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 3 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 
   201. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: January 01, 2013 at 12:54 PM (#4335866)
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

I wasn't expecting this response. I'll have to think about this. Thanks. My initial response is that there are so many of these people who are otherwise functioning members of society that I can't hold myself up as being morally superior to them. We are all sinners and just trying to do the right thing.

It just so happens that the social limits are mutable, and that persecuting homosexuals is quickly being defined as socially intolerable.

This is the part that irritates me. You're saying that if Hunter had made his comments as quoted/misquoted by Baxter in 1950 nobody on the BBTF papyrus would have said a word, or even would have praised him. All the people decrying "bigotry" would be either silently nodding their heads or cheering Hunter on. Now that it is fashionable to speak out against homophobia, the "holier than thou" bandwagoners are all of a sudden "righteous" and morally superior to Hunter. I can't take any of you seriously as morally superior when you're just spouting the now popular sentiment. While I agree that opposing homosexuality is incorrect, the part I don't like about the people decrying Hunter is that they are pretending to be something other than sinners, just because they happen to be on more socially acceptable side of one issue. I'd respect you all a lot more if you stood up for something unpopular.
   202. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: January 01, 2013 at 01:02 PM (#4335873)
My name is Joe Bivens, and I am a food combiner.
   203. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: January 01, 2013 at 02:05 PM (#4335920)
This is the part that irritates me. You're saying that if Hunter had made his comments as quoted/misquoted by Baxter in 1950 nobody on the BBTF papyrus would have said a word, or even would have praised him. All the people decrying "bigotry" would be either silently nodding their heads or cheering Hunter on. Now that it is fashionable to speak out against homophobia, the "holier than thou" bandwagoners are all of a sudden "righteous" and morally superior to Hunter. I can't take any of you seriously as morally superior when you're just spouting the now popular sentiment. While I agree that opposing homosexuality is incorrect, the part I don't like about the people decrying Hunter is that they are pretending to be something other than sinners, just because they happen to be on more socially acceptable side of one issue. I'd respect you all a lot more if you stood up for something unpopular.

Why are you getting hung up on fashion and popularity? What does that have to do with whether or not being prejudiced is right or wrong? Yes, many people would have agreed with Hunter 50 years ago because the values of most people were different. You can dismiss that change as "fashion," but that's a profoundly silly way to characterize as significant change in social norms. Besides, supporting gay rights was once incredibly unpopular, and the reason views have changed is that many people spent decades convincing others that views that were once popular were wrong. Now that most people have come to accept the view that homosexuality is not a bad thing, are we suddenly supposed to tell people who disagree that their views are perfectly acceptable? That makes no sense.
   204. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: January 01, 2013 at 02:17 PM (#4335930)
And I know that many people have already pointed this out, but "tolerating" someone's views does NOT mean that we just agree to disagree and go our separate ways. And respecting your views doesn't mean never telling you you're wrong. In fact, that's the opposite of respect. Taking someone else's views seriously means taking the time to tell them when you disagree. You have a right to hold a view and I have the right to tell you I think your view is wrong.
   205. Perro(s) Posted: January 01, 2013 at 02:30 PM (#4335943)
You should be ashamed of yourselves for hurting Torii's feelings.
   206. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: January 01, 2013 at 02:37 PM (#4335955)
Why are you getting hung up on fashion and popularity? What does that have to do with whether or not being prejudiced is right or wrong?

Fashion has nothing to do with right and wrong.

You can dismiss that change as "fashion," but that's a profoundly silly way to characterize as significant change in social norms

What's the difference between "fashion" and "social norms"?

supporting gay rights was once incredibly unpopular

Yes, and I supported them then and now. But I never told anyone who did not that I was any more moral than they were/are. Just as I don't tell abortion rights people that I am more moral than they are, because I am not. We are all sinners.

Now that most people have come to accept the view that homosexuality is not a bad thing, are we suddenly supposed to tell people who disagree that their views are perfectly acceptable? That makes no sense.

No, if you want to get involved at all, you should argue that everyone should have equal rights to participate in MLB or whatever else you think people should have rights to do, without pretending that you are morally superior in any way. You are not. I am willing to bet that I can find ways that Torii Hunter is a better person than anyone posting here, including me. You have every right to disagree with him, and vociferously argue your case, but not to pretend that you are better people.
   207. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: January 01, 2013 at 02:42 PM (#4335958)
You should be ashamed of yourselves for hurting Torii's feelings.


I think with Torii's recent post-article comments, Torii should be ashamed of himself for hurting his own damned feelings. He's saying he's morally superior to that Torii.Figures that homophobic anti-homophobe would be a hateful self-righteous supporter of both fashionable and non-so-fashionable mores.
   208. Sheer Tim Foli Posted: January 01, 2013 at 02:51 PM (#4335970)
2) Flat earth -- this is scientifically proven incorrect when taken in its literal physical meaning.
...
#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.


Rubbish. Flat Earth Theory may not be fashionable but it has it adherents. Just because sheople believe everything NASA says does not change the shape of the earth.
   209. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: January 01, 2013 at 02:54 PM (#4335975)
Yes, and I supported them then and now. But I never told anyone who did not that I was any more moral than they were/are. Just as I don't tell abortion rights people that I am more moral than they are, because I am not. We are all sinners.

Great, we're all sinners. I still think people who believe that homosexuality is immoral and that homosexuals are not entitled to equal rights are wrong. Am I pretending to be a better person by saying that?
   210. Sheer Tim Foli Posted: January 01, 2013 at 02:55 PM (#4335976)
That depends. What do you think of Flat Earth believers?
   211. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: January 01, 2013 at 02:59 PM (#4335980)
I hate them.
   212. Sheer Tim Foli Posted: January 01, 2013 at 03:00 PM (#4335981)
I hate them.


