Discussion:
"Braves' Smoltz clarifies remarks about stance on gays" (AJC)
(too old to reply)
Tarkus
2004-07-26 14:11:54 UTC
Permalink
Braves' Smoltz clarifies remarks about stance on gays

By Darren Everson and Jim Rich
New York Daily News
Published on: 07/25/04

New York -- Before he stuck his foot in his mouth in a major way earlier
this season, no one ever confused John Smoltz with John Rocker. Smoltz,
the Atlanta Braves' well-spoken closer, can stand and chat with reporters
for 20 minutes, as he did at Shea Stadium on Friday, and do so without
offending anyone.

But Smoltz, who is also a devout Christian, caused a stir earlier this
month with comments about gay marriage. He was quoted in an Associated
Press story as saying, "What's next? Marrying an animal?"

Before Friday night's Mets-Braves game was rained out, Smoltz explained
himself. Although he has apologized for that remark, which he said was
made in a joking manner after an interview, he does not apologize for his
stance on gay marriage.

He said, however, that he does not have a problem with the idea of having
a gay teammate.

"The question was posed to me, would I have trouble with a gay teammate?"
Smoltz said. "Absolutely not. I have no problems at all, as long as
anybody doesn't impose their ways on anybody, whether it's faith,
religion or personal preference.

"As we were done and walking off," Smoltz said of the interview, which he
said occurred three or four months ago, "I said, 'What's next . . .' - in
a joking manner," Smoltz said. "And then they put that and (Smoltz's
stance on gay marriage) together."

As it happens, Smoltz did have a gay teammate - although he didn't know
it at the time.

Billy Bean, a former big leaguer who has since acknowledged being gay and
written a book ("Going the Other Way: Lessons from a Life in and out of
Major-League Baseball") on the subject, called Smoltz's remarks
"uninformed" and said, "It is pretty unsettling."

"There is a born-again mentality in baseball that is right in line with
what I would expect him to say," Bean said of Smoltz. Bean also said,
however, that he and Smoltz were "close friends" when they were in the
Tigers' organization in the 1980s.

"If we played golf or pickup hoops, we would bond like two regular guys,
and he would evolve as a person," said Bean, who said he hasn't talked to
Smoltz since announcing he was gay.

Braves backup catcher Eddie Perez also drew criticism for comments he
made in the same article. "If I knew a guy was gay, then I could work it
out. I could be prepared. I could hide when I'm getting disrobed," Perez
was quoted as saying. "It would be hard to play with someone all year and
then find out they're gay." Perez has said he was misquoted.

Smoltz wants it made clear that he has nothing against gays. "Nowhere in
my conversation was I critical of gays," he said.

What obviously isn't a misunderstanding, though, is his stance on gay
marriage.
--
"He could help his on-base percentage by taking some more pitches,
walking a little more, and being a little more selective."
- Chipper Jones on Rafael Furcal

