Does Torii Hunter get unfairly crushed for his stance on SSM?

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Torii is a public figure who has taken this stand, and as a public figure, when you take an unpopular stance, you should be prepared for the backlash and have answers and explanations that intelligently explain your position, and Torii simply doesn't provide those. I think he's been piled on because of that, but on that note, his ridicule on the issue has really opened discussion on the issue in general and had many seeking out education on their own stance (which has changed some peoples' stances), and I'll take an informed discussion/debate over the alternative any day.

 

This sums me up quite well.  What I think bothers me about most of it is that it's often being said that he shouldn't be as vocal about it... of course, those same people wouldn't think that way about it if his views were the same as theirs.  At the end of the day, I would also like an informed discussion/debate.  Problem is that it's pretty hard to get that on this topic. 

[jimmer]

 

He has a view that is shared by somewhere around 40-50% of the country and he is a black, rural, Southern, male, no college, Evangelical Christian. He is basically a walking demographic of opposition to SSM.

 

What if he was a white, rural, Southern, male, no college, Evangelical Christian and his background made him have issues with black people or made him against inter-racial marriage?  Let's say he came out and said he was uncomfortable with black people on the same team as him and he came out and supported a politician because that politician supported segregation and said he'd stop inter-racial marriage?  Would all of THAT be okay due to his background and upbringing?

 

Now let's take it further.

 

Was it okay to be against black people (and black people playing baseball) back in the day because 40-50% (or more) of the country were against them? 

 

Or is discrimination and suppressing people's rights just wrong across the board?

[Hrbowski]

 

What if he was a white, rural, Southern, male, no college, Evangelical Christian and his background made him have issues with black people or made him against inter-racial marriage?  Let's say he came out and said he was uncomfortable with black people on the same team as him and he came out and supported a politician because that politician supported segregation and said he'd stop inter-racial marriage?  Would all of THAT be okay due to his background and upbringing?

 

Now let's take it further.

 

Was it okay to be against black people (and black people playing baseball) back in the day because 40-50% (or more) of the country were against them? 

 

Or is discrimination and suppressing people's rights just wrong across the board?

Look, Hunter never discriminated or suppressed the rights of anyone, so your point means nothing with this particular case.

[jimmer]

 

Look, Hunter never discriminated or suppressed the rights of anyone, so your point means nothing with this particular case.

yeah you should read the quote I responded to and my response again.  the quote was about his VIEWS.

 

Of course HE didn't suppress the rights of homosexuals.  He's not in a position to do so. He supports the suppression of rights for them.  And yes, I've seen the conversation about how marriage isn't a right and technically that's right.  Let me ask a question: How often are people denied the ability to get married?  How often is the reason because one is a man and one is a woman?

 

Also he did do a commercial in support of a politician because the politician supported the curbing of gay marriage

 

And he did say he would be very uncomfortable having gay teammate, which is honest and I respect that.  Problem is that when gay teammates read that, that makes it hard for them to be who they are because here is a respected veteran who talks about how uncomfortable it would be around them. Kind of how Jackie Robinson was uncomfortable when he first joined the Dodgers because a lot of his teammates (and fans) were uncomfortable around him.  Was that okay to have him feel that way because so much of the country agreed with the view black people shouldn't play baseball with white people?

[drjim]

What if he was a white, rural, Southern, male, no college, Evangelical Christian and his background made him have issues with black people or made him against inter-racial marriage? Let's say he came out and said he was uncomfortable with black people on the same team as him and he came out and supported a politician because that politician supported segregation and said he'd stop inter-racial marriage? Would all of THAT be okay due to his background and upbringing?

 

Now let's take it further.

 

Was it okay to be against black people (and black people playing baseball) back in the day because 40-50% (or more) of the country were against them?

 

Or is discrimination and suppressing people's rights just wrong across the board?

Fair point. But I do think there is a difference between an issue that has really only been changing over the past decade and something that really moved two generations ago.

 

Perhaps that is a bjgger part of my question as well. Should people get crushed for not moving as fast on a social issue as many of us would like them to.

 

Or to put it another way, no one Hunter's age would have ever lived in a society where segregation would really be accepted. Basically halfway through his career his position on same sex marriage was the law of the land everywhere and was still the vast majority position only a couple of years ago.

[jimmer]

 

Fair point. But I do think there is a difference between an issue that has really only been changing over the past decade and something that really moved two generations ago.

Perhaps that is a bjgger part of my question as well. Should people get crushed for not moving as fast on a social issue as many of us would like them to.

Or to put it another way, no one Hunter's age would have ever lived in a society where segregation would really be accepted. Basically halfway through his career his position on same sex marriage was the law of the land everywhere and was still the vast majority position only a couple of years ago.

I asked if people back in the day when segregation was in place, would those views have been okay, shrugged off and defended if the people were white, rural, Southern, male, no college, Evangelical Christian and their background made them have issues with black people and because so much of the country agreed with them?

 

Maybe I wasn't clear when I said let's take it a step further, and that's my bad. Semantics aside though, I think my point is clear.

 

And if it's a religious issue for him as he claims, we could look at the bible and see all sorts of things that were okay (and not okay) that people would have real issues with today.  If we're using the bible as the basis, then he (and others that agree with him) should support ALL the things the bible says is okay and not okay. How do you think that would go over?

[Craig Arko]

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck.

