Would it be OK for NYDN to out a star Jets player who's gay?

[Batmans A Scientist]

Originally Posted by C Mart

when did "for years" turn into before he was even a Jet?

it may not fit your definition but whoever said it and how can easily be 3 or 4..

Cimini: "So did Rex just get this tattoo?"

Source: "nah, he's had it for years"..

That's actually my interpretation. I guess I would interpret "for years" would imply more than 4, but that's just my mistake.

[TheBlairThomasFumble]

Originally Posted by joiseyjet

Savage I really hope you have more sense, then to bring this up.Sean this whole thread is crap and has nothing to do with the sport it is time to dump this thead.

The poll question was intended to start a conversation about the coverage by the NYDN. While I think the other side of argument has merit, regardless of whether or not Rex should have expected privacy at a big resort considering his high profile, I think the NYDN has gone into the sewer with its TMZ coverage of jets.

And the issue of whether a gay player who claims he's straight could or should be outed I don't think is that far afield from the tattoo story. Editors decide follow a guy and "report" what he does off the field. If it provides spectacle and prurient interest, the NYDN is bound to go with the story.

[C Mart]

Originally Posted by TheBlairThomasFumble

The poll question was intended to start a conversation about the coverage by the NYDN. While I think the other side of argument has merit, regardless of whether or not Rex should have expected privacy at a big resort considering his high profile, I think the NYDN has gone into the sewer with its TMZ coverage of jets.

And the issue of whether a gay player who claims he's straight could or should be outed I don't think is that far afield from the tattoo story. Editors decide follow a guy and "report" what he does off the field. If it provides spectacle and prurient interest, the NYDN is bound to go with the story.

Just go to their site...That's what they want to be now..

[Axil]

Originally Posted by patman

Yes, he should be ridiculed for not knowing his kids names. And in being a poster boy for being a non-involved father. There is no more irresponsible behavior that a man can do that is legal.

If you expose a socially frowned upon although legal act, what is the reason for doing so. What do you mean "fair game" it is not fair or morally justifiable.
Polygamy is Illegal, Being a homosexual is not, I am having trouble understanding the analogy you make. Homosexuality is special because a lot of people still refuse to accept what consenting adults do legally is of no concern of theirs.

And just because you cant find someone legally responsible for inciting an illegal act you can still find them morally culpable.

That in red seems to be contradictory. Don't misunderstand me, i agree with you that having 12 (or whatever) children by nearly as many women is irresponsible, and far more damaging than merely being homosexual. That doesn't change the fact that both actions are legal. It is not the medias job to make moral judgements. It is the sole purpose of the media to report things that the public would want to know. I believe that the media making value judgments as to what is "appropriate" to report is in and of itself immoral. Note that does not mean they ought not follow applicable laws regarding their reporting. That's not a judgment they have made, but one made by the government they operate in.

I didn't realize Polygamy was often defined to explicitly include marriage. I was talking about Polygamy as it's more broadly defined by Webster:

Polygamy: the state of being polygamous
Polygamous: having more than one mate at one time

This is not illegal, presumably takes place between consenting adults. Would likely be the source of distraction and perhaps ridicule publicly within the team. And seems to me in every way comparable to Homosexuality, especially in states where homosexual marriage is illegal.