A quick bit of context in case you aren’t familiar with the issue: NBC analyst and former Super Bowl-winning head coach Tony Dungy recently made comments to the Tampa Tribune that he would not have drafted Sam “[n]ot because I don’t believe Michael Sam should have a chance to play, but I wouldn’t want to deal with all of it.” Dungy added, “It’s not going to be totally smooth…things will happen.’’
The responses were predictable.
Dan Wetzel of Yahoo Sports said Dungy’s assessment of openly gay NFL rookie Michael Sam as a “stunning lack of courage” and a “complete cop-out”.
The Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Rosenbloom said (registration required to read the article in the link) Dungy’s comments were “lame and cowardly”.
Gee, what a surprise: both columnists hold liberal views so they embrace the gay man Sam while ripping on the Christian man Dungy. I haven’t read every critical opinion on Dungy’s comments, but it’s almost guaranteed that all of those anti-Dungy opinions are by people who support gay rights.
I don’t normally respond to every opinion piece that defends gay rights, gay marriage or gay people because the liberal media is so voluminous in their defense of gay whatever that there wouldn’t be enough time in the day to do so.
But this issue warrants a quick injection of minor insights.
First, rather than lacking courage, considering that polls now say the majority of Americans support gay marriage, the fact that Dungy made an anti-Sam comment by definition took quite a bit of courage since he is voicing an opinion that is supposedly in the minority now.
Second, being a former NFL head coach, Tony Dungy would know significantly more than Wetzel, Rosenbloom and the myriad other loudmouths who can only dream of what it’s like in an NFL locker room and what chemistry is like on an NFL team. So if someone is giving an opinion on whether things will go smooth, um, I think it’s safe to say that Dungy’s opinion has more weight.
Some commentators have said that Sam’s teammates have said they don’t have a problem with Sam. Well, duh! What do you expect them to say? “Man, I don’t want gay people in the locker room with me!” Sheesh, they’ll be ostracized as fast as these same media types are ostracizing Dungy. These players aren’t stupid. Unlike the commentators.
Third, the arguments being made to criticize Dungy are so moronic, it’s amazing those columns made it past their respective editors. Unless the editors too are liberals. Oh, never mind.
For example, both Wetzel and Rosenbloom bring up Dungy’s supposedly hypocritical acceptance of Michael Vick and rejection of Sam.
Rosenbloom wrote: “Let me get this right: A man who wants to love another man is worse than a man who pays for and revels in killing a bunch of dogs for sport. Welcome to Tony Dungy’s world. That’s some talking head NBC Sports has, huh?”
The thing that these writers keep forgetting is that Vick apologized for his sins and was making good-faith efforts to distance himself from his sins while Sam is, uh, openly gay. As in, not apologizing nor distancing himself from his sins but instead proudly proclaiming his sins.
Far from being hypocritical, that’s Dungy being entirely consistent with his biblical worldview. Welcome to Dan Wetzel, Steve Rosenbloom and like-minded liberal writers’ world. Those are some writing heads Yahoo and the Chicago Tribune have, huh? Their logic is impeccable, huh?
As another example, both Wetzel and Rosenbloom made the same argument that Dungy benefited from people in the past who gave black people a chance to play or coach sports.
It’s amazing that liberals still use the nonsensical “black rights is the same as gay rights” argument.
Blacks are the very same people as any other people. They can all procreate and make more of themselves. (This is the point where you hear liberals yell that some straight couples cannot procreate either. Those are, of course, isolated instances. Biologically, a man + a woman can procreate.)
However, gay people cannot procreate and give birth to more gay people. Biologically, a man + a man cannot give birth to a baby. Ever. And a woman + a woman cannot give birth to a baby. Ever.
So gay rights can NEVER be equated to black rights. Ever. It’s just that simple. In fact, many black people will get offended if you try to equate gay rights the same as black rights.
Hey, if a “sexual orientation” is enough to demand equal rights, what about people with other types of “orientations”? What if a proud, self-proclaimed pyromaniac wanted to work in a library? Or a proud, self-proclaimed kleptomaniac wanted to work at a store? Do they get equal rights too?
Everyone needs to just calm down. Dungy said things will not be totally smooth and that things will happen; ironically, the reaction to his comments proved him right.