We all know your prejudices comrade!
   213. Sheer Tim Foli Posted: January 01, 2013 at 03:28 PM (#4336014)
For those who think I am joking. My peeps

The evidence for a flat earth is derived from many different facets of science and philosophy. The simplest is by relying on ones own senses to discern the true nature of the world around us. The world looks flat, the bottoms of clouds are flat, the movement of the sun; these are all examples of your senses telling you that we do not live on a spherical heliocentric world. This is using what's called an empiricistic approach, or an approach that relies on information from your senses. Alternatively, when using Descartes' method of Cartesian doubt to skeptically view the world around us, one quickly finds that the notion of a spherical world is the theory which has the burden of proof and not Flat Earth Theory.
   214. robinred Posted: January 01, 2013 at 05:01 PM (#4336126)
they are pretending to be something other than sinners, just


Couple of problems with this:

1. The "sinners" thing is imposing the language/thought structure of your religion on people who don't follow your religion. That cuts both ways. If Hunter wants to frame this issue in terms of his Christianity, then Hunter, and you, need to realize that other people will frame it in terms other than those.
2. While people are condemning Hunter's words in pretty strong language, no one is saying "I am a perfect person with no flaws because I am condemning what Hunter said." As to the rest of that line of argument, in which you say that Hunter is perhaps a great guy in other ways, well, that may be true. But what you are missing is that he chose to say this in the public sphere, and frame it in terms of his employment space, and to bring his religious beliefs into that space, which changes the rules. Hunter may be a great friend, a great business partner, a great sibling, etc. But that doesn't really apply in this context.

Also, your lines about not claiming to be morally superior and being tolerant are carrying a lot of weight in your argument, but as a couple of people have pointed out to you, that's pretty circular rhetorically. It is quite easy to point out how intolerant you are being of the perceived intolerance, and also quite easy to point out that you are, in fact, in some ways staking out the moral high ground by repeatedly claiming that you are not morally superior while everybody else is falsely claiming that they are.

The one legit point you are making is that Hunter didn't say "Gays should not be allowed to play in MLB"; he was just saying "Gays make me uncomfortable." But as many have said, expressing those sorts of feelings, in terms of the public and employment spaces, open up/suggest other issues of discrimination due to the bigotry and discrimination that gays have faced in this country and around the world for so long, and still face. This is about far more than being "tolerant" of Torii Hunter's feelings or religious beliefs.
   215. AuntBea Posted: January 01, 2013 at 05:15 PM (#4336154)
The bottoms of clouds are flat?
   216. PreservedFish Posted: January 01, 2013 at 05:26 PM (#4336167)
How do the flat earthers explain the ability to sail around the world and end up where you started?
   217. Der-K: Hipster doofus Posted: January 01, 2013 at 05:31 PM (#4336177)
Forget it AuntBea, he's on a roll.

****

Steagles, I'm uncomfortable with your placing 2.5 on a continuum b/w 2 and 3, likely in part because I once viewed gay sex acts as a sin (I no longer do) - but no worse morally than, say, my own premarital hetero sex, and was also in favor of expanded civil rights / protected class status, advocated for GLBT orgs, and so on... If you'd care to regard people who held my former viewpoint as enabling or part of the problem, that's fine but I'd've thought that the type 3 folks would cause you more harm...
   218. CrosbyBird Posted: January 01, 2013 at 05:42 PM (#4336197)
What gives non-Christians the right to tell Christians what they must and must not believe? Arrogant mothers.

There is no such right, but belief is all you get for free. The right to have any belief you wish does not extend into a right to speak publicly about that belief without facing criticism, nor does it come with an entitlement to respect.

I wouldn't suggest that the Politically Correct Police charge into Torii Hunter's home and arrest him for his beliefs, but I would suggest that his belief is significantly harmful to society and worthy of censure.
   219. Mayor Blomberg Posted: January 01, 2013 at 05:47 PM (#4336205)
What's the difference between "fashion" and "social norms"?


As in, "It is no longer fashionable for Catholics to consider Jews to be the killers of Christ"?
   220. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: January 01, 2013 at 06:11 PM (#4336222)
Great, we're all sinners. I still think people who believe that homosexuality is immoral and that homosexuals are not entitled to equal rights are wrong. Am I pretending to be a better person by saying that?

No, not if you state it that way. If you make it ad hominem then you would be.

The "sinners" thing is imposing the language/thought structure of your religion on people who don't follow your religion

I'm not a member of any organized religion. When I use the word "sinners" I am using it to mean we are all morally imperfect, and have no reason to try to pretend that we are morally superior to anyone else.

no one is saying "I am a perfect person with no flaws because I am condemning what Hunter said."

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

Also, your lines about not claiming to be morally superior and being tolerant are carrying a lot of weight in your argument, but as a couple of people have pointed out to you, that's pretty circular rhetorically. It is quite easy to point out how intolerant you are being of the perceived intolerance, and also quite easy to point out that you are, in fact, in some ways staking out the moral high ground by repeatedly claiming that you are not morally superior while everybody else is falsely claiming that they are.

This would mean that you believe that respecting the right of others to have opinions different from one's own while not judging the person who holds those opinions constitutes "moral high ground". This is different from those people who said that they have every right to condemn those who hold opinions that they believe are offensive, despicable, etc. I find abortion to be morally wrong, but I am not qualified to judge people who support abortion rights, have abortions or perform abortions.
   221. Foghorn Leghorn Posted: January 01, 2013 at 06:26 PM (#4336246)
Not in those words, but in making ad hominem attacks on Hunter ("bigot", "d-bag", etc.), they are presuming to be qualified to judge him, which they are not.
That doesn't make sense. It's a bigoted comment. That's what those words mean.
   222. robinred Posted: January 01, 2013 at 06:28 PM (#4336248)
Not in those words, but in making ad hominem attacks on Hunter ("bigot", "d-bag", etc.), they are presuming to be qualified to judge him, which they are not.


