Former Bill Comes Out of Closet!

[The REAL Sabres]

COMING OUT

REAL SPORTS tackles head-on one of the most explosive issues in professional team sports - the notion of having a gay athlete on the squad. Correspondent Bernard Goldberg talks to a former NFL veteran, burdened with keeping his homosexuality closeted during his long career, who has now chosen to reveal his long-kept secret.

Most notably playing with Minnesota, this defensive lineman was in training camp with the Buffalo Bills in 1997. Some may remember him from the preseason American Bowl in Toronto, at which he sung the National Anthems. He was cut the day after. He has played regular season games with Minnesota, Green Bay, Jacksonville, Atlanta and Carolina. His name is Esera Tuaolo.

See his story on the most recent edition of Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel on HBO.

[billsfanone]

At least the fruitcake has a sense of humor.

"I'm just your typical gay Samoan ex-nose tackle who would like to break into show business."

http://espn.go.com/magazine/vol5no23tuaolo.html

[BogusTrumper]

I remember him singing the national anthem. He was good.

[JoeMama]

Haha...

Nice quote BF1. Good ol' gay people. Always so charming.

[jjm19672000]

Glad he's gone.

[hondo]

I hope he has a good life.

jjm1967 - you sound like a gay basher. So, when are you coming out or are you worried the MPs will find your size 16 high heeled pumps in your foot locker?...

[jjm19672000]

No, I'm not a gay basher. But I do know that Tuaolo would be disruptive in the locker room, and also in the military. And you need not worry about finding pumps in my locker. I'm straight, all man, and I leave the femininity in my family to my wife.

[Drain Bead]

Gay men are all man too, you know.

[jjm19672000]

I disagree.

[Drain Bead]

Are gay women all woman?

[OBF]

To each his own.

[jjm19672000]

I glad somebody feels that way.

[bizibob]

Intolerance is ignorance.

[jjm19672000]

Call me ignorant, intolerable, backwards, clueless, whatever. I've been military for 17 years and married for 11, so I've been called a lot worse. What two consenting adults do is their business, with that I agree. I will not judge, for that is God's job. However, I'm sure that the members of this board know that not all homosexuals prefer adults. I do have a six-year-old son, and I would kill to protect him.

[BogusTrumper]

Not all heteralsexuals prefer adults. You'd better protect your kids from them too. But I don't know what that has to do with having a homosexual on your football team.

[EricStratton]

Originally posted by BogusTrumper
But I don't know what that has to do with having a homosexual on your football team.

Neither do I.

[jjm19672000]

Being a disruption, as I'm sure you guys know he would be. A pro football team is like a military unit--a team!

[BogusTrumper]

I'm looking forward to the day when he wouldn't be.

[Billsman]

Brian H just came out a few weeks ago... hehe

[EricStratton]

Originally posted by BogusTrumper
I'm looking forward to the day when he wouldn't be.


I think that day is a long way off BT.

[jjm19672000]

Originally posted by BogusTrumper
I'm looking forward to the day when he wouldn't be.

Don't count on it any time soon in this military.

[Stealth01]

Well, I don't know that the NFL or its players have a lot of room to say that a homosexual in the locker room would be a disruption. Here's my line of reasoning. Please refrain from calling me a gay basher, as I have many gay friends and couldn't care less about their orientation.

My objection to gays in the military has always revolved around a combination of cost versus the privacy of the majority of military members. For example, I am a fairly modest guy. Other than my wife, I don't like to change clothes, shower, or otherwise get naked in front of women. I consider it an important privacy issue, and I think many women would feel the same -- no WAY they are changing clothes in front of a guy they don't know.

Similarly, I don't want to change in front of a MAN who could be sexually interested in me. I've been in that situation--gotten out of the shower and had a guy comment about my appearance. Found out later he was gay and felt, for lack of a less overused word, violated.

