Is Holly Warlick a Lesbian?

Discussion in 'VOLuminous' started by Tenacious D, Apr 24, 2012.

  1. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    In reading her bio on the UT website, I noted that she isn't married, and seemingly never has been. While this is certainly not even cursory evidence of someone being homosexual - unless said woman also refuses to give her number to some drunk frat guy in a bar, which I have been told is an unassailable sign of lesbianism - when combined with the persistent rumors of rampant lesbianism in women's sports, particularly in collegiate women's basketball, it caused me to at least consider the validity of the question, and the correctness of contemplating it. But, to be sure, I have absolutely no more idea if she is gay than I know about the sexual orientations of Dooley, Martin or Serrano, respectively. I'm just wondering if it's an entirely valid question to ponder, or not.

    Some would argue that it is of no importance, whatsoever, as it has nothing to do with her public life as head coach of the Lady Vols, which both is and should remains entirely separate from her private life. What goes on behind closed doors, should stay there, so to speak. Well, that's all well and good, until you consider the likes of Bobby Petrino, Rick Pitino, Tiger Woods and dozens of other sports figures, both active and retired, players and coaches. Where was the same "bright line" drawn for each of them, and which clearly separated their private lives from their professional careers? Given those examples, it seems impossible to say that she somehow deserves a stricter adherence to personal privacy than each of them, doesn't it? And if so, then what makes her different, exactly?

    As to the argument that it has nothing to do with her job, I would ask if it makes any more difference to her job than it does to any homosexual member of the U.S. Armed Forces. If we, as a society, believe that there should be no delineation made between a homo/heterosexual male standing guard than the other, why then must the sexual orientation of the person who is coaching our women's basketball team be of any greater significance? While it's true to say, "Well, she shouldn't be compelled to say one way or the other.", a better question might be, "Why hasn't the question at least been posed to her?" by a member of our local media?

    And if she is a lesbian, wouldn't her being named the head coach not only represent a a wonderful opportunity to celebrate her hiring to such a prominent position, but also, as a means of extolling the obviously deep and rich commitment which our University holds for the value and diversity of welcoming all to serve, regardless as to which sexual orientation they may belong? It seems that both Coach Warlick and our University may not only be missing an invaluable opportunity to promote themselves, but the advancement of the entirety of gay rights, as a whole.

    And for those of you who will read this believing that my tongue is in cheek, or that I have some secretly insidious motives, I'll simply refer you to the "My Brother-In-Law Is Gay Thread" which I started several months ago. Of course, you could equally rely on the fact that I would prefer that Richard Simmons be our head football coach, instead of Dooley, if it meant that we might more quickly ascend back to the pinnacle of the college football universe, once again. In fact, I don't care if he stood on the sidelines wearing bedazzled Daisy Dukes, so long as we held the lead against Bama, late into the fourth.

    So, is she a lesbian or not? But much more importantly, why am I the only one who is seemingly willing to even pose the question?

    Is it a valid one to be asked? And it it is (privately) know that she is a lesbian, why not use her hiring to advance the gay / lesbian cause?
     
  2. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Oh, one last thing, her bio also mentions that she owns two dogs, and that both are named after famous country singers / bands.

    One of them is named, "Dixie".

    Wait til the rednecks get a whiff of that. You can be gay all you want, but you better not be idolizing any radical country music trio's by naming your dog after them.
     
  3. LawVol13

    LawVol13 Chieftain

    I think it's a safe bet that she's gay.
     
  4. 615 Vol

    615 Vol Chieftain

    She even has lick in her last name.
     
  5. LawVol13

    LawVol13 Chieftain

    On a serious note, I think it's unfair to Warlick to act as if she needs to be some ambassador of gay rights. Let the woman coach the team. As for the issue of whether the question should be posed to her, I don't think it should. Hell, probably at the very, very least, 50% of people involved with women's basketball are gay. It's not a big deal at all to me whether she is or not, and, furthermore, there's really no need to ask her because the answer is very obvious.
     