Perhaps, but that is just an emotional response to the language being used, that you are framing in a faux-logical structure. You are simply saying, "I don't like the way that people are talking about Torii Hunter." That's fine, but that is all you have. As a couple of people have pointed out, in different ways, by bringing this up in public, by framing it in terms of religion and the employment space, he is opening himself up to "cenure", as CBird put it. It would be better if people didn't call him names, but that is a different thing than the issue itself.

I'm not a member of any organized religion. When I use the word "sinners" I am using it to mean we are all morally imperfect, and have no reason to try to pretend that we are morally superior to anyone else


In that case, I think "sinners" is a very poor choice of words on your part. Check STEAGLES' "2.5" post for reasons why.

As to the rhetorical issues surrounding the moral high ground stuff, we can agree to disagree, but saying "Abortion is morally wrong but I am not judging people who have them", well, that is a tough sale for me. And having read your posts on this and on other issues, I see little reason to believe that you are a particularly humble, non-judgmental kind of guy. You are, in fact, being very judgmental about the people going off on Hunter, without acknowledging that there are some very good reasons for doing so.
   223. Perro(s) Posted: January 01, 2013 at 06:39 PM (#4336262)
Isn't a phobia an irrational fear with a biological basis? Should we be in the business of shaming people for something they cannot control?

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


By whom and to what end? Someone upthread commented that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and that's basically what I've seen fomented on this thread. In thr effort to reduce harm on one end, people are willing to abrogate the equal protection of all to some basic first ammendment freedoms, in the practice of religion, speech, and assembly. Because we're not talking about stopping people from actually harming gays through their actions, but stopping them from giving offense. Censuring people for thoughtcrimes has a long and sordid history of being used against people of minority opinion, and that's the road suggested by many in this thread.





   224. BDC Posted: January 01, 2013 at 06:39 PM (#4336263)
Not really about the direction that the thread has taken, but I was intrigued by this assertion, attributed via paraphrase to Hunter by Kevin Baxter in the linked article:

an “out” teammate could divide a team


I will offer it up as a logical and practical certainty that there are quite a few gay athletes, and have been for many decades, who are in a sort of "open closet": fairly obvious to teammates who know them well, but uncommented-upon in public for various reasons (common courtesy, team solidarity). And such open-closet situations haven't divided teams, or at least not more than lots of other personal or relationship issues can divide a team. I'm not going to say if I know of any such situations directly – that would smack of the Bill-James "there are some juicers in the HOF" remark – but seriously, extrapolate from any workplace you've ever been in: that's how it works (or used to work, not long ago, in more tolerant professions). Hunter and others who make such remarks may be innocents at best, but I'd be surprised if some of his former teammates here and there haven't read them and said to themselves, "Torii, what about so-and-so, didn't you have a clue that he was gay?"
   225. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 01, 2013 at 06:57 PM (#4336283)
Torii Hunter, of course, is under no obligation to the community or any faction of it, to feel comfortable around all people.

Nor is he under any obligation to refrain from saying so.

The Invaders and Arbiters of Private Thoughts are, as usual, falling back on the harm he's causing the "workplace," as if all they've ever been accusing him of is being a bad employee.
   226. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: January 01, 2013 at 07:01 PM (#4336287)
He can say so. I can say how I feel about him and his saying so. That's all I'm doing. Is that ok?
   227. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 01, 2013 at 07:07 PM (#4336294)
That's all I'm doing. Is that ok?

That isn't all you're doing. You said, for example, this:

People who tolerate bigots are sick.

Now what's more dangerous and less respectful of pluralism -- Torii Hunter saying he might not be comfortable around a gay teammate, or your borderline fanatical assertion?

It's really not close.

   228. Srul Itza At Home Posted: January 01, 2013 at 07:11 PM (#4336297)
Very nice. Fight homophobia with Christophobia.


That would imply that fear of Christians is as irrational a fear, as fear of homosexuals.

Many centuries of watching Christianity in action (as opposed to in theory) has taught us that a fear of Christians and their actions is anything but irrational. It is enlightened self-interest.
   229. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 01, 2013 at 07:16 PM (#4336301)
Many centuries of watching Christianity in action (as opposed to in theory) has taught us that a fear of Christians and their actions is anything but irrational. It is enlightened self-interest.

Collective guilt -- now there's an enlightened and sophisticated and modern concept.

And very tolerant and respectful of individual dignity to boot.
   230. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: January 01, 2013 at 07:17 PM (#4336303)
Now what's more dangerous and less respectful of pluralism -- Torii Hunter saying he might not be comfortable around a gay teammate, or your borderline fanatical assertion?

Objection! Inflammatory!
   231. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 01, 2013 at 07:17 PM (#4336305)
Been a while, picking out some responses - thanks for the critiques. First, cheng at #151:
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.
Of course I can't prove the meaning of an ambiguous, rare Greek word. But no one would ever base a theology or social practices on "you can't prove it doesn't."
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".
This seems like begging the question. You have already presumed that Paul is right and you agree with Paul that "sexual impurity" happens in cases of sex between men or sex between women. My point is that in order to agree with Paul, you have to agree with his reasoning as to why such sex is impure or sinful. You have "straightforwardly" read Romans without analyzing or evaluating its logic.

