Ozzie's "homosexual" remark

[Rex Kickass]

I guess its my job as an SLP moderator to invite you to take your discussion about homosexuality that doesn't directly involve Ozzie's quote to our fine off-WhiteSox-topic bored appropriately titled "Sex, Lies and Politics."

 

As much as I'd like to, I won't correct people's views here - no matter how wrong it is - because frankly, it ain't the place, nor the time folx.

[JUGGERNAUT]

This is so cheap of a reporter to do. In case he didn't figure it out the first time it was intended to be a "private" conversation between Ozzie & his friend. It was not intended to be a conversation between this douchebag, Ozzie, & his friend.

 

This reporter has no class. Ozzie obviously grew up & probably has an off-season home in a very ethnic neighborhood. So did I. I still do. When I lived in Texas for a decade of my life it was the same story. It may be politically incorrect to some but it's colorful to others. Especially those who live there. People like to enjoy life & the more color added to it the better it is.

 

Now if Ozzie had used such statements at a press conference that's an entirely different story. A press conference is like speaking to the world & all the people in it. You must be aware of people who could be offended by your remarks. But that certainly wasn't the case here.

[South Side Fireworks Man]

Homosexuality is normal, although it is not normative.  Longshot's noting of lefties and redheads demonstrates the problem with your 50%=normal threshold, as would genius-level IQ, being very tall or very short, etc.  All of those traits may fall out toward the edges of theor respective attribute bell curves, but they are nonetheless traits that can be readily encountered within the population at large.

 

I don't have statistics in front of me, but the percentage of red heads or left handers far exceeds the percentage of people who engage in homosexual activity. There is a small percentage of people who are born with six fingers, or are albino, and because their percentage is so small, they would be considered abnormal.

Hopefully it will not be too many generations from now when the majority of people see that condemnation of others based on sexuality is similarly unjust.

I don't advocate the condemnation of anyone based on their sexuality. But that doesn't mean that I have to accept that homosexual acts are not abnormal or immoral. I don't go around calling people names, I don't advocate harming or harassing anyone. At the same time, people who hold the traditional view of homosexual behavior should not be called names, should not be intimidated by threats of being suspended from their jobs, and should not be told to keep their opinions to themselves.

 

The way I look at it, whatever a person does in private is not my business. But if that person wants to go public with what he does, I have the right to express my views on whether I believe it is right or wrong. And if people in the public arena are going to try to influence my kids with public statements, I have the right to respond in public with my views, so I too can influence others. As long as nobody is advocating any violence or hatred, both sides have an equal right to express themselves.

 

It's insightful that all this uproar isn't being started by some "right wing nut job," but by reporters who would like to see Ozzie pay for what they suspect was an anti homosexual comment. Ozzie didn't advocate harming anyone, yet they want to inflict harm on him by suspending him because they suspect he might not have the same view as they do. There is no tolerance. There is no freedom of speech. Ozzie must be made an example of.

 

I wonder what these same journalists reaction would be if Ozzie said something like, "Watch out for this guy, he's a Bible Thumper! I mean this guy is a right wing kook!' Just a harmless joke, right?

 

Anyway, I appreciate the civil tone of your posts. That's all one could ask for.

[South Side Fireworks Man]

:puke

 

I hope that doesn't arouse you.

[Heads22]

Like wino said, this isn't the place to debate homosexuality. We have/had a thread about that in SLaP.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I'm going to take wino's sage advice and bow out, but first.

 

Sleepy, about homosexuality being normal if not normative. At an estimated 2-10% (admittedly Kinsey's 10% is probably high, but 2% is likely an underestimate based on the reluctance of respondents to answer honestly), I'd say it occurs in the population too much to be considered aberrant (sp?). I don't know that that is any kind of "proof." But consider that there are more gays than there are genius-level IQs out there. If you consider being really smart just something to be expected withing some portion of the population, should you not consider homosexuality the same way?

 

Fireworks, I would challenge the assertion that there are significantly more lefties or redheads than homosexuals in the general population, even we go with the lower estimates. The occurence of hypertactyly and albinism on teh other hand is a couple of orders of magnitude less frequent. Polydactyly occurs in less than 4 out of 10,000 live births while the most common form of albinism occurs in about 1 in 4,000 black burths and in only 1 in 15,000 white births. Lefties, on teh other hand, make up around 10% of the population, so that is within the same order of magnitude of even a low (2%) estimate of the gay population.

 

Done now. Ozzie was stupid, let it rest, Go White Sox.

[3 BeWareTheNewSox 5]

Fireworks, I would challenge the assertion that there are significantly more lefties or redheads than homosexuals in the general population, even we go with the lower estimates. \

 

If you went by Rick Morrisey's mindset, you'd be calling all lefties and/or redheads homosexuals

[Soxy]

While I can't speak for Islam, I can state with certainty that Judaism and Christianity are not founded on the beliefs of the inferiority of women and inequality of the sexes.  These religions are based on the sovereignty of God and the deliverance of His people through his Grace and mercy.  While the Bible states that male and female may have different roles in some earthly matters, it stresses that all are equal before the Lord.

