Torrii Hunter: Homophobe

[Jim Crikket]

No actually it's not difficult and awkward.

 

Also I am catholic so people really need to stop with this "Christian values" bull****. It's a lazy excuse for someone to be a bigot.

 

Gee, Dave, I didn't realize the Catholic Church had become so liberal in their views toward homosexuality. Has anyone told your Pope?

 

Just because you may not be as devout in following your religion's beliefs as others are does not, in my opinion, give you the right to declare their values to be BS.

 

As is typically the case in these discussions, there's far too much talk of tolerance and far too little practice of it.

 

As I knew would be the case going in, I find myself sorry to have even read this thread, much less participate in the discussion. I'm going back to the baseball topics.

[luckylager]

He said it would be "difficult and uncomfortable" for him - how do you hysterics equate an honest statement to hate?

[PseudoSABR]

Does it really need to be pointed out that Torii has a right to his opinion? Jesus, everybody knows that--in my opinion, pointing out that right brushes aside the contemptible opinion, and reinforces the intolerant status quo. A legal right is not a justification.

[PseudoSABR]

He said it would be "difficult and uncomfortable" for him - how do you hysterics equate an honest statement to hate?

If you had said it would be difficult and uncomfortable to be around Black players in the locker room; people would call you a racist. You don't need to show hate to be a homophobe.

[Shane Wahl]

By the way, "tolerance" seems to indicate merely putting up with something one disagrees with. This is different than "acceptance" which would mean not disagreeing with something (in this case homosexuality). It might be good to distinguish between those two generally. Tolerance seems a bit problematic when defined this way.

[Shane Wahl]

Does it really need to be pointed out that Torii has a right to his opinion? Jesus, everybody knows that--in my opinion, pointing out that right brushes aside the contemptible opinion, and reinforces the intolerant status quo. A legal right is not a justification.

 

Thanks. That was better said than in my attempt.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Gee, Dave, I didn't realize the Catholic Church had become so liberal in their views toward homosexuality. Has anyone told your Pope?

 

Just because you may not be as devout in following your religion's beliefs as others are does not, in my opinion, give you the right to declare their values to be BS.

 

As is typically the case in these discussions, there's far too much talk of tolerance and far too little practice of it.

 

If more people were intolerant of the intolerant, we'd see far less ignorant rhetoric and hatred toward the LGBT community.

 

It's okay to dislike individual people. Some people are just dicks, me included. But to dislike an entire group of people who don't really impact your life positively or negatively in any real, discernible way? No, man. That's just not okay. And people who publicly spout such nonsense should be shamed into a corner until they (hopefully) reconsider why they took that public stance.

 

I'm perfectly content hating people for their irrational hatred of others. I disagree with loads of groups and their "lifestyle" choices but if it doesn't impact me, I don't really give a damn what they do in their free time. And therein lies the rub. Being intolerant of intolerance is vastly different than being intolerant of peoples' lives. One is making the statement "dude, you're a dick and you need to stop saying that" versus "dude, I hate you, everybody like you, and you all need to go away forever".

[Shane Wahl]

Brock, as a point of clarification, do you really mean "if it doesn't impact me" then whatever, or "if it doesn't impact me or anyone else (negatively)" then whatever?

[DaveW]

Gee, Dave, I didn't realize the Catholic Church had become so liberal in their views toward homosexuality. Has anyone told your Pope?

 

Just because you may not be as devout in following your religion's beliefs as others are does not, in my opinion, give you the right to declare their values to be BS.

 

As is typically the case in these discussions, there's far too much talk of tolerance and far too little practice of it.

 

Actually the Catholic Church I currently attend recognizes gay marriages (not sure if they perform them or not). In addition it allows our priest to marry and is pro birth control.

 

If someone says "I don't like gay people because my warped view of my religion tells me to" is not Ok IMO and is just a lame cop out to be a bigot

[TheLeviathan]

Does it really need to be pointed out that Torii has a right to his opinion? Jesus, everybody knows that--in my opinion, pointing out that right brushes aside the contemptible opinion, and reinforces the intolerant status quo. A legal right is not a justification.

 

Normally, no it wouldn't need to be pointed out. Except that someone said it was "garbage" that he had a right to think that way. So yeah, then it did need to be pointed out. But thanks for reading.

[70charger]

Actually the Catholic Church I currently attend recognizes gay marriages (not sure if they perform them or not). In addition it allows our priest to marry and is pro birth control.

