Quantcast

professor frinkMichael Sam is a relatively noteworthy college football draft prospect, having excelled as a defensive end at Missouri. He is also gay, and he announced as much yesterday. Being that he will soon be the first openly gay player, actively participating in one of the major American sports, this is a pretty big deal. It’s also a pretty complex issue, with the draft looming. Will some teams pass on Sam out of sheer prejudice? Probably not. Will some pass on him for fear of the locker room impact? Maybe. (Though Sam’s team at Missouri knew he was gay all year, and (surprise) it apparently had zero impact.) Will some pass on him because they don’t want the inevitable media distraction? Maybe. Is that wrong? Maybe. Would another team bump him up the draft board because they want to make a statement? Maybe. Is that wrong? Maybe. Like I said: complex issue. If the Cubs were considering drafting an openly gay player at the top of the draft board, would you have a strong opinion in either direction? For me, I’d be a lot more focused on whether I thought he could be an impact talent (preferably soon).

(I recognize the potential for ugly comments on this topic, but it’s an extremely important news event in the sports world. Try to keep the comments constructive and hate-less. If you can’t, just focus on the Bullets.)

  • Baseball Prospectus with a fascinating “we knew them when” piece on NL Central prospects, and how they were perceived before they were drafted. Each of Javier Baez, Albert Almora, C.J. Edwards, and Dan Vogelbach get a look. Among the interesting things: some scouts completely wrote off Dan Vogelbach because of his size, while others thought he was the best high school hitter in the country that year. Javier Baez was something of a late-riser, really only blasting onto the top tier amateur scene in the year before the 2011 draft, in which some teams viewed him as one of the elite talents, and others viewed the positional questions and swing-and-miss potential as knocking him down to late first round territory. The Cubs, it would seem, may have thought they got a steal at number 9, even though some viewed it as a reach at the time. Score one for the Tim Wilken-led Cubs era.
  • If you knew there was a center field prospect – who could stick in CF in the big leagues – who put up some of the best overall numbers for any minor leaguer last year, while playing at an age appropriate for AA and AAA, wouldn’t you assume he was a top five prospect in baseball? A future superstar lock? How could a guy like that not be viewed so highly? Well, that’s the unique case of George Springer, an Astros prospect who is considered a top prospect in baseball, but below the elite tier. Why? Despite the power and walks and defense, his contact ability is almost unbelievably poor (his contact rate is consistently among the bottom players in his league). Apparently, he has a great idea of the strike zone, and doesn’t go out of the zone too much – he just whiffs a whole lot in the zone. Sound familiar? It sounds to me a lot like Brett Jackson, who did everything well (and was a center fielder to boot), but the inability to make consistent contact in the zone derailed him at the higher levels of the minors and in the bigs. Given that Springer is so good in every other way, he’s another test case for the question of whether a guy with serious, serious contact issues in the upper minors can still have success in the big leagues.
  • Want to try your hand at finding hitting stat correlations? THT has that tool for you. There’s also a metric ton of fascinating information in the piece. How about this: pop-up percentage in Year One is slightly more predictive of BABIP in Year Two than BABIP in Year One is predictive of BABIP in Year Two. Mind = blown.
  • A local piece on Ryan Sweeney and his preparation for his second season with the Cubs. With a brand new baby in January, Sweeney mentions that he’s not getting a whole lot of sleep these days. Maybe that means he’ll be particularly ready for the constant time-shifting a Cubs player’s body clock must do.
  • mdavis

    Whether you agree with it or not, Michael Sam is truly a courageous young man. Good for him. I think the type of locker room he goes into will be important for sure. Strong coach, strong player leadership, and it will be fine.

    Also, good for his teammates. Anyone who says this would be a distraction look no further than what mizzou accomplished this season.

    • CubFan Paul

      “Anyone who says this would be a distraction look no further than what mizzou accomplished this season”

      …It’s Missouri, not the NFL or big market media.

      He’s going to be a huge distraction until he has success or busts

      • mdavis

        i think its going to depend on where he lands. Seattle, New England, Green Bay, Chicago, Denver, I don’t see being a big distraction. Strong leadership throughout those organizations. and I don’t think you can view a 5th round guy as a “bust”. he’s a lottery ticket. he’ll be a special teamer and situational pass rusher, imho.

        • Xruben31

          I honestly don’t care about sexual orientation. Back when I was playing football there was a openly homosexual kid on the team and he was accepted because our team had great leadership and he was just a very good player. So basically if he preforms well (which he has the potential to do.) no one will care anymore.

        • Billy

          A 5th Rounder? He was SEC Defensive POY, all reports I have seen have him as a later 1st rounder. He will be expected to produce right away to whatever team that drafts him, not as a special teamer but as a guy who gets to the quarterback

          • Jon

            He’s not even going to be the first defensive lineman from his own team taken.

            • Billy

              So obviously that means he’s going to drop to the 5th round?

          • Kyle

            “all reports I have seen have him as a later 1st rounder.”

            You need to look at a *lot* more reports, then.

            Suddenly everyone in the world has strong opinions about the draft position of a tweener DL that they had never heard of before yesterday.

            • DarthHater

              According to ESPN.com: “Most NFL draft projections see him as a likely mid-round pick, with some saying Sam could go as high as the third round, with a possible position switch to outside linebacker. He is rated as the 12th-best outside pass rusher in the draft by ESPN Scouts Inc.”

    • JadeBos

      I’m 41 and most people younger than me have ZERO problem with homosexuality. Its a far different culture than it was 20 years ago. Sure there are a few people who are morons and uneducated, I mean there are still racists?! but those people are the fringe.

      • WiscCubsFan

        I am opposed to the celebration of homosexuality because of a deeply held religious moral conviction. What I find hateful is the attempt by people such as yourself to brand people like me as a “moron” or as “uneducated.” Since it’s relevant to your comment, I’ll mention that I have a degree in education with a double major and graduated summa cum laude.

        • roz

          Would bigot be a better term then?

          • WiscCubsFan

            I reject that label as well. I have no problem with you or anyone else expressing your beliefs on this or any other topic. I just think it should be done respectfully.

        • JadeBos

          I find it curious that you stated your opposition to “the celebration” of homosexuality. Can I assume you are educated enough to realize that homosexuality exists in many animals and is often a biological hardwired sexual preference in many humans.
          So its ok with you if a person is homosexual? They just shouldn’t say that they are?

          • WiscCubsFan

            It isn’t my position to judge the hearts of other human beings. The celebration of or participation in homosexuality is something I know I shouldn’t do (based on Romans chapter 1). I just ask that my conviction not be ridiculed cruelly. Disagree with it? Sure, of course. But do we need to name call? I hope not…

            • JadeBos

              “It isn’t my position to judge the hearts of other human beings.”

              Yep, you’re just a good person following the law of your bible.

    • jawsofvictory

      Whether or not the cause stems from my lo-o-o-n-g day at work, or some inherent laziness, I cannot find the button for “reply to article” rather than comment.

      First, Vogelbach. I was working in the middle of the wilderness when Lou Reed died. I suddenly found out today. Pretty upsetting. For me, discovering Lou Reed put sense into an otherwise disturbing and alienated life. In Lou Reed I found a poet for whom the freaks were the normals and the normals were the freaks. And so, Dan Vogelbach, the nearly spherical specimen of human diversity gets my cheer every time. Baseball is the sport of anomaly–even if it can be rationalized via stats (if not for outliers, would we really be interested?)–and Vogelbach, a throwback freak amidst the ever more homogenized science of athlete manufacture, is my personal prospect crush. He does everything (except range-y defense) that a modern management wants, and will continue to do so, I predict.

      Second: gay. This site is often amazing in its analytical prowess. Everyday, BN gives me a little joy through the articles that Brett and co. produce and the vigorous debate that ensues. These have been dark days for the average Cubs fan, and BN sheds light. I am therefore both surprised and disgusted by some of the absurd and, frankly, depressingly senseless comments present in this thread and in regard to homosexuality. However, there are plenty of noble counterpoints that make me happy.

      I’ll finish with this: if the Cubs had a shot at drafting a cant-miss, stud of a TOR prospect who happened to be any flavor of non-straight gender, I would not only advocate for that selection, but take greater joy in his or her gender.

      A pox on bigots. A rational morality is about causing or not causing harm.

  • scorecardpaul

    Ok, I will start this topic. If the guy can play I wouldn’t care if he were a woman. The only requirement I would have would be if he can play baseball. I want multiple World Series wins!

    • mdavis

      agreed. will there be some teams that pass because of this? unfortunately, i’m sure some will. may view the media attention as a “distraction”. but i think most teams are going to look at the kid and say, “can he help us win?” and i think thats what that majority of his teammates will think as well. I had a gay teammate in college, was a hell of a running back for us, and there was nothing but respect in our locker room.

      That being said, i hope people don’t look at this kid and think he’s slipping because of this. I think he’s a mid round 3-5 type of pick. He lacks protoypical size, and lacks the athleticism to move to the OLB. but 3rd, 4th, 5th round, i think is where he lands. or should land for that matter

      • Eternal Pessimist

        “will there be some teams that pass because of this? unfortunately, i’m sure some will.”

        hmmm….I don’t think so. I think just about every professional organization is just looking to succeed. I also don’t think there is nearly as many players as you might think, who are concerned about this type of thing anymore.

        • Funn Dave

          I agree. I can’t see any team saying, “well, he’s the perfect player for us, but we’re going to pass because of this completely irrelevant, non-sports-related aspect of his nature.

          • willis

            I can see teams not wanting the ridiculous, uncalled for media circus that comes with him. But no team will pass on him because he’s gay. It’s about the ESPN type idiots that will turn it into pure chaos.

  • CubbiesOHCubbies

    While I commend this kid for having the courage to bring this out into the public, for his sake, I really hope he lives up to his potential on the field. If he struggles at all, all of the meatheads will destroy this guy and turn it into a whole “This is why gays can’t play professional sports”. I would also like to think the teammates on whatever NFL team will go out oftheir way to make sure he is openly accepted, but I’m not 100% sure they will. There always seems to be a handful of haters in any group. I wish this kid all the success in the world and I hope maybe he slips a little in the third round and the Bears can nab him. He definitely fills a defensive position of need.

    • mdavis

      just my own opinion but i dont think he’ll “drop” to the third…could be there in the 4th or 5th. and he lacks the size of the prototype DE. 6’1″ 260, is not ideal. Unless they go to a hybrid, and plan on having him rotate in as a stand up OLB pass rusher on certain downs, i don’t see a tremendous fit.

  • chifords2000

    Great move by Sams, and a turning point in professional sports. To anyone I meet who “can’t believe” there is or could be a good, openly gay player on a pro team, I always counter with “not that you know of”. There is no question in my mind that there have been gay stars in MLB, NFL, NHL etc, they just hadn’t come out.

  • Edwin

    I think most GM’s only care about winning. If a GM thinks that Sam can be a contributing NFL player, they’ll draft him. If not, I’d like to believe it’s more due to his talent than his sexual orientation.

  • hcs

    My only issue would be with any teammate that took issue with another teammate’s sexuality. There is zero difference, in my opinion, between the player who doesn’t want a gay teammate and one who doesn’t want to play with someone of a different race or religion. It is an antiquated mindset which deserves to be left in the past. Admittedly, this is all an oversimplification, the ramifications would run deep, but regardless, it SHOULD make no difference at all.

  • Don Eaddy

    Darn, I was hoping this would be one sports website that wouldn’t make this into a big story…

    I have nothing against openly gay players. It is great for them and a positive step for society when gays feel safe to be open (Which most have for years). That is all great; however, I think the huge circus is a shame. We don’t celebrate straight players, why celebrate gays? That isn’t equality. ESPN is going to turn this guy into the next Tim Tebow-like media madness. Is that fair to this guy?

