Michael Sam poised to become the NFL’s first openly gay player… assuming he’s chosen in May’s draft

    First-team all-American University of Missouri defensive lineman Michael Sam officially came out today. According to Sam, who told his teammates that he was gay at the beginning of last season, he had the sense that his sexual orientation was about to made public, and decided that he’d rather do it himself, on his own terms, than wait for the inevitable. NFL scouts, it would seem, were beginning to ask questions. According to the New York Times, “At a showcase game for college seniors last month, several scouts asked Mr. Sam’s agent, Joe Barkett, questions about whether Mr. Sam had a girlfriend or whether Mr. Barkett had seen him with women.”

    I’m sure that you can find better analysis elsewhere, as I know very little about gay culture, and even less about football, but I did want to weigh in with a few thoughts.

    1. There seems to be a sense that, if an NLF team were to sign a gay player, the world would end… that it would destroy the cohesiveness of the team, and lead to mayhem on the playing field. It’s worth noting, I think, that Sam, despite being out to his teammates all of last season, was able to help lead them to a Cotton Bowl victory, and a 12-win season. More importantly, he was voted Missouri’s most valuable player by his teammates that same season. So homosexuality doesn’t kill teams. Which isn’t to say, of course, that the presence of the league’s first openly gay player might not be a bit of a distraction for the team that signed him. I suspect, however, that this challenge would be surmountable… especially if the team is winning. In fact, his presence may even bring new fans to the sport. (note: Jackie Robinson didn’t kill baseball.)

    2. I’m hesitant to check, but I’m curious as to how today’s news might be greeted by odds-makers in Vegas. I wonder if people are making bets as to whether Sam, who had been considered a top draft pick, may now go undrafted. If he does go undrafted, I say we petition the Football Commissioner to grant another franchise, and begin crowd funding to start an all-gay team. (How awesome would that be?)

    3. It’s a fucking shame that this kid is having to do this. You just know that there are dozens of gay players in the NFL, and one of them should have had the guts to come out before now. Instead, we’ve got this 24 year old young man having to risk his entire future. One would hope that, now that Sam has come out, others might step up and join him. I’m not incredibly hopeful, but I’d love to wake up and read tomorrow morning that three more players, moved by Sam’s announcement, had come forward.

    4. Regardless of whatever happens next, today’s announcement has already had an incredibly positive effect on the nation. This isn’t just about the NFL. This is about young people across the United States, how they perceive of themselves, and how they both see and treat others.

    5. I feel sorry for the athletes competing in the Olympics right now. In the wake of Sam’s announcement, I can almost guarantee that no one will be discussing their accomplishments.

    gayfootballguy

    update: The best commentary I’ve seen on this issue thus far has come from Dallas sportscaster Dale Hansen. You need to watch it.

    This entry was posted in Observations, Other, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

      63 Comments

      1. Elliott
        Posted February 10, 2014 at 7:36 am | Permalink

        We don’t need to start from scratch. We could turn an existing team gay. I’d suggest the Bears, as they already have a workable name.

      2. Mr. Kim
        Posted February 10, 2014 at 8:52 am | Permalink

        I too was hopeful that I’d wake up to hear that at least one current NFL member had come out. That’s not the way the NFL works, though. Careers are too short, there’s too much money on the line, and the whole industry is build upon a notion that homosexuals are weak. The men who make it to the pros have each spent well over a decade in locker rooms, hearing those who show weakness called faggots. It takes a brave man to step up, say that he’s gay, and perhaps lose his career. If people are going to start this, it will be retired athletes who have little to lose. Hopefully they start coming out soon.

      3. Demetrius
        Posted February 10, 2014 at 9:04 am | Permalink

        I predict that in a decade or so, we’ll look back on all these stories of movies stars, politicians, sports stars, etc., coming out, and most will seem mildly anachronistic … somewhat like saying “lady doctor,” calling a black person “well-spoken,” is today.

