MERGED: Michael Sam to be First Openly Gay Player - Okay w/ Phins drafting him?

[bcsupratt]

Bottom line:

I don't want him in a Dolphins Uniform. Period.

Why?

Because we have had enough distractions on this team, we don't need the circus freak media **** show week in and week out every time he makes a tackle or sack. Or doesn't for that matter.
Gay or straight has nothing to do with the baggage that comes with drafting him.

 

[JTC111]

I've yet to see an argument made against homosexuality that wasn't also made by defenders of slavery and later of segregation.

 

[HoneyB]

Gasped - I respect your position. But I do think that Michael Sam's decision to refuse to lie or be closeted is a much bigger deal than many realize. Deon Sanders said the other day, make no mistake, Sam is not the first gay player, he's just the first openly gay player to come out before the Draft.

Why would you have to respect his position?

It's a free country, you can defend his right to free speech, but why his particular position? If the man said, I want to abide by all the moral laws of the bible, then I'd respect him, but he isn't saying that. If he said he is against gays in the locker room and wants to purge them, then I'd have to respect that as well, because at least it's honest and consistent. But he's not saying that at all, he's saying he wants gays there, but closeted. If the man said, I have strong and conflicting emotions, I'd respect THAT. But it's not about that either, he's quite dispassionate.

What he's saying, is that he acknowledges and accepts the existence of gay people, but not their "lifestyle." Lifestyle is code for sexually active adult. What he demands, is virginity, maintained from birth to death, for gay and bisexual people. (Meanwhile, he doesn't demand or even EXPECT anything remotely close to that from the general public, even if the bible requires it.) This is the problem with his "position." It is unattainable, unrealistic, hypocritical and illegitimate. He imposes a set of rules on someone else that he himself can't attain. How on earth is that a position anyone can respect?

 

[HoneyB]

I've yet to see an argument made against homosexuality that wasn't also made by defenders of slavery and later of segregation.

And therein lies one of the many problems with their position. But if you point this out, you will receive either no response, or a response that says essentially, "because I said so." That's why there can be no conversation. What you've had, JT, is not a conversation, and I've read through most of this.

This is what, more than 60 pages? It can be an infinitesimal number of pages, and yesterday still be the same as tomorrow, because there's no argument to be worked through. The only thing that will happen, is that a leader in their community will change their position for them, and then guess what...their new, unmovable position will be THAT.

 

[spiketex]

Why would you have to respect his position?

It's a free country, you can defend his right to free speech, but why his particular position? If the man said, I want to abide by all the moral laws of the bible, then I'd respect him, but he isn't saying that. If he said he is against gays in the locker room and wants to purge them, then I'd have to respect that as well, because at least it's honest and consistent. But he's not saying that at all, he's saying he wants gays there, but closeted. If the man said, I have strong and conflicting emotions, I'd respect THAT. But it's not about that either, he's quite dispassionate.

What he's saying, is that he acknowledges and accepts the existence of gay people, but not their "lifestyle." Lifestyle is code for sexually active adult. What he demands, is virginity, maintained from birth to death, for gay and bisexual people. (Meanwhile, he doesn't demand or even EXPECT anything remotely close to that from the general public, even if the bible requires it.) This is the problem with his "position." It is unattainable, unrealistic, hypocritical and illegitimate. He imposes a set of rules on someone else that he himself can't attain. How on earth is that a position anyone can respect?

I was defending his right to freedom of speech. As is pretty obvious from what I wrote, I don't agree with him on the subject.

 

[HoneyB]

I was defending his right to freedom of speech. As is pretty obvious from what I wrote, I don't agree with him on the subject.

They are different things, but ok I understand. :)

 

[Canadianfishfan]

Well, he's preaching to the choir of a church I don't attend. That is to say, there's 3 minutes of my life I'm never getting back.

Seriously though, I know those of you who support gay rights probably find this video compelling and persuasive, but to those of us who have a moral issue with homosexuality, comparing Michael Sam to pioneers like Jackie Robinson or Rosa Parks really does nothing to convince us we're in error. In fact, if anything, it just reinforces the fact that gay rights advocates know and care nothing about where our morality comes from; they just want to guilt us into supporting gays by calling us names ("bigot", "Neanderthal", "homophobe", "ignoramus", etc.), or scornfully questioning our intellects. So rather than being persuasive, I actually find this gentleman to be patronizing and ultimately, inflammatory. Considering the title of his message, it's ironic that he would prefer to mock or trivialize my morality instead of respect/celebrate it.

P.S. I'm not against Michael Sam playing in the NFL or pursuing pretty much whatever lawful career he might like to. And yes, I know certain professions like NFL athlete may present some unique challenges to him, and I give him a certain amount of respect for taking those on. However, I will not support or condone his lifestyle because it goes against my moral beliefs. I hope those who disagree with me can (unlike this speaker) at least respect my opinion.

