Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Video: Super Bowl legend David Tyree says gay marriage will lead to ‘anarchy’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. He’s the sort of fvckwit that gives Christians a bad name – what the hell does equal marriage have to do with having a mother and a father, except perhaps for those gay couples who want to have children? It’s as though he can’t get his [air]head beyond seeing marriage as existing solely for procreation.
    .
    Interesting though that he chooses to focus on a male couple bringing up a girl. I suppose it’s one step up from assuming gay men would only want to raise gay sons!
    .
    Why his comments are being publicised is another matter. Should anyone really care what he thinks?

    1. Compassionate christians are the excepton rather than the rule though.

      So I think this guy is merely confirming what we all know – namely religious belief means that someone is FAR more likely to be a monstrous bigot and to support discrimination and division.

      1. Jock S. Trap 16 Jun 2011, 1:04pm

        Here! Here!

      2. I disagree. Compassionate Christians tend to by their compassionate nature be less outspoken. It is the more hate driven and entrenched views that are both more outspoken and attract greater media attention. Its hardly news for a Christian to say – I accept and value gay people – plenty do, but the media don’t report it.

        I also think those who hold strident views about religion in the LGBT communities tend to be much more vocal. Those of us who try to be more proportionate and have a sense of balance tend not to speak out as much (with notable exceptions). Equally, our views are not seen as newsworthy by either the mainstream or gay media.

        That all said, I do think the particular views portrayed by this man are wrong, uninformed, irrational and inhumane.

        1. “Compassionate Christians tend to by their compassionate nature be less outspoken. ”

          Well that’s not good enough.

          The crazy bigot christians (of whome there are so, so many) are rarely caled out for their vicious bigotry by their fellow christians,

          These so-called silent ‘compassionate’ christians are complicit in bigotry by remaining silent.

          Notice how silent the Church of England was when the Anglican Church in Uganda was supporting homophobic genocide.

          Rowan Williams showed that values his church’s unity than he values human life or human rights.

          He is vile scum for his disgraceful silence.

          1. Equally though when some do try to speak up – just as when some of us gay guys who seek a sense of proportion about religion try and speak up – there is a habit of speaking over, ridiculing and refusing to engage in debate.
            Plenty have made a stance – look at the Finnish United Reformed church recently reported on PN.
            There is also plenty of debate about gay issues in the church (which requires two sides to the argument) hence there are plenty speaking out, just the arrogant homophobes attract all the plaudits in rags such as the Daily Fail.
            The Anglican church was not as vocal as I would have liked it to have been re Uganda – very wrong but much more vocal than many of the UK evangelical churchs or the Roman Catholic church.
            It takes courage to stand up to people with strident views, whether they are extreme views such as the Popes or extreme views such as yours, David. Repeated barracking with untrue rhetoric exhausts some – fortunately, I will always appeal to reason and fairness

          2. Yes David, at the end of the day it’s not so much the hatefull words of your enemies that you remember and and fell hurt by it’s the silence of your friends who could have spoken out but were too craven or just didn’t bother.

            NOM is an anti-gay hate group and David Tyree is their dopey sock-puppet celebrity.

          3. @Pavlos

            However it is untrue to suggest that all compassionate, gay friendly and reasonable Christians have been silent – if so then neither would many of us on these boards who have met many of them be aware there were such reasonable people – nor would there be gay friendly churches, synagogues etc- nor would there be a debate in religion about gay issues – it takes at least two opinions to make debate happen.

            So saying Christians or Jews are silent on this issue or silent in support is a lie.

          4. @Stu, you appear to be saying I wrote something I didn’t write and then calling me a liar, I don’t appreciate that too much.

          5. @Pavlos
            I didnt mean it to seem that I was calling you a liar, that I apologise for. I was referring to your comment about silence of friends wo could have spoken out. I was trying to say that, in the context of the wider debate on here, the implication that Jews and Christians who are gay friendly are silent is a lie. I was not intending it to be personalised to you. Sorry.

          6. @Stu,
            Okay fair enough, you are forgiven.

          7. @Pavlos

            Thanks
            I was kind of agreeing with you – but I could have worded it better

      3. I agree David. Monotheism is the foundation stone of homophobia throughout the majority of the world.

        1. @Eddy Two

          Not going to have more of a debate about this on this thread as it should be more about the vile comments the sportsman has made.

          However – a simplistic argument of religion = bad – is as damaging as saying that homosexual = slut

          1. No it isn’t Stu. And the reason why someone has mentioned religion is because the guy used his christian faith to justify his homophobia. I didn’t say religion = bad. You said that. I said that monotheism is the foundation stone of homophobia in the majority of the world. That’s not an opinion. It’s a fact. The heads of all mono faiths are homophobic and preach to their congregations that homosexuality is wrong. Why can’t you accept that Stu? Or are you still trying to ignore the truth? It will be great when the vatican says homosexuality is not a sin. When the leaders of the muslim world stop killing gay men, or when the protestant leaders in america stop trying to take away our equality, or the rabbis say being queer is okay – but they don’t. Just because you might know a christian somewhere who is nice to you doesn’t mean that monotheism isn’t homophobic. It is, accept it and wake up from your fluffy little dream world, or leave those of us who can see reality to try and change it.

          2. @Eddy two
            I’m not denying religion is relevant to this thread. I am saying that I am not going to stray into the depths of debate on religion on here, unless forced to … since this is more about issues of marriage equality and arguably gay adoption – the other factors whilst relevant are side stalls to the main event.
            I dont accept your argument that monotheism is the foundation stone of homophobia as a fact. There are plenty of homophobes who have no faith – in my experience many more of them than those homophobes who do have faith. Your so called fact is redundant because it can not apply to homophobes without faith. You clearly see it as a justification because you legitimately have an axe to grind against some of faith – that is not to say all are homophobic.
            The heads of all monofaiths do NOT preach that homosexuality is wrong – that is a lie. There are plenty of christian denominations and Jewish groups that preach acceptance and integration for homosexuals.

          3. @Eddy two
            I wouldnt dream of leaving a fight for equality to someone who had as little tolerance and acceptance as you.
            Yes, lets abhor those of faith who preach and crusade with hatred and promote homophobia and lets do this zealously. However, lets not undermine our fight for equality by crushing those who support us and can lead us to influencing the organisation of the church, synagogue, mosque, temple – whatever – from the inside.
            We need a sophisticated approach and labelling all who are monotheistic as irrelevant, homophobic and irrational is simplistic and dumb.

          4. The head of the catholic church does preach that homosexuality is wrong. The heads of the muslim faith do preach that homosexuality is wrong. The heads of the jewish faith preach that homosexuality is wrong. So where exactly is the lie that monotheism is homophobic Stu? Or do read different news to me. The homophobic guy the story is about uses christianity to justify his homophobia, NOM who he speaks for are a faith based organisation. The story is about homophobic christians Stu. Monotheism is the foundation stone of homophobia. And by defending the mono faith, you’re helping to build the temples that they slaughter us in. You’re brain hacked by a homophobic belief system. Get back to me when you know what you’re talking about.

          5. My comment would be as long as they count themselves as a different branch of christianity to the homophobic ones that would be okay however I have major issues with people who say they are members of a homophobic branch of church and claim not to be homophobic i.e. Catholics who say they aren’t homophobic I’m sorry you follow a religion which has homophobia built into it your a homophobe.

          6. @Eddy two

            First of all, I will not be silenced with snide comments – I know where I stand and just because it doesnt match with your view of life doesnt mean it is wrong. So forget cutting me off – ain’t going to happen.

            As for saying that monotheism equals homophobic that is offensive to the LGBT Christians and Jews out there and there (and friends) are many including (but not exclusive to) LGBT congregations.

