Tag Archives: issue of same sex

Michael Sam’s Football ‘Coming Out’ Statement

Should Michael Sam’s Football ‘Coming Out’ Statement be Celebrated? – Mary La Clair  football_-_helmet_&_ball 670 words In early February 2014, a currently robust football player, Michael Sam, declared openly, to the news media, prior to the NFL draft, that he was ‘gay’  a/k/a ‘homosexual’. Why did he choose to broadcast this just prior to the NFL draft?  Did he think that that statement would make him a ‘shoe in’ for the team? His statement that he wants to be considered solely for his playing ability is contradictory, an oxymoron. If that were true, there would be no need for the statement because he has already been recognized for such .http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/hail-nfl-prospect-bravery-jeer-article-1.1608084

Could it be that he was looking for a reason to be selected as a minority for the NFL; or to have an excuse to plead ‘homophobia’ if he is not football_-_padsselected?

It certainly makes this writer wonder.  Will sports stadiums be required to have a private locker room for declared homosexuals?  Some players have already expressed discomfort with the idea of sharing showers with an admitted homosexual. I believe that straights need just as much recognized protection in cases like this. Without a counter balance, recognized protection can be a problem. Approval can be a problem. Take some lessons from Mt. Hood: Some mountain climbers decided they wanted to climb Mt. Hood early in December 2006. They ran into problems and died on the mountain, unable to be rescued. Question:  Why would the climbers have gone so late in the season? Answer:  They went because they wanted to go, and they wanted challenge. Question:  Should the state have denied permission to go when conditions were not right? (This question was asked by a reporter covering the story. And the answer below is the kind of answer given by those in authority at the site on December 19, 2006.) I think it pertains to all those who approve homosexuality. A.  ‘If the state permits someone to go and if something happens, the weather gets bad or something happens, the state would get sued and the taxpayers would pay. The best they could do, they said, was to require that all climbers carry a GPS system with them; but to grant permission would be to assume liability.’ I think this pertains to all who ‘approve’ homosexuality. To states, or organizations with shoulder bumping personnel, like sports teams sharing locker rooms, which are considering recognition of same-sex unions of any kind, I repeat: “Take heed.” You could be held liable for health costs and possible wrongful death lawsuits because of permission granted and the assumption of safety which naturally goes with it. In addition, state health departments know in advance what ‘risky behavior’  is.  For anyone to sanction such is to put state taxpayers of states who approve, or an organization, in a position of fiscal liability. Authorities at Mt. Hood understand this principle. But it is not only Mt. Hood authorities who understand this principle. History proves that we should also know it. Responsibility, it seems has been shifted FROM the people who exercise their right of free choice TO the people who approve, yet conceal the harm which may result, from that free choice.Image

Tobacco companies were successfully sued for astronomical amounts because they approved, for public use, a product which was proven to be physically harmful.

MacDonalds was sued for injury because coffee was too hot; and has a case pending because their food causes obesity to vulnerable youth. Yet this coffee or food is not forced upon anyone. Same went for gun companies and breast implant companies; and, the same still goes for pharmaceutical companies with products with hidden dangers yet which offer these things in an approving manner. So, if NFL approves, or by inaction does not DIS-approve, could it be possible that they might be sued by a player, or players, who claim to have contracted STD or AIDS in a locker-room encounter of any kind, because those in authority disregarded some known and implied health dangers, thereby opening others to endangerment? Certainly food for thought…and should be seriously considered.