking about Romans 1.26-27 here. Obviously turning to Leviticus gets you into all the problems with the Jewish laws that aren't authoritative for Christians. You could also be talking about 1 Cor 6.9, but that's not the strongest argument. I'll take 1 Cor 6.9 first, because getting its context is very helpful for understanding Romans 1.

So, 1 Corinthians 6.9-10 is a "vice list" - these are sort of rote collections of bad people and bad actions. You see them all over Greek literature in the Roman era. People would have heard the first word or two of a vice list and known what was coming next. So, Paul is in the middle of trying to hash out a dispute in the Corinthian community, that apparently some members of the community are bringing legal cases against others in the community, through the official channels in the city of Corinth. Paul is trying to prevent them from taking these cases to a court of "unrighteous" or "unjust" Greeks. As part of his argument, he claims that in trying to gain an advantage over ones brothers and sisters, one is guilty of a greater crime. And he says, those who seek monetary gain at the expense of their fellows, they are "doing unrighteousness" or "doing injustice". And this is where the vice list comes in - Paul says,

"Do you not know that the wrongdoers / doers of injustice will not inherit the kingdom of God? Don't be mistaken! Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate men (malakoi), nor sexual exploiters (arsenokoitai), nor thieves, the greedy, drunks, revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God."

There is a tradition in 20th century biblical scholarship to read "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai" as a synecdoche for gay sex, the former as the receptive partner and the latter as the insertive partner. This is not supported by actual scholars of the Greek language.

First, we know with great precision what malakos means. It originally meant "soft" and it is used commonly and widely in Greek literature to castigate men who are not manly enough. It means effeminate. It carries no necessary meaning of particular sexual practices - a man could in fact be called "effeminate" for liking women too much. Who would love members of the softer, lesser sex unless he was somehow womanly himself? It referred to men who didn't walk and talk with full masculine deportment. It often referred to men of lesser social status, slaves are often seen as "soft", so are men from Persia or North Africa. So, while we have no rejection of homosexual acts, we do have a clear statement that effeminate men regardless of their sexual orientation or practices will not inherit the kingdom of God. I'll come back to this.

Arsenokoitai is much more complicated. It is nearly a hapax legomena - it is attested only a few other ancient sources, and none of them makes its meaning clear. People have concluded based on highly unconvincing etymological arguments that it refers to the insertive partner in sex between men - "arsen" is a root meaning "men" and "koitai" comes from the verb "to lie" or "to sleep". This is not how linguistics works. The other primary sources for arsenokoitai, however, locate it not among sexual sins, but among economic sins. The second Sibylline Oracle is our earliest evidence of the word, and it reads, "Do not steal seeds... do not arsenokoitein, do not betray information, do not murder." Note that in 6.9, arsenokoitai falls after gendered/sexual sins of adultery and effeminacy, and before economic sins of theft and greed. I think it is more likely that arsenokoitai refers to a sort of sexual exploitation (perhaps extorting sex, perhaps pimping). It does not, in its ancient uses, clearly refer to gay sex.

So, 1 Cor 6.9-10 is not a good argument for the claim that gay sex is "biblically" a sin. It does, however, support the argument that a man who acts effeminate is a sinner.

I'll do Romans 1 in the next post...
   123. Perro(s) Posted: December 31, 2012 at 08:51 AM (#4335179)
Freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion are toppers in the Bill of Rights. So you commie pinko fags can bite me!


   124. Perro(s) Posted: December 31, 2012 at 08:53 AM (#4335180)
Please?
   125. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 31, 2012 at 09:08 AM (#4335189)
I think sex outside marriage is a sin. I think masturbation is a sin. I think adultery is a sin. I think stealing is a sin. I think lying is a sin. I think it's a sin to take the Lord's name in vain. If people chose to associate with me based solely on what behaviors they engage in on occasion that I think are a sinful, I'd have no friends. Nor would I tolerate myself very well! :-)


I think teaching this sort of nonsense--that we're all dirty, born that way and never really get clean--to children is offensive, and even abusive. We all know adults, too, who have been terribly crippled by the moral criminalizing of perfectly natural, even healthy sexual behaviors.

I wish it was possible to say 'to each their own' and get on with it, but that's awfully destructive stuff your lot sells to minds too young to know any better.


edit: splendid post, Matt. Keep on rolling.

.
   126. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 31, 2012 at 09:12 AM (#4335191)
Okay, Romans 1.26. So, it's useful to have the whole passage here first, because the argument Paul is making is highly complicated. The letter to the Romans as a whole is probably the best articulation we have of Pauline theology, and his primary concern is how Gentiles, through the death and resurrections of Christ, have been enabled to receive membership in the people of Israel and become the beneficiaries of the promises God made to Israel. He begins, here, with an argument that Gentiles indeed have sinned against God, even though they were not the recipients of his commandments. This argument is necessary in order for him to argue later that Gentiles need grace from God, through Christ crucified, to receive his blessings. So, this is Romans 1.18-23:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has show it to them. Ever since the creation of the world God's eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things God has made. So they are without excuse; for though they knew God, they did not honor God as God or give thanks to God, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.
Ok, so the argument here makes sense, I think. People could have recognized God, but the nations failed to understand his power and his divinity. Instead, they worshiped idols. This idol-worshiping is an affront to God, for which they have deserved punishment, and from which they must be saved. This is the context for 1.24-28. Note, though, that Paul was talking about idolatry, and he moves from that to sex. What is the connection between idolatry and sex? I'll get to that.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth bout God for a lie and worshiped and serve the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever, amen!

For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and things that should not be done.
So, this is pretty clear. Men having sex with men, and women having sex with women, is wrong. It is wrong because it is "unnatural". In order for this verse to be authoritative, then, you must agree not merely that sex between men or sex between women is wrong, you must agree with Paul's reasoning as to why it is "unnatural". If you don't accept his understanding of the "natural", you can't accept the supposed plain meaning of the text, since you disagree with it.

So, what is "natural" to Paul, and in the Greek world? What is natural is sexual hierarchy. Sexual acts were understood as play of dominance and submission, in which the insertive or "active" partner imposed his or her dominance on the receptive or "insertive" partner. The problem with gay sex, to Paul, is that men are supposed to be dominant, and women are supposed to be submissive. This connects to 1 Cor 6.9 - the problem is not sex, precisely, it's men being unmanly (effeminate), and women being unwomanly. Breaking gender roles, and the prescribed hierarchy of the sexes, is what is wrong.

