Skip to content

“The Meaning of “‘Tu Ere Maricon’”

Sep 19, 2012, 9:12 AM EDT

Toronto Blue Jays v Kansas City Royals Getty Images

Chip Buck writes for the Red Sox blog Fire Brand of the American League.  He’s also gay, and this morning he has a lengthy contemplation about the Yunel Escobar business.

While Chip notes that Escobar is perfectly within his rights to believe what he wants to believe, he also notes that Escobar’s actions are not harmless:

In making his remark, which is translated as “You’re a faggot,” he is making a prejudicial judgment on my life.  He is denigrating the life I’ve created; criticizing me for the man I am; claiming homosexuality makes one weak or less than a man; and belittling my (and every other gay man and woman’s) struggles with coming to term with their sexuality and finding a place within society … It’s bad enough having my personal liberties and rights being debated daily by Presidential, Congressional, state, and local politicians over my right to marry, adopt, or receive equal employment protections under the law.  The last place I would hope or want to see this is on the baseball field, a place I go to escape reality.

I’m sure there are gay Blue Jays fans, maybe even some who were fans of Yunel Escobar specifically, who feel the same way.

125 Comments (Feed for Comments)
  1. randygnyc - Sep 19, 2012 at 9:30 AM

    I wrote the following, twenty minutes after the story broke. All the discussion has went round and round, but ultimately, it begins and ends with what I said.

    “Ruh-roh. Not cool. He can think whatever he wants privately. But social/religious statements do NOT belong on a baseball field.”

    • Old Gator - Sep 19, 2012 at 9:34 AM

      Relax. Tebow plays football.

      • woefulsoxfan - Sep 19, 2012 at 11:30 AM

        EXCELLENT point. Nobody says a word when Tebow tries to shove God down everyone’s throats – and if you _do_ dare to say a word, the entire world jumps on your head. Yet, let someone say something in the opposite direction, and its just horrible..horrible I say! I don’t think he was doing anything that Chip Buck (who names their kid “Chip”?) claims – Escobar wasn’t judging his place in society or…whatever, dude. Get a better grip on your own emotional self esteem. Escobar was being an ass, for sure, but that’s not against the law. Not everything is a statement directed firmly on your sexuality, Chip.

      • djpostl - Sep 19, 2012 at 1:20 PM

        “Escobar was being an ass, for sure, but that’s not against the law.”

        Here we go again with another tool who thinks the 1st Amendment means one can say whatever they want without risk of having one’s employer, peers or society in general getting to weigh in and give you hell if you’re a bigoted ass.

        Just as he can say what he wants without fear of being tossed in jail by the big, bad, gum’mint…so can everyone else.

        He said some ignorant, hateful stuff & now he gets to reap what he has sown.

        As for Tebow, try to feel bad for the guy. All that praying & it’s falling on deaf ears:

        Matthew 6:1-34
        “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.”

      • woefulsoxfan - Sep 19, 2012 at 1:35 PM

        Dude, are you for real? My point wasn’t that Escobar had a “right” to say it; he was an idiot, and his employer has dealt with it. My point was that some guy named chip block shouldn’t be taking every word that every moron utters as a personal attack or a personal judgement of his life. And in the end, why would chip care one way or the other? Chip – presumably, or he would have made mention of it in his “story” – doesn’t know this fool, and Escobar couldn’t pick Chip out of a police lineup. The point was the Chip simply turned this into something it wasn’t for no other reason than because he wanted to climb onto his soap box and promote his agenda.

        The “isn’t against the law” statement wasn’t the point, but rather an illiterative description of his ability to be an idiot should he so choose.

      • rooney24 - Sep 19, 2012 at 2:00 PM

        woeful,
        It sounds like you are saying that any of us can only be outraged by someone’s callous bigotry if it is directly aimed at us. So, I can be offended by what he did because I wasn’t at the game to read it in person, or because I am not gay? If someone throws around the N-word, am I not allowed to be offended because I am white?

        As to dj – I think you may be quoting the Bible out of context. Practicing righteousness may imply something different than just expounding upon one’s religious beliefs. Personally, I see 10 times as much religion references from other people about Tebow than I have ever heard from Tebow himself. I am not a Tebow fan, but from the little that I have seen, he is usually pretty subtle about it, unless someone else brings it up.

  2. kevinleaptrot - Sep 19, 2012 at 9:36 AM

    Tu Ere Maricon = I’m gettin’ suspended.

  3. indaburg - Sep 19, 2012 at 9:37 AM

    I fully support equal rights for gays. Like the late Greg Giraldo once said, “I’m a little tired of the gays and their happy go lucky lifestyle. I think they should have to get married and suffer like the rest of us.” That said, I think Escobar came from a place of ignorance, not malice. The Latino culture is simply not as enlightened as Americans when it comes to gay rights, and that’s saying a lot since we as Americans have a long way to go. Latinos need to become more educated about how these words can hurt. Escobar just got a quick education.

    • paperlions - Sep 19, 2012 at 11:02 AM

      If you fling a life style at someone as an insult. Isn’t that the definition of malicious?

      • indaburg - Sep 19, 2012 at 1:20 PM

        After educating myself this morning on what some gays and lesbians had to suffer under Castros’ regime in the past (basically rounded up and sent to concentration like settings for “re-education”), I stand corrected. The term in Cuba is much more loaded than I realized.

        http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2010/09/fidel_castro_takes_responsibil.php

  4. mervsvikes - Sep 19, 2012 at 9:37 AM

    OK. This is a ignorant thing that Yunel did. He’s been punished. We have all learned a lesson from this and now it’s time to move on. I think Craig, more than anybody, needs to move on. I know you love to sneak all your social and political beliefs into your baseball articles but you’ve been like a kid in a candy shop since this came out. Let’s put it to rest. Nothing positive comes from dwelling on it. We have a wildcard race to watch and read about now.

    • spellingcops - Sep 19, 2012 at 9:54 AM

      I’m sure the reply by the thinnest skinned writer in the blogosphere is in the works…

    • hammyofdoom - Sep 19, 2012 at 9:57 AM

      Its his blog, he can write what he wants. That being said, he isnt giving his own perspective on this, he is giving the perspective of a homosexual baseball writer on the subject. If anyone has a right to say something about this its a guy who knows baseball the way Chip does (I love FirebrandAL, its a good site), who also happens to be gay. We arent dwelling on it, it JUST happened, the punishment JUST came down and Chip JUST wrote about it. All Craig was doing was showing us that there was someone writing about the incident with a greater purpose than Craig ever could.

    • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Sep 19, 2012 at 10:01 AM

      The only way something positive comes out of this is if it is a learning experience, not just for Yunel but for everyone else who thinks what he did is no big deal. A seemingly large number of people on here and elsewhere think it is OK to call each other ‘faggots’ as long as you are joking, and only mean that they are weak, not manly, ineffective or somehow undeserving of respect. If that is the tape we kep playing over and over in our culture, people will believe it as true. If we can change the message, well, that would be progress.

