Yeah, I should probably be writing about ordinary people doing wonderful things against towering odds, inspirational type stuff. Eh, probably get around to it in the near future. But about this Gay World Series deal?
I had no idea there was such a thing, but there is. Turns out there are all Gay amateur baseball teams all over the country competing against one another in a structured league format. OK, I got to set some ground rules right now? We're not gonna have any of the many obvious jokes. Nothing like, "Cochran, you're pitching lousy; I'm taking you out. Hit the showers." Followed by, "The showers? Thanks a LOT Coach, you wanna come too?" Nope, we're just not gonna have anything like that.
The issue is the Gay World Series. Second place finisher was stripped of win this week, because two team members are merely bisexual. Yep, I'm not kidding. I find this intriguing on many levels.
Like, you're bisexual there. What percent of your intimate encounters must be same-sex to qualify for 'pretty much gay'? I'm sure we'd all agree 90 percent is a lock, but what about thirty percent? Maybe the guy lives in a rural area where opportunities for same-sex sex are limited, so is that fair?
My favorite, like knockdown dragout favorite part of this story though? The GWS oversight committee did a 45 minute interrogation of the merely bisexual players before rendering verdict. Wonder what questions they asked? What would a pop quiz on gayness be like?
Were the bisexual players asked to name five Judy Garland songs, or names of all the leads in 'CATS' something like that maybe? Or were they asked to tell three colors that complement chartreuse? Could be they were asked questions from some uber-secret gay version of the Karma Sutra. Something like, "If you're doing 'blooming Lotus' what is proper placement of your left elbow?"
I've no idea what the questions were, but the two players must've failed their gayness pop quiz.
Eh, confusing times these. I sincerely feel sorry for the players who lost the second place credit while being furiously purely homosexual in all their intimate encounters.
But I'm a historian, and that requires a dispassionate perspective. I'm certain this incident marks the first time in American history anyone has been accused of not being very homosexual, and objected strenuously.
Behold the cusp of history. From 'Am Not!' all the way to 'Am Too!' and historians are charged with noting these sea changes. Who better after all? We historians have LOADS of free time.