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

Friday, February 01, 2013

Pink News: Curt Schilling: ‘Why the hell should being gay matter in professional sport?’

“Shilling”...nice touch.

Curt Shilling, a former pitcher with a career in baseball spanning 20-years, said in a series of tweets, that he did not understand why there was such an issue in professional sports with players coming out.

He also said that he had played alongside gay players, and that it did not matter, and that their performance on the pitch was the important issue.

Mr Shilling said: “I’ve never understood this ‘issue’ with gay players? Who cares? I know I played with some, their sexual orientation never had much to …To do with how they hit with RISP, or pitched in late and close situations, why the hell would what they do in the bedroom ever matter?”

Repoz Posted: February 01, 2013 at 02:19 PM | 2051 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: business

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 21 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >  Last ›
   101. Scientist guy Posted: February 01, 2013 at 11:13 PM (#4360510)
What was he supposed to say?

He should have quietly but firmly disagreed and explained his disagreement, if only to make it known that these attitudes are not universally accepted. I remember doing this 20 years ago in a more backwards part of Canada before gay rights were accepted. Giving a simple explanation of why gay pride parades exist and not hetero pride parades. Giving a simple argument for gay marriage. All, without a disclaimer that you are not gay. It should not matter who gives the argument - the argument for respect is the same. I like to think that I at least made people think about the issues...

We don't know that Schilling didn't do this but we do know he *is* doing the right thing now which is more than a lot of other ex-athletes and I give him full credit for it...
   102. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 01, 2013 at 11:16 PM (#4360512)
A good part of the discrepancy is definitional, or as I like to call it, the "How much dick did you suck" question.


You're having an interesting night.

A lot of it is definitional, but a lot of that involves intentional manipulation of definitions rather than mere error. I was working through one facet of the rape issue with a woman statistician. It seemed like we were the only two interested in accuracy. We kept coming across statistics for rape--even from the CDC--that started out as the numbers for rape, then quickly and rather covertly became the numbers for rape, attempted rape, and sexual assault, the latter of which in some instances included catcalling. In another instance the FBI changed its definition of rape in 2012 in a way that would significantly increase its apparent incidence; many of its reports on the subject omitted that fact.

I suppose if the purpose is to scare the crap out of women, that'll work, but if the point of the exercise is accuracy so as to better allocate resources towards prevention, then it's failing badly.
   103. Lassus Posted: February 01, 2013 at 11:23 PM (#4360516)
"I totally love the ladies, especially the young ones, but bitches be liars."
   104. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 01, 2013 at 11:38 PM (#4360518)
Is that in quotes because you think we haven't figured out you're Kool G Rap yet?
   105. Fancy Pants Handle doesn't need no water Posted: February 02, 2013 at 06:53 AM (#4360577)
You're insistence on forcing discussion of rape statistics into every topic is rather creepy.
   106. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: February 02, 2013 at 12:34 PM (#4360661)
This was posted, I think, in the Weaver thread (or the Fick/Young thread, or the NFL thread...) a couple days ago. Former (fringe) NFL player discusses lots of the stuff you guys have brought up here so far - including the locker room question, the 'gay Jackie Robinson,' Mickey Hatcher...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/09/wade-davis-on-nfl-players-who-live-semi-open-gay-lives.html
   107. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 02, 2013 at 12:56 PM (#4360678)
@105: your stalkery inability to address anything of substance is what's creepy.

I was just involved in a professional capacity in a three-month long study with a number of groups, trying rather desperately to untangle numbers in a situation that stinks with politics in every direction. It's been on my mind a lot. You know (well, you would if you worked), the way things do when you're involved with them, and seem to be suddenly related to many of the things you come across during your day.

"Forcing discussion"? "Every" topic? Grow up, boy.
   108. Der-K: Hipster doofus Posted: February 02, 2013 at 01:14 PM (#4360691)
That Daily Beast link was good.

Incidentally, I've been in coed dressing areas before and refrained from looking at the other people while they were in states of disrobe / managed to avoid sexualizing them; it's part of showing people a base level of respect. Does that seem unrealistic?
   109. Arbitol Dijaler Posted: February 02, 2013 at 01:19 PM (#4360695)
@105: your stalkery inability to address anything of substance is what's creepy.


Another peculiar thing about you is that whenever somebody points out your peculiar behavior, you accuse them of being a stalker.
   110. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 02, 2013 at 01:23 PM (#4360698)
Incidentally, I've been in coed dressing areas before and refrained from looking at the other people while they were in states of disrobe / managed to avoid sexualizing them; it's part of showing people a base level of respect. Does that seem unrealistic?


It seems very realistic, but I suspect in most cases it's like everything else, where the rules evolve to limit the damage that, say 5% of the population will do. It's the marginal types, who'd take advantage of the situation, that have to be addressed and constrained in these situations.

@109: ah, an appearance from life's little heckler. Yes, where in your case following me around from thread to thread, where you'd otherwise never post, is a perfectly natural act. Depart, turd of no substance.
   111. Lassus Posted: February 02, 2013 at 01:26 PM (#4360699)
The Untangler provides clarity to those women - and men (but mostly women) - too simple to ask the questions The Untangler can.

The Untangler! Now in Mystery Men II - The Untangling of Ms. Marvel.
   112. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 02, 2013 at 01:28 PM (#4360700)
@111: This is awesome. I have no idea what it means. What does it mean?
   113. Lassus Posted: February 02, 2013 at 01:31 PM (#4360702)
It means I think you're ridiculous.
   114. BDC Posted: February 02, 2013 at 01:33 PM (#4360703)
The Wade Davis interview is indeed very interesting; thanks, Petunia.

I posted in some other such thread that an open-closet situation must exist on many pro sports teams, and Davis confirms that. Indeed, I know of examples second-hand, and no, I'm not going to out the players in question. Unless an open-closeted individual is making an absolute homophobic nuisance of him/herself, the "fraternity" ethic that Davis discusses, as well as basic decency, very strongly militate against it. Hence Schilling, here, absolutely does not tell you who his gay teammates are. Why would he?

Even when someone is being at least a mildly homophobic nuisance, people are very reluctant to out them. Larry Kramer and Tony Kushner outed Ed Koch repeatedly, but even after his recent death, even the NY Post obituary simply calls him a "lifelong bachelor" and quotes Koch's own opinion that his sexuality was none of anybody's business. This ethos is partly old-fashioned and partly newly sensitive, but it's a pretty good thing.

Hence, the opinion expressed by some when I talked about open closets before – that surely in this day and age, a gay ballplayer couldn't "hide" his sexuality – is just incorrect. See this post by Richard Socarides in the New Yorker, on Koch: the man is long-retired and now dead, certainly very famous and most likely very gay, and yet Socarides couches Koch's sexuality as "if." There's just no story, still less any honor, in aggressively outing anyone.

EDIT: Weird, the URL in the post link says Koch dead at 75. He was of course 88. I reckon the Post has been looking forward to this day for quite a while …
   115. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: February 02, 2013 at 01:45 PM (#4360710)
The Wade Davis interview is indeed very interesting; thanks, Petunia.