 

If someone says "I don't like gay people because my warped view of my religion tells me to" is not Ok IMO and is just a lame cop out to be a bigot

 

That's clearly not a Catholic church. If I start a sandlot baseball team and call myself the Minnesota Twins, am I actually the Minnesota Twins?

 

Doctrine requires full adherence. That's why it's doctrine...

[TheLeviathan]

One is making the statement "dude, you're a dick and you need to stop saying that" versus "dude, I hate you, everybody like you, and you all need to go away forever".

 

One could argue the latter is exactly what is happening to "people like Torii" in the tone of some of the comments here. It's a reflection of something I worry about in society - how ugly the pro-gay movement is in regards to the anti-gay people. Now, in my opinion, anti-gay opinions have no moral value and are ugly in and of themselves, but I fail to see how reciprocating that ugly does anyone any good.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Brock, as a point of clarification, do you really mean "if it doesn't impact me" then whatever, or "if it doesn't impact me or anyone else (negatively)" then whatever?

 

The latter. It's the "right to swing my fist" argument.

 

Oliver Wendall Holmes, Jr was a pimp.

[70charger]

That's clearly not a Catholic church. If I start a sandlot baseball team and call myself the Minnesota Twins, am I actually the Minnesota Twins?

 

Doctrine requires full adherence. That's why it's doctrine...

 

As I realize how this can be construed and wish to avoid such controversy, I'm going to clarify. I'm not attacking you or your belief system. What I am saying is that the Catholic Church is an entirely top-down, teleologically oriented institution. It brooks no opposition. The things you've claimed that your "Catholic" church allows leads me to believe that it has simply misappropriated the name.

 

Ultimately, the doctrine of the real, actual Catholic Church comes straight from the Bishop of Rome. (Tu es Petrus. The Vicar of Christ on Earth. Etc.) Go ask the pope whether allowing priests to marry is okay within the Catholic Church. When you come back with a solid and emphatic "no," you might consider whether you're actually Catholic or you're just calling yourself that.

 

And on that completely-unrelated-to-baseball note, I'm out.

[70charger]

The latter. It's the "right to swing my fist" argument.

 

Oliver Wendall Holmes, Jr was a pimp.

 

Oliver Wendell Holmes was godawful.

 

I'm a lawyer. YMMV.

[PseudoSABR]

Normally, no it wouldn't need to be pointed out. Except that someone said it was "garbage" that he had a right to think that way. So yeah, then it did need to be pointed out. But thanks for reading.

Well, it is garbage...as a justification. There's legal 'right' and there's the earned, moral 'right' -- and when people say someone doesn't have the 'right' to say something, they often mean the latter.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Oliver Wendell Holmes was godawful.

 

I'm a lawyer. YMMV.

 

Oh, I'm not defending his law (my fiancee is also a lawyer). But the dude was infinitely quotable.

[strumdatjag]

Jackie Robinson understood how the locker room worked - It wasn't necessarily fair that he had to soft-pedal civil rights issues and lead by example, but it was REALITY - It's still the same in many ways. The #1 goal in playing baseball is helping one's team to win games. MLB clubhouses full of players from different cultures: Partying and womanizing jocks, Fellowship of Christian Athlete types, strip-club enthusiasts, fundamentalist Christian types, hispanics, Japanese, Koreans, Aussies, etc. All have to tolerate the cultures of the others to keep the clubhouse hospitable. An openly gay player is just another added demographic in the multi-cultural clubhouse. Other players need to tolerate their teammates (that includes you Torii). Nevertheless, get ready for some controversy - the gay player should understand that "openly gay" should not be "confrontationally gay" or "flauntingly gay" He needs to respect the sensibilities of fundamentalist Christians like Torii and Muslims as well (even thought there haven't been a whole lot in MLB, but it will come). Even if you view them as bigots, they are part of the locker room as well, and it is wise NOT to flaunt one's sexuality whether it be gay lifestyles or hetero-promiscuity which may offend or agitate those with certain religious sensibilities or common prejudices. The goal is to win games, not to win political and social justice points. There's no crying in baseball, and there's no political preachiness in baseball (that goes for the Tommy Herr's distributing anti-abortion pamphlets and the Chris Kluwe-types twittering pro-gay-rights positions - Keep the political crap to yourself until after your retirement and try to win games until then!!!!!)

[70charger]

Oh, I'm not defending his law (my fiancee is also a lawyer). But the dude was infinitely quotable.

