• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rams select Michael Sam, NFL's first openly gay player [W:282]

Re: http://www.latimes.com/sports/football/nfl/la-sp-michael-sam-nfl-draft-20140511-s

freedom of oppression you guys are great.:lamo

if he doesn't make the team i figure it will have little to do with him being gay and him just not having the skills to play the position up to expectations.


has nothing to do with what i said but ol well.


the only people making a big deal about it is people like you. To everyone else he is a mid-level 7th rounder no that big of a deal.

He will make the team or not based on his football abilities and performance. Regardless, some dummy will be claiming that it's because of his sexuality whichever way that goes.

It's news because it's groundbreaking. Most people won't care about the second one. It was news when Jackie Robinson played for the Dodgers, now nobody even notices that the 2nd baseman is black. He's not the first gay to play in the NFL, he's just the first that everybody knew about beforehand.
 
The NFL not studying it unto 1994 and not recognizing it until 2010 does not mean it wasn't widely assumed before that. Like I said, the NFL was trying to limit head trauma even back in the 80s and everyone I knew who played the game knew what was going on. The NFL has been late to the party on both counts mostly because it would be costly to admit something was wrong.

If it was widely assumed to be true, there would have been no need to study it. In fact the results of the first scientific study of the phenomenon on football players was released in 2000

Concussions may spell later trouble for football players

The first scientific survey of head injuries in professional football players suggests that head trauma from the sport may lead to later neurological problems.

Research presented at the American Academy of Neurology's 52nd Annual Meeting in San Diego, CA, April 29 -- May 6, 2000, indicates that more than half of retired players surveyed had experienced concussions. As a group, these players were more likely to have neurological complaints, ranging from memory problems to numbness in their extremities, later in life.

"Although a great deal is written in the lay press about this issue in football, there is little documentation in the medical literature," said Barry Jordan, MD, director of the Brain Injury Program at Burke Rehabilitation Hospital in White Plains, NY, and primary author of the study. "Our investigation was undertaken as a first step in determining the magnitude of the problem among retired players."

Concerned that football players may suffer lasting damage from the repeated head blows and occasional concussions unavoidable in the sport, the National Football League Players Association provided the funds that allowed Jordan and coauthor Julian Bailes, MD, of Orlando, FL, to survey 1,090 former pro players.

According to the surveys completed by the players, 60 percent had suffered at least one concussion during their amateur or professional careers, and 26 percent reported three or more concussions.

When compared to players who did not report any concussions, the group with one or more concussions reported significantly more neurological symptoms. These included problems with memory and concentration, confusion, speech or hearing difficulties, numbness or tingling in extremities, and headaches.

The researchers point out that the survey form covered a range of general health questions. The players were not told that it was designed to uncover neurological problems, so it is unlikely that players who reported concussions were over-reporting neurological symptoms.

Concussion, by the current medical definition, is a temporary and completely reversible malfunction of the brain following a head trauma that does not produce an obvious injury, such as intracranial bleeding or bruising. Some researchers believe loss of consciousness, motor problems and disorientation that can follow the head trauma do not signal any long-term effects on the brain. However the cumulative and long-term neurological effect of repeated blows to the head has become a major medical concern in contact sports.

Many neurologists are convinced that concussions, as well as repeated blows to the head, do lasting damage, even if the evidence for it is still only anecdotal. The most commonly cited anecdotal example is the "punch-drunk" syndrome of speech and movement impairments and other abnormalities seen in some retired boxers.

"Our results should be interpreted with caution because they were obtained from a questionnaire," said Jordan. "Further research is needed, and the next step would be to conduct a follow-up study on football players reporting neurological problems to determine if they exhibit clinical evidence of neurological impairment. Those with impairment would be compared to those without impairment in order to determine possible risk factors."

If the results of this study are borne out by follow-up work, said Jordan, it would mean that football players need to be tested regularly to determine whether they are experiencing neurological symptoms.