  6. IP

    IP Advanced Pruitt Apologetics Bot

    I really don't see why she has to become a figurehead of her orientation. Straight coaches don't get sidetracked with such foolishness.

    It is very simple. If you don't at least accept a homosexual person's right to live their life the way they see fit, you are a bigot. No need for spokespersons in the 21st century on this issue.
     
  7. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    If all of this is true, then why were so many advocating for homosexuals to be able to openly serve in the military and to be wed? To reduce their profile?

    And are you saying that her sexuality is not germane to her service as head coach?

    And why are we, as a society, willing to allow this possible advancement of gay rights to go unnoticed?

    Much like President Obama's career being little more than the largest feather in the cap of affirmative action - why can't we celebrate these accomplishments for what they are?

    Here's a couple of thoughts:
    I think that they don't ask because there would be a strong sentiment against her, if not an outright revolt, if it were confirmed true.

    I think that she will not offer it for fear of this occurring.

    Personally, I think neither would occur, but instead, that she would've thay much more embraced becaus of it.
     
  8. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    By the way...

    Jackie Robinson, Arthur Ashe, Billie Jean King and Condredge Holloway are all laughing their asses off at your staright-faced naivety.

    Does it make me a bigot to say that none of them "chose" to be figureheads of their race or gender?
     
  9. CardinalVol

    CardinalVol Uncultured, non-diverse mod

    I could care less. I seriously doubt she's seen many men naked though.

    Either way, I'm looking forward to her running the program in the ground and Lady Vol fans burning their sweaters, in this instance just so I can say I told you so.
     
  10. LawVol13

    LawVol13 Chieftain

    Are we really comparing Jackie Robinson to Holly Warlick? Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not seeing the connection.
     
  11. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    I'm sorry - are you saying that you don't see a direct connection between the struggle for equality that both blacks and homosexuals share?
     
  12. LawVol13

    LawVol13 Chieftain

    I sense some sarcasm, so maybe you agree with me. But, no, I certainly don't see the connection with Jackie Robinson and a lesbian coach in a primarily lesbian sport with multiple other lesbian coaches.
     
  13. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    No sarcasm.

    First, are those statements of fact, or opinion? Surely opinion, right?

    Personally, I wouldn't hasten a guess as to what percentage of women basketball players or coaches might be lesbian. I certainly don't know how you've determined that it not only exists, but is of such a sizable demographic as to make Warlick's acclimatization somehow "easier" (read: less arduous).

    Or - and I don't want to suppose your intent here, so I ask - do you somehow think that homosexuals have an "easier" road than blacks? Or, that their accomplishments toward equality are somehow less significant, perhaps?
     
  14. Volst53

    Volst53 Super Moderator

    I would guess it'd be easier to hide being a homosexual than being black.
     
  15. LawVol13

    LawVol13 Chieftain

    No, you're totally misreading me. I'm saying Holly Warlick is nothing like Jackie Robinson. Has nothing to do with a larger gay rights battle vs. battle of equal rights for blacks. And, if you'd like to believe that there aren't many lesbians in women's basketball, that's fine. I happen to disagree.
     
  16. kptvol

    kptvol Super Moderator

    Why would it be?
     
  17. kptvol

    kptvol Super Moderator

    Michael Jackson disagrees.
     
  18. Volst53

    Volst53 Super Moderator

    Well played, and I stand corrected.
     
  19. gorockytop101

    gorockytop101 New Member

    Because it isn't standard practice to inquire about a coach's sexual orientation based on marital status.

    If "Coach Dooley, can you state for the record whether or not you are actually straight?" doesn't sound like a particularly appropriate question to ask, I don't see why the same question should be asked to Coach Warlick.
     
  20. The public accepted the media's assaults on Petrino, Pitino, and Tiger in large part because they broke the contract of marriage.

    The Dixie Chicks are radials?
     

Share This Page