  5. jaysfan64 - Sep 19, 2012 at 9:38 AM

    There’s a large LBGT community here – some want his head on a stick, some are willing to forgive…all agree Escobar is an idiot…Gregg Zaun yesterday on PTS blasted the Jays organization and the “consequence free” atmosphere he sees here that in his view, created an environment that allowed this to happen…smh… This seems to now be reaching a whole new level here…

    • cur68 - Sep 19, 2012 at 11:18 AM

      Zaun is so Old School you can see the bricks and mortar in the weave of if his plaid suits: nevertheless HE thinks Escobar was an idiot and I think he rightly points the finger at the organization for a certain lack of leadership. One thing someone mentioned the other day (might even have been you, Jaysfan) if Bautista had been there, this likely would not have happened. It looks to me like no one stepped up in his absence and did what needed to be done. I don’t think there are any “new levels” here. These comments are appropriate and what they describe require righting. Someone’s gotta be the leader in that dugout without JB around: someone has to act like they are in charge. This whole incident does not speak well for Farrel, nor does it speak well for player level leadership. Its pretty disappointing.

  6. alabamalowlife - Sep 19, 2012 at 9:54 AM

    It’s great that 3-4% of the population gets to dictate what the remaining 96% are allowed to think or say. If they promote their lifestyle, they’re liberating. If the rest of us promote ours we’re bigots?

    • jarathen - Sep 19, 2012 at 10:02 AM

      Any majority that seeks to limit the rights and protections of a minority should be opposed. That’s why America has founding documents that courts uphold; so extremist politicians who pass laws must sooner or later see those laws come up against the measuring stick of the foundations of our society.

      Anyway, it’s a matter of an employee promoting his own personal attack on his person at work. I’ve yet to work for an employer who supports this.

    • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Sep 19, 2012 at 10:07 AM

      So the majority should be allowed to denigrate the minorities with impunity, because hey, there are more of the majority?

      Promote your lifestyle = good.
      Devaluing someone else’s lifestyle = bad.

      Yunel didn’t say “Breeders are awesome!” He said “Fags are shit.”

      See the difference?

      • woefulsoxfan - Sep 19, 2012 at 11:40 AM

        Ummmm no. He didn’t. He didn’t make any judgement – at least, not in the words he used – about the value of “fags” in society, he simply called…whoever those words were directed at… a fag. You can make any assumption you personally want to make regarding his interpretation of his words, but don’t simply re-write them to fit your own personal agenda.

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Sep 19, 2012 at 11:46 AM

        Don’t be coy. He meant that being a fag is something less than being a non-fag. Put any words you want on it and it means the same thing.

      • woefulsoxfan - Sep 19, 2012 at 11:51 AM

        Why? How do you know he meant that? because YOU tell me it is so, it must be? And why was he talking to you – or chip buck, for that matter – personally? How arrogant of you to assume he was making a conscious, declaritive statement about you, your lifestyle and the choices you make. He doesn’t know for the smallest of moments that you even exist – lifestyle choices be damned – and couldn’t care less that you do. Stop projecting your own fears, insecurities and paranoias unto the rest of humanity and every word they say.

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Sep 19, 2012 at 1:16 PM

        Woeful, you are being intentionally obtuse to promote the argument. Everyone knows what “fag” means, and anyone who didn’t is certainly learning what “maricon” means.

    • pauleee - Sep 19, 2012 at 11:18 AM

      Love your moniker! Roll Tide, indeed.

    • thefalcon123 - Sep 19, 2012 at 11:43 AM

      …………………./´¯/)
      ………………..,/¯../
      ………………./…./
      …………./´¯/’…’/´¯¯`·¸
      ………./’/…/…./……./¨¯\
      ……..(‘(…´…´…. ¯~/’…’)
      ………\……………..’…../
      ……….”…\………. _.·´
      …………\…………..(
      …………..\………….\…

      • cur68 - Sep 19, 2012 at 11:49 AM

        Like, wow. I wish I knew how to draw that…it would come in SO useful for my daily correspondence with my thesis supervisor….

      • stlouis1baseball - Sep 19, 2012 at 12:23 PM

        Alright Falcon…be honest. How long did that take?

      • indaburg - Sep 19, 2012 at 1:02 PM

        Copy and paste.

      • elpendejo59 - Sep 19, 2012 at 1:18 PM

        You beat me to it, indaburg.

      • thefalcon123 - Sep 19, 2012 at 3:31 PM

        Here is my technique. Read carefully. It can be very tricky

        1. Google “Flip off tex”
        2. Open first web page that pops pop
        3. Copy the flip off text.
        4. Paste the flip off text where needed.

      • stlouis1baseball - Sep 19, 2012 at 4:41 PM

        “Here is my technique. Read carefully. It can be very tricky.”

        1. Google “Flip off tex”
        2. Open first web page that pops pop
        3. Copy the flip off text.
        4. Paste the flip off text where needed.

        Thanks Falcon. Thanks a lot! Man…what would I do without you?
        Just a couple of additional questions and I will allow you to go about saving the wales, the box turtles, the trees, the 3 fingered sloth, etc…
        1. Who is this “Text” guy?
        2. What did “Text” do to you that would make you flip him off?

  7. brazcubas - Sep 19, 2012 at 9:55 AM

    This is just getting silly, not to get too much into linguistics (specially since I’m not a linguist) but it seems silly to me to attach the connotations of a word in one language (and culture) to another.

    What he did was wrong, and he has been punished. Let’s wait and see if he repeats before we decide to unleash all of our angst about homophobia on the guy.

    • schlom - Sep 19, 2012 at 12:01 PM

      No kidding. The Red Sox blogger said that his eye black said “You’re a faggot” when it clearly did not. But whatever you have to do to make your point I guess.

  8. realgone2 - Sep 19, 2012 at 9:58 AM

    I’m pretty sure Yunel is not part of some anti-gay movement. I’m pretty sure he is just an ignorant kid from Cuba is a decent ball player.

    • Francisco (FC) - Sep 19, 2012 at 10:15 AM

      Agreed. He was wrong to do what he did. It’s also true he is a product of his culture and environment, so he has to rise above that and adapt to his new culture. Aside from this incident I don’t recall Yunel being active in Proposition 8 or any other such nonsense nor displaying any other obvious homophobic actions. I think he just paid the price for being ignorant. But that’s ok, ignorance is forgiveable because it can always corrected. I’d hesitate to use words like “loathe” or “hate” in reference to him.

      • indaburg - Sep 19, 2012 at 1:04 PM

        You said exactly what I was trying to say.

  9. stex52 - Sep 19, 2012 at 10:10 AM

    The story that wouldn’t die! Next, please.

  10. gaykegayden - Sep 19, 2012 at 10:12 AM

    Just change their name to the Blue Gays and be done with it

    • manchestermiracle - Sep 20, 2012 at 9:21 AM

      From the guy with gay (twice) in his name. Good one.