This explains, in turn, one of the highly confusing things about Romans 1.18-28. Paul was talking about idolatry, and then he started talking about sex. He's clear that there's a logical connection between these two points - he says, "therefore" in 1.24. The connection, again, is about hierarchy. God is the creator, the true dominant one, and Gentiles have been worshiping instead the created, man-made images or animals. This is an abomination against the hierarchy of nature. Humans are superior to animals, humans are superior to objects which humans have made. By worshiping these lower things, humans have sinned against hierarchy. Humans should worship what is above them, not what is below them.

So, that's the logic. There is a hierarchy of being (God - humans - objects/animals). There is a concurrent sexual hierarchy (men / women). Members of these parts of the hierarchy should always been dominant over what is below them and submissive to what is above them. Sexual acts which do not participate fully in this hierarchy are unnatural and sinful.

So, this is how the Christian New Testament condemns gay sex. It condemns it through the logic of sexual hierarchy and the superiority of men to women. This is where, for me, I'm going to part ways with the Bible. I am not going to accept that men are superior to women, that men should "naturally" be in positions of dominance over women, whether in the board room or at the dinner table, or in the bedroom or on top of the pool table. I am not going to accept that God considers it a sin of the highest degree for a man to be effeminate (or a woman to be masculine). I don't believe that God polices gender norms or considers a man who likes fashion design and avoids conflict and hates violence to be a sinner who will not inherit the kingdom of God.

If you want to say that gay sex is "biblically" a sin, then you must also accept everything in the above paragraph. You must condemn as sinners any man or woman who doesn't embody the full complement of "masculine" or "feminine" traits, you must condemn as sinners those who accept women's power in the world, women's sexual activity and dominance. You feel free treating gay sex as a sin equivalent to adultery or masturbation or straight folks having anal or oral sex, but do you feel free treating gay sex as a sin equivalent to effeminacy or equivalent to women having positions of power? You need to go all the way with this if you want to be "biblical". For me, this is obviously why Christians (and all other religious folks, and non-religious folks) have interpreted and re-interpreted their traditions in order to bring them into line with contemporary life and contemporary morality. What constitutes a "sin" must be open for such interpretation, and I think this is a case where we need to interpret rather than taking all of Paul's claims about gender roles, the sin of effeminacy, and the natural inferiority of women (and the therefore logical sins of women who do not act as inferiors) as our beliefs about sin and righteousness.
   127. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 31, 2012 at 09:15 AM (#4335194)
As a note, I'm drawing most of my argumentation from two wonderful books.

Dale Martin, Sex and the Single Savior, esp. 37-64
Bernadette Brooten, Love Between Women, esp. 195-302
   128. Perro(s) Posted: December 31, 2012 at 09:37 AM (#4335205)
I prefer Anne Carson's If Not, Winter.
   129. Everybody Loves Tyrus Raymond Posted: December 31, 2012 at 09:42 AM (#4335209)
I think sex outside marriage is a sin. I think masturbation is a sin. I think adultery is a sin. I think stealing is a sin. I think lying is a sin. I think it's a sin to take the Lord's name in vain. If people chose to associate with me based solely on what behaviors they engage in on occasion that I think are a sinful, I'd have no friends. Nor would I tolerate myself very well! :-)

I think teaching this sort of nonsense--that we're all dirty, born that way and never really get clean--to children is offensive, and even abusive. We all know adults, too, who have been terribly crippled by the moral criminalizing of perfectly natural, even healthy sexual behaviors.


There was a time that I agreed with this. Believing some of these things are sins is very inconvenient and troubling if one wants to partake in them. And, to this day, I feel the desire to partake in some of them. It's not always easy to combat our lesser human impulses. Bending the world to your own moral code is a lot more fun than submitting to God. I fully recognize that. "Christ, you know it ain't easy" as Mr. Lennon said and all that.

Frankly, if you didn't share at least partial agreement with my "nonsense" (that, for instance, lying, stealing and adultery are ethically wrong - which both Christians and non-Christians commonly can agree upon), I would be concerned for you. A lot of this comes down to sex, and the human wish toward having things our own way. Man has always wanted things his own way - especially in the bedroom.

I wish it was possible to say 'to each their own' and get on with it, but that's awfully destructive stuff your lot sells to minds too young to know any better.


I could say the same of your views. :-)

Anyway, with love and respect I am bowing out of this thread now - for good this time! I've said all I wanted, and I hope it was taken in the kind spirit intended.
   130. Fancy Pants Handle doesn't need no water Posted: December 31, 2012 at 09:55 AM (#4335215)
I've said all I wanted, and I hope it was taken in the kind spirit intended.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
   131. depletion Posted: December 31, 2012 at 10:12 AM (#4335223)
I'm sure he's played with dozens of adulterers. That's one of the Ten freaking Commandments! He should be a lot more uncomfortable by that "as a Christian."

Did anyone ask him about that?
   132. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: December 31, 2012 at 10:39 AM (#4335231)
I find it really hard to believe that a gay person would actually be good friends with someone who thinks being gay is a sin. Unless they are a masochist I guess...
Log Cabin Republicans FTW!
   133. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: December 31, 2012 at 10:51 AM (#4335236)
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.


And the skins of natives. Don't forget that bit.
   134. Eddo Posted: December 31, 2012 at 11:14 AM (#4335244)
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.

Walt, I don't believe homosexuality is a sin. My post was a point of advice for those who are wrapped up in their Christian faith (call it "concern trolling" if you will).

While I am raised Catholic, I strongly disagree with the church's views in this area, and it's a contributing factor to why I no longer practice.
   135. Worrierking Posted: December 31, 2012 at 12:06 PM (#4335275)
Man, another great thread. It combines thoughtful theological discussion with Little Feat and pizza delivery boy porn jokes. I have a friend who constanly uses the phrase "he's luckier than a pizza guy in a porn film." Sometimes for variety he substitutes "plumber" or "pool boy" for "pizza guy." Apparently he knows his porn well.

I would like to look back at the thread, but I am afraid I will be turned into a pillar of salt.
   136. jdunster55 Posted: December 31, 2012 at 12:25 PM (#4335292)
Log Cabin Republicans FTW!


Self-loathing is such a turn off.

Maybe someday I'll be rich enough to think about voting Republican, even if it breaks my family's heart. And then hopefully continue to refuse to do so. :)
   137. STEAGLES is all out of bubblegum Posted: December 31, 2012 at 12:29 PM (#4335294)

I think the last league to have a gay player come out (or be "out" before being drafted) will be the NBA.
i disagree with this. i've had this conversation before on this board, and what i'll say is that basketball players are selected based on their physical attributes more than either of the 2 other american sports, and so i think it is very likely that there is some 6'11" gay man somewhere who happens to have be a good enough basketball player to reach the NBA.

from there, i think, just based on the sheer number of players who are active and playing in the NFL that the first openly gay player will come from that league.


