Skip to content

Curt Schilling on gay players: “Why the hell would what they do in the bedroom ever matter?”

Feb 1, 2013, 11:49 AM EDT

We’ve been tough on Curt Schilling here at times–to the point that I think he blocked Calcaterra from following him on Twitter–but I liked these back-to-back tweets he just posted:

Lost in the fact that one mediocre NFL player saying he wouldn’t want gay teammates can generate an incredible amount of attention during Super Bowl week is that there are many, many prominent athletes and former athletes who feel just like Schilling does. Or so I’m hoping, at least.

And really, who can blame someone for blocking Calcaterra on Twitter? I sometimes block him on Gchat just because there’s only so many conversations about Batman and Bourbon someone can have before noon each day.

196 Comments (Feed for Comments)
  1. brewcrewfan54 - Feb 1, 2013 at 11:56 AM

    Nothing like a nice conversation about bourbon on a Friday. Lets get the weekend rockin’ and rollin’!!

    • kopy - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:03 PM

      Really lookin’ forward to the weekend, you guys. If I’m not going to enjoy some top-shelf Margs at Chili’s for lunch before going back to work, I’m at least going to think/talk about much I would enjoy it.

      • paperlions - Feb 1, 2013 at 1:48 PM

        Please don’t wast quality tequila by mixing it with sugar, salt and fruit juice. Crappy tequila makes just as good a margarita, and that doesn’t offend the Blue Agave Gods.

      • fanofevilempire - Feb 1, 2013 at 2:28 PM

        the best part about Friday is getting hammered @ work!
        and it gets the weekend off to a good start.

      • toosano - Feb 1, 2013 at 4:19 PM

        Paperlions, Crappy tequila gives you a headache no matter what it’s in.
        Nothing better than a strawberry marg made with Quervo Gold. I always get a shot on the side, too. Awesome!

      • badintent - Feb 1, 2013 at 11:08 PM

        @toosano
        100% right. Down in Ensenda, the locals told me and the good old boys that Mexico sends the crap tequila to the gringos and keeps the nice stuff for themselfs. Que bueno.You are what you drink, drink crap , you are crap, drink well , see ya in hell. En Fuego !

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:52 PM

      Alright I’ve always been a scotch guy, buy I’m looking to broaden my horizons. What should I start with for bourbons?

      /sits down ready to learn

      • jennstergersburnedretinas - Feb 1, 2013 at 1:11 PM

        Church-

        Start with Basel Hayden. That way you don’t have to drink swill like Beam, Makers, Knob or Woodford just to find out that they are vastly inferior bourbons.

      • brewcrewfan54 - Feb 1, 2013 at 1:15 PM

        You’ll have to ask Craig and Aaron because I don’t have a clue between the differences of the 2. I’m a beer guy. And I only go as in depth as I like it or I hate it.

      • stlouis1baseball - Feb 1, 2013 at 3:11 PM

        Makers Mark.

      • stlouis1baseball - Feb 1, 2013 at 3:13 PM

        Woodford Reserve would be another one Church.
        It seems Jenn is more interested in appearing “trendy” while she sips her bourbon.

      • jennstergersburnedretinas - Feb 1, 2013 at 3:27 PM

        Stlois-

        As a bourbon drinker, not some hipster peice of crap, I feel qualified to comment on what I consider to be superior bourbon. The only thing that is “trendy” is the decline of your team.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 1, 2013 at 3:32 PM

        Woodford Reserve seems to be coming up a lot in discussions with others as well, could start there. Now to delve into the religion bullshit. If I don’t make it back, someone tell my wife and son I love them…

      • The Dangerous Mabry - Feb 1, 2013 at 4:05 PM

        Basil Hayden’s is Jim Beam’s attempt to make a bourbon that’s more accessible and it works. It’s extremely light and smooth, but lacks any of the depth or bite that many bourbon drinkers are looking for. I’ll happily drink some, but in the pursuit of being smooth, it ends up a little on the light side for me.

        Woodford is nice. I like the Blanton’s very much. Marker’s Mark is a different breed, and makes a lovely Manhattan, but the winter wheat flavor really makes it very different from your “typical” bourbon.

      • philsieg - Feb 1, 2013 at 4:47 PM

        Belle Meade – it’s replaced Woodford Reserve as the house bourbon here. It’s a tremendous sippin’ whiskey and the higher rye content makes it great for an Old Fashioned as well.

      • jennstergersburnedretinas - Feb 1, 2013 at 5:27 PM

        Mabry-

        Excellent explanation. It’s why I suggested Basel for an opening bourbon. Makers/Woodford et al have all the sophistication of gasoline. Whippersnapper out of Oregon is a deeper bodied bourbon and I also enjoy 4 roses.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 1, 2013 at 11:36 PM

        Went to the ABC store tonight, the Basel was running around $42, is it worth it at that price?

  2. cur68 - Feb 1, 2013 at 11:59 AM

    Wow. Lookatthat. Curt Schilling isn’t a TOTAL loss as a human being. That’s nice.

    • professormaddog31 - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:15 PM

      Yeah…never thought I’d live to see the day when I actually agreed with Schill on something. Wonders never cease.

      • historiophiliac - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:24 PM

        Holy Sh!t! It *is* Stay Classy Day!

    • deathmonkey41 - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:20 PM

      He did follow that up by saying he wouldn’t want to play with anyone who owns Josh Groban music though.

      • historiophiliac - Feb 1, 2013 at 1:47 PM

        Booooo!!!!!!

        /throws popcorn

      • cur68 - Feb 1, 2013 at 1:48 PM

        Fortunately I have no idea what a Josh Gorban is so my genuine enjoyment of a Schill (my term for the usually asinine things he says) is undiminished. I savour its rarity, logic and sensibleness (2 of those things and the name “Schilling” do not often go together).

      • indaburg - Feb 1, 2013 at 2:12 PM

        Two signs of good taste for Mr. Schilling in one day!

        Cur, think elevator music.

    • tjp44 - Feb 1, 2013 at 2:23 PM

      oh, but if it was a gay guy who used GH or steriods, he’d flip out….he’s a toad who needs his butt kicked……

    • florida727 - Feb 1, 2013 at 2:57 PM

      99 times out of 100, I think Schilling should be like a two-year old… seen but not heard. This must be the 100th time. I actually agree with him. Who cares?

  3. shaggylocks - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:00 PM

    Coming from Schilling, who’s a reliable right wing mouthpiece, this is definitely noteworthy.

    • largebill - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:26 PM

      Actually “who cares” and “mind your own business” are traditional right wing positions.

      • historiophiliac - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:27 PM

        You mean “libertarian” — not “right wing.”

      • shaggylocks - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:41 PM

        Right, like all those right wing abortion activists who are always saying “mind your own business about what I do to my body” and the right wing marriage-equality activists who are all “who cares who you love?” Yeah, you can’t hardly turn around at the Republican National Convention without stubbing your toe on one of them!

      • drewsylvania - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:49 PM

        “positions”

        You misspelled “propaganda”.

