PDA

View Full Version : The first openly gay current NFL/NBA/MLB/NHL player



Wander
04-29-2013, 11:27 AM
Pretty big moment in American professional sports history:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/magazine/news/20130429/jason-collins-gay-nba-player/#ixzz2Rrh8O559

Billy Dat
04-29-2013, 11:32 AM
Yeah, I am actually more interested in which current pro athletes tweet their support, first. I have been watching Twitter since the news broke and have only seen Baron Davis step up, and "current" does not sit before his name. Props to Jason Collins for taking the first step, now let's see who is brave enough to voice their encouragement.

Dev11
04-29-2013, 11:34 AM
Pretty big moment in American professional sports history:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/magazine/news/20130429/jason-collins-gay-nba-player/#ixzz2Rrh8O559

I agree, it's a pretty big moment. Huge, even.

Some interesting factors and questions that immediately come to mind:

Collins has been in the league a dozen years, and has had many of the rest of the current NBA players as teammates at some time or another. I'm sure we will see the full gamut of reactions from some of his former teammates.

Do the dominoes now fall for a number of other closeted gay players? I recall that the NFLPA is coordinating with four gay members of their organization to come out all together.

Collins is a free agent but clearly near the end of his career. How will his announcement affect his free agency? I don't believe it's Branch Rickey signing Jackie Robinson, but it's certainly the closest we've come to something like that since its time.

I can't imagine how hard this was for Jason Collins. Good for him.

Here is a Turtle
04-29-2013, 11:55 AM
Good for him for coming out. Its definitely a brave move. Hope he gets a ton of support and a team will be willing to pick him up.

Trooper
04-29-2013, 12:06 PM
Yeah, I am actually more interested in which current pro athletes tweet their support, first. I have been watching Twitter since the news broke and have only seen Baron Davis step up, and "current" does not sit before his name. Props to Jason Collins for taking the first step, now let's see who is brave enough to voice their encouragement.

Kobe just came out in support on Twitter. He's the first active player I've seen. Nearly every basketball writer has already done so in a big way, though that's not too surprising.

Kobe Bryant ‏@kobebryant 2m

Proud of @jasoncollins34. Don't suffocate who u r because of the ignorance of others #courage #support #mambaarmystandup #BYOU

luburch
04-29-2013, 12:11 PM
Steve Nash just gave his support as well.

JasonEvans
04-29-2013, 12:12 PM
First, huge praise for Collins for doing this. Here's to a day when publicly revealing your sexuality is a thing of the past because it does not matter to anyone any more.

That said, I wish he had not done it so late in his career. He is barely a serviceable player any more. He played in 38 total games this year for 2 different teams and averaged less than 1.5 ppg and less than 2 rpg. A team that was not interested in signing him this off-season would not be a team seen as prejudiced but a team wisely passing on an over-the-hill, unproductive big-man.

This is a wonderful step toward recognizing that there are many gay athletes out there, but I am still waiting for the first really successful pro player to come out -- I am talking the kind of guy that any team in the league would want on their roster. Then we will really be breaking down barriers. I want a gay player where kids collect his baseball/basketball/football card and fans wear his jersey. Jason Collins ain't it yet. Neither was John Ameiche.

-Jason "the column he wrote is really well-done. Clearly he is a bright and thoughtful guy" Evans

roywhite
04-29-2013, 12:14 PM
Pretty big moment in American professional sports history:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/magazine/news/20130429/jason-collins-gay-nba-player/#ixzz2Rrh8O559

It is big, and I commend him; hope he gets plenty of support.

I've gotta say....I'm surprised at the account that his twin brother was unaware of Jason's homosexuality.

Billy Dat
04-29-2013, 12:16 PM
Kobe just came out in support on Twitter. He's the first active player I've seen. Nearly every basketball writer has already done so in a big way, though that's not too surprising.

Kobe Bryant ‏@kobebryant 2m
Proud of @jasoncollins34. Don't suffocate who u r because of the ignorance of others #courage #support #mambaarmystandup #BYOU

Good on Kobe! The brave ones will speak out early following Collins' example!

BD80
04-29-2013, 12:20 PM
I agree, it's a pretty big moment. Huge, even.

... I'm sure we will see the full gamut of reactions from some of his former teammates.

... Good for him.

Kudos for the courage, but does he really qualify as an active player? In a sense, he is just riding the wave of public sentiment to reap the benefits of being the first "active" player to come out, with no downside, because his career is pretty much over.

I really doubt we will see much of a "range" of reactions, agents are probably sitting on top of their clients, typing twitter responses for them as we speak. Imagine the backlash for anyone who responds in less than a supportive manner.

It is good that he feels comfortable in making the announcement. Sad that it is newsworthy.

WillJ
04-29-2013, 12:25 PM
Fantastic news and huge kudos to Jason Collins. It's hard to overstate how far we have come in the past decade or so. In terms of the NBA's response, I think it will help some that Magic's son recently came out.

dukelifer
04-29-2013, 01:04 PM
First, huge praise for Collins for doing this. Here's to a day when publicly revealing your sexuality is a thing of the past because it does not matter to anyone any more.

That said, I wish he had not done it so late in his career. He is barely a serviceable player any more. He played in 38 total games this year for 2 different teams and averaged less than 1.5 ppg and less than 2 rpg. A team that was not interested in signing him this off-season would not be a team seen as prejudiced but a team wisely passing on an over-the-hill, unproductive big-man.

This is a wonderful step toward recognizing that there are many gay athletes out there, but I am still waiting for the first really successful pro player to come out -- I am talking the kind of guy that any team in the league would want on their roster. Then we will really be breaking down barriers. I want a gay player where kids collect his baseball/basketball/football card and fans wear his jersey. Jason Collins ain't it yet. Neither was John Ameiche.

-Jason "the column he wrote is really well-done. Clearly he is a bright and thoughtful guy" Evans

A big step for men's Pro sports - but if he is not picked up- which is very likely given his lack of productivity- some will wonder if this is tied to his announcement. Will be interesting to see how this plays out and how it gets spun should he not be signed.

Billy Dat
04-29-2013, 01:11 PM
A big step for men's Pro sports - but if he is not picked up- which is very likely given his lack of productivity- some will wonder if this is tied to his announcement. Will be interesting to see how this plays out and how it gets spun should he not be signed.

Great call, I agree. Will Collins get signed, and will/will not a team sign him because of this?

jcannon
04-29-2013, 01:52 PM
Seems like I am in the minority on this one, but what's the big deal? I do understand the courage that it took for him to announce that he was gay, but everyone is acting like we just discovered the cure for cancer. A man is gay, big deal, move on. Walk outside and look around, it wont be hard to find other gay men too. If the goal of the homosexual community is to be seen as "equal", then why do we make such a big deal everytime a celebrity comes out?

Billy Dat
04-29-2013, 02:20 PM
Seems like I am in the minority on this one, but what's the big deal? I do understand the courage that it took for him to announce that he was gay, but everyone is acting like we just discovered the cure for cancer. A man is gay, big deal, move on. Walk outside and look around, it wont be hard to find other gay men too. If the goal of the homosexual community is to be seen as "equal", then why do we make such a big deal everytime a celebrity comes out?

The big four pro sports in America have long been a manifestation of maleness, with the implication being "heterosexual" maleness. While we know that there have been many closeted gay pro athletes in the NFL/NBA/NHL/MLB, and many have come out after retirement, none has ever done so while active. Why, because the threat of blackball from leagues, teams, coaches and especially other players was very real, let alone the abuse that could come down from all of the above, and fans. Read the comments under the SI.com article to see what Collins has in store.

I am glad you think it's no big deal, that's a sign of progress. But, it is no doubt a BIG DEAL that Collins has taken this step.

I think the goal of any group that's been historically marginalized/persecuted is actually not to be seen as "equal", but rather to, ultimately, not be seen as anything but their individual self.

CDu
04-29-2013, 02:52 PM
Seems like I am in the minority on this one, but what's the big deal? I do understand the courage that it took for him to announce that he was gay, but everyone is acting like we just discovered the cure for cancer. A man is gay, big deal, move on. Walk outside and look around, it wont be hard to find other gay men too.

Because literally no professional athlete in the "big four" sports has come out while an active player. Most reasonable people know that there is almost certainly a gay player on every NFL team, and there are probably many gay players in the NBA, MLB, and NHL as well. Despite this, the "machismo" attitude of most sports locker rooms has made homosexual players afraid to be open about their sexuality.


If the goal of the homosexual community is to be seen as "equal", then why do we make such a big deal everytime a celebrity comes out?

The first step to seeing the homosexual community as "equal" is realizing/accepting that there is a homosexual component of said community. In sports, there are many people who don't realize/accept that. And until active players come out, there will be many folks who act like ostriches burying their heads in the sand. So it's a big deal that someone has finally come out while a player (though in this case he might as well be considered retired anyway).

Eventually, after enough players have come out without repercussions, it won't be a big deal when someone comes out. But first we have to have some people actually come out in order to get there.

jcannon
04-29-2013, 02:58 PM
I think the goal of any group that's been historically marginalized/persecuted is actually not to be seen as "equal", but rather to, ultimately, not be seen as anything but their individual self.

If that is truly the case, then why do we have to have a 3 page SI article? I don't understand why someone can't just "be gay" without the hoopla. Would we have the same excitement if a WNBA star had a press conference stating that she was "straight"? As for his career, if a player makes the team better then the GM, players, and fans are going to accept him no matter what.

Again, not tying to downplay the courage it took for him to do that, but just trying to understand the necessity for all of the press.

BismarckDuke
04-29-2013, 02:59 PM
Seems like I am in the minority on this one, but what's the big deal? I do understand the courage that it took for him to announce that he was gay, but everyone is acting like we just discovered the cure for cancer. A man is gay, big deal, move on. Walk outside and look around, it wont be hard to find other gay men too. If the goal of the homosexual community is to be seen as "equal", then why do we make such a big deal everytime a celebrity comes out?

You are not alone. This type of reaction is why peole don't come out. So many act like it takes a huge amount of courage and many question if they have the courage to do like wise. Congrats to him for coming out and leave it at that.

Not my life style, but what I do behind close doors is my business and the one I am with and I believe that should be so with others.

MChambers
04-29-2013, 02:59 PM
Good on Kobe! The brave ones will speak out early following Collins' example!

Yes, it's good Kobe did that, but if memory is correct, it was his homophobic slur directed at an official that caused the NBA to do a series of public service announcements featuring one Grant Hill.

Edit: Kobe issued the slur, but the NBA had already taped the spot:

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/nba-stars-grant-hill-and-jared-dudley-using-anti-gay-slurs-not-cool/news/2011/04/18/18967

So I'm glad Kobe learned his lesson.

dyedwab
04-29-2013, 03:05 PM
If that is truly the case, then why do we have to have a 3 page SI article? I don't understand why someone can't just "be gay" without the hoopla. Would we have the same excitement if a WNBA star had a press conference stating that she was "straight"? As for his career, if a player makes the team better then the GM, players, and fans are going to accept him no matter what.

Again, not tying to downplay the courage it took for him to do that, but just trying to understand the necessity for all of the press.

I disapproved this comment, so I figured I'd admit it here. This comment DOES downplay his courage - he is the first active athlete in to do this. The WNBA comment is both a shibboleth, and wrong - Sheryl Swopes came out years ago. And if I've seen anything on this board, its that a whole heckuva lot of people don't view women's basketball as equivalent with men's basketball.

More to the point - when Harvey Milk was campaigning for gay rights in SF in the early 70s, he argued that the most important act a gay person could do was come out to there families, on the theory that its harder to discriminate against the people you know. The big 4 professional sports have been absent that for all of history. They are not now. And that's what's important.

Billy Dat
04-29-2013, 03:06 PM
If that is truly the case, then why do we have to have a 3 page SI article? I don't understand why someone can't just "be gay" without the hoopla. Would we have the same excitement if a WNBA star had a press conference stating that she was "straight"? As for his career, if a player makes the team better then the GM, players, and fans are going to accept him no matter what.
Again, not tying to downplay the courage it took for him to do that, but just trying to understand the necessity for all of the press.

First off, I give you credit for voicing an opinion that many share but wouldn't post. I think CDu had a good take on how I would answer


The first step to seeing the homosexual community as "equal" is realizing/accepting that there is a homosexual component of said community. In sports, there are many people who don't realize/accept that. And until active players come out, there will be many folks who act like ostriches burying their heads in the sand. So it's a big deal that someone has finally come out while a player (though in this case he might as well be considered retired anyway). Eventually, after enough players have come out without repercussions, it won't be a big deal when someone comes out. But first we have to have some people actually come out in order to get there.

The first brave person gets the dialogue going, the dialogue helps demystify the topic, the topic goes mainstream and ceases to be such a hot topic. Granted, stereotypes and prejudices never go away entirely.

CDu
04-29-2013, 03:11 PM
If that is truly the case, then why do we have to have a 3 page SI article? I don't understand why someone can't just "be gay" without the hoopla. Would we have the same excitement if a WNBA star had a press conference stating that she was "straight"? As for his career, if a player makes the team better then the GM, players, and fans are going to accept him no matter what.

Again, not tying to downplay the courage it took for him to do that, but just trying to understand the necessity for all of the press.

First of all, the bolded text is offensive. You seem to be guilty of implying that all (or even the vast majority of) women's players are homosexual. That may or may not be true, and I'm sure you didn't mean it to be offensive, but it certainly comes across as offensive.

But I think your example opens an avenue for explaining why it is a big deal. In women's sports, the "machismo" culture does not exist (at least not to the degree as in men's sports). As such, it is not nearly as big a hurdle for a female athlete to come out. It's still a hurdle (as it is with any homosexual), but it's not a substantially bigger hurdle than it would be for anyone in a normal walk of life.

With mens' sports, there has always been a macho nature at the heart of the community. And because being gay has historically been associated with not being macho (the Village People notwithstanding), there has been a negative connotation associated with homosexuality. It doesn't matter that such a viewpoint is ignorant - it just matters that the belief has been VERY pervasive in mens' sports throughout history. That ignorance persists to this day (though it is perhaps not nearly as widespread as it used to be), and the result is that NO ACTIVE PLAYER HAS FELT COMFORTABLE COMING OUT. Whether it be for fear of losing their job, or fear of being ostracized by teammates and/or fans, homosexual players haven't felt that the time was right that they could come out while playing.

In an ideal world, the way you describe things is the way it would be. But unfortunately, we don't live in that ideal world (yet). And until players feel comfortable coming out while playing, we won't be in that ideal world. So it's a big deal because, for the first time, an active player has come out. If more and more active players (both stars and role players) come out during their careers, it will be come less and less of an issue. But since this is the first, it's a big, big deal.

noworries
04-29-2013, 03:23 PM
If that is truly the case, then why do we have to have a 3 page SI article? I don't understand why someone can't just "be gay" without the hoopla. Would we have the same excitement if a WNBA star had a press conference stating that she was "straight"? As for his career, if a player makes the team better then the GM, players, and fans are going to accept him no matter what.

Again, not tying to downplay the courage it took for him to do that, but just trying to understand the necessity for all of the press.

Agreed completely with the bolded. I'm all for gay marriage/equality/all of that, and I don't understand why folks can't just mind their own business. If a gay NBA player averages 12 points 8 rebounds, is it any different than a straight guy who averages the same?

CDu
04-29-2013, 03:29 PM
Agreed completely with the bolded. I'm all for gay marriage/equality/all of that, and I don't understand why folks can't just mind their own business. If a gay NBA player averages 12 points 8 rebounds, is it any different than a straight guy who averages the same?

Again, that's where we all want to get. But until the players feel comfortable coming out, we can't get there. The unfortunate reality is that homosexual athletes don't currently feel comfortable coming out because of fear that it will negatively their career. And the only way for them to become comfortable coming out is if we make a big deal (in a good way) about an active player coming out, and that his coming out doesn't result in negative treatment toward him moving forward as a player.

Collins coming out is the first step toward reaching that goal that you and jcannon describe above.

Lord Ash
04-29-2013, 03:36 PM
I don't understand why folks can't just mind their own business. If a gay NBA player averages 12 points 8 rebounds, is it any different than a straight guy who averages the same?

I am sure everyone here would agree with your sentiment.

But the thing is... a lot of people think it IS different. A lot of folks CAN'T mind their own business. To many people it IS important that a player is gay, and important in a negative way. So we can only hope that those types of people are confronted with so many cases of players, PEOPLE, being gay and it apparently NOT mattering that they, too, will learn that being gay isn't really much different than being straight, other than in who you fall in love with and knowing who Nina Garcia is without having to Google it.

And being the first active male athlete in a major revenue sport, especially in a team sport that has a huge proportion of A) manly men and B) African-American men, to come out IS a big deal. Not sure how anyones response would be "Why do you have to make a big deal about it"... it IS a big deal. It isn't that being GAY is a big deal; it is being OUT that is a big deal, because of how it will impact the sport and the people who play it and are fans of it. This sentiment feels disturbingly familiar to people who get all angry at non-athletes for coming out and saying things like "Well, I don't care that you are gay, so why do you have to flaunt it?" when, underneath it all, they certainly DO care that the person is gay, and don't approve of it. I've heard too many speak like that.

Jason, I also thought the article was very well written. I thought he dwelled maybe a little too much on the "I play/foul hard" bit, which came off as a touch forced to me, but it also might be needed when addressing the macho world of sports. Very smart piece, though... very nice to read. I was more interested in the article itself than the overall story... is that strange?

I don't really know "The Twitter" so cannot really find how people respond, so I appreciate folks posting it here.

Lord Ash
04-29-2013, 03:46 PM
Ah, found these collected Twitter reactions to the news... interesting stuff... man, things have CHANGED over the years.

Proud of @jasoncollins34. Don't suffocate who u r because of the ignorance of others #courage #support #mambaarmystandup #BYOU
— Kobe Bryant (@kobebryant) April 29, 2013

I'm proud to call Jason Collins a friend. wjcf.co/154piCi
— Bill Clinton (@billclinton) April 29, 2013

Very proud of my friend Jason Collins for having the strength & courage to be the first openly gay player in the NBA. bit.ly/ZLei9F
— Chelsea Clinton (@ChelseaClinton) April 29, 2013
Collins' team, the Wizards, supported him in a statement, and many NBA players followed suit.


