Because Tracy Morgan actually realized homophobia is fucking retarded, or at least requires better comedic timing, former New York Giants receiver David Tyree has stepped up by joining forces with the National Organization of Marriage and reminded everyone that some black people are still really religious and surprisingly unable to remember when it was legal to blast them with firehoses for being different. And now to make Republican heads explode because, once again, the colored man has dominated another one of their pastimes. TMZ reports:
During the interview, Tyree is asked about the push to legalize gay marriage in the United States — and says if it happens, “This will be the beginning of our country sliding toward … it’s a strong word, but anarchy.”
To reinforce his point, Tyree says, “You can’t teach something that you don’t have … so two men will never be able to show a woman how to be a woman.”
And the kicker, Tyree — who’s black — says, “How can marriage be marriage for thousands of years and now all the sudden because a minority, an influential minority, has a push or agenda … and totally reshapes something that was not founded in our country.”
An agenda that “totally reshapes something that was not founded in our country.” Interesting logic because you know what else our country wasn’t founded on? Letting black people speak, vote, look at white women and/or generally walk around freely without a pair of shackles on. But, no, you’re right, they totally had it figured out back then.
Photos: Getty
“some black people are still really religious and surprisingly unable to remember when it was legal to blast them with firehoses for being different.”
Blogger writes well. Nicely put.
1st
Everybody believes in free speech until they hear something they don’t like.
And everybody believes in the pursuit of happiness until they see others pursuing it in ways that violate their religious beliefs.
@ Q-Bert
Exactly…
And WAY to marginalize the following African Americans below…that did / do what they believe in and dont live off the governemnt and its ills.
C’mon White Guilt riddled masses…youre all for the colored man when hes spouting your emotional bullshit beliefs but not for the thinking one right? Not the ones that could possibly take your jobs, as remedial as they probably are if youre here commenting 24/7 (you know who you are).
Akindele Akinyemi
Claude Allen
Renee Amoore
J. Kenneth Blackwell
Lynette Boggs
Peter Boulware
Jennette Bradley
Edward Brooke
Stephen Brode
Janice Rogers Brown
Blanche Bruce
Victoria Buckley
Keith Butle
Herman Cain
Jennifer Carroll
Clarence H. Carter
Ron Christie
Octavius Valentine Catto
Henry P. Cheatham
Eldridge Cleaver
William Thaddeus Coleman, Jr.
Ward Connerly
Frederick Douglass
Oscar Stanton de Priest
Larry Elder
Robert Brown Elliott
Melvin H. Evans
James L. Farme
Michel Faulkner
Arthur Fletcher
Gary Franks
Ryan Frazie
Samuel B. Fulle
Jeremiah Haralson
Ted Hayes
Amy Holmes
T.R.M. Howard
John Adams Hyman
Niger Innis
Alphonso Jackson
Raynard Jackson
Dr. Mildred Fay Jefferson
Wallace B. Jefferson
Alan Keyes
Martin Luther King Jr.
John Mercer Langston
Jefferson Franklin Long
John Roy Lynch
Lenny McAllister
Angela McGlowan
James Meredith
Thomas Ezekiel Mille
George Washington Murray
E. Frederic Morrow
Steven Mullins
Charles Edmund Nash
Constance Berry Newman
Colin Powell
Rod Paige
Sherman Parker
Edward J. Perkins
Jesse Lee Peterson
Pio Pico
Samuel Pierce
P. B. S. Pinchback
Pierre-Richard Prosper
Joseph H. Rainey
James T. Rapier
Hiram Rhodes Revels
Condoleezza Rice
Jack E. Robinson III
Joe Rogers
Carson Ross
Jackie Robinson
Paul H. Scott
Tim Scott
Robert Smalls
Joshua I. Smith
DeForest “Buster” Soaries
Thomas Sowell
Michael S. Steele
Lynn Swann
Noel C. Taylor
Clarence Thoma
Sojourner Truth
Harriet Tubman
James L. Usry
William T. Vernon
Dale Wainwright
Josiah Walls
Booker T. Washington
Maurice Washington
J. C. Watts
Ida B. Wells
Allen West
J. Ernest Wilkins, Sr.
Armstrong Williams
Michael L. Williams
Walter E. Williams
Vern Williams
James White
William F. Yardley
oh yea…because those are/were all Republicans.
