Master Index of Archived Threads


Murph & the Gays

G-Fafif Mar 03 2015 05:14 PM

Fun day at Port St. Lunchgate! First Parnell taking away Syndergaard's stew, then, in light of Billy Bean swinging by at Sandy Alderson's behest to promote inclusiveness, Daniel Murphy lets it be known he doesn't approve of the gay "lifestyle". But the gays themselves? Totally cool with Murph specifically and Christianity in general.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 03 2015 06:03 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

"Well, just because I consider this strongly-ingrained facet of these people's personalities to be the product of a choice as deeply felt as 'going nightclubbing' or 'being a loafer guy,' and just because I consider that choice to be a damnable sin, well, that doesn't mean that I'll stop cornering guys like Billy into the occasional conversation about how I love him, even though I believe he's going to hell and wouldn't want him caring for my children unsupervised. Because that wouldn't be Christian at all, y'know?"

John Cougar Lunchbucket Mar 03 2015 06:14 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

Muffy.

Ashie62 Mar 03 2015 06:17 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

This is over my head.

metirish Mar 03 2015 07:17 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

Ashie62 wrote: This is over my head. what are his views on head?

Lefty Specialist Mar 03 2015 07:18 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

So I'm guessing it was both Be Nice to Gay People Day and Trumpet Your Christianity Day in PSL today. Glad they got that over before the games start. My question would be....what would happen if Daniel Murphy were trapped in an elevator with Richard Simmons?

Frayed Knot Mar 03 2015 07:23 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

Lefty Specialist wrote: My question would be....what would happen if Daniel Murphy were trapped in an elevator with Richard Simmons? Same as anyone's reaction to being trapped in an elevator with Richard Simmons ... a quick suicide.

Mets Guy in Michigan Mar 03 2015 08:13 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

I fear this is going to be an issue with legs. Torii Hunter got called out by a writer looking to make waves in Hunter's introduction press conference with the Twins a couple months ago for endorsing a gubernatorial candidate in Arkansas who opposed same-sex marriage. (Hunter grossly mishandled that question, if you remember.) The New York writers are tougher than the people following the Twins.

MFS62 Mar 03 2015 08:27 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

Guys on the last year of a contract with a New York team shouldn't be saying anything about gays. It could give them the excuse they've been waiting for to get rid of him without the fans getting too upset. Later

metirish Mar 03 2015 08:37 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

MFS62 wrote: Guys on the last year of a contract with a New York team shouldn't be saying anything about gays. It could give them the excuse they've been waiting for to get rid of him without the fans getting too upset. Later Murphy isn't getting traded for something like this , his defensive lifestyle and bat and $$$ will account for that if it happens. Murph was honest in his answer, should not be punished for that ......

Benjamin Grimm Mar 03 2015 08:42 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

Ugh. There goes the goodwill he earned last year for being a good husband and father.

metirish Mar 03 2015 08:46 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Ugh. There goes the goodwill he earned last year for being a good husband and father. LOL...

Mets Guy in Michigan Mar 03 2015 08:50 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Ugh. There goes the goodwill he earned last year for being a good husband and father. Yup, no more visits to the White House.

metirish Mar 03 2015 08:52 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Ugh. There goes the goodwill he earned last year for being a good husband and father. Yup, no more visits to the White House. Maybe the next WH? :)

bmfc1 Mar 04 2015 04:47 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

Lefty Specialist wrote: My question would be....what would happen if Daniel Murphy were trapped in an elevator with Richard Simmons? Murphy would overthrow Simmons.

Lefty Specialist Mar 04 2015 06:14 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

(Sandy crosses 'San Francisco Giants' off deadline trade possibility list)

Frayed Knot Mar 04 2015 06:23 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I fear this is going to be an issue with legs. I tend to doubt it Sure, a lot of people are going to disagree with him and all, but his statements hardly constituted some hate-filled rant that's going to cause his team & MLB to come down on him, or be the fuel for group protests and the like.

Edgy MD Mar 04 2015 06:31 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

The problem is the title of this thread. I just can't read it without music pounding in my skull. [list]Hey kids, there's something in the weather Murphy likes the gay guys He's just not sure 'bout the leather He's painting himself in a corner, now So stick around He's gonna be a lightning rod Here on shifting ground Say, Gary and Ronnie, have you broadcast yet? When, O when will Keith come out? Muh-muh-muh-Murphy and the Gays Oh but they're weird and they're wonderful Oh Billy, he's the other Bean Is Rusty one? Or Piazza, son?! You know I say him with a burly ma-REEEEN, oh, oh.. Murphy and the Gays[/list:u] Yeah, I agree that this should fade. I mean, Francessa's still on the air, and he hates fatherhood. Unless he's compelled to issue clarification after clarification, which I imagine his agent and the Mets publicist will discourage. People need someone to point at and to bear the sins of the world, and maybe it'll be him for a few days, but they'll move on.

SteveJRogers Mar 04 2015 06:31 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

Frayed Knot wrote: Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I fear this is going to be an issue with legs. I tend to doubt it Sure, a lot of people are going to disagree with him and all, but his statements hardly constituted some hate-filled rant that's going to cause his team & MLB to come down on him, or be the fuel for group protests and the like. I don't know, I've seen a lot worse than what LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr said earlier on social media about being offended and disappointed in what Murphy said (including calls for immediate removal from roster). I doubt this will be a John Rocker situation with past incidents coming out to prove a pattern of ignorant behavior as well as lines of thinking. But I can see a groundswell on various platforms, as well as smallish protests when the team comes back to New York, forcing Sandy's hand to take the first trade offer that comes across his desk.

Edgy MD Mar 04 2015 06:36 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

I can see a lot of things. I have an active imagination (or so my wife tells me). But what I can see and where I'll put my money are two different things.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Mar 04 2015 06:47 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

Lefty Specialist wrote: (Sandy crosses 'San Francisco Giants' off deadline trade possibility list) lololllool

TransMonk Mar 04 2015 06:49 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

I'm not sure how much disrespect was intentional in what Murphy said, but I personally think he said too much and I wish he would have kept his mouth shut.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Mar 04 2015 06:55 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

of course thats exactly it. But in today's get-one-over-on-the-other-guy world of social outrage such gray areas may as well not exist.

G-Fafif Mar 04 2015 06:59 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

Anybody remember how Roger McDowell said far worse to fans in SF a few years ago regarding the nature of a certain percentage of the local population and how he was presumed done after being put on administrative leave for a spell? He's still coaching Brave pitchers and it doesn't seem to come up anymore.

Frayed Knot Mar 04 2015 07:09 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

Lefty Specialist wrote: (Sandy crosses 'San Francisco Giants' off deadline trade possibility list) I remember when (the still active) Andy Van Slyke openly stated that he'd never play in San Fran because of the way 'that lifestyle was openly promoted and celebrated' -- or words to that effect, I can't remember the exact quote. But whatever his specific complaints were it was a much harsher condemnation than what Murphy is saying here (albeit at a different point in time) and he wasn't drummed out of the sport and is coaching today.

MFS62 Mar 04 2015 07:11 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

G-Fafif wrote: Anybody remember how Roger McDowell said far worse to fans in SF a few years ago ... He's still coaching Brave pitchers and it doesn't seem to come up anymore. Well that's because (he says with tongue firmly in cheek) there are no gays South of the Mason Dixon Line. Especially not in Atlanta. Later

Lefty Specialist Mar 04 2015 07:13 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

'Tongue firmly in cheek' is a turn of phrase you might not want to use in this context.

TransMonk Mar 04 2015 07:13 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

The cynic in me thinks that this could have been Murphy publicly thumbing his nose at the Mets, too. The club does a seemingly decent thing by bringing in an "ambassador of inclusion" and Murphy speaks out about his personal disapproval of the ambassador's "lifestyle". He had to have known that he was going firmly against the company line of the day no matter what his personal beliefs are.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 04 2015 07:26 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

It's hard to understand why people who aren't gay think it's a choice, when people who are gay (and presumably are a bit more informed on the subject) say otherwise. I mean, I know that there are some (I suspect Rick Santorum is one of them) who do have gay urges and consciously choose to repress them and assume that everyone else is doing the same. (These would be the people who think that allowing gay marriage would undermine straight marriage, because why would a man marry a woman when he can marry a man?) I tend to doubt that Daniel Murphy falls into this category, but who can say for sure? I really doubt that this will affect Murphy's tenure with the Mets. He'll be traded, or not traded, based on what's going on on the field.

