Posted on 05/02/2013 4:25:39 AM PDT by Kaslin
Compared to the hell Jackie Robinson went through, Jason Collins is getting a ticker tape parade.
Collins, a 12-year National Basketball Association player, recently wrote a column in which he announced that he is gay: "I didn't set out to be the first openly gay (male) athlete playing in a major American team sport. But since I am, I'm happy to start the conversation."
When comedian Ellen DeGeneres came out in 1997, she appeared on the cover of Time magazine with the earth-shattering headline, 'Yep, I'm Gay.' With a general population that surveys put at about 4 percent homosexual (although estimates run as high as 5 to 10 percent), is anyone surprised that, in a country of 10,000 or so pro athletes, gay male athletes exist? After all, the WNBA, the NBA's sister league, features several openly gay players. When the league's top draft pick, Phoenix Mercury center Brittney Griner, recently "came out," the media and fans said "ho-hum." But when Collins came out, he became front-page news as the first male to do so.
At one time, gay athletes like Billie Jean King and Martina Navratilova lost fans and endorsements. In Collins' case, one of the few discordant notes came from a professional football player who tweeted: "All these beautiful women in the world and guys wanna mess with other guys. SMH (shaking my head)." Four minutes later, he sent an apologetic tweet and got publicly slammed by his employer, the Miami Dolphins.
Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama praised Collins for his courage. Obama even called the athlete to offer his support.
Open arms. Not exactly how baseball greeted Robinson.
About racism in America, John O. Sullivan, the editor of the conservative magazine "National Review," once said: "White racism exists. But its social power is weak; the social power against it overwhelming." Similarly, hostility toward gays certainly exists, but its social power is growing weaker and on the decline.
Will fans, as happened during Jackie Robinson's playing days, shout out slurs with no fear of getting thrown out of the arena or getting beaten up by outraged fans?
Will Collins' teammates, as in Robinson's case, pass around a petition signed by a number of teammates, stating they refuse to play with him?
Will arenas require gay fans to sit apart from non-gay fans the way many stadiums, during Robinson's era, segregated black fans from white fans?
Will they tell gay reporters, as they did black reporters during Robinson's day, to sit in the stands, typewriter on the lap, rather than in the press booth with the other reporters?
Tolerance cuts both ways.
What happens to a player who says, "I think homosexuality is a sin," or, "Got no problem playing with or against him, but I don't approve of his lifestyle"? Or a player who asks: "What's all this business about 'bravery'? What Collins does behind closed doors is his business. Why do I need to know about it?"
In 2007, sportswriter Chris Broussard of ESPN wrote about an openly gay colleague: "I've played in several rec leagues with LZ Granderson, who is an openly gay writer at ESPN The Magazine. ... I don't shower with LZ after games like NBA teammates do, and I'll admit that if I had to, it might be a little uncomfortable at first. But if a gay player just goes about his business in the shower, showing that he has no sexual interest in his teammates and that he's not 'checking them out,' I think the awkwardness would wear off fairly quickly. LZ and I know where each other stand, and we respect each other's right to believe as he does. I know he's gay, and he knows I believe that's a sin. I know he thinks I get my moral standards from an outdated, mistranslated book, and he knows I believe he needs to change his lifestyle."
About Collins' coming out, Broussard said: "Personally, I don't believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle or (engage in) openly premarital sex between heterosexuals. If you're openly living that type of lifestyle, then the Bible says you know them by their fruits, it says that's a sin. If you're openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality, adultery, fornication, premarital sex between heterosexuals -- whatever it may be, I believe that's walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. I would not characterize that person as a Christian because I do not think the Bible would characterize them as a Christian." The Washington Post wrote that ESPN stood by Broussard despite his "controversial" comments.
Want political incorrectly controversy? How about an athlete or Hollywood star "coming out" as an Iraq War-supporting, tax-cutting, ObamaCare-opposing ... conservative! With Collins coming out, the NBA has exactly one more openly gay player than it has who is openly Republican.
Dr. Ben Carson, the neurologist and ObamaCare critic, accepted an invitation to speak at Johns Hopkins' commencement. But after Carson stated his opposition to gay marriage, students and faculty protested. Carson withdrew.
Jason Collins could teach Johns Hopkins a lesson in tolerance.
As am I. And I am really sick of so called conservatives finding all the extra special reasons it can be fit into pur supposed worldview.
Last night, two more libs got the zot defending homosexual adoption by conservatives.
Remember CPAC? GOProud? Remember how people said NO! ? Some here seem to think that never happened. They seem to have a problem that conservative thought (traditional not current) rejects homosexuality entirely. And always has.
But of course, the liberal moles and psuedocons on FR and across the political right just have to keep chipping away to make it acceptable in some narrowly defined circumstance. That should disgust us all.
This is being called a “Jackie Robinson” moment.
Bull$hit.
No one has prevented gays from playing major league sports. No one has set up separate fountains for gays.
Blacks got a raw deal in this country. Gays enjoy all the privileges they could ever dream of.
Apologize to blacks.
Norm Norm Norm...yes, words mean things...which means, ALL THE WORDS mean something. You intentionally removed half of Gen Blathers words on this particular point so as to make you snotty little point. You are the one who didn't have the guts to take on his entire thought. Now if you do, I'd like to see it, but he was making a potentially valid point about the difference between two very different communities within the non hetero population.
