Skip to content

Mets player: “most of us are still Neanderthals”

Jun 27, 2011, 1:31 PM EDT

Neanderthal

Last month when I wrote about Charles Barkley’s comments on an active gay athlete coming out, I referred to those who would not be accepting of such a thing as “Neanderthals.”  Some people in the comments thought it was a low blow of me to refer to simple dumb bigots as “Neanderthals.” To each his own, I guess.

Know this, though, someone on the Mets agrees with me.  In a blog post by Andy Martino talking about Mets players’ mixed reaction to New York’s passage of gay marriage law, one anonymous Met said this:

As [Ron] Darling said the day before, most players felt that the professional sports locker room might not be ready to fully accept an openly gay athlete.  Asked why this was, one Met said, “Most of us are still Neanderthals.”

Know what? Between last month’s thing and this, I believe my strongest feelings about all of this have to do with my sense that the Neanderthals are being slandered. Neanderthals were actually pretty cool! They made advanced tools. They had complex social groups, were able to control fire, skinned animals and it is believed that they even had a language.

To suggest that someone who has enmity for another simply because of who they choose to* love is a “Neanderthal” is truly unfair to a species as evolved as the Neanderthal.

*Lazy choice of words on my part because obviously we don’t choose such things. If you differ on this point, I’d simply ask that you tell me the date on which you chose your sexual orientation before offering your comments. Thanks!

  1. Jonny 5 - Jun 27, 2011 at 1:41 PM

    Neanderthals “WERE” pretty cool? That’s spoken as if they went extinct. I say Hardly……

    This one make fire once, never again.

    http://a323.yahoofs.com/ymg/ept_sports_mlb_experts__65/ept_sports_mlb_experts-990391552-1286122488.jpg?ym4_j3DDU2h94EjF

    This one old, maybe retire soon.

  2. WhenMattStairsIsKing - Jun 27, 2011 at 1:43 PM

    If you still can’t get behind a human right such as gay marriage, being a neanderthal is the least of your problems.

    • WhenMattStairsIsKing - Jun 27, 2011 at 2:26 PM

      Really, people are disliking this? Ugh.

      • Paul Zummo - Jun 27, 2011 at 8:44 PM

        Oh my God, people have a different opinion than you.

        Ugh.

      • Kevin S. - Jun 27, 2011 at 9:54 PM

        Yeah, and it’s a fairly disgusting one.

      • WhenMattStairsIsKing - Jun 27, 2011 at 10:44 PM

        It’s just sad that there are people with enough hatred and prejudice to want gay marriage forbidden. It makes health insurance a nightmare for gay families and their children, and the church has no right to tell people that they can’t legally wed, when we have city hall as well.

    • Paul Zummo - Jun 27, 2011 at 10:20 PM

      Clearly you don’t understand the meaning of “disgusting.”

      • Kevin S. - Jun 27, 2011 at 10:24 PM

        Most civilized people would consider denying somebody equal rights simply because of who they are pretty disgusting.

      • Paul Zummo - Jun 27, 2011 at 10:30 PM

        They would if that were the issue.

        Must be fun living in your ideological bubble.

      • Kevin S. - Jun 28, 2011 at 9:41 AM

        Okay, so what is the issue then, oh enlightened one? Are you hiding behind vagueness because you don’t want everybody to know how ugly your feelings on this are?

  3. ditto65 - Jun 27, 2011 at 1:43 PM

    Agreed. Leave the Neanderthals alone. We have no solid evidence that they were “simple dumb bigots.” They might have been super progressive. Plus, they were not saddled with all the religious based bigotry to excuse their Neand -er- simple dumb bigotry, since they lived in the time before Christ.

  4. aceshigh11 - Jun 27, 2011 at 1:45 PM

    Well, you just KNOW someone’s going to post this eventually, so it might as well be me:

  5. Old Gator - Jun 27, 2011 at 1:46 PM

    I agree. The Neanderthal brain was only a little bit larger than a modern Tea Party voter’s, but that was partially because their skull cases were thinner. That’s no reason to make fun of them.

    • gogigantos - Jun 27, 2011 at 3:46 PM

      I hope that this it the flaw that dooms them to the fate of the other 99.99% of species that have preceded them, later than I want, but soon please. That thin skull seriously impairs them when they are dropped on their head at a very young age, part of the ritual joining the cult of species “them”. Seriously, they could do with a thicker skin to ward off the harsh UV of honest criticism and examination of ideas that seems to burn them into speechless ranting and waving of arms. I do believe their run on the earth will be much shorter than the glorious Neanderthal of the fossil record. the T.Partiers will be remembered by future rock hounds as the easily duped ones who believed the Indian’s early run was for real, and foundered for their beliefs before the All-Star millennium.
      not sure my brain fills out a Neanderthal skull,, really, does yours?