   138. STEAGLES is all out of bubblegum Posted: December 31, 2012 at 12:35 PM (#4335305)
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.
if this is something you love, i cannot recommend "cleanflix" highly enough. it's a documentary on netflix that explores the recent history of companies that edits popular movies to make them acceptable for viewing by mormons.

there's one point where they talk to and about all of these pious people who are breaking the law to rent and buy these edited movies, but who rationalize their actions by saying that the law itself isn't moral, so they have no responsibility to follow it.

   139. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: December 31, 2012 at 12:36 PM (#4335306)
Seems like about half the posts so far are people who illustrate their problem with Torii Hunter's bigotry by making their own bigoted complaints about Christians.


Because I guess it can never be said often enough: There's a difference between criticizing people for something that they inherently are (as with homosexuals) and criticizing them for something that they are choosing to do (as with homophobes - Christian or otherwise - who complain about homosexuals being treated like human beings).
   140. Spahn Insane Posted: December 31, 2012 at 12:43 PM (#4335311)
A veteran player said, in an interview I read a few years ago, he had played with gays and with evangelicals - and the latter were, by far, more disruptive to clubhouse chemistry.

Me, personally? I don't have a problem with evangelicals. I just wish they weren't always up in my face promoting the evangelical lifestyle.
   141. KT's Pot Arb Posted: December 31, 2012 at 12:50 PM (#4335316)
I am not saying I am superior to those who disagree with me


So when you correct every one of my god damn posts, you aren't insinuating you are better than me? Jesus knows what's in your heart, Walt.

And a gay team-mate makes Tori un-comfortable because Tori is afraid he won't be able to fit both his teammates and Jesus's cocks in his mouth at the same time, though I bet he will try.
   142. STEAGLES is all out of bubblegum Posted: December 31, 2012 at 01:24 PM (#4335341)
and then w/r/t hunter himself,

“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.”


i'm okay with that.

i think there are 3 levels of "homophobe":
level 1: are the people who actively want us dead.
level 2: are the people who actively discriminate against us.
level 3: are the people who are passively uncomfortable by our existence.


people in level 1 should be introduced to the third golden rule (the first: "he who has the gold makes the rules", the second: "treat others how you yourself wish to be treated", and the third: "do unto others before they can do unto you").
people in level 2 are the most dangerous "homophobes" in america. whereas the level 1 "homophobe" is marginalized to the extent that they have to go to uganda to spread their blood lust, these people spread their hate under the guise of the public interest. i'm talking about chik-fil-a, about the boy scouts, about the people who push for prop 8 and who push against hate crimes acts, against non-discrimination acts, against even acknowledging our existence ("don't say gay"). these are the people who drive the suicide rates among gay youths by doing everything they can to isolate them and to make them feel as if they're less than human, as if they don't deserve to be happy.

and then there's level 3. the proverbial father who walks away from the table anytime his gay son talks about the man he's currently dating. based on what little i've heard, i'd say this is where torii hunter is, and honestly, these are the people whose minds you can change. he says "difficult, uncomfortable" but not impossible. and while it would be wonderful if every athlete was as accepting as brendon ayanbadejo, since that's not our current reality, it's much better to take this occasion to speak about the effect that hunters views have on the people his views concern, rather than browbeating any dissenters and effectively driving them further into their homophobic foxhole.
   143. J.R. Wolf Posted: December 31, 2012 at 01:25 PM (#4335342)
JR Wolf's best read in the voice of Eric Cartman.

@Canal, you are too funny. Not just by being a hypocrite by being intolerant in a thread about tolerance, but also by committing the childish act of insulting someone else by - ironically - comparing THEM to a child. Congratulations on proving some of my points.

The intolerance of other viewpoints on display here is both stunning and sad. What's much worse than totally intolerant views of Torii's intolerant views about gays is not only that none of you seem to realize that you're just as guilty as he is of intolerance, but that some of you are far worse in that you are trying to control what others think and say. Torii has the right to think and say what he feels, as do all of us, but trying to pass yourself as holier than thou because you believe that your morals and ethics are somehow superior to his is ironic and amusing given that he no doubt feels exactly the same way about you - that his morals and ethics are superior to yours. You and he are two sides of the same coin and neither side sees it.

Except for those of you who really do want to control what others think and can say, which goes clear past simple intolerance into totalitarianism.
   144. STEAGLES is all out of bubblegum Posted: December 31, 2012 at 01:30 PM (#4335349)
i guess i'd also add level 2.5: people who believe homosexual acts are a sin. this deserves special recognition because it's the justification for so much of the hate against us. simply put, there is no such thing as "love the sinner, hate the sin" with homosexuality, because the very fact that someone would identify as being gay makes them an unrepentant sinner in the eyes of anyone who would believe that homosexual acts themselves are a sin.

that's the disconnect between adultery and premarital sex and all of those other sins. people who commit adultery are expected to repent for that sin, but there is no such repentance for people like me (well, forgetting the fact that i'm not a christian. but assuming that) because any such repentance would be invalid unless i rendered myself a eunuch.


simply put, the concept that homosexual acts are a sin needs to be excised from christian teaching before homosexuals themselves can be fully accepted by christians.
   145. fra paolo Posted: December 31, 2012 at 01:37 PM (#4335359)
If you think people are sinners for making the mistake of existing,

All very righteous, but in Christian terms people literally are sinners for existing, as a consequence of the Original Sin of eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The only humans who existed without sin are Mary (if one believes the dogma of the Immaculate Conception) and Jesus himself.

The problem isn't that gays are sinners, but that sex is inherently sinful. Celibacy is the preferred Early Christian approach to sexuality. This persisted most strongly in the tradition of Christianity which is more familiar to us in the guise of the Albigensians or Cathars, but which is generally traced back to the Marcionites. Fornication is a sin that contains many sexual habits commonplace today (and, probably, throughout human history). Which is why

For me, this is obviously why Christians (and all other religious folks, and non-religious folks) have interpreted and re-interpreted their traditions in order to bring them into line with contemporary life and contemporary morality. What constitutes a "sin" must be open for such interpretation, and I think this is a case where we need to interpret rather than taking all of Paul's claims about gender roles, the sin of effeminacy, and the natural inferiority of women (and the therefore logical sins of women who do not act as inferiors) as our beliefs about sin and righteousness.

is extremely important for 'biblical Christians' to understand. By the time we get to the state interventions against homosexual acts in the fourth century AD, the tradition of Christian hostility to same-sex sex seems most likely to be rooted in a 'cultural war' between paganism and Christianity. For some 300 years, the Christians have been on the side subject to state power; once roles were reversed, Christians quite willingly take up the cudgels the state can wield and use them against their former opponents. Whereas the Early Church sought to 'live better', the Imperial Church sought to enforce morality. Biblical Christians who want to enforce morality should perhaps reconsider their anathemas towards Churches governed by the Apostolic tradition if they want political entities to enforce morality.