@Cock Dr
He is speaking of marriage. Marriage is a religious term which has legal consequences. Give homosexuals the same legality as marriage under a different term, then you’ll hear “equality!!” Why should they be allowed to push their beliefs on a religious term?
Since when is “marriage” a “religious term”?
It’s an english word defining a relationship, it has no religious source…period.
God damn it must be super easy to be a religious nut…just make up whatever shit you feel like.
George, try to educate yourself before you argue any further, because you have it exactly bass-ackwards. No one is trying to “push their beliefs on a religious term” because while marriage is a sacrament in many religions, in this country (as well as most of Europe) it’s first and foremost a civil and legal matter, NOT a religious one. That’s because marriage, like adoption or any other action that changes your legal status, primarily concerns the state, not any religion. No one is trying to force any religion to perform a ceremony it does not endorse – but by that light, no religion has the right to try to curtail the rights of anyone who isn’t a member of said religion.
The US is not a theocracy, which is why no one is required to be married by a cleric. In Europe you first have to be married in a civil ceremony by a state official, and ONLY after that can you be married in the church of your choice, but in this country we allow the cleric to officiate for the state, which leads to the confusion you’re demonstrating. So I invite you to try to get married in any religious house without a license from the state and see how far you get..
Qbert @ Cock DR win the internet!
What does this have to do with free speech? Free speech doesn’t mean that others can’t criticize you if you say something that we don’t agree with.
@Q-Bert. I approve of free speech, largely because it gives idiots the opportunity to identify themselves as such. All this time I thought David Tyree was a marginal professional athlete who made one insanely lucky catch. But now, because of free speech, I know he is a fool worthy of scorn. Thanks 1st Amendment!
You’re free to say anything you want… and other people are free to call you a dick over it.
And there ARE plenty of churches, Christian or otherwise, that allow gay marriage. So if one person’s religion defines it differently than another’s, why can people still say that only one is valid?
Hey dummy, it’s not “past-time,” it’s “pastime.” One word.
I love undereducated bloggers who try to play grown-up and comment on current events. It’s cute.
Not anarchy, solvency! Just charge the gays five billion dollars per marriage, payable to the federal debt, it will be settled in no time! Damn, I’m good, going to head home early today.
Shaddap Ferret Face.
Why does this incredibly narrow minded person’s opinions even matter to the media? Is it because he used to play professional football? That’s it? Now he’s an expert in the social sciences?
Oh, and you can see the anarchy that’s broken out in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont & New Hampshire recently. Terrible, isn’t it?
what do you expect from someone’s whose granny would just jump a broom anytime she wanted to shack up with a new mate?
Chupacabra: That was gratuitously insensitive to black people and their history in this country. Maybe if you did some research into WHY blacks jumped the broom you would’ve thought before you made yourself look like a racist. Or maybe you already know why, and just felt like flexing your white supremacy muscles.
Ok, anarchy is definitely extreme, but why do gays insist on changing the definition of marriage? Stay with civil union, that works just the same and they get all the legal benefits.
because of the basic foundations of equality this country was built on. and even further than that, just plain human rights. civil unions are not granted the same legal protection and rights as marriages do. a union is a union whether you call it “marriage” or “civil union.” why call it one thing for one group and another for another group? the push for gay marriage has a lot of implications that are far too many to be discussed on here.
Name one legal benefit that you get in marriage but you don’t get in a civil union. Also, since when is marriage a human right? And, the definition of marriage is between man and woman, not man & man or woman & woman. Why do you want to change it?