            I am not speaking up for monotheism – try and spin it that way if it makes you feel better, but thats not what I am doing. I am saying that jumping to a conclusion that monotheism equals homophobia is simplistic and wrong and undermines gay people of faith and their supporters. Whether or not you care is another matter – however, I believe in fairness and will speak out for those who I see being unjustifiably ridiculed and attacked by stereotyping.

            Yes the Pope is homophobic. Yes many churches have done homophobic things.

            But that is not the end of the facts.

          7. @Hamish

            Does that mean being gay and Conservative is incompatible?

          8. I would argue yes but that might be my own bias coming in, however the conservative party is not a belief system based on tradition and “laws”. It is a view point on what is best for society based on your own thought …… hopefully.

          9. @Hamish

            My own bias would also say that being gay and Conservative is incompatible but I do recognise there is movement and there are some gay people and gay friendly people in the party.

            For some political parties are entirely about beliefs and philosophies, in ways that supercedes the adherence of many in some denominations.

          10. But if you broke the rules and laws of that party you would no longer be a member of that party or you would be a seperate spin off if you were a non racist BNP member you would no longer be BNP for example.

          11. Stu, , I didn’t say that monotheism is irrational or irrelevant. Again, you said that. I said that monotheism is the foundation stone of homophobia in the majority of the world. It is. FACT. Do I really have to list the countries who justify their homophobia through their monotheistic beliefs?
            I know I won’t change your mind, you have to do that for yourself, but like I said, you’re brain is hacked by a homophobic belief system.

          12. @Hamish
            There are plenty of people who get thrown out of churches.
            There are plenty of splintered groups from churches – look at the Church of Scotland
            I fail to understand your argument – your reflection on political parties matches religion – which is my argument.

          13. @Eddy Two
            If I have misinterpreted something you said I apologise. But nonetheless, I do not accept that monotheism equals homophobia which is what you effectively are saying.
            As for having a belief system – you clearly don’t read what I say. So, forming an opinion on me is, at best, presumptious. I do not have a faith. I am not a Christian, nor a Jew or anything else. I am not a homophobe, not am I self loathing. I believe in honesty and fairness and equality for all – and you can not see that your attitude does not allow this.
            You talk about linking countries to faith – well I think any link of state to religion is wrong, religion is a belief system – the UK has over 60 million people – we dont all believe the same things so describing us with a faith label is simplistic and irrelevant.
            I know you can’t see that you are stereotyping and thus heading towards bigotry – but you are.

          14. You live in cloud cuckoo land Stu. Cuckoo. Cuckoo. You say I am on the road to bigotry, when I point out that islam is used to justify killing gay men in the middle east, christianity in Uganda. That our freedom has been and is still taken from us in europe and america because of christianity. Seriously you need to take a look at how monotheism is used against us before you respond again. It’s kind of boring and dumb and offensive how you defend a belief system that is used to take away your freedom throughout the world.

          15. @Eddy Two
            What is very interesting is that you persist in saying I defend a religion – I don’t … Take a careful look at my comments on here and you will see plenty of evidence of me criticizing and slating some aspects of religion.
            As I have said before on another thread – I am acutely aware of the situation in Uganda and the attrocities that have occurred and are proposed there in the name of faith.
            That said, I don’t hold a simplistic view – I see that there are people of faith who are not like that who are supportive of LGBT people. Thats like recognising that both Dennis Skinner and Peter Mandelson can co exist in the same political party. I don’t jump to conclusions about religion and presume that it means people are homophobic or subject them to ridicule – because to be fair, it doesnt get us anywhere.
            Your lack of openmindedness leads you to throw insults – fine, to be honest I don’t care. I know that what I am saying is honest and fair and is recognising there are good and

          16. …bad in faith groups. There are blatant homophobes who need challenge and confrontation and more. There are very supportive Christians and Jews who either are gay themselves or very gay friendly and when they are stereotyped because they have a faith as being homophobic that must be offensive and does nothing to enhance our search for LGBT rights and equality being enhanced. If anything it damages our stance by discouraging allies.
            Now if you think thats “Cuckoo” quite frankly, its you who belongs in a Swiss clock.

          17. Tell that to the gay syrians, iranians, saudis, ugandans, egyptians, algerians, libyans, sudanese, tunisians, somalians, jamaicans, kuwait, lebanese, palenstinians, syrians, yemenese, afghans, etc etc who are seen as criminals because of monotheistic belief systems. Tell that to gay europeans, americans etc etc who still don’t have equality because of monotheistic belief systems. You carry on defending a homophobic belief system in your cloud cuckoo land whilst all those people in the countries I’ve listed suffer because of that same homophobic belief system that you defend.

          18. @Eddy Two
            At no point have I said anything which justifies any regime (religious or political) which criminalises homosexuality and nor would I. I have been very involved in campaigns in Uganda to support the LGBT population there including visiting on several occasions – you don’t need to preach to me about the situation there.
            At no point have I defended a belief system – yet you persist in misrepresenting me and claiming I am doing that. No matter how many times you say it, that doesnt make it true.
            I make no bones I think monotheism is wrong. I can not see the logic or rationality to it. That said, I do recognise that being a believer in a monotheistic faith (which I am not) does not make one homophobic. I also recognise that you are implying (and at times blatantly suggesting) that those in such faiths are either homophobic themselves or damaged by their links to homophobia in that faith – thats wrong.
            It damages LGBT peoples aims to improve equality.

          19. @Stu I was pointing out that anyone who would say they are catholic and isn’t homophobic isn’t catholic. The catholic religion believes the pope is the embodiment of god on earth so if the pope is homophobic anyone who calls themselves catholic is also homophobic.

            I know there is alot of branches of the church which aren’t homophobic.

          20. @Hamish

            Thats all a matter of perception.
            The people you speak of who are not homophobic perceive themselves as Catholic or Christian and thats enough for me initially. To be honest, I dont necessarily want to pursue an in depth theological conversation.
            Some Church of England people have different views and have itinerant bishops etc – doesnt make them any less an Anglican ….

        2. This IS a lie.
          My husband and I were married in a church of Canada’s third largest Christian denomination. That would be a “monotheistic” denomination. There are MANY non-homophobic monotheistic denominations. The United Church of Canada has been one of the front runners of the fight for equality. As have been the Society of Friends” (more commonly known as Quakers), Unitarian Universalist Association, United Church of Christ, Ecumenical Catholic Church, Metropolitan Community Church, etc…

          As you see, there ARE denominations that are “monotheistic” and pro-equality. Do you even know what the term “monotheistic” means?

          1. Yes Mikey I do know what it means, obviously more than you do. I didn’t say there weren’t denominations that weren’t non homophobic. That was Stu and yourself putting words in my mouth. I said that monotheism is the foundation stone of homophobia in the majority of the world. It is, wether you like it or not. Why have we not got equality in america and europe? Christians. Why are gay guys killed in the middle east? Islam. Why are uganda trying to bring the death penalty for gay guys? Christianity. Why do we not have equality anywhere in the world? Because of good ole monotheistic family values. If only all mono faiths were like yours Mikey, but they’re not. Sadly its a few people in small congregations amongst billions of others.

          2. @Eddy Two

            If I had not picked you up on your false statement that monotheism is the cornerstone of homophobia then I suspect you would have been happy for people to perceive that you meant that monotheism is homophobic – it is a logical progression of your comment and to think otherwise is disingenuous.
            Why would you obviously know what monotheism means more than Mikey – a tad arrogant there, Eddy two.
            I did not put words in your mouth – I interpreted what you said – if it lacks clarity then perhaps you should make sure your message does not lead to other perceptions.
            You are happy to stereotype and thats dangerous and worrying.

          3. The number of gay friendly denominations and gay friendly people of other more mainstream and numerous denominations is vast

            I dont agree with their monotheistic view

            But I vehemently disagree with the prejudice and stereotyping of Christians as all being homophobic and the hatred that inspires on these boards.

            Its wrong and does nothing to enhance LGBT rights.