  11. alabamalowlife - Sep 19, 2012 at 10:21 AM

    You’re right sabathia. Maybe the media can help out old Sandusky too, he was probably born that way. We’re all jerks for not accommodating him.

    • The Common Man - Sep 19, 2012 at 10:58 AM

      Stop right there. Sandusky wasn’t gay. Actually, he lived as a straight man for most of his life, lying to his wife and kids about his pedophilia. Pedophiles are attracted to children. Gay men and women are attracted to people of the same sex of an appropriate age. That’s a huge difference and to suggest otherwise is either blatantly ignorant or a deliberate and offensive misrepresentation.

      • kinggw - Sep 19, 2012 at 11:03 AM

        You are arguing semantics, Sandusky is clearly gay.

      • cur68 - Sep 19, 2012 at 11:24 AM

        The last word on Sandusky is “pedophile”. Its the same outcome if those children were female. Male or female preference is immaterial with that acknowledged. For once we can engage in BLack & White arguments: Homosexuality isn’t a crime. Pedophilia is. As to the notion of his “gayness”: I believe, given his long term marriage, children etc that that loathsome man is in fact “bi-sexual”, rather than gay. That last point is immaterial to the point of his pedophilia.

    • ajcardsfan - Sep 19, 2012 at 11:09 AM

      Alabamalowlife? Fitting user name, if I’m from Alabama, I’d be ashamed that you live in my state

      Let me try to explain this for you:
      Jerry Sandusky – Pedophile/Rapist – Causes harm to others

      Homosexuals – Normal People that like other people of the same sex – 99% would not want to harm others or force themselves upon others

      See the difference?

    • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Sep 19, 2012 at 11:33 AM

      Why does it make you so mad that gay people want basic human respect?

      I don’t know if Sandusky is gay or not, but gay and pedophilia are not the same thing. Just like being straight does not automatically make someone a rapist or wife beater. Every group has its share of a-holes, but they do not define the group.

      • woefulsoxfan - Sep 19, 2012 at 11:47 AM

        I don’t know that ANYONE – at least, not in my personal, admittedly limited experience – has a problem with gay people “wanting basic human respect”. But that’s not all they want, is it, sir? They want to shove their agenda down our throats until we not only accept their viewpoints as our own, but enthusiastically advance their agenda – both political and social – as our own. Its not enough that we accept the gay community, we must EMBRACE it. We must be overjoyed that they have chosen to grace us with their obviously enlightened views. The fact that this agenda has been voted down _every singl time_ it has come to the polls is not to be discussed or even mentioned. Instead, simply drink the koolaid, and be happy that they have chosen to enlighten you.

        Perhaps if the gay community approached the problem – and I would agree that there is probably a problem – with a bit more arrogance, perhaps they wouldn’t be met with such stiff resistance.

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Sep 19, 2012 at 12:21 PM

        I assume (and correct me if I am wrong) that you are talking about gay marriage. On that issue, gay people want the same rights non-gay people have, to marry the person they love and to be entitled to the benefits and protections under the law that marriage bestows upon a person. It is only because they do not have equality in this respect that they feel the need to be vocal. If the law would stay out of their relationships, they would be more than happy to remove their relationship from your public consciousness. Imagine a new law passing saying that people in Massachussets (I’m guessing “woeful Sox” are Boston’s) are no longer allowed to reproduce. Would you oppose it? Would your opposition be “forcing your agenda” on other people, or fighting for your rights?

        Did Martin Luther King, Jr. shove his agenda down people’s throats? If so, so be it.

        Nobody says you have to love gay people, or even like them. Tolerance does not mean embracing. It just means allowing people to live with the same rights and respect as anyone else.

      • The Common Man - Sep 19, 2012 at 12:30 PM

        Nobody’s asking you to embrace gay people, literally or metaphorically. Nobody’s forcing you to go to a pride parade.They’re asking you to accept their equal right to associate with people in the same way that straight people are legally able to marry, visit each other in the hospital, make medical decisions, be receive the same tax breaks and work benefits that straight couples get. Because that’s fair.

    • thefalcon123 - Sep 19, 2012 at 11:46 AM

      So, you’re saying raping kids is equal to consenting adults have sex with each other?

      I just want to be clear to make sure that when I say you a shitbag and say I hope you die in a fire that you really deserve it.

      • statslady - Sep 19, 2012 at 3:40 PM

        soxfan, you truly are woeful if that is what you believe. There is no such thing as a “gay agenda” or as gays wanting to shove their lifestyle down your throat. Or, to put it in words that you may understand a bit more easily, gays want all of the rights and responsibilities that go with being human, just as you want them for yourself.

        In your own way, you are as ignorant on this subject as is Mr Escobar. But he’s getting sensitivity training – are you?

  12. Stiller43 - Sep 19, 2012 at 10:34 AM

    “I’m sure there are gay Blue Jays fans, maybe even some who were fans of Yunel Escobar specifically, who feel the same way.”

    Hell, im sure most are!

  13. nolanwiffle - Sep 19, 2012 at 10:36 AM

    The only question that remains unanswered for me is: who was his little eyeblack slur directed toward? His opponent? His own second baseman? Anyone who happened to read his face?

    I don’t get it.

  14. Stiller43 - Sep 19, 2012 at 10:37 AM

    Alabamalowlife,

    Escobar wasnt promoting his lifestyle, he was denigrating and belittling other peoples lifestyles…that seemed pretty clear…

    If he wants to put “im straight and proud of it” on his eyeblack, i dont think many would care…there would be confusion, but no big story.

  15. kinggw - Sep 19, 2012 at 11:01 AM

    Im sorry, but I don’t see what all the outrage is about. Escobar’s eye black did feature some offensive language, but I don’t think I don’t think it carried the intent that Craig and this guy Buck seems to believe it did. I fully believe Escobar’s explanation that it was a joke among teammates. It was distasteful and now is being blown out of proportion.

    I have a problem with Buck’s sentiment with regards to Escobar. Get off of your high horse, Escobar isn’t talking about you or homosexuals in general. He definitely isnt denigrating your life or attacking you as a man. After reading Buck’s piece it seems as if he has some personal issues that he is working through.

    Its already been reported that the phrase has several other meanings, and not all of them carry a homophobic connotation. Secondly, Buck needs to accept that certain crass words have become part of popular culture. Gay, fag, and retarded are just a few examples of words that have found their way into the mainstream that don’t always carry a literal meaning. I could understand the outrage if Escobar’s eye black said I hate gays or death to gays, but it did not. The message wasn’t directed toward anyone, especially Chip Buck. Even though I don’t fully agree, I completely understand why the Jays suspended Escobar. That being said, it would be great if the media stop trying to portray Escobar as the Cuban John Rocker.

    • cur68 - Sep 19, 2012 at 11:32 AM

      “Gay, fag, and retarded are just a few examples of words that have found their way into the mainstream that don’t always carry a literal meaning”…do we need to do this again? Guess so.