Since we're on a "gay players in the NFL" tangent, it seems Kwame Harris is being charged with assaulting his ex-boyfriend...
   116. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 02, 2013 at 01:56 PM (#4360719)
It means I think you're ridiculous.


I'm honored.

Coming from a guy like you whose longest posts run about a paragraph, which in turn is reflective of your extremely limited ability to generate and sustain thought? Heckling really is all you've got.

Stupid, limited, unengaged, and unemployed is no way to go through life, Lassus.
   117. KT's Pot Arb Posted: February 02, 2013 at 01:58 PM (#4360721)
If Schilling not speaking up forcefully earlier in his career in support of Gay players and Gay rights is a huge sin, what do we call Koch's refusal to speak up in support of Gay Mayoring?

What about Kwame Harris? Isn't he a coward for not exposing himself during his career to provide a forceful advocacy for the abilities and rights of gay football players*

* Note to Kwame, I phrased that as a question. I'm not calling you a coward, I'm just calling out the cowards on this site for making posts that logically prove they think you are a coward. I think you are an enormously great guy. Please don't beat me.
   118. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 02, 2013 at 01:59 PM (#4360723)
I posted in some other such thread that an open-closet situation must exist on many pro sports teams, and Davis confirms that.


Yeah, this really must be the case. If you're with a group of guys for six, seven, eight months, sharing a locker room, small talking twelve to fourteen hours a day... you know who's genuinely interested in women and who isn't; who's dating, whom they're dating; and who goes quietly out the side door when a half dozen of you are going to meet up with your hetero dates at a local watering hole.

There are going to be guys who go to great lengths to hide their homosexuality, and guys who don't bother to hide it but don't come out, and it's understood and not really discussed, at least not openly. I've been in a number of work situation where that's the case. I'm guessing a lot of us have. Well, not Lassus, who sits at home and collects unemployment and shouts one-liners at his computer screen while the rest of us work, but most people.

   119. Fancy Pants Handle doesn't need no water Posted: February 02, 2013 at 02:05 PM (#4360726)
your stalkery inability to address anything of substance is what's creepy.

Don't flatter yourself, you aren't that interesting.

Creepy, yes. Interesting, no.
   120. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 02, 2013 at 02:12 PM (#4360729)
FPH: are you off your meds again? You seem to float through the site, occasionally touching down to say something interesting or helpful, then you go off on vicious or snotty tangents from time to time for no particular reason.

It's one thing to point something out; I've probably gotten a little obsessive about a really important subject. It can be useful to know if I refer to it too often, though it's hard to imagine it's all that distracting on a web site with dozens of conversations going on. But why start with the insult? I wasn't addressing you. I don't have a history with you (that I know of).

Oh, and you should be so uninteresting.
   121. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 02, 2013 at 02:15 PM (#4360730)
Ladies please, you can both marry Curt Schilling.
   122. McCoy Posted: February 02, 2013 at 02:18 PM (#4360732)
Is that the prize or the punishment?
   123. Lassus Posted: February 02, 2013 at 02:19 PM (#4360733)
What is this sudden, bizarre fixation on my employment? If you're that concerned, I'm into my 55th hour of the week while working today, but thanks.

And denying that a great portion of your off-topic posts focus on false rape accusations and the victimhood of men really shows that if you can't trust a guy who touts frequently dating women two to three decades younger than himself to comment objectively on sexual poltics, really, who can you trust? Morty, I guess?
   124. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: February 02, 2013 at 02:22 PM (#4360734)
It would really be a smart move for A-Rod to come out right now, even if he's not gay. The conversation would change dramatically.
   125. Der-K: Hipster doofus Posted: February 02, 2013 at 02:25 PM (#4360735)
Seriously, how many people truly fault Schilling here? Like, almost nobody.

I didn't out the lady at my kid's daycare who thought her life would get very difficult (including possible loss of job) if people knew about her orientation - or the somewhat well known singer who thought he might lose sales if people found out about his. If you want to support people, making their life harder isn't normally the way to do it.
   126. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 02, 2013 at 02:30 PM (#4360737)
or the somewhat well known singer who thought he might lose sales if people found out about his


Well R. Kelly fans are devoted and willing to accept many things but being gay isn't one of them.
   127. SoSH U at work Posted: February 02, 2013 at 02:30 PM (#4360738)
It would really be a smart move for A-Rod to come out right now, even if he's not gay. The conversation would change dramatically.


I can't speak for the gay community, but they might just reject the offer right about now. Arod? No, that's OK. You straight folks can keep him.

Seriously, how many people truly fault Schilling here? Like, almost nobody.


I think just the two on the first page were critical, for reasons that remain elusive.

   128. Fancy Pants Handle doesn't need no water Posted: February 02, 2013 at 02:32 PM (#4360739)
I don't have a history with you (that I know of).

Which is why accusing me of being stalkery is hilarious.
   129. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 02, 2013 at 02:35 PM (#4360741)
I can't speak for the gay community, but they might just reject the offer right about now. Arod? No, that's OK. You straight folks can keep him.


I always say that when Rush Limbaugh finally comes out of the closet, nobody is going to be happy about it.
   130. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 02, 2013 at 02:36 PM (#4360742)
And denying that a great portion of your off-topic posts focus on false rape accusations and the victimhood of men really shows that if you can't trust a guy who touts frequently dating women two to three decades younger than himself to comment objectively on sexual poltics, really, who can you trust? Morty, I guess?


Congratulations on being a lying scumbag.

If you'd like to actually show a pattern where I talk about your delusional "victimhood of men" (project much, you freeloading loser?), feel free. Otherwise, shut the fuck up, you libelous, empty little scumbag.

As for "frequently"? You misspelled once or twice. Really, your pathetic resentments of people whose lives are better than yours is a constant theme of your posts. Get a life, chump.

.
   131. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 02, 2013 at 02:37 PM (#4360743)
Which is why accusing me of being stalkery is hilarious.

Which is why your gratuitous insult was particularly grating, and pointless.

The measure of your cowardly shot is that you wouldn't have said it at all like that if we were hanging with a bunch of people in the neighborhood bar, and someone mentioning something they had just been doing a lot of work on, for all of the third time in a week, would hardly be a call for your giving offense.

Did it make you feel better, though? That's the important thing.

.
   132. McCoy Posted: February 02, 2013 at 02:40 PM (#4360744)
As far as I know nobody is slamming Curt Schilling for not naming names. I don't even know where that came from. Well, I guess I do since Sam's whole argument against me was that Curt shouldn't name names even though naming names was never brought up.

I'm critical of Curt because he is an overly opinionated person who never had the guts to go on record with his opinion back when it could have actually cost him something or could have done some good.
   133. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 02, 2013 at 02:47 PM (#4360749)
I'm critical of Curt because he is an overly opinionated person who never had the guts to go on record with his opinion back when it could have actually cost him something or could have done some good.


I think it's clear that, if so inclined, Schilling could have spoken up without remotely dragging anyone else into it. He could have spoken up, referring to general principles, and shut down immediately any inquiries into whether he was speaking about anyone specifically.