Gasped - I respect your position. But I do think that Michael Sam's decision to refuse to lie or be closeted is a much bigger deal than many realize. It is a statement that he has the self confidence to live with the consequences of his action. This was not about trying to attract personal publicity, this is a young man wanting to be honest within himself and not viewing himself as second class or a subhuman degenerate engaging in evil. He just wants to play football and he's going to be himself. As has been previously reported, there are estimated to be over 50 gay players currently in the NFL and all had been locked in the closet. Deon Sanders said the other day, make no mistake, Sam is not the first gay player, he's just the first openly gay player to come out before the Draft.
No, this is nowhere near the significance of Rosa Parks or Jackie Robinson, nothing is in their league, but make no mistake, it is still big. Michael Sam will remembered as the footballer who wasn't prepared to accommodate the closet. I hope he gets the opportunity to play in the NFL and he's good enough to make it.
I happen to support gay rights. I believe that what a person does in the privacy of their own bedroom with a consenting adult is their business and belongs to nobody else. One can have different moral beliefs but this is a big deal because Sam's stand in refusing to lie is sending a message to lots of young gays across the US and the world that they are not second class citizens and the NFL as the bastion of the all straight boys club, will have an openly gay member. Women's tennis, women's golf and women's basketball are all littered with openly gay athletes (some lesbians are very good at sport, who knew?), there are believed to be some in the NFL, now they will be permitted to be true unto themselves.

Instead of trying to address each conversation which both have valid opinions of which I believe in the case of personal opinion... there is no right or wrong to what one can and should be able to believe.

This is what I do know with certainty.

Those who preach tolerance, are the least tolerant. Not meaning the two of you, but speaking in generalities here.

This is only my opinion: Why do people have to be forced to accept homosexuality if it is against their beliefs? All they have to do is allow gay people to live and exist and do whatever they want. They certainly don't have to like it.

I get this attitude from my step father. I'm black. He was born in Northern Italy and is of Armenian/Croatian decent. He always joked that he wasn't racist, homophobic, sexist or whatever, because he hated everyone equally. That was his little joke mocking the world. In Eurpoe hatred historically has been tied to everything under the sun. Nationalism, religion, racism, sexism, you name it. He had one rule. Do whatever the **** you want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

IMO no one has a right to force ideas on anyone. No one has to accept anything they don't want.

But they all have to respect the difference and allow others to have those differences.

Utopia is never going to happen. This ideology that we're all going to be one blissful happy place where everyone is loved and accepted is never going to happen. People are just different and no-one is the same. Different cultures, ideals, religion etc.

Expecting everyone to be the same is bull****.

 

[JTC111]

And therein lies one of the many problems with their position. But if you point this out, you will receive either no response, or a response that says essentially, "because I said so." That's why there can be no conversation. What you've had, JT, is not a conversation, and I've read through most of this.

This is what, more than 60 pages? It can be an infinitesimal number of pages, and yesterday still be the same as tomorrow, because there's no argument to be worked through. The only thing that will happen, is that a leader in their community will change their position for them, and then guess what...their new, unmovable position will be THAT.

You're right for some of them, but not for all of them. Some can be moved as is evident by what we're witnessing outside of football: gay marriage is now supported by a majority of citizens where just 5 or 6 years ago that wasn't true; we're seeing gay marriage bans overturned by rightwing judges (yesterday in Kentucky, for example), supporting equal rights and constitutional protections for gay people is no longer political suicide, etc. And while we may not change the minds of those who are replying negatively in this thread, there may be a few people following this thread without participating who are starting to question their position on the issue. Perhaps they're not yet comfortable voicing their change of heart... hell, I'm not sure I would have been comfortable having this conversation just 10 years ago. But some month or some years down the line, this issue will come up in conversations they have with friends and maybe they'll find the courage to be the first in their group to say, "Why should it matter if anyone is gay?"

In a country with free speech, there will always be opposition, and I suspect that as their numbers diminish, the voices of the anti-gay crowd will grow louder. For the loudest, we can always point them to studies like this:
[h=1]Homophobic Men Most Aroused by Gay Male Porn [/h]Let them explain that.

 

[JTC111]

This is what I do know with certainty.

Those who preach tolerance, are the least tolerant.

It has become a common rightwing meme to proclaim others intolerant if they don't tolerate rightwing intolerance.

 

[j-off-her-doll]

Instead of trying to address each conversation which both have valid opinions of which I believe in the case of personal opinion... there is no right or wrong to what one can and should be able to believe.

This is what I do know with certainty.

Those who preach tolerance, are the least tolerant. Not meaning the two of you, but speaking in generalities here.

This is only my opinion: Why do people have to be forced to accept homosexuality if it is against their beliefs? All they have to do is allow gay people to live and exist and do whatever they want. They certainly don't have to like it.