    Also, I’m not saying he needs to keep his sexual preference to himself. He is a grown man and do whatever he pleases. All I’m saying is that I have never seen a professional athlete step forward to say he is straight and then be given special opportunities, special attention, and special treatment because of it. And straight people can’t get that opportunity, why do gays? This is assuming that equality is everybody’s goal.

    Again, I have nothing against the man, just looking for healthy discussion.

    • brainiac

      these are important gestures because the lgbtq community are still subject to significant amounts of exclusion, violence, and hatred. we’ll hope that one day someone’s orientation is such a tacit question that no statement needs to be made, but for now, especially in the sports community, positive reinforcement and representation is a must.

      • bbmoney

        well said brainiac.

        One day, hopefully soon, this will be a non-story. But for now, it’s a big story. It’s sad that it has to be a big story, but until all the barriers and bigotry is gone this needs to be a big story to try to change all that.

      • Cornish Heat

        Brainiac is spot-on.

        Don Eaddy, unlike “gays”, “straights” suffer absolutely zero discrimination. The LGBTQ community is discriminated against and treated equally in our present society. As Brainiac says, hopefully one day that discrimination is an ugly thing of the past and this isn’t a newsworthy event. But for now, it certainly is newsworthy; being the first of anything usually is.

        • Cornish Heat

          *treated unequally

      • Don Eaddy

        I think saying that gays are “subject to significant amounts of exclusion, violence, and hatred” is quite a stretch at this point. When I was in high school/college nobody really thought anything of the gay kids. They were just other people. It wasnt a big deal. I never heard of or witnessed any violence at all. And as far as exclusion goes, if it was a school group/team they couldn’t be excluded. If it was a social group, then I think people can be friends with whoever they choose. Regardless, that isnt the point. The point is that all this discrimination and bullying towards gays just isnt as prevalent as people are led to believe.

        • Darth Ivy

          That’s exactly right. It is important for there to be gay leaders to make is easier for young people to self-realize and/or “come out” because it can often cause mental health problems when gay people either struggle with self-realization or coming out. But I don’t think we’re doing them a service by acting like they’re being oppressed more than they are. Our society mostly accepts and celebrates the gay community. The anti-gay crowd is a tiny fringe.

          It only makes it harder on young gay people struggling with their self-realization or coming out when we tell them how oppressed they are and how much society hates them. Instead, we could be telling them the truth, that society accepts them whoever they are. That would make it much easier for them

          • CubFan Paul

            That’s a lot of assumption

            • Darth Ivy

              It’s all based on real life experience

              • CubFan Paul

                Hey, I hear ya. My best friend is black, so I hear what goes on at their meetings.

                • Darth Ivy

                  that has no bearing on what I wrote. Now you’re the one using assumption.

    • Jon

      “.We don’t celebrate straight players, why celebrate gays?”

      Yeah, no offense dude, but this is some of the dumbest logic I have ever read

      • beerhelps

        Right up there with, “Why isn’t there a white history month?”. DAMN.

        • Cornish Heat

          HA! Excellent, beerhelps.

      • Funn Dave

        Yup.

      • Don Eaddy

        Why yes, Black history month is another great example of people wanting to be “equal” but then receiving special treatment. It is hypocritical.

        • Jon

          John Rocker..helloooo!

          • Don Eaddy

            I’m just saying. Black History month, affirmative action, along with all the sensitivity people have now-a-days is getting ridiculous. All I am asking is why aren’t people who want equal rights getting equal rights?

            • DocPeterWimsey

              Because some of the pigs are more equal than the others?

              • bbmoney

                Thanks Napoleon.

            • Jon

              dude this is pretty fucking racist…just sayin…

              • Pat

                Actually, Black History Month and affirmative action are racist, if you actually use the definition of the word as they provide benefits to one race that are not afforded to another, or deny benefits to one race that are afforded to many others. But I’m sure you have your own definition that somehow makes committing a month specifically to the achievements of a particular race not racist.

                • Jon

                  My god, it’s like I walked into my grandparents house twenty years ago. I’m waiting for the ‘N’ bombs to drop soon. I had no idea BN was teaming with such racist, bigots, intolerance, etc. Maybe they only come out at midnight. I’m going to get back to whatever and check in later.

                  • Brocktoon

                    It’s the interent, expect the worst.

                  • Pat

                    Then give your definition of racism. Mine is any action that provides or denies benefits based on race.

                • brainiac

                  rush limburger’s fallacy logic has ruined a few generation of followers. only followers would take moral advice from the worst kind of racist drug abusing philanderers. unfortunately followers are also attracted to following sports teams. it’s just the world. we’ll keep working to fix it.

            • Patrick W.

              This sensitivity people have (as you put it) is not new. What is new is a burgeoning feeling of comfort in speaking out. Black History Month grew out of a real need to teach people the history of the struggles that are leading to equality and to celebrate the contributions to society as a whole black people have made. It is necessary because it had and has been suppressed for centuries. Oppression begets suppression. It is not special to speak your mind freely, to celebrate your history or to live as your neighbors live. We talk about it not because it is special but in fact because it is equal, and the mere act of manifesting equality is still so unusual it is remarkable.

  • Spoda17

    I could care less either way. The only comment I will make is I still wonder why we need to announce our sexual preference.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      We don’t need to. And it’ll be great when something like this is a non-story.

      But, for today, he’s a first, making it a big story.

      • mdavis

        exactly. this is the first step towards gaining that equality and making this a non-issue, and i hope its someday soon where its just a shrug of the shoulders and a who cares. but good on him, for owning his own story and not letting “sources” dictate it for him.

        • Spoda17

          It’s a story because someone wants it to be a story. Not sure people are watching sporting events wondering what the players sexual orientation is…

          Just would prefer that the guy, or anyone for that matter, lives his life the way he wants to and if someone asks him, he answers. I don’t think he needs to hold a press conference.

          • Brocktoon

            Scouts were asking his agent a bunch of leading questions about his orientation. The meathead head culture of the nfl made this an issue, not sams

      • ObsessiveCubDisorder

        Not a single Cubs comment so far.

  • TK

    Michael Sam . . .
    I was in the Marines when their was a big push to “allow” women to serve in combat MOS. At the time the subject was really hot I was a Lcpl with 5th Force Recon Co (or was it still Recon Co., 3rd SRIG (?)) in Okinawa and their was A LOT of static about HQMC force-feeding a woman into our company . . . Not in a support role, but as a Recon operator. The politically aspiring (and $$$ driven) officers in Quantico and Washington who were supposed to be on our side (winning wars, etc…) had apparently failed to consider anything directly related to the RECON MISSION while considering this obvious PR move (an extra bullet to add to a resume). For just 1 example . . . in the field, odors become MUCH more detectable . . . there is a particular odor-producing event unique to a woman every month that results in a very noticeable scent that anyone whose been on patrol for 2-3 days can pick up in a heartbeat. Now imagine if you’re using DOGS to track the enemy Spec Ops forces. This is only one example of why ALL of us would’ve rejected any woman operator in Recon, as I’m sure EVERY Spec Ops unit/team would.

    I dont think we would’ve had such a big issue with a gay man; however, during the typical hazing that regularly occurs, such orientation surely would’ve been used as a subject to thrash him. Our hazing occurred to make strong men . . . Mentally and physically . . . Who would never quit on his team on a mission.

    As much as NFL thugs, I mean “players” would like to think it, they are not warriors. Such hazing is NOT necessary. Their would be no reason Mr. Sam could not be every bit as valuable to a winning team as any other man. Some might say clubhouse culture, but come on man! Clubhouse culture my ass. I don’t buy it.

    Ill end with this: while the politicians, and Mother of America, and armchair QB’s around the world were so willing to make that decision to merge a woman into our unit for us Recon guys, they were all on the outside with little to no knowledge/understanding of exactly what they were talking about and what the effects might’ve been. It the same with this. BUT, it is only football.

    • Edwin

      It’s hard to hear your point with how loud you’re grinding your axe.

      • TK

        It does still irk me bc I know there are men running the show who don’t give 2 shites for the kids on the ground. Men who care more about making a name for themselves than they care for the guys who are actually making that name for them. It will always be a sour point to me. Sorry. Just felt it was a parallel situation to folks telling NFL what to think and feel.

    • CubFan Paul

      You’ve obviously never heard of depo provera. Typical man.

      • aaronb

        Is he an Indian new age guru?

    • Hee Seop Chode

      What you’re describing is the modernization of the military (and incidentally the NFL). Hazing does more to damage an organization than strenthen it, and doubling the recruiting pool to include women will only increase its talent.

      If “odors become MUCH more detectable” the army should issue more hygine wipes.

      • mdavis

        i mean think “hazing” within context is good for team bonding. Example: in college we had the freshman “talent show”. helped get the new guys out of their shells, it was a fun night, etc. giving rookies weird haircuts in mini camp etc, i don’t think its a big deal.

        • Hee Seop Chode

          I don’t think TK was talking about weird haircuts or getting out of their shells, although I will add that making 21 year olds pay $25,000 for a dinner isn’t productive either.

      • TK

        Thank you for underscoring my point about armchair QB’s acting like they have clue!

    • Eternal Pessimist

      TK,

      Not sure how much of this applies to this football situation. The player that came out is quite capable of performing the required job. Not sure if hazing has any “value” in the football setting or not.

      The introduction of women into combat roles is different. First of all the president has advocated (I believe they have enacted as well) lower performance standards for women to allow them into combat rolls. This specifically puts soldiers and the mission at risk. Those physical standards are in place for a reason, not just to exclude women.

      There are probably combat roles where physical ability is not very important (helicopter pilots, etc…), or some (few) will be able to meet the physical standards necessary for the job.

      Also, women also may become targeted for types of physical violence in combat beyond the inherent combat risk (sexual abuse). However, with women understanding that risk going in, how do you tell them they cannot enter a situation when there is already the threat of death in combat?

      If the NFL introduced a separate lower standard somehow to make sure we got enough gays in the NFL there would be a real controversy. The player in question isn’t going to get that special treatment.

      • TK

        My main point was intended to be that outside of the NFL, very few have any idea of just to what except a player’s gravitation may or may not affect a team. And although the pencil pushers may accept it, the guys in the pits may not. Or maybe they will. I wont sit here, however, and judge Mr. Sam, or anyone else involved unless there’s some blatant act based solely on his preference. I don’t think it should matter in regards to playing football, however, as it is just a game. I hope he does make it. I hope the NFL (below league office level) surprises me.

  • Leo the Lip

    Nice guys finish last. The Lip never said anything about gays.

  • spearman

    Here is a different take on it.
    Will a team draft him just for the extra( positive) media attention?

    • Edwin

      I don’t think so. At least, I don’t think a good GM drafts him for media attention. I think if a team drafts him, they believe he’s the best available talent at that spot. GM’s want to win, and drafting a talented player is a much better way to accomplish that than getting extra media attention.

    • mdavis

      i would be shocked if that was the driving factor. teams get limited draft picks. GMs/coaches cant afford to make gimmick picks.

    • mjhurdle

      personally, i think the media attention will make it less likely for a team to draft him.
      Scouting reports have him at a 3-4th round pick, so not a slam-dunk star at all.
      We have evidence of teams shunning media attention in the form of Tebow (and no I am not saying that Tebow should be starting somewhere. The point is that I believe a team would be willing to have Tebow as a back-up 2-3rd option, except for the media circus that comes with him).
      If he was the next JJ Watt, every team would take him, media circus or not. But will a team accept the media circus that will be his first year in order to get a situational and special teams player? I don’t think so, but hopefully for his sake a team does.

      • Eternal Pessimist

        I think Tebow was shunned for being bad at football.

        • Don Eaddy

          thats debatable…

      • willis

        Right, he’ll be a decent situational player for the right team. He’s no first or second round choice, so things like a media circus will have an impact in the position which he is taken. If he was a slam dunk impact player, things like that you just deal with…but being what he is on the field, I guarantee some organizations will take another defensive end to avoid the circus.

