Ironically enough, whoever it is is going to become the next Tim Tebow, albeit to a different group of people. Whichever active player is the first to come out is going to cause a media circus and be painted as a national hero no matter how crappy of a football player he may or may not be. He will become bigger than the team, and his story will become bigger than wins and losses.
Like Tebow he'll obviously have his share of haters, but in this case they'll be mostly relegated to anonymous message boards, private conversations and a few randoms yelling slurs from the stands. No one in the mainstream media will dare say anything but the most glowing things possible, and the home stadium will fill up with signs of support. His jersey sales will increase tenfold at a bare minimum.
I'm sure it's not him, but the player who would stand the most to gain from coming out is Michael Vick. More likely it's someone fairly anonymous who will never be anonymous again.
For the first NFL player that "comes out," his performance on the field is irrelevant, IMO. Rather, it's the courage to step out of the closet in perhaps the most machismo professional sport. There are already ways to recognize great players - MVP, Pro Bowl, increased salary, bonus, etc. I don't quite see anything wrong with positive public recognition of a guy that becomes the first to say he's gay.
You said the "mainstream media" will not criticize him. Well, why would the media criticize him? If he fumbles the ball, misses tackles, or drops passes, then criticize him like any other player. But criticize just because he's gay?
Heck, when grinolds, fetters, and eklund eventually reveal their own torrid love triangle, I will still limit my criticism to the way they've destroyed dawgman.com.
If that's not an embedded lemon drop, I'm not sure what is.
Well done, sir.
I'm just saying that whoever it is this is going to be, by far, the best thing that ever happened to their image.
Actually, I didn't do the red sign. What I did do, however, is sit back and make snarky comments on the internet about anyone who cared about it. Actually, that's what I do about anyone that cares about anything.
You should do more. If you don't do the red symbol, then how will everyone know how progressive and open minded you are? And it doesn't even cost you anything. I'm a bit more action oriented. I'm thinking banging a lesbian to show my solidarity.
Btw. Use the word snarky here again and you're going to get a time out. Friggin A.
Ironically enough, whoever it is is going to become the next Tim Tebow, albeit to a different group of people. Whichever active player is the first to come out is going to cause a media circus and be painted as a national hero no matter how crappy of a football player he may or may not be. He will become bigger than the team, and his story will become bigger than wins and losses.
Like Tebow he'll obviously have his share of haters, but in this case they'll be mostly relegated to anonymous message boards, private conversations and a few randoms yelling slurs from the stands. No one in the mainstream media will dare say anything but the most glowing things possible, and the home stadium will fill up with signs of support. His jersey sales will increase tenfold at a bare minimum.
I'm sure it's not him, but the player who would stand the most to gain from coming out is Michael Vick. More likely it's someone fairly anonymous who will never be anonymous again.
For the first NFL player that "comes out," his performance on the field is irrelevant, IMO. Rather, it's the courage to step out of the closet in perhaps the most machismo professional sport. There are already ways to recognize great players - MVP, Pro Bowl, increased salary, bonus, etc. I don't quite see anything wrong with positive public recognition of a guy that becomes the first to say he's gay.
You said the "mainstream media" will not criticize him. Well, why would the media criticize him? If he fumbles the ball, misses tackles, or drops passes, then criticize him like any other player. But criticize just because he's gay?
Heck, when grinolds, fetters, and eklund eventually reveal their own torrid love triangle, I will still limit my criticism to the way they've destroyed dawgman.com.
If that's not an embedded lemon drop, I'm not sure what is.
Well done, sir.
I'm just saying that whoever it is this is going to be, by far, the best thing that ever happened to their image.
Well, I think if it's Peyton Manning or Brian Urlacher, it's a little more complicated. Their reputations are already pretty awesome. If it's a 3rd string offensive linemen for the Detroit Lions, then I probably agree with you. Where the hell would Jesse Palmer be if he hadn't gone on "The Bachelor?" What a douche...
