Michael Sam reveals he is gay

"shula_guy wrote:

The rub to all this is that I generally agree with your points. There is however a double standard in attitudes. Every point you have made can also be made to support my earlier argument about men showering with women. Do we think that a heterosexual male is incapable of showering next to a naked woman (attractive) without raping her?

I understand your point, however heterosexual males have dug their own grave on that one by having a long history of raping women and doing so not because they can't resist their primal urges but rather because they're deplete of any respect or compassion for their victims. Even the man on man rape is mostly committed by heterosexual males IIRC. Not to mention, men are physically more imposing than women, where as men are capable of defending themselves. If you don't want gay men intermixed with the straight population in the locker room, where would you rather have them get dressed, in the cheerleaders locker room with the women?

Do we think gay men are all enlightened creatures that are incapable of behaving inappropriately in a shower room environment? This is where I see an inequality in place. Heterosexual men are not be given the same benefit of doubt that gay men are asking to be given.

I don't think it has anything to do with being enlightened. I think it has to do with respecting your fellow teammate, and, ultimately, amidst fear of potential persecution, you'd see gay players acting SIGNIFICANTLY more respectful to their teammates than straight teammates act toward each other. You think they wouldn't be minding their P's and Q's with greater veracity than a heterosexual teammate? A straight player shooting himself in the leg at a club poses a greater threat to the league and their teammates than a gay player ever could. The NFL isn't all choir boys. I'd be more concerned with trying to straighten up the abundance of players f***ing up on a rotational basis than trying to keep an innocent, harmless gay guy out of a locker room. Just sayin.

I respectfully don't understand what the "benefit of the doubt" is.... unless a person is operating under the belief that gays shouldn't have the same rights as straight people, for which I would disagree with.

My position is this: We have established rules of conduct in a shower environment. Women do not want to shower with men because it makes them uncomfortable to be gawked at and maybe hit on while they are standing naked and vulnerable. Its a social etiquette that's been respected for centuries. Why should straight men be forced to give up that etiquette and nobody else.

That's a fair point. I think it comes down to the fact that heterosexual males unfortunately have a history of suppressing, dominating, and raping women and enslaving and abusing the hell out of their fellow man, plus what I mentioned above about women not being able to defend themselves the same way men can. The heterosexual male population has brought this divide upon themselves, where as- what has the gay population committed to induce the same distrusting feelings? I really can't think of any. The other thing to consider is- it's society that's changed, not the sexuality. Society has made an effort to persecute gays, b/c doing so certainly isn't ingrained in our DNA. So IMO it's society's responsibility to now un-persecute gays or anyone else undeserving of it.

I have no problem with gay people and I am all for them being a welcome part of society but I do not want to see people forced to accept them before they are ready too. Eventually this problem will fix itself on its own.

I can understand this feeling. I was uncomfortable with it at one time, but at the same time- if you don't give someone a shove in the "acceptance direction" then the chances they move out of their comfort zone on their own is close to nil.

There is no reason to sue a team for not forcing the issue just because some egomaniac thinks he is more enlightened than somebody else and that gives him the right to force his moral code onto others.

I disagree about the egomaniac part. You cant just assume this is a "hey look at me" situation. I just see it as a guy who wants to live his life with the same freedom as everyone else and with the same freedom from persecution. I cant imagine what it would be like to feel like you have to live a sheltered life, constantly ensuring you're hiding your true self and denying every bit of instinct you're born with despite its innocence as well.

Here's an easy way to think about it: How would you feel if societal persecution pushed you to reject your love of women and any and all relationships with them and live a celibate life?..... and how about if it's only a portion of society applying this pressure, meanwhile the other half is perfectly fine with you being born preferring the company of women?

"shula_guy wrote:

Would you be OK with making a gay shower and locker room area that is segregated from heterosexuals or is that only appropriate when its done between men and women?

No. A men's locker room is a men's locker room.

I don't know if you mean it this way but are you seriously arguing for segregation?

You are suggesting singling Michael Same, or any gay player out, and essentially saying "you are not a real part of this team", when he has done nothing to warrant that. It's wrong. And it is immoral and while it might not be illegal everywhere it probably soon will be.

"shula_guy wrote:

No its neither illegal or immoral. The NFL can not hire you for pretty much any reason they want.

Your accusation of it being immoral is one of the big problems I have with these situtations. Just because an employer chooses to not hire someone who disrupts their work environment and/or would require a financial investment to accommodate their presence is a business decision and has nothing to do with morality. I find it foul that if an employer makes that choice to not hire, people like yourself come out of the wood work and attack them with the accusation of them being evil for not hiring someone they do not want to hire. There is no law preventing an employer from hiring a gay person so give the hyperbole a rest.

