kearly
New member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 15,974
- Reaction score
- 0
Here is what Dungy said (separate quotes).
Dungy backtracked somewhat (I assume the second quote came later):
Maybe Dungy should have said no comment. But IMO, what he said was really just what 31 other NFL teams thought.
Rather than engage Dungy's premise or simply write it off as his opinion, many in the media have chosen to attack Dungy, hinting at him being anti-homosexual, using his Christian faith as evidence. The article linked above even mentions the really good things Dungy has done as evidence against him. The premise being, that Dungy is willing to stick up for a dog killer, but not for a gay man.
First, I am kind of offended that we are making judgements about someone based on their religion. How can we say we are for progress if we engage in religious stereotypes? Second, why should it matter what his religious is? How can we prove that has anything to do with his conclusion?
Whether it is Mark Cuban or Tony Dungy, it concerns me that we can't have a two-sided civil discussion about race or sexual orientation without getting attacked by a mob shouting down discussion and going into character assassination mode. While the intentions are good, the bullying method is both ironic and hypocritical.
I can only criticize Dungy in two areas. The first is that saying 'no comment' would have been smarter, but I also think that if we as a society aren't able to have a common sense discussion about these topics without inviting a shitstorm, then such a thing is an issue unto itself.
The second is that his first quote, at least to me, implies locker room issues WILL happen. He probably should have said "there's a chance things could happen, and that's not a risk I would be comfortable with." He could have rounded the edges on that quote slightly.
I feel bad for Dungy. Pete Carroll was asked the same question earlier this year and gave the same answer, but it slipped under the radar with the media, and right now I'm betting Pete is really glad it did.
I wouldn’t have taken him, not because I don’t believe Michael Sam should have a chance to play, but I wouldn’t want to deal with all of it. It’s not going to be totally smooth … things will happen.
Dungy backtracked somewhat (I assume the second quote came later):
I do not believe Michael's sexual orientation will be a distraction to his teammates or his organization. I do, however, believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction.
Maybe Dungy should have said no comment. But IMO, what he said was really just what 31 other NFL teams thought.
Rather than engage Dungy's premise or simply write it off as his opinion, many in the media have chosen to attack Dungy, hinting at him being anti-homosexual, using his Christian faith as evidence. The article linked above even mentions the really good things Dungy has done as evidence against him. The premise being, that Dungy is willing to stick up for a dog killer, but not for a gay man.
First, I am kind of offended that we are making judgements about someone based on their religion. How can we say we are for progress if we engage in religious stereotypes? Second, why should it matter what his religious is? How can we prove that has anything to do with his conclusion?
Whether it is Mark Cuban or Tony Dungy, it concerns me that we can't have a two-sided civil discussion about race or sexual orientation without getting attacked by a mob shouting down discussion and going into character assassination mode. While the intentions are good, the bullying method is both ironic and hypocritical.
I can only criticize Dungy in two areas. The first is that saying 'no comment' would have been smarter, but I also think that if we as a society aren't able to have a common sense discussion about these topics without inviting a shitstorm, then such a thing is an issue unto itself.
The second is that his first quote, at least to me, implies locker room issues WILL happen. He probably should have said "there's a chance things could happen, and that's not a risk I would be comfortable with." He could have rounded the edges on that quote slightly.
I feel bad for Dungy. Pete Carroll was asked the same question earlier this year and gave the same answer, but it slipped under the radar with the media, and right now I'm betting Pete is really glad it did.