Skip to content

Everyone says baseball would accept a gay player. But would it really?

Apr 30, 2013, 9:35 AM EDT

Jason Collins

Andy Martino of the Daily News has a somewhat provocative item today. A day after Jason Collins came out of the closet, he wonders whether baseball would truly be accepting of a gay player in its ranks.

He acknowledges that, publicly, yes, it would. As the reaction to Collins’ announcement yesterday made clear, almost everyone in any sort of prominent position knows the right things to say. Most of them believe it. But there are likely some, Martino says, who would only be doing so as an exercise in p.r. or damage control while actually harboring negative or hostile feelings. By way of example, Martino passes along some observations from clubhouses over the years:

Baseball once led the country on race, but there are many reasons to believe it will lag behind basketball and other sports on the defining civil rights issue of this moment … What if one of your teammates is, for example, the player who I once saw sprawled on a clubhouse couch, watching an “It Gets Better” ad on TV, shaking his head and sighing?

“This is how P.C. the world is now?” he complained, while a few others chortled. “I can’t even say f-g?”

Martino also speaks with Billy Bean, who came out after his eight year playing career ended in the mid-90s. Bean agrees that it might very well be tougher in baseball than in any other sport.

And it may. But I think the concern about those who would harbor secret hostility is a sort of beside the point.  The racists didn’t leave baseball in April 1947. There are likely still many on rosters even today. The point is that it has become socially unacceptable to be an open racist and to discriminate against minorities. And, as we’re increasingly seeing today, it is becoming socially unacceptable to be an open homophobe and to discriminate against gay people.

Ideally you want to change hearts and minds along with the policies. And, of course, life would be much easier for a gay player if said hearts and minds were changed too.  But it’s not likely or even necessary that such a thing happen. Pushing those who harbor fear or hatred against minorities into a closet of their own is good enough for the time being. Maybe once they’re in there, they’ll realize that they are, increasingly, the isolated minority.

161 Comments (Feed for Comments)
  1. boredfriday - Apr 30, 2013 at 9:37 AM

    ~controversial issue post~

    alright folks, rev. it. up.

    CARTOOOOON THUMB FIIIIGHT

    • Old Gator - Apr 30, 2013 at 9:53 AM

      Here’s one in your eye! Nyuknyuknyuknyuk…..

  2. Old Gator - Apr 30, 2013 at 9:37 AM

    Yes it would. There’d be your usual assortment of bigots, religious fundamentalists and other assorted dimwits who’d have a problem with it and tweet their imbecility a bit, but by and large it would not be an especially painful adjustment. It worked out OK in the military. It’s working out OK in basketball. It will work out OK in baseball, too.

    • apmn - Apr 30, 2013 at 10:25 AM

      I am not so sure. First of all, homosexuality is not tolerated well in Latin America and the Caribbean. How would those players react? Second, baseball seems to have a greater proportion of immature man-children than other sports. Something about sitting in a dugout with a bunch of other guys chewing and scratching stuff for most of the year retards maturation. Plus, so many of them go straight from HS to the minors.

      • historiophiliac - Apr 30, 2013 at 10:48 AM

        You know it’s different today. Lots of high schoolers are used to being around gay people. Just because you’re young and immature doesn’t mean you can’t get this one.

      • apmn - Apr 30, 2013 at 1:03 PM

        You are right, it is different today, but it wasn’t different 15 years ago when I was young and stupid (okay, stupider). I don’t think it was very different even 5 years ago. Attitudes will change when the latest generation gets to the majors, but right now I just don’t see my generation of ball players being there yet. And I am pretty sure that the Latin American players are largely not there yet.

        I say all this wishing and hoping that Old Gator is right, btw.

      • indaburg - Apr 30, 2013 at 3:43 PM

        You do have a point about the Latino players not being as accepting. My family is from Latin America, and they’re still lagging in gay rights issues. What I’m hoping for is that these players play with an openly gay teammate, and they realize, hey, he’s still one of us. He’s still my bro. Then they go back to the mother country with this new tolerance and open some more minds. Or better yet, a great Latino player come out, and the people can see for themselves that he’s still the same great player. I know, I’m a damned fool, but I can hope.

    • theskinsman - May 5, 2013 at 3:42 AM

      Jeter, come out of the closet, problem solved.

  3. seanb20124 - Apr 30, 2013 at 9:46 AM

    We should respect all opinions, not just the ones that NBC approves of.

    • Old Gator - Apr 30, 2013 at 9:50 AM

      Not all opinions are worthy of respect.

    • Craig Calcaterra - Apr 30, 2013 at 9:53 AM

      Sorry, not gonna even pretend to respect bigotry and hatred, no matter what inspires it.

      • goskinsvt - Apr 30, 2013 at 10:07 AM

        Craig, I’m interested to see if you think Chris Broussard’s comments yesterday on ESPN were, in your eyes, bigoted and hateful?

      • Craig Calcaterra - Apr 30, 2013 at 10:33 AM

        Yep. It may represent his true religious beliefs and if so, great for him. But when someone believes anything which inspires them to tell you that you are wicked and hell-bound and, by definition, wrong, yes, they are being bigoted and hateful.

      • goskinsvt - Apr 30, 2013 at 10:36 AM

        ok then.

      • belichickrulz - Apr 30, 2013 at 11:08 AM

        I love people like Craig who preach tolerance but only practice it when people agree with them. Is it really tolerance if it’s a one-way street?

      • jarathen - Apr 30, 2013 at 11:20 AM

        Broussard is free to feel however he likes. But to use his platform as a sports analyst to spread hate is downright dumb.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Apr 30, 2013 at 11:24 AM

        Is it really tolerance if it’s a one-way street?

        So let me get this straight. You think Craig, and many of us, should be tolerant of someone’s bigoted/hateful ways? How does that make sense?

      • Old Gator - Apr 30, 2013 at 11:24 AM

        You’re looking for a contradiction here where none really exists, even if it is fashionable among the dim and mystified to claim that there is one. Tolerance of divergent lifestyles is one thing. Tolerance of those positions which would negate and deny the right of others to live openly and with dignity isn’t tolerance at all. If you tolerate that which is by definition intolerant in its essence, your own tolerance is worthless.Tolerance of bigotry isn’t “tolerance” at all; at best it’s just thinly disguised collaboration; at worst, it’s the surrender of one’s own willingness to tolerate, making one’s own professions of tolerance toothless, worthless. The real hypocrites are the ones who play games with words and seek to justify their own hate and ignorance by calling the kettle black.

      • paperlions - Apr 30, 2013 at 11:29 AM

        Bellichick, that is huge misunderstanding of what tolerance is….there is no reason to respect or tolerate bigotry. By that logic, everyone should be welcomed to be prejudiced against any group they desire to show hatred.