He argues that it is "unnatural." You need to explain this in order to form an argument in favor of Paul's authority. I turned to ancient notions of sexual hierarchy in order both to explain Paul's logic and to explain how "unnaturalness" was understood in antiquity. The concept of unnatural sexual acts, within the ancient world, did not mean biologically unnatural. They did not believe it was more "natural" to put a penis in a vagina or an anus or between thighs. They did not have a sense of biological determinism, they didn't have a gene theory, survival of the fittest, all that stuff. "Unnatural" or para phusin meant contrary to the proper social order, the natural hierarchy of society and being. The unnaturalness of gay sex, here, is directly connected to Paul's assumptions about human sexual hierarchy.

And tshipman at #187:
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.
That isn't how Neoplatonism works. Neoplatonic ontology and ethics are based in the notion that a flickering copy of a divine ideal is still good. The capacity of humans for knowledge and virtue is based in our ability to perceive reality and act in accordance with the good, even as we and it are copies of the divine ideal. It would run counter to the entirety of Neoplatonic thought to describe the "dim reflection" of an ideal as "unnatural" or sinful or damned. Idol worship was generally defended by neoplatonic theorists of religion for precisely this purpose. (I don't think, for what it's worth, that Paul is best understood as a Platonist. His understanding of the self, emotion, and the physical world, bears more in common with ancient Stoicism, which by this time had merged in some ways with middle Platonic metaphysics. Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and the Stoics, is probably the go-to for this argument. Also Stanley Stowers, Re-Reading Romans.)

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

I am highly doubtful that Paul believed in an ideal of natural, heterosexual sex. He instead seems to have considered the ideal human to be one who is not moved by the passions, who does not experience or act upon desire. The passage in Romans 1 talks about how Gentiles have been given up to their passions. This discussion of the passions recurs constantly in Romans. Paul saw Gentiles as being imperfectly human because of how they were moved by the passions, especially desire, and he believed that faith in Christ and a modified version of the Jewish law could provide for Gentiles the capacity to live full lives safe from the buffeting winds of emotion. His natural ideal - see especially 1 Cor 7 - was celibacy. Marriage and sex are only for people who lack the strength of character to achieve the ideal.

Paul's embrace of the Stoic (and middle Platonic) notion of apatheia fits perfectly with his beliefs about hierarchy. The man moved by his passions, was being dominated by them. The truly perfect, dominant male is the one who controls his emotions and his actions. Celibacy became an ideal, in this system, because it was seen as dominating the lesser aspects of oneself in a way analogous to how a male should properly demonstrate his dominance through penetrative sexual acts.
   232. Fancy Pants Handle doesn't need no water Posted: January 01, 2013 at 07:49 PM (#4336349)
Because we're not talking about stopping people from actually harming gays through their actions, but stopping them from giving offense.

Bullshit. Attitudes like Hunter's have negative effects on gay peoples lives that go way beyond merely causing offense to people. It's part of why equal rights are still being denied to gay people in many places. It's why many gay people feel the need to hide their own identity. It's why parents send their children to vile anti-gay indoctrination camps. It's why suicide rate among gay teenagers is astronomical.

Pretending that the pernicious effects of such attitudes don't go vastly beyond causing mere offense is dangerously deluded.
   233. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 01, 2013 at 07:59 PM (#4336357)
########. Attitudes like Hunter's have negative effects on gay peoples lives that go way beyond merely causing offense to people. It's part of why equal rights are still being denied to gay people in many places. It's why many gay people feel the need to hide their own identity. It's why parents send their children to vile anti-gay indoctrination camps. It's why suicide rate among gay teenagers is astronomical.

Maybe, but the principle is overdeterminative. You could say precisely the same about anyone who harbored the belief that a beneficial piece of policy shouldn't be adopted.

Gun nuts, e.g., to whom the espoused principle applies far more strongly and with far more deleterious ultimate impact.
   234. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: January 01, 2013 at 08:08 PM (#4336364)
Maybe, but the principle is overdeterminative.

The principle of calling out people for being ######## is "overdeterminative"? Hooookay.
   235. Fancy Pants Handle doesn't need no water Posted: January 01, 2013 at 08:12 PM (#4336366)
Maybe, but the principle is overdeterminative. You could say precisely the same about anyone who harbored the belief that a beneficial piece of policy shouldn't be adopted.

Gun nuts, e.g., to whom the espoused principle applies far more strongly and with far more deleterious ultimate impact.

There's a cost associated with anti-gun legislation. Not being an asshole to gay people costs nobody anything.
   236. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: January 01, 2013 at 08:14 PM (#4336369)
Almost a coke. I'll settle for a spring water.
   237. cardsfanboy Posted: January 01, 2013 at 08:18 PM (#4336375)
How do the flat earthers explain the ability to sail around the world and end up where you started?


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

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


disagree slightly. You can't effect real change without at least talking about it. If everyone with a different belief than the norm didn't bring up their beliefs then you will never be able to make a real change. Yes it could become harmful to society if that belief became the norm instead of the outside, but if you make everyone who has that belief shut themselves up and not talk about it, all you are going to do is foster a resistant attitude.

   238. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 01, 2013 at 08:18 PM (#4336376)
There's a cost associated with anti-gun legislation.

And there's a cost to rooting out and invading private beliefs.

Believing backwoodsmen should be able to possess five AR-15s, and expressing that belief, causes far more damage to innocent people than someone not being comfortable around gays in the locker room and admitting to that lack of comfort.
   239. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: January 01, 2013 at 08:22 PM (#4336379)
And there's a cost to rooting out and invading private beliefs.

In the context of this discussion, the above is over the top insanity. Calling Hunter an ####### for expressing an opinion distasteful to me is not me "rooting out and invading" his "private beliefs". First of all, because he publicized his belief. Second of all, because you're unhinged.
   240. robinred Posted: January 01, 2013 at 08:24 PM (#4336382)
The Invaders and Arbiters of Private Thoughts are,


Heh. If Hunter had kept these thoughts to himself, rather than sharing them with a reporter, this conversation would not be taking place, and it was, of course, Hunter himself who brought the workplace, in this case, the clubhouse--into the conversation.
   241. cardsfanboy Posted: January 01, 2013 at 08:27 PM (#4336385)
Many centuries of watching Christianity in action (as opposed to in theory) has taught us that a fear of Christians and their actions is anything but irrational. It is enlightened self-interest.