Actually, I didn't do the red sign. What I did do, however, is sit back and make snarky comments on the internet about anyone who cared about it. Actually, that's what I do about anyone that cares about anything.
You should do more. If you don't do the red symbol, then how will everyone know how progressive and open minded you are? And it doesn't even cost you anything. I'm a bit more action oriented. I'm thinking banging a lesbian to show my solidarity.
Btw. Use the word snarky here again and you're going to get a time out. Friggin A.
Most of the lesbians I've seen aren't "bangable." You might as well hook up with Danny Devito.
I hope it's Michael Vick. People (and the media) wanted him drawn and quartered for killing dogs with more hate than of he'd killed people. If he turns out to be gay, they will have to embrace him as a hero. That would be fun to see. Coming out would undo all past wrongs. It would be a great PR move. FREE PUB!
Actually, I didn't do the red sign. What I did do, however, is sit back and make snarky comments on the internet about anyone who cared about it. Actually, that's what I do about anyone that cares about anything.
You should do more. If you don't do the red symbol, then how will everyone know how progressive and open minded you are? And it doesn't even cost you anything. I'm a bit more action oriented. I'm thinking banging a lesbian to show my solidarity.
Btw. Use the word snarky here again and you're going to get a time out. Friggin A.
Most of the lesbians I've seen aren't "bangable." You might as well hook up with Danny Devito.
I like how Kim has been trying to spread this rumor. He's been running around for the past 4 months telling people that Chip is gay.
Even if its true, it's truly a case of who gives a shit. If my favorite teams' football coach went 46-7, won 3 conference titles, went to 4 BCS games including the National Championship game, and won a Rose Bowl and popped off.... he could be gayer than Rock Hudson and Greg Louganis put together and I'd be fine with it.
I hope it's Michael Vick. People (and the media) wanted him drawn and quartered for killing dogs with more hate than of he'd killed people. If he turns out to be gay, they will have to embrace him as a hero. That would be fun to see. Coming out would undo all past wrongs. It would be a great PR move. FREE PUB!
Not so fast. I think it'd be a mixed bag. You'd have the animal rights people fighting the gay rights people. Maybe Don King can promote it?
I hope it's Michael Vick. People (and the media) wanted him drawn and quartered for killing dogs with more hate than of he'd killed people. If he turns out to be gay, they will have to embrace him as a hero. That would be fun to see. Coming out would undo all past wrongs. It would be a great PR move. FREE PUB!
Not so fast. I think it'd be a mixed bag. You'd have the animal rights people fighting the gay rights people. Maybe Don King can promote it?
The beauty of it is the gay rights people and the animal rights people are mostly the same people.
Ironically enough, whoever it is is going to become the next Tim Tebow, albeit to a different group of people. Whichever active player is the first to come out is going to cause a media circus and be painted as a national hero no matter how crappy of a football player he may or may not be. He will become bigger than the team, and his story will become bigger than wins and losses.
Like Tebow he'll obviously have his share of haters, but in this case they'll be mostly relegated to anonymous message boards, private conversations and a few randoms yelling slurs from the stands. No one in the mainstream media will dare say anything but the most glowing things possible, and the home stadium will fill up with signs of support. His jersey sales will increase tenfold at a bare minimum.
I'm sure it's not him, but the player who would stand the most to gain from coming out is Michael Vick. More likely it's someone fairly anonymous who will never be anonymous again.
For the first NFL player that "comes out," his performance on the field is irrelevant, IMO. Rather, it's the courage to step out of the closet in perhaps the most machismo professional sport. There are already ways to recognize great players - MVP, Pro Bowl, increased salary, bonus, etc. I don't quite see anything wrong with positive public recognition of a guy that becomes the first to say he's gay.
You said the "mainstream media" will not criticize him. Well, why would the media criticize him? If he fumbles the ball, misses tackles, or drops passes, then criticize him like any other player. But criticize just because he's gay?