          4. Again you put words in someone else’s mouth. You’re good at that. I did not say all christians are homophobes. You said that. I said that monotheism is the foundation stone of homophobia in the majority of the world. Seriously how many times do I have to write that before you twist it to mean something else. What word in the sentence don’t you understand? If you can’t see the link between islamic nations in the middle east and their homophobia, or christianity in america and europe and homophobia, then you are actually stupid. I’m not stereotyping christians, you’re doing that. I am saying that monotheism is the foundation stone of homophobia in the majority of the world. IT IS. GET OVER IT. As for being a tad arrogant, interesting how you think I am arrogant for saying I probably understand the word monotheism more than Mikey (I did study theology for 4 years), but you don’t think he’s arrogant for suggesting the same.

          5. @Eddy two
            Again you dont read what I said – I said the natural progression of your argument was to see that if monotheism is the cornerstone of homophobia that all Christians and Jews must be homophobic. Please try and keep up.

            I dont care if you studied theology for 44 years without knowing Mikeys background directly stating you know more is arrogant. Mikey did not suggest he knew more – he challenged your account – rightly.

            Again you misinterpret or misrepresent what I say I have not said there is no homophobia in monotheism – you seem clear that is what I am saying and it categorically is not.

            Read what I say in future, its clear you either dont or you deliberately misrepresent me.

          6. @Eddy Two
            The comment where I referred to all Christians being accused of being homophobic in that particular posting was a general comment to PN not personalized at you. Be paranoid if you wish …

      4. precisely, i still have to meest a compassionate, emphatic , good christian or muslim , they seem to be very much a tiny tiny minority.

        1. Perhaps I can introduce you to three of my best friends then sometime, rapture – two are gay Christians and one a gay Jew …

          1. I figured you, as having christian friends and i must decline your invitation as i’m repulsed by gay hypocritical people who adhere to organised homophobic religions i’d rather an introduction to the pope , at least he is concise in his homophobia..

          2. Thank you for prejudging my friends without knowing anything about them other than their faith – that exactly the stereotyping that I have been talking about

          3. Their faith is prejudicial and so are they as coherents, and they accept to be stereotyped with that ,as that is what they are doing by supporting a homophobic, bigoted institution unless of course they are in the minority liberal churches , either way i don’t have any time for delusional peeps who believe all that god in heaven rubbish.

          4. Jock S. Trap 17 Jun 2011, 8:53am

            rapture
            It’s people that make religions homophobic but choosing what they want and understand.
            It is equally people that can make the difference in attitudes for the positive away from those bigots.
            Surely change can only come if we show we are involved too.-
            In any case what about the Quakers? Liberal Jews? Reform Jews? Unitarians? They’re campaigning for marriage equality so…
            -
            People are entitled to believe in God if that what they chose wiether you think it’s rubbish or not, thats you entitlement.
            They don’t however have the rightto be bigotted towards others because of the way people are born.
            Thats where I draw the line but no sorry not all are the same, many yes but not all.

          5. @Jock S Trap

            Thank you for some common sense and reason

          6. Jock S. Trap 17 Jun 2011, 11:48am

            It’s alright Stu, it happens occasionally.
            :)

          7. @Rapture

            All these people are individuals and unless you have met them then you are making unfounded stereotyped judgements which we complain about as LGBT communities.

            If you arent prepared to explore your thoughts or perceptions by meeting some gay christians or Jews then your rhetoric “I have never met a compassionate christian or muslim” is irrelevant and empty

        2. Staircase2 20 Jun 2011, 7:10pm

          lol “i still have to meest a compassionate, emphatic , good christian or muslim” (I think you mean empathic)
          …Self fulfilling prophecy perhaps?
          Stu offers you the metaphorical chance to meet some and you then turn it down…
          When you say ‘I still have to meet’ what you mean is ‘I am choosing not to meet any so that I cannot be proven wrong in my hard held beliefs’ – nowt so queer as bigoted folk….lol

          1. Apologies for my spelling as i’ve said on threads here before to ignorant bigots like you i am overcoming late diagnosis of dyslexia due to inadequate schooling system as a child. Don’t ram your views down my throat or speak on my behalf proclaiming to know what i mean, i’ve already said that quite clearly , there is no subliminal context unlike in your insincere idioms. I have already answered stu with his offer.

        3. @stu , i have met plenty of gay christians , thats the problem.

          1. @rapture
            Obviously not ones that allow you to have a sense of proportion in your views ….

      5. Staircase2 20 Jun 2011, 7:05pm

        lol of course thats not true – people are people. People rarely become different people just because they chose to follow a particular faith or religion.
        We know thats true if you just look at the ridiculous efforts to turn gay people str8. You cannot divert a river from the course its naturally inclined to take without fundamentally affecting its flow.
        So compassionate people are compassionate whether they are Christians or not. Similarly discompassionate people are still discompassionate whether they chose to become Christians or not…

        1. So according to your simple evaluation people adopting a new faith do not evolve or regress just remain stagnant, and religion is inconsequential to most. lol sounds like you have an underestimation of religion also , i have the dignity to be honest about it.

    2. Absolutely. Lets separate the issues. Now, personally I support gay parenting and have seen good examples of gay parents at work with young people. However, equal marriage does not equal gay parenting – they are separate and distinct things. Not every gay couple will want to marry. Not every gay couple who marries will want to be parents. Equally not every heterosexual couple wants to marry or be parents (whether married or not).
      As for creating anarchy – there are more pacifists in LGBT communities than other areas of the population, so thats an interesting leap for him to make.
      I agree with him marriage needs to be protected – but it needs to be equally protected.

      1. The irony being that opening it up to more people will surely strengthen the institution of marriage, not weaken it (for those who can see behind their so-called Christian paradigm, that is).

        1. Jock S. Trap 16 Jun 2011, 1:05pm

          Exactly Rehan good call but sadly one these so called Christians, ironically, miss.

          1. It is indeed much more likely that by ensuring there is equality in marriage that marriage itself will be stronger. The diution effect argued by some extremists is irrational and seated in fear and hatred.

        2. Absolutely Rehan.

          Put it this way, if I saw myself as a budding little anarchist and my first action was to commit myself to one man for life – well I reckon that I would get turfed out of the anarchists’ brigade fairly quicky.

          When the opposition are reduced to spouting self contradictory nonsese like this, then you know they’re on the slide.

    3. “Thank God for David Tyree’s helmet”
      “Tyree was able to hold the ball on top of his helmet”
      “David Tyree’s incredible “helmet catch,””
      “David Tyree’s sticky helmet.”
      “David Tyree caught a pass against his helmet”
      “you can thank David Tyree’s helmet”
      “David Tyree Helmet”

  2. Anarchy is good. A law of nature. We are all nature. Creating or destroying. You choose. Family values are universal. How can someone be against someone’s human rights. Passing on handcuffs and chains are we? Hope not. Pass the ball. Pass the love.

    1. Anarchy is bad.

      Democracy with freedoms of expression, speech etc is good

      1. Depends what you count as Anarchy I count our Capitalist Society as Anarchy.

        1. Well I tend to go for a definition of disorder and chaos … which I accept could be applied to capitalism (although there is a level of organisation to the chaos then) – but its not true anarchy

          1. burningworm 16 Jun 2011, 1:24pm

            Anarchy is self governing. Without Ruler.

            How can anyone be against that.

            Instead in our heads it disorder and chaos.

          2. Burningworn, your definition of anarchy sounds like what we have here on the message boards of PN,basically left to our own devices to just get on with it.

          3. Not my understanding of anarchy.

            My understanding is that it is a state of disorder due to absence or non recognition of authority. An absence of government. A political ideal.

            Ideals generally arent the idealism they suggest in reality – check on marxism.