#Wizards Statement "We are extremely proud of Jason & support his decision to live his life proudly and openly." More nba.com/wizards/wizard&
— Washington Wizards (@WashWizards) April 29, 2013

Doc Rivers: "I am extremely happy and proud of Jason Collins. He's a pro's pro." Read Doc's full statement: on.nba.com/15UPgaR
— Boston Celtics (@celtics) April 29, 2013

"We have great respect for Jason and his message today." Our full statement on former Hawk Jason Collins: on.nba.com/ZZhF7n #NBAFamily
— Atlanta Hawks (@ATLHawks) April 29, 2013

Much respect to my teammate @jasoncollins34 for being #real
— Garrett Temple (@GTemp14) April 29, 2013

Proud of @jasoncollins34 for expressing his feelings! Great teammate, mentor and better person !! #liveyourlife !
— Bradley Beal (@RealDealBeal23) April 29, 2013

@jasoncollins34 much respect to you.It takes a strong dude to be the first. Your a hell of a professional and a hell of a teammate.
— trevorariza (@TrevorAriza) April 29, 2013

I appretiate you for coming out. I am sure it takes a lot of courage to do so. I am proud of you. Great teammate! Take care @jasoncollins34
— Jan Vesely (@JanVesely24) April 29, 2013

Jason Collins showed a lot of courage today and I respect him for taking a stand and choosing to live in his truth. #nbafamily
— Way of WADE (@DwyaneWade) April 29, 2013

Wow this is amazing all smiles.. So so happy Jason Collins came out & announce he was openly GAY ALL SUPPORT OVER HERE #ATHLETEALLY #LGBT
— Kenneth Faried (@KennethFaried35) April 29, 2013

Jason's sexuality doesn't change the fact that he is a great friend and was a great teammate. @jasoncollins34
— Jason Kidd (@RealJasonKidd) April 29, 2013

Happy for @jasoncollins34 in his decision. A great teammate and friend. Thanks for helping me through my rookie season!! #classact #courage
— Kevin Love (@kevinlove) April 29, 2013

Happy for my former teammate Jason Colllins. A true American. "home of the free because of the brave"
— Rudy Gay (@rudygay22) April 29, 2013

Jason is one of the best teammates that I've ever had. He was a great presence in the locker room and an even better person. #NBAFamily
— Zaza Pachulia (@zaza27) April 29, 2013

I am so proud of my bro @jasoncollins34 for being real. #FTheHaters bit.ly/12J9el5
— Baron Davis (@Baron_Davis) April 29, 2013

The time has come. Maximum respect. RT @baron_davis: I am so proud of my bro @jasoncollins34 for being real. ... tmi.me/TGSBh
— Steve Nash (@SteveNash) April 29, 2013

It's amazing to see such courage from @jasoncollins34 in today'sannouncement. Myself and the #NBAFamily supports you Jason!
— Pau Gasol (@paugasol) April 29, 2013

Very proud of and happy for one of the coolest and most down to earth guys I know @jasoncollins34. #Fwhatpplthink
— Damien Wilkins (@dwilkins3000) April 29, 2013

Great character from a great family! That's all that matters! @jasoncollins34 #respect
— Earl J Watson (@Earl_Watson) April 29, 2013

I have to respect @jasoncollins34 . Hope people will respect his decision and respect for the courage it took.#support#respect#NBAfamily
— Nicolas Batum (@nicolas88batum) April 29, 2013

Much Respect for @jasoncollins34 that took a lot of courage!
— Rasual Butler (@RasualButler45) April 29, 2013

@jasoncollins34 I hope one day we won't have to say how proud we are because it will be normal. Thanks of you stepping up today. Good luck!
— Luis Scola (@LScola4) April 29, 2013

Looked upto @jasoncollins34 growin up in LA, been the best role model from grade school to the NBA. Blessed to know him & his fam #NBAFamily
— Robin Lopez (@eegabeeva88) April 29, 2013

You have to respect Jason Collins for being himself and honest today. Took a lot of courage. Respect to him.. #nba
— Tracy McGrady (@Real_T_Mac) April 29, 2013
Retired NBA player John Amaechi, who came out as gay after his playing career, also voiced his support for Collins, as did many other retired players.


Congratulations to Jason - society couldn't hope for a more eloquent & positive role model: buff.ly/10OvOMd
— John Amaechi OBE (@JohnAmaechi) April 29, 2013

Jason Collins has announced that he is gay. I know Jason and his family well and I support him 100%.
— Earvin Magic Johnson (@MagicJohnson) April 29, 2013

@nba @jason Collins, the NBA family has always been about acceptance and equality for all. Stand tall you have more supporters than haters.
— Isiah Thomas (@iamisiahthomas) April 29, 2013

Really hope people will RESPECT Jason Collins for his decision to come out. Just glad he can now relax and not be afraid to be who he is.
— Bruce Bowen (@Bowen12) April 29, 2013

Played NBA +college w/ @jasoncollins34 -tremendous human being and PHENOMENAL teammate, leader, friend.Look forward 2his continued success!
— Mark Madsen (@madsen_mark) April 29, 2013

It takes #courage 2 make a statement like #JasonCollins. Played with him in #Atlanta & wish him the best. #Yessiirr...
— Joe Smith (@JoeBeast95) April 29, 2013
American soccer player Robbie Rogers, who came out in February, saw Collins' announcement as the start of something bigger.


I feel a movement coming.
— Robbie Rogers (@robbierogers) April 29, 2013
NFL players Chris Kluwe and Brendon Ayanbadejo have been outspoken gay rights supporters and they expressed their support of Collins on Monday.


Big kudos to @jasoncollins34. Living proof that your sexuality has nothing to do with your athletic ability. sportsillustrated.cnn.com/magazine/news/& #salute
— Chris Kluwe (@ChrisWarcraft) April 29, 2013

By @jasoncollins34 opening doors & doing it his way on his time he has helped shape a more accepting America. May many more follow #courage
— Brendon Ayanbadejo (@brendon310) April 29, 2013
Collins' announcement resonated far beyond the basketball courts, as high profile stars voiced their support.


Orange And Blue Skies Salutes Jason Collins. Thank You For Your Courage,A Slam Dunk Against HOMOPHOBIA.And Dat's Da "FREEDOM"Truth,Ruth.
— Spike Lee (@SpikeLee) April 29, 2013

.@nba center @jasoncollins34 is the 1st out player on a US major league team. I'm overwhelmed by your bravery, Jason, & sending so much love
— Ellen DeGeneres (@TheEllenShow) April 29, 2013

So proud of @jasoncollins34 for having the courage to stand up and out for who he is. I support, respect and salute you!!
— Michael Strahan (@michaelstrahan) April 29, 2013

It's not easy to come out when one is still active- shouldn't be an issue, but it is. That's why so many don't do it till after.
— Martina Navratilova (@Martina) April 29, 2013

Being real & authentic is very powerful. Well done Jason Collins for having the courage to take a monumental step forward. #LiveReal
— Dwayne Johnson (@TheRock) April 29, 2013
Detroit Lions cornerback Alphonso Smith posted this as part of a series of tweets expressing an opposing viewpoint.


Ppl are so sensitive-I have the RIGHT to not give that behavior any applause;I love everyone-don't hate anyone; not praising it! Excuse me!
— Alphonso Smith (@AlphonsoSmith2) April 29, 2013

gam7
04-29-2013, 03:55 PM
You are not alone. This type of reaction is why peole don't come out. So many act like it takes a huge amount of courage and many question if they have the courage to do like wise. Congrats to him for coming out and leave it at that.

Not my life style, but what I do behind close doors is my business and the one I am with and I believe that should be so with others.


This is a huge, huge deal. I'm going to take a wild guess that you were too young to be a basketball fan when Magic Johnson came out with HIV (and if you were, I don't mean that as an insult at all). This is not on that level (because the player is nowhere near superstar level and may or may not be on a roster next year and there was much more fear and uncertainty about HIV at that time than there is about homosexuality now), but some similar issues will come to the fore. One issue here is that it's not just an issue of a celebrity coming out and then being "behind closed doors." In sports, there are few closed doors. You are not just playing with guys, but you are showering with guys, rooming with guys on the road, partying with guys. You'll see others express opinions all across the spectrum about their comfort level in these intimate settings. Guys unthinkingly throw around anti-gay slurs in and outside of the locker room. I can only imagine how guarded a pro gay athlete must be for fear of rocking the boat (messing with team chemistry) and being outed. These guys are hit on by attractive women constantly - no exaggeration. As a gay player, you basically have to live a lie to fit in.

Anyway, there will be others coming out soon. Once there's the realization that every team has gay players, then it will become less of a big deal and the sports world will be a less ignorant and more tolerant place.

gam7
04-29-2013, 03:59 PM
Ah, found these collected Twitter reactions to the news... interesting stuff... man, things have CHANGED over the years.



Self-selection bias. Few (if any) people are going to tweet their discomfort with it. Reporters are going to ask virtually every player questions about this directly, and some will express shocking opinions.

And Isiah Thomas cracks me up. I think the bolded language was somehow omitted from his tweet: @nba @jason Collins, the NBA family has always been about acceptance and equality for all (unless you are a woman). Stand tall you have more supporters than haters.
— Isiah Thomas (@iamisiahthomas) April 29, 2013

Billy Dat
04-29-2013, 04:05 PM
Self-selection bias. Few (if any) people are going to tweet their discomfort with it. Reporters are going to ask virtually every player questions about this directly, and some will express shocking opinions.

Collins' revelation of his true colors will lead many others to show their true colors in terms of their beliefs about homosexuality - pro or con - and why they are pro or con. ESPN's Chris Broussard is leading the charge.

Wander
04-29-2013, 04:09 PM
If that is truly the case, then why do we have to have a 3 page SI article?

I know no one here likes him, but this excerpt from Doyel's article sums it up nicely:

"Hateful people like Dallas pastor Robert Jeffers, people who say gay men are going to hell, still have followers but their grasp on the world is slipping. Good doesn't always beat evil, but it's starting to win this battle. Jason Collins landed an enormous shot Monday. More will follow. Soon there will be so many publicly gay athletes that we won't write about it. It won't be news. Today is not that day."

jcannon
04-29-2013, 04:09 PM
Ah, found these collected Twitter reactions to the news... interesting stuff... man, things have CHANGED over the years.


Detroit Lions cornerback Alphonso Smith posted this as part of a series of tweets expressing an opposing viewpoint.


Ppl are so sensitive-I have the RIGHT to not give that behavior any applause;I love everyone-don't hate anyone; not praising it! Excuse me!
— Alphonso Smith (@AlphonsoSmith2) April 29, 2013


Just read some of the tweets in response to Alphonso, and the way he responded back to those people. Very impressed with this man and the way he is handling the hate directed towards him.

I think this is an example of what I feared would happen throughout the day. I think part of the reason that celebrities come out in a public forum is to ensure that the media/fans pressure opponents of the activity to not speak out against them. Athletes are worried about losing endorsements if they say something controversial, and they are almost forced to suppress their opinions. Alphonso spoke out against the activity, not the person, and has been blasted for it. As much courage as it took for Mr. Collins to come out, I feel like it takes just as much courage for someone to speak out in opposition in today's culture.

Lord Ash
04-29-2013, 04:14 PM
Self-selection bias. Few (if any) people are going to tweet their discomfort with it. Reporters are going to ask virtually every player questions about this directly, and some will express shocking opinions.


For sure (although I didn't take the last one as necessarily totally positive).

But things ARE still very different. I would bet that 15 years ago there wouldn't be so many people, from current players to past greats to former Presidents and people from other sports, all publicly expressing support for a gay athlete coming out. While there might not yet be a big negative reaction (at least, not in these examples) the fact that there seems to be a big POSITIVE reaction is a pretty big change.

CDu
04-29-2013, 04:17 PM
Just read some of the tweets in response to Alphonso, and the way he responded back to those people. Very impressed with this man and the way he is handling the hate directed towards him.

I think this is an example of what I feared would happen throughout the day. I think part of the reason that celebrities come out in a public forum is to ensure that the media/fans pressure opponents of the activity to not speak out against them. Athletes are worried about losing endorsements if they say something controversial, and they are almost forced to suppress their opinions. Alphonso spoke out against the activity, not the person, and has been blasted for it. As much courage as it took for Mr. Collins to come out, I feel like it takes just as much courage for someone to speak out in opposition in today's culture.

There is a glaring difference. One side is supporting a group that has long been oppressed. The other side is supporting those that have done the oppressing.

Something tells me this thread is going to soon see some deleted posts...

Orange&BlackSheep
04-29-2013, 04:28 PM
As much courage as it took for Mr. Collins to come out, I feel like it takes just as much courage for someone to speak out in opposition in today's culture.

It does indeed take courage to come out and publicly admit you are a bigot.


You are not alone. This type of reaction is why peole don't come out. So many act like it takes a huge amount of courage and many question if they have the courage to do like wise. Congrats to him for coming out and leave it at that.

Not my life style, but what I do behind close doors is my business and the one I am with and I believe that should be so with others.

I think terming being gay or lesbian a "lifestyle" makes it seem like Mr. Collins had a choice in the matter, like moving to Hawaii so you can enjoy the ocean.

Until we as a society view the love that a gay couple have for each other as being equivalent to that of a straight couple, there will be an air of intolerance that those coming out will live their lives in. Normality only comes when we all view being gay as just that ... normal. Not a lifestyle that is none of my business.

O&B Sheep

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
04-29-2013, 04:32 PM
Yes, it would be phenomenal if it weren't a big deal that Collins came out. We can all aspire to that day and age of enlightenment. However, that simply isn't the reality of our culture in general, and sports specifically.

Gay people of both genders have made great strides towards equal rights during our lifetime. Sports, for men, continues to be a major source of close-mindedness. Collins will get tons of support from both the gay community and people who work for gay rights. He will also, unfortunately, get a ration of trouble that most of us cannot conceive. THIS is why his statement is both brave and significant.

It is not a question of celebrating Collins' gayness - I agree with some of you on here that what folks do in the privacy of their own homes is their business. It is a question of Collin breaking ground and being brave enough to be the very first in American major sports to have the courage to stand up and say who he is, with an unknown amount of certain backlash. His eloquent statement and how the sports world and wider culture respond to that statement will speak volumes about how comfortable athletes of today and the future feel about being themselves in the face of persecution.

I am not gay, I have never spent much time considering Collins since he went to the NBA, but I salute his courage and his comfort with himself. All of us could learn a lot from his bravery and his statement. I hope that the recognition and support far outweigh the backlash he receives moving forward. I think that the way that other athletes choose to respond to this day will tell us quite a bit about who they are.

Go Duke
Go Jason Collins

Troublemaker
04-29-2013, 04:37 PM
Will Collins get signed, and will/will not a team sign him because of this?

His coming out actually 100% guarantees that he will get a new contract (whereas before, there was at least a little bit of doubt, although it was very likely that someone would've signed him as a 3rd center / veteran good guy presence anyway). I'm not suggesting that getting the new contract was part of his motivation for coming out; just pointing out that there is zero doubt he will get one now. The NBA could not afford to let him go unsigned at this point. And even without league office intervention/encouragement, let's say Collins goes a couple of weeks into free agency without finding a new team. Surely at least 1 of the 30 NBA owners will step up to the plate and sign him, just for the positive publicity it would bring his franchise or possibly coming from an activist mindset. I actually can envision the scenario where there's a small bidding war to sign him actually. Jason Collins indeed will become the first openly gay active athlete in one of the major sports. It's 100% guaranteed.

jcannon
04-29-2013, 04:38 PM
It does indeed take courage to come out and publicly admit you are a bigot.



I think terming being gay or lesbian a "lifestyle" makes it seem like Mr. Collins had a choice in the matter, like moving to Hawaii so you can enjoy the ocean.

Until we as a society view the love that a gay couple have for each other as being equivalent to that of a straight couple, there will be an air of intolerance that those coming out will live their lives in. Normality only comes when we all view being gay as just that ... normal. Not a lifestyle that is none of my business.

O&B Sheep


So because a person disagrees with someone's sexual orientation or belief, they are now a bigot? This is a prime example of what I was talking about in my previous post. Mr. Smith was just expressing his belief, not saying anything negative about Mr. Collins, and now he is a bigot. He actually complimented Mr.. Collins on having the courage to come out. Why do you feel the need to lash out in such a harsh way and resort to name calling? Isn't that the whole premise of this topic, accepting those who are different than you without lashing out?

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
04-29-2013, 04:44 PM
So because a person disagrees with someone's sexual orientation or belief, they are now a bigot? This is a prime example of what I was talking about in my previous post. Mr. Smith was just expressing his belief, not saying anything negative about Mr. Collins, and now he is a bigot. He actually complimented Mr.. Collins on having the courage to come out. Why do you feel the need to lash out in such a harsh way and resort to name calling? Isn't that the whole premise of this topic, accepting those who are different than you without lashing out?

This thread will be locked in 3.... 2.... 1....

Yes. If you accept the premise that sexual orientation is genetic and decided independent of someone's choices, then disagreeing with someone's sexual orientation makes you a bigot, the same way that disagreeing with someone's race or eye color makes you a bigot.

If you see it as a choice and a moral transgression, then you have a bit more leeway. This is why the differentiation is so very important.

CDu
04-29-2013, 04:44 PM
So because a person disagrees with someone's sexual orientation or belief, they are now a bigot?

Per Merriam-Webster, yes, that is pretty much the definition of a bigot:
bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance


This is a prime example of what I was talking about in my previous post. Mr. Smith was just expressing his belief, not saying anything negative about Mr. Collins, and now he is a bigot. He actually complimented Mr.. Collins on having the courage to come out. Why do you feel the need to lash out in such a harsh way and resort to name calling? Isn't that the whole premise of this topic, accepting those who are different than you without lashing out?

Again, there is a BIG difference. One group has, for a long time, been oppressing another group. The other group has, for a long time, been oppressed.

One group has suffered financially, emotionally, and otherwise has been made to feel like a second-rate human being. The other side has not.

jimsumner
04-29-2013, 04:51 PM
It was only three months ago that Chris Culliver, a starter for one of the Super Bowl teams, stated his opinion that gays would not be welcome on his team and in his locker room.

Three months ago.

Keep in mind that he plays in San Francisco, one of the most gay-friendly cities on the planet.

I know, I know, he did the whole disavow-every-thing-I-said penance PR tour. But I have to believe he was telling his truth the first go around. Does anyone think he's the only male pro athlete who feels this way?

So, yes I look forward to the day when this isn't a big deal. But right now, it is a big deal and I think Collins deserves credit, not dismissive comments that this is just a move designed to prolong a fading career.

So, kudos to Collins.

jcannon
04-29-2013, 04:56 PM
This thread will be locked in 3.... 2.... 1....

Yes. If you accept the premise that sexual orientation is genetic and decided independent of someone's choices, then disagreeing with someone's sexual orientation makes you a bigot, the same way that disagreeing with someone's race or eye color makes you a bigot.

If you see it as a choice and a moral transgression, then you have a bit more leeway. This is why the differentiation is so very important.