      Since you’re not gay (presumably), how do you know that those words are so entrenched and no one should take offense? Once upon a time a certain group of words were reserved for people who shared my skin colour. It was perfectly ok to use them. You heard them on TV, in casual conversation, saw them in book all the time. Now I can’t even call MYSELF an “n-word” without getting into trouble. Know why? Because deeply entrenched, part of the culture terms like that set the tone for how you are going to be treated. They promote a certain view of a group of people, a view that makes those people less than others. Just because the term doesn’t apply to you doesn’t mean its OK to toss it around. If your son, daughter, brother, or other close and beloved relative turned out to be gay, you’d quickly find that to be true.

      • stlouis1baseball - Sep 19, 2012 at 12:35 PM

        While I do agree with the spirit of King’s post…I fully appreciate where you are coming from Cur.
        Personally, I used to frequently use the word “gay” when referring to something I thought was incredibly corny…or an obviously stupid decision one of my friends, family, etc…made.
        Please know I intentionally used the word “used” to use the word frequently.
        I am trying to remove it from my vernacular. I really am.
        But sometimes…things really are “gay.”*** So what do I use in lieu of “gay?”***

      • indaburg - Sep 19, 2012 at 1:34 PM

        Stlouis, do you mean gay as in happy or gay as in stereotypical effeminate affectations of some homosexual males? If it’s the first case, you could simply say, “Sunshine makes me happy” instead of “Sunshine makes me gay.”

        Sarcasm aside, I’ll give you credit for trying to eliminate the slur fom your everyday speech. It really is insulting to refer to negative qualities as “gay”, but to your credit, you recognized and tried to change.

      • rooney24 - Sep 19, 2012 at 2:07 PM

        stlouis, if you used to you “gay” in place of corny or stupid, why not use “corny” or “stupid” as the situation calls for?

    • seattlej - Sep 19, 2012 at 11:45 AM

      What about use of “nigger”? It’s a word that was most definitely a part of our culture at one point in time and used quite liberally. However, since then, (most) people have realized how denigrating and offensive it is to a large minority of the population. Would you be making this statement if Escobar had written “you’re a nigger” on his eyeblack? I’m guessing that you’d consider that to be more of an issue. That’s the problem with your point of view here. Just because a word is widely used doesn’t make it’s use right or proper. In fact, I would argue that people are waking up to this fact and that the use of words describing sexual orientation or a disability as an insult is on it’s way out. It’s only lowlifes and kids on the playground that haven’t realized this.

  16. thereisaparty - Sep 19, 2012 at 12:07 PM

    Not that it will make it any better, but does “maricon” have a connotation specific to Cuba? In my personal experiences (speaking with Argentinean, El Salvadoran, and Mexican teens) I found that it means “gay”, and was used similarly to how we use “faggot”. Are there any Latin American linguistic experts in this comments section?

    • indaburg - Sep 19, 2012 at 1:12 PM

      The specific connotation of maricon in Cuba is “faggot.”

      “(Fidel Castros’) words at the time tell a different story. He openly referred to homosexuals as “maricones,” a Spanish slur akin to faggot, and his regime oversaw gay men being rounded up and put into concentration camps. There officials attempted to “re-educated” the men on their sexuality.”

      http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2010/09/fidel_castro_takes_responsibil.php

      • thereisaparty - Sep 19, 2012 at 1:58 PM

        Thanks for clarifying. I hadn’t seen any specific mentions of the usage of the word in relation to his home country, as opposed to generalizations about its usage by Latino ballplayers.

  17. alabamalowlife - Sep 19, 2012 at 12:15 PM

    No, I don’t actually think pedophilia equates to homosexuality. I have several gay relatives. I don’t hate them for it, it’s their life……their’s, NOT mine.

    I’m just sick of it being shoved in my face every time I turn on the tv, radio, or get on the Internet. Like woefulsoxfan said, I will not embrace their choices. The problem is that by not embracing their agenda, it obviously MUST mean you hate people. No, I just disagree with their beliefs. And anybody who is conservative and disagrees with a liberal view is bigot, right?

    • woefulsoxfan - Sep 19, 2012 at 12:27 PM

      Well said, sir. Because I think we have a crappy president, I must be a racist. Because i am tired of being spoonfed the left-wing pro-gay agenda at _every waking moment_, I must be a homophobe. If you disagree with someone in the gay community, they attack you personally, rather than have a discussion about what each of you think and why. Instead, its easier to just play the gay lobby’s version of the “race” card, label you a homophobe and move on. Again, it is important to remember that EVERY SINGLE TIME an item on the gay agenda has come up for a vote at the polls, it has been voted down. Every. Single. Time. Seems like a lot of people think like I do, apparently.

      • nategearhart - Sep 19, 2012 at 12:38 PM

        What gays are fighting for are equal rights; your implication is that MLK was also playing the “race card” because he wanted equal rights for blacks.
        Also, frankly, a question of equal rights shouldn’t be showing up on ballots. It should be made the law, and anyone that doesn’t like it can just deal with it. If someone up and decided to appeal a woman’s right to vote, do you think it should show up on a ballot? NO! Because it’s the right thing to do.
        Denying rights to others that you have yourself is wholly un-American.

      • The Common Man - Sep 19, 2012 at 12:46 PM

        They do, but national polls show that a majority of Americans, indeed an increasing majority of Americans, disagree with you. And thank God for that. Because, while being popular doesn’t make something right, when something that is right is also popular, we are made better as a nation.

        Also, you don’t have to be “pro-gay” to not be a homophobe. But you can’t be in favor of discriminating against gays based on their orientation and not be a homophobe. So again, feel free to ignore or be angry about homosexuals and whatever you think their agenda is all you want. But if you want to deny them the same rights that straight people have…yes, I believe you’re a homophobe, in the same way someone who wants to deny rights to an African-American on the basis of their race is a racist.

      • indaburg - Sep 19, 2012 at 1:52 PM

        Just because a lot of people think like you doesn’t make it right. To quote one of our Founding Fathers, James Madison: “The great danger in republics is that the majority will not respect the rights of minority.”

        All they want are equal rights. To marry, to adopt children, to visit their significant other in the hospital, to jobs. They’re not asking for anything you and I don’t have. I don’t believe they are fighting for the right to wear assless chaps and hump in front of our children, which is what I imagine must be running through the minds of people who don’t believe homosexuals should have equal rights.

    • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Sep 19, 2012 at 12:31 PM

      They don’t want your embrace. They just want the government to stop depriving them of the rights, benefits and respect it offers to non-gay people. If you are sick of their fight for equality, just imagine how sick of it they are.

      • inthecards22 - Sep 19, 2012 at 12:52 PM

        Your mean the government depriving them of the right to call themselves “married” despite it being a historically religious ceremony from faiths that consider their acts within their union less than ‘upstanding’. I’m all for equality in the governments recognizing the legality of their partnership and bestowing all the legal rights equivalent with matrimony, but it’s not a marriage.

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Sep 19, 2012 at 1:02 PM

        Separate but equal, just like the “coloreds” in the South at the start of the civil rights movement?