But, of course, the biggest of the Apostolic tradition churches of all is the one reigned over by the Pope. And there's been plenty of scandal associated with that in recent years, involving same-sex sex. Which is why I'm slightly puzzled by

Lutherans and Episcopals and Congregationalists and a variety of other Christian groups are now accepting of homosexuality and gay folks (we'll have gay marriage as official policy in the Lutheran and Episcopal churches soon), and the Presbyterians and Methodists are on their way.

The Anglican communion, broadly, has been rent in two (or more) parts by the kind of 'advanced sexual theology' embraced by the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church. The Church of England occupies a kind of halfway house here, and paradoxically many of its priests associated with the Anglo-Catholic or Ritualist tradition, who were most likely to be gay, have fled to Rome because of the ordination of women (the other arrow in the quiver of 'advanced sexual theology'). These are people who are unlikely to set aside priestly celibacy, because at the least it provides them with a useful fiction for getting on with their lives of spiritual service to their parishoners.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say the Episcopal Church is experiencing a schism (which may spread to the rest of the Anglican communion) over this and associated equality issues that is as profound as the 1054 one that separated the Orthodox from the Roman branches. It is largely hidden on account of the fragmented organisational remnants of those who have broken with the main branch. Some have 'poped', some have created their own broader church structures and some have found refuges in associations with other parts of the Anglican communion.
   146. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: December 31, 2012 at 01:52 PM (#4335381)
he says "difficult, uncomfortable" but not impossible.

Just a shame he didn't say it would be "hard".
   147. jdunster55 Posted: December 31, 2012 at 01:54 PM (#4335383)
and then there's level 3. the proverbial father who walks away from the table anytime his gay son talks about the man he's currently dating. based on what little i've heard, i'd say this is where torii hunter is, and honestly, these are the people whose minds you can change.


I think this is most pro jocks, honestly. For all the Bible-thumping you hear, looking at a teammate and actively thinking that they deserve to be cast into the lake of fire or whatever..I just don't think most guys are really like that.

Again, you've shared a locker room with some of us your whole life, you just won't know it until you discover that one of your teammates is one of "those guys." OK so you don't want to imagine us having sex with other men, which I get, but do you imagine your straight teammates banging some chick?

I have it a bit tough as I'm a bit of a flirt, boys and girls alike. Hitting on guys can be a little dangerous, which is why gays value gay-dominated spaces. (There's something erotic about danger that's hard to articulate. For a lot of gay guys unfortunately it leads to being turned on by homophobia.)
   148. PreservedFish Posted: December 31, 2012 at 02:12 PM (#4335400)
I love these arguments about whether or not one should be tolerant of intolerance. A true Internet classic!
   149. calhounite Posted: December 31, 2012 at 02:23 PM (#4335405)
Haven't read the article but think what's he saying is self-evident albeit maybe "difficult" is a poor choice of a word. Haven't cloned humans yet. Can't be a teammate to oneself, ie, "difficult."
   150. BourbonSamurai Is a Lazy Nogoodnik Posted: December 31, 2012 at 02:43 PM (#4335422)
MCOA thank you for the very informative posts.
   151. cheng Posted: December 31, 2012 at 03:18 PM (#4335454)
MCoA,

That is a well-reasoned argument but not compelling to me. There are two key flaws:

An awful lot ties to a single word (arsenokotai) that you point out is very difficult to translate. Much of your argument falls apart if that word does indeed refer to gay sex. I'm no greek scholar, and I can't prove that it does (though I've read arguments supporting that), but you can't really prove that it doesn't either.

The other issue is that there are other ways to read Romans 1. Your starting point of reading it as Paul building an argument about why everyone needs grace is fundamental to most Christian theology. But there's no reason to specifically tie it to 1 Corinthians either - the argument is exactly as it states: idolatry is the most basic sin there is, because it is ultimately a denial of God. You don't need to say anything about gender roles in the 1st century to connect the sin of idolatry to any other sin, such as sexual impurity, because idolatry is at the heart of all sin. Any rational actor who believed in a sovereign and loving God would not put anything else before that God, but that is what opens the door to all types of sin, of which sexual impurity is one of the most visible. This is a much more straightforward reading of Romans 1, and says nothing about gender roles of submissiveness or the "natural order".

I recognize that many, many people strongly disagree with my beliefs about the difference between sexual orientation and sexual activity, but it has nothing to do with me believing anything about women being submissive to men. And if you want to argue that all of Paul's doctrine is inherently sexist then we can have a separate debate about that.
   152. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 31, 2012 at 03:23 PM (#4335462)
Guys, this discussion really belongs in the OT-Politics thread.
   153. J.R. Wolf Posted: December 31, 2012 at 04:10 PM (#4335509)
@PreservedFish: defending freedom of speech means that you must also defend the freedom of speech of people with whom you not only disagree but also those that you despise. Tolerance means that you tolerate EVERY viewpoint, not just the ones that you approve of.

Attacking and belittling Torii for what he believes and said instead of saying "Well, I disagree and I think that he's wrong and here's why" when he is simply practicing freedom of religion and speech is by definition intolerance.
   154. J.R. Wolf Posted: December 31, 2012 at 04:15 PM (#4335511)
Also, the concept of diversity means being tolerant of all beliefs, including those beliefs that you may find personally or politically offensive.
   155. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 31, 2012 at 04:27 PM (#4335515)
As far as I can tell nowhere does Torii Hunter say gay players should not have human rights.


That's where you and I are reading him differently.

I read TFA again. All I see is that he says having a gay teammate would be "difficult" and "uncomfortable" for him. He is not taking any legal position, nor a position on policies of the Tigers or MLB. He is not calling for anyone to join him in protest, or even to agree with him. I don't see how a person saying "I dislike you", "I disapprove of you", "You are doing things that I believe God disapproves of" or anything similar is violating anyone's rights. As far as I'm aware no one has ever advocated for the right to be popular or universally approved of. You are allowed to dislike or disapprove of people for any reason you want to or for no reason at all. You just cannot discriminate against them in the workplace or in other circumstances for specific reasons as described by the law. I don't see where Torii is advocating doing anything to homosexuals or taking a position on a law adding homosexuals as a protected group.

