Tony Dungy Disappointment

[Superman]

Maybe not to you.

 

This is not the right forum, but yes, to me. And the differences are crystal clear.

 

Disclaimer: I'm not defending discrimination against people on the basis of their sexual orientation. 

[Valpo2004]

I'm sure that you understand the difference between choosing not to hire an ex-criminal and choosing not to hire a person with no criminal record because of his sexual orientation. At the very least, the law views those two situations very differently.

 

As for a known philanderer, well that speaks to character. Again, different from sexual orientation, especially from a legal standpoint. Most employment is at-will, but if you're a contract employee, I think it would be hard for your employer to get rid of you on the basis of a marital indiscretion. Especially without very specific verbiage in the contract; even morals clauses vary greatly, one from the other.

 

I won't presume to speak for other people or try to determine why they label people the way they do, but I do think there's a difference between having a religious or moral objection to a course of action, and being phobic of it or hating other people because of it.

 

I was merely pointing out that your statement wasn't exactly true.  

 

Also sexual orientation is not yet a universally protected class by the law yet.  Although it quickly will be.

[House]

People who are guilty of being wrong for something especially being that recent should be the slowest to judge others who are guilty of the same thing.

And name calling rarely changes someones mind. At best all you have done is gotten them to shut about something because a lot of people disapprove. But they will still feel the same way and detest you even more for it.

And you think it was different during the civil rights movement?

But good. I prefer people quietly deal with their prejudices, than enact laws and legislation oppressing them.

I don't like clowns, but you don't see me oppressing them.

[Superman]

I was merely pointing out that your statement wasn't exactly true.  

 

Also sexual orientation is not yet a universally protected class by the law yet.  Although it quickly will be.

 

The fact that you have to qualify with the bolded kind of makes my point. Like you say, it's not a done deal, but it's on its way.

[House]

This is not the right forum, but yes, to me. And the differences are crystal clear.

Disclaimer: I'm not defending discrimination against people on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Well I'm sure a homosexual being oppressed feels similar to those who feel racially oppressed.

It's still all wrong whether you want to call them apples to apples or not.

[John Dee]

Don't you all just love this PC world we are all ZOOMING into... 

 

[House]

Don't you all just love this PC world we are all ZOOMING into...

Yeah I know what you mean. I hate treating other humans like they are humans. What a pain!!!

[Poster X]

I think it is odd for a coach to say that he wouldn't take a player regardless of the situation because as Tony Dungy said "Things will happen." Ummm, sir if you are the coach of a team it is your job to make sure all the players are brought in... and become acclimated where ever they land. In my opinion Jack Query is right when he said on Twitter "There is a flaw in promoting 2nd chances for some while avoiding 1st chances for others." I'll leave it at that.

[Superman]

Well I'm sure a homosexual being oppressed feels similar to those who feel racially oppressed.

It's still all wrong whether you want to call them apples to apples or not.

 

Isn't oppression and discrimination different than moral or religious objection?

 

A person can object to the conduct, behavior and lifestyle of another person without discriminating against them or oppressing them.

[GoPats]

Let's just cut to the chase.

 

Dungy is a devoutly Christian man. His views on homosexuality are clearly influenced by the Bible. (Which also says, by the way, that you're not supposed to work on Sundays. But I guess that's not one of the important parts.) 

 

Dungy is well within his rights to state his opinion. That, however, does not guarantee to shield him from criticism for said opinion. That's not what "freedom of speech" is about. You're allowed to say whatever you want, and you can't be imprisoned for it. But don't start whining when people call him out on this type of nonsense. It's not about being PC. Being PC is when you say something or agree to something because you think it's the "right" thing to say and you don't believe in it. 

[Nadine]

Good grief I cannot believe this topic has found its way back here

I guess news people know how to push buttons

[House]

Isn't oppression and discrimination different than moral or religious objection?

A person can object to the conduct, behavior and lifestyle of another person without discriminating against them or oppressing them.

Hasn't the religious objection lead to laws denying rights to others who are "objected" against?

[Valpo2004]

Maybe not to you.

 

I would agree with him on this.  Mostly because my own views on sexual orientation are highly nuanced between what I believe is morally acceptable and the legal and real world applications of it.

 

Morally I do believe homosexual acts to be immoral as in keeping with my religious views.  I also believe divorce absent adultry, physical abuse, or abandonment and fornication to be immoral.  Of the 3 I am by far the harshest on divorce.  