      4. anonymous
        Posted February 10, 2014 at 9:13 am | Permalink

        Workplace intimidation, as we learned recently in the case of Miami Dolphins Jonathan Martin and Richie Incognito, is not only tolerated but encouraged by the NFL.

        http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9926139/richie-incognito-miami-dolphins-used-slurs-messages-jonathan-martin

      5. Meta
        Posted February 10, 2014 at 10:37 am | Permalink

        From Sports Illustrated:

        “I don’t think football is ready for [an openly gay player] just yet,” said an NFL player personnel assistant. “In the coming decade or two, it’s going to be acceptable, but at this point in time it’s still a man’s-man game. To call somebody a [gay slur] is still so commonplace. It’d chemically imbalance an NFL locker room and meeting room.”

        “That will break a tie against that player,” the former general manager said. “Every time. Unless he’s Superman. Why? Not that they’re against gay people. It’s more that some players are going to look at you upside down. Every Tom, Dick and Harry in the media is going to show up, from Good Housekeeping to the Today show. A general manager is going to ask, ‘Why are we going to do that to ourselves?’”

        “There are guys in locker rooms that maturity-wise cannot handle it or deal with the thought of that,” the assistant coach said. “There’s nothing more sensitive than the heartbeat of the locker room. If you knowingly bring someone in there with that sexual orientation, how are the other guys going to deal with it? It’s going to be a big distraction. That’s the reality. It shouldn’t be, but it will be.”

        Read more:
        http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2014/02/10/3270251/worst-reactions-michael-sams-coming/

      6. Dan
        Posted February 10, 2014 at 11:52 am | Permalink

        For clarification, he wasn’t considered a “top draft pick.” He was considered a lock to get drafted, but probably in the 4th – 7th rounds (i.e., at the bottom half of the draft, there are 7 rounds, for those unfamiliar). Some “scouts” thought he could be a possible 3rd round pick.

        if I were betting, I would say he does go undrafted now, sad as that is. Several GMs and analysts have already said it probably pushes him out of the draft.

        Regardless, he will likely be signed to a team, even if he isn’t drafted.

        http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20140209/michael-sam-draft-stock/

      7. Posted February 10, 2014 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

        I’m pretty sure that Jesus will intervene and block his pick.

      8. Eel
        Posted February 10, 2014 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

        The people behind the Olympics have taken efforts to ensure that the games will still be talked about.

        http://imgur.com/gbIcsbp

      9. Tim
        Posted February 10, 2014 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

        New Orleans Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma said today that he’d be afraid that a gay teammate might look at him in the shower. He can apparently stand the thought of a 300 pound man trying to knock his head off, but the idea that a gay teammate might glance in his direction terrifies him. They must think it’s contagious. They must be worried that Sam might brush up against them in the shower and awaken something in them. It’s stupid.

      10. HuffPo
        Posted February 10, 2014 at 8:39 pm | Permalink

        Former NFL player Donte’ Stallworth doesn’t buy the argument that an openly gay player would be too distracting for an NFL team to be successful.

        In a series of tweets, the retired wide receiver responded to the suggestion — floated by former NFL coach Herm Edwards — that intense media attention may discourage teams from drafting gay players.

        “Can the players handle the media attention they are going to get when they get the question asked, ‘Are you okay with a gay teammate?’” Edwards asked in an ESPN interview Sunday night.

        Stallworth, who last played for the New England Patriots, didn’t mince words. If a team can’t handle the media scrutiny of drafting a gay player, he wrote, “Your team is already a loser on the field.”

      11. dennis
        Posted February 10, 2014 at 11:41 pm | Permalink

        The canary in the coal mine was Manti T’eo.

        If having an imaginary girlfriend wasn’t a distraction, being gay won’t even be a blip on the radar.

      12. Krunch
        Posted February 11, 2014 at 9:32 am | Permalink

        Dan,

        Sam was the SEC Defensive Player of the Year. In past years, most players to hold that title have gone in the first round. Consensus has always been that, since he’s “undersized,” he’d likely go later in the draft, though. Most mock drafts, prior to this announcement, showed him going in the 3rd or 4th round. Now, people are saying that, if he’s chosen at all, it will likely be in the 7th round. Given that there are over one thousand potential draft candidates each year, I’d say being chosen in the top 100, which he likely would have been if he’d gone in the 3rd round, would make one a “top draft pick.”

