The first openly gay current NFL/NBA/MLB/NHL player

[jcannon]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.