Dungy doesn't appear to be a fan of players that would cause distractions.

[udontknowme]

Homophobia: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

"Extreme" is not part of the definition and is just a qualifier that people use to make something seem not so bad and rationalize behavior.

His stance is irrational. It's irrational to think that possible conflict over Sam's minority status in the locker room is worth avoidance of his merit-based inclusion.

It's especially irrational from Dungy's point of view because he himself was that qualified minority presence that made people uncomfortable.

Unfortunately Sam's "merit-based inclusion" is debatable based on his measurables at the combine, his tweener build, etc. This whole saga would be that much cut and dry if he was a star.

[TerpEagle]

I'm not sure I agree with either premise. I don't think Dungy is trying to come off as extreme or irrational. His statement in response to the controversy certainly doesn't give that impression.

I also don't think a religious view of homosexuality necessarily means hypocrisy. Christianity, before it gets warped by politics and agendas, is about love for humanity (like just about every other religion). Many Christians believe that they love all people - including homosexuals, which is why they hope they 'find the true path to salvation' and thus turn away from their 'misguided lifestyle.'

This is only hypocrisy if you accept that homosexuality is an inherent, natural trait that cannot be suppressed without denying the basic needs of humanity. I accept this. Most Americans by now accept this too. Many devout Christians don't.

Dungy's view isn't rooted in hate. It's rooted in a inability to accept that certain sexual differences are innate and natural.

You can call this belief extreme and irrational if you want. You can also call a belief in a mystical judge who lives in the sky and is always watching us extreme and irrational. But then you're being intolerant of religion - which many people believe is innate and natural.

I want people them to rid themselves of religion because it's a fairy tale of bullshit used to make people feel special when they're nothing more than a bag of blood, bones and guts. I want them to be free of the delusion they've accepted into their life. I want them to find real truth of existence.

Now, am I being intolerant of religion and lifestyles or am I just truly loving all people and wanting what is best for them? Or both?

[TerpEagle]

Unfortunately Sam's "merit-based inclusion" is debatable based on his measurables at the combine, his tweener build, etc. This whole saga would be that much cut and dry if he was a star.

Yet somehow, other players with debatable measureables at the combine, tweener builds and lack of SEC defensive player of the year awards have been drafted and signed as undrafted free agents this year.

Why aren't we talking about their questionable merit-based inclusion?

He was the top defensive player in the best college football conference and he was drafted and signed by an NFL team. There are millions of homosexuals and heterosexuals who have not been qualified to reach that level.

The question the merit of his inclusion is based almost entirely on the fact that he's gay.

[TerpEagle]

Unfortunately Sam's "merit-based inclusion" is debatable based on his measurables at the combine, his tweener build, etc. This whole saga would be that much cut and dry if he was a star.

Also, Dungy doesn't question his merit:

"Not because I don't believe Michael Sam should have a chance to play"

His hesitation is based entirely on the fact that he's gay and some people might be uncomfortable.

[slag]

Yes, exactly ... other players don't bring what Dungy perceives as a potential a circus with them.

[udontknowme]

Yet somehow, other players with debatable measureables at the combine, tweener builds and lack of SEC defensive player of the year awards have been drafted and signed as undrafted free agents this year.

Why aren't we talking about their questionable merit-based inclusion?

He was the top defensive player in the best college football conference and he was drafted and signed by an NFL team. There are millions of homosexuals and heterosexuals who have not been qualified to reach that level.

The question the merit of his inclusion is based almost entirely on the fact that he's gay.

We aren't talking about their merit based conclusion because we don't know their names, they aren't the first openly gay rookie in any of the major four sports, and they can be cut without anyone noticing. Nobody care because they aren't a first.

I would think the Co-SEC Defensive POY would've been drafted higher, but his combine numbers were very much borderline NFL player numbers. They were just bad.

[TerpEagle]

Yes, exactly ... other players don't bring what Dungy perceives as a potential a circus with them.

Just like people didn't want the circus of bringing black players and coaches into the fold knowing they merit inclusion but were too cowardly or bigoted to do so.

[Eagle In Ohio]

With all due respect

Unfortunately Sam's "merit-based inclusion" is debatable based on his measurables at the combine, his tweener build, etc. This whole saga would be that much cut and dry if he was a star.

I can't suscribe to the theory that a bad pro day / combine drops the reigning SEC defensive player of the year so far down draft boards, that he lasts until four picks before the entire draft is over, especially when his teammate, Kony Ealy, is taken in the second.