      • kirkvanhouten - Feb 1, 2013 at 1:08 PM

        …in theory they are. But reality tends to differ from that quite a bit. In reality, the GOP is extremely invasive in privacy issues. Be it your womb, your right to marry, warrant-less wiretapping…the party of “mind your own business” wants to do anything but.

  4. philsieg - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:00 PM

    Yeah, but what happens when one of them tries to hog his microphone?

    • sw19womble - Feb 1, 2013 at 7:05 PM

      Is that code for something? :)

  5. sportsdrenched - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:01 PM

    Well, this goes to show you might not agree with everything someone says, but you might find something you DO agree on.

    • indaburg - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:19 PM

      You read my mind. I can’t believe I agree with Schilling on anything.

      I’m still floored. Schilling said this? Really? Good for him. There is hope.

      • historiophiliac - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:26 PM

        Schilling is right & my ex-bf Torii Hunter is wrong???? I’m drinking HARD tonight. Ack, ack!

      • indaburg - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:47 PM

        I will toast a nice ale to Schilling’s opinion tonight.

        If someone like Schilling thinks like this, maybe someone like Torii isn’t a lost cause? Dare I hope?

      • historiophiliac - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:52 PM

        Keep hope alive.

        I have some Stella chilling in the fridge; I will join you in this evening’s toast. Hopefully, by then the Mets will have signed Valverde and it will be the first of many toasts!

      • indaburg - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:54 PM

        Poor Mets fans. Haven’t they suffered enough?

      • historiophiliac - Feb 1, 2013 at 1:51 PM

        Oh, I will also toast the Phillies for taking Delmon Young off the table and the Braves for picking up Laird. I’m sincerely enjoying watching other teams pick up our crap.

      • indaburg - Feb 1, 2013 at 2:35 PM

        I was a little worried for a minute that the Rays might make a play for Delmon Young, although I know there’s already some bad blood between the Rays and Young. I couldn’t stand two bigots (Scott and Young) on my team.

      • historiophiliac - Feb 1, 2013 at 2:56 PM

        BTW, I’m so jealous you will actually see real baseball in person soon. If you like Don Kelly, y’all could keep him. Thanks.

    • nothanksimdriving123 - Feb 1, 2013 at 2:16 PM

      A couple of decades ago, not long before he died, Barry Goldwater riled many of his GOP pals by supporting the right of gays to serve openly in the military. And I agree with Sarah Palin that oxygen is good to breathe. At least, I THINK that is her position.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 1, 2013 at 3:33 PM

        He also spoke out against the evils of the Religious Right and tried to make sure they didn’t take over the GOP.

      • badintent - Feb 1, 2013 at 11:21 PM

        Barry Goldwater was a moderate in the Republican Party which at the time was moving slowly to the right/middle of the country. He just missed it by 4 years. Nixon got the benefit of it. Barry and Ike both warned against the “military-industrial lobby” as a danger to our democratic system. Now the Republican Party has been hijacked by the Middle Armerican Bible Thumpers and they have forced folks like me out.Rafe Nader “A nation turns it lonely eyes to you ” coco ca choo. Cue the Paul Simon

      • critter69 - Feb 2, 2013 at 6:37 AM

        ‘badintent’?

        “military-industrial lobby” ??

        Try “military-industrial complex” and you might be a lot closer to what both Eisenhower and Goldwater actually stated.

  6. Gamera the Brave - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:13 PM

    Wait, you mean people are all complex, nuanced individuals?!?

    Sh!t, time for a paradigm shift! My whole world view is now totally blown up – how can I stereotype people in such a world? Now I have to treat people like individuals, on their merits, instead of pigeonhole-ing?

    This is gonna require MUCH more mental energy…

  7. aceinthehole12 - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:19 PM

    Culliver expressed an opinion..big deal. Majority of athletes feel the same way. Ravens C Matt Mirk strongly opposed gay marriage back in October, how come no one is talking about him ? I definitely don’t agree with his opinion at all but I can respect his stance on the subject. Schilling though…still a douche.

    • nategearhart - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:24 PM

      He expressed bigotry, that’s why it’s a big deal. And “respecting” it even if you disagree with it is a big reason why we still have to deal with it.

      • largebill - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:49 PM

        Actually he expressed what you consider to be bigotry. However, his viewpoint merely echos the majority opinion that marriage is between just one man and just one woman the two of whom should not be too closely related.

        One could even make the case that the biggest bigots are the progressive extremists who label anyone with a different opinion than theirs as bigots.

      • nategearhart - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:54 PM

        “I would like to deny a person a right that I take for absolute granted because I don’t like something about them they can’t help.” = bigotry
        “I am intolerant of intolerance.” =/= bigotry

      • normcash - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:59 PM

        Actually, largebill, almost all the polls show majority support FOR gay marriage.
        And the old saw that opposition to intolerance equals bigotry is too dumb for words.

      • indaburg - Feb 1, 2013 at 1:02 PM

        Largebill, what “majority” opinion is this you speak of? The latest polls indicate that a slight majority of Americans for the first time are in favor of marriage or some sort of civil union for same sex couples. Of course, as I’ve often quoted when my opinion in support of gay marriage was that of the minority, beware the tyranny of the majority.

      • daviddmsvcp - Feb 1, 2013 at 11:02 PM

        Don’t hold your breath waiting for the first openly homosexual baseball player.

        It is rare for someone to be born with same sex attraction. It is also rare for someone to be born with the potential to play major league baseball. It is rarer still for one person to have both of those qualities.

      • aceinthehole12 - Feb 2, 2013 at 10:54 AM

        Yeah I guess. Like I said, I don’t agree with him or anyone else on the matter. But I’m not suddenly “Anti-Culliver” because of it…I understand that people will have different opinions with me on this and politics etc. Hell I’ve had people look me dead in the face and tell me they don’t like me cause I’m black. I just phase them out because I don’t let ignorance bring me down. Fining him and suspended him will look good but like Ozzie talking about Castro what good will it really do ? His opinion won’t change until he’s around gays. Hopefully the Niners make him do some LGBT related things in the bay in the offseason.

    • drewsylvania - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:27 PM

      I hope you aren’t saying that we should respect Culliver’s opinion but not Schilling’s.

      • aceinthehole12 - Feb 2, 2013 at 9:54 AM

        Respect them both. But just because Schilling and I have similar views on this doesn’t mean I’m suddenly a fan; I’m also not suddenly anti-Culliver either.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 2, 2013 at 7:58 PM

        There’s zero reason to respect Culliver’s opinion. People need to learn the difference between respecting someone’s right TO and opinion and respecting the actual opinion itself. I’ll defend an individual’s right to free speech, but I won’t necessarily defend what comes out when they exercise it.

    • cosanostra71 - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:28 PM

      His name is Matt Birk.

      And while you can argue the free speech aspect of Culliver’s comments, he had to know what he was saying would create a shitstorm and unnecessary distraction. As a Niners fan, he should have kept his big mouth shut, regardless of his free speech. Keep the distractions out of the picture until AFTER Sunday.