I would have to assume that Mr. Smith is of this group, so that is why I asked you to clarify why you felt it right to call him a bigot. Also, what is all the talk of the thread being locked? I feel like everyone is having a respectful discussion, so why suppress open dialogue. We are all one big family, so why can we not discuss things as such. Recruiting is over (except for Tarik Black) and season is a few months away, so nice to have some discussion with family.

CDu
04-29-2013, 05:01 PM
I would have to assume that Mr. Smith is of this group, so that is why I asked you to clarify why you felt it right to call him a bigot. Also, what is all the talk of the thread being locked? I feel like everyone is having a respectful discussion, so why suppress open dialogue. We are all one big family, so why can we not discuss things as such. Recruiting is over (except for Tarik Black) and season is a few months away, so nice to have some discussion with family.

The one thing I've always wondered of the folks who think that homosexuality is any more of a choice than heterosexuality is this: why would someone choose something that they KNOW will make them the subject of oppression?

If one thinks that homosexuals are making a choice and moral transgression, then one may not necessarily be a bigot. I would instead argue that such a person is, at the very least, ignorant.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
04-29-2013, 05:11 PM
I would have to assume that Mr. Smith is of this group, so that is why I asked you to clarify why you felt it right to call him a bigot. Also, what is all the talk of the thread being locked? I feel like everyone is having a respectful discussion, so why suppress open dialogue. We are all one big family, so why can we not discuss things as such. Recruiting is over (except for Tarik Black) and season is a few months away, so nice to have some discussion with family.

Civility in these matters always seems fleeting on internet message boards. I would love to be wrong and for a thoughtful discussion to take place.

I called no one a bigot, thanks very much. I was just explaining why someone else did.

And yes, I do think that if someone is hateful towards someone else because of their genetics, that's the very definition of bigotry. If you are hating someone else from a religious point of view, then that's zealotry. Either way, I'm not riding along in your boat. You are free to express your opinions on the subject, and I'm happy to put you into whichever camp you prefer.

Go Duke!

BismarckDuke
04-29-2013, 05:31 PM
CDuPer Merriam-Webster, yes, that is pretty much the definition of a bigot:
bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance


Really, then what do you call "Go to hell Carolina, go to hell?" I beleive this conveys intolerance, devotion and of ones own opionions or prejudcies.

As far as how old I am, Magic is younger than me...

As a very religious, conservative person, this is his life and he should be able to live it how he wants. Behind his doors is his business and no one else, unless you are with him. No one here should sit in judgement of him, there is only one person who will do that, in the end.

My whole take on this, as long as we treat these things as "huge courage" it makes it more difficult for others to come out. Much like a battered women, they think they need "huge courage" to turn their beater in. Thus, if we treat this as a more common thing it will become common. If we treat it as anyone who comes out needs "huge courage" we will continue to ive in a society that makes people hide.

Troublemaker
04-29-2013, 05:44 PM
Reading between the lines of his essay a bit (e.g. "All you need to know is that I'm single. I see no need to delve into specifics."), I have to believe Jason Collins is a virgin.

From a hiding-one's-secret standpoint, there are few things worst than being 7-foot tall and playing a helmet-less sport that is TV-camera-friendly such that even most role players have recognizable faces. This is a guy who obviously can't be out meeting strangers in a club. And privately, he guarded his secret so fiercely that even his twin brother didn't know until last year. Therefore, where were his opportunities to meet someone?

The best part about coming out is that he can finally get to live his life. Good for him, and I hope he gets to unleash 34 years of pent-up frustration soon. As a smart, well-spoken pro athlete and now poster-child for the gay movement, he can probably get virtually any gay man he wants.

duke09hms
04-29-2013, 05:56 PM
Well I would hope that no one on this board is a bigot, but I would say that it is a much more complicated issue than simply saying it's entirely due to genetics or it's entirely a lifestyle choice. As with most complex human traits, the reality lies somewhere in the middle. The reasons behind or origins of homosexuality are not dichotomous but moreso a complex combination of genes, environment, and personal choice. If it were entirely genetic, then his identical twin Jarron should also be gay, which he is not. However, there is definitely a genetic component, as twins do have a higher likelihood of being homosexual. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1845227
And then, there's also the question of evolutionary sustainability if it is entirely genetic.

I believe human sexuality is defined by a complex spectrum of inputs. If even a simple trait like physical height has genetic and environmental contributions, then a much more complicated one like human sexuality is assuredly even more complex.

Of course, the opposing sides will never frame the issue in such a nuanced light. It is undoubtedly a very interesting and complicated question, worthy of enlightened discussion. Not sure how that fits into 140 characters on Twitter though.

CDu
04-29-2013, 05:58 PM
Really, then what do you call "Go to hell Carolina, go to hell?" I beleive this conveys intolerance, devotion and of ones own opionions or prejudcies.

Are you really presenting THAT as your counterargument? Okay, I will play along. In sports rivalries, it is understood that you should feign disdain for your rival. That disdain should be somewhat superficial and mostly in jest. But most importantly, it should not affect how you or others view someone who is a member of the rival side, nor should it result in negative treatment toward someone from the rival side.

I would venture a guess that the vast majority of Duke fans don't actually wish UNC fans damnation. I would also guess that the vast majority of UNC fans realize this. Therefore, no bigotry is committed. If someone DOES wish another person damnation (or other ill) based solely on their affiliation to UNC, then that would indeed be bigotry.


My whole take on this, as long as we treat these things as "huge courage" it makes it more difficult for others to come out. Much like a battered women, they think they need "huge courage" to turn their beater in. Thus, if we treat this as a more common thing it will become common. If we treat it as anyone who comes out needs "huge courage" we will continue to ive in a society that makes people hide.

I could not disagree more with your viewpoint on the impact of positive support for either of the two oppressed groups that you have mentioned.

Troublemaker
04-29-2013, 06:00 PM
If it were entirely genetic, then his identical twin Jarron should also be gay, which he is not.

Jason and Jarron are fraternal twins, not identical twins.

duke09hms
04-29-2013, 06:07 PM
Jason and Jarron are fraternal twins, not identical twins.

"Jason Collins is listed at 7-0 and 260 pounds in the New Jersey Nets media guide, while the Utah Jazz media guide lists twin brother Jarron at 6-11 and 255. Aren't they identical twins?
Yes, responds Portia Collins, the mother of the first set of identical twins to play in the NBA since Harvey and Horace Grant."
http://www.nba.com/all_access/collinses_021212.html

Hmm, I've found different. Was looking that up before posting earlier. Where do you see that they're fraternal?
Regardless, the cited article still holds. In 52% of identical twins where one twin is gay, the other is as well.

CDu
04-29-2013, 06:08 PM
Well I would hope that no one on this board is a bigot, but I would say that it is a much more complicated issue than simply saying it's entirely due to genetics or it's entirely a lifestyle choice. As with most complex human traits, the reality lies somewhere in the middle. The reasons behind or origins of homosexuality are not dichotomous but moreso a complex combination of genes, environment, and personal choice. If it were entirely genetic, then his identical twin Jarron should also be gay, which he is not. However, there is definitely a genetic component, as twins do have a higher likelihood of being homosexual. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1845227
And then, there's also the question of evolutionary sustainability if it is entirely genetic.

I believe human sexuality is defined by a complex spectrum of inputs. If even a simple trait like physical height has genetic and environmental contributions, then a much more complicated one like human sexuality is assuredly even more complex.

Of course, the opposing sides will never frame the issue in such a nuanced light. It is undoubtedly a very interesting and complicated question, worthy of enlightened discussion. Not sure how that fits into 140 characters on Twitter though.

First of all, who is to say that all twins have to have identical genetic output? I have seen twins with different eye and natural hair color. Are those choices? No reason that sexuality can't also be a genetic difference between twins. And finally, even if twinship should suggest identical sexuality, how are you certain that Jarron isn't also gay but living a lie in order to conform?

Note: I am not saying Jarron is secretly gay.

Troublemaker
04-29-2013, 06:10 PM
"Jason Collins is listed at 7-0 and 260 pounds in the New Jersey Nets media guide, while the Utah Jazz media guide lists twin brother Jarron at 6-11 and 255. Aren't they identical twins?
Yes, responds Portia Collins, the mother of the first set of identical twins to play in the NBA since Harvey and Horace Grant."
http://www.nba.com/all_access/collinses_021212.html

Hmm, I've found different. Was looking that up before posting earlier. Where do you see that they're fraternal?
Regardless, the cited article still holds. In 52% of identical twins where one twin is gay, the other is as well.

Actually, you're right, they're identical. It's strange, because I've always thought they looked different.

CDu
04-29-2013, 06:13 PM
Actually, you're right, they're identical. It's strange, because I've always thought they looked different.

Little known fact: identical twins aren't actually genetically identical.

Troublemaker
04-29-2013, 06:18 PM
Little known fact: identical twins aren't actually genetically identical.

Yeah, I'm reading up about that right now on wikipedia. Interesting. Did not know before today.

CDu
04-29-2013, 06:35 PM
And then, there's also the question of evolutionary sustainability if it is entirely genetic.

I am not sure the evolutionary sustainability argument holds. Otherwise, there are lots of fatal genetic diseases (not equating homosexuality to disease) that should have not sustained. One can be a carrier of the gene and pass on the carrier status without passing on the disease. Also, two carriers can produce children without the disease. The same can be said of eye color, hair color and sexual orientation.

The argument further fails when you consider how many folks over the years have lived their lives hiding the truth. In fact, I would argue that a sexuality gene is much more likely to have survived evolution than, say, cystic fibrosis.

Mal
04-29-2013, 07:27 PM
It was only three months ago that Chris Culliver, a starter for one of the Super Bowl teams, stated his opinion that gays would not be welcome on his team and in his locker room.

I think this is pertinent. There have, indeed, been a lot of tweets and website statements by players and league people, etc., but of course the veracity of the feelings being put across in those is up for grabs. And there are, of course, a lot more athletes who have not taken to their mobiles to send out their congrats, and who are more likely (especially in light of Culliver's experience) to say something contrary to their own personal beliefs, if they have negative opinions about this, when asked by the media.

It's remarkable that we've even gotten to the point where anyone would, of their own volition, come out and applaud Collins's actions, and not fear negative PR or teammate relationship fallout for it, and it's remarkable that we've gotten to the point where there's enough approbation out there that if you do disapprove as a fellow athlete you're likely not to say so anymore. But I guess I still question whether they're all saying the same thing behind the scenes and amongst one another. Has locker room culture really changed this much this fast? Time will tell, I guess. Still a prominent point on a timeline, though.

Wander
04-29-2013, 08:09 PM
So because a person disagrees with someone's sexual orientation or belief, they are now a bigot?

Well, aside from CDu's point about what constitutes bigotry, what does "disagreeing with someone's sexual orientation" even mean? Sexual orientation isn't a belief system, a debate topic, a religion, an opinion, or a point of view. It's not even really a behavior. There's nothing to agree or disagree with. I'm not saying that to be intolerant or provocative. But it's like saying "I disagree with someone's height."

BismarckDuke
04-29-2013, 08:22 PM
Are you really presenting THAT as your counterargument? Okay, I will play along. In sports rivalries, it is understood that you should feign disdain for your rival. That disdain should be somewhat superficial and mostly in jest. But most importantly, it should not affect how you or others view someone who is a member of the rival side, nor should it result in negative treatment toward someone from the rival side.

I would venture a guess that the vast majority of Duke fans don't actually wish UNC fans damnation. I would also guess that the vast majority of UNC fans realize this. Therefore, no bigotry is committed. If someone DOES wish another person damnation (or other ill) based solely on their affiliation to UNC, then that would indeed be bigotry.

I could not disagree more with your viewpoint on the impact of positive support for either of the two oppressed groups that you have mentioned.

LOL, I knew you would try to come up with something to justify the "GTHCGTH." Ah just because it was said doesn't mean we mean it, lol.

Lastly, apparently you have never dealt with a woman who was abused. After having helped these people and personally knowing a gay person, you have no idea. I hope you like the world you are living in, because it will remain one of "huge courage." If we don't act like it is "normal" it will never be treated like it is "normal."

CDu
04-29-2013, 08:32 PM
LOL, I knew you would try to come up with something to justify the "GTHCGTH." Ah just because it was said doesn't mean we mean it, lol.

Umm, it's not a justification. It's the truth. There is a HUGE difference between the two scenarios. I'm sorry you can't seem to grasp the difference.


Lastly, apparently you have never dealt with a woman who was abused. After having helped these people and personally knowing a gay person, you have no idea. I hope you like the world you are living in, because it will remain one of "huge courage." If we don't act like it is "normal" it will never be treated like it is "normal."

Wow, the bolded part of your statement is absolutely ridiculous. Because you "know a gay person" (news flash: EVERYONE knows a gay person) you have a better idea of what is in their best interest? Absurd.

I'll simplify it for you. Which situation do you think is worse:
a. living in a world in which you think that the response will be negative if you come out (or say you've been abused); or
b. living in a world in which you KNOW that there will be tons of positive support you if you come out (or say you've been abused).

I'll save you the time. It was rhetorical. The answer is option b. And here's why. Up until now, homosexuals lived in world a, afraid to come out. They already know it will take huge courage to come out. What they don't know is if their statements will be received with support or not. By showing their support, people are making it easier for folks to come out.

ncexnyc
04-29-2013, 08:35 PM
I disapproved this comment, so I figured I'd admit it here. This comment DOES downplay his courage - he is the first active athlete in to do this. The WNBA comment is both a shibboleth, and wrong - Sheryl Swopes came out years ago. And if I've seen anything on this board, its that a whole heckuva lot of people don't view women's basketball as equivalent with men's basketball.

More to the point - when Harvey Milk was campaigning for gay rights in SF in the early 70s, he argued that the most important act a gay person could do was come out to there families, on the theory that its harder to discriminate against the people you know. The big 4 professional sports have been absent that for all of history. They are not now. And that's what's important.
Shibboleth? I knew there was a reason I come to this board. This one made me run to the dictionary.

missfinch
04-29-2013, 08:41 PM
Seems like I am in the minority on this one, but what's the big deal? I do understand the courage that it took for him to announce that he was gay, but everyone is acting like we just discovered the cure for cancer. A man is gay, big deal, move on. Walk outside and look around, it wont be hard to find other gay men too. If the goal of the homosexual community is to be seen as "equal", then why do we make such a big deal everytime a celebrity comes out?

Yeah, it's not like some third-string NFL quarterback just got released or something. Not that kind of big news.:)

throatybeard
04-29-2013, 08:53 PM
I've had a fascinating time browsing this list. It's dominated by a combination of (a) people in individual sports and/or (b) people who came out after they retired. I followed Gareth Jones to this page, browserwise. He was out three years ago and profiled in SI perhaps two. he was on the cover, I think

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lesbian,_gay,_bisexual,_and_transgender_sp ortspeople


Well, aside from CDu's point about what constitutes bigotry, what does "disagreeing with someone's sexual orientation" even mean? Sexual orientation isn't a belief system, a debate topic, a religion, an opinion, or a point of view. It's not even really a behavior. There's nothing to agree or disagree with. I'm not saying that to be intolerant or provocative. But it's like saying "I disagree with someone's height."

"Disagree with someone's height." That is perfectly illustrative. I'm going to steal that for future use, with your permission.

moonpie23
04-29-2013, 09:18 PM
I've had a fascinating time browsing this list. It's dominated by a combination of (a) people in individual sports and/or (b) people who came out after they retired. I followed Gareth Jones to this page, browserwise. He was out three years ago and profiled in SI perhaps two. he was on the cover, I think

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lesbian,_gay,_bisexual,_and_transgender_sp ortspeople



"Disagree with someone's height." That is perfectly illustrative. I'm going to steal that for future use, with your permission.


this is awesome.....i will pay this one forward......meanwhile, strength to Jason Collins for his decision, he's going to need it.....

Lunchab1es
04-29-2013, 10:32 PM
LOL, I knew you would try to come up with something to justify the "GTHCGTH." Ah just because it was said doesn't mean we mean it, lol.


Hold the phones.

We have to JUSTIFY "GTHC" now??? I thought it was like breathing. Or making your heart beat. If you are a living, functioning human being, then GTHC should naturally be a part of everything you do, period. No exceptions.

The very notion that GTHC must be "justified", on a Duke Basketball forum no less, is unfathomable and nigh unconscionable.


Back on track. This is huge announcement and potential step forward for our professional sports culture. Happy to have seen it happen. Carry on.

Jim3k
04-29-2013, 11:04 PM
Keep in mind that he plays in San Francisco, one of the most gay-friendly cities on the planet.



Thanks for the San Francisco reference, Jim. It leads to Glenn Burke and Dave Kopay. And thanks to Throaty (at post #61) for his Wiki link about other pro athletes' sexual preference.

I knew, as soon as I saw the claim that Collins was the first to come out, that the claim was likely to be wrong. Some have said that all of the players who had come out did so after retiring from their sport, and indeed that is quite likely for most, given the attitude of their times.

Even so, Wiki says that Glenn Burke informed his teammates while he was still an Athletics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Burke) outfielder. His last game was 1979; he only had a three-year major league career from 1976 to 1979. His career may have been shortened by his admission.

I'm almost positive that there are other team athletes who 'came out' while active. They just didn't do so by interviews or issuing press releases. They did so in the relative quiet of their team or their families. It wasn't a secret; it just wasn't trumpeted. I'm thinking that the 49ers' Dave Kopay handled it that way as did NBAer John Amaechi even though their public stories say it was afterwards. If Kopay didn't, then Burke was first...and he paid a heavy price. He should not be forgotten.

jimsumner
04-29-2013, 11:18 PM
Well, aside from CDu's point about what constitutes bigotry, what does "disagreeing with someone's sexual orientation" even mean? Sexual orientation isn't a belief system, a debate topic, a religion, an opinion, or a point of view. It's not even really a behavior. There's nothing to agree or disagree with. I'm not saying that to be intolerant or provocative. But it's like saying "I disagree with someone's height."

"Disagreeing" with someone's sexual orientation may be linguistically unsound. But lots of people "disapprove" of someone's sexual orientation. And they seem to have a lot of sway in certain parts of American society. I think they are on the wrong side of history and I think many of them realize it. But they seem to have a lot of legislators convinced to the contrary.

That's why, IMO, what Collins did today was courageous and important. There is still prejudice to overcome and much of that is pretty intrenched, both in society and in the legal system.

tommy
04-29-2013, 11:27 PM
"Disagreeing" with someone's sexual orientation may be linguistically unsound. But lots of people "disapprove" of someone's sexual orientation. And they seem to have a lot of sway in certain parts of American society. I think they are on the wrong side of history and I think many of them realize it. But they seem to have a lot of legislators convinced to the contrary.

That's why, IMO, what Collins did today was courageous and important. There is still prejudice to overcome and much of that is pretty intrenched, both in society and in the legal system.

