The 2013-2014 NFL Offseason/Coaching/Free Agency (non-draft) Thread

[jeff061]

You don't see intolerance?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I don't see the hatred and intolerance in the simple act of supporting your religious beliefs.

That doesn't mean it doesn't exist--I am sure there are (unfortunately) plenty of members of such religious organizations who in fact are hateful and intolerant of of homosexuals.

But the act itself of supporting the implementation of one's beliefs in society is not in and of itself a definition of or requirement for hatred and intolerance.

So, no, I don't agree that your definition is even remotely close to the stated definition.

There are hatemogers. There are conscientious objectors. One approaches with hate. The other approaches with only the conviction of their own beliefs, no other judgment given. But they both support these organizations for very separate reasons.

Would you lump all such people, many of wom may have no hate for the gay community at all, under the term bigots simply for supporting their religious beliefs?

IMO, doing so is kind of a bigotry of its own sort.

Again, I don't buy the "your intolerance of my intolerance is bigotry" defense.

Supporting your religion is fine. However, when your religion tries to exclude a group of people (due to some inborn trait that is not under their control) the rights that everyone else enjoys, that's bigotry. That the guy telling you to do so is wearing a funny hat and a robe doesn't excuse it and the result is absolutely no different than if you approached it from a matter of hate. And the result is really what matters to the guy who's you're negatively impacting, not your intention. Frankly, I don't think it matters one iota how you approach it. Whether you're kicking me in the balls because you hate me or some book told you to do so, I'm still getting roshambo'd without my consent.

I object to you using the term conscientious objectors. Their actions don't interfere the with the actions of others. That's a big distinction you're missing here.

[flere-imsaho]

Just FYI, the definition I posted was not mine, I copied it from dictionary.com, to try and pick a neutral source.

So, according to the dictionary definition at least, you don't even need to act on your hatreds and prejudices, just having them (albeit "obstinately or intolerantly) is good enough.

For what that's worth.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Ah, the ole' "your intolerance of my intolerance makes you a bigot/evil/wrong" defense. That one doesn't work for me. As I said before, rephrase the question this way:

Am I the only one who doesn't equate objecting to interracial marriage for religious reasons with being a bigot?

What's your answer?

Seriously, I think this needs to be answered and to be fair I'll give you mine in advance. My answer is that the reasoning doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if it's because someone has Bible Blinders on, or Thumps the Torah, or Quaffs the Koran, or they were mugged by someone, or anything else. Bigotry with an "excuse" is still bigotry.

If the Bible says that interracial marriage is wrong and someone wants to object on that basis (the Bible says a lot of things; I don't know if it says that or not), I don't have an issue with them supporting their beliefs, so long as they do it for reasons of religion and not for hatred and bigotry.

They have to accept that I will tell them I believe they are wrong, and I will support organizations that work against their stated aims, but I am not going to stop them from having their beliefs and acting in support of them.

Keep in mind, I believe that interracial marriage was objected to for reasons of hatred and bigotry primarily. I don't know that is so clear when it comes to homosexuality.

I believe that there is as much intolerance of religion by the non-religious in this countty, as any other form of intolerance. Oh, and BTW, I am very much a non-practicing Catholic (at best) and not religious at all. I have often considered myself an atheist, so I am not coming at this from some religious perspective on a personal level.

I think some people here in this very thread are guilty of their own intolerance, but they won't look deep in themselves to see that.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by jeff061

You don't see intolerance?

Intolerance is a strong word. I don't see objecting to an act or lifestyle, and being intolerant as the same thing, especially for religious reasons.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Again, I don't buy the "your intolerance of my intolerance is bigotry" defense.

Supporting your religion is fine. However, when your religion tries to exclude a group of people (due to some inborn trait that is not under their control) the rights that everyone else enjoys, that's bigotry. That the guy telling you to do so is wearing a funny hat and a robe doesn't excuse it and the result is absolutely no different than if you approached it from a matter of hate. And the result is really what matters to the guy who's you're negatively impacting, not your intention. Frankly, I don't think it matters one iota how you approach it. Whether you're kicking me in the balls because you hate me or some book told you to do so, I'm still getting roshambo'd without my consent.

I object to you using the term conscientious objectors. Their actions don't interfere the with the actions of others. That's a big distinction you're missing here.

I disagree. Intent makes all the difference in the world. And conscientious objectors has nothing in it that indicates they are not also taking actions to support their objections. I am not sure where you are getting that from reading that term literally.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

If the Bible says that interracial marriage is wrong and someone wants to object on that basis (the Bible says a lot of things; I don't know if it says that or not), I don't have an issue with them supporting their beliefs, so long as they do it for reasons of religion and not for hatred and bigotry.

I don't have a problem with their beliefs. I have a problem when they try to impose their beliefs on others. You don't seem to have a problem with that. Hey Chief, my new religious beliefs allow me to take all the money in your wallet and kick your dog. You don't have an issue with that, right?

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

They have to accept that I will tell them I believe they are wrong, and I will support organizations that work against their stated aims, but I am not going to stop them from having their beliefs and acting in support of them.

Here's where we are different. I will stop them from acting in support of them because they're impacting others. Much like if I had the opportunity I'd stop someone from stabbing someone.

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Keep in mind, I believe that interracial marriage was objected to for reasons of hatred and bigotry primarily. I don't know that is so clear when it comes to homosexuality.

Much of that "hatred" was justified in Biblical scripture. Bigotry is the result of that hatred.

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I believe that there is as much intolerance of religion by the non-religious in this countty, as any other form of intolerance. Oh, and BTW, I am very much a non-practicing Catholic (at best) and not religious at all. I have often considered myself an atheist, so I am not coming at this from some religious perspective on a personal level.

I think some people here in this very thread are guilty of their own intolerance, but they won't look deep in themselves to see that.

You can have that belief, but it's generally wrong. The intolerance isn't generally of religion. It's of those religions trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else. That you fail to see the difference is frankly mind boggling.

[jeff061]

They have to accept that I will tell them I believe they are wrong, and I will support organizations that work against their stated aims, but I am not going to stop them from having their beliefs and acting in support of them.

Paraphrased, you are not stopping good people from doing things you disagree with(and have no effect on you), you are paying other people to do that for you. Because religion.

Got it. Done here.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Ah, the ole' "your intolerance of my intolerance makes you a bigot/evil/wrong" defense. That one doesn't work for me. As I said before, rephrase the question this way:

Am I the only one who doesn't equate objecting to interracial marriage for religious reasons with being a bigot?

What's your answer?

Seriously, I think this needs to be answered and to be fair I'll give you mine in advance. My answer is that the reasoning doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if it's because someone has Bible Blinders on, or Thumps the Torah, or Quaffs the Koran, or they were mugged by someone, or anything else. Bigotry with an "excuse" is still bigotry.

I think the thing most proponents of more progressive social issues neglect is the process to make someone accepting of the situation. There are many in the media (and society) that act if someone isn't completely OK with gay marriage/athletes that they are labeled a bigot and need to get over themselves. That is very damaging to the overall goal of more acceptance of these people/situations.

Instead, I think we need to allow people to be a little uncomfortable/hesitant to embrace the idea of an openly gay athlete. That's fine, take some time with it. Then, as a society, we can deal with their fears and concerns and create an environment where (eventually) most fair-minded people get to where we want them to be.

For this specific case, one of the big issues is whether athletes will be OK with a gay guy in the locker room. For a response, just look to the issue of women reporters. Originally, there was some angst on how that would work if women were allowed access to locker rooms. However, people didn't realize that women were extra careful to not "hit on" an athlete or make them uncomfortable because their number one goal was to be treated just like anyone else. The same argument can be made in the Sam case. He would never try anything or be inappropriate because his goal (I'm guessing if you asked him) is to be treated no different than any other athlete.

As athletes realize that Sam isn't taking pictures of naked guys and sending them to gay friends or making passes at teammates or whatever somewhat irrational fear they may have isn't true, people will become more accepting of this. But, it is going to take some time for some people and bullying everyone into the "You are fine with this now or you are a BIGOT" response doesn't help - it just builds resentment.

Back to your original claim above, our society is at a good place in regards to interracial marriage/relationships. So, that is more accepted than a gay guy in a locker room. But, just like with interracial marriage, as society handles more and more of the fears of the uncertain camp, it will also become more accepted. But that process isn't going to go any faster if a big chunk of society starts calling people bigots and homophobes if they are still working through the issue. Some may never come full circle, but many will - some just slower than others.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I disagree. Intent makes all the difference in the world. And conscientious objectors has nothing in it that indicates they are not also taking actions to support their objections. I am not sure where you are getting that from reading that term literally.

Intent makes no difference to the guy that you're discriminating against. If you don't understand that, then you really don't understand discrimination at all.

Oh, FYI, a "conscientious objectors" is defined as a person who for reasons of conscience objects to serving in the armed forces. I think you're looking for a different term.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

If the Bible says that interracial marriage is wrong and someone wants to object on that basis (the Bible says a lot of things; I don't know if it says that or not), I don't have an issue with them supporting their beliefs, so long as they do it for reasons of religion and not for hatred and bigotry.

They have to accept that I will tell them I believe they are wrong, and I will support organizations that work against their stated aims, but I am not going to stop them from having their beliefs and acting in support of them.

Keep in mind, I believe that interracial marriage was objected to for reasons of hatred and bigotry primarily. I don't know that is so clear when it comes to homosexuality.

I believe that there is as much intolerance of religion by the non-religious in this countty, as any other form of intolerance. Oh, and BTW, I am very much a non-practicing Catholic (at best) and not religious at all. I have often considered myself an atheist, so I am not coming at this from some religious perspective on a personal level.

I think some people here in this very thread are guilty of their own intolerance, but they won't look deep in themselves to see that.

Still awaiting the first GLBT rally demanding people stop practicing Christianity. While I see people mock religion, I've yet to see a group as a whole want to banish it entirely.

They are perfectly entitled to their beliefs. The minute they feel their belief is more/better than someone else's (non)belief, there's the problem.

Live and let live.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Just FYI, the definition I posted was not mine, I copied it from dictionary.com, to try and pick a neutral source.

So, according to the dictionary definition at least, you don't even need to act on your hatreds and prejudices, just having them (albeit "obstinately or intolerantly) is good enough.

For what that's worth.

The thing is, I see a difference between objecting for religious reasons (or other validly accepted reasons, it doesn't need to be just religion), and the terms prejudice, hatred and intolerance.

So your point to acting on them or just thinking them is irrelevant to my point. I am talking about people who don't have hate in their hearts. I believe there are more of them than people think, who too easily define all of those whom are religious with a broad brush of bigotry.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think the thing most proponents of more progressive social issues neglect is the process to make someone accepting of the situation. There are many in the media (and society) that act if someone isn't completely OK with gay marriage/athletes that they are labeled a bigot and need to get over themselves. That is very damaging to the overall goal of more acceptance of these people/situations.

Instead, I think we need to allow people to be a little uncomfortable/hesitant to embrace the idea of an openly gay athlete. That's fine, take some time with it. Then, as a society, we can deal with their fears and concerns and create an environment where (eventually) most fair-minded people get to where we want them to be.

For this specific case, one of the big issues is whether athletes will be OK with a gay guy in the locker room. For a response, just look to the issue of women reporters. Originally, there was some angst on how that would work if women were allowed access to locker rooms. However, people didn't realize that women were extra careful to not "hit on" an athlete or make them uncomfortable because their number one goal was to be treated just like anyone else. The same argument can be made in the Sam case. He would never try anything or be inappropriate because his goal (I'm guessing if you asked him) is to be treated no different than any other athlete.

As athletes realize that Sam isn't taking pictures of naked guys and sending them to gay friends or making passes at teammates or whatever somewhat irrational fear they may have isn't true, people will become more accepting of this. But, it is going to take some time for some people and bullying everyone into the "You are fine with this now or you are a BIGOT" response doesn't help - it just builds resentment.

Back to your original claim above, our society is at a good place in regards to interracial marriage/relationships. So, that is more accepted than a gay guy in a locker room. But, just like with interracial marriage, as society handles more and more of the fears of the uncertain camp, it will also become more accepted. But that process isn't going to go any faster if a big chunk of society starts calling people bigots and homophobes if they are still working through the issue. Some may never come full circle, but many will - some just slower than others.

Do you want to guess what people were called in the 1960s who objected to interracial marriage? Racists.

Again, fuck the excuse that I should be tolerant of your intolerance when that intolerance negatively impacts me (or someone else). Michael Sam, nor anyone else, should have to politely wait for someone else to realize they're bigot. It is not the duty of the person being negatively impacted to be the patient one.

Don't like being called a bigot or a homophobe? DON'T BE ONE. Think like one all you want but ensure your actions don't negatively impact someone else because of it.

[Chief Rum]

This is taking me away from work I have to do, so I am going to leave the thread for now. So please don't believe I am trying to run away from this. You all feel what you feel. That is fine.

I see hate on both sides of this debate. Hate for gays and lesbians. And hate for religious people. It's sad, but it is what it is.

I have probably been alive too long. I left black and white feelings a long time ago. Y'all can probably read some of them if you go back far enough and read some early political threads.

It's a gray world, and no one is all love or all hate.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

The thing is, I see a difference between objecting for religious reasons (or other validly accepted reasons, it doesn't need to be just religion), and the terms prejudice, hatred and intolerance.

So your point to acting on them or just thinking them is irrelevant to my point. I am talking about people who don't have hate in their hearts. I believe there are more of them than people think, who too easily define all of those whom are religious with a broad brush of bigotry.

There is no "validly accepted reason" for being a bigot. Cased closed, Chief.

Oh, your constant attempts to try to equate this with some sort of conspiracy against Christians just shows how out of touch you really are. Christians and gays can hate each other all they want, but last time I checked the homosexual community wasn't trying to deny Christians jobs, tax benefits, reproductive rights, marriage and basic human dignity.

Guess what? Dungy is a bigot. That doesn't make him evil. But he is a bigot and a shittier human being because of it.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Do you want to guess what people were called in the 1960s who objected to interracial marriage? Racists.

There were plenty of people not comfortable with interracial marriage in the 1960s who are completely fine with it now. I doubt they are all racists.

Again, fuck the excuse that I should be tolerant of your intolerance when that intolerance negatively impacts me (or someone else). Michael Sam, nor anyone else, should have to politely wait for someone else to realize they're bigot. It is not the duty of the person being negatively impacted to be the patient one.

It shouldn't be that way in a perfect world, but it is for progressive issues. So, either you can take the road that helps pave for more inclusion in the progressive side as time passes or you can berate everyone who isn't 100% on board as being a bigot. To each his own I guess.

Don't like being called a bigot or a homophobe? DON'T BE ONE. Think like one all you want but ensure your actions don't negatively impact someone else because of it.

How does a player on the Rams who isn't completely comfortable (but quiet) about having a gay teammate impact Michael Sam? What would impact Michael Sam is if a bunch of self-righteous people preach at that player how if he's not 100% OK with Sam he's a bigot and a homophobe. Then, he's going to start being resentful towards Sam. Allowing people space to breathe and process a new situation doesn't mean they are bigots or even intolerant. It just means they need time to adjust to a new reality they've never known.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Arles

There were plenty of people not comfortable with interracial marriage in the 1960s who are completely fine with it now. I doubt they are all racists.

They were. That doesn't mean people can't change, Arles. Dungy certainly can. Maybe he will. One can hope.

Originally Posted by Arles

It shouldn't be that way in a perfect world, but it is for progressive issues. So, either you can take the road that helps pave for more inclusion in the progressive side as time passes or you can berate everyone who isn't 100% on board as being a bigot. To each his own I guess.

If stating the fact that Dungy is bigoted is "berating" him, then we disagree on what that term means. It's simply a fact. And no one should excuse it just because he thinks some invisible man told him that he should deny others the same rights he has.

By the way, how did waiting patiently and politely work for every other Civil Rights cause in the US?

Originally Posted by Arles

How does a player on the Rams who isn't completely comfortable (but quiet) about having a gay teammate impact Michael Sam? What would impact Michael Sam is if a bunch of self-righteous people preach at that player how if he's not 100% OK with Sam he's a bigot and a homophobe. Then, he's going to start being resentful towards Sam. Allowing people space to breathe and process a new situation doesn't mean they are bigots or even intolerant. It just means they need time to adjust to a new reality they've never known.

And this is relevant to the discussion how? Because this hasn't been the point at all. It certainly wasn't the point of Tony Dungy.

Dungy would deny the employment of Michael Sam because he's gay and Dungy doesn't want to "deal with it", with "it" either being Sam being gay or possible media scrutiny. That's bigotry, defined and that's the crux of the issue here, not whether a couple of teammates would need a period of adjustment.

Sorry Arles, I'm not required to be tolerant of someone else's intolerance. I don't find it necessary that I excuse their behavior and sit down to have a polite dialog with someone who doesn't think I (or someone else) is entitled to the same human rights as they are.

At this point we're just going round and round, so I'll stop for a while. But I fundamentally disagree with your "logic". It seems to me that's always what those in power want those who aren't to do - come hat in hand and beg for equality while putting up with insults, intolerance and inequality.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

And this is relevant to the discussion how? Because this hasn't been the point at all. It certainly wasn't the point of Tony Dungy.

I'm not talking about just Dungy - I'm talking about how this is handled moving forward in regards to those in the NFL/society who aren't necessarily speaking out against Sam - but aren't completely comfortable with him in a locker room. Dungy didn't stop Sam from being in the NFL, he just expressed some fears about what could happen. The best thing to do is continue a dialog with people like Dungy on why it probably won't be the case and then support Michael Sam, try to call out any media circus and hope to use his situation as an example of how this is OK with the next guy comes around. But, as of right now, we don't know how much of a distraction Sam will end up being.

Sorry Arles, I'm not required to be tolerant of someone else's intolerance. I don't find it necessary that I excuse their behavior and sit down to have a polite dialog with someone who doesn't think I (or someone else) is entitled to the same human rights as they are.

Your view right here is exactly the same as the zealous pro-life side in regards to those who support abortion. Sometimes having a polite dialog can do a lot of good to the cause you support. It's unfortunate so many choose to try and yell the loudest and categorize people negatively who don't feel exactly the way they do at this point in time. The reality is, a lot of people will be fine with gay players in the locker room - it's just a matter of "when". My guess is sooner than later, but labeling them as intolerant or a bigot (esp when they are not actively trying to stop it) doesn't help that process.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Arles

I'm not talking about just Dungy - I'm talking about how this is handled moving forward in regards to those in the NFL/society who aren't necessarily speaking out against Sam - but aren't completely comfortable with him in a locker room.

And I don't know what you're trying to point out or who you're arguing against. It doesn't matter unless the defensive lineman in front of Sam doesn't do his job because he's worried that Sam is checking out his ass. And that's not going to happen.

Originally Posted by Arles

Your view right here is exactly the same as the zealous pro-life side in regards to those who support abortion.

Wrong and it shows you really don't understand this. You got this 100% reversed. My view is exactly the same as the pro-choicer in regards to the anti-choicer. The pro-choicer isn't trying to dictate how the anti-choicer lives their life. But the reverse isn't true, is it? It's the anti-choicer who is trying to dictate what the pro-choice person does. Do you get it now?

Originally Posted by Arles

The reality is, a lot of people will be fine with gay players in the locker room - it's just a matter of "when". My guess is sooner than later, but labeling them as intolerant or bigots doesn't help that process.

The reality is that the players will be fine with it or those players won't have jobs. Anyone outside of the locker room who isn't fine with it doesn't matter and labeling those who aren't fine with is as bigots is just a factual statement. If that bothers you, then choose not to be a bigot because Sam can't choose not to be gay.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Wrong and it shows you really don't understand this. You got this 100% reversed. My view is exactly the same as the pro-choicer in regards to the anti-choicer. The pro-choicer isn't trying to dictate how the anti-choicer lives their life. But the reverse isn't true, is it? It's the anti-choicer who is trying to dictate what the pro-choice person does. Do you get it now?

No, the way you express your view is exactly the same as a pro-life person who says "Well, an unborn baby can't defend itself and you are sentencing it to death. How about its life? It can't decide to not be born". I don't necessarily agree, but it's the same "my way or the highway" view on social issues without looking at the other side and trying to find a way to get them to join your side (even if it means giving that side some space for a bit).

At the end of the day, there needs to be some tolerance on both sides. Some patience for the side still trying to get comfortable about the idea of gay guys in an NFL locker room. However, we also need debate against those who speak out against it or actively campaign against it. Debate with Dungy: healthy. Labeling anyone who says they aren't sure about it a bigot/homophobe: not constructive.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Arles

No, the way you express your view is exactly the same as a pro-life person who says "Well, an unborn baby can't defend itself and you are sentencing it to death. How about its life? It can't decide to not be born". I don't necessarily agree, but it's the same "my way or the highway" view on social issues without looking at the other side and trying to find a way to get them to join your side (even if it means giving that side some space for a bit).

Seriously, are you that dense? Side A is trying to deny Side B rights. Side B just wants the same rights as Side A. These are NOT equivalent.

Originally Posted by Arles

At the end of the day, there needs to be some tolerance on both sides. Some patience for the side still trying to get comfortable about the idea of gay guys in an NFL locker room. However, we also need debate against those who speak out against it or actively campaign against it. Debate with Dungy: healthy. Labeling anyone who says they aren't sure about it a bigot/homophobe: not constructive.

In short, "tolerate my intolerance". It's the battle cry of the privileged, and it's 100% bullshit.

Maybe people being told they're being a bigot will help them realize that, in fact, they're being a bigot.

[jeff061]

Logic on one side. Religion on the other. Unless one side becomes illogical or the other side drops religion, no one is joining the other.

Edit: Please don't read into that as me arguing against religion or trying to get people to stop believing in their god. I just mean it's a a hard set obstacle to arguments like this, no one is going to change their mind. I'm not going to "tolerate your intolerance", but I'm certainly not going to tell you what god you should believe in. Just stop forcing other people to adhere to the standards of your god.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Logic on one side. Religion on the other. Unless one side becomes illogical or the other side drops religion, no one is joining the other.

Edit: Please don't read into that as me arguing against religion or trying to get people to stop believing in their god. I just mean it's a a hard set obstacle to arguments like this, no one is going to change their mind. I'm not going to "tolerate your intolerance", but I'm certainly not going to tell you what god you should believe in. Just stop forcing other people to adhere to the standards of your god.

I agree, but I don't think people should have to respectfully ask for this.

[CU Tiger]

This debate like so many others around here will get better once more people realize that their view is just that. "Theirs"...its not "right" or "wrong".

I am free as a human to hate you, to discrimnate against you however I see fit.

You are free to do the same to me.

I wouldnt have drafted Sam because I dont think he can play in the NFL, I hope he proves me wrong. It makes a great story. If he was clearly a 1st round pick bet your ass every NFL team would have picked him.

Somewhere around 17% of 7th round picks make an NFL roster. Very, very few ever become significant contributors. A media circus (if someone fears one, I personally think thats over blown...but had the Oprah deal gone through maybe not) negatively impacts a team's ability to conduct practice and hurts all 90+ camp participants.

I'll take that impact and media personnel and increased security costs etc for someone who makes me better. I'm probably not willing to take that burden on in exchange for a less than 20% odds.

All that said...this is one of the more troubling threads Ive read here in a while. I come into agreeing with Blackadar's position and by the end your very argument style makes me want to support the opposition.

You have defined the "angry black" stereo type in e-text format.

The fact that you manage a team of sales/influencers and this is your persuasion style is down right frightening to me.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Logic on one side. Religion on the other. Unless one side becomes illogical or the other side drops religion, no one is joining the other.

Edit: Please don't read into that as me arguing against religion or trying to get people to stop believing in their god. I just mean it's a a hard set obstacle to arguments like this, no one is going to change their mind. I'm not going to "tolerate your intolerance", but I'm certainly not going to tell you what god you should believe in. Just stop forcing other people to adhere to the standards of your god.

I'd like to ask a sidebar as it relates to the bolded.

I come at this as a largely agnostic person, so this isnt a pesonal reflection here. But Ive hired and worked with devout Christians and Strong willed atheists.

If I own a company and I hire someone to build my team, he is likely to surround himself with people who think like him, act like him, and that he generally likes. That is almost requisite for good team building.

Even if Tony Dungy was saying he wouldnt draft a gay man regardless of talent (again I do not think that is what he is saying) should he not have that right? It is not the entire league saying "gay men can not be employed"...it's one coach making one choice.

If the choice is poor and urts the team his owner can fire him for it.

I just dont understand how anyone can harp intolerance and say to be tolerant you must like every body.

What is Tony Dungy said I only draft DE over 6'5" under 6'5" I wont draft them. Short DEs cant make themselves taller. They cant control it. Should a league be able to FORCE him to draft a short DE ahead of a tall DE because they want equality?


I guess I just really dont see the out cry here.

For the record I have 2 cousins who are gay. 1 lived in my house with her wife for several years on my dime. This isnt a prejudice thing. For that matter said cousin now owns a pet shop they only employ gay people because "Its who we feel comfortable with" Are they intolerant of straight people?

I just think a business owner should be able to hire who they want to work in their business.

[jeff061]

What does him being gay have to do with his ability as football player? Nothing? Ok. Thanks.

Dungy's history of supporting pieces of crap simply because they are good football players doesn't help his cause, he's hardly surrounded himself with people that think like him(or at least the image of himself he projects). This hypocrisy ultimately is what sparked this discussion, it's spiraled out somewhat since then.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by jeff061

What does him being gay have to do with his ability as football player? Nothing? Ok. Thanks.

Dungy's history of supporting pieces of crap simply because they are good football players doesn't help his cause, he's hardly surrounded himself with people that think like him(or at least the image of himself he projects). This hypocrisy ultimately is what sparked this discussion, it's spiraled out somewhat since then.

Dungy supports extremely talented pieces of crap.
Its all about meritocracy AFAIC.

Again I think if Sam was Robert mathis Dungy selects him and doesnt think twice.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Suburban Rhythm

I say this as a practicing Catholic, but I've got more of a problem with someone who does harm, over and over, then quits and claims sorrow and seeks forgiveness (Vick) than someone who isn't harming anyone and merely living their life, even if others disagree with it (Sam).

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I'd argue Sam's living that much more than the Vicks and Ray Lewises of the league. But at no point during their tribulations did Dungy feel the need to save them. So, if in the example above, where was he when others were committing more egregious sins?

He's certainly entitled to whatever feelings he has. I just don't buy the religion excuse when he's never exercised it in the past.

Regarding Vick and Lewis - isn't it very Christian to give people second chances and to forgive people? Dungy always struck me as a guy who wanted to embrace those with questionable pasts to help get them back on the right track. The weird thing about sexuality and Christianity is that in modern society, those category of "sinners" don't want "forgiveness", they don't think they need to "get back on the right track", and our society doesn't think that they're doing anything wrong. It's not the same thing as rehabbing a criminal. It's this weird separate thing. (I'm pretty sure that if Dungy was "consistent", and went to Sam offering to help him get back on the right track, or told the media he was willing to give Sam a "second chance", we'd all think that was a lot worse.)

And because of that, I think there's a lot of Christians like yourself who have more liberal attitudes views of sexuality and sin. I know more than 10 Lutheran pastors under the age of 40 - every single one of them supports gay marriage. One of them is openly gay themselves. Just like everything else, the older ones are slower to change. I'm not willing to automatically characterize them all as being bigots, or frauds, or whatever, and those people can have many other great qualities.

[stevew]

Jamaal Charles apparently got some sort of financial kick back from the chiefs and reported to camp. Good for him as he was pretty underpaid and is still a game changer.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

IWhat is Tony Dungy said I only draft DE over 6'5" under 6'5" I wont draft them. Short DEs cant make themselves taller. They cant control it. Should a league be able to FORCE him to draft a short DE ahead of a tall DE because they want equality?


I guess I just really dont see the out cry here.

For the record I have 2 cousins who are gay. 1 lived in my house with her wife for several years on my dime. This isnt a prejudice thing. For that matter said cousin now owns a pet shop they only employ gay people because "Its who we feel comfortable with" Are they intolerant of straight people?

I just think a business owner should be able to hire who they want to work in their business.

Height isn't a protected class. Sexual orientation is.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Logan

Height isn't a protected class. Sexual orientation is.

But TD isnt a coach he is a former coach offering a opinion....

That said I guess my bigger point isnt "is it a protected class" it is more "should it be"

[Abe Sargent]

The problem with the question of gay marriage, or other things like divorcees getting remarried or polygamy is that the institution is both secular and sacred. That's why we let clergy authorize a legally binding contract. It's in both realms. So we can;t get upset when someone sees marriage as predominantly in one realm, and wants to protect it there, when another sees it as predominately in another.

So here's my recommendation:

1). Remove marriage as a legal institution. Create domestic partnership laws. Allow any two adults who want to get them to do so. They are not mutually exclusive, so you can sign a contract with multiple partners, with another person of the same gender, and so forth. It has all of the benefits, legally, of marriage right now. Religious leaders can no longer sanction these contracts - they are legally binding contracts, and have to be done with a JOP, or lawyer. (maybe notary public instead of lawyer, if you want - details - who cares)

2). Churches are free to use the religious institution of marriage for anyone they want to. My father is uncomfortable marrying two people who have been divorced (a clear example of adultery in most cases, according to Christ's own words, barring exceptions like cheating, abuse, neglect, etc). So he can keep marriage as he wants for his church (he's a Baptist minister) others can refuse to marry for polygamy, homosexuality, and other reasons. Each faith can keep their own religious traditions. That institution is now as separate from government as baptism.


Now people who want equal rights for marriage get them. Everybody, no matter what your arrangement, can get one. And the new institution is equal in every way to the current one, so no one gets hosed. Everyone from Sister Wives to Logo is happy to get legal benefits of domestic partnerships.

[larrymcg421]

Hate for gays and lesbians. And hate for religious people

Please stop putting it this way. It's not gays/lesbians vs. religious people. There are many religious people (including me) that are on the same side as the gays/lesbians. And there are many gays/lesbians that are religious people.

The "hate" isn't being directed at anyone because they are religious. A person who is against gay marriage or gays in the military or Michael Sam is no better whether they are religious or athiest.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Please stop putting it this way. It's not gays/lesbians vs. religious people. There are many religious people (including me) that are on the same side as the gays/lesbians. And there are many gays/lesbians that are religious people.

The "hate" isn't being directed at anyone because they are religious. A person who is against gay marriage or gays in the military or Michael Sam is no better whether they are religious or athiest.

You read too much into that. I never said that gays/lesbians were hating religious people and vice versa. I was stating that both sides were receiving plenty of hate, from a third group which isn't necessarily part of either group.

[Lathum]

Where is the hate towards religion?

I see a lot of criticism towards religion, but not hate. No one is campaiging against the rights or religios groups. No one is saying they should be denyied rights or held to a different standard.

The bottom line is when a large group of people wants to deny basic rights afforded to others that is harted and oppression. Hiding behind religion doesn't change the basic premise.

The taliban uses religion to justify their hatred, as does the KKK. Does it make them right?

[Logan]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

But TD isnt a coach he is a former coach offering a opinion....

That said I guess my bigger point isnt "is it a protected class" it is more "should it be"

In your example, he's a coach. And you asked could the league force him, as a coach, to draft shorter players. They wouldn't try to force him to do anything because he isn't violating labor laws.

And yes, sexual orientation should be a protected class because they have been discriminated against in the workplace and laws have been put into place to prevent that. Really, really short people (I remember your "Giants" example in the Redskins thread) I imagine are also protected as they fall under a physical handicap.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by molson

Regarding Vick and Lewis - isn't it very Christian to give people second chances and to forgive people? Dungy always struck me as a guy who wanted to embrace those with questionable pasts to help get them back on the right track. The weird thing about sexuality and Christianity is that in modern society, those category of "sinners" don't want "forgiveness", they don't think they need to "get back on the right track", and our society doesn't think that they're doing anything wrong. It's not the same thing as rehabbing a criminal. It's this weird separate thing. (I'm pretty sure that if Dungy was "consistent", and went to Sam offering to help him get back on the right track, or told the media he was willing to give Sam a "second chance", we'd all think that was a lot worse.)

And because of that, I think there's a lot of Christians like yourself who have more liberal attitudes views of sexuality and sin. I know more than 10 Lutheran pastors under the age of 40 - every single one of them supports gay marriage. One of them is openly gay themselves. Just like everything else, the older ones are slower to change. I'm not willing to automatically characterize them all as being bigots, or frauds, or whatever, and those people can have many other great qualities.

I guess I just have a difficult time reconciling how a Christian can disregard "do unto others". That is above all else.

Can't quite wrap my head around saying sorry after multiple offenses > living a life causing no harm.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

The problem with the question of gay marriage, or other things like divorcees getting remarried or polygamy is that the institution is both secular and sacred. That's why we let clergy authorize a legally binding contract. It's in both realms. So we can;t get upset when someone sees marriage as predominantly in one realm, and wants to protect it there, when another sees it as predominately in another.

So here's my recommendation:

1). Remove marriage as a legal institution. Create domestic partnership laws. Allow any two adults who want to get them to do so. They are not mutually exclusive, so you can sign a contract with multiple partners, with another person of the same gender, and so forth. It has all of the benefits, legally, of marriage right now. Religious leaders can no longer sanction these contracts - they are legally binding contracts, and have to be done with a JOP, or lawyer. (maybe notary public instead of lawyer, if you want - details - who cares)

2). Churches are free to use the religious institution of marriage for anyone they want to. My father is uncomfortable marrying two people who have been divorced (a clear example of adultery in most cases, according to Christ's own words, barring exceptions like cheating, abuse, neglect, etc). So he can keep marriage as he wants for his church (he's a Baptist minister) others can refuse to marry for polygamy, homosexuality, and other reasons. Each faith can keep their own religious traditions. That institution is now as separate from government as baptism.


Now people who want equal rights for marriage get them. Everybody, no matter what your arrangement, can get one. And the new institution is equal in every way to the current one, so no one gets hosed. Everyone from Sister Wives to Logo is happy to get legal benefits of domestic partnerships.

Disagree. Why should people in one group be able to call their union a marriage while people in another group cannot? I could see adding the term "Christian marriage" or "Catholic marriage" or whatever that allows a religion to throw on their endorsement of the marriage. In this case, the religious aspect is just an add-on to the marriage. Like Cherry Coke. Everyone should be allowed to have a Coke if they want one. Which variety they choose is up to them. Otherwise, the people who only have a civil union can be perceived as having something less than the people who have a marriage.

[flere-imsaho]

You know, maybe we ought to move the gay marriage / Tony Dungy / Michael Sam conversation to another thread....

[Kodos]

Probably a good idea.

[Lathum]

It is insane to me how much more money baseball players make than football. Charles signed an extension bringing his salary up to roughy 28 million for 4 years. Not shabby by everyman standards.

Some baseball players making around 7 mil+ a year, and that is guaranteed

JJ HArdy
A.J. Pierzynski
Ben Zobrist
Colby Rasmus
Adam Lind
Jason Vargas
Dexter Fowler
Joe Blanton
Chris Young
Kyle Kendrick
Mike Adams- who?
Jonathan Broxton
J.J. Putz
Brett Anderson


I cherry picked a bit, the full list is here. Stanton and McCutchen make around that much and are MVP candidates.

2014 Payrolls And Salaries For Every MLB Team

[cuervo72]

I thought exactly that when it came across the ticker during the SF/PHI game (which may have been in rain delay...).

[Kodos]

But then you're stuck playing baseball.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I see a lot of criticism towards religion, but not hate. No one is campaiging against the rights or religios groups. No one is saying they should be denyied rights or held to a different standard.

I don't think it's a "hatred" usually, but a lot of people definitely consider religious values less valid than other kinds of values. People here are talking about how they don't hate religion, they just don't want those values imposed on others. But all law is values imposed on others. If you think the rich should pay more taxes to help the poor, you may try to impose that value on others through law, or through criticism of the rich. Obviously, not everyone shares that value. But you have every right to try to push for it in our system. Values can be based on all kinds of things - religion, your parents, a book you read once, inspiration from nature, whatever. If it's religion though, it seems that the underlying value is respected a lot less. It doesn't even have to be a moral or sexuality-based thing. If someone's religion inspires an action or value, I think it can be viewed with a lot more skepticism.

[Logan]

Two games for Ray Rice.

Weak.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Kodos

But then you're stuck playing baseball.

And the season is much longer.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by Logan

Two games for Ray Rice.

Weak.

.

Originally Posted by @ DJGalloEtc

The Ray Rice lesson is clear: If you're caught smoking weed, quickly tape the joint to a woman's face and punch it

[Thomkal]

Hmmm not a couple of good days for those named Rice:

Sidney Rice Retires from NFL After 7-Year Career | Bleacher Report

Not a good couple years for Justin Blackmon:

Former OSU Football Player Justin Blackmon Arrested For Marijuan - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports |

[Suburban Rhythm]

At least this will give Tony Dungy someone to embrace.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Where is the hate towards religion?

I see a lot of criticism towards religion, but not hate. No one is campaiging against the rights or religios groups. No one is saying they should be denyied rights or held to a different standard.

The bottom line is when a large group of people wants to deny basic rights afforded to others that is harted and oppression. Hiding behind religion doesn't change the basic premise.

The taliban uses religion to justify their hatred, as does the KKK. Does it make them right?

Hate, prejudice, whatever. There is a bias against those who hold religious views. I see it here in this thread. I see it on FB. I see it in the media.

And for the most part, I understand it. There are some really ridiculous views held by the religious right, and that turns off a lot of people, including myself, and it is part of the divisiveness this country has now.

But if you don't think there is a stigma on those who hold strong religious views, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. To me, it's blatantly obvious, and I am not even religious.