Defensive end out of Missouri looks draftable btw he is gay.

[Eaglehawk]

Sorry I gotta ask. Why on earth would someone think twice about making lurid comments about women because a gay guy is in earshot? I have to hear the logic behind that statement.

Here ya go. Most of these cases are not on point, but shows you what I had in mind when I made the statement. Lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals may also experience sex discrimination, including sexual harassment or other kinds of sex discrimination. See, e.g., Brooker v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 0520110680 (May 20, 2013) (an ongoing pattern of comments and rumors referring to a complainant as being gay can be severe or pervasive enough to rise to the level of sexual harassment). Sex discrimination includes adverse actions taken because of a person's failure to conform to sex-stereotypes. See, e.g., Rosa v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120091318, 2009 WL 2513955 (E.E.O.C.) (August 3, 2009) (harassment against a male employee including repeated innuendos about his sexuality and verbal mocking using "very feminine voices" can constitute discrimination based on sex); Veretto v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120110873, 2011 WL 2663401 (E.E.O.C.) (July 1, 2011) (discrimination based on sex-stereotype that men should only marry women can constitute discrimination based on sex); [b]Castello v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 0520110649 (December 20, 2011); Baker v. Social Security Administration, EEOC Appeal No. 0120110008, 2013 WL 1182258 (E.E.O.C.) (Jan. 11, 2013) (Complainant's allegation of sexual orientation discrimination was a claim of sex discrimination because it was based on his gender non-conforming behavior, and the fact that a Complainant characterized the basis of discrimination as sexual orientation does not defeat an otherwise valid sex discrimination claim); Culp v. Dep't of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 0720130012, 2013 WL 2146756 (E.E.O.C.) (May 7, 2013) (allegation of sexual orientation discrimination was a claim of sex discrimination because supervisor was motivated by his attitudes about sex stereotypes that women should only have relationships with men).

Slippery slope. I would advise all Seahawks to cease such conversation in front of a gay person in that scenario. Just my personal non legal opinion. You have no idea how much people have twisted the sexual discrimination laws at work these days. So normally I would not mind making lurid comments about women in a locker room of my teammates. But would you make those comments in front of a female? Hell no! Or in front of a gay person? Up in the air. That is a game time decision Kalibane.

I know more than a couple of guys that were almost black balled by two persons who made false accusations about them. One person who lied about sexual discrimination was a gay guy. And the other person who lied was female.

Think about the others who lied about this stuff and got decent hard working people fired from their jobs! Maybe that's why they would think twice.

[Eaglehawk]

If you believe as I do that homosexuality is a natural state (meaning: they didn't choose to be that way- it's in their wiring), it's perfectly natural to assume that something like the shower situation could make some uncomfortable.

Whether they have a partner or not, or generally prefer (an)other race(s), doesn't affect the sexual attraction generally. To assume it does is to assume their sexuality is different than that of a hetero.

Not being comfortable with an acknowledged homosexual in the locker room watching you shower is no more 'phobic' than a woman being uncomfortable with a hetero man doing so.

Of course not everybody cares (I wouldn't), but if they do, give them a break.

BURR +1

[NorthHawk]

Bottom line is if he can help a team win, he will make it in the NFL regardless of his sexual orientation.
If he proves to be a star player, he will be accepted even quicker.
Some will be unsure how to act around him at first, but after a while they will know the boundaries if any, and be able to work effectively with him.
It's just an adjustment.

[kalibane]

All due respect man I think you are way over thinking this thing. It almost seems like you are saying being a gay man is like an honorary woman.

Now I suppose in an extreme hypothetical you could attempt to manufacture a case based on a hostile work environment because the objectification of women is just soooooo offensive to your sensibilities as a human being. However, bringing a frivolous suit like that would in no way be more likely to come from a gay person. It would just be based on that person being extremely litigious which has no correlation to sexual orientation.

Gay men are not women. Those types of comments would have nothing to do with them and would not be considered directly offensive. In fact, gay guys are still esentially "guys". There is no logical reason to fear a gay player leveling a sexual harrassment lawsuit against the NFL or an NFL team because the other guys in the lockerroom were talking about T & A.

[Eaglehawk]

All due respect man I think you are way over thinking this thing. It almost seems like you are saying being a gay man is like an honorary woman.

Now I suppose in an extreme hypothetical you could attempt to manufacture a case based on a hostile work environment because the objectification of women is just soooooo offensive to your sensibilities as a human being. However, bringing a frivolous suit like that would in no way be more likely to come from a gay person. It would just be based on that person being extremely litigious which has no correlation to sexual orientation.

Gay men are not women. Those types of comments would have nothing to do with them and would not be considered directly offensive. In fact, gay guys are still esentially "guys". There is no logical reason to fear a gay player leveling a sexual harrassment lawsuit against the NFL or an NFL team because the other guys in the lockerroom were talking about T & A.