Concussions may spell later trouble for football players

To see how the "common knowledge" has evolved

Until a few years ago, “getting your bell rung” was no big deal, and the medical advice was to let a player reenter a game as soon as he felt better. That ethos began changing as doctors became more aware of “second impact syndrome,” in which a player who’s suffered a concussion can risk catastrophic injury if he sustains another head injury before the first one has completely healed. By the late 1990s, studies revealed that players’ cognitive function could take weeks to be restored after a head injury and that dangers could persist even after that restoration, causing doctors over time to become much more cautious in treating sports concussions.

This awareness has transformed how football is coached and played. Coaches at all levels now undergo training to recognize concussion symptoms (which include dizziness, headache, and confusion). Teams require signed doctor’s notes before sidelined kids can return to play. Coaches spend more time teaching correct tackling technique. In 2012, new Pop Warner rules mandated that no more than one-third of practice time could be spent in live contact and outlawed head-on tackling drills in which players start out more than 3 yards apart, to limit the velocity of hits. Many youth football programs have also upgraded helmets, though medical professionals express doubt that pricier equipment really reduces concussion risk.

Should you let your child play football? - Magazine - The Boston Globe

The harm that could be rendered from repeated blows to the head in football was not common knowledge in the 80s.
 
Re: http://www.latimes.com/sports/football/nfl/la-sp-michael-sam-nfl-draft-20140511-s

I consider the act itself to be a psychological attack upon my child, just as the government indoctrination center saying it not only has the right, but the duty to teach my 10 year old how to put a condom on a banana!!!

What?

It's called premature sexualization - it is inappropriate and psychologicall damaging to children. Kids should not be subjected to such things

All public displys of affection?

- and if you feel differently fine, go ahead and screw your kid up all you want, but you have no right to expose my child to what I would consider to be your perversion.

my perversion? huh? Actually you can control that....don't watch.

Just as I would have no right to proselytize your child with religion.

Well let me point out the difference. 1. two people in an emotional moment show emotion while the media watches. Their actions are passive. 2. Proselytizing to my child would be an active attack on who he is.
Now are you saying that prayers before NASCAR races should be banned too because some people do not pray to JEsus?


The fact that most Amerikans no longer have an understanding of what is appropriate or inappropriate is a clear indicator of where we are headed as a society
.

What exactly was inappropriate here?


It is, in fact, a slippery slope; and from the standpoint of the radical left, it has to do with breaking down the family - as Marx and other leftists have written that it is essential to destroy the family, lest it be in competition with the state.

How does this break down the family?

Broken families, dysfunctional families, tend to produce dysfunctional adults, which leads to a dysfunctional society in which the major player in everyone life must eventually become the government.

Seriously that is quite a slope.... So your view is that two people kissing on TV leads to fascism?


It's not that complicated, and it is rooted in logic from the standpoint of the radical left - destroy the family, and grow the all-powerful state to take its place.

Your vision of the future is remarkably complicated. And illogical.
 
Re: http://www.latimes.com/sports/football/nfl/la-sp-michael-sam-nfl-draft-20140511-s

Thus, the 7th round. I'm not saying he necessarily deserved to go higher. I'm saying that a guy who was co-DPOY in the SEC probably deserves a late round flyer.

Quite frankly I don't even think he warranted a 7th round pick. I can see signing him as an undrafted rookie to see if he can hold up through camp, but his combine results were so atrocious that I doubt he will even survive the first cut.
 
Re: http://www.latimes.com/sports/football/nfl/la-sp-michael-sam-nfl-draft-20140511-s

freedom of oppression you guys are great.:lamo

Are you saying that gays have not been oppressed?

if he doesn't make the team i figure it will have little to do with him being gay and him just not having the skills to play the position up to expectations.

I think it will have nothing to do with him being gay. That is sort of my point.


has nothing to do with what i said but ol well.

then explain


the only people making a big deal about it is people like you. To everyone else he is a mid-level 7th rounder no that big of a deal.

actually the fact that the camera was at his house, that it lead many news programs and everyone from Rush to John Oliver commented on it...........I think I am not the only one.


because it isn't that big of a deal. being gay doesn't give you some special brand that you get a cookie or anything or make you special above someone else.
more so all the media attention he is getting for going in the 7th round.

see you make my point....good boy.




seeing how ratings decline after the first night they would tend to disagree with you. i am sure there are some really dedicated fans that watch after the 2 maybe 3 round but after that viewership really drops off.