 

Legally I however am not at all opposed to civil gay marriage as long as religions who opposed where protected and I don't think it should affect someone's employment prospects. 

 

Real world applications. . . if I where to discriminate or mistreat everyone who's been divorced absent those reasons or committed fornication I would not last long in this world.  So it is sort of a situation where one must accept that there is immorality and that other people will behave in a manner that I will find immoral, however that is not any of my business because they have not accepted by moral code unless they are a part of my religious faith (in which case they have willingly signed onto the same moral code that I have.  In which case we have our own methods of dealing with these situations.)

 

So I am morally opposed to Sam's sexual choices, but I also have advocated that we draft him because I thought he would be a steal and I think he still will be a steal if not with the Rams then somewhere.  

 

But at the same time I'm morally opposed to the sexual choices of most professional football players and of most people in general.  

 

**I am not advocating or pushing my views, I am only explaining them and why there is a difference.**

[Superman]

Hasn't the religious objection lead to laws denying rights to others who are "objected" against?

 

Those laws are discriminatory in nature. That's why those laws are being struck down by higher courts. (Just like segregation was eventually struck down, as were laws prohibiting interracial marriage.)

 

My question stands: Isn't oppression and discrimination different from moral or religious objection?

[Valpo2004]

Hasn't the religious objection lead to laws denying rights to others who are "objected" against?

 

Certainly hasn't for divorce!!!

 

I get what you are saying, but at the same time you have to remember 2 things.

 

1. Having a moral/religious objection to a lifestyle does not equate to a person necessarily thinking that we should have discriminatory laws.  I have a moral objection to prostitution, but I think it should be legalized.  Each person is an individual.

 

2. Not all of these laws came from religious people.  In terms of church attendance the number of people who attend church has been actually rather steady for pretty much the entire length of the nation's history.  Never underestimate the power of the "eww gross" factor that this has had.  If this was all just a big religious objection that has prevented gay marriage etc etc. . . then we would have never gotten no fault divorce.  A lot of people supported such things because they thought it was gross or had different ideas from the modern day as to what marriage should be for.  

[House]

Those laws are discriminatory in nature. That's why those laws are being struck down by higher courts.

My question stands: Isn't oppression and discrimination different from moral or religious objection?

Those laws are just now being struck down. Don't act like this had been quick and easy.

And I don't see the distinctions when those moral or religious objections lead to legal discrimination.

I expects not to be told or forced how to live my life. I reciprocate that belief to everyone else

[Valpo2004]

Those laws are just now being struck down. Don't act like this had been quick and easy.

And I don't see the distinctions when those moral or religious objections lead to legal discrimination.

I expects not to be told or forced how to live my life. I reciprocate that belief to everyone else

 

Just because someone has a moral or religious objection to something doesn't mean they also approve of the legal discrimination.  

 

I could list off dozens of things that I have a moral or religious objection to but I don't believe should be made illegal.

[House]

Certainly hasn't for divorce!!!

I get what you are saying, but at the same time you have to remember 2 things.

1. Having a moral/religious objection to a lifestyle does not equate to a person necessarily thinking that we should have discriminatory laws. I have a moral objection to prostitution, but I think it should be legalized. Each person is an individual.

2. Not all of these laws came from religious people. In terms of church attendance the number of people who attend church has been actually rather steady for pretty much the entire length of the nation's history. Never underestimate the power of the "eww gross" factor that this has had. If this was all just a big religious objection that has prevented gay marriage etc etc. . . then we would have never gotten no fault divorce. A lot of people supported such things because they thought it was gross or had different ideas from the modern day as to what marriage should be for.

Historically those in power have been of the dominant religion, but that's a direction and discussion for another time and place.

I'm not vilifying those who are morally opposed to things, and deal with it in their own way, but those who are holding others down for those reasons I am wholly against.

[House]

Just because someone has a moral or religious objection to something doesn't mean they also approve of the legal discrimination.

I could list off dozens of things that I have a moral or religious objection to but I don't believe should be made illegal.

See my previous post lol.

[YOUR GM]

And you think it was different during the civil rights movement?

But good. I prefer people quietly deal with their prejudices, than enact laws and legislation oppressing them.

I don't like clowns, but you don't see me oppressing them.