Not saying that being a gay man equates to being a women. You perhaps are not familiar enough with their community to understand the complexities involved in my analysis. They are much like everyone else, except their sexual orientation. You don't feel it's logical for straight men to be concerned about making those types of comments then so be it.
You have not seen or read what I have seen. Life Kalibane, with all due respect is not logical. Its very very illogical at times. Not every gay guy is the same. Some are more effeminate than others. Some more masculine, others more sensitive, others no different than any other player. If you can't see that, then you have fallen through the trap door and the wind is whistling in your ears at this point. Enjoy the trip! Agree to disagree on this one bro.

[kalibane]

I think you projecting my "lack" of experience based on the fact that I disagree with you. I think you would be surprised. I've had plenty of interaction with gay men and women because I just don't care who is gay or straight. I'm the type of guy who feels perfectly comfortable in a gay bar as long as they have good taps or a healthy bourbon collection. From my experience the picture your painting fits with stereotype more than reality. Your average gay guy is the same as your average guy, only he likes men over women. Your average gay guy objectifies male celebrities in the way you described straight guys objectifying female celebrities.

You shouldn't feel any more uncomfortable objectifying a woman in front of a gay guy with an unknown position sexualization of other people than you would a straight guy you don't know. And if you know for a fact they take exception to that sort of thing you shouldn't feel anymore hesitant than you would to say something around a bible thumping Christian like Jon Kitna. And those guys have been in locker rooms since the NFL began, without issue.

None of what you're saying matches up. Saying that "life isn't logical" is a drastic oversimplification. People do not do things logical or illogical without motivation. Merely being gay does not create a motivation to be more offended by the sexualization of humans. They listen to all the same music and watch all the same movies that we do. They aren't more politically correct than us. They are just normal people.

More specifically this guy Sams has been in locker rooms his entire life. You think he's going to get to the NFL and all of a sudden be offended by coarse language? No effing way.

There will be issues that may create struggles adjusting for some people in the lockerroom, there is no denying that. Some people just believe it's flat out wrong. Some people will get weary of answering questions about another person. Fear of some sort of sexual harrassment suit because of comments made in their presence about women is absolutely not one of those issues.

[NorthHawk]

I think you projecting my "lack" of experience based on the fact that I disagree with you. I think you would be surprised. I've had plenty of interaction with gay men and women because I just don't care who is gay or straight. I'm the type of guy who feels perfectly comfortable in a gay bar as long as they have good taps or a healthy bourbon collection. From my experience the picture your painting fits with stereotype more than reality. Your average gay guy is the same as your average guy, only he likes men over women. Your average gay guy objectifies male celebrities in the way you described straight guys objectifying female celebrities.

You shouldn't feel any more uncomfortable objectifying a woman in front of a gay guy with an unknown position sexualization of other people than you would a straight guy you don't know. And if you know for a fact they take exception to that sort of thing you shouldn't feel anymore hesitant than you would to say something around a bible thumping Christian like Jon Kitna. And those guys have been in locker rooms since the NFL began, without issue.

None of what you're saying matches up. Saying that "life isn't logical" is a drastic oversimplification. People do not do things logical or illogical without motivation. Merely being gay does not create a motivation to be more offended by the sexualization of humans. They listen to all the same music and watch all the same movies that we do. They aren't more politically correct than us. They are just normal people.

More specifically this guy Sams has been in locker rooms his entire life. You think he's going to get to the NFL and all of a sudden be offended by coarse language? No effing way.

There will be issues that may create struggles adjusting for some people in the lockerroom, there is no denying that. Some people just believe it's flat out wrong. Some people will get weary of answering questions about another person. Fear of some sort of sexual harrassment suit because of comments made in their presence about women is absolutely not one of those issues.

Pretty much sums up my thoughts, too.
It's just going to take a bit of an adjustment for everyone to feel comfortable in the NFL. Some never will, but I believe most won't care once the regular season games begin and he contributes.
Actually it might help a team "Gel" in that his own team mates might start sticking up for him if he's verbally abused by the opposition - more of a we're all in this together attitude.

[Eaglehawk]

I think you projecting my "lack" of experience based on the fact that I disagree with you. I think you would be surprised. I've had plenty of interaction with gay men and women because I just don't care who is gay or straight. I'm the type of guy who feels perfectly comfortable in a gay bar as long as they have good taps or a healthy bourbon collection. From my experience the picture your painting fits with stereotype more than reality. Your average gay guy is the same as your average guy, only he likes men over women. Your average gay guy objectifies male celebrities in the way you described straight guys objectifying female celebrities.

You shouldn't feel any more uncomfortable objectifying a woman in front of a gay guy with an unknown position sexualization of other people than you would a straight guy you don't know. And if you know for a fact they take exception to that sort of thing you shouldn't feel anymore hesitant than you would to say something around a bible thumping Christian like Jon Kitna. And those guys have been in locker rooms since the NFL began, without issue.