To bad we can't "like" a post on here.
   242. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 01, 2013 at 08:30 PM (#4336389)
If Hunter had kept these thoughts to himself, rather than sharing them with a reporter, this conversation would not be taking place, and it was, of course, Hunter himself who brought the workplace, in this case, the clubhouse--into the conversation.

So him merely being uncomfortable around gays, even in the "workplace," is ok?
   243. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: January 01, 2013 at 08:31 PM (#4336392)
It's sad.
   244. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 01, 2013 at 08:33 PM (#4336394)
Calling Hunter an ####### for expressing an opinion distasteful to me is not me "rooting out and invading" his "private beliefs".

That isn't all you did, and you look silly trying to pretend it was. Turning up the volume while trying to pretend makes you look even sillier.
   245. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: January 01, 2013 at 08:37 PM (#4336398)
Of course it was all I did. How I express my lack of tolerance for bigots is by calling them ########. Clumsy? Maybe. Indelicate? Maybe. But more than that? Nope. That's your bugaboo.
   246. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: January 01, 2013 at 08:39 PM (#4336400)
And ad hominem doesn't bother me. I consider the source.
   247. cardsfanboy Posted: January 01, 2013 at 08:40 PM (#4336402)
So him merely being uncomfortable around gays, even in the "workplace," is ok?


Yes... what is wrong with thoughts? There is no mind police. People can have their own believes even if it goes counter to rationality, humanity or intelligence. Plenty of people are uncomfortable around things that they don't "like" even if it's an irrational fear. I mean just because that snake is non-poisonous doesn't mean Indiana Jones should be comfortable around it.
   248. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 01, 2013 at 08:40 PM (#4336403)
Of course it was all I did.

Actually, it wasn't. You didn't just call bigots ########, you rendered a verdict on "people who tolerate bigots."

And that verdict was that they were "sick," a term heavily redolent of excess, if not fanaticism.

   249. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: January 01, 2013 at 08:42 PM (#4336406)
Well, that's just your opinion, man.
   250. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 01, 2013 at 08:46 PM (#4336409)
Yes... what is wrong with thoughts?

Nothing.

What's wrong then with formulating the thoughts into words and expressing them? (Note: Putting the thoughts into words doesn't and can't convert the thought to "bigotry." Hunter is as much a "bigot" for being uncomfortable as he is for saying so.)

There is no mind police.

That seems counter to a faction of opinion in the thread.
   251. Perro(s) Posted: January 01, 2013 at 08:48 PM (#4336411)
If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?
   252. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: January 01, 2013 at 08:48 PM (#4336412)
Bigotry is irrational.

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

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

edit...oops, you're never "cured" of the "disease". One day at a time, and all that.
   253. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: January 01, 2013 at 08:52 PM (#4336415)
What's wrong then with formulating the thoughts into words and expressing them?

I guess it's better to be thought of as a bigot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
   254. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: January 01, 2013 at 09:01 PM (#4336425)
There's some delicious irony to what I'm suggesting: Jam those mofo bigots into the closet, and let the homosexuals out.

I can live with that.
   255. Sheer Tim Foli Posted: January 01, 2013 at 09:01 PM (#4336427)
How do the flat earthers explain the ability to sail around the world and end up where you started?


Well you do sail around the earth - just not on a sphere. You are sailing in a large circle.
   256. Perro(s) Posted: January 01, 2013 at 09:02 PM (#4336428)
Pretending that the pernicious effects of such attitudes don't go vastly beyond causing mere offense is dangerously deluded.


Lock me up, then 'round midnight you can hold a necktie party.
   257. Sheer Tim Foli Posted: January 01, 2013 at 09:03 PM (#4336429)
Aren't flat earthers basically taking relativity to the extreme...the Earth is flat because that is how I perceive it, therefore it must be flat?


Well. Not quite. If they were extreme relativists they would believe it is round for you and flat for me. They are ultimately extreme objectivists - the world is flat - only everyone has swallowed the "evidence" of "science" and ignored common sense.
   258. vivaelpujols Posted: January 01, 2013 at 09:11 PM (#4336438)
Knew this thread was gonna get good when SBB joined it.

What's the line, Hunter defenders? Would it be alright if I went up to him and called him a n*gger?
   259. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: January 01, 2013 at 09:16 PM (#4336447)
I apologize to SBB. I started the "ad hominem" when I said he was unhinged.

edit...here's a better apology: SBB, I apologize. Better than a 3rd person apology.
   260. Fancy Pants Handle doesn't need no water Posted: January 01, 2013 at 09:16 PM (#4336449)
Lock me up, then 'round midnight you can hold a necktie party.

Really, playing a faux martyr card is all you have? In the face of those actually suffering, this is more than a little pathetic.
   261. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 01, 2013 at 09:17 PM (#4336450)
Would it be alright if I went up to him and called him a n*gger?

No. Those would be fighting words and an incitement to immediate violence.
   262. robinred Posted: January 01, 2013 at 09:26 PM (#4336462)
So him merely being uncomfortable around gays, even in the "workplace," is ok?