Abortion is a different matter. I'm unequivocally for gay rights, but am not sure about abortion.

The issue isn't what your or I or anyone is for or against. The issue is whether you believe that your beliefs make you superior or more moral as someone with different beliefs, or whether you recognize the equal right of people to hold beliefs that are different from yours.

Seriously?

Opposing interracial marriage is just as moral a position to take as being accepting of it?

Seriously. Yes. And I'll go further than that. I would consider a person opposed to interracial marriage but willing to acknowledge that others have a right to different beliefs morally superior to someone who is in favor of interracial marriage and is not willing to acknowledge the validity of any other position.
   156. J.R. Wolf Posted: December 31, 2012 at 04:54 PM (#4335540)
I would consider a person opposed to interracial marriage but willing to acknowledge that others have a right to different beliefs morally superior to someone who is in favor of interracial marriage and is not willing to acknowledge the validity of any other position.

And you would be correct to do so. People who believe that any position but the one that they hold is not just wrong but invalid - like the feminist who once famously told my father "You have no right to hold that position" - are fanatics.
   157. epoc Posted: December 31, 2012 at 04:58 PM (#4335543)
I would consider a person opposed to interracial marriage but willing to acknowledge that others have a right to different beliefs morally superior to someone who is in favor of interracial marriage and is not willing to acknowledge the validity of any other position.


Why are rights of belief more important than rights of action? Why is it more important to be tolerant of what people think than what people do? I'd think it should be the other way around, since no amount of intolerance can truly change what people think or believe, but intolerance can and does change what people are allowed to do.
   158. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: December 31, 2012 at 05:27 PM (#4335562)
@PreservedFish: defending freedom of speech means that you must also defend the freedom of speech of people with whom you not only disagree but also those that you despise.


No one is attacking Hunter's freedom of speech. He's free to say as many stupid, bigoted, hateful things as he wants, and if some government official tried to stop Hunter from speaking his mind, I'd absolutely rise up to Hunter's defense. But freedom of speech is not a "Get Out of Being Called an #######\" card. People aren't required to agree with what you say, or refrain from criticizing your statements, or even to associate with you after you're done speaking. Actions have consequences.
   159. bachslunch Posted: December 31, 2012 at 05:29 PM (#4335564)
“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.”

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't that what Cap Anson said about black baseball players?

Oh, and a big coke to base ball chick earlier. Post #80 is one of the best laughs I've had here.
   160. J.R. Wolf Posted: December 31, 2012 at 05:39 PM (#4335571)
@Bring: intolerance of the opposing views of others has consequences too. It's generally referred to as oppression.

But that isn't what I was commenting about, which is that people who maintain that Hunter's views are invalid are themselves the epitome of intolerance.
   161. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 31, 2012 at 05:54 PM (#4335579)
Why are rights of belief more important than rights of action? Why is it more important to be tolerant of what people think than what people do? I'd think it should be the other way around, since no amount of intolerance can truly change what people think or believe, but intolerance can and does change what people are allowed to do.

I think you're saying Torii can believe whatever he wants but if he says it in public it deserves denouncement from those who disagree or find it despicable. I agree that both Torii and the denouncers have freedom of speech, but I don't agree that the denouncers have any moral high ground. Nobody has to publicly approve of everything everyone does. As far as I'm concerned it's OK to approve or disapprove of abortion (which I think is wrong), polygamy (which I think is fine), prostitution (which I think is fine), bank bailouts (which I think is not fine), heterosexuality (which I think is fine) and homosexuality (which I think is fine). Whether I approve or disapprove of something doesn't make me a better person than someone else who thinks differently. I have the legal right to freedom of speech, but I do not have a moral high ground to denounce anyone else's speech, no matter what I think.

Oh, and a big coke to base ball chick earlier. Post #80 is one of the best laughs I've had here.

BBC is always awesome, but I don't think poly/cotton blends are comfortable. Natural fibers are the only way to go. I'm definitely bigoted on this point.
   162. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: December 31, 2012 at 06:13 PM (#4335586)
@Bring: intolerance of the opposing views of others has consequences too. It's generally referred to as oppression.


Who's being intolerant of opposing views? Hunter has the right to say whatever stupid, hateful things he wants, and in return, observers have the right to accurately describe his views as stupid and hateful. It's win-win!

But that isn't what I was commenting about, which is that people who maintain that Hunter's views are invalid are themselves the epitome of intolerance.


As far as the right to public discourse is concerned, Hunter's views are a perfectly valid, just like a white supremacist's or a flat earther's. All three of those positions have about the same amount of merit, and are likely to be similarly received by reasonable people - but that's an entirely separate issue from the question of validity.
   163. J.R. Wolf Posted: December 31, 2012 at 06:29 PM (#4335594)
@Bring: nonsense. Now you are decreeing that Hunter's views have no merit and are not held "by reasonable people."

You don't get to be the moral arbiter and decide that. No one does.

FYI I know a number of quite reasonable people of merit who hold similar viewpoints to Hunter's. I know a number of reasonable people of merit who disagree with him. Neither side is right or wrong - these are matters of opinion.
   164. CrosbyBird Posted: December 31, 2012 at 06:38 PM (#4335599)
I wonder if Torii had said having a Jewish teammate or a Chinese teammate or a deaf teammate would be difficult he would be getting this same defense.

I think if he said having a deaf teammate would be difficult, it would at least be marginally defensible. How is that guy going to know that you're calling him off?
   165. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 31, 2012 at 07:05 PM (#4335614)
As far as the right to public discourse is concerned, Hunter's views are a perfectly valid, just like a white supremacist's or a flat earther's. All three of those positions have about the same amount of merit, and are likely to be similarly received by reasonable people - but that's an entirely separate issue from the question of validity.

OK, I would disagree, at the risk of being excluded from your group of "reasonable people".

1) White Supremacist -- white supremacy was widely accepted by white people (no surprise there) in many places at many times in history and was the dominant way of thinking in the US, Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and basically everywhere where people who considered themselves "white" moved to either recently or millennia before. It worked pretty well for white people to hold this view for centuries, until it became unfashionable in the past 50 or so years. In countries where White Supremacy was official policy, "white" people continue to be among the richer people in the country.