None of what you're saying matches up. Saying that "life isn't logical" is a drastic oversimplification. People do not do things logical or illogical without motivation. Merely being gay does not create a motivation to be more offended by the sexualization of humans. They listen to all the same music and watch all the same movies that we do. They aren't more politically correct than us. They are just normal people.

More specifically this guy Sams has been in locker rooms his entire life. You think he's going to get to the NFL and all of a sudden be offended by coarse language? No effing way.

There will be issues that may create struggles adjusting for some people in the lockerroom, there is no denying that. Some people just believe it's flat out wrong. Some people will get weary of answering questions about another person. Fear of some sort of sexual harrassment suit because of comments made in their presence about women is absolutely not one of those issues.

You are taking one point that I mentioned and you have twisted it.
Your characterization of my points are incorrect. We actually agree with each other until you get to the conclusion of your argument. The players absolutely would think twice about making statements, and yes, if their HR has primed them up, they would think about people making discrimination complaints against them.
The points that I have made are quite simple.
So we are saying ALMOST the same thing. Except that your conclusion does not agree with your previous statements. Your argument Kalibane is a tautological mess.
Merely being gay does not create a motivation to be offended by the sexualization of humans? Again, I question your experience only on the basis of the over simplification of your argument.

I'd give your argument a B. I NEVER said he would be automatically offended. Please re read what I said. I indicated that if someone gay were to come to the NFL his personality in fact should be one that does NOT, get offended in a locker room.

Again you conveniently twist my neutral statement to a statement that fits your wrong premise about what I said. Its an excellent tactic, but insincere.

Look at the ENTIRETY of what I said. Then, your arguments would certainly be more cogent, and accurate.
We don't know what personality this guy has, at least I don't. You appear to assume that this guy will not be a sensitive type. Perhaps. But I don't know that. And you don't know that.

Except that I feel that players will think twice before making some comments in front of a gay guy, because of in part the possibility of getting slapped with a complaint of discrimination.
Fear of sexual harassment suits is absolutely one of those issues that people consider, even if you appear not to. This is why people make adjustments in their work lives and in their discussions with others. People have been fired for saying all kinds of things in front of people. Whether fair or not. And yes fear of comments in all of these circumstances are things people consider. You think this issue is not a consideration?
Again on this narrow issue, I disagree with you. In fact I think you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Which is nice, if we had more time, we could go on all day. Unfortunately I don't have the time to keep responding to you. We agree to disagree, if you want to keep arguing, that's fine Kalibane, argue with yourself Kalibane. Kalibane versus Kalibane. I am sure someone on this board will grade your paper and maybe give you a higher grade.

[kalibane]

I'm not twisting your argument at all sir. This issue is too serious for me to worry about framing an argument to make you look bad on an Internet forum. That doesn't interest me in the slightest. Maybe you didn't communicate it well enough but I am not twisting it. You gave specific examples of comments about women that you think would present a problem in the locker room because all of a sudden a gay man is there. It didn't make sense to me so I straight up asked you to explain it.

The explanation you gave was still lacking. It's a complex situation and maybe you are having trouble putting together what it is exactly what it is you're meaning to say (I know there are things I started to say but decided to leave out because I felt it would just make things more confusing), but what you HAVE said just doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of sense and that's all I have to reply to. I don't say this to be insulting. I just don't get what you're driving at and the issue you raised about locker room talk about women just doesn't work.

When I look at Sam I'm going to assume he is of average sensitivity until he proves otherwise, like I would any other college football player. Sure he COULD be super sensitive but there is no reason to assume he would be because he is gay. You are the one that seems to be assuming some level of sensitivty based on his sexual orientation and creating a special set of rules to deal with him.

I'm saying he's a normal person, and he should be treated as you would any other person period. As you get to know him then you alter your approach to him as you would any other person after you get to know them.

The main gist of your position is fine. I took issue with what I took issue with because you seem to believe that gay people require some kind of special treatment. They don't, and they don't want it. They just don't want to be disciminated against. No one does.

[Eaglehawk]

Kalibane:
I already told you. I am sorry to say this, and I mean this with the utmost respect, but I could give a rats ass about what you write on this topic. Kalibane v. Kalibane.
Keep talking to yourself bro. Reminds me of my father actually. Just kept talking and talking and talking. Making no sense whatsoever. But trying his best. Pathetic. But I still loved the old guy.

[kalibane]

And there it is. Should have known better than trying to have an honest discussion about a serious issue on the internet. Sooner or later someone has to turn it personal instead of sticking to the topic at hand. I guess the honeymoon period of this new forum had to end sooner or later.

[Hawktawk]

I think its oversimplification to say any man, woman, person of different sexual orientation,ethnic group etc is this way or that way. There are way too many complexities of the human condition, differing personalities, mood disorders and so on and so forth. It is not useful to generalize. One need look no further than the Incognito/Martin/ Pouncey etc debacle.Most peolple in the locker room were perfectly comfortable but some were not including Martin who became completely unhinged.
Bottom line nobody has any idea what will happen if and when Sam is on a roster.