  6. xmatt0926x - Jun 27, 2011 at 1:47 PM

    Craig, the only part I disagree with you on is when you used the words “chose to love”. The biggest problem with these people, whether they be ultra- religious or just simple-minded apes is that they actually think a gay person simply makes a “choice” to be gay. They actually think that gay people are straight or “normal” as they say, but at some point in life the straight guy who drools over Jessica Alba in a bikini simply says to himself “you know what? What the heck. I’m gonna sexually desire guys from now on just because I choose to !! “. Wake up you dumb baboons!!! It’s not a choice. Gay people are born this way, like it or not. You can’t choose who your sexually attracted to no more than you or I did when we were 10-13 and that cute girl walked by and we were drawn to her like a starving dog to a steak. It was no choice.

    • Kevin S. - Jun 27, 2011 at 1:51 PM

      I think Craig meant choice in the individual sense, though your point stands in the larger picture.

    • Craig Calcaterra - Jun 27, 2011 at 1:52 PM

      Very good point. Lazy choice of words on my part.

      Indeed, one of my favorite retorts to bigots is to ask them when they chose to be heterosexuals. They never have a very good answer to that.

      • Andrew - Jun 27, 2011 at 2:26 PM

        Well, that comeback works until the douche says something like “When I first discovered boobs!” (Actually read that on Facebook once). Never mind the fact that as a male, you’d have to be heterosexual in order to find boobs appealing in the first place…

        Also, to channel my inner Most Interesting Man In The World/Carson Cistulli… I don’t always call someone a douche, but when I do, I friggin’ mean it.

      • baseballisboring - Jun 27, 2011 at 3:55 PM

        sorta off topic…but another thing that makes me laugh is when people say “i don’t have anything against gays…as long as they don’t hit on me!”

        really? are you uh, afraid you might like it or something? you can’t just say “no thanks i’m straight” without getting angry and defensive?

      • Glenn - Jun 27, 2011 at 4:54 PM

        Sadly, many of the bigots believe that we are all heterosexual without a choice. That is how god made us. They believe that being anything other than heterosexual involves a choice. It isn’t right, but it is how they explain away Craig’s question.

    • aceshigh11 - Jun 27, 2011 at 1:55 PM

      Indeed.

      Plus…and I don’t want to be too crass…who would ACTIVELY choose to be gay? To choose a lifestyle that still invites so much taunting, abuse, and bigotry in our society (still prevalent though getting better)?

      That’s the part that’s always baffled me about that argument.

  7. Chris Fiorentino - Jun 27, 2011 at 1:49 PM

    I don’t know why people are against Gay Marriage. If gay people want to be miserable like the rest of us married people, then go right ahead. More people should be against heterosexual marriage.

    • paperlions - Jun 27, 2011 at 1:55 PM

      Couldn’t agree more.

      Apparently, getting married and divorced a dozen times doesn’t negatively affect the “sanctity of marriage” to such a degree as to be illegal, but being the same sex does….I had no idea that sanctity was so malleable.

    • aceshigh11 - Jun 27, 2011 at 2:02 PM

      Count me as against it…I was engaged for almost a year to the wrong woman before I came to my sense. That was close enough for me.

      I still stop and shudder when I’m relaxing or enjoying life that I could be married right now.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jun 27, 2011 at 2:45 PM

      Loved this skit by Greg Giraldo:
      “anyone in here married? do you feel blessed by God?”

  8. trevorb06 - Jun 27, 2011 at 2:13 PM

    Why doesn’t the government just try to please everybody? Let’s leave the seperation of church and state going and leave ‘marraige’ word up to a church. Then in order to please the other side the government allows people of any gender and orientation to go to a judge or a certified guy with a fancy building in vegas or somebody who is given the rights to do such a ceremony and allow these people to join together in the name of love and give them all the same rights (gay, straight or lesbian) as a married couple.

