goldengonzo wrote: Considering he is believed to be the first major college football coach to speak to an openly gay magazine about the issue speaks enough volumes about his character. His opinion on this issue is clearly in the minority and in the "look the other way" category. I applaud Tressel for not doing something not many, if any, college coaches are doing.

Didn't see this until after my last post, but my point stands. He is "believed" to be something and there are a lot of assumptions as to what other people would have done. But that is a product of your own sterotypes, generalizations, etc. Again, if you can give me a list of prominent coaches who refused to do an interview or who have openly opposed homosexuality, then I would see more value in the "statement".

enigmaax wrote:

goldengonzo wrote: Considering he is believed to be the first major college football coach to speak to an openly gay magazine about the issue speaks enough volumes about his character. His opinion on this issue is clearly in the minority and in the "look the other way" category. I applaud Tressel for not doing something not many, if any, college coaches are doing.

Didn't see this until after my last post, but my point stands. He is "believed" to be something and there are a lot of assumptions as to what other people would have done. But that is a product of your own sterotypes, generalizations, etc. Again, if you can give me a list of prominent coaches who refused to do an interview or who have openly opposed homosexuality, then I would see more value in the "statement".

I mean, I can't do that. I don't know if such a list exists.

I don't understand why you're trying to find reasons to not credit him on this? Why not just take it for what it is?

golden - Yeah, you can't find something like that because it doesn't exist. Oh my God, Tressel talked to some gay dudes! He's awesome for that! Really?

Sorry, I think the bigger statement in this thread is that he somehow inspired some of you with this burst of ethics and morals.......because he answered questions from a gay person. I talk to gay dudes practically every day of my life and sexual orientation is never really a topic of discussion nor an issue. Am I special?

Oh, it is because he did it and no one else would. Would you? Or...again, how do you know no one else would?

^ Are you a public figure? Are your views regarding gay people expressed in the media?

Seems like you are digging way too hard. Just take it for what it is. Its not necessary to take an anti-OSU stance on everything.

enigmaax wrote:

goldengonzo wrote: I heard about this and glad you posted a link. Good for Coach Tressel for standing up for his views and send a positive message. One of the classiest head coaches in all of college sports.

What exactly is he "standing up for"? He just answered a couple questions. Big deal.

The thing I wonder when someone points out that there are no "openly gay" college football players is how many college football players are talking about their sexual preferences publically at all? I don't ever recall seeing an interview where a college football player is answering questions about how many chics he's banging or how "straight" he is. So while I'm sure there are gay college football players, who the fuck cares? Why talk about it?

I hate OSU, but I still have to give credit where it's due:

Sure, players aren't out in the media bragging about how many chicks they did, but it's still a thing in the locker room... being gay still is not an accepted thing there. I recommend you read some of the stuff from the former Green Bay Packer who came out after he retired.

Another example is how many people were enamored with Tebow simply because he was a "pure Christian". He was treated good for having what are SUPPOSEDLY good values to have. If anyone would come out the other way, it would be miserable because of the ass backwards ways in which this nation and religion thinks.

Of course Tressel said it, because a homosexual publication interviewed him... but in this day and age it needed to be said.

dat dude - I believe I am taking it for what it is. Some guy says that you should be nice to everyone. This has nothing to do with "anti-OSU". It has everything to do with guys like you making more out of a simple Q&A session.

I guess I missed where he advocated gay rights, gay marriage, and so forth. That would make a statement about his belief system. So, from reading the article, do you know his real stance on gay rights?

enigmaax wrote: dat dude - I believe I am taking it for what it is. Some guy says that you should be nice to everyone. This has nothing to do with "anti-OSU". It has everything to do with guys like you making more out of a simple Q&A session.

I guess I missed where he advocated gay rights, gay marriage, and so forth. That would make a statement about his belief system. So, from reading the article, do you know his real stance on gay rights?

Guys like me making more of out of a simple Q&A? I never made any mention of his comments. I just said take it for what it is. Its not like I advocated for him to be the next ACLU spokesman on the subject.