Heck, when grinolds, fetters, and eklund eventually reveal their own torrid love triangle, I will still limit my criticism to the way they've destroyed dawgman.com.
Tebow was criticized and mocked for being overly open about his faith. The mainstream media typically goes out of their way to mock Christianity.
Now if an NFL player comes out, he'll be praised as a hero, full of courage and an inspiration to the world.
In my opinion, bigging fucking deal for either of them. Tebow sucks as a QB. The gay guy might be an all-pro or a 3rd stringer. As he does his fucking job, who cares which hole he prefers?
Ironically enough, whoever it is is going to become the next Tim Tebow, albeit to a different group of people. Whichever active player is the first to come out is going to cause a media circus and be painted as a national hero no matter how crappy of a football player he may or may not be. He will become bigger than the team, and his story will become bigger than wins and losses.
Like Tebow he'll obviously have his share of haters, but in this case they'll be mostly relegated to anonymous message boards, private conversations and a few randoms yelling slurs from the stands. No one in the mainstream media will dare say anything but the most glowing things possible, and the home stadium will fill up with signs of support. His jersey sales will increase tenfold at a bare minimum.
I'm sure it's not him, but the player who would stand the most to gain from coming out is Michael Vick. More likely it's someone fairly anonymous who will never be anonymous again.
For the first NFL player that "comes out," his performance on the field is irrelevant, IMO. Rather, it's the courage to step out of the closet in perhaps the most machismo professional sport. There are already ways to recognize great players - MVP, Pro Bowl, increased salary, bonus, etc. I don't quite see anything wrong with positive public recognition of a guy that becomes the first to say he's gay.
You said the "mainstream media" will not criticize him. Well, why would the media criticize him? If he fumbles the ball, misses tackles, or drops passes, then criticize him like any other player. But criticize just because he's gay?
Heck, when grinolds, fetters, and eklund eventually reveal their own torrid love triangle, I will still limit my criticism to the way they've destroyed dawgman.com.
Tebow was criticized and mocked for being overly open about his faith. The mainstream media typically goes out of their way to mock Christianity.
Now if an NFL player comes out, he'll be praised as a hero, full of courage and an inspiration to the world.
In my opinion, bigging fucking deal for either of them. Tebow sucks as a QB. The gay guy might be an all-pro or a 3rd stringer. As he does his fucking job, who cares which hole he prefers?
Sorry, but I disagree with you on that point. Tebow's problem is that he beats people over the head with his religion. I'm a Christian, and the guy even creeps me out. I also don't agree that the media mocks Christianity. Rather, they mock people that use it as a club to advance their own political agenda - mainly people that are absolute hypocrits. "I'm more Christian than you because I'm anti-choice and anti-marriage equality." How about we just shut up and let God decide?
Now, regarding your point of "who cares if he's gay," I think we're on the same page. Just play ball.
It's Cedric Benson. Cook it. Actually I don't know if he's the one who's going to come out, but he's a flamer.
The whole beating up of a roommate is pretty suspicious. Why would a millionaire NFL player have a roommate?The roommate threatened to extort Benson if he didn't settle, which raises the question, extort him by revealing what? I gotta say, the roommate looks like a gay man in the picture from the link.
The media doesn't mock Christians unless they use it to beat someone over the head with it. Lol. Ok.
But you have no problems with people using gayness or race or atheism or anything else to advance an agenda?
People believe different things and have different ideas. Progressive seem to love diversity until they have to embrace those they disagree with.
I'm an atheist and tebow doesn't offend or bother me in the least.
Ok, I guess we'll go down this road. The only reason that I see gays or racial minorities advance an agenda is because they want equality. They have a grievance. They look around and see unequal treatment, and they've usually been right.
Christians, on the other hand, are not a minority. They've dominated this country. Born again evangelical Christians beat people over the head NOT because they want equality, but because they think they're better, and others are worse. That's the difference.