      • goskinsvt - Apr 30, 2013 at 11:33 AM

        For context, Broussard’s entire statement, on being asked his opinion of Collins’ coming out:

        “I’m a Christian. I don’t agree with homosexuality. I think it’s a sin, as I think all sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is,” he said (transcript via Blazers Edge’s Ben Golliver). “L.Z. [Granderson, a gay sportswriter and ESPN contributor] knows that. He and I have played on basketball teams together for several years. We’ve gone out, had lunch together, we’ve had good conversations, good laughs together. He knows where I stand and I know where he stands. I don’t criticize him, he doesn’t criticize me, and call me a bigot, call me ignorant, call me intolerant.
        “In talking to some people around the league, there’s a lot Christians in the NBA and just because they disagree with that lifestyle, they don’t want to be called bigoted and intolerant and things like that. That’s what L.Z. was getting at. Just like I may tolerate someone whose lifestyle I disagree with, he can tolerate my beliefs. He disagrees with my beliefs and my lifestyle, but true tolerance and acceptance is being able to handle that as mature adults and not criticize each other and call each other names.

        “Personally, I don’t believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle or an openly premarital sex between heterosexuals, if you’re openly living that type of lifestyle, then the Bible says you know them by their fruits, it says that’s a sin. If you’re openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality, adultery, fornication, premarital sex between heterosexuals, whatever it may be, I believe that’s walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. I would not characterize that person as a Christian because I do not think the Bible would characterize them as a Christian.”

      • historiophiliac - Apr 30, 2013 at 11:38 AM

        “I don’t like all these fruits, honey.”

        — deadmargeschott

      • belichickrulz - Apr 30, 2013 at 11:40 AM

        What did Broussard say that is hateful or intolerant?

        “Just like I may tolerate someone whose lifestyle I disagree with, he [ESPN writer LZ Granderson... a gay man] can tolerate my beliefs. He disagrees with my beliefs and my lifestyle but true tolerance and acceptance is being able to handle that as mature adults and not criticize each other and call each other names…”.

        You don’t have to agree with or accept his beliefs, just as he doesn’t have to agree with or accept yours. That doesn’t make either of you intolerant. But saying that he is hateful for expressing his beliefs and that he shouldn’t have expressed them IS intolerant.

      • skids003 - Apr 30, 2013 at 12:05 PM

        bellichcik, I get what you are trying to say. I have no problem with this, it’s not a big deal to me, not an issue. But the liberal way is, if you disagree with their stance, they are highly intolerant of you. You are saying they are hypocrits, preaching tolerance when they are the most intolerant. Like the gun control issue, if you disagree with them, you are called every name in the book, but please don’t give it back, they can’t take it like they give it out.

      • Old Gator - Apr 30, 2013 at 12:10 PM

        What Broussard is doing is using his favorite superstition to insist that there is a transcendent justification for his ignorance and hatred. It shouldn’t fool anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the same forms of self-mystification to which he has subscribed. It’s a very different, very dangerous, yet very substantial, order of bigotry to claim a divine origin for your ignorance. It is, if you will, the very essence of hatefulness – the purest form of intractability. I strongly suspect that those who Broussard claims will “tolerate” or respect his bigotry probably do so for pragmatic reasons but, if they truly believe in the dignity and equality of those Broussard so mindlessly condemns, think to themselves that he’s an asshole after all.

      • heyblueyoustink - Apr 30, 2013 at 1:01 PM

        “What Broussard is doing is using his favorite superstition..”

        And while I agree with you in spirit 100%, you at the same time show your own intolerance, OG.

        I could care less who believes in what or why, but I can see where someone of a religious nature can see a stream of arguments that’s almost tantamount to demonizing them. I can see where they feel persecuted at the same time even if I disagree with their stance as tremendously as I do.

      • koufaxmitzvah - Apr 30, 2013 at 1:29 PM

        ” But the liberal way is, if you disagree with their stance, they are highly intolerant of you.”

        But you’re not a Liberal, right Skids? In fact, you’re quite PROUD of NOT being a LIBERAL and yet, here you are, promoting your obviously one-sided narrow minded perspective about LIBERALS.

        I can’t speak for you, but I can quote you, and I can point out your super aggressive stance about being some mellow dude who just can’t take it anymore.

        And then I can cry like a baby for you, because you just don’t seem to get any respect on this board. Whhhaaaaaaaaaa…..

      • Old Gator - Apr 30, 2013 at 2:01 PM

        Heyblue: I could also care less what fairytale someone wants to believe. It stops being personal or harmless or even spiritual when it’s used as a justification to deprive others of their rights and their dignity. At that point, its stops being spirituality and becomes superstition.

      • bronxbomber213 - Apr 30, 2013 at 3:16 PM

        hold it now Craig so Broussard is a bigot and hateful for saying u are “wicked an hell bound” etc? does that mean when I tell a man who cheats on his wife that he should stop because it’s wrong and a sin and will take him to hell I’m a bigot against those who commit adultery?! or how about those who cheat lie and steal? am I a bigot to thieves and liars as well or only when it applies to homosexuality?

      • Old Gator - Apr 30, 2013 at 3:48 PM

        It’s hard to respond to your questions because you’ve conveniently expanded the definition of “bigotry” to the point where it’s atomized to the point of semiotic flatus. There is a difference between bigotry, which is essentially an irrational horror of difference per se, and moral criticism based on conduct. Gay people, who are gay by nature, are not the same as adulterers who willingly and dishonestly violate commitments. This is not rocket science.

      • skids003 - Apr 30, 2013 at 4:09 PM

        koufax, the last thing I care about is whether or not you respect me, or cry for me. Don’t bother, I’m sure there is plenty out there for you to cry for.

      • bronxbomber213 - Apr 30, 2013 at 4:12 PM

        gator tiger woods was a nympho maniac one could argue he was addicted to sex by his nature and couldn’t help the way he was born but he’s still a filthy adulterer am I a bigot if I tell that to him after he defends himself by sayin I was born this way why do u hate nymphos?!

      • mj2sexay - Apr 30, 2013 at 4:15 PM

        This is garbage. Chris Broussard was asked a question that specifically reconciled his beliefs with Jason Collins lifestyle. He answered honestly. Old Gator for you to call it his “favorite superstition” just shows your blatantly disregard and INTOLERANCE for HIS BELIEFS. While I applaud and commend Jason and his decision, I also recognize his lifestyle as a sin. In the same vein, I too am a SINNER (nobody is perfect folks), and therefore much like Chris shows in his actions by being a close friend with L.Z. Granderson we choose not to cast the first stone by shunning or out-casting anyone of a different orientation. But we don’t have to agree with it especially when atheist and leftist types tell me my religion is a superstition. You don’t know jack on the subject. So don’t tell me how to think or feel.

