Quantcast

Magic Johnson would support gay Dodgers player ‘150 percent’ (Video)

Magic-JohnsonMagic Johnson sat down for a candid interview with TMZ earlier this week in the wake of his son EJ walking hand-in-hand with his boyfriend down the streets of LA. Johnson and his wife Cookie have made it clear that they fully support EJ’s decision to come out publicly, which has led to a great deal of praise from athletes and other people who feel the Johnsons should serve as an influence for others in a similar situation.

As an NBA legend, MLB owner, father of an openly gay son and someone who lives with HIV, Magic is at the center of many issues involving the LGBT community. And if a member of the Los Angeles Dodgers ever decides to come out, Johnson said he will be his biggest supporter.

“If that ever happened I’m going to support them, 150%,” Johnson stated emphatically. “(I’ll protect them) as much as I can. That’s who I am, I’m a protector. I protect my family. That’s why I was really upset that people were attacking my son and my family.

“As an owner, you really have to support the person. And, then, help educate the public. Once the organization and the owner (supports the gay player), then everybody else has to say, ‘OK, we’re going to support them.’ Or, you just have to deal with it.”

Magic said that he told EJ that his decision to come out is going to be “bigger than you” and will have a tremendous impact on the gay community. He said that an athlete has yet to come to him to reveal that they are gay and ask for advice, but he has received calls from athletes who are talking about “somebody else” struggling with being gay.

Magic also talked about when he found out EJ was gay, saying that his son never went to him but that he and his wife sat him down at about age 13 to have a discussion. The goal, he says, was to make sure to protect and support their son.

Finally, Magic discussed how he feels about some of the hateful reactions that have surfaced on African-American blogs and other forums.

The situation can’t be easy for the Johnson family, but the way they are handling it is admirable and should help pave the way for acceptance. If an athlete really is as close to coming out as this report says he is, Magic could be one of many influential figures to lean on.



Around The Web

  • http://amillennialist.blogspot.com Santiago Matamoros

    (That’s ironic.)

    Anyway, I’m not the one trying to call it “marriage.”

  • xx

    Just stooping to your level… You’ll get intellectual responses to intellectual posts. Posts like your last one? They get stick figure Mohammads.

    I’m still waiting to hear your explanation for why some guy’s sex life matters to you. Are you that insecure about your sexuality or just blindingly stupid? Those are really your only two options.

  • http://amillennialist.blogspot.com Santiago Matamoros

    “why some guy’s sex life matters to you. Are you insecure about your sexuality or just blindingly stupid? Those are really your only two options.”

    A false dichotomy?

    Clearly, you’re not as bright as you claim.

    (And you’ve still got nothing. How sad.)

  • http://amillennialist.blogspot.com Santiago Matamoros

    That’s really incoherent.

    So, you don’t know what the term means, and you lack the intellectual curiosity to find out.

    Pretending to condescend is just silly.

  • xx

    You get a mohammad for that one, haha.

    Q
    -I-
    ^

    Are you trying to get me to make your argument for you?

    I ask because you haven’t made a point yet. If you think you have been, let’s play a game where we explicitly say what we mean instead of mincing around behind innuendo and insinuation.

    …and yes, those are the only two options. The first is self-explanatory, and the second is a catchall that covers any other excuses for being a bigot.

    Before you accuse me of being intolerant myself, I will clarify that I am only intolerant of intolerant people. That’s not to say that I respect muslims or christians, but I never insult anyone unless they are willfully intolerant of others. Case in point: you.

    Now that I’ve once again coddled you along to a nice starting point. I think it’s time for you to make a genuine statement instead of pussyfooting. Otherwise, I’m just going to assume you’ve conceded on both options.

  • xx

    Who said I don’t know what it means? I haven’t studied latin, but the first thing I did was look it up. I’m sure you’re proud of yourself for coming up with something you think is clever, but it was really just a weak insult with no particular point attached. I’m not going to pretend like you said something profound when you didn’t.

  • http://amillennialist.blogspot.com Santiago Matamoros

    One thing’s clear: You sure know “ignorant.”

    You’re not only theologically-illiterate, you know nothing of history, either.

    Whom do you think founded a nation on the belief that (the Biblical) God gives all people the rights to Life and Liberty? Whom do you think elected, bled, and voted for the abolition of slavery? Whom do you think led the Civil Rights Movement?

    The Founding Fathers, the Framers, Lincoln — your “extreme right wingers” — created and preserved the nation you work so cravenly to undermine.

