All things offseason discussion part II

[SirLK26]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

First, I get the "teamwork, camaraderie" aspect and its importance. Also, I understand your premise that refusal to draft a black player b/c their blackness would allegedly create distraction is an obvious ruse. However, neither of these alters the fundamental question: Is it okay to make roster decisions based gender-preference. Can I cut a more talented player who will cause a distraction based on their gender-preference to retain a lesser talented player who creates no such distraction?

I think it a given that, but for his homosexuality, Sam was a draft worthy player. Thus, the question remains: Is it permissible to say "You're gay, I won't draft you b/c you're a marginal talent and your gender-preference is likely to be a distraction."

For Dungy the distraction preventing Sam's drafting is his homosexuality. Dungy is discriminating based on gender-preference because it is the "but-for" causation of the alleged distraction. If Sam is not gay, no distraction and no prohibition on drafting a marginal player. Sam is gay, so deemed a distraction, and, thus, prohibition on drafting a marginal player.

Again, you can couch it however you want, but Dungy's reasoning for saying he wouldn't draft Sam ultimately turns on Sam's gender-preference and nothing else. To assert it is anything other than is "straight-up discrimination," is a denial of reality ["The Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was about State's rights."].

As for your statement: "If Sam were gay, but Dungy knew he wouldn't be a distraction, Dungy would draft him." As it applies to Sam, it is a logical fallacy.
The logical statement: "If x, but not y, then z."
In your statement: x= Sam is gay; y= a distraction; z= gets drafted

The logical fallacy is that the only way that Sam is "not a distraction" is if he is "not gay". Thus:

1. not y (not a distraction) = not x (not gay); consequently
2. y (distraction) = x (gay); thus,
3. If x, but not x, then z.

A result cannot occur conditioned on the simultaneous existence and nonexistence of "x". Because Sam is gay, Dungy will always assume he will be a distraction. [Again, if Sam were a first round talent, superstar then no gender based discrimination occurs. The gender based discrimination occurs only because Sam's talent does not outweigh the distraction caused by his gayness].

Discrimination is not inherently illegal - we could not function if we did not discriminate between good and bad, right and wrong. The question is not "Is Dungy discriminating based on gender preference?" b/c he is. The onlyquestion is whether this type of discrimination is permissible.

In the NFL is gender-preference based discrimination right or wrong in your book? Simple question. Is it okay to say, "Your homosexuality will be a distraction that outweighs your talent so I will not sign you"? [Again, from a different era - under this reasoning, it was fine to discriminate against marginal black players in the era of segregation b/c their distraction caused by their skin color outweighed their talent level].

To both of your questions( Is it okay to say, "Your homosexuality will be a distraction that outweighs your talent so I will not sign you?", and "Can I cut a more talented player who will cause a distraction based on their gender-preference to retain a lesser talented player who creates no such distraction?"), absolutely. You can do whatever the heck you want to improve your football team, as long as it's within the NFL rules. Sort of like how kids on the playground always pick certain kids last because there are other kids who will ultimately help them win more. It may not be the kindest, or in Sam's case if he had remained unsigned or gets cut, the most popular by public opinion, but if you think a player will bring more distractions than he's worth, you can absolutely cut him or not sign him, gay or straight.

Your post leads me to believe that you think that if Sam is one of the best 53 on the Rams' team, he should remain on the team even if the distractions become so fierce that their locker room divides(unlikely, I know, but play along.) And the only reason you would keep him is because he's gay and it would be discriminatory to cut him. If Sam were straight and he became that big of a distraction, you would cut him immediately, even if he were one of the best 53, am I right?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by SirLK26

To both of your questions( Is it okay to say, "Your homosexuality will be a distraction that outweighs your talent so I will not sign you?", and "Can I cut a more talented player who will cause a distraction based on their gender-preference to retain a lesser talented player who creates no such distraction?"), absolutely. You can do whatever the heck you want to improve your football team, as long as it's within the NFL rules. Sort of like how kids on the playground always pick certain kids last because there are other kids who will ultimately help them win more. It may not be the kindest, or in Sam's case if he had remained unsigned or gets cut, the most popular by public opinion, but if you think a player will bring more distractions than he's worth, you can absolutely cut him or not sign him, gay or straight.

Just b/c it's legal, doesn't make it right. Sure, teams can cut him for any reason, and, yes, winning is the ultimate measurement. At the same time, where is the line. Again, using an extreme example, a coach for a winning team thinks his team will have better teamwork and camaraderie if the roster is composed only of black players. He manipulates the roster to achieve this result and continues to win. Acceptable? Hey, they win and a talented white player might either (a) disrupt the camaraderie or (b) create a distraction by being the only white guy on the team. Thus, even if more talented, the white guy is not going to be drafted/signed. Acceptable? Your only distinction from Sam's situation is that NOW such behavior is seen as blatantly impermissible. 60 years ago, was that reasoning right/ethical when used to prohibit blacks from playing on major league teams? If it was unethical then, why is it ethical now?

Additional, the whole concept that Sam's sexual orientation creates a distraction brings us back to NC Skins point way back when ... What kind of coach accepts this as a permissible distraction? Even if media driven.

Originally Posted by SirLK26

Your post leads me to believe that you think that if Sam is one of the best 53 on the Rams' team, he should remain on the team even if the distractions become so fierce that their locker room divides(unlikely, I know, but play along.) And the only reason you would keep him is because he's gay and it would be discriminatory to cut him. If Sam were straight and he became that big of a distraction, you would cut him immediately, even if he were one of the best 53, am I right?

Nothing is an absolute. Again, at what point does it become acceptable for teams to factor sexual orientation into roster decisions. If you believe I am saying never, I simply have not made myself clear. I don't know when. I haven't heard a persuasive argument leading to an imperative answer. On the other hand, it seems to me you are saying "Whenever they feel like it." If that is true, doesn't it give license to use "distractions" as a cover for unfair discrimination.

It's not a question of what can they do. It's a question of, ethically, what should they do. What level of distraction should a team bear to do the right thing?

None! Okay - why not?
Whatever level is necessary to do what is right! Okay, why?

Someone convince me.