[RiverDog]

I think its oversimplification to say any man, woman, person of different sexual orientation,ethnic group etc is this way or that way. There are way too many complexities of the human condition, differing personalities, mood disorders and so on and so forth. It is not useful to generalize. One need look no further than the Incognito/Martin/ Pouncey etc debacle.Most peolple in the locker room were perfectly comfortable but some were not including Martin who became completely unhinged. Bottom line nobody has any idea what will happen if and when Sam is on a roster.

I'm not sure if everyone in that locker room was exposed to the same degree of harrassment that Martin was exposed to. The impression I got was that they weren't.

Nevertheless, what other people think is insulting is irrelevant. If you tell an ethnic or racial joke, it doesn't matter if 9 out of 10 were not insulted by it. All it takes is one person to feel insulted and it qualifies as harrassment.

[Eaglehawk]

I think its oversimplification to say any man, woman, person of different sexual orientation,ethnic group etc is this way or that way. There are way too many complexities of the human condition, differing personalities, mood disorders and so on and so forth. It is not useful to generalize. One need look no further than the Incognito/Martin/ Pouncey etc debacle.Most peolple in the locker room were perfectly comfortable but some were not including Martin who became completely unhinged. Bottom line nobody has any idea what will happen if and when Sam is on a roster.

I'm not sure if everyone in that locker room was exposed to the same degree of harrassment that Martin was exposed to. The impression I got was that they weren't.

Nevertheless, what other people think is insulting is irrelevant. If you tell an ethnic or racial joke, it doesn't matter if 9 out of 10 were not insulted by it. All it takes is one person to feel insulted and it qualifies as harrassment.

Exactly my point Riv. You better believe that the tone of any particular locker room might change if the dude shows up. Just because of the POTENTIAL of harrassment claims. I know if it were me as a player, I'd hold off on the off color remarks until I knew the guy better, I know my teammates and they might have no problem with what I say, but the new guy? Maybe it will get more quiet, or maybe the dude will fit right in, like Hawktawk said, we have no idea which type of guy Sam will turn out to be, and what will happen to cohesion.

I kinda hope he doesn't show up here to be honest(unknown x factor), but that is PC and JS's decision.

[RiverDog]

I think its oversimplification to say any man, woman, person of different sexual orientation,ethnic group etc is this way or that way. There are way too many complexities of the human condition, differing personalities, mood disorders and so on and so forth. It is not useful to generalize. One need look no further than the Incognito/Martin/ Pouncey etc debacle.Most peolple in the locker room were perfectly comfortable but some were not including Martin who became completely unhinged. Bottom line nobody has any idea what will happen if and when Sam is on a roster.

I'm not sure if everyone in that locker room was exposed to the same degree of harrassment that Martin was exposed to. The impression I got was that they weren't.

Nevertheless, what other people think is insulting is irrelevant. If you tell an ethnic or racial joke, it doesn't matter if 9 out of 10 were not insulted by it. All it takes is one person to feel insulted and it qualifies as harrassment.

Exactly my point Riv. You better believe that the tone of any particular locker room might change if the dude shows up. Just because of the POTENTIAL of harrassment claims. I know if it were me as a player, I'd hold off on the off color remarks until I knew the guy better, I know my teammates and they might have no problem with what I say, but the new guy? Maybe it will get more quiet, or maybe the dude will fit right in, like Hawktawk said, we have no idea which type of guy Sam will turn out to be, and what will happen to cohesion.

I think that happens to one degree or another no matter what a person's sexual orientation, age, race, national origin, et al. Everyone or every group treats a newcomer with some degree of uncertainty until they get to know them. Once you know what the 'bounds' are, you adjust your behavior to the lowest common denominator. You don't force the newcomer to conform if the environment is the in workplace, and that's what a locker room is.

I kinda hope he doesn't show up here to be honest(unknown x factor), but that is PC and JS's decision.

[Eaglehawk]

I'm not sure if everyone in that locker room was exposed to the same degree of harrassment that Martin was exposed to. The impression I got was that they weren't.

Nevertheless, what other people think is insulting is irrelevant. If you tell an ethnic or racial joke, it doesn't matter if 9 out of 10 were not insulted by it. All it takes is one person to feel insulted and it qualifies as harrassment.

Exactly my point Riv. You better believe that the tone of any particular locker room might change if the dude shows up. Just because of the POTENTIAL of harrassment claims. I know if it were me as a player, I'd hold off on the off color remarks until I knew the guy better, I know my teammates and they might have no problem with what I say, but the new guy? Maybe it will get more quiet, or maybe the dude will fit right in, like Hawktawk said, we have no idea which type of guy Sam will turn out to be, and what will happen to cohesion.