Frayed Knot Mar 04 2015 07:28 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

TransMonk wrote: The cynic in me thinks that this could have been Murphy publicly thumbing his nose at the Mets, too. The club does a seemingly decent thing by bringing in an "ambassador of inclusion" and Murphy speaks out about his personal disapproval of the ambassador's "lifestyle". He had to have known that he was going firmly against the company line of the day no matter what his personal beliefs are. I think that's reading WAY too much into this.

Edgy MD Mar 04 2015 07:30 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

I don't think he's publicly thumbing his nose about anything. I mean, I think he said in his own way that he supported the Mets effort and he welcomed Bean's visit.

TransMonk Mar 04 2015 07:34 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

Frayed Knot wrote: I think that's reading WAY too much into this. I hope so.

Lefty Specialist Mar 04 2015 07:41 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

I'm pretty sure they asked 20 guys their opinion, and 19 of them said "Yeah, sure, no problem", which doesn't fill column inches. So when Murph gave his answer they had something to write. In fact, he's fairly well known as a devout Christian, so they may have sought him out for that reason, knowing that the others would probably give them mumbled 'whatever' answers. Probably much ado about nothing, though.

metirish Mar 04 2015 08:33 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

Edgy MD Mar 04 2015 08:41 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

Speaking of costumes, we might go a long way toward tolerance if we explicitly pulled the plug on hetero-establishment enforcement traditions like rookie hazing costumes and bullpen pink backpack guy.

Vic Sage Mar 04 2015 08:42 AM Re: Murph & the Gays Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 04 2015 08:48 AM

I was listening to some sports talk on this and its very frustrating to hear some fans responding to Murphy's kind of ignorance with "well, its what he believes; no big deal. I've heard worse. It's not really that offensive." Sexual orientation is not a "lifestyle", Murph. This is a known fact at this point of the 21st century. Just like gender, race, and ethnic background, orientation is a fundamental and irrevocable part of who a person is when they are born, over which that person had no choice. But, ironically, to publicly condemn someone's nature IS in fact a "lifestyle choice". Religious and political views are philosophies that a person can choose to accept or cast aside. Even when a person is raised with those ideas, or live in a community where those ideas are prevalent, it is still a matter of personal choice to maintain them as your own. And it is a choice that can be harmful to others in the world, so a person should be held accountable for their espoused philosophies... not by governments, but by the society at large. In the marketplace of ideas, not all ideas are created equal. And the answer to bad speech is more speech, not silence in the hope that it'll just go away, or minimizing or mollifying destructive ignorance in order to just get on with our lives. It is bigotry to judge someone based on their intrinsic nature, and prejudice to think that all people with this or that nature are of equivalent character. It is neither of those things to judge people on what they actually say and do. It is not "bigotry" to condemn philosophies that condemn the natures of others. But of course, that's just my philosophy.

metirish Mar 04 2015 08:43 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

True, and slapping each other on arses doesn't help the cause...

MFS62 Mar 04 2015 08:48 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

Lefty Specialist wrote: 'Tongue firmly in cheek' is a turn of phrase you might not want to use in this context. I just remembered why I first told you about this place. LOL! Later

John Cougar Lunchbucket Mar 04 2015 08:56 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

Daniel is speaking tonight on the News Expressing Christian ideals and strong anti-gay baseball views Oh and, I can see Daniel condem the lifestyle But look at Daniel; he is show-er-ing with guys

MFS62 Mar 04 2015 09:14 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Daniel is speaking tonight on the News Expressing Christian ideals and strong anti-gay baseball views Oh and, I can see Daniel condem the lifestyle But look at Daniel; he is show-er-ing with guys And he is clinging to that bar of soap for dear life. Later

seawolf17 Mar 04 2015 09:55 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

I'm not upset about any of this, outside of the faux outrage. Most athletes won't even talk about it; at least he's talking about it. You can't realistically expect someone who thinks the Bible is fact to be logical about gay rights, but you CAN expect them to be decent human beings. And Murphy strikes me as a decent human being who just isn't too bright. But he plays baseball for a living, so we forgive his SAT scores.

Mets Guy in Michigan Mar 04 2015 10:11 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

seawolf17 wrote: I'm not upset about any of this, outside of the faux outrage. Most athletes won't even talk about it; at least he's talking about it. You can't realistically expect someone who thinks the Bible is fact to be logical about gay rights, but you CAN expect them to be decent human beings. And Murphy strikes me as a decent human being who just isn't too bright. But he plays baseball for a living, so we forgive his SAT scores. Are you implying that people who believe the Bible to be based in fact are illogical or aren't too bright?

seawolf17 Mar 04 2015 10:25 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: seawolf17 wrote: I'm not upset about any of this, outside of the faux outrage. Most athletes won't even talk about it; at least he's talking about it. You can't realistically expect someone who thinks the Bible is fact to be logical about gay rights, but you CAN expect them to be decent human beings. And Murphy strikes me as a decent human being who just isn't too bright. But he plays baseball for a living, so we forgive his SAT scores. Are you implying that people who believe the Bible to be based in fact are illogical or aren't too bright? Frig. I try so hard to stay out of battles here. "Illogical" is the answer to your question, I guess. One of the smartest guys I know -- one of my old college roommates -- is also the most Bibley guy I know.

Mets Guy in Michigan Mar 04 2015 10:35 AM Re: Murph & the Gays Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 04 2015 10:37 AM

seawolf17 wrote: seawolf17 wrote: I'm not upset about any of this, outside of the faux outrage. Most athletes won't even talk about it; at least he's talking about it. You can't realistically expect someone who thinks the Bible is fact to be logical about gay rights, but you CAN expect them to be decent human beings. And Murphy strikes me as a decent human being who just isn't too bright. But he plays baseball for a living, so we forgive his SAT scores. Are you implying that people who believe the Bible to be based in fact are illogical or aren't too bright? Frig. I try so hard to stay out of battles here. "Illogical" is the answer to your question, I guess. One of the smartest guys I know -- one of my old college roommates -- is also the most Bibley guy I know. Apologies on my end. I was a little clumsy in trying to make my point, which goes back to the original point about why I think Murphy is in for a rough summer. In our very PC society, is seems the one group that the media has declared fair game for abuse is Christians, who are frequently depicted as rubes or nuts or both. Think back to the abuse Tim Tebow got. Can you see that happening to an athlete of another faith who is open about what he believes?

Ashie62 Mar 04 2015 10:36 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

Brokeback secondbasemen?

MFS62 Mar 04 2015 10:42 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

WFAN Sports Radio @WFAN660 A #Mets spokesman has said that Daniel Murphy will no longer be discussing the Billy Bean issue with reporters. http://cbsloc.al/17PXa8E #NYM 11:48 AM - 4 Mar 2015 Later

Edgy MD Mar 04 2015 10:44 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

There's a Billy Bean issue? Great, Mets, you've created a Billy Bean issue.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 04 2015 10:50 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

Oh, I have very little doubt that Murph thought he was saying something kind and welcoming and understanding. That's the issue, for me. (I'm not in favor of any sanction here, naturally... it's just a disappointing reminder of where we stand, societally, and where the guys for whom we root tend to be on this and other related issues.) And I'll bite-- I have no doubts about the processing abilities and/or mental faculties of Christians, of course. I do have doubts about the processing abilities and/or mental faculties of people who think the Bible is fact, chronicled by a single author/small group of them. Murphy appears to belong to a Bible-literalist sect, so... yeah, it's not entirely unexpected. I'll go a little further: drop-the-soap-type jokes are dumb and unfunny, on the level of don't-trust-anything-that-bleeds-for-4-days-and-doesn't-die humor, and part of the problem.

sharpie Mar 04 2015 10:57 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

I was a little clumsy in trying to make my point, which goes back to the original point about why I think Murphy is in for a rough summer. In our very PC society, is seems the one group that the media has declared fair game for abuse is Christians, who are frequently depicted as rubes or nuts or both. Think back to the abuse Tim Tebow got. Can you see that happening to an athlete of another faith who is open about what he believes? I think it is actually Muslims that are more "fair game" for abuse than Christians who, basically, run everything. Kind of like when rich people cry "class warfare" when income inequality is invoked.

themetfairy Mar 04 2015 10:58 AM Re: Murph & the Gays Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 04 2015 11:44 AM

Perhaps Murphy has never really had to deal with gay people before this, and the incident will start a dialogue that will make him less ignorant about them and their "lifestyle". At least that's my hope.