Still, expecting anyone to take a moral stance is... unreasonable. It's not really what people do, even when it costs them little or nothing. They're much better at taking cowardly shots while hiding behind pseudonyms, saying things they'd never have the stones to say during a meet-up, for example.
   134. Lassus Posted: February 02, 2013 at 02:48 PM (#4360752)
As for "frequently"? You misspelled once or twice.

I could not find the post for the exact wording, and taking your word for the correction I will absolutely apologize for my false misstatement. I should have thought better of it, and I'm sorry.

Also probably shouldn't have said "great portion", as that's not really accurate as far as a percentage, and was stupid given how frequently you do post. I'll get back to you with a better term.


Really, your pathetic resentments of people whose lives are better than yours is a constant theme of your posts.

Er, what?

   135. Tony S Posted: February 02, 2013 at 02:50 PM (#4360755)
There's just no story, still less any honor, in aggressively outing anyone.


I generally agree, with one significant exception. A gay politician who involves himself in crafting anti-gay government policy deserves to have his hypocrisy and elitism exposed for all to see. Same goes for high-profile anti-gay preachers.
   136. McCoy Posted: February 02, 2013 at 02:52 PM (#4360756)
Still, expecting anyone to take a moral stance is... unreasonable. It's not really what people do, even when it costs them little or nothing. They're much better at taking cowardly shots while hiding behind pseudonyms, saying things they'd never have the stones to say during a meet-up, for example.

I don't know if this is a shot at me or some other people you have met but the one time I met fellow primates I held the same stances I've held here.

I don't think it is unreasonable. I think you can say that you shouldn't expect it but it is quite reasonable to want people to stand by their principles in good times and in bad.
   137. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 02, 2013 at 02:57 PM (#4360758)
@134--hey, I'm glad to stop any time you want. I'll note I don't start this stuff, but I probably overreact to it, and I withdraw that lastmost remark. If I get an elbow, I tend to punch someone in the face. It's not necessarily the best response, but I've found that when I don't, problems seem only to get worse.

   138. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 02, 2013 at 02:59 PM (#4360759)
I don't know if this is a shot at me or some other people you have met but the one time I met fellow primates I held the same stances I've held here.

Not a shot at you at all. Apparently I have a problem with a couple of people on this thread that I didn't know about, but I don't recall having an issue with you, either here, or elsewhere. You always seemed to me to be a straightforward guy.

I don't think it is unreasonable. I think you can say that you shouldn't expect it but it is quite reasonable to want people to stand by their principles in good times and in bad.


I wish this was the case, but I'm currently watching a friend die because she's been cheated of money and care, and the half dozen friends and family who know the situation and can attest to it (which would give her leverage to try to change things), on the order of signing a simple statement and possibly taking an afternoon or less to affirm that in a nearby court, don't want to because they don't want to get involved, or because it's inconvenient, or because they might get into some nebulous 'trouble'.

It's very reasonable to want people to stand by their principles, but it's unreasonable to think they'll do it.

.
   139. Esoteric Posted: February 02, 2013 at 04:05 PM (#4360772)
A gay politician who involves himself in crafting anti-gay government policy deserves to have his hypocrisy and elitism exposed for all to see. Same goes for high-profile anti-gay preachers.
No, I disagree with this perhaps even more vehemently than the idea of outing random non-politicians/non-preachers.

With respect to politicians, it's toxic because this "exception" is inevitably, ALWAYS used as a fig-leaf excuse solely to out Republicans and conservatives. The logic is always "oh, merely by being a member of the Republican party, or a conservative, you're anti-gay." Which brings up the larger point that once you open the door to an "exception for anti-gay government policy" you then introduce a rather subjective question of what it means for a policy to be anti-gay or not. And that's the sort of exercise in defining terms that (as we see in modern political discourse) is guaranteed to be abused.

With respect to "anti-gay preachers," it's even more ridiculous. Um...you might not like this, but homosexuality is explicitly listed as a sin in the Bible. It's a part of Christian dogma. Now that's a problem Christianity is gonna have to deal with given shifting cultural standards, but if you're a preacher you have to preach what's in the New Testament, and the New Testament doesn't mince words in labelling homosexual behavior a sin. (I suppose we can all make an exception for the Westboro Baptist Church people...)

In this case a blanket rule is the only thing that makes sense: nobody has the right to out anyone else, for ANY reason whatsoever. There's no "discretionary" element to it, no exception for "hypocrisy." Because once you've decided that someone is your "enemy," well then it's amazing just how easy it is to discover "hypocrisy" in your opponent's behavior.
   140. Tony S Posted: February 02, 2013 at 04:24 PM (#4360779)
No, I disagree with this perhaps even more vehemently than the idea of outing random non-politicians. And the reason is that this "exception" is inevitably, ALWAYS, used as a fig-leaf excuse to out Republicans and conservatives. The logic is always "oh, merely by being a member of the Republican party, or a conservative, you're anti-gay." Which brings up the larger point that once you open the door to an "exception for anti-gay government policy" you then introduce a rather subjective question of what it means for a policy to be anti-gay or not. And that's the sort of exercise in defining terms that (as we see in modern political discourse) is guaranteed to be abused.

In this case a blanket rule is the only thing that makes sense: nobody has the right to out anyone else, for ANY reason whatsoever. There's no "discretionary" element to it, no exception for "hypocrisy." Because if you have decided someone is your "enemy," well then it's amazing just how easy it is to discovery "hypocrisy" in your opponent's behavior.


Completely disagree. A closeted gay politician who participates in legislation that makes life more difficult for non-elite gay people doesn't deserve ANY deference at all. I don't care what his party is (if they're disproportionately conservatives, well, that's conservatism's problem); he's going out of his way to cause harm to gay people and make their lives more difficult, while he, himself, gets to indulge in all the consequence-free gay sex he condemns in others. We're (theoretically) not a monarchy where the nobles get to live by different rules than the rest of us; therefore, this kind of duplicity should never be tolerated in a democratic society. They deserve to be outed.



   141. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 02, 2013 at 04:26 PM (#4360780)
With respect to politicians, it's toxic because this "exception" is inevitably, ALWAYS used as a fig-leaf excuse...


This seems like a straw man. What if it's only when the pol in question is, regardless of party, outed after promoting anti-gay legislation, or indulging in anti-gay speech? Bigotry is not benign. Exposing hypocrisy, which in these cases is obviously what's happening, is a powerful weapon in the fight for equality. It seems pointless to forgo it. I would expect the reverse, as well; a pol pocketing LGBA dollars while quietly giving anti-gay speeches to key constituencies to be sure they don't think he's going to go 'too far' deserves exposure for such.

In any case, very, very few Dem pols are currently pushing anti-gay anything; hence the mere appearance of anti-GOP bias. If only one party is doing this, then only one party is going to have members outed for discrimination.

I think my main problem with your stance is that it assumes bad faith. I don't think much of people, but I'm not going to make that assumption here.


edit: or what Tony said in 140, better than I did.
   142. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 02, 2013 at 04:35 PM (#4360783)
Now that's a problem Christianity is gonna have to deal with given shifting cultural standards, but if you're a preacher you have to preach what's in the New Testament, and the New Testament doesn't mince words in labelling homosexual behavior a sin.
I can see you're neither a theologian nor a preacher. One cannot actually "preach what's in the New Testament" because it's incredibly long. First, you have to critically evaluate what aspects of the New Testament to make more or less central to your preaching. Second, unless you're going for a crude "plain meaning" / "perfect coherence" reading of the New Testament, you have to engage with its internal difficulties, the moments when larger and more important thematic material may have to override smaller sections.

