I hope Michael Sam flames out in the NFL

[TobyTyler]

There is some hypocrisy in how Sam is dealing this this, I don't disagree with that. He says he just wants to be a football player, but he does draw more attention to himself than necessary. To some extent, it may have been inevitable that the first openly gay NFL player would be someone who wants to be in the spotlight. At least, if that player was going to be a rookie.

I applaud Sam for his decision to come out, whatever the motivations were. As I said on the main board, it's a gutsy move, particularly for a rookie. Someone had to be the first, and in many ways it won't be an easy road. The reaction to him kissing his BF on national TV makes that abundantly clear (and yes, I thought the cake bit was over the top, but let's not pretend people weren't already freaking out after what was a pretty darn innocent kiss initially).

Several realities intrude into this case, making it more complicated than the ordinary "player aggrandizement" issue. The first reality is that it is news, and fairly big news at that. As much as some people - including Sam - will say, "Who cares who he sleeps with? He should just play football," it's not that simple. His story is going to be followed and publicized, whether he wants it to be or not. The second reality is that some people - and frankly, it's not a small number - will actively root against Sam because he is gay. They will want to see him fail simply because of his sexual preference.

As far as Sam's self-aggrandizement goes, I don't like to see it. I'd prefer the first openly gay NFL player wasn't so eager to thrust himself into the limelight. But more than a few gay players feared the limelight and did everything they could to avoid it. If the tradeoff for someone coming out in the NFL is that they seek attention, I don't have a terrific problem with it. An NFL player being inconsistent or somewhat insincere in terms of their stated intentions versus their actions certainly won't cause me to actively root against them. Seems to me that sort of thing happens all the time. Personally, I will continue to root for Sam because I think it is good for our society to have openly gay players succeeding in the NFL.

That was classless considering he knew how offensive this was to some people. If people should be careful not to offend him with our views on homosexuality then that same consideration should be given back by him. A little discretion was in order there I think.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

That was classless considering he knew how offensive this was to some people. If people should be careful not to offend him with our views on homosexuality then that same consideration should be given back by him. A little discretion was in order there I think.

The cake bothered me because it seemed contrived and somewhat disingenuous; it appeared to be done largely (solely?) for the benefit of the cameras. In my view, it was very different from the initial kiss, which felt like a very natural and unchoreographed moment.

I don't agree at all that he shouldn't have done it because it would offend some people. Based on that logic, how do you distinguish between the cake and the initial kiss? Though I suppose many people don't. I'm sure it still offends some people when they see black players kissing their white girlfriends or wives. It doesn't mean those players shouldn't do it, at least not in my book. The same goes for Sam. It's not like anything he did was particularly graphic, and all the fuss over "he shouldn't have done it because kids were watching" is pretty appalling in my book.

 

[RaiderZar]

If he was white would Oprah care enough to do this documenary?

No. Ellen would though.

 

[TobyTyler]

The cake bothered me because it seemed contrived and somewhat disingenuous; it appeared to be done largely (solely?) for the benefit of the cameras. In my view, it was very different from the initial kiss, which felt like a very natural and unchoreographed moment.

I don't agree at all that he shouldn't have done it because it would offend some people. Based on that logic, how do you distinguish between the cake and the initial kiss? Though I suppose many people don't. I'm sure it still offends some people when they see black players kissing their white girlfriends or wives. It doesn't mean those players shouldn't do it, at least not in my book. The same goes for Sam. It's not like anything he did was particularly graphic, and all the fuss over "he shouldn't have done it because kids were watching" is pretty appalling in my book.

You answered that already; one was staged and planned the other was spontaneous. The staged event he had the time to stop and consider "how will this affect some people?" The acceptance of and respect for values and beliefs works both ways.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

You answered that already; one was staged and planned the other was spontaneous. The staged event he had the time to stop and consider "how will this affect some people?" The acceptance of and respect for values and beliefs works both ways.

I'll admit it, I struggle with that. I realize there may be a degree of hypocrisy in that, but I don't know that one should tolerate intolerance. If this was forty years ago, and it was a black player and a white woman - even if it was deliberate and staged - should they not have kissed because it made people uncomfortable? For that matter, what is the conduct that is objectionable in the cases you're referencing above? For those who would attack Sam, you're talking about a personal attack on a person for something that (at least according to most) is inherent in them. It necessarily involves the other party. For Sam, you're talking about an action between two people that doesn't directly involve others at all. I don't think we can simply equate the two and call it a day.

