RealGM

Good for him.

Not a huge deal.

Hope it doesn't prevent him from being signed by a team.

Kudos to Nash and Kobe for public statements of support.

I Think it was both wise and a little cowardly to do it after his season was completed and his career almost over.

Am I wrong to wish he'd done it while a member of the Hawks? I just kind of like the thought of our Hawks team actually going down in the history books by featuring the first openly gay player in US History. Especially in a town with such a pronounced gay community.

Hawk Responses:

Levenson said. "Jason represented everything that we look for as a member of the Atlanta Hawks and we are proud he wore our jersey."

Zaza Pachulia, a current Hawk and former teammate of Collins, said “Jason was a complete professional as a teammate. He made our team better and competed every single night.”

While this was overdue as a society. I kinda think it's being overblown.

Thoughts?

.......Good for him

Being the first openly gay player in American sports is kinda historic...if he gets picked up that is. This has literally never happened. Sometime people want to pretend its not a big deal but then some athlete will make a statement about how he wouldn't play with a gay teammate and you can see how its still relevant.

that said, everyone knew that John Amiechi was gay seeing as he brought that guy to the spouse lounge all the time and it didn't mean anything to anyone.

For society as a whole, it’s a good thing. For Jason, it’s a good thing. For his book deal, it’s a very good thing

This stuff has no place on a basketball forum. What if it's NOT "a good thing" for society or for Jason? What if it hurts him? What if he's a victim of childhood rape?

What if his life expectancy is less since he lives the gay lifestyle?
What if he has a much greater chance of disease?
What if he goes from empty encounter to empty encounter?

I go to sports to get away from this ol' world for just a little while. Why shove someone else's values on me, especially since the "tolerant" folks will blow up at my values?

Can we talk basketball or does ESPN get to preach, now?

^

parson wrote:What if his life expectancy is less since he lives [this] lifestyle?
What if he has a much greater chance of disease?
What if he goes from empty encounter to empty encounter?

These kind of questions aren't just limited to gays or Jason Collins. Wilt Chamberlain, Magic Johnson, Dennis Rodman, Shawn Kemp all participated in promiscuous activities that negatively effected their lives and many, MANY others.

I only opened the thread because he was recently a long-time member of our Hawks team. Playing with multiple members of our current team. He also cold be a potential replacement for Johan Petro because of these connections.

For what it's worth, it did take a lot of courage. Being the poster boy for gay athletes.

I hear you . . . and you certainly have a right to your opinion.

But what if he's hurting himself and what if we're hurting other young men by glorifying this lifestyle?

parson wrote:I hear you . . . and you certainly have a right to your opinion.

But what if he's hurting himself and what if we're hurting other young men by glorifying this lifestyle?

Fair questions.

As a Christian I am conflicted between compassion and condemnation.

parson wrote:This stuff has no place on a basketball forum. What if it's NOT "a good thing" for society or for Jason? What if it hurts him? What if he's a victim of childhood rape?

What if his life expectancy is less since he lives the gay lifestyle?
What if he has a much greater chance of disease?
What if he goes from empty encounter to empty encounter?

I go to sports to get away from this ol' world for just a little while. Why shove someone else's values on me, especially since the "tolerant" folks will blow up at my values?

Can we talk basketball or does ESPN get to preach, now?

Woh.... slow down there Adolf.

Yeah once people bring Hitler into a discussion then they have lost the right to be taken seriously.


Parson, I don't understand how its "promoting" a lifestyle. I don't think kids will go gay because a basketball player says that he is gay.

you can have your beliefs...that's fine. Most of them appear to be antiquated stereotypes which are more damaging to our youth than being gay, but they are your opinion and you are free to have it.

Rip2137 wrote:Yeah once people bring Hitler into a discussion then they have lost the right to be taken seriously.


Parson, I don't understand how its "promoting" a lifestyle. I don't think kids will go gay because a basketball player says that he is gay.

you can have your beliefs...that's fine. Most of them appear to be antiquated stereotypes which are more damaging to our youth than being gay, but they are your opinion and you are free to have it.

According to the Family Research Council, in 1994, their research showed that a gay man has a life expectancy of 43, while the average man's is 73. Compare this to the worst 1/3 of cigarette smokers - the ones who will get lung cancer - they have a life expectancy of 54. It's healthier to be among the worst 1/3 of cigarette smokers than a gay man. To be fair, the Southern Poverty Law Center (which is not a mortality research authority) "debunks" this research by claiming there are some errors, yet they cannot list those errors.

Your claim that my "antiquated stereotypes" are "more damaging to our youth" is like telling me if a child who is playing in the freeway gets hit while I'm warning him, that it's my fault he got hurt. I think love demands someone scream, "Get off the road!"

By the way, I'm pretty sure I haven't used any "antiquated stereotypes." Probably the only one being used here would be Hitler.

Using stats from 1994 kinda reinforces the "antiquated stereotypes" argument. A lot has changed in 20 years.

