I do agree that they went above and beyond what they do with other bowlers on their spouse and ect.

That is ESPNs choice and the PBA on how they want to handle their niche sport no one else watches. He is gay, and lets just let them(ESPN/PBA) focus on that. Bowling is second to everything else.

If he makes another show this season or wins another tournament we will see how that trend continues.

Well said spmcgivern.

The problem I have with the interview is that it's like they are equating his coming out with these hardships like leukemia, child molestation, or bowling with a gout outbreak. I think if someone is gay/ lesbian / bi that's fine. Show their spouse, show them together after a win, etc but I feel like it is reverse discrimination to make them into a hero for being themselves. I feel like it is putting the idea that "I will receive more recognition for my accomplishments if I'm gay" into our young viewers heads.  I'm sorry I don't see being gay as being a handicap.

I guess I am in the minority here.  I don't have a problem with ESPN interviewing him on his coming out of the closet.  Was it obvious to everyone on tour before he "came out"?  Of course.  But today's sports environment is different than the past.  Long gone are the days of sports only telecasts irregardless of sport.  Part of what makes sports telecasts so popular is the drama and humanization of the athletes.  People want more than robots playing their favorite sports.  We love feel good stories and like to cheer on the underdog.  We also love to hate people for doing fans wrong.  Scott's story of coming out was a way the PBA humanized the sport's athletes.  Believe it or not, there a lot of gay/lesbian bowlers. If ESPN had ignored Scott's personal lifestyle, this thread would have been about how ESPN is full of bigots and tried to ignore his "lifestyle". Instead, they showed an interview (that had been prerecorded and was planned to be shown) about his being gay.  I would have been more surprised if they didn't talk about it.

And if you still don't want non-sports talk during your sporting events, you may as well sell your TV.  Chuck Pagano's leukemia was all the talk for the last 4 weeks in football.  R.A. Dickey and his childhood molestation has been discussed tons.  Tiger Woods and his libido.  Lebron James and "the Decision".  You cannot escape the off the field/court drama in sports today.  Just accept it and move on.

If you check the history on BR, there was a thread for when Norton won last time and a couple of users here made an issue about it. They were upset that ESPN didn't mention his partner, or the fact that Scott is gay.

And just for the record, I watched a rebroadcast of the 2012 TOC over the weekend again. For all you folks with a problem with ESPN for showing Norton's family, there were multiple camera shots of Rash's wife and even (god forbid!) a kiss when he won.

Well said spmcgivern.

The problem I have with the interview is that it's like they are equating his coming out with these hardships like leukemia, child molestation, or bowling with a gout outbreak. I think if someone is gay/ lesbian / bi that's fine. Show their spouse, show them together after a win, etc but I feel like it is reverse discrimination to make them into a hero for being themselves. I feel like it is putting the idea that "I will receive more recognition for my accomplishments if I'm gay" into our young viewers heads.  I'm sorry I don't see being gay as being a handicap.

I didn't see the interview and him being gay shown as a disability.  Because of views we are seeing in this thread, people are surprised to hear when someone is gay performing in a heterosexual dominated environment.  The media will continue to showcase these instances until it no longer generates controversy or viewership.  The media made a big deal about Greg Louganis, Martina Navratilova, Billie Jean King, and even Renee Richards (though a slightly different case).

But as in those cases, the media no longer makes mention of the sexual lifestyle of the athletes any longer.  It would be a big deal for an NFL player to come out, but not a male figure skater.  No one cares if a WNBA player is a lesbian either.  Even the LPBT/PWBA was known to have openly lesbian players.  Once the novelty is over, it becomes about the sport.

In time, this won't be an issue.  It is an issue now because Scott is the first (that I know of) PBA player to come out as gay.  Once the media feels they can't get a shock or headline to draw viewship, it will return to the sport.  At least until something else becomes the first.

I've stayed completely out of this conversation, as I knew that SOMEWHERE Norton, his win, and his preferences would come up. I wanted to avoid it... until now.

Disclaimer: I am Black/American Indian.