Furthermore, if we apply your position to other players/issues, shouldn't a devout Christian be offended by Johnny Manziel's "money" gesture when he was drafted? Reveling in an excessive payday surely is not Christian. Similarly, any sort of physical contact between an unwed player and his girlfriend should offend people. I've seen people on this board get offended by flat-brimmed hats, and lord knows we saw a lot of those over the course of the draft. Bruce Ellington was shirtless when he got the call; scandalous!

And let's be honest: all of these draft family videos are staged to a degree.

 

[TobyTyler]

I'll admit it, I struggle with that. I realize there may be a degree of hypocrisy in that, but I don't know that one should tolerate intolerance. If this was forty years ago, and it was a black player and a white woman - even if it was deliberate and staged - should they not have kissed because it made people uncomfortable? For that matter, what is the conduct that is objectionable in the cases you're referencing above? For those who would attack Sam, you're talking about a personal attack on a person for something that (at least according to most) is inherent in them. It necessarily involves the other party. For Sam, you're talking about an action between two people that doesn't directly involve others at all. I don't think we can simply equate the two and call it a day.

Furthermore, if we apply your position to other players/issues, shouldn't a devout Christian be offended by Johnny Manziel's "money" gesture when he was drafted? Reveling in an excessive payday surely is not Christian. Similarly, any sort of physical contact between an unwed player and his girlfriend should offend people. I've seen people on this board get offended by flat-brimmed hats, and lord knows we saw a lot of those over the course of the draft. Bruce Ellington was shirtless when he got the call; scandalous!

And let's be honest: all of these draft family videos are staged to a degree.

I'm the last guy to defend the Christians but what they believe about homosexuality is just as valid as what you and I seem to believe about it. To say otherwise is the height of hypocrisy which, to your credit, you admit. If they are correct that their bible is the word of God, how could they possibly tolerate it? Should we not tolerate or at least be cognizant of their beliefs on the subject?

I'm all for everyone doing what they want to do within reason but people need to be aware that when what they are doing is offensive to others in some situations should practice some discretion. It doesn't matter why it offends some people, the fact that it does should be enough to at least think about not throwing it in their face.

 

[BOB11]

In a way I'm glad the 49ers didn't draft him. Can't imagine the nightmare that will be on the Rams hands if he gets cut.

 

[ozarkram]

Hope you guys don't mind alittle input from a Rams fan. The Rams board is all ready imploding. With lines being drawn and normally friendly posters trying to rip each others throats out. Cant imagine how it will be as the season progresses.

 

[R.J. MacReady]

Hope you guys don't mind alittle input from a Rams fan. The Rams board is all ready imploding. With lines being drawn and normally friendly posters trying to rip each others throats out. Cant imagine how it will be as the season progresses.

Yep. The great media eye imo can be the most destructive force in all of professional sports.

I consider the Cowboys draft a success not because of who we drafted but who we didn't.

I don't see how Sam or Johnny football's skills on the field could balance the ledger from all the unwanted attention and distraction.

 

[Brocktagon]

Ah, "the stalker." Good one Clyde.

Look, I'm all in favor of you hiding your homophobia behind your "Get off my lawn!" "Don't ask, don't tell" libertarian angle, but don't shit up this board in the process. This stuff belongs in the cesspool for the mouth-breathers to feast upon, not here.

dude, you are LOST. please don't vote.

 

[dredinis21]

In a way I'm glad the 49ers didn't draft him. Can't imagine the nightmare that will be on the Rams hands if he gets cut.

IF the Niners would have drafted him, he probably wouldn't have made the team at all.

 

[Brocktagon]

I'm the last guy to defend the Christians but what they believe about homosexuality is just as valid as what you and I seem to believe about it. To say otherwise is the height of hypocrisy which, to your credit, you admit. If they are correct that their bible is the word of God, how could they possibly tolerate it? Should we not tolerate or at least be cognizant of their beliefs on the subject?

I'm all for everyone doing what they want to do within reason but people need to be aware that when what they are doing is offensive to others in some situations should practice some discretion. It doesn't matter why it offends some people, the fact that it does should be enough to at least think about not throwing it in their face.

how do those idiot Christians know that Christ is somehow anti-gay? ya, they don't. they're idiots and anyone who says 'god spoke to me' belongs in a sanitarium.

btw, i'm not anti-gay. i'm anti - gays being able to push this in my face every day.

 

[Brocktagon]

No. Ellen would though.

there was a time when I would have banged ellen straight. alcohol would have been involved but there was a time!

 

[R.J. MacReady]

how do those idiot Christians know that Christ is somehow anti-gay? ya, they don't. they're idiots and anyone who says 'god spoke to me' belongs in a sanitarium.

btw, i'm not anti-gay. i'm anti - gays being able to push this in my face every day.

If you know what Jesus stood for ... you know he is not anti gay.

My boy loves everybody, plain and simple.

 

[Brocktagon]

If you know what Jesus stood for ... you know he is not anti gay.

My boy loves everybody, plain and simple.

am atheist and I cannot disagree with this statement

 

[tomikcon1971]

...and not because he's gay or a Rams player. Apparently he just wants to be looked at as just a football player, and then there's this:

Oprah Wants to Make Miachael Sam a TV Star - Nation - Boston.com

8 part documentary. Yeah, go fuck yourself bro.

When is Oprah coming out?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I'm the last guy to defend the Christians but what they believe about homosexuality is just as valid as what you and I seem to believe about it. To say otherwise is the height of hypocrisy which, to your credit, you admit. If they are correct that their bible is the word of God, how could they possibly tolerate it? Should we not tolerate or at least be cognizant of their beliefs on the subject?

I'm all for everyone doing what they want to do within reason but people need to be aware that when what they are doing is offensive to others in some situations should practice some discretion. It doesn't matter why it offends some people, the fact that it does should be enough to at least think about not throwing it in their face.

Well first off, I'm pretty sure the bible tells us to tolerate others' sins (something about throwing stones?).

Beyond that, I'm still a little hazy about what we're equating here. You say Sam (and others) need to accept that others' beliefs are valid. I'm still not entirely willing to accept that; the Bible was used to justify slavery and segregation, and I do not believe those were/are valid positions. Hell, racially or religiously motivated genocide could be considered a valid position, it doesn't mean it's right or should be tolerated. However, for the sake of discussion, let's assume you're correct and the belief that homosexuality should not be accepted in our society is a valid position. You're still comparing a belief (homosexuality is wrong) to an act (one man feeding cake to another). The act may have been influenced by a belief, but without an act on the other side, they don't line up. We'd need to change the anti-homosexuality belief into an act in order for it to track.

So what's the counterpoint? A man feeding cake to and kissing a woman? I did that at my wedding, and no one was upset about it (except all those ladies whose hearts I broke when I went off the market....). The issue for me is that one side is not tolerating actions that, had they been taken by a heterosexual couple, would have occasioned no comment whatsoever. And this is where it gets complicated. People are condemning Sam and ESPN for the cake thing. That is intolerance, IMO. But by criticizing this intolerance, I am now intolerant? And people should anticipate an intolerant response and adjust their behavior to minimize it or avoid it entirely? I don't agree with that.

I feel like I'm rambling at this point, but I guess my position is as follows: there are certain things that societies will ban (or at least discourage) based on a given society's values. I don't have a huge problem with that. There are some people who don't see anything wrong with murder; I don't think we should respect that position. However, I believe most positions that don't directly hurt someone else are valid and should be accepted. I also think we should have consistent standards in terms of how we treat people. If racial slurs are not accepted socially, then none should be accepted. If sexual preference slurs are not accepted, then none should be accepted. If acts of affection and intimacy in the public eye are not accepted, then none should be accepted. Conversely, if some of these things are accepted, then all should be accepted. I can't equate Michael Sam eating cake with someone calling him a fag, for instance, because they are completely different things. The person who is angry about the cake/kiss is angry because of who's doing it. The person who is angry about the language is angry because of the language.

 

[NinersFan80]

Did anyone see his press conference he had a few days ago?? It was horrible.. Besides the obvious, I am not sure how he got into Mizzou.

 

[whysies]

dude, you are LOST. please don't vote.

This+your other posts ITT make me smile. Also makes my point about why this thread does nothing but bring the cesspool right to our front door.

 

[whysies]

Although I do appreciate Crimson's attempts to create an actual discourse from this mess. You're a good dude Crimson, and your posts are always appreciated.