So as long as you're a minority you can use you're affiliation to advance an agenda. Got it. So you're not ok with a Christian using their faith to help the suck or the poor? Or does it just bother you when they use it when you disagree with them?
Most Christians I know don't think they are better than anyone. Quite the opposite. Or maybe the media focuses on a few and paints them all that way and you lap it up. Hence the media moving them.
I'm secure in my beliefs and above all respect the right of those to believe as they choose. It's not a threat to me and its that diversity that makes us great. The left loves diversity as long as it fits their angenda and definition of diversity.
So as long as you're a minority you can use you're affiliation to advance an agenda. Got it. So you're not ok with a Christian using their faith to help the suck or the poor? Or does it just bother you when they use it when you disagree with them?
Most Christians I know don't think they are better than anyone. Quite the opposite. Or maybe the media focuses on a few and paints them all that way and you lap it up. Hence the media moving them.
I'm secure in my beliefs and above all respect the right of those to believe as they choose. It's not a threat to me and its that diversity that makes us great. The left loves diversity as long as it fits their angenda and definition of diversity.
I agree with you there. Most Christians I know don't think they're better than anyone else. I am Christian, and I don't believe that I am better than anyone else.
But when the hard right media (ann coulter, ralph reed, etc.) get on their high horse, it's usually to cast stones at gays (which I am not), liberals (which I am not, I'm a moderate D), or anyone else that doesn't fit their narrow view of a Christian.
Don't claim moral superiority, and I don't have a problem with you. The left loves diversity as long as it fits their definition? Perhaps some. Sure. But at least they don't have a "you're going to hell if you don't believe like me" attitude.
The only people that I have a problem with are those that discriminate against others. I don't have much tolerance for ignorance.
Comments
Well done, sir.
I'm just saying that whoever it is this is going to be, by far, the best thing that ever happened to their image.
Btw. Use the word snarky here again and you're going to get a time out. Friggin A.
Even if its true, it's truly a case of who gives a shit. If my favorite teams' football coach went 46-7, won 3 conference titles, went to 4 BCS games including the National Championship game, and won a Rose Bowl and popped off.... he could be gayer than Rock Hudson and Greg Louganis put together and I'd be fine with it.
Now if an NFL player comes out, he'll be praised as a hero, full of courage and an inspiration to the world.
In my opinion, bigging fucking deal for either of them. Tebow sucks as a QB. The gay guy might be an all-pro or a 3rd stringer. As he does his fucking job, who cares which hole he prefers?
Now, regarding your point of "who cares if he's gay," I think we're on the same page. Just play ball.
But you have no problems with people using gayness or race or atheism or anything else to advance an agenda?
People believe different things and have different ideas. Progressive seem to love diversity until they have to embrace those they disagree with.
I'm an atheist and tebow doesn't offend or bother me in the least.
http://www.dallasvoice.com/longhorn-nfl-star-cedric-benson-gay-1084008.html
Christians, on the other hand, are not a minority. They've dominated this country. Born again evangelical Christians beat people over the head NOT because they want equality, but because they think they're better, and others are worse. That's the difference.
Most Christians I know don't think they are better than anyone. Quite the opposite. Or maybe the media focuses on a few and paints them all that way and you lap it up. Hence the media moving them.
I'm secure in my beliefs and above all respect the right of those to believe as they choose. It's not a threat to me and its that diversity that makes us great. The left loves diversity as long as it fits their angenda and definition of diversity.
But when the hard right media (ann coulter, ralph reed, etc.) get on their high horse, it's usually to cast stones at gays (which I am not), liberals (which I am not, I'm a moderate D), or anyone else that doesn't fit their narrow view of a Christian.
Don't claim moral superiority, and I don't have a problem with you. The left loves diversity as long as it fits their definition? Perhaps some. Sure. But at least they don't have a "you're going to hell if you don't believe like me" attitude.
The only people that I have a problem with are those that discriminate against others. I don't have much tolerance for ignorance.