NFT: Jason Collins is teh ghey

[Planetman]

NTTAWWT

Why NBA center Jason Collins is coming out now

By Jason Collins with Franz Lidz

This story appears in the May 6, 2013, issue of Sports Illustrated.

I'm a 34-year-old NBA center. I'm black. And I'm gay.

I didn't set out to be the first openly gay athlete playing in a major American team sport. But since I am, I'm happy to start the conversation. I wish I wasn't the kid in the classroom raising his hand and saying, "I'm different." If I had my way, someone else would have already done this. Nobody has, which is why I'm raising my hand.

My journey of self-discovery and self-acknowledgement began in my hometown of Los Angeles and has taken me through two state high school championships, the NCAA Final Four and the Elite Eight, and nine playoffs in 12 NBA seasons.

I've played for six pro teams and have appeared in two NBA Finals. Ever heard of a parlor game called Three Degrees of Jason Collins? If you're in the league, and I haven't been your teammate, I surely have been one of your teammates' teammates. Or one of your teammates' teammates' teammates.

Now I'm a free agent, literally and figuratively. I've reached that enviable state in life in which I can do pretty much what I want. And what I want is to continue to play basketball. I still love the game, and I still have something to offer. My coaches and teammates recognize that. At the same time, I want to be genuine and authentic and truthful.

Why am I coming out now? Well, I started thinking about this in 2011 during the NBA player lockout. I'm a creature of routine. When the regular season ends I immediately dedicate myself to getting game ready for the opener of the next campaign in the fall. But the lockout wreaked havoc on my habits and forced me to confront who I really am and what I really want. With the season delayed, I trained and worked out. But I lacked the distraction that basketball had always provided.

The first relative I came out to was my aunt Teri, a superior court judge in San Francisco. Her reaction surprised me. "I've known you were gay for years," she said. From that moment on I was comfortable in my own skin. In her presence I ignored my censor button for the first time. She gave me support. The relief I felt was a sweet release. Imagine you're in the oven, baking. Some of us know and accept our sexuality right away and some need more time to cook. I should know -- I baked for 33 years.

When I was younger I dated women. I even got engaged. I thought I had to live a certain way. I thought I needed to marry a woman and raise kids with her. I kept telling myself the sky was red, but I always knew it was blue.

I realized I needed to go public when Joe Kennedy, my old roommate at Stanford and now a Massachusetts congressman, told me he had just marched in Boston's 2012 Gay Pride Parade. I'm seldom jealous of others, but hearing what Joe had done filled me with envy. I was proud of him for participating but angry that as a closeted gay man I couldn't even cheer my straight friend on as a spectator. If I'd been questioned, I would have concocted half truths. What a shame to have to lie at a celebration of pride. I want to do the right thing and not hide anymore. I want to march for tolerance, acceptance and understanding. I want to take a stand and say, "Me, too."

[nychief]

There is some pretty...pretty...scientific stats being thrown around here. They may sound like complete conjecture or, simply, guesses... but they are the FACTS. Like one person has ever been fired for being homosexual... uhhh... cuz I guessed it hard in head thinker.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by nychief

So, no such thing as discrimination toward the LGBT community... wow. Hell it is legal in 29 states, I believe.

This point has already been made. And the response is that that puts gays on the same footing as heterosexuals legally, not a different one.

Of course discrimination exists. It also exists for unattractive people and people who don't have charming personalities.

[patteeu]

Which is more morally acceptable, firing a person because they're

(a) gay
(b) straight
(c) unattractive

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by Mr. Laz

odds ... so you're playing odds on right and wrong?

so if something is a rare occurrence we don't need to worry about it?

There have been several links to examples were people have been fired for being gay and there is no know occurrence EVER of someone being fired for being straight. In fact, the idea of someone firing a person for being straight is so astoundingly absurd that has even occurred to someone to put those specific words into law.

tapping dancing with technicalities doesn't change reality

It must be exciting to never make two posts without changing the issue...makes for a lousy discussion, though.

The statement is that gays have the same rights as straights. In states where there are no laws that strictly prohibit gays from being fired due to their sexual orientation, there are no laws prohibiting straights from being fired due to their sexual orientation.

You then chose to argue something completely different...that it's incredibly rare for a straight person to be fired for being straight. When I agreed but pointed out that it's also extremely rare for a person to be fired just for being gay, you changed the topic again and tried to turn it into a value judgment.

I made no statement towards the value of the laws. I simply acknowledged their existence.

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Which is more morally acceptable, firing a person because they're

(a) gay
(b) straight
(c) unattractive

How about firing them based on none of those and only the work they do. Why would any of those options be acceptable?

[nychief]

Originally Posted by patteeu

This point has already been made. And the response is that that puts gays on the same footing as heterosexuals legally, not a different one.

Of course discrimination exists. It also exists for unattractive people and people who don't have charming personalities.

that is a fun way to look at it. what is the point of this discussion? discrimination exists, so why do anything about it... is an apathetic response, that is usually the symptom of deeper fears. There are stupid people, lets close the schools! mostly i see people who are weary of a changing society, who want to justify not changing it.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

How about firing them based on none of those and only the work they do. Why would any of those options be acceptable?

Good idea. As soon as you start clamoring for laws protecting unattractive people, you can stop being a hypocrite.

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

How about firing them based on none of those and only the work they do. Why would any of those options be acceptable?

Holy moly! Never thought I'd see the day you finally came out in opposition to affirmative action and quotas in the workplace. Kudos to you brother!

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

How about firing them based on none of those and only the work they do. Why would any of those options be acceptable?

So your answer is that they're all equal in terms of moral acceptability?

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by nychief

that is a fun way to look at it. what is the point of this discussion? discrimination exists, so why do anything about it... is an apathetic response, that is usually the symptom of deeper fears. There are stupid people, lets close the schools! mostly i see people who are weary of a changing society, who want to justify not changing it.

The point of the discussion is to accurately define the issue before we start passing laws. As written, gays have every right that straights have. That doesn't mean that the laws are fair/just/adequate/etc. It's simply a matter of identifying what the current laws do and do not address.

[Chief Faithful]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Which is more morally acceptable, firing a person because they're

(a) gay
(b) straight
(c) unattractive

I'm glad over-weight is not on that list.

[blaise]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

How about firing them based on none of those and only the work they do. Why would any of those options be acceptable?

We already have racially or disability based hiring practices and admission practices going on in the name of diversity or Affirmative Action. How is that really any different? That's considered acceptable in some places.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by nychief

that is a fun way to look at it. what is the point of this discussion? discrimination exists, so why do anything about it... is an apathetic response, that is usually the symptom of deeper fears. There are stupid people, lets close the schools! mostly i see people who are weary of a changing society, who want to justify not changing it.

The point of that particular part of the discussion was that gays are already treated equally (relative to straights) when it comes to employment laws. What is it that you want to do about discrimination?

[nychief]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

As written, gays have every right that straights have.

Did you mean to write this?

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by patteeu

So your answer is that they're all equal in terms of moral acceptability?

Yes.