        Let’s not get into the larger debate on gay marriage here; this is a baseball forum. Yunel Escobar is not a bad guy. He is just parroting a phrase he has heard often without realizing what it means to people outside his limited sphere of experience. There are bigger issues, but he is not a villain. Hopefully this incident causes a few people to think about the words they use and their true meaning. Progress comes in baby steps.

      • nategearhart - Sep 19, 2012 at 1:04 PM

        inthecards22: Historically, marriage is an arranged union by which a man can publicly lay claim to his new property (his wife), to ensure that no one else would take a crack at mating with her. Love has only served as a prerequisite for marriage for a few hundred years, if that; why are you ok with THAT precedent being set?

      • Reflex - Sep 19, 2012 at 2:06 PM

        Its not even a few hundred years. The concept of love being a prerequisite for marriage was laughable as late as the mid-20th century for most of the world, and still is for much of it.

        Its amusing to me that most people do not realize that Romeo and Juliet was a comedy, not a tragedy, and was written to make fun of teenagers and their ideals around love, essentially mocking them while teaching an ‘essential lesson’ of the end results of a union based on emotion. Its a 20th century invention that turned it into a tragedy that was taken seriously rather than a comedy about the young.

    • The Common Man - Sep 19, 2012 at 12:41 PM

      What beliefs of “theirs” (as though gays are monolithic) do you disagree with, bama? Please be specific. I bet you can’t.

    • Reflex - Sep 19, 2012 at 12:44 PM

      Anyone who opposes equal rights for other humans is a bigot, yes. Whether it is liberal or conservative is immaterial. The ACLU frequently defends the KKK, and in fact are doing so yet again in Georgia I believe. Why? Because they believe in civil rights, not because they believe in the KKK’s message.

      What ‘gay agenda’ are we discussing? If it is the right of equality under the law, then how is that an agenda? According to our founding fathers, the rights we have are granted not by our lawmakers, but by a higher power, and it is not our place to deny them. Based on that principle, how can we do anything but our best to see that all humans are treated equal?

      Gays want the same rights and privileges that straight people have. What is unreasonable about that? How is that an ‘agenda’ rather than a reasonable request? Tell me, would you accept being told by your government who you can marry, who can have power of attorney or medical rights about you? What if they told you your partner did not qualify for those things? Would you accept that in the slightest?

      You are free to not associate with homosexuals if you wish. I know plenty of people who refuse to associate with Mexicans, Asians, blacks, etc. I think you are missing out, but then I’ve had nothing but positive experiences with the gays I’ve known personally and professionally. But where I draw the line is where you attempt to prevent them from enjoying the same rights and freedoms that you are privileged enough to enjoy. Do you really think a business should be permitted to fire someone simply because of who they date? Or a landlord permitted to refuse to rent to someone for the same reasons? If I said to you one day, as your boss or landlord, that I wanted you gone immediately because I do not associate or do business with people from Alabama, what would you say?

    • woefulsoxfan - Sep 19, 2012 at 12:56 PM

      Common Man, your statement makes no sense to me. If a “majority of Americans, indeed an increasing majority of Americans” disagreed with me, the gay agenda would have more success at the polls. Yet, I defy you to point to ONE victory at the ballot box, just one. If there is even one, I am unaware of it. Were it true that an “increasing majority of Americans” agreed with you, wouldn’t that show at the ballot box? Instead, every advance of the gay agenda has come from judicial activism. Zero wins at the polls.

      • The Common Man - Sep 19, 2012 at 1:04 PM

        Opinion polling is not the same as an election, sox fan. Typically, only the most enthusiastic (rabid?) voters vote on ballot initiatives in non-presidential election cycles. And those voters who do vote in those elections skew older as well. So it’s entirely possible for the majority of Americans to be in favor of marriage equality without actually being motivated enough to vote for it (especially since, for a lot of them, it doesn’t seem to impact their lives). But yes, to this point, the advances in marriage equality have come from judges deciding that gay people should have the same freedoms of association and have the same rights as every other American? Do you disagree with that statement? If you do, then you’re in favor of codified bigotry simply by definition.

      • nategearhart - Sep 19, 2012 at 1:05 PM

        So it’s ok to deny some people equal rights, if 52% or so people say they don’t want them to have those rights?
        Why not just, you know, give everyone equal rights, like America is supposed to do?

      • woefulsoxfan - Sep 19, 2012 at 1:10 PM

        I would agree with this: marriage is a religious ceremony. Give the civil unions, give them whatever. I don’t care what you call it. But its not a marriage. And don’t give me the seperate but equal baloney – nobody is forcing you to go to a different school, or drink from a seperate water fountain. Its not the same thing, and pretending it is only serves to belittle the very point you’re trying to make. I’m not a bigot, I’ve participated in a gay wedding. I would agree that you deserve the same rights and services and choices that I myself have. But its NOT the same thing as a marriage, and pretending that it is only takes away from what you’re really chasing.

        My real problem with the gay community is the “in your face” way in which they go about their lives. truly, I don’t care – AT ALL – about who is coming out of where. Don’t tell me. Take the stupid bumper sticker off your car (I don’t mean your car, personally, common, but in general) with the rainbow (so rainbows only belong to the gay community?). Enough with the goofy gay pride parades – do we have straight pride parades? – and all the other horseshit. If you want to BE like other people, ACT LIKE OTHER PEOPLE. Keep your private, personal life private and personal. Then talk to me.

      • The Common Man - Sep 19, 2012 at 1:40 PM

        If the majority of people who oppose gay marriage were ok with civil unions, maybe some kind of compromise that could get worked out, sox fan. But unfortunately, anti-gay bigots generally won’t support that either, calling them a “slippery slope” and an “assault on American families” or some other nonsense. It’s damn shameful.

        The problem with what you’re saying about their bumper stickers and political speech and whatnot is that gay Americans are fighting for political equality, and to keep silent on the issue, to keep their private lives out of the public, as you’d have them do, doesn’t give them an opportunity to express their support on the issue, and allows all the “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” crowd to speak unopposed. And the entire reason behind a gay pride parade is and was that being gay isn’t something that you need to be ashamed of. If a major party candidate for president or vice president was on TV telling you you don’t deserve equal treatment and protection under the law, you might want to shout that there’s nothing shameful about who you are as well.

        And finally, as soon as straight couples agree to stop holding hands, hugging, snuggling, kissing, and dancing together in public, I’m sure gays would be happy to do likewise. Until then, um, not everybody (not even every straight person) is like you. And if you want to live in a world populated entirely of yous, you’re going to be really fucking bored.

      • woefulsoxfan - Sep 19, 2012 at 1:55 PM

        I think the Adam and Steve crowd need to shut up too. For me, personally, I am oversaturated. I would vote for gay civil unions – having IDENTICAL rights to traditional marriages. My problem is not the issue, but the way in which the community has chosen to resolve it. At this point, they’re simply pissing people off.