One problem here is the vague terms, be it weighty ones like "morally superior" or colloquial ones such as "ok." Hunter made the choice to bring his religious beliefs and the judgments thereof("biblically, it's not right") and his "discomfort" about male homosexuals into the public sphere and into the workplace by talking about it with a reporter and referencing his workplace space, the clubhouse. Given the issues faced historically and presently by gays, he is going to get hotly criticized for that. CBird and Vlad put it very differently, but their statements taken together(belief is all you get for free, and the right to free speech is not a get out of being called an asshat card) summarize it pretty well. If you are personally uncomfortable on an emotional level with people calling Hunter a bigot, that is understandable, but no one is "invading the private thoughts" of Hunter or anyone else.
   263. STEAGLES is all out of bubblegum Posted: January 01, 2013 at 09:29 PM (#4336466)
i'd just like to point out that to my knowledge there have only been 2 homosexuals to post in this thread and neither of us have jumped down torii hunter's throat (phrasing) for his comments.


and personally, i'd add that there are multiple people in this thread who have made comments that are much more concerning than anything hunter originally said.
   264. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 01, 2013 at 09:31 PM (#4336467)
In the face of those actually suffering, this is more than a little pathetic.

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

(*) Since Hunter didn't personally harm anyone, you can only be applying some type of utilitarianism to justify attributing "suffering" to Hunter himself.
   265. CrosbyBird Posted: January 01, 2013 at 09:38 PM (#4336477)
By whom and to what end?

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

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

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

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

*Torii Hunter's words being yet another example in support of this idea. If Torii Hunter merely said "I would be uncomfortable in the locker room around gay people," then I'd think he was foolish but I'd mind less. It's when he says "it's not right" that I really start to get annoyed. I'm pretty comfortable with nudity but I can understand and sympathize with not wanting to undress in front of someone that finds your particular brand of naughty bits attractive. I can't understand putting any bit of respect toward an authority that suggests that homosexuality is deviant, sinful behavior.
   266. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 01, 2013 at 09:38 PM (#4336478)
One problem here is the vague terms, be it weighty ones like "morally superior" or colloquial ones such as "ok." Hunter made the choice to bring his religious beliefs and the judgments thereof("biblically, it's not right") and his "discomfort" about male homosexuals into the public sphere and into the workplace by talking about it with a reporter and referencing his workplace space, the clubhouse. Given the issues faced historically and presently by gays, he is going to get hotly criticized for that. CBird and Vlad put it very differently, but their statements taken together(belief is all you get for free, and the right to free speech is not a get out of being called an asshat card) summarize it pretty well. If you are personally uncomfortable on an emotional level with people calling Hunter a bigot, that is understandable, but no one is "invading the private thoughts" of Hunter or anyone else.

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

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

   267. tshipman Posted: January 01, 2013 at 09:39 PM (#4336481)
Further, you seem to beg the question just as cheng did. You say that Paul believed heterosexual sex was "natural" without explaining the basis of that belief. My point is precisely that we have to understand the basis of that belief in order to understand Romans 1.


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

1 Cor 7:3,5:

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


Paul talks continually in Corinthians about the virtues of marriage. Yes, Paul thinks it is better to remain unmarried, but "Because of the present crisis" not because of anything else. I think that saying that Paul is condemning homosexual sex due to his preference for hierarchy is probably reading from a modern perspective. The idea that heterosexual sex is normative drew strictly from the idea that it creates children.
   268. CrosbyBird Posted: January 01, 2013 at 09:44 PM (#4336487)
And very tolerant and respectful of individual dignity to boot.

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

I respect individual Christians despite their religion. I don't fear individual Christians, generally speaking. But collectively? Any non-Christian who isn't a little terrified is remarkably naive. (Not that I'm singling out Christianity here, mind you. I'm just responding to this particular context and this particular post.)
   269. Srul Itza At Home Posted: January 01, 2013 at 09:44 PM (#4336489)
Aren't flat earthers basically taking relativity to the extreme yanking everyone's chain


FTFY
   270. STEAGLES is all out of bubblegum Posted: January 01, 2013 at 09:45 PM (#4336492)
Steagles, I'm uncomfortable with your placing 2.5 on a continuum b/w 2 and 3, likely in part because I once viewed gay sex acts as a sin (I no longer do) - but no worse morally than, say, my own premarital hetero sex, and was also in favor of expanded civil rights / protected class status, advocated for GLBT orgs, and so on... If you'd care to regard people who held my former viewpoint as enabling or part of the problem, that's fine but I'd've thought that the type 3 folks would cause you more harm...
i would say that retconning the idea of homosexual sex being a sin in the eyes of god is every bit as important to achieving mainstream acceptance of homosexuality among practicing christians as the overturning of sodomy laws was to achieving mainstream acceptance of homosexuality among contemporary americans.


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

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



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

   271. Sheer Tim Foli Posted: January 01, 2013 at 09:48 PM (#4336498)
#269.

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

I like the third group.
   272. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 01, 2013 at 09:49 PM (#4336500)
The natural state of tolerance only lasts until it is demonstrated to be undeserved.

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

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

   273. Perro(s) Posted: January 01, 2013 at 09:50 PM (#4336502)
i'd just like to point out that to my knowledge there have only been 2 homosexuals to post in this thread and neither of us have jumped down torii hunter's throat (phrasing) for his comments.


Acknowledged, and appreciated.

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


People are interesting creatures.
   274. CrosbyBird Posted: January 01, 2013 at 09:55 PM (#4336508)
It's not really a free speech issue, but more of a pluralism, respect for the individual conscience and dignity of all people issue. Whatever "discomfort" I have revolves around that.

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

Similar to what I said before: the right to hold whatever opinion you wish is the sum total of the "respect for the individual conscience" that you get for free. Respect for the details of that position? That must be earned.
   275. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 01, 2013 at 10:02 PM (#4336519)
Screw pluralism. While many issues have a healthy gray area, let's not pretend that there are not issues where one side is right and the other is wrong. We do not tolerate the attitude that blacks are inferior to whites, or women inferior to men, and we should not.