Edgy MD Mar 04 2015 11:12 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

Why would we assume Murphy to be a Biblical literalist?

Mets Guy in Michigan Mar 04 2015 11:42 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

sharpie wrote: I was a little clumsy in trying to make my point, which goes back to the original point about why I think Murphy is in for a rough summer. In our very PC society, is seems the one group that the media has declared fair game for abuse is Christians, who are frequently depicted as rubes or nuts or both. Think back to the abuse Tim Tebow got. Can you see that happening to an athlete of another faith who is open about what he believes? I think it is actually Muslims that are more "fair game" for abuse than Christians who, basically, run everything. Kind of like when rich people cry "class warfare" when income inequality is invoked. I would respectfully disagree on all your points. But i think we're steering afar from the point of the thread. Partly my fault. Apologies.

sharpie Mar 04 2015 11:49 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

I would respectfully disagree on all your points. But i think we're steering afar from the point of the thread. Partly my fault. Apologies. And I would respectfully agree that we have veered far off of the point of the thread. Apology accepted and echoed.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 04 2015 11:55 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

Edgy MD wrote: Why would we assume Murphy to be a Biblical literalist? Whenever he speaks of his faith, it tends to be larded with a LOT of born-again/fundamentalist dog-whistle language. I may be mistaken on this, but I really don't think I am.

Edgy MD Mar 04 2015 12:08 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

There's certainly a lot o' born again folks who don't think take the science on the age of world from the Bible. None of the ones I know do.

G-Fafif Mar 04 2015 12:10 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

Billy Bean responds. When I took this job at MLB, I knew it was going to take time for many to embrace my message of inclusion. Expecting everyone to be supportive right away is simply not realistic. If you asked anyone who has competed in high-level men's professional sports, I believe they would agree with me. This doesn't change the way I go about my business, or my belief in what I am doing, but it's reality. After reading his comments, I appreciate that Daniel spoke his truth. I really do. I was visiting his team, and a reporter asked his opinion about me. He was brave to share his feelings, and it made me want to work harder and be a better example that someday might allow him to view things from my perspective, if only for just a moment. I respect him, and I want everyone to know that he was respectful of me. We have baseball in common, and for now, that might be the only thing. But it's a start. The silver lining in his comments are that he would be open to investing in a relationship with a teammate, even if he "disagrees" with the lifestyle. It may not be perfect, but I do see him making an effort to reconcile his religious beliefs with his interpretation of the word lifestyle. It took me 32 years to fully accept my sexual orientation, so it would be hypocritical of me to not be patient with others. Inclusion means everyone, plain and simple. Daniel is part of that group. A Major League clubhouse is now one of the most diverse places in sports. It wasn't always that way, but we can thank No. 42 for that. So in his honor, with a little patience, compassion and hard work, we'll get there.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Mar 04 2015 12:19 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

sharpie wrote: I would respectfully disagree on all your points. But i think we're steering afar from the point of the thread. Partly my fault. Apologies. And I would respectfully agree that we have veered far off of the point of the thread. Apology accepted and echoed. The point of this thread is Elton John song parodies. Get to work.

Edgy MD Mar 04 2015 12:21 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

G-Fafif wrote: Billy Bean responds. When I took this job at MLB, I knew it was going to take time for many to embrace my message of inclusion. Expecting everyone to be supportive right away is simply not realistic. If you asked anyone who has competed in high-level men's professional sports, I believe they would agree with me. This doesn't change the way I go about my business, or my belief in what I am doing, but it's reality. After reading his comments, I appreciate that Daniel spoke his truth. I really do. I was visiting his team, and a reporter asked his opinion about me. He was brave to share his feelings, and it made me want to work harder and be a better example that someday might allow him to view things from my perspective, if only for just a moment. I respect him, and I want everyone to know that he was respectful of me. We have baseball in common, and for now, that might be the only thing. But it's a start. The silver lining in his comments are that he would be open to investing in a relationship with a teammate, even if he "disagrees" with the lifestyle. It may not be perfect, but I do see him making an effort to reconcile his religious beliefs with his interpretation of the word lifestyle. It took me 32 years to fully accept my sexual orientation, so it would be hypocritical of me to not be patient with others. Inclusion means everyone, plain and simple. Daniel is part of that group. A Major League clubhouse is now one of the most diverse places in sports. It wasn't always that way, but we can thank No. 42 for that. So in his honor, with a little patience, compassion and hard work, we'll get there. He'll never make it in radio with that attitude.

SteveJRogers Mar 04 2015 12:34 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: sharpie wrote: I would respectfully disagree on all your points. But i think we're steering afar from the point of the thread. Partly my fault. Apologies. And I would respectfully agree that we have veered far off of the point of the thread. Apology accepted and echoed. The point of this thread is Elton John song parodies. Get to work. Hmmm... So goodbye Citi brick road...

Lefty Specialist Mar 04 2015 12:47 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

Billy seems just a mite condescending there. I don't agree with Murphy at all, but there's a bit of the 'if he just grows up a bit he'll get it' tone to those comments. Dunno. Maybe reading too much into it. Wish this would all go away.

Centerfield Mar 04 2015 12:49 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

And you can tell everybody this is my view It may be quite simple but what can I do?

Edgy MD Mar 04 2015 12:54 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

Don't let no dudes Go down on me! Although I'm tolerant Their lifestyle's not for me I'm quite content to stick with just my wife At least sexual-LEEE!! But then they start to dance and sing It's like a DUDE'S GOIN' DOWN ON ME!

Mets Guy in Michigan Mar 04 2015 12:56 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: sharpie wrote: I would respectfully disagree on all your points. But i think we're steering afar from the point of the thread. Partly my fault. Apologies. And I would respectfully agree that we have veered far off of the point of the thread. Apology accepted and echoed. The point of this thread is Elton John song parodies. Get to work. Good bye Billy Beane Though I never knew you at all You had the strength to out yourself When those around you stalled... I'm not good at these

Edgy MD Mar 04 2015 12:58 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

You're doing fine. Far more tasteful than mine, certainly.

G-Fafif Mar 04 2015 01:09 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

I guess that's why they call them the gays Enough with these mics in my face Withholding approval Not preaching removal I guess soon I'll be sent to the Rays

Zvon Mar 04 2015 01:30 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

TransMonk wrote: I'm not sure how much disrespect was intentional in what Murphy said, but I personally think he said too much and I wish he would have kept his mouth shut. I really don't think any dis was meant, but I also wish he didn't open his pie hole. I hope this just fades away but I'm afraid it won't. If the Mets were on the fence before, and I think they were, now they definitely don't resign him.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 04 2015 01:43 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

I'm quite confident that this will have no impact on how long Murphy stays with the Mets.