    Look at that! Then the religious people (I won’t call them bigots because their religion they follow says homosexuality is wrong) still have marriage being sacred. Everybody else can still join in a union of some kind much like marriage (not sure what to call it… civil union maybe? but that’s been taken) and have all the same rights as the ones who do it thru a church and call it a marriage. There was a straight couple in the UK (I believe) who had a civil union. Non-religious people can leave church out of it and still be united to the person they dearly love, no matter what orientation this way.

    Just a thought.

    • kopy - Jun 27, 2011 at 2:41 PM

      I like that you’re respecting everyone, and that you can see the irony of calling someone a bigot because they have a different religion than you. I have people close to me that are homosexuals, but I also have people close to me that are very religious.

      I’m glad that people are becoming increasingly tolerant of alternative lifestyles with regards to sexual orientation, but it’s scary to see religious persecution becoming so trendy.

    • Tim's Neighbor - Jun 27, 2011 at 2:43 PM

      Marriage is an accepted social tradition that began outside of the church. I’m not going to let any religion steal ownership of marriage from all of us. Can we force a church to marry someone? No. But we sure as hell shouldn’t allow them to dictate the terms of marriage to us.

      Also, many Christian denominations are fighting in their churches over this issue. Not all Christians agree with the anti-gay marriage crowd. The United Methodist Church is looking towards a large vote within the next year. I am proud to say that the church I attend is in the pro-GM crowd. The anti-GM crowd is by far the minority (albeit a very vocal one).

      • Jonny 5 - Jun 27, 2011 at 2:53 PM

        I’m so glad you can change religious practices by voting…… It makes it seem that much more like a crock of shit that way.

      • trevorb06 - Jun 27, 2011 at 2:59 PM

        Jonny5… you complete me.

        “Let’s follow the word of Jesus… unless the majority says otherwise…”
        #sarcasm

      • Tim's Neighbor - Jun 27, 2011 at 3:39 PM

        You over simplify this. Of course not everyone has to agree on everything their church (etc) says. But there are standards and general rules for every organization. So we vote on those just like everyone else in every other organization. There’s a lot of theological mumbo-jumbo involved that you likely haven’t had the pleasure to come across (obvious from you above comment). No need to knock someone for their religious choices. Pretty, um, Neanderthalic if you ask me.

      • Jonny 5 - Jun 27, 2011 at 4:06 PM

        Tim’s neighbor, I stand by your right to choose religion and to practice as you wish. I would even fight for that right with you. But you have to admit, voting to allow things and support things that have been drilled into the mainstream’s head as a sin for centuries, or decades, or however long it’s been, waters down the whole “word of god” thing, and moves people to think it may just be a total crock.

        I wasn’t knocking anyone or any thing. But religion and how it’s “rules” are expressed as God’s will to the point where you will burn in hell for not following his will, DO NOT SEEM UP FOR VOTE. Also take note being a homosexual was a sin yet the catholic church employed homosexuals and covered up the fact when some of them preyed on children.

      • Tim's Neighbor - Jun 27, 2011 at 4:31 PM

        Good response, damnit. There are a ton of things I’d love to respond with. We need to have this discussion over a bottle of Maker’s in person. (As long as we don’t talk Phillies v Braves, I imagine we’d avoid coming to blows). But we’re probably a lot closer in agreeing than you suspect. This medium is just too limited to hash that out.

        Any chance you were raised Catholic? I was and you are saying a ton of the same things I’ve said to my minister wife.

      • Jonny 5 - Jun 27, 2011 at 4:59 PM

        Actually. I was born but not raised Catholic. I spent a lot of time in Baptist, and spent a lot of time in Methodist Churches. Two different levels of ferocity when it comes to pushing “gods will”. Some things make me think. If it were Gods will would it need to be pushed on people, or would it just be? If God wished all people be hetero, than I think they’d all be so. Are these individuals more tested by the man upstairs than the rest of us? If so why, and to what end? That and the hand of man wrote what we read in the bible, every one of them, of every religion was written by man. There should be a warning sign that says this on the cover. I’m not ruling out god. Organized religion has made it very difficult for me to see the “good” in “it” though. In other words, people have warped things to meet their view of how things should be over time, maybe this is one? And if things can be warped like this what else within it is? Were the Spanish really meant to kill or convert millions? I don’t think so. It’s a tough subject as you say and no two people can ever agree 100%, so it’s better left unsaid some times. You won’t see me bash religion, but the organizations behind them is a different story.

  9. Mr. Jason "El Bravo" Heyward - Jun 27, 2011 at 2:19 PM

    Neanderthals are sooooo gay.

