Toledo Talk

First Openly Gay Player Drafted

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Sports/2014/0511/Michael-Sam-Is-emotional-kiss-exactly-what-some-NFL-teams-were-afraid-of

I think this could be problematical for St. Louis. This guy was tough in college. However, the knock against him is that he is a bit undersized.

If they cut him, will they be accused of anti-gay bias?

Based upon the Mozilla and Duck Dynasty boycotts, could the St. Louis Rams find themselves also possibly the target of boycotts and negative press if he doesn't make the team?

What are your thoughts TT'ers?

created by Dappling2 on May 11, 2014 at 10:33:54 pm     Comments: 58

source      versions


Comments ... #

I don't care if someone is gay, straight, Bi, or asexual.

It should about job performance. If he isn't good enough to be on the roster, you cut him. If he is good enough, you keep him.

Too much hoopla over a non-event.

posted by shamrock44 on May 11, 2014 at 11:44:59 pm     #   2 people liked this

If you can do your job, you keep it, if you cant bye bye, that goes for everyone I don't believe in favoritism or nepotism.

posted by MIJeff on May 11, 2014 at 11:52:52 pm     #   1 person liked this

He was drafted near the end of the 7th and final round. The 249th player picked. It's no surprise when a player drafted that late does not make a team.

May 10, 2014 article :

Of those players at [Michael Sam's] position who had been rated as sixth-round picks before the draft — as Sam was — slightly less than 50 percent were chosen by an NFL team.

Central Catholic grad Dane Sanzenbacher went undrafted, but he made the Bears team his rookie season. After two years with the Bears, he played last year with the Bengals.

The late-round draft pick who has probably garnered the most attention over the past decade has been Tom Brady who got drafted in the 6th round. Brady was the 199th player selected, and he's headed to the hall of fame.

Two years ago when the Seattle Seahawks drafted the so-called undersized quarterback Russell Wilson in the 3rd round, I doubt the team expected Wilson to earn the starting spot because Seattle signed a big contract with QB Matt Flynn from Green Bay through free agency. But Wilson won the starting job in the 2012 preseason, helped Seattle make the playoffs that year and win a playoff game, and then Seattle won the Super Bowl this past season.

So who knows until they start practicing and playing pre-season games.

I think the math is simple for Michael Sam or any player, regarding the NFL.

  1. If he's a good player, then he'll make a team.
  2. If he's really good, then he'll play a fair amount.
  3. If he's really, really good, then he'll start.

If he's none of the above, then he'll be released. I don't think an NFL team will waste a roster spot.

But Sam will get his shot.

"... the knock against him is that he is a bit undersized."

I guess it depends upon what position he will play. He might be undersized for defensive end, but allegedly, his height and weight are 6' 2" and around 260 pounds. That seems big enough for linebacker if he's fast.

Sam Mills played inside linebacker in the NFL from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, and he was only 5' 9" and around 230 pounds. Even back then, that was considered small for linebacker.

Articles about Michael Sam:

May 10, 2014 article

He played defensive end in college, but he's short for that position in the NFL and slower than most outside linebackers, the position he'll need to transition to at the professional level.

February 2014 article :

Those hoping Sam would perform well enough in the peripherals for a move to linebacker were sorely disappointed. He's a bit slow even to slide into the middle—let alone as a stand-up outside pass-rusher. Teams would be able to take advantage of him too easily for that to be a viable option.

March 2014 article :

Similar to his combine performance, [Michael] Sam's positional workout was mixed. It's clear he worked hard to prepare and he knew exactly what he had to do in drills and was precise executing them. However, he still looked stiff and robotic when bending his knees and changing directions.

I do not believe he could make the switch to playing linebacker full time, but could handle playing a rush-linebacker or inside linebacker position in a 3-4 defense.

At 260-plus pounds, Michael Sam could be big for inside linebacker if this February 2013 article is correct where the writer claimed that the trend in the NFL was for teams to draft lighter weight inside linebackers.

And with the NFL's increasing reliance on spread formations -- not just spread concepts, but actually widening a defense by lining up outside the numbers on both sides -- defenses are changing their games by using linebackers that, 10 years ago, may have been seen as safety prospects.

In the 2012 NFL Draft, only one drafted inside linebacker weighed in at over 250 pounds, and the rookies who set the pace at that position were not at all like the "thumper" templates of years past.