    • brewcrewfan54 - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:31 PM

      Nobody is talking about Matt Birk because ithappened back in October. Three months ago it was talked about not to mention Kris Kluwe had one of his awesome opinion columns on Deadspin about it.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:55 PM

        While I don’t remember Burk’s comments, speaking out against gay marriage and saying you are against gay people is too different things. Ideally the former is based on what you consider tradition of how “marriage” should be* while the latter is direct bias against a group of people.

        *I in no way condone this, just saying that people can be against something for reasons other than bigotry/racism/sexism/etc.

  8. annaalamode - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:35 PM

    All the Batman talk could get tiring as Superman is clearly better.

    But I do think that comments like this reflect a larger cultural shift in the perception of lgbt rights, one that is hopefully leaving bigots increasingly in the minority.

    • historiophiliac - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:55 PM

      And Wonder Woman is BEST!

      • indaburg - Feb 1, 2013 at 1:07 PM

        I wanted to be Wonder Woman so bad when I was a kid. Still kinda do, actually.

        The whole Superman – Wonder Woman romance is the worst.

      • historiophiliac - Feb 1, 2013 at 1:56 PM

        I AM Wonder Woman, hello. I ditched Superman in the 90′s. He’s my grandmother’s superhero.

      • indaburg - Feb 1, 2013 at 2:17 PM

        Wonder Woman would have never dated Torii Hunter. Lasso of truth.

      • historiophiliac - Feb 1, 2013 at 2:24 PM

        Oh, snaps.

      • cur68 - Feb 1, 2013 at 4:44 PM

        Wonder Woman would appreciate a shirtless Roger Bernadina.

      • historiophiliac - Feb 1, 2013 at 4:57 PM

        He’s not even in WW league.

      • cur68 - Feb 1, 2013 at 7:53 PM

        Ok. Its been three hours. Three hours of self restraint. I can do it. I can NOT make the obvious crack about the type of leagues there are and where Wonder Woman might be playing….

        Would that be BU- smacks self on right hand with hammer

      • historiophiliac - Feb 1, 2013 at 8:17 PM

        Is it noisy in your head?

      • historiophiliac - Feb 1, 2013 at 9:04 PM

        OH! :O

  9. sincitybonobo - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:36 PM

    To date, I have never misssed a chance to needle The Big Patriot. However, I will give credit where it is due. The country and baseball are evolving faster than I could have hoped on LGBT rights. 20 years ago, MLB clubs would not have shot “It Gets Better” PSAs. A respectful tip of the cap to #38.

  10. barrywhererufrom - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:37 PM

    I get it..if you are for gay-marriage you are enlightened..if you are against it you are a racist, bigot. And if you are a republican-right winger ,if you say something ,that you agree with, you are in shock. Again this agruement is not ours to make. You didn’t sanctify who gets married or not. It’s not our law its Gods. Oh no i just said God..now go crazy and makes comments that I am a crazy right winged nut job. The debate is so predictable with more name calling on the pro-gay marriage side. If only you were so tolerate..

    • genericcommenter - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:40 PM

      Actually, our laws ( thank, erm, God?) have nothing to do with God. And that’s a good thing for everyone- Atheists, Muslims, Jews, Christians. I do not worship, but keeping religion out of the state is the best way to allow those who do to do so freely, including even Fundamentalists. Those societies that ingrain religion into the government are most likely to have citizens who hate hate hate The Church.

      Our laws should be applied equally, and that’s that. I saw this on a church sign the other day: ” Many people want to serve God, but only as advisors.”

    • nategearhart - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:44 PM

      You don’t get to use your religion as an influence when you make laws in this country. If that’s a concern for you, may I suggest you move here; they don’t have that pesky “separation of church and state” thingy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Bill

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:59 PM

      It’s not our law its Gods

      Can you please point out where in “God’s laws” I can get married to a toothless crack whore for $20 in Vegas but my uncle couldn’t marry his partner of 10 years? Or where Kim Kardashian could get married for 72 days, or Britney Spears for 72 hours? Where is that in “God’s laws”?

      Oh, and good thing we still follow “God’s laws” with that whole “a rapist should marry his victim to make it whole” bullshit…

    • flosox - Feb 1, 2013 at 1:07 PM

      I once heard a gay comedian say, in talking about gay marriage, “we just want to get married and be miserable like everyone else.”

      Thought that was funny.

      Here’s the thing though, marriage is about commitment, not about sex. Everyone knows the sex stops the second you say “i do” (i’m here all week folks!).

      Shouldn’t even be an issue in terms of the Big Brother recognizing a marriage. A church on the other hand, that’s a different story. Heck, my wife is Catholic and i’m not, so we had to do two seperate cermonies for our wedding because the church wouldn’t recognize the marriage if it was held anywhere but the church. She wanted to get married on the beach; therefore two ceremonies so she could appease her church and her grandparents.

      My guess is it’ll be a longtime before they come around to recognize marriage is about love and commitment and nothing else.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 1, 2013 at 1:23 PM

        “we just want to get married and be miserable like everyone else.”

        Slight paraphrase, but Greg Giraldo said they should have to get married because he’s sick of their happy-go-lucky lifestyle.

      • flosox - Feb 1, 2013 at 2:08 PM

        Thanks church… been awhile since i heard that joke.

    • kirkvanhouten - Feb 1, 2013 at 1:09 PM

      “I get it..if you are for gay-marriage you are enlightened..if you are against it you are a racist, bigot.”

      I stopped reading at this part because you had totally already totally nailed it. Stop drilling son, you already struck oil!

    • indaburg - Feb 1, 2013 at 1:13 PM

      You see, barry, if I am tolerant of your opinion, I am oppressing other people’s right to equality. They are denied rights that you and I take for granted.

      On the other hand, if I am tolerant of a homosexual’s right to equality, I am in no way oppressing you. All you have to do is mind your own business and your life doesn’t change.

      Did I break this down simply enough?

    • kirkvanhouten - Feb 1, 2013 at 1:14 PM

      Hey Barry,

      “. Again this agruement is not ours to make. You didn’t sanctify who gets married or not. It’s not our law its Gods”

      Yes, people who believe in the same religion totally all agree on God’s laws. That’s why all Catholics believe that all abortion is wrong, or that all abortion is okay, or that abortion is bad but it’s not their choice, but homosexuality is wrong, but actually it’s just fine, but not birth control!…which is totally kosher.

      Let’s not make a virtue of not thinking by hiding our persona beliefs behind “God’s Laws”, when everyone interprets those laws in very different ways.

    • jwbiii - Feb 1, 2013 at 1:14 PM

      The problem with marriage is that it’s a loaded word and has different meanings in religious, legal, and commercial senses. My wife and I were married over 20 years ago in a civil ceremony. You or your church may not approve of this. I don’t care. Being married gives us certain rights pertaining to taxes, death benefits, financial accounts, and insurance, among other things. These rights have nothing to do with your God or your church. To deny these same rights to gays and lesbians is wrong.

      Barry Bonds is from Riverside but grew up in the SF Bay area.
      Barry Zito was born in Las Vegas but grew up in San Diego.
      Barry Manilow is from Brooklyn.