        And to my original point, while Chip Buck may not have been as much of an ass as Escobar, for attempting to make escobar’s actions a referendum on gay rights as a larger issue, and for a lame attempt at making it seem like escobar were passing judgement on – and that that judgement somehow negatively affected – Mr. Buck, Chip is also an ass.

        Stop coming out of the closet – we don’t care, and don’t want to hear it. Stop pushing your agenda in my face – I, like most of the electorate, ignore it. If you want change, try studying the way Dr. King actually achieved it. He didn’t force it on people, he educated people. He didn’t tell them they were wrong, he showed them WHY they were wrong.

      • seattlej - Sep 19, 2012 at 2:08 PM

        Woefulsoxfan, marriage is not a religious ceremony, it’s an institution of the state. Without your license from the state, your marriage means absolutely nothing on legal grounds. While some people may choose to combine this with a religious ceremony, the religious aspect doesn’t actually mean anything (again, legally speaking). We do not live in a medieval society where the church and the state are one. I don’t think anybody wants to start forcing catholic priests or rabbis to perform gay marriages against their will.

      • The Common Man - Sep 19, 2012 at 2:42 PM

        You don’t care. But if people at large didn’t care about who was gay and who wasn’t, Us Weekly would have to start covering actual news. And if you could be specific about what is pissing you off, I’d be much more inclined to be sympathetic. As it is, it just sounds like you’re tired of gay stuff, which no one is forcing you to listen to.

        As for Chip, who (in the interest of honesty) is a friend of mine, I don’t think he was making this an issue about gay rights as a whole. He’s pointing out that Escobar’s words are hurtful and a homophobic slur, and explaining why that is. And again, he’s not forcing you to read about it. If you don’t care, don’t read it. Writers talk about themselves all the time. Craig talks about his kids and his girlfriend. I talk about my wife and kids. Chip shouldn’t have to pretend he doesn’t have a personal life, just because you don’t want to hear about it. If you don’t want to hear about it, go to a different website.

      • IdahoMariner - Sep 19, 2012 at 3:43 PM

        “Instead, every advance of the gay agenda has come from judicial activism. Zero wins at the polls.”

        Oooooo, i hate when that happens. Like when those terrible, terrible judicial activists on the U.S. Supreme Court (wilting in response to the “in your face” agenda as argued by that irritating “uppity” black man, Thurgood Marshall) issued Brown v. Board of Education, when black people hadn’t prevailed in one single election giving them the basic rights enjoyed by white people.

      • historiophiliac - Sep 19, 2012 at 5:19 PM

        Mr. Peabody to the rescue!

        It turns out that currently Connecticut, the District of Columbia, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont all recognize gay marriage by act of the legislature (loosely termed for DC) — that is, it was put to a vote before elected representatives and the majority ruled in favor. Additionally, legislation passed in Maryland and Washington that goes into effect this fall, unless the laws fail a referendum. These advances are not solely the result of “judicial activism” then (I omitted the ones that were — and the laws in states that only recognized civil unions).

        Also, gay pride parades began as annual protests to commemorate the Stonewall riot in NYC that more or less kicked off the gay rights movement. Up to that time (1969), the cops used to regularly roust homosexuals — rounding them up & often beating them up to harass them. Being a victim of such raids often meant publicity that could lead to the end of one’s career and social ostracism. At Stonewall, the drag queens and bar patrons took a stand. The gay pride parade is a protest march & celebration of liberty. There is a history to them.

    • Gamera the Brave - Sep 19, 2012 at 1:04 PM

      alabama, your word choices reveal your ignorance, which causes your whole argument to utterly fail.
      Using the word “choice” implies that homosexuals somehow “decide” to be gay. You are wrong, and I think you probably know deep down that you’re wrong, but you apparently don’t care. As soon as you use the words “choice” and “lifestyle” you have lost the battle, because you have abandoned facts in the face of ignorance and fear.

      • Reflex - Sep 19, 2012 at 2:01 PM

        I just want one person who thinks homosexuality is a choice to try and be gay. Seriously, attempt to be attracted to their own gender, and follow through.

        I certainly can’t do it. Assuming that others choose their attractions like its some switch they can flip is ridiculous.

      • Francisco (FC) - Sep 19, 2012 at 3:31 PM

        What about Bisexuals?

      • Reflex - Sep 19, 2012 at 3:56 PM

        What about them? The existence of gay people and straight people in no way precludes bisexuals, nor does it imply that gays or straights are also bisexual.

  18. frank35sox - Sep 19, 2012 at 12:25 PM

    In order to say that Yunel is personally offending you by calling you a “faggot,” you yourself have to have a personal conflict with being called gay. If there should be no stigma, then why would you be offended by someone associate you with being gay?

    • woefulsoxfan - Sep 19, 2012 at 12:29 PM

      EXCELLENT statement. If there is no negative connotation, how would one interpret what one guy wrote on his eye black as an insult?

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Sep 19, 2012 at 12:37 PM

        Play with semantics all you want. Look, there is nothing wrong with a douche bag. It serves a purpose in this world and it is just a thing you can buy in the drug store. But if I call you a douche bag you are going to know what I mean.

      • The Common Man - Sep 19, 2012 at 12:39 PM

        Terrible, idiotic statement! The person who wrote it on the eye black intended it as an insult. And therein lies the problem. The word faggot, in general conversation, is and is meant as an epithet and it carries with it a lot more baggage than simply calling someone “gay.” It implies that, in being gay, they are less of a person in the same way racial epithets do.

      • woefulsoxfan - Sep 19, 2012 at 1:00 PM

        Common, I will grant you that it has general acceptance as a derogatory comment, and is in fact a slur and was intended as such. However, that doesn’t mean he was being derogatory to ALL gay people, or to you (assuming you’re gay) personally. My argument with Chip Block wasn’t that he was offended, but how personally he took said offense. Not that he thought it was wrong, but that he assumed it was an insult to him, personally. If some moron calls my neighbor a “mick asshole”, it doesn’t mean that ALL Irish people are assholes, but rather that the said moron said something stupid to one individual. Not everything is an attack on the gay agenda at large.

        It was a stupid thing to do. Agreed. My issue is not with the stupidity, but how personally it was percieved to be by seemingly EVERY gay person, many of whom never saw it, and who couldn’t pick this guy out of a lineup.

      • nategearhart - Sep 19, 2012 at 1:08 PM

        It’s an insult to every gay person because using the word as an insult implies that to be gay is something less-than-good.

      • The Common Man - Sep 19, 2012 at 1:13 PM

        Why do you assume I’m gay? Because I’m in favor of equal rights? That’s a huge assumption to make, and it’s a completely incorrect one. And it probably betrays your woeful ignorance on the issue. Indeed, if we can selectively deny the rights of one group to associate with another, all of our rights are at risk. I’m supportive of gay people, and have friends and family who are gay and who I love, but even if I didn’t, I wouldn’t want the rights of Americans to freely assemble and associate trampled on. And you should to.