This sounds good, in theory, but if you can have all the same rights and privileges, why can’t you use the word? I’m okay with the “civil union” line as long as we say that marriage is a religious institution and “civil unions” are legal/government-legitimized, which means that the government provides Certificates of Civil Union (as opposed to marriage certificates) to ALL couples – same sex or opposite sex. The Catholic Church had much higher standards for my marriage application than the county clerk, so it’s clear the two sides define the word differently anyway.
I’m with Really. The government has no business sanctioning personal relationships, only in enforcing the rights and responsibilities of legal contracts. Civil Unions for everyone…you want “marriage”, that’s something for your church, Druid, or cat to decide what it means to you.
and as a serious question for Rican, what is this “definition of marriage” you’re talking about? Even if we agree there IS one…whose? Mormons? Muslims? Christians? Hippies? Wiccans? Atheists?
I’ve got a funny feeling that you’re talking about sticking to the definition that YOU like, and forcing that on everyone else.
McFeely, although you will find slight variations on the definition from all those groups, the one phrase that remains constant is “man and woman”. Can’t gays respect that?
You mean the same way that “man and woman” used to mean “man and woman of the same race”? Because there were plenty of people just like you who kept the term restricted to just that “slight variation” and felt it should be “respected” by denying couples of disparate races to marry. And that was becausethey wisely knew that the world would end if that happened.
I honest to God fail to see how allowing anyone who’s gay to have the same rights that everyone straight takes for granted takes anything away from straight people, and that includes the precious “man and woman” definition of marriage. I don’t feel any less empowered because my gay neighbors can get the same tax breaks my parents can.
What I do find incredibly disrespectful is that anyone who’s gay has to pay the same taxes as someone who’s straight, yet still has less rights and representation. We fought an entire fucking revolution with England over the notion that we were deserving of “respect” like that. So next time you throw that word around, think about what it really means to this country.
“the one phrase that remains constant is “man and woman”. Can’t gays respect that?”
Rican, you mean the same way that “man and woman” used to mean “man and woman of the same race”? Because there were plenty of people just like you who kept the term restricted to just that “slight variation” and felt it should be “respected” by denying couples of disparate races to marry. And that was because they wisely knew that the world would end if that happened, right?
I honest to God fail to see how allowing anyone who’s gay to have the same rights that everyone straight takes for granted takes anything away from straight people, and that includes the precious “man and woman” definition of marriage. I wouldn’t feel any less empowered or any more threatened because my gay neighbors could get the same tax breaks my parents can – and FYI, “civil unions” are missing a buttload of perks that regular marriages take for granted – check out health insurance policies, tax breaks, green cardsand the rest of it before you try to promote that “separate but equal” fallacy any further, because it’s just as inherently unequal as the segregated educational facilities of the 1960′s were.
What I do find incredibly disrespectful is that anyone who’s gay has to pay the same taxes as someone who’s straight, yet still has less rights and representation. We fought an entire fucking revolution with England over the notion that we were deserving of “respect” like that. So next time you throw that word around, think about what it really means to this country.
Today, on a very special Superficial…McFeely Smackup gets serious. (Not that I don’t agree with ya.)
do you hear that, gay folk? YOU CAN GET ON THE BUS AS LONG AS YOU STAY IN THE BACK.
McFeely, the definition may vary, but the one constant is “man & woman”. So what if I get a group of people o change definitions of concepts because we want to. Is that acceptable
Rican,
The “sanctity of marriage” was lost a long time ago in this country.
Just the GOP trying to tell you what you can/can’t do in your personal life, while trumpeting “LESS GOVERNMENT!”
I disagree Deacon,
Anyway, if the issue is equal rights, the way to go is to put more teeth into the civil union, and leave the marriage thing to people that still value its meaning. I also agree with Really on this point.
Here’s the difference: “He’s my husband” gets me full rights to inherit all his property, no questions asked when visiting him in the hospital, decision making for health concerns, disposition of property, use of bank accounts and credit cards. “He’s my domestic partner” get me a visit to the courts to enforce all those rights afforded me in marriage.