      • barrywhererufrom - Feb 1, 2013 at 4:33 PM

        jwbii-Civil Unions are not outlawed-ownership of poverty is something that should be protected. Marriage-sanctified by the Roman Catholic Church which I belong is between a man and a woman. SImple as that..

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 1, 2013 at 5:27 PM

        What about a man and his 500 wives like Soloman? Or a man and his rape victim? Both are “sanctioned” by your holy book.

      • jwbiii - Feb 1, 2013 at 10:50 PM

        barry, That’s exactly the point. You are trying to project your religious beliefs and the beliefs of your church onto the legal and commercial definition of marriage and the accompanying rights and responsibilities. You and your church may choose to recognize our marriage or not. We don’t care. Adam and Steve should be welcome to the same rights and responsibilities that my wife and I have.

    • kirkvanhouten - Feb 1, 2013 at 1:27 PM

      ” My wife and I were married over 20 years ago in a civil ceremony. You or your church may not approve of this. I don’t care. Being married gives us certain rights pertaining to taxes, death benefits, financial accounts, and insurance, among other things. These rights have nothing to do with your God or your church.”

      This is an excellent point that often gets lost in the gay marriage debate. Your church has every right to not allow me to get married to my partner, they are protected by the 1st amendment. Congratulations, you’re welcome to be as small minded as you want to be!

      *BUT*, marriage is not just a church institution…there are a variety of laws and protections at the federal and state level that comes with it. The *state* banning marriage for same-sex couples is absolutely wrong and a fundamental attack on equal rights. The *state* has no justification for doing this, and if people continue to say the state should limit my rights because of their church beliefs, then yes, you are part of the problem and I have zero empathy for you because people call you bigot…because that is exactly what you are.

    • buggieowens - Feb 1, 2013 at 3:35 PM

      I know you won’t listen to some dang liberal like me but how about some Founding Father, such as John Adams who approved of the wording of the Treaty of Tripoli: “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…” Or the fact that the Constitution, the supreme law of the land does not have the word “God,” in it? Feel free to respond with some inane and inaccurate David Barton quote.

  11. shanabartels - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:39 PM

    Interesting choice of words: Schilling said he KNOWS he has had at least one gay teammate. Not that he suspects it, but he knows it. And it wasn’t a big deal. I’m not going to play the blind items game and try to guess who. I just hope the day will come soon that players can be out and it won’t be a huge thing.

    • genericcommenter - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:44 PM

      Well, I know that I’ve worked and gone to school with at least one gay person, but I can’t tell you any names. The probability is just that certain. Maybe if you went to a school with 10 students and have only worked in a very small place for a long time with no turnover, you can say for certain you haven’t.

      • professormaddog31 - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:53 PM

        Law of averages would put it at probably one guy for every two teams or something, I think? Obviously it’s probably not the case, but I know that from personal experience that at my high school I graduated with three gay kids in my class alone, and there was a kid two grades below us and a kid two grades ahead of us. We went to a small school, very small student body population. There’s, what, 800~ MLB players in the big show at any one time? Even if it’s one percent, that’s 8 guys right there.

      • kalinedrive - Feb 1, 2013 at 2:19 PM

        Well, that’s weak math and logic, but the concept is valid. On a site where “small sample size” is a well-worn argument, everyone should realize that you can’t interpolate from a large group such as society as a whole, which may have say 10% homosexuals, to a smaller group such as MLB or a school and assume that the percentage will be the same or even a close approximation.

        You could, for example, assemble a group of five million heterosexual men and find that zero percent are homosexual. Or survey a group of five thousand men in Key West for Fantasy Fest and find that 70% are homosexual. It is possible that the sport of baseball, the rigors of the competition, and the prevailing attitude against homosexuality would conspire to keep the percentage low in this environment.

        Still, it is quite likely that there have been and are homosexual men who have played at the highest level of any sport.

      • shanabartels - Feb 1, 2013 at 4:09 PM

        That’s not exactly what I meant though. Sorry, I was probably ambiguous. I didn’t mean like “10% of the general population is gay (in theory) so let’s apply that math and assume there is some truth to it in MLB as well.” I meant Curt Schilling implied that he PERSONALLY KNEW specific gay teammates, not that he assumed there must be some nameless faceless ones because of the law of averages.

        But then again, I suppose he was ambiguous with his wording about that too. And if he clarified it with further comments on Twitter, I honestly can’t say I’ve bothered to seek that out. Because, well, Curt Schilling. Anyone who can actually stand to listen to him talk is not someone I can understand.

  12. bisonaudit - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:42 PM

    I find Shilling’s retrograde views on RISP and late-and-close situations offensive.

  13. phillytj - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:49 PM

    It’s the same thing as letting a straight man in a female locker room.

    • nategearhart - Feb 1, 2013 at 12:55 PM

      How so?

    • indaburg - Feb 1, 2013 at 1:24 PM

      No.. it’s more analogous to a lesbian being in a female locker room. I don’t have the numbers, but I bet most female athletes don’t care what the sexuality of their teammates is. They just want to know how well they can play.

      • historiophiliac - Feb 1, 2013 at 2:02 PM

        Read phillytj’s post. Think of comment: “Oh, please, I’ve changed in a locker room with lesbians plenty of times. Who cares?” Think about that a moment. Realize that the guys on the blog would have a field day with it. Hit the backspace button several times & refresh page. Moving on.

  14. 49ersgiants4life - Feb 1, 2013 at 1:00 PM

    I 100% disagree with what Chris Culliver said but in every post I see he gets called a mediocre player which makes you sound unintelligent he’s the second best corner on the niners and could be the number one on most teams in the NFL just because he says something that is ridiculously stupid doesn’t make him a bad player

  15. barrywhererufrom - Feb 1, 2013 at 1:08 PM

    Again another American who is the product of the american educational system. I can’t blame you its the those darn facts that they left out of history class. First of all our Founding Father’s came from England. They saw the repression of the Church of England-Angelican Church. This is why they did not want any NATIONAL CHURCH OF THE UNITED STATES.This is the separation of Church and State. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Did we hear of inalienable rights-rights given to us by God. Our country was founded on these principles. Finally..What’s more, their reference to “our Lord” does not refer to a generic deity, nor does it refer even to God the Father. It refers to God the Son—Jesus Christ. Make no mistake: the Constitution of the United States contains an explicit reference to Jesus Christ…Observe that the Constitution does not read “Year of the Lord”; it reads “Year of our Lord.” The Founders considered Jesus Christ to be their Lord—a concept flatly rejected by Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists. Any attempt to soften the import of this inclusion is merely sidestepping this fact. Therefore, the Framers could not have believed that references to God or Christ should be excluded from the Constitution—since they did not do so! Yet, incredibly, on the basis of current judicial interpretation, their action was unconstitutional! (“The Constitution Is—Unconstitutional?” by Dave Miller, Ph.D. This item is available on the Apologetics Press web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3545 – it was originally published in Reason & Revelation, issue 6[12]:45-46-R). I know too much for you..you thought our nation was based on a free for all and that religion had nothing to do with it..Guess you were wrong. Now go thank you teachers for that lack of information!

