Re: Jason Collins Comes Out

by **Sam** Wed May 01, 2013 10:19 am

dbrown and others,

Since you mentioned moderating policy and myself, my feeling has always been that the two topics most likely to ensure rancor are politics and religion. However, that does not necessarily mean that even though those topics should have some sort of general sanction placed upon them.

In this case, the topic is basketball-related and newsworthy and, therefore, is fair game for discussion under the banner of freedom of speech. The problem comes when the discussion takes on a proselytizing tone—either pro or con.

As I recall it, we've had only one situation (at least wo years ago), involving the military, in which the preaching became so incessant that it began alienating a number of board members. That became such a huge problem that we reluctantly had to ban a member who was at the heart of the issue.

There's no question that I'm more likely to pay particular attention to potential problems with discussions of politics or religion. And, if it became a major problem with civility or proselytizing, I'd probably take appropriate action. But, so far, I'm not even getting a faint scent of that likelihood.

For my part, I think Jason should be admired for his actions, and I also agree with Mulcogi that it will be nice when topics of this type will not even be newsworthy because they'll be no big deal.

Sam

by **mrkleen09** Wed May 01, 2013 11:55 am

Well, with Sam's approval - here we go.

dbrown4 wrote:I must be getting old or something because I thought this issue was covered 35-40 years ago with Martina Navratalova. She was a female professional athlete who openly admitted she was gay. But nonetheless it is now back in the news again now with yet another professional athlete, on a team this time however with a friendly media that wishes to press the button again and see what happens.

As long as we have a whole segment of society that is treated as second class citizens and denied the basic human rights that are afforded to so many others – this issue will far from “settled”. Regarless of someone’s personal or religious beliefs – the state has no right to discriminate on the basis of some arbitrary criteria. I think you will see the Supreme Court agree with me in June when they strike down DOMA and rule that the US Government must afford same sex couples the same death benefits as their straight counterparts.

In addition, this is far from just “another athlete” – it is first off, an active MALE athlete in one of the major sports. Not a European woman in a sub sport like tennis / or a male in a once every 4 years Olympic sport like diving. The fact that you may see it as a non story – speaks more to you and your open mindedness – than to society in general. Cracking the last bastion of rampant masculinity in proving that you can be both a strong, powerful, successful professional athlete AND gay is a big deal.

dbrown4 wrote:I'm afraid whatever lie Jason feels he has been living up until now and the subsequent pain he has been experiencing is mostly if not all self-inflicted. Homosexuality has been around well over 2000 years and has been present in humanity through all civilizations. Everyone is aware of it. It's not like as of a couple of days ago this is a huge surprise to end all surprises.

This totally misses the point. He has had to hide who he is for decades. He has been unable to attend team functions with the love of his life. He has been unable to talk on the team plane about his significant other going through an illness. And if he were to pass suddenly, would be unable to pass along his pension and retirement benefits to the person who has loved him for years. In what possible way is that “self-inflicted”?

tardust wrote:I guess if you believe in the bible then what we see these days explains why the entrance to heaven is a narrow road.

And you guys think you somehow have the “secret handshake” that is going to get you in…while Jason Collins (who by all accounts is one of the most honest, compassionate, decent people in the NBA) will be left out?

tardust wrote: Hero, courageous, etc, belong to people that rush into burning buildings, help the sick, do something for others. Stating a sexual preference after years of deceiving people doesn't fit into that category for me.

Deceiving people? The guy made millions of dollars doing what he loved – and that was only possible by not being completely forthcoming with a warped and judgmental society. That isn’t deception, that is self preservation.

tardust wrote: Its pretty simple, you can believe it OK to be homosexual or can believe it to not be OK.

Do you have to think it is OK to be black, or Irish or Autistic?

Homosexuality ISNT a choice…anymore than having dark hair or blue eyes. Who would willingly CHOOSE to be discriminated against and have to live a life in the shadows? Give me a break.

by **NYCelt** Wed May 01, 2013 1:51 pm

I don't know folks. I think most of you are missing a significant point on something monumental and newsworthy, and not in a good way.

What about the shocking, total lack of respect for society and those who may watch or hear when a grown man comes forward openly and publicly and lets it be known...

...that he is a member of the Washington Wizards.

I, for one, am appalled.

by **dbrown4** Wed May 01, 2013 9:29 pm

Why has he had to hide for decades, MrK? What would have happened if he had said this years ago? Would the world have come to an end?