I don't care about his stance on gay rights. You, however, seem very interested in the subject.

Eric Taylor wrote: It's seems to me that after he's done coaching he wants to run for Congress

That sad thing is people would vote for him simply because he was the head coach at OSU

Hey, he wouldn't be any worse than most politicians and many people vote based on something ridiculous anyway.

After San Francisco, Columbus has the highest percentage of gays in the country.

enigmaax wrote: dat dude - I believe I am taking it for what it is. Some guy says that you should be nice to everyone. This has nothing to do with "anti-OSU". It has everything to do with guys like you making more out of a simple Q&A session.

I guess I missed where he advocated gay rights, gay marriage, and so forth. That would make a statement about his belief system. So, from reading the article, do you know his real stance on gay rights?

Why does that have any relevance to the discussion here? It seems like you should be questioning Wetzel for writing the article, not OSU fans on this site for commenting on the article.

And his not advocating gay rights, gay marriage, etc. says as much about his belief system as it would if he did advocate such things.

Quote from the article:
"His answers were typical Tressel. There’s nothing particularly colorful or bold. It wasn’t like he was advocating for the legalization of gay marriage.

His opinions were deep on substance though. They carried a measure of thoughtfulness. Tressel did more than enough. The message was in the messenger."

jhay - I specifically responded to the quote below. My part of the conversation started simply with the fact that I didn't see him standing up for anything. The fact that he answered questions to a gay magazine isn't a statement in and of itself. Further, his answers didn't even address the issue or his stance on homosexuality at all. He (likely purposely) spoke very generically.

goldengonzo wrote: Good for Coach Tressel for standing up for his views

Enigmaxx,

I agree with you that what he said was not groundbreaking. He didn't say anything that most normal people who treat others well and do not judge or categorize people based on their beliefs, orientation etc would say. The point is that he is a NOT a normal person; he is the head coach at one of the probably top 10 most prominent college football programs in the nation. So he is basically in the top 8% of the most recognizable, highest paid, and BUSY coaches in college football, which traditionally is miles behind on "taboo" subjects. Add in the fact that besides being in a traditionally backwards thinking sport, Tressel largely has a reputation as one of the most conservative coaches in country, which, let's face it, in a traditionally political stance, conservatives would not be very accepting of being openly gay in a sport (i.e. like the military has been for quite some time). It would have been easy for him to decline, or to just ignore their request altogether.

The fact that not only did he take take time to respond to a magazine that advocates a lifestyle that he may disagree with (I'm not saying he does, but he may not support) but he did so as openly and respectfully as he did, says a lot. He could have issued some 3 or 4 sentence statement saying nothing, or just saying he didn't want to comment on that issue.

I'm not saying that what he did is newsworthy, but this isn't the news. It's a college football discussion of pretty much any topic that people feel the need to respond on. I'd certainly rather talk about this on here the majority of the time than which Oregon player is suspended this week, or which school is trying to outdo the other in NCAA violations. It's cool if you don't find it very important or don't care, but then it begs the question, why did you open it in the first place, or moreover, why are you posting on the thread? Nobody has a gun to your head.

red skin - Obviously I am doing the same as everyone else here, posting my perspective.

I opened the thread, read the article, and responded to certain posts because I have an interest in them. I agree with some of the points made. I agree it is newsworthy and again, I do find it interesting. I disagree with points that some posters made such as he was standing up for his beliefs and that he's the only coach who *would* do this. And the fact that this somehow makes him more classy than anyone on the planet. My perspective is different from those posters. Doesn't mean either of us are right or wrong, but there wouldn't be a need for this forum and there wouldn't be dialogue if everything was cut and dry and we all see the world the same way.

Just like you suggested nobody is forcing me to read any of this, everyone else has the choice to ignore my dissenting opinion. Clearly, the fact that all of us continue to respond to each other means that there's something worth talking about.

Big Gain wrote: After San Francisco, Columbus has the highest percentage of gays in the country.

I thought Columbus was 3rd behind New Orleans and San Francisco.