      • bronxbomber213 - Apr 30, 2013 at 4:29 PM

        Look gator i was actually using the Gospel according to Craig and his definiton of a bigot read up a few there pal! Tiger woods was a nympho maniac one could argue he was addicted to sex by his nature and couldn’t help the way he was born but he’s still a filthy adulterer am I a bigot if I tell that to him after he defends himself by sayin I was born this way why do u hate nymphos?!

      • koufaxmitzvah - Apr 30, 2013 at 5:18 PM

        Right, Skids. You’re not crying about those dastardly liberals whom you tend to define as anybody who has the chutzpah to consider your narrow perspective on whatever it is you espouse it be debatable, controversial, or just full of it.

        BTW, I think a search for GE (owner of NBC) and Liberal, and came away with your reading list.

        Not very impressive, Skiddles.

      • Old Gator - May 1, 2013 at 12:01 AM

        Bronx, you’re assuming I have any kind of respect for Tiger. I think his “nympho” nonsense is just that. Plus, we’re still not comparing apples and apples. Tiger married, made a commitment, broke it in a premeditated way over and over again and did enormous emotional damage to his family in the process, not to mention whatever the cost in self-respect to his myriad mistresses might have been. Still a long, long way from hating or anathematizing people merely for who they essentially are or for finding happiness with each other via an alternate form of sexuality. And anyway, your inability to see legitimate analogies and see through illegitimate analogies tells me that you’re not nearly bright or lucid enough to know what I think.

        mj2sexay – on the contrary, based on your wholly predictable gibbering and your dependence on the all-caps button, as though inflating the letters you use would lend some sort of additional validity to the baloney you spout, there’s nothing especially unique or complicated about the way you allegedly think or feel.

        As I wrote above, spirituality ceases to be spirituality when cultic beliefs are used to deny others their human dignity. You make the reflexive mistake of confusing religiosity, a witless and unquestioning obedience to cultic forms and demands and identification with a specific group immured to the same drivel, which is what you’re actually talking about, with spirituality, of which you appear to understand nothing.

        You want to think of yourself as a “sinner,” go right ahead. You want to celebrate Broussard’s so-called friendship with people of whom, all the rosy bullshit aside, he is actually contemptuous, go ahead. But if you can tell me not to tell you what to believe – and by the way, I repeat again what I wrote above, I couldn’t care less what you believe – where the hell do you get off labeling someone else as a “sinner” for their unwillingness to believe whatever pre-medieval, bigoted garbage you believe? As far as not knowing jack about it, I have an honors degree in theology from a Jesuit university, earned summa cum laude. I’ll match what I know about it with what you think you know about it any day of the week.

      • mj2sexay - May 1, 2013 at 11:20 AM

        Old Gator you’re kidding right? You do know L.Z. has come out and said that him and Chris are friends that frequently socialize together outside of work and play on the same recreational basketba team together…but I guess that doesn’t fit with your point. And every post you make just shows your intolerance towards the most prevalent religion in the world! Where is my bigotry? I’m ACCEPTING of people that live a different lifestyle then I even if I don’t agree with it. Why don’t you pick up another degree so you can learn the actual definition of tolerance because repeatedly in almost every post you make you show none of it to those who offer a counterpoint or disagreement. You aren’t crusading against people who are being intolerant, your badgering people for having a different viewpoint. Oh, and way to call me out on using, “all caps.” Because my previous post was in all caps right? Or we’re you just grasping at straws again.

        The fact is, Jason Collins deserves the respect and dignity that is being afforded to him, and I for one am happy that someone as eloquent and classy as him is the one to carry the torch. But that doesn’t mean I have to agree with his lifestyle.

    • historiophiliac - Apr 30, 2013 at 10:04 AM

      Oh, goody. What are you doing to respect the “NBC approved” opinion?

    • koufaxmitzvah - Apr 30, 2013 at 10:23 AM

      I think we both can agree that you are a victim.

    • indaburg - Apr 30, 2013 at 10:29 AM

      Respect all opinions? No. Not ignorant bigoted ones on any issue. My tolerance has its limits.

    • dluxxx - Apr 30, 2013 at 12:50 PM

      I don’t tolerate intolerance.

    • brjones9 - Apr 30, 2013 at 1:11 PM

      Yes, we should respect all opinions on issues that are truly opinions. No one should ever criticize anyone for being a Cardinals fan or preferring Bud Light to a good craft beer, no matter how distasteful those opinions are.

      But we’re not dealing in opinions on this issue. The accepted scientific position by those who spend their entire lives studying human sexuality is that sexual orientation is not a choice, and it cannot be changed. Period, end of discussion. This is not an opinion…and if you “don’t agree”, then you’re just being willfully ignorant and trying to pass off your misinformation as an acceptable opinion.

      Taking a position that is scientifically documented to be false and treating people differently because you hold that misinformed “opinion” is intolerance. Calling someone out for trying to use their own made-up facts to justify their intolerance is not.

  4. miketreedy - Apr 30, 2013 at 9:46 AM

    Would you PLEASE stop this over coverage of the gay issue? Most people just want to discuss baseball here. I know this is is a huge issue obviously for you but stop forcing it down everyone’s throat.

    Now, lets get back to baseball. Did anyone watch the entire A’s-Angels game last night? Hamilton was 0 for 8. So far he has more strikeouts than walks and hits combined.

    • Old Gator - Apr 30, 2013 at 9:52 AM

      Mike, this forum has always been about whatever we wanted to talk about. You don’t have the authority or even the right to come on here and tell us what “most of us” want to talk about, what we or the moderators can or can’t discuss. You don’t like it, go somewhere where no pebbles will cause ripples in the smooth surface of your superficiality.

    • historiophiliac - Apr 30, 2013 at 10:02 AM

      There are headlines to each post that serve as handy summaries for the topic to be covered. Should you not have an interest in the post, feel free to move along to another one. And, also, you’re not the boss of us.

    • koufaxmitzvah - Apr 30, 2013 at 10:25 AM

      There are a lot of articles about baseball on here, Mike. If you don’t want to read about the gay basketball player, you just don’t have to click on the link, y’know? And if you don’t want to discuss about the gay basketball player, then you don’t have to fill out the Leave Comment form, see what I’m sayin’?

      It’s all very probable for you to avoid this discussion on HardballTalk. Give yourself some credit, and start taking control of your discussions.

    • cktai - Apr 30, 2013 at 10:56 AM

      Evidently, “most of us” want to discuss these issues here as well, as becomes clear from the fact that these posts tend to be the most commented posts on the entire blog.

  5. andreweac - Apr 30, 2013 at 9:48 AM

    Craig, check the spelling of almsot (sic) paragraph 2.