Apparently, the St. Louis Rams use a 4-3 defense.

posted by jr on May 12, 2014 at 01:39:49 am     #   2 people liked this

Jr...your sports analysis is A+! Interesting reading!

posted by Dappling2 on May 12, 2014 at 06:52:27 am     #  

Dappling2 posted at 06:52:27 AM on May 12, 2014:

Jr...your sports analysis is A+! Interesting reading!

It is indeed. But, where do you find the time???!!!

posted by Foodie on May 12, 2014 at 08:50:22 am     #  

Fans, teammates, and owners will put up with a player whose off field activities they don't agree with or condone as long as that player still helps the team win. Daryl Strawberry's drug use, Dennis Rodman's multiple off court antics and Michael Vick's dog fighting activities are examples of behavior that was accepted until those players could no longer contribute to the team winning. No one makes a big deal about the sexual preferences of many in the WNBA, LPGA, or figure skaters.

posted by Mike21 on May 12, 2014 at 09:06:41 am     #   1 person liked this

shamrock44 posted at 11:44:59 PM on May 11, 2014:

I don't care if someone is gay, straight, Bi, or asexual.

It should about job performance. If he isn't good enough to be on the roster, you cut him. If he is good enough, you keep him.

Too much hoopla over a non-event.

I agree that it should be about job performance - and for the team management it will definitely be. They wouldn't have drafted him if they didn't think he'd do well.

THAT SAID - "too much hoopla over a non-event" -
It's an event. The first openly gay player drafted into the NFL? Kind of a huge deal. I look forward to the day when it's NOT a news story because people don't care about who people want to fuck, but for now it's a story.

Also, his reaction video? Talk about happiness and love. Wow - I saw some guys in the draft who seemed like total entitled douchebags (Manziel anyone?) and others who seemed genuinely happy and amazed to get the nod- and Sam definitely was in the latter group.

posted by endcycle on May 12, 2014 at 09:52:29 am     #   1 person liked this

i saw that this morning.

You know, as a PROFESSIONAL football player, and especially given Miami's recent history, he should know better than to tweet anything negative about any draft prospect for ANY reason other than generic trash talk about field performance. What an idiot.

posted by endcycle on May 12, 2014 at 10:00:39 am     #  

Disclaimer: I don't watch football or know anything about the current makeup of the NFL. I would actually think that other players would have a harder time with this than anything else.

posted by Ace_Face on May 12, 2014 at 11:55:42 am     #  

Michael Sam Jersey Sales Surge To No. 2 Out Of NFL Rookies
The NFL said sales of Sam’s jersey are “unprecedented"...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/tonymerevick/michael-sam-jersey-sales-surge-to-no-2-out-of-nfl-rookies

posted by toledolen_ on May 12, 2014 at 12:48:10 pm     #  

I look forward to the day when it's NOT a news story because people don't care about who people want to fuck, but for now it's a story.

I suspect a whole lotta people fall in to the 'don't care' category, but others want us to not only care, they want us to embrace and celebrate a life style that I don't agree with.

posted by MrsArcher on May 12, 2014 at 02:59:09 pm     #   3 people liked this

MrsArcher posted at 02:59:09 PM on May 12, 2014:

I look forward to the day when it's NOT a news story because people don't care about who people want to fuck, but for now it's a story.

I suspect a whole lotta people fall in to the 'don't care' category, but others want us to not only care, they want us to embrace and celebrate a life style that I don't agree with.

1: at what point were you asked to celebrate anything? I don't remember hearing anyone say "hey, endcycle, celebrate this". I just saw a camera pointed at a dude who was freaking out and excited about getting drafted, surrounded by all of the people who loved him.

2: what don't you "agree with" and what are you going to "embrace"? why do you have to agree with who he's attracted to?

3: Why SHOULDN'T you celebrate love in any form you can between consenting adults? What's wrong with that?

posted by endcycle on May 12, 2014 at 03:40:05 pm     #   7 people liked this

Relax Francis.
In regard to the comment:
"I suspect a whole lotta people fall in to the 'don't care' category, but others want us to not only care, they want us to embrace and celebrate a life style that I don't agree with." This is a stand-alone opinion, based on the subject at hand but not a specific quoted request, and is just as valid as anybody's else's. It recognizes the difference between tolerance and advocacy or celebration as an add-on thought related to the topic. It's not hate speech, and nobody was harmed.

People can exercise freedom to love anybody they choose without others being compelled or cajoled into "celebrations" of things that they don't feel comfortable with for themselves. I get the distinction.

Now, before you take the simple route of calling me an obvious "gay hater," (this is the tactic d'jour for many who have trouble exhibiting the very tolerance that they espouse) I have two gay people in my family that I want to be happy.

