Thoughts on Michael Sam

[Chitownhustla]

 

Right there is how someone "coming out" should be done. WWE and wrestling in general had many stereotyped gay gimmicks in the past, but there has never been an openly gay person in the WWE.

 

Darren Young is getting off his flight to the second biggest WWE event of the year, and he get's stopped by a reporter. He was asked a generalized question about gays in the WWE. He just owned his sexuality, talked about it nonchalantly, while going about his business.

 

That has more impact in my opinion, than making a media circus and national announcement. The way Darren Young went about it has more class, and lends being gay as normal instead of a spectacle.

 

I really don't think it will effect May's draft position any. A majority of teams, the owners have little say on who will be drafted in his projected area. GM's are there to be successful and can't afford any kind of biased. Phil Emery could have the opinions of Phil Robertson, but he's going to get the guys that give the Bears the best chance to win.

 

Rodger's has already denied being gay BTW. He got confronted with the rumors and said he liked the laidies a lot, or something like that. I remember the SCORE giving him the business because of how he responded.

 

 

I do like the way he came out, he literally says something to the fact Does it matter?? Does it matter to you? Its not a big deal, Im happy Im gay. Granted I had never heard of him and do not follow the WWE. He mad it it a non issue by the way he came out. Sam will face a lot more media attention being the first openly gay current NFL player. The NFL is way bigger of a deal than the WWE.

 

 

I honestly think there is no way any NFL player can come out and it not be made a big deal. Maybe if a group of them came out together and said something to the fact, We want to come out and move on from this. We don't want to address this subject anymore. We only want to address my play on the football field. Would the Media respect that request, who knows but I tend to lean that they would address it for a short time at least.

 

 

 

[CrackerDog]

The point is I wont split hairs, or be put on the defensive by a PC application of the inference of racism. Im no shrinking violet, I am not afraid to hold an unpopular opinion, especially when I know in my moral code that I am right.

 

I'm not getting into this too deeply either other than saying I agree with you completely NYC. He didn't want to live a lie so he got it out of the way early. It's done and if he plays well it won't be talked about going forward, ever. And others will likely follow his lead and we'll all find out that gyuys we've been rooting for are gay. No biggie.

 

I don't, however, tolerate bigots of any kind. So for those that feel they have some special god-given right to marry that doesn't transcend race, sexual orientation, etc. You're wrong.

['TD']

I don't, however, tolerate bigots of any kind. So for those that feel they have some special god-given right to marry that doesn't transcend race, sexual orientation, etc. You're wrong.

 

Would that not by definition make you a bigot?

 

big·ot

noun \ˈbi-gət\

 

: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

 

 

[madlithuanian]

I fully support your position. My personal view may differ ever so slightly, but it's semantics. You get the overall point and I believe you expressed yourself well and I agree overall.

 

I respect your standing your ground while respecting differing viewpoints. If that ain't America, I don't know what is.

 

 

 

I disagree, and I respect your right to disagree with me too. But I will also defend my position, since I know it to be right, deep down in my bones.

 

It's probably best to just move on from this issue, because i respect the board, and I'm not trying to bring politics here, but neither will I hold back if something is said on this or another topic that challenges my sense of morality, becasue at the end of the day what i beleive so strongly in is more important than my membership on an internet board.

 

That said, I do not diminish how much I enjoy this board, of what a good one it is. So my preffered outcome would be to continue to debate Bears players and coaches, and the rest of the NFL, without acrimony or having to defend my beliefs.

 

Im not offended, please dont misunderstand, I totally believe in others' right to hold their opinions too. I think Id rather just not have to defend mine, or have them called ignorant. Further, I did not make the comparison that I was called "ignorant" for. To destroy the differenc ein your analogy, that Robinson could not help it be known that he was black, that puts the onus of the decision on to his team owenr then, and would put him in a parallel position to Michael Sam.

 

The point is I wont split hairs, or be put on the defensive by a PC application of the inference of racism. Im no shrinking violet, I am not afraid to hold an unpopular opinion, especially when I know in my moral code that I am right.

 

It is precisely for this reason that i can respect other people who disagree with me. I am sure they hold their opinions from equally honest moral conviction.

 

So again, maybe it's best to move on from this issue.

 

[CrackerDog]

Would that not by definition make you a bigot?

 

No. Although there's certainly a paradox there and it comes up any time someone with a religious viewpoint want's to force their bigotry into law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

 

However, the Constitution, which in itself isn't perfect by any means, does fairly clearly state that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" which means the law can't enshrine anyone's bigotry to the detriment of others. There's also this little thing called "The Equal Protection Clause".