  6. approvenothing - Apr 30, 2013 at 10:09 AM

    I wouldn’t want to use a locker room with a gay guy honestly. This is coming from someone who is for gay marriage as well. Hear me out, what reason do we have for men and women not to share the same locker rooms? Sexual attraction. It would be simpler if they kept to themselves until they retire, not out of hatred towards them but out of the fact I don’t want to be showering infront of someone who could be attracted to me of the same gender.

    • cubfan531 - Apr 30, 2013 at 10:23 AM

      Let’s say that back during his bachelor days, Joe Mauer had wound up coming out of the closet. I really don’t think any sane major leaguer would give a darn if an MVP, batting-title winning catcher with gold-glove defense was gay. Nobody able to play in a major league has the mental control of a 14 year old boy, which seems to be the whole locker room/shower argument.

      I do think it would be harder on a fringe player. But if Mark Appel or Jonathan Gray were to come out, I don’t think it’d move either of them down draft boards. You can’t teach 97mph for 9 innings. Talent is talent, and I do believe the younger ballplayers all have this mentality. There just aren’t as many John Rockers and Carl Everetts out there anymore, unintentionally amusing as they were.

      • approvenothing - Apr 30, 2013 at 11:05 AM

        I think a lot of people missed my point and took what I said not the way it was intended. So I’m just gonna reply to it all in one post. Nate I really don’t, I would be personally uncomfortable dressing with someone whom has a chance of being attracted to someone of the same gender would be like me dressing with a bunch of women. Not against that but find the difference. Maybe age and millions of dollars make a difference, both of which I don’t have. Talking as a junior in highscool probably isn’t the best opinion. But indaburg, I am one mighty fine POA thank you! Ill send a memo out or something.

    • indaburg - Apr 30, 2013 at 10:27 AM

      You got any pics? You must be one mighty fine POA. I mean, if you’re that irresistible that a gay man can’t shower with you without being overcome with lust, I need to see this.

      Have you ever worked out in a gym? Played on a team? Chances are that you’ve already showered with a gay man. And you survived. There really is nothing to be afraid of.

      • scastro87 - Apr 30, 2013 at 10:37 AM

        Why do we segregate locker rooms by sex?

      • dluxxx - Apr 30, 2013 at 11:20 AM

        Because of jackhole straight guys saying they’re gay so they can oggle them some females.

      • indaburg - Apr 30, 2013 at 12:51 PM

        We segregate lockers by sex because society as a whole has not progressed to the point where nudity is not equated with sex.

      • historiophiliac - Apr 30, 2013 at 1:57 PM

        Do you really want to see Andy Rooney nekkid???

      • indaburg - Apr 30, 2013 at 3:47 PM

        Oh dear dog, no. But if I did, it wouldn’t bother me. I see lots of nekkid bodies. Part of the trade. I should get paid more. Hazard pay.

      • historiophiliac - Apr 30, 2013 at 3:49 PM

        So that’s why you want to force it on the rest of us too…

      • indaburg - Apr 30, 2013 at 3:52 PM

        That’s right! Why should I have to suffer alone? Let everyone’s eyes bleed.

        Did you know, by the way, that Florida has the most nudist colonies of any state in the country? Anyway you calculate it, per capita or just straight up number. We got lots of nekkid Andy Rooneys running around. The more you know…

      • historiophiliac - Apr 30, 2013 at 3:53 PM

        That’s like an anti-tourism program there. Here in the Frying Pan, we cover our obesity epidemic like God intended.

      • indaburg - Apr 30, 2013 at 3:57 PM

        Those German, and yes, our darling beaver tourists just love to have the sun shine where it normally doesn’t. Don’t knock it ’til you try it.

    • nategearhart - Apr 30, 2013 at 10:28 AM

      What is it about being found attractive that you think is so unappealing?

      • Francisco (FC) - Apr 30, 2013 at 10:36 AM

        I’m willing to bet he wouldn’t have any problem with an attractive woman watching him shower.

    • historiophiliac - Apr 30, 2013 at 10:42 AM

      First of all, I’m glad to be the one to tell you that you’ve likely already shared a locker room with a gay guy. Secondly, men and women not sharing locker rooms is about modesty not sexual attraction. Shockingly, I don’t find all men attractive, and I’m willing to bet there’s at least a few women you don’t fancy either, but we still don’t share locker rooms with them. (FYI, a lot of women are weird even about changing in front of other women.) Honestly, I don’t want to change in front of you ESPECIALLY if I don’t find you attractive. And, if I do find you attractive, well, let’s not waste that in a locker room, eh? You won’t die and it won’t even hurt if you’re in a room with someone who finds you attractive. It won’t even be any different than some woman you find nasty leering at you. And — this is in no way intended as a slight against your assured hotness — not all gay men will find you attractive anyway. If someone does, you might not even notice it — or you might choose to take it as a compliment and have a laugh.

      • stlouis1baseball - Apr 30, 2013 at 10:57 AM

        On point Philiac. I have been hit on by more than a few gay dudes in my lifetime.
        I have always chuckled and replied…
        “Thanks…but I don’t swing that way.” “I do appreciate the beer though!”

      • historiophiliac - Apr 30, 2013 at 11:10 AM

        Look at you, Woodpecker!

      • stlouis1baseball - Apr 30, 2013 at 11:14 AM

        You are suprised? Really? I fear my politics may have clouded your views of me (on certain topics).

      • historiophiliac - Apr 30, 2013 at 11:23 AM

        That wasn’t about politics. My default mental image for everyone posting here is Andy Rooney, so good for you being a cutie. lol

      • paperlions - Apr 30, 2013 at 12:15 PM

        He probably wears ochre sweaters.

      • historiophiliac - Apr 30, 2013 at 12:16 PM

        That would make him attractive to people of both sexes…

      • indaburg - Apr 30, 2013 at 12:54 PM

        Now I want to see pics of stlouis! Take a selfie for us.

      • historiophiliac - Apr 30, 2013 at 12:56 PM

        You are a genius. You’re just angling to get pics of all the guys. Brilliant!

      • indaburg - Apr 30, 2013 at 3:36 PM

        Shhhhhh. Don’t give my master plan away!

      • indaburg - Apr 30, 2013 at 1:00 PM

        And ixnay on the Andy Rooney. If I pictured everyone on here looking like that, I would run away. I picture everyone here wearing a fedora looking like the Old Spice guy. In fact, I find everyone here so unbelievably attractive, I shouldn’t be allowed to comment. I can’t control my comments.

      • historiophiliac - Apr 30, 2013 at 1:02 PM

        The Old Spice guy wears a hat???

      • indaburg - Apr 30, 2013 at 3:49 PM

        In my fantasy, yes. He does.