  10. spudchukar - Jun 27, 2011 at 2:24 PM

    I am here to defend the backward-thinking, bible-thumping, homophobics, that roam our countryside. They too had complex social groups, ever see a Tea-Party Rally? As to controlling fire, just ask the congregations of Southern Black Churchgoers about the right-wing arsons and their expertise, and just how do you think those leopard-skinned stoles manage to adorn the shoulders of the Koch Bros. wives without taking a filet knife to those troublesome felines, and finally as to language, come on, has Indo-European speech ever reached the pinnacles as echoed by the likes of professional spokesmen Beck,Limbaugh, and Savage? And unlike the Neanderthals, the chance of this subspecies dying out is minimal. They reproduce like rabbits, you can’t kill ‘em, who wants to inter-marry, we aren’t first cousins ya know.

    • Jonny 5 - Jun 27, 2011 at 2:41 PM

      Actually most of the southern black churchgoers would agree it was left, democratic party members burning their churches. MLK was a Republican for a reason.

      • APBA Guy - Jun 27, 2011 at 3:16 PM

        True facts, in those days anyway. Now of course, the old Southern wing of the Democratic party of LBJ have all converted to staunch Republicanism.

      • pauleee - Jun 27, 2011 at 3:25 PM

        Beat me to it.

    • Jonny 5 - Jun 27, 2011 at 4:14 PM

      It’s all history now folks, just pointing out some facts. As far as Law goes it was the “right” who paved the way for civil rights. More so than the other party which is now a saint to all things. Lol…. I don’t know if there was a change in the Right, the Left, or both. All I know is I feel equally screwed now, by both parties.

      • aceshigh11 - Jun 27, 2011 at 6:52 PM

        No, here’s the real deal:

        On civil rights, the Southern Democrats were the CONSERVATIVES, and Republicans and some Northern Democrats were the LIBERALS.

        Wanting to keep black people as second-class citizens is a conservative (maintaining the status quo), right-wing phenomenon.

        When LBJ rammed through the Civil Rights Act, he was rumored to have said that he’d lost the South to the Republicans for a generation…

        …and he was perhaps understating the issue. ALL the Dixiecrats switched to the Republican side of the aisle. The Republicans, starting with Nixon and continuing to this day, adopted the “Southern Strategy.”

        Read up on Lee Atwater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater#Atwater_on_the_Southern_Strategy)

        I’m NOT accusing all Republicans of being racist, or any such nonsense; what I’m saying is that Republicans have cynically decided to exploit white resentment for over 40 years.

  11. blinkevan - Jun 27, 2011 at 2:26 PM

    before I start I want to say I am pro gay marriage and gay people but I.do not believe gay people are born gay nor do I think they sit down at their desk and decide they are gay I am not even sure why its a bad thing to say they weren’t born like that I did not choose to like baseball I sat down watched it and realized I liked it same goes for steaks chicken or anything you truly like but I do not think for one second that liking baseball is hereditary so the same goes for being gay I don’t know wat does it and nobody ever will but there is some subtleties in life that make you the way you are and there’s nothing wrong with that

    • paperlions - Jun 27, 2011 at 2:33 PM

      So….to sum up, you don’t think people are born gay or that they decide to be gay, but that they just are gay?

      Care to distinguish between the notion of “being born gay” and just “being gay”?

      • blinkevan - Jun 27, 2011 at 2:48 PM

        Im saying its a subconscious decision follow along please

      • paperlions - Jun 27, 2011 at 2:55 PM

        Whether something is subconscious has nothing to do with whether something was a choice or not. Plenty of decisions are subconscious, you chose, and you had reasons for the choice….just because you weren’t consciously aware of the reasons doesn’t mean you didn’t choose.

        A person either is gay or they are not…..or they choose to be gay or not. There really isn’t a 3rd option (well, I suppose there is, but being gay and deciding not to live gay isn’t really consistent with previously established parameters).

      • blinkevan - Jun 27, 2011 at 2:59 PM

        I know I am saying its a choice but a subconscious choice there is only 3 possibilities 1 is a ressesive trait 2 its a choice or 3 the chemicals in there brain got messed up making it a defect that’s just how life works

      • blinkevan - Jun 27, 2011 at 3:05 PM

        Their brain**

      • paperlions - Jun 27, 2011 at 3:15 PM

        There are some evolutionary theories to explain social advantages for the manifestation of homosexuality during increased population densities (especially for family/clan based social animals). All traits and behaviors do not manifest in every context, many are context dependent. Consequently, it is more likely that homosexuality is a context-specific behavioral expression that manifests during times of over-population and social stress than that “the chemicals in their brain got messed up”.