But again, you are projecting the "problem" on Michael Sam when he has done nothing wrong.

Michael Sam is not asking for special treatment and does not require any additional expense in order to hire him.

Essentially, you are making the typical homophobic argument (not saying you are homophobic). The homophobe believes that his view is the "right" one and that everyone else should bend to him. It is the striaght players who are uncomfortable that are the ones that will cause the distraction or require the accomodations.

Well, the world no longer works like this and is changing incredibly rapidly. The players who are uncomfortable are probably the minority right now and will become an even more extreme minority in the coming years. It's ownership and management, who are almost universally old, white men, that are the real problem.

Who ever drafts him needs to treat him like the Chargers treated Manti Te'o. Keep the guy away from the media, because honestly if he's going to have a cult following him like they do to Tebow then I think lots of teams will pass on that. Too much distraction just because someone likes men. Has nothing to do with football and quite frankly I don't see why it matters so much.

"shula_guy wrote:

They present a problem in the culture here. If a team wants to take that on, more power to them but they should not be attacked if they choose not to.

That tells me the problem is the culture. Maybe if that is the culture of football, football shouldnt exist.

"phinsational wrote:

I understand your thought process behind this... but I think heterosexual males haven't earned ourselves the greatest reputation when it comes to a situation like this one you're referencing. On the other hand, I dont recall many instances of gay males being warranting such a reputation.

I think a more pertinent example would be a woman's softball team. I'm guessing not all of them are lesbians.

This cracked me up.

The point about women's sports is actually a great point. there are numerous out lesbian players in the WNBA, women's college sports and women's soccer elagues.

Yet there has been not one eyebrow raised regarding the showering or locker room situation.

Why do the men have such a hangup?

"schmolioot wrote:

The point about women's sports is actually a great point. there are numerous out lesbian players in the WNBA, women's college sports and women's soccer elagues.

Yet there has been not one eyebrow raised regarding the showering or locker room situation.

Why do the men have such a hangup?

Because lack the same passing and fundamentals.

"ckparrothead wrote:

Because lack the same passing and fundamentals.

...and b/c it's difficult to tell when a straight woman gets an erect clitoris. :shifty:

The kid is incredibly courageous to have come out last fall. His Missouri locker room had no issues with him, and that should tell everyone all they need to know. If an NFL locker room of paid professionals can't act as mature as a college locker room, THEY are the problem. Not Michael Sam.

He doesn't have to be Jackie Robinson on this issue and be the standard bearer. Not if gay veteran players show half the courage of this kid and come out.

I suspect that more of the existing gay players, those who were apparently close to coming out last spring, will step up. I think they're a little uncomfortable with letting Sam take all the burden on himself.

I'd bet that sometime before the draft a half dozen vets will come out. And the question for the draft won't be:

Which franchise will be the first to embrace a gay player?

Because a number of them will have already done so.

"schmolioot wrote:

No. A men's locker room is a men's locker room.

I don't know if you mean it this way but are you seriously arguing for segregation?

You are suggesting singling Michael Same, or any gay player out, and essentially saying "you are not a real part of this team", when he has done nothing to warrant that. It's wrong. And it is immoral and while it might not be illegal everywhere it probably soon will be.

I am not saying anything close to that. I am saying that nudity is a sensitive issue for many people and we as a society have always catered to that sensitivity. Men and women do not shower together for a reason. People do not go grocery shopping in the nude for a reason. Nudity mixed with sexual tension makes people uncomfortable. Gay men are not entitled to some special immunity to making others uncomfortable with their nudity. I really do not care if you want to call it segregation to provide them with separate showers, we already segregate people by their sex its not that big of a leap to expand that to their sexual orientation. Nobodys rights are being violated. I find it very offense when a straight male is accussed of being immoral and a homophobe just because he is not comfortable surrendering his modesty toward being naked around gay men. Its not an unreasonable emotion to have.

If you don't have it, that's great. Go hang out at gay bathhouses and shower with them. Go feel like an evolved person. Leave the others out of it. Let them continue to shower with heterosexuals and gays that don't identify themselves as such. Its not that big of a deal. Gay people are not being hurt by being told that straight men do not want to share a shower with them.