    • Funn Dave

      That’s not a different take. Brett asked that very question within the article.

  • Isaac

    It’s Monday morning, so I guess I’ll make a bunch of enemies…

    It’s more than a little sad that those who stand by their moral conscious are now being criticized, ostracized and downright silenced simply for stating what they believe is right vs. wrong. Is belittling, making fun of, abusing or ridiculing those that make this (now) legal choice right? Absolutely not. Should standing by your morality and what you believe is right or wrong be lauded and encouraged, absolutely. In the very same vein we should be careful about discriminating gays, we should also be careful not to discriminate those who have the right to believe it is immoral.

    That being said, this sounds like a strong young man. I don’t believe his orientation will have any bearing on his draft status, nor should it.

    • CubFan Paul

      “those who have the right to believe it is immoral”

      Grow up (mentally). Homosexuality has been around for a few million years.

      • Isaac

        …..and that in and of itself makes it right? Something simply having occurred for a long period of time makes it acceptable?

        Suggesting humanity has been around for a few million years belittles your point. Don’t exaggerate when making an argument simply to make the other party look bad.

        • CubFan Paul

          “Suggesting humanity has been around for a few million years”

          I didn’t. I said homosexuality has been around that long (probably longer).

          “Don’t exaggerate when making an argument”

          Humans have been around for 6 million years

          • Eternal Pessimist

            Not completely disagreeing with you, but murder has been around just as long, and you wouldn’t argue that murder is OK.

            • CubFan Paul

              “but murder has been around just as long, and you wouldn’t argue that murder is OK”

              Of course I wouldn’t. I’m not ignorant.

              Apples and oranges much?

              • Eternal Pessimist

                Not apples and oranges at all…you used the duration of homosexuality in the world (obviously a rough estimate) as part of the basis to indicate its acceptability. I was simply pointing out the length of existence of something is not evidence of its acceptability (or morality). While I don’t disagree with your underlying opinion, I disagree with the premise you used to argue your point.

                • CubFan Paul

                  It’s apples and oranges because people aren’t born murderers, but a lot are born gay.

                  • Eternal Pessimist

                    It isn’t apples and oranges because I was only using your use of the duration, “millions of years”, as part of your argument making it acceptable. I stand by my argument that the duration has absolutely nothing to do with the morality of the action (whether it is applied to murder, homosexuality, being a vegan, or cutting down trees to build a house).

                    • CubFan Paul

                      “I was only using your use of the duration, “millions of years””

                      I wasn’t splicing up my own thought/sentence, so it’s apples & oranges

                      People aren’t born murderers, but a lot are born gay

                  • scorecardpaul

                    I think some people are definitely born murderers. How can you make one point but not allow the other?

                    • CubFan Paul

                      “How can you make one point but not allow the other?”

                      Because I’m smarter than that (no offense).

                  • TK

                    Im right and you’re wrong! Im rubber and you’re glue, I’ll always be smarter than you! BLACK OUT!!!!

                    Thats basically what you reduced this entire debate to . . . And you told HIM to grow up???????

                    1. You very well could argue that perinatal development factors may indeed predispose one to violence, and yes, even potentially murder. And you’d be very legitimate in doing so.

                    2. Ive never seen any 2 week-olds rip off their onesies and go to town. Are people REALLY born gay? (Or straight?) Or could it be related to similar factors as other things like, er . . . Uh . . . IDK, maybe propensity to be violent? Not trying to compare the 2, but I doubt you can prove your point or you already would’ve. That tells you’re full of shite!

                    • BT

                      Wait what? Are you arguing that because babies don’t want to have sex, it’s impossible to tell if people are born gay?

                    • CubFan Paul

                      “2. Ive never seen any 2 week-olds rip off their onesies and go to town. Are people REALLY born gay?”

                      Speechless (if laughter doesn’t count).

                • CubsFaninMS

                  Give it up dude. If CubFan Paul has a pulse, he will get the last word in. Whether that word bares any significance or includes a logical rationale… that’s an entirely different discussion (that he will also get the last word on).

                  • CubFan Paul

                    Awww, poor baby still butt hurt?

                    • CubsFaninMS

                      Butt hurt? So is gay sex a bad thing? Are you making fun of gay people?

          • blublud

            No, homosexuality has not been here for millions of years, because we have been here for millions of years. I do think its been around since the beginning of time, however.

            • CubFan Paul

              “homosexuality has not been here for millions of years, because we have been here for millions of years”

              That’s flawed thinking. People had nice asses back then too ;)

        • Edwin

          Don’t hijack a thread for your own needs.

          • Isaac

            Isn’t the entire point of this thread to discuss whether he will or will not be discriminated against?

            I certainly hope (and don’t believe) he will not be discriminated against. It would not be moral or just to discriminate in any way against him. I wish him the best.

            • Edwin

              Sure. But what you’re doing with your comments is bringing up a new issue that isn’t really connected to the issue we’re discussing, namely, is homosexuality moral or immoral? And that’s a completely different rabbit hole to go down. And it’s not one I’m interested in discussing.

              • mjhurdle

                His issue is not whether homosexuality is moral or not.
                His question is, what is the difference between belittling someone who is a different sexual orientation from you and belittling someone for believing a different religion than you?

                • Eternal Pessimist

                  I like your fist of…sadness???

                • Edwin

                  I think he knew what he was getting into. He brought up an issue:
                  “those who stand by their moral conscious are now being criticized, ostracized and downright silenced simply for stating what they believe is right vs. wrong”

                  Which so far hasn’t really been an issue, and one which he probably should have figured out would lead to a charged discussion like the one unfolding below.

              • Isaac

                I felt like I connected the question and the issue, which is will he be discriminated against or not.

                If not, I apologize, not my intention. He should get every opportunity to succeed…that is my stance.

                • CubFan Paul

                  Spin control.

                • CubsFaninMS

                  Isaac:

                  I believe your moral discussion on this topic is fair and you seem to care a great deal about your moral code. Each person on this message board has their own version of morality/ethics. Some respect that and represent their own moral principles well… and others don’t.

      • blublud

        As a guy who has a gay brother, homosexuality is wrong, and it is a sin. It is wrong in the eyes of God. However, it is no more wrong than permarital sex or shacking up(living with a person you are not married with) as my grandma called it, something that a whole lot of us do on a regular basis, and it’s widely accepted as normal.

        I agree, we should not descriminate against gay people. However, I don’t think people who refuse to accept it shoulf be criticized either. Gay people have a choice, and people who don’t like it also have a choice. What I don’t like is when a gay person turns things around on a person who thinks its wrong and labels them as some kind of bad, evil person for not accepting it. Funny. That the same thing the gay person didn’t want to have happen to them for their choice.

        • Jon

          I love the hypocrisy of “Christians”

          • CubFan Paul

            It’s hilarious.

          • Isaac

            What does this have to do with Christianity? Most major religions view homosexuality as immoral, to some degree.

            • Cornish Heat

              And I love the hypocrisy of most major religions.

              • blublud

                I don’t believe in religion, I believe in God, or better yet, the father, the son and the hoy spirit. Religion, the term as we know it, is a divider. There is only one religion, God.

                • Hee Seop Chode

                  If you believe in hoy spirits or God you believe in religion.

                • Funn Dave

                  Well if your god fuels your disapproval of gay people, then yes, he is a divider.

        • Isaac

          Agreed. My roommate is gay….one of my best friends.

          • Jon

            My “insert friend, roommate, coworker is gay!” is the modern day equivalent to racists saying..”But, But, I have black friends!”

            • Isaac

              No, it is not. It is proof of a lack of hatred. People immediately assume that disagreement = hate. Couldn’t be further from the truth.

              • Funn Dave

                You just 100% proved Jon’s point.

              • CubsFaninMS

                You’ll never win these arguments dude. Give it up. You have moral snipers waiting to pick people off when they say statements such as these. People normally mention this type of thing with the best of intentions but someone will be there to immediately pick you off. Your point is that you have someone who is an important part of your life who is gay so you can empathize. That point is valid.

        • CubFan Paul

          “Gay people have a choice”

          Flawed thinking (and the problem).

          • blublud

            If I’m attracted to a woman, do I have a choice rather I sleep with her or not, or is it automatic I sleep every woman I’m attracted to. I wish it was the latter but its most certainly not. Even if that woman is wiling to sleep with me, I still have a choice.

            You can’t control who you are attracted to, but you can control whether you pull your pants down and have sexual contact with any person, straight or gay, black or white, tall or short.

            • CubFan Paul

              “You can’t control who you are attracted to”

              So if you’re gay on the inside, you can’t act on it & be gay on the outside??

              Flawed thinking (and the problem (again)).

              • blublud

                Cubfan Paul. I’m not against homosexuality or anyone being gay. I think you have a right to sleep with who you want. I think gays should have the same rights as me, or any other straight couple, and I’m willing to fight for those rights.

                But I feel sleeping with anyone is a choice. Therefor, a man sleeping with a man is a choice just as a man sleeping with a woman. I’m a Christian, and according to my religion, I believe its wrong. However, if you are not a Christian, or you are and just don’t thinks its wrong, I don’t have a problem with that either. Those are my opinions, but I would never use my opinion on the subject to descriminate. I love all people. Yes i feel its a sin, but as I Christian, I feel we all will meet our maker and have to answer for our sins, and mine are no better or worse than Anyone else’s.

                • CubFan Paul

                  And the meek will inherit the Earth. blah blah

                  • Jon

                    Someone needs to go off “Daniel Planview” style like in the end of There will be blood”

                  • blublud

                    Paul, you are a hypocrit. You want everyone to accept your view, but screw everybody else view. You must have a miserable life.

                    • Cornish Heat

                      blublud and Isaac,

                      The difference between humans who are LGBTQ and humans who think LGBTQ is morally wrong/sinful is that the thoughts and beliefs of LGBTQ do not affect anyone else. However, the thoughts and beliefs that those people are morally wrong/sinful are judgments, and judgments can have far reaching consequences.

                      Luke 6:37
                      “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.”

                    • blublud

                      Telling someone they are going to hell is condemning. My beliefs is only a small group of people will be in hell, and most of that is built around the non-believers. I think its a sin, just like murder is a sin. I’m not condemning any one. I even stated that my God will forgive the sin. Labeling something a sin is not condemning the person who commits the act. I believe you hate the sin and love the sinner.

                    • Funn Dave

                      Hell is fictional. There will be no one there because it doesn’t exist. I hope that clears that up for ya.

                • brainiac

                  these responses are exactly why his coming out is a needed, courageous, and important representation in the sports world.

                  some of y’all fall disturbingly easily to dehumanize someone for who they are.

        • Funn Dave

          It is both wrong, *and* a sin? Without the sin factor, then how is it wrong?

      • CubsFaninMS

        Isaac has a right to his beliefs. Our country protects those beliefs, whether you agree with them or not. Christians have long viewed homosexuality as immoral. As long as their view is not condescending or inflammatory, you should respect that point of view. I’m a Christian and I don’t believe it’s wrong. I have a right to those beliefs as well. People have a right in this country to develop a moral code based on their religious preference. It strikes at the core of who we are as human beings. Likewise, Christians should have tolerant views of other cultures and societies, which most do. On the opposite end of it, atheists should respect people who believe in religion. Inflammatory remarks such as yours only foment anger towards believers and non-believers. If you believe you’re more intelligent than someone who has a religion, you have a right to that belief.. but religious types have a right to believe you are an idiot for thinking such. Freedom is great when respect is involved and frustrating when people make comments such as yours.

