Pitch a bitch. Complain about the Affordable Care Act here, or whatever else is bothering you.
Nothing. But again, you're completely missing my point (for a second time).Quote: BeardgoatWhat's wrong with somebody supporting a gay football player?
Vigorously defending a gay player but staying silent about a Christian player does not befit an "objective" news reporter.
I will never understand how liberals can take a simple statement and come to such bizarre conclusions. Please reread my initial post on this subject. Where did I state that "everybody tried to tear down Tebow"? (While I do happen to believe that such a statement has a bit of truth to it, that's beside the point)Quote: BeardgoatI really think you're reaching here. To act like everybody tried to tear down Tebow is ridiculous.
In any case, for the 4th time, I will say it again: Many people in the media will vigorously defend a gay football player (Michael Sam), yet I don't recall any of them (for example, the guy in the video) defending Tim Tebow against anti-Christian insults with the same fervor.
Quote: BeardgoatI disagree with your stance that you don't recall any media members defending Tim tebow
Name one guy in the mainstream media who defended Tebow as forcefully as the guy in the video I just posted?
Quote: Beethoven9thBoy, where were you the past few years? A quick google search will show all the anti-Christian comments Tebow had to deal with.
Sure, people will make comments about it. It's a free country.
But no one was ever talking about not drafting him or having it affect his career in any way. In fact he got drafted way too high for his talent level and was a complete bust.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceSure, people will make comments about it. It's a free country.
Well then let me turn the tables: "Sure, people will make comments about Michael Sam being gay. It's a free country."
Again, it goes back to my initial point. Many people in the media will vigorously defend a gay football player (Michael Sam), yet I don't recall any of them (for example, the guy in the video) defending Tim Tebow against anti-Christian insults with the same fervor.
Quote: Beethoven9thWell then let me turn the tables: "Sure, people will make comments about Michael Sam being gay. It's a free country."
Again, it goes back to my initial point. Many people in the media will vigorously defend a gay football player (Michael Sam), yet I don't recall any of them (for example, the guy in the video) defending Tim Tebow against anti-Christian insults with the same fervor.
I think that the problem is that people are talking about it hurting his draft position, and therefore his earning potential and his career, which is what makes it different from the Tebow situation.
Quote: Beethoven9thWell then let me turn the tables: "Sure, people will make comments about Michael Sam being gay. It's a free country."
Again, it goes back to my initial point. Many people in the media will vigorously defend a gay football player (Michael Sam), yet I don't recall any of them (for example, the guy in the video) defending Tim Tebow against anti-Christian insults with the same fervor.
Tebow was not supposed to wear his Christianity in public.
It is okay for Sam to come out as gay in public.
I saw the same reaction in the media with too many people worrying about Tebow's religion and not enough concerned about the player. They didn't make him unable to play at the NFL-level; his abilities and refusal to consider playing another position did that. They did show concern about something that should not have bothered them one way or the other--his religion.
Sam is being treated better than Tebow was. In reality, both should have been treated roughly the same--as NFL prospects at this point. Sam is the first openly gay potential NFL player; not the only one. That makes it less of an issue because there have been gays in the NFL and other leagues for years. Let's not worry so much about his sexuality and more about his progress towards playing in the NFL.
Did you even watch the video I posted? That's not the "criticism" the doofus reporter was railing against.Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI think that the problem is that people are talking about it hurting his draft position, and therefore his earning potential and his career, which is what makes it different from the Tebow situation.
In fact, here's the reporter's final remark: "But when I listen to Michael Sam, I do think it's time to celebrate him now."
(And of course, this same doofus never made similar remarks about "celebrating" Tebow, neither before nor after he was drafted)
+1Quote: RonCTebow was not supposed to wear his Christianity in public.
Sam is being treated better than Tebow was.
Thank you, someone finally gets it.
It is really just because this reporter never did a piece in support of Tebow? You said you don't remember anyone in the media supporting tebow in such a way. Does that mean all media members are doofuses?
Edit: how do you know this guy doesn't support Tebow? Just because he never came out with such an emphatic opinion piece?
He seems to be mostly upset about the comments that it will hurt his draft status because GMs would be worried that the locker room wouldn't be able to accept him.