    • Old Gator - Apr 30, 2013 at 11:34 AM

      approvenothing: I do understand what you’re saying and, as a point of departure, I do sympathize with it. But the reality is, history isn’t on the side of your sensitivity and if you were indeed an uncomfortable teammate, your discomfort would no longer be a good enough justification for marginalizing your gay fellow ballplayer. No one is going to stand for segregated locker rooms. Uncomfortable or not, your only options would be to outgrow your discomfort or remain uncomfortable for reasons that existed solely inside your own head.

    • indaburg - Apr 30, 2013 at 3:55 PM

      “But indaburg, I am one mighty fine POA thank you! Ill send a memo out or something.”

      Pics, please. This needs independent verification.

      • historiophiliac - Apr 30, 2013 at 4:02 PM

        Ahem. Yes, show your work.

      • indaburg - Apr 30, 2013 at 4:04 PM

        Strictly as a service to the gay community, of course. I’m selfless like that.

      • historiophiliac - Apr 30, 2013 at 4:16 PM

        And, I’m not hating. I’m totally okay with the womenz posting too.

      • indaburg - Apr 30, 2013 at 4:18 PM

        Yep. Equal oppty.

      • dluxxx - Apr 30, 2013 at 4:40 PM

        I think he also said that he was a junior in high school, so you may wanna back off a bit on those pics… Could get yourself put on one of those lists or something…

      • indaburg - Apr 30, 2013 at 4:43 PM

        Oh, crap, really? He’s in high school? I missed that part. Never mind. I like ‘em legal.

      • historiophiliac - Apr 30, 2013 at 7:15 PM

        Oh, crap. I missed the age comment too. Nevermind, sonny. Be a good kid. Don’t do drugs. Remember to brush your teeth and do your math homework. Learn to drive a standard and make an omelet. Don’t marry the first person that comes along, and don’t spend everything you make.

      • indaburg - Apr 30, 2013 at 8:12 PM

        ‘philiac just about summed life up. Listen to her, approvenothing and you’ll go far. And don’t worry about the gay guys in the locker room. If they’re attracted to you, it’s a compliment. In the unlikely event you are approached (this is a stereotype but my gay friends seem to have an amazing sense of who is gay, aka gaydar), all you have to say is “Thanks, I’m flattered, but it’s just not my thing.” Anyone who doesn’t understand that, male or female, is just a jerk and you can escalate the situation appropriately. Sexual harassment, whether it is from a male or a female, is wrong. (I was only teasing you about the pics–I didn’t mean it as harassment.)

  7. cubfan531 - Apr 30, 2013 at 10:12 AM

    If it wasn’t for the first openly gay player (open to teammates and employers during his playing career), Glenn Burke, we wouldn’t have the high five, invented on a whim with Dusty Baker.

    Will there be some people not so accepting? Of course, though I feel it’ll be blown way out of proportion by some mediocre-at-best sportswriters and bloggers trying to get attention and drum up controversy.

    Speaking of which, how is Jay Mariotti doing these days?

  8. DelawarePhilliesFan - Apr 30, 2013 at 10:13 AM

    IMO, I can’t see any reason why baseball would be better or worse then any other sport in “truly” accepting a gay player.

  9. realgone2 - Apr 30, 2013 at 10:13 AM

    Pssssh whatever. Adorable Adrian Adonis was the first athlete to come out.

  10. albertmn - Apr 30, 2013 at 10:50 AM

    I feel that most people that have issues with gay people (players or everyday people) just haven’t really known any gay people, or maybe had an issue with the one gay person they met. In my experience, gay people are no different than anyone else. Some are great, some are jerks, and most fall somewhere in between, just like straight people. I believe most gays just want to live their lives and not have to fear being themselves lest someone feel they need to be beaten up just for who they are.

    • stlouis1baseball - Apr 30, 2013 at 11:12 AM

      Well stated Albert. My neighbors are two of the most geniune, kind, sincere dudes you will ever meet. If my family needs anything these guys do what it takes to make it happen.
      And we do the same for them. From watching each others homes while the others are away to tending to each others animals. I love the guys. They just happen to be gay. Something else…they don’t put on airs. And they don’t pass judment. When we are hanging out (the Wife and I routinely have drinks a few evenings a week with them) it is some of the best fun we have. We simply enjoy one anothers company. I couldn’t care less if they bump weinies. And I tell them this semi-regularly as we do razz one another other quite a bit.

      • historiophiliac - Apr 30, 2013 at 11:27 AM

        Ok, you have cats and gay neighbors, we get it. lol

  11. wpjohnson - Apr 30, 2013 at 10:52 AM

    It is one matter to have homosexuals in baseball. I’m sure there are some- just like there are others in baseball with habits that are out of the norm. However, it is quite another matter to try, through derrogatory remarks and name calling, to force those who have long held and solidly based beliefs to go along with the the new “program”.

    While you may have a right to “champion” their cause, others have a right to opsnly oppose the lifestyle. That doesn’t make the latter group “bigots”.

    I say, let them be whatever they may be. Just don’t try to force others who have legitimate beliefs to the contrary to join your parade.

    • tjwilliams - Apr 30, 2013 at 10:58 AM

      So if the quotation cited above had been: “This is how P.C. the world is now?” he complained, while a few others chortled. “I can’t even say n-gg-r?” would you still say “don’t try to force others who have legitimate beliefs to join your parade?” Or would it be perfectly legitimate to call that player a bigot because, while his beliefs made be sincerely held, they still stem from the idea that a certain group of people is inferior to his?

      • wpjohnson - Apr 30, 2013 at 11:39 AM

        One’s personal beliefs are strictly his business. the liberal, politically correct thought police have no right to pressure that person into going along with the “program”. Many, maybe most, see homosexuality as a deviation from the norm. That is their right- at least until you boys/girls succeed in making free thought a crime.

        the lifestyle chosen by Collins is his business. Go for it. Just don’t try to force acceptance of that lifestyle on others. Personally, I think Collins is a natural to become co-host with Rachel Maddow on MSNBC,

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Apr 30, 2013 at 11:42 AM

        the lifestyle chosen

        There is no choice. There never has been, and never will. This really isn’t up for debate, so please stop saying it.

      • tjwilliams - Apr 30, 2013 at 12:22 PM

        (Note: Use of royal “you” here. Nothing personal meant.) Yes, your personal beliefs are your business. But when you make those beliefs public, I have every right to mock and belittle you for your backwards ideas. “Many, maybe most” people once thought being black or Native American was a deviation from the norm. We, as a culture, no longer respect those opinions because they are now rightly seen as bigoted or “expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance.”

        People who still, in spite of all the academic research conducted showing pretty convincingly that sexual orientation, while not entirely based on genetics, is far from a choice, are determined to treat homosexuality as a “lifestyle” and who treat those people differently because of it are “expressing…prejudice and intolerance.”