      13. Dan
        Posted February 11, 2014 at 11:57 am | Permalink

        to anyone that follows the NFL, being a “top draft pick” means being at worst a first round pick. most NFL fans would think “Top 10″, if you were to use the term “top pick.”

        at any rate, that is all semantics. I was pointing out that people shouldnt consider him being not drafted as falling from a top 10 pick, to outside of the total 250 or so draft picks. Being considered a “mid to late round” pick as the Sports Illustrated article mentioned is a lot different than being considered a “top pick.” Many players that are “graded” as 4th – 7th rounders are not drafted. For example, last year linebacker Chase Thomas was projected as the 110th best prospect (by this site), and expected to be a 3rd or 4th round pick. He was not drafted.

        http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/1631925/chase-thomas

      14. Dan
        Posted February 11, 2014 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

        coincidentally, the same site (cbssports) has Michael Sam projected as exactly the same overall ranking (110)

        http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/1700418/michael-sam

      15. Posted February 11, 2014 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

        So, are we debating whether or not Sam is a top?

      16. Dan
        Posted February 11, 2014 at 11:10 pm | Permalink

        Scouts seem to compliment his versatility

      17. Bob
        Posted February 12, 2014 at 6:37 am | Permalink

        This is all just a plot by the NFL to make Peter Larson care about football.

      18. Mike H
        Posted February 12, 2014 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

        Great TV commentary by Dallas sportscaster Dale Hansen on this story, in case you didn’t see it.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Olc5C4SXAYM

      19. Dan
        Posted February 12, 2014 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

        Mike H

        that is a fantastic link. thanks for sharing. Wish every local news outlet had similar anchors. that guy fucking rules

      20. Posted February 12, 2014 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

        This thread is interesting.

      21. EOS by proxy
        Posted February 14, 2014 at 10:47 am | Permalink

        [EOS was asked in another thread to comment on this subject. Here is his response.]

        If Michael Sam can play football with a high skill level, then a team will pick him up. If he wants to be the poster child for a sinful behavior and create a media circus surrounding his sexual preferences, then it is likely that teams will take that into account, and his chances of going pro are somewhat diminished. If he’s threatening to sue for discrimination if he’s not selected, then his chances of going pro are significantly diminished. I never heard of him until he announced he was homosexual. I think pro football players are adults and can handle differences. Dennis Rodman was pretty unique and had a great career as a basketball player. Would hope that, if he goes pro, Sam doesn’t start any mentoring programs for youth like Charles Pugh or Sandusky did.

      22. Eel
        Posted February 14, 2014 at 10:53 am | Permalink

        Holy shit, EOS. I hope “You” don’t go around talking about God’s love, like the BTK killer.

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

      23. Taco Farts and Frosted Flakes
        Posted February 14, 2014 at 11:08 am | Permalink

        [Both of the following comments were left in the previously referenced thread. They are being copied here, however, because that's where the belong.]

        Taco Farts:

        I’ve never understood why EOS sticks around, and often times I’ve wondered why he’s been allowed to stick around, but this time I’m actually angry. Can we get at least get an ejection for the casual hate speech implying that all gay men are a danger to underage children, and that all pedophiles are gay men?

        Frosted Flakes:

        I don’t like eos’s conflating of homosexuality and pedophilia either but your suggestion to eject someone for voicing their opinion is much more unacceptable to me. The fact that you have admitted that this is an ongoing opinion–that eos should be ejected–and not an emotional and momentary response is severely disappointing to me.

      24. Posted February 14, 2014 at 11:20 am | Permalink

        “Would hope that, if he goes pro, Sam doesn’t start any mentoring programs for youth like Charles Pugh or Sandusky did.”

        Wow.

        As usual, in response to EOS’ silliness, I’m donating again to the National Network of Abortion Funds.

      25. Frosted Flakes
        Posted February 14, 2014 at 11:34 am | Permalink

        Peter,

        Is it your policy to Use the threat of money to silence the voices of those you oppose? In the “surveilance” thread you said some pretty odd stuff about the essence of democratic freedom. You never explained your logic. What, in your opinion is the relationship between free speech and democratic freedom?

      26. Posted February 14, 2014 at 11:42 am | Permalink

        EOS’ ability to spew nonsense is in no way hampered by my giving money to causes which counter EOS’s views.

