Was listening to a little sports radio this morning; heard ESPN’s talking heads praise the Bengals for signing T.O. It makes perfect sense, they said, because the team needed a receiver, and the receiver needed a team, and surely T.O. will be on his best behavior because …

Yawn.

Have we not heard this before? Like, 1,000 times before? Owens was perfect for Jeff Garcia—until he threw him under the buss and called him out for being gay (which, according to Garcia, isn’t even true). Owens was perfect for Donovan McNabb—until he mocked him and complained incessantly. Owens was perfect for Tony Romo—until he stopped playing hard when he didn’t get the ball enough. Owens was perfect for Trent Edwards—until it turned out Owens is over the hill.

What I hate most about this signing are the performance incentives—financial bonuses for Owens catching certain number of balls for certain number of yards. Take a historically selfish player, toss in his blatant greed, then tell him he’ll make more dough for more catches. Now watch what happens when Carson Palmer looks Owens off. Or Marv Lewis runs 30 times a game. Just watch.

Truth is Owens is now a journeyman; a No. 3 wide receicer who still believes he’s a No. 1. He has Hall of Fame numbers, but belongs there as much as Kurt Sohn does. The guy has brought his own personal brand of cancer everywhere he’s been.

Cincinnati will be no different.

Andrew Sullivan posted this nifty quote from Newt Gingrich on his site, RE: the mosque in Ground Zero: “The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over. The proposed ‘Cordoba House’ overlooking the World Trade Center site—where a group of jihadists killed over 3,000 Americans and destroyed one of our most famous landmarks—is a test of the timidity, passivity and historic ignorance of American elites.”

This sort of thing makes me want to vomit. Violently. What makes our country great? Freedom—yes. Opportunity—yes. But, first and foremost, the richness of diversity. The mix of races, of languages, of cultures. It’s an incredible thing; something that should be celebrated, but is increasingly bemoaned by the far right. They choose to use this diversity as a weapon—to convince ignorant, rural whites that “they” are infringing on “your” rights. That your country is being taken over. That we’re in the midst of a culture war, and “we” can’t lose.

Wanna know the best symbols of American greatness? A burning flag. A Nazi salute. A mosque alongside Ground Zero. A gay pride parade in Oklahoma. That unpopular movements have a place here is a powerful sign that everyone and everything has a place here.

I am not a big fan of the Tea Party, and will surely never become one.

The Tea Party’s members stayed silent for eight years, when George W. Bush ruined much of this country. Then, when a president of color was elected, they suddenly stood up and started screaming, “I want my country back!” It was a movement founded largely on the pre-policy demonization of a powerful African-American male, with the flames fed by a dolt ex-Alaska governor with too much free time.

That’s how I feel, and my mind won’t likely be changed.

That being said, the Tea Party has done something over the course of the past few days that has truly impressed me. First off, we live in a world of political opportunism. It’s sad, it’s true, it’s undeniable. Obama the candidate rails against all the money being thrown into campaigns—until his campaign finds itself with tons of donations. George W. Bush bashes big spending—then he spends like Monte Brewster. It’s Hypocricy: 101, and it happens all the time.

The leaders of the Tea Party had a chance to follow suit—and they haven’t. Many would say the movement is founded upon the idea of small government; of keeping federal laws out of our business as much as humanly possible. This week, two courts—one in San Francisco, the other in Boston—are debating the merits of the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law that defines marriage as one man, one woman (technically, the Cali court is ruling on Prop 8—but the message is largely the same).

Now, I’m betting that 95% of Tea Partiers are against gay marriage. They’re largely conservative people; largely in favor of going back to the good ol’ days. And yet, they’re also strongly pro-small government. I mean, s-t-r-o-n-g-l-y. So where does the Tea Party lean on this issue?

Amazingly, with the right to gay marriage.

As reported on Andrew Sullivan’s website: “I do think it’s a state’s right,” said Phillip Dennis, Texas state coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots. The group does not take a position on social issues, he said, but personally, “I believe that if the people in Massachusetts want gay people to get married, then they should allow it, just as people in Utah do not support abortion. They should have the right to vote against that.” Everett Wilkinson, state director for the Florida Tea Party Patriots, agreed: “On the issue [of gay marriage] itself, we have no stance, but any time a state’s rights or powers are encouraged over the federal government, it is a good thing.”