Now playing: the radio
bgs
2004-07-26 16:31:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tarkus
Braves' Smoltz clarifies remarks about stance on gays
By Darren Everson and Jim Rich
New York Daily News
Published on: 07/25/04
New York -- Before he stuck his foot in his mouth in a major way earlier
this season, no one ever confused John Smoltz with John Rocker. Smoltz,
the Atlanta Braves' well-spoken closer, can stand and chat with reporters
for 20 minutes, as he did at Shea Stadium on Friday, and do so without
offending anyone.
But Smoltz, who is also a devout Christian, caused a stir earlier this
month with comments about gay marriage. He was quoted in an Associated
Press story as saying, "What's next? Marrying an animal?"
Before Friday night's Mets-Braves game was rained out, Smoltz explained
himself. Although he has apologized for that remark, which he said was
made in a joking manner after an interview, he does not apologize for his
stance on gay marriage.
He said, however, that he does not have a problem with the idea of having
a gay teammate.
"The question was posed to me, would I have trouble with a gay teammate?"
Smoltz said. "Absolutely not. I have no problems at all, as long as
anybody doesn't impose their ways on anybody, whether it's faith,
religion or personal preference.
"As we were done and walking off," Smoltz said of the interview, which he
said occurred three or four months ago, "I said, 'What's next . . .' - in
a joking manner," Smoltz said. "And then they put that and (Smoltz's
stance on gay marriage) together."
As it happens, Smoltz did have a gay teammate - although he didn't know
it at the time.
Billy Bean, a former big leaguer who has since acknowledged being gay and
written a book ("Going the Other Way: Lessons from a Life in and out of
Major-League Baseball") on the subject, called Smoltz's remarks
"uninformed" and said, "It is pretty unsettling."
"There is a born-again mentality in baseball that is right in line with
what I would expect him to say," Bean said of Smoltz. Bean also said,
however, that he and Smoltz were "close friends" when they were in the
Tigers' organization in the 1980s.
"If we played golf or pickup hoops, we would bond like two regular guys,
and he would evolve as a person," said Bean, who said he hasn't talked to
Smoltz since announcing he was gay.
Braves backup catcher Eddie Perez also drew criticism for comments he
made in the same article. "If I knew a guy was gay, then I could work it
out. I could be prepared. I could hide when I'm getting disrobed," Perez
was quoted as saying. "It would be hard to play with someone all year and
then find out they're gay." Perez has said he was misquoted.
Smoltz wants it made clear that he has nothing against gays. "Nowhere in
my conversation was I critical of gays," he said.
What obviously isn't a misunderstanding, though, is his stance on gay
marriage.
--
"He could help his on-base percentage by taking some more pitches,
walking a little more, and being a little more selective."
- Chipper Jones on Rafael Furcal
Now playing: the radio
Wow, I figured John was Jewish... just goes to show.
Justin D.
2004-07-26 17:01:42 UTC
Permalink
"Tarkus" <***@beer.com> wrote in message

[snip]

Thanks for posting that. Do you happen to have a link?
--
JD

"The goal is to be in first place when the season ends." -- Braves manager
Bobby Cox
Tarkus
2004-07-26 18:04:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Justin D.
[snip]
Thanks for posting that. Do you happen to have a link?
http://www.ajc.com/braves/content/sports/braves/0704/25smoltz.html
--
"Once I got past the tomahawk chop of the Atlanta Braves that haunted me
for 10 years, it allowed me to get a weight off my chest." - Barry Bonds