This is the most absurd analogy in this thread. Homosexuals are not oppressed. They can't get legally married in some states. Get back to me when they're any of the following: Segregated, systematically terrorized by their own government, bought and sold, pushed to the brink of extinction due to genocide.

I believe in equal rights for all, but it's insulting to the communities that actually were oppressed to compare what the homosexual community has gone through to anything they went through. You're out of touch with reality, and likely haven't faced anything close to oppression in your lifetime. Don't speak on matters you don't have perspective on

[Jules]

Not a shocker. He is just another indoctrinated Christian......we are swimming with them in this country.

[NFLfan]

This does not change my opinion of Tony Dungy. I hold him in high regard. He has very strong religious beliefs. He has a history of staying clear of guys who may have off-the-field issues and who could create distractions. He did not say that Michael Sam should not play. He said he would not have him on his team, as he would not want to have to deal with everything else that this would involve. I recall Dungy saying that Richie Incognito was also not on his board of players he would consider drafting.

What is noteworthy is that there has not been too much written about Michael Sam since mid-May. Johnny Manziel has been in the news nearly every day. Who has been a greater distraction?

[Qwiz]

[Superman]

Those laws are just now being struck down. Don't act like this had been quick and easy.

And I don't see the distinctions when those moral or religious objections lead to legal discrimination.

I expects not to be told or forced how to live my life. I reciprocate that belief to everyone else

 

That's a strawman of the finest order. I never said they've been quick and easy. Same for your last line. Just because I may have a moral or religious objection to something doesn't mean I think others should be forced to comply with my viewpoint.

 

You said earlier that a person who was wrong five years ago was still wrong. Laws that were discriminatory five years ago, or fifty years ago, were still discriminatory. It doesn't matter that they're just now being struck down. 

 

If moral or religious objections lead to discrimination, that doesn't mean the moral or religious objection is the problem. People with improper motives or no sense of boundary between legal and moral/religious can twist anything, good or bad, to meet their ends. That doesn't erase the distinction between discrimination and moral or religious objection, even if you've decided it's just as well to lump them all in together.

 

Also, I take objection with your qualifier. "Legal discrimination" is still discrimination. And it's still different from moral or religious objection.

[Superman]

Historically those in power have been of the dominant religion, but that's a direction and discussion for another time and place.

I'm not vilifying those who are morally opposed to things, and deal with it in their own way, but those who are holding others down for those reasons I am wholly against.

 

Yet, you refuse to acknowledge the distinction between discrimination and moral objection.

[House]

This is the most absurd analogy in this thread. Homosexuals are not oppressed. They can't get legally married in some states. Get back to me when they're any of the following: Segregated, systematically terrorized by their own government, bought and sold, pushed to the brink of extinction due to genocide.

I believe in equal rights for all, but it's insulting to the communities that actually were oppressed to compare what the homosexual community has gone through to anything they went through. You're out of touch with reality, and likely haven't faced anything close to oppression in your lifetime. Don't speak on matters you don't have perspective on

So oppression to absolutely reprehensible extremes are the only ones worth getting upset about? Noted. I'll keep that in mind.

Should those of Jewish faith tell African Americans to quit complaining because they didn't have it as bad ? Native Americans too ?

Yet again my annoyance for those who can't compose well thought arguments arises.

[House]

Yet, you refuse to acknowledge the distinction between discrimination and moral objection.

If I had a moral objection against African Americans, I doubt you would find that compelling.

[Jason_]

This is the most absurd analogy in this thread. Homosexuals are not oppressed. They can't get legally married in some states. Get back to me when they're any of the following: Segregated, systematically terrorized by their own government, bought and sold, pushed to the brink of extinction due to genocide.

I believe in equal rights for all, but it's insulting to the communities that actually were oppressed to compare what the homosexual community has gone through to anything they went through. You're out of touch with reality, and likely haven't faced anything close to oppression in your lifetime. Don't speak on matters you don't have perspective on

 

Do you think that would still be the case if homosexuals were born with some sort of noticeable birthmark that conclusively identified them as gay?  Slavery was much different, I'll give you that, because african americans are easily identifiable in appearance.  If all homosexuals were that easily identifiable just by appearance then I guarantee the historical atrocities would be much worse. 