I'm actually disgusted with a lot of the comments I have seen here slamming Norton, especially regarding him being gay. And I guess I am also in the minority (well, when haven't I been in the minority?!?) in saying that I do not, nor have ever had a problem with it. Why? 4 words: George Brenham III, and Curtis Odom. Two other guys who were firsts in this sport, let alone in the HoF. Two minorities in a predominately all-white sport. I'll even throw in Monacelli as well to add more of a minority. All of these did well in a sport where they could have received (and probably did receive) ridicule and threats for encroaching in and upsetting the status quo. Yet everyone learned to accept them for who they are.

Now you guys are upset about Norton for being who he is? Would you rather have him live and be a lie just to placate your machismo? If so, then I really think a lot of people here have some soul searching to do because making someone or thinking someone should do that to placate the masses says a lot about the lack of humanity people have. Just like Blacks and Latinos are not less of a human than whites, neither is anyone who is gay/lesbian/bi. So they need to not be treated as such.

As far as Norton's spouse, I don't need to note how many times Stayrook's or Mazza's wives were shown and ogled about when they made the finals, let alone when they picked up their 7-10s. So let's not even get started on that, otherwise those jumping on the media about it would be hypocrites.

Norton's win was a great win. Nearly bottom of the ladder all the way up (though I will say that Belmo's and Abdulla's performances were great). And if you noticed, not a single bowler on the telecast nor in that entire tournament gave a damn about Norton being gay. If you thought anyone had a problem with it, they would refuse to bowl in the tournament. That would cause more of a furor than anything played in the media, as there would be no tournament to bowl.

In short, there are a lot more moments for the highlight reel than the grandstanding about Norton being gay, and if those here only want to harp on that, like I said, some serious soul searching needs to be done.

BL.

Negative. I get out enough, and actually work with neighborhood teens. They do not think it is ok to be gay.

Brad, you are missing the point totally. It is not about his choice. It is about ESPN patronizing his homo lifestyle choice during the show.

If they had shown his wusband, even them kissing, and let that be that, I would not have a problem with ESPN. Just part of the show and what the winners did and do after each match. But to say that this guy should be applauded for coming out of the freakin closet is way different---its taking a position about the morality of being gay, and also saying that it is a positive thing for gays to be open about their lifestyle.

I did not turn to the bowling show to hear this type of propaganda.

Negative. I get out enough, and actually work with neighborhood teens. They do not think it is ok to be gay.

Brad, you are missing the point totally. It is not about his choice. It is about ESPN patronizing his homo lifestyle choice during the show.

If they had shown his wusband, even them kissing, and let that be that, I would not have a problem with ESPN. Just part of the show and what the winners did and do after each match. But to say that this guy should be applauded for coming out of the freakin closet is way different---its taking a position about the morality of being gay, and also saying that it is a positive thing for gays to be open about their lifestyle.

I did not turn to the bowling show to hear this type of propaganda.

CC, do you think the way ESPN handled the show made you feel like they were trying to make you into a gay person?  Do you think ESPN had an agenda to turn as many "straight" people into gay people based on their actions?

Your disdain towards the LGBTI societies is obvious by your name calling and is unnecessary.  Just as all heterosexual people have roll models, so do homosexuals.  Role models who are successful and are not afraid to be "themselves".  By your comments, you would rather they just cower in fright and pretend to be something they are not.  How dare they be themselves.  The reason for the way ESPN handled the situation is to showcase a gay athlete other gay/lesbian athletes can look to as a role model.  A successful professional and successful athlete.  I would hope you would want the same type of role model for your kids irregardless of their sexual preference.

ESPN is getting exactly what 'they' want from this...exposure...it is now on the Huffington post report....however you look at, it is creating talk, no differently than the hype of when Ballard threw it in the gutter or Blanchard ended up in the gutter...you've had the alleged bottle-gate and Belmo vs the wrestler...the bottom line is E X P O S U R E....it matters zero who or why they are exploiting someone only that it creates A T T E N T I O N