RIP, I think ESPN and current media's over the top coverage is as much a concern to Parsons as is Collins personal choices.

I'm glad he isn't being publicly castigated, but it's almost exploitative how much ESPN is bending over backwards to accommodate a guy who avg 1.1 ppg last season.

I look forward to the day when a man's sexuality doesn't warrant 24 hour, wall-to-wall coverage of any kind.

June, 2005, from the Federal govt. : Gay obituaries closely track officially reported deaths from AIDS.

US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health wrote:Abstract

The age distribution of AIDS deaths of males who have sex with males [MSM] was estimated from obituaries in the Washington Blade, a gay newspaper. Statistics from the 2003 HIV/AIDS Surveillance Supplemental Report are highly congruent with deaths of MSM due to AIDS from these obituaries. Death due to AIDS in old age was most frequent for heterosexuals and least frequent for MSM who were drug abusers. Obituaries in the Washington Blade are thus consistent with and may be representative of deaths due to AIDS among MSM. The latest CDC report tends to strengthen the overall finding based upon obituaries: that the lifespan of MSM is shortened two to three decades by AIDS and, possibly, other causes.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16050624

Jamaaliver:

IF there were a ESPN in 1947, it would have been over the top coverage.

If there had been a baseball internet forum someone would have posted a topic saying "Jackie Robinson....is a MLB player." And someone would have come in and sited studies about how blacks, when put in equal standing as whites, become disobedient and a danger to society. They also would have been the ones who said "I don't care, I don't know why this is a big deal" and there would have been the "I look forward to the day when a mans skin color doesn't warrant 24 hour, wall to wall coverage of any kind".

The good thing is, a man's skin color DOESN'T require coverage anymore and the same will happen with openly gay athetes.

Parson...sigh.

Lets put it like this. There are a estimated 6 MILLION gay men in the US(2011). There were 38k cases of HIV among men in 2011. So, just for the sake of argument, let say that ALL CASES of male AIDS was caused by homosexual activity(just to be clear, this is not true), and ALL the people that were on AIDs medication coming into the year were gay as well(which isn't true) it still wouldn't cover 5 percent of the gay male population. So the VAST MAJORITY of gay males are not getting AIDS. This is a fact. A LARGER majority of heterosexual males are not getting AIDS. This is also a fact. But to equate being gay with "gonna get Aids" is quite antiquated.

Your argument is that if you are gay you stand a higher chance of being part of a small percentage of people. However, how you live your life, gay or straight, presents the same risk. A heterosexual male that is having sex without protection with multiple partners will probably not have a healthy future. Same for a homosexual male with the same lifestyle.

Your weird analogy makes no sense. It WOULD be your fault if the kid got hit if your warning was "getting hit by cars is something that happens to fat, short kids" and the kid was tall and skinny. See with your "WHAT ABOUT THE UNHEALTHINESS OF BEING GAY" is what is creating this false sense of security in straight youth into thinking they don't have to worry about STD's and AIDS because they aren't gay. A greater chance of disease comes from living a unsafe lifestyle and yes you can live the "gay lifestyle" and be just as safe and healthy as a straight counterpart.

Also, you broke out the old, tired "Gay? Must have been molested" argument, that is yes, VERY antiquated and false. The antiquated "Gays? They don't have monogamist relationships, its one encounter to another" as if Jason Collins is just hanging out in rest stop bathrooms is another tired, FALSE, stereotype. Unless you believe all those gays want to get married....so they can hop from relationship to relationship(makes no sense dude).

But I said again, you are free to have your stereotypes, its just that they are false.

From the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry:

A. 28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners: "Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

B. 79% of homosexual men say over half of sex partners are strangers: "The survey showed 79% of the respondents saying that over half of their sexual partners were strangers. Seventy percent said that over half of their sexual partners were people with whom they had sex only once. Bell and Weinberg pp.308-309." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

C. Modal range for homosexual sex partners 101-500: "In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

D. 1978 study, 78% of gay men ad more than 100 partners, 28% more than 1000: "A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250- 499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984." (catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html)

E. There is an extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men as compared to married heterosexuals. Among married females 85% reported sexual fidelity. Among married men, 75.5% reported sexual fidelity. Among homosexual males in their current relationship, 4.5% reported sexual fidelity. (Sources:Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, "Extramarital Sex," 170. This is extracted from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02)

Link: http://carm.org/statistics-homosexual-promiscuity

Rip, as far as tired, old, antiquated and false arguments go, please note that I'm citing sources; you're just throwing stones.

Me and Rip.

Parson & Rip

HMFFL & ugadawgs

I also don't like Nascar or golf coverage so I get absolutely annoyed when I see it on ESPN or in the paper.....or I just tune it out or flip the page to something else. Rather easy, actually. Not bothering myself with things that are not to my liking rather than stopping by and telling people all over just how much it bothers me. Perhaps tonight I should stop by the King's board and post in a thread just how much I am not interested in their team and feel aggravated that they are pushing it upon me.