The point is it would have made absolutely no difference. It appears you are sensationalizing this event. The only person holding up the world knowing is Jason Collins. He made a choice not to tell the world because he believed it was more to his benefit to keep it to himself. Once he made that choice and proceeded that way, he left the other option to tell it then behind. Humans and history don't change. Their reactions to this today would be identical to the response he would have received 2000 years ago and 2000 years in the future. He would have those closest to him respond lovingly and favorably, maybe a few dissenters and the rest of the world would go on about its business like nothing happened.

It's all self-inflicted. He is free to talk about whoever he wants and live however he wants. The last time I checked, we are still living in America. What he has is an unwarranted, baseless fear of what the public may think or what his employer might think or what his family may think of him. He's probably saying to himself, "If I knew I was going to get this kind of response, I would have done this years ago." And he would have. What kind of judgmental country and world do you think we are living in today? Who specifically do you think is doing all the judging? And since history is doomed to repeat itself, it won't get any better than this as far as acceptance goes. There will always be people on either side of this issue. That hasn't changed nor will it ever.

If he hasn't attended team functions with the love of his life, that's his own decision not to and he is completely responsible for the consequences. He created a world in his mind that just doesn't exist. He could have settled this long ago. The only reason he chose to come out with this now at this time in history is the environment seemed more favorable for acceptance. Clearly a timing issue.

NY Celt, you are slaying me, dude! I walked right into that one! There are some really hilarious closet comedians on this site. Thanks for keeping it light!

Now, where the rubber meets the road on this whole thing within this thread is a month from now or next season on the court and in the locker room how everyone reacts. Not just words. Actions. In a highly masculine, macho league as the NBA is, how will those players act and react to knowing there is a homosexual male in the same locker room? They are going to have to be real comfortable in their own sexual skin to get past that.

Just like on this site, there will be some over-reactors who will have to spend time in the HR office and counseling as well as some comedians and some non-engaging teammates who simply don't care either way, each of which are free to react and feel as they do.

How much better do you think JC would have been playing basketball if he had come out with this when he was in say high school. If he was carrying around this incredible burden all his life, it had to effect his play. If he was that miserable, he would have had to have been better off doing this earlier than now. I'm assuming he is feeling a great sense of relief currently.

Finally as far as homosexuality being a choice or not, I lean toward it being a choice because I can't wrap my head around a God that would create an individual where through their relationships would not be able be in a position to recreate. It's critical to the continuation of the human race. It seems like a cruel joke. That kind of God would be depriving an individual of one of the greatest things you can do as a human being. Create a new life. Why would a God who created male and female to have relationships that included a charge to be fruitful and multiply all the sudden change course? Let's extend this argument to its inevitable end. What would happen if we were all "created" homosexuals? What would happen to the human race? There would be none. This not only applies to the human race but every species.

MrKleen you are presenting(and furthering) to a T the current argument for SSM by making it a human rights issue. I have to admit myself as someone on the other side of that position, your argument is a compelling one, so compelling it completely blind-sided the Christian argument against it. The idea of SSM here in the US and the world for that matter is a relatively new one (last 10-15 years I think) and the jury is still out on it...literally. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and when that marriage works with God as it's center, it is a beautiful thing with plenty of evidence to support it. It's not perfect, though as a greater than 50% failure rate to show for it. Your argument was carefully crafted many years ago when it was realized SSM proponents weren't going to win heads up against the Bible's view of homosexuality, OT or NT. The brilliant idea was to make it a human civil rights issue, using the 1964 CRA as its barometer for its eventual success and wind up at the Supreme Court and have the highest court in the land make a ruling. It was a calculated risk because a that time they didn't know what the mix of the court would be, but that it would be at least close no matter who was sitting at the time. So it was a risk they were willing to take. In my lifetime, I never recall the court being divided more than 5-4 either way. Very well played.

by **worcester** Wed May 01, 2013 10:05 pm

I'm not engaging in ANY discussions about homosexuality pro or con.

That said, a lawyer friend of mine from NJ knew Jason Collins for years in the early part of his career and considered him to be one of the most decent, kind, and respectful men he ever knew.

by **mrkleen09** Wed May 01, 2013 10:50 pm

D -

I hope you know that this isnt personal - but there are a couple of things you mentioned that are just too juicy to not address.

dbrown4 wrote:Humans and history don't change. Their reactions to this today would be identical to the response he would have received 2000 years ago and 2000 years in the future.