This stuff is no different than the religious zealots running around telling people how they must live or else their GOD will punish them. Im disgusted with both sides preaching and forcing everyone to live by their code of ethics. I hope this guy gets a job in the NFL but not by force, but because he is wanted for who he is, as he is.

"His'nBeatYour'n wrote:

The kid is incredibly courageous to have come out last fall. His Missouri locker room had no issues with him, and that should tell everyone all they need to know. If an NFL locker room of paid professionals can't act as mature as a college locker room, THEY are the problem. Not Michael Sam.

He doesn't have to be Jackie Robinson on this issue and be the standard bearer. Not if gay veteran players show half the courage of this kid and come out.

I suspect that more of the existing gay players, those who were apparently close to coming out last spring, will step up. I think they're a little uncomfortable with letting Sam take all the burden on himself.

I'd bet that sometime before the draft a half dozen vets will come out. And the question for the draft won't be:

Which franchise will be the first to embrace a gay player?

Because a number of them will have already done so.

Would certainly make for an interesting offseason!

"shula_guy wrote:

I am not saying anything close to that. I am saying that nudity is a sensitive issue for many people and we as a society have always catered to that sensitivity. Men and women do not shower together for a reason. People do not go grocery shopping in the nude for a reason. Nudity mixed with sexual tension makes people uncomfortable. Gay men are not entitled to some special immunity to making others uncomfortable with their nudity. I really do not care if you want to call it segregation to provide them with separate showers, we already segregate people by their sex its not that big of a leap to expand that to their sexual orientation. Nobodys rights are being violated. I find it very offense when a straight male is accussed of being immoral and a homophobe just because he is not comfortable surrendering his modesty toward being naked around gay men. Its not an unreasonable emotion to have.

If you don't have it, that's great. Go hang out at gay bathhouses and shower with them. Go feel like an evolved person. Leave the others out of it. Let them continue to shower with heterosexuals and gays that don't identify themselves as such. Its not that big of a deal. Gay people are not being hurt by being told that straight men do not want to share a shower with them.

This stuff is no different than the religious zealots running around telling people how they must live or else their GOD will punish them. Im disgusted with both sides preaching and forcing everyone to live by their code of ethics. I hope this guy gets a job in the NFL but not by force, but because he is wanted for who he is, as he is.

The issue here is I don't understand why you're making it the gay person's problem when an individual straight person doesn't feel comfortable with the shower situation. That individual straight person has every right to modify his shower routine or perhaps even abstain from showers altogether if they really have a problem. By trying to segregate the gay person out of their midst you're shifting this perceived problem of yours onto THEM.

And what about this particular problem makes it so important that something as drastic as creating separate shower rooms and segregation policy becomes necessary? What about guys that aren't comfortable getting naked and showering with other guys period? Those exist too. There's a percentage of them. How is it THAT problem is not important enough to build private showers that ensure you don't have to be seen naked by one another, but suddenly the gay problem is important enough?

I think when you REALLY question these things and why we think of things a certain way, you discover you're making the gay issue "special" because of some deep-seeded fears and intolerances toward it, and it's those intolerances and fears that need to be exorcised.

It's sort of like the whole "distraction" angle. Steve Colbert nailed it. The "distraction" is supposed to be that they're going to be asked by reporters whether they're comfortable with a gay guy in the locker room. It's a one-question distraction for players. God forbid they get asked by a reporter if they're comfortable with a gay player in the locker room and they're forced to grunt out a "Yeah". Holy balls what a distraction that is!

These guys are asked questions by reporters every single day. What about the "distraction" of having a player in the locker room that got a DUI, or was accused of rape, that was guilty of obstruction of justice in a murder investigation, that spent years fighting and murdering dogs, etc?

The thing is we don't look at those distractions the same way, we don't treat them the same, and the reasons for that are not rational in nature. It goes back to what I just talked about...deep-seeded feelings about the issue that need to be addressed.

What needs to happen is the NFL needs a few prominent straight players step up and pave the way by saying they'd welcome him to their team with open arms regardless of orientation..... and state how they care more about getting passionate players with hardworking, winning attitudes than anything else.

Not to mention, what's there to worry about with Sam? He seems like a focused, determined, professional individual to me. Being afraid of his gayness in the locker room would be like fearing an Asian CEO going all Hong-Kong Phooey in a business takeover meeting.

"phinsational wrote:

What needs to happen is the NFL needs a few prominent straight players step up and pave the way by saying they'd welcome him to their team with open arms regardless of orientation..... and state how they care more about getting passionate players with a hardworking, winning attitudes than anything else.

