Billy Bean is gay? I had no idea. Of course, the obvious joke among football and hockey players is that they'd already assumed that 74% of baseball players already were gay...

It's not the Billy Bean you are thinking of-the GM of the A's. This was another Billy Bean that played I think in the 80s.

I'm also very surprised at that survey and hope that it's true. Of course, a lot of players could be uncomfortable about having to undress in front of a gay player without being actively hostile.

I don't know. Does that mean 26% do have a problem with it? If 26% of the general population were homophobic I would call it intolerant.

Not everybody in Major League Baseball is as enlightened:

http://www.southernvoice.com/2004/7-9/news/localnews/smoltz.cfm

MWS - thanks for clarifying. They probably should have mentioned that in the article - since the A's GM is pretty well-known, I'm pretty sure I wasn't the only one who made that mistake.

I wonder what Charles Barkley thinks?

The results of this survey are only a surprise to those who have bought the notion that opposition to the gay agenda only comes from "homophobia".

Most of us on the right are more than willing to "live and let live" when it comes to gays. What we object to are:
a) radical changes to fundamental institutions imposed by the judiciary.
b) defining homosexuality as a protected class under civil rights law, with all the restrictions that brings on what should be considered private behavior.
c) hate crimes laws which can be construed to inhibit any frank discussion of the downsides of homosexual behavior, much less traditional Christian teaching.

Billy Beane is the GM of the Oakland A's, whereas Billy Bean was the "Gay Baseball Player."

Don't know that I follow your last point, Dan. Ballplayers don't get into trouble with the sports media if they say steroid abuse is not a problem because most reporters don't care about steroids. Fans, sadly, don't care much either. Ballplayers have gotten into trouble for anti-gay comments because most sports reporters -- like most reporters generally -- are far to the left of mainstream opinion on anything to do with sex.

All the evidence suggests that for professional athletes, drugs are a much bigger issue than other athletes' sexual orientation because of the impact drugs can have on the field. Reporters don't like to cover stories about drugs until someone dies; it's difficult and risks jeopardizing relations with all those athletes who don't think drugs in sports are a problem. Writing columns about "bigotry," by contrast, is easy.

Zathras,

Marion Jones? Barry Bonds? Mark McGwire? Lance Armstrong? The list of names followed by question marks could continue, but I'm pretty sure reporters do cover stories about drugs whether or not somebody dies.

Further, if people in the media thought that homophobia was rampant in sports, they would risk relationships with players if they wrote about the bigotry associated with the players views on gay players.

Do you know that sports reporters are a representative subset of the media as a whole? Maybe sports reporters tend to be more homophobic than the media in general (a reasonable assumption if you thought the sports world tended to be more homophobic than the general population).

Frankly, ballplayers like Todd Jones and John Rocker have gotten in to trouble because what they said was insensitive, or at least not well thought out. Given that readership can be assumed to be 50% anti-gay marriage for example, what makes writing about bigotry easy? Almost all fans agree that steroids are bad for baseball (although, they might not care about changing it), but not all fans agree on homsosexuality. Wouldn't that make writing about steroids easier?

There are fewer thugs in baseball than in many other sports, perhaps explaining the role model thing. In fact, I don't recall ever seeing players with gang tats or (extensive) bling-bling. There are more thugs in football and, of course, the NBA is thug-o-mania.

Also, Mike Piazza is still not gay.

It's easy to confuse Bean and Beane because they were both mediocre/marginal/journeyman outfielders in the 80s. Beane is the one who was a high Mets draft pick, which is how I kept them straight (so to speak) before Bean "came out" and Beane became a celebrity GM.

That third saying steroids are not a problem could be lying to downplay the issue (remember, a finding that lots of players thought it was a problem would be used against the Players Union at the bargaining table). But it's noteworthy at a minimum that 3/4 of the players would at least feel the need, in an anonymous survey, to say they'd be fine with a gay teammate.

Nobody who has ever been in a MLB clubhouse after a game (or even before) would think that these players would be uncomfortable undressing in front of a gay player. Most players have dressed or undressed in front of dozens of random media persons for years.

Also it is common knowledge around baseball that there are many gay players and some have addressed it with their teammates. However, if you look at what happened to the KC first base coach a few years ago, when 2 individuals attacked him from the stands, you will understand how unprotected a baseball player is when on the field and why nobody has come out.

I am a baseball player and I hate Homosexuals