Lombardi stood against prejudice and discrimination, but I doubt he would be supportive of Pride Month and what it includes under that umbrella.

Thankfully, the closest he came to such "pride" was the Hornung-McGee prank.

queue the bigots in 5,4,3,2...

Lombardi was tolerant of color and proclivity without doubt. However, I prefer to keep this space free of Gender or any other social correctness or incorrectness.

This is a football haven, it has no need to expand into gender awareness or, worse, advocacy, whether I or Vince Lombardi might agree with the principles extolled.

The best form of neutrality is an absence for a pure Packers football blog. It’s a place where intolerance generally and politics, religion and gender identification specifically can be avoided legitimately and there are precious few of those left.

Let’s keep it that way please, not invite a descent into such arguments. Those that wish to crusade for social justice have plenty of forums. Let’s keep a few where we can all share a passion without the animosities of clashing worldviews in relating to football. Complete abstinence is far easier to maintain than moderation in practice.

Like most people, I don't care who Vince's brother was having sex with. I'm not interested, it has nothing to do with football. Articles like this are just stupid.

Lombardi was against any form of discrimination not just because of his brother but also because of the discrimination experienced by Italians when they immigrated to the USA early in the 20th century. My grandparents who arrived in the US early in the 20th century experienced discrimination because like Lombardi's family they were also Italian. Unfortunately It has been true and is still true today that nearly every type of immigrant has been discriminated against despite the US being a country of immigrants.

The flip side is that diversity in the US population has been and remains to be one of the greatest strengths of our country. Lombardi realized this and was ahead of his time in speaking out against racism and discrimination. It was one of the characteristics which made him the GOAT of NFL coaches. Thanks, Since '61

Is this really that controversial? I think it's interesting, and it's not completely off topic, as it says something about Lombardi's team building approach. I would hope the Cheesehead TV commentariat could handle an article like this every once in awhile. (Not responding to it is always an option.)

Since we are on this topic, some of us do not wish to participate, however, the first thing that came to mind is that in the 60+ years since Lombardi's death we have made no appreciable progress in requiring gay players to remain in the closet.
I know the majority of straight, red-blooded fans have no concept of the percentage of their faves who are gay and that these players have to hire PR teams who patrol and refute any hint of gayness, some of the strategies involve a new 'girlfriend' every two years (contract), fake wives, fake marriages, and it takes continual surveillance by the player to not let anything slip-I'm certain it is exhausting.

But, there are too many fans who over-drink, have little character, are aggressive, homophobic and would loudly, verbally lacerate any player whom they knew was gay-so, here we are 60+ years later.

FYI, My guess is that 20% of players are gay.

I have a gay nephew and a gay female cousin, Love them both , but doesn't mean I'm going to jump on a float in the gay parade or fly a rainbow flag, nothing homophobic about it , I like to say gays may be heterosexual then too if that's how people think.

Well, it's Pride month and some of the old, close-minded codgers on this site could use a little education about someone else's reality-the someone's who entertain you every season but have to hide who they are.

I’m couldn’t care less about any of this, but I do have one intolerance for two things. I draw the line at gay Bears. They still suck. And straight Bears. They still suck.

Many of you believe Nagler is never right. Honestly, I've had that thought a time or two over the years. Others here have wondered aloud if Aaron may indeed be too stupid to be running around loose. I sit before you today to tell you those takes are both wrong.

What we have in this piece from PackerAaron is an enticing topwater bait being slowly trolled across the weed-edge of anti-wokeness. The powers that be at CHTV (hey, that rhymes!) are clearly offering the business up for sale to the Ellison family, the Murdochs, maybe the Mercer family. Don't think for a minute that those media giants are going to stand for a factually accurate representation of history as it relates to one Vincent Thomas Lombardi, and an acknowledgement of Pride Month. Anything glorifying hoh-moh-sex-yuls needs to be scrubbed from history. We just shouldn't talk about such things! It's like the way Farmall owners feel when they walk into Farm & Fleet and get all that John Deere merch shoved in their faces!