This could not be more off base. At some point in the fairly recent past, many in this country believed that Black men were worth less than white men (3/5 to be exact), that women were incapable of voting, or later serving in the military, that people with mental disabilities should be locked up in asylums and the list goes on. You wont need even another generation to see all of this discrimination against homosexuals totally fade away. Teenagers today have no problem with understanding that people are entitled to love who they want to love, with no strings attached. No need to wait 2000 years, change is here.

dbrown4 wrote:What kind of judgmental country and world do you think we are living in today? Who specifically do you think is doing all the judging?

Are you kidding? The Supreme court just took up the case of DOMA - to judge its constitutionality....that means that as of today, it is still illegal for the Federal Government in this country to treat same sex couples the same under the law as hetero couples. In spite of the fact that the majority of Americans believe that gay couple have every right to be married - they have to SUE to prevent their human rights from being violated.

dbrown4 wrote: In a highly masculine, macho league as the NBA is, how will those players act and react to knowing there is a homosexual male in the same locker room? They are going to have to be real comfortable in their own sexual skin to get past that.

1 in 10 human beings are homosexual. Gays are ALREADY in the locker rooms, playing along side you, passing you the ball, borrowing your shampoo. What comfort level do you need? Paul Pierce is not gay. Jason Collins is gay. So what is going to happen? Is Collins going to trick Paul Pierce into having sex with him some day? What a ridiculous unfounded fear.

In the end, human rights and further, civil rights are not up for debate. You dont have to agree, you dont have to like it, you simply have to accept the basic foundation that this country was built on.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

by **worcester** Wed May 01, 2013 11:10 pm

Again, I'm not into the homosexual debate but I must clear up two facts. To me facts are the foundation for all proper discussions.

1. Much has been made of how post-Colonial Americans considered blacks to be 3/5ths human. This is a misunderstanding. Southern slave owners wanted their slaves to be considered 100% in the census counts for voting purposes. Northerners who were anti-slavery forced them to accept the 3/5 as a compromise to diminish the ability of Southerners to continue the slave trade with their votes. In 1808 importation of slaves was outlawed, in part because slaves were only counted for 3/5 of a voter.

2. My understanding is that only 3% of the American population considers themselves to be gay. Greeks (of which I'm one) are less than 3% of the American population. Arguments about civil rights should not be contingent upon percentages up or down.

by **112288** Wed May 01, 2013 11:17 pm

HEY GUY'S ....THIS 3/5TH THING..............SOUND LIKE TIME AND HISTORY HAS CORRECTED THINGS

THE 3/5TH THING NOW IS NOW COMPENSATION IN AN NBA TRADE !!!

112288

by **worcester** Wed May 01, 2013 11:29 pm

112288 - always on top of it. Thanks for bringing us back to the NBA.

by **mrkleen09** Wed May 01, 2013 11:30 pm

Worcester

Saying that slaves were considered 3/5th of a man - doesnt need to be taken literally to see that is indicative of views of the time and as such does say something about the value assigned to human beings. It may not be the main purpose of the clause, but it is good evidence of the low value accorded to some members of society.

In addition, the reason the North insisted slaves be considered 3/5 of a man was to prevent the South from both claiming them as property - and counting them as population when determining representation. The North in essence said, you cant have it both ways.

As for your assertion that the real number of gay Americans is closer to 3% - I guess it depends on what information you use as your source. Repeatedly it has been shown that the younger the people you survey - the higher the number who is "unafraid" to self identify as gay.

But even at 3% / 450 players in the NBA - that means there are 13 or 14 men in the league right now, who are gay. My point is just as valid with a 3% figure as a 10% one.

by **tardust** Wed May 01, 2013 11:44 pm

mrkleen09 wrote:Well, with Sam's approval - here we go.

dbrown4 wrote:I must be getting old or something because I thought this issue was covered 35-40 years ago with Martina Navratalova. She was a female professional athlete who openly admitted she was gay. But nonetheless it is now back in the news again now with yet another professional athlete, on a team this time however with a friendly media that wishes to press the button again and see what happens.

As long as we have a whole segment of society that is treated as second class citizens and denied the basic human rights that are afforded to so many others – this issue will far from “settled”. Regarless of someone’s personal or religious beliefs – the state has no right to discriminate on the basis of some arbitrary criteria. I think you will see the Supreme Court agree with me in June when they strike down DOMA and rule that the US Government must afford same sex couples the same death benefits as their straight counterparts.