[TerpEagle]

We aren't talking about their merit based conclusion because we don't know their names, they aren't the first openly gay rookie in any of the major four sports, and they can be cut without anyone noticing. Nobody care because they aren't a first.

I would think the Co-SEC Defensive POY would've been drafted higher, but his combine numbers were very much borderline NFL player numbers. They were just bad.

And he was a 7th round pick. Sounds like it's where he belonged based on merit.

[PackWest]

I'm not sure I agree with either premise. I don't think Dungy is trying to come off as extreme or irrational. His statement in response to the controversy certainly doesn't give that impression.

Dungy's view isn't rooted in hate. It's rooted in a inability to accept that certain sexual differences are innate and natural.

Fair enough- I think my view is that he has to espouse certain viewpoints publicly based on the groups he represents. They need him to toe the line and he is. Had he gone the other way, there would still be a controversy, but it would come from his church/groups/charities/christians instead of heathens on a football board.

How Tony himself feels is another matter and I don't know if we'll ever know the truth on that one. What I was trying to suggest is that he needs to keep up appearances for the people who do have irrational and extreme views and are members of groups he represents.

If you're the mascot for Dunkin Donuts, you gotta eat a few crullers

[slag]

Jackie May, huh?

[Dan Drives a Van]

I want people them to rid themselves of religion because it's a fairy tale of bullshit used to make people feel special when they're nothing more than a bag of blood, bones and guts. I want them to be free of the delusion they've accepted into their life. I want them to find real truth of existence.

Now, am I being intolerant of religion and lifestyles or am I just truly loving all people and wanting what is best for them? Or both?

I think that's kind of the essential question, and the answer to that really is purely a matter of perspective.

I think that in this day and age, religion does more harm than good worldwide. I think that homosexuality is innate and natural and that worldwide acceptance of it would bring only positives. A lot of people would disagree with those statements. Some of them are genuinely good and intelligent people who just have a vastly different perspective. However, if I dismiss their beliefs with terms such as 'homophobia' or 'ignorance,' I reduce the complexity of their beliefs to a simplified and singularly negative label.

In general, progress tends to happen when those with opposing viewpoints seek to understand each other, rather than dismiss each other.

Sorry to get on the soapbox. I feel like we're actually on the same side of this issue, but just differ in how to have the conversation.

[TerpEagle]

I think that's kind of the essential question, and the answer to that really is purely a matter of perspective.

I think that in this day and age, religion does more harm than good worldwide. I think that homosexuality is innate and natural and that worldwide acceptance of it would bring only positives. A lot of people would disagree with those statements. Some of them are genuinely good and intelligent people who just have a vastly different perspective. However, if I dismiss their beliefs with terms such as 'homophobia' or 'ignorance,' I reduce the complexity of their beliefs to a simplified and singularly negative label.

In general, progress tends to happen when those with opposing viewpoints seek to understand each other, rather than dismiss each other.

Sorry to get on the soapbox. I feel like we're actually on the same side of this issue, but just differ in how to have the conversation.

My point is that, just because someone may think that they're showing someone else "love" - it doesn't' mean they are and/or that the recipient should accept it and put up with possible degradation, discrimination, abuse, etc. - because it's done out of "love". I'm not saying that you're making that point, but the argument that someone's religion dictates bad behavior does tend to make that point as a justification.

People are more than entitled to their beliefs, but that doesn't mean others need to accept all beliefs as being equal. Certain people/groups hold beliefs that by definition treat certain people differently for reasons outside of merit, character or actions.

A person who believes in inequality should be treated as an equal with respect to being allowed to hold those beliefs, but it doesn't necessarily mean that their beliefs should be treated with equality.

Edit to add. That's probably a really convoluted set of sentences.

[3rd & Inches]

But it swings both ways

I can't suscribe to the theory that a bad pro day / combine drops the reigning SEC defensive player of the year so far down draft boards, that he lasts until four picks before the entire draft is over, especially when his teammate, Kony Ealy, is taken in the second.

A player can be average or below average, have a blazing 40 time and be a first round pick of the Raiders. Combines/pro days always trump a college career. Its not right, but it happens most of the time.

[Drama Queen]

I already debunked this bad guy Dungy stuff.

Also, Dungy doesn't question his merit:

"Not because I don't believe Michael Sam should have a chance to play"

His hesitation is based entirely on the fact that he's gay and some people might be uncomfortable.

Now you are arguing just to argue.