Ozzie Guillen's so-called apology

[LMan]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

Of course, the absolutely "priceless" aspect of the whole situation is that Messrs. Selig and Watson have sentenced Ozzie to - get this - "sensitivity training"!!

I would love to watch that 'reality series' on Fox

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by PWL

I was under the assumption that "gay" meant happy, and "fat" people were supposed to be jolly.

Hey Steve, "You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me? You must me talkin' to me?"

I must be gay and extremely jolly then! And a faggot is also defined as a bundle of sticks.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

I am quite sure I know many more gay people than you do, so yes, I feel like somewhat of an authority.

That's quite an assumption considering you have never met me. LOL. I don't know how many gay people you "know"...but then you don't know how many I "know". I'm also guessing that I get to know my gay clients better than you get to know the gay men in the backseat of your taxi cab.

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

All groups get offended all of a sudden when it gives them a political platform.

I don't think the man interviewed on WGN was looking for a political platform. His comments were limited to the Ozzy situation. He didn't make some big political statement about how gays are mistreated all the time in Chicago/Illinois and/or USA.

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Yes, I got pissed when derogatory comments were made about fat people, because it is socially acceptable to make fun of fat people.

It is not socially acceptable in many places that I go. For instance, do it in my work place and you'll be fired. Am I suggesting that calling someone "fat" is as unacceptable in our society as using the "n-word"....no, I'm not. Should it be...yeah.

And as for this argument that they call each other "queen", "queer", "fag" and "gay", so that they can't be offended when someone else does: I know many African-Americans who call each other the "n-word" in their social circles...that does not mean that they're telling me or any of my lilly-white relatives that they wouldn't be offended if I called them that. I think the context is highly relevant.

But, again, I just find it humorous that you have the ability to state as fact that all gay men are not offended by Ozzy's comments...because if they are offended they aren't really gay, or they're just acting offended to make a political statement.

And again I think its quite a double standard that you can state that calling someone "fat" is unacceptable, but calling someone what Ozzy did is o.k.

I'm guessing you're offended at "fat" because you are overweight (for whatever reason...medical condition, etc.)...and I'm just guessing that if you were gay, too, you would have been offended at Ozzy's comments.

Personally, I'm not overweight, nor am I gay...but I'd be uncomfortable being in the presence of a person saying either slur/put-down. And I'd take it as an insult to my overweight and/or gay friends.

[SanDiegoSteve]

I had a long post made in rebuttal to yours, but I deleted it. This is not the proper forum for this type of argument. I stand by my statements, and you are free to do the same.

Ozzie offended Jay Mariotti, and that is to whom he owes an apology, not the gay community. I don't wish to elaborate any further, or this will turn into a discussion about sexual preference and moral values. If it does continue, I'll just delete the whole thread, as it is supposed to be about Ozzie Guillen's half-hearted apology to no one in particular, and to whom I feel it should have been directed.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

. I stand by my statements, and you are free to do the same.

Then "stand by" you and I shall both do.

[3appleshigh]

OUT of SHEER DEVIL'S ADVOCATE Couriosity,

Shouldn't the Gay community really be more upset that the writer found the comment offensive (if he did) than that the Comment was made??

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by 3appleshigh

OUT of SHEER DEVIL'S ADVOCATE Couriosity,

Shouldn't the Gay community really be more upset that the writer found the comment offensive (if he did) than that the Comment was made??

Well, probably because most people are not gay, and the majority of those people think that homosexuality is sinful. Being referred to as gay is offensive to the majority of heterosexuals, and has nothing to do with homophobia, a word that was invented by the far-left to excuse homosexual behavior, and to attempt to normalize it.

"Not that there's anything wrong with it." - Jerry, Elaine, Cosmo, and George

[3appleshigh]

Now I'll agree and I hope most will that the statement most people are not gay is a correct assumtion. However the statement that most of the non gay community think that being Gay is sinful is a major crock of crap.

I would say the majority of the non gay world think that being gay is about as important to them as what level someone sets the toaster on. Now most of the Religious Zealots think that being gay is sinful I'll agree. But again most of the non gay world probably barely think of the word sinful let alone associate Gayness with it. I would bet that most of the world thinks being a religious Zealot is worst than being "the Gay & Beastiality Champion of the world".

[mo99]

Not to sound racially motivated,but if Ozzie was white do you think he would still have his job? Remember the uproar from that relief pitcher from the Braves a few years back.I think his name was Rocker, who made a comment in jest about the gays in New York and was ultimately railroaded out of baseball.Sounds like good old reverse descrimination to me.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mo99

Not to sound racially motivated,but if Ozzie was white do you think he would still have his job? Remember the uproar from that relief pitcher from the Braves a few years back.I think his name was Rocker, who made a comment in jest about the gays in New York and was ultimately railroaded out of baseball.Sounds like good old reverse descrimination to me.