          4. Well your understanding is wrong Stu.

          5. @Eddy Two

            Try looking up anarchy in any dictionary or respected book of reference …

            You will find my definition is accurate

      2. Staircase2 20 Jun 2011, 7:18pm

        Anarchy is a political system as valid philosophically as any other.
        *
        “Most often, the term “anarchy” describes the simple absence of publicly recognized government or enforced political authority” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy)
        *
        In essence its about a state of total freedom of expression. The idea of it being a system of complete chaos is the argument used by those who believe that a state has to have top-down Government and enforced order.

    2. Anarachy is good. In its truest and purest form it is complete democracy and liberty. Anarchy does not mean disorder. That’s just what the monarchists who want to hold onto centralised power define it as.

      1. The definition of anarchy I got was from the dictionary of a publisher who are established in a republic – no monarchy involved.
        People say marxism in its truest forms is libertarian – the facts of experiments in it speak volumes of its failures.

        1. Maybe you should read some philosophy instead of three lines in a dictionary. I suggest some Kant.

          1. @Eddy Two

            Kant was my favourite philosopher at University along with Aristotle and a little Descartes and Rosseau.

            However, whilst all have informed thinking on a variety of issues – in terms of definition it is conventional to refer to a dictionary

          2. It’s a shame that you didn’t learn anything from them.

          3. @Eddy Two

            Perhaps you should study some of the writings of philosopher Valerie Lyn – you seem to need to understand arrogance – because you clearly don’t recognise it in yourself

        2. Anarchy is not disorder for disorders sake it is a different order from what is our current order which the people who want our society to stay unchanging unevolving and generally chaotic have turned around and said that any other society than the discriminatory and hierarchical will be chaos

          1. Even if someone was to set up a new order that was utterly different from any we have now, it would still not technically be anarchy because that simply means no order at all.

          2. If there is order then it is not anarchy

          3. Depends on your definition Anarchy has come to mean something totally different to its original meaning, due to the governments naming people who want a different society “Anarchists” what alot of these “Anarchists” want is not Anarchy but as they have been branded such they are changing the view of what “Anarchy” is.

          4. I agree in a living breathing language and that definitions change with time

            But some words are absolutes and what you are suggesting as anarchy is a dilution of the true definition and thus not anarchy

      2. Anarchy literally means ‘no rule’. Sadly, although in my idealistic moments, I can imagine some utopia where that’d work, realistically having no rule or no government (in the loosest sense of the word) would mean chaos, with the loudest and strongest oppressing others.

        1. Jock S. Trap 16 Jun 2011, 2:56pm

          Yep, I would go with that. Thats how I view it and it’s far from good.

          1. Absolutely, Iris

            Anarchy might be a utopia in some senses but leads to chaos and the destruction ultimately of the weak

          2. Jock S. Trap 17 Jun 2011, 11:54am

            Though I get what your trying to say.

          3. Jock S. Trap 17 Jun 2011, 11:55am

            That was meant for eddy two on his comment below.

        2. The loudest and strongest oppressing others. Thats sounds like the reality we live in. Do you really think that the world we live in is different to that Iris? Do you think that america isn’t the most powerful nation for any other reason than it it the strongest. Or the british empire, or the roman empire were for any other reason than they were the strongest at the time? History is a long line of the strongest winning over the weakest. So therefore anarchy would be no different if that is your worry. However, Anarchy does not mean no rule. It means we rule as a group, rather than give up our power to a central leader. It isn’t given a chance in our democracy because the loudest and strongest always win, and therefore rule over the weak, oppressing others. So your biggest worry is actually the world you live in.

          1. Wrong Eddy two

            The fact that your state of anarchy involves rule by a group means there is order ergo it is not anarchy

          2. Certainly, eddy two, whatever system of rule you have someone is disadvantaged. No, I personally don’t feel I’m living a great life under our current system, and I’d hope that there was something better. But the point I was making was that no rule and no rules would exacerbate that and lead to far more misery than we have now. That’s my personal opinion. (I was using the original meaning of the word ‘anarchy’.)
            I’d LOVE to live in a totally fair and equal society, but I think it’s just a pipe-dream sadly at the moment. Utopia’s called that for a reason :D
            I’m not familiar with your use of the word anarchy to mean ‘ruling as a group’ – do you mean where each and every individual has a say – ie a form of democracy?
            I don’t think Tyree used ‘anarchy’ like that anyway. To me, he just used it as a lazy shorthand for ‘the whole world will fall apart and you’ll all be sorry then!’

          3. Exactly Iris. Anarchy in its purest form, is total democracy. I’m not an anarchist btw. And I agree with you tyree was meaning chaos. I was just responding to someone who was belittling MYSELF for saying anarchy is good. In its purest sense it would be good. It would be perfect. It would be utopia. But I know that is a dream that I’ll never see in my lifetime. Also though, sometimes a little anarchy, as in tyrees definition, chaos, is good. Riots are chaos. And without stonewall riots, we probs wouldn’t have the freedom we have today. Without the LA riots black rights wouldn’t have advanced so quickly recently. The poll tax riots probs led to the fall of thatcher, and that was a good thing. I can understand a policeman not liking a little anarchy, they are there to support the status quo, however bad that might be. But I defend anarchy because I know good things grow from it.

          4. @Eddy two

            Ok. I accept that on occasions good can come from anarchy, but I would contend that some of the examples you suggest are not true forms of anarchy. There was some level of organisation and team work and leadership in the Stonewall riots, in the poll tax riots, in the Bradford riots etc. None of the true anarchy that is described in academia or political theorems. I’m not sure anarchy would be utopia. Its fine if you are fit, well and resourced – but if you’re unwell, disabled, or poor then it is a far rougher proposition.
            Perhaps I am coloured by being a former police officer – but part of the reason I left was because I questioned the reasoning behind orders and couldn’t justify the logic of compliance with something that was damaging. I do recognise that for society to be fair there needs to be some organisation – and thats not anarchy.

          5. eddy two, thank you for clarifying. I know it’s a bit off topic but I was interested to hear your views. I get what you mean now, I think – an equal society where everyone has a say and there is no overall ruler (hope I got that right).
            But, in practice, I just can’t see that working – too many people, too many conflicting views to reach consensus. I’d hope that in such a society everyone would have the common good in mind aswell, but I don’t think they would, and I fear that stronger people would shout down the views of the weaker or be too focused on themselves to worry about the weak or those who need extra support. I also think there’d be constant disagreements, and not of the productive kind.
            In my head, I dream about nice, reasonable people taking part in a fair, well-organised society, but I strongly suspect the reality would be very different.

          6. It’s not off topic. We’re talking about anarchy, which is what tyree said would happen if we were allowed to marry. Anarchy is one of those dreams that makes me realise how bad humans are, because we can’t live like that. William Burroughs wrote a chapter in cities of the red night at the begining, I think the chapter is called Fore!, about a character called Captain Mission who was a kind of anarchist, some would say he was a pirate, but he describes himself as a liberty lover. It’s genius and brilliant and describes the hopes but then the impossibility of anarchy. You should read it if you can.

          7. @Eddy Two / Iris

            It is an interesting concept this alternative definition of anarchy that is being presented (although as you say its not the form of anarchy I suspect was meant in the article this discussion is linked to). I wonder if there is a better label of this “true democracy, group ruling” anarchy to avoid confusion.

            I do share Iris’ views as to why this format of organisation could not work – human nature would take over and there would rarely be agreement – in my opinion.

            I do see that it could be feasible in a micro scale – and is what some families practice in terms of family living. I do wonder if on a bigger scale there would be territorial advances by other groups and other problems that would damage the fabric of society.

            I know historically there has been the strongest ruler but historically democracy is relatively new. I wonder (and this is my optimistic head on) if in time with more consideration of international relations and globalisation there may be…

          8. … a benefit in the sense that from appreciating relations with other nations etc there is a kind of supportiveness of each other and recognition of rights etc that leads to respect and improving of democracy.
            That said, there would need to be dramatic change probably in all nations to bring this sort of worldview into play and I don’t see that as feasible in my lifetime.