In addition, this is far from just “another athlete” – it is first off, an active MALE athlete in one of the major sports. Not a European woman in a sub sport like tennis / or a male in a once every 4 years Olympic sport like diving. The fact that you may see it as a non story – speaks more to you and your open mindedness – than to society in general. Cracking the last bastion of rampant masculinity in proving that you can be both a strong, powerful, successful professional athlete AND gay is a big deal.

dbrown4 wrote:I'm afraid whatever lie Jason feels he has been living up until now and the subsequent pain he has been experiencing is mostly if not all self-inflicted. Homosexuality has been around well over 2000 years and has been present in humanity through all civilizations. Everyone is aware of it. It's not like as of a couple of days ago this is a huge surprise to end all surprises.

This totally misses the point. He has had to hide who he is for decades. He has been unable to attend team functions with the love of his life. He has been unable to talk on the team plane about his significant other going through an illness. And if he were to pass suddenly, would be unable to pass along his pension and retirement benefits to the person who has loved him for years. In what possible way is that “self-inflicted”?

tardust wrote:I guess if you believe in the bible then what we see these days explains why the entrance to heaven is a narrow road.

And you guys think you somehow have the “secret handshake” that is going to get you in…while Jason Collins (who by all accounts is one of the most honest, compassionate, decent people in the NBA) will be left out? (ridiculous statement- No handshake, how about you, you have a gentlemens agreement with the almighty? Being decent doesn't get you to heaven, there a lots of decent people. Did I say Collins wasn't? No, as with most of your comments here you are merely attacking someone elses view by adding your own words.)

tardust wrote: Hero, courageous, etc, belong to people that rush into burning buildings, help the sick, do something for others. Stating a sexual preference after years of deceiving people doesn't fit into that category for me.
Deceiving people? The guy made millions of dollars doing what he loved – and that was only possible by not being completely forthcoming with a warped and judgmental society. That isn’t deception, that is self preservation. (give me a break- word it any way you want to but it deceptive- wonder what his girl friend thinks?)

tardust wrote: Its pretty simple, you can believe it OK to be homosexual or can believe it to not be OK.

Do you have to think it is OK to be black, or Irish or Autistic? (this doesn't even deserve a reply)

Homosexuality ISNT a choice…anymore than having dark hair or blue eyes. Who would willingly CHOOSE to be discriminated against and have to live a life in the shadows? Give me a break. (you do have proof on this don't you)

Seems you have all the answers to everyones questions , so be it. Before I close, your opinion is fine with me but don't diss other beliefs just because you think you are right on the subject. No I don't agree with all your assessments of this discussion and never will and I don't have any hate for Collins. Funny how many people use the bible in their argument on this subject in a negative way and then promote what Collins did as a good thing, heroic, courageous, etc. No I don't have a "secret handshake" and never claimed to. Do you have a "regular handshake". Go ahead and feel superior about the way you feel compared to others, fine with me. The end, no more replies as this is just like politics.

by **dbrown4** Thu May 02, 2013 11:38 pm

Well put tardust. Usually what is seen when these positions are challenged is a defensive, spiraling outlandish response eventually winding up in someone being called a bigot or racist or a homophobe or as you point out, their opinion is absolutely right and yours is insanely wrong. Hence the reason to do as you have, remaining calm, making your points rationally and moving on. In the end, he who presents rationally, respectfully and civilly on the debate floor attracts the most supporters.

Sorry, MrKleen. It's nothing personal. But your responses come across a bit desparate and defensive and hence less credible to the populous.

by **mulcogiseng** Fri May 03, 2013 12:00 am

The Bible

The story of one man and one woman who had two sons.

Think about it.

by **Outside** Fri May 03, 2013 12:47 am

dbrown4 wrote:Well put tardust. Usually what is seen when these positions are challenged is a defensive, spiraling outlandish response eventually winding up in someone being called a bigot or racist or a homophobe or as you point out, their opinion is absolutely right and yours is insanely wrong. Hence the reason to do as you have, remaining calm, making your points rationally and moving on. In the end, he who presents rationally, respectfully and civilly on the debate floor attracts the most supporters.

Sorry, MrKleen. It's nothing personal. But your responses come across a bit desparate and defensive and hence less credible to the populous.

When it comes to being civil and respectful, I think the position each side takes in this situation is more important than how you think someone states his case. Stating your position with a respectful and civil tone doesn't change the fact that denying basic human rights and not according a person basic human dignity because of their sexual orientation is itself a disrespectful and uncivil argument.