Just because fewer people are watching doesn't mean that there aren't people who aren't interested in it. You see hardcore football fans pay attention.
 
Re: http://www.latimes.com/sports/football/nfl/la-sp-michael-sam-nfl-draft-20140511-s

I don't think there's anything wrong with being bothered by the sight of two men kissing.

I'm sorry, but that's largely a gut reaction.

For some people, yeah...the sight of ANY body kissing in public bothers them. For others, the sight of same sex couples bothers them. For others, perhaps it's seeing their parents kissing in public or their little sister or their grandparents. Perhaps they dislike seeing large couples, or a couple where one person is larger than the other, kissing. Perhaps if they find both people ugly they don't like seenig it. Perhaps if they're just old they don't like it. Perhaps they generally don't mind it unless it's opened mouth.

I could go on and on.

It's one thing to suggest people should be accepting of gay people and things relating to it. It's another thing to try and tell people that their emotional feelings inherent within them are wrong. Why is it exactly that we can tell people it's wrong to suggest people stop being attracted to the same sex, but it's perfectly okay to tell people to not be repulsed by the sight of something. Both are emotions, are bodily reactions and feelings.

I think the over the top ridiculousness of "OMG! My poor children! They're scarred for life because they saw kids kissing" is laughable. However, the notion that "I just don't like seeing two guys kissing" is not some horrible unreasonable thing. Saying "I don't like seeing two guys kissing, but I don't mind seeing a guy and girl kiss" is not some crazy, unreasonable notion.

Anyone who says that they'd look at any situation of a publicly shown affection...or hell, let's make it easy and just say "kiss"...and would NEVER find ANY version of it bothersome or unsettling or gross or just kind of "ugg" is probably not telling the truth imho.

This is taking it a step too far in terms of the attempts to force "acceptance" into society.
 
Re: http://www.latimes.com/sports/football/nfl/la-sp-michael-sam-nfl-draft-20140511-s

I don't think there's anything wrong with being bothered by the sight of two men kissing.

I'm sorry, but that's largely a gut reaction.

For some people, yeah...the sight of ANY body kissing in public bothers them. For others, the sight of same sex couples bothers them. For others, perhaps it's seeing their parents kissing in public or their little sister or their grandparents. Perhaps they dislike seeing large couples, or a couple where one person is larger than the other, kissing. Perhaps if they find both people ugly they don't like seenig it. Perhaps if they're just old they don't like it. Perhaps they generally don't mind it unless it's opened mouth.

I could go on and on.

It's one thing to suggest people should be accepting of gay people and things relating to it. It's another thing to try and tell people that their emotional feelings inherent within them are wrong. Why is it exactly that we can tell people it's wrong to suggest people stop being attracted to the same sex, but it's perfectly okay to tell people to not be repulsed by the sight of something. Both are emotions, are bodily reactions and feelings.

I think the over the top ridiculousness of "OMG! My poor children! They're scarred for life because they saw kids kissing" is laughable. However, the notion that "I just don't like seeing two guys kissing" is not some horrible unreasonable thing. Saying "I don't like seeing two guys kissing, but I don't mind seeing a guy and girl kiss" is not some crazy, unreasonable notion.

Anyone who says that they'd look at any situation of a publicly shown affection...or hell, let's make it easy and just say "kiss"...and would NEVER find ANY version of it bothersome or unsettling or gross or just kind of "ugg" is probably not telling the truth imho.

This is taking it a step too far in terms of the attempts to force "acceptance" into society.

I couldn't agree more with this post.

Andrew Sullivan wrote something similar with the "resignation" of Brendan Eich.
 
If it was widely assumed to be true, there would have been no need to study it. In fact the results of the first scientific study of the phenomenon on football players was released in 2000

Concussions may spell later trouble for football players

To see how the "common knowledge" has evolved

Should you let your child play football? - Magazine - The Boston Globe

The harm that could be rendered from repeated blows to the head in football was not common knowledge in the 80s.


I'm really not sure how many more ways I can say to you that it was no secret when I played football in the 1980s in high school, let alone the NFL before it sinks into your skull. Hell, the ever changing helmet technology over the last 80+ years of NFL history is a clue that the NFL was well aware of the potential for head and brain injury among its players.
 