 

You're a man aren't you? I recommend reading the Book of 1 Timothy, look at the heirarchy of the Catholic church and other prohobition on women teaching, preaching in the Church. I wouldn't say Christ was a misygonist--because he was a REAL egalitarian (who, not coincidentally, never said word one about homosexuality--he was more concerned about divorce and the love of money--yet I never see that as a rallying cry for the religious). But I will say that the founding fathers (note: fathers) of Christianity and the patriarchs did not think so kindly of women. Pretty much anyone that has read significant amounts of early theologians (Augustine comes first to mind) can see there's definitely an anti-woman bent.

 

Also, there is no prohibition on lesbianism in the bible--and the prohibitions on male-male relations in the OT are based pretty solely on the bad biology that said that male sperm not reaching an egg was tantamount to abortion as it was what created life by itself. And in the NT authoratative texts do not use the word homosexual--instead correctly translating those passages to imply the meanings meant by the authors to refer to acts of ritual sex/male prostitutes/etc that served the pagan gods.

[sti3]

This is getting mad deep yo. I don't think we want Ozzie speaking for mainstream theology do we? Edited August 12, 2005 by sti3

[SleepyWhiteSox]

You're a man aren't you?  I recommend reading the Book of 1 Timothy, look at the heirarchy of the Catholic church and other prohobition on women teaching, preaching in the Church. I wouldn't say Christ was a misygonist--because he was a REAL egalitarian (who, not coincidentally, never said word one about homosexuality--he was more concerned about divorce and the love of money--yet I never see that as a rallying cry for the religious). But I will say that the founding fathers (note: fathers) of Christianity and the patriarchs did not think so kindly of women. Pretty much anyone that has read significant amounts of early theologians (Augustine comes first to mind) can see there's definitely an anti-woman bent.

 

Also, there is no prohibition on lesbianism in the bible--and the prohibitions on male-male relations in the OT are based pretty solely on the bad biology that said that male sperm not reaching an egg was tantamount to abortion as it was what created life by itself. And in the NT authoratative texts do not use the word homosexual--instead correctly translating those passages to imply the meanings meant by the authors to refer to acts of ritual sex/male prostitutes/etc that served the pagan gods.

 

Well, it's no surprise that examples of such "prohibition of women" can be found in the Bible, since that was the norm in the societies of those times, but I believe that the point that he made is that such limitations of inequality were not the basis of the founding of these religions. He stated that " These religions are based on the sovereignty of God and the deliverance of His people through his Grace and mercy," and I tend to agree with that. It's more through the imperfections of man and his free judgement that these unfair treatments take place than what the religions stand for and the ideals they are based on.

 

I don't think asking if he is a man was necessary...

[Soxy]

This is getting mad deep yo.  I don't think we want Ozzie speaking for mainstream theology do we?

No, I was really more responding to the previous post that, I think, rather misrepresented a lot of what Christianity is about.

 

And no, I definitely don't want Ozzie speaking for mainstream theology--although I have a feeling it would be interesting. . .

[Soxy]

Well, it's no surprise that examples of such "prohibition of women" can be found in the Bible, since that was the norm in the societies of those times, but I believe that the point that he made is that such limitations of inequality were not the basis of the founding of these religions.  He stated that " These religions are based on the sovereignty of God and the deliverance of His people through his Grace and mercy," and I tend to agree with that.  It's more through the imperfections of man and his free judgement that these unfair treatments take place than what the religions stand for and the ideals they are based on.

 

I don't think asking if he is a man was necessary...

You're right it wasn't necessary because it was obvious from his post that he was a man.

 

And, if religion is about God, grace and mercy (which I think is how faith should be)--why are some people allowed to experience it and others told that God's grace does not extend to them for their sins? Or that they cannot be messengers of God's grace and mercy; to me that says that we humans have put restrictions on God's grace and mercy and only want those positive qualities of faith to be given to those like us.

[RockRaines]

wow someone lock this thread fast. This is turning into a horrible discussion on normality and homosexuality that should not be argued on this section of the board nor in this thread. Many opinions differ on both issues and neither side is correct at this point. Drop it, lock the thread and kill this discussion, please.

[KevHead0881]

wow someone lock this thread fast.  This is turning into a horrible discussion on normality and homosexuality that should not be argued on this section of the board nor in this thread.  Many opinions differ on both issues and neither side is correct at this point.  Drop it, lock the thread and kill this discussion, please.

 

I don't think it needs to be locked. It's good discussion...just better suited being moved to the SL&P forum.