I think that happens to one degree or another no matter what a person's sexual orientation, age, race, national origin, et al. Everyone or every group treats a newcomer with some degree of uncertainty until they get to know them. Once you know what the 'bounds' are, you adjust your behavior to the lowest common denominator. You don't force the newcomer to conform if the environment is the in workplace, and that's what a locker room is.

Yeah, a shame but Riv, I feel you are right. The the operating phrase about what you mentioned here is one degree or another. I know for myself, I might be careful, with a situation where I have a new guy(whatever his status) in the warehouse. (Until I get to know the new guy and he is cool). If I know the guy is gay, now I am thinking two degrees instead of one(to keep with your scenario). The dumb ones don't think before they speak spout off BS as if they have known the guys for 3 years are the ones that are walking the line. (If I had not read the over 1000 cases in this field, and read how stupid people AND management can actually be in these situations, I guess I would not be as sensitive, but because I have, to me every "degree of care" should be considered).

Sorta like the mob Riv, once you are a "made" member then you can trust the other guy and say anything you want cause you trust him. New guys should not automatically receive that trust. For me at least its a gradual thing.
Now note for the record I am not being PC here, just keeping it real because we all live in the real world, and we all are imperfect and have our biases.

[Futureite]

The interesting part of this to me is the contingent that claims Sam is throwing this in everyone's face, or promoting his sexuality. I haven't really followed this, but as far as I know he made the announcement and hasn't said a whole lot about it since. He doesn't seem to be pontificating or using the NFL as a platform to campaign for gay rights; he simply did not want to hide his entire NFL career. I find it admirable.

Some people the question, "why announce this? I don't need or want to know". IMO if that's the case, if you do not care, then why would it bother you? You read the headline and move on. This social dynamics of this country have changed dramatically in the past 10 yrs. Our ethnic mix has shifted towards a non white "caucasian" (whatever that means) population, and with the advent of the internet privacy has disappeared and people are more open with sharing details of their life that no one would ever know otherwise. In my opinion, this has advanced our overall acceptance and tolerance of others, and in other ways hindered our ability to form real connections with people. Sam's announcement is an example of the former.

[Futureite]

Part of Sams coming out party was the reports that the media was about to "out" him via leaks, which is equally wrong. So in a sense he was between a rock and a hard place.He did the same thing a lot of politicians did. He got out ahead of the story to put his narrative on it, his spin. IMO it was a very calculated decision by a mid round pick(RW, Sherman type money) to either enhance his stock with the right GM or make potential millions off of his celebrity. As I stated earlier there are comments from a teammate saying the locker room was definitely divided unlike the description Sam had given. Extrapolate that to the NFL locker room I think there will be some major issues, especially with guys who are either idiots(plenty) or guys who have a religious objection to the lifestyle.And those will be the people who will have the problems for their "intolerance" while Sam will get the kid glove treatment. It will be a bad thing for whatever team drafts him or signs him as a free agent.

No I do not think gays should "come out" anymore than I think heterosexuals should publicly discuss their favorite positions in the sack or their various conquests. If you are a gay or a lesbian don't hold a press conference. Bring your partner to the business function or team dinner and be who you are. Society in general has proven to be very tolerant for the most part.

Shut up and play.It doesn't make us bigots, it makes us football fans.

I agree with your point regarding player's acceptance of Sam. Some people claim SF is a perfect area for him. Lol, I guess people have forgotten about Chris Culliver's gay slurs last yr before the SB. Point being, there is no locker room that will be entirely tolerant. There are 52 guys in a locker room that were exposed to various religious, culteral and economic envirinments. 52 people are never going to agree on any issue this central to obe's core being.

Your other point is a bit absurd. No one is going to disclose something when there is no incentive to do so. Sam had some motive - be it social, economics, or draft positioning - to out himself. Lol but what the hell would anyone gain by announcing that they are heterosexual? Methinks this may actually kill your draft positioning . Who wants to draft a dumbass that walks up to a podium and announces he is straight.

[NorthHawk]

I said earlier in this thread that it was good for him to have outed himself prior to the draft because now there are no surprises for teams considering him. That someone else would have eventually anyway meant that it was probably as good a time as any, so why not get it over with and behind him? He can now concentrate on the Combine and workouts with a clear head and not feel like he's hiding something.

[Hawktawk]

No I do not think gays should "come out" anymore than I think heterosexuals should publicly discuss their favorite positions in the sack or their various conquests. If you are a gay or a lesbian don't hold a press conference. Bring your partner to the business function or team dinner and be who you are. Society in general has proven to be very tolerant for the most part.


I agree with your point regarding player's acceptance of Sam. Some people claim SF is a perfect area for him. Lol, I guess people have forgotten about Chris Culliver's gay slurs last yr before the SB. Point being, there is no locker room that will be entirely tolerant. There are 52 guys in a locker room that were exposed to various religious, culteral and economic envirinments. 52 people are never going to agree on any issue this central to obe's core being.