          9. Jock S. Trap 17 Jun 2011, 8:57am

            eddy two
            You may think Anarchy is good but humanities take on it wouldn’t be.
            Human nature wouldn’t allow you kind of anarchy because some will always try to benefit and dominate.
            -
            Life needs rules, decency and some kind of moral outcome.

          10. Jock, like I said to Iris. The reality we live in is exactly what you have described, someone does always dominate and benefit, that’s why there are some people who earn a million pounds a week, and some others who can hardly feed their children. Capitalism is based on that very principle. I’m not an anarchist though, but I can see that in an ideal world, it would mean equality. And I think tyrees definition of anarchy, chaos, can be good. Before the enlightenment, the idea of democracy would have been seen as chaos. Anarchy to me doesn’t mean disorder and lack of moral rule. It’s just about stopping centralised power. Like I said, in its truest form anarchy is total democracy and freedom of the individual. But I know that humans are not good enough to live that way.

          11. @Eddy Two

            I do recognise something theoretically very appealling in what you describe as a form of existance but I do not perceive that as anarchy

          12. Jock S. Trap 17 Jun 2011, 11:53am

            Eddy Two
            Difference is society needs rules to be civilized and we elect, choose who we want to lead us.
            Without that we would be run by religion and I know which I prefer.

        3. burningworm 17 Jun 2011, 12:06pm

          To be fair it has historically been there. It occurs everywhere. What happens when Parliament are at recess do we stop?

          Yes there are structures in place but that is very different to the neccessity for rulership.

      3. burningworm 17 Jun 2011, 12:04pm

        The word is from the Greek, without a ruler.

        Everything else is political. Its a way to discredit possibility and to continue our dreams of empire.

        1. My understanding was the Greek word anarkhia could be interpreted as without leader or without order.

          When considering anarchy though its possible to look at a negation of state authority, radical liberalism or antiauthoritarian socialism.

          None of these methods of theoretical approaches to society are the utopia their proponents would suggest.

          If we consider situations such as hurricane Katrina and the chaos that ensued in New Orleans in the aftermath or the Haiti earthquake and the chaos that ensued there – we can see that the chaos and arguable anarchy in existence is far from desireable. Whereas if we compare the response to the February 2011 earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand – where there was a much more organised and led response to the event, the outcome was much more beneficial to the entire community – sure, there were people who were let down and many had difficult scenarios but there was a community cohesion led from within but immersed in democracy.

          1. burningworm 20 Jun 2011, 3:13pm

            The very fact that you have equated disorder and disaster with anarchy and some kind of community spirit with ‘organisation’ is typical, especially as your use of Anarchy is pathological and doesn’t exercise our own thoughts or David Tyree’s.

            An – Without/non
            arkhos – Ruler

            How from the greek you get the word order i have no idea.

          2. Jock S. Trap 21 Jun 2011, 10:53am

            an·ar·chy/ˈanərkē/Noun
            1. A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
            2. Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

          3. burningworm 23 Jun 2011, 4:21pm

            @ Jock

            Thanks but if that was for my benefit; from the Greek!..

  3. More asinine cr@p from your standard christofascist. America is not a theocracy and faith has no part to play in the law of the land. His remarks on parenting are also ignorant and short sighted and every single parent hosuehold, every mother raising a son and every father raising a daughter, have cause to be just as offended. . Now, if you consider that just across the border Canada has had marriage equality for a decade, and some of the states have had it for 6 or 7 years the obvious question should be – where is the anarchy? Where? The skies have not fallen. Nothing has actually changed except for some people being granted equality before the law. People like NOM are so dishonest it makes me sick. Now consider that NOM spent over $50million in California alone, it makes me want to spit in their faces and laugh for calling themselves “christian”. When you ask WWJD I doubt spending a fortune oppressing people is on the list. Hypocritical filth, the lot of them.

    1. I’ve run out of expletives strong enough to express what I think of NOM, they need to be raptured away to a secure institution somewhere where they can do no more harm.
      Ever wonder why NOM president Maggie Gallagher’s husband ditched her

      1. @Pavlos

        I also agree NOM are a vindictive, evil and oppresive organisation that deserve no sympathy and personally I would like to see disappear

    2. Staircase2 20 Jun 2011, 7:24pm

      Not officially it isn’t….
      but witness the power of the religious right in American politics and day to day life for many living in the US and in real terms there is no separation of church and state at all.
      And there should be – for very good reasons (the very same reasons why the founding fathers separated the two in the first place…)
      NB separation of church and state is not the same as not having a place for ‘God’ in the state. (Popularly confused but ‘God’ and ‘church’ are not one and the same thing at all) (although the latter would like to claim ownership of the former, the former is the ‘inspiration’ of the latter and not vice versa…..lol)

  4. “Marriage has been between a man and a women for tousands of years” – lets have a look at that shall we it was only in victorian times that marriage has become between a man and a woman. and as for marriage even being a religious thing once again victorian times. its stupidity of the church thinking nothing existed before it controlled everything.

    1. Actually I think marriage was defined as a sacrament in the Council of Trent in the mid-16c, but that was for Western Christians only. Certainly before that it wasn’t the sole preserve of the Church, and if this dimwit Tyree ever read the Old Testament he’d find a rather more loose interpretation of marriage there than his modern nuclear-family idea. The arrogance of these so-called Christians who believe their ignorant misconception applies to all history is sometimes beyond belief.

      1. Fair does I know alot was done in the victorian day’s to make it the main controlling aspect I assumed this would be the time when the state defined marriage as I knew it hadn’t always been between a man and a woman.

        1. The Victorian era was certainly the period when the sanctity of marriage was stressed, usually usually due to the influence of various evangelical movements – possibly the original source of the sort of ‘arguments’ Tyree uses here.

          1. Not forgetting that girls could be married off at 12yrs of age in Victoria’s day.

          2. Yes Pavlos, maybe Tyree would like the world to revert to such time-honoured customs.

          3. Dr Robin Guthrie 16 Jun 2011, 4:18pm

            “From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter with no uniform religious or other ceremony being required.

            However, bishop Ignatius of Antioch writing around 110 to bishop Polycarp of Smyrna exhorts, “It becomes both men and women who marry, to form their union with the approval of the bishop, that their marriage may be according to God, and not after their own lust.”

            In other words. Religion as it does with many things, STOLE marriage for its own purpose.

    2. Absolutely. Marriage existed long before Christianity and sometimes took place between those of the same sex. The world didn’t fall apart then and it won’t now.

  5. It doesn’t take any brains to see that there is a reason why this guy is a sports jock and not a scientist.

  6. This guy is either totally ignorant or extraordinarily uneducated. Several Europen countries have had full fledged gay marriage for years and NOT decended into Anarchy. Also his comments on gay parenting are totally sexist. He seems to suggest that a young girl needs a woman to teach her place in society. Finally as for saying a minority are pushing for same sex marriage a bill does become law unless it is supported by a MAJORITY. What a bigoted idiot!

    1. Yeah Gaz your points are accurate and proven but this guy is just an imbecile and providing him with any evidence to contradict his theories would no doubt end with him saying “yeah but in the Bible it says….” He’s a moron and a bigot. The US seems to be far more populated with guys like him who say what they feel without thinking.

    2. Jock S. Trap 16 Jun 2011, 1:07pm

      “This guy is either totally ignorant or extraordinarily uneducated.”
      I’d go with both to be honest.

    3. @Gazreno

      We are into around an hour of this story being on PN and we have several branches of very coherent argument as to why this guy is wrong, misguided, uninformed and prejudiced – if only he had taken an hour to examine his views and see if the real world matched his perceptions …

      1. Well he had a captive audience with that organisation he gave his interview with. I’m sure he was sat there in his bubble of stupidity saying exactly the type of cr@p they promote. Its not like he’s the only blunt tool in the toolbox.

