Straight And Narrow

ESPN Readers Weigh In: The 27 Dumbest Comments About OUT Magazine Cover Boy Michael Irvin

The latest issue of OUT magazine with an oiled up Michael Irvin on the cover sparked debate even in the liberal, skin-loving gay blogosphere.

But what happened when the story got picked up by ESPN? Well, a firestorm of comments–over  3,000 in just the first 24 hours.

Some praised Irvin for his courage but most gave him a hard time for looking like a total “fairy,” just one of a plethora of even less imaginative anti-gay slurs hurled at the straight football stud.

Of course, a far-right interpretation of the Bible played no small role in guiding the discussion. So did Nietzche and Clay Aiken, for some reason. Other hot topics included biology, black people, “evolutionary ethics,” butt sex and the concept that minority groups must earn their civil rights by struggling first.

WARNING: If you get frustrated reading the Queerty comments, then you may not be ready for the public discourse (if we can even call it that) that took place over on Here are a few for you to chew on, and, we hope, spew out. Our summaries of their arguments are in italics…

1. A freakin’ parade isn’t enough!?

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #espn #michaelirvin #outmagazine stories and more


  • christopher di spirito

    Kudos to Michael Irvin for coming out in support of marriage equality.

    As for the dim bulbs posting on the ESPN site, who cares? If I want to read nonsense I can peruse the graffiti written on any stall wall in any Men’s bathroom in America.

  • Abirdwillingtobeitself

    @comment 23: “how is babby formed in gay men?”

  • Hyhybt

    I do love the “David was Jacob’s father” one. It would involve time travel and adultery (on Rebecca’s part; David, of course, was no stranger to that), but it might explain some of the oddities of Isaac’s household :)

  • LANew

    Honestly, I see reasons for hope here. Most of the comments that I read (certainly did not get to them all!) were offensive and bone-headed, yes. However, in almost every case a second tier of commenters refuted the original poster’s ignorant statements. When homophobic statements—responding to an article about a major athlete supporting gay rights—on are quickly and effectively refuted by the pool of opinionators, I think that’s progress.

  • Oh Dear (John From England)


    They said the same about Black people. They just don’t want to see, think or hear about us.

    Isn’t striking that down in keeping with Obama saying he would so it HIS way? Er, which he is king however small.

    Dunno how rich, entitled or lucky you are but I DO NOT want anybody but Obama in the Whitehouse.

    DADT? Why the hell do you want to go to war and kill anyhow?

    War, war and war. All what you Americans think about.

  • Cam

    @Oh Dear (John From England): said…
    “DADT? Why the hell do you want to go to war and kill anyhow?

    War, war and war. All what you Americans think about.”

    John, don’t be purposely obtuse. DADT isn’t about whether or not anybody WANTS to go to war. What is IS about, is a federal law that specifically classifies gays as second class citizens.

    What YOU are saying is the same thing as telling a woman who doesn’t bother voting “Why should YOU care about a woman’s right to vote, you don’t want to vote anyway.”

    Other organizations can point to DADT and use it as evidence that the FEderal govt. considers gays second class citizens so they should be allowed to class us in that way also.

    As for why Obama should be allowed to do it HIS way, well, if Congress repeals it, then that leaves it open to be reinstated by a GOP Congress in the future. If a Court strikes it down it’s dead for good.

    AS for War War War being all Americans ever think about…please, you’re from England. Have you ever picked up a history book? Not only is your nation historically one of the most war mongering but many of the problems in today’s middle east are the direct result of the British colonial activities, and the parcelling out of the territories there badly. Additionally, your soldiers are in Iraq and Afghanistan and you are contributing to the actions in Lybia…so…yeah, you all are pretty peacefull over there aren’t you? (Eye Roll)

  • Kev C

    If you give a monkey a typewriter, he’ll eventually write about bananas.

  • jason

    One way to shut up sleazy breeder males is to point to their fascination for lesbians. You simply point out that lesbians are homosexuals. It usually shuts them up.

  • Kevin

    I agree. There were a lot of boneheaded things said…outrageous, horrible things, but remember, this is a jock site, and the fact is there were A LOT of refutations to comments. I was encouraged.

  • David B.

    I can’t believe that “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” isn’t somewhere on this list. I have a masochistic impulse to read the Yahoo! comments on articles having anything to do with homosexuality, and invariably at least one person pulls out that chestnut as if he were the cleverest man on the planet. If you’re going to be a bigot, can’t you at least try to be even slightly original?

  • pound em hard6969

    what do you all expect from a bunch of wannabe dumb jocks???

  • 12345deviant

    if there’s a gay agenda, WHY HAVEN’T I HEARD ABOUT IT YET? It’s so upsetting being out of the loop sometimes!

  • jason

    I love Michael Irvin. What a wonderful commentary he made on gay rights. He’s got the qualities I admire in men who identify as straight. Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful.

    He’s also a great role model for black people. He’s helping to restore my faith in black culture.

  • Jeffree

    Many of the comebacks & refutations were spot on & clever — a nice surprise. Don’t forget there are a lot of gay sports fans out there too.

    Q: How is “babby formed in gay men”?
    A: Gay stork. Duh.

  • Sceth

    Comment 20 sounds like one of those people who has heard about Nietzsche from pop culture but never actually read his work.

Comments are closed.