Agreed that there's no comparison between the NFL playing field and your average Joe's workplace. Yes, playing football is their "job", but they are also entertainers. The playing field is more of a stage for them than a workplace.
I understand the intent behind wanting to ban the N-word, but I think it's a bad idea for a couple of reasons. As you noted, how is it fair to stop at just the N-word? Why not include all slurs? How about MFer? And yes, why not include G--d--- and other offensive language to Christians? In truth, it'd be hard to enforce. Which leads me to...
It would be hard enough for the refs to be able to enforce the "no N-word policy" by itself. Refs already have a hard time getting calls right on the field. So then they're supposed to be eavesdropping on player conversations on top of that? They've already got rules against taunting. Banning specific words would be unnecessary and excessive regulation.
If an attractive woman walks by me in a bikini, it's hard not to notice of course. But it's my choice on whether or not I begin to think lustfully after that woman. The Christian view of sex is that it's for one man and one woman together in marriage. Any sex outside of that is wrong and should be and can be opposed. I have every intent to only pursue sexually the one woman who is my wife.
[there have been a FEW cases of this but that proves nothing.]
Except that it proves that sexual preference is not caused by genetic predisposition.
[The ones who have done so, or tried to do so, have in all cases been made to feel sinful or maladjusted by friends or "well-intentioned" Christian nuts who have been influential in their lives.]
Let me apologize on behalf of all well-intentioned Christians for trying to encourage folks to live the most natural and healthy lifestyle there is.
[So Stewwie, if this is true, when did you decide/choose that you were "straight"?]
Everyday. It's easier for me since I don't struggle with SSA, but I do make a choice each day to pursue my wife and no others (women or men). We all struggle with different temptations, but ultimately the choices that you make determine who you are.
[Many of them dress like a normal guy and act masculine.]
Of course the women do. (Kidding.)
I think that Jaws knows that at least 1 franchise (and 1 is all it takes) will draft Johnny Headache in the first round. So he's 1st round talent, but some teams probably will avoid him like the plague. I personally wouldn't take him in the 1st 3 rounds either because the red flags on this guy are just too much. To me, it's not worth the risk.
Jay, what are your thoughts on the NFL's consideration to start flagging players who use the N-word?
You are contradicting yourself. First, you note that you "don't know about the whole gene thing or nature/nuture...". But then you confidently assert that gays and straights have no choice in their sexual preferences. But if nuture does have a role in some way (which you admit that you do not know), then you cannot make the statement that you did about genetic predispositions.
The reality is that people are not inherently born "gay" or "straight." Some guys may act a little feminine or dress a little metro, but that doesn't mean they're gay. Even folks who struggle with SSA aren't necessarily "gay" unless they act on those temptations. Ultimately, the pursuance of a sexual encounter/relationship with someone of the same gender is a choice, not something you are compelled to do. And there are numerous accounts of folks who have lived the homosexual lifestyle and now have chosen to live otherwise.
Rickaroo said "genetically preordained". Sound to me like he believes in a gay gene despite evidence to the contrary. You libs can't have it both ways. Which is it?
[...and here's hoping that, like we said earlier, Sam's social preferences in the not too distant future are as important as if he was a vegetarian or left-handed.]
I think Sam would want that too and just play football, but the media will continue to fan the flames of controversy because they'll continue to track his every move and try to put him on a pedestal due to his sexuality. Folks who oppose homosexuality (or any other form of sexual immorality) would want the issue to die down just so it doesn't get glorified. Folks who are ok with homosexuality seem to also want this to die down because they're simply tired of hearing about it. So if/when the media decides to finally quit talking about it, maybe we'll all get what we want in the end. But I doubt the media is willing to go that route (at this point anyway).
[We will defend forever Elkington's right to say whatever he wants — that's in our core belief system — but we equally defend our right to call him an idiot.]
[Either way, thanks for the discourse. Seriously. It always makes for more interesting discussion — and shows the ability to have a conversation without caps locked and a slew of !!!!!]
Agreed. Thanks to you as well. Keep up the good work. And yes, War 5-at-10.
Chas, the local TV news stations here are pretty fair. But most national newspapers and TV news channels are not. For those entities, there's no need for a morning meeting to say how they're going to spin the news that day. It's an expectation that it will spin the same way everyday.
Jay, just to be clear, I am not lumping you personally in with the rest of the "liberal media". By "liberal media", I'm referring to the media's bias as a whole which is obviously very far to the left. But that's the majority; there are others such as yourself that lean the other way (the right way!)
I would agree that Elkington (and any professional) should use discretion when making public comments. But some folks either don't care or they are simply looking for attention. And when those folks are has-beens, why should the media care what they think? If the media didn't troll, would anybody really care what Elkington has to say in his tweets? I wouldn't.
As for the joke itself, why can't we just laugh and move on? Of course it's about Sam being different. All jokes about someone are about them being different in some way. Some can go too far, of course, but most of the time, people need to acquire that thing we call a sense of humor and just roll with it. The problem is that gay people are an apparent untouchable by the media and that's the reason this is even an issue at all.
If an NFL team picking last in the draft has a chance to draft Michael Sam, they're really going to get it either way. Either they pass on "making history", or they take Sam and let a gay guy be known as Mr. Irrelevant. The media might even request that we retire that title because "it might make gays look irrelevant".
Agreed, MT. It's almost as if the media is trolling simply to get a story. Otherwise, why in the world would they care this much about a tweet from a guy like Steve Elkington?