 

However, your point is still not entirely correct.  Gays were also sent to concentration camps and gas chambers during the holocaust, and there are multiple countries where right now, TODAY, if a person living in that country was identified as homosexual they would or could be murdered on the spot. In most cases, the law of that country simply looks the other way but in a few cases, it's actually the law.  

 

You shouldn't tell others not to speak on what they have no perspective on when you don't really have the clearest perspective yourself.

[Superman]

If I had a moral objection against African Americans, I doubt you would find that compelling.

 

So do you have a moral objection to anyone with moral objections?

 

This is a weak argument. I think you know that.

[YOUR GM]

So oppression to absolutely reprehensible extremes are the only ones worth getting upset about? Noted. I'll keep that in mind.

Should those of Jewish faith tell African Americans to quit complaining because they didn't have it as bad ? Native Americans too ?

Yet again my annoyance for those who can't compose well thought arguments arises.

You're right. Marajuana smokers are an oppressed group in this country as well in many states. As are those who enjoy alchoholic beverages but can't purchase them on Sunday's (in some states)

Oh, the humanity! You should be outraged

[House]

So do you have a moral objection to anyone with moral objections?

This is a weak argument. I think you know that.

It's not a weak argument. I don't find "moral objections" compelling. It's a fancy way of justifying something you don't like. That's my opinion.

However, you are allowed to like or dislike, believe or not believe, anything you want. None of my business.

But then using those objections to hold others down is reprehensible.

[House]

You're right. Marajuana smokers are an oppressed group in this country as well in many states. As are those who enjoy alchoholic beverages but can't purchase them on Sunday's (in some states)

Oh, the humanity! You should be outraged

Do both of those communities not protest, and act oppressed by the government?

Not to mention that, depending on your school of thought, those are choices and skin color and homosexuality aren't.

Again. Think things through before touching your keyboard

[Superman]

It's not a weak argument. I don't find "moral objections" compelling. It's a fancy way of justifying something you don't like. That's my opinion.

However, you are allowed to like or dislike, believe or not believe, anything you want. None of my business.

But then using those objections to hold others down is reprehensible.

 

The bolded is discrimination. I don't understand why it's so hard to acknowledge the very clear distinction between the two.

 

As for "moral objections," some people have beliefs that they hold very dear to them. You don't have to find those beliefs compelling, and they shouldn't try to force their beliefs on you or others. But everyone has their thoughts on what's right and what's wrong. And there is a very clear difference between a person's beliefs -- whether those beliefs are based in religion or not -- about what's right and wrong, and how they treat other people.

[YOUR GM]

Do you think that would still be the case if homosexuals were born with some sort of noticeable birthmark that conclusively identified them as gay? Slavery was much different, I'll give you that, because african americans are easily identifiable in appearance. If all homosexuals were that easily identifiable just by appearance then I guarantee the historical atrocities would be much worse.

However, your point is still not entirely correct. Gays were also sent to concentration camps and gas chambers during the holocaust, and there are multiple countries where right now, TODAY, if a person living in that country was identified as homosexual they would or could be murdered on the spot. In most cases, the law of that country simply looks the other way but in a few cases, it's actually the law.

You shouldn't tell others not to speak on what they have no perspective on when you don't really have the clearest perspective yourself.

There were blacks in the Nazi concentration camps as well, but you don't hear the African-American community claiming the holocaust as a part of their plight, do you? The Nazis were a hate group. They hated anything and anyone that wasn't Anglo-Saxton and socially "norm." Of course homosexuals were lumped into that hate, just as all minority groups were. Still doesn't change the fact that by and large, the group most affected by it were the Jews, and it was THEIR plight

[Synthetic]

They gave this guy the Arthur Ash award. Previous winners:

 

Muhamed Ali

Nelson Mandela

Pat Tillman

Patt Summitt

 

 

and Michael Sam....

 

 

And that's wrong because???

[Jason_]

There were blacks in the Nazi concentration camps as well, but you don't hear the African-American community claiming the holocaust as a part of their plight, do you? The Nazis were a hate group. They hated anything and anyone that wasn't Anglo-Saxton and socially "norm." Of course homosexuals were lumped into that hate, just as all minority groups were. Still doesn't change the fact that by and large, the group most affected by it were the Jews, and it was THEIR plight

 

That is entirely irrelevant to my point.  I never said the Holocaust was not the plight of the Jews.  I said that gays were also sent to the concentration camps and gas chambers by the German Government, which directly refutes your point that they've never been:

 

 

 

Segregated, systematically terrorized by their own government

 

a few more (very recent) notes:

 

In 2013, a law was reinstated in India making it illegal to engage in any kind of homosexual act.  Performing any "same sex act" could result in 10 years in prison.  