Edgy MD Mar 04 2015 02:03 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

On the other hand, Pirates third baseman Josh Harrison just went down with an ankle injury, and they're likely loathe to move Pedro Alvarez back over there, and they are clearly a fave trading partner for the Aldersonians... No idea how serious the injury is, of course.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Mar 04 2015 02:20 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

Homos aren't my kind of man, sir Riding on that Hershey Highway Wrap their junk in straps of leather They go gay everyday

smg58 Mar 04 2015 03:37 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

Lefty Specialist wrote: Wish this would all go away. We'll be on to something else by tomorrow. Wait, what was this thread about?

batmagadanleadoff Mar 04 2015 03:59 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

sharpie wrote: I would respectfully disagree on all your points. But i think we're steering afar from the point of the thread. Partly my fault. Apologies. And I would respectfully agree that we have veered far off of the point of the thread. Apology accepted and echoed. We didn't stray nuthin'. You can't discuss this story meaningfully without hitting these other topics that we supposedly "strayed" into. Now if youse wanna say that this ain't the proper place for a meaningful discussion of this piece, well that's somethin' else. Even though Murf the Met started it. I say Murphy's fucking clueless, and I say that believing that Murph's 's probably a nice guy, that he's not some mean-spirited thug who might beat a gay person to within an inch of his life just on account of his gayness, and that he's even open-minded enough to come around on his view. But he still doesn't get no free pass just because of the church he belongs to, just the same as the guy who lynches an African-American doesn't get a free pass just because he sympathizes with the Klan or just because for the last 100 years, nobody in his family's ever left the State of Mississippi. Cuddyer says he has never had a gay teammate that he has known of. Daniel Murphy says he has not either. I thought this was the funniest part of the piece, even with the qualification. Boy are these jocks clueless. Together, the two of 'em probably already had dozens of gay baseball teammates, going back to their little league days. Jeez, I could easily and effortlessly name you a dozen gay Mets in as long as it takes me to say their names, no doubt about it, bet my life, I don't care what you say to the contrary if you don't believe me. They're gay. (Nttawwt).

Lefty Specialist Mar 04 2015 04:49 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

I'm betting all of Billy Bean's teammates thought they never had a gay teammate either.

d'Kong76 Mar 04 2015 04:53 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

ya can't bash gay in the clubhouse the hacks'll get ya, and how

cooby Mar 04 2015 05:35 PM Re: Murph & the Gays Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 04 2015 05:49 PM

You guys just enticed me to order Elton's John's greatest hits. I used to own it but accidentally sold it along with a car when I traded it in. And btw, Edgy, I know some people that still believe the Earth is only 5000 years old. (I am not one of them) My son has a biology degree and when we were talking around the table one night with some folks I said "I don't think anyone here really doesn't believe in evolution, right?" and I was floored. I do believe in Creation but not to the one week only standard in the Bible. I also believe in science. I think they can go hand in hand (read Isaac Asimov). My son and I have talked a LOT about this (as a scientist, he is also an atheist) and he has put some scientific questions in my head and I have put some theological ideas in his....I think that is the true meaning of life....accept each others' beliefs, but expand on their knowledge. Also I have a number of gay and married gay friends and from a Christian standpoint I can understand exactly what Murphy is saying but I think that truly he has no ill will toward gays. What a shame that this is gonna get twisted, if it does. Lovin' your Elton songs; he's one of my favorites!

d'Kong76 Mar 04 2015 05:44 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

Get Vol ll, save on shipping!

cooby Mar 04 2015 05:47 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

Oh I got free shipping :)

d'Kong76 Mar 04 2015 05:59 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

Just kidding, I have the old cd's.

cooby Mar 04 2015 06:00 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

Actually, of course, I just accidentally sold one of the set in the car. But now I'll have an extra of the first one! Now that I watch Lion King regularly again, I need to keep up with "Circle of Life", lol...

Edgy MD Mar 04 2015 07:41 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

cooby wrote: You guys just enticed me to order Elton's John's greatest hits. I used to own it but accidentally sold it along with a car when I traded it in. And btw, Edgy, I know some people that still believe the Earth is only 5000 years old. (I am not one of them) My son has a biology degree and when we were talking around the table one night with some folks I said "I don't think anyone here really doesn't believe in evolution, right?" and I was floored. I do believe in Creation but not to the one week only standard in the Bible. I also believe in science. I think they can go hand in hand (read Isaac Asimov). My son and I have talked a LOT about this (as a scientist, he is also an atheist) and he has put some scientific questions in my head and I have put some theological ideas in his....I think that is the true meaning of life....accept each others' beliefs, but expand on their knowledge. Also I have a number of gay and married gay friends and from a Christian standpoint I can understand exactly what Murphy is saying but I think that truly he has no ill will toward gays. What a shame that this is gonna get twisted, if it does. Lovin' your Elton songs; he's one of my favorites! Reason, tolerance, compassion, and reconciliation. Four for four.

Edgy MD Mar 04 2015 08:29 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

Nieuwenhuis: 1.77 Monell: 1.63 Campbell: 1.27 Velasquez: 0.88 Reynolds: 0.85 Lagares: 0.71 Thornton: 0.64 Goeddel: 0.49 Flores: 0.49 Alvarez: 0.39 Morris: 0.39 Leathersich: 0.21 Tovar: 0.14 Castellanos: 0.07 Plawecki: 0.07

d'Kong76 Mar 04 2015 08:42 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

Edgy MD wrote: Nieuwenhuis: 1.77 Monell: 1.63 Campbell: 1.27 Velasquez: 0.88 Reynolds: 0.85 Lagares: 0.71 Thornton: 0.64 Goeddel: 0.49 Flores: 0.49 Alvarez: 0.39 Morris: 0.39 Leathersich: 0.21 Tovar: 0.14 Castellanos: 0.07 Plawecki: 0.07 Is this some kind of gayness rating??

metsmarathon Mar 04 2015 08:47 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

With the whole, gay is a lifestyle choice... Doesn't that mean that Murphy also had to choose to be straight? And by that, I mean, that at one point, he had to be looking at dicks and think, "man, they might be just as good as pussy. I wonder if I should give it a try...? No, wait... My religion says it's bad, so I'm not going to give into the temptation of the cock. It's straightsville all the way for me." just like he chose the baseball lifestyle and the dad lifestyle, despite the temptations to go in other directions. It's okay Daniel. We understand. Cocks are tempting. But stay strong, or you'll go straight to hell.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 04 2015 09:00 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

cooby wrote: ... from a Christian standpoint I can understand exactly what Murphy is saying but I think that truly he has no ill will toward gays. What a shame that this is gonna get twisted, if it does. Yeah, I don't think Murph's comment necessarily makes him a bad guy, either. Just a little bit clueless. Lefty Specialist wrote: Wish this would all go away. I bet it does. Looks like the Mets finally did something smart, PR-wise, by shutting Murph down. Or up.

Edgy MD Mar 04 2015 09:14 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

In the end, there's more than a few who struggle for gay rights who don't want their identity to be seen as merely innate. They fear the isolation of a supposed gay gene that will be identified in utero and have presumably gay children aborted to near extinction much like Down Syndrome children have been. And they understand themselves to be the product of their innate traits, yes, but also of personal choice. "Probably both," as George W. Bush said. Self discovery and self creation. They often see in the notion that choice is out of the equation the flip side of the same coercion that that haunted them in their own exploration and self-discovery. I don't know.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 05 2015 07:37 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

LOVE the Eltonwork, btw. But THIS... Edgy MD wrote: I'm quite content to stick with just my wife At least sexual-LEEE!! But then they start to dance and sing It's like a DUDE'S GOIN' DOWN ON ME! ... had me-- even after a long night of work/class-- giggling to myself like a madman across the subway platform from you.

Edgy MD Mar 05 2015 07:42 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

d'Kong76 wrote: Nieuwenhuis: 1.77 Monell: 1.63 Campbell: 1.27 Velasquez: 0.88 Reynolds: 0.85 Lagares: 0.71 Thornton: 0.64 Goeddel: 0.49 Flores: 0.49 Alvarez: 0.39 Morris: 0.39 Leathersich: 0.21 Tovar: 0.14 Castellanos: 0.07 Plawecki: 0.07 Is this some kind of gayness rating?? Sheesh, that was meant to go in the IGT. But it works for gayness, too, now thatcha mention it.

Edgy MD Mar 05 2015 07:47 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: LOVE the Eltonwork, btw. But THIS... Edgy MD wrote: I'm quite content to stick with just my wife At least sexual-LEEE!! But then they start to dance and sing It's like a DUDE'S GOIN' DOWN ON ME! ... had me-- even after a long night of work/class-- giggling to myself like a madman across the subway platform from you. I'm surprised to find out that you have class. The funny thing is that you don't even have to work to change "Your Song." Just swap "song" with "shlong," leave 100% of it the same, and it's high-LAR-ious.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 05 2015 08:44 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

Edgy MD wrote: I'm surprised to find out that you have class.