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

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

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

People are not affording Hunter due respect for things that are uniquely his and more importantly, due respect for his right to possess them. They're invading and violating his personal space.
   276. CrosbyBird Posted: January 01, 2013 at 10:08 PM (#4336526)
In other words, tolerance is entirely conditional on whether it's "deserved."

With a high presumption of "deserved," absolutely.

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

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

I don't reject anti-homosexual bigotry because I disagree with it; I reject anti-homosexual bigotry because it is morally repugnant, harmful, and without a credible bit of rational support to justify the harm it causes. That anti-homosexual bigotry is, practically speaking, almost exclusively based on a hypocritically and inconsistently applied adherence to ancient unsourced texts outlining primitive tribal beliefs is its own extra mark against the position.
   277. Perro(s) Posted: January 01, 2013 at 10:11 PM (#4336527)
I respect individual Christians despite their religion. I don't fear individual Christians, generally speaking. But collectively? Any non-Christian who isn't a little terrified is remarkably naive.


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

I also have long lived, worked, and socialized with gays and lesbians my entire adult life. You can only be seduced if that's your desire...
   278. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 01, 2013 at 10:11 PM (#4336528)
I don't reject anti-homosexual bigotry because I disagree with it; I reject anti-homosexual bigotry because it is morally repugnant, harmful, and without a credible bit of rational support to justify the harm it causes. That anti-homosexual bigotry is, practically speaking, almost exclusively based on a hypocritically and inconsistently applied adherence to ancient unsourced texts outlining primitive tribal beliefs is its own extra mark against the position.

I basically agree with that, but it really isn't the issue posed here. The question is whether you "tolerate" Torii Hunter. I do.
   279. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 01, 2013 at 10:14 PM (#4336531)
I think that saying that Paul is condemning homosexual sex due to his preference for hierarchy is probably reading from a modern perspective. The idea that heterosexual sex is normative drew strictly from the idea that it creates children.
No, you've got this precisely backwards. The valuation of procreative sex is the modern perspective. You don't see the "only procreative sex is ok" argument take hold in Christianity until well into late antiquity, and it's really only in modernity that you get a concept of "heterosexuality" based on the procreative couple.

There's an extensive literature on this. I can offer bibliography. The ancients didn't understand sex in the way that you think they did.
   280. CrosbyBird Posted: January 01, 2013 at 10:17 PM (#4336533)
We don't "tolerate" murderers, either, but we do maintain our respect for their humanity and dignity.

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


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

By the way, has the source article been linked here? In pro sports, gay athletes still feel unwelcome.
   281. Morty Causa Posted: January 01, 2013 at 10:20 PM (#4336535)
A good way, it seems to me, to determine how procreative sex and heterosexuality and homosexuality are view at the bedrock level would be to look at how tribal (ancient, primitive, elemental--choose the term that soothes your psyche) societies view them--and we still have some of those in the present as well as studies and accounts.
   282. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 01, 2013 at 10:21 PM (#4336536)
Let's go back to 1 Cor 7.3-5, because it illustrates, I think, how you're reading Paul through modern eyes and missing his plain meaning. You quoted the text:
The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
And you said it was about procreation. There's not a single word there about procreation. What Paul says is that couples should not "deprive each other", "so that you may devote yourselves to prayer." His argument has nothing to do with making babies, and everything to do with managing one's passions so that one can carry out religious duties unaffected by desires. Married couples should #### not in order to make babies, but in order to let off passionate steam. It's better to be like Paul and not have to have sex in order to manage one's passions, but for those who can't be as he is, they should use sex as a passion release valve.

For Paul, the operative questions are about the control of the passions, and for men especially, the maintenance of self-control and proper masculinity. You're reading ideas about procreation into Paul that just aren't there.
   283. CrosbyBird Posted: January 01, 2013 at 10:30 PM (#4336543)
In your experience, when have you ever been terrorized by Christians?

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

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

Also, I'm pretty insulated, most of the time. I'm a reasonably wealthy straight white Jewish male living in Manhattan. The sort of ideology that frightens me is pretty marginalized here.
   284. CrosbyBird Posted: January 01, 2013 at 10:31 PM (#4336544)
The question is whether you "tolerate" Torii Hunter. I do.

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

EDIT: Since I don't know him, and the source of his belief is religion, I am more inclined to blame that pernicious influence rather than his personality. He might just be yet another one of those generally quite good people that was shamefully indoctrinated before his rational development.
   285. Fancy Pants Handle doesn't need no water Posted: January 01, 2013 at 10:31 PM (#4336545)
Some are chain yankers.
Some are biblical literalists.
Some are just very very open minded.

I like the third group.

There is such a thing as being so open minded that your brain falls out. And I would argue there is a lot of that on display in this thread.
   286. Perro(s) Posted: January 01, 2013 at 10:33 PM (#4336546)
Ex-wives can be terrifying. Wives even moreso.
   287. robinred Posted: January 01, 2013 at 10:38 PM (#4336548)
The "workplace" part of the discussion is a red herring


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

   288. Sheer Tim Foli Posted: January 01, 2013 at 10:40 PM (#4336549)
There is such a thing as being so open minded that your brain falls out. And I would argue there is a lot of that on display in this thread.


This sounds like the close-minded and self-righteous attitude common with round-earther thinking.
   289. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: January 01, 2013 at 10:49 PM (#4336552)
I wouldn't suggest that the Politically Correct Police charge into Torii Hunter's home and arrest him for his beliefs, but I would suggest that his belief is significantly harmful to society and worthy of censure.


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

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

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


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

   290. vivaelpujols Posted: January 01, 2013 at 10:54 PM (#4336555)
No. Those would be fighting words and an incitement to immediate violence.