        I made my views on surveillance quite clear. I encourage more of it, because the more people are pressed, the harder they will press back. It is possible that a satisfied populace quickly becomes complacent.

      27. Frosted Flakes
        Posted February 14, 2014 at 11:57 am | Permalink

        Peter,

        When eos says things you do not agree with you announce that you are donating money to causes which counter eos’s view. Why do you have this policy? What is motivating you to announce your donations on a blog? From the outside it appears that you are using money in an attempt to manipulate eos to “choose” to not express his/her opinion. Can you see how someone might get that impression?

      28. Taco Farts
        Posted February 14, 2014 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

        Flakes: I don’t feel that, in the name of tolerance, we must tolerate active, militant intolerance. “First they came for the…” and all that. I’m sorry that you feel differently.

      29. Posted February 14, 2014 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

        No, I don’t.

        I remember a while back that there was a long drive to donate to Ozone House in response to EOS’ homophobic views.

        I regularly give to causes I view as countering those I disagree with.

      30. Posted February 14, 2014 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

        I agree with Mr. Farts. There’s no reason to try to appease bigots.

      31. EOS
        Posted February 14, 2014 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

        Militant intolerance?? I ignored this thread for most of the week and only responded after being directly questioned. And I said he should be evaluated based on his football skills. Frosted Flakes sees it for what it is.

      32. EOS
        Posted February 14, 2014 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

        Tolerence means everyone views are listened to respectfully. Not that we call someone a bigot when we disagree.

      33. Frosted Flakes
        Posted February 14, 2014 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

        Peter,

        I am confused. You do not have this policy? You have not done very same thing several times in the past? Or, you do not see how someone might get the impression you are using money in the form of announced donations in attempt to manipulate eos to “choose” to not express his or her opinion?

      34. Frosted Flakes
        Posted February 14, 2014 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

        Taco,

        Tolerating Speech is different than tolerating “active MILITANT intolerance”. Someone said something you and I do not agree with…The suggestion/ expectation to eject someone for their speech on a blog is scary to me.

      35. Mr. Y
        Posted February 14, 2014 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

        Here’s the back story, Mr. Flakes.

        http://markmaynard.com/2012/03/500-matching-grant-announced-for-contributions-made-to-ozone-house-by-the-end-of-the-day-tomorrow/

      36. EOS
        Posted February 14, 2014 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

        Same thing happened on that thread too and the one that preceded it.

        ” you are a blemish on our community spewing the pus of your sick and twisted perspective. “

      37. Posted February 14, 2014 at 1:36 pm | Permalink

        “You do not have this policy? You have not done very same thing several times in the past? Or, you do not see how someone might get the impression you are using money in the form of announced donations in attempt to manipulate eos to “choose” to not express his or her opinion?”

        First, I don’t understand why you care. Second, I’m not sure what this “thing” is. Third, no, I don’t see how someone might get that impression since EOS, after years of abuse, seems to not care what anyone at all thinks. It’s EOS’ only respectable quality.

      38. Frosted Flakes
        Posted February 14, 2014 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

        Peter,

        You said: “As usual, in response to EOS’ silliness, I’m donating to the National Network of Abortion Funds.”

        I was trying to figure out why you would, multiple times, do such a thing.

        My THEORY was that you were/ are announcing your donations on this blog in attempt to use the threat of MONEY toward causes, which eos does not agree with, in the hopes that eos will stop posting ….A sort of disincentive program if you will. Out of respect for you I asked you why you would announce the donations, if not for that reason, then some other reason, perhaps. I am still inquiring into your purpose. I am curious: why you would do it?

      39. Posted February 14, 2014 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

        Whenever EOS says something I find particularly annoying, I donate to the National Network of Abortion Funds and have for quite some time now.

        Perhaps you’d like to suggest another?

        http://www.fundabortionnow.org/

        Our work

        The National Network of Abortion Funds works to make sure that all women and girls can get the abortions they seek. We fight unfair laws while directly helping women who need abortions today.

        Our story

        In 1993, 22 abortion funds established the National Network of Abortion Funds to create opportunities for the funds to share their work, to learn from each other, and to support each other across the country. Today we have abortion funds in communities throughout the United States and the world.