        I’ll leave you with this.. I am at a unique vantage point to understand the beliefs on both sides of this coin. Just because I disagree with someone who may persecute/judge me doesn’t mean I have to return the favor and be bitter. One of my moral principles is to do what’s right, not do what is done to me (this is taught in the New Testament). Showing them maturity, respect, and compassion will go a long way towards people finding common ground and respecting one another. IMO, your comments do not reflect this practice.

        • CubFan Paul

          “If you believe you’re more intelligent than someone who has a religion, you have a right to that belief”

          Science & Math is on my side.

          “but religious types have a right to believe you are an idiot for thinking such”

          But those types are so ignorant to facts that I don’t even care to finish this post…

          • CubsFaninMS

            Subjective, subjective, subjective.

            Math has nothing to do with religion (or lack thereof). Science does not conclusively prove anything. And unless you are a scientist capable of making such a judgment, you should understand there are people whose moral beliefs are different than yours and other scientists who disagree with you (if you happen to be one).

            You’re an atheist and I respect that. I’m sure you followed that path based on lots of thought and reflection. You should do the same for others. Otherwise, your subjectivity on the issue exposes a possible flaw in your judgment.

            • CubFan Paul

              “Subjective, subjective, subjective”

              Darn facts. The Earth is prettier flat.

              “Math has nothing to do with religion”

              I never said it did. When it comes to higher intelligence, religion is viewed as a speck in time.

              “I’m sure you followed that path based on lots of thought and reflection”

              No, not really. At some point I broke out of the ignorance-bubble I was raised in with the help of science, book learning, mechanics, and world history.

              “You’re an atheist and I respect that”

              No you don’t. Reread your 11:37am post

              • CubsFaninMS

                I said nothing about a flat earth, although you correlating a flat earth to me believing in a higher power is humorous.

                You mentioned that math supports the theory of no higher power. I said math has nothing to do with it.

                Sounds like you never broke out of your intolerance-bubble.

                I re-read my 11:37 post. What is inflammatory or judgmental about my viewpoint on your religion? Nothing. You’re inflaming, you’re intolerant, you’re judgmental. If you despise others who you perceive as “intolerant”, you should certainly take a gander in the mirror. I’m criticizing YOU, not your atheist beliefs. Know the difference.

                • CubFan Paul

                  “You mentioned that math supports the theory of no higher power”

                  Stop putting words in my mouth. As far as you know I could believe in aliens. That’s definitely a higher power.

                  Especially if they created us millions of years ago.

                  “If you despise others who you perceive as “intolerant””

                  I don’t. Stop putting words in my mouth

                  • CubsFaninMS

                    ….law of diminishing returns…

                    Have a good day, Paul.

                    • CubFan Paul

                      Don’t let my assumed atheist door hit you on the way out.

                  • CubsFaninMS

                    Not sure what an atheist door looks like, but thank you. How we’ve delineated from the topic of gay professional athletes to non-religious doors, I have no idea.

                    • CubFan Paul

                      “Not sure what an atheist door looks like…to non-religious doors, I have no idea.”

                      That’s because you blew by it just to get in your Christian two cents at 11:37

                      The door says no bible thumpin’ and soliciting.

                    • CubsFaninMS

                      I rarely attend church and religion is not a big part of my life. I’m simply saying people have a right to their beliefs, whether it be Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or atheist. I defended that right to a Christian just as I would anyone else. You strike me as an extraordinarily bitter person, although we’ve never shook hands and had a cup of coffee so I cannot verify that. If that’s the case, I sure hope you develop a more positive, open outlook on life.

                    • CubFan Paul

                      “No, not at all. Cynical, maybe.

                      “If that’s the case”

                      It seriously isn’t. You’re reading way too much into the very little I’ve type (re: Stop putting words in my mouth).

                      I got laid this morning and I plan on having a beer or two before 5pm (found a 8.3% Goose Island beer at Costco for $23 a case (!)). Life is good.

                    • CubsFaninMS

                      I retract my statement then. It appears that your coolness knows no bounds.

                    • CubFan Paul

                      Much appreciated. The 8.3% alc/vol goose island beer is: Sixth Day. A ‘festive’ brown ale, it says.

                    • hansman

                      Sadly…The doors in my house are a blend of Roman and Greek polytheism.

                      They’re going to he’ll.

                    • DocPeterWimsey

                      So do you fight about whether it’s the Mars or Ares door or something?

                    • hansman

                      The front door is Zeus. The back doors is Hades, the red door is Triton. The door to the master bedroom is Venus.

                      It’s chaos.

                    • DocPeterWimsey

                      Chaos is Eris in the Greek religion. I dubbed her the Goddess of BABiP a while back with good reason!

            • DocPeterWimsey

              As a scientist, I can say that we frequently conclusively falsify a lot of things. The idea that homosexuality represents some sort of “choice” has been very thoroughly falsified. As for what causes it, like most behavioral traits in all animals, 1) there are no single causes, and, 2) it is a complex combination of factors. As with everything else, there are correlates, many of which have strong genetic bases: but there is no single “switch” per se.

              As for atheist doors, we have 3 at my house of three very different types (not counting the doors inside the house, which are much more homogeneous!).

              • CubsFaninMS

                In theory, wouldn’t an “atheist door” but a non-possibility? An atheist door presumably leads to an atheist room. Wouldn’t it just be a black hole instead? Only theorizing. Hopefully I’ve not opened a Door of Worms.

          • Funn Dave

            “But those types are so ignorant to facts that I don’t even care to finish this post…”

            Mmkay, so it looks like it isn’t just Christians that stereotype….

      • Tommy

        Wow, I guess having an opinion that doesn’t agree with yours makes it wrong. So I guess it’s ok for some people to tell others how to think, but not for some. I see a lot of hypocrisy in this thread.

        • CubFan Paul

          You’re a day plus late. I don’t care what you think.

          “it’s ok for some people to tell others how to think, but not for some”

          Yes. Especially on this topic. Hello dense and stubborn.

          • Tommy

            If you don’t care what I think, why are you replying to me? You seem awfully full of anger toward people that you disagree with.

            • CubFan Paul

              “You seem awfully full of anger toward people”

              No, you’re assuming that. Read my words only & maybe then we can have polite conversation without judging me (a day plus *late*)

              “I guess having an opinion that doesn’t agree with yours…I see a lot of hypocrisy..”

              All unnecessary, unless you just want to argue with someone (a day plus *late*).

    • E

      “we should also be careful not to discriminate those who have the right to believe it is immoral.”

      That’s ridiculous. That’s like saying that just because someone is racist, we shouldn’t point and laugh. Guess what? If someone believes their particular brand of sky-wizard hates gay people, I’m going to make fun of them for 1. believing in dieties, and 2. using superstition to hate and discriminate

      • Isaac

        …..Hatred and disagreement are two very different things. Because I disagree with you/anyone does *NOT* mean I hate you, or discriminate against you.

        “If someone believes their particular brand of sky-wizard hates gay people, I’m going to make fun”

        How is making fun of someone for their religion and different than making fun of someone for their orientation?

        • CubFan Paul

          “How is making fun of someone for their religion and different than making fun of someone for their orientation?”

          Because the former is a choice and the latter is not.

          • Isaac

            So, it’s ok to make fun of someone’s choices, but not what they were born with? So really what you’re saying is, it’s ok to belittle people in general?

            • E

              When that choice has resulted in the amount of wars, violence, death and destruction that religion has, I’ll concede your point.

              • Edwin

                Civil War wasn’t about religion. Niether was WWI or WWII. War and violence is human nature. If not religion, people seem to find plenty of other things to go to war over.

                • CubFan Paul

                  The Crusades…

                  • CubsFaninMS

                    Do you ridicule Muslims just as you do Christiains? What are your thoughts on the Muslim religion?

                    • CubFan Paul

                      Certain types of the Muslim religion is worse because of the way women are still treated & the way its used to kill.

                  • Isaac

                    The Crusades were quite clearly about money and land and power, not Christ. Package it any way you want, killing someone under the name of religion is always wrong.

                • miggy80

                  “It’s human nature to destroy ourselves
                  It’s human nature to kill ourselves
                  It’s human nature to kill each other
                  It’s human nature to kill”

                  Papa Roach

          • blublud

            Having thoughts of someone that’s the same sex does not make you gay. Acting on those thoughts makes you gay. You cannot control your thoughts, you can control your actions. There for being gay is a choice. Its just as much a choice as me sleeping with another woman and cheating on my wife.

            • CubFan Paul

              “you can control your actions. There for being gay is a choice”

              Flawed thinking (and the problem).

              • blublud

                Thinking you don’t have a choice.

                Flawed thinking (and the problems)

            • Eternal Pessimist

              “Having thoughts of someone that’s the same sex does not make you gay.”

              Uhhh….actually it does.

              • CubFan Paul

                “Having thoughts of someone that’s the same sex does not make you gay.”

                I bet blublud watches wrestling.

              • blublud

                I disagree. Having thoughts of another woman does not make me a cheater, the action of sleeping with her however, does.

                • Eternal Pessimist

                  No, but having the thoughts about a woman, but not with a man, makes you a heterosexual…just as a man having thoughts of a man makes him a homosexual.

                  • blublud

                    No, the act of sleeping with a woman makes me heterosexual not the thought. If I’m a virgin, i still have thoughts, but I’m neither heterosexual or homosexual because I’m not “sexual” at all.

                    • CubFan Paul

                      “but I’m neither heterosexual or homosexual because I’m not “sexual” at all”

                      & I thought Die Hard was out there (or drinking early).

                    • Eternal Pessimist

                      It sounds like you are giving credence to the more radical definitions of homosexuality/heterosexuality as being the act and not the being. I say it is radical because it seems like this definition was developed recently by a very small segment of our population to ignore the obvious. Some people are just born different and have been unfairly targeted and bullied because of that difference.

                    • blublud

                      Definition of homesexuality.

                      Main Entry: ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty
                      Pronunciation: \ˌhō-mə-ˌsek-shə-ˈwa-lə-tē\
                      Function: noun
                      Date: 1892
                      1 : the quality or state of being homosexual 2 : erotic activity with another of the same sex

                      © 2014 Merriam-Webster, Inc.     Privacy Policy

                      No, I’m giving credence to the actual term.

                    • Funn Dave

                      You’re just wrong. If someone has sexual thoughts about the same sex all the time but sleeps with someone of the opposite sex for non-sexual reasons (societal pressure, tax reasons, etc.) then that person is gay.

                  • Patrick W.

                    Man I hate to wade into this, but you need to learn how to use a dictionary.

                    Definition 1: The quality or stat of being homosexual.

                    That definition requires you to look up the word homosexual, who’s first entry in that exact same dictionary is:

                    1ho·mo·sex·u·al
                    adjective \ˌhō-mə-ˈsek-sh(ə-)wəl, -ˈsek-shəl\

                    : sexually attracted to people of the same sex

                    : based on or showing a sexual attraction to people of the same sex

                    So, using your standard, homosexuality is being a homosexual which is being attracted to people of the same sex, not actually having sex with them. Having sex with a person you are attracted to is a manifestation of your sexuality. Your sexuality is what you think/prefer.

                    • Norm

                      This is where Blubud stops responding.

                    • blublud

                      I didn’t stop responding, this is the first time I seen this. The definition is wrong, Fine. The act is still a choice.

                    • Chef Brian

                      Having sex is a choice, being gay is not.

        • Hee Seop Chode

          Religion is learned, and one can opt out at their choosing.

          • scorecardpaul

            so, a person can’t opt out of having sex?

            • DarthHater

              Of course they can. And they’ll still be gay.

              • scorecardpaul

                I guess I am not even smart enough to be in this conversation. I will stop. I thought having sex with the same sex was what we were talking about.

                • Chef Brian

                  Being gay is more than having sex with the same sex. People are born gay, homosexuality is a life style, not an end result of following an impulse.

      • scorecardpaul

        E I don’t understand how you think it is good and acceptable practice to make fun of someone for what type of religion they have? could this not be discrimination?

