Sharp writing in story on NBA executive coming out

Better believe I have "an agenda" when I write about gays in sports. Here's my agenda: it's hoping the parents of the kids who torment the 7-year-old kid who lives in my building might happen to be reading the sports pages, and come across a successful person in the world of sports who is gay, or a gay college athlete sharing his story, and think, hmm ... they're not that different. And then maybe my 7-year-old neighbor won't come home crying from soccer practice because his teammates know he has two fathers, and those teammates have been told by their parents that it's "weird" or "abnormal" or against the Bible or whatever. This kid, by the way, was born addicted to crack, abandoned by his mother and impossible to adopt because nobody wanted him. Until my neighbors, two men, went to court on his behalf and finally, after a year and thousands and thousands of dollars, were able to bring him into a loving, stable home.

I think of my colleagues, people in our own little community on this board, who don't share the same rights as I do because they're gay, and are greatly affected in their professional lives because they are gay ... and I think of the kids who are bullied because they are gay, the family friend who committed suicide because he's gay ... I could go on and on about my "agenda" whenever I write about gays or homophobia in sports.

You might NOT CARE, but I'm really not surprised.

 

Sounds like a better story than the one in the Times.

 

If Rick Welts' story changes one person's mind -- just one person who realizes gays aren't scary or evil or carrying an agenda to convert us all -- it's worth it, no matter how it's told.

 

What your neighbor's kid is going through is not only sad, it makes me angry. Your neighbors are heros.

And, I understand and agree with your goals.

But, this article felt like "a very special episode" of the New York Times. I felt talked down to; like I needed the New York Times to tell me it's ok to be gay.

I'm not sure that's the role of the Times, and I'm not sure that the average Times reader needs this message or, if they did, would be persuaded by the story of some executive they've never heard of.

Honestly, the story of your neighbors probably would have more impact.

 

The beautiful thing about this kid is how much he's thriving. When he came to us (I say "us" because he's become such a wonderful part of my life), he was a tiny little thing, just emaciated, like many crack babies. He was expected to have all the usual issues associated with children born addicted: brain damage, difficulty adapting socially (he'd been abandoned after all), constant crying and various medical issues. Six years after my neighbors -- two loving men -- were finally allowed to adopt him, he's a perfectly normal boy. A bit hyper, but not unlike many kids his age. He's smart, social, has friends ... but even in NYC there are bigots or people who are merely uninformed.

To NOT CARE is just pathetic. It's one of the worst traits a human can possess.

 

That's awesome.

 

I think this is a story, and here's why. This guy is an important figure in NBA history. He invented the ancillary stuff that transformed the All-Star Game from an irrelevant day to a three-day event for which cities joust to host. I don't care about any of it, but you can't deny that it's a big deal. So big, in fact, that the NBA agreed to go to Vegas, of all places, to conduct it.
And sports fans at least had never heard of him. Why have we never heard of him? Maybe because he wanted to keep a low profile.
Strictly from a journalism perspective, I think it's interesting.

 

It's noble of Welts, but should The Times be in the business of manipulating public opinion through a news story, orchestrated by a PR firm?

 

Re gingerbread's story about her neighbors and their beautiful little boy: Not even sure how to say this, so forgive me if it comes out wrong, but thank God for those two men, because a married Caucasian heterosexual couple would not seek to adopt that little boy....they'll get the healthy (probably Caucasian) infant that the gay couple rarely gets to adopt.

 

Totally agree. I'm not joking or kidding when I say these guys are heroes.

Anyone who adopts has earned my respect and admiration. But when you adopt a crack baby or a child from a third world country who has been abandoned, you've basically saved a life.

 

Just the same I don't think it's fair to cast a Caucasian couple in a bad light because they want a healthy Caucasian baby.

Any adoption is noble.

 

Any adoption is noble. And some families -- of all shapes, colors, and sizes -- will seek at risk kids to adopt.

But a "traditional" family will have an easier time adopting, and we're lucky -- and more importantly this child is lucky -- that some "non-traditional" families are thankful to adopt any child.