That doesn't mean I don't understand Mrs. Archer's point, or that I am victimized by it.

posted by justread on May 12, 2014 at 04:43:48 pm     #   2 people liked this

Another way to put it:

Tolerance is not found in the swinging of the pendulum from one social norm to another, and everyone must join the bandwagon and move to the other side. Tolerance is found when the pendulum stops, allowing room for each to be who they are on either side without fear of the next swing.

Those who have suffered intolerance have a new opportunity to practice it from a position of enhanced social power. We'll see how they do with that. Historically, the oppressed become the oppressors.

Depending on the individual and their perspective, In your face gay pride is as oppressive as vocal gay hate. One does not need to march in the gay pride parade to exhibit tolerance and acceptance. And those who don't "celebrate" or "champion" are not guilty of intolerance. "Live and let live" is different from "cheer for me or you prove you are terrible."

posted by justread on May 12, 2014 at 05:27:07 pm     #   6 people liked this

Ok.
Having said all that, I will defend my gay child against dam near anything and some of the people on this forum who I would like to meet the most happen to be gay. But that's just me.

posted by justread on May 12, 2014 at 05:30:12 pm     #   2 people liked this

Justread - thanks, that about sums it up.

posted by MrsArcher on May 12, 2014 at 07:32:35 pm     #  

[iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/C75q_7TVmCk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen]</iframe>

posted by toledolen_ on May 13, 2014 at 09:29:05 am     #  

Let me try that differently!

posted by toledolen_ on May 13, 2014 at 09:29:58 am     #  

Interesting points - I apologize if I came off more intensely than I intended.

I certainly don't think anyone is being forced to celebrate anything. My comments and questions were intended to find out WHY mrsarcher felt that way. I still would like to know.

My point of view - and feel free to disagree:

Please keep in mind that those are people celebrating a life achievement that very few people you know will ever celebrate. Gay, straight, bi, poly, whatever - they're still people. Whether you agree with who they're attracted to or not, celebrating their achievement seems like a nice thing to do. Reveling in their joy and their happiness strikes me as the Christian thing to do as well. The kiss between Sam and his boyfriend was one of love and relief, not a premeditated political statement.

This kid overcame incredibly long odds to get where he was, and THAT deserves celebration to me.

I'm not asking that you go get married to someone of the same sex or even that you understand same sex attraction. I'm not asking that you change your mind about gay marriage or vote democrat or whatever. I'm asking that you take a moment to think hard on what you're being sensitive to and why you are so sensitive to it.

I know this isn't a venue for a long discussion that won't dissolve into hyperbole, but I hope that you'll find a moment to smile for someone else's joy and surprise.

posted by endcycle on May 13, 2014 at 09:37:24 am     #  

"I certainly don't think anyone is being forced to celebrate anything. My comments and questions were intended to find out WHY mrsarcher felt that way. I still would like to know."

It seemed pretty clear that "forced to celebrate" was a characterization of the fast and complete mainstreaming of gay culture in this country. It was a fairly short trip from Will and Grace to Modern Family and Ellen. I think that it is reasonable for a proverbial person to feel that we have gone from a dynamic where you are either gay or straight to a dynamic where you are either gay or non-gay. Straight is so passé. Gay seems to have become the new normal. The hippest possible new fashion accessory is a gay.

That seems to be a very different examination of the evolving society than the "Christian" act of "smiling for someone else's joy."

(For the record, secular humanists get a pretty big kick out of people being happy also. Just saying.)

posted by justread on May 13, 2014 at 09:52:12 am     #  

I was going to jump in and discuss the business aspect of this as well as discuss what Michael Sam is looking to get out of being drafted - but this discussion has got so deep that i have decided to look for a post on roofers or new restaurants...it's more my speed.

posted by Molsonator on May 13, 2014 at 10:34:14 am     #  

Oh no. We broke the interweb. :(

posted by justread on May 13, 2014 at 10:40:41 am     #   3 people liked this

justread posted at 09:52:12 AM on May 13, 2014:

"I certainly don't think anyone is being forced to celebrate anything. My comments and questions were intended to find out WHY mrsarcher felt that way. I still would like to know."

It seemed pretty clear that "forced to celebrate" was a characterization of the fast and complete mainstreaming of gay culture in this country. It was a fairly short trip from Will and Grace to Modern Family and Ellen. I think that it is reasonable for a proverbial person to feel that we have gone from a dynamic where you are either gay or straight to a dynamic where you are either gay or non-gay. Straight is so passé. Gay seems to have become the new normal. The hippest possible new fashion accessory is a gay.

