The Inside Story of How the NFL's Plan for Its 1st Openly Gay Player Fell Apart

[woodbuck27]

Why did they "need" to come out? Can't they just be gay without being an activist about it or telling a world that shouldn't, and for the most part doesn't, care anymore? Who are the people asking these questions? Usually they aren't people trying to intimidate or mock. The people desperately trying to "out" queers are the same who are incessantly pushing the gay agenda that's given this nation fag fatigue.

As others have already mentioned, the fans, the players, and the front offices don't want to hear about it. They want to watch, play, and manage football without having another sociopolitical issue forced on them turning the league into another terrible, soul-destroying season of Glee. People are tired of being told that if you don't actively support every aspect of the gay agenda, from marriage to equality in sports, to floats in parades and naked assholes dancing in the streets reinforcing all the negative stereotypes about them, to fake hate crimes meant to raise "social awareness," you're homophobic or otherwise hate the gays.

So until we start demanding that every player with something minorital about him reveal himself, maybe people should stop demanding that the fags do the same and just leave them the fuck alone to make their own decisions.

Yes I agree but believe that's another kettle of fish issue.

[Pugger]

What needed to happen is that several gay players, as they retired, needed to come out. After that happens a few times, people will start giving that "so what" response and then when someone does come out before he's ready to retire, folks will say that the NFL has had gay players for years. "So what?"

What is truly sad is the fact that anyone has to 'come out' at all. Frankly, if it doesn't affect his performance on the gridiron it is nobody's damn business what they do in the privacy of their own home. I have several friends and acquaintances who are gay (both men and women). I don't understand the attraction but other than that I have no problem with any of them.

[pbmax]

Why did they "need" to come out? Can't they just be gay without being an activist about it or telling a world that shouldn't, and for the most part doesn't, care anymore?

Because it still carries a stigma whether people want to hear about it or not. The fact that some posters on this board say its fine and we don't need to hear anymore is not proof positive that acceptance has been achieved.

Patler just mentioned that the Hockey Associations are working toward making on out hockey player possible, if nothing else need be done, exactly what are they doing? There are folks inside and outside the NFL trying to make this possible, exactly what barriers are they working to take down if there are none?

I am pretty sure there is a cornerback for the 49ers (or was, the comment was last year) who recently informed us he wasn't down with the gays. He was asked about having a gay teammate. Now its possible he simply doesn't agree with the fashion trends, but its also possible he is really not happy about having a gay teammate. If its one guy, then there isn't much of a problem. But since no one wants to talk about it, how much support is there for his position on his team and in that org?

Could be very little, could be a lot. Hard to know if no one talks about it. These conversations need to happen.

If one athlete does come out, these conversations then have to happen. Teams will have meetings, reporters will have leverage to get statements from teams. Up to that point, it possible to imagine all is well for ANY position.

Is it ideal? Not really, because it will get confused with celebrity culture and coverage. Conclusions will be drawn about the whole from one part. But it still beats silence.

I think most gay players (most gay people probably) agree with you, that they would prefer just to be. But from the perspective of a gay player, I don't think that means all is well.

[mraynrand]

Because it still carries a stigma whether people want to hear about it or not. The fact that some posters on this board say its fine and we don't need to hear anymore is not proof positive that acceptance has been achieved.

That's the issue: can and will acceptance be achieved. I don't think so - not any time soon. That's the rub, so to speak. The gay activists don't want tolerance, they want acceptance and celebration. People who think gay behavior is a sin, I think, mostly are OK with tolerance, but don't want to be forced into acceptance. It used to be far worse for gays, in that they'd get beat up and shunned if discovered. The acceptance crowd is fighting today's battle through that lens, and is using that history, and the great push through the social institutions to gain total accommodation. Given the success they've had, I see no reason for them not to keep pushing. The goal is to turn those who think gay behavior is sinful into the pariahs that gays used to be. And the NFL would be a grand victory considering how anti-gay it's been, or at least is perceived to be.

[woodbuck27]

That's the issue: can and will acceptance be achieved. I don't think so - not any time soon. That's the rub, so to speak. The gay activists don't want tolerance, they want acceptance and celebration. People who think gay behavior is a sin, I think, mostly are OK with tolerance, but don't want to be forced into acceptance. It used to be far worse for gays, in that they'd get beat up and shunned if discovered. The acceptance crowd is fighting today's battle through that lens, and is using that history, and the great push through the social institutions to gain total accommodation. Given the success they've had, I see no reason for them not to keep pushing. The goal is to turn those who think gay behavior is sinful into the pariahs that gays used to be. And the NFL would be a grand victory considering how anti-gay it's been, or at least is perceived to be.