    Today, even JFK would get Palined.

    Well done.

  • http://amillennialist.blogspot.com Santiago Matamoros

    (You don’t have to pretend if you understand the term.)

    Still nothing to offer.

  • xx

    Again, you’ve failed to make a point.

    The fact that many of the nation’s founding fathers were religious does not indicate that they were necessarily conservative – MLK and JFK included. You’re battling straw men here. The fact that there were great people who were religious also does not indicate that time should stand still and we should continue to celebrate the ignorance of religion. Science and society have progressed… well, some of it has anyway. It’s likely that many of the people you reference would be agnostic or atheist if they were alive today, but I’m not interested in getting into an argument over hypotheticals.

    Regardless, you are an idiot if you think Lincoln was conservative. He was a republican at a time when the republican party was the liberal/progressive party. I don’t know if you grew up in the U.S., but if you did, you should be ashamed of your historical ignorance.

  • xx

    I’m not offering anything. You made a weak point about me trying to sound more intellectual than I am, and I ignored it because it had no merit and had nothing to do with gay rights, which is the topic I am unsuccessfully trying to engage you on.

  • xx

    Now you add something about a false dichotomy. Why don’t you explain your stance, and so we can see if it actually is false?

    At this point, what I’ve said is simply a dichotomy that has fit every bigoted gay rights basher I’ve come across, so why don’t you try me? You’ve made about 10 posts now, and not one of them begins to justify your unjustifiable stance on homosexuality.

  • xx

    I’ll call it marriage.

    Stand up for your position and defend it with something other than fairy tales.

  • http://amillennialist.blogspot.com Santiago Matamoros

    The First Rule of Holes is Stop Digging.

    Clearly, you know almost nothing about the Founders, Framers, or their heirs.

    MLK was a Republican. He opposed homosexuality on religious and rational grounds (just like me).

    To you, MLK was an “intolerant bigot.”

    As for JFK, he would not be able to maintain the same belief in America, the same opposition to Communism, the same tax policy, the same emphasis on citizenship and self-reliance today and be a Democrat. You and your co-subversives would have him on a stake, or he’d have to sell-out and no longer be himself.

    Lincoln was the first Republican president. The Democrats were the slavery party, just as they were the Segregationist party, just as they’re the party of dependence, racial division, and institutionalized theft. Racist then and racist now.

    You don’t know theology, and you don’t know history, and yet you continue to mock others.

    How sad.

  • http://amillennialist.blogspot.com Santiago Matamoros

    (By the way, you’re the one who insinuated yourself into someone else’s conversation with only mockery, name-calling, and clumsy and inapt imitation.

    Do you have something to say yet?)

  • http://amillennialist.blogspot.com Santiago Matamoros

    You began with a nescient personal attack, claimed expertise and superiority without offering evidence of either, and continued the same without saying anything.

    Your “ducking” charge is what’s called “projection.”

  • http://amillennialist.blogspot.com Santiago Matamoros

    “something about a false dichotomy”?

    Google is your friend.

    I’ve already stated a position. You can deal with that honestly, or you can continue wasting electrons.

  • http://amillennialist.blogspot.com Santiago Matamoros

    You’re the one offering nothing (until now) but “weak insults and fairy tales.”

    Someone’s private immorality is their own business. Trying to force society to accept it (or at least silence criticism of it) through the force of law makes it everyone’s business.

    If you were as smart as you wish you were, you’d know that as a moral relativist your opinion is, literally, no better than anyone else’s (including mine).

    If you were as smart as you claim to be, you’d know that lifelong heterosexual monogamy as the ideal has been rare throughout human history.

    If you were as you want others to think you are, then you would realize that all law is someone’s moral code and that at some point, you’re someone else’s bigot. Where do you draw the line? Incest? Pedophilia? Bestiality? Necrophilia? An NBA career? Is there any point at which you draw the line on someone’s gratification and say, “Wait a minute”?

    You have no right to criticize anyone else’s position, as you have no objective guide for morality. Everyone else’s preferences are — literally — just as valid as yours.

  • xx

    You make some semi-reasonable points here but still haven’t justified a ban on something that doesn’t hurt anyone. I draw the line at the point where things actually harm other people, as I said before. You can argue that harm is relative, and there certainly is some relativity to it. However, I think we as human beings can agree on a reasonable definition of harm. Being an NBA player doesn’t qualify. Necrophilia would be fine (disgusting, but fine), except that the dead person can’t give consent, and I’ll still give them the rights to their body even though they’re dead. Children have been deemed too young to give informed consent, and we could argue about the age at which that’s appropriate… there will always be a gray area, but our society usually takes a conservative approach on things when it comes to children, so I’d say our laws there are ok as is. Since you can’t possibly pretend that gay sex or gay marriage harms you or anyone else, it gets a green flag, and you get my middle finger.