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 1, 2013 at 1:20 PM

      Observe that the Constitution does not read “Year of the Lord”; it reads “Year of our Lord.”

      I’ll take, doesn’t understand the latin translation of anno domini for $200 Alex!

    • sandwiches4ever - Feb 1, 2013 at 1:38 PM

      So, let me understand what you’re trying to say…

      The “Founders” believed in the God of a specific religion, but then passed an Amendment to the Constitution (the First of such Amendments, in fact) forbidding Congress to make laws establishing a religion or prohibiting the free practice thereof.

      Are you trying to say that “religion” only means Christian religion(s)? So it’s ok to prohibit the free practice of other religions?

      Or are you trying to say because they mentioned God in the various founding documents that the First Amendment makes them all invalid?

      • barrywhererufrom - Feb 1, 2013 at 2:53 PM

        @sandwhiches4ever What religion where the founders? Let’s be real about this. They were different dominations of Christians. Catholic-Protestant et al..to infer that they only cared about Christians is unfair. They believed in the freedom of religion. ALL RELIGIONS were welcomed. This has been skewed to be freedom FROM religion. Nowhere does it say that ONLY the Christian faith should be prohibited. They mentioned God is because that is what the believed in. You can try and wash it away but the facts are their.

    • nategearhart - Feb 1, 2013 at 1:45 PM

      “The Founders considered Jesus Christ to be their Lord”
      Then why did they make it ok to own people in the Constitution?

      • barrywhererufrom - Feb 1, 2013 at 3:06 PM

        Slavery was in the Constitution. it is a pox on our house that was not cured until the Civil War. Look at our times…How can you have a VP(Biden) who stated that he is against abortion and then be part of an adminstration that supports it at every turn. Their were members that would not ratify the Constitution unless slavery was included. A wrong practice does not nullify a hole religion. Not all Christians believed in Slavery. Slavery was not part of Christianity. It’s to their own faults as sinners..

      • nategearhart - Feb 1, 2013 at 3:09 PM

        I’m not saying that slavery being in the constitution nullifies Christianity, I’m saying it nullifies the notion that the founding fathers had founding a “Christian nation” in mind. The founding fathers were a lot of things: brilliant, driven. But they were not, for the most part, moral Christian men.

      • jbkjcm123456 - Feb 1, 2013 at 3:46 PM

        God/Jesus never said he was against slavery or having servants …
        As a matter of facts, we are all here to serve God first then one another ! ;)

      • nategearhart - Feb 1, 2013 at 3:54 PM

        Last one then I’m out…
        Jesus said to love one another as he loved us, and he also said to treat others as you wish to be treated. The “Golden Rule” came from Christ himself.
        Now I ask you: does that sound like someone who would condone you owning another human being? Would you want to be owned by somebody? (I’m not talking about God – I’m talking about a flesh and blood person)

    • historiophiliac - Feb 1, 2013 at 2:20 PM

      Ahem, this one’s for me.

      Actually, the first white people to come to what is now the US were Spanish — not English. They were looking for riches, but, to be fair, they were also spreading the Inquisition. Later, when English people came, they established a colony in Virginia — the purpose of which was to make $$$$$ — not find religious freedom. When the Puritans came even later, they were after a place where they could establish their own religion. They lived in what is now Massachusetts. There were twelve other colonies. I will grant you two other colonies as having religious beginings (PA & MD), but the others, not so much. No one came to New York or South Carolina, etc for religious freedom. Many of the people who came over in the colonial period were indentured servents; some were slaves, and others were prisoners (political and otherwise). None of those people came for religious freedom either. Most people who came to the colonies came for financial reasons. I could go one, but I think you should get it. Finally, perhaps you should check out a book called “The Age of Reason” by founding father Thomas Paine. It was a bestseller in its day, and it will disabuse you of the notion that the founders were all Christians.

      • barrywhererufrom - Feb 1, 2013 at 4:16 PM

        @Historiophiliac..The epitaph that Thomas Jefferson chose for his tombstone reads: “Here was buried Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence, of the statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, and Father of the University of Virginia.” While these represent only a few of Jefferson’s numerous accomplishments, they reveal much about the passions that motivated him in both his public and private life.

        Americans most often recognize Jefferson as the principal author of the Declaration of Independence. The son of a respected Virginia planter, Jefferson had access to the best education available in the American colonies. While studying law, and later as a young member of Virginia’s legislature, he joined others who came to detest the tyranny of England’s tight control over the American colonies. When Jefferson was chosen to represent Virginia at the outlawed Second Continental Congress in 1775, his personal passion and eloquence made him a natural choice to be on the committee to draft the document that would declare America’s independence from the British Crown.

        To the end of his life, Jefferson was a firm believer in the natural rights of the individual. In his words, “The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.” One of the most significant expressions of that conviction was his authorship of Virginia’s Statute for Religious Freedom, which he always considered one of his greatest accomplishments.

        I know the framer of the Constitution what does that mean that God was the center of thought process..again your teachers should be ashamed of themselves!

      • historiophiliac - Feb 1, 2013 at 4:52 PM

        First of all, you should locate a copy of “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth” (or more colloquially, the Jefferson Bible) to understand his religious views. Next, you should do some reading to learn whether “God” meant the same to the founders as it does to you (it did not). Thirdly, you might also read the Treaty of Tripoli (1796) for additional insight. You could also peruse the correspondence of the various founders for a more nuanced view of their thoughts.

        As they gave me a writing prize and I graduated with honors, I do not believe my graduate advisors are ashamed in the least by my understanding of history.

      • cur68 - Feb 1, 2013 at 5:39 PM

        I think this is a wonderful exercise for you, ‘philliac. You get to work on your communication skillz, your reading skillz, your “detect meaning from gibberish” skillz. You’ll have big brain muscles at the end of it all. Maybe you’ll finally come to an appreciation of the shirtless Bernadina form once you’re all cerebrally pumped up. Or you’ll suffer a stroke from dealing with the stupid: tough call there. Good luck.

      • historiophiliac - Feb 1, 2013 at 6:14 PM

        You know what my dream job is? I’d like to be the history police. Whenever someone says some wrong crap, I get to warn them or give them a ticket. For egregious violations, I should have a taser. The trolls wouldn’t think themselves so clever then, would they?

      • buggieowens - Feb 2, 2013 at 9:50 AM

        Barry…..you referring to the same TJ that personally cut out all the supernatural aspects of the Bible? Plus you completely misinterpret the goal behind the his 1776 Vir of Rel. Fr. Even though I disagree on everything baseball with Historio (being the Red Sox fan that I am), as a history professor I can tell you that HP (and Cur and others) knows the history and you don’t. You can have your own opinion but you can’t have your own facts. And besides, since Marriage is NOT in the Constitution, it is decision left up to the states.Since I am a registered minister in the Church of the Latter-Day Dude (seriously), I can officiate marriages in almost all parts of the country. Why? Because the Founders were smart enough to include both the Freedom of Religion and Freedom from Religion in the 1st Amendment and to leave some decisions to the states. So even from the beginning, your argument was flawed. Had you argued that State Constitutions had religious connections, you would have had a point. But since you lack a basic knowledge of history and civics, your argument and evidence were lacking. Now it’s time for me to go back to correcting the historical fallacies of the people who actually paid for an education.