      • vanillakokakola - Jun 27, 2011 at 3:45 PM

        It’s not that hard to do a little reading before you make an asinine comment like this. Research suggests that sexuality is determined primarily by a combination of genes, hormonal development in the womb, and maternal immunity (progressive immunity to specific antigens, or, if you want it put FAR more simply than it should be, birth order).

        Then again, barely anyone can even be bothered to come to the simple realization that BIOLOGICAL =/= SOLELY DUE TO GENETICS. Not sure how our science classes failed us on that one, but there you go.

      • blinkevan - Jun 27, 2011 at 3:48 PM

        You do realize that if that were true that people are gay during over population that chemicals control that way of thinking in your brain due to the fact that’s how the brain works right so a chemical change would explain that

      • vanillakokakola - Jun 27, 2011 at 3:51 PM

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_gene_expression

        You didn’t do very well in your science classes, did you?

    • Chris Fiorentino - Jun 27, 2011 at 2:42 PM

      You need to use the “.” more. Period.

    • roadwearyaaron - Jun 27, 2011 at 2:46 PM

      You should choose to refrain from commenting until you learn to write like an adult.

      • blinkevan - Jun 27, 2011 at 2:51 PM

        Lol I forgot this is something I’m trying to get published why don’t you read published work if you want published worked quality

      • paperlions - Jun 27, 2011 at 2:57 PM

        You are trying to communicate, yes? Well, if you would like to do so effectively, correct use of punctuation, grammar, and syntax go a long way to that end.

      • blinkevan - Jun 27, 2011 at 3:04 PM

        So you are unable to understand what I am writing? I think you can and I also think you just like to act like a douche

      • Chris Fiorentino - Jun 27, 2011 at 3:21 PM

        JUST USE A FRIGGING PERIOD WHEN YOU END A SENTENCE FOR CHRIST’S SAKE MAN!!!!!!

  12. Jonny 5 - Jun 27, 2011 at 3:12 PM

    What about bisexuals????

    My take on them….

    They just really like rubbing things on things and it doesn’t matter who with. Ever see a dog hump a leg or a pillow? They are the bisexuals of the animal world. They just love to rub things on things.

    • marinersnate - Jun 27, 2011 at 3:33 PM

      That’s dang perceptive Jonny.

    • Jonny 5 - Jun 27, 2011 at 3:37 PM

      Who do you think invented fire? It was bisexuals….. By complete accident of course, but so were other great inventions.

      • marinersnate - Jun 27, 2011 at 3:47 PM

        Fire? I thought that was the Chinese. Maybe that was gunpowder? Or was it spaghetti??

  13. blinkevan - Jun 27, 2011 at 3:43 PM

    Lol egad man!

  14. spudchukar - Jun 27, 2011 at 3:51 PM

    For those of you still convinced the Good Lord made us in his heterosexual image, I can recommend a film, seen by few, by the name of “XXY”, it might make you think twice.

  15. foreverchipper10 - Jun 27, 2011 at 5:20 PM

    A friend of mine who lives in New York snapped a picture of a sign outside some establishment that read something along the lines of “If you don’t like gay marriage blame straight people for having gay babies.” I thought it was quite clever.

    • Paul Zummo - Jun 27, 2011 at 8:47 PM

      I thought it was quite clever.

      Evidently your bar is very, very low.

  16. dirtyharry1971 - Jun 28, 2011 at 9:02 AM

    i dont see what the big deal is, we have been accepting gay couples on the redsox for how long now? Its time for it to be accepted everywhere

  17. pjcostello - Jun 28, 2011 at 11:53 AM

    Excellent article by Frank Turek on more-or-less this topic today:

    http://townhall.com/columnists/frankturek/2011/06/28/sex_at_work/page/full/

    Bottom line, Craig? It’s a shame your narrowmindedness and bigotry against those with whom you disagree lead to nonsense and name-calling such as this, today. What happened to ‘inclusion’ and ‘diversity’ and all of that? Hmmm? I guess the only ‘diverse’ opinions which are allowed and respected are those that run parallel to yours. All others must be Neanderthals.

    Way to live up to your espoused ideals!

    • Kevin S. - Jun 28, 2011 at 12:44 PM

      Hooray false equivalence! When we talk about inclusion and diversity, we mean guaranteeing equal rights for all. When you talk about it, you mean not being criticized for arbitrarily discriminating against certain groups.