While a civil union is a contract just like marriage, the connotations of one is nothing like the connotations of the other, no matter how liberal the state you live in seems to be.
Well why do you care why the rest of america doesn’t want you to, because we dont want you to. Is that not acceptable
In some countries, a man and a woman and a woman and a woman is the definition of a marriage. How does your religion feel about that one?
Satan’s bitch, I think states have different rules for that. In PR the civil union gets you all of that.
I’m with rican on this one and I have about as much business commenting on this as the guy this post is about!
Marriage, all definitions, are between a man and a woman. I’m all for gay rights and gay marriage but they need a different word for it. Civil unions sure, but marriage in the traditional sense is literally older than recorded history. You can’t change the very nature of it to suit a passing political fancy. It’s redefining words and concepts which is already happening with ‘political correctness’. You need to call a spade a spade. A marriage is a man and woman. A retard is someone who is retarded. A white man is white and a black man is black. There’s nothing derogtary there and nothing to take offence at, it’s pointless changing the meanings. Whatever you come up with means exactly the same and eventually will come to be perceived the same way. The gay community needs to come up with their own definition and society will naturally evolve to encompass that.
Civil Unions smacks of separate but equal. When segregated south was having one fountain for whites and another for colors that didn’t make it right even though there were two drinking fountains. Same goes here. Some getting marriage and some civil unions is discriminatory in nature.
rican, instead of asking why the gays want marriage, the question you should be asking is Why the fuck does it make any difference to you? You & your like-minded cohorts have a grossly inflated sense of importance. What other people do has no affect whatsoever on your relationships, or anyone else’s. And if you disagree, well, that’s the perfect definition of ‘asswipe.’
Rican, just try to enforce that civil union rule when the hospital says no, you can’t visit your partner, and do some serious praying that your partner isn’t dying alone while you’re filing something with the court to enforce your rights. Or try to stop your partner’s family from clearing out your house of your possessions while you run to the judge for an order to uphold your contract. These exact scenarios have happened to civil partners.
I also don’t get why people keep saying “in traditional marriage” and “it’s always been one man one woman, no matter what else has changed.” But the point is, IT’S CHANGED. “Traditional marriage,” )where a woman was sold to a man and/or the woman was NOT an equal partner) doesn’t exist anymore, because people realized it was unfair and dated. People are looking at it now and realizing that once again, a group of people are being denied equal protection under the law because of an unfair tradition.
Not true.
Although hardly an academically legitimate source, Wikipedia DOES have something to say on the matter.
Gay unions have been around forever.
Even though sometimes the Ancient Greeks had the “partnership marriage” between men, which ended in the late teens, there were actual “marriages.”
Besides, the definition of marriage is to combine…no combine with Jesus.
It’s old French and means “to join”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
Satan’s, again, here where I live, a civil union will grant that partner those rights. I know it because I’ve seen it, and have gay friends who are living it.
Reading, you’re debating skills of anger filled insults while missing the point are too advanced for me, but let me try to respond: blow me, asshole.
Colin; Thank you.
rican, it my be like that in Puerto Rico, but on the mainland, even if the *state* allows full blown gay marriage, a gay couple won’t get any rights from the *federal* government. So maybe in Massachusetts, a person might be entitled to see their partner in the hospital, but if they die, they won’t get Social Security, it’s possible that relatives of the deceased could get custody of their children or property, etc.
@colin Just a quick addition to your point, it doesn’t exist anymore in America and the rest of the western world. In the ‘third world’ women are still very much traded and are most definitley not equal.
Point taken Colin, Would you then be ok if civil unions granted that benefit, and others like that? I think the gay agenda would go much further focusing on acquiring those rights under the civil union instead of antagonizing people that don’t believe they should change the meaning of marriage.