Now playing: the radio
S321Saint
2004-07-26 20:34:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tarkus
"Once I got past the tomahawk chop of the Atlanta Braves that haunted me
for 10 years, it allowed me to get a weight off my chest." - Barry Bonds
Good lord, did Barry actually say that?...what a wimp....I thought he was
tougher than that..
S321Saint
2004-07-26 20:31:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tarkus
Braves' Smoltz clarifies remarks about stance on gays
By Darren Everson and Jim Rich
New York Daily News
Published on: 07/25/04
New York -- Before he stuck his foot in his mouth in a major way earlier
this season, no one ever confused John Smoltz with John Rocker. Smoltz,
the Atlanta Braves' well-spoken closer, can stand and chat with reporters
for 20 minutes, as he did at Shea Stadium on Friday, and do so without
offending anyone.
But Smoltz, who is also a devout Christian, caused a stir earlier this
month with comments about gay marriage. He was quoted in an Associated
Press story as saying, "What's next? Marrying an animal?"
Before Friday night's Mets-Braves game was rained out, Smoltz explained
himself. Although he has apologized for that remark, which he said was
made in a joking manner after an interview, he does not apologize for his
stance on gay marriage.
He said, however, that he does not have a problem with the idea of having
a gay teammate.
"The question was posed to me, would I have trouble with a gay teammate?"
Smoltz said. "Absolutely not. I have no problems at all, as long as
anybody doesn't impose their ways on anybody, whether it's faith,
religion or personal preference.
"As we were done and walking off," Smoltz said of the interview, which he
said occurred three or four months ago, "I said, 'What's next . . .' - in
a joking manner," Smoltz said. "And then they put that and (Smoltz's
stance on gay marriage) together."
As it happens, Smoltz did have a gay teammate - although he didn't know
it at the time.
Billy Bean, a former big leaguer who has since acknowledged being gay and
written a book ("Going the Other Way: Lessons from a Life in and out of
Major-League Baseball") on the subject, called Smoltz's remarks
"uninformed" and said, "It is pretty unsettling."
"There is a born-again mentality in baseball that is right in line with
what I would expect him to say," Bean said of Smoltz. Bean also said,
however, that he and Smoltz were "close friends" when they were in the
Tigers' organization in the 1980s.
"If we played golf or pickup hoops, we would bond like two regular guys,
and he would evolve as a person," said Bean, who said he hasn't talked to
Smoltz since announcing he was gay.
Braves backup catcher Eddie Perez also drew criticism for comments he
made in the same article. "If I knew a guy was gay, then I could work it
out. I could be prepared. I could hide when I'm getting disrobed," Perez
was quoted as saying. "It would be hard to play with someone all year and
then find out they're gay." Perez has said he was misquoted.
Smoltz wants it made clear that he has nothing against gays. "Nowhere in
my conversation was I critical of gays," he said.
What obviously isn't a misunderstanding, though, is his stance on gay
marriage.
--
"He could help his on-base percentage by taking some more pitches,
walking a little more, and being a little more selective."
- Chipper Jones on Rafael Furcal
Now playing: the radio
I think it was obvious the tone of the article was that Smoltz's comments were
considered out of line and that he should apologize. I think it was also
obvious that anyone who didnt jump up and castigate Smoltz for his personal and
religious views is somehow intolerant and anti-gay. Notice how they
automatically brought up John Rocker's comments even though there was no real
connection between sets of comments. Methinks Everson and Rich should do
articles straightforward instead of pandering to the gay lobby.
Tarkus
2004-07-26 21:14:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by S321Saint
I think it was obvious the tone of the article was that Smoltz's
comments were considered out of line and that he should apologize.
As well it should be, considering Smoltz suggested the next step to gays
marrying would be marrying an animal.
--
"eRosa makes Swiss cheese look solid." - Braves Vent

Now playing: the radio
JPM III
2004-07-26 21:40:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tarkus
Post by S321Saint
I think it was obvious the tone of the article was that Smoltz's
comments were considered out of line and that he should apologize.
As well it should be, considering Smoltz suggested the next step to
gays marrying would be marrying an animal.
No he didn't. He simply posed a hypothetical question completely in jest
that was taken badly out of context to imply what you just suggested.
Colin William
2004-07-26 22:24:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by JPM III
Post by Tarkus
As well it should be, considering Smoltz suggested the next step to
gays marrying would be marrying an animal.
No he didn't. He simply posed a hypothetical question completely in jest
that was taken badly out of context to imply what you just suggested.
However it just so happened that his claimed jest is parallel to a serious
argument made by many conservatives in the same debate.

Colin
Jolly Rogers
2004-07-27 00:18:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by JPM III
Post by Tarkus
Post by S321Saint
I think it was obvious the tone of the article was that Smoltz's
comments were considered out of line and that he should apologize.
As well it should be, considering Smoltz suggested the next step to
gays marrying would be marrying an animal.
No he didn't. He simply posed a hypothetical question completely in jest
that was taken badly out of context to imply what you just suggested.
I think he is just confused like most of the world about the commercial
decision to embrace and glorify homosexuality. It's pretty difficult to
understand why a man does not desire a woman. You know, it wasn't so long
ago that homosexuals were persona non-grata in society. Now, they are
praised and accepted because of one reason: the profit potential of
commercial interests. It simply doesn't benefit commerce to have unhappy
patrons in society.