      • pjcostello - Jun 28, 2011 at 1:09 PM

        Really? Because when I looked those words up, I couldn’t find ‘equivalence’ anywhere in the definitions. They actually, provably have nothing to do with one another. Perhaps you should all say what you mean. For example, I am fairly certain that Craig absolutely means to denigrate — as placing them below Neanderthals on the evolutionary scale — anyone who does not share his view. That’s perfectly clear.

        And yes, I understand completely about guaranteeing equal rights for all. I heartily approve of them, and I believe they are guaranteed to us (“…all men are created equal” from US history, and even Article 7 of the UN Charter … “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.”). There are myriad facets of American life, though, which do NOT in any way live up to this ideal (see also: The tax code, hate crimes, et al), and should also be addressed.

      • Craig Calcaterra - Jun 28, 2011 at 1:27 PM

        I absolutely mean to denigrate people who would discriminate against others, whatever their motivation, be it religious or otherwise.

        No creed that promotes hatred, discrimination or a lack of respect for other human beings is worthy of my respect, be it genuine respect or respect out of some ill-defined sense of “tolerance.”

      • Kevin S. - Jun 28, 2011 at 1:39 PM

        Then your reading comprehension needs help. I did not use the words inclusion and tolerance to mean equivalence. Equivalence, in this case, means putting two issues on the same footing. By claiming that the denial of rights to a class of citizens is the same as denigrating those who do, you and your ilk have created a false equivalence which you hide behind, because your position is intellectually and morally indefensible.

  18. pjcostello - Jun 28, 2011 at 1:46 PM

    Wow.. Craig, I had no idea you were this big an ignoramus. Seriously. Consider at least one reader lost — not that you care. I wonder what “creed” those whom you hate espouse. I wonder what you think “creed” means, and how you think yours is good, while someone else’s is not. I wonder why you think “discrimination” is bad at all times and in all ways — you, sir, are practicing exactly that discrimination yourself, right here and right now, yet you find it to be perfectly fine. It’s amazing to me that one person’s intolerance of another person’s intolerance can make them such idiots. And you don’t even see it.

    Your loss.

    • Kevin S. - Jun 28, 2011 at 1:56 PM

      You have not had any legal rights restricted. You have not been threatened with physical or emotional harm simply because of who you are. That is what it means to be discriminated against. Being told your views are outdated and inhumane is not discrimination, it’s discourse.

      • Kevin S. - Jun 28, 2011 at 1:58 PM

        Interestingly enough, there has been no defense of the anti-gay position here, just a lot if cries of persecution. No different than any other case of bigotry being exposed for what it is.

    • Craig Calcaterra - Jun 28, 2011 at 1:56 PM

      A creed is a formal statement of beliefs. My position is that your formal statement of beliefs, whatever their source, require you to oppose equality for people, that I find your creed offensive and illegitimate in modern society. Simple? Of course it is.

      You may not like it, but take your own advice and tolerate it.

      Or you can be honest and drop the pretense that you have no problem with homosexuality and simply say that you find it sinful and those who are homsexuals to be sinners, damned to hell. Because unless that’s what you really thing, there is no basis for your opposition. If that is not what your believe, your opposition is incoherent.

      • Kevin S. - Jun 28, 2011 at 3:22 PM

        Craig, there isn’t even any real justification for that. There’s barely any reference to being gay in the bible at all. It’s referenced less often than unicorns. Unicorns! Yet “sins” granted far greater prominence in the bible are often not discussed at all, and certainly aren’t turned into massive political campaigns. It’s nothing more than a cover for bigotry, and it shouldn’t even be given the thin veneer of “belief.” Call this shit for what it is.

  19. fearlessleader - Jun 28, 2011 at 2:13 PM

    Craig, I’m catching up on posts after a few days away, but I just wanted to thank you for covering this story and for continuing to take a progressive, compassionate, and intelligent position on this issue. There just aren’t many (male) sportswriters who are secure enough to do so.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Pitching vs. history in NL wild card game
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. D. Jeter (3483)
  2. R. Martin (2754)
  3. C. Kershaw (2685)
  4. A. Rodriguez (2255)
  5. J. Hamilton (2109)
  1. D. Gordon (2055)
  2. J. Altuve (1999)
  3. E. Volquez (1805)
  4. I. Suzuki (1789)
  5. D. Ortiz (1774)