Amazing. The Obama Administration is anti-gay marriage. The Tea Party, in this case, is for it.

Wacky.

They’re telling me nothing, because I have no NBA sources. But, truth be told, I don’t believe so-called sources mean squat.

I’ve been listening to ESPN’s myriad formats throughout the day, and it’s laughable. Pathetic. News agencies creating news. This guy says this, this guy says that, this guy believes that guy is going with that guy to this city. It’s all crap, because no one has a real clue, but there’s much space to fill, so they talk and talk and talk.

Hence, so will I. Here, for the only time, are my predictions of what happens to the various free agents. Compare my picks with the people paid to know—and I bet I hold my own …

LeBron James—Will sign with the Chicago Bulls, because he loves the red-and-black color scheme.

Chris Bosh and D-Wade—Wind up teammates in Miami.

Joe Johnson—Returns to Atlanta, because the money and team are both great.

Dirk Nowitzki—A no-brainer. Returns to Dallas to wrap up his career and soak in the love.

Amare Stoudemire—Back in Phoenix. If you’re him, why would you ever leave Steve Nash?

David Lee—Now starting, for yooouuuurrrrr Brooklyn Nets …

Carlos Boozer—The Knicks have thrown two seasons and dismantled their entire roster … for this guy.

Paul Pierce—Teams up with LeBron in Chicago to kick ass and take names.

Rudy Gay—Doesn’t leave Memphis. Hell, B.B. King’s has great burgers.

Richard Jefferson—Boston goes with this weak replacement for Pierce.

Luis Scola—Back to Houston, because the mall there is wonderful.

Ray Allen—Doesn’t want to leave Boston … and won’t.

Shaquille O’Neal—The Clippers come calling … and Shaq answers.

Al Harrington—The ultimate good player on bad teams, he somehow winds up in San Antonio.

Brendan Haywood—The Knicks say farewell to Eddy, hello to this guy. Pump it up, Knick fans!

Derek Fisher—To leave the Lakers would be crazy. He sticks.

Allen Iverson—The Kentucky Bisons come calling. And only the Kentucky Bisons come calling.

Stephon Marbury—In his driveway.

Received an e-mail from Michael James Keane, a reader of this blog, who asked me to check out an essay he wrote about the argument that homosexuality is natural/unnatural. I thought his point was a fantastic one … asked if I could run the piece here. Michael agreed, and I’m thrilled …

•••

Apparently, there was some kind of Gay Pride parade yesterday. I read about it while perusing a blog, and one of the comments of this particular blogger (sports reporter/author Jeff Pearlman) was, “Being gay isn’t a choice—it’s who you are.”

This is not an uncommon refrain, and it seems to be a sticking point in the argument between those who are in favor of homosexual rights and those who view homosexuality as a problem, an evil, a deviance from the norm. The general reasoning for those who are defending homosexuals is that since people who are attracted to the same sex do not “choose” their attraction, that it is something within them, then they should not be persecuted against. In other words, since homosexuality is not a choice, but rather a by-product of natural human development, it is not “evil.”

I find this argument to be pretty useless and stupid.

There are three main problems with this kind reasoning:

The first problem with the “homosexuality is not a choice” (HINAC) argument is that it is actually counter-productive. Keep in mind the kind of people who claim homosexuality is a choice. Their issue is not with whether or not homosexuality is indeed a choice; the people who argue against homosexuality find homosexuality itself to be wrong and/or evil. By insisting upon the natural quality of homosexuality—that because homosexuality is a natural part of the human condition it is thus not evil—a person who is arguing this way is allowing the anti-homosexual claims of evil and immorality to go completely unchallenged.