It is interesting that we are told that homosexuality is in the genes, that it is not environmental or learned or a choice. But this guy has an identical twin and identical twins have identical DNA.
Guess what? The twin is not homosexual and was as stunned as the nine-year girlfriend by the gayness declaration.
Still waiting CW. Where is the tracts and speeches of Conservatives accepting homosexuality as conservative? Find them and present them here. Don’t bother trying to divert your failure. This is the issue.
they only make it up to 3.4%.
There is a flaw in this methodology. PEW Research was able to identify it when they discovered that 91% of all persons who are polled don't ever end up giving an answer ~ which means the average poll has only a 9% response rate. Start with the PJ Media story ~ >http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/09/30/we-are-the-91-only-9-of-americans-cooperate-with-pollsters/
You might ask what that has to do with anything ~ other than the need to make polls bigger ~ and you would be right to do so. Turns out that as we approach '0', '0' being a situation where NOBODY ANSWERS A POLLSTER, a smaller and smaller portion of all those polled is providing ALL the answers!
If that very small portion is aware that there's a question of peculiar interest to them, and they answer 100% of the time any one of their members is polled they can easily distort the actual response levels!
Think about it if 100% of the sample population responds at a 9% level, and X% of the sample population responds at a 100% level..................
We can examine the issue this way. Assume that 10% are homosexual. Say that we sample 100 homosexuals, and 900 straight folks (they'd all be chosen perfectly randomly BTW). That's 1000 in the sample population. Out of that we get 100 answers from homosexuals and 90 answers from straight folks!
WOW! The homosexual response is then 52% of the total response ~ or roughly 5X the percentage we'd imagine with their being but 10% of the population.
Now that I've addressed your concerns about gay marriage and JCPenney marketing poll results, let's go a bit further.
Assume there are 1% of the population who are homosexual. We sample 1000 people, 10 of them homosexual and 990 straight. The 10 homosexuals answer 100% of the time, and the 990 straight people answer 9% of the time. The result is that homosexuals account for 11% of the total response ~ that is 11 TIMES their assumed representation in the population.
Let's say the gays are just .3% of the population. We ask 1000 people to answer questions. 3 gays answer. 90 straights answer. The result will be that gays are once again 3% of the answer.
That, BTW, is 10 TIMES their assumed representation in the population.
That tells you where the polls came from that favored Romney. A miniscule number of gays, answering 100% of the time to every possible poll, made themselves look like they were 3%. That was enough to tip every poll, including Gallup's own poll about how many people are gay, to the gay point of view!
This year you will go to the store and buy products that fit the gay point of view on acceptable color and fit! You will near 'newsies' tell you that gay marriage is good, gay sex is good, gay shampoo is good, and whatever it is they are eating this year, is good.
If I might quote The Hildabeaste:
What difference, at this point, does it make?
In other words, who cares?
You miss the point, I am not trying to defend Gen Blathers argument per se, I am only pointing out that you are taking his argument out of context in a gutless manner. I would like you to take on his entire argument. I tend to reject any notion of single issues being a total definition of anyone.
A homosexual who stays in the closet and believes in limited government regulation and taxation is less of a threat to me than either a gay activist liberal OR a big government social conservative frankly. It’s a worthwhile discussion, but you only want to take on half the issue. Your anger and self righteousness, compared with your shallowness, is rather off putting.
God I miss Bill Buckley.
Is the identical twin mortified by his brother’s depravity
My statement quoted his which was clear and unambiguous. That is the definition of being in context.
As you refuse to cite evidence that homosexuality is a part of conservative philosophy, I must conclude that you were simply grandstanding in support of pushing it on conservatives. That puts you in the liberal wing of the conservative movement.
Now again. either put up or shut up. When you show how a response to a direct quote, in context is out of context, ping me. When you show how homosexual acceptance is a conservative pillar, ping me.
Until that time, feel free to posture all you like. Because anyone with the ability to read can see that you cannot back up squat.
Me too. His Gore Vidal interview was informative regarding conservatism and homosexuality.
Sounds like he has more than the usual number of problems!
Wait till the twin/genetics thing has time to make the rounds and sink in to peoples heads. That destroys one of their main arguments and though they will spin, it opened the door to discuss all this scientifically.
So, you support ambiguity and conning people? Way to go Norm. In your own words, I have destroyed you. (no, you won't be smart enough to understand what I just did to you, but maybe someone can help you out).
You freaking liar.
“My statement quoted his which was clear and unambiguous. That is the definition of being in context.”
Thats a cut and paste. Notice the un is not missing?
There it is folks. Read it for yourselves. C, There went your credibility.
Unless a pollster makes some effort to filter gays out of the responses their opinion can be amplified up to 11Times their actual representation in the population.
Guess what? The twin is not homosexual and was as stunned as the nine-year girlfriend by the gayness declaration.
That is why homos have to recruit new homos. Schools are promoting the homo agenda as normal.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
Remember too that homosexuals have long been working their way into political, media and other areas where information is distributed/legislated. There are a number of ways they amplify their numbers/influence and strangely enough they all crossrefrence. A perfect circle of propaganda.
It’s the global warming consensus model.
When I was in college the leftists and SDS people didn’t like gays and made the same homo jokes that all guys did. This sure has changed.
Today Everyone can’t cave into the gay agenda fast enough...obviously many Republicans too
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
