2013 NFL Off-Season Thread

[Gothamite]

I'm all for acceptance and will be glad when race, gender, orientation, or whatever else doesn't even enter people's minds when they interact with others

For better or worse, this is not happening at any point during any of our lifetimes. There is far more work to be done than have four random NFL players co-coordinating their coming out.

I agree - we can't even get past racism based on skin color. It'll be a long time before something like NFL players coming out isn't terribly important in the struggle for equality.

[OnWis97]

So we're to accept as unquestioned truth that there are four gay NFL players considering coming out? Have you thought that through? If they're being "talked to" about coming out, that means that others know they're gay. Yet there are no leaks and no one has any idea who these guys are or even what teams they play for. Doesn't any of that strike you as the least bit odd?

For the sake of argument, what it would mean to the sport and to our country, why shouldn't we presume the reports are true?

We talk about rumors all the time here. I can't see any reason on Earth why this subject should be any different.

I think we all know that this is a rumor and it is quite possible this is not about to happen. Much like rumored Kobe trades of a few years ago. I don't see anyone saying "It is a FACT that this is about to happen."

But it's the kind of thing we like to speculate about. Hell, we speculate about a team switching to black cleats. This would be important. More important than who how many quarterbacks go in the first round or (at least in greater society, if not to the football fan in all of us) who wins the Super Bowl. I think we all know we're talking in "what ifs" and that's fine.

[BlueSky]

So we're to accept as unquestioned truth that there are four gay NFL players considering coming out? Have you thought that through? If they're being "talked to" about coming out, that means that others know they're gay. Yet there are no leaks and no one has any idea who these guys are or even what teams they play for. Doesn't any of that strike you as the least bit odd?

For the sake of argument, what it would mean to the sport and to our country, why shouldn't we presume the reports are true?

We talk about rumors all the time here. I can't see any reason on Earth why this subject should be any different.

I think we all know that this is a rumor and it is quite possible this is not about to happen. Much like rumored Kobe trades of a few years ago. I don't see anyone saying "It is a FACT that this is about to happen."

But it's the kind of thing we like to speculate about. Hell, we speculate about a team switching to black cleats. This would be important. More important than who how many quarterbacks go in the first round or (at least in greater society, if not to the football fan in all of us) who wins the Super Bowl. I think we all know we're talking in "what ifs" and that's fine.

Didn't say not to talk about it. Didn't try to minimize what it would mean. Discuss and speculate all you want. Or you could start a new thread somewhere so that whoever's interested in football-related off-season occurrences could come to this thread and not have to wade through certain members' social agendas. I don't want to read about Peter King's politics in his column and whatever the subject might be - let me repeat for crystal clarity, it's not that it's this subject, it could be your advocacy to stop lab testing of animals or to promote the Red Cross or whatever else - some of us actually just want to come here and talk about football.

Just sayin'...

[Gothamite]

This is the NFL Off-Season thread. Where we talk about any topics that involve the NFL over the off-season. If the Red Cross or animal testing had any crossover with the NFL, then they would be fair game here as well.

When a current NFL player talks about the possibility of other NFL players doing virtually anything that will generate publicity for the league, whether it's writing children's books or testifying before Congress or even, yes, coming out of the closet, then it's fodder for this exact thread. Actually, this is even more relevant because those would be a minor blip whereas four players coming out would be a major story all season long.

[BlueSky]

This is the NFL Off-Season thread. If the Red Cross or animal testing had any crossover with the NFL, then they would be fair game here as well.

When a current NFL player talks about the possibility of other NFL players doing virtually anything that will generate publicity for the league, whether it's writing children's books or testifying before Congress or even, yes, coming out of the closet, then it's fodder for this exact thread.

Well let me get to checking out the dozens if not hundreds of foundations and causes NFL players have started or that they support. Or wait, let's discuss that kid's exercise program with the cute commercials. Yeah, thought so...nobody's interested in any of that.

Besides, you guys don't want to discuss, you want to look down in pity from your high horses on the poor ignorant slobs who happen not to 100% agree with your point of view. Like the admiral, arguing against he perceived as stereotyping and ignorance by using...stereotyping and ignorance. It gets old.

I notice btw the way that only one person commented on the possibility that the whole story is BS and no one bothered to address the questions I raised. You're all too busy defending your right to talk about it to even consider it might be a red herring. Knock yourselves out.

What's funny is that without someone to hound because they disagree - well, to be accurate, I actually do agree except for one detail - the discussion will fizzle because you guys will all just be patting each other on the back about how right you are. Crap, that means I'm an enabler!

[Gothamite]

We did discuss the possibility that it might not be true. We also concluded that it's still worth discussing since 1) rumors are kind of what we do here and 2) even the rumor is newsworthy. I don't think anybody confused it for a verified news report.

Sky, let's not make this about the posters. Admiral was wrong to bring you personally into the conversation; let's not compound his error now.