Debating choice can matter in some cases. Take homicide for example. If someone kills someone else, but it wasn’t their choice—it was an accident; they had a gun to their head; whatever—then we still recognize it as an unfortunate thing that we should try incredibly hard to avoid. It’s not nearly as bad as if the homicide were committed intentionally, but it’s still wrong. However, when it comes to homosexuality, and when you make the argument about whether or not homosexuality can be avoided, it’s basically saying that homosexuality is wrong. You’re basically saying homosexuality should be avoided, but since it can’t be—since it’s not about choice—we have to accept it. By defending whether or not being homosexual is a choice, and not defending homosexuality itself, a person allows the underlying contention that there is something inherently problematic with homosexuality to basically be ignored. I would argue that it actually encourages the belief that homosexuality is wrong.

People don’t defend other people for choosing to eat healthy food. No one says, “Well, it isn\’t a choice to eat healthy food. It’s a necessity to stay in good shape.” Why don’t people defend this? Because there’s nothing evil or wrong about eating healthily, and no one is claiming that there is. But, if someone did say, “You know, eating healthy food is immoral and wrong.” If you respond by saying, “But, it’s not his choice to eat healthy food,” aren’t you totally missing the fucking point?

The second problem with the whole HINAC argument is that it’s a waste of time. As of right now, there’s not a way to scientifically verify the cause of homosexuality. No one has yet discovered some kind of gene in the human body that can trigger homosexual desires, so the two opposing sides in this argument can just throw baseless assertions back and forth. This is inevitably what happens. One side says that homosexuality is not a choice and tries to throw some circumstantial or societal evidence out there, and the other side just swipes it away and argues the opposing point. Rinse and repeat. Nothing gets done. And this leads to the third, and most important problem.

The HINAC argument obfuscates the real issue here:

Is homosexuality wrong? Are homosexual acts wrong?

Whether or not homosexuality is a choice, this is the argument we need to be having. Let’s flip it around for a second. Let’s grant that homosexuality IS a choice. Let’s say that the bigoted people who rant about the horrors of homosexuality are right. Only now can we make some headway in the argument.

As a heterosexual male, I don’t have much of a desire to put a penis in my mouth and suck on it. I don’t think about doing it; I never have a craving for it. Now that I am thinking about it, it’s not doing anything for me sexually. I’m not bothered by the idea, but I’m also not interested in it in any way. Same thing goes for simply kissing a man with my tongue. I haven’t done it, and I don’t have a desire to do it. It’s kind of like getting a pedicure. I never think about them and don’t want one, but I have no fear or inherent mistrust of it either. I quite simply don’t think of men in that way.

But what if I did?

What if I decided right now to go try and pick up a gay man (or any man, really—I’m not picky) and kiss him with my tongue? What if I decided to put his penis in my mouth? What if I press the head of it up against the inside of my cheek so that I kind of look like a chipmunk? What if I decided to then take off my pants and put this penis into my rectum, bouncing up and down a bit? What if I then decided to get up, get dressed, and leave?

What harm is done to anyone (except, perhaps, myself)? Am I now a terrible person? Should I not be allowed to get married? Should I not be allowed to give blood? Should I be ostracized from my community, labeled as deviant, and live in shame?

This is the argument we should be having when it comes to homosexuality. If you think my rights should be taken away because I make a choice to suck on a penis, then we can argue about that. If you think I should be considered a worse person for sticking a body part that belongs to someone else in my butt, then we can argue about that. If you actually think there’s a difference between a woman sticking her finger in my butt for sexual pleasure and a man sticking some part of his body in my butt for the same purpose, then we can have a conversation about that. The HINAC argument has nothing to do with this.

So what if homosexuality is a choice? Who cares? It is a waste of time arguing with someone about volition. There really aren’t any answers in that argument. It’s a smoke screen that blurs the real question.

The people who say that homosexuality is a choice do not accept homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle or sexual preference. They don’t have a problem with homosexuality because they believe it is a choice. They dislike, fear, or hate homosexuality and homosexuals for a variety of reasons, some of which I admit I don’t readily understand. Regardless of this, though, those are the kind of things which we need to start having a conversation about. Why do these people hate homosexuality and homosexuals?

Convincing a persecutor of homosexuals that homosexuality is a choice is not confronting their bigotry—it’s enabling it.

Today is Gay Pride Day across America.

In its honor, I urge any parents or friends or family members who have rejected someone who is gay to wake the hell up. Being gay isn’t a choice—it’s who you are. And gays and lesbians should be embraced and loved and respected in the same exact way all others are. Enough of this, “What if gays do [FILL IN THE BLANK]?” Enough.