    • buggieowens - Feb 2, 2013 at 11:05 AM

      Yikes…I missed this one. Let me fix this one for you. Some of the founders were certainly as Christian as you suggest. However, to make the blanket claim that the Founders “considered Jesus Christ to be their lord,” is only true of SOME of the founders and certainly not the most well-known of the Founders. You clearly don’t seem to understand what Deism was, which was a philosophy shared in part by Washington, Jefferson, Franklin. To save you the trip to Wikipedia, Deism is the belief in a creator but not in the divinity of Jesus Christ. So…if you claimed that the Founders believed in God….I’d back your claim up. But you are simply wrong. And to slap down the name of some non-peer reviewed PhD is not really impressive to the probably 20 or more HBT posters who are also PhDs. You want to convince me…use the primary documents…like this tidbit from G. Washington to the first Jewish synagogue:

      “The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

      It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my Administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.

  16. Kave Krew - Feb 1, 2013 at 1:34 PM

    You picked that picture of Schilling on purpose, no? Very low -

  17. tampajoey - Feb 1, 2013 at 2:05 PM

    We shouldn’t even have separate male and female restrooms. If it’s acceptable for the gay dude next to you to check out your Johnson when you’re taking leak then what’s the purpose of separate restrooms for men and women?

    There should only be unisex-restrooms and women should have to urinate topless.

    • bisonaudit - Feb 1, 2013 at 2:19 PM

      Unisex bathrooms have been around since at least Ally McBeal. You probably would have liked Fish, you definitely would have liked brain tumor Billy.

    • indaburg - Feb 1, 2013 at 2:26 PM

      I would love unisex bathrooms. It seems like the line to the men’s room is always much shorter.

    • kalinedrive - Feb 1, 2013 at 2:27 PM

      tampajoey, that’s too stupid to bother answering. But if you are concerned about a gay dude checking out your Johnson, I guess because you think they are completely obsessed with such things and unable to control themselves, then I suggest peeing in a stall. Then they’ll just laugh at your hangup instead of your hangdown.

    • nategearhart - Feb 1, 2013 at 2:29 PM

      Yes, because all gay men are turned on by the sight of a urinating penis.

    • jimeejohnson - Feb 2, 2013 at 1:51 PM

      Ask that notorious Republican hypocrite Larry Craig of Utah: he was caught playing footsie in the bathroom. Just another right wing NUT hiding behind an invisible, make-believe fallacy known as religion, i.e., reassurance for the weak minded.

      • mazblast - Feb 4, 2013 at 12:02 AM

        FYI–Larry Craig is from Idaho, not Utah.

  18. jbkjcm123456 - Feb 1, 2013 at 2:23 PM

    There is nothing more fundamental than these three things that are the foundation of life … God, Life and Marriage (Creation of life). Obviously it is the Left that does not care or support any of these as a Party Platform.

    FACT: The Left which is the Democrat/Liberal Party of Gays, Hollywood and The Media is the Party that support the murder of babies via abortion … take God out of Government, Society and Schools and they Pervert us with Gay Marriage.

    Need I say more.

    • kalinedrive - Feb 1, 2013 at 2:29 PM

      No.

    • nategearhart - Feb 1, 2013 at 2:32 PM

      Wait so life is a foundation of life? Oh wait, that’s “Life” with a capital “L”, my bad. Also, if “There is nothing more fundamental than these three things that are the foundation of life … God, Life and Marriage (Creation of life)” is true, then surely there is a source somewhere you can cite, right? I’ve never seen “God, Life, and Marriage” put together like that, myself.

      • jbkjcm123456 - Feb 1, 2013 at 2:49 PM

        GOD tells you in the Bible … Read it … Seek and you will find it.

        Nature/Science … Nature/Science tells you and shows you by the existence of two genders Male and Female for mankind.

        Naturally, Mankind cannot survive without two genders or without heterosexuals. Mankind can survive without homosexuals. Naturally, male and female procreate .. produce children … life through sex … thru God. Life comes through God or Supreme Energy.

        Scientific fact … Energy never dies … always was and always will be … was before … will be after. Christians call the Supreme Energy … God. Atheists call Supreme Energy … Energy.

        Naturally, If all of us were homosexuals mankind dies. If all mankind is one gender or homosexual, the only way mankind survives is unnatural … through artificial insemination.

        Society … Tells you that homosexuality is unnatural since the vast majority of states and countries are not homosexual. 5% of all mankind practice homosexuality. Gay marriage is not legally performed in the the vast majority of State in the United States.

        No need to say more.

        Strike three and your out.

      • nategearhart - Feb 1, 2013 at 2:52 PM

        I asked you to CITE a source. Quote me where it says in the Bible that “God, Life, and Marriage are the three foundations of life”. Then quote me where it says that gays can’t get married.

      • jbkjcm123456 - Feb 1, 2013 at 3:07 PM

        Book of Genesis and God created life …

        Book of Genesis and God created man in his image and likeness. God created Eve from rib of Adam.

        Book of Genesis and New Testament Gospels … when cast out of the Garden of Eden … A Man will leave his home/parents and and join his wife and they shall become one.

        Genesis (Old Testament) and New Testament … After Adam and Eve were tossed from the Garden of Eden … God made woman so that upon bearing children she will scream out in pain.

        So in other words, you know of some other involvement in the foundation of life other than God … the Supreme Energy, Man and woman? DUH Maybe a horse … mouse .. monkey … an Alien? ROTFL

      • jbkjcm123456 - Feb 1, 2013 at 3:11 PM

        I will do better than tell you that God is against Man marring another Man … it is so perverted that God’s Word … The Bible … states in Leviticus … “Man lying with Man is an abomination that is punishable by death”

        Cat got your tongue? ;)

      • nategearhart - Feb 1, 2013 at 3:13 PM

        You didn’t say “God, man, and woman”, you said “God, Life, and Marriage”. I think I’m done with you, though. I’m sure your Congressperson is mulling over your letter requesting that we give homosexuals the death penalty. Good luck with that.

      • jbkjcm123456 - Feb 1, 2013 at 3:29 PM

        You are done with me because you are painted in a corner.

        Marriage is between a Man and a Woman as God/Jesus stated in the Bible

        Then I taught you what God said about Man lying with Man being punishable by death.

        And you still don’t get it? HMMMM

        You think of what a Congressman will do (worldly) … I think a little more outside the box and something that will last a little longer than a Congressman’s term … it is called eternity (Godly) and how I will spend it.

      • cur68 - Feb 1, 2013 at 5:33 PM

        @jbkjcm123456: Its amazing how smug you are considering you can’t even answer a straight question. In fact you’ve made quite a point there no one’s called you on. But please: Allow me. You say gayness is wrong because

        Nature/Science … Nature/Science tells you and shows you by the existence of two genders Male and Female for mankind.