It's not about us personally. It's about the topic at hand, which might not be something you want to talk about. Fine. Skip the thread or direct it in another area, if you have one. Simply shutting down a conversation you don't personally enjoy isn't very polite.

[BlueSky]

We did discuss the possibility that it might not be true. We also concluded that it's still worth discussing since 1) rumors are kind of what we do here and 2) even the rumor is newsworthy. I don't think anybody confused it for a verified news report.

Sky, let's not make this about the posters. Admiral was wrong to bring you personally into the conversation; let's not compound his error now.

It's not about us personally. It's about the topic at hand, which might not be something you want to talk about. Fine. Skip the thread or direct it in another area, if you have one. Simply shutting down a conversation you don't personally enjoy isn't very polite.

Agreed, but nor is taking legitimate news and turning it into a marketing campaign. As the mod directed, how about "let's get back to NFL offseason news, notes and ramblings?" Sure, the possibility of the coming out is (was?) news but then some people had to jump on it and shout their joy from the rooftops because it happens to be part of their own agenda. Thus my suggestion to start another thread where anyone interested can post about the social implications until the cows come home. Now if it really happens, it's obviously fair game and I'll be as interested in the conversation as anyone because the personal and professional fallout will be monumental.

What's not right is threadjacking this into a debate about the issue itself. You and I respectfully agreed to disagree but that's not good enough for some who feel it's their duty to convert anyone not in lockstep with them. That's where the problem is here.

Man, how about those Raiders?

[chuckymack]

Anyway, about those sports teams...

[Gothamite]

Anyway, about those sports teams...

They need more gay players.

[illwauk]

Besides, you guys don't want to discuss, you want to look down in pity from your high horses on the poor ignorant slobs who happen not to 100% agree with your point of view. Like the admiral, arguing against he perceived as stereotyping and ignorance by using...stereotyping and ignorance. It gets old.

Funny, I feel the same way when I talk to certian "believers" whom I never asked to be worried about my mortal soul. Many of these "believers" occupy NFL locker rooms and... as we've seen too many times before... they're only too happy to use their "beliefs" to feel justified in thinking of homosexuals as sub-human.

At least admiral didn't pretend to be anything but a trolling a~hole, and at least all you had to deal with because of it is being frustrated and offended. We know that gay men have played in the NFL in the past and present (regardless of whether or not the "coming out" rumors are true) and they've all had to pretend to be something they're not because of the very real possiblity that being who they are would be a threat to their career or their health (we've seen players attack other teammates before for less than being a walking abomination according to their "beliefs").

And before anyone flames me for being a big meanie towards religious people, I'm well aware that not all "believers" are homophobes; but is there any significant strand of the population that doesn't believe in marriage equality at this point which doesn't use their "believer" status to justify it?

[IceCap]

And before anyone flames me for being a big meanie towards religious people, I'm well aware that not all "believers" are homophobes; but is there any significant strand of the population that doesn't believe in marriage equality at this point which doesn't use their "believer" status to justify it?

Well that is a good point, though it should be noted that though religious belief probably does fuel this sort of thinking some homophobic groups are careful not to say so. Other attempted anti-same-sex marriage arguments I've heard are "the point of marriage is to produce children," and "the definition has always been between a man and a woman." Now obviously these arguments are just as pointless as the arguments based on scripture (and I say that as a firm believer in the Almighty), but from a purely ideological perspective you could be an atheist or agnostic and still be against same-sex marriage based on those arguments alone.

Of course there's probably a very large overlap between those two "secular" homophobic arguments and people of faith (who, as someone who does believe in G-d, I find extremely misguided in their desire to be faithful), but the point it's still something to consider.

It's also worth noting that, historically speaking, the Abrahamic faithful don't have a monopoly on homophobia. The pre-Christian Romans, for example, imported much of their civilization from Greece, but tended to omit the more homosexual elements. That was the ideal, anyway. Also a certain regime in Germany persecuted homosexuals along with other "undesirables" despite their Charlie Chaplin moustached leader being rather ambivalent about religion in general. And I won't go into details in a futile attempt to avoid Godwin's Law

Also, I don't think the Cardinals will be all that pathetic this year. A mediocre season from them is all I really have to look forward to because the Chargers are doomed to finish behind the Broncos for as long as the Manning/Welker Show can put up big numbers.

[illwauk]

And before anyone flames me for being a big meanie towards religious people, I'm well aware that not all "believers" are homophobes; but is there any significant strand of the population that doesn't believe in marriage equality at this point which doesn't use their "believer" status to justify it?

Well that is a good point, though it should be noted that though religious belief probably does fuel this sort of thinking some homophobic groups are careful not to say so. Other attempted anti-same-sex marriage arguments I've heard are "the point of marriage is to produce children," and "the definition has always been between a man and a woman." Now obviously these arguments are just as pointless as the arguments based on scripture (and I say that as a firm believer in the Almighty), but from a purely ideological perspective you could be an atheist or agnostic and still be against same-sex marriage based on those arguments alone.