 

Back to Ozzie though, I think most of us can agree that whether there was any harm in his statement or not, he still would be better off being a little more careful about what he says in front of the press. Problem is, his willingness to say whatever is on his mind is what a lot of people, including me, like about him. Sometimes you'll laugh, sometimes you'll scratch your head in confusion, and sometimes you'll cringe. I know it sounds simplistic to say "thats just Ozzie being Ozzie", but it is. I've always been a fan of Ozzie, and he appears to be a good guy who seems to get along with just about everybody. It would probably be best for himself and the organization if he turned his blab-o-meter down a notch, but that just wouldn't be Ozzie.

 

He shares the same traits of just about any other loose-lipped person that I know: when you say whatever is on your mind, sometimes odd things come out of your mouth...usually cause you don't put a whole lot of thought into what you say. Ya just gotta take the bad with the good. It might come back to bite his ass in the end, but so be it.

 

In this case, I can think of better insults then calling a buddy a homosexual, but whatever. He says that he didn't mean any harm by it, nor does he have any problems with homosexuals. Either way, I've heard worse things said about homosexuals in our own government. How Ozzie's playful jab at a friend is newsworthy is beyond me.

 

Personally, I think the real story here is whether a conversation like this was fair game for the media. In this case, I think it was, but I just don't see the point of anybody writing about it in the sports section. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Rick Morrisey's job to cover sports?

 

Ok, end of my rant. Sorry if I bored you guys to death.

[sti3]

I feel ya dawg. I have a big mouth and say some stupid s*** but my friends say that's what they like about me too. Serious. Then again they never say I should be managing the Chicago White Sox... :rolly

[YASNY]

I wonder how many that are critical of Ozzie for being politically incorrect are the same people who regularly slur Latinos by trying to phonetically spell out Ozzie's quotes.

 

I know this much. None of you high and mighty stone throwers said a damn thing about this when any of the numerous occurances happened. You seem to be somewhat selective in what you consider politically correct and what you consider offensive.

 

This is the second time I've mentioned this practice as being slanderous toward Latinos. The first time I mentioned it, it was not even responded to, iirc.

 

Then we can talk about how nobody seems to get upset when someone considers residents of the southern US as dumb hillbillies. I've called several people out on that, and the problem seems to have gone away here on Soxtalk. Thankfully. However, I had to get somewhat beligerant to get this accomplished.

 

I guess it all depends on what is consider cool to get in an uproar about, and what is "no big deal". I know this much. There damn sure is not any consistancy in it.

[Mike Kreevich]

I wonder how many that are critical of Ozzie for being politically incorrect are the same people who regularly slur Latinos by trying to phonetically spell out Ozzie's quotes. 

 

I know this much.  None of you high and mighty stone throwers said a damn thing about this when any of the numerous occurances happened.  You seem to be somewhat selective in what you consider politically correct and what you consider offensive.

 

This is the second time I've mentioned this practice as being slanderous toward Latinos.  The first time I mentioned it, it was not even responded to, iirc. 

 

Then we can talk about how nobody seems to get upset when someone considers residents of the southern US as dumb hillbillies.  I've called several people out on that, and the problem seems to have gone away here on Soxtalk.  Thankfully.  However, I had to get somewhat beligerant to get this accomplished. 

 

I guess it all depends on what is consider cool to get in an uproar about, and what is "no big deal".  I know this much.  There damn sure is not any consistancy in it.

I'm glad you bring this up YASNY, because I was going to post that Ozzie was probably going to get a pass on his comments because he was Latino.  A white  manager would be in a whole heap of trouble.  That said, Morrisey in writing about the incident had an agenda and his agenda was stirring up caca with the White Sox.  Being a homosexual, (no one is sticking up for child molesters right?) is not something a straight man wants to be known as.  Ozzie was teasing his friend and the thought that someone, at that scene, would be offended never crossed his mind.  Can Ozzie stop and think before he speaks?  Probably not.  Most people like Ozzie because of his candor. 

[LosMediasBlancas]

I wonder how many that are critical of Ozzie for being politically incorrect are the same people who regularly slur Latinos by trying to phonetically spell out Ozzie's quotes. 

 

I know this much.  None of you high and mighty stone throwers said a damn thing about this when any of the numerous occurances happened.  You seem to be somewhat selective in what you consider politically correct and what you consider offensive.

 

This is the second time I've mentioned this practice as being slanderous toward Latinos.  The first time I mentioned it, it was not even responded to, iirc. 

 

Then we can talk about how nobody seems to get upset when someone considers residents of the southern US as dumb hillbillies.  I've called several people out on that, and the problem seems to have gone away here on Soxtalk.  Thankfully.  However, I had to get somewhat beligerant to get this accomplished. 

 

I guess it all depends on what is consider cool to get in an uproar about, and what is "no big deal".  I know this much.  There damn sure is not any consistancy in it.

