Jump to content

David Tyree is a moron


Milo Meningocele

Recommended Posts

I couldn't find the Rick Welts thread to resurrect it, and I think this particular item deserves enough attention not to hide it in the general politics thread. Plus, I think an ongoing, general discussion thread dedicated to gay rights is a good idea. Anyway:

David Tyree is a moron.

First of all, the anarchy thing is about the most ridiculous example of the slippery slope argument, that I've ever heard. The following sentence about "even if you trace back" took a lot of words to say absolutely nothing, too. What did that even mean? But perhaps the most ridiculous part coming from him, was the "marriage can be marriage for thousands of years" and "and influential minority" bit. Does he not realize that marriage was also marriage for a long time too, before an "influential minority" made it legal for black people to marry at all, let alone later someone of another race?

I can't condemn someone for believing something other than I do. But in this case, it's his reasons that are absolutely out of this world bat:censored: crazy.

Also, if it's allowed to stay, I have no problems changing the main thread title, after the Tyree discussion itself dies down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 486
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Sure, why not? I'll bite.

The increasingly bizarre and desperate arguments from groups like the National Organization for Marriage indicates that they know they're losing the battle.

We all know that the arc of history is long, just as sure as we know that it bends toward justice. What's amazing is that the arc seems to be getting shorter every year.

New York state has the opportunity to be "more American," in the words of pro-Proposition 8 witness David Blankenhorn. Shame on Tyree for trying to stand in the way of that.

I'll give Tyree this, though. Most NOM arguments are irrational and self-contradictory, and he's got that down pat. "Representational government = anarchy." Yep, par for the course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phew! Dude is definitely milking one of those four career TD receptions. Thank goodness we know where he stands. Retirement doesn't pay very well does it Dave? Looking for an extended gig as a Fox News "contributor" to get you by?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could accept David Tyree's argument if it was historically accurate, but marriage hasn't been about love for "thousands of years." Only as recent as the early 1900's did people actually start marrying for love and not for skill or occupation. Have him get his facts straight and then he can open his one-hit wonder mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Anarchy? Hardly," (HRC spokesperson Fred Sainz) said in an email to ESPNNewYork.com. "Committed gay and lesbian couples have been able to legally marry in five states and the District of Columbia -- not to mention a number of foreign countries -- for years now and cows are still giving milk, little boys are still pulling little girls' pig tails, and we still drive on the right side of the street. New York's passage of this law will result in nothing more than a more just and equitable society."

Wow. That was so well said, I can't believe that guy's actually with the feckless Human Rights Campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Anarchy? Hardly," (HRC spokesperson Fred Sainz) said in an email to ESPNNewYork.com. "Committed gay and lesbian couples have been able to legally marry in five states and the District of Columbia -- not to mention a number of foreign countries -- for years now and cows are still giving milk, little boys are still pulling little girls' pig tails, and we still drive on the right side of the street. New York's passage of this law will result in nothing more than a more just and equitable society."

Wow. That was so well said, I can't believe that guy's actually with the feckless Human Rights Campaign.

HRC has a pretty cool logo. There's that, at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The part of that video that stuck out to me was the minority part where he says "Now all of a sudden because an influential minority has a push or agenda and totally reshapes something that was not founded in our country, and not founded by man."

That statement coming from an African-American about SSM is shocking to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The part of that video that stuck out to me was the minority part where he says "Now all of a sudden because an influential minority has a push or agenda and totally reshapes something that was not founded in our country, and not founded by man."

That statement coming from an African-American about SSM is shocking to me.

I'm sure there are plenty of African-Americans against same-sex marriage, but the using that as a basis of his argument is laughable and ironic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not surprising. Other than the Mormon Church, Black churches are the reason Prop 8 passed in California. Nothing annoys me more than black people crying about civil rights (something I strongly support) while they would deny a gay person theirs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not surprising. Other than the Mormon Church, Black churches are the reason Prop 8 passed in California.

Well, I've said this before and I'll say this again concerning Prop 8, but the LDS (Mormon) Church often gets (often solely) blamed for Prop 8 passing. Even if every last Church member were to vote in favor of Same-Sex Marriage, the numbers still wouldn't be enough to change the outcome of the vote--about 2% of California's population is LDS, while the margin was about 5%.

While I've gotten on the subject, I certainly don't agree with Tyree's "anarchy" statement, nor am I one of those "God hates gays" (in place of another word) people.

On the other hand, I really don't see much difference, when it comes to rights, between marriage and civil unions. Maybe I don't understand the difference between a civil union and a marriage, but they seem very, very similar. The difference, to me, between what's called marriage and what's called a civil union is whether the partners can naturally have children or not (or at least have that potential). If a civil union contains all the rights of marriage for a same-sex couple, then where's the problem?

I apologize if this sounds the wrong way, but I don't see why people got so angry over the results of the Prop 8 vote; the process was (whether you agree with it or not) done by the majority's voice. Nor do I understand why there's such a big deal being made over what you call one thing or another when, at least in my eyes, they entail the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the most dazling part of this whole thing is that Sterling actually posted something. Welcome back, big guy.

I concur. Welcome back, Sterling!