        It is our responsibility as a society to treat all people equally and to insure that all people are treated equally. Your beliefs are your own, but when those beliefs turn to words and actions, words and actions which hamper the rights and well-being of other people, we as a society have a responsibility to show those words and actions for what they are: bigoted.

    • Gamera the Brave - Apr 30, 2013 at 11:30 AM

      wp,
      It’s not a “lifestyle”. Gay people don’t choose to be gay, they just are – just like you might be left-handed, or blue-eyed. They are as viscerally attracted to the same gender as you are to the opposite.

      The term “lifestyle” implies choice. Did you choose your eye-color? If so, you would have a “blue-eyed” lifestyle.

      Your argument is based on a false premise.
      (shrill rant ends)

      • cktai - Apr 30, 2013 at 11:56 AM

        The comparison with left-handedness is quite apt, moreso than the eyecolour argument. Only a century ago, left-handed people were forced to write right-handed. Their natural preference was suppressed, and it prevented them from achieving the best of their ability. I sincerely hope that 50 years from now, being gay is comparable to being left-handed.

        It might be a minority preference, and it might be something that you might actively take notice of when you first meet someone. But it won’t be something that you judge a person on, and it won’t make any real difference.

      • 18thstreet - Apr 30, 2013 at 12:03 PM

        People choose to be Presbyterian or Anglican or Jewish or atheist, and it’s still against the law to discriminate against them. Keeping Kosher is most definitely a lifestyle choice. Leviticus doesn’t say a word about cheeseburgers.

        This pathetic fig leaf — that you’re opposed to a lifestyle choice — is irrelevant. First, as has been said already, it’s not a choice. But even if it were, we shouldn’t accept bigotry against it.

      • indaburg - Apr 30, 2013 at 4:16 PM

        Your rant wasn’t shrill at all. You’re completely right about the “choice” argument. I’m even trying to get away from the term sexual “preference.” Preference implies a choice, as in I prefer my steak medium rare with a glass of red zin. I suppose for someone who is bisexual, they may profess a preference. Then again, there are theories, if I recall correctly from my Psychology of Sex class (best college course ever), that sexuality is on a continuum, and that very few us are actually 100% gay or straight, but rather, lie somewhere on one side of the spectrum or the other (no puns intended) with a preference. Hmmm. I really need to think about this more. In any event, I’m trying to avoid the words sexual preference until further notice.

      • Gamera the Brave - Apr 30, 2013 at 5:09 PM

        I’m with ya, ‘burg. It’s just that my son is gay, and it’s made me even more prickly on this topic (and less tolerant of homophobia) than I was before my some came out.

        I just get tired of the same tired guys spouting the same ignorant nonsense…

        I also enjoyed Soc 114 (Human Sexuality) very much, but it’s been so long since college that I only remember that I enjoyed it…

        My son seems to be okay with my using “orientation”. But “lifestyle”? Really?…

      • indaburg - Apr 30, 2013 at 6:56 PM

        Orientation sounds much better. I’ll use that from now on.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Apr 30, 2013 at 11:41 AM

      to force those who have long held and solidly based beliefs to go along with the the new “program”.

      let’s try to have an honest conversation, without the name calling. I assume you are talking about the Bible, and what it says about homosexuality. Can you explain why there isn’t the vitriol against the other sins mentioned in this clip?

      Doesn’t it seem a bit hypocritical to take one “sin” as unforgivable and ignore all the others?

      • wpjohnson - Apr 30, 2013 at 12:07 PM

        Obviously, because this particular “sin” is the subject of the discussion. What other “sins” did you have in mind?

        If one is a homosexual, that is his/her business. However, now Collins wants the publicity and notariety that will be given to him by a certain element of the populace. Once that person seeks to make it public, he assumes the risk that others may not see him in a positive manner. And, that doesn’t make the latter group wrong.

        Last time I checked, the US Constitution does not guarantee a freedom of acceptanceof lifestyle.

      • Old Gator - Apr 30, 2013 at 12:16 PM

        It does guarantee life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Supreme Court has already, on several occasions, reaffirmed the rights of consenting adults to their sexual behavior – and since they are the constitutionally empowered final voice of what that great and polysemous document guarantees or doesn’t guarantee, I guess you’re stuck with the fact that, yes, lifestyle choice – even given your stubborn ignorance about the extent to which it is a “choice” at all – is guaranteed by the Constitution.

      • Gamera the Brave - Apr 30, 2013 at 12:50 PM

        wp,

        It’s STILL not a “lifestyle”, not matter how many times you try to convince yourself…

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Apr 30, 2013 at 1:48 PM

        Obviously, because this particular “sin” is the subject of the discussion. What other “sins” did you have in mind?

        Did you watch the clip? Why don’t we punish/shame people who wear garments of two separate cloths? Why don’t we punish people who work on the sabbath? Why don’t we punish people who touch the skin of dead animals (athletes)?

        I posted a link in the other thread from former Baltimore Ravens player Brendan Ayenbadejo, wondering why many African Americans quote the Bible as justification for being anti-gay, when that same book was used as justification to enslave them?

        So again, aren’t people being hypocritical when they pick and choose what laws/rules they are going to follow?

      • autmorsautlibertas - May 1, 2013 at 10:28 PM

        Old Gator- The U.S. Constitution does not guarantee life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration of Independence says that government is created by man to protect those rights. Homosexuals have all the right in the world to bugger each other to their heart’s content in their pursuit of happiness. They do NOT have the right to vilify other people and insinuate that they are evil and hateful because that person or group does not approve of their lifestyle.

    • normcash - Apr 30, 2013 at 1:31 PM

      I’m sorry, wpjohnson, but claiming that your prejudice is “solidly based” or a “legitimate belief”
      simply because you claim that it is rooted in religion won’t wash. Many posters here seem to think that their attitudes should be immune from criticism if they claim those attitudes have a
      religious basis. That is absurd. Even leaving aside that many sincere Christians
      and Jews strongly disagree with your particular interpretations of a handful of Bible
      passages (none of which, btw, are attributed to Christ), when attitudes like yours operate in the real world to hurt real people lives, they are fair game for criticism and SHOULD be criticized.
      This whole “God made me do it, so don’t blame me” thing won’t work.

      • wpjohnson - Apr 30, 2013 at 1:44 PM

        To each his own.

  12. scoocha - Apr 30, 2013 at 10:54 AM

    Didn’t MLB already have Brady Anderson? Or did he not come out?
    I’m not so sure the Latin players would be cool with it, generally speaking.

  13. motobus - Apr 30, 2013 at 10:56 AM

    Wait… Billy Bean is gay?

    • nategearhart - Apr 30, 2013 at 11:06 AM

      Not GM Billy Beane.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Bean

      • jerze2387 - Apr 30, 2013 at 1:44 PM

        I swear to god, i thought it was the GM billy Beane for years (until about 3 months ago). I always wondered about why the glossed over that in “moneyball’. I wonder how many others have brought it up to GM billy Beane.