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/11/india-supreme-court-reinstates-gay-sex-ban

 

Men in Jamaica have been attacked with sticks and machetes just for being perceived as being gay

http://www.hrw.org/news/2004/11/15/jamaica-police-violence-fuels-aids-epidemic

 

Last February, the Ugandan Parliament gave serious consideration to making homosexuality punishable by DEATH.  Even without this bill, Uganda still punishes homosexuals with 14 years to life in prison.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/02/06/uganda-kill-the-gays-bill-back-on-table-as-parliament-reconvenes/

 

As recently as 2007, homosexuality was punishable by death (death by stoning) in Nigeria.  I don't know if this law has been overturned.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6940061.stm

[chad72]

 

I never said the Holocaust was not the plight of the Jews.  I said that gays were also sent to the concentration camps and gas chambers by the German Government, which directly refutes your point that they've never been:

 

 

 

 

 

 

In 2013, a law was reinstated in India making it illegal to engage in any kind of homosexual act.  Performing any "same sex act" could result in 10 years in prison.  

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/11/india-supreme-court-reinstates-gay-sex-ban

 

Men in Jamaica have been attacked with sticks and machetes just for being perceived as being gay

http://www.hrw.org/news/2004/11/15/jamaica-police-violence-fuels-aids-epidemic

 

Last February, the Ugandan Parliament gave serious consideration to making homosexuality punishable by DEATH.  Even without this bill, Uganda still punishes homosexuals with 14 years to life in prison.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/02/06/uganda-kill-the-gays-bill-back-on-table-as-parliament-reconvenes/

 

As recently as 2007, homosexuality was punishable by death (death by stoning) in Nigeria.  I don't know if this law has been overturned.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6940061.stm

 

 

That is why, when people in this country whine about every small inconvenience, I just tell them "I would be glad to send them to a country of my choice for 30 days and they can come back and tell me how bad they had it here".

 

Your links are just a small microcosm of what I meant . But then, that is a topic for another day.

[Synthetic]

This is the most absurd analogy in this thread. Homosexuals are not oppressed. They can't get legally married in some states. Get back to me when they're any of the following: Segregated, systematically terrorized by their own government, bought and sold, pushed to the brink of extinction due to genocide.

 

 

 

If your definition of oppression is mass genocide, I have an answer for you - Native Americans....you know the ones that everyone forgets about, and then complains them cause they want the Redskins name changed. I guess they don't count either

[YOUR GM]

Do both of those communities not protest, and act oppressed by the government?

Not to mention that, depending on your school of thought, those are choices and skin color and homosexuality aren't.

Again. Think things through before touching your keyboard

And therein lies the problem with your argument. You have no way of proving the bolded. It's your opinion that it's not a choice for every homosexual. Maybe in the case of some it's not a choice. I understand genetic predisposition. But you can't tell me that every homosexual in this world was born as one. That's just not true. There's not a person in this world that can choose what race they are

Also, just because a group protests doesn't mean their cause is legitimate. There are people in this country that want to marry inanimate objects but are "oppressed" by their government from doing so. Me comparing those individuals to the struggles the homosexual community have had to overcome is in the same vein as you comparing the gay rights movement to the oppress faced by blacks in this country and Jews during the holocaust

[Synthetic]

There were blacks in the Nazi concentration camps as well, but you don't hear the African-American community claiming the holocaust as a part of their plight, do you? The Nazis were a hate group. They hated anything and anyone that wasn't Anglo-Saxton and socially "norm." Of course homosexuals were lumped into that hate, just as all minority groups were. Still doesn't change the fact that by and large, the group most affected by it were the Jews, and it was THEIR plight

 

Let me guess, America wasn't country founded on mass genocide? America killed far more Natives (and Africans considering the death tolls of slavery is in the millions) than the Third Reich could have even dreamed of murdering. And they did it so rich oligarchies could establish a country on their land.

 

The "norm" Anglo-Saxon's from Europe that founded your country hold the record when it comes to mass genocide numbers. Nazi's were not the only white people that tried to wipe out an entire race.