        In using the term as he did, Escobar was implying that there is something insulting about being gay. Inasmuch, he insulted all gay people. That’s pretty basic. The fact that you’re not understanding that is pretty baffling.

      • woefulsoxfan - Sep 19, 2012 at 1:26 PM

        Common, you made my point without even realizing it.

        “Using the word as an insult…” You don’t know HOW he used the word. And, in my opinion, there are too many freaking words that are off limits because their offensive to SOMEBODY. The word “Christmas” is off limits, for crying out loud! Screw that.

        The word “fag” is…distasteful. Were I to hear my son saying that word, i would address it immediately. But by drawing all this attention to it, and applying it as a personal insult and a judgement of each and every gay man/woman walking the earth… come on, man. Really? Laugh at him. Call him an idiot. But he doesn’t even KNOW chip buck. He certainly isn’t..what was it again?..”He is denigrating the life I’ve created; criticizing me for the man I am; claiming homosexuality makes one weak or less than a man; and belittling my (and every other gay man and woman’s) struggles with coming to term with their sexuality and finding a place within society “. That entire statement is ridiculous to the point of absurdity, and it – in my opinion – nothing more then an attempt to make an unfortunate event “all about chip”, so to speak, and an attempt to climb up on soap box and promote the gay agenda.

      • The Common Man - Sep 19, 2012 at 1:50 PM

        You can generally know what people intended to say by knowing what those words mean. The statement, as translated, was “You are a faggot.” “Faggot” is a word that has a meaning, man. It does. You can look it up. It’s distasteful because it’s an insult. Unless you’re actually trying to claim that Escobar was trying to inform someone that, indeed, they are gay, the word was being used as an insult. Which implies that there is something insulting about being called gay, because being gay is somehow embarrassing, shameful or bad. Which, again, is an insult to everyone who happens to be gay. Your inability to follow a logical path is really astounding. Around and around we go.

    • Reflex - Sep 19, 2012 at 12:37 PM

      Um, that’s the point, it does have a negative connotation. Due to many people who post in these threads. As such it is a slur, and should not be used.

    • nategearhart - Sep 19, 2012 at 12:40 PM

      You’ve got it backwards; the SPEAKER is implying that there is a problem with being gay, and that’s where the offense lies.

    • seattlej - Sep 19, 2012 at 1:11 PM

      So let me get this straight. You’re saying that when a black person is offended because some racist asshole shouts “nigger” at them, the reason that they’re offended is because they have a personal conflict with being called black?

      What world do you live in? Do you seriously not see the difference between how these two words are used? Are you really that ignorant?

  19. braddavery - Sep 19, 2012 at 12:47 PM

    When a guy calls another guy a “woman” or “girly” jokingly, how come we don’t get the same outrage from women.

    • stex52 - Sep 19, 2012 at 1:01 PM

      There are worse words that men use against each other to connote the same thing. (I leave them to your active imagination). And I think you are wrong. Women are offended by them.

      • braddavery - Sep 19, 2012 at 2:14 PM

        It’s simply a FACT that women generally are not as strong as men. It’s not a stereotype. So when a guy calls another guy a “woman” or “girly”, he’s implying or joking that he’s not as strong as a “man”. There is nothing for women to be outraged about. It’s life. I think the same can be said for homosexuals. Don’t take offense, use it as motivation. Sticks and stones…

      • stex52 - Sep 19, 2012 at 3:20 PM

        Skipping over the point of the conversation completely. Are you telling me that when a man refers to another man as a woman (usually in terms that are anatomical) he is not meaning to insult the other man by associating him with women? That’s a pretty tough sell.

    • Reflex - Sep 19, 2012 at 1:57 PM

      My gf certainly has a problem with it. Her response to anyone calling a guy those things is “And what exactly is wrong with that?”

    • IdahoMariner - Sep 19, 2012 at 4:02 PM

      Um, you get a fair amount of outrage. If it is ARTICULATED, In response, we get an enormous amount of crap such as that peddled by woefulsoxfan telling us we are hypersensitive, that just because a fan calls a crappy player a girl, doesn’t mean he thinks girls suck, even though that’s what he meant, or, to borrow woefulsoxfan’s latest ridiculousness, he only meant to insult the player, not any female in particular. But mostly, we just keep our mouths shut and pick our battles. So, the outrage you are getting is not articulated, just there, reminding us everyday that you think we are weak and inconsequential, and that what matters to us is not as important as what matters to you, even if it is often the same thing.

      And yeah, you mostly hear from us when you get profane with your synonyms for calling a guy a girl….probably because at least you understand that the profanity is inappropriate, even if you aren’t capable of understanding that calling someone a “girl” because you consider it an insult means you are insulting the women around you – your sisters,moms, wives…and daughters. There is nothing quite so depressing for a little girl as the day you hear your dad refer to a guy as a “girl” or a woman or a pussy or feminize his name in order to REALLY emphasize how weak and stupid he is…and realize that it’s an insult precisely because your dad thinks that females (and therefore, you) are all of those things.

      Language is POWERFUL.

      • braddavery - Sep 19, 2012 at 4:18 PM

        Bullshit. If you call someone a “baby”, you aren’t insulting babies. Try telling me you are.

      • Reflex - Sep 19, 2012 at 4:44 PM

        How do you think that is a fair comparison? You are correct, calling a guy a baby is not insulting to the baby because it is generally agreed upon that a baby is inferior to an adult in almost all things. It is NOT generally agreed upon that women are inferior to men in almost all things, as a result, using ‘girl’, ‘pussy’, ‘bitch’ or other words on a guy is not only offensive to the target, but also offensive to women since it implies that feminine qualities are lesser than male qualities.

      • braddavery - Sep 19, 2012 at 4:50 PM

        Because it’s a fact that women and homosexuals are GENERALLY weaker physically than heterosexual males. Are you denying that? I don’t have a link to any studies, but I would bet my life on it as being fact.

      • stlouis1baseball - Sep 19, 2012 at 4:54 PM

        “There is nothing quite so depressing for a little girl as the day you hear your dad refer to a guy as a “girl” or a woman or a pussy or feminize his name in order to REALLY emphasize how weak and stupid he is…and realize that it’s an insult precisely because your dad thinks that females (and therefore, you) are all of those things.”

        On point Idaho! Well done.
        If I could give you a hug, high five, fist bump, whatever…I would right now.

        As someone who has two little girls I can state with veracity that I make it a point of NEVER calling a buddy of mine, a teammate, someone who pisses me off, etc….ANY of the words you state in your post. I even try to never use the word “pansy.” I never thought I would be of this mindset. I truly didn’t. But kids change everything.

      • Reflex - Sep 19, 2012 at 5:05 PM

        Why do people assume that others refer to guys as ‘girls’ only on matters of physical strength? In fact, I can honestly say that I don’t think I’ve ever seen it used as a way to describe someone who cannot lift something another guy can. I can see how it could be used that way, but in general I’ve seen it used to refer to guys with effeminate qualities or behaviors.

