What impression did you get? I got the impression that people were sick of gay people "announcing" anything to do with their sexuality because straight people don't make announcements. I thought crandc's post was pretty spot-on in response to that.
Ignoring your lumping of over 5 billion people together under the insulting label of "straight people" and declaring "they" are all self-absorbed bigots, your post is still 100% hogwash. All of your examples of "straightness" have been publicly performed countless times before by homosexuals. Homosexuals often marry members of the other sex, engage in sex with members of the other sex, and have children with the other sex. Frankly, I'm surprised you were unaware of this. As an example,... Jason Collins was engaged to be married to his college sweetheart, former WNBA player Carolyn Moos. The two were together for eight years before Jason called off the wedding in 2009, leaving Carolyn heartbroken and confused as to why the relationship ended. The truth wouldn't be revealed to her until years later -- just a few days before Jason publicly announced his homosexuality in Sports Illustrated.
I see it as not a big fucking deal so who cares? Just like who cares if I like checking a womans oil with my dip stick. The only way this would be news is if her wife/gf what ever is hot and they make a hot scissoring tape.
I guess what I'm waiting for is the gay athlete who, rather than announcing his homosexuality, simply does any of those things you mentioned without intentionally calling attention to himself. I think Michael Sam would have made a much more significant statement by kissing his boyfriend on national TV after being drafted WITHOUT having publicly announced his homosexuality first.
If he had aimed for that, there's a decent chance he would have been "outed" before the draft and the uproar would have taken place that he would have had to react to. Knowing that such a revelation causes a stir, I can't really blame an athlete for preferring to get out ahead of it, announce it himself/herself and say the things they'd like to say before all the media reactions begin. Also, I suspect that if it had played out the way you suggest he should have gone for, there would have been intense criticism of Sam hijacking draft night. I suspect (as again I cannot prove) that however he chose to handle it, there would have been plenty of people who would have criticized the choice as being self-serving.
Why did he have to "aim" for anything? If he had been "outed" because he chose to live his life out in the open, what he would have been reacting to is other people making an issue out of something that is, supposedly, not an issue. In my (privileged straight white male) mind, "equality" is not just being treated the same as others by others, but behaving around others as though you're no different than others. If he had been outed, and then responded like "yeah, so I'm gay...who cares?", that would have been a major step. I'm still waiting to see that happen.
But that's pretty much what Violet Palmer did. She announced her upcoming wedding. I was not aware that I said 5 billion people are self absorbed bigots. I guess Maris sees things no one else does. And I really and truly do not need Maris to tell me what gay folks "do". Hit a nerve, maybe?
When you know something is going to trigger a media and relations storm, most people would like to have a measure of control over it, rather than have everyone react to it first. Especially when your job might be riding on it. At the time, it was still far from clear whether he'd be drafted amid the revelation that he was gay. Like with anything else that might jeopardize your employment chances (even when the thing is not a moral wrong), a person would like to address in on their own terms. How things are framed matter. That's why Martin Luther King's oratories weren't, "Yeah, I'm black, who cares?" No one should care, but in a society where people do care, there's unfortunately also an element of persuasion required.
Agreed--the contrast between Palmer and Sam was significant. And the response to her was, for the most part, " OK...so?" Thank you for spring my point. As for anything that MARIS said...I have no comment.
MLK was also trying to get laws changed, and was intending to be the leader of a movement. Neither of those are true of Sam, so the comparison is not really valid. The notion of controlling reaction is fallacious, in my mind. You can't control how people respond to you or what you do; you can only control what you do, and how you respond. Michael Sam chose to act in one way, for whatever reason. All I'm saying is that it would be nice to see someone treat it differently.
I think the comparison is valid; it doesn't have to be a precise one-for-one mapping to be a reasonable comparison. There are other differences, too, like you can't really be "outed" as black (unless you're a mysterious radio star, perhaps). I don't think those differences are relevant to what I was saying...it doesn't matter if Sam was a "leader" of the movement or attempting to change laws; to me, the key was both (to varying degrees) were attempting to change perceptions. "So what?" can be argued as one way to change perceptions, but I don't think most people would say it's the strongest way to do so. If you believe it is, we can agree to disagree. I didn't say "control" connoting absolute control. I said "a measure of control," which denotes some influence. You can't absolutely control anything about other people, but it's absurd to suggest that a person can have no influence at all over how people react to things you say or do. Show up to work naked one day, I promise it'll influence how people react to you. That doesn't mean you controlled them like puppets. It means that the way you, er, framed things changed the way they reacted.
Straight people announce they are straight every day of their lives. It's just that since they think they and only they are "the norm", no one notices. They only notice when a gay person announces he/she is gay. Then they ask, why do you have to tell the world? In other words, why do you gay folks think you can behave like straight folks and announce your engagement? How dare you think you're equal? I can't imagine what you may have meant by this other than all straight people are robotic, self-absorbed bigots. It's a fairly nasty attack, even for you. But maybe I'm not reading between the lines properly, and it's a cleverly disguised compliment?
The bolded part speaks to my initial post, where I said, "What I'm waiting for is...". To rephrase, "what I'm waiting for" is the gay athlete who is comfortable enough with his homosexuality to feel neither the need to hide reality nor attempt to change perception, but to simply be an athlete who happens insignificantly to be gay, rather than be, significantly, a gay athlete.
Personally, I think you're shifting the burden oddly. I would say, I'm waiting for the society that considers the distinction between gay and straight to be insignificant rather than implying that the person living in the discriminatory society, and operates based on that fact, is at fault. I think prejudiced perceptions should be changed, and I respect people who attempt to do so. I don't view that as a failing which you, apparently, do.
Not at fault, per se, but perhaps a bit hypocritical. When Tony Dungy says that he wouldn't have drafted Michael Sam because of the distraction his presence would likely generate, he is publicly derided for saying he would operate based on how the world is, rather than how it should be. Yet when Michael Sam publicly announces his sexual orientation, he is celebrated for operating based on how the world is, rather than how it should be. You're presuming that because I'm not in favor of public announcements regarding sexuality, that I'm in favor of bigotry? That's unreasonable, and I might add, a bit prejudiced. All I've said I think that not making an issue of one's own sexuality would speak loudly about one's feeling about the significance thereof. Inferring more than that is you bringing your own biases to the table.
How does that make Sam hypocritical? At best, you're arguing that the media (or whomever you mean as the public) is being hypocritical. You may want to re-read what I wrote. I never accused you of bigotry or being in favor of it. I said that you see "trying to change perceptions" as a failing, which seems reasonable from this: You said you're waiting for someone who's comfortable enough in their homosexuality to not attempt to change perceptions. How is it an unfair reading to draw from that that you consider "not attempting to change perceptions" as a negative? You're saying you see trying to change perceptions as a positive but would like to see an athlete not do that?