Of course there's probably a very large overlap between those two "secular" homophobic arguments and people of faith (who, as someone who does believe in G-d, I find extremely misguided in their desire to be faithful), but the point it's still something to consider.

While I'm definitely aware that "secular" homophobes exist, they're not exactly what I would call a significant strand of the population. I'd put them up (down?) there with holocaust deniers and the flat earth society.

It's also worth noting that, historically speaking, the Abrahamic faithful don't have a monopoly on homophobia. The pre-Christian Romans, for example, imported much of their civilization from Greece, but tended to omit the more homosexual elements. That was the ideal, anyway. Also a certain regime in Germany persecuted homosexuals along with other "undesirables" despite their Charlie Chaplin moustached leader being rather ambivalent about religion in general. And I won't go into details in a futile attempt to avoid Godwin's Law

You didn't have to take it back that far... or even far at all. I, personally, held on to a lot of homophobic beliefs long after I left the church just because that's how engrained it was into our culture. Even 10 years ago I only passively supported LGBT rights because of it. I also know I'm far from the only one with a similar story.

That said, it sure seems like the only reason why whether or not gay people have a right to get married is even up for debate in this day in age... let alone necessitating SCOTUS intervention... is because large religious institutions are willing to stand behind them. The exact same thing can pretty much be said for Loving v. Virginia, which legalized interracial marriage. In fact, I really think one of the biggest reasons why religious membership is on such a rapid decline is because a lot of people are starting to realize that religious institutions have been responsible for keeping a lot of old-timey prejudices around for a lot longer than they have/had any right to be.

I really don't mean to come off as petty and provocative towards organized religion as I'm sure I do to a lot of people here. I know a lot of religious folks who are genuinely intelligent and respectable people, both intellectually and personally. I just have a hard time understanding how such people can look at what's engrained in the culture and bureaucracy of organized religion and find it acceptable enough to be a part of it.

[BigEd76]

Man, how about those Raiders?

Hey they signed Mike Jenkins and Usama Young. Peyton, Alex and Philip should be shaking

[IceCap]

I really don't mean to come off as petty and provocative towards organized religion as I'm sure I do to a lot of people here. I know a lot of religious folks who are genuinely intelligent and respectable people, both intellectually and personally. I just have a hard time understanding how such people can look at what's engrained in the culture and bureaucracy of organized religion and find it acceptable enough to be a part of it.

I can, in the end, only speak from my own personal experiences. The historical struggle of the Jewish people is something that's ingrained on the minds of Jewish kids from a young age. It's unavoidable. A lot of Jews of my own generation still have living family members who remember the Holocaust, and it seems like every other holiday we have is dedicated to us overcoming one oppressor or another. So when the gay rights movement really picked up steam in Canada around the time I was just entering my teenage years, and thus first starting to really think for myself, I looked back on my own faith's history and concluded "well it sucked when we were treated like second class citizens, I can't support anything that would do that to another group."

As for the Bible, well I don't actually view the Bible as the word of G-d. Because it's clearly not, if you read it from a narrative point of view. It's a collection of stories and laws. The stories may be divinely inspired, but the book they were recorded in was written by men, and men are fallible. Leviticus itself is just a collection of customs and laws that perhaps made sense for a small desert tribe trying to eek out survival 5,000 years ago, but it's not a guidebook for how to live in the 21st century. That's how I balance my desire to see society move forward and my commitment to my religion. If a religious leader says "tey gayz are evil" I can just say "no, we're both reading the same book, you're just doing it wrong"

As for other faiths, my experience is much more limited, but I do know that the Anglican Church allows for openly gay men to service as clergy. So there are faiths out there who are keeping the core principals of belief intact while also recognizing the need to move forward while tossing older beliefs into the dustbin of history where they belong.

[Lights Out]

A mediocre season from them is all I really have to look forward to because the Chargers are doomed to finish behind the Broncos for as long as the Manning/Welker Show can put up big numbers.

Luckily, the Manning/Welker Show has a short shelf life, though. I kind of hope the Bolts just tank this year and build around Clowney, setting us up nicely for life after Peyton in the division.

[IceCap]

A mediocre season from them is all I really have to look forward to because the Chargers are doomed to finish behind the Broncos for as long as the Manning/Welker Show can put up big numbers.

Luckily, the Manning/Welker Show has a short shelf life, though. I kind of hope the Bolts just tank this year and build around Clowney, setting us up nicely for life after Peyton in the division.

If they can make some smart personnel moves the next two years they'll be in prime position to take back the division once the Manning/Welker Show starts to fall apart.

[Gothamite]

Smart moves? The Chargers?

[Lights Out]

Smart moves? The Chargers?

AJ and Norv are finally gone...

[IceCap]

Yeah. Colour me cautiously optimistic about the Chargers' chances over the next five years.

[Gothamite]

I don't know. I have very little faith in the people who are ultimately making the decisions.