Frayed Knot Mar 05 2015 09:02 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

You wouldn't have to alter the lyrics much on a bunch of Elton/Taupin songs: ... living like a lusty flower / running through the grass for hours

RealityChuck Mar 05 2015 09:35 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

I think the statement is better understood if you consider that Murphy probably intended "gay lifestyle" to mean "gay sex." It's not controversial that straight men don't like the idea of gay sex (otherwise they'd be gay or bi). Murphy is saying that, he doesn't like what gays do in bed, but that doesn't mean he can't be civil and friendly to a gay man. Though it's kind of a silly thing to say by someone who's on the trade block -- the team is less likely to keep him if he becomes controversial.

cooby Mar 05 2015 10:20 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

I'm worrying my new Elton cd is going to be corrupted in my head when I listen :)

TransMonk Mar 05 2015 10:45 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

RealityChuck wrote: I think the statement is better understood if you consider that Murphy probably intended "gay lifestyle" to mean "gay sex." It's not controversial that straight men don't like the idea of gay sex (otherwise they'd be gay or bi). Murphy is saying that, he doesn't like what gays do in bed, but that doesn't mean he can't be civil and friendly to a gay man. If what you are stating were the case, then why does Murphy bring religion into the conversation? I'm not gay but I don't give any thought to what Billy Bean does in bed...much less approve or disapprove. Also, the use of the word "lifestyle" to me implies choice. I used to smoke and eat like shit and drink a bit too much. Then I had health issues and decided to change my lifestyle to a healthier one where I don't smoke, eat better and drink less often.

cooby Mar 05 2015 10:48 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

I'm betting he didn't bring the religion part up - the reporter did but left that part out

Edgy MD Mar 05 2015 11:13 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

I'm not sure how him bringing up his religion belies the notion that he's using "gay lifestyle" as a euphemism for "gay sex," which I agree he's doing, however wisely or unwisely. I mean, clearly neither he nor his faith is speaking out against gym memberships and show tunes, highlights in the hair and Martha Stewart products in household.

TransMonk Mar 05 2015 11:35 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

Straight men disapproving of gay sex is one thing. I'm not sure I agree whole-hog with Chuck's quote: "It's not controversial that straight men don't like the idea of gay sex (otherwise they'd be gay or bi)", but that's how he is reading Murphy's statements. Christian men disapproving of gay sex is (to me, at least) not quite that same thing. I think Murph was taking the conversation down one road as opposed to the other. YMMV.

Mets Guy in Michigan Mar 05 2015 01:46 PM Re: Murph & the Gays Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 05 2015 03:27 PM

Edgy MD wrote: I'm not sure how him bringing up his religion belies the notion that he's using "gay lifestyle" as a euphemism for "gay sex," which I agree he's doing, however wisely or unwisely. I mean, clearly neither he nor his faith is speaking out against gym memberships and show tunes, highlights in the hair and Martha Stewart products in household. That's an interesting point. Is Murphy making the distinction between people who are gay, and what he thinks of as the gay "lifestyle?" My brother is gay. (Not his choice, and the self-destructive behavior that has been a result of his own discomfort with this for many years has been painful for him and others.) I don't think he leads a different "lifestyle" than you or me. I don't know if Murphy has seen some of the parades or other flamboyant behavior in New York and thinks that is somehow representative of all people who are gay. If that's the case, meeting people like Billy Beane and realizing that not all people who are gay dress like RuPaul or look like they just stepped out of a Maplethorpe photo shoot is part of an ongoing educational process. Just like the way the Westboro Baptist Church members -- or the gun-loving rubes as described by the president -- are not representative of all Christians. The people who will call Murphy homophobic, dismiss him as ignorant or belittle his beliefs will not help with his education. I'm hoping that someday an active player also speaks openly about his orientation, further enlightening everyone. I would rather people who think like Murphy be enlightened through positive experiences from people like Beane and my brother, and not only pretend to have their minds changed because they fear abuse and ridicule from people who are, in some ways, equally intolerant.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 05 2015 02:49 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

Maybe I was too harsh on Murph when I wrote that he was clueless. I mean, his comment is vague enough that it could mean almost anything. So I might not know exactly what he meant even if I think I do. And besides, everybody gets judged. Everybody. People get judged for the haircut they wear. They get judged for the diner they frequent. They get judged for having too much money and they get judged for not having enough money. And nobody's ever gonna change this, especially the 20 of us on this forum in this thread. So maybe Murph should be entitled to his own opinion anyways, especially since he isn't breaking any laws and doesn't seem like the sort of guy that would settle a score with his neighbor by kidnapping his neighbor's cat. The only thing that I can be certain of that Murphy did wrong was to decide to speak his opinion into a live microphone or tape recorder for the benefit of millions of people. I don't know.

G-Fafif Mar 05 2015 04:09 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

Gay Mets Fan Pens Open Letter to Daniel Murphy, from Mets Merized Online: To me, you are a great baseball player who has demonstrated commitment and determination when faced with adversity. I have followed you in your quest to become an All-Star second baseman and truly admire what you have accomplished. To my son, you are more — you are a role model. I understand that may not have been something you signed up for, but for better or worse, for him and others like him, you are larger than life. Let me try to explain why what you said was not an innocuous sound byte, but rather an offensive statement. First, I do not have a lifestyle. I didn’t choose my sexuality the same way you didn’t choose yours. Second, being gay is not what defines me, but rather it is just one important part of who I am. So when you say that you disagree with who I am, you are also disagreeing with my son and my family. We are not a lifestyle choice — we are a family. Even though I am extremely disappointed and hurt by your remarks, I am grateful that you spoke your mind, as it has started a national conversation. The discussions taking place today on social media, in bars and churches, and around the dining room table are exactly how GLBT progress is achieved. I know it is hard moving to an unfamiliar position (think about your transition to second base), but with faith, openness and commitment, positive change can truly happen. Some wonder how the gay rights movement has progressed so well so fast. To me it is quite simple: once you recognize that your brother, son, neighbor, or co-worker is gay, you don’t just continue to “love him” but you learn to actually accept and respect him for who he is as a person — and that changes everything. So Mr. Murphy, thank you for starting a very important dialogue. My son and I will be travelling out from San Francisco to root on our Mets this weekend in Port St. Lucie. If you are around we would love to meet you and continue the conversation in person.

cooby Mar 05 2015 04:22 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

Again, I'll bet he was coerced into sharing his views and did not have much time to think about how to state them. I mean, how do you off the cuff give your opinion on anything? I think he did the best he could in that situation. Again I say, I am a Christian and I have a number of gay friends and I love all my friends equally without any thought to their personal life. I hope I am speaking for the majority of Christians, but sadly I might not be. All I'm saying is I'm thinking Murphy probably has been around the block enough to encounter enough gays to be accepting of them and he was given an unfair impromptu opportunity to express his beliefs . He couldn't possibly win.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 05 2015 06:00 PM Re: Murph & the Gays Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 06 2015 01:11 AM

Except, y'know, he's been a professional athlete in the world's media center for seven seasons now, has been through more springs than that, had advance notice about Bean's visit, and then made himself available to the media on that particular day, right? And then he said this, exactly (emphasis mine): I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual. That doesn't mean I can't still invest in him and get to know him. Maybe, as a Christian, we haven't been as articulate enough in describing what our actual stance is on homosexuality. We love the people. We disagree [with] the lifestyle. That's the way I would describe it for me. It's the same way that there are aspects of my life that I'm trying to surrender to Christ in my own life. There's a great deal of many things, like my pride. You guys are kind, considerate sorts, so I understand your striving for equanimity and even-handedness here, and feel like a prick in the ass for continually pointing this out. But, yeah, he's talking about the gay dude being gay, in esse. And his way of relating to homosexuals is that this essential-- if not definitive-- part of them is something to be excised. It's equatable to his biggest faults, his sin. At best, it's a personality flaw, something to be worked on. At worst, if left unchecked, well... it's something that'll damn them. He may not be the sharpest Taupin in the Taupincushion, but he knows what he's saying; he just doesn't realize how it will sound to others. Perhaps this is my little, judgmental mind at work here, but I'd imagine that encounters with "the good ones" seem unlikely to change his mind on the matter; that sort of mental paradigm-shift in a grown-ass man tends to require either seismic emotional upheaval or strong personal motivation. And honestly, as a rich, straight big-C Christian family man, what motivation would he have to work on this?