        • willis

          It’s the exact same thing and hypocritical. It’s hilarious all the people that publicly come out and say “look at me, I’m tolerant, I think it’s great to be gay. Hooray!” and then in the same breath damn people out there who have strong religious beliefs. “All people that have strong religious views are idiots and should all be condemned.” Yet they lose their shit when someone wants to comdemn something like homosexuality. Makes me giggle.

          At the end of the day, who gives a crap if you’re gay or not? Straight or not? Black or not? White or not? Jewish or not? Christian or not? Etc…I’m a Methodist who regularly goes to church. Does that make me an idiot just because of that? Or, is it more important that I work hard to be good at my job and work like hell to be an overall good person? In the end, who cares? Either you are a good person or not. Either you make positive impacts on society or not?

          This dude coming out as gay is non newsworthy to me. Who cares? You know what’s really important for the 32 NFL teams (and for Missouri before that)? Is he good at football? Can he impact a team in a positive manner? Will he be a respectful figure wherever he ends up? Being gay is whatever. Driving a car 120 mph, dealing horse or yak, raping, robbery…that’s the shit we need to worry about. Not wasting our time about if a dude likes dudes or chicks.

          • TWC

            “It’s the exact same thing and hypocritical.”

            No. It’s not. Religion is a choice. Homosexuality isn’t.

            • willis

              Does it matter? Let people be who they are and don’t be intolerant. The intolerance is just as bad (in most cases worse) coming from the camp going after religion/beliefs etc than from people that are intolerant towards homosexuality. A choice/not a choice, that doesn’t matter to me. I just find the whole thing funny and unneccesary.

              • TWC

                “The intolerance is just as bad (in most cases worse) coming from the camp going after religion/beliefs etc than from people that are intolerant towards homosexuality.”

                You really believe that the intolerant, religious-minded have a harder time with societal rejection than gay people? That’s reaching BluBlud levels of fallacious nonsense.

                • willis

                  No, I don’t. But that’s not my point. My point is that it’s stupid on either side. Bashing and dismissing religion is offensive to many, much like people that point to homosexuality as immoral is offensive to many. And you know what, we all waste way too much time on all of it.

              • CubFan Paul

                “A choice/not a choice, that doesn’t matter to me”

                It matters to the gays.

                Social Equality for all.

      • Matt

        I have not problem with people having their own religious beliefs that make them feel that it’s immoral, however, if they are going to pick that one thing to go with, then they had better go with all of the other things that those portions of the Bible also call immoral. Things such as eating shellfish, cutting of hair on the head/face, wearing clothes woven of more than one fiber, farming more than one crop in a single field, and so on. Also, those people should also say that they feel that it’s okay to rape as long as you throw some money the way of the victim’s father and make that woman your wife. I’m not trying to make it look like I’m showing any hate for Christianity, because I really don’t hate religion myself, even if I don’t partake myself, but as someone who has studied the Bible, those things are all in there, and more that I’m sure plenty of these people who claim homosexuality is immoral don’t follow.

        • Matt

          *no problem

        • CubsFaninMS

          Matt: You’re on target with this. People seem to cling to the quotes in the Bible involving homosexuality and totally ignore the other “don’ts” that are all around it in the Old Testament. Are these beliefs a social norm or something actually derived from careful study of the Bible? Most people cherry-pick quotes from the Bible and go with them. It’s admittedly difficult NOT to do because many ideals written in the Bible seem to contradict one another or are very difficult to follow in today’s society due to social norms.

        • WiscCubsFan

          You may have studied it but you appear to have missed the point. That is, nobody can live up to those rules, thus requiring the abolition of Old Testament law by the incarnation and death/resurrection of God in the person of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. It’s the only faith I’m aware of that admits all humans are imperfect and requires nothing of the believer besides belief in the redemptive power of God’s sacrifice. That said, even the New Testament clearly states that homosexuality is among the behaviors that a follower of Christ should not be doing. So of course Christians are going to be against the celebration of this sort of thing.

          I have no problem supporting anyone’s right to speak freely and I support (for reasons of equality) the notion of civil unions for gays and lesbians. But I think this broad attempt to label people like myself as ignorant/hypocritical/hateful/whatever is dangerous.

          • Matt

            Actually, the New Testament does not clearly state this. There are assumptions that need to be made, and there is nowhere that Jesus actually says that there is any problem with homosexuality.

            • WiscCubsFan

              Romans chapter 1 couldn’t be much clearer imo.

              • Matt

                Are you talking about verse 27?

                Still assumes, you need to take meanings of words at the time and context into account as well as just the fact that man on man action was actually fairly common in society around that time, and it describes it as “unseemly”. That right there should raise a red flag and cause you to look further at the context of it for that time. When I was getting my bachelors in philos0phy (double majored in philosophy and marketing) a classmate actually wrote a paper on that whole thing that I proofread for them. I wish I still could get to that, because it knocked every Christian anti-gay argument out just by going into society at that time. Of course, just remembering that this is a book that has had so much room for corruption during its lifetime should be another red flag, as it has been written and rewritten thousands of times throughout history. That’s where a believe should start to just use their own common sense and realize that the words there are not consistent with any of Jesus’ teachings, especially ones like the Sermon on the Mount.

                Also, it (Romans 1) is not from the mouth of Jesus either. So it doesn’t meet that requirement anyway.

                • WiscCubsFan

                  I’m referring to verses 18-32 for the full context. You’re right, though, Jesus himself did not specifically address this issue by name. But I believe anyone suggesting that Jesus would be totally cool with his followers being active homosexuals (or active adulterers, liars, abusers, etc) hasn’t got a great understanding of the whole of the New Testament’s teachings. One has to throw out or twist the context of a lot of passages to arrive at that conclusion.

                  I also think this is mostly important for those who claim to accept the Bible as their moral guide. For those who don’t, the minutiae of what the Bible says about this sin or that isn’t important.

                  I’m only discussing it here because it was brought up and I want to make sure those will my conviction feel they have a voice. There is a very condescending and mean-spirited tone often directed our way. This isn’t any more right than it is for a Christian to make fun of or disparage another human being because he/she is gay. Unfortunately, both of these things happen…

              • Jon

                Just out of curiosity, 1 Timothy 2:12 says

                I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;she must be quiet.

                Now is this one of the verses you take at face value, or do you conveniently let this one “slip”?

      • Tommy

        Believing homosexuality is wrong is not the same thing as hating someone for being gay. Just want to clarify that.

    • Jon

      It’s funny/sad how the right wingers can’t let a story like this pass without getting “their shot in”

    • Edwin

      That’s obviously not the issue here. I haven’t seen anyone critized for standing by their moral consicous. This isn’t about whether homosexuality is perceived to be right or wrong, it’s whether it’s right or wrong to discriminate against someone due to their sexual orientation.

    • brainiac

      the right of those who discriminate as a stronger right than those who need protection from discrimination, always one of the most bizarre, persuasive, and dangerous arguments out there…

    • WiscCubsFan

      I agree Isaac and well put.

  • FortyFour

    With the Cubs now having upwards of 48 night games this season, is there really a concern over body clock issues? When you subtract Sunday games, holidays, and get away days, you are really talking about 23 home games that are different, 9 of which are scheduled to occur at 3:05pm. Seems like a reasonably “normal” MLB schedule so it does not seem to represent as much of a concern as it may have been in years past.

    Best of luck to Michael Sam. I hope he becomes a great NFL player.

    • CubFan Paul

      “is there really a concern over body clock issues?”

      The players say it is.

      • Brocktoon

        So what? Pro athletes are pretty dumb and believe in all sorts of superstitions. There’s no evidence of a body clock issue

        • CubFan Paul

          “Pro athletes are pretty dumb and believe in all sorts of superstitions”

          Feeling tired because of scheduling disadvantages is not a superstition.

          “There’s no evidence of a body clock issue”

          People who play the game beg to differ

          • Brocktoon

            We went through this a few weeks back I showed the cubs have played better down the stretch than they do earlier in the year(when the drain of the season should be at it’s worst) it was hand waved away.

            Cubs players saying they feel at a disadvantage doesn’t mean they are.

            • CubFan Paul

              “Cubs players saying they feel at a disadvantage doesn’t mean they are”

              According to you.

              • Brocktoon

                Right, nobody hacked my account to make that post. If there is some sort of proof to show the disadvantage I’d love to see it. I’m not up to (further) prove a negative here.

                • CubFan Paul

                  “If there is some sort of proof to show the disadvantage I’d love to see it.”

                  Documented player interviews should be enough for you, because THAT WAS THE TOPIC BEFORE YOU SAID “So what?”

                  • Brocktoon

                    Players think home runs can be rally killers too. You’re the one who changed the conversation to they said it so it’s true

            • DocPeterWimsey

              No you didn’t. You just said that they did using criteria only slightly more relevant than the position of Mars or whether Luther or Calvin was right. Cubs stats go down at the end of the year, and have for decades.

              • DocPeterWimsey

                Actually, I should write that Cubs stats have a significantly higher probability of declining over the last two months of the season (particularly September) than do players from other teams.

              • Brocktoon

                Yeah, why should the record of the team in September(which the original claim said they wear down by) relative to the rest of the year matter? That doesn’t show anything over a sample of 25 seasons with varying strengths of team.

                Nevermind your embarrassing assertion that the comparison didn’t matter because I compared September record to the overall record rather than September to April-August(Hmmmmm I wonder how that’d turn out???) and that I didn’t compare their relative record to the rest of MLB (Hmmmmmmmmmmmm I wonder how that’d turn out??)

              • Brocktoon

                But keep referencing #s from when the Cubs didn’t play ANY night games. it’s very relevant.

  • scorecardpaul

    Forty Four, I am guessing that you have never worked an unusual schedule? Do yourself a favor and work one before you comment on how easy it is to do.

    • MichaelD

      I think what 44 is referring to is that players have to make some adjustments regardless of which team they play for because all teams play some day games. With the increase in night games the Cubs now play a dozen or so more day games than other teams. At some point the quantity is insufficient to make it any different from playing for other teams.

    • FortyFour

      Scorecardpaul, my comment about the body clock concern is not to take issue that it can be an issue but rather to take on that it remains an issue for Cubs players. We are about to have a season that will feature 18 additional nightgames from the 30 we saw last season, which is higher than the original 18 night games the Cubs enjoyed in their first full season with lights. I agree that in seasons in which the Cubs played between 18 and 30 night home games, the body clock concern would have been significant. With 48 night games, the Cubs are still behind the normal number of night home games for MLB teams but the difference amounts to 14 more mid-day games. A good number of the added day games are scheduled in April, when I imagine hitters would welcome any additional warmth from sunshine.

  • V23

    I could give a sh** who someone sleeps with….this is coming from a “right-winger” as the most annoying commenter JON attacks people. FYI, check polls, there are plenty of “left-wingers” that have murky support as well, so glad you got your “shot” in.

    For the “moralists” out there, if homosexuality is wrong (or disagreed with or whatever) what about all the married players who are going around to each town having their “fun” ?

    However, I’m going to circle back, that I really don’t want to know or even waste time reading about it. I found the sports talkers like Dan Bernstein or other morons sooooooo annoying. They try to champion an issue just to feel good about themselves. Then, they will play a couple people that say something relatively provocative so they can climb higher on the pedestal.

    Today is a day to flip off sports radio in Chicago, sports center and everything else.

    If you are telling me who a player/celebrity or whomever is sleeping with, I am flipping the page/channel. That’s what great about this site…great information without all the annoying drama.