What those "lots of people" seem to "disapprove" of is the sexual behavior engaged in by gay folks. It's the expression of their sexuality that seems to offend so many. I still don't see how one can "disapprove" of someone's sexual orientation, as when you strip it down, what I think they're really doing is denying the immutability of that orientation. For if one believes that sexual orientation is not immutable, then the behavior engaged in is a matter of choice, and it is those choices that they feel they have the right to disapprove of.

licc85
04-29-2013, 11:36 PM
I love how this wasn't as big of a deal as it seemed like it would have been maybe even last year. Nobody seems to be really shocked about it at all. Hopefully we will get to the point soon where nobody even cares when this happens anymore. It'll be just a normal thing.

jimsumner
04-29-2013, 11:39 PM
What those "lots of people" seem to "disapprove" of is the sexual behavior engaged in by gay folks. It's the expression of their sexuality that seems to offend so many. I still don't see how one can "disapprove" of someone's sexual orientation, as when you strip it down, what I think they're really doing is denying the immutability of that orientation. For if one believes that sexual orientation is not immutable, then the behavior engaged in is a matter of choice, and it is those choices that they feel they have the right to disapprove of.

And this is what makes this different from height or eye color. Lots of people are convinced that sexual orientation is a lifestyle choice. Scientific research doesn't support that view but lots of people believe in things that go against the most basic scientific research.

I've seen lots of view points on lots of issues change over the years and the trend lines clearly show this is happening in the area of gay acceptance. But it's an on-going proces, with lots of entrenched opposition and I think people who dismiss what Collins did today are glossing over that reality.

Dukeface88
04-30-2013, 12:10 AM
But it's like saying "I disagree with someone's height."

I dunno - seems like a lot of people disagree with Wojo's height :p

throatybeard
04-30-2013, 12:28 AM
I dunno - seems like a lot of people disagree with Wojo's height :p

OK, that's funny, the seriousness of the issue aside.

Maybe six or seven years ago, somebody was talking about an all-time Duke men's team. As am I, he is a T '98, and Viking Guy posited the following:

PG: Wojo
SG: Wojo
SF: Wojo
PF: Wojo
C: Wojo on stilts

I still adhere to this idea of the golden age of...what I've forgotten exactly.

throatybeard
04-30-2013, 12:30 AM
I love how this wasn't as big of a deal as it seemed like it would have been maybe even last year. Nobody seems to be really shocked about it at all. Hopefully we will get to the point soon where nobody even cares when this happens anymore. It'll be just a normal thing.

Not many people associated with research universities, such as Duke.

But of my 1850 Facebook contacts, probably around 500 are social conservatives, mostly from Mississippi and Georgia. The backlash against the pink equals signs earlier this year was somewhat ugly, and the outpouring of support for Chik-Fil-A's anti-gay-rights funding last year was loud. Loud.

I suspect "how big a deal" this seems like depends not only upon your orientation (it's clear that it's a big deal to my Gay friends, again using Facebook as a barometer) and your level of investment in the cause, but also upon who your social circle is. If you're you're sort of ho-hum about the whole thing, AND most of your contacts are tolerant or at least not hostile, it can seem like it's not a big deal.

But my wife has a student whose best friend was beaten to death for being gay. Two years ago. At the age of about 17. I too, hope as Licc85 says that hopefully soon this won't even be a deal. But it's still a big deal. It is.

bob blue devil
04-30-2013, 06:50 AM
But my wife has a student whose best friend was beaten to death for being gay. Two years ago. At the age of about 17. I too, hope as Licc85 says that hopefully soon this won't even be a deal. But it's still a big deal. It is.

quod erat demonstrandum

Lord Ash
04-30-2013, 09:08 AM
I don't mean to get this off-topic, but I really appreciate that the powers-that-be have kept this thread open. Especially on a forum associated with Duke, it is important to be able to have generally-thoughtful discussions about topics that are personal, important, and which can be emotional. Certainly over the years this forum has become one that is capable of having such discussions far better than most.

As for the topic; I think this will become more and more common, and I am most struck by the positive reactions from many public figures. That wouldn't have happened in years past.

Thundarr
04-30-2013, 09:31 AM
His decision is certainly a brave one and he is going to endure some hardship but for a 34 year old bottom tier player on his way out of the league who no one but the most devout fan knew, his announcement is going to provide him with an incredible financial windfall. First, this guarantees that he'll have a job in the NBA for at least three to four more years at a minimum of $1.5M per year. Second, he'll be busy at a speaker all over the country, commanding very healthy fees. Finally, his commercial appeal, which was nil, is now going to go through the roof as he's bright and attractive. Basically, he's set himself really well for the future.

FerryFor50
04-30-2013, 09:40 AM
Looks like Chris Broussard at ESPN wants a new career:

http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/04/29/espn-chris-broussard-jason-collins/?hpt=hp_t3

CDu
04-30-2013, 09:54 AM
Looks like Chris Broussard at ESPN wants a new career:

http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/04/29/espn-chris-broussard-jason-collins/?hpt=hp_t3

Kudos to Broussard for stating his beliefs. I think his beliefs on the issue are very close-minded, bordering on hateful, and maybe a little bit ignorant. But I guess at least he had the guts to voice them.

I'd be sad for him to be fired because of this. Of course, I don't think he's terribly good at his job at ESPN, so I wouldn't mind him being fired for performance reasons. But I'd not like for it to be because of this.

Lord Ash
04-30-2013, 09:59 AM
His decision is certainly a brave one and he is going to endure some hardship but for a 34 year old bottom tier player on his way out of the league who no one but the most devout fan knew, his announcement is going to provide him with an incredible financial windfall. First, this guarantees that he'll have a job in the NBA for at least three to four more years at a minimum of $1.5M per year. Second, he'll be busy at a speaker all over the country, commanding very healthy fees. Finally, his commercial appeal, which was nil, is now going to go through the roof as he's bright and attractive. Basically, he's set himself really well for the future.

I agree with a good chunk of this; for every endorsement possibility he loses (which wouldn't be many, for a player of his caliber/age/fame) he probably picks up two, especially on the speaking circuit and with things like that.

The one thing I don't agree with is his playing career. The NBA is a big money business, and I don't think there is a GM alive who cares if a player is gay or not as far as pertaining to basketball. If he can play, he'll get signed. If not... he won't. I don't think his endorsement potential is a Yao Ming sort of thing, where it is worthwhile for the team to sign him because of it.

To be clear, I don't think there is any reason to think he did this for financial reasons, although you didn't say that he did.

Lord Ash
04-30-2013, 10:03 AM
Kudos to Broussard for stating his beliefs. I think his beliefs on the issue are very close-minded, bordering on hateful, and maybe a little bit ignorant. But I guess at least he had the guts to voice them.

I'd be sad for him to be fired because of this. Of course, I don't think he's terribly good at his job at ESPN, so I wouldn't mind him being fired for performance reasons. But I'd not like for it to be because of this.

You know, I have a feeling that he won't get fired for this. He wasn't being a bomb-thrower or anything, and his view is one that is pretty common in our country, and I am sure is shared by some folks at ESPN. I don't think that will get him fired.

Thundarr
04-30-2013, 10:28 AM
I agree with a good chunk of this; for every endorsement possibility he loses (which wouldn't be many, for a player of his caliber/age/fame) he probably picks up two, especially on the speaking circuit and with things like that.

The one thing I don't agree with is his playing career. The NBA is a big money business, and I don't think there is a GM alive who cares if a player is gay or not as far as pertaining to basketball. If he can play, he'll get signed. If not... he won't. I don't think his endorsement potential is a Yao Ming sort of thing, where it is worthwhile for the team to sign him because of it.

To be clear, I don't think there is any reason to think he did this for financial reasons, although you didn't say that he did.

I do not think finances was the primary factor but you certainly can't dismiss it. His brother has been out of the league for a few years. He has viewed first hand the challenges that Jarron has faced transitioning to the real world. This was probably Jason's last year, maybe one more. While a GM may not care about Jason being gay, his boss certainly does and there will be at least one owner willing to keep him as the 12th man on the team. I would argue that Stern will make sure this happens as it would be a PR disaster if it doesn't. In terms of endorsements, he went from zero to millions overnight, same for speaking engagements. I may be a little cynical but he's probably looking at $10M or more that he could not have gotten otherwise and he was well aware of that. Basically, it's a win-win where he gets to be himself, be viewed as a hero, play hoops for a few extra years and map out his future.

FerryFor50
04-30-2013, 10:53 AM
You know, I have a feeling that he won't get fired for this. He wasn't being a bomb-thrower or anything, and his view is one that is pretty common in our country, and I am sure is shared by some folks at ESPN. I don't think that will get him fired.

Yea, ESPN would never fire anyone for stating their controversial beliefs...

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2013-01-08/rob-parker-fired-espn-rg3-comments-robert-griffin-iii-blackness-first-take

;)

Lord Ash
04-30-2013, 11:20 AM
Yea, ESPN would never fire anyone for stating their controversial beliefs...

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2013-01-08/rob-parker-fired-espn-rg3-comments-robert-griffin-iii-blackness-first-take

;)



Well, okay, they MIGHT fire him:) But I think that stating beliefs that are A) religious in nature and B) maybe a bit more common is note quite the same as what Parker said. That's why I think he might stay on. But who knows... he might be fired!:)

Indoor66
04-30-2013, 11:25 AM
Looks like Chris Broussard at ESPN wants a new career:

http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/04/29/espn-chris-broussard-jason-collins/?hpt=hp_t3

What, he is not permitted to have his beliefs and to express them?

I agree with licc85, this is not even an issue with me. Live and let live and get on with life.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
04-30-2013, 11:33 AM
What, he is not permitted to have his beliefs and to express them?

I agree with licc85, this is not even an issue with me. Live and let live and get on with life.

If I went to my job and started stating controversial religious beliefs and how they make me feel about certain other people, I should expect to be fired.

Free speech doesn't apply to your relationship with your employer. Why do you think so many companies have Facebook policies now? They care very much about how they are perceived as a reflection of their employees.

No being persecuted for what you say, and not having consequences to what you say are two different things.

hurleyfor3
04-30-2013, 11:35 AM
Yea, ESPN would never fire anyone for stating their controversial beliefs...

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2013-01-08/rob-parker-fired-espn-rg3-comments-robert-griffin-iii-blackness-first-take

;)

Also Hank Williams Jr, Rush Limbaugh and Gregg Easterbrook before he was hired back.

Disney doesn't just do this, it usually does this.

Reilly
04-30-2013, 11:37 AM
"lots of people "disapprove" of someone's sexual orientation. And they seem to have a lot of sway in certain parts of American society. ... they seem to have a lot of legislators convinced to the contrary. ... There is still prejudice to overcome and much of that is pretty intrenched, both in society and in the legal system.

Jim, I believe a lot of what you write above is correct: lots may disapprove, have sway, and certain prejudices (in the pejorative sense of the word) may be at work in American life. And this bad you identify may affect our legal system and laws, too.

That said, our legal system and laws and the on-going legal debate (some of which possibly will be settled shortly by the Supreme Court) are informed by arguments that are not rooted in "prejudice" or "disapproval." I think of the work of Princeton professor Robert George (currently at Harvard Law). See: http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/20/opinion/george-gay-marriage

In short, I see at least two distinct issues: one issue is the amount of courage Collins needs to make his announcement given certain societal views that may be prejudiced or bigoted; and a second, distinct issue is whether there are non-prejudicial, non-bigoted views informing our legal system.

Basically, while certain prejudice and bigotry exists in the world, it does not mean the legal system only reflects that prejudice and bigotry, as there are non-prejudicial, non-bigoted reasons for certain aspects of the legal system.

Maybe all of this is getting too public policy board-ish, I just saw your post blurring the main topic (the reaction to Collins; how courageous is his announcement) with a public policy argument (the laws only reflect prejudice or bigotry) .... when, in fact, thoughtful scholars have put forward non-bigoted rationales for current laws.

vick
04-30-2013, 11:44 AM
If I went to my job and started stating controversial religious beliefs and how they make me feel about certain other people, I should expect to be fired.

Free speech doesn't apply to your relationship with your employer. Why do you think so many companies have Facebook policies now? They care very much about how they are perceived as a reflection of their employees.

No being persecuted for what you say, and not having consequences to what you say are two different things.

Well, that's a somewhat unfair way to describe what happened, because you're making it sound like Broussard just on his own accord decided to start opining about his religious beliefs. Broussard's views on this matter weren't exactly a big secret, and he was asked by the host for his opinion. It would be grossly unfair (and of questionable legality) for an employer to ask you a question about your personal religious beliefs, and then fire you when the answer is unpopular. ESPN is to blame, not Broussard.

Lord Ash
04-30-2013, 11:51 AM
Well, that's a somewhat unfair way to describe what happened, because you're making it sound like Broussard just on his own accord decided to start opining about his religious beliefs. Broussard's views on this matter weren't exactly a big secret, and he was asked by the host for his opinion. It would be grossly unfair (and of questionable legality) for an employer to ask you a question about your personal religious beliefs, and then fire you when the answer is unpopular. ESPN is to blame, not Broussard.

Agreed (except the legality part
, of which I know nothing) which is why I don't think he will get fired. He was making a fairly tame (as far as generally-negative public statements about homosexuality go) comment on a topic that he was asked about in a show about the very topic. I just don't think he will be fired for it, and I don't think it is the equivalent of some of the other examples given of employees fired for making "controversial" comments.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
04-30-2013, 11:59 AM
Well, that's a somewhat unfair way to describe what happened, because you're making it sound like Broussard just on his own accord decided to start opining about his religious beliefs. Broussard's views on this matter weren't exactly a big secret, and he was asked by the host for his opinion. It would be grossly unfair (and of questionable legality) for an employer to ask you a question about your personal religious beliefs, and then fire you when the answer is unpopular. ESPN is to blame, not Broussard.

Fair enough point. Dumb of the host to ask, dumb of Broussard to respond.

At any rate, I don't fault anyone for having their own dissenting opinions. But expressing them and then being surprised when people aren't enthused is a bit silly.

Back to the original point, I do believe that all this dialogue and discussion is at the end of the day productive, even if some of it devolves into mean-spirited name-calling (none of that has happened here, kudos to DBR). Collins did this partly for himself, and partly to again provoke discussion that may enlighten some folks.

Go Duke!

tommy
04-30-2013, 12:09 PM
His decision is certainly a brave one and he is going to endure some hardship but for a 34 year old bottom tier player on his way out of the league who no one but the most devout fan knew, his announcement is going to provide him with an incredible financial windfall. First, this guarantees that he'll have a job in the NBA for at least three to four more years at a minimum of $1.5M per year. Second, he'll be busy at a speaker all over the country, commanding very healthy fees. Finally, his commercial appeal, which was nil, is now going to go through the roof as he's bright and attractive. Basically, he's set himself really well for the future.

Jason Collins has made approximately $34 million over the course of his NBA career. I don't know what he's done with all that money, but a kid coming from a very good family, who went to an outstanding private high school and then graduated from Stanford is likely to have handled his money intelligently. I don't think some speaking engagements and a few endorsements would likely make a significant impact on his long-term financial situation.

Thundarr
04-30-2013, 12:54 PM
Jason Collins has made approximately $34 million over the course of his NBA career. I don't know what he's done with all that money, but a kid coming from a very good family, who went to an outstanding private high school and then graduated from Stanford is likely to have handled his money intelligently. I don't think some speaking engagements and a few endorsements would likely make a significant impact on his long-term financial situation.

He did not get off the bench in 25 of his last 30 games. His career was basically over. If he wanted to get into broadcasting, he would have needed to start at the bottom and work his way up. How his current finances are, I don't know but his future revenue stream was certainly limited. Now, he gets to play for a few more years and gets tons of positive, great role model, publicity to the extent that he becomes nationally known. When he stops playing in the future, the door is now open to ESPN, TBS, ABC, NBC, basically anywhere so that any new endorsements he gets today can last for years and years because he's still in the limelight. Leaving the limelight is probably the biggest challenge for athletes so he's pretty much solved that problem as well. Again, I'm not trying to say that his decision wasn't noble but it also was not completely selfless.

bluebear
04-30-2013, 01:27 PM
He did not get off the bench in 25 of his last 30 games. His career was basically over. If he wanted to get into broadcasting, he would have needed to start at the bottom and work his way up. How his current finances are, I don't know but his future revenue stream was certainly limited. Now, he gets to play for a few more years and gets tons of positive, great role model, publicity to the extent that he becomes nationally known. When he stops playing in the future, the door is now open to ESPN, TBS, ABC, NBC, basically anywhere so that any new endorsements he gets today can last for years and years because he's still in the limelight. Leaving the limelight is probably the biggest challenge for athletes so he's pretty much solved that problem as well. Again, I'm not trying to say that his decision wasn't noble but it also was not completely selfless.

I think this angle is being too played up. There is no doubt that he will get positive publicity, thanks to the changing public climate. Should he get a new contract, I would also guarantee that he will face insults and slurs by a subset of fans at every road (and perhaps even home) game in which he plays. Progress has been made over the past few years, but there is still plenty of disdain and outright hate for gay men and women. People who are minimizing the courage that it takes as a public figure to expose yourself are underestimating the level of hate that still exists. I live up in liberal MA and I still hear people yelling gay slurs at people all the time, especially at sporting events.
I know its been addressed previously, but one other quick point about the need for Collins to come out publicly vs. privately living his life. A straight sports figure can walk over and kiss his wife after a game without a single person flinching, do people really think that a gay sports figure could just do the same without first publicly coming out? Hopefully, we get to the point where that is not a big deal, but we aren't even close to that point yet as a society.

Wander
04-30-2013, 01:56 PM
Not many people associated with research universities, such as Duke.

I suspect "how big a deal" this seems like depends not only upon your orientation (it's clear that it's a big deal to my Gay friends, again using Facebook as a barometer) and your level of investment in the cause, but also upon who your social circle is. If you're you're sort of ho-hum about the whole thing, AND most of your contacts are tolerant or at least not hostile, it can seem like it's not a big deal.


This is a really important point. There's a selection bias not only on this board in that a lot of us went to Duke, but in the media at large in that a lot of them went to college. I would assume most reporters, sports broadcasters, etc have completed a 4 year degree, but that's true of only about 30% of the American adult population. And the more educated you are, the more likely you are to be supportive of gay rights. I'm not saying that to rile up people who feel differently or act snooty, but it's something that polls show, and it's important to remember (in all sorts of discussions) that one's social circle usually isn't representative of the population at large.