Because he's a hypocrite, like most people in the media. They pride themselves on being "objective" when they're not objective at all. OTOH, if someone like Joe Biden had made the same statement, it would be a little different since he's a politician with a political agenda, and everybody is aware of this. (Granted, I do think Biden is also a doofus, but for different reasons)Quote: BeardgoatWhy do you call him a doofus though?
Not all, but most are.Quote: BeardgoatDoes that mean all media members are doofuses?
Well, gee, I don't know the guy personally, so all I can go by is what comes out of his mouth (which is how most people in the world are judged).Quote: BeardgoatEdit: how do you know this guy doesn't support Tebow? Just because he never came out with such an emphatic opinion piece?
Nah, he wants to "celebrate" Michael Sam. He said it himself.Quote: AxiomOfChoiceHe seems to be mostly upset about the comments that it will hurt his draft status because GMs would be worried that the locker room wouldn't be able to accept him.
When Tim Tebow made that pro-life commericial 4 years ago, libs were telling him to shut up about his faith and to just play football. Will we hear these same people tell Michael Sam to shut up about his gayness and just play football? Highly doubtful.
Quote: Beethoven9thOne more thing. (Yeah, I'm on a roll here...haha)
When Tim Tebow made that pro-life commericial 4 years ago, libs were telling him to shut up about his faith and to just play football. Will we hear these same people tell Michael Sam to shut up about his gayness and just play football? Highly doubtful.
I guess it depends how far it goes. He hasn't made any commercials; he's just said that he's gay.
Personally, I think that at this point he should just play football (or, rather, get ready for the combine). I think that it's unfortunate that he is the "test case" for this whole thing, because I don't think that it's very likely that he is good enough to make an NFL team. I wish that several of the of the current gay NFL players would just come out so we could get all this media nonsense over with and get back to football.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI think his draft fate will come down to his 40 time at the combine. If he is fast enough to play LB I think he might go in the 3rd or 4th round. If not he will either be a 7th rounder or be in someone's camp as an undrafted FA.
Fastest ever by a DE was 4.66. He said this week he'll do 4.40. All pretty meaningless IMNSHO. Last year Te'o did what - 4.9? But I've seen the film on Sam and he looks good.
That's college, the NFL is another conversation entirely. He hurt his draft stock tremendously.
All the talking heads are choosing their words very carefully. ESPN showed the text from "an anonymous NFL GM" who major dissed his speed, strength, ability. So the backpedaling starts. No NFL locker room will outright accept him. Agree that if some team thinks he can help them win and they can deal with the never-ending distrations, they may take a chance on him.
Quote: chickenmanFastest ever by a DE was 4.66. He said this week he'll do 4.40. All pretty meaningless IMNSHO. Last year Te'o did what - 4.9? But I've seen the film on Sam and he looks good.
That's college, the NFL is another conversation entirely. He hurt his draft stock tremendously.
All the talking heads are choosing their words very carefully. ESPN showed the text from "an anonymous NFL GM" who major dissed his speed, strength, ability. So the backpedaling starts. No NFL locker room will outright accept him. Agree that if some team thinks he can help them win and they can deal with the never-ending distrations, they may take a chance on him.
If he runs a 4.4 and does not get drafted I will be shocked. Hell, if he runs a 4.4 I'll be shocked if he makes it out of the 4th round.
He is not going to play DE in the NFL. You can be small and play DE in the NFL but you have to be quick and fast and have excellent technique, and even then you are only coming in as a situational pass-rusher. I honestly believe that it is LB or nothing for him.
Quote: AxiomOfChoice
Personally, I think that at this point he should just play football (or, rather, get ready for the combine). I think that it's unfortunate that he is the "test case" for this whole thing, because I don't think that it's very likely that he is good enough to make an NFL team. I wish that several of the of the current gay NFL players would just come out so we could get all this media nonsense over with and get back to football.
Oh, but that is the beauty of it for him. If he does not get signed he can say, "Well, I guess the world is not ready for a gay NFL player" and parlay that to other opportunities. MSNBC would sign him as a "regular guest" in a minute.
Statistically there are 15-20 gay players in the NFL at any given time. This guy is just either marketing himself or being an attention-whore.
OK, then you're pretty consistent on this issue. I never have a problem with consistent views, even when they are the opposite from where I stand.Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI guess it depends how far it goes. He hasn't made any commercials; he's just said that he's gay.
Personally, I think that at this point he should just play football (or, rather, get ready for the combine). I think that it's unfortunate that he is the "test case" for this whole thing, because I don't think that it's very likely that he is good enough to make an NFL team. I wish that several of the of the current gay NFL players would just come out so we could get all this media nonsense over with and get back to football.
My main issue actually isn't with Sam at all. It's with the hypocrites who "celebrate" him while criticizing guys like Tebow. Can't stand inconsistent people like that.
Here's a perfect example of the type of media doofus I'm talking about. According to this writer, gay basketball player Jason Collins hasn't been signed by an NBA team "for the simple reason that no team wants to deal with the “distraction” they fear he would create."
Nevermind that Collins is 35 years old and averaged a whopping 1.1 ppg last season. Everyone wants to talk about how bad Tebow sucks? Well, Jason Collins makes Tebow look like John Elway, yet some in the media want to turn it into a "gay" thing. *facepalm*
Quote: BeardgoatYou're dead on here. Collins isn't very good
Thanks, man. *thumbs up*
Anyway, someone has called the NFL 'the ultimate meritocracy'. This is true. The question is, if you believe on talent alone, Sam is the 80th best player, but you fear the Neanderthals you have in your locker room will not play as well as a team if he is on your team, do you take him if your top 79 have all been drafted? Taking it to an extreme, would you draft the best quarterback, with all the NFL tools, if it comes out he peacefully supports the KKK?
I'm betting on early third round. I hope the Bills get him!
Quote: SOOPOOThe question is, if you believe on talent alone, Sam is the 80th best player, but you fear the Neanderthals you have in your locker room will not play as well as a team if he is on your team, do you take him if your top 79 have all been drafted?
Why the slur "Neanderthals?"
Quote: AZDuffmanWhy the slur "Neanderthals?"
Because in my profession this conversation never happens. Our last hire is a lesbian and it never occurred to us how our 'locker room' would react. My state society recently had an openly gay president. Never thought about it as a potential 'problem'. So my 'slur' is aimed at the athletes who would find it difficult to work with a gay athlete.
Quote: SOOPOOBecause in my profession this conversation never happens. Our last hire is a lesbian and it never occurred to us how our 'locker room' would react. My state society recently had an openly gay president. Never thought about it as a potential 'problem'. So my 'slur' is aimed at the athletes who would find it difficult to work with a gay athlete.
So, you are saying that you have to put up with questions from reporters about how you work with the lesbian all the time like they will in a locker room? The women don't mind showering and being in close physical contact like on an NFL team?
What kind of business are you in where this is happening?
Just because someone is not a homophile is no reason to call them a Neanderthal. Show some tolerance!
Quote: AZDuffman
Just because someone is not a homophile is no reason to call them a Neanderthal. Show some tolerance!
I don't consider myself a homophile. Nor a homophobe. I guess I'm a homodon'tcare. Essentially what we are talking about, if you boil it down, is possibly not employing a man who is talented enough to earn a job, solely because he is gay. So if you don't like my term, Neanderthal, to describe such a person, what term shall I use?
Quote: AZDuffmanSo, you are saying that you have to put up with questions from reporters about how you work with the lesbian all the time like they will in a locker room? The women don't mind showering and being in close physical contact like on an NFL team?
IMO, liberals (like the far left media types) don't seem to "get" the whole showering thing. Personally, I don't want to shower with ANYONE, but if I'm in a locker room setting, I sure as hell don't want to shower in close proximity with a gay guy. But if these gays are allowed to shower with men, then can I shower with the cheerleaders instead? If not, why not?
Quote: Beethoven9thIMO, liberals (like the far left media types) don't seem to "get" the whole showering thing. Personally, I don't want to shower with ANYONE, but if I'm in a locker room setting, I sure as hell don't want to shower in close proximity with a gay guy. But if these gays are allowed to shower with men, then can I shower with the cheerleaders instead? If not, why not?
Having played sports my whole life, I am guessing I have showered with hundreds of gay men, and never once have I been made to feel uncomfortable.