  7. Chutneybear 16 Jun 2011, 12:49pm

    The guy is a fukin <unt, full stop….Ignorant one too to boot

  8. It’s American football not baseball

  9. Two words: Bell. End.

    1. One word actually bellend.
      Bell End is a village in Worcestershire

  10. Jock S. Trap 16 Jun 2011, 1:03pm

    Another extreme Christian projecting.
    It’s clear the only ‘anachy’ will be from the likes of him and his ilk.
    But in all seriousness how does anybody adopting affect him?
    How does anyone marrying affect him?
    -
    He and his kind are choosing to make it their business, and it’s not warranted.
    -
    Maybe he should concerntrate on his own live, his own family and stop interferring with everybody else.
    Maybe then a lot of lifes little problems would no longer be there.

  11. HelenWilson 16 Jun 2011, 1:04pm

    They said we would have anarchy when women was emancipated and got the vote. They said anarchy would be a direct result of of the emancipation of black people in America……..they said workers rights and giving the poor the vote would lead to anarchy……..Now they are saying equal marriage will lead to anarchy…….They have always been wrong so why listen?

    1. Chutneybear 16 Jun 2011, 1:05pm

      Excellent point well made! Im robbing that point for another forum !

    2. Absolutely right, Helen – beat me to it!

    3. Exactly Helen. Was about to say the same thing.

    4. Absolutely Helen.

      They said the same about slavery, ending Apartheid, equalising the age of consent etc etc

      They were wrong in the past and I strongly suspect they are wrong this time too.

      Fear – pure fear

    5. They meanby anarchy that religion (aka Christianity) will no longer be hoilding the reins of power over marriage, they can’t bear the thought of losing a bit more control over other people’s lives I guess.

    6. They meanby anarchy that religion (aka Christianity) will no longer be holding the reins of power over marriage, they can’t bear the thought of losing a bit more control over other people’s lives I guess.

    7. @Pavlos

      That may be what they mean but they are more than happy for it to be interpreted in different ways – their fear of loss of control leading them to cause fear in others as a form of attack is reprehensible

  12. Robert (Kettering) 16 Jun 2011, 1:06pm

    Perhaps this homophobic bigot should remember that there was a time not so long abo in the USA that it was said if black people had rights then that too would lead to anarchy. How the once oppressed just can’t wait to do a bit of oppressing of their own! Disgraceful!

  13. “because an influential minority has a push (sic.) or an agenda and totally reshapes something that was not founded in our country…” ah, he’ll be talking about the abolition of slavery and mixed-genital marriage as well, then, thick religopius git.

  14. Oh yes that would be the same anarchy that led us out of slavery, gave women the right to vote…..

    Still, it was an excellent demonstration to the real Christians out there that their religion is being eaten away from the inside.

  15. Someone should also buy Steve a ticket to Stockholm, Oslo Reykavik or The Hague or Ottawa

    I reckon he would be a tad disappointed at the lack of anarchic goings on. In fact I suspect he’d find rather more in the Anti Gay MArriage states of the good old US of A…..

  16. He looks like such a poof

    1. You suggesting he has an ass like a clown’s pocket??!! I could go for that.

      1. You are such a bad man CMYB …. ;-p

    2. I think that remark might just be insulting to poofs.

    3. He’s so fit. It’s a shame he’s not a poof.

    4. He’s both handsome and naively dim enough that you sort of go Awww! when you hear him going into his homophobic rant.

      He goes on about an ideal of marriage but his father was absent, he talks about other heterosexual marriages and families where the father is absent and seems to then lay the blame on same sex couples who want to get married…there’s no logic, gay kids don’t figure in his ideal heterosexual only world either.

  17. There’s nothing going on behind the eyes. Nothing.

    1. Lol, agreed. I watched the whole thing, and I can’t even muster up the energy to debate his dull ramblings. Sometimes he didn’t even make sense. What an uninspiring bore.

  18. I wonder what a British football “legend” would say about marriage equality???? I thought legend meant that you were supposed to be well known, never even heard of the guy over here!

    1. Strictly to be fair, it looks as though he was recruited by this group, the NOM, for his influential profile – and just because we don’t follow American football doesn’t mean he isn’t as big a legend over there as Beckham is here (I don’t know, I’m just saying we shouldn’t be dismissive of his fame).
      .
      Were Beckham to be stupid enough to make negative comments about equal marriage, I daresay it would gain considerable publicity here too – but it might also be drowned out by the gales of laughter at such an inappropriate person being mistaken for a pundit.

      1. Exactly , we wouldn’t give a toss what a British legend like Beckham had to say, it would be laughable, so really any crap from this “legend” should be laughed off in the same way…he’s only a footballer, what the hell are we expecting from such people!

      2. Jock S. Trap 16 Jun 2011, 3:01pm

        I think even Beckham wouldn’t dare comment negatively on marriage Equality considering his large fan base is Gay men and he knows it.
        I suspect he knows that an attack on this community would lead to a damaging drop in the Beckham franchise.

  19. What can we expect from America? Where is the proof anarcy has taken over in Holland, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Canada, South Africa, Argentina, Mexico City, the five states in America? America is breeding some of the most ignorant, illiterate people in the western hemisphere.

    This moron should ask himself why heterosexuals commit adultery and philander so often, long before same-sex marriage were a beep on the radar. Has the sky fallen in?

  20. Red Gosans 16 Jun 2011, 1:42pm

    Why don’t we just start flagging all of NOMs videos as being homophobic and stirring up hatred? That’s exactly what they’re doing, and according to Youtube’s submission agreement, it’s not allowed.

    1. Yeah, let’s shut down the debate and censor everyone that disagrees with us. That’s not going to backfire on us at all…

      1. Red Gosans 16 Jun 2011, 3:08pm

        There’s a difference between debating an issue and slandering a group of people by basically saying that LGBT people are going to cause anarchy by being able to get married.

        Besides, we all know that NOM is a hate group. They don’t want to debate, they want to restrict the rights and freedoms of all people they think are “sinful”.

  21. Jason Brown 16 Jun 2011, 1:46pm

    I think all that head bashing contact sport might have affected his brain.
    So two men can’t raise a girl, does this mean all single parents are incompetent at raising children if they’re born the opposite gender? Also since when did marriage = children?

    There was a time in which blacks and whites couldn’t marry, was it a bad thing that was made legal? I don’t think so.

  22. I just know I’m gonna get lynched for this, but… surely he’s entitled to his view too?

    1. Yes but we’re just pointing out his view is unintellectual and not backed up by proof where as our views are.

      1. Lol. Where is the proof that gay marriage won’t lead to anarchy? It might, you know.

        1. Jock S. Trap 16 Jun 2011, 3:03pm

          Considering the countries that already have marriage Equality where’s the proof it will lead to anarchy?

        2. It works it’s been proven to work research into same-sex parenting (which I agree is different to marriage equality) has been proven to have no obverse effect to the child the true fruition of the research has not come to head yet as they’re not fully grown but the research is pointing in a promising direction.

        3. It might, it could also lead to everlasting peace on earth..the most likely effect as shown in other countries is that bugger all happens and the only effect is on those who actually do a “gay” marriage …anyway is it gay marriage they’re bringing in or marriage equality?

          1. Exactly.

          2. Lol. Ok, consider this: Gay equality (like sexual equality and racial equality) has only arrived as society begins to abandon its superstitious heritage and recognise people’s individual rights. Which is undoubtedly a good thing.
            -
            However, the trade-off for the sidelining of religion and ‘traditional values’ is a rampantly individualistic society whose members increasingly neglect their social obligations and look the other way. In effect we may be the first generation to actively foster a nation of sociopaths. I don’t see, therefore, how it is unreasonable for some to conclude that we (the spearheads of the crusade for individual liberties) are also a contibutory factor in creating that breakdown.
            -
            The only way forward, therefore, is compromise between left and right, which, like Yin and Yang, will always exist and will always need to exist to support the other. :)
            Ok, *discuss*! Lol.