If you go to the gym and shower in the locker room, odds are you’ve been naked in front of a gay person. Did you survive?

If you’re a member of the armed forces, odds are you’ve gone to battle (if you’ve served in action) with a gay person. Did it impact your ability to fight?

If you’re human, odds are you’ve got someone gay close to you. He/she is there, hurting, wanting to come out of the closet, but scared/worried/concerned about the reaction. He/she wants to be himself/herself, but still—even in 2010—worries about the impact and aftermath. When I was a student at Delaware, a classmate actually came out to me at a party. We were standing in a hallway and he said, “You probably don’t know this, but I’m gay.” Truth be told, I did know. But the courage blew me away, and inspired me. He wanted people to know because he wanted to be himself. Really, we all want to be ourselves, don’t we?

I’m sick of the bigotry, and I’m thrilled that—at long last—it seems to be fading away. The “Gay teachers are dangerous” movement barely exists anymore, and those who oppose gay adoptions merely sound like dinosaurs from another era (and cruel ones. Really, you’re opposed to gay adoption? You’d prefer these kids remain in foster homes, even when loving gay couples await? Really?). It’s all but inevitable now that gays will serve openly in the military, and the Catholic Church continues to deem itself obsolete with its blather of “homosexuals living in sin.” As for the GOP’s warnings of a so-called “homosexual agenda” from a few years ago? A d-e-a-d battle cry. D-e-a-d.

Why are times changing? Because the greatest weapon in the war over our culture is exposure. As more people know gays; as more relatives comes out; as more crazy right political leaders show their true moral character, we are able to see that gay people are, first and foremost, people. When I was a kid, we tossed around the words “fag” and “queer” with reckless, angry disdain. Now, I wouldn’t think of using them. Would you?

So embrace the day. Take pride in it. Because the gay rights movement of 2010 is a strong one, and those standing in its way have run out of ammo.

… is about Ernie Banks, and the statement he (and the Chicago Cubs) is making by appearing in this weekend’s Gay Pride Parade.

Growing up, I’m sure the idea of playing in the Majors was preposterous to a young black kid out of the Negro Leagues. Just as, in a sense, it is in 2010 for an openly gay person.

Let’s hope that changes.

We are getting much closer to a gay professional athlete in an American team sport coming out of the closet.

I have no official basis for saying so—just a hunch. But times are genuinely changing—even in the slow-moving world of athletics.

It was announced today that the Chicago Blackhawks will bring the Stanley Cup to Chicago’s gay pride parade this coming Sunday. Why? Well, primarily because it’s the human thing to do, and gays are—despite bushels of demonization from the right—human. More specifically,  Brendan Burke, son of Maple Leafs GM Brian Burke, came out of the closet to the hockey world before dying in a car accident earlier this year. The Blackhawks appearing with the Cup is, to a large degree, a tribute to him. A touching, righteous tribute.

Truth is, I have friends on the far right and friends on the far left, and none seem opposed to gay marriage anymore. It’s a dying fight, one waged by so-called “Christians” who lack the righteousness and compassion of the man upon who their religion is based. Even those who don’t technically think the word “marriage” should be applied seem to believe fully in civil unions, which is certainly better than nothing.

So why has is taken so long for professional sports to catch on? Because it’s an isolated segment of society that moves with a turtle-like pace and lathers itself in machiso BS. Slowly, that’s changing. V-e-r-y slowly.

But we’re getting closer—and the Blackhawks’ wise decision is a blessed one.

Why do we Americans still get shocked?

What is the big deal about pubic hair? About an exposed nipple? About shocking comments concerning sex or politics or sexy politics? It’s embarrassing; pathetic; embarrassingly pathetic.

It also helps explain the rise and dominance of Lady Gaga., the cover girl of the current Rolling Stone.

As a singer, Gaga is good. Not amazing, but very good. What has sold her, however, is the “shocking” image. Gaga in crazy outfits. Gaga flipping people off at Citi Field. Gaga in her underwear, talking about lesbianism. The media reports the news, we absorb the news, Gaga makes millions upon millions of dollars. But, again I ask, why are we so shocked? You know what shocked me? 9/11. The Katrina. Tsunami. BP spill. A singer in a jeweled bra? Not so much.