Billy Dat
04-30-2013, 02:28 PM
Bill Simmons did a really interesting podcast about Collins coming out, with Grantland culture writer, Wes Morris:
http://espn.go.com/espnradio/grantland/player?id=9224623

One point they made that I think is worth sharing is that the suicide rate among LGBT youth is above the national average, and the percent that attempt suicide is higher still. When celebrities and athletes like Collins come out, it hopefully helps a number of these kids to feel better about themselves, or prompts them to open up to someone that can help them process their feelings. Until yesterday, that had never happened with a male pro basketball player, and today maybe a 15 year old gay male basketball player is thinking that he's ok, rather then thinking he has to take a drastic action because no one would understand him.

WakeDevil
04-30-2013, 02:37 PM
I have a lot to say about this but I've been told I have to be careful. I'm of the wrong political persuasion for this board.

_Gary
04-30-2013, 02:58 PM
Wow. What happened to my extremely benign 7 word post? Surely it wasn't out of bounds?

moonpie23
04-30-2013, 03:00 PM
mine got INSTANTANEOUSLY nuked.......


and it was really tame....

FerryFor50
04-30-2013, 03:00 PM
I have a lot to say about this but I've been told I have to be careful. I'm of the wrong political persuasion for this board.

Politics have nothing to do with this topic.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
04-30-2013, 03:17 PM
mine got INSTANTANEOUSLY nuked.......


and it was really tame....

Certainly the mods are treating this with kid's gloves. This is a pretty touchy topic. I'm impressed the thread is still alive.

I would like to echo the sentiments that it will be great when an athlete's sexual preferences are no big deal, but we are obviously nowhere near that day yet.

I also agree that this issue shouldn't be about politics either, but unfortunately it's rather polarizing in that regard.

I would hope that no one on any side of the aisle can ignore the bravery of Collins. He's clearly making a big gamble. I hope it works out for him.

Go Duke

CALVET
04-30-2013, 03:56 PM
I have a lot to say about this but I've been told I have to be careful. I'm of the wrong political persuasion for this board.
First of all the fact that this subject is on a basketball board is a little off the beaten path so it should be fair game for all points of opinion. I'm a little perplexed by the accolades of bravery because if anyone at a professional level is critical of Jason it sounds like their career is in jeapordy. Having said that if I get censored by this board for being of the wrong political persuasion then whoever does so is as guilty as those they claim to protect the likes of Jason Collins from.

It seems to me that if Jason's biological twin is not gay and he has had female relationships including an ex-fiancee in the past, then his is an ideological, as much as a biological, choice. Certainly from observation of relatives and individuals starting at an early age I believe there is argument for biological pre-dispostion of same sex attraction. There is less argument for changing your mind later or often as an bisexual behavior for which if conceded to be purely biological would also follow petitions to change the definition of marriage to accomodate multiple partner marriage arrangements as well.

Tim Tebow who has performed at least as well as Jason Collins in his sport and who has made his ideology public has incurred merciless berating from the public as well as the media without anyone losing their job as a result. It is also not fair to claim that those who espouse and adhere to Tebow's said ideology are never bullied as much as those of Jason's ilk either because I have personally witnessed it.

What I am witnessing now could be construed as bullying by the media and the "correct" political persuasion with regard to this topic and not only those who disagree but those who don't outright endorse get quickly hammered. I once prevented a gay recruit from getting beatup in a shower during bootcamp because it was the right thing to do and not because I endorsed his lifestyle. Do I deserve to get hammered for that?

jimsumner
04-30-2013, 04:01 PM
Jim, I believe a lot of what you write above is correct: lots may disapprove, have sway, and certain prejudices (in the pejorative sense of the word) may be at work in American life. And this bad you identify may affect our legal system and laws, too.

That said, our legal system and laws and the on-going legal debate (some of which possibly will be settled shortly by the Supreme Court) are informed by arguments that are not rooted in "prejudice" or "disapproval." I think of the work of Princeton professor Robert George (currently at Harvard Law). See: http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/20/opinion/george-gay-marriage

In short, I see at least two distinct issues: one issue is the amount of courage Collins needs to make his announcement given certain societal views that may be prejudiced or bigoted; and a second, distinct issue is whether there are non-prejudicial, non-bigoted views informing our legal system.

Basically, while certain prejudice and bigotry exists in the world, it does not mean the legal system only reflects that prejudice and bigotry, as there are non-prejudicial, non-bigoted reasons for certain aspects of the legal system.

Maybe all of this is getting too public policy board-ish, I just saw your post blurring the main topic (the reaction to Collins; how courageous is his announcement) with a public policy argument (the laws only reflect prejudice or bigotry) .... when, in fact, thoughtful scholars have put forward non-bigoted rationales for current laws.

Where did I say "laws only reflect prejudice or bigotry?" Where did I remotely imply that?

My point is that lots of legislators agree with the premise that same-sex sexual orientation is a lifestyle choice that should not be recognized in the legal code.

I'm hardly out on a limb here. My home state recently has enshrined a ban on same-sex marriage in the state constitution. Any further comment by me would send this into public-policy issues that would threaten the continuation of this thread. But please don't misrepresent what I wrote. It worries my disposition.

camion
04-30-2013, 04:31 PM
It seems to me that if Jason's biological twin is not gay and he has had female relationships including an ex-fiancee in the past, then his is an ideological, as much as a biological, choice.

I believe you are making an assumption that may not be true. Identical twins are not necessarily genetically or developmentally identical. Here is one link (http://www.livescience.com/24694-identical-twins-not-identical.html) explaining how genetic differences may arise.

On the average identical twins are much more similar than other siblings, but the average doesn't let us make pronouncements about specific cases with certainty.

Des Esseintes
04-30-2013, 04:33 PM
First of all the fact that this subject is on a basketball board is ajust little off the beaten path so it should be fair game for all points of opinion. I'm a little perplexed by the accolades of bravery because if anyone at a professional level is critical of Jason it sounds like their career is in jeapordy. Having said that if I get censored by this board for being of the wrong political persuasion then whoever does so is as guilty as those they claim to protect the likes of Jason Collins from.

It seems to me that if Jason's biological twin is not gay and he has had female relationships including an ex-fiancee in the past, then his is an ideological, as much as a biological, choice. Certainly from observation of relatives and individuals starting at an early age I believe there is argument for biological pre-dispostion of same sex attraction. There is less argument for changing your mind later or often as an bisexual behavior for which if conceded to be purely biological would also follow petitions to change the definition of marriage to accomodate multiple partner marriage arrangements as well.

Tim Tebow who has performed at least as well as Jason Collins in his sport and who has made his ideology public has incurred merciless berating from the public as well as the media without anyone losing their job as a result. It is also not fair to claim that those who espouse and adhere to Tebow's said ideology are never bullied as much as those of Jason's ilk either because I have personally witnessed it.

What I am witnessing now could be construed as bullying by the media and the "correct" political persuasion with regard to this topic and not only those who disagree but those who don't outright endorse get quickly hammered. I once prevented a gay recruit from getting beatup in a shower during bootcamp because it was the right thing to do and not because I endorsed his lifestyle. Do I deserve to get hammered for that?

Just so we're clear: you've known at least one person who nearly got his teeth beaten in just for being gay, and you think it's Chris Broussard and Tim Tebow that need protecting here? Cool.

And because Jason Collins at one time dated women and has a straight twin brother, his homosexuality must be an "ideological" choice? There's, like, no other conceivable explanation for that state of affairs? Doubly cool.

Lid
04-30-2013, 04:41 PM
It seems to me that if Jason's biological twin is not gay and he has had female relationships including an ex-fiancee in the past, then his is an ideological, as much as a biological, choice.

For the record, I'm not disagreeing with your politics, but the facts do not support what you've written here. As some have mentioned upthread, identical twins are not purely genetically or epigenetically identical. Additionally, there are relatively few genetic traits that display 100% penetrance. Environmental influences (such as the prenatal maternal environment which can, in fact, vary for twins, or exposure to various compounds) affect many phenotypes, and also could hardly be said to be ideological choices. So, while there is a higher likelihood of identical twins both being gay than siblings, or than unrelateds, having a discordant twin pair in no way means that a trait is not genetic.

Second, I love the idea of human behavior being as genetically determined as you suggest in the second part about him having had female relationships. Would make for some interesting studies and study designs!

CDu
04-30-2013, 04:46 PM
First of all the fact that this subject is on a basketball board is a little off the beaten path so it should be fair game for all points of opinion. I'm a little perplexed by the accolades of bravery because if anyone at a professional level is critical of Jason it sounds like their career is in jeapordy. Having said that if I get censored by this board for being of the wrong political persuasion then whoever does so is as guilty as those they claim to protect the likes of Jason Collins from.

It is brave because people have been beaten to death for being gay. He is a public figure, and it has not been clear that people like him will receive welcome support. It's sort of uncharted territory. That's why it was brave.


It seems to me that if Jason's biological twin is not gay and he has had female relationships including an ex-fiancee in the past, then his is an ideological, as much as a biological, choice. Certainly from observation of relatives and individuals starting at an early age I believe there is argument for biological pre-dispostion of same sex attraction. There is less argument for changing your mind later or often as an bisexual behavior for which if conceded to be purely biological would also follow petitions to change the definition of marriage to accomodate multiple partner marriage arrangements as well.

As has been stated in previous posts, twins are not genetically identical. Not even "identical" twins are genetically identical. There is no reason that twins have to both be of the same sexual persuasion. The scientific evidence DOES suggest that a twin who is gay is MUCH more likely to have a gay twin than a straight twin. That would seem to suggest very much that it is a biological issue.


Tim Tebow who has performed at least as well as Jason Collins in his sport and who has made his ideology public has incurred merciless berating from the public as well as the media without anyone losing their job as a result. It is also not fair to claim that those who espouse and adhere to Tebow's said ideology are never bullied as much as those of Jason's ilk either because I have personally witnessed it.

Tim Tebow has not been berated for his religious beliefs. In fact, quite the contrary. Pretty much everyone who talks about Tebow (good or bad) prefaces the discussion with "he's a wonderful human being, but..." The bashing of Tebow is that he's not a very good passer, and it is very debatable whether or not he's a capable QB at the NFL level. If anything, he's gotten more support than a player of his skill level should expect because he's such a good person and so open about his beliefs.


What I am witnessing now could be construed as bullying by the media and the "correct" political persuasion with regard to this topic and not only those who disagree but those who don't outright endorse get quickly hammered.

This should not be a political issue at all. There are gay Democrats and gay Republicans. There are anti-gay Democrats and anti-gay Republicans. Thankfully, this thread has steered clear of politics, and I hope it stays that way.

rsvman
04-30-2013, 04:49 PM
.......
It seems to me that if Jason's biological twin is not gay and he has had female relationships including an ex-fiancee in the past, then his is an ideological, as much as a biological, choice.
First, many gay men have had female relationships in the past. It isn't surprising. Imagine that you grew up heterosexual in a homosexual world. You had two dads. Everywhere you looked they depicted men with men and women with women; movies, TV, commercials, conversations with friends, etc., etc. Imagine that you were completely and totally inundated from day one. Imagine further that you were told in no uncertain terms that people who were attracted to the opposite sex were perverted, evil, wrong, going to hell, etc., etc. Everytime you saw an attractive girl you felt guilty about being attracted to her. Perhaps your parents were very religious and took you to church; there the preacher told you that it was morally repugnant to like girls. That you would be thrown into a lake of fire and brimstone if you so much as thought a girl was remotely attractive. I know it's hard for those of us who are straight to imagine a world like that. But if you lived in that world, perhaps you would try to deny the fact that you were attracted to women. Maybe you would try really hard to fit in with your peers and your family; maybe you'd pray really hard that God would change you so you could be attracted to men. Is it that difficult to imagine that, in that environment, you would try to be like everybody else?

It is interesting that his biological twin isn't gay, but in and of itself that statement certainly doesn't mean that Collins made an "ideological choice." As has been mentioned, the twin of a gay person is more than 50% likely to be gay, which is obviously well above the percentage in the general population.

I have no doubt in my mind that sexual preference is NEITHER a choice NOR a "lifestyle." You are entitled to your own opinion. For educational purposes, you could try picking up a copy of the book "Is it a choice?" (I'm blanking on the author's name.) Read through the book and at the end if you still feel the way you do today, at least you could say that you educated yourself.



Certainly from observation of relatives and individuals starting at an early age I believe there is argument for biological pre-dispostion of same sex attraction. There is less argument for changing your mind later ....
Again, I would argue that the issue isn't so much of a "change of mind" so much as having to make a decision to go against societal norms, parental beliefs, religious beliefs, etc. Probably if you sat down and asked Mr. Collins some questions he would report that he had same-sex attraction feelings from early childhood. Most gay people generally know they are gay from a very early age, even if they act heterosexual by dating or even getting married. They should not be frowned upon for this or thought of as having "changed their mind," because we as a society have essentially forced them to behave and live in ways that go against their natural feelings.


Tim Tebow who has performed at least as well as Jason Collins in his sport and who has made his ideology public has incurred merciless berating from the public as well as the media without anyone losing their job as a result. It is also not fair to claim that those who espouse and adhere to Tebow's said ideology are never bullied as much as those of Jason's ilk either because I have personally witnessed it.

What I am witnessing now could be construed as bullying by the media and the "correct" political persuasion with regard to this topic and not only those who disagree but those who don't outright endorse get quickly hammered. I once prevented a gay recruit from getting beatup in a shower during bootcamp because it was the right thing to do and not because I endorsed his lifestyle. Do I deserve to get hammered for that?
No, you do not. However, I do believe that you should get hammered for continuing to use phrases like "endorse his lifestyle." Homosexuality is not a lifestyle. It's not a behavior. It is not even defined by a behavior. Think about it: if you became celibate tomorrow and never had sex again in your life, would you not still be heterosexual? How could you be heterosexual if you are not "living the lifestyle" or carrying out that "behavior"? When you can figure out the answer to that question in your mind and then allow homosexuality to be defined in the same way, then you will no longer "deserve to get hammered."

CALVET
04-30-2013, 04:49 PM
I believe you are making an assumption that may not be true. Identical twins are not necessarily genetically or developmentally identical. Here is one link (http://www.livescience.com/24694-identical-twins-not-identical.html) explaining how genetic differences may arise.

My son who has doctorate in cell biology from (gulp) Virginia and I have had several conversations in this topic. I agree that epigenetics or the coupling during the transcription process is what really controls the expression or of genetic information and certainly environment leaves an imprint on that and subsequent development but to a much smaller degree. By definition, though, unless something in the womb affected one embryo and not the other, the genetic blueprints split from the same origin. The same process that controls appearance controls behavior. The phenotypes of identical twins are always very similar which is why they are always identified as such.

Irrespective of the biology of twins, though, it is undisputed that Jason has an ex-financee.

rsvman
04-30-2013, 04:53 PM
.....
Irrespective of the biology of twins, though, it is undisputed that Jason has an ex-financee.

Yes. I addressed this issue quite thoroughly in an earlier post.

CALVET
04-30-2013, 04:57 PM
First, many gay men have had female relationships in the past. It isn't surprising. Imagine that you grew up heterosexual in a homosexual world. You had two dads. Everywhere you looked they depicted men with men and women with women; movies, TV, commercials, conversations with friends, etc., etc. Imagine that you were completely and totally inundated from day one. Imagine further that you were told in no uncertain terms that people who were attracted to the opposite sex were perverted, evil, wrong, going to hell, etc., etc. Everytime you saw an attractive girl you felt guilty about being attracted to her. Perhaps your parents were very religious and took you to church; there the preacher told you that it was morally repugnant to like girls. That you would be thrown into a lake of fire and brimstone if you so much as thought a girl was remotely attractive. I know it's hard for those of us who are straight to imagine a world like that. But if you lived in that world, perhaps you would try to deny the fact that you were attracted to women. Maybe you would try really hard to fit in with your peers and your family; maybe you'd pray really hard that God would change you so you could be attracted to men. Is it that difficult to imagine that, in that environment, you would try to be like everybody else?

It is interesting that his biological twin isn't gay, but in and of itself that statement certainly doesn't mean that Collins made an "ideological choice." As has been mentioned, the twin of a gay person is more than 50% likely to be gay, which is obviously well above the percentage in the general population.

I have no doubt in my mind that sexual preference is NEITHER a choice NOR a "lifestyle." You are entitled to your own opinion. For educational purposes, you could try picking up a copy of the book "Is it a choice?" (I'm blanking on the author's name.) Read through the book and at the end if you still feel the way you do today, at least you could say that you educated yourself.



Again, I would argue that the issue isn't so much of a "change of mind" so much as having to make a decision to go against societal norms, parental beliefs, religious beliefs, etc. Probably if you sat down and asked Mr. Collins some questions he would report that he had same-sex attraction feelings from early childhood. Most gay people generally know they are gay from a very early age, even if they act heterosexual by dating or even getting married. They should not be frowned upon for this or thought of as having "changed their mind," because we as a society have essentially forced them to behave and live in ways that go against their natural feelings.


No, you do not. However, I do believe that you should get hammered for continuing to use phrases like "endorse his lifestyle." Homosexuality is not a lifestyle. It's not a behavior. It is not even defined by a behavior. Think about it: if you became celibate tomorrow and never had sex again in your life, would you not still be heterosexual? How could you be heterosexual if you are not "living the lifestyle" or carrying out that "behavior"? When you can figure out the answer to that question in your mind and then allow homosexuality to be defined in the same way, then you will no longer "deserve to get hammered."

Being predispositioned as gay is not a lifestyle but I was talking about the actual actions of this particular person. By sophomorically and emotionally jumping on and incorrectly interpreting a statement because of your predisposition in political persuasion, your actions are exactly what I was referring to in my initial post. By the way, I don't presume to know the pre-disposition of anyone until they tell me or demonstrate it.

CALVET
04-30-2013, 05:01 PM
It is brave because people have been beaten to death for being gay. He is a public figure, and it has not been clear that eople like him will receive welcome support. It's sort of uncharted territory. That's why it was brave.



As has been stated in previous posts, twins are not genetically identical. Not even "identical" twins are genetically identical. There is no reason that twins have to both be of the same sexual persuasion. The scientific evidence DOES suggest that a twin who is gay is MUCH more likely to have a gay twin than a straight twin. That would seem to suggest very much that it is a biological issue.



Tim Tebow has not been berated for his religious beliefs. In fact, quite the contrary. Pretty much everyone who talks about Tebow (good or bad) prefaces the discussion with "he's a wonderful human being, but..." The bashing of Tebow is that he's not a very good passer, and it is very debatable whether or not he's a capable QB at the NFL level. If anything, he's gotten more support than a player of his skill level should expect because he's such a good person and so open about his beliefs.



This should not be a political issue at all. There are gay Democrats and gay Republicans. There are anti-gay Democrats and anti-gay Republicans. Thankfully, this thread has steered clear of politics, and I hope it stays that way.