I recognize the gulf here. For the most part, those who do not want gays and lesbians to have equal rights do so because of religious reasons, and they point to Bible passages and say this is the will of God. Those who take an opposite position point to numerous other beliefs condoned in the Bible that are not accepted in our society -- subjugation of women, slavery, and dietary prohibitions, to name a few -- and that our society is in fact secular and not bound by what the Bible or church leaders say. There's not a lot of middle ground here.

For the most part, I think most people have established views on the subject and aren't going to change their position, which is one reason I stated my support for Jason Collins and have stayed out of the discussion since, until now. The other reason I've stayed quiet is that I thought MrKleen has done a fine job making rational arguments for the side I support.

There may not be much benefit to continuing discussion on this subject, but since MrKleen's credibility was called into question, I didn't want my silence up to this point to be misinterpreted in any way. I find MrKleen's arguments quite credible.

by **gyso** Fri May 03, 2013 8:01 am

Outside wrote:
dbrown4 wrote:Well put tardust. Usually what is seen when these positions are challenged is a defensive, spiraling outlandish response eventually winding up in someone being called a bigot or racist or a homophobe or as you point out, their opinion is absolutely right and yours is insanely wrong. Hence the reason to do as you have, remaining calm, making your points rationally and moving on. In the end, he who presents rationally, respectfully and civilly on the debate floor attracts the most supporters.

Sorry, MrKleen. It's nothing personal. But your responses come across a bit desparate and defensive and hence less credible to the populous.
When it comes to being civil and respectful, I think the position each side takes in this situation is more important than how you think someone states his case. Stating your position with a respectful and civil tone doesn't change the fact that denying basic human rights and not according a person basic human dignity because of their sexual orientation is itself a disrespectful and uncivil argument.

I recognize the gulf here. For the most part, those who do not want gays and lesbians to have equal rights do so because of religious reasons, and they point to Bible passages and say this is the will of God. Those who take an opposite position point to numerous other beliefs condoned in the Bible that are not accepted in our society -- subjugation of women, slavery, and dietary prohibitions, to name a few -- and that our society is in fact secular and not bound by what the Bible or church leaders say. There's not a lot of middle ground here.

For the most part, I think most people have established views on the subject and aren't going to change their position, which is one reason I stated my support for Jason Collins and have stayed out of the discussion since, until now. The other reason I've stayed quiet is that I thought MrKleen has done a fine job making rational arguments for the side I support.

There may not be much benefit to continuing discussion on this subject, but since MrKleen's credibility was called into question, I didn't want my silence up to this point to be misinterpreted in any way. I find MrKleen's arguments quite credible.

Outside,

Great post. I think there is a huge gap between the two sides and it is all in the point of view as to who's responses come across a bit desperate and defensive and hence less credible to the (actual) populous. Those who don't believe that gays exist due to nature probably don't believe that dinosaurs existed either.

MrKleen has done a fine job making rational arguments for the side I support as well.

gyso

by **tardust** Fri May 03, 2013 8:41 am

dbrown4 wrote:Well put tardust. Usually what is seen when these positions are challenged is a defensive, spiraling outlandish response eventually winding up in someone being called a bigot or racist or a homophobe or as you point out, their opinion is absolutely right and yours is insanely wrong. Hence the reason to do as you have, remaining calm, making your points rationally and moving on. In the end, he who presents rationally, respectfully and civilly on the debate floor attracts the most supporters.

Sorry, MrKleen. It's nothing personal. But your responses come across a bit desperate and defensive and hence less credible to the populous.

Dbrown,
Thanks. I didn't come in to attack anyones views, only state mine. Seems I was repeatedly attacked for my views with off the cuff statements that were implied by me but never stated by me. I get the feeling if I don't agree with someone then I am a moronic idiot. Funny I don't feel that way toward other views. Bottom line is we all have to answer at the end. Ooops, probably offended someone there.

by **Sam** Fri May 03, 2013 10:22 am

When this thread was in its relative infancy, I instinctively want back to our posted rules because I somehow thought we had tried to discourage themes of politics and religion. I found that we hadn't. So I said to myself, "Self, you made your bed. Now lie in it."

And I find it pretty amazing that neither of these often-volatile subjects has been the source of major rancor on the board. I attribute this solely to the good judgment of members.

This thread has reached the point where it seems that most views have been thoroughly expressed. I'd like to suggest that anyone who has a NEW slant feel free to contribute it but that those who are beginning to retread previous ground start to ease off so that maybe the this very interesting thread will come to a close before the real subject takes second place to themes that are more personal in nature.

I appreciate it.

Sam

by Sponsored content