        Our people

        At our core, the National Network of Abortion Funds is a dynamic network of grassroots abortion funds and thousands of activists who serve the women living in their communities.

        Our beliefs

        We view the right to abortion as a fundamental human right, essential for women’s equality, health, and dignity.

        Our supporters

        Our work would not be possible without the generous support of thousands of people like you, as well as foundations and organizational sponsors.

      40. Posted February 14, 2014 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

        Why this group is important:

        “”Low-Income Women Often Can’t Get An Abortion Because It Takes Too Long To Save Up The Money For It”

        More than 4,000 U.S. women were denied abortions in 2008 because they had surpassed the gestational age limit for the legal procedure, according to new research published in the American Journal of Public Health. Those women — who ultimately carried unwanted pregnancies to term — were forced to delay their abortions because they needed to save up money, either to pay for the procedure itself or to fund their travel to a clinic.

        As part of the University of California, San Francisco’s ongoing “Turnaway Study,” which examines the implications of denying women access to abortion, researchers studied the women seeking abortion care from “last stop” providers, defined as the clinics offering the latest abortion services within 150 miles. When women were turned away from those clinics for being past the deadline, researchers asked them about the barriers that prevented them from being able to get an abortion earlier in their pregnancy. Unsurprisingly, economic barriers topped the list.

        Nearly six in 10 women said they couldn’t get an abortion earlier because of travel and procedure costs. Many women also pointed to insurance problems (the majority of states’
        Medicaid programs won’t cover abortion services for low-income women, and even women who do have insurance coverage for abortion often either don’t know how it works or skip it because they want the anonymity of paying in cash). Some didn’t know where they should go to receive reproductive care, or how to get to the nearest clinic. About half of the participants said that they delayed seeking abortion services because they didn’t immediately recognize that they were pregnant.

        It makes sense, then, that women who need later abortions tend to be economically disadvantaged. But it’s a cycle. The study’s researchers point out that the later women get into their pregnancies, the harder it becomes for them to access abortion care.

        “Unfortunately, barriers to abortion only worsen as a pregnancy progresses,” one of the study’s co-authors, Rachel Jones of the Guttmacher Institute, explained. “There are fewer abortion providers that offer care in the second trimester and the procedure becomes much more expensive. By the time a woman has raised the funds for an abortion, a provider may turn her away because she is past the gestational limit set by the provider. For women denied abortion care, traveling to another provider simply may not be feasible.”

        Researchers warn that the reproductive rights landscape may actually be even more dire than their study suggests. Their data was collected between 2008 and 2010 — but since then, 11 different states have imposed gestational limits on abortion, which suggests that the number of women currently getting turned away from clinics is now much higher.

        Currently, the political fight over the issue hinges on 20-week abortion bans, a strategy that allows the anti-choice community to position itself as moderate while chipping away at disadvantaged women’s reproductive rights. The House of Representatives even passed a national 20-week ban at the beginning of the summer.

        There’s yet another economic cycle at play in this situation. When women are denied the access to legal abortion care, they are more likely to fall deeper into poverty.

      41. Dan
        Posted February 14, 2014 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

        lol. Another thread about the perils of judging others, that is filled with comments judging others. Frosted, this is par for the course here. It is ok to discriminate against EOS, even though no one knows who he/she is, but it is not ok for EOS to post his views that oppose the (vast) majority here.

        More often than not, I disagree with EOS’ opinions on social matters. However, any time he/she posts a single thing, about anything, there is an army of Anti-EOS’s attacking and belittling. These same people that are currently trying to paint EOS as a militant intolerant, were previously “shaming” him/her with accusations of being a closet homosexual.

      42. Posted February 14, 2014 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

        And EOS just keeps coming back for more.

        It’s admirable, really.

      43. Frosted Flakes
        Posted February 14, 2014 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

        Peter,

        Thanks for the information but it does not answer my question to you at all.

        I am not asking WHY you donate to charities. I am asking why you would ANNOUNCE on this blog that you are donating to causes AS A RESPONSE to someone’s viewpoint that you find “annoying”. Could you please tell me your purpose behind it?

