[News] Current NBA player Jason Collins comes out!

[Dave]

1. This is in General and not sports or politics because it's a big story.
2. This should not be as big a story as it is.
3. At this time, I've seen nothing but positive and supportive responses, including from such people like Chris Kluwe and Kobe Bryant.

It finally happened and it's about damned time. This is the first time a current player in one of the big 4 sports in the US - NBA, MLB, NFL & NHL - has come out as openly gay. And the outpouring of support so far has been amazingly heartwarming. Granted, it's fairly new news and the trolls will come soon enough. For now, though, it's time to celebrate a pretty damned brave individual who has opened himself to a lot of possible criticism and just put his life under a microscope.
I'm not an NBA guy, but I'm proud of Jason and all his supporters in the sport. Hate took a step back today.

 

[Tress]

I hope this will lead to others coming out as well. Once there are enough openly gay athletes, hopefully people see that these are normal guys and there's nothing to fear/hate.

 

[Dave]

I hope this will lead to others coming out as well. Once there are enough openly gay athletes, hopefully people see that these are normal guys and there's nothing to fear/hate.

I worry more about idiot fans in the stands than I do players and coaches. I mean, some fan bases are brutal as it is and this just gives them something else to put in their repertoire.

 

[blotsfan]

Judging by his column, he seems like a pretty bright guy and I'm sure knows the reaction he'll get. Though it wouldn't surprise me if he isn't actually in the NBA next year anyways. Might have to wait for the NFL where there are supposedly 4 players who want to come out at the same time this offseason. As well as Kerry Rhodes who might have been outed by his boyfriend but has denied it.

 

[Covar]

Who?

 

[sixpackshaker]

Hopefully this will turn out to be a non-issue.

 

[Tress]

Who?

Not the point (but I'm sure you know that). A make pro athlete came out of the closet while he's still active. It's a big step.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

Not to be a nitpicker, but he's not an active player until he signs with a team, since he's currently a free agent / not with a team. And kind of old / journeyman / end of his career. It would be kind of awful if he didn't get signed now. Unless he really was / normally at the end of his career.

 

[sixpackshaker]

The best info I have is that he has been traded to the Wizards. So he is still active at this time. But yes, 12th year means he is winding down.

 

[Chad Sexington]

The best info I have is that he has been traded to the Wizards.

If this is the case, I'd like to say:
in before Dumbledore, Gandalf/McKellan, Jason Collins gay wizards jokes.

 

[sixpackshaker]

If this is the case, I'd like to say:
in before Dumbledore, Gandalf/McKellan, Jason Collins gay wizards jokes.

If only it were Kobe as the gay player for the Wizards, YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

He's not actually on the Wizards anymore. He's a free agent at the end of the season.

 

[Frank]

Not to be a nitpicker, but he's not an active player until he signs with a team, since he's currently a free agent / not with a team. And kind of old / journeyman / end of his career. It would be kind of awful if he didn't get signed now. Unless he really was / normally at the end of his career.

Some of the more cynical things I've read has him coming out like this at the end of his career as a way to give him some sort of boost into post career goings on such as a book deal or whatever else.

 

[DarkAudit]

The Worldwide Leader's own people were thanking him for at the very least putting the kibosh on the Tebowmania, if only temporarily.

 

[CrimsonSoul]

I worry more about idiot fans in the stands than I do players and coaches. I mean, some fan bases are brutal as it is and this just gives them something else to put in their repertoire.

I may have too much faith in humanity but I don't see the other fans putting up with homophibic bullshit.

 

[bhamv3]

Man, if even the Wizards don't want you, you're probably at the end of your career.

I'm a sad Washington fan.

Still though, this is definitely a step in the right direction. Enough sweeping these things under the carpet, and let these people openly be who they are.

 

[Just Me]

All shout: It's ok to be Takei!

 

[fade]

All shout: It's ok to be Takei!

So he has a promising career ahead, posting image macros on Facebook and making puns that are arguably funnier and more clever than the macros themselves.

 

[Just Me]

So he has a promising career ahead, posting image macros on Facebook and making puns that are arguably funnier and more clever than the macros themselves.

Probably not. He's just takei, not Takei.

 

[Jay]

I guess taking it to the hole has a whole new meaning in the NBA nowadays.

 

[Dave]

I guess taking it to the hole has a whole new meaning in the NBA nowadays.

And you know what? His friends are going to give him shit just like this. And I love it. That's what guy friends do. Like the teammate who tweeted that it changes nothing and that he would still kick his ass in golf.

 

[Tress]

The only famous person I know of who spoke negatively about Collins being gay was chris Boussard on ESPN, and we already knew he's a fucking moron. So far things seem to be pretty positive.

 

[Dave]

The only famous person I know of who spoke negatively about Collins being gay was chris Boussard on ESPN, and we already knew he's a fucking moron. So far things seem to be pretty positive.

And then you read things like the Yahoo news comments and die a little inside.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

The only famous person I know of who spoke negatively about Collins being gay was chris Boussard on ESPN, and we already knew he's a fucking moron. So far things seem to be pretty positive.

Mike Wallace (not 60 minutes) tweeted some garbage about "I can't understand why a guy goes for guys with so many beautiful women" and then tried to backtrack and deleted his tweets

 

[Tress]

And then you read things like the Yahoo news comments and die a little inside.

No I don't. A loud minority of barely-literate, mouth-breathing dipshits on the Yahoo! boards doesn't change how well society is reacting as a whole.[DOUBLEPOST=1367347841][/DOUBLEPOST]

Mike Wallace (not 60 minutes) tweeted some garbage about "I can't understand why a guy goes for guys with so many beautiful women" and then tried to backtrack and deleted his tweets

I knew about that. He seems to honestly believe that being gay is a choice resulting from an evaluation of one's options. That's not hateful, it's just ignorant. It's far less of an issue, and one I can forgive.

 

[Dave]

Mike Wallace (not 60 minutes) tweeted some garbage about "I can't understand why a guy goes for guys with so many beautiful women" and then tried to backtrack and deleted his tweets

Yeah, I know what he was trying to say because as a straight man I don't get it either, but I think his comment is being blown out of proportion a bit.

 

[Ravenpoe]

Yeah, I know what he was trying to say because as a straight man I don't get it either, but I think his comment is being blown out of proportion a bit.

I kinda wish I was gay sometimes. Most of my friends are, and I've come to learn that among the gay community, I am apparently quite a prize. I could have so much cock.

But yeah, not a choice, so that's out.

 

[Bubble181]

This is the first time a current player in one of the big 4 sports in the US - NBA, MLB, NFL & NHL - has come out as openly gay.

I'm sorry, I'm just....shocked by this. Seriously, for the country of the free and the brave, that's....I don't have words for it. I mean, "a country where big public sports heroes can't come out of the closet" makes me think of Iran, not the USA.

Good for him, but this shouldn't have been an issue 15 years ago, let alone now. Yes, I know, we have a gay prime minister, I'm from a pretty progressive country in some ways, but...Really, anyone who is a patriotic American (ostensibly 99.5% of them) can't and shouldn't have a problem with someone's life choices. "Freedom for those who agree with me" has been around since the Egyptians. "Freedom for whatever the hell thay want to do" is what is supposed to set you guys apart.

Anyway, I hope there'll be many following soon - with somewhere between 5 and 15% gay people in the population, even in macho cultures such as pro sports, practically every team is bound to have one or a couple.

Of course, on the other hand, I don't think this should be newsworthy at all.

 

[SpecialKO]

Really, anyone who is a patriotic American (ostensibly 99.5% of them) can't and shouldn't have a problem with someone's life choices.

 

[TommiR]

Really, anyone who is a patriotic American (ostensibly 99.5% of them) can't and shouldn't have a problem with someone's life choices. "Freedom for those who agree with me" has been around since the Egyptians. "Freedom for whatever the hell thay want to do" is what is supposed to set you guys apart.

I'm not really sure it is apt to draw that conclusion. I don't see much in either current US affairs or their historical record to indicate widespread tolerance towards their fellow man. In my view, much of the early appeal of the US, in terms of individual rights, rested upon their particular take on the relationship between the private citizen and the government and it's laws, bearing in mind how the contemporary european situation tended to be quite restricting in that respect. But how would that translate into individuals, either singly or in groups, being more tolerant of their neighbours than those found anywhere else?

 

[strawman]

with somewhere between 5 and 15% gay people in the population

That's staggering. I'd like to understand your source and what you count as gay for that statistic. Wikipedia acknowledges self reporting is low, but even with corrections the incidence is still around 2% at the highest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation

It is complicated to measure, since most people aren't strictly homosexual or heterosexual, but saying that one in 20 to one in six are gay seems high.

