Jump to content

Mizzou's Michael Sam comes out


McCall

Recommended Posts

Make no mistake. What he's doing is courageous and I don't think most of us can relate to it.

Maybe someday it won't matter. But right now it does. And to pretend it does not is just ignorant.

Well put.

Hope he goes on to a long and successful career in the NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

And cue all those "Sam is a Satanist Antichrist who should have played soccer because football is 'Murica and a man's sport" chants.

This is going to get interesting...

And cue the moron who comes in and tries to incite :censored:.

This from the guy who said "I don't root for his love life." Why would you even feel a need to point that out?
Here we go. Even though I support him, I make a basic point about how his private life is nothing to me, it's none of mine or anyone else's business, and I'm called out because evidently it's not good enough for some you. If you're hung up on that, it's not my problem.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those saying this is a big deal are right. This has to be a big deal before an athlete coming out isn't a big deal. I hope, in ten years, an athlete in the public eye coming out will be met with a "meh." We have to celebrate those that come out today, however, to get to that point. Someone has to blaze that trail before it becomes well travelled, and I'm proud of Michael Sam for choosing to do just that.

As long as his teammates are fine with it, there's no reason to hate on this.

And if his teammates aren't it's ok to "hate on this"? If an athlete comes out and his or her teammates have an issue with it the fault lies with the bigoted teammates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And cue all those "Sam is a Satanist Antichrist who should have played soccer because football is 'Murica and a man's sport" chants.

This is going to get interesting...

And cue the moron who comes in and tries to incite :censored:.

This from the guy who said "I don't root for his love life." Why would you even feel a need to point that out?
Here we go. Even though I support him, I make a basic point about how his private life is nothing to me, it's none of mine or anyone else's business, and I'm called out because evidently it's not good enough for some you. If you're hung up on that, it's not my problem.

I wish Donald Driver well in his marriage to his wife, but no more than I would anyone else because I really don't give a damn about his personal life; which is why I've never even brought it up until just now to make a point. Why even bring it up if it's not an issue for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as his teammates are fine with it, there's no reason to hate on this.

he shouldn't need their permission. If they aren't fine with it, I would hope that management and ownership would show them the door (like Branch Ricky was willing to do)

I'm sure this isn't what you meant though.

I was saying that if they felt comfortable around him, there's no reason to not have him on a roster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to admit, I totally had my head in the sand regarding Kerry Rhodes. I am not the NFL fan I used to be and while I've heard of him, I did not realize he was out of the league (and if I had I would not have thought much of it not knowing his age).

So I looked into it a bit and wow. It's sad. I should take this to the "what will cause you to lose interest in the NFL" thread. We don't really know what's going on there (including whether Rhodes even is gay). But it looks like he may be somewhat blackballed because of this suspicion and is clearly good enough to be in someone's backfield.

Not only that, but it looks (from the couple minutes I spent looking into him) that Rhodes is charitable and active in the community. And Michael Vick plays on...

If Michael Sam does not get drafted, I am done with the NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as his teammates are fine with it, there's no reason to hate on this.

he shouldn't need their permission. If they aren't fine with it, I would hope that management and ownership would show them the door (like Branch Ricky was willing to do)

I'm sure this isn't what you meant though.

I was saying that if they felt comfortable around him, there's no reason to not have him on a roster.

You're missing the point. If other players are not comfortable around him that's their problem, not his. Like Dexter Morgan said, he doesn't need their approval. Well he shouldn't need it, anyway.

On this affecting his draft value. One of two things happen. It doesn't affect anything in which case awesome or it does, becomes a hot topic in the media, and the NFL is forced to address an issue that the league itself has tried to avoid for far to long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as his teammates are fine with it, there's no reason to hate on this.

he shouldn't need their permission. If they aren't fine with it, I would hope that management and ownership would show them the door (like Branch Ricky was willing to do)

I'm sure this isn't what you meant though.

I was saying that if they felt comfortable around him, there's no reason to not have him on a roster.

Kinda like how he should feel free to adopt a dog if his teammates are OK with it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The optics of a player's draft stock falling due to the openness of someone's sexual orientation will raise a LOT of flags in the LGBT community. The NFL would not be able to sweep this under the carpet, and would have to address this with owners.

I hope it doesn't get that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know about that - draft stocks can fall for any number of reasons.

It's not like he was supposed to be a high First who will sit there at Radio City Music Hall with the cameras on him while straight player after straight player is taken. He's comfortably in the middle enough that pretty much any team could justify passing, and then if he gets picked up in the closing rounds the team could bury him on a practice squad until they test the local waters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I've seen, pro-sports teams seem far more scared of the supposed "media circus" that surrounds having a gay (or LGBT Ally) player. They see it as "baggage". Teams that can have a similar player without that "baggage" so far have taken the other guy every time. It's very similar to why Tim Tebow can't find a job in the NFL (Kerry Rhodes is a far better safety than Tim Tebow is a QB, but he still has a playoff win).

I've always suspected that one of Tebow's problems was that he had become the poster child for a worldview that is notoriously anti-gay, which would have made things even more awkward (and the media circus even worse) for any NFL team than they would have been already, had they signed him and then had one of their other players come out or get outed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And cue all those "Sam is a Satanist Antichrist who should have played soccer because football is 'Murica and a man's sport" chants.