Your other point is a bit absurd. No one is going to disclose something when there is no incentive to do so. Sam had some motive - be it social, economics, or draft positioning - to out himself. Lol but what the hell would anyone gain by announcing that they are heterosexual? Methinks this may actually kill your draft positioning . Who wants to draft a dumbass that walks up to a podium and announces he is straight.[/quote]

I just disagree with all the folks who say there is no correlation between straight and gay people when discussing sex. Ultimately it is ALL about sex, erotic attraction, in the case of gays to someone of the same gender obviously. And Future If you didn't notice I said straights SHOULD NOT be discussing their sexual preferences or heterosexuality either.Keep what happens in the bedroom to yourself I don't care who you are or what you like.It's TMI period. And for all the talk about workplace discrimination it is rather unique to pro sports that athletes regularly disrobe and shower together which potentially creates a great deal of discomfort for some of these guys KNOWING the dude on the other side of the shower is turned on by men.

Frankly I feel like this is a media driven feeding frenzy, its what the media does. I could really care less personally if Sam is gay or straight or bi or whatever. As I have said repeatedly I think his coming out (and the reaction by the media and PC police) is going to create a circus environment and disrupt whatever locker room he winds up in and I don't want my Hawks to be the guinea pig.That is all. I respect PC and JS immensely and if they feel differently I will trust their judgement.

[Futureite]

Hawktawk;

If it were not for the fact that discrimimination exists, I would completely agree with you. I do however, feel as though a player like Sam coming out helps to break down barriers and promote acceptance. As does a rapper like Maclemore, who is thriving in a field dominated by alpha males despite his promotion of gay rights. At some point the level of acceptance will outweigh the level of bigotry, and at that point society will have experienced another shift in culture. To me it is, on a smaller level, the same effect that we've seen with Obama's election. Remember it was not long ago when it was a big deal that a black QB won the SB. After RW won, not a thing was said about his skin color. I think that is great, and maybe this issue will follow suit in the coming yrs.

Lol but in the end, I could give a F what anyone does behind closed doors, as you said. I think I've officially typed more on this subject than I've ever thought about it in the previous 38 yrs of my life .

[Hawktawk]

I agree that the barriers are coming down and I alluded to the color thing with Wilson. Obama is a very interesting example for me. When i first heard him speak in about 2006 I thought he might be someone I could support. Upon closer examination I decided he was too liberal, and perhaps a socialist/communist. So I voted for the old war hero in 2008 and the successful governor and businessman in 2012. Obama's skin color never entered into my decision, but he and his supporters have absolutely no problem labeling those who oppose his agenda as bigots or racists. And it is exactly that type of scenario I fear with Sam, or more specifically those in power in the media,government and the NFL who support his cause. If GMs shy away from this guy for whatever reason are they going to face accusations, threats from Goodell,the media or from politicians ?Will other players on the roster be accused of a hostile work environment for being who they have always been? Whether this young man intended it or not he has become the face of a movement, a pawn of sorts. And as selfish as it is to say it I don't want the Hawks to be in the eye of the storm.

[briwas101]

I said earlier in this thread that it was good for him to have outed himself prior to the draft because now there are no surprises for teams considering him. That someone else would have eventually anyway meant that it was probably as good a time as any, so why not get it over with and behind him? He can now concentrate on the Combine and workouts with a clear head and not feel like he's hiding something.

Those are all good points.

By getting it out of the way now, GMs know what they will be getting (in terms of sexuality, at least) so he will never have to give a tearful speech to his team or apologize for "hiding it" from people.

It also sends a little message to the locker room that the GM supported adding that player to the team with full knowledge that he is gay. Anyone giving him a hard time will do so knowing that the GM supports Sam.

[HumanCockroach]

As far as I am concerned the ONLY question that needs to be asked or answered is this. CAN the guy help a team WIN football games? The end.

[Clem7]

This football player's "coming out" motivation is due to the fact that upon entering the draft all players are subject to intense analysis that would reveal the fact that he is gay.

Rather than have the "firestorm" later, He prefers to face it now. Nothing else for him to say. There it is.

Yes, there may be problems with some in the NFL, but at this point in his career it was a wise move.

[RiverDog]

As far as I am concerned the ONLY question that needs to be asked or answered is this. CAN the guy help a team WIN football games? The end.

If that was the only question asked of scouts by the Patriots about Aaron Hernandez, then no wonder they got burned.

[Hawktawk]

Bingo RD! There's potentially lots of worse teammates to have. As for gays in the NFL there have been many over the years certainly. I even remember whispers about Aikman in the day that were fueled somewhat by Barry Switzer. Now Aaron Rodgers had an article smearing him he had to defend his "straightness"while preparing to play the 9ers. Not saying it is right, saying it ISN'T, but its how it is sadly. The hoopla surrounding Sam will be 10x IMO. Maybe I'm wrong, the combine will show the pattern that emerges.