Last edited:
Re: http://www.latimes.com/sports/football/nfl/la-sp-michael-sam-nfl-draft-20140511-s

Quite frankly I don't even think he warranted a 7th round pick. I can see signing him as an undrafted rookie to see if he can hold up through camp, but his combine results were so atrocious that I doubt he will even survive the first cut.

Very possible. But the difference between one of the last picks and an undrafted FA isn't very much.
 
Re: http://www.latimes.com/sports/football/nfl/la-sp-michael-sam-nfl-draft-20140511-s

He will make the team or not based on his football abilities and performance. Regardless, some dummy will be claiming that it's because of his sexuality whichever way that goes.

It's news because it's groundbreaking. Most people won't care about the second one. It was news when Jackie Robinson played for the Dodgers, now nobody even notices that the 2nd baseman is black. He's not the first gay to play in the NFL, he's just the first that everybody knew about beforehand.

I agree.

it isn't that ground breaking and the only reason it is ground breaking is because he said he was gay. big friggen deal. i am hetrosexual where is my media spotlight and everything else. there were several other hetrosexual drafts that went higher so i don't see a big deal being made over them.

who cares if he was that it isn't the big deal that people are making out of it.

the bigger deal will come when he gets cut if he does for not being able to perform. we will see how these same media people react. i am sure that they will call for the coach to be fired and to boycott the rams.
 


Back up links:
Rams select Michael Sam, NFL's first openly gay player*-*Los Angeles Times
Michael Sam: St. Louis Rams draft NFL’s first openly gay player (updated)
Sam becomes first openly gay player to be drafted - chicagotribune.com



Congrats Mr. Sam! another hurdle over come. Nothign much needs said on this.
Like all draftees I hope you have great success on the field. Good luck!




He'll be cut when he fails to make the roster.

Sexual orientation does not a football player make.
 
1.)He'll be cut when he fails to make the roster.
2.) Sexual orientation does not a football player make.

1.) this is "possible"
2.) good thing nobody here ever suggested otherwise lol
 
Re: http://www.latimes.com/sports/football/nfl/la-sp-michael-sam-nfl-draft-20140511-s

the bigger deal will come when he gets cut if he does for not being able to perform. we will see how these same media people react. i am sure that they will call for the coach to be fired and to boycott the rams.

Some idiot will. Just like some idiot will say he only made it because he's gay if he makes it. Unfortunately, there's no right way to go, but I think he earned the "right" to be given a chance.
 
Re: http://www.latimes.com/sports/football/nfl/la-sp-michael-sam-nfl-draft-20140511-s

Very possible. But the difference between one of the last picks and an undrafted FA isn't very much.

Hell, often Agents have their players hoping to go undrafted once it hits hte 7th round, because the pay difference between drafted and undrafted isn't huge and undrafted you have a better chance of going to a team that you actually want to go in because you feel you have a better chance of making the team.
 
Re: http://www.latimes.com/sports/football/nfl/la-sp-michael-sam-nfl-draft-20140511-s

Very possible. But the difference between one of the last picks and an undrafted FA isn't very much.

In fact its even better to be a free agent because you can chose the team you want,
 
Re: http://www.latimes.com/sports/football/nfl/la-sp-michael-sam-nfl-draft-20140511-s

I don't think there's anything wrong with being bothered by the sight of two men kissing.

I'm sorry, but that's largely a gut reaction.

For some people, yeah...the sight of ANY body kissing in public bothers them. For others, the sight of same sex couples bothers them. For others, perhaps it's seeing their parents kissing in public or their little sister or their grandparents. Perhaps they dislike seeing large couples, or a couple where one person is larger than the other, kissing. Perhaps if they find both people ugly they don't like seenig it. Perhaps if they're just old they don't like it. Perhaps they generally don't mind it unless it's opened mouth.

I could go on and on.

It's one thing to suggest people should be accepting of gay people and things relating to it. It's another thing to try and tell people that their emotional feelings inherent within them are wrong. Why is it exactly that we can tell people it's wrong to suggest people stop being attracted to the same sex, but it's perfectly okay to tell people to not be repulsed by the sight of something. Both are emotions, are bodily reactions and feelings.