          3. It is very difficult to understand what on earth you are talking about since personally I’ve had relgion and traditional values drummed into me from an early age and yet apparently I’m to be considered as a spearhead to the downfall of these becasue I simply want to continue to be part of those values and to continue to be part of those values in 2011 in the UK means to me and most other people equal rights and opportunities for all. They are now the traditional values that we want in the UK. The compromise has always been there, no-one forces anyone to to drop their religious thinkings …this argument is really one sided, we allow them their religious thinkings yet they believe that we shouldn’t be allowed equal opportuntiies

          4. Jock S. Trap 17 Jun 2011, 9:00am

            Flamineo
            I guess only if you consider people in love being a ‘breakdown’.
            Personally I think it should be encouraged to help improve our society.

      2. Yes, he’s entitled to his view (that gay marriage is bad) but the reasons he gives are illogical and seem like clutching at straws to me or parrotting what others have said without thinking about its veracity.

        1. Jock S. Trap 16 Jun 2011, 3:04pm

          Indeed.
          I suspect David Tyree has no real knowledge or connection with the LGBTQI community so using that old thing of assuming.

        2. However illogical we may perceive his arguments to be, they do however, representative of a great number of Republicans / Christians who are very worried about the breakdown of society which they attribute (rightly or wrongly) to the marginalisation of religion’s role in society. And I can’t say with any certainty that they might not have a point, sociologically speaking. Wouldn’t civil partnerships be a reasonable compromise, rather than out-and-out marriage?

          1. @Flamineo

            I know others will come in with inflammatory words and say CPs are an apartheid (which I think is extreme sanctimonious spin doctoring).

            However, I do not think CPs as the only option for a same sex couple brings equality. Marriage as an institution will be enhanced by equality. CPs do not bring the same level of rights to parties of a CP that marriage brings. (Varies from state to state etc). Some gay couples want to marry – its not a religious thing necessarily marriage – so why shouldnt we let them? I am yet to hear a reaonable argument why secular marriage should not embrace same sex couples.

          2. On an intellectual level, there is absolutely no argument why two gay people who love each other should not be able to commit themselves together and be afforded the same rights and opportunities as straight people. None at all. Even with regards to adoption, gay people have been shown to make great parents. Which is why we win every argument against the conservatives. We are, however, desecrating an ‘institution’ that the religiously-minded hold to be sacred; something which we (as secularly-minded non-believers) fail to appreciate the enormity of. I wonder sometimes whether we both (right and left) might be better off really hearing the other’s point of view, and sometimes compromising, than continuing with the endless ongoing stalemate…?

          3. Jock S. Trap 16 Jun 2011, 3:45pm

            Flamineo
            And since when has two consenting adults getting together, falling in love and marrying created a breakdown in society?
            That only comes from those who wish to make issue over it like they do over wars and famines etc.
            Very often it is religion that causes Anarchy not love.
            -
            With all the hate in this world how about celebrating the love, the togetherness.
            That’s order not chaos.
            -
            Compromise on Equality?
            Think you’ll find two things wrong with that sentence.
            We are human beings, we provide for the community and the world, we pay taxes, we support and defend our countries and our Freedom.
            So much more besides.
            If none of that is up for compromise then why is treating all human beings like human beings?
            -
            These people have the right to say these thing but they don’t have the right to treat others like second, third, fourth class citizens just because they chose to be bigots.
            -

          4. Jock S. Trap 16 Jun 2011, 3:48pm

            I didn’t choose to be born.
            I didn’t choose to be Gay.
            I didn’t choose to be abused by bigotted people.
            -
            So what gives others the right to treat me like I don’t matter as much, like I’m a second class citizen?
            -
            Religious people are telling me we all born equal.
            Well since when did that equat to some more equal than others?

          5. Jock S. Trap 16 Jun 2011, 3:50pm

            “We are, however, desecrating an ‘institution’ that the religiously-minded hold to be sacred”
            -
            Expect of course marriage has been around a lot longer than any religion so that statement simply is not true.

          6. With the greatest of respect Jock, that sounds like a lot of sloganeering rather than engaging with the argument. Which is precisely my point about seeing the other’s side in terms of ‘the myth of pure evil’ and failing to hear what they’re actually saying.
            -
            All I’m saying is they have a right to be heard, just as much as we do. And even though we might get legal marriage now, there’s nothing to stop them appointing a Republican president shortly afterwards.
            -
            And as a side-note, yes religion causes any number of social evils, BUT it does give society a coherent philosophy for morality that we haven’t found a substitute for in its absence. And even though some of us find atheism or humanism after having been subjected to Christian or Islamic upbringings, it’s dishonest to believe that people will automatically develop a conscience because it’s pretty clear looking at our society that they don’t. I just wish it didn’t put down gays, lol! (Or women, Jews, heretics, wiitches…)

          7. Flamineo -”we (as secularly-minded non-believers) ” …speak for youself..religion is for all including gays and we too have that right to marrigae which you seem to think that some Christians (possibly the majority , I don’t know) have the right to judge over other Christians. If you want rational responses to his arguments then I’m sure they have all been answered a thousand times , not just in the States but probably around most of the Western countries where it’s been debated. I’m afraid Stalemate is usually the only answer with these people and you can only hope to change the opnions of the majority.. CP is not a compromise, why would it be, it’s never proven to be in any other country..

          8. That’s just my point: religion is not about rationality or intellect. If it were, it would collapse under the sheer absence of proof for all its outrageous claims. It appeals to a person’s sense of spiritual elevation–what they would define as the ‘soul’ (and what we look at them blankly and think they’re mad for talking about). You can win the debate intellectually all you like, but it’s not about rationality. It’s about the esoteric. Thankfully our laws are based on rationality. But expect a backlash.

          9. @Flamineo

            Marriage pre dates Christianity

            Marriage may have a religious element but is largely a secular event that acknowledges partnership between two people

            Thus bringing equality to it is not a religious issue its a secular one

            If the religious wish to withold their ceremonies for some – that is their call and they will have their own debates and rancour about it. Some will move to other religious groups as a result and some will not.

            Marriage should not be for just the religious or just the heterosexual – it should be for all

          10. Flamineo, I get your points and that’s why I believe religions should be allowed to choose whom they marry. HOWEVER, I don’t want a religious marriage, I want a Civil one and that’s nothing to do with religion.
            ALL civil marriages strictly count as adultery to the Christian church as they’re not marriages under God.
            I personally don’t want a CP. I don’t see why my life choices should suddenly be changed just because of the gender of the person I love. I’d like the choice of (civil) marriage just like my straight friends. To me, separate isn’t equal – nor is it in any way desirable or necessary. (Although I appreciate some people like CPs and that’s fine).

          11. @Iris

            I entirely agree

            If its different its not equal – and thats why if I had the right partner I would want to marry.
            Like you, I recognise that isnt right for everyone and would like CPs opened to all – for those that wish them.
            For those people of all genders who wish a religious ceremony – that a matter between them and the religious group they are part of or feel connected to.

  23. The comment about anarchy is just silly. As for the comment about gay parents, where is his evidence? Didn’t a recent study show that LESBIANS make the best parents? His point that a child of a different gender from its two parents would suffer is also wrong. Children learn from all those around them and would come into frequent contact with adults and children of the same gender.
    To me, it sounds like he’s trying to think up reasons to justify his view. But none of them make any sense.

    1. I think he’s having a homophobic revelation (no research or evidence needed)
      Or parroting what his local pastor and the anti-gay zealots at NOM have spoon-fed him, maybe he’s reading from an auto-cue? might explain his dead eyes.

