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

[throatybeard]

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...r_sportspeople

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]

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...r_sportspeople



"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]

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]

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 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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

But it's like saying "I disagree with someone's height."

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

[throatybeard]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Looks like Chris Broussard at ESPN wants a new career:

http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/04/29/es...ins/?hpt=hp_t3

[CDu]

Looks like Chris Broussard at ESPN wants a new career:

http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/04/29/es...ins/?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]

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]

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]

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]

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/stor...ess-first-take