 

Lastly, he is who he is and you have no right to tell him to be otherwise. So keep your nose in your own business.

['TD']

It became my business when you called anyone that doesn't agree with you wrong and a bigot. I don't agree with you, so apparently I am a bigot.

 

However, I do not strongly or unfairly dislike people or their ideas. I do not hate or refuse to accept someone of a group. You clearly stated you do.

 

I disagree on the definition of a term. I do think they should get equal treatment, and respect what they want.

 

[CrackerDog]

I disagree on the definition of a term. I do think they should get equal treatment, and respect what they want.

 

My point was clearly tied to the law when I mentioned the right to marry. But I could've said the right to employment afforded by other protections under the law. It's my opinion that those who see their religious rights allowing them to hate on any group or individual as bigots. I can point out many references in the bible that so-called righteous people no longer believe in. But I don't have to because it was done so well here:

 

I hang my hat on rational thought.

 

With that said, I'm done. I learned long ago not to waste time arguing with racists or bigots (not saying you're either) but if this goes on any longer I'll be called a faggot liberal and you'll be a Nazi. I'd rather go home and enjoy time with my family.

['TD']

You really shouldn't have try to discredit or insult people's religion to make your point. I think you will find that many true religious people, whether it be Muslim, Christian, or other, do not hate people. That alone would go against their beliefs and morals.

 

I totally agree with you on the right to employment. That, however, is covered under law now. The only issue that I know of, is marriage and the benefits there of. A gay couple should be able to be on their partner's insurance, file taxes together, and visit each other in the hospital and such. You will get no argument from me on that.

 

The only argument from me is that marriage is between a man and a woman. Traditionally and historically, it has been defined that way for a long time through many cultures. A gay marriage by any other name is completely acceptable to me. The can both be recognized as civil unions by the government, but recognized as different terms.

 

All of which, I think has nothing to do with this young man coming out as a homosexual.

[bowlingtwig]

I think this needs to stop before we cross a line forcing an admin to close it. We really do hate to do that. Cracker though I can't stand him 99.9% of the time never did call anyone a bigot. He just simply stated he doesn't like bigots.

 

As far as my stance I don't give a damn if anyone is gay just as long as they don't push there beliefs on me. I've got several friends both men and women who are gay, bi and even 1 that is a drag queen. I only care 1 thing about Sam. Can he play and that is very much a debate. Stats were good no doubt but dude is small to be a 4-3 DE hand in the dirt like he played at Mizzou. Some have suggested he move to a rush LB like SCS but I don't know. I very much question his ability to have an impact in NFL. Maybe he can add some weight and move to LB? Now that he has come to the world it might be best for him not to talk about this every time a media person asks cuz that would be adding fuel to the fire

[AZ54]

I think this needs to stop before we cross a line forcing an admin to close it. We really do hate to do that. Cracker though I can't stand him 99.9% of the time never did call anyone a bigot. He just simply stated he doesn't like bigots.

 

As far as my stance I don't give a damn if anyone is gay just as long as they don't push there beliefs on me. I've got several friends both men and women who are gay, bi and even 1 that is a drag queen. I only care 1 thing about Sam. Can he play and that is very much a debate. Stats were good no doubt but dude is small to be a 4-3 DE hand in the dirt like he played at Mizzou. Some have suggested he move to a rush LB like SCS but I don't know. I very much question his ability to have an impact in NFL. Maybe he can add some weight and move to LB? Now that he has come to the world it might be best for him not to talk about this every time a media person asks cuz that would be adding fuel to the fire

 

Back to the field and his ability to play and help the Bears…right where the conversation belongs.

[Mongo3451]

Back to the field and his ability to play and help the Bears…right where the conversation belongs.

Just when it was getting good too... lol

[AZ54]

I will add a few thoughts. Last year when I said I didn't want Tebow because of the media circus the word bigot never came up. I know and count among my friends and coworkers many who have a variety of lifestyles ranging active swingers to lesbians and devout religious couples who want nothing to do with either. All visit my house regularly. To my knowledge none of them want their personal lifestyle to be considered as a factor in their employment. I was not against Tim Tebow having and exercising his beliefs anymore than I am against Michael Sam having and exercising his. I just don't think either belong in discussion about how well either can perform on a football field yet that's what this will be as witnessed in the discussions in this thread.

[Uncle Buck]

I've enjoyed the discourse. My view is pretty simple, if he can play ball, he should play at the next level. His skill set should dictate where he is drafted. I wish him good luck.

[killakrzydav]

Honestly men I read the first 6 or so posts. Then had to stop.

 

Myself, being slightly homophobic, I think he is tremendously courageous. I guarantee there is a closet person among us in this forum that is afraid to come out. What this man did is a landmark move in our sports history regardless of his performance. Coming out now can only hurt his stock IMO but its also the best time rather than be exposed at the combine.

 

 

I think yall are missing the fact he said he wanted to be a football player not a gay football nor an activist.

[Daventry]

Hi Guys, I am going to weigh in quickly on this one only because I love the board.

 

And the Bears.

 

I have been away for a bit due to personal issues, which will likely continue....

 

Regardless, at the risk of sounding trite, please, let's be respectful and courteous.

 

I am not saying anyone is not....and I have no wish to get into any kind of slagging contest on the net.

 

That is my vote, let's all try to be kind. And remember, we are all friends here....at least I hope so.

 

I consider this a friendly place, lets keep it that way.

[BearFan2000]

I will weigh in and try to keep it brief.

 

I think in this topic as a whole there are some misconceptions.

 

The word homophobic or any variation of it is often thrown out too loosely. What I mean by that is in many areas be it media, public, etc. Anyone who as a part of their religion believes that the gay lifestyle wrong, is automatically labeled a homophobe when the term means fear of homosexuals. Simply disagreeing with a belief on an issue does not necessarily equate to fear, hatred, or bigotry. Christians are one group that are regularly slandered as bigots, haters, and homophobes and often on assumption only. Some who call themselves Christian do in fact earn the labels, and aren't really Christian at all and deserve the slander due to their holier than thou attitude. As Christians we are taught to love the sinner and hate the sin, whatever it be. It's hypocritical and very much like the pharisaical religious leaders of Christ's day to point the finger at every one else's sin while ignoring the self righteous pride in their own hearts. In that light for me while my personal beliefs and views on this topic may conflict with others on here or in society as a whole. I fully respect and will defend the rights of anyone with differing views. To quote a line from the Matrix Reloaded (even though the movie kinda stunk) When Lock says to Morpheus "Not everyone believes as you do" Morpheus simply replies. "My beliefs don't require them to" I feel like we should be respectful of each other's views just as we'd like others to be respectful of ours. Just like our agreements/disagreements when it comes to Bears football, NFL, Sports in general. A little respect goes a long way. I think sometimes it's easy to get entrenched and be more focused on proving the other wrong than actually engaging in intelligent discussion or simply agree to disagree and move on. As for myself I feel if I'm disrespectful of other's views, beliefs, etc. then I shouldn't expect others to be respectful of mine.

 

In Sam's case if the kid can play football and make an impact as a player in this league then he should be drafted. As far as should he have or have not publicly announced his orientation or was it motivated by desire for attention, etc. Who knows the choice was his to make and he made it. None of us can for sure know what his motivation was both in making it public or his timing to do so. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt as his track record leads me to think it wasn't a selfish move. He told his teammates in college and he performed well there without incident, which tells me he's not one to be a distraction or grab attention. The media will do whatever the media does, can't control that either way. What we can debate is will his success at college translate to the NFL, where would he fit as a DE or LB. He's currently graded somewhere in the 3rd round. He may drop, or he may climb a little it comes down to need of the teams drafting and who thinks he'd fit their team. I personally haven't seen him play as I haven't seen much of Missouri play so all I can debate on is stats and his measurable. If he can help the Bears and is on the board at our pick I would have no problem taking him.

[CrackerDog]

I think in this topic as a whole there are some misconceptions.

 

The word homophobic or any variation of it is often thrown out too loosely. What I mean by that is in many areas be it media, public, etc. Anyone who as a part of their religion believes that the gay lifestyle wrong, is automatically labeled a homophobe when the term means fear of homosexuals. Simply disagreeing with a belief on an issue does not necessarily equate to fear, hatred, or bigotry. Christians are one group that are regularly slandered as bigots, haters, and homophobes and often on assumption only.

 

Your later comments are fair enough but homophobia is a term that means irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals and is a psychological condition, not simply the definition many like to apply "fear of homosexuals." Homophobia is therefore much more damaging than those who dismiss it would allow for in their mindset.

 

Further, while it may be OK for some to say "It's in the bible" there are many (MANY) things written in the bible that most Christians have left behind. This isn't unlike the Nazi foot-soldier saying he was just following orders, IMO. Persecution of any group in these United States should never be tolerated. Equal access to employment, etc should be protected by the law.

 

So, I would disagree that anyone is being slandered when the term bigot is thrown out there. Why, because the person who wrote the bible was a human being with a Medieval (or earlier) mindset. Pre-enlightenment, pre-science. We now know lots more than we knew then, as a species. Therefore, the blind following of a book written during a bigoted time, IMO, doesn't lessen the bigotry. Catholics, for example, widely use contraception against the churches beliefs. So, all I'm saying is we all have the opportunity to be more selective about the things we believe, unless we're fundamentalist.

[BearFan PHX]

I think most of the confusion comes into play when making the distinction between having a legal right to your opinion and the right to argue it, and saying that all opinions are worthy of respect of agreement.

 

It is crucial in a free society that people be able to argue for their views, especially if they are not widely held. At one time, the idea that the earth was round was held only by a small number of people, and they were persecuted for it. In order to have a healthy marketplace of ideas, it is imperative that all points of view be legal to express and debate, especially when they are fringe.

 

Do I think that there is a chance that the Nazis are on to something, and that their ideals will prevail? No I sure don't. But I understand that ANY legal limits on free speech will inevitable result in political correctness that eventually WILL cripple the expression of important if radical ideas.

 

Some will understand and agree with what I've just said, but amongst that group, many will fall into another mistake, and that is the idea that any opinion is valid, and deserves respect. This is not true at all. It is important that we be able to just as freely speak AGAINST ideas, such as Nazi-ism without limits. That's the symmetry of free speech. Every point of view isn't equally OK, that's moral relativism.

 

So far, I'm only talking about speech. It is clear that we are a country of laws, and they (are supposed to) include protections of basic right, such as free speech, but also to have certain rights, among them the right to equal protections of rights under the law.

 

If the law is to define something like marriage in a legal (and not religious) sense, i.e. there are tax implications, and shared ownership of property, then i think the constitution is quite clear. Gay legal marriage is an inevitability.

 

Where confusion seems to occur is between the idea of Religious marriage vs. Legal Marriage.

 

For example, two Protestants cannot be married by a Catholic priest in a Catholic church. Does the Catholic church recognize Protestant marriage in a religious sense? Probably not.

 

But no one is confused when Protestants or Catholics get married in a legal way.

 

In fact, if two people get married in a church ceremony, but do not fill out the forms for marriage licenses etc, they may well be married in the eyes of God, in the opnion of members of that church. But they are not legally married.

 

Similarly, if two people go fill out a marriage license, and have a judge preside, they ARE legally married despite having had no religious ceremony at all.

 

Therefore there are two different things here, religious marriage and legal marriage.

 

It is completely appropriate for religious people to be against gay religious marriage, just as they may not respect a marriage performed by a judge. But it is a constitutionally guaranteed right for equal protection under the law, and that results in gay legal marriage as an absolute right so long as there is any such thing as legal marriage at all.

 

When you see the distinctions, it is easy to understand that people are not necessarily bigots to express their religious beliefs, but rather that bigotry comes into play when they attempt to enforce these religious beliefs in an illegal way.

 

It is important for bigots and enlightened alike to be able to speak and we should respect everyones right to an opinion, but be under no compulsions legal or social to respect every opinion.

 

It really all makes sense, they used to teach this stuff is civics class. Political forces conspire on both sides to blur these distinctions, to make us angry to get us to vote for solutions. The fact is the Constitution has been working well for a long time, and we just need to stay aligned with how it works.

 

Drawing us into opposing groups, those who hate gays and those who love gays is too simplistic. We should all recognize the legal rights, and feel free to hold any opinion about religion, philosophy, the best way to live one's own life etc.

 

It's really not that hard.

['TD']

I think you wrote rather eloquently NYC. We are in disagreement on the subject, however I will not retort. Another argument on the subject, even if a response is due, would be rather counter-productive for the board's best interests.

 

In reply to Cracker, I just wanted to make a few points.

-Homophobia is not applicable to disagreeing with your social issue, however theophobia is overly apparent

-Religion is not responsible for the varying laws on marriage. The opposition to gay marriage is not strictly religious people.

- Arguing with undertones of hatred for a person's views only diminishes any stronger points you may have.

-The term bigotry is being used too lightly.

.

 

 

 

[BearFan PHX]

I think you wrote rather eloquently NYC. We are in disagreement on the subject, however I will not retort. Another argument on the subject, even if a response is due, would be rather counter-productive for the board's best interests.

 

In reply to Cracker, I just wanted to make a few points.

-Homophobia is not applicable to disagreeing with your social issue, however theophobia is overly apparent

-Religion is not responsible for the varying laws on marriage. The opposition to gay marriage is not strictly religious people.

- Arguing with undertones of hatred for a person's views only diminishes any stronger points you may have.

-The term bigotry is being used too lightly.

.

 

That's cool TD, my whole point is that we dont need to agree on philosophy in order to be neighbors, and boardmates.

 

And religion is responsible for the varying definitions of marriage, but you are correct, people's views on it are not always religious at all.

 

Anyway respect to all here.

[madlithuanian]

Very well put. Kudos.

 

 

 

I think most of the confusion comes into play when making the distinction between having a legal right to your opinion and the right to argue it, and saying that all opinions are worthy of respect of agreement.

 

It is crucial in a free society that people be able to argue for their views, especially if they are not widely held. At one time, the idea that the earth was round was held only by a small number of people, and they were persecuted for it. In order to have a healthy marketplace of ideas, it is imperative that all points of view be legal to express and debate, especially when they are fringe.

 

Do I think that there is a chance that the Nazis are on to something, and that their ideals will prevail? No I sure don't. But I understand that ANY legal limits on free speech will inevitable result in political correctness that eventually WILL cripple the expression of important if radical ideas.

 

Some will understand and agree with what I've just said, but amongst that group, many will fall into another mistake, and that is the idea that any opinion is valid, and deserves respect. This is not true at all. It is important that we be able to just as freely speak AGAINST ideas, such as Nazi-ism without limits. That's the symmetry of free speech. Every point of view isn't equally OK, that's moral relativism.

 

So far, I'm only talking about speech. It is clear that we are a country of laws, and they (are supposed to) include protections of basic right, such as free speech, but also to have certain rights, among them the right to equal protections of rights under the law.

 

If the law is to define something like marriage in a legal (and not religious) sense, i.e. there are tax implications, and shared ownership of property, then i think the constitution is quite clear. Gay legal marriage is an inevitability.

 

Where confusion seems to occur is between the idea of Religious marriage vs. Legal Marriage.

 

For example, two Protestants cannot be married by a Catholic priest in a Catholic church. Does the Catholic church recognize Protestant marriage in a religious sense? Probably not.

 

But no one is confused when Protestants or Catholics get married in a legal way.

 

In fact, if two people get married in a church ceremony, but do not fill out the forms for marriage licenses etc, they may well be married in the eyes of God, in the opnion of members of that church. But they are not legally married.

 

Similarly, if two people go fill out a marriage license, and have a judge preside, they ARE legally married despite having had no religious ceremony at all.

 

Therefore there are two different things here, religious marriage and legal marriage.

 

It is completely appropriate for religious people to be against gay religious marriage, just as they may not respect a marriage performed by a judge. But it is a constitutionally guaranteed right for equal protection under the law, and that results in gay legal marriage as an absolute right so long as there is any such thing as legal marriage at all.

 

When you see the distinctions, it is easy to understand that people are not necessarily bigots to express their religious beliefs, but rather that bigotry comes into play when they attempt to enforce these religious beliefs in an illegal way.

 

It is important for bigots and enlightened alike to be able to speak and we should respect everyones right to an opinion, but be under no compulsions legal or social to respect every opinion.

 

It really all makes sense, they used to teach this stuff is civics class. Political forces conspire on both sides to blur these distinctions, to make us angry to get us to vote for solutions. The fact is the Constitution has been working well for a long time, and we just need to stay aligned with how it works.

 

Drawing us into opposing groups, those who hate gays and those who love gays is too simplistic. We should all recognize the legal rights, and feel free to hold any opinion about religion, philosophy, the best way to live one's own life etc.

 

It's really not that hard.

 

[CrackerDog]

-Homophobia is not applicable to disagreeing with your social issue, however theophobia is overly apparent

-Religion is not responsible for the varying laws on marriage. The opposition to gay marriage is not strictly religious people.

- Arguing with undertones of hatred for a person's views only diminishes any stronger points you may have.

-The term bigotry is being used too lightly.

 

I'd say your first two points are obviously and demonstrably false.

 

I wouldn't say I hate anyone other than Dick Cheney.

 

Lastly, a definition is what it is. I'm just using the word as defined.