I think the over the top ridiculousness of "OMG! My poor children! They're scarred for life because they saw kids kissing" is laughable. However, the notion that "I just don't like seeing two guys kissing" is not some horrible unreasonable thing. Saying "I don't like seeing two guys kissing, but I don't mind seeing a guy and girl kiss" is not some crazy, unreasonable notion.

Anyone who says that they'd look at any situation of a publicly shown affection...or hell, let's make it easy and just say "kiss"...and would NEVER find ANY version of it bothersome or unsettling or gross or just kind of "ugg" is probably not telling the truth imho.

This is taking it a step too far in terms of the attempts to force "acceptance" into society.

I do agree
i myself dont want to see anybody kiss i dont find generally eye pleasing, like an ugly straight couple but the thing is I would always just keep my mouth shut cause its none of my business.
I also agree with you 100% about the over the top absurdity about " "OMG! My poor children! They're scarred for life because they saw guys kissing" is completely silly.
 
Re: http://www.latimes.com/sports/football/nfl/la-sp-michael-sam-nfl-draft-20140511-s

Why would that bother you more than a player kissing his girlfriend? Which we've seen, BTW...

After both of them took a big mouth full of cake, then tongue kissed? Yes, that would be disgusting, too. And when it's a massive pro football player and Kip Dynamite....yeah, it was a bit unsettling FOR AN NFL DRAFT BROADCAST.

Good gosh.
 
After both of them took a big mouth full of cake, then tongue kissed? Yes, that would be disgusting, too. And when it's a massive pro football player and Kip Dynamite....yeah, it was a bit unsettling FOR AN NFL DRAFT BROADCAST.

Good gosh.

Exactly!
 
I'm really not sure how many more ways I can say to you that it was no secret when I played football in the 1980s in high school, let alone the NFL before it sinks into your skull. Hell, the ever changing helmet technology over the last 80+ years of NFL history is a clue that the NFL was well aware of the potential for head and brain injury among its players.

And you have offered no evidence that it was "common knowledge" other than to assert that it was so. I have offered evidence to support the notion that it was not widely known the extent of the permanent damage that could occur as a result of repeated blows to the head in football.
 
2. I thought Elton John and the Village People were the "cultural" milestones.:roll:

Sports, especially immensely popular professional sports like the NFL, aren't part of the culture?
 
1.) this is "possible"
2.) good thing nobody here ever suggested otherwise lol

Lol !!

Its why you started this ridiculous thread.

Because of his sexual preference.

Its nonsense.

Its why he's being discussed at all, NOT because he's a Great Football Player, ( He's Not ) because he's a homosexual.

Who gives a rats ass either way ?
 
The people who are claiming "bleh who cares" are generally the type of people who wish gays didn't exist, want to pretend they don't, and want to keep them out of public view as much as they can, lest the gay cooties rub off on them and give them a case of the gay.
 
Lol !!
1.)Its why you started this ridiculous thread.
2.)Because of his sexual preference.
3.)Its nonsense.
4.) Its why he's being discussed at all, NOT because he's a Great Football Player
5.) ( He's Not ) because he's a homosexual.
6.)Who gives a rats ass either way ?

1.) thats a lie can you point out where i said his sexual preference will make or not make him as a football player
2.) 100% false
3.) yes the lies you have posted are
4.) who said this was news because he is great? he hasnt played in the NFL yet?
5.) remains to be seen
6.) people that care about equality and equal rights

Ill be waiting for the proof of the lie you made up, simply qoute me saying sexuality makes a football player, ill be waiting LOL
 
The people who are claiming "bleh who cares" are generally the type of people who wish gays didn't exist, want to pretend they don't, and want to keep them out of public view as much as they can, lest the gay cooties rub off on them and give them a case of the gay.

Oh BS. Your'e full of s*** man.

We're just a little sick of the constant propaganda and hyperbole from these non-inclusive activist.

You know the ones who "celebrate diversity" but who demand that all other expression and opposition be silenced.

Hypoccrites.
 
Back
Top Bottom