  • The Instructor

    Fortunately we are not the judges of one’s moral choices, there is only ONE Judge. I have my own beliefs about homosexuality, I would prefer not to have it hashed out on a Cubs fan site where I visit to hear about all things Cubs. However, to answer Brett’s question about if the Cubs were to draft someone……I hope the Cubs have the best players on the field AND off the field. I am not so ignorant to think all the Cubs are all outstanding citizens who walk around blameless. (I was excited and proud to be a Bears fan when Peanut Tillman won Man of the Year)

    I disagree with it, just like I disagree with many other things. I am not prejudice or treat people differently based on race, religion, political affiliation, or sexual orientation just because it is different than mine. I don’t feel as though I should be forced to accept it or be made to feel like I’m a bigot because I disagree. I would root for a gay Cub player, same as I root for a straight Cub player. I won’t root for a gay Yankee, or a straight Yankee for that matter.

    • Funn Dave

      By equating whether or not the Cubs should draft a homosexual with “I hope the Cubs have the best players on the field AND off the field,” you reveal that you are, in fact, prejudiced.

      • The Instructor

        Well FUNN DAVE, you are completely wrong. When I say I want the best players on and off the field, I mean I don’t care about their personal choices as long as they are good people. Simply because I disagree with someone doesn’t make them a bad person. Nor does it mean I am prejudiced. Pretty strong accusation.

        When Starlin Castro was going through his legal ordeal I was sure hoping it wasn’t true because I have a hard time rooting for a someone who is guilty of such things.

        When Sammy Sosa was caught using a corked bat, I was disappointed. I don’t want to root for a cheat.

        I don’t care if they are gay and I am certainly not prejudiced.

        • Funn Dave

          Then why mention that you hope the Cubs would draft the best players both on and off the field? You’re implying that their sexuality would make you further question their behavior off the field.

          • The Instructor

            Gee whiz FUNN DAVE, did you read Theo’s comments? He is not caring about orientation, only about character and ability. Same thing I was saying yesterday that you attacked me for. He did manage to say it using some better phrasing and articulation.

  • Jackson Scofield

    You’re forgetting Robbie Rogers, who the Fire acquired before he retired and came out as gay simultaneously, before un-retiring and demanding a trade to the LA Galaxy where he played last season as a starter and is still under contract for 2014.

    He accomplished the same task as Sam may, in a league that is too big to be minor (18,000 fans per game average, national TV deals, teams between 50K and 100K twitter followers, major markets, top level of play in the US and Canada).

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      At the risk of looking like I’m taking a shot at the MLS … I did not forget Robbie Rogers.

      • Cornish Heat

        Afterall, Brett did say above “actively participating in one of the major American sports.” Haha.

        • Jackson Scofield

          Rogers did actively participate in MLS, he un-retired a couple months later.

          Whether one opts to count it or not, just throwing it out there.

  • 5412

    Hi,

    I think the question was what would you if you were a GM. If two prospects were at the same skill level and one was gay, I would draft the other guy.

    Has nothing to do with how I may feel. Teams have enough baggage with DUI’s etc. like it or not it will be a distraction. There are 50 guys in a football locker room. All it takes is for a couple to have a problem and you have factions. As a GM, I would be judged by wins, not by my social pioneering.

    Now if his talent was superior, that is a different story. I remember when the SEC first started recruiting blacks. It did not take long for them to be evaluated by their play.

    I was 12 when Ernie Banks came up. They also brought up a Gene Baker. Mr. Wrigley did that so they could room together.

    That is my two cents worth. In a decade or so it will be a moot point.

    Regards,

    5412

  • Jon

    One of my favorites that sums up my thoughts on this issue

    [img]https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1/p296x100/1536678_10152249159757642_953480422_n.jpg[/img]

    Myself, I”m just glad I’m on the right side of this one.

    • V23

      Jeez, that’s why Jon is so abrasively annoying, he’s a Dan Bernstein quoter and follower obviously.

      I’m pro-equality.

      However, comparing gay marriage and gay athletes to what blacks went through is a disgusting distortion of history. In America, Gays aren’t slaves. Gays didn’t routinely get murdered. Gays could always vote. Gays are CEO’s, ballplayers, waiters, and whatever else. Gays sit wherever they want on the bus. On and on…yes, there is discrimination, but obviously a gay person can walk around without everyone know he/she is like a black person who was sent to different drinking fountains and backs of buses.

      As a pro-equality person, it doesn’t mean every struggle is the same. But, the comparison to the treatment blacks suffered is so mind-numbingly stupid, it’s surprising it has to be said.

      Moronic misunderstanding of history is why we have a state and country in the place we do. Jon, thanks for bringing the discussion to stupidity AS ALWAYS.

      • Jon

        “Gays didn’t routinely get murdered”

        You sure about that?

        • blublud

          Let’s compare how many black were murdered for being black, and how many gays were murders for being gay and tell me if the struggle is the same. Tell me how many right have gays been refused that were promised to them by the constitution. They deserve equal right, but ts not close to what blacks went through.

          • Jon

            I”m(or the photo in this case) isn’t comparing directly the struggle of blacks and gays, it’s comparing how stupid both people look in the context of “denying human beings rights”(something simpleton, V23 doesn’t get)

            “Christians” are the folks in the bottom photo, they just can’t realize it yet.

            • V23

              Jon- FYI it was SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS that were against equal rights for blacks. Can you please study some sort of history? Ever hear of lynchings? Of course gays have been attacked and even killed because of that, but luckily very very few. Every hear of lynchings? Every hear of black guys getting killed for suspicions of looking at white girls? I mean there are full books written about the thousands and thousands of atrocities. Do me a favor, quit regurgitating Dan Bernstein on here. One of that annoying guy is enough.

              Also, you are 99% wrong or absurd about everything you post on here. You are here to troll people not saying anything smart.

              Jon, so you are on here to be anti-christian? Dude, it’s a cubs blog, get a life. Normally, I ignore your stupidity, but at a point, you have to realize how you come off on here.

              • Jon

                What does Dan Berstein have to do with any of this? I’ve bashed Bernstein a few times, in this very blog.

                • V23

                  The anti-christian rants. The same exact phrasing he uses.

                  Being bigoted against christians isn’t any better than being bigoted against homosexuals.

                  Remember, why the Pilgrims came to America? Religious freedom. So out of one side of your mouth you can’t say freedom, then out the other side leak hatred.

                  But, I’m done even engaging you. Your thoughts about this, are pretty similar to all your posts…(not a compliment).

                  • Jon

                    The Christian bashing only comes up when you have nut job bible waving dudes like BluBud posting. I mean, they make it so easy?

                    • blublud

                      I take that as a compliment, you idiot.

                    • Jon

                      Now that wasn’t nice. You are in violation of Mark12:31

                    • blublud

                      Jon, then so are you with your above comment.

              • TWC

                ” … but at a point, you have to realize how you come off on here.”

                So says the dude stirred up into a name-calling, all-caps using frenzy.

                Not sure why (twice now) you’re trying to make this a republican/democrat thing when the discussion has been relatively tame and hewing to the specific moralities of the issue.

                Maybe just walk away.

                • V23

                  TWC- Read his post above. That’s why. I’m sick of reading stupid “Right Wing” / “Left Wing” by the likes of him. We have to read his usual hateful comments about fans, players and the cubs….today I’ll take him to task.

                  • Jon

                    You sure are taking me to task with YOUR CAPS LOCK!

                    You bad boy, you….

                  • TWC

                    Hey, man: *you* brought it up. Jon was indeed disdainful of religion, but he said nothing about politics. The fact that most evangelicals tend to congregate on the more conservative side of the spectrum shouldn’t be a surprise, but it’s irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

                    • Jason P

                      “He said nothing of politics”

                      He said this above:
                      It’s funny/sad how the right wingers can’t let a story like this pass without getting “their shot in”

                    • TWC

                      So he did. I missed that in the convolutions.

            • blublud

              You are wrong Jon. The bible doesn’t differentiate black and whites as being a sin, but it does gay/straight. 40 years from now, most hardcore, of which I’m not, Christians will still disagree with equal rights for homosexuals. That’s never going to change.

              • TWC

                The bible says that gays should be put to death, Jay. Still waiting for how you’ve (conveniently) left that out of your moral code.

                • ssckelley

                  I believe that was also the punishment for adulterers and fornicators.

              • DocPeterWimsey

                Unitarians, Quakers and many other Christian groups would disagree. Those Christian groups that restrict themselves strictly to the purported statements of Jesus of Nazareth have backed off on this because all of that stuff comes from Paul (who was the 5th Beatle apostle for those of you that don’t follow Christianity). Jesus of Nazareth himself never said a thing on the topic.

                Indeed, a lot of the christian groups who are really hepped up on this are much more followers of Saul of Tarsus than they are of Jesus of Nazareth.

                • Pat

                  Ok, I’ll show my ignorance here. Aren’t Paul and Saul the same and something about the road to Damascus?

                • http://bleachernation.com woody

                  You might find the writing of Prof. Robert Eisenman to be of interest. ‘James the brother of Jesus”. Gets into the whole split between James and Paul.

                  • DocPeterWimsey

                    James and Paul, John and Paul: those J&P acts just never can stick together, can they?

                    (My favorite Mad Magazine caption ever: “John Paul Elected Pope; George & Ringo jealous.”)

            • WiscCubsFan

              Christians were also the leading force for abolition before the Civil War. Not all Christians are the same ;)

              • DocPeterWimsey

                Indeed, Christianity encompasses at least four very distinct religions, all of which have comparable support (and contradiction) in the New Testament. Luther was right: the New Testament flatly states that faith and faith alone gets you to heaven. Except that he was wrong: it flatly states that deeds trump faith. That makes the Quakers and Unitarians correct. Other parts say it’s both, or that faith is inseparable from deed.

                Calvin was correct, as were his infralapsarian and supralapsarian followers: God does pick and choose, and he even sends some people to Earth with no chance of redemption. Except, of course, the parts that say differently.

                And still other groups just try to juggle it all so rapidly that you’ll miss all of this. That was the balancing act that the Catholic church managed to pull for several centuries (when the Bible was basically a banned book!) in order to keep the peace. The different subgroups of the Church held different views: one group of Augustinians held proto-Lutheran views (Martin Luther began there) whereas another one held proto-Calvinist views, the Dominicans (or is the Franciscans?) held very Quaker-like viewers, the Benedictines held Bachanalian views (sorry, couldn’t resist). Of course, nobody’s every figured out what the Jesuits are doing (NSA is totally stumped), but that’s a completely.

                And that is why it is impossible to state that there is a Christian view on anything except that there is a God and that Jesus of Nazareth is in some way important for some people to get to Heaven.

                • Diehardthefirst

                  Heaven is an interesting concept – how would you know if you are there? What may be heaven to some may be hell to others- what if you can’t drink smoke swear or screw in heaven? That would be hell wouldn’t it?

                  • DocPeterWimsey

                    To me, any afterlife would be pretty hellish! I mean, an eternity with a bunch of virgins and ginger ale would suck worse than watching Game 5 of the 1984 NLCS over and over and over again.

                • Hee Seop Chode

                  I love Doc’s posts too. Way to drop researched knowledge.

  • blublud

    My point is homosexuality or gay acts are a sin because in the bible it says sex is for married people. In the bible, the definition of married is a man and a woman. So a man sleeping with a man is wrong just as a man sleeping with a woman who he is not married to. I participate in sex with women I’m not married to, so my act is just as sinful. So there for, no hypocrisy here. I don’t believe in gay marriage, because the phrase “gay marriage” is an impossible phrase to define, a catch 22. I believe in gay unions, partnerships or any other name you want to give it, that gives a gay couple the same rights as a married couple, just don’t call it marriage. I believe the act of sex in general is a choice, it doesn’t matter if you are gay, straight or bi. I believe you have to answer for all of your acts while here on earth, and all acts but one are forgivable. I believe gay people are normal people filled with sinful flesh like we all our. They are no different than anyone else, they don’t deserve special treatment nor do they deserve to be treated like they are anything less than the humans we all are.