Vic Sage Mar 05 2015 09:18 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

Gay Mets Fan Pens Open Letter to Daniel Murphy, from Mets Merized Online: To me, you are a great baseball player who has demonstrated commitment and determination when faced with adversity. I have followed you in your quest to become an All-Star second baseman and truly admire what you have accomplished. To my son, you are more — you are a role model. I understand that may not have been something you signed up for, but for better or worse, for him and others like him, you are larger than life. Let me try to explain why what you said was not an innocuous sound byte, but rather an offensive statement. First, I do not have a lifestyle. I didn’t choose my sexuality the same way you didn’t choose yours. Second, being gay is not what defines me, but rather it is just one important part of who I am. So when you say that you disagree with who I am, you are also disagreeing with my son and my family. We are not a lifestyle choice — we are a family. Even though I am extremely disappointed and hurt by your remarks, I am grateful that you spoke your mind, as it has started a national conversation. The discussions taking place today on social media, in bars and churches, and around the dining room table are exactly how GLBT progress is achieved. I know it is hard moving to an unfamiliar position (think about your transition to second base), but with faith, openness and commitment, positive change can truly happen. Some wonder how the gay rights movement has progressed so well so fast. To me it is quite simple: once you recognize that your brother, son, neighbor, or co-worker is gay, you don’t just continue to “love him” but you learn to actually accept and respect him for who he is as a person — and that changes everything. So Mr. Murphy, thank you for starting a very important dialogue. My son and I will be travelling out from San Francisco to root on our Mets this weekend in Port St. Lucie. If you are around we would love to meet you and continue the conversation in person. yes, i made these points 2 pages ago and nobody really responded to them. Ignorance isn't harmless. Religious fundamentalism isn't harmless. Not all opinions are created equal and it is not intolerant to decry intolerance. That's just bullshit sophistry and a false equivalency. You don't get to perpetuate false notions about homosexuality publicly because you think you have a sacred book that says you can. I have no idea what kind of guy Daniel Murphy is and, frankly, neither does anybody else here. But it's irrelevant. He made a public statement that is hurtful, regardless of what we may think his intentions were. He was not joking, or kidding around, or satirizing homophobia. He meant it. And you can parse "gay lifestyle" anyway you want, but the religious right has made its position pretty clear about what they mean by that phrase, and Murphy is parroting it. It's not just about "sex" per se (masturbation and blow jobs are sins of the flesh, too, but those folks don't try to pass laws banning them). Their issue is about gayness as a way of being. They think the very impulse, the innate preference (not just the act) is a sin in and of itself that can be prayed away, or counseled away. If your nature can't (or won't) change, you should simply abstain from loving other consenting adults who may love you, too, if they are of the same gender. And you certainly shouldn't have the civil right to MARRY them. But we love you, so we're not bad people. But this stuff stops getting propagated, and change happens, when enough people say STFU to people who spout this gibberish, not by minimizing and rationalizing this sort of harmful behavior. kids are still DYING over being who they are, some by their own hand because they can't take the ostracism and self-loathing anymore. This is not a little thing. Hey, Murph, STFU.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 05 2015 10:13 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

Goddamn you Leiter and Sage. For being on the right side. I called Murph clueless in my first post in this thread, and then immediately felt guilty about that because I knew that my post wasn't gonna please everyone here. So I backtracked and waffled and then wrote that Murphy could have his opinion if he wanted it. And then I was mad at myself as soon as I clicked the send button on that second post for not being honest with myself. I knew I was right the first time. Murph is clueless. And the idea that he should get a free pass just because he's following his church's beliefs is absurd and counter-intuitive. If Murph's church is spreading that message, then that church should be called out as well.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 05 2015 10:30 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

Edgy MD wrote: There's a Billy Bean issue? Great, Mets, you've created a Billy Bean issue. I'm sure there's a good deal of hindsight going into what I'm about to write, (and some Wilpon antipathy, too) but the more I think about this, what the fuck were the Mets thinking? They invited an openly gay ex-player into camp for a day and created a whole event focusing on his sexual orientation, and didn't consider that one of their own dumb and narrow-minded jocks, unfiltered, and apparently unprepped, might say something colossally stupid and insensitive to a reporter covering the event? This is #lolmets, right? Give the Mets an "A" for intent and, as usual, an "F" for execution. And that was just day one of the official Spring Training season. Between Murphy and Thor's lunch, the clueless Mets picked up right where they left off last year. Maybe Jay Horwitz is getting too old and too slow for his job.

Mets Guy in Michigan Mar 06 2015 04:45 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

I don't think telling anyone "STFU" changes anyone's mind. It just means they are bullied into not talking about their perspective. Society changes through a free exchange of ideas, not one side telling another not to express its thoughts. Especially when one side is demanding tolerance and acceptance -- as long as you agree with it. I'm proud the Mets have a Jackie Robinson Rotunda. Robinson didn't tell anyone to "STFU." He just demonstrated how they were wrong through his words and deeds and played an important role in society changing. I'd not defending a word of what Murphy said. I disagree with him entirely. I just don't think telling people "STFU" helps.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 06 2015 07:47 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

"STFU" is an impolite way to phrase the sentiment; it sure as hell isn't changing any minds. But, frankly, as far as facilitating day-to-day interaction goes... it works. It keeps things running, and keeps people focused on the work at hand. Hell, we are rooting for a team from a municipality that functions mostly predicated on that premise (street-level, anyway). STFU until we get to our stop. STFU and finish the deliveries. STFU and let's get through this cost analysis. STFU and turn the double play. Maybe we'll talk in the break room, when we've got a minute. And-- really frankly-- let's set the hagiography aside for a minute: Jackie wasn't Buddha, and he wasn't Martin; he was Jack the ballplayer. Though his achievement grew to encompass and mean much more, Robinson's keeping his mouth shut began because that's what the job required. (And really, really frankly: although everyone deserves a chance to be heard, at least once... not every idea deserves equal time.) Anyone else want the soapbox? I feel like I've been up here for ages.

metirish Mar 06 2015 08:01 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Anyone else want the soapbox? I feel like I've been up here for ages.

Mets Guy in Michigan Mar 06 2015 08:06 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

"STFU" is an impolite way to phrase the sentiment; it sure as hell isn't changing any minds. But, frankly, as far as facilitating day-to-day interaction goes... it works. It keeps things running, and keeps people focused on the work at hand. Hell, we are rooting for a team from a municipality that functions mostly predicated on that premise (street-level, anyway). STFU until we get to our stop. STFU and finish the deliveries. STFU and let's get through this cost analysis. STFU and turn the double play. Maybe we'll talk in the break room, when we've got a minute. And-- really frankly-- let's set the hagiography aside for a minute: Jackie wasn't Buddha, and he wasn't Martin; he was Jack the ballplayer. Though his achievement grew to encompass and mean much more, Robinson's keeping his mouth shut began because that's what the job required. (And really, really frankly: although everyone deserves a chance to be heard, at least once... not every idea deserves equal time.) Anyone else want the soapbox? I feel like I've been up here for ages. The whole point of bringing Beane to spring training -- in fact, the entire focus of his job as MLB director if inclusion, or whatever it is -- is to encourage such discussions as a way to break down barriers. Saying, "You are wrong, and I don't think you're point of view deserves equal time, and because I think you are wrong you are ignorant, so STFU," only continues to build those barriers.

metsmarathon Mar 06 2015 08:21 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

thre's two sides to the argument about STFU. on the one hand, there's the whole, STFU and do your job. you're not being paid to be a philosopher or a theologist. you're being paid to be a ball player, or a bricklayer, or a dentist. so STFU and do that job, and stop letting your mouth get in the way or hitting a ball, building a wall, or filling a cavity. on the other hand, there's the greater context of expressing differing views in a peaceable democratic society. and in that context, ideally, the expression of differing views can lead to outdated or outmoded ideas being pushed to the wayside, as hearts and minds are changed for the better. and in that context, STFU doesn't really work out so well. instead it can lead to defensive positions being taken, harder stances being forged in the crucible of public ridicule. it can lead to backlash. the end goal is to seek understanding and acceptance, not fearful submission.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 06 2015 08:50 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: The whole point of bringing Beane to spring training -- in fact, the entire focus of his job as MLB director if inclusion, or whatever it is -- is to encourage such discussions as a way to break down barriers. Saying, "You are wrong, and I don't think you're point of view deserves equal time, and because I think you are wrong you are ignorant, so STFU," only continues to build those barriers. I'm not certain that was the whole point of bringing him in, but... fair enough. I was speaking more generally, anyway. When I say STFU about public figures, I'm not arguing against self-expression (obviously); I'm arguing against the Right to a Forum and asserting that not everybody deserves the same-- or any-- time in front of a microphone about a particular topic (without regard to who the famous speaker is, and what their expertise/ability to critically-think extemporaneously is).