 

Every situation is it's own.

I happen to be Latino and I'm not offended whenever people phonetically spell out Ozzies' quotes. In fact, I do it myself. I also call him Ozzie Montana or Scarface. My parents have a thick Latin accent and I'll tease them about it occasionally.

Joo noh gwat eye meeng? I happen to think accents are kinda cool. It simply points out an accent. Now if someone tries to link an accent to intelligence or inferiority, then that peson is obviously wrong.

Bottom line about Ozzies' situation is this, none of us know why he said those things to his friend. Is it possible that he's homophoic? I guess so, yes. But how about this, maybe his friend has had a lot of gfs or wives, so calling him a homosexual is funny because it's far from the truth. Maybe his friend is a great father, so calling him a molester is funny because it's far from the truth. Maybe at some point, there were rumors about those things being true and Ozzie was just teasing him about it. We don't know. It was an inside joke he said to is friend on his own turf.

Finally, I would guess Morissey has probably often times heard black players use the "N" word when speaking to one another. I'm sure he's gotten on his soap box then too.

[The Ginger Kid]

Every situation is it's own.

I happen to be Latino and I'm not offended whenever people phonetically spell out Ozzies' quotes.  In fact, I do it myself.  I also call him Ozzie Montana or Scarface.  My parents have a thick Latin accent and I'll tease them about it occasionally.

Joo noh gwat eye meeng? I happen to think accents are kinda cool.   It simply points out an accent. Now if someone tries to link an accent to intelligence or inferiority, then that peson is obviously wrong.

Bottom line about Ozzies' situation is this, none of us know why he said those things to his friend. Is it possible that he's homophoic?  I guess so, yes. But how about this, maybe his friend has had a lot of gfs or wives, so calling him a homosexual is funny because it's far from the truth. Maybe his friend is a great father, so calling him a molester is funny because it's far from the truth.    Maybe at some point, there were rumors about those things being true and Ozzie was just teasing him about it. We don't know.  It was an inside joke he said to is friend on his own turf.

Finally, I would guess Morissey has probably often times heard black players use the "N" word when speaking to one another.  I'm sure he's gotten on his soap box then too. 

 

[3 BeWareTheNewSox 5]

STFU Bruce Levine, he is STILL trying to drag this out and talking about it now, saying this makes his job harder??? Are you kidding me? What a homosexual

[YASNY]

Every situation is it's own.

I happen to be Latino and I'm not offended whenever people phonetically spell out Ozzies' quotes.  In fact, I do it myself.  I also call him Ozzie Montana or Scarface.  My parents have a thick Latin accent and I'll tease them about it occasionally.

Joo noh gwat eye meeng? I happen to think accents are kinda cool.   It simply points out an accent. Now if someone tries to link an accent to intelligence or inferiority, then that peson is obviously wrong.

Bottom line about Ozzies' situation is this, none of us know why he said those things to his friend. Is it possible that he's homophoic?  I guess so, yes. But how about this, maybe his friend has had a lot of gfs or wives, so calling him a homosexual is funny because it's far from the truth. Maybe his friend is a great father, so calling him a molester is funny because it's far from the truth.    Maybe at some point, there were rumors about those things being true and Ozzie was just teasing him about it. We don't know.  It was an inside joke he said to is friend on his own turf.

Finally, I would guess Morissey has probably often times heard black players use the "N" word when speaking to one another.  I'm sure he's gotten on his soap box then too. 

 

Maybe you don't find it offensive, and that's good for you. However, many Latinos do, as this surfaced a few years back when a newspaper actually publish quotes by a Latino player by spelling it phonetically. If memory serves correctly, the player may have been Sosa. Anyway, the s*** did hit the fan.

 

However, my main point is that we have a double standard in here as to what is allowed by the posters and what will get them jumping down your throat for being 'insensitive'.

[nitetrain8601]

Maybe you don't find it offensive, and that's good for you. However, many Latinos do, as this surfaced a few years back when a newspaper actually publish quotes by a Latino player by spelling it phonetically.  If memory serves correctly, the player may have been Sosa.  Anyway, the s*** did hit the fan. 

 

However, my main point is that we have a double standard in here as to what is allowed by the posters and what will get them jumping down your throat for being 'insensitive'.

 

I don't find it offensive either and I'm latino and I know tons of latinos who don't find it offensive, young and old.

[YASNY]

I don't find it offensive either and I'm latino and I know tons of latinos who don't find it offensive, young and old.

 

That's still not the point. It is demeaning and insensitive.

[nitetrain8601]

That's still not the point.  It is demeaning and insensitive.

 

I understand that. I understand both sides and I know the general public won't so it would look very hypocritical.

[LosMediasBlancas]

That's still not the point.  It is demeaning and insensitive.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree.