Maybe another example that many people DON'T assume the other side has the right to its opinion.

No, that seems like a pretty clear example of someone simply disagreeing with that opinion, not with their right to have it.

I was basing my view on the fact the police were called in. If it is just a disagreement over views, who needs the police? The potential for violence was clearly there, which means one or both sides didn't merely disagree with the other side but were not or were perceived as possibly not willing to tolerate a differing view.

I just found it ironic that you were saying it is a given that any one has a right to their opinion on the one hand and then writing in another post that two opposing groups possibly shouldn't have been in the same place at the same time. If it is a given that people have a right to their opinions, then why did the Phillies make a mistake in scheduling? Maybe because the opposing sides don't believe the other is entitled to a differing opinion and the threat of violent confrontation is real.

When I was confronted as a teenager by pro-Vietnam War school administrators over my wearing of a black arm band, it was very clear that they did not assume I had any free speech rights. Not only that, I was confronted by different administrators at a pre-prom party on private property in ways that went far beyond disagreeing with my views but hinting that there could be consequences in the writing of recommendations to colleges.

I DO think people need to be reminded now and then that someone has the right to say something because there are a lot of people who don't agree that there is such a right. Several people in my Sunday School class two years ago were of the opinion that perhaps free speech should be curtailed until the Iraq was was over. A couple said the government should seize the media until the war was ended. Ricahrd Nixon certainly had his ideas about what the New York Times or Washington Post could legally print.

But you have the right to say (write) whatever you want. ;-)

I think RepentAmerica certainly does have a right to protest such gatherings, but I really have to wonder about those who actually do it. I can't imagine being so distressed by someone else's personal life that I would follow them around to wherever they gathered and carry a sign condemning them for it. And frankly, I think doing so is a sign that someone is pretty seriously unhinged.

What bothers me is that according to the representative from the Phillies, the only reason he was allowed to have the sign is because the gay community was there.

From the article:

"On a night when we didn't have the gay community, we wouldn't necessarily permit a sign like that," Stiles said. "A sign expressing an objection to the war would not be permitted because it has nothing to do with baseball."

So in this context they don't allow free expression of controversial ideas. Unless you happen to be protesting the existence of a minority group that is in attendance at the game. Then it's ok.

Well, clearly the guy feels that the Phillies are celebrating homosexuality with their "Gay Day" activities (which they pretty much are), and that is what he's protesting. And while I wouldn't go that far, I do question the appropriateness of a family-oriented enterprise (e.g. major league ballparks, Disney, etc.) holding "gay days."

I also agree somewhat with Joel that there *does* seem to be a desire on the part of some to "shout down" groups like Repent America. But when it comes to booing at Philadelphia sports events, I'm reminded of former Phillies catcher Bob Uecker who quipped, "You know what they do when the game's rained out? They go to the airport and boo the landings."

Unless you happen to be protesting the existence of a minority group that is in attendance at the game. Then it's ok.

Umm, no. I don't think that's an accurate description of their policy. First of all, it's not just that gays are in attendance, but that it's an official "gay day" celebration. Secondly, it sounds like they'd allow protest signs if they had a "Christian day" or a "Support the Troops day" as well.

Secondly, it sounds like they'd allow protest signs if they had a "Christian day" or a "Support the Troops day" as well.

OK, that's fair enough.

BTW, I think the phrasing of this post is a little misleading, like they accidentally scheduled Repent America to come on Gay Day, when it could have been any other day. They allowed a protest of a park-sponsored event by two people from an opposition group.

And, of course, many/most sports fans don't like anything that isn't sports mixed with sports. While one of the soundest and most sustained booings I've ever heard at an OU football game came upon the introduction of Vice-president Nelson Rockefeller, even conservative Republicans who campaign outside the stadium gates don't necessarily get a whole lot warmer greeting than liberal Democrats.

I don't agree with the implication that gays are anti-family, but I'm not sure I see the point of different "days" at sporting events. I kind of like the idea that people just come to watch the game. I don't find it necessary to know that the person sitting next to me is actually a Methodist bashing, French despising, ignorant Bush supporter.

And whenever Oklahoma's governor is in attendance, Democrat or Republican, popular or unpopular and the person is introduced, there are often groans and boos.

I don't agree with the implication that gays are anti-family

That was not my implication. I just don't think young children should be confronted with this subject matter. It is inherently an adult issue.

I just don't think young children should be confronted with [gay people watching a sporting event]. It is inherently an adult issue.

How is the mere presence of gay people an inherently adult issue? It's not like they would be having sexual relations in the stands or, if they were, I would certainly support throwing them out of the park, just like with straight people. Sex certainly is an adult issue. But to make gay people themselves an "inherently adult issue" is rank prejudice.

As I said earlier, the issue is not merely that there are gay people there...it's that the ballpark is officially recognizing a "gay day" celebration. As the article said, the national anthem was sung by the Philadelphia Gay Men's Choir, and the first pitch was thrown by a guy from Outsports.com. I'd guess some celebrants were wearing "gay day" T-shirts.

You may disagree with me, but I don't think 6-year olds are ready to deal with issues regarding sexuality.

It is inherently an adult issue.

Well, sexuality is an adult issue, but just as kids are aware that boys can be in love with girls, they can be aware that boys can be in love with boys, or girls with girls. I don't think that is inappropriate.

By the way, Jason's paraphrase of my earlier statement is inaccurate.

just as kids are aware that boys can be in love with girls, they can be aware that boys can be in love with boys, or girls with girls

I don't think it's as simple as you imply and besides, this statement implies a moral neutrality that runs counter to the teachings of several major religions. A traditional Christian parent might say something like "boys are supposed to fall in love with girls, but sometimes they decide to love boys instead and that makes God sad." I'm sure you don't approve of that message being given to a six-year-old. And as I said, I'd much rather leave the subject until later...perhaps around when the kids start getting basic sex ed (which for me was 4th grade, IIRC).

And, no, I'm not going to get into a drawn-out debate about what the Bible teaches about homosexuality, or anything like that.

This reminds me of the letter to Dear Abby just the other day from a guy who wanted to call the police because his neighbor had a gay pride flag and "there are children in the neighborhood." As though the very existence of gay people somehow harms children. I don't quite understand Eric's position here. He says he isn't bothered by children seeing gay people. Is he bothered by them seeing gay people in groups? Gay people who are exhibiting pride? Gay people who are exhibiting pride in groups? What exactly is that is such a threat or an affront that the mere act of children seeing them there causes something bad?

As I read this, I see two possibilities for what Eric is objecting to. First, that by exposing them to a group of proud gay people children will have to "deal with issues regarding sexuality" before they are ready. But if the gay people in this case weren't actually engaged in any sexual activity - and I assume they were not, or there would surely be some mention of that in an article about those protesting them - this can only mean that children even knowing that gay people exist makes them "deal with issues regarding sexuality". And if that's the case, why doesn't a child seeing straight couples at a ballpark do the same thing? They see straight couples holding hands, kissing, snuggling, and so forth all the time and no one thinks to mention it. Certainly no one protests it. But if children see gay people, even if they don't engage in any of those things, somehow this is supposed to make them confront the issues of sexuality? It doesn't make sense to me.

The second possibility is that it "runs counter to the teachings of several major religions." But if this is the standard, then we'd better make sure that the ballparks aren't selling hot dogs with pork in them, lest they run counter to the beliefs of Jews and Muslims, or beef in them lest we offend the Hindus in the crowd (especially Jewish, Muslim and Hindu children, who at their young age are not ready for issues regarding comparative religious morality). Indeed, we could well accuse the ballpark of celebrating such activities that these major religions find morally repulsive. After all, they even send people around the stands offering people hot dogs with pork in them! They're really pushing their immoral actions on us!

And that doesn't even mention alcohol. Why, our children actually sit there and watch people drink beer. What a horrible message. Surely our children are not prepared to deal with issues regarding the use and abuse of alcohol, yet major league ballparks actually celebrate the use of alcohol and put it on display right in front of our children, complete with huge flashing signs with commercials from the companies that push this sinful product. And don't even get me started on all the spitting and crotch grabbing and scratching...

As a parent who has taken my children to numerous baseball games, I may say it's difficult enough to get them to pay attention to the game itself. No way would they notice whatever promotional "day" it was, unless it involved them getting a free hat or something.

It seems to me the argument against "exposing" children to Gay Days comes down to, "How will I explain it to my six-year-old without going into the details of gay sex?"

Well, how do you explain to your six-year-old why her uncle is getting married? Is the only way to explain that to go into the details of straight sex? I didn't think so.

This one is on a par with the argument that I'm forcing my sex life on people by having a picture of my partner on my desk at work. No more so than people having pictures of their spouses or kids on their desks. Actually, probably less so, since pictures of kids are (most often) actual evidence of sexual activity.

And, no, I wouldn't object to a parent explaining to his/her kids (however they choose to explain gay people) that their God frowns on the activity in question. I'd expect parents to transmit their (or their church's) version of morality to the next generation. I'd hope that they would also at some point emphasize that beating up someone because he's gay isn't what God has in mind too, though.

I think Don hits the nail right on the head. These people can't see gay people without thinking "anal sex", as if the sexual acts that take up maybe 1% of their time entirely define who they are.

The only additional thing I'm going to say on this thread is that Ed never disappoints me with his ability to misunderstand, misrepresent, and distort beyond recognition any argument I make.

Eric wrote:

The only additional thing I'm going to say on this thread is that Ed never disappoints me with his ability to misunderstand, misrepresent, and distort beyond recognition any argument I make.

I asked you what you meant. Then I went back and searched your comments to see if I could spot what exactly it is that bothers you about this subject and pointed out two things I thought it might be. If those things are wrong, you are of course free to just answer the question and tell us all exactly what it is that bothers you about it. If there is an alternative way to understand those comments, please tell us what it is.

Indeed, Ed. Given the general consensus that there was no actual sex happening at the ballgame, I am puzzled as to what could possibly be so offensive.

If it potentially appears that the park management is giving support to homosexuality, then that appearance is dispelled by its agreement to host an anti-gay group on the same exact day.

And if my paraphrase of Eric

I just don't think young children should be confronted with [gay people watching a sporting event]. It is inherently an adult issue.

...is inaccurate, then please, tell me just what should go in those brackets. It's not [gay people having sex] or [gay people behaving otherwise inappropriately], as these two do not seem to be at issue. It's just gay people watching a sporting event, at least so far as I can tell. What am I missing? While I have been told that the above is inaccurate, I honestly have no idea what else might have been meant in the original comment, except for the text in the brackets that I first supplied.

Jason-

I think what he would want to go in the brackets is that he's not objecting to "gay people watching a sporting event" but to the ballpark having an official day for gay people to come and watch the sporting event. And I certainly believe him. I don't think Eric is just so homophobic that the thought of gay people watching a ballgame bothers him. But that just feeds into my question, which is if it's not just the fact that children will see gay people, what exactly is it that is such a threat to children? Seeing gay people in a group? Seeing gay people exhibit pride? It seems clear that what he is objecting to is having an event which makes it clear to everyone attending that this was a "gay day", the public and obvious nature of the event. But I can't figure out what specifically it is about that that is supposed to be an affront or a danger to children, unless one thinks that it's somehow a bad thing for children even to be aware of the existence of gay people. Perhaps Eric has something else entirely in mind, but I can't think of what it is. And apparently, he'd rather accuse people of misrepresenting what he meant than just tell us what he meant. It's a bit odd to have someone tell me I'm wrong but refuse to tell me why.

It's just gay people watching a sporting event, at least so far as I can tell.

To quote a line from The Shawshank Redemption: how can you be so obtuse? Is it deliberate?

For the third time, this is not simply about gay people watching sports...there are surely gay people at every pro sporting event in every major city. The issue is that the ballpark is proclaiming "gay day" and introducing the "Philadelphia Gay Men's Choir" to sing the national anthem, etc. That obviously brings up the topic of homosexuality; kids are going to ask about it, and the best thing that can happen is a parent gives them a simplistic answer either condoning or condemning homosexuality.

If you're fine with all that, well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I just happen to think we shouldn't be bringing that into a baseball game. (At the very least, the Phillies should clearly communicate in advance that this particular game would be "gay day," which perhaps they did.)

(Apparently, I had this comment window open for over an hour before typing my comment, so I didn't see that Ed had partially answered Jason. Anyway, I think I've answered why I think "gay day" is inappropriate. Baseball games should be just plain fun, without injecting controversial social and political topics.)

Eric wrote:

The issue is that the ballpark is proclaiming "gay day" and introducing the "Philadelphia Gay Men's Choir" to sing the national anthem, etc. That obviously brings up the topic of homosexuality; kids are going to ask about it, and the best thing that can happen is a parent gives them a simplistic answer either condoning or condemning homosexuality.

So how exactly was I "misrepresenting" what you said? This is exactly what I interpreted your words to mean, that by making it a public event it brings the issue of homosexuality up so that kids will be made aware of the existence of homosexuals and ask questions. I just don't see why that's such a bad thing. Children are made aware of homosexuals and homosexuality in lots of ways, and frankly that's a good thing because it is a result of the fact that we no longer force homosexuals into the closet the way we used to. People are far more free to be who they are without fear of reprisals than they were before, entertainers can be openly gay and be seen in public with their partner without having their career destroyed by it, and so forth. I think those are all good things. It's a big improvement over the days when gay people had to hide who they are in sham marriages that were unhealthy for everyone involved.

If the worst thing to come out of that is that children are now aware that homosexuals exist, I just don't think that's much of a problem. If my child were to ask me questions about it spurred by such an event, I wouldn't have any difficulty at all discussing it with them in a manner appropriate to their age. I would simply explain to them that while most people love members of the opposite sex, some people love members of the same sex. But by the time they were exposed to it at a ballgame in this manner, they would already have been made aware that homosexuals exist because they would have met some of my gay friends, some of whom I'm very close with. It seems to me that this objection to having children "exposed" to the reality that gay people exist is a problem only for those who have a problem with the reality that gay people exist. It isn't a problem for me and it isn't going to harm my children if they get to know gay people and come to understand that they're just like you and me.

Indeed, I would argue that children are harmed far more profoundly by parents who teach them that gay people are bad because they're probably going to prevent their children from forming what might be valuable friendships with a group of people based solely on an irrelevant characteristic. They are harmed no less than those who are taught that black people are bad, or Jews are bad, because it means they'll miss out on meeting and being friends with a lot of wonderful people.

I spent a good deal of today scratching my head over Eric's remarks. Despite a deep appreciation for The Shawshank Redemption (one of my favorite films), I still see little difference between what I wrote and what he is claiming to mean. If you think that a "gay day" at a ballpark constitutes endorsement of homosexuality, then... does the ballpark also endorse the anti-gay group that had an outing at the very same game? And how can that be? Does it endorse organized labor when unions have their "days?" And when the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the ACLU, and the local evangelical church have their outings, are these all endorsements too? What value such an endorsement possibly have?

Second, I fail to see how the questions that children might ask would rise to the threat level that Eric suggests. I can scarcely imagine any other group instilling this peculiar form of outrage; even a group of pornographers would be trivially easy to explain to a child from as fundamentalist a Christian perspective as one could imagine ("Those are some very evil people, son, and it's best that you don't know anything about them." End of story). Why is this so hard to explain? (And could it be that there's just a touch of guilt here about having to explain a prejudice to one's children--a prejudice that can't even fully be explained to oneself? Just asking.)

Lastly, if there is a grave threat in children encountering homosexuals at a baseball game, with all the woefully serious endorsement that this implies, then what of the tens of thousands of children who are the adoptive or biological offspring of homosexuals? If allowing children to attend the same baseball game as a gay group constitutes unseemly endorsement, then a fortiori, the children of gay parents should be redistributed to heterosexuals with all deliberate speed.

(Incidentally, Gay Men's Choruses are very serious artistic institutions. Given the number of times I have suffered through downright awful performances of the national anthem, I would prefer a multivoiced chorus of almost any sort for this very difficult piece. And if it were, say the DC Gay Men's Chorus, I would be confident that they could perform the anthem better than virtually any soloist. And it's just that--artistic merit--that should determine who sings and who doesn't.)

I don't want any "days" at the ballpark. Not gay days, family days, student days, church days, veterans' days, secretaries days or whatever. I just want to watch the game. I'd be happy, however, for the Gay Men's Chorus to perform the National Anthem on the same basis that any other group or individual is invited to do so.

Well personally, I find baseball excruciatingly boring. If it moved any slower, it'd be competitive farming. So I'm not likely to go to a game regardless of what kind of "day" it is.

If you think that a "gay day" at a ballpark constitutes endorsement of homosexuality, then... does the ballpark also endorse the anti-gay group that had an outing at the very same game?

No. Here's the difference. The anti-gay group was not invited (though Josh's post sort of implies that, so I can understand if that confused you). I'm quite certain they didn't even get their names on the marquee, like Boy Scout Troop #4531, etc. The ballpark management simply allowed them to attend and hold up their sign in protest as a matter of free speech.

And, yes, if they had "Organized Labor Day," it would mean the ballpark was officially recognizing unions as a good thing.

I fail to see how the questions that children might ask would rise to the threat level that Eric suggests.

You seem to be greatly exaggerating my objection. I merely stated stated that I question the appropriateness of having "gay days" at places of family entertainment. "Inappropriate" is a heck of a long way from "a grave threat."

Joel--amen, brother.

So if they have a day sponsored by the state Republican party and then a day sponsored by the state Democratic party - and those groups have the same kinds of outings all the time - are they "endorsing" both parties? Or are they just trying to sell tickets to a ballgame to make money? I think the notion of endorsement here is ill-placed.

I'm not aware of any ballpark ever officially hosting a "GOP day." Even if they did, the sort of endorsement I'm talking about is simply a statement of "this is something worth celebrating," and it's certainly possible for someone to say that both Republicans and Democrats are "worth celebrating" in their own ways.

For those who are disagreeing with me, what would you think if a ballpark or theme park hosted a "white pride" day? Would you say they weren't endorsing the message of the participants--that they were only trying to sell tickets and make money?

Eric wrote:

I'm not aware of any ballpark ever officially hosting a "GOP day." Even if they did, the sort of endorsement I'm talking about is simply a statement of "this is something worth celebrating," and it's certainly possible for someone to say that both Republicans and Democrats are "worth celebrating" in their own ways.

And I just don't think that the ballpark or the team is making any such statement. I think they're just trying to sell tickets. A group comes to them and says, "Hey, if you'll let us come and have a gay day at your ballpark, we'll buy 1000 tickets and all show up." Their eyes light up and they say, "Heck yeah, where do we sign?" And now that being gay is not so universally viewed as making one a minion of Satan, it's safer for teams to allow this sort of thing without a big backlash so they do it. It's all just dollars and cents. And again, I think the fact that homosexuals can now be open enough about who they are to have such outings and not get beat up or fired from their jobs (though this still happens, just not as often as before) is a good thing. The fact that our society has become more tolerant, allowing this sort of thing, is healthy for all of us. It will help reduce the number of sham marriages that only hurt everyone involved. It will make us a better, more peaceful society and reduce the influence of bigots and hatemongers. Wouldn't you agree that this is a good thing? Or would you rather they go back in the closet the way they used to be?

For those who are disagreeing with me, what would you think if a ballpark or theme park hosted a "white pride" day? Would you say they weren't endorsing the message of the participants--that they were only trying to sell tickets and make money?

I would say they are being very stupid because people will react with outrage - and I think that also says something good about our society. And in fact, it WAS this way not so long ago, when ballparks were off limits to black people and every day was "white pride" day, and the gay people stayed in the closet for fear of their lives or at least their livelihood. I think the fact that now it's acceptable to have a "gay day" and is entirely unacceptable to endorse or celebrate racism at a ballpark is a giant step forward for society. Wouldn't you agree? I can't imagine you would prefer that this was reversed and back the way it was.

I just wrote a column about this event in Philly. You can read it here:

http://www.bpsports.net/bpcolumn.asp?ID=461