That seems to be a very different examination of the evolving society than the "Christian" act of "smiling for someone else's joy."

(For the record, secular humanists get a pretty big kick out of people being happy also. Just saying.)

Interesting point actually. It was a faster evolution than I expected, certainly. I can see why people might not appreciate the change unless they or someone they knew happened to be gay or directly affected.

"The hippest possible new fashion accessory is a gay." nah, that was the 90s. :)

Also: "I think that it is reasonable for a proverbial person to feel that we have gone from a dynamic where you are either gay or straight to a dynamic where you are either gay or non-gay."

Not quite sure how is that logical or reasonable. Did the majority of people suddenly become gay somehow? Did I miss a memo somewhere along the line? I mean, maybe if the majority of your friends or relatives in a small group are gay and the default for that clique is gay, you might be the token non-gay-person, but last I checked that's not the case for the majority of the world. LGBTQ people are still a pretty small minority and are still pretty heavily discriminated against all around the world, and very heavily in this country. Not sure how someone might believe that gay people suddenly have more power than they do, you know?

(also, for the record - I'm an atheist. I lean very heavily towards secular humanism, but I'm not an ism kinda guy in general. I also am a student of religion, and have a pretty good understanding of how the Big Three work. :))

posted by endcycle on May 13, 2014 at 10:44:22 am     #  

There has been a huge uptick in the number of gay influencers of popular culture and society.

Discrimination against gays is not only illegal in this country, it's incredibly uncool.

Rainbow: It's the new black.

posted by justread on May 13, 2014 at 11:24:19 am     #  

justread posted at 11:24:19 AM on May 13, 2014:

There has been a huge uptick in the number of gay influencers of popular culture and society.

Discrimination against gays is not only illegal in this country, it's incredibly uncool.

Rainbow: It's the new black.

it's not illegal in much of the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States

Employment section:
There is no federal statute addressing employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Protections at the national level are limited. Some regulations protect government employees but do not extend their protections to the private sector. Twenty-one states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and over 140 cities and counties have enacted bans on discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or sexual identity. Employment discrimination refers to discriminatory employment practices such as bias in hiring, promotion, job assignment, termination, and compensation, and various types of harassment.48 In the United States there is "very little statutory, common law, and case law establishing employment discrimination based upon sexual orientation as a legal wrong."49

Marriage rights:
Nine states and the District of Columbia legislators have passed same-sex marriage bills in their states, of which four were vetoed by the governors, four were signed by state governors and the mayor of Washington D.C., and one was overridden by the state legislature.

Here's some more reading on just the gay marriage aspect and why gay couples are fighting so hard for it:
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/from-why-marriage-matters-appendix-b-by-evan-wolfson

Some more interesting reading here as well:
https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights

It's BETTER than it was, but there's still a lot of institutional discrimination and a lack of spousal / partner rights all across the country. To say that discrimination against gays is illegal is incorrect (for now, hopefully). I agree with "incredibly uncool" aspect, for sure though.

posted by endcycle on May 13, 2014 at 11:40:05 am     #  

"Twenty-one states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and over 140 cities and counties have enacted bans on discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or sexual identity."

Would have thought that it was illegal in more states.

So it is not universally illegal. I wouldn't want to test it. The NFL sure didn't.

posted by justread on May 13, 2014 at 12:52:15 pm     #  

Gay people should be able to marry and have the same right to be as miserable as half of the people who can marry are now.

posted by Mike21 on May 13, 2014 at 12:58:08 pm     #  

"have married" vs "can marry" ^^^

posted by Mike21 on May 13, 2014 at 01:02:25 pm     #  

justread posted at 12:52:15 PM on May 13, 2014:

"Twenty-one states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and over 140 cities and counties have enacted bans on discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or sexual identity."

Would have thought that it was illegal in more states.

So it is not universally illegal. I wouldn't want to test it. The NFL sure didn't.

I don't think the nfl was worried one way or the other on that portion. Teams usually are very, very good at complying with local and federal regs.

I also think that the teams themselves likely had no problem internally with having a gay teammate. Anecdotally, there are lots of gay players in the NFL who are well known in their own locker rooms as being gay (but are not out publicly).

The issue was the fan base. No one knew for sure how a fan base would react. I, personally, have been pleasantly surprised by the overall positive nature Michael Sam's reception. Part of that is from the progressive nature of St Louis (and the team itself). Part also is that the public in general has become MUCH less homophobic in the last several years. It's been quick.

Side note: the acceptance trend line for gay marriage on a graph has almost exactly the same appearance as the acceptance trend line for the approval of marijuana legalization. :)

posted by endcycle on May 13, 2014 at 02:55:11 pm     #   2 people liked this

This kid overcame incredibly long odds to get where he was, and THAT deserves celebration to me.

Someone over coming long odds and making it in life, is a great thing and that does deserve to be lauded and encouraged. But that's a point in itself - I know nothing of this, all I know, and all the media talks about, is that fact that he is openly gay. So the media is telling me that this is what is most important about Sam. By coming out to the national media, this is what Sam is telling me is important about Sam.

I'm asking that you take a moment to think hard on what you're being sensitive to and why you are so sensitive to it.

I don't think I'm sensitive, I just don't care about other people's sexuality. i don't care if you are gay, straight, bi or whatever. I care that you are a hard working and ethical person. For those hard-working and ethical people, great that they do well in life. But I'm supposed to care that he is gay. I don't care that he's gay. I don't care if someone is straight; I don't care if someone is abstinent. (Okay, I care if my husband is any of these.)

3: Why SHOULDN'T you celebrate love in any form you can between consenting adults? What's wrong with that?

You also use the words celebrating and reveling. You are using these terms in reference to a person who is a stranger to 99.9% of the world. I don't celebrate or revel in a stranger; I celebrate and revel for people I know, people I have met, people I have a connection to.

Here is my perspective when it comes to the gay push that we have seen in the last five years, and why I say we are being asked to embrace and celebrate a lifestyle I don't agree with - the gay movement has going beyond 'accepting' said couples, and has become a civil right - individuals in other states are being FORCED to perform services for gay couples (example: http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2014/01/21/oregon-rules-bakery-violated-gay-couples-civil-rights-by-denying-them-a-cake-for-same-sex-wedding/). Ohio, at this point, does not protect sexual orientation, so we are not seeing this here. This is where I get my point that we are being expected to embrace and celebrate.

I don't want the first gay, or the first black, or the first women, I want the best person for the job, whatever that job is. I suspect every one of those who got drafted were celebrated to some extent last weekend - including a local celebration for a former resident. And its cool that the industry is celebrating this event. But the rest of us are supposed to care that Sam is gay. I don't care.

That's not to suggest that I think you (pejorative 'you') should discriminate, or hate, or treat differently, homosexuals. They should be treated, for purposes of employment and loans and whatever, as a person and judged based on their character and skills and abilities and dedication and ethics and morals.

posted by MrsArcher on May 13, 2014 at 03:58:43 pm     #   1 person liked this

She typed "pejorative."
As the leading self-appointed spokesperson for MrsArcher, I think she means "proverbial."

:D

posted by justread on May 13, 2014 at 07:50:58 pm     #  

Thank you for your answer. One question:

"Here is my perspective when it comes to the gay push that we have seen in the last five years, and why I say we are being asked to embrace and celebrate a lifestyle I don't agree with - the gay movement has going beyond 'accepting' said couples, and has become a civil right - individuals in other states are being FORCED to perform services for gay couples (example: http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2014/01/21/oregon-rules-bakery-violated-gay-couples-civil-rights-by-denying-them-a-cake-for-same-sex-wedding/). Ohio, at this point, does not protect sexual orientation, so we are not seeing this here. This is where I get my point that we are being expected to embrace and celebrate"

Out of curiousity, do you feel the same way about a shop owner who wouldn't want to service a couple because of their skin color?

posted by endcycle on May 14, 2014 at 10:21:25 am     #  

"Out of curiousity, do you feel the same way about a shop owner who wouldn't want to service a couple because of their skin color?"

It wasn't too long ago that bureaucrats were denying marriage licenses based on race.
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2009/10/interracial_couple_denied_marr.html

posted by clt212 on May 14, 2014 at 10:33:42 am     #  

While some may like to compare skin color to sexual orientation, I disagree with that. There are biblical issues with regard to sexual orientation (in my opinion - others may disagree), which are not so with race (at least in the religious teachings I have been brought up in - I'm not talking whacked-out religions if there are any).

We have had religious exemptions to a lot of legal activities - abortion is the one that comes to mind, but religious organizations are able to discriminate against people based on their religious affiliation, sexual preference, marital status, etc.

Yet when it comes to same sex couples, some people in some states are being forced to set aside their religious beliefs in order to provide services to someone who is violating the service provider's religious tenants. I have a problem with that.

And this is where I get being asked to embrace and celebrate - why would someone WANT a caterer or cake maker or photographer involved in a wedding that they personally disagree with? Because the couple has an agenda and they want us to not only accept, but to celebrate and embrace.

Lets take this a step further - should same sex couples be excluded from hotels, restaurants, malls, etc. No, these are public accommodations, and should serve all of the public to the extent that laws are not broken (disorderly conduct, etc.).

Should homosexual individuals be denied access to an education, or state licenses (that they otherwise qualify for), property ownership, etc.? No.

But I feel as though they want not just to be accepted and allowed to live their life, they want preferential treatment. JMO.

posted by MrsArcher on May 14, 2014 at 11:11:05 am     #  

"Because the couple has an agenda" Seriously? You think gay couples are getting married because they have some ulterior motive?

"why would someone WANT a caterer or cake maker or photographer involved in a wedding that they personally disagree with?" All of those people have the right to turn down a contract. Nobody can force a photographer to work your wedding. If the photographer doesn't agree with homosexuality, he doesn't have to bid on the job. What's difficult about that?

"But I feel as though they want not just to be accepted and allowed to live their life, they want preferential treatment." Fighting for the same rights as the rest of us is fighting for preferential treatment?

posted by Johio83 on May 14, 2014 at 11:32:35 am     #   1 person liked this

johi83 - you are not following this conversation very well and taking my statements out of order.

"Because the couple has an agenda" Seriously? You think gay couples are getting married because they have some ulterior motive?

The sentence right before was a question that stated: why would someone WANT a caterer or cake maker or photographer involved in a wedding that they personally disagree with?

I answered my own question (based on my opinion) that the couple have an ulterior motive in forcing a wedding service provider to provide said service when the service provider is opposed to it.

All of those people have the right to turn down a contract. Nobody can force a photographer to work your wedding. If the photographer doesn't agree with homosexuality, he doesn't have to bid on the job. What's difficult about that?

If you would have read my prior posts, you would see that some state are in fact forcing people to provide services, that they can't in fact turn down the work. Granted, Ohio does not have that law at this point, but other states do, and I qualified my statement as such.

Fighting for the same rights as the rest of us is fighting for preferential treatment?

If the gay movement wants sexual preference to be a protected class, they are in fact asking for preferential treatment, because once its a protected class than there are hiring standards and quotas that can kick in. Some want this, some just want to lead normal lives and be treated like everyone else.

posted by MrsArcher on May 14, 2014 at 12:05:10 pm     #  

"Seriously? You think gay couples are getting married because they have some ulterior motive?"

That was clearly not what was written or implied.

It wasn't the marriage that was part of an agenda. The agenda took the form of forcing the issue with a particular vendor who'd rather not take the gig, just to make a point and garner unwelcome attention for the vendor. (We've seen several examples of this in the news lately, as part of the media's fixation with the movement.)
And that's the point. This is not just the expression of personal freedom in one's own life. It's a movement. In fact, currently, it's THE hip movement.

posted by justread on May 14, 2014 at 12:09:02 pm     #   1 person liked this

clt212 posted at 10:33:42 AM on May 14, 2014:

"Out of curiousity, do you feel the same way about a shop owner who wouldn't want to service a couple because of their skin color?"

It wasn't too long ago that bureaucrats were denying marriage licenses based on race.
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2009/10/interracial_couple_denied_marr.html

I agree this is unfortunate in today's society and illegal. But I will also note that the title is misleading and your interpretation wrong.

The title should read JoP refused to marry, not that the marriage license was denied. Other people can marry this couple. (I'll note that the article never said that the couple was issued a marriage license, it just talks about how to get one.)

Second, the guy was a Justice of the Peace, someone authorized by the state to marry couples, but not part of the government in otherwise issuing licenses or recording marriages. No bureaucrats involved.

posted by MrsArcher on May 14, 2014 at 12:18:47 pm     #  

You know, I've written and deleted a few posts now, trying to get the right tone.

But I give up.

1: "special rights" - you mean the right to marry your partner is a special fucking right?? SERIOUSLY? The right to NOT be discriminated against because of something out of your control is somehow a special right??? (and yeah - it's not a choice. when did you choose to be straight?)

2: "While some may like to compare skin color to sexual orientation, I disagree with that. There are biblical issues with regard to sexual orientation (in my opinion - others may disagree), which are not so with race (at least in the religious teachings I have been brought up in - I'm not talking whacked-out religions if there are any)."

You SERIOUSLY use the bible as an argument about laws in this country? What's next, you gonna argue that we put all adulterers to death by stoning? That's actually right in the same area as the anti-gay passages. Oh, also? Were you a virgin on your wedding night? All of your friends? Anyone that wasn't is toast. Also by stoning. At your dad's house. Same chapter. Also, more words dedicated to that than homosexuality in the bible, just in case you're curious.

20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you. Deuteronomy 22:13-21

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:13-21

MAAAAAAAYBE in the interests of not seeing you and most of your friends and relatives die, let's leave the bible out of your arguments. I mean, you could then say "well, that's old testament, and that's different" - okay. Where did jesus talk about gay people? In fact, in ALL FOUR of the accepted gospels (you know, places where he talked about treating poor people well and paying taxes and healing the sick and not stoning prostitutes and generally seemed a pretty great guy), he did not once mention anything related to homosexuality. Nothing. Not a peep. You'd think that if the son of god (or god, anyway) gave a rat's ass about some dude putting his dick in another dude, he'd have said something. Lots of room in there, after all, and if they ran into a limit on length... well, fuck it. they're god. they can add more paper.

3: in which my head explodes:

"If the gay movement wants sexual preference to be a protected class, they are in fact asking for preferential treatment, because once its a protected class than there are hiring standards and quotas that can kick in. Some want this, some just want to lead normal lives and be treated like everyone else."

THEY ALL JUST WANT TO LIVE NORMAL LIVES AND BE TREATED LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. That's what they're FIGHTING FOR. They don't want to be held on a pedestal. They would just like the same treatment straight / cis-gendered people get. I don't think you quite understand the hell that LGBTQ kids and adults deal with on a daily basis. Yes, it's better now than it was in the 80s. It's better now than it was 10 years ago or even 5. But they're still told they're second class citizens and are often the targets of hatred at all levels of government and in private life. Laws and regulations are passed continuously by politicians targeting their ability to get married. Is that okay with you?

Or should we maybe say "oh gee, maybe it's time to stop treating these people like second class citizens and, you know, allow them to express their love like we can".

Yeah, I need to stop participating in this thread. Have a nice day, all. Go hug someone.

posted by endcycle on May 14, 2014 at 12:47:53 pm     #   5 people liked this

Mrs. Archer does not want to hug you...

posted by McCaskey on May 14, 2014 at 12:59:43 pm     #   2 people liked this

"THEY ALL JUST WANT TO LIVE NORMAL LIVES AND BE TREATED LIKE EVERYONE ELSE"

"All" is a dam strong word. Hell of a time consuming survey, too.

I guess you have never met the type whose very identity is defined by their unique and countercultural edge. They'll swim against any current to establish their independence and difference from "normal" people.

posted by justread on May 14, 2014 at 01:22:43 pm     #   3 people liked this

McCaskey posted at 12:59:43 PM on May 14, 2014:

Mrs. Archer does not want to hug you...

I never got into the hugging people I don't know thing; always made me uncomfortable.

endcycle - I'm not asking you to agree with me, I'm not asking for your blessing for what I believe; I just think what I think. We have not been talking about gay marriage here, we were talking about whether or not Sam's sexual orientation is or should be a big deal. I would say something about choice vs. birth, but again that's not where this thread started or was going.

You SERIOUSLY use the bible as an argument about laws in this country?

Again, we were not talking about laws, we were talking about whether or not I need to know who someone likes. I did bring up the issue of civil rights with regard to weddings only to prove my point about sexual preference being forced upon those of us who really don't give a rats butt.

THEY ALL JUST WANT TO LIVE NORMAL LIVES AND BE TREATED LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

I disagree. Some of them want more.

are often the targets of hatred

To this I say, get over it. Yes, some people hate. But not everyone. I've been the focus of hatred, with wishes of death towards my family. That's life. Its amazing, I stepped away from public life (at my choosing, not because I was threatened), and the bad behavior towards me stopped.

That's my point - if the sexual preference crowd would stop shouting it from the rooftops, they wouldn't have so many people behaving badly towards them.

You like who you like, live your life the way you want, and I do the same. You don't have to know what I do and with whom, I am just as oblivious to yours.

posted by MrsArcher on May 14, 2014 at 01:31:46 pm     #   1 person liked this

I never got into the hugging people I don't know thing; always made me uncomfortable.

Yeah, we got that...

Again, we were not talking about laws, we were talking about whether or not I need to know who someone likes. I did bring up the issue of civil rights with regard to weddings only to prove my point about sexual preference being forced upon those of us who really don't give a rats butt.

Here's the thing-yes, maybe it's no one's business. Maybe what YOU do in your bedroom, hugging or not, is no one's business. That's fine. Until we have true equality, the "outliers" are defined by what they do in the bedroom and who they decide to do it with.

if the sexual preference crowd would stop shouting it from the rooftops, they wouldn't have so many people behaving badly towards them.
It's BECAUSE they've been shouting it from the rooftops that's its we've progressed so quickly. There has been a sea change in public opinion in 20 years, and it's because people are willing to speak out against injustice. You ever watch Mad Men and see how archaic and strange society looked 40 years ago? Pre feminism, post civil rights movement. I mean, it was a different world, a much, much worse world if you weren't a white male. Homosexuality is one of the last stigmas left, one that is disappearing thanks to people like Michael Sam. Don't know the guy, but I do know that he took a huge risk to stand up for something he believes in, which is the same things we say about all heroes of social injustice in the 20th century.

We can discuss the luxury of what we want to hear once every is on equal footing.

posted by ahmahler on May 14, 2014 at 01:56:14 pm     #   1 person liked this

"Homosexuality is one of the last stigmas left"

So what are the other ones?

posted by SherryET on May 14, 2014 at 02:04:29 pm     #   1 person liked this

"Homosexuality is one of the last stigmas left"

So what are the other ones?

Let's see... being overweight, being poor, having a mental illness, being HIV positive, being any other race other than white, being mentally challenged, being physically challenged... shall I go on?

posted by daddyg on May 14, 2014 at 02:20:29 pm     #  

Don't forget old, short and bald...

posted by McCaskey on May 14, 2014 at 02:25:43 pm     #  

daddyg posted at 02:20:29 PM on May 14, 2014:

"Homosexuality is one of the last stigmas left"

So what are the other ones?

Let's see... being overweight, being poor, having a mental illness, being HIV positive, being any other race other than white, being mentally challenged, being physically challenged... shall I go on?

Hey! I got 5 out of 7. Does that count?

posted by madjack on May 14, 2014 at 02:33:00 pm     #  

McCaskey posted at 02:25:43 PM on May 14, 2014:

Don't forget old, short and bald...

Okay, two out of three. Again, does that count?

posted by madjack on May 14, 2014 at 02:33:38 pm     #  

Dean Wormer: "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son."

posted by daddyg on May 14, 2014 at 03:07:04 pm     #   2 people liked this

"You ever watch Mad Men and see how archaic and strange society looked 40 years ago? Pre feminism, post civil rights movement. I mean, it was a different world, a much, much worse world if you weren't a white male."

Some of us were up and around, taking solid food back then. We remember without the aid of a television show. Our fathers fought in actual wars. And season one of Mad Men was set more than 50 years ago, for the record.

Tell us more about the old days.

posted by justread on May 14, 2014 at 03:57:01 pm     #   2 people liked this

Tell us more about the old days.

ha ha ha, wasn't even a zygote. All I know about the old days is what I see on AMC, but I have to presume scripted fictional television for entertainment purposes is accurate. No?

posted by ahmahler on May 14, 2014 at 04:54:05 pm     #  

We can discuss the luxury of what we want to hear once every is on equal footing.

I wonder if there has been a civilization in the history of the world where all members of a society were on equal footing?

I only took one anthropology course in college, so it's certainly not my area of expertise. But it seems like every culture or society since the beginning of time has had "haves" and "have notes."

The only thing that changes over the years is what characteristics put you in which category.

posted by mom2 on May 14, 2014 at 05:01:54 pm     #   2 people liked this

*nots, not notes. Stupid auto correct.

posted by mom2 on May 14, 2014 at 05:03:12 pm     #  

Mom2-"Having" and "being allowed to/ having the same rights" are different things. That what I was suggesting with equal footing.

posted by ahmahler on May 14, 2014 at 07:45:34 pm     #  

The topic of this thread is an issue only to those that have a "problem" with this.

Realistically, this is a "non-event" and it's only because it's a "novelty" to the media this still "has legs".

Get over it now, people.

posted by BrianInFlorida on May 15, 2014 at 06:20:41 am     #   1 person liked this

I'll bet Mrs Archer is a blast at weddings, straight or otherwise.

posted by Anniecski on May 15, 2014 at 02:49:02 pm     #  

Anniecski posted at 02:49:02 PM on May 15, 2014:

I'll bet Mrs Archer is a blast at weddings, straight or otherwise.

I'm not sure I understand your point or why my behavior at a wedding is relevant to this conversation or TT in general.

posted by MrsArcher on May 15, 2014 at 03:32:29 pm     #   2 people liked this