 

[Bubble181]

No direct source in english for the moment, but 1 in 20 is the official number used here in all government-related things. According to Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/158066/special-report-adults-identify-lgbt.aspx) it's about 3.4% of adults in the US, but those numbers are low - questioning personal identification obviously also rules out anyone who doesn't identify but has had homosexual contact - that's about 10%-12% of the people. Whether you want to count anyone who ever "experimented" as bisexual is up for debate, and so forth.

That aside, I don't really want to make this a thread about that

I'm not really sure it is apt to draw that conclusion. I don't see much in either current US affairs or their historical record to indicate widespread tolerance towards their fellow man. In my view, much of the early appeal of the US, in terms of individual rights, rested upon their particular take on the relationship between the private citizen and the government and it's laws, bearing in mind how the contemporary european situation tended to be quite restricting in that respect. But how would that translate into individuals, either singly or in groups, being more tolerant of their neighbours than those found anywhere else?

The very first Amendment states ther shall be no laws against religion - exercise, belief, etc. One would assume that considering it important to be free about it and others to be free in the same way, would indicate being more tolerant. I don't deny this isn't true, it's just something I find generally odd about much of the American right - the complete denial that social pressure is just as much an oppression as a law.

 

[Chad Sexington]

social pressure is just as much an oppression as a law.

Uhm...

Not at all. While social pressure adds all sorts of problems to a pressured group, actively penalising that group for existing is far, far, far and away more oppressive. In fact, I'd say calling social pressure 'oppression' is pretty hyperbolic.

 

[Bubble181]

Uhm...

Not at all. While social pressure adds all sorts of problems to a pressured group, actively penalising that group for existing is far, far, far and away more oppressive. In fact, I'd say calling social pressure 'oppression' is pretty hyperbolic.

So the KKK was not a problem towards equality of people of a darker complexion? Good to know that all black people were suddenly absolutely equal and were treated equally when those laws were repealed and could be "free" all over the place without, you know, fear. Oh wait.

You can make all the laws about gay marriage you want, if the gay person in question has to hide his sexuality for career reasons or for fear of reprisals, and he doesn't dare marry, that doens't help at all.

It's the same thing in reverse of the gun argument: making laws about it won't suddenly change the reality. It's the reality that matters, the laws should be obvious extensions of the people's will. Saying "as long as there's no law prohibiting it, we're all good" is odd.

 

[Chad Sexington]

So the KKK was not a problem towards equality of people of a darker complexion? Good to know that all black people were suddenly absolutely equal and were treated equally when those laws were repealed and could be "free" all over the place without, you know, fear. Oh wait.

You can make all the laws about gay marriage you want, if the gay person in question has to hide his sexuality for career reasons or for fear of reprisals, and he doesn't dare marry, that doens't help at all.

It's the same thing in reverse of the gun argument: making laws about it won't suddenly change the reality. It's the reality that matters, the laws should be obvious extensions of the people's will. Saying "as long as there's no law prohibiting it, we're all good" is odd.

Remind me where I said social pressure was not a problem. Also, the KKK isn't exactly social pressure, but I'll take your point and include them.

I already acknowledged there are problems for people when pressured by social factors, so I don't feel like we disagree that someone hiding their sexuality for fear of discrimination is bad.

I think the disagreement is about "oppression." The state can pass laws to enforce the illegality of, say, homosexuality, or the second-class role of people from certain racial backgrounds: that to me is oppression. That the KKK exists is not, as they can't set up systematised cruel and exclusive treatment of people, even though their own treatment of people be cruel and exclusive. When it comes to lynching, vandalism, threats, graffiti, we've gone past 'social pressure' and we have a group terrorising another, breaking laws.

It's also the case that you said "social pressure is just as much an oppression as a law." The part I've emphasised I find remarkable: it isn't. If there is no law prohibiting homosexuality, it is tremendously safer, freer, and more likely to change hearts and minds to say "I am gay," than in a society where it is illegal to be gay, even if the majority of people dislike homosexuals. This is because people will not fear the state by associating with you; perhaps they may be less fearful/ashamed of coming out themselves. It would be something that would be safe, even defended by the law, rather than crushed by it.