      • stex52 - Sep 19, 2012 at 5:08 PM

        Homosexuals are generally weaker?? Ineresting assertion. Let us know how your data gathering goes.

        And you, SLB, well said.

      • IdahoMariner - Sep 19, 2012 at 7:00 PM

        Wow – St. Louis, that is awesome. Your girls are lucky to have a dad who tries so hard to see things from their perspective – not just because they are girls and on this topic, but because kids end up in better shape when their parents work hardto be good parents. So cool. Thanks for the kind words, too!

  20. sawxalicious - Sep 19, 2012 at 12:58 PM

    Has anyone actually talked about how lame it would be to walk around with “you’re a faggot” written on your face? Besides the fact that it’s offensive, it doesn’t make too much sense. Was he expecting to run into some homosexuals? If not, and he did run into some Spanish reading homosexuals, how awkward would that be?

    • manchestermiracle - Sep 20, 2012 at 9:45 AM

      The only way this story has a better ending would be if Escobar had run into a 6′ 4″, 240-lb. gay catcher. Then he could explain that he got his black eye because of his eye black.

      As for the “you throw like a girl,” “you’re a pussy” crowd, I leave you with one of the best quotes ever from one of the best women ever, Betty White:

      “Why do people say “grow some balls”? Balls are weak and sensitive. If you wanna be tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding.”

  21. thatyankeedude - Sep 19, 2012 at 1:39 PM

    Craig…… just stop. This story is over. The punishment has been dealt and it’s done. Let’s get back to real baseball stories.

  22. alabamalowlife - Sep 19, 2012 at 2:10 PM

    Gamera, I believe that humans are only supposed to have intercourse with members of the opposite sex. Without the aid of a lab, it’s the only way humans can reproduce. THAT is how we are born. If you believe otherwise that’s your choice, but I don’t think you are ignorant due to your beliefs. I didn’t design the human body, so don’t get angry at me.

    I don’t condone hatred of anybody. I don’t think any American citizen should be denied any benefit that any other American enjoys. A lot of you jump to conclusions about bigotry and hatred.

    • stlouis1baseball - Sep 19, 2012 at 2:53 PM

      “A lot of you jump to conclusions about bigotry and hatred.”
      Nooooo?*** You don’t say?*** Really?***

    • Reflex - Sep 19, 2012 at 3:53 PM

      On what do you base your belief? Hundreds of other species engage in non-procreative sex. Heterosexual humans engage in non-procreative sex. If procreation is the basis for permitting marriage, what about all those who are infertile or impotent? How about the hundreds of mammal species that engage in long term homosexual relationships?

      Seriously, you can believe whatever you wish, but policy should be based on facts, not belief.

    • Gamera the Brave - Sep 19, 2012 at 4:44 PM

      alabama,
      This is a baseball blog, it’s unlikely anything anyone says here is going to cause me to get angry at them.
      However, I happen to think that gay people are gay for precisely the same reason people are tall, short, blue-eyed, brown-eyed, left-handed, etc. They were born that way, and should be treated like anyone else. You seem to come close to that position yourself in your posts, so on some level we are not so far apart.
      Luckily for me, however, I have science on my side of the arguement, so the first sentence of your last post is demonstrably (both medically and anectodally) untrue.

      • Gamera the Brave - Sep 19, 2012 at 4:49 PM

        Unless, of course, you think those wacky SF Zoo penguins are choosing same-sex partners to piss off their parents?…

  23. manchestermiracle - Sep 20, 2012 at 9:50 AM

    Thanks to all who understand the situation here. Marriage is a legal contract without regard to religious convention. Denying the right to enter into a legal contract because of race, sex, creed and, yes, sexual orientation, is a violation of rights guaranteed under the Constitution. How the gutless Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on this obvious fact already is quite beyond me. But again, thanks to those who get this and have been quite eloquent (and factual) in their explanations. It may be only a baseball blog, but baseball is about life and this is certainly an important issue.

  24. barry198469 - Sep 21, 2012 at 2:45 PM

    Greetings,

    First of all, in America we have something called “Freedom of Speech” and “Freedom of Opinion”, this is NOT Cuba, and there for what this term means in Cuba has no relevence. Does he have the right to do this?… the answer is yes, Can he do this? The answer is yes… Should he? well thats something totally different. Should he be punished? Absolutley! The punishment this man will endure will come in the form of flack from the gay community, and from whomever is offended; future ticket sales, and other revenues. And because his actions directly effect the marketability of the baseball franchise, the cause of his actions can and could be accurately reflected in loss of profits of the franchise, it’s only right that the franchise are the one’s to set the example here. If the MLB all of a sudden allowed everyone to display their own beliefs on their uniforms and equipment, the MLB would slowly decline into the least watched sport of all time, if it already isnt! lol…. now this is a blog, so my own opinion can be candidly suggested without reprisal.

    Back on topic..

    My point is basicly this. Can he do it? Yes, Should he have done it? No… Was the MLB right for punishing him? Yes.. “Wouldn’t you punish an employee of your company (if you had one) for losing this months profits, in a irrisponsible night of drinking and slumming? Of COURSE you would! You would probably FIRE him! let alone punish him…..

    One can only imagine how much money he cost the MLB in future revenues, and that number will probably go down in history being unknown.

    Cheers,

    Barry.

  25. barry198469 - Sep 21, 2012 at 3:01 PM

    I also have something to say about this rediculous discussion about who should do what, regarding sexual partners, or wether gay people should get married, something about penguins in there…

    It all comes down to this, if you stuck your sausage in a hole, and someone was on the other side ready to accept it, you could not tell if it was a mans mouth on it, or a womans, mans anus, or a womans… It all feels the same.

    Secondly, about making babies in petre dishes etc… I don’t really agree with this because it adds to the weakness of our gene pool. If someone is infertile or impotent, it means that they are not meant to procreate, unless science has the ability to alter the genes of the offspring to get rid of the genetic weaknesses which caused the parent to be un-able to procreate naturally in the first place. I have nothing against same sex couples adopting or two healthy people who could procreate naturally but who decide to do it in a lab… But people who are born with conditions which make them unable to re-produce, shouldn’t.. point blank. It just causes more problems in the future and weakens our overall genetic makeup, it spreads weakness.. Nature has it’s way of weeding out weakness, and we should not mess with that, there is a reason you cant procreate, so dont!

    People should be free to do whatever they want, marry whoever they want, fornicate with whoever they want. Just look at greek times, they said “Women are used for the comfort of their body and producing legitamate children, but Love, “TRUE LOVE” can only be gotten from one man to another” and that was said by none other than Alexander the Great, who was a homosexual or at least bi.

Leave Comment

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

Featured video

Colby-on-Colby crime in Toronto
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. H. Street (3589)
  2. C. Lee (2626)
  3. T. Tulowitzki (2478)
  4. H. Ramirez (2462)
  5. Y. Puig (2255)
  1. T. Walker (2215)
  2. B. Belt (2108)
  3. D. Price (2070)
  4. C. Headley (2022)
  5. D. Uggla (2009)