Now, while at risk of hijacking a thread dedicated to a serious topic, I feel I must pose a question: Any thoughts on what direction True North Sports and Entertainment should take in rebranding the soon-to-be-relocated-to-Winnipeg Atlanta Thrashers?

;)

Better yet, any inside knowledge of what direction TNSE is heading in with regard to branding?

:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, I really don't see much difference, when it comes to rights, between marriage and civil unions. Maybe I don't understand the difference between a civil union and a marriage, but they seem very, very similar. The difference, to me, between what's called marriage and what's called a civil union is whether the partners can naturally have children or not (or at least have that potential). If a civil union contains all the rights of marriage for a same-sex couple, then where's the problem?

I apologize if this sounds the wrong way, but I don't see why people got so angry over the results of the Prop 8 vote; the process was (whether you agree with it or not) done by the majority's voice. Nor do I understand why there's such a big deal being made over what you call one thing or another when, at least in my eyes, they entail the same thing.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. While it is about rights, the government should call everything the same thing, regardless of gender. The churches can do whatever they want, but "separate but equal" is not okay in terms of government. And "marriage" to you is really defined by potential for procreation? Really?!

Lastly, the "majority's voice" thing is ridiculous. The majority is allowed to limit the civil rights of a minority that doesn't even affect them? Under that thinking, how does a minority have a chance in any ruling?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not surprising. Other than the Mormon Church, Black churches are the reason Prop 8 passed in California.

Well, I've said this before and I'll say this again concerning Prop 8, but the LDS (Mormon) Church often gets (often solely) blamed for Prop 8 passing. Even if every last Church member were to vote in favor of Same-Sex Marriage, the numbers still wouldn't be enough to change the outcome of the vote--about 2% of California's population is LDS, while the margin was about 5%.

True, but only if voting was the sole thing the LDS did to pass Prop 8.

Hint: it wasn't. They also contributed and funnelled the contributions of others, to the tune of nearly $25M. Half of the total amount spent to promote it.

So it's terribly disingenuous for the Church to pretend that they weren't instrumental in its passage. Even if it did try to hide the money trail.

On the other hand, I really don't see much difference, when it comes to rights, between marriage and civil unions. Maybe I don't understand the difference between a civil union and a marriage, but they seem very, very similar. The difference, to me, between what's called marriage and what's called a civil union is whether the partners can naturally have children or not (or at least have that potential). If a civil union contains all the rights of marriage for a same-sex couple, then where's the problem?

The problem is that "separate but equal" isn't equal.

In practice, this means that civil unions don't actually guarantee rights. Wisconsin Governor Walker is right now trying to have civil union rights stripped from gay couples. Can't do that with marriage. Again, this is why "separate but equal" isn't equal.

Finally, unless you're going to make procreation a legal requirement for marriage, that's a total red herring. Setting aside the fact that many gay people are already parents, or can become parents in any number of ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we're only one page in and this has already been alluded to a small handful of times, I'd like to point out... before Tyree's nonsense becomes more "evidence" of Black Americans' supposed natural inclination towards homophobia... that a far higher percentage of black folks (including Tyree) identify as Christian and that is the primary source of homophobia amongst black people. A decent chunk of blackfolk also identify with Islam which has its own issues with teh gays as well.

Sadly, I'm asked to speak on this far more often than I would hope (I'm often called upon by clueless whitefolks to answer questions they're too afraid to ask anyone whose black once they find out what I'm in school for) and is therefore a source of great frustration for me and has does nothing to make me second guess my assertion that organized religion is the worst thing to ever happen to humankind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the interest of fairness, it should be pointed out that there are many churches ready and eager to marry gay people, but are prevented under these unjust laws. Somehow that never comes up when the bigots raise the "religious freedom" canard.

Remember, the majority of people in this country now support marriage equality. That means a great many religious people do now. The problem isn't religion in general, it's fundamentalist religions who need their personal preferences enshrined in law for fear other people might not make the choices the fundamentalists want them to make.

If I remember correctly, there are also many, many benefits that marriage provides, but civil unions don't.

Oh, sure. There's that. ;)

I raised this issue on the other thread and never got a good answer, but I'm willing to keep an open mind, maybe someone here can answer. Given that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution, can anyone suggest a legitimate reason (that is, one which would pass Constitutional muster) for laws preventing gay couples from exercising this fundamental right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we're only one page in and this has already been alluded to a small handful of times, I'd like to point out... before Tyree's nonsense becomes more "evidence" of Black Americans' supposed natural inclination towards homophobia... that a far higher percentage of black folks (including Tyree) identify as Christian and that is the primary source of homophobia amongst black people. A decent chunk of blackfolk also identify with Islam which has its own issues with teh gays as well.

Sadly, I'm asked to speak on this far more often than I would hope (I'm often called upon by clueless whitefolks to answer questions they're too afraid to ask anyone whose black once they find out what I'm in school for) and is therefore a source of great frustration for me and has does nothing to make me second guess my assertion that organized religion is the worst thing to ever happen to humankind.

What are you in school for that is so useful to "clueless whitefolks"?

@Gothamite - the courts disagree and you know that.

And btw, aside from the above to Gothamite, I've ridden this merry-go-round once and that was once too often so I'm just going to go Joker this time.

2049_th_Joker_popcorn.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.