 

"We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expressions of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death." -OWH

 

Now that I can get behind. And to be fair, he was always quite good on the first amendment. Doesn't quite jive with a lot being said here though.

[snepp]

Also I am catholic so people really need to stop with this "Christian values" bull****. It's a lazy excuse for someone to be a bigot.

 

I'd like this post a thousand times if I could.

[Shane Wahl]

Normally, no it wouldn't need to be pointed out. Except that someone said it was "garbage" that he had a right to think that way. So yeah, then it did need to be pointed out. But thanks for reading.

 

Saying the "right to have that opinion" generally ends the discussion as though all opinions are equally true. They are not. The attitude that they are is, indeed, garbage.

[Shane Wahl]

"We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expressions of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death." -OWH

 

Now that I can get behind. And to be fair, he was always quite good on the first amendment. Doesn't quite jive with a lot being said here though.

 

It isn't the expression of the view that is the problem. It's the view.

[70charger]

It isn't the expression of the view that is the problem. It's the view.

 

That's a statement completely without substance. If the view is the problem, and no one is allowed to have a certain view, then any possible controversy over something stated has already been precluded and cannot exist. So in this world, where everyone agrees, of course it's true that the expression of a view isn't a problem. After all, everyone agrees.

 

Unfortunately, real life doesn't follow our rules.

[Brock Beauchamp]

"We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expressions of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death." -OWH

 

Now that I can get behind. And to be fair, he was always quite good on the first amendment. Doesn't quite jive with a lot being said here though.

 

I don't see anyone here arguing that Hunter should be legally silenced. Publicly shamed, yes. Yelled at for having an inane opinion, yes. Silenced? Not so much.

[PseudoSABR]

That's a statement completely without substance. If the view is the problem, and no one is allowed to have a certain view, then any possible controversy over something stated has already been precluded and cannot exist. So in this world, where everyone agrees, of course it's true that the expression of a view isn't a problem. After all, everyone agrees.

 

Unfortunately, real life doesn't follow our rules.

Allowed? No one is talking about disallowing Hunter's viewpoint. We're saying it's a contemptible viewpoint that's worthy of public scorn. I think your penchant for legalese is obscuring the points that people are trying to make. No one's confused about legality, but where there's nuance is in the discussion about how we handle Hunter's comments socially and ethically, about how the public ought to respond to such comments.

[syves]

TwitLonger ? When you talk too much for Twitter

 

Just to, you know, in the spirit of both sides of the story that we started with, this is what Torii said via Twitter. Not saying whether this was just damage control or if what he said was misconstrued, just wanted his thoughts about it on here.

[DaveW]

I'd like this post a thousand times if I could.

 

Dawwwww <3

[Shane Wahl]

TwitLonger ? When you talk too much for Twitter

 

Just to, you know, in the spirit of both sides of the story that we started with, this is what Torii said via Twitter. Not saying whether this was just damage control or if what he said was misconstrued, just wanted his thoughts about it on here.

 

Thanks for posting this. Hopefully this is a more accurate representation of Hunter's views on the matter.

[PseudoSABR]

TwitLonger ? When you talk too much for Twitter

 

Just to, you know, in the spirit of both sides of the story that we started with, this is what Torii said via Twitter. Not saying whether this was just damage control or if what he said was misconstrued, just wanted his thoughts about it on here.

For the lazy:

I'm very disappointed in Kevin Baxter's article in which my quotes and feelings have been misrepresented. He took two completely separate quotes and made them into one quote that does not express how I feel as a Christian or a human being . I have love and respect for all human beings regardless of race, color or sexual orientation. I am not perfect and try hard to live the best life I can and treat all people with respect. If you know me you know that I am not anti anything and to be portrayed as anti-gay in this article is hurtful and just not true

Whether damage control or not, I'm glad he tweeted this.

[70charger]

Allowed? No one is talking about disallowing Hunter's viewpoint. We're saying it's a contemptible viewpoint that's worthy of public scorn. I think your penchant for legalese is obscuring the points that people are trying to make. No one's confused about legality, but where there's nuance is in the discussion about how we handle Hunter's comments socially and ethically, about how the public ought to respond to such comments.

 

Perhaps, but I am skeptical inside and outside of the legal system. If a non-governmental, non-legally-sanctioned collective says of an individual "let's publicly shame this person who disagrees with us until he agrees with us!" I'm not going to get behind that sentiment. I also wouldn't get behind it if it were done under the color of government or law.

 

I think there's a slippery slope here. Feel free to disagree. (I would never try to stop you.)