Not to mention, what's there to worry about with Sam? He seems like a focused, determined, professional individual to me. Being afraid of his gayness in the locker room would be like fearing an Asian CEO going all Hong-Kong Phooey in a business takeover meeting.

Its kind of happened already, 62 players saying they'd support one...this was before Michael, but it applies: http://www.outsports.com/2013/9/4/4692986/nfl-players-gay-supportive-list-andrew-luck-rgIII-reggie-wayne-charles-woodson

thanks^

"ckparrothead wrote:

The issue here is I don't understand why you're making it the gay person's problem when an individual straight person doesn't feel comfortable with the shower situation.

Again I will try to illustrate this for you using men and women. Would you defend straight males who insist on showering with women. If not, explain why its different.

That individual straight person has every right to modify his shower routine or perhaps even abstain from showers altogether if they really have a problem.

Yes that is true and same can be told to a woman who might be uncomfortable showering in the presence of a man, but we do not ask her to do that. Why do you think that is?

By trying to segregate the gay person out of their midst you're shifting this perceived problem of yours onto THEM.

This is not a personal issue for me. I am empathic to those that is.

And what about this particular problem makes it so important that something as drastic as creating separate shower rooms and segregation policy becomes necessary? What about guys that aren't comfortable getting naked and showering with other guys period? Those exist too. There's a percentage of them. How is it THAT problem is not important enough to build private showers that ensure you don't have to be seen naked by one another, but suddenly the gay problem is important enough?

I respect everyones right to privacy.

I think when you REALLY question these things and why we think of things a certain way, you discover you're making the gay issue "special" because of some deep-seeded fears and intolerances toward it, and it's those intolerances and fears that need to be exorcised.

This is not a personal agenda for me. I have never said that I would be uncomfortable showering with a gay guy. I am pointing out that it is not an unnatural feeling to have and society already tolerates it from women. Why shouldn't heterosexual males feelings be respected as much as a woman's feelings?

It's sort of like the whole "distraction" angle. Steve Colbert nailed it. The "distraction" is supposed to be that they're going to be asked by reporters whether they're comfortable with a gay guy in the locker room. It's a one-question distraction for players. God forbid they get asked by a reporter if they're comfortable with a gay player in the locker room and they're forced to grunt out a "Yeah". Holy balls what a distraction that is!

You are oversimplifying it. It is more complex than how you are portraying it. It might not be enough of a distraction to make it worth while to pass on the guy, but if a team passed on him based on the potential distraction that it might cause, I would consider that a valid reason to not hire him.

These guys are asked questions by reporters every single day. What about the "distraction" of having a player in the locker room that got a DUI, or was accused of rape, that was guilty of obstruction of justice in a murder investigation, that spent years fighting and murdering dogs, etc?

Those are also all valid reasons to not hire someone. Its a choice the employer has to make.

The thing is we don't look at those distractions the same way, we don't treat them the same, and the reasons for that are not rational in nature. It goes back to what I just talked about...deep-seeded feelings about the issue that need to be addressed.

Nobody would accuse the potential employer of being immoral for not hiring someone based on any of them reasons but they would if they openly said they did not hire a gay guy because of the accomidations that would need to be met because he is gay.

I respect where you and others are coming from and I also respect the other side that may not want an openly gay person on their team.

"shula_guy wrote:

Again I will try to illustrate this for you using men and women. Would you defend straight males who insist on showering with women. If not, explain why its different.

Yes that is true and same can be told to a woman who might be uncomfortable showering in the presence of a man, but we do not ask her to do that. Why do you think that is?

First off, you've not established to any degree that a difference in gender is analogous to a difference in sexual preference. You're assuming essentially that homosexual males should be treated as if they were a different gender from heterosexual men. There is no basis for this and it is in all probability an instinct sourced in societal bigotry.

While segregation according to gender has a very LONG established societal and legal precedent, segregation according to sexual habits has virtually no precedent. We do not have "Gay Men" and "Straight Men" bathrooms. We do not have "Gay Women" and "Straight Women" bathrooms. There is no precedent for separation by sexual habit. You're trying to start one out of thin air.

Professional football teams are not the only place with showers, you know. There are showers at 90% of the gyms I have ever gone to. While there is precedent for a men's locker room and a separate women's locker room, there is no precedent (legal or otherwise) for a straight men's shower and a gay men's shower.