I know lots of people, white and otherwise, who have an emotional preference for white people -- either with respect to immigration ("My friend is having all kinds of trouble with the immigration people, and she's from Germany. It's not like she's from ..... oops sorry I didn't mean anything"), employment ("We need a white person for this job. We have too many Asians right now and the optics for clients will be better with a white guy "), sex ("I prefer white"), security ("Why do they pick old white people at the airport for [additional] screening? It's not like they're going to be terrorists or anything"), proximity ("My friend was sitting in Business Class in Japan Air Lines and the Japanese guy next to him asked the stewardess whether she could move him away. When she said Business Class was full, the guy told her to move him back to Economy. He was a [white guy]! It's not like he was Indian or Black").....I could go on and on.

Can you guess which of these statements were made by a white person? I bet you'd be wrong. As far as I'm concerned White Supremacy is incorrect but I cannot disprove that it's true, nor can I prove that it's not advantageous for white people to hold this view. I would consider all of the people who made these statements to be friends and quite reasonable.

2) Flat earth -- this is scientifically proven incorrect when taken in its literal physical meaning.

3) Torii Hunter is uncomfortable with gay people -- I have no reason to doubt him when he says this, and he's describing his feeling....just as the person whose German friend was having trouble with the immigration authorities was stating theirs. He's perfectly entitled to be uncomfortable with gay people in close proximity, and my opinion on whether he should or should not be comfortable is not more valid than his.

#2 is not a matter of opinion. #1 is an opinion and a strategic underpinning for a society. As an opinion it is unprovable one way or the other. As a strategy it has worked for the benefit of the people it was intended to benefit until recently. #3 is a statement of feeling. None of the three are alike in any way, other than Vlad disagrees with them.
   166. Big fan Posted: December 31, 2012 at 07:18 PM (#4335620)
Is it possible that all Tori meant was that he would not want to walk around naked in a clubhouse with a gay guy who might be looking at him? Much like my wife would not want to walk around naked in the local sports clubs mens locker room while not having a problem in the women's? (Though now that I think about it, there may be women there looking at her...)

What really got me going was the part about neatly groomed men's beards. Even the most right wing orthodox jewish people I know understand that one can groom their beards without violating a biblical commandment. That is kind of stuff that makes me shake my head. If someone had made a comment so uninformed reagrding baseball, we would be all over him. But to make a completely uninformed comment about religion is no problem.

In any case, does anyone think the Tigers are going to get their money's worth out of Hunter? Or will that ball park expose his flaws?

   167. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: December 31, 2012 at 07:24 PM (#4335623)
If I knew Torii Hunter personally, I'd simply try to talk him out of his ignorance. But the truth is that just like with every other civil rights movement in the past 60 years, it's going to take a combination of laws and time to alter the worldview of people like him. You can reverse the order of that if you like, but laws can't convert anyone instantly, and time without laws isn't likely to do all that much good, either.

As for "Christians" (only the bigoted version gets the scarequotes), they certainly should have the right to express whatever views they like, and if they want to exclude gays from their circle of friends, that's their business. But when people react to what they're saying, they shouldn't act surprised.
   168. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: December 31, 2012 at 07:28 PM (#4335625)
And I'll go further than that. I would consider a person opposed to interracial marriage but willing to acknowledge that others have a right to different beliefs morally superior to someone who is in favor of interracial marriage and is not willing to acknowledge the validity of any other position.

If I were part of an interracial couple (which I have been in the past), I wouldn't give a crap about anyone's "moral superiority". I would give a crap about the effects of a person's beliefs on my freedom to marry. To the person or people on the receiving end of bigotry, a bigot's willingness to concede other viewpoints isn't really all that much of a consolation.
   169. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: December 31, 2012 at 08:07 PM (#4335638)
Intolerance is intolerance. Hate gays? Intolerance. Hate people who hate gays? Intolerance at the same level.

Substitute "child molesters" for "gays", and have a Happy New Year!

(Obviously, in my example, I am pro hating on child molesters, and anti hating on those who hate child molesters.)

Now, wanna make the same argument about intolerance and homosexuality?
   170. epoc Posted: December 31, 2012 at 08:10 PM (#4335639)
I think you're saying Torii can believe whatever he wants but if he says it in public it deserves denouncement from those who disagree or find it despicable. I agree that both Torii and the denouncers have freedom of speech, but I don't agree that the denouncers have any moral high ground.


and

You don't get to be the moral arbiter and decide that. No one does.


So to believe these things you have to accept that there is no right and wrong. And I don't mean Right and Wrong in some super-humanly determined cosmic sense. I mean plain old right and wrong. If we accept that there is a right and wrong, which I'm hopeful we can all agree on, then there certainly is a moral high ground to be claimed in any moral disagreement, and that claim belongs to the side that is right. It's up to each of us to decide whether the bigots or the tolerant people are right, but whichever side we choose we can certainly claim the moral high ground. It should, of course, be obvious that the bigots are wrong and that the tolerant people have the moral high ground.
   171. The District Attorney Posted: December 31, 2012 at 08:14 PM (#4335641)
Of course you don't need to tolerate the intolerant. It should be obvious that I don't have to respect someone's right if they're trying to use that right to take rights away from other people.

I want to hold a vote to take away your freedom of speech. You object to this. Can I seriously defend myself by "correctly" pointing out that I have the right to vote?

Now if you want to say we should be very careful about whom we label "intolerant", then fine. Ultimately, we need to realize that what's beyond the pale to Person A is very often within reason to Person B, and to somehow try to come up with compromises even in situations where both sides are convinced that the other side's position is abhorrent (e.g. abortion). But to say that there is never a point where we can say "hey, that person is perverting what that right is supposed to be about"? I can't comprehend that at all.
   172. Mayor Blomberg Posted: December 31, 2012 at 08:18 PM (#4335642)
Also, the concept of diversity means being tolerant of all beliefs, including those beliefs that you may find personally or politically offensive.

Bullsh1t.

(as if there were one THE concept of diversity ... or one THE Christian position on homosexuality.)
   173. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: December 31, 2012 at 09:11 PM (#4335665)
So, what you're saying is, like, if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice?

Woah, that's heavy.

*bong hit*
   174. Perro(s) Posted: December 31, 2012 at 09:26 PM (#4335669)
What gives non-Christians the right to tell Christians what they must and must not believe? Arrogant mothers.
   175. Srul Itza Posted: December 31, 2012 at 09:47 PM (#4335672)
What gives non-Christians the right to tell Christians what they must and must not believe? Arrogant mothers.


After centuries of being subjected, not just to prejudice, but to exiles, physical abuse, forced conversions and murder, I think I have every right to tell Christians that their beliefs about Jews are full of shit, and that if they don't like it, they can take their crucifixes and shove them up their collective asses.

Just because hate is cloaked in religion, is no reason to pussyfoot around it.