 

Applicable to social norms as well, I think.

[twinsnorth49]

drjim, on 02 Nov 2015 - 6:57 PM, said:

 

Perhaps that is a bjgger part of my question as well. Should people get crushed for not moving as fast on a social issue as many of us would like them to.

 

Crushed is a pretty strong term, but I do think they open themselves up to harsher criticism when they are more openly in opposition to said social issue. I'd be quicker to excuse guys like Hunter for their generational ignorance if they did it indifferently, but he was more than just not moving fast enough, he was publicly against it, which is in essence going completely the opposite direction.

 

Or to put it another way, no one Hunter's age would have ever live
d in a society where segregation would really be accepted. Basically halfway through his career his position on same sex marriage was the law of the land everywhere and was still the vast majority position only a couple of years ago

 

So Hunter is a status quo guy? So much for all that leadership talk. Great leaders are not afraid to fight against established ideas and practices, they have the ability to see unfairness and take a stand. That's likely far too much to expect of a guy like Hunter, I know I never expected it from him. The criticism doesn't come from his not taking a stand for change, it comes from his doing the exact opposite.

[jimmer]

 

It's probably not fair to call him a bigot without thinking about his background and how he was raised. However I'm not going to be offended if someone does.

 

Could say that about a ton of people who still, to this day, hate black people.  Are they not bigots regardless of their background and how they were raised?

[drjim]

 

I asked if people back in the day when segregation was in place, would those views have been okay, shrugged off and defended if the people were white, rural, Southern, male, no college, Evangelical Christian and their background made them have issues with black people and because so much of the country agreed with them?

 

Maybe I wasn't clear when I said let's take it a step further, and that's my bad. Semantics aside though, I think my point is clear.

 

And if it's a religious issue for him as he claims, we could look at the bible and see all sorts of things that were okay (and not okay) that people would have real issues with today.  If we're using the bible as the basis, then he (and others that agree with him) should support ALL the things the bible says is okay and not okay. How do you think that would go over?

 

A fair hypothetical, but before my time. I'm really not sure what the mood of the country was at the time when the country finally flipped on race issues. For those on the wrong side I am curious if they were treated like those who opposed SSM marriage today or if they were merely shrugged off. Probably depends where you lived and the circles you ran in. Perhaps some of our older posters might have some insight. But responses are much more public now and people can be much more critical much faster.

 

One lesson to be taken from that time is that those who believed in segregation long after it was settled either had to keep quiet or be publicly shamed. Same thing is obviously happening with opposition to SSM, just seems to be much quicker, when opinions are still pretty evenly split and with much more (shall I say) vigor.

[drjim]

And the Bible issue is a little more complicated than that. Honest opponents of SSM from the church can come to that through wrestling with a comprehensive theology of sexuality and sin and how that fits in God's design for the church. But the majority of them (at least those I engage with) would probably accept SSM in society at large even if they don't support it personally.

 

I can't speak for the deeper thoughts of Hunter, I imagine he, like many people both inside and outside the church, want simple answers to more nuanced situations.

[glunn]

Our founding fathers enshrined slavery into the constitution. 

 

Women did not get the right to vote until 1920.  

 

Looking back at history through the lens of our current beliefs, our ancestors appear bigoted.  It seems to me that this does not mean that they were bad people.  If I was taught from an early age that slavery was a good thing and, after all, it is sanctioned in the Old Testament, then I think that it might take some outside enlightenment to change this view, which is ultimately what happened through the efforts of the abolitionists, journalists and novelists.

 

As for Torii, he should know better, but so should millions of other people, including people who are now running for President.  We each evolve at our own rate.  Now that Torii will have more free time, maybe he will evolve faster.  But I am far more concerned about people who hold archaic views who may be nominating Supreme Court justices who have the same views.

 

Finally, let's tone down the bickering in this thread.  We are better than this.

[TheLeviathan]

 

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck.

Applicable to social norms as well, I think.

 

I think that sounds good and I understand the underlying point (change is hard!), but it is also demonstrably false.  Hell, just on the issue of gay marriage we've had a major shift in the last 15 years.  Which means that unless I missed a plague somewhere I think most of the same population is still around but the numbers have shifted radically.  Pot legalization would be another similar case.  

 

Worse yet, if one were to accept this premise we might want to really re-think our system.  We should just go with some Platonic elite that will tell us the right social dynamics and then wait for a generation to die off so that they'll be accepted.  Any movements meant to engender social change are basically meaningless noise.

[Mike Sixel]

Remember if you have the wrong political opinions you are wrong and a jerk.  The arrogence of Democrats is remarkable.

I'm not a democrat, but thanks for assuming things......

 

bigotry is bigotry, whether it is an Arkansas Democrat, or a MN Republican......

[Mike Sixel]

I've admitted on this thread he probably gets too much grief. I have yet to see anyone on the other side justify the following:

 

gay couples, before the law changed, could not visit each other in the hospital in some states.

 

gay couples could not buy family licenses to many public items, so had to pay more.

 

gay couples could not file joint taxes if it was to their advantage.

 

The list of ways this "not a right" to enshrine ones love effected people is super, super long. This isn't just about all of us loving each other (which was I thought Jesus' second most important message, maybe most important), it is also about clear discrimination by the government and businesses against people who happened to be born gay. Just like we used to (still do?) discriminate against people that were born a different color than off white.