Where would you like the bisexual men to shower?
Quote: Beethoven9thIMO, people don't seem to "get" the whole showering thing. Personally, I don't want to shower with ANYONE, but if I'm in a locker room setting, I sure as hell don't want to shower in close proximity with a gay guy. But if these gays are allowed to shower with men, then can I shower with the cheerleaders instead? If not, why not?
I think that you bring up an interesting question, personally, I think it would almost make sense to turn all public shower facilities into unisex facilities, but perhaps not to do that with bathrooms because women tend to be more embarrassed than men about dropping a noisy deuce in public.
In any event...and this is coming from a prude...I think that we would have a less sexually-hyped up culture if we were to desensitize ourselves to the nudity of the opposite sex from a young age and the only thing that prevents us from doing so are our own illogical and pointless societal customs and mores. I just don't understand the line of reasoning that seems to imply that we're all going to turn into a swarming mass of Hedonistic rapists if we so much get a glimpse of someone of the opposite sex in a state of undress.
It's a twelve year old trying cigarettes for the first time, by forbidding it, you make it more desirable. If all public showers were unisex, then gender and sexual orientation would all be immaterial because everyone would be nude around each other, contextually, in the first place and none of it would make a difference.
Don't get me wrong, the ideological shift would take a little bit of time. I imagine it would take me a few of these showers before I would be able to stop, "Checking out," some of the typically unseen parts of the opposite sex and having a physical reaction to them, but the desensitization would come with time.
Did you know it is illegal to have an erection in public in the State of Indiana, I'm paraphrasing, but, "Covered male genitalia in a discernibly turgid state," or something along those lines. I can't remember the last time my genitalia were in a discernibly turgid state in public, but, I mean, it could happen. Indiana may as well outlaw being in possession of a penis.
Nature's an awful disgusting thing, I guess.
I could be wrong, and some of this is self-contradictory from previous statements I may have made. I've just been re-examining my views on the matter and am rapidly approaching the conclusion that it is the very act of making nudity in and of itself risqué that causes the problem.
That's pretty much a case of (de facto) Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which I would be more than happy with. Unfortunately, gays oppose it.Quote: SOOPOOHaving played sports my whole life, I am guessing I have showered with hundreds of gay men, and never once have I been made to feel uncomfortable.
Anywhere but around me!Quote: SOOPOOWhere would you like the bisexual men to shower?
Quote: Beethoven9thIMO, liberals (like the far left media types) don't seem to "get" the whole showering thing. Personally, I don't want to shower with ANYONE, but if I'm in a locker room setting, I sure as hell don't want to shower in close proximity with a gay guy. But if these gays are allowed to shower with men, then can I shower with the cheerleaders instead? If not, why not?
Reminds me of the employee at Macy's that got fired for refusing to allow a man claiming to be a woman into the women's dressing room.
Before this incident, my daughter could easily spend half a paycheck at Macy's.
Quote: SOOPOOHaving played sports my whole life, I am guessing I have showered with hundreds of gay men, and never once have I been made to feel uncomfortable.
Where would you like the bisexual men to shower?
Oh yeah, there was a homosexual kid on my High School football team that came out to me, I wasn't terribly worried about showering with him. Again, I felt the probability of him attempting to rape me, especially in the context of being in a shower with twenty-some other dudes at any given time, was extremely low.
Furthermore, while having no desire to check out the Johnsons of other people, I'd seriously need to reexamine my priorities in life if another dude merely sneaking a peek at my Johnson was a direly traumatizing event for me.
Quote: Mission146Furthermore, while having no desire to check out the Johnsons of other people, I'd seriously need to reexamine my priorities in life if another dude merely sneaking a peek at my Johnson was a direly traumatizing event for me.
OK, I'll be sure to tell the cheerleaders something similar when I request to shower with them. ;)
Quote: SOOPOOI don't consider myself a homophile. Nor a homophobe. I guess I'm a homodon'tcare. Essentially what we are talking about, if you boil it down, is possibly not employing a man who is talented enough to earn a job, solely because he is gay. So if you don't like my term, Neanderthal, to describe such a person, what term shall I use?
I think we both know it is not the fact he is gay, as I showed already there are statistically 16 gay players in the NFL at any given time. Teams do not want the circus that will follow "the first openly gay NFL player." This guy does not want to play in the NFL, he wants to be that same first openly gay player in the league. This is a problem for many teams who do not like players seeking so much individual attention.
And god forbid you cut him! Or don't re-sign him! Then the talk of discrimination/homophobia will come up all over again.
Besides, the Steelers already had a gay on the team
Quote: Beethoven9thIMO, liberals (like the far left media types) don't seem to "get" the whole showering thing. Personally, I don't want to shower with ANYONE, but if I'm in a locker room setting, I sure as hell don't want to shower in close proximity with a gay guy. But if these gays are allowed to shower with men, then can I shower with the cheerleaders instead? If not, why not?
That's bad enough but how about transgender high school students being allowed to choose male or female restrooms? Do they choose at the beginning of the year or can they alternate? Imagine one day feeling like a woman and the next wanting to feel a guy.
Since Buzz is on vacation allow me. Hey, some of my best friends are Neanderthals. Badaboom, badabing. Even a Neanderthal isn't going to jeopardize his paycheck or career because of a gay guy.
Quote: Mission146Oh yeah, there was a homosexual kid on my High School football team that came out to me, I wasn't terribly worried about showering with him. Again, I felt the probability of him attempting to rape me, especially in the context of being in a shower with twenty-some other dudes at any given time, was extremely low.
Furthermore, while having no desire to check out the Johnsons of other people, I'd seriously need to reexamine my priorities in life if another dude merely sneaking a peek at my Johnson was a direly traumatizing event for me.
As long as he doesn't offer to push in your stool.
Quote: AZDuffmanI think we both know it is not the fact he is gay, as I showed already there are statistically 16 gay players in the NFL at any given time. Teams do not want the circus that will follow "the first openly gay NFL player." This guy does not want to play in the NFL, he wants to be that same first openly gay player in the league. This is a problem for many teams who do not like players seeking so much individual attention.
And god forbid you cut him! Or don't re-sign him! Then the talk of discrimination/homophobia will come up all over again.
Besides, the Steelers already had a gay on the team
Good one!
Quote: Beethoven9thBoy, where were you the past few years? A quick google search will show all the anti-Christian comments Tebow had to deal with.
And there's been no anti-gay comments in the past few years?
Christianity of course has been widely accepted in professional sports. Tebow might have been the most outspoken Christian as of late.
Homosexuality in sports is a very big deal, in that there are very few openly gay people in sports.
Quote: Beethoven9thName one guy in the mainstream media who defended Tebow as forcefully as the guy in the video I just posted?
Why does Tebow need defending? He has God on his side.
Quote: AZDuffmanOh, but that is the beauty of it for him. If he does not get signed he can say, "Well, I guess the world is not ready for a gay NFL player" and parlay that to other opportunities. MSNBC would sign him as a "regular guest" in a minute.
Statistically there are 15-20 gay players in the NFL at any given time. This guy is just either marketing himself or being an attention-whore.
Statistically that is true, but of course most gay people will shy away from sports due to the macho astigma associated with the sport, which is why this is important.
That said, he shouldn't get special treatment just because he is gay.
Quote: Beethoven9thPersonally, I don't want to shower with ANYONE, but if I'm in a locker room setting, I sure as hell don't want to shower in close proximity with a gay guy. But if these gays are allowed to shower with men, then can I shower with the cheerleaders instead? If not, why not?
This made me laugh.
You don't have anything to worry about.
We're not into you.
Seriously! It's the closet cases that are most likely to get worked up about a public shower. Out gay men and women have far more productive places to ogle prospective dating material. It's the Larry Craigs and Peewee Hermans of the world that get their jollies in public, George Michael being the exception that proves the rule. Sex is the last thing on my mind in a public restroom. Bleh!! Straight people are weird!Quote: ams288This made me laugh.
You don't have anything to worry about.
We're not into you.
Quote: boymimboAnd there's been no anti-gay comments in the past few years?
I think he is trying to make the point in the difference in how anti-gay vs anti-christian people and institutions are treated.
Case in point, the Obama Administration has held up foreign aid to countries where treatment of gays is not up to their standards. Meanwhile, Christians are being driven out of Egypt yet that country keeps getting their huge aid checks with hardly a peep on the subject.
Quote: s2dbakerSeriously! It's the closet cases that are most likely to get worked up about a public shower. Out gay men and women have far more productive places to ogle prospective dating material. It's the Larry Craigs and Peewee Hermans of the world that get their jollies in public, George Michael being the exception that proves the rule. Sex is the last thing on my mind in a public restroom. Bleh!! Straight people are weird!
This is not a convincing argument.
How would one prove that allowing naked individuals of the same sex, yet differing sexual orientations, in the same room does not lead to "legalized" voyeurism?
Quote: AZDuffmanOh, but that is the beauty of it for him. If he does not get signed he can say, "Well, I guess the world is not ready for a gay NFL player" and parlay that to other opportunities. MSNBC would sign him as a "regular guest" in a minute.
Statistically there are 15-20 gay players in the NFL at any given time. This guy is just either marketing himself or being an attention-whore.
I thought, at first, that there was a very good chance of this.
However, he was already out to his team, and there were rumors. Basically, the media already knew about it, so his choices were either come out or have the media talking about it with him not saying anything (or, I guess, he could lie). I think he made the right choice.
The part that bothers me about it is that he doesn't seem to be that good of a football player (by NFL standards), and, if he doesn't get drafted or doesn't make a team, there most likely explanation will be that he just wasn't that enough. However, those who want to make it into a civil rights thing will claim that it's because he's gay. I hope that he puts in a good enough combine that he does get drafted so we don't have to deal with all that nonsense.
Quote: rob45How would one prove that allowing naked individuals of the same sex, yet differing sexual orientations, in the same room does not lead to "legalized" voyeurism?
You can't prove that, I guess.
Insecure straight guys are just going to have to keep worrying that people are staring at their junk.
Everyone else will continue living their lives as normal.
Quote: Beethoven9thOK, then you're pretty consistent on this issue. I never have a problem with consistent views, even when they are the opposite from where I stand.
My main issue actually isn't with Sam at all. It's with the hypocrites who "celebrate" him while criticizing guys like Tebow. Can't stand inconsistent people like that.
II understand what you're saying. It's clear that no media outlet in this country is objective. But, in fairness, that's because most of the viewers don't want an unbiased media source. They want to hear people saying what they agree with.
For a long time, most of the media had a very strong liberal bias. Then Fox news came along, and noticed, hey, half the country is conservative, but the media is all liberal. There's an untapped market there! So they started making news with a very strong conservative bias. It was brilliant, and it worked -- while everyone else was fighting over half the country, Fox got the other half to themselves, and the ratings show it.
Anyway, yes, real, unbiased news is dead. It has been for a very long time. You just pick the bias that you want to hear and tune into the appropriate station.
FWIW, none of this makes the guy a hypocrite. But of course he's biased. He's on the news.
Quote: SOOPOOYounger son is a football fan, and he happens to be graduating with Michael Sam this May. (I actually do not know if Mr.Sam will actually graduate, many college football players don't). I watched almost all of the available Mizzou games, and have followed mock drafts over the past few years. I have seen Sam projected as high as late FIRST round. Although SEC defensive player of the year does not guarantee NFL success or even a first round draft selection, it does mean something. Without question the SEC is the top college conference, with the most NFL ready players. Before his self outing, I would have been extremely surprised if he made it past the mid 3rd round. His physical attributes remind me of a Dwight Freeney, who also had many doubters going into his draft.
Anyway, someone has called the NFL 'the ultimate meritocracy'. This is true. The question is, if you believe on talent alone, Sam is the 80th best player, but you fear the Neanderthals you have in your locker room will not play as well as a team if he is on your team, do you take him if your top 79 have all been drafted? Taking it to an extreme, would you draft the best quarterback, with all the NFL tools, if it comes out he peacefully supports the KKK?
I'm betting on early third round. I hope the Bills get him!
The problem with Sam's award is that he got it playing a position that he won't play in the NFL.
Also, even though the SEC is a good conference, it does not mean that all their games are tough. In one article that I read, one scout pointed out that he did not put much faith in his 11.5 sacks because 9 of them came in 3 games against what he called "garbage opposition".