        “it took a lot of courage for you to come out..”

        “come out of what?”

  14. stlouis1baseball - Apr 30, 2013 at 11:04 AM

    I just don’t understand the necessity of this article.
    Derek Jeter is already accepted. People love the guy. Men…women…(young and old).
    They couldnt care less. The guy is very much loved (as he should be).
    His homosexuality has no bearing on him as a person or a baseball player.

    • historiophiliac - Apr 30, 2013 at 11:18 AM

      I’m really getting tired of all your man-crushes on these threads.

      • stlouis1baseball - Apr 30, 2013 at 11:23 AM

        Lol! I think my semi-trolling of the Yankees fans has ALSO clouded some of your views of me.

      • Old Gator - Apr 30, 2013 at 11:30 AM

        No one “semi-trolls” Borg fans. There’s just something about the Borg that won’t let their trolls go halfway, you know? Traditions of sustained excellence are intolerable to most people.

      • historiophiliac - Apr 30, 2013 at 11:34 AM

        Yeah! I HATE their…sustained excellence…blah.

      • Old Gator - Apr 30, 2013 at 12:17 PM

        I bet you hate their freedom too.

      • historiophiliac - Apr 30, 2013 at 12:19 PM

        But not the osteoporosis.

  15. realgone2 - Apr 30, 2013 at 11:36 AM

    So to any persons in management type postions – what would tell someone who was very uncomfortable around gays or is super religious? How would you get that person to work together with this openly gay team mate? How would you handle the situation?

    • stlouis1baseball - Apr 30, 2013 at 11:43 AM

      I would tell them to get over themselves. I realize this isn’t what you were looking for.
      But that’s me. I would also point out that for all we know…Stymie in the back of the shop goes home , beats his wife and kids and kicks the family canine.
      Point being…YOU don’t know anyone.
      Now get your ass back to work and concentrate on #1.

      • bougin89 - Apr 30, 2013 at 12:30 PM

        This might be the best response I’ve heard out of all the questions on this topic. Two thumbs up for this comment.

    • sportsdrenched - Apr 30, 2013 at 12:01 PM

      Check it at the door, Turbo. You’re here to get work done, complain about your coworkers during your off time.

      Hell, I don’t like some of my coworkers and none of it for stuff they may or may not do in the bedroom. They’re just irritating to me. But you know what? I just keep that to myself and control what I can control.

    • theptbnl - Apr 30, 2013 at 12:06 PM

      I would say, “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself”

      or maybe “As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.”

    • realgone2 - Apr 30, 2013 at 3:31 PM

      So I get a thumbs down for asking a legit question?

    • autmorsautlibertas - May 1, 2013 at 10:40 AM

      Don’t hire them in the first place.

  16. kfiz14 - Apr 30, 2013 at 11:44 AM

    God hates flags.

  17. rcali - Apr 30, 2013 at 11:50 AM

    I’ve seen these game winning celebrations, I think baseball will do just fine.

  18. bluesoxbaseball - Apr 30, 2013 at 11:59 AM

    Very well said, Craig. I appreciate your leadership on this issue.

  19. sportsdrenched - Apr 30, 2013 at 12:10 PM

    I’ve always contended that sports are more or less a reflection of the society that those sports come from. I think the reaction to a gay baseball player will be similar to what we saw yesterday. Most will be fine with it and supportive. There will be a few who don’t like it. But like Craig said, there are still racists among us and probably always will be. I mean after all there are still people who think we didn’t land on the moon, and I had a conversation with some ole boy yesterday who didn’t think second hand smoke is harmful to other people. There will always be fringes of society. There have been huge strides over the past 5-10 years in terms of Homosexual acceptance/rights, and after I while we’ll view it just like we view the Civil Rights Era, but there will always be some fringe homophobes out there.

  20. autmorsautlibertas - Apr 30, 2013 at 12:19 PM

    I resent the use of the word “homophobe”. “Homophobe” implies a “fear” of gay people. Some people have moral and religious objections to such behavior. It does not make them “afraid”. Why is it that people who disagree with the Liberal interpretation of political correctness are branded as hateful and evil?

    • bougin89 - Apr 30, 2013 at 12:33 PM

      What do you have against someone’s right to pursue happiness?

      • autmorsautlibertas - Apr 30, 2013 at 2:25 PM

        I have no problem with them living however they want. I just resent that other people that have heartfelt and religious based objections to such behavior are portrayed as evil and hateful.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Apr 30, 2013 at 3:07 PM

        Please answer my question from above, since wpjohnson won’t. Why do you pick and choose which sins are evil? Why the hypocrisy?

      • autmorsautlibertas - May 1, 2013 at 10:32 AM

        churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged- All sin is by definition evil. Why do you pick and choose which sins are not evil. (Playing devil’s advocate here, I am not religious)

    • sportsdrenched - Apr 30, 2013 at 12:34 PM

      Saying it’s a behavior implies you think it’s a choice. Let me ask you something? Why do you think it’s a choice? Why do you think a person would CHOOSE to put themselves in a part of society that is historicly and currently marginalized and discriminated? Why would someone choose that? What’s in it for them? When most people make choices there’s usually some thought of benefiting. Why would someone choose that lifestyle? What’s the benefit.

      Do you think being left handed is a behavior?

      • autmorsautlibertas - Apr 30, 2013 at 2:31 PM

        Of course it is a “behavior”. Perhaps having homosexual feelings or desires is not a choice, but acting on it is a “behavior”
        Being left handed is not a behavior. Using you left hand is a behavior.

    • Old Gator - Apr 30, 2013 at 12:38 PM

      Probably because bigotry is hateful and evil.

      I would add that that’s just a guess, but then I turn on the radio when I’m stuck in traffic and listen to the comments of right wing talk show hosts and the illiterate decerebrates who call in to them. I listen to them talk about something called “the gay agenda” in an all-knowing tone of voice which, in their own alleged minds, strips away the layer upon layer of conspiracy behind said agenda. What that agenda actually is, they don’t say; how empowering LGBTs to live their own lives their own way and find some happiness thereby represents “shoving their lifestyle down our throats” (which would be an unintentionally hilarious malapropism if its enunciators weren’t so hopelessly stupid) may elude everyone unwilling to accept the irremediable truth of it. Eeeyep, that kind of paranoia reeks of fear – fear of the unknown, fear of the unlike, fear of difference. “Homophobe” is a perfectly appropriate term.

      • historiophiliac - Apr 30, 2013 at 12:45 PM

        Well why don’t you just give away the secret gay-agenda club handshake while you’re at it, OG? Lordy.