I get this attitude from my step father. I'm black. He was born in Northern Italy and is of Armenian/Croatian decent. He always joked that he wasn't racist, homophobic, sexist or whatever, because he hated everyone equally. That was his little joke mocking the world. In Eurpoe hatred historically has been tied to everything under the sun. Nationalism, religion, racism, sexism, you name it. He had one rule. Do whatever the **** you want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

IMO no one has a right to force ideas on anyone. No one has to accept anything they don't want.

But they all have to respect the difference and allow others to have those differences.

Utopia is never going to happen. This ideology that we're all going to be one blissful happy place where everyone is loved and accepted is never going to happen. People are just different and no-one is the same. Different cultures, ideals, religion etc.

Expecting everyone to be the same is bull****.

The idea of slamming people who are intolerant of intolerance is a joke. I'm also intolerant of murder, molestation, rape, and a number of other terrible things. As I've said, anyone can believe what they'd like. When they start imposing their beliefs on other - banning gay marriage, etc. - I have ZERO tolerance for that. Just as I have zero tolerance for discriminating against people based on the color of their skin, their gender, etc.

 

[HoneyB]

And while we may not change the minds of those who are replying negatively in this thread, there may be a few people following this thread without participating who are starting to question their position on the issue.

And that's one reason I bothered to post on this thread at all, because of the lurkers. But I do also think many people who posted not-so-positively on this thread also can expand their knowledge and their comfort zone, just not the couple of posters who are repeatedly posting based on religious or political grounds. For them, it's just to perpetuate a meme.

It's a shame, though, that the thread was hijacked and the conversation stopped. Because there's nothing wrong with asking questions, or talking about how you feel, what you fear, what you like or dislike, and that's how we get through things. But the fundies will show up and shut down the conversation and everyone withdraws, because nobody wants the bs.

 

[Canadianfishfan]

It has become a common rightwing meme to proclaim others intolerant if they don't tolerate rightwing intolerance.

Think of it as you may. I'm an definitely not right wing at all.. I am very very very liberal (as we call it in Canada).

The fact of the matter is.. those groups who want people to tolerate them, don't tolerate those who disagree with them.

The common right wing meme is to pretend **** doesn't exist or shouldn't matter.

This isn't isolated to the gay issue. It could be sexism, the tea party movement. Or any movement that is trying to influence society as a whole.

 

[Canadianfishfan]

The idea of slamming people who are intolerant of intolerance is a joke. I'm also intolerant of murder, molestation, rape, and a number of other terrible things. As I've said, anyone can believe what they'd like. When they start imposing their beliefs on other - banning gay marriage, etc. - I have ZERO tolerance for that. Just as I have zero tolerance for discriminating against people based on the color of their skin, their gender, etc.

It's a joke that is forced on all of us whether we like it or not. I agree with you. I have zero tolerance for discrimination. But as a citizen of country that professes free speech, I am not going to impose my will or belief in someone who thinks those things.

I am black. If someone is racist who am I to force them to be not racist? All I ask is to be able to live my life the way I choose.

Claiming to have zero tolerance for people wanting to ban gay marriage, I agree, a ban? it's not in their power to impose on another person. But I'll certainly defend their freedom to believe what they want.

I know this may seem unpopular, but people can't have it both ways. Where one opinion trumps over all all others.

If you want to true fair society, let all the gay be gays and do whatever the hell they want, and let everyone else think whatever the hell they want to.

The problem always lies wherein people try to impose themselves on the freedoms of others.

 

[JTC111]

But the fundies will show up and shut down the conversation and everyone withdraws, because nobody wants the bs.

Not me. I love talking to fundies about stuff like this especially when it presents an opportunity to expose the hypocrisy and narrow-mindedness of their position.

 

[HoneyB]

I get this attitude from my step father. I'm black. He was born in Northern Italy and is of Armenian/Croatian decent. He always joked that he wasn't racist, homophobic, sexist or whatever, because he hated everyone equally. That was his little joke mocking the world. In Eurpoe hatred historically has been tied to everything under the sun. Nationalism, religion, racism, sexism, you name it. He had one rule. Do whatever the **** you want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

People are people, and folks are gonna be bigoted, and I don't have a problem with that. When bigoted people are CALLED bigoted by others, it's usually not because they're bigoted, it's because they do something to hurt other people. We don't have a right to take away rights from other people, or set an arbitrary standard for them that we ourselves cannot meet. Most Americans understand this, we have an innate sense of fairness, and we don't like to see a stacked deck.

Prejudice is small potatoes. Everyone has them. It's when it grows into something larger and more organized, is the problem. You mentioned the past problems of Europe, and you see the ravages of Nazisms and Fascism and how they played on people's bigotry and fear.