Indeed, many people may wonder if animals (and/or children) will be next.
At one time, people couldn't conceive of two men getting married and
having their marriage wholeheartedly sanctioned and endorsed by the
government, the church, and society. Considering this, I would not rule
out other sexually perverse practices becoming mainstream at some point in
the future, perhaps even including animals and children as participants.
Sickening, but quite plausible, especially if there is a healthy profit
potential for commercial interests. Some may say, "yeah, but there's a
difference. We're talking about two consenting adults here. With
children and animals, that is not the case." That's true now, but give
it time. Across time, perhaps more liberal attitudes will prevail and
become dominant, just as we have witnessed with the relatively recent
acceptance of homosexuality. It won't shock me when it happens, because
this would be quite indicative of this crazy, f*cked up world we live in.
It's only about money.

Jolly Rogers
Sam Hutcheson
2004-07-27 00:25:24 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 19:18:39 -0500, "Jolly Rogers"
Post by Jolly Rogers
Post by JPM III
Post by Tarkus
Post by S321Saint
I think it was obvious the tone of the article was that Smoltz's
comments were considered out of line and that he should apologize.
As well it should be, considering Smoltz suggested the next step to
gays marrying would be marrying an animal.
No he didn't. He simply posed a hypothetical question completely in jest
that was taken badly out of context to imply what you just suggested.
I think he is just confused like most of the world about the commercial
decision to embrace and glorify homosexuality. It's pretty difficult to
understand why a man does not desire a woman. You know, it wasn't so long
ago that homosexuals were persona non-grata in society. Now, they are
praised and accepted because of one reason: the profit potential of
commercial interests.
you're a complete fucking lunatic.

s/

*****
"Social conservatives are looking at this issue so we know
who needs to be educated on this issue or removed if that
is possible." Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council
gets the fasces bundled together
Jolly Rogers
2004-07-27 00:56:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Hutcheson
you're a complete fucking lunatic.
Well, Samuel, in the not-too-distant-past, I'm confident people made the
same type of comments when someone dared to say, "you know, someday, men
sucking dicks and men marrying other men will be acceptable in society and
even cool with the government and church."

Sadly, it turns out that the people who said those things not too long ago
weren't cuckoo after all. Ya know?

In other words, as the world turns, crazy $hit happens. What seems crazy
now may not seem crazy to the majority someday. Even now, most people are
opposed to homosexuality and same-sex marriages (if we are to believe most
standard polls), but a sizeable enough minority has embraced the notion
(or at least said "who cares?") so that it may now be enforced on society
by the church and state.

Jolly Rogers
Tarkus
2004-07-27 03:00:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by JPM III
Post by Tarkus
Post by S321Saint
I think it was obvious the tone of the article was that Smoltz's
comments were considered out of line and that he should apologize.
As well it should be, considering Smoltz suggested the next step to
gays marrying would be marrying an animal.
No he didn't. He simply posed a hypothetical question completely in jest
that was taken badly out of context to imply what you just suggested.
That he said it at all was in very poor taste at best. It doesn't make
it better because he was trying to be funny.
--
"If Cox advances this Red Cross team to playoffs, he should not have to
wait 5 years for Cooperstown." - Braves Vent

Now playing: the radio
Jolly Rogers
2004-07-27 03:15:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tarkus
That he said it at all was in very poor taste at best. It doesn't make
it better because he was trying to be funny.
Please. There wasn't anything wrong with what he said.