        /s

      • autmorsautlibertas - Apr 30, 2013 at 3:33 PM

        As one of the illiterate decerebrate (Despite my two doctorates) listeners of talk radio, I must point out that civil rights protections are limited to immutable characteristics, such as skin color, age, and gender. Sexual preference is just that….a preference. You are not a bigot because you disagree with someone else’s life choices. If you “hate” someone because of their sexual orientation and their choice to act upon it when it has no effect on you whatsover, you have something wrong with you more serious than bigotry. On the other hand, villifying someone else because they do not believe like you do is bigoted as well. People on the right need to leave the homosexuals alone, and the homosexuals need to quit agitating the right. I could care less who screws who, but don’t demand that unless I believe just like you, I am a bigot…that is bigoted.

      • Old Gator - Apr 30, 2013 at 3:57 PM

        Apparently your “two doctorates” didn’t enable you to read or comprehend the Supreme Court’s “consenting adults” decision, which did indeed clarify the rights of adults to practice sexual behaviors of their own choosing.No, not all civil rights are based upon race or religion or ethnicity, but are, affirmatively, based precisely on forms of conduct. And again, you’re playing semiotic games with “bigotry” and stretching it until it becomes translucent.

      • Old Gator - Apr 30, 2013 at 4:01 PM

        Damn that “reply” button….

        Furthermore, homosexuals don’t “agitate” the right just for the fun of it; they agitate the right because the right is the primary direction whence comes denial of their dignity, self-determination and civil rights. You’re right about one thing, though: if the religious right and other social conservatives would just drop their hatred of LGBT folks and concentrate on other things that are important to them – you know, like irrational hatred of Muslims – then LGBT people could afford to ignore them.

      • autmorsautlibertas - Apr 30, 2013 at 4:50 PM

        Since one of my doctorates is in law, let me explain a Supreme Court case that you obviously do not understand. The “consenting adults” case you refer to, Lawrence v. Texas did indeed strike down the sodomy laws of the state of Texas, but it did not extend civil rights protection to such behavior. Basically, under Lawrence homos can do whatever they choose in their own home. It does not mandate gay marriage, civil rights, or any other such nonsense. Frankly, as a Libertarian, Lawrence is consistent with my beliefs. Laymen like you should not attempt to analyze law.

      • historiophiliac - Apr 30, 2013 at 8:37 PM

        Well, lookee here. Ol’ Patrick Henry done gone and got hisself not one, but two of them sheepskin specials. Wowza. You can tell he’s educated by the way he uses formal phrases like “the homosexuals.” The homosexuals upset him, you see, because sometimes they stop screwing one another in the privacy of their own homes and go about agitating for equal rights. Now, you can tell that Dr. Henry doesn’t have his PhD in biological science because he thinks the homosexuals wrongly prefer their icky behavior, which is an utterly unprofessional and unscientific proposition. You can also tell that his doctorate isn’t in Linguistics either because his doesn’t understand the word “bigot” well enough to get that insisting someone repress their feelings and abdicate any chance at a fulfilling public life with a partner they love is, in fact, intolerant and prejudicial. Indeed, he doesn’t seem to understand the homosexuals’ relationship proclivities at all. Is there more to it than private screwing? Our fine Libertarian thinks not.

        And, now, we hit upon one of Dr. Henry’s alleged fields of expertise: the Law. He objects to OG analyzing the law because he is a layperson and doesn’t understand that Lawrence v Texas was not about civil rights and “such nonsense.” You see, he says it was really about the homosexuals’ domestic sodomy rights. So, I will quote from the ruling in Lawrence where the Court explains why it overturns its previous decision in Bowers v Hardwick, which dealt with a “Right to Sodomy”:

        “To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it said that marriage is just about the right to have sexual intercourse. Although the laws involved in Bowers and here purport to do no more than prohibit a particular sexual act, their penalties and purposes have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home. They seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals.”

        Clearly, the Court was well aware that the issue was greater than the homosexuals’ private screwing (even if it did not go so far as to legislate equal rights for the “homos” from the bench).

        I’d like to add that Dr. Henry is the perfect example of why, as they say, the law is too important to be left to lawyers — and, finally, to add that it is my opinion that he, with his two doctorates, has done less for our society than Vivien Thomas did without any. The next time, Dr. Henry, you want to bandy about your credentials and drop a little Latin to impress, you ought to consider whether the insights you offer belie your claim to knowledge and undermine the credibility you’ve sought to assert.

        (I’m sorry for the lengthy post, Gator. I really just couldn’t resist responding on that one.)

      • Old Gator - May 1, 2013 at 12:13 AM

        “The “consenting adults” case you refer to, Lawrence v. Texas did indeed strike down the sodomy laws of the state of Texas, but it did not extend civil rights protection to such behavior.” Oh, I see. It struck down law that criminalizes such behavior, but does not extend civil rights to such behavior, except that henceforth consenting adult homosexuals can’t be prosecuted for such behavior. Is your other doctorate in doubletalk?

        And just for the record, if you want to group yourself as a decerebrate, feel free. I was talking about the idiots who call in to such shows. I’m not telepathic and I can’t assess how paranoid bigoted or stupid are people who habitually just listen to them are. I can only guess.

  21. fearlessleader - Apr 30, 2013 at 1:00 PM

    I had some fun with MLB’s reactions to the Collins story; click if you’re inclined. Happy for Jason Collins, hoping for the day when this can be a non-story.

    http://ablogoftheirown.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/equality-all-stars-mlbs-all-gay-friendly-team/

    • historiophiliac - Apr 30, 2013 at 1:12 PM

      I had the same thought about Griner. You know, if a woman does it, does it really matter? Dudes.

      That team needs some Tigers awesomeness, by the way. You couldn’t work the Dickslayer in there based on previous comments? :D

  22. hitdog042 - Apr 30, 2013 at 1:08 PM

    The media is hilarious. This isn’t a story. Leave people alone.

  23. phillytj - Apr 30, 2013 at 2:02 PM

    Agree with Mike’s post (third one on this list). Let’s beat the issue to death…

  24. wgray981 - Apr 30, 2013 at 4:18 PM

    Wait for it…who gives a sh*t. This isn’t baseball news.

  25. rehmer2389 - Apr 30, 2013 at 4:28 PM

    Jackie Robinson?

    • jerze2387 - Apr 30, 2013 at 5:57 PM

      “i jack, I rob, i SIN, i Jackie robison”
      – Jay-Z trying to be clever, and proving he is in fact NOT the best rapper alive.

Leave Comment

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

Featured video

Who are the favorites for Rookie of the Year?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. J. Soler (3445)
  2. Y. Molina (3297)
  3. R. Castillo (3026)
  4. D. Wright (2261)
  5. D. Murphy (2117)
  1. B. Colon (2092)
  2. S. Doolittle (2086)
  3. D. Ortiz (2063)
  4. T. Lincecum (2005)
  5. B. Posey (1997)