        Oh yeah? Well, horsefeathers. Know what nature/science shows? Animals of many species practice gay sex. A lot. Its commonplace in nature. Science shows us that no one has ever died or suffered ill health from “gayness”. Being gay is in fact well established as a legitimate and normal lifestyle across species and cannot be tied to any detriment to health in any way. Anything that affects a gay person also affects a non-gay person just the same.

        Just stick with your mythological referencing. You were doing much better with that since you get to make it up as you go.

  19. BigBeachBall - Feb 1, 2013 at 2:27 PM

    To be clear… It looks like the baseball community endorses male on male butt sex… Qeester love… Gobble gobble gobble…

  20. jbkjcm123456 - Feb 1, 2013 at 2:27 PM

    FACT: If “The Right” is on the right side … then the Left must be on the left side or the wrong side! ;) Life is good. :)

    • jimeejohnson - Feb 2, 2013 at 1:53 PM

      Fact: you are an idiot!

  21. jbkjcm123456 - Feb 1, 2013 at 2:29 PM

    If you pervert yourself in your bedroom or cave by yourself and with yourself then that is your business. But, when you pervert one other person, my kid, my family or my country then it is my business! :)

    • nategearhart - Feb 1, 2013 at 2:34 PM

      No. Two consenting adults having sex with each other in a private place is none of your fucking business.

      • jbkjcm123456 - Feb 1, 2013 at 2:54 PM

        ROTFL DUH So let me see you are a 21 year old and you have sex with your 50 year old mother … two consenting adults … duh wrong that is society’s business. We have allowed perverts like you to convince society otherwise. When you pervert society it is my business … it is our business.

        If you chose to pervert yourself none of business. Again, if you pervert one other person then then it is my business because you are perverting society … pervert.

        As a matter of fact, adultery and homosexuality is so serious to society that the God in the Bible allows society to make it punishable by death.

      • nategearhart - Feb 1, 2013 at 3:11 PM

        you mean like Eve and her sons?

      • jbkjcm123456 - Feb 1, 2013 at 3:14 PM

        ROTFL Could you show me where Eve had sex with her sons in the Bible … I will wait.

        Then again … duh … God can create Adam and Eve but no other human being ? ROTFL duh Read your Bible it will tell you how things happened honey.

      • nategearhart - Feb 1, 2013 at 3:24 PM

        Hey, you’re the biblical scholar here; educate me. I am under the assumption that the children of Adam and Eve had sex with each other and/or their parents in order to keep the generations coming. Sounds pretty nasty to me. If I’m wrong, let me know.

      • jbkjcm123456 - Feb 1, 2013 at 3:43 PM

        Nate … Reading not one of your strengths?

        In previous posts, I already told you that the Bible tells you that God created MAN.

        Unfortunately, again you only think inside the box … One Man is one Man. ROTFL God created one man … and could not possibly create two men! ROTFL duh .. Then again, he could create Eve … but not another woman … after all how could God create more of Man? He must had done all he could just to create just one … man. :)

        God could create a man but not others … no way! ROTFL

        Read the Bible honey … Genesis means in the Beginning … it will step you through it. Bottom line … God created Man … or do you want to know how many “man” that God created? ROTFL … How about God created all mankind … how is that? ;)

        … yet because God explains that Adam and Eve were the first Man and Woman that duh … he could not create anymore or did not procreate with any other living beings … ROTFL So in other words, if I tell you then you will believe? I

      • cur68 - Feb 1, 2013 at 6:26 PM

        Nate: easy brother. You’re dealing with weapons-grade stupid here (hat tip to Lex Luthor for that term). You can always tell when that’s the case. Count the “ROFL”s. Once you get past 3 in one comment you know you’re dealing with the high-end pure plutonium of stupid. Just let him go his way without self detonating and getting it all over us.

    • paperlions - Feb 1, 2013 at 8:24 PM

      You would probably find life more fulfilling if you could get to the point where you no longer need imaginary friends.

  22. jbkjcm123456 - Feb 1, 2013 at 2:34 PM

    Thus, Gays perverting our society is my business and should be a concern for everyone … especially every adult. Is it hatred when you correct your children? DUH …

    And if correcting your children … correcting the wrong and evil society is not your concern then why is it not your concern?

    As an Adult, your social responsibility is to keep society free of perverts and perverts from perverting your children, family, each other and society. If you allow Gays to pervert society why are you letting this happen? Adults … do your job. :)

    • nategearhart - Feb 1, 2013 at 2:54 PM

      According to your bible, your “social responsibility” is to give away all your shit and wander the Earth preaching the gospel, relying on charity and God’s will to make sure you get something to eat. Luke chapter 13. Best get to it.

      • jbkjcm123456 - Feb 1, 2013 at 2:57 PM

        DUH Nothing wrong with Preaching the word and allowing giving people to feed those who spread the good word. Then again what you are against is what you practice … sounds like the Democratic Party looking for hand outs and saving no one … At least Luke is preparing people for eternal life … doing something positive. ;)

      • jimeejohnson - Feb 2, 2013 at 1:55 PM

        Evangelical right wing nuts: the embodiment of stupid.

    • sportsdrenched - Feb 1, 2013 at 3:26 PM

      If your goal is to come here and bring people to Christ…you’re doing a terrible job.

      I just have one quetion for you. How much control do you have over being heterosexual?

      • jbkjcm123456 - Feb 1, 2013 at 3:34 PM

        Yeah and you by allowing perversion have done a real good job! ROTFL

        Heterosexual is as easy to control as it is easy to become a pervert. You say yes to good and no to bad or perversion. As a male … you don’t go in the out. God does not have to tell you that … Nature and your own body tells you that … ;) Even signs at the football stadium tell you that … EXIT … Do not Enter. ;)

  23. jbkjcm123456 - Feb 1, 2013 at 3:08 PM

    I sure know how to clear out a room … The word will set you free or make you run for the hills.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 1, 2013 at 3:53 PM

      Most talk of religion makes people run for the hills because we can’t repeal stupidity of this magnitude.

      • thebadguyswon - Feb 1, 2013 at 5:49 PM

        I converted to Satanism today, just to balance this guy out.

      • cur68 - Feb 1, 2013 at 6:27 PM

        I swear by Dog. Always have. You can count on Dog.

  24. florida727 - Feb 1, 2013 at 3:09 PM

    #jbkjcm, before you reference (allegedly) what’s in the Bible, you might want to actually try reading it. ALL sin is an afford to God and punishable by eternal death (read: going to hell). It’s only human beings that rank order sins.

    #nategrearhart, nice try. Luke 13 says absolutely nothing about material possessions or wandering the earth preaching the gospel. Try again. The topics covered in 13 include repent or perish, the parable of the barren fig tree, Jesus healing a woman on the Sabbath, the mustard seed, the narrow door, and Jesus lamenting over the state of Jerusalem.

    • florida727 - Feb 1, 2013 at 3:11 PM

      AFFRONT not “afford” obviously

    • nategearhart - Feb 1, 2013 at 3:17 PM

      My bad; it was Luke TWELVE. 12:33 to be precise: “Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth.”
      Of course I’m sure you knew that, what with it being right next to chapter 13, and you’ve read the whole thing and all.