    I’m happy for Michael Same and I hope he is pick right where he would have been pick right before this announcement. If its my Bucs, I will cheer for him just like the rest of our players and his orientation will be an after thought.

    • CubFan Paul

      “or any other name you want to give it, that gives a gay couple the same rights as a married couple, just don’t call it marriage”

      Social Equality.

      • TWC

        Exactly.

        “Hey, man, I didn’t say you can’t ride the bus. You just have to sit at the back.”

        • blublud

          Marriage has a definition, its man and woman. Comparing that to Rosa Parks is absolutely Moronic.

          • CubFan Paul

            You continually miss the point.

            Social Equality.

            • blublud

              Social equality I agree with. Your union and mine can be equal without calling it a marriage. We want equality, but we don’t have to change definitions of words.

              • CubFan Paul

                Calling a gay marriage, marriage is the very definition of Social Equality.

                As I said above, you continually miss the point.

                • blublud

                  Marriage has a definition. The definition of marriage is a man and a woman.

                  We can reverse it. If I hated gays and thought they were horrible people, I might as well call them murderers, since I would feel one is as bad as the other. No matter how I would feel, its not the same thing.

                  The definition of marriage is a man and woman. You can call two gay men or two gay women union a marriage, but that doesn’t make it a marriage.

                  I will support all equality and accept all the rights gay people receive, except this one. My brother, who is gay, and a Christian(he goes to church more than I do and is very close to the pastor) agrees with this.

                  • TWC

                    “Marriage has a definition. The definition of marriage is a man and a woman.”

                    Black folks were once defined as 3/5ths of a person. Definitions change.

                    • blublud

                      Please tell me in what dictionary that was in.

                    • Patrick W.

                      Technically, black folks were not defined as 3/5 persons. For the purposes of taxation and representation, they were counted as persons, but only 3/5 of the total of those persons was counted.

                      But it doesn’t have to be in a dictionary to be a definition, for crying out loud.

                      But let’s go by your standard… the Miriam Webster Dictionary. Which defines marriage as?

                      a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

                      YOU’RE TOO LATE! Definition, changed.

                    • TWC

                      “Technically, black folks were not defined as 3/5 persons.”

                      Well, that’s a slim hair to split, but a more accurate one.

                      So let’s say you have a glass of water that has a hole 3/5th of the way up…

                  • Jason P

                    In a country with clear separation of church and state, does it make sense to define marriage the way we do because that’s how the bible does?

                    • blublud

                      Considering our “state” only recognizes married because its in the bible, then probably yes.

                    • Jason P

                      Marriage predates Christianity.

                    • miggy80

                      I find it ironic some that cherry pick quotes from the bible are the same that cherry pick rights from the Constitution.

                    • Jason P

                      It’s a different situation. The constitution was written by one group of people in the span of about a week with a clear purpose in mind.

                      The bible was written over thousands of years by dozens of different writers and sources.

              • Patrick W.

                So you’re suggesting something “separate” but also “equal”.

                I get it. Seems like a thoughtful way to go about things. I’m sure history has no example of this line of thought leading to trouble.

                • blublud

                  Well, let’s just call everybody gay, that’ll make us all equal. But we can’t, because gay has a definition.

                  • Patrick W.

                    You cannot compare an intrinsic unchangeable characteristic and a legal institution. You don’t sign a document swearing to your sexual preference.

                    People used to make the same arguments in support of miscegenation laws. “Well let’s just call everybody white, that will make us equal!” and they seem really dumb today. We laugh at and ostracize those people for a reason. They were wrong.

                    We change the definition of marriage fairly regularly, actually. Most recently we changed the definition from “The marriage of one man and one woman of the same race” to eliminate the part about race. It’s not such a earth shattering change to eliminate gender.

                    • blublud

                      Well, we can just change the definition of gay to anyone who has sex that’s not married to the person. The only reason I think gay is a sin is because they are not married to the person they are sleeping with, the same reason my acts of sleeping with my girlfriend is a sin. Only difference, is a woman and a man can eventual marry, but a man/man, woman/woman can’t, per the bible, so it will always be a sin according to the book.

                      I don’t care about the “states” definition of the word. I guess if they want to change it, change it. I’ll never call it a marriage. That is the only line when it comes to gay right I will never cross.

                    • Patrick W.

                      This comment:

                      ‘Considering our “state” only recognizes married because its in the bible, then probably yes.’

                      does not reconcile well with this comment:

                      ‘I don’t care about the “states” definition of the word.’

                      You also seem to only care about one of the bible’s definitions of the word.

                      How do you feel about Ezra 10:2 – 11? or Deuteronomy 22:28 – 29?

              • TWC

                “Social equality I agree with.”

                Yet you apparently don’t understand it.

                • blublud

                  TWC, apparently you don’t understand the meaning of it.

                  • TWC

                    Okay, so we’ve reached the “I know you are but what am I?” part of the discussion. Swell.

                  • Chef Brian

                    Blublood, you are just digging your self in deeper with every comment and circular argument. The word “marriage” isn’t defined as man and woman. Being a homosexual isn’t a choice, since people are born gay. Using the bible to further your argument is only adding fuel to the fire. Paul, Patrick, and TWC are correct on this topic. Try to be reasonable.

          • Funn Dave

            That’s funny–when I’m looking up the definition of a word, I never think to check the bible. I didn’t realize it was such a handy reference. I’ll go ahead and throw out my dictionary then.

          • Soda Popinski

            Here’s what the bible’s definition of marriage really is:
            [img]http://www.skepticmoney.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/marriage.jpg[/img]

    • TWC

      “because in the bible it says sex is for married people”

      The bible also says that homosexuals should be put to death, Jay (Leviticus).

      It’s awfully easy to pick and choose which passages you want to shoehorn into your moral code (especially considering in the previous book of the Old Testament [Exodus], it’s pretty clear that “Thou shalt not kill”).

      • Jon

        The Bible also has some interesting thoughts on woman as well

        I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

        • Patrick W.

          My wife and I are running out of turtle doves to slaughter as an offering once every 28 days.

    • Brocktoon

      The issue is there are aonfew passages in the bible condemning homosexuality that the obsession with it being immoral comes off as rather silly. People are citing passages that contain condemnations of wearing clothing made of more than one material. Referencing books (Leviticus) that they wouldn’t put a moments thought into if it didn’t outlaw the gays

      • blublud

        I never said homosexuality was immoral and I never will. Is a man sleeping with a woman thats not his wife immoral. It affects no one other than the people commiing the act. I said its a sin. And boh of those acts are sins.

    • Cornish Heat

      blublud,

      This clearly must be repeated, as it is also in the Bible:

      Luke 6:37
      “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.”

      • blublud

        Cornish Heat, you need to look up the definition of condemn before posting this again.

        • Jason P

          “To express disapproval of, especially in public…”

          So what’s your point?

          • blublud

            Go up this list and tell me where I personal disapproved of being gay. I would support being gay. Labeling something a sin is not showing disapproval. I also labeled my act of sleeping with a woman I’m not married to a sin, am I condemning myself also.

            • Jason P

              “Gay acts are a sin”

              “A man sleeping with a man is wrong”

              • blublud

                That per the bible, now please tell me where I personally said it was immoral.

              • D-Rock

                In blublud’s defense, he didn’t come up with these statements on his own:

                “Gay acts are a sin”

                “A man sleeping with a man is wrong”

                These principles are found in the Bible, so if you have an issue with what blublud is saying, then your issue is not with him, but with the Bible and the One who wrote the Bible.

                Can we please just focus on sports!

                • ssckelley

                  That Springer guys looks pretty damn good!

        • Cornish Heat

          blublud,

          Do I need to look up the definition of judge also?

          • Jon

            Bluebud is Colonel Frank Fitts from American Beauty.

            I think something is really suppressed deep down.

    • Funn Dave

      Fortunately, we live in a country that separates church & state, so the Bible has no bearing on the legal definition of marriage, at all, whatsoever.

      • bbmoney

        Thank you.

  • MightyBear

    I believe George Springer is going to be a star.

    • ssckelley

      I do to, for a guy who does not make much contact in the strike zone he sure has put up some pretty good numbers in the minor leagues. If Brett Jackson had those kinds of power numbers he would be in the major leagues.

  • V23

    Um, TWC- Jon writes: “It’s funny/sad how the right wingers can’t let a story like this pass without getting “their shot in”

    So, ya, I’m going to take issue with that. Be careful the camps you join. I’ve seen you comment here and you are a good commenter…

    I’m pro-gay marriage. I’m pro equality. The only thing that would ever annoy me about a gay cub (or celebrity cub or whatever) is the annoying media. That wouldn’t stop me from liking the player, just give me more reason to dislike some reporters that would rather report on drama instead of sports. Anyone who doesn’t think there are already plenty of gay athletes is naive. The media for some reason loves beating a narrative to death, I just don’t enjoy that part of sports.

    I just would rather hear about his advance stats than what his sexuality is. I barely care what my friends do, let alone athletes.

    • Jon

      “That damn media reporting and celebrating an athlete breaking down a major social barrier”

      Stop annoying with this damn media!

    • Diggs

      If you really don’t care about the story, then don’t listen to discussions about it or read articles about it. But a lot of people do care. It’s a huge story. The more you keep saying that you don’t care about the topic, the less genuine you seem.

  • D-Rock

    The part I don’t understand is why players such as Michael Sam feel the need to make a big announcement about their sexual preference/orientation or whatever you want to call it. You don’t see straight players making big announcements saying “I’m straight.” I feel bad for Michael Sam because now most people when they hear his name will immediately think “that’s the openly gay player” rather than his accomplishments on the football field. Straight or gay, I wish this sex stuff would just not be mentioned and the focus would be about players’ sports abilities and talent.

    If I’m Theo and Jed, I’m drafting the best players and not asking “Is he gay?” “Is he straight?”

    • blublud

      I agree 100% percent. When an announcement is not needed, that’s when we are making progress.

      • Jon

        And when a story about a gay athlete can avoid people coming out in droves to denounce gay marriage, then at that point, no announcement is necessary and yeah, we have made some progress.

    • Funn Dave

      Hey, this comment almost makes sense…in a world where homosexuality is as commonly accepted as heterosexuality. Do we live in such a world? Not even close. There would be no reason for a straight person to announce that he’s straight, because most people that watch sports just assume that most people playing are straight–if they think about it at all.

  • Swaz46

    What we’re seeing here is the problem of reading the Bible literally. I actually think that, to his credit, blublud has shown himself to be more articulate and compassionate than most who read the Bible literally.

    HOWEVER…

    Reading the Bible literally is a recent phenomenon, confined to the last 100-150 years. Before that, people generally would have scoffed at the idea the this book, written by people several thousand years ago, would be applied universally across time. Over time, we’ve decided that some things were written for a specific group of people in a specific time. The part of the Bible saying homosexuality is a sin comes from a section that most people, including those who read the Bible literally, have come to view as important only in its appropriate historical context. This is the part of the Old Testament which says that it’s a sin to have garments of two different fabrics or a field with two different crops, that it’s a sin for men to trim their hair, and that eating shellfish is “an abomination.” Those “laws” have come to be seen as archaic and been done away with. Why is homosexuality the only one that people seem to hold on to?

    • blublud

      Premarital sex is a sin. Man on man, man on woman, woman on woman. This is the ONLY reason I believe its a sin. The actual act of gay has no input on my belief. This and the biblical definition of marriage is all I care to believe.

      • roz

        You know what blubud, I love Christians, they’re great. However, I think someone professing their Christianity is just wrong. I know it’s a pretty huge part of who they are, but it shouldn’t be seen in public. Pray all you want, but don’t do it where people can see you, because praying is just immoral. I mean honestly, think of the children! What would I tell a kid who saw someone praying? Honestly, I love Christians as people, but I hate when people do Christian things. It’s just so sinful in my eyes.