So much goes away if NFL teams simply employ a man/ woman irregardless of his/her sexuality.

It's just too simple that way.

[SkinBasket]

Because it still carries a stigma whether people want to hear about it or not. The fact that some posters on this board say its fine and we don't need to hear anymore is not proof positive that acceptance has been achieved.

So we should use sports to experiment with social engineering? Correction: we should pressure gay athletes to divulge their sexual behavior to the world to force a conversation about the place said sexual behavior has in sports - which just about everyone can agree on is "none?" Like gay "marriage" activists, you believe a public spectacle would invoke sympathy for people who want to be treated unspectacularly. Forced acknowledgement of what makes them different while demanding that same difference not be reason for attention.

Why don't we pressure gay teachers, policemen, soldiers, or to come out? Or straight interior designers? Why not pressure conservative actors to come out? After all, if these conversations involving intolerance "need" to happen, why focus solely on gay athletes? Are they, or the apathetic intolerance involved, more important than any other? Or is it simply "important" because it's another goal of an sociopolitical agenda that enjoys the support of a majority of the American media?

If the goal is for a man's sexuality to have no place in sports, then why focus on a man's sexuality in sports? What possible benefit is there from this conversation specifically that hasn't already been discussed and beaten to death and back in a broader setting? Who's mind is going to change, honestly, that hasn't already in a society that has been quite literally drenched past saturation with pro-homosexual messaging?

[pbmax]

That's the issue: can and will acceptance be achieved. I don't think so - not any time soon. That's the rub, so to speak. The gay activists don't want tolerance, they want acceptance and celebration. People who think gay behavior is a sin, I think, mostly are OK with tolerance, but don't want to be forced into acceptance. It used to be far worse for gays, in that they'd get beat up and shunned if discovered. The acceptance crowd is fighting today's battle through that lens, and is using that history, and the great push through the social institutions to gain total accommodation. Given the success they've had, I see no reason for them not to keep pushing. The goal is to turn those who think gay behavior is sinful into the pariahs that gays used to be. And the NFL would be a grand victory considering how anti-gay it's been, or at least is perceived to be.

We are not far removed from violence even if today it is far more singular.

I understand objections to acceptance based on sin, but Godly folk work with sinners all the time in peace. This is not quite there yet, but I do agree, no matter the public optics, it will take more time.

[mraynrand]

Skin, the NFL is the Silver Tuna of gay activism. Acceptance there will go a long, long way towards turning the tide and making tolerant, unaccepting people the pariahs. Society isn't there yet, based on the Duck Dynasty fiasco, but that will not stop the activists - they truly believe they are fighting a civil rights battle every bit as legitimate as racial and women's civil rights.

[SkinBasket]

So much goes away if NFL teams simply employ a man/ woman irregardless of his/her sexuality.

Maybe someone should pass a law that makes employment discrimination based on sexual orientation illegal.

Or would it be too simple that way?

[mraynrand]

We are not far removed from violence even if today it is far more singular.

I understand objections to acceptance based on sin, but Godly folk work with sinners all the time in peace.

Again, this is the issue - Godly people work with sinners in peace* because Godly people know we are all under the same indictment - we are all sinners. That's why the gay activists are pushing so hard - they DO NOT believe that gay behavior is sinful. That's why for them tolerance is not enough and will never be enough, even without any violence or any slurs.


*Note - this isn't really true either - Godly people tolerate sin, but not always peacefully

[pbmax]

So we should use sports to experiment with social engineering? Correction: we should pressure gay athletes to divulge their sexual behavior to the world to force a conversation about the place said sexual behavior has in sports - which just about everyone can agree on is "none?" Like gay "marriage" activists, you believe a public spectacle would invoke sympathy for people who want to be treated unspectacularly. Forced acknowledgement of what makes them different while demanding that same difference not be reason for attention.

Divulge sexual behavior? That is a strange way to look at it. Do you think of Jordy Nelson having sexual relations with his wife every time one of those ads for Wisconsin Tourism runs on TV?

If peoples opinions on sexual orientation were simply subjected to entropy, then naturally the system would return to a well dispersed state of people caring about what they want to care about. But as long as there are clinics taking money to pray away the gay, then I think there is energy in the system looking to organize the parts.