This is going to get interesting...

And cue the moron who comes in and tries to incite :censored:.

This from the guy who said "I don't root for his love life." Why would you even feel a need to point that out?
Here we go. Even though I support him, I make a basic point about how his private life is nothing to me, it's none of mine or anyone else's business, and I'm called out because evidently it's not good enough for some you. If you're hung up on that, it's not my problem.

I wish Donald Driver well in his marriage to his wife, but no more than I would anyone else because I really don't give a damn about his personal life; which is why I've never even brought it up until just now to make a point. Why even bring it up if it's not an issue for you?
That's what I was saying. That it doesn't matter so I don't know why you chose to call me out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem, McCall, is that too many people use the phrase "I only care about his work, not his personal life" as socially-acceptable code for "why does that dirty homosexual have to flaunt his dirty homosexual sex in my face?". As if hets like me don't "flaunt" our sexuality 24/7 with wedding rings and pictures of kids on our desks.

Not that you're intending that. At all. But that's often the subtext behind such a statement. Hard to separate that ugliness from someone who can say the same thing and mean it literally and without malice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem, McCall, is that too many people use the phrase "I only care about his work, not his personal life" as socially-acceptable code for "why does that dirty homosexual have to flaunt his dirty homosexual sex in my face?". As if hets like me don't "flaunt" our sexuality 24/7 with wedding rings and pictures of kids on our desks.

Not that you're intending that. At all. But that's often the subtext behind such a statement. Hard to separate that ugliness from someone who can say the same thing and mean it literally and without malice.

What you said is right on...I've been told, by a boss, "I don't care if someone is gay, but I don't really want to hear about it." That sounds nice (ish), but we are always hearing about how someone is straight..."my wife and I are going to Chicago next month", etc. If you are gay, then you have to give everyone the impression that you go home and sit in a room all evening. Not the best way to "fit in."

In fairness to McCall, someone else brought up the whole "now jerks are going to say 'who cares?'" thing. Ge could have let it go...it's sometimes the best way not to have a tangent. But someone else brought up a fight that did not yet exist and McCall's not the first one to call someone out for something like that. Yeah, people all over the internet will say "who cares" (in that insincere way that so many do), but why go after them before anyone has even crossed the line?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How I meant it was that I don't judge a player based on his sexuality, whether for him or against him. It holds no factor. And I choose not to judge any other person by it either. Isn't that the goal? That's how I choose to do it now, not in the future. I really don't see him being gay as a big deal. If others do, that's up to them. I like him because he was an outstanding player from my favorite school who I would love to continue cheering for in the NFL on my favorite team if possible. I know he's a good person off the field and that's good enough for me. It only has the subtext because people, like illwauk apparently, still choose to see it that way rather than making sure of the intent first, which it seemed pretty clear from my post that it was not in a negative way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How I meant it was that I don't judge a player based on his sexuality, whether for him or against him. It holds no factor. And I choose not to judge any other person by it either. Isn't that the goal? That's how I choose to do it now, not in the future. I really don't see him being gay as a big deal. If others do, that's up to them. I like him because he was an outstanding player from my favorite school who I would love to continue cheering for in the NFL on my favorite team if possible. I know he's a good person off the field and that's good enough for me. It only has the subtext because people, like illwauk apparently, still choose to see it that way rather than making sure of the intent first, which it seemed pretty clear from my post that it was not in a negative way.

It has the subtext because of things you've said here in the past regarding homosexuality. Am I to understand that your views have changed, and that you really don't have a problem with same-sex relationships?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem, McCall, is that too many people use the phrase "I only care about his work, not his personal life" as socially-acceptable code for "why does that dirty homosexual have to flaunt his dirty homosexual sex in my face?". As if hets like me don't "flaunt" our sexuality 24/7 with wedding rings and pictures of kids on our desks.

Not that you're intending that. At all. But that's often the subtext behind such a statement. Hard to separate that ugliness from someone who can say the same thing and mean it literally and without malice.

What you said is right on...I've been told, by a boss, "I don't care if someone is gay, but I don't really want to hear about it." That sounds nice (ish), but we are always hearing about how someone is straight..."my wife and I are going to Chicago next month", etc. If you are gay, then you have to give everyone the impression that you go home and sit in a room all evening. Not the best way to "fit in."

In fairness to McCall, someone else brought up the whole "now jerks are going to say 'who cares?'" thing. Ge could have let it go...it's sometimes the best way not to have a tangent. But someone else brought up a fight that did not yet exist and McCall's not the first one to call someone out for something like that. Yeah, people all over the internet will say "who cares" (in that insincere way that so many do), but why go after them before anyone has even crossed the line?

I guess my thought is, you don't have to come out, you just have to be. You post pictures of you and your partner on Facebook? Okay. You talk about your husband as a male the same way a female would? Great! The whole point of acceptance is to be treated the same way, yes? So why the need to advertise your sexual orientation like it is something different? Instead, just live your life like you are the contributing member of a society like you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.