        • Cornish Heat

          roz,

          If I could “like” on this site, I’d “like” the hell out of your post.

        • D-Rock

          this made me laugh. Loved the satire!

        • Funn Dave

          Very nice. I’ll take Blublud’s lack of a response as an indication that even he finally realizes his hypocrisy.

          • Drew7

            I wouldn’t count on that.

      • Swaz46

        Again blu, I appreciate how compassionate and articulate you are. But I have an issue with this “biblical definition of marriage.” The Bible is full of stories of people held up as heroes of the faith who had NUMEROUS wives/husbands. In fact, the Jewish patriarch Jacob had two wives and two concubines. Would you have an issue with his definition of marriage? King David, the “man after God’s own heart,” had at least SEVEN wives, and that’s before the book of 2 Samuel says that he married MORE in Jerusalem.

        • blublud

          I don’t know how I feel about multiple wives, but if its allowed, its still a man and a woman. The women aren’t sleeping together.

          • CubFan Paul

            I know how I feel about multiple wives:)

            • Brocktoon

              Chop-Chop-Dig-Dig

    • VittersStartingLF

      In response to Swaz46, your question about how we decide what biblical laws we hold onto has a lot to do with the what is brought out in the New Testament. Most of the laws you brought up were specific moral laws of the Old Testament. Homosexuality is called a sin in both Old Testament and New Testament. Then again so us lust, anger, pride, selfishness etc. All sin is equal and it shows us all we need someone to save us from the penalty of our sins: Jesus.

    • http://bleachernation.com woody

      Most of the Christian bible is an invention of Paul. Paul or Saul was in thick with the “Herodians”. Herod the Great was and Edomite and not considered a jew Pharasees who dominated Judea. Herod Antipas was king when John the Baptist and Jesus were killed. These Herodians were very corupt by the paharaseeic standards and especially by the Esseness who wrote the dead sea scrolls. Jesus left his movement in the hands of his brother James’ hands. Jesus was a practicing Jew and abided by the laws of Moses. After his death James insisted that all followers must convert to Judaism and submit to circumcism and dietary laws. James could not travel outside of Judea because he wasn’t a Roman citizen. However Paul was a citizen and used that to his advantage to preach things that Jesus never practiced or said. Basicly Paul invented the Christianity that was adopted by Rome. After Constantine all teaching contrary to the books that were canonized were declared heretical and all people practicing anything other than that orthodoxy were killed. Hence in effect the first Inquisition. The Catholic church destroyed all competing gospels circulating and all writings contrary to their dogma. James was an opponent of Paul and Paul purpossely diminished his stature in his writings.

      • DocPeterWimsey

        Indeed, it has been posited that John of Patmos (whoever the heck he was) was pointing to the branch of Christianity that Paul founded as the church of the anti-Christ. Many of the other early branches of Christianity were much more like “Jews for Jesus.”

        As an evolutionary biologist, I actually find the evolution of religion somewhat amusing: you frequently see high amounts of early disparity early with one or two forms coming to dominate pretty quickly. Call that a recurring pattern!

  • Fastball

    I don’t give a shit what someone is if he can hit and field a baseball. Don’t tell me what you are because I don’t want or need to know. It’s none of my business what someone is. I am Catholic and believe in my religion but am not a radical. I use it to make sure I am grounded and look to religion as guidance for myself and how I live my own life. I wonder why so many people want to make a statement. I just do not care what someone is unless they are terrorist or a violent person who is going to bring trouble to me or my family. Don’t force your will on me, as I would never dream of forcing mine on you. Seems pretty damned simple to me.

    • roz

      Right? Who gives a shit about Jackie Robinson, I wish he just focused on playing baseball and not about systemic discrimination.

      • blublud

        Actually, I wish Jackie Robinson WAS just another ball player. We should have never been in a place where is was a big deal for a black person to play a sport.

        • roz

          I agree, it’d be great if every institution and organization in the world never discriminated against anybody and racism/sexism/homophobia/etc. never existed. However, the sad reality is that those things do exist, which makes people like Jackie Robinson and Michael Sam, and the things they stand for, very important.

        • CubsFaninMS

          I have a book called “Only the Ball Was White” that discusses the history of the Negro Leagues in lots of detail. Definitely a good read, I would recommend it.

    • willis

      Amen fastball, well said.

    • Chef Brian

      Sometimes statements need to be made. Homosexuals find their rights oppressed all the time, so this is their time to make a statement for their equality. If Catholics were given a hard time or discouraged from playing sports and had to keep their lives a secret, you might have a statement or two you’d like to make.

  • cubbiekoolaid2015

    It took a hell of a lot of courage for Sam to do what he did. Couldn’t have much more respect for the guy. If the Bears do decide to switch to a 3-4 I’d have no problem with them picking him in the 3rd round where he was initially projected. Maybe 2nd round if he improves his draft stock at the combine.

  • TSB

    Like Jackie Robinson with race or to a lesser extent, Bill Walton with his hippie look and anti-war activism, (and of course to a much lesser extent, Tim Tebow’s in-your-face Christianity) a lot will depend on this fellows reaction to confrontation, real or imagined. If he gets face-masked, will he complain to the press that it is because he’s gay? Not enough playing time, obvious anti-gay prejudice? And at some point if he can’t hack the NFL and gets cut, a “tell-all” book about the “homophobia” of the coaches and owners? Sad but true, a trailblazer in most any endevour is held to a different of not higher standard than the usual generic team member.

  • brainiac

    hey y’all just be decent to everyone. declaring a prejudice against a large group of fellow humans is not a civil right, and it’s definitely not a civil right more important than individual freedoms to live in peace.

    sports is about teammates, and anytime you tell a member of your team that they’re not an important part of the team the team is bound to fail. and like it or not, we’re all existentially on the same death-inevitable team, no matter how we live or who we are.

  • http://www.ehanauer.com clark addison

    Why can’t we all talk about the Cubs?

    • Jon

      You know i was honestly shocked this turned into the debate it did. I mean, regardless of our religious orientation, political inclinings, I think we can all agree it would be nice if a gay man could compete on a professional sports team and be generally “accepted”.

      I mean, we are not arguing about marriage rights, adoption rights, anything like that, just general acceptance. But then good ole Isaac had to start an argument that wasn’t even there…

      • DarthHater

        I disagree about the shock, Jon. I thought this discussion was quite predictable and similar to many other discussions of similar subjects on this site. That’s why I don’t understand why Brett encourages this. There are tons of socially important issues in the world – and even issues related to sports – that don’t need to be discussed on every sport chat board in the world. But, hey, it’s Brett’s site and I am free to mostly ignore this thread, which is what I have mostly done. :-P

        • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

          For what it’s worth, when important social issues have touched on sports in a way that can be contextualized through the lens of the Cubs, I’ve discussed it. I think it’s often useful.

      • Isaac

        286 comments later, and I would disagree with the fact that there isn’t relevant discussion to be had.

        Jon, I know you know this, but you being on the other side of this only cements my feelings.:-)

        • Jon

          I’d say about 220 of those comments were blubud quoting the bible. I mean, I could quote a Michael Crichton 200+ times in a thread, but I don’t think that qualifies as discussion.

          • Funn Dave

            Great post.

      • Isaac

        Also, feel free to note that “acceptance” is one of the very words I used to describe my position. I simply noted that it was sad that someone could no longer hold a belief about right and wrong without being similarly ostracized.

        The point was clearly made when portions of this board roundly ripped various religions for daring to establish morality .

        • CubFan Paul

          Your best friend is also black. Cry us a river.

          • Chef Brian

            Ha!

    • DarthHater

      I’m with you, but apparently Brett thinks this issue is so important that we need to have this rational and insightful discussion here about whether religion-bashing is the same as gay-bashing.

      • https://www.facebook.com/AnotherSpaceSong Bret Epic

        I guess the correlation that could be made is whether or not a religion permits homosexuality. I’m an Atheist who thinks that it’s best to let people be, as long as their beliefs do not interfere with the happiness of others, permitting that their happiness and lifestyle is not hurting anyone. People should just live and let live. What happens in the bedroom should stay there and have no interference with the activities on the field of play, no matter what their sexual orientation might be. If we lived in a world where the bible said that it was wrong to eat pasta, but pasta was your favorite food, would it be righteous for someone to persecute you for what you enjoy? Would you still eat it? I know I would because it’s something I enjoy and it isn’t harming anyone.

        • Chad

          I think people blow the Chrisitianity view on homosexuality out of proportion, like your pasta example. If eating pasta was a sin I am going to do my best to avoid it because I think I shouldn’t sin, but if you choose to eat pasta, that is your choice.

          As a Christian I believe that homosexuality is a sin, same as lying, adultery, murder, stealing etc etc. Have I lied before, yes I have, and I’m sure I will again before I die. I don’t want Christians to hate me for it, I am a sinner, we are all born sinners thanks to Adam and Eve. I personally could care less if you are gay or straight. Does not matter to me, but I still believe that it is a sin. I don’t care if you are an adulterer or a liar either, but that doesn’t mean I think it is right. As the bible states you love your neighbor as you would like to be loved and that is in spite of their sins.

          Too many people take the “homosexuality is a sin” way to far in the other direction and that is wrong. God loves homosexuals, just as he loves the most devout Christian. God’s love, and should be a Christian’s love, is unconditional of what you do or how you live your life. Hate the sin, love the sinner. I don’t hate homosexuals, I don’t like homosexuality, but I don’t like lying or adultery either, but I’m not going to judge those that do any of those sins. As I said before I have sinned and will continue to sin, but I don’t deserved to be judged by anyone other than God when my time comes.

          • Kyle

            I can’t believe I’m going to jump into this, but let’s not forget that not all Christian denominations believe homosexuality is a sin. I happen to be a proud member of a Christian church that has denounced that opinion.

            • hawkinright

              Exactly! Sweeping generalizations abound yesterday!

          • lyanreese

            Well said.

      • Funn Dave

        Was anyone religion-bashing?

        • hansman

          If you can ask that question then I can ask if anyone was gaybashing.

          It’s not a particularly good time to be a devout Christian.

          • Funn Dave

            I didn’t see any gaybashing, either.

    • DocPeterWimsey

      “Why can’t we all talk about the Cubs?”

      OK. I wish that the Cubs would start winning like gay rights groups have been winning lately! Wouldn’t it be great if the Cubs made their opponents look this bad all the time?

      Ah, a robot can dream…..

      • Funn Dave

        I wonder if all the gay kids that got beat up on the playground today agree that gay rights groups have been “winning.”

        • DocPeterWimsey

          Nothing ever has been done at once. I, for one, am really amazed (and extremely pleased) by how rapidly strides have been made in the last few years on LBGT rights. Yes, there will be holdouts: but there still are holdouts against women’s rights, racial equality, etc. Those fights aren’t completely won yet, either.

          On the sports analogy, it’s the difference between being the current Cubs, and being a contending team.

          • hansman

            This. No other group has ever made such quick strides. Just think…15ish years ago a Democrat president signed DOMA and now you’re the nut job for wanting “traditional” marriage.

            • hansman

              Not You you but You in the broad sense. Ah hell, you know what I mean. And by you I mean…well funk.

  • Jon

    Yeah, but you were the first one to bring in the “political/social” agenda. of course someone was bound to, but is that something your proud of?

    • Isaac

      No, I wish I hadn’t….I think I apologized somewhere up there.

      At the same time, Brett touched on it undoubtedly knowing it would be discussed. I felt he did that for the very purpose of striking up conversation regarding it.

Bleacher Nation Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Bleacher Nation is a private media site, and it is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago Cubs. Neither MLB nor the Chicago Cubs have endorsed, supported, directed, or participated in the creation of the content at this site, or in the creation of the site itself. It's just a media site that happens to cover the Chicago Cubs.

Bleacher Nation is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

Google+