  24. Spiritbody 16 Jun 2011, 3:13pm

    Like many ‘Christians’, this guy seems very afraid of change, without looking to see whether it is good change or bad change. Christians and homophobes swear by tradition, with no regard for whether a tradition deserves to still be upheld.
    Yes, the stipulations of marriage is changing. Because all things change. As society changes, traditions must change to fit and stay relevant. But it isnt changing for the worse. The concept of marriage is staying the same- a joining of two people who love eachother. Why fight something like that? Why waste time fighting love in any form when there is so much hate to fight against.
    And shame on him for thinking that a child brought up by a same sex couple will inevitably become victim of a big gay bubble, with no interaction with members of the opposite sex and sexuality. That doesnt happen.

  25. The more these people open their mouths, the more ignorant they appear. What is even more appalling is that when other minories try to deny rights to GLBT people. You think they’d be more understanding and compassionate but that goes to show you the power of religious indoctrination and cultural conditioning. I believe religion is the biggest obstacle GLBT people have to overcome in order to begin to gain equality. This will only occur by dialogue and debate. Eventually reason will win out with most people, laws will change, and the culture will begin to evolve.

    1. I don’t think religion is something that can necessarily be overcome. But conservative religious folk are going to have to begin to appreciate that we have something of value to contribute. Which means interacting with them individually as ‘friends’ and showing at a grass roots level that we’re not something to be scared of. This won’t happen if both sides are screaming abuse at each other. Neither group is going anywhere; we have to learn to co-exist respectfully.

      1. Quite right.

      2. Absolutely, something I have been trying to say here for ages and then end up disagreeing. We need to be calm and rational whilst accepting others views may not appear rational to us – as ours may not appear rational to others. Religion isnt going to disappear. We need to be able to co-exist, partly because thats the way of the world – we are all going to be here and partly for those gay people of faith that do not need to be marginalised by both groups. Both sides have made errors in the past. We need to build, but there should be lines in the sand of what is acceptable – and we need to understand why each of us set those acceptable behaviour standards.

  26. I doubt if the Beckham’s would say anything as stupid and I suspect are supportive of our rights. I can’t believe they don’t have any gay friends either.

    Rehan, NOM has paid shills to do its dirty work, so it wouldn’t surprise me if its tentacles stretched from across the pond. It donated $1 million to defeat marriage equality in New York and part of it was funneled to Senator Ruben Diaz , a democrat I might add and a minister, to hold a rally condemning marriage equality recently.

  27. I doubt if the Beckham’s would say anything as stupid and I suspect are supportive of our rights. I can’t believe they don’t have any gay friends either.

    Rehan, NOM has paid shills to do its dirty work, so it wouldn’t surprise me if its tentacles stretched from across the pond. It donated $1 million to defeat marriage equality in New York and part of it was funnelled to a Senator Ruben Diaz , a democrat I might add and a minister, to hold a rally condemning marriage equality recently.

    1. If an Aussie rules player or British footballer starting spouting off like this then it would be a total joke when the whole profession has been proven to be homophobic and full of sex scandals..Why would Amercian football be any different. Yes, he can have his opinions but lets not forget his opinions come from someone in a generally homophobic, macho, laddish profession..and on top of that he appears to be a right wing extreme Christian who as you have pointed out is influenced by NOM.

  28. Commander Thor 16 Jun 2011, 4:06pm

    “And now all of a sudden because an influential minority has a push or an agenda and totally reshapes something that was not founded in our country was not founded by man.”

    All of a sudden, a minority claims blacks don’t have to be slaves, and we change centuries of tradition.

    MISQUOTATION ALERT: THIS POST CONTAINS SARCASM.

  29. Jeanne M Knight 16 Jun 2011, 4:32pm

    Gay marriage & adoptions …. could save the lives of countless abused children, daily I cry watching the news…moms, dads,killing their children, for the stupidest reasons or no reason at all ….we all need each other …..and children are very smart they know who has real LOVE….you will not be able to manipulate them forever, and they will remember… where the Love is…Think about it ……

  30. I find this ironic considering mixed race couples used to be frowned upon to and pretty much spoken about in the same way. I guess negative views on minorities have come full circle once again.

  31. “If they pass this gay marriage bill… what I know will happen if this does come forth is this will be the beginning of our country sliding toward, it’s a strong word, but anarchy.”
    .
    This would be an intelligent statement if the Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, and others who have legalised gay marriage fell into anarchy – but as it’s contrary to the fact anarchy has not happened in these countries, proves it’s anything but an intelligent statement.

    1. I want to know who wrote his script …

      If he honestly believes what he is saying – then where is his emotion …

  32. Sister Mary Clarence 16 Jun 2011, 10:00pm

    “I approach more from an angle of prayer”

    I suspect we haven’t got too much to worry about in that case

    1. Well, prayer and making propaganda videos for NOM’s anti-gay crusade.

  33. It always makes me laugh to see a black man in America who wants to stop the civil rights of gays or anybody. The black man is still not free in America and they were slaves not too long ago. Yet they like to kiss the white mans butt and act like they are Christians even when most blacks are not even welcome in most white Christian churches. They like the Mormons want to kiss up to the Catholics to be one of the boys and play with the big dog. On top of that this black fool has no idea that his black people are dieing in record numbers from HIV/AIDS and pushing his people into a closet is only going to kill more blacks, maybe he is one of those blacks who hate blacks and wants to b white like Michael Jackson?

  34. friday jones 16 Jun 2011, 11:31pm

    God, please spare us the judgmental blatherings of the barely-reformed drug addict or drunkard. They know not what they do, but they hath not the sense to keepeth their mouths shut.

  35. Two obvious fallacious lines of arguement in this guys reasoning here: Slippery slope
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

    Appeal to tradition
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

  36. Go on David. Spell a-n-a-r-c-h-y.

  37. Also there is, I believe, some element of appeal to authority. Does this ‘celebrity’ possess the expertise and qualifications to make informed pronouncements on matters relating to ethical and moral philosophy, anthropology, political analysis, psychology and such like?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

  38. From Wiki
    “Tyree battled with crack and alcohol addiction from an early age, and in 2004 was arrested for drug possession.Tyree reports that he has been sober after then-girlfriend Leilah became pregnant with their second child.”

    1. Staircase2 20 Jun 2011, 7:27pm

      Sorry – I dont see what your point is

  39. See helmets head Tyree’s former team mate Michael Strahan and his lovely wife speak up for equality
    NYers For Marriage Equality

    1. Maybe this link will work

  40. Staircase2 20 Jun 2011, 7:26pm

    Shame…..cause he is focking cute :O)

  41. Lyuba Allenivna Tereshchenko 21 Jun 2011, 12:20pm

    idi na khui, mudak!

    Who cares what this idiot says.

  42. Oh Anarchy! Is that what’s happened in the Netherlands, Spain, Canada and South Africa? I must have blinked and missed it.

  43. Gay n Proud 21 Jun 2011, 1:16pm

    Obviously this man hates progress, so get back on the plantation and ask your master who you can breed with. or is Civil Rights only for blacks?

  44. where does a SPORTS STAR get or gather the authority to state that gay marriage would lead to anarchy. Even more so how can a BLACK man talk of minorities who “weren’t incorporated/mentioned when the country was founded” in such a condemning way so lightly! Damn fool.

  45. Black people should not be able to marry people of different races! MARRIAGE BETWEEN WHITES AND BLACKS causes little baby Jesus to cry blood and floods in mid west America so its bad. I’m totally NOT a hatefull person its just my spiritual belief. this is the USA after all.

  46. Why not rail against divorce? That seems to be much more detrimental to marriage than any same-sex partners wanting to marry. Just like a zealot, never let logic get in the way of blind ideology.

  47. This twat catches a ball. Why is his uneducated opinion newsworthy?Anarchy? What a joke! Go catch a ball. Or a couple!

  48. the same thing was said about blacks in the military and during the desegregation fight.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all