Since the military is VERY often in close quarters--sharing rooms, community showers, etc--introducing either members of the opposite sex or homosexuals into that situation is a violation of someone's privacy rights.

With men and women, it's easy to handle. Men's barracks and women's barracks are separate. How, though, do you handle homosexuals? Do you put a homosexual man in a women's barracks? In that case, half the military would suddenly come out of the closet. If you put them in the male barracks, it's like putting women in there -- violating the right to privacy. So give them their own barracks? We could, I suppose. It would cost MILLIONS of dollars. But more importantly, I fear for what would happen to those dorms/barracks. I don't think the military society is ready, yet, to prevent potential violence and vandalism in that case. Besides, the money spent may not be worth the limited return it would provide.

Giving everyone their own private room is another solution that's been bantered around, but that's simply not possible financially.

The NFL, however, has allowed women reporters into the men's locker rooms for years. Decades, I believe. So saying that a homosexual man would be disruptive in a locker room is just bunk. It's no different than having women in there, and that milestone's been reached already.

That's my 2-cents-worth anyway.

[billsfanone]

Originally posted by Stealth01
So saying that a homosexual man would be disruptive in a locker room is just bunk.

I agree with you, not this point however. I think the term "locker room" is a catch all term to mean off the field. So a teammate who is a problem in the locker room, doesn't specifically mean he is a problem in an actual locker room, but off the field (locker room, team meetings, trips, etc.).

[Stealth01]

Perhaps, BF-1, but I just don't see it being much of a problem unless the gay player makes advances or something. I suspect the vast majority of teams would be welcoming and surprisingly tolerant/understanding.

Unless the QB is gay and the center is worried. :d

[Stealth01]

Wow. That means Tim Ruddy MUST be worried!

Hee hee hee.

[Mouldsie]

actually, he is NOT worried.... :(


We have gay coaches in the locker room (Miami's gay 70's pornstar), why not players? :d




p.s. "Gay President 2064" -'We're relistic' (Simpsons)

[Mouldsie]

done

[StKittsDave]

With all the sick people that mollest and hurt kids, beat their wives and so on, it surprises me people are so freaked by queers

Hell, i'd rather work with a queer than someone who beats their wife.

[JoeMama]

Originally posted by jjm19672000
Call me ignorant, intolerable, backwards, clueless, whatever. I've been military for 17 years and married for 11, so I've been called a lot worse. What two consenting adults do is their business, with that I agree. I will not judge, for that is God's job. However, I'm sure that the members of this board know that not all homosexuals prefer adults. I do have a six-year-old son, and I would kill to protect him.

jjm,

I usually agree with you man. But I think you're a little misinformed.

The average pedofile is a heterosexual. You don't need to worry about gay men molesting your children.

So, if there's one piece of knowledge I can pass on, I'd like to be for you to know that pedofilia is a heterosexual problem. Not a gay problem.

Hope that helps sway your opinion.

[JoeMama]

Originally posted by Buffarama
I think when someone hides in a closet, they innately know that something they did was wrong. Seems simple enough.
When child molestation becomes a preferred lifestyle, all the pedaphiles can come out of the closet too.
BTW, I'm as entitled to an opinion as anyone else, it's my preference :)
Can we destroy this thread now and talk football?

1) Most gay people remain "in the closet" to avoid confrontation & ridicule from people such as yourself. It's not their fault their stuck between a rock & a hard place over their sexual orientation.

2) Comparing homosexuality to child molestation is ridiculous. Child molestation is a horrible illegal atrocity (almost always perpetrated by heterosexuals, not gays). Homosexuality is simply a sexual preference.

Child molestation=crime that hurts society
Homosexuality=private orientation that hurts no one

3) You're entitled to your opinion, but you should get a little more education before you spout things out like this.

Read about the psychology of the average gay person.

Read about the average pedofile (heterosexual).

My point is, do some research. I'm not trying to make you sound like an idiot, I just think you're misinformed.