Nobody said ANYTHING about political parties??? But you're gonna have to do a lot better that just opinion about Tebow because there are COUNTLESS articles to the contrary. And yes people have been beaten to death, even in the 21st century, for subscribing to Tebow's belief.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
04-30-2013, 05:03 PM
My son who has doctorate in cell biology from (gulp) Virginia and I have had several conversations in this topic. I agree that epigenetics or the coupling during the transcription process is what really controls the expression or of genetic information and certainly environment leaves an imprint on that and subsequent development but to a much smaller degree. By definition, though, unless something in the womb affected one embryo and not the other, the genetic blueprints split from the same origin. The same process that controls appearance controls behavior. The phenotypes of identical twins are always very similar which is why they are always identified as such.

Irrespective of the biology of twins, though, it is undisputed that Jason has an ex-financee.

An ex-fiancee who he likely was engaged to because of societal pressure to stay in the closet. It wouldn't be the first, and it certainly won't be the last. Many marriages have been conscripted to misery due to social pressure to "act normal."

Oh, and for what it's worth, she's also an ex-fiance who has already made a very supportive statement of Collins saying she's happy that he's comfortable enough to be himself now.

Going back to the issue of how brave he is to do this, anyone who thinks that it's going to be all applause and accolades for Collins going forward must be missing it. Once the honeymoon feel good story is over, Collins is undoubtedly going to subjected to all manner of comments, slurs, etc from the public. Likely, he won't face much physically abuse, because he's a pretty darned big fellow. He absolutely has my respect for putting himself out there.

CALVET
04-30-2013, 05:04 PM
Just so we're clear: you've known at least one person who nearly got his teeth beaten in just for being gay, and you think it's Chris Broussard and Tim Tebow that need protecting here? Cool.

And because Jason Collins at one time dated women and has a straight twin brother, his homosexuality must be an "ideological" choice? There's, like, no other conceivable explanation for that state of affairs? Doubly cool.

I doubt if Jason at 6'10" and 250 is gonna get his teeth beat either in so your comparison is a little unfair. Show me anywhere on the professional stage where that happens in this day and age?

CALVET
04-30-2013, 05:07 PM
[QUOTE=Mountain_Devil_91_92_01_10;650009]An ex-fiancee who he likely was engaged to because of societal pressure to stay in the closet. It wouldn't be the first, and it certainly won't be the last. Many marriages have been conscripted to misery due to social pressure to "act normal."


Baloney, this was a fairly recent fiancee and at this stage in his life if he considered a permanent relationship that involved considerable resources then he changed his mind.

rsvman
04-30-2013, 05:07 PM
Being predispositioned as gay is not a lifestyle but I was talking about the actual actions of this particular person.
What "actual actions" are you referring to?


By sophomorically and emotionally jumping on and incorrectly interpreting a statement because of your predisposition in political persuasion and your actions are exactly what I was referring to in my initial post. By the way, I don't presume to know the pre-disposition of anyone until they tell me or demonstrate it.

Let me distill it further so that you can understand my point. My point is simple. There are three components.
1) If you are heterosexual, you are heterosexual even if you never have sex. Therefore, being heterosexual is not a lifestyle. I further assert that you never chose to be heterosexual. You just are.
2) The same is true of homosexuals.
3) Homosexual individuals in this society (especially in the past) have been under enormous pressure to not be homosexual. This has led some of them to dating, becoming engaged, and even getting married to persons of the opposite sex. This does not mean that they are not gay.

That's it.


I'm not sure exactly what is either sophomoric or emotional about these three points.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
04-30-2013, 05:11 PM
[QUOTE=Mountain_Devil_91_92_01_10;650009]An ex-fiancee who he likely was engaged to because of societal pressure to stay in the closet. It wouldn't be the first, and it certainly won't be the last. Many marriages have been conscripted to misery due to social pressure to "act normal."


Baloney, this was a fairly recent fiancee and at this stage in his life if he considered a permanent relationship that involved considerable resources then he changed his mind.

Yes, this was fairly recent. That's sort of the nature of "coming out" - you have heretofore been closeted.

So, are you suggesting that Jason Collins, since deciding to walk away from his marriage for some other reasons, was sitting around his apartment and decided "Hey, maybe I'll be gay for awhile!"

You are living in a dream world if you don't think there are hundreds of thousands of gay men and women who are miserable, married, and closeted. Their partners are miserable, married, and confused.

CALVET
04-30-2013, 05:11 PM
For the record, I'm not disagreeing with your politics, but the facts do not support what you've written here. As some have mentioned upthread, identical twins are not purely genetically or epigenetically identical. Additionally, there are relatively few genetic traits that display 100% penetrance. Environmental influences (such as the prenatal maternal environment which can, in fact, vary for twins, or exposure to various compounds) affect many phenotypes, and also could hardly be said to be ideological choices. So, while there is a higher likelihood of identical twins both being gay than siblings, or than unrelateds, having a discordant twin pair in no way means that a trait is not genetic.

Second, I love the idea of human behavior being as genetically determined as you suggest in the second part about him having had female relationships. Would make for some interesting studies and study designs!

Per an earlier post, I specifically said the twins are not epigenetically identical but the differences are very minor.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
04-30-2013, 05:16 PM
Per an earlier post, I specifically said the twins are not epigenetically identical but the differences are very minor.

And one of those minor differences is that one is gay and one is straight. Next topic.

CALVET
04-30-2013, 05:18 PM
[QUOTE=CALVET;650011]

Yes, this was fairly recent. That's sort of the nature of "coming out" - you have heretofore been closeted.

So, are you suggesting that Jason Collins, since deciding to walk away from his marriage for some other reasons, was sitting around his apartment and decided "Hey, maybe I'll be gay for awhile!"

You are living in a dream world if you don't think there are hundreds of thousands of gay men and women who are miserable, married, and closeted. Their partners are miserable, married, and confused.

At the very least, then, he misrepresented himself to his ex. and nobody is forcing these people to be with each other. Your arguments that some din't really know who they were initially is actually counterproductive to the biological argument and essentially fuels the argument of DOMA act supporters that eventually petitions will surface for marriages that include more than one sex of each partner.

CDu
04-30-2013, 05:19 PM
Nobody said ANYTHING about political parties??? But you're gonna have to do a lot better that just opinion about Tebow because there are COUNTLESS articles to the contrary. And yes people have been beaten to death, even in the 21st century, for subscribing to Tebow's belief.

And you're going to have to do better than just saying there are "COUNTLESS" articles bashing Tebow's religious beliefs. Because I guarantee you that there are WAY more articles lauding his religious beliefs. And if he's so persecuted, why has his jersey been among the highest-selling jerseys in the NFL despite being only a part-time starter?

As for your argument that people have been beaten to death for being anti-gay (I'm assuming you don't simply mean being religious, because I'd call shenanigans in a hurry if you did mean that), I assure you that the number of homosexuals who have suffered at the hands of anti-gay believers than the other way around.

CALVET
04-30-2013, 05:19 PM
And one of those minor differences is that one is gay and one is straight. Next topic.

You need more than opinion to argue that is minor.

Duvall
04-30-2013, 05:21 PM
Your arguments that some din't really know who they were initially is actually counterproductive to the biological argument and essentially fuels the argument of DOMA act supporters that eventually petitions will surface for marriages that include more than one sex of each partner.

What?

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
04-30-2013, 05:21 PM
[QUOTE=Mountain_Devil_91_92_01_10;650013]

At the very least, then, he misrepresented himself to his ex. and nobody is forcing these people to be with each other. Your arguments that some din't really know who they were initially is actually counterproductive to the biological argument and essentially fuels the argument of DOMA act supporters that eventually petitions will surface for marriages that include more than one sex of each partner.

Actually, thousands of people are forcing these people to be together. And yes, that's the point of being closeted - you are dishonest with everyone. This is why the coming out process is such a rite of passage for homosexuals. They are finally comfortable in their own skin, and ready to be honest with everyone.

And no, I'm saying that he knew exactly what he was, and nearly resigned himself and his wife to a miserable marriage of lies.

CDu
04-30-2013, 05:22 PM
At the very least, then, he misrepresented himself to his ex. and nobody is forcing these people to be with each other. Your arguments that some din't really know who they were initially is actually counterproductive to the biological argument and essentially fuels the argument of DOMA act supporters that eventually petitions will surface for marriages that include more than one sex of each partner.

The argument isn't that homosexuals don't know who they are. They do. They just try to not be who they are because society has, for a LONG time, told them that who they are is wrong. Some people suffer through that lie for their entire lives. Some people become so upset that they commit/attempt suicide. And some people just eventually accept who they are and build up the confidence to tell others.

CALVET
04-30-2013, 05:23 PM
And you're going to have to do better than just saying there are "COUNTLESS" articles bashing Tebow's religious beliefs. Because I guarantee you that there are WAY more articles lauding his religious beliefs. And if he's so persecuted, why has his jersey been among the highest-selling jerseys in the NFL despite being only a part-time starter?

As for your argument that people have been beaten to death for being anti-gay (I'm assuming you don't simply mean being religious, because I'd call shenanigans in a hurry if you did mean that), I assure you that the number of homosexuals who have suffered at the hands of anti-gay believers than the other way around.

I didn't say people have been beaten to death for being anti-gay. Call shenanigans if you want because I'll provide stats, especially on the other side of the globe if you'll provide the stats for homosexual celebreties (which is what Jason is) being beaten to death in the U.S. within the last 20 years.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
04-30-2013, 05:24 PM
You need more than opinion to argue that is minor.

Many of the people on this thread have been saying that being gay is no big deal, so why is the media tripping all over themselves - I assumed you believed the same. Forgive me. Being gay is a huge deal. Therefore, being the only gay, out, professional athlete is also an astronomical deal.

I'm resigning from this thread, it is only going to get me in trouble. I wish you well, and I hope that you take time to further consider some of your views on this topic.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Go Duke!
Go Collins!

CALVET
04-30-2013, 05:25 PM
The argument isn't that homosexuals don't know who they are. They do. They just try to not be who they are because society has, for a LONG time, told them that who they are is wrong. Some people suffer through that lie for their entire lives. Some people become so upset that they commit/attempt suicide. And some people just eventually accept who they are and build up the confidence to tell others.

I have no problem with anyone admitting who they are and I protected someone who did that 40 years ago. Why does it need to be covered in a press conference?

_Gary
04-30-2013, 05:25 PM
And you're going to have to do better than just saying there are "COUNTLESS" articles bashing Tebow's religious beliefs. Because I guarantee you that there are WAY more articles lauding his religious beliefs. And if he's so persecuted, why has his jersey been among the highest-selling jerseys in the NFL despite being only a part-time starter?

As for your argument that people have been beaten to death for being anti-gay (I'm assuming you don't simply mean being religious, because I'd call shenanigans in a hurry if you did mean that), I assure you that the number of homosexuals who have suffered at the hands of anti-gay believers than the other way around.

Not sure about the percentage of pro vs anti "Tebow's very religious" articles and such. From my perspective (and I admit this is anecdotal) he got bashed more than lauded for his faith. But I've never "crunched the numbers" on that one.

As for your second paragraph, I can say categorically and without hesitation that M-A-N-Y people are persecuted daily specifically for their faith. And some of the persecution does indeed involve violent death. It just may not happen here in America. But trust me, it happens - alot!

CALVET
04-30-2013, 05:26 PM
Many of the people on this thread have been saying that being gay is no big deal, so why is the media tripping all over themselves - I assumed you believed the same. Forgive me. Being gay is a huge deal. Therefore, being the only gay, out, professional athlete is also an astronomical deal.

I'm resigning from this thread, it is only going to get me in trouble. I wish you well, and I hope that you take time to further consider some of your views on this topic.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Go Duke!
Go Collins!

Mountain, I commend you for your civility and I say that in all seriousness.

CDu
04-30-2013, 05:27 PM
I didn't say people have been beaten to death for being anti-gay. Call shenanigans if you want because I'll provide stats, especially on the other side of the globe if you'll provide the stats for homosexual celebreties (which is what Jason is) being beaten to death in the U.S. within the last 20 years.

We're talking about the US here, not the Middle East, Africa, or Eastern Europe. I'll provide you stats on gay bashing deaths when you provide me stats on people being killed because they are Christian in the US.

And no one is arguing that someone is going to beat Jason Collins to death (or at all). But you are being incredibly naive or willfully ostentatious if you think that the issue is Jason Collins' safety. This is much bigger than Jason Collins. It's more about the step towards the teenage boy who can hopefully someday not be afraid to tell his world who he is.

CDu
04-30-2013, 05:29 PM
As for your second paragraph, I can say categorically and without hesitation that M-A-N-Y people are persecuted daily specifically for their faith. And some of the persecution does indeed involve violent death. It just may not happen here in America. But trust me, it happens - alot!

As I noted, we're talking about the US here. Not Africa, not the Middle East, not Eastern Europe. We're talking about the society that WE live in. And in the US, I can categorically and without hesitation say that M-A-N-Y more people are persecuted for their sexual orientation than their faith.

BD80
04-30-2013, 05:31 PM
Jason Collins has made approximately $34 million over the course of his NBA career. I don't know what he's done with all that money, but a kid coming from a very good family, who went to an outstanding private high school and then graduated from Stanford is likely to have handled his money intelligently. I don't think some speaking engagements and a few endorsements would likely make a significant impact on his long-term financial situation.

Umm, if those "speaking engagements" include Oprah, Ellen, Letterman and Barbara Walters' year's top 10 interesting people? Anybody care for a wager? I bet he gets a major mag photo cover by year end (including the man-of-the-year type issues early next year). He'll probably be on SI's cover this week. This is guest host with Kelly Ripa kind of publicity.


I have a lot to say about this but I've been told I have to be careful. I'm of the wrong political persuasion for this board.

You shouldn't be so persuadable.


... Irrespective of the biology of twins, though, it is undisputed that Jason has an ex-financee.

Divorced men everywhere nod in agreement with the spelling.

Like Bing Bang creator Chuck Lorre, I support gay marriage, gay couples have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us.

CDu
04-30-2013, 05:32 PM
I have no problem with anyone admitting who they are and I protected someone who did that 40 years ago. Why does it need to be covered in a press conference?

It doesn't. But this is bigger than Jason Collins. Jason Collins is trying to take a step toward making it easier for teenagers (and adults) who are gay to be themselves. Once enough people come out publicly and all of society realizes that it's no big deal (and kids can feel safe/comfortable to be themselves), then there won't be need for a press conference. We're not there yet.

CALVET
04-30-2013, 05:35 PM
As I noted, we're talking about the US here. Not Africa, not the Middle East, not Eastern Europe. We're talking about the society that WE live in. And in the US, I can categorically and without hesitation say that M-A-N-Y more people are persecuted for their sexual orientation than their faith.

Yes, we are talking about the U.S. because gays are treated better here than those places you're talking about.

_Gary
04-30-2013, 05:36 PM
As I noted, we're talking about the US here. Not Africa, not the Middle East, not Eastern Europe. We're talking about the society that WE live in. And in the US, I can categorically and without hesitation say that M-A-N-Y more people are persecuted for their sexual orientation than their faith.

I'd say it depends on how one defines "persecution." On a physical abuse level, I'd absolutely agree with you and roundly condemn any idiot that engages in such behavior. On a more subtle level, I'm not as sure. If soceital pressure through things like osterization is included in the definition, it might be closer than you think here in 2013.

CDu
04-30-2013, 05:36 PM
Yes, we are talking about the U.S. because gays are treated better here than those places you're talking about.

And still far far far worse than how Christians are treated here. What's your point exactly?

CALVET
04-30-2013, 05:37 PM
It doesn't. But this is bigger than Jason Collins. Jason Collins is trying to take a step toward making it easier for teenagers (and adults) who are gay to be themselves. Once enough people come out publicly and all of society realizes that it's no big deal (and kids can feel safe/comfortable to be themselves), then there won't be need for a press conference. We're not there yet.

Back to my original point, the pushiness is only going to get people fed up who otherwise wouldn't care.

CDu
04-30-2013, 05:38 PM
I'd say it depends on how one defines "persecution." On a physical abuse level, I'd absolutely agree with you and roundly condemn any idiot that engages in such behavior. On a more subtle level, I'm not as sure. If soceital pressure through things like osterization is included in the definition, it might be closer than you think here in 2013.

I'd argue that in the US it is not close on ANY level. It's getting closer, but it's still not close.

CALVET
04-30-2013, 05:38 PM
And still far far far worse than how Christians are treated here. What's your point exactly?

You'll need to prove that.

CDu
04-30-2013, 05:40 PM
Back to my original point, the pushiness is only going to get people fed up who otherwise wouldn't care.

Pushiness by whom? Homosexuals who just want to be able to be themselves and not feel threatened? People who want homosexuals to be able to be themselves and not feel threatened?

CALVET
04-30-2013, 05:40 PM
Umm, if those "speaking engagements" include Oprah, Ellen, Letterman and Barbara Walters' year's top 10 interesting people? Anybody care for a wager? I bet he gets a major mag photo cover by year end (including the man-of-the-year type issues early next year). He'll probably be on SI's cover this week. This is guest host with Kelly Ripa kind of publicity.



You shouldn't be so persuadable.



Divorced men everywhere nod in agreement with the spelling.

Like Bing Bang creator Chuck Lorre, I support gay marriage, gay couples have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us.

By golly, we needed a little bit of humor here.

CDu
04-30-2013, 05:41 PM
You'll need to prove that.

Actually, no, I don't need to prove that. If you don't believe it, then I'm afraid we're at an end because you clearly don't have perspective on what goes on in US society.

_Gary
04-30-2013, 05:42 PM
I'd argue that in the US it is not close on ANY level. It's getting closer, but it's still not close.

Okay, but at least we have some common ground in that we both see the level of persecution evening out (if that makes any sense - probably not). By that I mean things are getting better for gay people and the causes that would be near and dear to their hearts but worse for very religious people and the causes that are near and dear to their hearts. Yes? No?

CALVET
04-30-2013, 05:44 PM
Pushiness by whom? Homosexuals who just want to be able to be themselves and not feel threatened? People who want homosexuals to be able to be themselves and not feel threatened?


CDU, Let's agree to disagree as I try to bow out gracefully.

CDu
04-30-2013, 05:50 PM
Okay, but at least we have some common ground in that we both see the level of persecution evening out (if that makes any sense - probably not). By that I mean things are getting better for gay people and the causes that would be near and dear to their hearts but worse for very religious people and the causes that are near and dear to their hearts. Yes? No?

I'd say it this way:
1. things are getting better (and hopefully quickly) for gay people, and it is getting closer to accepted for them to be themselves
2. things are getting worse for people who are anti-gay
3. things aren't getting worse for all people of any religious faith in the US (i.e., not all religious people are anti-gay)
4. the difference between #1 and #2 is still fairly drastic, but the gap is closing

CALVET
04-30-2013, 05:51 PM
Actually, no, I don't need to prove that. If you don't believe it, then I'm afraid we're at an end because you clearly don't have perspective on what goes on in US society.