  • xx

    Define sin without using a religious book.

  • xx

    The word is inept, and I said something in my other post.

  • xx

    To be honest, I’m not a JFK fan or a MLK fan, so you’ve pegged me correctly there. As soon as you start believing in things with no scientific or observable justification, I lose a great deal of respect for you.

    As I mentioned before, Republicans in the time of Lincoln were the LIBERAL wing of politics, and dems were the ultraconservatives of the south. You don’t really think that the south was progressive and liberal and our entire society flip flopped do you? Because that’s what it sounds like you’re saying… the dems sucked during the time of lincoln and in the years before him. they were incredibly conservative. study up. it was a flip flop of party politics, not of societal norms, and it occurred in the 1960s, when some idiot republicans decided to be socially conservative and try to protect segregation. the south was just as backwards then as it’s always been, and Lincoln’s republican party was the equivalent of today’s NY or Massachusetts dems, only with more fiscal conservatism, which I’m a fan of anyway. Basically, I’m a lincoln republican. socially liberal and fiscally conservative. it’s just too bad there isn’t a party for that these days…

    Bill Clinton was close, I guess, and if Barack could keep my money in the treasury, I’d like him too.

  • xx

    I don’t care if they get married. Frankly, marriage is only as meaningful as the people getting married make it. It’s a personal thing, and if someone wants to marry a fire hydrant, I couldn’t care less. It’s not going to affect me when I’m married.

  • xx

    Why do you care?

  • xx

    this is going nowhere. I’ll continue the one conversation you’ve actually made a useful point on and hope that at some point you’ll try to justify your unjustifiable desire to ban two women or two men from getting married so I can finally back up my assertions about putting you in your place on this topic.

  • xx

    it’s funny you reply to all my posts except the ones where I challenge you to give me your justifications for banning gay marriage. it’s pretty clear you know your arguments don’t hold water.

  • xx

    we can only hope he’s as afraid of straight sex as he is of gay sex. if there’s one person who shouldn’t reproduce, it’s this guy….

  • xx

    Why on earth would I need google for that? The only words you’ve used that I wasn’t already 100% familiar with were in latin. Your vocabulary is not as prodigious or intimidating as you seem to think it is. Not by a long shot.

    With all these attempts to laud yourself over (not) besting me with rather unimpressive words, I’m thinking I should turn that little latin phrase around on you…

  • xx

    Q
    -I-
    ^

    What the heII… I’d get weary handing these out every time you earned one, but I can’t let them all slide.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jack.offer.90 Jack Offer

    Nice try, goober. Homos and subversive leftists trying to redefine marriage has nothing to do with slavery, which the Democrats initiated, and there is not a damn thing progressive about a damn thing the left subscribes to unless you add the word “lunacy” after progressive. It is the ideology of subversive traitors and the mentally ill.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jack.offer.90 Jack Offer

    Right on the nose. JFK would be drummed out of today’s leftist Democrat party in a heartbeat. He’d be called a right winger now.

  • xx

    I’ll reply to your points one at a time.

    1. “Homos and subversive leftists”
    Is that supposed to be an insult? I am straight and independent (probably closer to libertarian than anything). I’m sure why you seem to think labeling me as gay or leftist should be even remotely offensive.

    2. “trying to redefine marriage has nothing to do with slavery”
    True. I didn’t say it had anything to do with slavery. I simply linked today’s social conservatives to the social conservatives of years gone by. Redefining marriage from its current definition is necessary because its current form is discriminatory, just as the other things I highlighted were in their day.

    3. Democrats did not “initiate” slavery. They didn’t even exist when slavery started. Democrats did support slavery back when the Democratic party was the socially conservative party – in the time of the Civil War. The parties have essentially swapped places since then on social issues. You are simply demonstrating your ignorance here.

    4. I’d reply to the last bit of dribble, but you didn’t really make a point except to demonstrate that you’re intolerant and not particularly bright. Nice try though.

  • xx

    I’ll take your ongoing silence as submission. Looks like you’ll be a bottom when you finally come to terms with your own homosexual tendencies. Good luck with any future raging against progress…

  • xx

    hahahahaha

    god can bite me, and so can you.