I look for Bari Weiss to be placed in charge of CHTV once the takeover is complete. She'll likely axe everyone except Cory, and then replace him with AI. Remember to toss a couple bucks in Gil's guitar case when you see him busking on Oneida St.

Happy Pride Month to all who celebrate.

The idea that we are supposed to be neutral is pretty nauseating. In the 1950's and 1960's and beyond people who advocated for civil rights for people of color were generally viewed as very inconvenient and it was typically preferred that they stop making trouble and, instead, be silent (otherwise known as "neutral"). Generally, most people preferred they mind their own business and quit making trouble about "civil rights". Thankfully, civil rights advocates did not remain neutral and we have had some success regarding civil rights for people of color though there is still plenty of racism today. Maybe if there was less "neutrality" there would be greater civil rights today.

Requiring we be neutral (let's be clear being neutral actually means being silent and not speaking out on civil rights for homosexuals) regarding the civil rights of homosexuals is hateful. Being neutral advocates support for the status quo which I can see from many of the comments above means supporting discriminatory view and treatment of homosexuals. Is that what we should teach out children? That homosexuals and those who speak out for their civil rights should be silent and not speak up or make any "trouble" is exactly what racists said in the 1950's and 1960's. Thank goodness enough spoke up then without neutrality.

Anyone besides me wonder why our Fallen Soldiers get one day of remembrance, and the #%& loops get a month?

Abe Lincoln and George Washington get to share a day.

I'm so very glad that Vince Lombardi respected the dignity of every human being as made in the image of God.
We also do well to affirm the dignity of each and every individual, although we may well disagree with them about what is acceptable behavior.
If others want us to tolerate their belief about behavior, then it seems fair that they tolerate our belief about behavior.
If we disagree about a certain behavior, it seems there should be some level of mutual respect, anyway.
So, why should a person be labeled a bigot for disagreeing with the behavior of homosexuality? Wouldn't it be just as fair to label as a bigot the person who does agree with the behavior of homosexuality?
***
At this point, it seems important to differentiate between physical characteristics and behavior. We can't control our physical characteristics -- such as skin color -- but we can control our behavior.
Even if it is very difficult to control a certain behavior, it's still possible. When it comes to sexuality, just about all of us have a struggle to control our behavior. We can't do whatever we want whenever we want.
To paraphrase Chesterton, if we don't make of sex a slave, it will become a tyrant. Like alcohol, sex can become an obsession, and even an addiction, if we're not disciplined.
To say we can't control our attractions is a cop out. We all have to work to control our attractions of one kind or another. Also, not all attractions are healthy. Just because we're attracted to something or someone, doesn't mean that we should automatically go with that attraction.
***
One doesn't have to be religious to believe that sex is meant only for one man and one woman in a lifelong commitment of marriage. It's also a matter of nature. Sexual relations that are natural allow for the possibility of creating a child. Anything that thwarts that possibility is unnatural.
This seems reasonable. If anyone disagrees with me, though, I would hope that the discussion would be tolerant and respectful -- that is, if tolerance and respect are meant to go both ways.
***
I believe we are called to respect and love each and every person, even if we disagree about an important matter of behavior.
Indeed, I would say that to disagree with a person about an important matter of behavior can even be an act of respect and love.
We can sincerely say, "I think that behavior is hurting you, and hurting others."
We don't want to pester anyone. However, sometimes the most loving thing to do, the most courageous thing to do, is to speak the truth with love.

I'll tell you one thing, I'm staying out of this and just keep my mouth shut. I can't wait for the the football season to start.

Reading all this, it just came to me, where has Pantz been? 😏

June used to be celebrated for being the month that most men and women would get married--and it still is. Funny how people pick things, that have axes to grind.

Father God, thank You for Your sign of the rainbow and what it means.