Edgy MD Mar 06 2015 08:56 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

metsmarathon wrote: on the one hand, there's the whole, STFU and do your job. you're not being paid to be a philosopher or a theologist. Theologian, man. Nobody's used theologist since like 1710. STFU.

Vic Sage Mar 06 2015 08:57 AM Re: Murph & the Gays

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I don't think telling anyone "STFU" changes anyone's mind. It just means they are bullied into not talking about their perspective. Society changes through a free exchange of ideas, not one side telling another not to express its thoughts. Especially when one side is demanding tolerance and acceptance -- as long as you agree with it. I'm proud the Mets have a Jackie Robinson Rotunda. Robinson didn't tell anyone to "STFU." He just demonstrated how they were wrong through his words and deeds and played an important role in society changing. I'd not defending a word of what Murphy said. I disagree with him entirely. I just don't think telling people "STFU" helps. If you cannot or will not see the qualitative difference between being intolerant of certain ideas that harm other people (like racism, sexism, anti-semitism, and homophobia) and being intolerant of other human beings for being what they are, if you insist on making this false equivalency, then our free exchange of ideas isn't going to get very far. If a philosophy requires Murphy to deny the humanity of others, then it's on MURPHY to change his philosophy, not on me or the rest of society to tolerate it. "I'm entitled to my opinion!" the hateful and stupid will always shout. And they are. I defend their right to be wrong, for Nazis to march in Skokie, for the Klan to don their robes at their local chapter meetings down at the Racoon Lodge. I've written amicus briefs for the ACLU defending that right. But their right is only to be free of governmental restriction or penalty for their views, not a right to avoid criticism. It's a right that is coupled with the requirement that they take responsibility for their words, should they choose to declare them publicly. And it is a perfectly fair and reasonable response for someone to respond to such bigotry with a "STFU you assclown" I'm all fore a free exchange of ideas. I'm a First Amendment absolutist with documentation to prove it. But the idea that certain people are lesser than because of who they are (not what they THINK, but who they ARE) is an idea that has been freely exchanged quite enough in human history. When people support such views with their holy books, rationality has flown out the window and debate is not possible. The more such ideas continue to be "freely exchanged", the more actual physical harm it does to actual real people. It ceases being a purely philosophical question. And society doesn't change by debating the undebatable (a debate is an argument based on rational and logical principles, not dogma derived from sacred texts whose truths are determined by faith, not reasoning). Society changes when it says "enough already with what you think your god thinks," and ceases to find such views acceptable in civilized company. Yes, telling a person to STFU doesn't change that person's mind. But it may change the mind of others who feel similarly about spouting their ignorance out loud. And if you can drive ignorance out of the public discourse, then after a few generations people wonder why anybody ever felt that way in the first place. Has racism disappeared? Of course not. But its certainly changed in the last 50 years, and for the better. Such views are whispered, not shouted, and they don't become legislation any more (accept among the "Tea Party", but that's a different conversation). But while there are still states in America that deny certain consenting adults the right to marry, while our high schools are still shutting down productions of a play because it may suggest that 2 men might be in love (see ALMOST, MAINE, in Maiden High School, NC - oh, wait, you couldn't; the church got the principal to cancel it), while gay-bashing is still a thing, while teachers and others hide in a closet for fear of losing their jobs or the respect of their communities, and while kids are still killing themselves because they've internalized this hate, then the time for tolerating intolerance is past (if there was ever any such time to begin with). And yes, your mileage may vary.

Mets Guy in Michigan Mar 06 2015 09:43 AM Re: Murph & the Gays Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 08 2015 04:56 PM

But while there are still states in America that deny certain consenting adults the right to marry, while our high schools are still shutting down productions of a play because it may suggest that 2 men might be in love (see ALMOST, MAINE, in Maiden High School, NC - oh, wait, you couldn't; the church got the principal to cancel it), while gay-bashing is still a thing, while teachers and others hide in a closet for fear of losing their jobs or the respect of their communities, and while kids are still killing themselves because they've internalized this hate, then the time for tolerating intolerance is past (if there was ever any such time to begin with). With the play, your beef should be with the school, not a church. (And I say "a church" and not "the church" because the meaning is very different. My church allows gay pastors.) A church has the right to ask that the school not present the play. The school has the right -- and responsibility -- to determine what programs it wishes to allow students to produce. If there was an objection from someone in the community, the school had an opportunity for a teachable moment and a discussion that might have led to the opening of some minds. By caving, the school perpetuates the idea that the kissing is wrong. Those opportunities for discussion and education can lead to situations where teachers no longer have to hide in closets and where kids no longer internalize the hate. I'd rather have the shouting than the whispers. Shouting leads to discussion and change. Whispers extend the problems. Saying the time for tolerating intolerance is great as long as your views are the ones being tolerated.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 07 2015 01:58 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