The second problem with this analogy is you're having your way with who plays the part of the single person versus the group. In one scenario which would be at least a LITTLE more analagous to Sam's situation (but still not, since a homosexual man is not the equivalent of a woman and it is in all likelihood bigoted to treat him so), you mention a man showering with a group of women. But you've not demonstrated at all in what setting would this be a pressing issue? Our sports teams are not coed. Your analogy would pass the smell test if you were to demonstrate in what situation we would find legitimate reasons for a man to be showering with a group of women.

I respect everyones right to privacy.

Then naturally you support the right of men who are uncomfortable showering in front of other men whose sexual habits are either unknown or known to be different having the right to abstain from showering with them or modifying their shower habits to accomodate their private fears. I support this as well.

You are oversimplifying it. It is more complex than how you are portraying it. It might not be enough of a distraction to make it worth while to pass on the guy, but if a team passed on him based on the potential distraction that it might cause, I would consider that a valid reason to not hire him.

What distraction? Demonstrate it. Be detailed.

The biggest problem I have with the whole shower argument is that we are setting up a construct where the bigot wins, and his wrong headed views are catered to.

That because the bigot has an unfounded fear of something that might happen, the person who has done nothing wrong is summarily punished and left unable to earn a living.

We have anti-discrimination laws in this country to protect against exactly such abuses, though sexual orientation is not yet covered.

In the end there's absolutely no precedent for concern about the shower situation.

As I said we have Mens rooms and Womens rooms but we do not have Straight Mens rooms and Gay Mens rooms. So for decades gay men and straight men have peed together in harmony and yes, heaven forbid, I'm sure at least a few of those gay men managed to sneak a peek at a straight man's junk. And I'm sure a few of those straight men caught a peek at a gay man's junk. The same is true at gym showers. There are lots of gay men at gyms. And gay women. There aren't "gay" showers. Never have been.

Never has this been a problem. But now all of a sudden it is. Why?

It is sourced in homophobia.

"ckparrothead wrote:

In the end there's absolutely no precedent for concern about the shower situation.

As I said we have Mens rooms and Womens rooms but we do not have Straight Mens rooms and Gay Mens rooms. So for decades gay men and straight men have peed together in harmony and yes, heaven forbid, I'm sure at least a few of those gay men managed to sneak a peek at a straight man's junk. And I'm sure a few of those straight men caught a peek at a gay man's junk. The same is true at gym showers. There are lots of gay men at gyms. And gay women. There aren't "gay" showers. Never have been.

Never has this been a problem. But now all of a sudden it is. Why?

It is sourced in homophobia.

Common decency.

It is not homophobic for a person to not want to feel objectified while showering. Its normal. Why some of you refuse to acknowledge that is beyond me. It is a classless act to insist on intentionally doing something that you know is going to make those around you uncomfortable.

"shula_guy wrote:

It is not homophobic for a person to not want to feel objectified while showering. Its normal. Why some of you refuse to acknowledge that is beyond me. It is a classless act to insist on intentionally doing something that you know is going to make those around you uncomfortable.

There are two fallacies in your logic.

1. You're assuming objectification occurs simply because the man involved is gay. This is a purely BAD assumption.

2. You're assuming a man is FORCED to shower in conditions he doesn't like. This is abjectly false. As I said many times he can modify his shower routines or abstain altogether in order to accommodate his own private insecurities.

"ckparrothead wrote:

There are two fallacies in your logic.

1. You're assuming objectification occurs simply because the man involved is gay. This is a purely BAD assumption.
.

This is a fallacy called strawman. The original post talks about homosexual objectification, not simply objectification. Your response expands the point and then argues against it. If you attacked the point, your response should read "You're assuming homosexual objectification occurs simply because the man involved is gay." That is more than a correct assumption, it is true by definition.

"ckparrothead wrote:

2. You're assuming a man is FORCED to shower in conditions he doesn't like. This is abjectly false. As I said many times he can modify his shower routines or abstain altogether in order to accommodate his own private insecurities.

Private insecurities are not part of the equation. The reason we provide separate facilities for women and men is common decency, and their private insecurities are not part of the reason or consideration. We do not judge women or men on those because those insecurities are fair, of sexual nature.
Similarly here, private insecurities do not come into play. The reason for separate facilities is common decency, we want to accommodate comfort, and insecurities are fair because they are of sexual nature. The problem is, we do not know who is or is not gay, it is not obvious. Therein lies the difficulty in accommodation. There are also financial reasons.

Another large problem with separate straight and gay facilities is that gays would be subject to showering with other gays, which is the very thing this policy would try to prevent--exposure to indecent acts or thoughts when you are naked and vulnerable.