Horsefuckingshit. There's nothing inherent about ###### that is a "fighting word". You're just making #### up.
   291. Fancy Pants Handle doesn't need no water Posted: January 01, 2013 at 10:56 PM (#4336556)
This sounds like the close-minded and self-righteous attitude common with round-earther thinking.

I hold the truth self-evident, that the earth is shaped like a klein bottle.
   292. vivaelpujols Posted: January 01, 2013 at 10:57 PM (#4336557)
*Torii Hunter's words being yet another example in support of this idea. If Torii Hunter merely said "I would be uncomfortable in the locker room around gay people," then I'd think he was foolish but I'd mind less. It's when he says "it's not right" that I really start to get annoyed. I'm pretty comfortable with nudity but I can understand and sympathize with not wanting to undress in front of someone that finds your particular brand of naughty bits attractive. I can't understand putting any bit of respect toward an authority that suggests that homosexuality is deviant, sinful behavior.


This is exactly how I feel.
   293. vivaelpujols Posted: January 01, 2013 at 10:58 PM (#4336558)
Horsefuckingshit. There's nothing inherent about ###### that is a "fighting word". You're just making #### up.


And even if it is a fighting word, how does that violate your ethics? I have the right to say whatever I want, right? If he wants to fight me over it that's his perogotive.
   294. Sheer Tim Foli Posted: January 01, 2013 at 11:02 PM (#4336559)
I hold the truth self-evident, that the earth is shaped like a klein bottle.


Hmm. Go on.
   295. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: January 01, 2013 at 11:03 PM (#4336561)
Not in those words, but in making ad hominem attacks on Hunter ("bigot", "d-bag", etc.), they are presuming to be qualified to judge him, which they are not.


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

I guess this is part of why you've been ranting about people thinking they're better than Torii. If you don't understand that "bigot" can be used simply as a descriptive term, I imagine it gives you an excuse to take umbrage.
   296. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: January 01, 2013 at 11:11 PM (#4336562)
Not really about the direction that the thread has taken, but I was intrigued by this assertion, attributed via paraphrase to Hunter by Kevin Baxter in the linked article:

an “out” teammate could divide a team


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

How about, "Our bigoted attitude towards men who put their penises into other mens' mouths and assholes is likely to divide a team between those who hold that attitude and the grown-ups".
   297. with Glavinesque control and Madduxian poise Posted: January 01, 2013 at 11:18 PM (#4336568)
This is silly. "Bigot" can be entirely descriptive; definitional. Objective even.


I think you and I mean different things by 'bigot'. What do you mean by that word?
   298. Perro(s) Posted: January 01, 2013 at 11:23 PM (#4336571)
Jesus, Perros. You break out of your somnolent, performance art-fortune cookie posting with this??


What was your handle before this one, Sybil?
   299. Fancy Pants Handle doesn't need no water Posted: January 01, 2013 at 11:26 PM (#4336573)
I hold the truth self-evident, that the earth is shaped like a klein bottle.

Hmm. Go on.

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

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

   300. Der-K: Hipster doofus Posted: January 01, 2013 at 11:29 PM (#4336575)
if homosexual sex in itself is removed from the list of sins, i believe the justification for religious discrimination against gays will also be on much shakier ground.
so for me personally, i feel that disconnecting the link between homosexual sex and sin should be priority #1 on our communities' collective agenda.


i'd make a distinction between 'homosexual sex as a special kind of sin' and 'homosexual sex as a sin, on a par with loads and loads of other stuff'. the latter implies equivalency in a small (insufficient way) in that the real issue was that it was sex out of wedlock (where, of course, wedlock wasn't an option - that was what first got me in favor of civil unions back then) - not same-sex sex.
granted, i'm arguing for the me of 15-20 years ago, may not be indicative of where many Christians stood then or now.
Page 3 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
Backlasher
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread March, 2014
(942 - 11:55am, Apr 20)
Last: I am going to be Frank

NewsblogTim Federowicz has rough night behind the plate - True Blue LA
(6 - 11:52am, Apr 20)
Last: Tom Nawrocki

NewsblogJohn Torres: Baseball must bag sickening farewell tours
(13 - 11:51am, Apr 20)
Last: Tom Nawrocki

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for April 20, 2014
(1 - 11:48am, Apr 20)
Last: Rickey! In a van on 95 south...

NewsblogRB: Carlos Beltran: more of a center fielder than Mickey Mantle, Ty Cobb or Duke Snider. So what?
(43 - 11:46am, Apr 20)
Last: BDC

NewsblogA’s Jed Lowrie “flabbergasted” by Astros’ response to bunt
(18 - 11:43am, Apr 20)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(155 - 11:31am, Apr 20)
Last: zack

NewsblogPirates Acquire Ike Davis From Mets
(42 - 11:19am, Apr 20)
Last: formerly dp

NewsblogRaissman: After cheating scandal, former Mets GM Steve Phillips back calling the shots
(2 - 11:11am, Apr 20)
Last: spike

NewsblogDesign Room: Top 10 Logos in MLB History.
(79 - 11:05am, Apr 20)
Last: Nats-Homer-in-DC

NewsblogDoug Glanville: I Was Racially Profiled in My Own Driveway
(369 - 10:54am, Apr 20)
Last: CrosbyBird

NewsblogChase Utley is the hottest hitter in baseball and has a shot at .400
(64 - 10:51am, Apr 20)
Last: GregD

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(1743 - 10:49am, Apr 20)
Last: Morty Causa

NewsblogDaniel Bryan's 'YES!' chant has spread to the Pirates' dugout
(101 - 10:35am, Apr 20)
Last: Infinite Joost (Voxter)

NewsblogBryce Harper benched for 'lack of hustle' despite quad injury
(66 - 9:45am, Apr 20)
Last: The Id of SugarBear Blanks

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 1.0921 seconds
52 querie(s) executed