        I have explained above that it appears to me to be a TACTIC you are using to silence another person’s voice by threatening to USE MONEY against them ( in place of speech or your own silence). If your motives are different then please explain….

      44. Posted February 14, 2014 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

        I would like to inspire others to donate to specific causes to counter right wing view points.

        You might even consider donating to the National Network of Abortion Funds.

      45. Taco Farts
        Posted February 14, 2014 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

        This is what I’m talking about. Trolls breed trolls. When you don’t wash away the graffiti, more graffiti shows up on your wall. This will continue to get further and further out of hand. Nothing will be learned, and it will get more and more disappointing and pointless to interact with the community of Mark commenters.

        Is there a wordpress plugin that allows users to hide other users’ comments? I’d happily pay a very small subscription fee for the service.

      46. Peter Larson
        Posted February 14, 2014 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

        I wouldn’t call EOS a troll.

      47. EOS
        Posted February 14, 2014 at 5:37 pm | Permalink

        Who’s trolling? I was asked my opinion by two individuals and I responded. Face it, you can’t handle the truth.

      48. Dan
        Posted February 14, 2014 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

        Taco, why do you only want to be exposed to your same viewpoints?

      49. Frosted Flakes
        Posted February 14, 2014 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

        Peter,

        It sounds like you have good intentions.

        If I was eos I would feel as though my speech was directly causing donations to abortion-supporting causes. From his/ her viewpoint it might seem as though his/ her speech was CAUSING abortion services. I am wondering if eos in fact felt that way, if you would consider not linking his/ her speech, which you find annoying, to supporting causes he/ she does not agree with. Would you stop if eos informed you that your monetary- donations- linked- to- speech hampered his/ her speech??

      50. Posted February 14, 2014 at 8:18 pm | Permalink

        EOS isn’t a troll. EOS may make outlandish statements, but they are rarely so far off topic as to be seen as intentionally attempting to derail the entire thread for personal pleasure.

        I don’t think that it’s correct to say that a person who holds opinions different from a majority of commentators is a troll.

        Mr. Flakes: I really don’t much care what EOS thinks and it’s very clear that EOS will post regardless of what anyone on this site says or does. So, any grand grand plan I might have had of making this online world uninhabitable for EOS would be for naught.

        And that’s just fine.

        I find EOS’ opinions mostly reprehensible (though sometimes entertaining). However, I will continue to donate to causes that I feel counter his/her largely offensive worldview.

      51. Frosted Flakes
        Posted February 15, 2014 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

        Peter,

        I am not trying to be a pain but you really are not answering simple questions.

        I did not ask you if you care what eos thinks. I did not ask you to stop donating to causes you find worthy. I did not ask you to stop inspiring others to causes that you find worthy.

        I asked you if you would WANT to stop responding to eos’s “annoying” SPEECH with an announcement of MONETARY donations to causes which are antithetical to eos’s viewpoint, if in fact, such gestures by you, were perceived by eos as a threat which resulted in a hampering of his/ her speech. I ask again. Would you answer?It is easy enough to ask eos if your act hampers his speech…we should do that after you answer my question. Is this off topic? Is it so hard to see that someone might get the impression that you are using the logic of a bully?

      52. Posted February 15, 2014 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

        Please explain to me why I should be interested how EOS feels.

        EOS would like to deny educational opportunities to children, simply because their parents violated immigration rules and deport “illegal aliens” (sic) without a hearing.

        EOS would deny the right for women to choose to have an abortion and would criminalize the procedure.

        EOS would deny same sex couples the rights and privileges that couples of the opposite sex, and has repeatedly compared homosexuals to pedophiles. The drive to raise funds for Ozone House (great job, everyone!) was in direct response to EOS very public statements on Ozone House as a palace of homosexual and pedophilic sex.

        EOS would end public schooling so that poor people would have no access to education, not to mention require that children read the Bible in school and be taught that the world in 6,000 years old.

        on and on.

        I find his views reprehensible and will continue to publicly donate to the National Network of Abortion Funds and other causes to specifically counter his/her destructive worldview. If that’s bullying, fine, but extreme rightists in the United States (of which EOS is representative) are anything but harmless. We have to fight back.