[RiverDog]

Bingo RD! There's potentially lots of worse teammates to have. As for gays in the NFL there have been many over the years certainly. I even remember whispers about Aikman in the day that were fueled somewhat by Barry Switzer. Now Aaron Rodgers had an article smearing him he had to defend his "straightness"while preparing to play the 9ers. Not saying it is right, saying it ISN'T, but its how it is sadly. The hoopla surrounding Sam will be 10x IMO. Maybe I'm wrong, the combine will show the pattern that emerges.

Sams has to make a team first. From my understanding, he's at best a mid round prospect, which by no means assures him of a roster spot.

[NorthHawk]

As far as I am concerned the ONLY question that needs to be asked or answered is this. CAN the guy help a team WIN football games? The end.

If that was the only question asked of scouts by the Patriots about Aaron Hernandez, then no wonder they got burned.

I think that's out of context.
We're discussing Sam's sexual orientation and how it might affect a team.
I suspect all teams - and the NFL - are looking at past behavior or run-ins with the law as a priority after Hernandez.

[HumanCockroach]

As far as I am concerned the ONLY question that needs to be asked or answered is this. CAN the guy help a team WIN football games? The end.

If that was the only question asked of scouts by the Patriots about Aaron Hernandez, then no wonder they got burned.

If you are equating being a homosexual to being a murderer, I have no idea how to help you. There have been plenty of gay players in the NFL's history, not so many thug, drug addict murderers. Apples and oranges, and you know it, and if you don't then that's on you.

[Oly]

As far as I am concerned the ONLY question that needs to be asked or answered is this. CAN the guy help a team WIN football games? The end.

If that was the only question asked of scouts by the Patriots about Aaron Hernandez, then no wonder they got burned.

If you are equating being a homosexual to being a murderer, I have no idea how to help you. There have been plenty of gay players in the NFL's history, not so many thug, drug addict murderers. Apples and oranges, and you know it, and if you don't then that's on you.

In RD's defense, I don't think he was doing that at all. It just proves the general point that on-field performance is not all that goes into drafting decisions, and it does so with the most obvious example possible. The exact same point is made by comparing Sam to Pacman Jones, or TO, or Tebow, or any other of a number of players whose off-field stuff is relevant.

I'm on record as saying that I don't think it's a big deal, and that Sam's experience at Mizzou shows that he doesn't want to make a circus out of it, that his skin is thick enough to handle locker room culture, and that his teammates can deal with it (even if they don't like it, the locker room culture can be just fine with him in it). I also think that the pushback from some players and coaches has been short sighted and morally bankrupt (like you said, murderers are welcome but a gay man isn't). But I'll defend RD's point, because I don't think he was equating the two at all.

[burrrton]

If you are equating being a homosexual to being a murderer, I have no idea how to help you.

For heaven's sake, HC- he didn't do that *at all*.

[burrrton]

Obama's skin color never entered into my decision, but he and his supporters have absolutely no problem labeling those who oppose his agenda as bigots or racists. And it is exactly that type of scenario I fear with Sam, or more specifically those in power in the media,government and the NFL who support his cause. If GMs shy away from this guy for whatever reason are they going to face accusations, threats from Goodell,the media or from politicians ?

I think that's actually an interesting point there.

With the way the media and many in society knee-jerk react to not just vocal opposition but even simply not embracing the politically correct actor in a given scenario, what team wants to risk the sht-storm that will (probably) erupt if they draft the kid and cut him, or when a locker room reporter finds a teammate who's uncomfortable showering with him, or whatever?

Sounds paranoid to a certain degree, but I think we're in a world where that's no so unexpected anymore.

[HumanCockroach]

If you are equating being a homosexual to being a murderer, I have no idea how to help you.

For heaven's sake, HC- he didn't do that *at all*.

He didn't? Seems to me his response was doing exactly that. Maybe you didn't read it.

Let me sum up for you. I said the only question that needs to be answered is whether the guy can help a team win football games, his response was if that was what the Patriots did, then no wonder they got burned by Hernandez. We aren't talking about character flaws, we are talking about orientation. Hernandez and Sam, aren't in the same realm, and you know it ( or at least I hope you do).

[burrrton]

HC, for Pete's sake- he was merely giving an example of a case where caring about more than "on field performance" would have been useful.

That doesn't equate the 'off field' considerations of one with the other.

And really, I think if you're honest about it, you know this. It's not worth going back and forth over.

[savvyman]

NFL locker rooms need to look at the Calendar and see that the year is 2014 and adjust their behavior accordingly.

[HumanCockroach]

HC, for Pete's sake- he was merely giving an example of a case where caring about more than "on field performance" would have been useful.

That doesn't equate the 'off field' considerations of one with the other.

And really, I think if you're honest about it, you know this. It's not worth going back and forth over.