I choose not to think that abortion rights people are disgusting murderers of helpless babies. You seem to think I should think that.


If you had the courage of your convictions, you would
   176. Srul Itza Posted: December 31, 2012 at 09:56 PM (#4335677)
Okay, Romans 1.26. So, it's useful to have the whole passage here first, because the argument Paul is making is highly complicated


I have never understood the Cult of Saul.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John -- purported witnesses to the actual words of the Nazarene.

Saul -- just another Jew so desperately trying to sell something that he changed his name.

   177. Srul Itza Posted: December 31, 2012 at 10:05 PM (#4335680)
Celibacy is the preferred Early Christian approach to sexuality.



Would that they had all followed it.
   178. Perro(s) Posted: December 31, 2012 at 10:42 PM (#4335694)
After centuries of being subjected, not just to prejudice, but to exiles, physical abuse, forced conversions and murder, I think I have every right to tell Christians that their beliefs about Jews are full of ####, and that if they don't like it, they can take their crucifixes and shove them up their collective asses.


I'm down with that. Enough with passive/aggression.
   179. Perro(s) Posted: December 31, 2012 at 10:43 PM (#4335695)
Without Saul, there's no Christianity, beyond a few small sects on the Red Sea.

   180. Perro(s) Posted: December 31, 2012 at 10:45 PM (#4335697)
I'd love to rant against bbtf liberalism, but then I'd be a loon.
   181. Perro(s) Posted: December 31, 2012 at 10:48 PM (#4335699)
In support of real tolerance, don't throw the ignorant out with the ignorance. People being people, none of us are enlightened.
   182. Perro(s) Posted: December 31, 2012 at 10:49 PM (#4335700)
Also, wtf is up with 'calling somone out'? Does that mean you want to take 'em out in the bushes and have your way?
   183. Perro(s) Posted: December 31, 2012 at 10:50 PM (#4335701)
Matt's analysis of hierarchy was pretty good. Problem is, you throw out one devil and seven rush in to take his place.
   184. J.R. Wolf Posted: January 01, 2013 at 01:39 AM (#4335755)
@Joe Bivens - Marvelous red herring, but people who are uncomfortable around homosexuals are not criminals. I do find it a fascinating peek inside your head that you tried to equate them with criminals, though. 

@epoc - You actually believe that there is a right and wrong in opinions and in personal preferences? Wow, you just made Torii Hunter look good.

@The DA - If you don't tolerate the intolerant, then - surprise - you're just as intolerant as they are.

@Mayor Blomberg - Diversity, and I've been through formal diversity training, does include respect for any and all opinions, whether you agree with them or not.


I have been appalled by some of the intolerance shown here and the odd bit of self-righteous ignorance that insists that people who are uncomfortable around homosexuals and say so are somehow bigoted, wrong, and/or deserving of punishment.

All too many of you come off as intolerant self-righteous would-be oppressors, convinced that you hold some non-existent moral high ground of opinions. You don't. None of us do. We are all just people, and we all have our own opinions, and the ones that you don't like aren't "wrong," they're just different.

You might reflect on that the next time someone expresses an opinion you don't like.
   185. Fancy Pants Handle doesn't need no water Posted: January 01, 2013 at 01:56 AM (#4335757)
Mr. Wolf, what you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
   186. Perro(s) Posted: January 01, 2013 at 02:07 AM (#4335760)
Better player -- Joe Wolf or JR Reid?
   187. tshipman Posted: January 01, 2013 at 02:15 AM (#4335762)
Paul was talking about idolatry, and then he started talking about sex. He's clear that there's a logical connection between these two points - he says, "therefore" in 1.24. The connection, again, is about hierarchy. God is the creator, the true dominant one, and Gentiles have been worshiping instead the created, man-made images or animals. This is an abomination against the hierarchy of nature.


I think that the weak link in your argument is the bolded section. To be clear, I generally don't think that Paul's argument is anything more than the product of a man of his times, so to me, the idea that it was canonized some 1600 odd years ago means very little, so that's how I am approaching it.

I don't think the connection has to be about hierarchy. Paul is a neo-Platonist. It can also be about forms. In the same way that people worshipped idols, as a dim reflection of God, they also had gay sex, a [in Paul's mind] dim reflection of natural sex. While Paul obviously does also discuss the natural subservience of women to men at other points (most notably in Corinthians, I think), those passages are not directly connected to this one.

It's possible to read Paul as making a neo-Platonist argument rather than a hierarchical one.
   188. Perro(s) Posted: January 01, 2013 at 02:15 AM (#4335763)
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.
   189. So Taguchi is My Sensei Posted: January 01, 2013 at 02:43 AM (#4335768)
I'm a Christian. Most would probably label most of my beliefs as pretty fundie. And I find Torii's statements to be pretty inexcusable. Christian means Christ follower. Christ, we read in Matthew 9:9-13, was pretty comfortable eating with what the public deemed as sinners. In fact, he was lumped in with them because he was so at home with them, and they with him. You can disagree with someone's lifestyle and still treat them like a valuable human being. I'm not shocked or surprised when people who don't share my worldview don't agree with my system of moral beliefs, in fact being around people who don't think like me is one of my favorite parts about going to work.
   190. So Taguchi is My Sensei Posted: January 01, 2013 at 02:58 AM (#4335771)
 Srul Itza PostedDecember 312012 at 10:05 PM (#4335680)
Celibacy is the preferred Early Christian approach to sexuality.



Would that they had all followed it


Very nice. Fight homophobia with Christophobia.
   191. Fancy Pants Handle doesn't need no water Posted: January 01, 2013 at 03:37 AM (#4335775)
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.


*Yawn*. The people who should grow up, are the ones who feel their fragile sensibilities are being hurt by a group of people having the nerve to exist. It's easy to tell other people to grow up, when you aren't the one who has to feel the sting of the whip. Homophobia actively hurts people, actively makes their life miserable and worse. Being gay hurts... well apparently the sensibilities of people who actually should grow up.

As long as one side is doing nobody any harm, and one side is actively hurting the other, then one side is wrong and bigoted, and one side is righteous. And the people on the wrong side should be dealt with in the same way we deal with everyone else who actively hurts someone out of spite and hatred.
   192. Bhaakon Posted: January 01, 2013 at 06:24 AM (#4335786)
Also, the concept of diversity means being tolerant of all beliefs, including those beliefs that you may find personally or politically offensive.