As I said before, I'll agree to disagree with civility and even if you think 56 years of living all over the U.S. from places like Louisville as well as San Francisco doesn't provide me with any insight I recognize your right to opine as such.

CDu
04-30-2013, 05:51 PM
CDU, Let's agree to disagree as I try to bow out gracefully.

Yes, based on one of your previous posts, I think it's best that we agree to disagree. And thank you, as well, for keeping it as civil as possible given the subject matter.

_Gary
04-30-2013, 06:02 PM
I'd say it this way:
1. things are getting better (and hopefully quickly) for gay people, and it is getting closer to accepted for them to be themselves
2. things are getting worse for people who are anti-gay
3. things aren't getting worse for all people of any religious faith in the US (i.e., not all religious people are anti-gay)
4. the difference between #1 and #2 is still fairly drastic, but the gap is closing

I'd probably qualify some of that a bit more, but it wouldn't add anything to the discussion so I'll just end it here.

Take care.

antseg
04-30-2013, 06:05 PM
I'm just going to try to circle this back around.

I am pleasantly surprised at the amount of positive support Collins has gotten among the NBA community. One of the problems I do have is the "Fthehaters" that a few players threw out there. I think it would be more apt to link it back to the Grant Hill "Think Before you Speak" campaign.

Obviously it is hard to turn that into a hashtag (maybe "#educatethosewhosegregate"?).

As for Collins the player, I'll be the first to admit I had some Hairston-esque anger issues when he played for the Nets (please do not look into this further than me saying I did not appreciate what each of them brought to the table). There is a good Insider article about Collins being a "no stat allstar": (http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/9226929/nba-jason-collins-no-stats-all-star), which points out his solid defense a la a poor man's Battier.

Reilly
04-30-2013, 09:10 PM
Where did I say "laws only reflect prejudice or bigotry?" Where did I remotely imply that?

My point is that lots of legislators agree with the premise that same-sex sexual orientation is a lifestyle choice that should not be recognized in the legal code.

I'm hardly out on a limb here. My home state recently has enshrined a ban on same-sex marriage in the state constitution. Any further comment by me would send this into public-policy issues that would threaten the continuation of this thread. But please don't misrepresent what I wrote. It worries my disposition.

When you wrote "[t]here is still prejudice to overcome and much of that is pretty intrenched, both in society and in the legal system", I read you as implying that the legal system that has bans on same sex marriage is a function of the entrenched prejudice, and that such bans can have no permissible reasoning behind them.

Many states have bans like you mention. Other states have recently changed their laws to do the exact opposite.

My point -- a simple point, really -- is that in the states that have bans like you mention, some of the rationale undergirding such a ban might be hatred or disapproval .... and, importantly, some of the rationale will be more high-minded and will have nothing to do with hatred or disapproval at all. Therefore, if the ban is "entrenched" (that is, remains in the legal system), and it has nothing to do with a bad purpose or prejudice -- but rather is the result of a proper rationale -- then such entrenchment is not necessarily a bad thing at all, and it's OK that the ban is entrenched.

I was reading you as saying such bans are *only* the result of prejudice -- that they are entrenched due to prejudice, that they remain in law due to prejudice, and that they have no business being in the law. Sorry if I misstated your position, and I'm glad if that is not your position and you realize the permissible, high-minded reasoning behind such bans.

mapleleafdevil
04-30-2013, 09:17 PM
This is crazy to me. I can't believe it is such a big deal. It just feels so 1985. Seems like such a non issue. I guess it is just surprising that he is the first.

Lord Ash
04-30-2013, 10:06 PM
A funny note; I was going to discuss this today with my sixth graders as a current event. I was considering maybe even having them read and pull apart Collins piece (we do a lot of that with non fiction, and this is topical, interesting, and "deep") but thought I'd go to my principal first, just to see if that would be okay. He asked that maybe I not bring it up at all, but only discuss it if the kids brought it up first. I didn't have the heart to tell him that we spent several days discussing the DOMA and Prop 8 Supreme Court cases:)

I am surprised that this doesn't seem like a big deal. In the "world" maybe it is not but in the much smaller world of men's team sports it certainly is, as the first of anything usually is. But generally younger people are far more accepting of homosexuality (however you want to define it) so maybe we shouldn't be surprised that there is as much positive support from the athletes themselves, who are generally younger folks?

I, for one, am very glad. To me this feels remarkably like the struggle our country went through regarding African Americans went through some years back (heck, that pushy comment sounds remarkably like the infamous "uppity Negro" refrain to these ears...) and I am surprised that more people don't feel the same way. I have hope that, as our younger Americans grow up, our nation itself will grow in its power as a beacon for justice, acceptance, and tolerance, as we as a nation grew from one crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination to a nation that could, mere decades later, as our youth who were forged in the cruicible of the Civil Rights era grew up, elect a black man as President.

oldnavy
05-01-2013, 04:59 PM
I have waited to post on this thread and really debated if I should or not, but what the heck.

The discussion has been civil (at least the posts that didn't get deleted) and I appreciate the Mods for allowing this topic to be hashed out here.

The only comment I would like to add is in regard to the question: is sexual orientation a choice or not? To me that really isnt the question at all. The question is: is the act of homosexuality, right or wrong? And of course how you answer this is based on a number of things, including your values, your religious background and beliefs, and your life experiences. All of these things (and more) shape our opinions regarding what we believe is acceptable and what is not.

So, if you think that homosexual activity is acceptable, then does it really matter if homosexuality is a choice or not. I'd say it doesn't matter if you find nothing wrong with it.

But what if you do not think that way regarding homosexuality? Again, does it matter if it is a choice or not? Again, I'd say no. If you regard the act(s) as being wrong, then being "born" that way would make little difference. Would you accept an argument from your spouse that they were "born" to be serially unfaithful? Well, you might if you didn't think that monogamy was important, but you probably wouldn't if you felt that it was.

I think the whole discussion on homosexuality has to go back to where you get your value system from and how do you deciede what is right and what is wrong.

As a Christian I have my guideance on this subject and I will always follow that irregardless of social "norms" or popularity. Equally, I have guideance and instruction on how to treat all people specifically - with compassion, respect and love. I will never "suport" anything that goes against my faith, but I will never hate people just because they do not share my values because I am commanded to love them and not judge them. It is not always easy, but it is also, never optional. Love your neighbor as yourself, is not a suggestion.

CALVET
05-01-2013, 05:05 PM
I have one final thoughtful and hopefully diplomatic statement to make on the issue and I certainly appreciated the gracefull closure with CDu and Mountain Devil. I hope the monitors will recognize the goodwill in my intent with this post as well.

First, I apologize if I used words in my original post that may be sensitive to some who very passionate about this issue as at least one unflattering post addressed to me was censored by the monitors late last night.

Second, If an openly gay player were to be recruited and signed by Duke it would not affect my either my support for the team or that player in the least.

Growing up in a mixed community during the turmoil of the 60s, I am discouraged when words like "bigot" and statements like "one group oppresses another" are carelessly tossed about with regard to something central to a person's spiritual life because they leave no room for live and let live while agreeing to disagree.

Using a word like "bigot" to describe a religious orientation would seem that the user is applying the same intolerance that they are ascribing to the object of the statement. Most religious objection to same gender sexual activity has no condemnation of simply the celibate state of being homosexual (though I'm unsure of some Islamic sects and obviously Westboro followers). In addition, implying that everyone subscribing to one group oppresses everyone in another group is obviously not true, intellectually lazy, and hurtful to some.

I have enjoyed reading comments on this board for years though I've posted very infrequently. Please don't assume that our shared loved for Duke basketball gives license to anything else and I will do the same. Chris Broussard was not surprised at the response to his statement but if some feel he should be fired or punished for telling the truth when asked about his convictions toward both homosexual activity or even improper heterosexual activity then they are saying that those of that spiritual following must either lie or forever be silent.

It may be a long time until absolute scientific correlation can be made with regard to empirical experiences like sexual orientation or even near death encounters but until then I hope and pray we can find some common ground on this issue.

CDu
05-01-2013, 05:36 PM
Growing up in a mixed community during the turmoil of the 60s, I am discouraged when words like "bigot" and statements like "one group oppresses another" are carelessly tossed about with regard to something central to a person's spiritual life because they leave no room for live and let live while agreeing to disagree.

Using a word like "bigot" to describe a religious orientation would seem that the user is applying the same intolerance that they are ascribing to the object of the statement. Most religious objection, including most likely that of Jabari, Semi, Tebow, and Broussard, to same gender sexual activity has no condemnation of simply the celibate state of being homosexual (though I'm unsure of some Islamic sects and obviously Westboro followers). In addition, implying that everyone subscribing to one group oppresses everyone in another group is obviously not true, intellectually lazy, and hurtful to some.

I assume this comment was directed mainly at me. If so, I want to correct something. Nowhere have I said (or even suggested) that all individuals who don't condone homosexuality or homosexual acts are actively oppressing homosexuals. In fact, I feel quite the opposite (especially with each passing day). My point was that members of that group have oppressed homosexuals. It may now only be a small minority of the members of that group that are oppressing (either through physical intimidation or hurtful words/practices). But it has long been a large enough percentage that life has been made REALLY uncomfortable for homosexuals for many years.

I do not begrudge someone holding an opinion that differs from mine based on their religious beliefs, so long as those beliefs don't negatively affect others. It sounds like you may well fall in that category. And though I definitely don't share them, I do respect your beliefs. And I appreciate that you and I had a mostly civil discussion on the topic.

My disagreement comes not with having the belief but the actions that many have taken over time to mistreat homosexuals. This is pretty well-documented and I'm not going to take the time to point out examples. But suffice to say that homosexuals have been very much mistreated over the years. Not by everyone, but by enough to make it an issue.

The point being, please don't assume I'm painting a broad brush. The "oppression" has come entirely from those within a particular group - not all members of that particular group. I just want to make that clear.


Chris Broussard was not surprised at the response to his statement but if some feel he should be fired or punished for telling the truth when asked about his convictions toward both homosexual activity or even improper heterosexual activity then they are saying that those of that spiritual following must either lie or forever be silent.

I certainly do not think Broussard should be fired for his comments. I don't agree with them at all, but they're his beliefs and he was asked to give them (with the reporter already knowing what he'd say). But I don't think he should be fired for his comments, nor do I generally think folks should be fired for their religious beliefs (as opposed to say, racist comments). And I suspect he won't be fired. While I don't think he's good at his job, I also don't think he should be punished for his religious beliefs.


We probably shouldn't put words in the mouths of anyone, including Duke players.

Well said.

jipops
05-01-2013, 07:34 PM
I have also been quite happy about this news, inevitable and long-time coming. It is somewhat interesting that basketball is the first men's professional sport for this. I wonder how long it will take football and baseball to follow? There is a different dynamic to both.

I think collectively the country is gradually accepting that one's sexual orientation really has nothing to do with what kind of person he/she actually is. Character and integrity has no correlation.

With regard to Broussard, while I disagree with him, I hope he isn't fired over it. That would simply violate principles some of us have been sticking up for.

ncexnyc
05-01-2013, 07:39 PM
I didn't bother with the Lance Thomas thread as it was all discussed before. I haven't bothered reponding to this thread as it really doesn't have anything to do with Duke basketball.

However since it continues to drag on and after reading through all of the posts on this thread I'll quote this line from one of the all-time great war movies.

HARTMAN: Private Joker is silly and he's ignorant, but he's got guts, and guts is enough. Now, you ladies carry on.

JOKER, COWBOY & PYLE: Sir, aye-aye, sir!

Buckeye Devil
05-01-2013, 09:05 PM
I have waited to post on this thread and really debated if I should or not, but what the heck.

The discussion has been civil (at least the posts that didn't get deleted) and I appreciate the Mods for allowing this topic to be hashed out here.

The only comment I would like to add is in regard to the question: is sexual orientation a choice or not? To me that really isnt the question at all. The question is: is the act of homosexuality, right or wrong? And of course how you answer this is based on a number of things, including your values, your religious background and beliefs, and your life experiences. All of these things (and more) shape our opinions regarding what we believe is acceptable and what is not.

So, if you think that homosexual activity is acceptable, then does it really matter if homosexuality is a choice or not. I'd say it doesn't matter if you find nothing wrong with it.

But what if you do not think that way regarding homosexuality? Again, does it matter if it is a choice or not? Again, I'd say no. If you regard the act(s) as being wrong, then being "born" that way would make little difference. Would you accept an argument from your spouse that they were "born" to be serially unfaithful? Well, you might if you didn't think that monogamy was important, but you probably wouldn't if you felt that it was.

I think the whole discussion on homosexuality has to go back to where you get your value system from and how do you deciede what is right and what is wrong.

As a Christian I have my guideance on this subject and I will always follow that irregardless of social "norms" or popularity. Equally, I have guideance and instruction on how to treat all people specifically - with compassion, respect and love. I will never "suport" anything that goes against my faith, but I will never hate people just because they do not share my values because I am commanded to love them and not judge them. It is not always easy, but it is also, never optional. Love your neighbor as yourself, is not a suggestion.

Well said, Old Navy.

coldriver10
05-01-2013, 09:52 PM
I have not followed the most recent pages of this thread, so I apologize if this repeats what others have said. And it is a bit off-topic from the Jason Collins story.

To me, at the core of the gay rights issue and my support for their community as a heterosexual ally predominantly lies in my belief in the separation of Church and State. First, I do believe people are born with a particular sexual preference (although one's exact location along the heterosexual-homosexual spectrum is often affected by one's experiences as well), and as such, I don't believe that being homosexual or engaging in such activities is a sin. Could I be wrong? Sure. But that's what I believe. Now, this doesn't at all mean that I disparage those who believe homosexuality is a sin. I mean, they could be right for all I know!

But what gets me is the lack of equal legal rights for the gay community. Tax deductions, estate power, healthcare power of attorney, etc etc. The list of legal discrimination against this marginalized group goes on and on, and discrimination is really the best term for it. What happened to the idea of separation of Church and State? I realize our forefathers specifically meant to reject any state's attempt to espouse a single Christian denomination, but now that our country is more diverse than it was hundreds of years ago, the principle remains the same. Can't we argue for the legal rights for all people, even if we don't necessarily agree with everything people do? I mean, I don't know if I would have gotten an abortion had I ever been put in that position, but I'm still pro-choice. And if they want to call it "civil union" instead of "marriage"? Fine! A church refuses to marry gay people? No problem! But the government should not discriminate against an entire group of people because Church doctrine says they're sinning. And not even all Christians believe that anyway.

Just my 2 cents. Anyway, I hope I didn't offend anyone as that was not at all my intention. Regardless of how one view's Jason Collins' lifestyle, I hope we can all agree it took a lot of courage to do what he did! (And I personally hope he is the first of many active athletes to come out to the point where, eventually, it's no longer announcement-worthy.)

DaleDuke7
05-01-2013, 10:52 PM
What I'm about to say is probably going to be very different from many of the other posts on here. But while I acknowledge their right to post what they believe, I also hope others acknowledge my right to do the same. So, here goes: I am a Christian. I believe homosexuality is a sin, like the Bible says. I do not applaud Jason Collins for coming out, nor do I applaud any of the people that support his decision. That being said, I also do not support people who physically or verbally attack homosexuals. I believe the right way to go about it, as a Christian, is to let homosexuals know that it is not right. Invite them to church. Christians are supposed to love everyone. I love the soul of everyone, even gays. As you may have heard before, "hate the sin, not the sinner". Personally, if I were an NBA player, I would not be comfortable with a gay player in the same locker room as me. With the ultimate goal of life, for me, being to go to Heaven, I do hope that people who are now gay, turn from their ways and go to Heaven one day. I don't wish anyone to hell. And I honestly believe that the massive support from lots of people, especially the Obamas, are part of the reason that this country is going downhill. Not directly from the Jason Collins deal, but from the nation turning away from God as a whole. The Jason Collins deal is just a small illustration. I'm not judging anyone, just stating the truth. I also think its kind of crazy for a guy like Tim Tebow to state he is a Christian, and some of the media just want him to keep it to himself. But Jason Collins comes out, and the media is saying he is an inspiration. Props to Chris Broussard for saying what he did, in the right way.

WakeDevil
05-01-2013, 11:02 PM
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/05/01/a-sportscaster-comes-out-as-ch

Broussard spoiled the festivities by bringing up God, whose celebrity continues to dim. The ruminations of rappers and reality stars now count for more than passages from the Bible.

Last week the media informed those perplexed by the FBI’s lax oversight of the Boston bombers that good Americans shouldn’t care what people think, that the FBI was right not to give heightened scrutiny to people who dabble in jihadist thought. But that same media takes a great deal of interest in the thinking of Christians and monitors them very carefully. Christians, unless they change their thoughts, don’t belong in public life, according to America’s ruling class. They are “un-American,” as actor Tom Hanks once put it in an unguarded moment.

Bill O’Reilly is also concerned that “thumping the Bible” somehow lowers our public discourse. Who needs the word of God when we have the tweets of Michelle Obama? From now on, Christian Broussard will be expected to leave his Bible in the closet.

Des Esseintes
05-01-2013, 11:47 PM
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/05/01/a-sportscaster-comes-out-as-ch

Broussard spoiled the festivities by bringing up God, whose celebrity continues to dim. The ruminations of rappers and reality stars now count for more than passages from the Bible.

Last week the media informed those perplexed by the FBI’s lax oversight of the Boston bombers that good Americans shouldn’t care what people think, that the FBI was right not to give heightened scrutiny to people who dabble in jihadist thought. But that same media takes a great deal of interest in the thinking of Christians and monitors them very carefully. Christians, unless they change their thoughts, don’t belong in public life, according to America’s ruling class. They are “un-American,” as actor Tom Hanks once put it in an unguarded moment.

Bill O’Reilly is also concerned that “thumping the Bible” somehow lowers our public discourse. Who needs the word of God when we have the tweets of Michelle Obama? From now on, Christian Broussard will be expected to leave his Bible in the closet.

This statement is breathtaking in its paranoia and falsity. Almost 90% of Congress identifies as Christian. Most of the remainder is Jewish and Mormon. There is one atheist Congressman. By what reasonable standard can American's "ruling class" be considered hostile to Christianity?

Plenty of us Christians think it's perfectly fine to be gay, too. So maybe you can go easy on speaking for the Creator?

tommy
05-02-2013, 12:17 AM
I have waited to post on this thread and really debated if I should or not, but what the heck.

The discussion has been civil (at least the posts that didn't get deleted) and I appreciate the Mods for allowing this topic to be hashed out here.