      • jbkjcm123456 - Feb 1, 2013 at 3:19 PM

        ROTFL bottom line is not what verse or chapter … duh … bottom line is he said it … nice try.

    • jbkjcm123456 - Feb 1, 2013 at 3:17 PM

      Wrong God in his Word and Jesus told you what you needed to do and told you that only he could judge who is condemned to hell … not your job not human beings job. And God did rank sins in his Word.

  25. barrywhererufrom - Feb 1, 2013 at 3:15 PM

    historiophiliac – Feb 1, 2013 at 2:20 PM

    Actually, the first white people to come to what is now the US were Spanish — not English. They were looking for riches, but, to be fair, they were also spreading the Inquisition. Later, when English people came, they established a colony in Virginia — the purpose of which was to make $$$$$ — not find religious freedom. When the Puritans came even later, they were after a place where they could establish their own religion. They lived in what is now Massachusetts. There were twelve other colonies. I will grant you two other colonies as having religious beginings (PA & MD), but the others, not so much. No one came to New York or South Carolina, etc for religious freedom. Many of the people who came over in the colonial period were indentured servents; some were slaves, and others were prisoners (political and otherwise). None of those people came for religious freedom either. Most people who came to the colonies came for financial reasons. I could go one, but I think you should get it. Finally, perhaps you should check out a book called “The Age of Reason” by founding father Thomas Paine. It was a bestseller in its day, and it will disabuse you of the notion that the founders were all Christians.

    Dude did you ever hear of Jamestown? The first settlement of the colonies..they were from England. I digress..You are mixing up the Founding Fathers and the settlements of the US. Sorry to say the Founders of the US-were Jefferson-Adams-Franklin-Washington..I don’t know where you received your information from but you are wrong big time. Maryland-Mary-Land was a colony made by Catholics. The New England Colonies-Prostestants-Roger Williams et al. Puritians. South Carolina-Middle Colonies-the majority of Colonists were Christians..again as a former History Teacher I fear for the education of the young..

    • nategearhart - Feb 1, 2013 at 3:19 PM

      I’m pretty sure none of those founding fathers you named “came from England”. They were born here, and religion had nothing to do with religion. Mostly, it was taxes.

      • nategearhart - Feb 1, 2013 at 3:19 PM

        Ugh; religion had nothing to do with REVOLUTION.

      • jbkjcm123456 - Feb 1, 2013 at 3:22 PM

        ROTFL You need your public school refund check.

        Take a look at your money … honey … God is printed all over it and throughout Washington. D.C. Duh

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 1, 2013 at 3:52 PM

        Take a look at your money … honey … God is printed all over it and throughout Washington. D.C. Duh

        You mean the change to our money that was made in 1956? So what, 170 years of E Pluribus Unum with no mention of “God” is suddenly outdone by 60 years?

      • barrywhererufrom - Feb 1, 2013 at 4:27 PM

        Actually-Washington was born in England, So was Jefferson, and Franklin..Adams was born in the colonies and that made him a British subject. Finally Hamilton was born in St Barts in the Carribean..yes the main reason for the revolution was taxes. But when our nation was being framed with the law of the land (constitution) religious freedom was paramount. The reasoning being that they knew that a National Church(Angelican Church- National Church of England-with the King being the Leader of it- abused subjects who were not members. That’s why so many people came to American in that time period. Now the just come for free stuff-

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 1, 2013 at 5:33 PM

        Actually-Washington was born in England, So was Jefferson, and Franklin

        Granted it’s not the best source but per wikipedia:

        Franklin – born 1/17/1706, Boston, Massachusetts Bay
        Jefferson – born 1/13/1743, Shadwell, Colony of Virginia
        Washington – born 2/22/1732, Westmoreland, Virginia

      • cur68 - Feb 1, 2013 at 6:30 PM

        Dear Dog Almighty. I’m Canadian and I know more about American history that “Barry”??? Yo! Nitwit! Those guys are all American born. Try a google search before you get on here with this shit. jeez.

    • historiophiliac - Feb 1, 2013 at 4:30 PM

      If you used to teach history, I am eternally grateful that you no longer do so. I mentioned Jamestown above, and if you don’t know that St. Augustine and Santa Fe are older than the Puritan settlements, you need to go back to school. Nice try attempting to leave Thomas Paine out of the founders, but he wrote a little thing called Common Sense as well, that was instrumental in the revolution. FYI, you could use a little commons sense yourself, it seems.

      • barrywhererufrom - Feb 1, 2013 at 4:41 PM

        historiophiliac once again you a wrong-St Augustine was a Spanish Colony-They owned Florida-Yes St Augustine is the oldest city in the US is true and false at the same time..same thing with Santa Fe..when did they become part of the US? if I remember correctly they were not part of the colonies…i was being sacrastic..

      • historiophiliac - Feb 1, 2013 at 5:38 PM

        They owned more than Florida. They owned California (w/ claim to Oregan & Washington), Arizona, New Mexico, parts of Colorado, Kansas & Oklahoma, Texas, and for awhile, Louisiana. Also, the “Florida” they owned included Alabama & Mississippi. Apparently, you suffer under the false notion that being a part of the US is a political arrangement rather than a geographical reality.

        Enjoy your “sacrasm.”

      • buggieowens - Feb 2, 2013 at 10:15 AM

        The good people of the Hopi Pueblo, Old Oriabi, would like to remind Americans that before Jamestown, before St. Augustine, before Sante Fe, even before the Apache/Navajo migrations into the Southwest, their town existed and still does (with a slight relocation) making it the oldest continually settlement (although certainly not a city) in what is now the United States. And yes, New Mexico was not part of the U.S. until after the end of Mex-Am War (or arguably after the Kearney takeover of Santa Fe in 1845), but Juan De Onate was the first European governor of a future American State in 1598. Although the history of the southwest understandably gets overlooked in the traditional narrative, Hispanics/Indian contributions (Po’pay anyone?) is just as crucial to understanding how we came to be the country we are today as the English colonists. OK…I’ll stop now…I promise.

    • buggieowens - Feb 2, 2013 at 10:02 AM

      Again…David Barton is not a reliable source of information. And you have fundamental misunderstanding of the strength of Christianity in the Southern Colonies. Almost all colonists would claim they were Christians (not counting the small number of Jews who created the first (or one of the first) synagogues in Newport in 1790…or even the very few Muslims who were discussed by the Founders). However, many of the same colonists (at least a third were hardcore in astrology) were also quite apathetic about attending church, especially in the South where due to population densities and the distance between plantations, churches were often too distant to travel to on a regular basis. I bet since you are retired, you have not been privy to most recent scholarship over last two decades or so. Colonial history is much more varied, nuanced, and complex than you perhaps remember.

Leave Comment

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

Featured video

Time for Red Sox to be sellers?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. J. Hammel (2477)
  2. R. Braun (2439)
  3. T. Tulowitzki (2293)
  4. B. Moss (2235)
  5. C. Beltran (2109)