Verified by 
Sexual Orientation
Jeering the Mets
Bigotry, personal choice, and (in)tolerance
Posted November 4, 2015
In the face of the Met’s World Series loss, Mark Joseph Stern, writing for Slate, penned a piece entitled “The Mets’ Anti-Gay Daniel Murphy Lost His Team the World Series. Good.”
Clearly, as a gay man, Stern took umbrage at Murphy’s rejection of the ‘homosexual lifestyle’—a stance that surfaced back in May, when Billy Bean—the first openly gay MLB player, not to be confused with Billy Beane, vice-president of the Oakland Athletics—spent a day with the Mets. At that time, Murphy went on record saying that he disagreed with Bean’s “lifestyle”:
"I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual. That doesn’t mean I can’t still invest in him and get to know him. I don’t think the fact that someone is a homosexual should completely shut the door on investing in them in a relational aspect. Getting to know him. That, I would say, you can still accept them but I do disagree with the lifestyle, 100 percent." Murphy went on to qualify his statement, saying “Maybe, as a Christian, that we haven’t been as articulate enough in describing what our actual stance is on homosexuality. We love the people. We disagree with the lifestyle. That’s the way I would describe it for me.”
Kevin Draper, author of the article that publicized Murphy’s position argued that he should not get a ‘pass’ simply because his views are on the “oafish but well-meaning” end of the anti-gay spectrum. Stern, on the other hand, pays lip service to Murphy having every right to these beliefs—then lambasts him for airing them. Calling the views bigoted, Stern claims that “When gay kids read comments like Murphy’s—and then see that the MLB deemed them acceptable—they’re liable to conclude that they really are twisted and aberrant, that society really won’t accept them for who they are.” In support of this conclusion, Stern cites the thousands of LGBT youth who take their own lives “precisely because they are pummeled with homophobic ideas like these.”
While research on social aggression and bullying has found that a percentage of LGBT youth are so tormented, rejected and humiliated that they take their own lives, it is a stretch to consider comments such as the ones made by Murphy as pummeling LGBT youth with views that disparage them for their sexual orientation.
Ironically, Murphy’s statements promote tolerance—even in the face of “bigoted” beliefs. In fact, his statements can be looked at in terms of the impact they might have on judgmental young people who reject LGBT orientations. These youth see him willing to get to know Billie Bean, refusing to let his sexual orientation preclude an investment in relationship; refusing to conflate sexual orientation with character.
And face it, despite a landmark Supreme Court ruling this summer, the legal status of sexual orientation is still hotly contested. As many noted in the wake of the national legalization of same-sex marriage, one might marry their partner on Sunday, and (in roughly half of the states) find themselves (legally) unemployed on Monday.
Murphy did not vilify homosexuals, or advocate for the dismissal of homosexual ballplayers in states that have no employment protections in place, but rather championed a tolerance of difference. This is the piece that needs to be highlighted.
Once tolerance is in place, phobias subside and discrimination against difference—however the nature of that difference is understood—falls off.
This, it seems to me, is far more important than agreement on how the nature of homosexuality is to be construed.
While I appreciate that Stern is concerned that a role-model like Murphy continues to speak openly about homosexuality as a ‘lifestyle’—one he personally ‘disagrees with’—I am even more concerned about the way that Stern takes aim at Murphy. He might readily be forgiven for disparaging the lionization of a man who holds views which to him are not only anathema, but grounded in ignorance. But can his own attempts to humiliate and deride Murphy, to brand him with his fielding error, to make this play his identity, be sanctioned?
Gloating over the Met’s loss, jeering at Murphy's error, conflating a “failure” with an identity is precisely the mentality that twists lifestyle differences into hatred and homophobia. (The Nature of sexual orientation is a red herring here, as choice or non-choice is not the issue).
What is pivotal is the branding and defining of another on the basis of one aspect of his or her identity—whether it be unfortunate ball-play or sexual orientation. Bannering ridicule in a Slate article legitimates mockery, intolerance and rejection to a countless number of viewers.
Instead of taking pleasure in the faults, failures, or shortcomings of those whose views differ from his own, Stern’s energies would have been better spent taking aim at actions that more directly threaten same-sex lifestyles, such as his piece on Iowa GOP Trying to Shut Down Anti-Bullying LGBTQ Youth Conference, Calling It “Obscene.”