I've written here at length on the passages in Paul which are considered to condemn homosexuality. (Posts 122 and 126 in this thread). Several of the proof texts for the biblical condemnation of homosexuality are based on misreadings of the Greek. The key passage, Romans 1, only condemns homosexuality based on a presumption of male superiority and a radical male/female sexual hierarchy. Most Christians do not see such a radical sexual hierarchy as a central part of the message of the New Testament, and few people want to condemn male "effeminacy" as a sin equal to adultery or theft. We need to interpret, we need to make critical decisions, we need to read. No text, certainly no honored religious text, is so dumbly simple that you can just preach "what's in it" without doing the hard, day-to-day work of interpretation.
   143. Esoteric Posted: February 02, 2013 at 05:29 PM (#4360802)
MCoA, all I can say is that you have a very strange, very quixotic interpretation of Paul that few if any other Christians (and Catholics in particular) would agree with. You have every right to it -- heck, I might even share it with you! -- but it's not a convincing argument to stand up and say "wait, everyone else is wrong, *I* understand the true meaning of the Scripture!" and insist therefore that ~2,000 of established theology be overturned on your say-so.

Note: I am neither Catholic nor anti-gay. I don't have a dog in this particular race.
I think my main problem with your stance is that it assumes bad faith.
Of course I am, as I should. A moral principle of behavior worth its salt has to be posited on the assumption of bad faith actors, and crafted to respond to them. A strict "leave people's private lives alone" policy eliminates problems of bad faith altogether by not allowing bad faith actors (of which, and let's be brutally honest about human nature here, there are many) to hide behind an exercise of discretion.
   144. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 02, 2013 at 05:35 PM (#4360806)
it's not a convincing argument to stand up and say "wait, everyone else is wrong, *I* understand the true meaning of the Scripture!" and insist therefore that ~2,000 of established theology be overturned on your say-so.
There are millions and millions of Christians who believe that the "true meaning of Scripture" does not include the condemnation of gay folks. I have a particular reading of scripture - one which is entirely mainstream, by the way, within contemporary biblical criticism - by which I make that argument. But regardless of the precise argument by which one defends an inclusive reading of Christian scriptures, your presumption that preachers must preach anti-gay messages because it's "what in the New Testament" fails to account for the actual beliefs, practices, and interpretations of millions of contemporary Christians. Further, your presumption fails to engage in any way critically with the problems of hermeneutics which are raised by the question of "what's in the New Testament".
   145. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 02, 2013 at 06:15 PM (#4360814)
A strict "leave people's private lives alone" policy eliminates problems of bad faith altogether by not allowing bad faith actors...


And excludes good faith actors performing reasonable and fair actions in the pursuit of nothing more or less than equality.

It's as if you said, some people abuse alcohol, therefore no one should drink.

@144: Matt is correct. There's no reason to assume your reading of the New Testament is the only reasonable and popular one (as though popularity was indicative of correctness or exactitude), and that Matt is some sort of oddball pushing an esoteric reading. He's not. A careful reading of this and the earlier thread shows a top-notch, scholarly approach.

In any case, it seems a little too much like we're in 1985, and you're telling Bill James that because few agree with him, he must be wrong. It's the validity of the interpretation that matters here, not how many votes it gets.
   146. GregD Posted: February 02, 2013 at 06:26 PM (#4360818)
it's not a convincing argument to stand up and say "wait, everyone else is wrong, *I* understand the true meaning of the Scripture!" and insist therefore that ~2,000 of established theology be overturned on your say-so.
I have no good opinion on how to read Paul but I know enough history to know that this kind of flat statement of 2000 years of consensus falls apart under analysis. You don't have to go to Boswell-land to come up against the fact that views of homosexual actions have varied over time within Christianity and among leading Christian thinkers.
   147. BDC Posted: February 02, 2013 at 06:34 PM (#4360823)
I don't know: outing politicians who hold anti-gay policies sounds like poetic justice, but think for a moment: if politically principled, they are denying themselves the same rights they're denying everyone else. If there were a prominent Republican US Senator, let's say, who argued strongly against gay marriage while being himself gay … well, he can't ever get married, can he? It would be somewhat different if he lived in a marriage-rights state and got married, while actively lobbying against marriage rights; but if he walks the walk, isn't that OK?

I don't know what I think of all this myself. But to some extent, the various outings of Ed Koch, in the day, used to smack of the Left's notorious tendency to engage in circular firing squads. Weak as Koch may have been on gay rights at times, he was a heck of a lot better than a conservative Republican might have been, not only on gay rights but on a ton of other issues that his outers were interested in.
   148. Esoteric Posted: February 02, 2013 at 06:39 PM (#4360824)
@144: Matt is correct. There's no reason to assume your reading of the New Testament is the only reasonable and popular one (as though popularity was indicative of correctness or exactitude), and that Matt is some sort of oddball pushing an esoteric reading. He's not. A careful reading of this and the earlier thread shows a top-notch, scholarly approach.
Well then I stand down. Honestly, I don't really care much anyway. My opinion about homosexuality isn't influenced in the slightest by the teachings (purported or otherwise) of the New Testament. In that sense, I guess it was a mistake for me to engage on the point since I don't have the necessary scholarly background -- or interest in the subject -- to really sustain an argument about it.

Now if anyone wants to discuss Indo-European language cladistics, or the reconstructed history of the early Roman Republic (i.e. the REAL story, not Livy's account)...game on, motherf**kers.
In any case, it seems a little too much like we're in 1985, and you're telling Bill James that because few agree with him, he must be wrong. It's the validity of the interpretation that matters here, not how many votes it gets.
I do want to point that this, however, isn't really correct. If we were arguing about questions of objective fact (e.g. "Does the sun revolve around the earth or vice-versa?" "Are bunts generally speaking a smart use of an out?") then your point would stand, but aside from the question of proper translation and textual interpretation you are also dealing with an accumulated cultural OPINION that isn't subject to objective, instant nullification merely by conclusively demonstrating a mistranslation.
   149. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 02, 2013 at 06:46 PM (#4360828)
@148--fair enough, and your last paragraph makes sense to me. I overreached. Bringing James into it was a distraction, and not a good one.
   150. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 02, 2013 at 06:53 PM (#4360831)
@147--that's an unpleasantly sound point, BDC. It presents a part of the argument against outing that's very difficult to counter.

   151. Srul Itza Posted: February 02, 2013 at 07:07 PM (#4360833)
I've written here at length on the passages in Paul which are considered to condemn homosexuality.


The Cult of Saul is one of the worst aspects of Christianity, for those who indulge. Some guy, who never met the Nazarene, claims to have had a vision and now every word from his lips is solid gold, and direct authority from God. If somebody did that today we would call him a schizophrenic and make sure he stayed on his meds.

Really, what differentiates Saul from Mohammed, Khomeini, Joseph Smith or David Koresh? I simply do not understand why he is given such crenence.
   152. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 02, 2013 at 07:26 PM (#4360838)
Paul was probably a guy named Paul, not a guy named Saul who changed his name. He never mentions, in any of his own letters, that he changed his name. He calls himself "Paulos" at every opportunity. If Paul had done something so drastic as changing his name because of his experience, he'd have mentioned it. Dude didn't lack a desire for self-dramatization.

The story of the name change only appears in the second-century Book of Acts. Acts is probably trying to authorize Paul - who as you note lacks somewhat a good story of his authorization - by connecting him to heroes of the Hebrew Bible like Abraham who changed their name upon receiving a calling from God. This reads to me as literary artifice rather than history.

I will say that many of the problems folks have with Paul are really more problems they have with Acts and other readers of Paul. Paul did not condemn Judaism as mere following of the law - he states very clearly, "the law is holy and the commandment is holy and just and good". My reading of Paul (following on scholars like Krister Stendahl and John Gager) is that he believed that Christ had not instituted a new religion at all. Rather, he believed that the death of Christ, God had created the opportunity for Gentiles to enter into the covenant through a new pathway. He doesn't at any point reject the validity of Jewish belief and practice for Jews - he just thinks there's another way for Gentiles. (And for some Jews.)

It's with Acts that you see the anti-Jewish Paul emerge, the Paul who preaches to the Jews and is rejected, and then condemns them for their unbelief. In Paul's letters, he's only preaching to Gentiles, and he's not preaching to Jews that they should "convert."

There are other aspects of Paul that I don't think can be "rescued" - his stuff on sex and gender, obviously - but Paul isn't quite as bad as he's made out to be on Jewish-Christian issues.
   153. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 02, 2013 at 07:33 PM (#4360839)
Really, what differentiates Saul from Mohammed, Khomeini, Joseph Smith or David Koresh?
All scriptures were written by somebody. Paul's no different in that sense from the writers of the Qur'an or the Vedas or the Torah, or from Joseph Smith or whoever else.

Paul is perhaps somewhat different in that he doesn't appear to have thought he was writing scripture. He was just writing letters. He thought people should follow his judgments, but that's not the same. That his letters became scripture is perhaps a little odd.
   154. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 02, 2013 at 09:09 PM (#4360869)
@147: It's a very unusual, but interesting approach to the issue.

I don't know: outing politicians who hold anti-gay policies sounds like poetic justice, but think for a moment: if politically principled, they are denying themselves the same rights they're denying everyone else.


They are, but they're still wrong to do so. I won't presume to read your mind and imagine how you see the issue in toto, but for a lot of us discrimination against gays is no different than discrimination against blacks. It's simply and completely wrong. That a black pol might argue for 'separate but equal' makes him no less wrong because he's black.

If there were a prominent Republican US Senator, let's say, who argued strongly against gay marriage while being himself gay … well, he can't ever get married, can he? It would be somewhat different if he lived in a marriage-rights state and got married, while actively lobbying against marriage rights; but if he walks the walk, isn't that OK?


I take your meaning, but that this hypothetical Senator is discriminating against himself, punishing himself, in no way legitimizes his attempts to discriminate against others. I suppose we can pat him on the back for consistency, but beyond that he gets no slack.

I don't know what I think of all this myself. But to some extent, the various outings of Ed Koch, in the day, used to smack of the Left's notorious tendency to engage in circular firing squads. Weak as Koch may have been on gay rights at times, he was a heck of a lot better than a conservative Republican might have been, not only on gay rights but on a ton of other issues that his outers were interested in.


I won't argue for how the left dealt with Koch, but in that regard I don't want to be hamstrung and kept from opposing the right's recent attempts at vote suppression just because Joe Kennedy bought Chicago for his golden boy. I also think that outing is grotesque unless it's specifically to expose hypocrisy wrt gay rights.

Civil rights are so important that when it comes to undermining the credibility of those who want to limit civil rights, I'd err on the side of the strategy that enhances rights, even if there's some unpleasant fallout. Limiting civil rights is a big, big deal. It's no different here than telling black people they can't marry each other. At the risk of unnecessarily complicating the argument, imagine if Bull Connor had a black mistress. Wouldn't it legitimately undermine his credibility as an opponent of civil rights to make that fact public? Doesn't it cast a useful and revealing light on Jefferson to acknowledge and publicize his relationship with Sally Hemings?

.
   155. CrosbyBird Posted: February 02, 2013 at 09:16 PM (#4360871)
Incidentally, I've been in coed dressing areas before and refrained from looking at the other people while they were in states of disrobe / managed to avoid sexualizing them; it's part of showing people a base level of respect. Does that seem unrealistic?

I'm not sure. I can practically always refrain from looking at a naked woman that I find attractive so that I do not make her uncomfortable. I cannot avoid sexualizing a woman I find attractive, clothed or unclothed. It's lizard-brain stuff.
   156. BDC Posted: February 02, 2013 at 09:35 PM (#4360879)
They are, but they're still wrong to do so

Absolutely. I'm simply for debating someone on the merits, not ad hominem.
   157. BDC Posted: February 02, 2013 at 09:36 PM (#4360882)
I can practically always refrain from looking at a naked woman that I find attractive

Man, how often do you find yourself in that situation? Lucky guy :)
   158. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 02, 2013 at 09:49 PM (#4360889)
@157--I used to swim a lot, and one afternoon I showed up at my local college for my regular laps. There had been a swim meet, and there was a new, small, easy to overlook, handwritten sign on the men's locker room door that said, 'women's changing room for meet'. I instinctively turned away, but then, being young and ardent, realized how easy it would be to walk in and pretend not to have seen the sign. In I went, into a room full of fit young women in their early twenties, many with broad shoulders, and in varying states of undress and dampness. I made a mental photograph, 'oopsed', and politely backed out. It was interesting, but hardly sexy. Naked women doing this and that ordinary chore of grooming and dressing under bright locker room lighting is engaging, but not arousing. There's a reason we have lingerie, and dim lighting and soft music.

@156--okay, but I'm not sure revealing a fact is necessarily an ad hominem attack. It can be done in order to reveal hypocrisy and undermine a position. It would be, well, odd, for a gay rights group to be credited with an ad hominem attack for asserting that someone was gay.
   159. CrosbyBird Posted: February 03, 2013 at 12:43 AM (#4360945)
Man, how often do you find yourself in that situation? Lucky guy :)

These days, not so much. Although it happened on occasion when I was working on a play.

Naked women doing this and that ordinary chore of grooming and dressing under bright locker room lighting is engaging, but not arousing. There's a reason we have lingerie, and dim lighting and soft music.

Maybe we're just wired differently. An attractive naked woman could be reading a book or folding her clothes and I'd find it arousing.

That other stuff is kind of like garnish to me; I never really mind that it's there, and it looks nice, but it isn't at all necessary to my enjoyment of the meal.
   160. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 03, 2013 at 12:57 AM (#4360948)
Fair enough. I think I may like the softening that suggests a romantic connection until there actually is a real emotional connection. Once the connection is there, my preference is for no "garnish" (good w.c.) at all. Huh. I hadn't thought about it quite like that before. It may also have to do with doing a lot of drawing and painting over the years. Much of the time I'm looking at a breast it's in light of solving problems of composition.

It might be related to why I've never been to a prostitute. I think I'd be embarrassed. I don't think money would be enough to give me permission to touch. In the absence of an emotional connection (which creates its own permissions and openings and assents) it would feel transgressive, not sexual.
   161. CrosbyBird Posted: February 03, 2013 at 02:11 AM (#4360961)
It might be related to why I've never been to a prostitute. I think I'd be embarrassed. I don't think money would be enough to give me permission to touch. In the absence of an emotional connection (which creates its own permissions and openings and assents) it would feel transgressive, not sexual.

I've never been to a prostitute either, but I don't think I'd have much of a problem with it. As long as we're not in some sort of coercive environment, it seems like a perfectly reasonable transaction, like getting a massage. And like a massage, of course it's better when there is an emotional connection, but it isn't necessary.

Street prostitution sort of creeps me out, though.
   162. Walt Davis Posted: February 03, 2013 at 02:25 AM (#4360963)
It would really be a smart move for A-Rod to come out right now

"Roids turn you gay" might be the most effective campaign to get (most) athletes to stop using them. :-)
   163. Lassus Posted: February 03, 2013 at 09:01 AM (#4360978)
Hey Jack, remember that thing where I apologized? That was, assuredly, a mistake, and I retract said apology.
176. Jack Carter, International Man of Minstrelry Posted: January 15, 2013 at 07:30 PM (#4347847)

I'm sure there is. Like I said, I wasn't deploring that generation (never remotely suggested it, afaict). Outside my family the 17-25 cohort doesn't seem any more or less bright than they ever were. I remember at that age being appalled at what a lot of my cohort was into. The only difference, now versus then, seems to be in attention spans.

Also, I tend to date women 20 to 30 years younger than I am, and there's no shortage of bright, quirky, interesting women out there.


"Tend" is not "once or twice". My use of "frequently" was as dead on as I could get without actually quoting you, lying scumbag that I am.

Everything else, go ahead, whatever with the names and punches, as you are correct that I threw an elbow regarding accepting your view of sexual politics and rape. (I only wish I had done so without being internet snarky about it, that's lame.) I personally think your nostalgic recollection of deliberately walking in on undressing women offers further verification for my lack of acceptance. Have whatever last word you desire, but as this flame war is pointless and a flame war, following that you have my word it won't ever be brought up by me again.
   164. Fancy Pants Handle doesn't need no water Posted: February 03, 2013 at 09:15 AM (#4360979)
I also stand by my characterisation of a guy who deliberately walks into woman's dressing rooms, and constantly talks about rape as creepy, which was what started all of this.
   165. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 03, 2013 at 10:32 AM (#4360987)
Post 158 is so many kinds of ewwwww.
   166. SoSH U at work Posted: February 03, 2013 at 10:44 AM (#4360992)
As far as I can tell Mikael, pointing that out makes you a stalker.
   167. Tony S Posted: February 03, 2013 at 11:30 AM (#4361003)
I don't know: outing politicians who hold anti-gay policies sounds like poetic justice, but think for a moment: if politically principled, they are denying themselves the same rights they're denying everyone else.


My point was essentially that closeted gay politicians who support anti-gay public policy DO NOT deny themselves the same rights they deny non-elite gay people.

Suppose we have a hypothetical closeted gay legislator -- let's call him Lohan Cracker -- who publicly crusades against gay people, fights against marriage and tries to prevent any non-discrimination legislation from being adopted. Meanwhile, while he's taking these public stances, Mr. Lohan Cracker is busily banging his baggage handler every night, knowing it won't cost him his professional career as a politician because he's just so special and it would just be so impolite for the media to bring it up. Meanwhile, non-elite gay people around the nation have to live in fear that if THEIR employer discovers they're gay THEY might be out of a job if their employer (or landlord, or school district) doesn't approve -- in large part because of the actions of Mr. Cracker.

If Lohan Cracker chooses to make other people's sexual orientation a public issue, then his own sexual orientation is every bit as much a public issue.




   168. SoSH U at work Posted: February 03, 2013 at 12:05 PM (#4361019)
The more I think about it, the more I think Eso's right.

If you believe in the principle that an individual has the right to his or her sexuality, that it's no one else's business, then it doesn't matter that the gay politician is acting against his (and other homosexual's) interests. That bastard may not deserve the right, but he's still got it (in the same way a bigot has a right to free speech).

   169. McCoy Posted: February 03, 2013 at 12:12 PM (#4361023)
That bastard may not deserve the right, but he's still got it (in the same way a bigot has a right to free speech).

And the non-bigot also has a right to free speech and it very much is the people's business to decide whether or not people making policy are qualified to make policy.

A closeted homosexual backing or writing law that discriminates against homosexuality is clearly writing or supporting a law to appeal to some special interest group or base instead of doing what is in the best interest of all his constituents and that should be questioned.
   170. SoSH U at work Posted: February 03, 2013 at 12:17 PM (#4361027)
A closeted homosexual backing or writing law that discriminates against homosexuality is clearly writing or supporting a law to appeal to some special interest group or base instead of doing what is in the best interest of all his constituents and that should be questioned.


I'm not saying we have to keep quiet about his position on the issue. I'm saying that we should do that without delving into his sexuality.
   171. Esoteric Posted: February 03, 2013 at 12:23 PM (#4361030)
This thread done got weird.
   172. Tony S Posted: February 03, 2013 at 12:27 PM (#4361032)
If you believe in the principle that an individual has the right to his or her sexuality, that it's no one else's business


A politician who supports discriminatory legislation is basically saying that one's sexuality is one's employer's business, or one's landlord's business, or the government's business.

He should be held to the same standards he holds the rest of us to. And the public is his employer.

It's at the same level as anti-abortion politicians discreetly slipping their daughters out of the country for "rest" if they get into trouble. That kind of stuff needs to be outed, too.
   173. McCoy Posted: February 03, 2013 at 12:28 PM (#4361034)
I'm not saying we have to keep quiet about his position on the issue. I'm saying that we should do that without delving into his sexuality.

I'd think the question of why is a gay man writing law against homosexuality to be a pertinent question. Why is the elected official deliberately deceiving his constituency?
   174. SoSH U at work Posted: February 03, 2013 at 12:36 PM (#4361043)
He should be held to the same standards he holds the rest of us to.


If you believe in the principle that the individual has a right to privacy concerning his sexuality, then we should treat him the same way we treat everyone else.

Is he being hypocritical? Absolutely. But if you out him, then so are you.

   175. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 03, 2013 at 12:39 PM (#4361048)
Politics ain't beanbag. If you want to remain in the closet, don't seek massive political power and the ability to make laws limiting the rights of millions of fellow citizens.

There's also the case here of folks like George "Rentboy" Rekers. He has been a major activist and organizer in the so-called ex-gay movement. The fact that he isn't actually ex-gay at all is entirely relevant.
   176. McCoy Posted: February 03, 2013 at 12:39 PM (#4361049)
Oh well. Life is full of contradictions and short on absolutes.
   177. Tony S Posted: February 03, 2013 at 12:45 PM (#4361055)
If you believe in the principle that the individual has a right to privacy concerning his sexuality, then we should treat him the same way we treat everyone else.


If he directs his legislative efforts against the codifying of that principle, thus subjecting non-elite gay people to discrimination, then he has abdicated his own right to privacy on the issue.

   178. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 03, 2013 at 12:48 PM (#4361057)
If it's kosher to out someone to demonstrate that they're hypocrites, is it also OK to out someone to demonstrate that they're self-serving?
   179. Fancy Pants Handle doesn't need no water Posted: February 03, 2013 at 12:49 PM (#4361058)
Doing something against your own best interest is not necessarily hypocritical. The job of a politician isn't to to do what is in his own best interest, he is supposed to represent the will and/or best interest of his constituency. Were liberal politicians, who supported letting the tax cuts for the top income bracket expire hypocritical?

If a politician believes his constituents want anti-gay legislation, then working towards that does not make him a hypocrite, even if he personally opposes them.

I am obviously extremely pro-equality, but I can't fault a politician for "pandering towards his base". That's his job, and makes him a politician, not a hypocrite. I fault the base in those instances.
   180. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 03, 2013 at 12:51 PM (#4361060)
If he directs his legislative efforts against the codifying of that principle, thus subjecting non-elite gay people to discrimination, then he has abdicated his own right to privacy on the issue.

That's interesting, who is the arbiter of when people have abdicated his own right to privacy? Is this open to all groups when talking about their opponents? Or is this yet another tactic that's acceptable for only those in the progressive national front and nobody else?
   181. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 03, 2013 at 12:54 PM (#4361063)
I don't have much problem with the personal lives of politicians being less than perfectly private. That's just part of the deal. It's been part of the deal for as long as there has been politics, which is as long as there has been human society.

If you want to keep significant aspects of your personal life private, you can go into any number of non-political fields of work.
   182. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 03, 2013 at 12:56 PM (#4361064)
I don't have much problem with the personal lives of politicians being less than perfectly private. That's just part of the deal. It's been part of the deal for as long as there has been politics, which is as long as there has been human society.

What about activists and lobbyists?
   183. Tony S Posted: February 03, 2013 at 12:59 PM (#4361068)
That's interesting, who is the arbiter of when people have abdicated his own right to privacy?


Through his support of discriminatory measures, he's stating, "Gay people should have no expectation of privacy regarding their sexuality when it comes to their employer."

This politician should simply be held to the exact same standards he wishes, through law, to impose on other gay people. Anything short of that is rank elitism.

If he values his privacy so much, maybe he shouldn't be supporting such legislation.
   184. Publius Publicola Posted: February 03, 2013 at 12:59 PM (#4361070)
There had been a swim meet, and there was a new, small, easy to overlook, handwritten sign on the men's locker room door that said, 'women's changing room for meet'. I instinctively turned away, but then, being young and ardent, realized how easy it would be to walk in and pretend not to have seen the sign.


Wow, talk about a transgression.

The same thing happened to me once, though, except in my case it was inadvertent rather than deliberate. I belonged to a club that had only one locker room with showers, so the club alternated the shower room between men and women. They would put a big sign out in front reminding those entering what day it was. But, me being me, I forgot what day it was and blew right in, failing to look at the sign. As soon as I entered, and I saw a handful of women in various states of undress, I muttered "oops" and turned around and left. Later, at least one of the women complained and the club manager went around and asked who the transgressor was. Since I immediately turned around and left, the women in the locker room only got a look at the back of my head as I was leaving and couldn't identify me. No way was I going to give myself up either. Maybe what I did was a little spacy, but I never intended to transgress on privacy.

On top of that, it was a really stupid system, to switch the locker rooms like that. They were just begging for stuff like that to happen. From what I understand, it was a recurring problem. I wasn't the only one who made a mistake like that.
   185. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 03, 2013 at 01:00 PM (#4361072)
Through his support of discriminatory measures, he's stating, "Gay people should have no expectation of privacy regarding their sexuality when it comes to their employer."


Again, who decides when it's acceptable? And does it cover people being self-serving, in addition to hypocrisy? And is this tactic available to non-progressives, such as myself?

This politician should simply be held to the exact same standards he wishes, through law, to impose on other gay people.

That's an argument that a politician who's secretly gay and against gay marriage should be outed if he receives special access to gay marriage that other gay people do not have access to. Unless he's in favor of laws simply making being gay illegal, he is, in fact, holding himself to the exact same standards, he wishes, through law, to impose on other gay people. That's not hypocrisy, that's acting against what you feel is in his self-interest.
   186. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 03, 2013 at 01:01 PM (#4361074)
What about activists and lobbyists?
Working in politics is a continuum. Part of the price of power is increased scrutiny. The more power you have, the more scrutiny you'll receive. There's no way around it, as a matter of fact and history.

I'm not a fan of the social norms by which a person who has an extra-marital affair can be disqualified from political power, but the problem there is the social norms, not the increased scrutiny that comes with holding great power in a (relatively) democratic society.
   187. Tony S Posted: February 03, 2013 at 01:04 PM (#4361075)
I don't have much problem with the personal lives of politicians being less than perfectly private.


I don't have a problem with that either, in the general sense. We are all human. I do have a problem with uneven application of the law. I have a big problem with being held to a certain standard of behavior by lawmakers who never intend to meet that standard themselves, and who get to skate due to their privileged position.

   188. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 03, 2013 at 01:08 PM (#4361079)
Working in politics is a continuum. Part of the price of power is increased scrutiny. The more power you have, the more scrutiny you'll receive. There's no way around it, as a matter of fact and history.

OK, so let's say someone testifies before Congress specifically for the purpose of advocacy of specific legislation. Would it be justified to point out, specific to the person testifying, if their personal lives indicate hypocrisy or personal gain from the legislation in question?
   189. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 03, 2013 at 01:11 PM (#4361081)
I do have a problem with uneven application of the law.

You still haven't explained how a gay politician against specific gay rights is practicing an uneven application of the law. You haven't argued for outing gay politicians for being hypocritical, you've argued for outing gay politicians for not acting in what you believe is their self-interest. As Fancy Pants argued above, if Gary Gaybasher is proposing legislation against gay marriage but secretly gay, he's also disqualifying himself from gay marriage, which makes him possibly acting against self-interest, not hypocritical. Is it proper to out homosexuals simply for not acting in what you believe is their best interests?
   190. Tony S Posted: February 03, 2013 at 01:12 PM (#4361083)
OK, so let's say someone testifies before Congress specifically for the purpose of advocacy of specific legislation. Would it be justified to point out, specific to the person testifying, if their personal lives indicate hypocrisy or personal gain from the legislation in question?


Actually, this is fairly common. A lot of congressional advocacy testimony comes from people with their own personal stories or cases.

I would love to see this happen as a broad standard. I think the potential upside far exceeds the downside.
   191. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: February 03, 2013 at 01:15 PM (#4361085)
The same thing happened to me once, though, except in my case it was inadvertent rather than deliberate. I belonged to a club that had only one locker room with showers, so the club alternated the shower room between men and women.


