Michael Sam - NFL's first openly gay prospect

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

this is just a personal comment, but im really getting tired of religious excuses. they dont work anymore. its not a valid point. when someone uses their religion as their rationale/reasoning i just throw my hands up. thats an end all be all. you cant counter that. its not a real argument.

end rant.

I look back at the stem cell argument and think, huh, the churches either put their own stance in front of possibly helping living breathing people, or they put embryos in front of possibly helping living breathing people. Crazy.

/off topic talk

[Socnorb11]

Both are excuses to be bigoted and discriminatory.

A bunch of MLB teams didn't want the distraction of Jackie Robinson. Don't defend Tony Dungy or call him anything other than a coward. You're on the wrong side of history.

This still sums it up.

If he doesn't have a problem with Sam's sexuality, then he's contributing to/creating the distraction he's referring to. In this day and age, more than likely this isn't going to be a big deal. The NBA has had an openly gay player for several months now, and according to him he's gotten taunts from one other player. Dungy might just be out of touch, but even so when you consider what Jackie Robinson went through, it's hard to take the distraction argument seriously. That leads me to believe the distraction angle is something he's telling himself to justify his own discomfort with the idea.

Dungy didn't didn't create the "distraction" angle, though. That term was used by the media the day Michael Sam made his announcement. I think you'll find it used pretty early in this particular thread, even.

As for Jackie Robinson, he got an opportunity ONLY after agreeing to keep his mouth shut to the media and turn the other cheek to racial abuse. The Brooklyn Dodgers were actively looking for a black baseball player. He was also an immensely gifted athlete (one of the best players in the Negro Leagues). Michael Sams isn't necessarily that type of "difference maker" that is going to make it worthwhile for teams to deal with the media circus.

[thrill]

Soc, you're going looney tunes in this thread, man.

Your premise is that Tony Dungy is only willing to give practicing Christians a chance............ his history of coaching proves that your premise is incorrect.

That's not my premise. It has never been my premise. You are the only person who thinks that is my premise.

I'm fully aware of Dungy's stance on gay marriage. You realize that Michael Sam isn't married, correct? You also realize that homosexuality isn't the only sin mentioned in the bible that Tony Dungy's faith is built on, correct?

Michael Sam's marital status has nothing to do with my point. Tony Dungy's verbal and financial commitment to preventing the legalization of gay marriage is almost irrefutable circumstantial evidence that his comments about how he wouldn't have drafted Sam because of the "distraction" is ethically motivated, which you said there is no evidence of.

Are you sticking to your guns on the 4:58 comment, after re-listening to it?

Yes. I don't need someone to explicitly say "my comments are ethically motivated" to be able to connect the dots from him essentially saying his faith dictates his behavior and his behavior. You don't either. You're just being belligerent. Why? I don't know. Maybe because you agree with him and don't feel you deserve criticism for it. You do.

[cardsfansince82]

So now we've gone from "best defensive player in the best conference" to "not good enough to warrant drafting". At least spell the guy's name right, for [expletive]'s sake.

[ghostrunner]

Both are excuses to be bigoted and discriminatory.

A bunch of MLB teams didn't want the distraction of Jackie Robinson. Don't defend Tony Dungy or call him anything other than a coward. You're on the wrong side of history.

This still sums it up.

If he doesn't have a problem with Sam's sexuality, then he's contributing to/creating the distraction he's referring to. In this day and age, more than likely this isn't going to be a big deal. The NBA has had an openly gay player for several months now, and according to him he's gotten taunts from one other player. Dungy might just be out of touch, but even so when you consider what Jackie Robinson went through, it's hard to take the distraction argument seriously. That leads me to believe the distraction angle is something he's telling himself to justify his own discomfort with the idea.

Dungy didn't didn't create the "distraction" angle, though. That term was used by the media the day Michael Sam made his announcement. I think you'll find it used pretty early in this particular thread, even.

As for Jackie Robinson, he got an opportunity ONLY after agreeing to keep his mouth shut to the media and turn the other cheek to racial abuse. The Brooklyn Dodgers were actively looking for a black baseball player. He was also an immensely gifted athlete (one of the best players in the Negro Leagues). Michael Sams isn't necessarily that type of "difference maker" that is going to make it worthwhile for teams to deal with the media circus.

I'm aware of the distraction argument. Dungy's not required to perpetuate it. If he does think that's a serious issue, he's out of touch at a minimum. The circus is likely to be a small fraction of what Robinson encountered. There were still segregated drinking fountains when Robinson signed up with the Dodgers. It speaks well of the Dodgers that they didn't care.

[stlouie_lipp]

People do like to pile on Christians, particularly Evangelicals, these days. I think if it was Bill Parcels who said he wouldn't have drafted Sam because of the distractions the story would have died right away. It would have made a round in the media, but nowhere near to this extent.

[Fat_Bulldog]

I wasn't aware of the Dungy thing until I read this thread.

Now, who's to blame?

[Socnorb11]

Michael Sam's marital status has nothing to do with my point. Tony Dungy's verbal and financial commitment to preventing the legalization of gay marriage is almost irrefutable circumstantial evidence that his comments about how he wouldn't have drafted Sam because of the "distraction" is ethically motivated, which you said there is no evidence of.

This is absurd. I don't think "irrefutable circumstantial evidence" means what you think it means............ at all. Opposing gay marriage falls under the realm of Tony Dungy's Christian beliefs. It's not the ONLY thing that falls under that realm, and not the only thing that Dungy dedicates his time and money to. You're silly if you think employers only look for employees that support all of their agendas. I sent $25 to the Obama campaign a few years ago, and worked locally on his campaign............... most of my employees supported Romney in the campaign. I have since hired other Republicans. One of my sister is a professed atheist. I treat her exactly the same as my other sisters. Michael Sam is pretty clearly in favor of gay marriage. Do you suppose he's only willing to play football with people who share that stance?

We have one or two posters on this forum who oppose gay marriage. Is it safe to assume that you, as a moderator, are less tolerant of their posts in the baseball forum?

[Socnorb11]

People do like to pile on Christians, particularly Evangelicals, these days. I think if it was Bill Parcels who said he wouldn't have drafted Sam because of the distractions the story would have died right away. It would have made a round in the media, but nowhere near to this extent.

It was brought up early in this thread that at least one GM didn't want to draft him because of the outlash that might occur if they had to cut him at some point.

The reaction on this forum? "ho hum" The reaction by the media? I don't think there was any reaction at all.

[haltz]

People do like to pile on Christians, particularly Evangelicals, these days. I think if it was Bill Parcels who said he wouldn't have drafted Sam because of the distractions the story would have died right away. It would have made a round in the media, but nowhere near to this extent.

When it comes to this issue, they're (in general) a giant group of people that support inequality, so I'm not sure that piling on or public outcry is a bad thing. That's basically how social change happens.