The only comment I would like to add is in regard to the question: is sexual orientation a choice or not? To me that really isnt the question at all. The question is: is the act of homosexuality, right or wrong? And of course how you answer this is based on a number of things, including your values, your religious background and beliefs, and your life experiences. All of these things (and more) shape our opinions regarding what we believe is acceptable and what is not.

So, if you think that homosexual activity is acceptable, then does it really matter if homosexuality is a choice or not. I'd say it doesn't matter if you find nothing wrong with it.

But what if you do not think that way regarding homosexuality? Again, does it matter if it is a choice or not? Again, I'd say no. If you regard the act(s) as being wrong, then being "born" that way would make little difference. Would you accept an argument from your spouse that they were "born" to be serially unfaithful? Well, you might if you didn't think that monogamy was important, but you probably wouldn't if you felt that it was.

I think the whole discussion on homosexuality has to go back to where you get your value system from and how do you deciede what is right and what is wrong.

As a Christian I have my guideance on this subject and I will always follow that irregardless of social "norms" or popularity. Equally, I have guideance and instruction on how to treat all people specifically - with compassion, respect and love. I will never "suport" anything that goes against my faith, but I will never hate people just because they do not share my values because I am commanded to love them and not judge them. It is not always easy, but it is also, never optional. Love your neighbor as yourself, is not a suggestion.

First of all, I want to complement the mods for allowing this thread to carry on as it has, even though there have been posts that are at or over the PPB line and some that have bordered on incivility. I'm sure you've deleted some as well, but haven't let that cause you to lock this thread up. It's obviously an important issue to lots of folks on the boards, and I think I speak for many when I saw we appreciate your letting the conversation continue.

Now, Old Navy, you've got to help me out here, because I'm having a hard time following what it is that you're saying. It seems that you're saying is that what matters is how one regards the "act" of homosexuality, which I take you to mean gay sex. If one believes that engaging in that act is wrong, then the issue of whether the perpetrator of the act has chosen to be a homosexual or whether his being a homosexual and having homosexual feelings is a natural, immutable characteristic, is irrelevant. Do I have that right so far?

If so, then what you oppose is folks actually engaging in gay sex, not having homosexual feelings or being attracted to people of the same gender. It's only when they act on those feelings that they cross a line in your mind into the territory of what is "wrong." Is that still right? If so, then my first question for you is: What if two men told you that they felt sexual attraction to each other. They were in a relationship based on the fact that they enjoyed being with each other. They created a life together -- living together, caring for each other, socializing as a couple, traveling, even raising adopted children. They love each other. But they didn't actually engage in any sexual activity. They were celibate. In all other respects a fully-lived adult, monogamous relationship, but just no sexual acts. How would you feel about them? How would you feel about them living that lifestyle? If they're not doing anything that you consider to be "wrong," then would you have any problem in affording them full legal rights, such as a healthcare power of attorney, legal rights of survivorship, tax deductions, and the whole host of other rights that heterosexual partners enjoy? If not, why not?

You state in your post, as have others in this thread, that your faith teaches you not to hate and not to judge, but to treat all people with compassion and respect, and to love your neighbor. You even said this is "never optional." Not to judge them. Can you explain how your disapproval of gay people due to the homosexual conduct (most of them) engage in does not constitute "judging" them?

Finally, to go back to the gay relationship-but-celibate scenario I posed a couple of paragraphs ago, now add to it that you are having a conversation with a gay person who is in one such relationship, and he tells you that there is no question in his mind that his being gay is not something he chose, that he has felt that way since early childhood and it is as much a part of who he is as the color of his eyes, hair, and skin, and there's nothing he can or would do about it. Do you think you would be able to look that man in the face and tell him either a) I don't believe you. You have chosen this. Or b) Be that as it may, but nevertheless you must forever repress the drive for sexual expression that all human beings possess, if you want to be "approved of" by not just me, but by God? Would you tell him either of those things? If not, why not?

Thanks.


What I'm about to say is probably going to be very different from many of the other posts on here. But while I acknowledge their right to post what they believe, I also hope others acknowledge my right to do the same. So, here goes: I am a Christian. I believe homosexuality is a sin, like the Bible says. I do not applaud Jason Collins for coming out, nor do I applaud any of the people that support his decision. That being said, I also do not support people who physically or verbally attack homosexuals. I believe the right way to go about it, as a Christian, is to let homosexuals know that it is not right. Invite them to church. Christians are supposed to love everyone. I love the soul of everyone, even gays. As you may have heard before, "hate the sin, not the sinner".

"Hate the sin, not the sinner." Huh. Heard that one a lot. Unless the sinner actually commits the sin? Well maybe not hate him, but is it OK to discriminate against him for having committed the sin? If it is OK to discriminate against him for having committed the sin, where is the line in your mind between discrimination and hate? If it's not OK to discriminate against him for having committed the sin, then may I assume you have no problem with affording gay folks full legal rights, such as a healthcare power of attorney, legal rights of survivorship, tax deductions, and the whole host of other rights that heterosexual partners enjoy? If not, why not?


Personally, if I were an NBA player, I would not be comfortable with a gay player in the same locker room as me.

Because . . . ?? Are you really so attractive that any gay man in the locker room would simply be unable to resist you, unable to resist looking at you in the shower, unable to resist pressuring you, unable to resist flirting with you, unable to resist asking you out, unable to resist physically touching you right there in the locker room? What exactly would make you uncomfortable? What exactly do you fear is going to happen in there?

tommy
05-02-2013, 12:28 AM
Jason Whitlock has a regular podcast, available on I-Tunes, called "Real Talk with Jason Whitlock." Usually he has a guest or two on there and they talk sports or sports and society.

Many times in the past I have disagreed, sometimes vehemently, with Whitlock. But today, in his podcast, he had no guests. He delivered about a 35 minute monologue on Jason Collins and what it means, in particular for the black community. There were things in there that I didn't agree with necessarily, but all in all, I thought it was beautiful. It was passionate without being strident. It was informed without being pedantic. It was tolerant of opposing viewpoints. He acknowledged his own weaknesses as a man. But the beauty and power of it was in how he described how important what Jason Collins did is, not just for the gay community, but for the black community and the realities it deals with. How more black men coming out of the closet would help to begin the healing of our broken black communities. What it can mean for black women. And how all black folks are benefitted when freedom spreads in this society. Unquestionably, Collins' coming out expands the notion and the reality of freedom in the United States, and that is good for all people who have not felt, or do not feel, fully free.

I really recommend it.

DaleDuke7
05-02-2013, 01:32 AM
"Hate the sin, not the sinner." Huh. Heard that one a lot. Unless the sinner actually commits the sin? Well maybe not hate him, but is it OK to discriminate against him for having committed the sin? If it is OK to discriminate against him for having committed the sin, where is the line in your mind between discrimination and hate? If it's not OK to discriminate against him for having committed the sin, then may I assume you have no problem with affording gay folks full legal rights, such as a healthcare power of attorney, legal rights of survivorship, tax deductions, and the whole host of other rights that heterosexual partners enjoy? If not, why not?



Because . . . ?? Are you really so attractive that any gay man in the locker room would simply be unable to resist you, unable to resist looking at you in the shower, unable to resist pressuring you, unable to resist flirting with you, unable to resist asking you out, unable to resist physically touching you right there in the locker room? What exactly would make you uncomfortable? What exactly do you fear is going to happen in there?

Just because somebody commits a sin, does not mean I hate them. I hate the sin. We all have sinned. God loves everyone, including homosexuals. But just because he loves them does not mean they are going to Heaven. The Bible is what one must abide by to go to Heaven. One has to live life fully according to the Bible. I believe in one man and one woman. That's what God made us for. I believe homosexuality is a demonic spirit. God does not discriminate. Everything he says and does is right. Like I said, he loves everyone, but if one does not obey God, even though he loves them, they will not go to Heaven.

Second, I am not saying that I am attractive or not, that's not my job. I'm just saying that if I was on a team with a gay player, I wouldn't be comfortable being in that locker room knowing that there is a possibility of homosexual thoughts going through his head about me, or any of the teammates, weather it is actually happening or not. I'm just not comfortable with that. I'm not worried about the latter part you were talking about. I don't think anybody would be that ignorant to do such a thing.

Reilly
05-02-2013, 06:11 AM
... By what reasonable standard can American's "ruling class" be considered hostile to Christianity?...

The original commenter can answer for himself, I guess. I'm guessing that he might mean "cultural elites" -- the university professoriate at our elite schools and universities, the editors of the largest main steam newspapers and television stations, the upper middle class professionals of our largest cities.

Gather all of those people in a room, then ask that all of those who agree with both of two hot button "Christian" beliefs (that abortion should not be allowed, and marriage should be limited to one man and one women) to please raise their hands, and see how many raise their hands.

Let me put forward all the usual caveats to save the next three comments:

(1) the beliefs I cite as examples are not just held by "Christians" but can be held by anyone, of course; it is just that they are often identified with a certain fundamental Christianity;
(2) being a Christian involves a whole lot more than agreement or disagreement on two hot button social issues; and
(3) many folks who loudly and proudly self-identify as Christian would not raise their hand as being in agreement on the two hot button social issues, and nobody should be saying that that then means they are not Christian.

Your counter-example of Congress identifying as Christian/religious is a good one. I'd guess Congress is probably more diverse in its views about these hot button social issues (given Congressmen have to be elected from all over) than is the "ruling class" the commenter might be referring to.

I'm guessing the "ruling class hostile to Christianity" comment above might be summed up by President Obama's line to a fundraising audience about how certain people cling to God (and guns, I think it was). There was the president of the country, talking to well-heeled elites, and seeming to show disdain for certain Christians (even though the president himself often proclaims his Christianity). I'm guessing that's what the commenter was getting at.

Duvall
05-02-2013, 07:03 AM
The original commenter can answer for himself, I guess. I'm guessing that he might mean "cultural elites" -- the university professoriate at our elite schools and universities, the editors of the largest main steam newspapers and television stations, the upper middle class professionals of our largest cities.

Calling those groups of people a "ruling class" would be absurd. They don't even run the institutions where they work, let alone the rest of the country.

Buckeye Devil
05-02-2013, 07:22 AM
Maybe they are not a ruling class but they are an "influential class" with broad exposure.

Duvall
05-02-2013, 07:31 AM
Maybe they are not a ruling class but they are an "influential class" with broad exposure.

Blaming college professors and soon-to-be laid-off newspaper editors for your problems is a sign that someone isn't interested in engaging in a real argument. It's a sideshow unconnected to reality.

oldnavy
05-02-2013, 08:17 AM
First of all, I want to complement the mods for allowing this thread to carry on as it has, even though there have been posts that are at or over the PPB line and some that have bordered on incivility. I'm sure you've deleted some as well, but haven't let that cause you to lock this thread up. It's obviously an important issue to lots of folks on the boards, and I think I speak for many when I saw we appreciate your letting the conversation continue.

Now, Old Navy, you've got to help me out here, because I'm having a hard time following what it is that you're saying. It seems that you're saying is that what matters is how one regards the "act" of homosexuality, which I take you to mean gay sex. If one believes that engaging in that act is wrong, then the issue of whether the perpetrator of the act has chosen to be a homosexual or whether his being a homosexual and having homosexual feelings is a natural, immutable characteristic, is irrelevant. Do I have that right so far?

If so, then what you oppose is folks actually engaging in gay sex, not having homosexual feelings or being attracted to people of the same gender. It's only when they act on those feelings that they cross a line in your mind into the territory of what is "wrong." Is that still right? If so, then my first question for you is: What if two men told you that they felt sexual attraction to each other. They were in a relationship based on the fact that they enjoyed being with each other. They created a life together -- living together, caring for each other, socializing as a couple, traveling, even raising adopted children. They love each other. But they didn't actually engage in any sexual activity. They were celibate. In all other respects a fully-lived adult, monogamous relationship, but just no sexual acts. How would you feel about them? How would you feel about them living that lifestyle? If they're not doing anything that you consider to be "wrong," then would you have any problem in affording them full legal rights, such as a healthcare power of attorney, legal rights of survivorship, tax deductions, and the whole host of other rights that heterosexual partners enjoy? If not, why not?

You state in your post, as have others in this thread, that your faith teaches you not to hate and not to judge, but to treat all people with compassion and respect, and to love your neighbor. You even said this is "never optional." Not to judge them. Can you explain how your disapproval of gay people due to the homosexual conduct (most of them) engage in does not constitute "judging" them?

Finally, to go back to the gay relationship-but-celibate scenario I posed a couple of paragraphs ago, now add to it that you are having a conversation with a gay person who is in one such relationship, and he tells you that there is no question in his mind that his being gay is not something he chose, that he has felt that way since early childhood and it is as much a part of who he is as the color of his eyes, hair, and skin, and there's nothing he can or would do about it. Do you think you would be able to look that man in the face and tell him either a) I don't believe you. You have chosen this. Or b) Be that as it may, but nevertheless you must forever repress the drive for sexual expression that all human beings possess, if you want to be "approved of" by not just me, but by God? Would you tell him either of those things? If not, why not?

Thanks.



"Hate the sin, not the sinner." Huh. Heard that one a lot. Unless the sinner actually commits the sin? Well maybe not hate him, but is it OK to discriminate against him for having committed the sin? If it is OK to discriminate against him for having committed the sin, where is the line in your mind between discrimination and hate? If it's not OK to discriminate against him for having committed the sin, then may I assume you have no problem with affording gay folks full legal rights, such as a healthcare power of attorney, legal rights of survivorship, tax deductions, and the whole host of other rights that heterosexual partners enjoy? If not, why not?



Because . . . ?? Are you really so attractive that any gay man in the locker room would simply be unable to resist you, unable to resist looking at you in the shower, unable to resist pressuring you, unable to resist flirting with you, unable to resist asking you out, unable to resist physically touching you right there in the locker room? What exactly would make you uncomfortable? What exactly do you fear is going to happen in there?

Tommy, yes I think the choice question is irrealivant. I know lots of people who are "born" with issues/desires, etc... that they have suppress on a daily basis. Some involve heterosexual sin, some involve addiction, some involve violent tendancies. All of which I am sure most folks would agree that these folks didn't "choose" to live with.

As far as a celebate "homosexual" roommate/life partner situation as you described. I have no idea how God would judge that, only He knows. Plus, what I think is also irrevalent. If the government determines that couples living in a situation you described are worthy of tax breaks then that is the way it will be. As far as the other "legal" rights, I believe most if not all of those can be arranged for through power of attorny documents. Health care seems to be a mute point, with universal coverage coming, but if the government rules that way, then again I will have to live with my tax dollars going to support things I do not support (NOT THE FIRST OR LAST TIME!!).

The judging issue; I am not judging. I am not the Judge. I have a belief, based on my belief system and what it has taught me and what I know to be true in my heart. One of the things that same belief system teaches is that we should not judge each other. Why? Because we do not have all the information to make judgement. And, I believe because we need to spend that energy making ourselves more like Christ.

Judging behavior is a different thing. So, if that is what you meant by me judging involves behavior, then yes I would judge their behavior as inappropriate based on pretty clear Bible teaching. If you don't believe the Bible to be the word of God, then I am sure this seems silly or even worse. I get that, in fact the Bible tells us as much. Having my approval is worthless and I hope nobody would seek it. I would say if you want to know what God thinks, then read the Bible and come to your own conclusion.

I honestly don't know about the "choice" issue. I have gone back and forth on this over the years, but I guess I look at it this way: I have certain issues that I struggle with on a daily basis. Some of which are sexual. I don't feel like I chose any of these, but they are there clear as day. Now, if I just throw up my hands and act out on these, I would ruin my life... So, what to do? Pray for help and work each day to surpress my "flesh". I often fail. But the good news is that I don't have to be perfect.


I hesitated to reply to this thread because I know the topic is complex and not really anything that can be throughly examined on a topic board. I just wanted to toss out my thoughts, well because I felt that being silent would be wrong.

jv001
05-02-2013, 08:34 AM
Tommy, yes I think the choice question is irrealivant. I know lots of people who are "born" with issues/desires, etc... that they have suppress on a daily basis. Some involve heterosexual sin, some involve addiction, some involve violent tendancies. All of which I am sure most folks would agree that these folks didn't "choose" to live with.

As far as a celebate "homosexual" roommate/life partner situation as you described. I have no idea how God would judge that, only He knows. Plus, what I think is also irrevalent. If the government determines that couples living in a situation you described are worthy of tax breaks then that is the way it will be. As far as the other "legal" rights, I believe most if not all of those can be arranged for through power of attorny documents. Health care seems to be a mute point, with universal coverage coming, but if the government rules that way, then again I will have to live with my tax dollars going to support things I do not support (NOT THE FIRST OR LAST TIME!!).

The judging issue; I am not judging. I am not the Judge. I have a belief, based on my belief system and what it has taught me and what I know to be true in my heart. One of the things that same belief system teaches is that we should not judge each other. Why? Because we do not have all the information to make judgement. And, I believe because we need to spend that energy making ourselves more like Christ.

Judging behavior is a different thing. So, if that is what you meant by me judging involves behavior, then yes I would judge their behavior as inappropriate based on pretty clear Bible teaching. If you don't believe the Bible to be the word of God, then I am sure this seems silly or even worse. I get that, in fact the Bible tells us as much. Having my approval is worthless and I hope nobody would seek it. I would say if you want to know what God thinks, then read the Bible and come to your own conclusion.

I honestly don't know about the "choice" issue. I have gone back and forth on this over the years, but I guess I look at it this way: I have certain issues that I struggle with on a daily basis. Some of which are sexual. I don't feel like I chose any of these, but they are there clear as day. Now, if I just throw up my hands and act out on these, I would ruin my life... So, what to do? Pray for help and work each day to surpress my "flesh". I often fail. But the good news is that I don't have to be perfect.


I hesitated to reply to this thread because I know the topic is complex and not really anything that can be throughly examined on a topic board. I just wanted to toss out my thoughts, well because I felt that being silent would be wrong.

Your post made me feel about 2 inches tall. My mind had been made up to keep out of this discussion, but I cannot. Thank you for standing up for your convictions. I agree with everything you stated. You said it way better than I ever could. First of all, I'm not judging anyone, not Collins, not the sports media world and certainly not my friends here on DBR. I try to live my life using The Bible(God's Holy Word) as my guide. I encourage everyone to read His Holy Word. I try to serve God in every way possible and I think He would want me to also stand up for my convictions. I'm of the opinion that I need God and God does not need me. He gave his only begotten son that I might have eternal life. So he's number one in my life. I only ask those same people that are applauding Mr. Collins give me the same respect you are giving him. To be a Christian is to be Christ like as best as you can. I'm just an old sinner, saved by His amazing Grace. God bless you all!

-jk
05-02-2013, 08:42 AM
And this thread has now moved far enough into pure policy we need to shut it down.

Thanks everyone for having a reasonable discussion on a frequently divisive topic.

-jk