When teaching Penthouse Forum writing at Naughty America University, Professor Richard Hurtz uses this as his strong lead exemplar.
   192. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 03, 2013 at 01:15 PM (#4361086)
Actually, this is fairly common. A lot of congressional advocacy testimony comes from people with their own personal stories or cases.

I would love to see this happen as a broad standard. I think the potential upside far exceeds the downside.


And do non-progressives have access to this tactic? I need to know, because there will be future discussions in these political threads.
   193. Esoteric Posted: February 03, 2013 at 01:19 PM (#4361089)
A politician who supports discriminatory legislation is basically saying that one's sexuality is one's employer's business, or one's landlord's business, or the government's business.
Okay, but what counts as "discriminatory legislation?" Is being opposed to gay marriage enough? Are you aware of the fact that I know a number of gay males (both out and closeted) who are opposed to gay marriage for various reasons that have nothing to do with self-loathing or hypocrisy, but rather policy and religious beliefs? If one of them happened to be a closeted gay politician, would you declare their private life "fair game" for shaming and humiliation simply because you've made your own subjective determination that their religious or policy objections aren't legitimate, but are rather "discriminatory?"

I tend to think that you would. Which is *exactly* the problem I'm talking about. You should have no right to make that determination. There is, IMO, an appallingly fascist element to that line of thought: better stay in line and agree with the Approved Position, or we will do everything we can to impose Serious Personal Consequences upon you if we can. The mere fact that you believe your cause to be self-evidently righteous (and that your behavior is therefore honorable as opposed to rather thuggish) only means you're like pretty much every other person who has attempted to justify such actions.
   194. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 03, 2013 at 01:20 PM (#4361091)
And do non-progressives have access to this tactic?
Just a quick question. I don't know where you live, but I was under the assumption that it wasn't under a rock, on Mars, with your fingers in your ears. Right?

Of course everyone has access to this tactic.

Personal hypocrisy does not disqualify a person from holding a position, and neither does self-interest. These are things we have to evaluate and judge when considering political positions.
   195. Tony S Posted: February 03, 2013 at 01:21 PM (#4361092)
You still haven't explained how a gay politician against specific gay rights is practicing an uneven application of the law.


Let me try this again...

If a gay politician supports anti-gay discrimination in the workplace (which, by definition, means that your employer can factor your sexuality into employment decisions), then this gay politician, too, should be subject to the same standards. And in his case, his employer is the public. So his sexuality is as relevant to HIS employer (the public) as a gay person's sexuality is to his/her employer. No more, no less.

Don't like that? Don't support discriminatory legislation.

And, I think it's productive to out all hypocrisies, on both sides of the spectrum. Sunlight is good. A liberal politician who preaches Wall Street reform and receives payments from brokerage houses should be taken to task for that.

Self-serving? Knock yourself out. But the political effect of these things is minimal -- ALL political action is self-serving to some extent.

   196. Publius Publicola Posted: February 03, 2013 at 01:22 PM (#4361094)
As Fancy Pants argued above, if Gary Gaybasher is proposing legislation against gay marriage but secretly gay, he's also disqualifying himself from gay marriage, which makes him possibly acting against self-interest, not hypocritical. Is it proper to out homosexuals simply for not acting in what you believe is their best interests?


Is this really relevant for a Republican senator though? If Gary Gaybasher made public his intention to marry his gay partner, he would lose his job the next election. So marriage for him is off the table for him anyway, even if it were legal in his state. In fact, his gaybashing might be one of the reasons he has his job in the first place. Call it the Cohn-Hoover Effect.
   197. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 03, 2013 at 01:24 PM (#4361096)
Of course everyone has access to this tactic.

I just want to make sure in the future. I've had posters here cry foul every time one points out the amount of carbon pollution certain politicians and celebrities are in favor of.
   198. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 03, 2013 at 01:26 PM (#4361098)
If a gay politician supports anti-gay discrimination in the workplace (which, by definition, means that your employer can factor your sexuality into employment decisions), then this gay politician, too, should be subject to the same standards.

So, you would *not* be in favor of outing gay politicians for voting against gay marriage?
   199. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 03, 2013 at 01:27 PM (#4361100)
I've had posters here cry foul every time one points out the amount of carbon pollution certain politicians and celebrities are in favor of.
That's because it's a bad argument, not because you've committed a moral offense. Personal hypocrisy doesn't invalidate a political position.

The question here is whether the knowledge itself should be off-limits. So if anyone says to you, "Dan, by looking into Al Gore's use of plane travel, you have committed a moral offense against Al Gore's right to privacy", I will defend you against that idiot.
   200. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 03, 2013 at 01:30 PM (#4361104)
The question here is whether the knowledge itself should be off-limits. So if anyone says to you, "Dan, by looking into Al Gore's use of plane travel, you have committed a moral offense against Al Gore's right to privacy", I will defend you against that idiot.

We've had people argue that it was *inappropriate*. Also when pointing out rich Democrats who don't sent their kids to public schools. I am bookmarking this thread, so in the future, I can have a bipartisan defense against those people.
Page 2 of 21 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Dingbat_Charlie
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread March, 2014
(897 - 4:50pm, Apr 18)
Last: Grunthos

NewsblogDoug Glanville: I Was Racially Profiled in My Own Driveway
(285 - 4:50pm, Apr 18)
Last: Joe Bivens, Minor Genius

NewsblogOMNICHATTER FOR APRIL 18, 2014
(27 - 4:50pm, Apr 18)
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?
(25 - 4:40pm, Apr 18)
Last: toratoratora

NewsblogOT: NBA Monthly Thread - April 2014
(312 - 4:39pm, Apr 18)
Last: Mess with the Meat, you get the Wad!

NewsblogDesign Room: Top 10 Logos in MLB History.
(73 - 4:36pm, Apr 18)
Last: My name is Votto, and I love to get blotto

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(1644 - 4:31pm, Apr 18)
Last: formerly dp

NewsblogMitchell: Now Playing First Base for the Yankees
(45 - 4:30pm, Apr 18)
Last: Best Dressed Chicken in Town

NewsblogDaniel Bryan's 'YES!' chant has spread to the Pirates' dugout
(93 - 4:19pm, Apr 18)
Last: Joe Bivens, Minor Genius

NewsblogRobothal: What a relief! A’s could use bullpen differently than other teams
(9 - 3:44pm, Apr 18)
Last: Willie Mayspedes

NewsblogNY Daily News: Secret Service Threatened To Shoot Mr. Met
(12 - 3:32pm, Apr 18)
Last: depletion

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-18-2014
(22 - 3:20pm, Apr 18)
Last: Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere

NewsblogEscape from Cuba: Yasiel Puig’s Untold Journey to the Dodgers
(12 - 3:17pm, Apr 18)
Last: Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere

NewsblogFletcher: Foes have slowed Trout in one category so far - steals
(4 - 2:55pm, Apr 18)
Last: Shredder

NewsblogChris Resop - The Most Interesting Reliever in the World
(21 - 2:05pm, Apr 18)
Last: I Am Not a Number

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.7353 seconds
52 querie(s) executed