Yes he would. This was not an issue of race, this was an issue of sexual orientation which is a very different issue. Stop trying to say "I am white and life is not fair" BS. The bottom line life is not fair. If there was not a history of whites preventing people of other races opportunities then white people would not have to bare the burden of racial comments. Someone like Dusty Baker can make comments and get a pass because there is not he same history in this country of Black people holding out white people from opportunities in baseball or other aspects of society. The Negro Leagues did not systematically hold out white people from playing baseball. Also this issue was about sexuality not race. That is a different issue and different set of circumstances. I can tell you African-Americans are probably more against gays or are much more homophobic than the general public. So if another manager said this that it would be treated the same way. They would have to apologize, but not much would be done about it unless they probably managed in San Francisco. A place like Chicago (which had a well known Gay Pride parade this Sunday) not everyone really cares.

Peace

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by 3appleshigh

Now I'll agree and I hope most will that the statement most people are not gay is a correct assumtion. However the statement that most of the non gay community think that being Gay is sinful is a major crock of crap.

I would say the majority of the non gay world think that being gay is about as important to them as what level someone sets the toaster on. Now most of the Religious Zealots think that being gay is sinful I'll agree. But again most of the non gay world probably barely think of the word sinful let alone associate Gayness with it. I would bet that most of the world thinks being a religious Zealot is worst than being "the Gay & Beastiality Champion of the world".

I never said that being gay was sinful. Being gay in not sinful, but homosexual acts are. This being a Christian founded nation (fact, just do the research and don't try to argue the point) and that the majority of people in the US consider themselves Christian in some capacity, even though many do not practice their faith, it goes to reason that the majority of people in the US think that the practice of homosexual acts is a sin. It is not so-called "Religous Zealots" who feel this way. It is your mainstream, run-of-the-mill Christian. 87% of the people in the US consider themselves either Jewish or Christian (Catholic or Protestant).

I am not going to apologize for my beliefs, or have you disparage them. There are plenty of other things that God considers sin, and I'm no angel. But I recognize my sinful nature, and repent of it. Believing in God is not being a religous fanatic, sorry but you can't even go there.

You can believe whatever you want, but the Bible, which is the best selling book of all time BTW, of which I believe everything from the Table of Contents to the Maps, says that God loves the sinner but hates the sin. God loves homosexuals (and all mankind), but He abhorrs homosexuality. It is an abomination unto The Lord, and nothing you can rationalize it away with will change that fact.

Now, don't even come back and say that this nation was founded by "diests" and "agnostics" because that is a lie, and the people who say it know it's a lie. The founding fathers, by and large, were God fearing, Christian men, and put that faith into every single document and law that this great nation was built with. I can produce hundreds of quotations to back this up, so don't even try to refute what I say. Just read The Federalist Papers by John Jay and Thomas Jefferson for starters.

All that being said, I, much like God, love people. Somebody said, "we know that you hate Joe West" to which I answered, if you recall, that I don't "hate" anybody. Sure, there are people I dislike, but all men and women are brothers in my way of thinking, and all deserve the love that God loves us with. Gay, straight, black, white, brown, you name it! They are all God's children.

[UmpJM]

Ummm,

Uh oh.

JM

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

Ummm,

Uh oh.

JM

Okay, just one more crack like that and you're gone, coach!!!

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

(Snip)

This being a Christian founded nation (fact, just do the research and don't try to argue the point)

(Snip)

Now, don't even come back and say that this nation was founded by "diests" and "agnostics" because that is a lie, and the people who say it know it's a lie. The founding fathers, by and large, were God fearing, Christian men, and put that faith into every single document and law that this great nation was built with. I can produce hundreds of quotations to back this up, so don't even try to refute what I say. Just read The Federalist Papers by John Jay and Thomas Jefferson for starters.

"If Religion be not within cognizance of Civil Government, how can its legal establishment be said to be necessary to Civil Government? What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of Civil authority; in many instances they have seen the upholding of the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberty of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it (liberty) needs them not.”

James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, June 20, 1785

I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and i do not find in our particular superstition of christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."
"- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia

"The United States was in no sense founded on the Christian religion."

The 1796 treaty with Tripoli, written under the direction of President George Washington and signed by President John Adams

"all natural institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit"-

Thomas Paine

"Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."

Benjamin Franklin, Works, Vol. VII


Thomas Jefferson's original words: "All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable," were changed by congress to read "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights."

My point? Yes, there were Christians among the founding fathers, and Jews and Freemasons and Deists and atheists. They all worked together to keep religion out of government.

And, since you are too polite to ask, yes, I consider myself a practicing, church attending, parish council member, Christian. But my faith doesn't require that I ignore history.

[UmpJM]

Now Steve,

I was not trying to "show up the ump" in any way.

Rather, as in baseball, while your comments above might be considered perfectly correct under one "ruleset", they might be considered equally incorrect under another.

While I would not dispute your comments regarding the religious sensibilities of those who made this country a nation (in the modern sense), I believe they had the wisdom to both realize AND stipulate that government and religion are two separate matters. Since freedom of religion was a primary motivation for creating this nation, they made it a matter of law.

And I still think that it's a "hoot" that Ozzie was "sentenced" to sensitivity training, and I still think that Jay Mariotti is a spineless hack. Have any of you ever read what he writes. I have, and I wouldn't encourage anyone else to waste his time doing so. I also find it ironic that there was virtually no comment when Ozzie called him a "piece of $hit" and the media has their panties in a wad because he called him a "fag". What a hoot.

JM

Edited to add:

I see that Garth has posted while I was composing my post. I would just like to say that I find his "cites" both on point and illuminative.