Lemme start some more trouble here. Americans are turning away from organized religion in record numbers (And thank god for that. Hey! That's my joke. Me! batmags. Get it? "Thank God"? Because there ain't supposed to be a god.) Lynn Parramore, AlterNet 02 Mar 2015 at 21:58 ET With fire-breathing religion figuring anew in global conflicts, and political discussions at home often dominated by the nuttery of the Christian right, you might get the sense that somebody’s god is ready to mug you around every street corner. But if you’re the type who doesn’t like to hang your hat on organized religion, here’s a bit of good news: in America, your numbers are growing. There are more religiously unaffiliated people in the U.S. today than ever before. Starting in the 1980s, a variety of polls using different methodologies have come to the same conclusion: people who do not identify with religious labels are on the rise, perhaps even doubling in that time frame. Some call them “nones”: agnostics, atheists, deists, secular humanists, general humanists, and people who just don’t care to identify with any religious group. It’s not exactly correct to call them nonbelievers, because some still have faith and spirituality in some sense or another. A 2012 Pew study noted that 30 percent of these people believe in “God or universal spirit” and around 20 percent even pray every day. But according to the latest research, Americans checking the “none of the above” box will make up an increasingly important force in the country. Other groups, like born-again evangelicals, have grown more percentage-wise, but the nones have them beat in absolute numbers. The nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute has documented this sea change in its American Values Atlas, which it released last Wednesday. The fascinating study provides demographic, religious and political data based on surveys conducted throughout 2014. According to PRRI director of research Dan Cox, “The U.S. religious landscape is undergoing a dramatic transformation that is fundamentally reshaping American politics and culture.” Last year, for the very first time, Protestants lost their majority status in the Institute’s annual report, making up only 47 percent of those surveyed. The religiously unaffiliated, who come in at 22 percent, boast numbers on par with major religious groups like American Catholics. All told, the unaffiliated is the second-largest group in the country. It was also the most common group chosen by residents in 13 states, with the largest share (a third or more) in Washington, Oregon and New Hampshire. In Ohio and Virginia, this group was tied for first place. The unaffiliated don’t find too many like-minded folks down in Mississippi, however, where they make up only 10 percent of the population. The study also found that there are 15 states where the unaffiliated constitute the second-largest group. So what do we know about these people? Nones tend to be more politically liberal — three-quarters favor same-sex marriage and legal abortion. They also have higher levels of education and income than other groups. While about one out of five Americans is unaffiliated, the number is much higher among young people: Pew research shows that a third of Americans under 30 have no religious affiliation. Harvard professor Robert Putnam, who studies religion, thinks the trend among younger people is part of their general lack of interest in community institutions and institutions in general. Last year, the Washington Post ran an article citing research by Allen Downey, a professor of computer science at Massachusetts’ Olin College of Engineering, who claims that people become nones mainly for two reasons: lack of religious upbringing (OMG those hippie parents!) and… the Internet. According to Downey, as much as 20 percent of unaffiliation is attributable to Internet use. He found that between 1990 and 2010, the share of Americans claiming no religious affiliation grew from 8 percent to 18 percent while the number of Americans surfing the Web jumped from almost nothing to 80 percent. But he acknowledges, as his critics are quick to point out, that correlation does not causation make. One thing is certain: voting nones are making their presence felt in politics. They are thought to have helped Obama win a second term. But the GOP doesn’t seem to show many signs of reducing the outsized influence of white evangelicals, who represent only 18 percent of the population, at least publicly. Just a couple of weeks ago, presidential hopeful Scott Walker could be seen refusing to answer a question about evolution, as if embracing widely accepted science would make him an apostate. Ordained Southern Baptist Mike Huckabee, also making noises of running, just released a book titled God, Guns, Grits, and Gravy, which kind of makes the Lord sound like the Great Bubba in the sky. But on the secretive big money donor trail, which all serious candidates must follow, the only religion they’ll be talking about much is free market fundamentalism. Your libertarians, your supply siders, and your various fatcats care a whole lot more about their bank accounts than any spiritual reckonings. Getting the government out of their way to leave them to their plundering is their holy scripture. But when talking to voters, the GOP really can’t afford to tone it down, because while monied elites tend to be secular, selling free-market pillage to the people getting robbed is not a very effective strategy. So they still have to mask their agenda behind appeals to popular religion so the non-rich will vote against their economic interests in places like Tennessee, which has the highest share of white evangelicals, at 43 percent. (White mainline Protestants account for 14 percent of the population nationally.) As you might expect, the fact that religion is losing its grip on the daily lives of Americans is freaking a lot of people out. The New York Times’ David Brooks is quite alarmed, admonishing nones that “secularism has to do for nonbelievers what religion does for believers — arouse the higher emotions, exalt the passions in pursuit of moral action.” Of course, secularists only form one portion of the unaffiliated group, but considering that Mr. Brooks likes to wax on about the moral probity of America’s founders — your George Washingtons and so on — he might ask himself which box they might have checked. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/amer ... d-numbers/

G-Fafif Mar 08 2015 01:37 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

In case any of this is still an issue (because I assume it's been solved), Jason and I took our time and presented some thoughts here (Jason's) and here (mine).

batmagadanleadoff Mar 11 2015 01:20 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

Enlightened comments from the comments section of a Christian web-site commenting on the Murphy incident : Baseballmomof8 • 18 hours ago Murphy did not speak HIS truth. He spoke THE Truth. Alfred Johnson • 19 hours ago Trust those in charge to ruin a moment of respect and actual tolerance between two people of vastly different views. It's a bit like those people who insist on BCE and CE instead of BC and AD, or try to remove nativity scenes at Christmas - they're scared of other people being offended by Christianity despite what the other people actually think. Rev. Alan B. Maria Wharton • 17 hours ago This is not about Billy Bean or Daniel Murphy. This is about the fact that Major League Baseball has signed on to the New World Order social engineering program of normalizing homosexuality and suppressing Christian freedom. One player is free to make public issue of his openly homosexual lifestyle - a matter of moral consequence - while another player is reprimanded for expressing his religious belief that the homosexual lifestyle is immoral. Both of them have a moral opinion, so why is one free to express his views and the other not? The reason is that homosexuality fits into the NWO view of the future, where natural families are suppressed; religious expression threatens the acceptance of the future they are seeking to construct. Unfortunately for America, MLB has decided to lend itself to suppression of religious freedom, freedom of speech, and (perhaps unwittingly) of the family, while promoting the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle. The phrase “as American as Mom, baseball, and apple pie” is going to lose a lot of its meaning for many Americans. Thank heavens we can at least still agree on apple pie. Again, this is not about either of the two players involved. Rather, it is symbolic of the values in play. Godsaves70 Rev. Alan B. Maria Wharton • 5 hours ago You are correct! michael hall Rev. Alan B. Maria Wharton • 10 hours ago Well put • DG • 18 hours ago Would it be OK to express one's natural law views regarding homosexuality? After all, natural law is based on reason alone, rather than on any religious deposit of faith. Or is reason also now banned by the Mets? frrapper • 5 hours ago Goodbye Visa; goodbye Mets. Joseph Ferreira • 2 hours ago Not to worry. He can still express his views on lying, stealing, fornication without being accused of hating liars, thieves fornicators and so on. Just not the homosexual thing of course. I feel truly sorry for the once great USA. True conservatives need to ditch the Republican Party. They're just stringing you all along. Form a new party and let the GOP die. The GOP is really just right of the Dems. Sure they talk a good fight but when it comes down to it. they never go to the mat for unborn babies or marriage. Even Ben Carson has shrunk from expressing his views on homosexuality now. saa5of5 • 4 hours ago This is a pretty good example of the actual person with same sex attraction not being the "problem" but rather those who are pushy and loud who fear an open discussion, insisting a difference in understanding is hateful or "homophobic." Here's a great open discussion: http://gloria.tv/media/N5p8pV9... countypa • 20 hours ago The gays run the USA.....What Next...(dirtandmoredirt com) https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ny-me ... ce-but-dis

batmagadanleadoff Mar 11 2015 01:32 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

Former SI cover boy, college football superduperstar and US senate candidate Craig James weighs in on the Murphy incident: excerpt: Former New England Patriots running back Craig James spoke out against gay marriage on Monday and asserted that those who support same-sex unions "have a problem with God" and are giving in to Satan.... James then stated that he's read and studied the book of Genesis and commented that the story of Adam and Eve shows that if someone supports gay marriage, they have "a problem with God." http://www.christianpost.com/news/craig ... us-135480/

Lefty Specialist Mar 11 2015 02:05 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

Unfortunately for America, MLB has decided to lend itself to suppression of religious freedom, freedom of speech, and (perhaps unwittingly) of the family, while promoting the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle. The phrase “as American as Mom, baseball, and apple pie” is going to lose a lot of its meaning for many Americans. Thank heavens we can at least still agree on apple pie. Mmmmm....pie. Boy, I blamed Bud Selig for a lot of things, but suppression (perhaps unwittingly) of the family wasn't one of them. Get these people some brown bags to breathe into. They deal with gay people every day and are probably too dense to know it. Or is reason also now banned by the Mets? Well, obviously DG hasn't been watching the Mets for the past few years....

Ashie62 Mar 11 2015 02:18 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

I just want 94 wins.

Frayed Knot Mar 11 2015 02:18 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

"One player is free to make public issue of his openly homosexual lifestyle - a matter of moral consequence - while another player is reprimanded for expressing his religious belief that the homosexual lifestyle is immoral." I missed the part where Murphy was reprimanded.

Ceetar Mar 11 2015 02:21 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

mostly worthless post in teh patriotpost too as long as we're bringing it up. [url]https://patriotpost.us/posts/33739 Professional baseball player Daniel Murphy is a second baseman for the New York Mets. “When the League appointed his teammate (and open homosexual) Billy Bean as its ‘ambassador of inclusion,’” writes Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, “Murphy wasn’t about to sit on the sidelines.”

Lefty Specialist Mar 11 2015 02:32 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

Golly, Jeff Wilpon is already going to court in his crusade against unwed mothers. What more do these people want?

Edgy MD Mar 11 2015 02:33 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

I'm continually surprised to find out which journals you guys read in your leisure time.

Ceetar Mar 11 2015 02:38 PM Re: Murph & the Gays

Edgy MD wrote: I'm continually surprised to find out which journals you guys read in your leisure time.