LOL. When did a guys orientation become an " off field " consideration? First of all it's ILLEGAL to do so, secondly, whatever his orientation, it's time for people ( and that means ALL people) to come to grips with it. It's life in 2014, whether some of us "old school" want to cope with it or not, doesn't change one thing I posted. IF the guy can help a team win, then whether he likes guys or gals is irrelevant. People get caught up on insignificant stuff like this, when really there HAVE been, and WILL be gay players in the NFL. How many countless players have to TELL you guys that, before you all realise that if they can help them win, the BULK of players are ok with it ( or at least willing to deal with it). All I see on this thread is a bunch of people that prefer to keep their heads in the sand, about the way the world works, and has ALWAYS worked. The ONLY difference is the guy is up front about it.

If Sam can play football, and what he does off the field isn't illegal, he deserves the same chance as anyone else to do so. The end.

[Oly]

If you are equating being a homosexual to being a murderer, I have no idea how to help you.

For heaven's sake, HC- he didn't do that *at all*.

He didn't? Seems to me his response was doing exactly that. Maybe you didn't read it.

Let me sum up for you. I said the only question that needs to be answered is whether the guy can help a team win football games, his response was if that was what the Patriots did, then no wonder they got burned by Hernandez. We aren't talking about character flaws, we are talking about orientation. Hernandez and Sam, aren't in the same realm, and you know it ( or at least I hope you do).

Did you read my reply?

HC, for Pete's sake- he was merely giving an example of a case where caring about more than "on field performance" would have been useful.

That doesn't equate the 'off field' considerations of one with the other.

And really, I think if you're honest about it, you know this. It's not worth going back and forth over.

LOL. When did a guys orientation become an " off field " consideration? First of all it's ILLEGAL to do so..

The fact that it's illegal (in some states, anyway) doesn't matter. The question RD begs is whether or not considering any non-performance criteria is okay, and I agree that it is. As I say below, though, I agree with you that this particular issue shouldn't be on the table, and any team from a state with LBGTQ protections in the law that was open about discriminating based on his orientation would probably be open to a lawsuit. But it doesn't mean that the general attention to off-field issues is problematic.

...secondly, whatever his orientation, it's time for people ( and that means ALL people) to come to grips with it. It's life in 2014, whether some of us "old school" want to cope with it or not, doesn't change one thing I posted. IF the guy can help a team win, then whether he likes guys or gals is irrelevant. People get caught up on insignificant stuff like this, when really there HAVE been, and WILL be gay players in the NFL. How many countless players have to TELL you guys that, before you all realise that if they can help them win, the BULK of players are ok with it ( or at least willing to deal with it). All I see on this thread is a bunch of people that prefer to keep their heads in the sand, about the way the world works, and has ALWAYS worked. The ONLY difference is the guy is up front about it.

I agree with most of this. Basically, there are two issues: 1) should teams care about off-field stuff, and 2) should teams care about this particular off-field issue? RD, at least in his Hernandez comment, was only speaking to the first issue. I agree with him, but you clearly don't, and that's fine. But the disagreement is about using off-field criteria in judging whether or not a player will hurt/help his team. On the second issue, I'm with you completely. Beyond the fact that his Mizzou experience shows it wasn't a problem, I agree with you on the more substantive issue that people need to get over their hangups about other people's sexual orientations. I've shared a locker room with a gay dude, and it never bothered me in the slightest.

[HumanCockroach]

I was replying to the issue at hand, not a generalisation of off field activities, that are illegal. You can read my comments and RD's however you wish, as can Burton and RD. I made a simple one line post about Sam, and Sam only. Of COURSE things like Hernandez matter, but for the life of me, I don't see the two correlating in the least. Pretending like Sams off field practices are something to be concerned with ( at least in regards to his sexuality) is silly, and short sighted at best, comparing him to someone that is in prison for murder is crazy to me in every way possible.

In regards to the TOPIC being discussed, it doesn't matter, if he can help a team win, what side of the plate he bats from is irrelevant. Hernandez actions weren't, monumental difference between the two.

[RiverDog]

Of course, I wasn't comparing Sams to Aaron Hernandez. If I took HC's comment out of context, he certainly took mine out of context as well. My point was that teams research every minute detail of a prospective player's background so there are no surprises, and the plight of Aaron Hernandez is the most dramatic example of a team that either ignored or didn't properly research the red flags in his background. That doesn't mean I am calling Sams sexual orientation a "red flag" or comparing him to AH. It simply demonstrates the need for teams to research a prospective draftee's character, be it good or bad. I'm sure our FO knew a thing or two about Russell Wilson's character, and that it may have helped to convince them that he was worth the gamble.

Teams will factor in a whole range of off field activities and behavior of potential draftees in preparation for draft day, and I am certain that issues surrounding Sams sexual orientation will be mentioned in the scouting reports..as if coaches and GM's don't already know. Whether or not it will be a deciding factor in their decision making remains to be seen.