And if that is the case, then waiting for entropy to return is going to be a long time coming. There needs to be energy spent in resistance to return to balance.

[SkinBasket]

Skin, the NFL is the Silver Tuna of gay activism. Acceptance there will go a long, long way towards turning the tide and making intolerant people the pariahs. Society isn't there yet, based on the Duck Dynasty fiasco, but that will not stop the activists - they truly believe they are fighting a civil rights battle every bit as legitimate as racial and women's civil rights.

You mean intolerant people and tolerant people who refuse to actively celebrate other's sexual behavior.

I agree with you, that when you go through the motions of this debate, it boils down to an agenda driven campaign against a certain segment of the population rather than the noble pursuit or equality, love, and tolerance for a certain segment of the population. Otherwise a gay NFL player has no more value than a gay fishmonger.

[woodbuck27]

Skin, the NFL is the Silver Tuna of gay activism. Acceptance there will go a long, long way towards turning the tide and making intolerant people the pariahs. Society isn't there yet, based on the Duck Dynasty fiasco, but that will not stop the activists - they truly believe they are fighting a civil rights battle every bit as legitimate as racial and women's civil rights.

Based on a POLL I observed that basically deems that Aaron Rodgers is a lier (as a possible translation) and 'in TRUTH' Gay; that inspite of his TRUTH, that he's "not gay and really really likes women". That's such nonsense. Aaron Rodgers says he's not Gay or whatever has no bearing on any TRUTH.

That 50% of a certain population of POLL respondents deem that Aaron Rodgers is GAY as a contradiction of his statement is alarming to me. Thus I deem it invalid/absurd.

Where to go then:

It comes down to every effort towords making a person's sexual choice a passé...non issue. Too large a proportion of society are simply ignorant in terms of focusing on this as an issue worthy of any real discussion.

People have every right to believe whatever that will as long as no segment of society is denied it's basic rights.

[mraynrand]

You mean intolerant people and tolerant people who refuse to actively celebrate other's sexual behavior.

I agree with you, that when you go through the motions of this debate, it boils down to an agenda driven campaign against a certain segment of the population rather than the noble pursuit or equality, love, and tolerance for a certain segment of the population. Otherwise a gay NFL player has no more value than a gay fishmonger.

I edited my post to tolerant, un-accepting. But in response to your post, it's BOTH - the activists are against those who think gay behavior is wrong, regardless of tolerance and of course, they are also for the gay person. If millions watched the gay fishmonger on Sundays, and the fishmonger's co-workers were generally unaccepting of his fishmonger gayness, they would target the National Fishmonger League.

[mraynrand]

I feel you bang on there.

excuse me?

[pbmax]

Again, this is the issue - Godly people work with sinners in peace* because Godly people know we are all under the same indictment - we are all sinners. That's why the gay activists are pushing so hard - they DO NOT believe that gay behavior is sinful. That's why for them tolerance is not enough and will never be enough, even without any violence or any slurs.


*Note - this isn't really true either - Godly people tolerate sin, but not always peacefully

Not always true, but very frequently true in homogenous groups. I should distinguish between peaceful, meaning that the two groups can work side by side and not suffer recriminations or poor productivity, as opposed to happily, as you say some Godly folk will not be swayed that the orientation is anything but sin.

I don't think activists are looking to drive away the idea that the behavior is sinful (some may indeed want this to be the case) but they do not want that idea enshrined in law. I am sure there are those willing to fight on that ground, but I do not think that is the main thrust.

[SkinBasket]

Divulge sexual behavior? That is a strange way to look at it.

Have you seen a gay pride parade before? They don't exactly promote the emotional aspects of homosexuality. Additionally, that is what we're talking about - sexual behavior. Men can, and often do, feel and express love for each other without physical attraction or action.

But as long as there are clinics taking money to pray away the gay, then I think there is energy in the system looking to organize the parts.

And if that is the case, then waiting for entropy to return is going to be a long time coming. There needs to be energy spent in resistance to return to balance.

If you believe there is more time, effort, and money being spent trying to cure homos than is spent promoting homosexuality, you haven't turned on a television in the last 20 years.

[SkinBasket]

main thrust.

.

[woodbuck27]

Maybe someone should pass a law that makes employment discrimination based on sexual orientation illegal.

Or would it be too simple that way?

Then you would enter into a very difficult arena.

You'd be challenging POWER.

[woodbuck27]

excuse me?

I removed that sentence out of respect for the discussion.