      53. Dan
        Posted February 15, 2014 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

        End public school? That’s a new one

      54. EOS
        Posted February 15, 2014 at 11:24 pm | Permalink

        There’s very little truth in anything Peter writes.

      55. Posted February 16, 2014 at 8:23 am | Permalink

        You expressed the ending of public education as a dream of yours at one time. Perhaps your sentiment has changed.

      56. Posted February 16, 2014 at 8:23 am | Permalink

        You expressed the ending of public education (along with public transportation) as a dream of yours at one time. Perhaps your sentiment has changed.

      57. Posted February 16, 2014 at 8:24 am | Permalink

        How are these untrue?

        “EOS would like to deny educational opportunities to children, simply because their parents violated immigration rules and deport “illegal aliens” (sic) without a hearing.

        EOS would deny the right for women to choose to have an abortion and would criminalize the procedure.

        EOS would deny same sex couples the rights and privileges that couples of the opposite sex, and has repeatedly compared homosexuals to pedophiles. The drive to raise funds for Ozone House (great job, everyone!) was in direct response to EOS very public statements on Ozone House as a palace of homosexual and pedophilic sex.”

        Please, enlighten us.

      58. Posted February 16, 2014 at 8:42 am | Permalink

        I would like to see Mark create a “greatest hits of EOS” post. We would be tapping into the hearts and minds of conservative America.

        I’d put in $100 to the political group of his choice to see it happen. Maybe others would also be willing to contribute, as well.

      59. EOS
        Posted February 16, 2014 at 9:31 am | Permalink

        Can’t prove what I never wrote. Neither can you. Either show us the links or shut up.

      60. Frosted Flakes
        Posted February 17, 2014 at 9:06 am | Permalink

        Peter,

        Whether or not YOU care about how eos feels is irrelevant. You are using MONEY as a stand-in for SPEECH on a community forum. You can be as evasive as you want, but your threat and the purpose behind your threat are clear. As far as I can tell your only defense for such a threat is that it has no effect on eos because he/ she keeps posting. This is the logic of a bully. The sort of gross entitlement exhibited by you and Taco (briefly) makes it difficult to even compare your actions to What Sam might have to deal with in a Nfl locker room in 2015. We would need to go to a locker room in the Jackie Robinson era to draw an appropriate analogy because otherwise it would lack the flavor of confident, privileged, and gross entitlement exhibited by you when you encounter ideas contrary to your own.

        The comments section here will be more beneficial with a diversity of opinions. Free exchange of ideas is a good thing. Name- calling, word-twisting, character assassination, slanderous speech, and tactics to suppress another person’s speech are despicable and COUNTER PRODUCTIVE.

        (and I disagree with eos on most things.)

      61. Posted February 17, 2014 at 8:54 pm | Permalink

        I’m looking forward to the next player in the draft to come out, claiming that he’s “exponentially more gay” than Michael Sam.

      62. Meta
        Posted February 24, 2014 at 8:42 pm | Permalink

        It would appear as though sometimes big government is OK.

        A Republican lobbyist is preparing legislation that would ban gay athletes from playing in the National Football League, a move he says is necessary to prevent American society from sliding into indecency.

        Jack Burkman, the CEO of Burkman LLC, said Monday that he would push Republican lawmakers to support the measure, which he put together after college football star Michael Sam announced that he is gay. In an interview with The Huffington Post, Burkman insisted that five members of the House of Representatives and one senator are interested in co-sponsoring the bill, and that those numbers would rise to 36 and five, respectively, within three weeks. Notably, he declined to name any of the lawmakers in question.

        Read more:
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/24/ban-gays-nfl_n_4849250.html

      63. Dan
        Posted May 10, 2014 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

        Sam was selected by the St Louis Rams #249 out of 256 in the NFL draft (7th round). Lower than a guy with his pedigree normally is, but given his poor workouts and such, its not egregious. I think the gay thing certainly affected him, but it probably was the difference between late 6th round vs late 7th round

        At any rate, its highly unlikely that he makes the NFL squad.b he’ll likely join their practice squad, and make a cool 250k a year to practice playing football

      Leave a Reply

      Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


      nine + = 13

      You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

        Connect

        Krampus ad BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative