Gays in the NFL. How Do You Really Feel?

[WaldSkins]

I could care less if someone is gay or straight. I don't need to hear about it either way.

[mbedner3420]

Originally Posted by WaldSkins

I could care less if someone is gay or straight. I don't need to hear about it either way.

Yeah, I have to say I feel the same way.

[mlmpetert]

I bet i know who it is too!

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Today San Francisco 49ers Chris Culver said, "gays aren't welcome" in the locker room. Obviously in today's culture of PC, homosexuality and equality is still a very sensitive issue. But homosexuals in sports remains one of the last cultural barriers and is very much taboo.

Now I think discrimination of any sort is reprehensible, gays included. But I found myself being somewhat sympathetic to Culver's comments, while disagreeing with his view on gays. There's something so barbaric about the sport that I almost expect our other sensibilities to end where the sport begins. I don't expect football players on the gridiron to behave like we do in society. When I'm watching football, I've temporarily suspended most of what I believe to be decent and humane.

I guess to put it more plainly. If a team or a player don't have a problem with homosexuals, fine. Neither do I. If they do and don't want gay players on the team, I'm inclined to say I don't see a problem with that either.

Am I wrong? Where do you stand?

I don't think you're wrong. Guys may feel uncomfortable around a gay guy cause you have to shower with him and he's going to see you naked, things like that. Let's say practice is over and it's just the gay guy and myself. I wouldn't feel comfortable in that situation. As time goes on it might not be a problem. I have no problem with gay guys in general. My ex girlfriend had a good friend that was a gay guy and we went to gay bars with him from time to time.

[ashvirtually]

What makes any of you guys pontificating this belief that if you were in the locker room with a gay guy on the team and in the showers, that he'd give two craps about eyeing you?

A base understanding of human sexuality in general would explain that it doesn't work that way for anyone, gay, straight, bi or whatever.

Jesus Christ.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Today San Francisco 49ers Chris Culver said, "gays aren't welcome" in the locker room. Obviously in today's culture of PC, homosexuality and equality is still a very sensitive issue. But homosexuals in sports remains one of the last cultural barriers and is very much taboo.

Now I think discrimination of any sort is reprehensible, gays included. But I found myself being somewhat sympathetic to Culver's comments, while disagreeing with his view on gays. There's something so barbaric about the sport that I almost expect our other sensibilities to end where the sport begins. I don't expect football players on the gridiron to behave like we do in society. When I'm watching football, I've temporarily suspended most of what I believe to be decent and humane.

I guess to put it more plainly. If a team or a player don't have a problem with homosexuals, fine. Neither do I. If they do and don't want gay players on the team, I'm inclined to say I don't see a problem with that either.

Am I wrong? Where do you stand?

1) Why the hell would a player from San Fran (of all places) say that right before the superbowl? Nothing like a nice distraction for the team before what will like be the biggest day for many of their lives. How could making this statement help your team win?

2) I think private organizations should be able to discriminate.

3) It sounds like you do to. If Tebow proves to be a distraction because he's a spokesman for Christianity, then i got no problem with him being payed less or not considered for a certain job (player, coach, tv). If a gay dude cant get a try out or gets paid less bcause he causes issues in the lockerroom because he's gay.... or more likely because of all the attention he will get, then its no big deal either. If a female makes it to the NFL, then i got no problem with her being paid more than commensurate with on the field performance, because of all the postive attention shell create.

[ashvirtually]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

2) I think private organizations should be able to discriminate.

Except its a private company that is regulated by its consumers and their billions of dollars.

Also, the Packers is publicly owned.

So yeah, they are free to discriminate all they want, but if it messes with those greenbacks they will change quickly and accordingly, and we can take the 49ers organization's immediate refutation of this clown's remarks as an acknowledgement that they know all too well this ain't going to go down nicely with its consumers.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by ashvirtually

Except its a private company that is regulated by its consumers and their billions of dollars.

Also, the Packers is publicly owned.

So yeah, they are free to discriminate all they want, but if it messes with those greenbacks they will change quickly and accordingly, and we can take the 49ers organization's immediate refutation of this clown's remarks as an acknowledgement that they know all too well this ain't going to go down nicely with its consumers.

Just to be clear, and before this thread gets locked: Your comment, to my comment, is exactly how i feel (minus the Packers ownership stuff because thats a scam). My whole point being that if youre an organization thats dumb enough to discriminate, go ahead and do so, but know that its at your own peril. The ultimate regulator is the American Consumer.

Earlier this season i wondered if Goodell was smart or not when he decided to not remain mum, when Ayanbadejo spoke out in favor of gay marriage.

Goodell supports players who speak out on political issues | ProFootballTalk

Then Raven's center Matt Birk came out (pun?) with a traditional marriage arguement, and Goodell stayed quite.

Birk wades into same-sex marriage debate | ProFootballTalk

Goodell ended up praising the democratic process and free speach part of Ayanbadejo's comments without specifically endorsing Ayanbadego's views, effectively appeasing the pro-traditional and pro-gay crowds. Staying quite on Birk's comments was a no-brainer and pulled the league out of the debate, which is perfect for times like right now.

You know these types of comments are going to continue to happen. The gay marriage debate isnt going away anytime soon. And 5 years ago what Culliver said wouldnt have raised any eyebrows, and im sure things like it were said all the time at laughed about. But even with the eyebrows of today raising, the comments are going to continue. Goodell cant do anything about it, and on a pendulumtopic he cant take a stance either by chastising one view and praising the other. In retrospect he played it perfectly.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

2) I think private organizations should be able to discriminate.

On this particular issue (sexual orientation), or in general?

Because the 16th amendment kind of goes against you on all kinds of discrimination except for sexual orientation. Private and public organizations are subject to the amendment which says you can't factor race, gender, religion, ethnicity or nationality into the hiring process.

Private organizations can keep members of certain races, genders, nationalities out. Augusta National comes to mind. Discriminating on prospective memberships are perfectly legal.

But the 49ers locker room isn't a membership, you have to gain employment there to become a part of it. So the 16th amendment applies.

I don't see why one would ever discriminate against sexual orientation but not against race.

[NC_Skins]

2013 Super Bowl -- Chris Culliver's anti-gay remarks rejected by San Francisco 49ers - ESPN

Culliver, 24, also issued a statement Wednesday apologizing for his remarks.

"The derogatory comments I made yesterday were a reflection of thoughts in my head, but they are not how I feel," he said in the statement. "It has taken me seeing them in print to realize that they are hurtful and ugly. Those discriminating feelings are truly not in my heart. Further, I apologize to those who I have hurt and offended, and I pledge to learn and grow from this experience."

WTF does this even mean? They are a reflection of thoughts in your head, but now how you feel? My god this man is a bigger idiot than I thought.

Culliver planned to formally address his remarks at a news conference during the 49ers' media availability Thursday morning, according to his personal public relations representative, Theodore Palmer.

"Chris is very apologetic for any harm caused to anyone," Palmer told The Associated Press in a phone interview. "His intent was not that at all. He is one who celebrates the differences of others. All of this was just a big mistake. It was interpreted wrong."

WTF is this bullshit? If the 49ers sit on this, the LBGT community should shun them forever. Don't sit there and act like you support their community and let this type of behavior go unpunished.

[SFREDSKIN]

I'm surprised the news media here is not going beserk. If he was a Raven player it would be a different.

Here are some player comments:

SFGate.com : What other 49ers say about having a gay teammate

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

WTF does this even mean? They are a reflection of thoughts in your head, but now how you feel? My god this man is a bigger idiot than I thought.

He didn't inhale either ... or was it swallow?

(Too far?)

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

He didn't inhale either ... or was it swallow?

(Too far?)

Bill Clinton approves.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

On this particular issue (sexual orientation), or in general?

Because the 16th amendment kind of goes against you on all kinds of discrimination except for sexual orientation. Private and public organizations are subject to the amendment which says you can't factor race, gender, religion, ethnicity or nationality into the hiring process.

Private organizations can keep members of certain races, genders, nationalities out. Augusta National comes to mind. Discriminating on prospective memberships are perfectly legal.

But the 49ers locker room isn't a membership, you have to gain employment there to become a part of it. So the 16th amendment applies.

I don't see why one would ever discriminate against sexual orientation but not against race.

Ummmm, the 16th Amendment allows the US Congress to levy an income tax.

When it comes to that, I am pretty sure they don't care who you want to sleep with as long as you pay Uncle Sam the green. The govt. is pretty non-discriminatory about it.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Ummmm, the 16th Amendment allows the US Congress to levy an income tax.

When it comes to that, I am pretty sure they don't care who you want to sleep with as long as you pay Uncle Sam the green. The govt. is pretty non-discriminatory about it.

Ha. I am an ass indeed. Civil Rights Act of 1964, pardon me.