[jjm19672000]

JoeMama, I've got to disagree with you on one of your points. There are many homosexual child molesters out there, but you don't often hear about it in today's liberal media. Unless, of course, it's connected with a high-profile person or organization, such as the Roman Catholic Church. I mean no disrespect to the Pope or any of the RC faithful, because that church is stocked with good people who love God.
Remember that college student who was killed in Wyoming? I'll be the first to tell you that it was wrong, reprehensible, immoral, disgraceful, and heinous. But equally as wrong, reprehensible, immoral, disgraceful, and heinous was the two homosexual men who lured a 12-year-old boy into their apartment, bound him in such a way that it brought on a slow death, and raped him until he died. Did you hear much about it in the liberal, PC media? No.
I know the average homosexual is not a pedophile, but I don't honestly believe that you can say that this problem does not exist.

[jjm19672000]

Originally posted by Stealth01
Well, I don't know that the NFL or its players have a lot of room to say that a homosexual in the locker room would be a disruption. Here's my line of reasoning. Please refrain from calling me a gay basher, as I have many gay friends and couldn't care less about their orientation.

My objection to gays in the military has always revolved around a combination of cost versus the privacy of the majority of military members. For example, I am a fairly modest guy. Other than my wife, I don't like to change clothes, shower, or otherwise get naked in front of women. I consider it an important privacy issue, and I think many women would feel the same -- no WAY they are changing clothes in front of a guy they don't know.

Similarly, I don't want to change in front of a MAN who could be sexually interested in me. I've been in that situation--gotten out of the shower and had a guy comment about my appearance. Found out later he was gay and felt, for lack of a less overused word, violated.

Since the military is VERY often in close quarters--sharing rooms, community showers, etc--introducing either members of the opposite sex or homosexuals into that situation is a violation of someone's privacy rights.

With men and women, it's easy to handle. Men's barracks and women's barracks are separate. How, though, do you handle homosexuals? Do you put a homosexual man in a women's barracks? In that case, half the military would suddenly come out of the closet. If you put them in the male barracks, it's like putting women in there -- violating the right to privacy. So give them their own barracks? We could, I suppose. It would cost MILLIONS of dollars. But more importantly, I fear for what would happen to those dorms/barracks. I don't think the military society is ready, yet, to prevent potential violence and vandalism in that case. Besides, the money spent may not be worth the limited return it would provide.

Giving everyone their own private room is another solution that's been bantered around, but that's simply not possible financially.

The NFL, however, has allowed women reporters into the men's locker rooms for years. Decades, I believe. So saying that a homosexual man would be disruptive in a locker room is just bunk. It's no different than having women in there, and that milestone's been reached already.

That's my 2-cents-worth anyway.

OK Stealth, your turn. Having been in this military for 17 years, I've worked in a variety of environments. I've been a security policeman, working out in the middle of nowhere with 5 other cops, a cook, and a facility manager. Very tight quarters. Since 1993, I've been in personnel, and have assisted a first sergeant with documents regarding homosexual acts by military personnel. I can honestly say this: Homosexual activity by military members is prejudicial to good order and discipline. I know that we are supposed to be held to a higher standard, but when dealing with people, that higher standard is not always met. I can't go into specifics without violating privacy, but, the actiuons of these two members affected not only them, but significan portions of the rest of the unit as well.

[JoeMama]

But equally as wrong, reprehensible, immoral, disgraceful, and heinous was the two homosexual men who lured a 12-year-old boy into their apartment, bound him in such a way that it brought on a slow death, and raped him until he died. Did you hear much about it in the liberal, PC media? No.
I know the average homosexual is not a pedophile, but I don't honestly believe that you can say that this problem does not exist.

What I'm saying is, you were concerned about gays because you don't want them molesting your child. But the average pedofile is heterosexual & will molest boys or girls. Pedofilia is more about exploitation than sex.

If you are concerned about your child's safety, you should know that a heterosexual is much more likely to molest your child than a homosexual.