I’ve lived through Madonna and Brit making out; through Janet at the Super Bowl; through Ellen admitting she was gay; through Tom and Katie. So on and so on. All shocking—all not really shocking at all.

Why do we care?

Why?

A few days ago Jon Wertheim (my ol’ SI chum) and I compiled our lists of the 10 worst songs of all time. Which leads to the inevitable question—What are the best songs of all time? I asked Jon to compile his list. He gave my five tunes, only two of which I actually like. I was going to limit my list to five, but I’m going 10 deep, because I’m greedy and it’s my blog and, hey, ain’t that America.

Before sending his list, Jon wrote the following: This is a little like naming the five best pieces of art, no? Depends on what genre your partial to, what mood you’re in, whether or not hearing Hotel California— which I’ve heard described as “the perfect song” — makes you want to put hot forks in your eyes. Associations matter too: if you conceived your first born child with Matthew Wilder’s Nothing’s Gonna Break My Stride playing in the background, you probably like that song more than other carbon-based organisms.”

Anyhow, here we go …

***

JON WERTHEIM’S FIVE FAVORITE SONGS

• Dire Straits, Sultans of Swing—Not a big fan of Dire Straits but a big fan of this song, especially the guitar playing of Mark Knopfler.

• The Beatles, In My Life—Have to get one Beatles reference. This might be the only song that everyone in the family car likes. Which has to count for something.

• The Cure, Just Like Heaven—For a band that has a reputation for being subversive—classified in the “punk” section of music stores, at least in the Midwest—it’s remarkable how many Cure songs are just good pop songs.

• The Smiths, This Charming Man—It sounds like college.

• Pearl Jam, Better Man—It’s slow, it’s fast, the lyrics are good, the riffs are good. Plus—at the risk of sounding like the music tool in High Fidelity—there’s a live version that tacks on a remake of English’s Beat “Save it for Later.”

***

JEFF PEARLMAN’S 10 FAVORITE SONGS

• Ice Cube, Today Was a Good Day—The perfect West Coast groove, the perfect West Coast rapper, plus great lyrics. Just timeless.

• Dixie Chicks, Wide Open Spaces—I first heard this song on a commercial. They played about four seconds and I was hooked. Have been a huge fan ever since.

• The Verve, Bittersweet Symphony—Were I a boxer, I’d enter the ring to the opening 40 seconds of this song. Just love it—and a cool video to match.

• Sam Cooke, A Change Is Gonna Come—Perfection. Perhaps the best all-around song I’ve ever heard. Cooke’s voice is chocolate milk. The lyrics are gripping; the passion obvious. Perfect.

• Public Enemy, Black Steel in the Hour of Chaos—I’m a sheltered 14-year-old white kid in Mahopac, N.Y., and a friend of mine slips me this tape. BAM! Never the same. Never, ever the same. Cold sweat as I dwell in my cell …

• Blind Melon, Soup—True story: This was supposed to be the title track off of Melon’s second album, Soup. But they left the song off the CD—so Soup never appeared on Soup. After Shannon Hoon died, the band put it on their final CD, Nico. The song is about Kurt Cobain’s death, by the way.

• Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil—Overplayed, overplayed, overplayed—and genius. I don’t actually like the Stones, but this song is fantastic.

• The Verve Pipe, The Freshman—The song just does something extra for me. Not sure why—except the lyrics are terrific, and the singer rises to the challenge.

• Marvin Gaye, Sexual Healing–Obviously Marvin Gaye had bigger songs than this one. But while the lyrics are extra-cheesy, his voice and inflection are amazing—especially when he starts riffing. On a side note, when I was a kid I remember my mother telling us we shouldn’t be listening to such a thing.

• Jay-Z, 99 Problems—I’ve worked out to this song 1,000 times. It’s brilliant; Jay-Z at his best. The better version is from the Gray Album, when Danger Mouse mixed the Beatles and Jay-Z. But the linked version here is awfully strong, too.