Jolly Rogers
Alice Faber
2004-07-27 03:32:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jolly Rogers
Post by Tarkus
That he said it at all was in very poor taste at best. It doesn't make
it better because he was trying to be funny.
Please. There wasn't anything wrong with what he said.
!!!!!!!!!!! WTF?!!!!!!!!!!!
--
"If you love the Rangers set them free; if they win, they're yours, if
they don't they never were...."
--Hadrian Wall on the Zen of fandom
bgs
2004-07-27 03:16:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tarkus
Post by JPM III
Post by Tarkus
Post by S321Saint
I think it was obvious the tone of the article was that Smoltz's
comments were considered out of line and that he should apologize.
As well it should be, considering Smoltz suggested the next step to
gays marrying would be marrying an animal.
No he didn't. He simply posed a hypothetical question completely in jest
that was taken badly out of context to imply what you just suggested.
That he said it at all was in very poor taste at best. It doesn't make
it better because he was trying to be funny.
--
"If Cox advances this Red Cross team to playoffs, he should not have to
wait 5 years for Cooperstown." - Braves Vent
Now playing: the radio
I agree that he shouldn't have said it and suspect he wishes he didn't. I'm
inclined to think that since it didn't get a lot of media attention
(apparently) that most privy to the AP wire knew that wasn't a John Smoltz
kind of quote a left it alone. And, I can think of context where it
wouldn't even carry any impact at all and maybe not even refer to gays, but
rather reporters questions.

Having said that though, I think the real distinction in the "marriage"
component is likely going to be the only tolerable compromise in the near
future. It seems there are many willing to accept a legal civil union that
infers all the rights a married couple would have, but are as yet unable to
accept "marriage" itself. I don't fully understand the line of thinking,
except as it pertains to Christian religious beliefs. But, a legal union
ain't a bad next step.

--"many" may be a gross overstatement.
Sam Hutcheson
2004-07-26 22:51:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by S321Saint
connection between sets of comments. Methinks Everson and Rich should do
articles straightforward instead of pandering to the gay lobby.
the gay lobby. that's down at the back entrance to the clairmont,
right?

s/

*****
"Social conservatives are looking at this issue so we know
who needs to be educated on this issue or removed if that
is possible." Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council
gets the fasces bundled together
JPM III
2004-07-26 21:38:59 UTC
Permalink
Two words: EXIT ONLY.

But that's just a personal preference. You're free to make your own
decisions, as long as you don't impose them on my unless I explicitly ask
for it. :-P
Post by Tarkus
Braves' Smoltz clarifies remarks about stance on gays
[snip]
Post by Tarkus
"The question was posed to me, would I have trouble with a gay
teammate?" Smoltz said. "Absolutely not. I have no problems at all,
as long as anybody doesn't impose their ways on anybody, whether it's
faith, religion or personal preference.
Agreed.

[snip]
Post by Tarkus
Braves backup catcher Eddie Perez also drew criticism for comments he
made in the same article. "If I knew a guy was gay, then I could work
it out. I could be prepared. I could hide when I'm getting disrobed,"
Perez was quoted as saying. "It would be hard to play with someone
all year and then find out they're gay." Perez has said he was
misquoted.
Misquoted or not, I agree with him. I'm not comfortable undressing around
guys who I know to be gay or bisexual for the same reason that I'm not
comfortable undressing around girls unless there's some romantic/physical
connection.

But I blame society for that; disdain for exhibiting the human form is not
innate.
Colin William
2004-07-26 22:23:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by JPM III
Misquoted or not, I agree with him. I'm not comfortable undressing around
guys who I know to be gay or bisexual for the same reason that I'm not
comfortable undressing around girls unless there's some romantic/physical
connection.
Would you feel better if the gay guy just told you he found you
unattractive?

Colin
ziggy
2004-07-26 23:12:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin William
Post by JPM III
Misquoted or not, I agree with him. I'm not comfortable undressing around
guys who I know to be gay or bisexual for the same reason that I'm not
comfortable undressing around girls unless there's some
romantic/physical
Post by Colin William
Post by JPM III
connection.
Would you feel better if the gay guy just told you he found you
unattractive?
Colin
my feelings might be hurt a bit
heh
Loading...