I didn't mean to make it sound like there are zero gay pedofiles. Obviously, there are gay pedofiles too, but not very many. Most pedofiles are almost always heterosexual.

Since you singled at homosexuals as the biggest threat to your child, I think you should know that the biggest threat is actually heterosexuals. They prey on boys & girls alike.

[FrankieA]

That sounds kind of inflated. I think gays make up about only 10% of the population compared to straights near 90%. I would be more interested in the % of sex offenders from each side. I'm not saying you are wrong Joe but I am just wondering if it is the heavily less gay population is the reason heterosexuals cause more sex crimes.

[JoeMama]

Look & see for yourself.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

"Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147)."

Also see...

"In yet another approach to studying adult sexual attraction to children, some Canadian researchers observed how homosexual and heterosexual adult men responded to slides of males and females of various ages (child, pubescent, and mature adult). All of the research subjects were first screened to ensure that they preferred physically mature sexual partners. In some of the slides shown to subjects, the model was clothed; in others, he or she was nude. The slides were accompanied by audio recordings. The recordings paired with the nude models described an imaginary sexual interaction between the model and the subject. The recordings paired with the pictures of clothed models described the model engaging in neutral activities (e.g., swimming). To measure sexual arousal, changes in the subjects' penis volume were monitored while they watched the slides and listened to the audiotapes. The researchers found that homosexual males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989).

Science cannot prove a negative. Thus, these studies do not prove that homosexual or bisexual males are no more likely than heterosexual males to molest children. However, each of them failed to prove the alternative hypothesis that homosexual males are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children or to be sexually attracted to children or adolescents."

[JoeMama]

FrankieA,

I don't know the actual percentage of homosexual pedophiles compared to percentage of heterosexual pedophiles... but studies show no correlations between homosexuality & increased tendency towards pedophilia.

So I would guess it's about the same. The problem with the general public, is they associate male on male child molestation with homosexuality. But if you understand pedophilia, you will see that pedophiles are attracted to AGE, not necessarily gender.

*Excuse my poor spelling throughout this thread.

[jjm19672000]

JoeMama, I'm not saying that gay pedophiles are the biggest or the only threat to my child. I'm saying that they are just one of many. I take a traditionalist view of human sexuality, and will do everything in my power to instill that same view in my son.

[JoeMama]

I respect the traditional view of human sexuality. No problem there.

I just don't think you should single out gay pedophiles. Pedophiles are who you have to worry about, period. They will prey on children regardless of sex.

Homosexuals are no bigger a threat to molestation than heterosexuls.

I just didn't understand why you targeted homosexuals in particular...

[Stealth01]

Originally posted by jjm19672000
OK Stealth, your turn. Having been in this military for 17 years, I've worked in a variety of environments. I've been a security policeman, working out in the middle of nowhere with 5 other cops, a cook, and a facility manager. Very tight quarters. Since 1993, I've been in personnel, and have assisted a first sergeant with documents regarding homosexual acts by military personnel. I can honestly say this: Homosexual activity by military members is prejudicial to good order and discipline. I know that we are supposed to be held to a higher standard, but when dealing with people, that higher standard is not always met. I can't go into specifics without violating privacy, but, the actiuons of these two members affected not only them, but significan portions of the rest of the unit as well.

The question then becomes, is it detrimental to good order and discipline because of the lifestyle itself or due to the prevailing perceptions and opinions ABOUT the lifestyle. In other words, is it only a problem because the majority dislike it, or because it is inherently problematic.

Right now, I say both. As stated, I am AGAINST allowing gays to remain on active duty. I think there's no way to cost-effectively integrate a lifestyle 90% of the military things is offensive into the military without violating people's rights or spending billions of dollars. But I have worked with (and believe I work with now) gay men in the military. WORKING with them wasn't the problem. Getting along with them wasn't the problem. LIVING with them was, is, and will be for a LONG time.