No it doesn't. It means being willing to put up with other people's belief and resultant actions so long as those beliefs and their resultant actions fall within broad limits defined (often, but not always, in legal form) by society as a whole. No one is under any obligation to tolerate human sacrifice cult, for instance, or one that promotes pederasty or slavery. It just so happens that the social limits are mutable, and that persecuting homosexuals is quickly being defined as socially intolerable.
   193. Barnaby Jones Posted: January 01, 2013 at 07:36 AM (#4335790)
I'm very disappointed in Kevin Baxter's article in which my quotes and feelings have been misrepresented. He took two completely separate quotes and made them into one quote that does not express how I feel as a Christian or a human being . I have love and respect for all human beings regardless of race, color or sexual orientation. I am not perfect and try hard to live the best life I can and treat all people with respect. If you know me you know that I am not anti anything and to be portrayed as anti-gay in this article is hurtful and just not true - Torii Hunter


   194. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: January 01, 2013 at 09:21 AM (#4335799)
Marvelous red herring, but people who are uncomfortable around homosexuals are not criminals.

That wasn't where I was going with that at all, but, now that you mention it, some people who are uncomfortable around homosexuals do take it to criminal lengths.

People that tolerate axe murderers aren't criminals. They're just idiots.

edit...Idiots isn't fair. People who tolerate axe murderers are sick. People who tolerate bigots are sick.
   195. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: January 01, 2013 at 09:40 AM (#4335800)
Some of you are treating bigotry as if it's benign. If it were, if bigots didn't act on their bigotry, or on any anti-social/criminal belief system, we could all "live and let live" in a libertarian la la land. But when the bigots start infringing on the rights of those they disapprove of, how does that fit into the equation?
   196. BFFB Posted: January 01, 2013 at 10:23 AM (#4335806)
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.


That requires you to accept that the concept of "Sin" isn't a load of old cobblers.
   197. Mayor Blomberg Posted: January 01, 2013 at 10:23 AM (#4335807)
respect for opinions or respect for people? If you're going to take people seriously and treat them with respect, you tell them when you think they're behaving like ########. I take people's beliefs and opinions seriously enough to imagines that they would be the basis of their action, which means I will reject those beliefs and opinions that lead to outcomes I find unsupportable. Want to show me where the outcomes are good? fine, take me seriously enough to try to change my understanding/beliefs/opinions.

Once "diversity" means putting your critical faculties on hold, it's a personnel management strategy -- "diversity training" -- not a mode of constructive interaction capable of furthering the interest of the polity. the goal is avoiding lawsuits caused by old white guys who can't keep their mouths zipped when they have offensive beliefs and opinions they'd like to share!

As too many others in the thread have said, treating other opinions with full respect means not trying to change conditions one finds abhorrent: don't like slavery? Well, slaveholders find it just peachy and their opinions, after all. I've read too many student papers with that ######## argument. obviously from students who've been diversity trained.

Diversity isn't a strategy or a platform anyway; it's a condition that does or doesn't exist.

Tolerance? Well, I don't want them arrested for their opinions, stripped of their citizenship, tattooed on their foreheads. Don't even put people on ignore for beliefs alone. But I sure as hell ain't gonna praise someone's ill-informed beliefs and opinions.
   198. STEAGLES is all out of bubblegum Posted: January 01, 2013 at 10:50 AM (#4335819)
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.
if you believe that homosexual behaviour is a sin, then there is cause to treat that differently than other sins.

from my previous post:
there is no such thing as "love the sinner, hate the sin" with homosexuality, because the very fact that someone would identify as being gay makes them an unrepentant sinner in the eyes of anyone who would believe that homosexual acts themselves are a sin.

that's the disconnect between adultery and premarital sex and all of those other sins. people who commit adultery are expected to repent for that sin, but there is no such repentance for people like me (well, forgetting the fact that i'm not a christian. but assuming that) because any such repentance would be invalid unless i rendered myself a eunuch.
   199. Random Transaction Generator Posted: January 01, 2013 at 11:18 AM (#4335824)
i disagree with this. i've had this conversation before on this board, and what i'll say is that basketball players are selected based on their physical attributes more than either of the 2 other american sports, and so i think it is very likely that there is some 6'11" gay man somewhere who happens to have be a good enough basketball player to reach the NBA.

from there, i think, just based on the sheer number of players who are active and playing in the NFL that the first openly gay player will come from that league.


I'm going with demographics.

The NHL has a larger number of Canadian and European players than any other league.
Compared to the US, Canada and Europe are more accepting of homosexuality (marriage equality and all that).
Throw in the fact that there are more Canadian teams (and therefore more Canadian fans of those teams), and the chance of acceptability grows higher.
   200. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: January 01, 2013 at 11:23 AM (#4335826)
Don't those who are intolerant of homosexuality have to tolerate my intolerance of their intolerance? (IOW, it's just turtles all the way down.)
Page 2 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14!
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogBud Selig calls replay start 'remarkable'
(15 - 3:39am, Apr 16)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogDoug Glanville: I Was Racially Profiled in My Own Driveway
(91 - 3:26am, Apr 16)
Last: Robert in Manhattan Beach

NewsblogGothamist: Yankee Stadium Is Selling Nachos In A Helmet For $20
(31 - 3:19am, Apr 16)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogOT: NBA Monthly Thread - April 2014
(211 - 3:18am, Apr 16)
Last: Mess with the Meat, you get the Wad!

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(129 - 3:11am, Apr 16)
Last: Robert in Manhattan Beach

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for April 14, 2014
(140 - 2:35am, Apr 16)
Last: Dan

Jim's Lab NotesWe're Moved! (And Burst.net can bite me!)
(82 - 2:08am, Apr 16)
Last: CrosbyBird

NewsblogNY Post: Davidoff: Why the Yankees are using the shift more than ever
(5 - 1:54am, Apr 16)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogRight-hander Joe Blanton retires
(37 - 1:39am, Apr 16)
Last: Zach

NewsblogJoe Torre: John Farrell Will Be Fined By MLB For His Replay Criticism
(36 - 1:29am, Apr 16)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(1271 - 12:06am, Apr 16)
Last: OCF

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-15-2014
(20 - 11:11pm, Apr 15)
Last: greenback likes millwall

NewsblogKimbrel given night off with soreness in shoulder | braves.com: News
(10 - 11:07pm, Apr 15)
Last: greenback likes millwall

NewsblogCalcaterra: "An embarrassing mishmash of fringe ranting and ill-informed, shrill bomb-throwing"
(99 - 8:40pm, Apr 15)
Last: Moeball

NewsblogBrewers win ninth straight game behind dominant Lohse
(31 - 7:17pm, Apr 15)
Last: STEAGLES is all out of bubblegum

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 1.6784 seconds
52 querie(s) executed