Does Jason Collins deserve a spot on an NBA roster simply for having sex with men? One would think that advocates of "equal rights" would not be arguing for affirmative action, but would instead only argue that Collins deserves an opportunity to play. He has that opportunity and no one is denying it to him - he is simply not a very good player.

Enter Jeff Pearlman, who argues that the "NBA should let him play." Pearlman whines that this is an "opportunity" and that the NBA is "letting this one slip away." But even Pearlman himself admits that a "similarly submediocre player in any other sport" would not be noticed or missed if he did not get a contract. Collins is no longer ordinary because he publicly announced that he has sex with other men, according to Pearlman.

This is ridiculous. People either believe in equal rights or they do not. Pearlman and others of his ilk most certainly do not believe in equal rights - they believe in special rights. Thus, they argue for affirmative action for a player well past his prime who has already played twelve seasons in the NBA, simply because of his sex life. It's not good enough that the reaction to Collins "coming out" was overwhelmingly positive. He must be offered a contract too.

What we have here is another example that militant homosexual-rights advocates do not want "tolerance" of homosexual behavior. They want mandatory acceptance of that behavior. In this case, some NBA team should commit a large sum of money to a player they would not consider under any other circumstances, simply to be politically correct.

It is absurd.

ConservaTibbs

Equal rights or special rights?

Comments on this post are for paid subscribers