Kaylie - Welcome, and let me respond to your comments since I posted the article and never really explained why I said I disagreed with it. For the most part, I'm actually in argeement with you. The more people avoid a subject, the more they perpetuate the impression that there's something to be ashamed of, and there isn't. The problem here is that I'm torn between the right thing to do socially and the harm you can inflict on the individual. The author of the article wrote:

"We hold that responsibility -- even if we think the subject will be cagey or ultimately dismissive in response. And that includes simply asking, without shame or judgment, "Are you gay?"

Well, there may well be no shame and no judgement in ASKING the question or answering it in the positive (if that's the case). But the minute the question is asked, regardless of the answer, the person is very close to being outed, because the question is never asked of obviously straight people. And while no harm is intended in the question, much harm can result because, tragically, the society is as biased as it is.

I agree with you that in Johnny's case the damage would be less than in the case of other athletes, simply because his playfulness invites consideration of the subject. But as a matter of principle, and respect of everyone's rights -- Johnny's and all athletes' -- I don't think it's right for the media to say "I meant no harm or judgement." It's the athlete who will suffer. And they will.