I’d personally be fine with that. I think the problem some people have is that if it’s separate, it’s still possible to do things differently. I think they want it all mashed together so no one can go back and say, “on second thought, let’s change a few things with this group.” I dunno quite how that would work, but some compare it to the separate but equal thing; why call them different things if they’re the same?
Neither gays or straights should be getting any extra rights or benefits for being married because, as a single man, I ain’t gettin’ shit either!
Let’s see…pretty much all federal rights, most spousal rights from employers, depending on the hospital visitation rights, depending on the state inheritance rights, and so on and so on. People who think that civil unions are equal to marriage are sadly mistaken.
Additionally, weaseling out of saying you don’t like the idea of homosexuals being able to marry by hiding behind the definition of words is both an idiot and a coward. Just throwing that out there. As has been pointed out already: 1) words change their definitions through usage all the time; 2) our modern concept of marriage is neither the original definition nor the most common one through history; 3) what consenting adults do with their lives is none of your damned business. If you don’t like the idea of same-sex couples marrying, don’t marry someone of your sex. Done.
The definition of marriage was changed a LONG time ago. It was originally an arrangement that was essentially a purchase agreement between a man and the father of a girl the man wanted as a vessel for producing children for him — sons in particular. Marriage wasn’t originally about love, or family, or happiness. It was about fucking a woman you could be 100% sure hadn’t slept with anyone else to create a son that you could be 100% was yours, so you could pass your goats and farmland down to him. Women didn’t have much say in the matter.
Marriage as we practice it now didn’t evolve until the 1800s, when notions of love became an idealized part of the equation. Nowadays, we marry because we love someone and want to be happy. We DON’T marry someone as a means to create an heir for our fortunes… because frankly, few of us are that rich, daughters inherit equally to sons, younger children equally to the oldest child, and paternity tests can prove a genetic link. What marriage is today is COMPLETELY different from the institution it was designed to be.
These days, no one would deny the desire of an older couple or a child-free couple to marry, because producing kids isn’t the #1 reason people get married anymore. Producing kids is merely a common desire among SOME people who get married. So considering that producing children is no longer the point, and marrying someone because you love them is most people’s primary motivation, when WHY NOT let gay people get married? The only difference between a gay couple in love and a heterosexual couple in love is that there are two people of the same gender. Big friggin’ deal.
Ignorant moron. Who the hell is this guy, again? Oh, a former football player. Not even current football player. Gotcha.
He is an ignorant moron because he does not share your views?
Gay people have the right to be gay, They should have equal rights in our society also. He is coming to this conclusion from his belief system.
You are coming to your conclusion by believing everyone should have equal rights, except for this mans right to express himself on this issue. Both of you have the right to express yourself. Can you see your problem yet?
I see the problem. He’s trying to enforce his belief on other people. People who have religious problems with gay marriage don’t have to get one. But people who do believe in it shouldn’t have THEIR beliefs imposed upon.
That is his right to free speech and free thought. Calling him an ignorant moron is a form of punishment for his statement. Maybe if truthteller would of said, Gays have the right to civil unions by a justice of the peace, then religion would not be an issue. This way both church and state are off the hook.
M, you know very little about the freedom of speech.
First, it only applies to the government imposing laws against your speech. Private citizens such as truthteller are not in any way prohibited from punishing stupid people for saying stupid things.
Secondly, and this is one that seems to confuse the hell out of people, the freedom of speech does not come with a freedom from consequences. Period.
Anyone is allowed to say any stupid thing they want. And everyone else is allowed to call them stupid for saying it.
The guy is a moron because he’s bigoted. Bigotry is a form of ignorance.
“Secondly, and this is one that seems to confuse the hell out of people, the freedom of speech does not come with a freedom from consequences. Period.”
I have no idea why it’s so hard for people to grasp this simple concept. He has every right to say what he wants, just as we have every right to say what we want (in my case, that this ex-football player is an idiot).
he’s afraid his boyfriend will propose.
+1
http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html
I normally just make snide remarks about the retarded celebrities on this site but I feel compelled to defend his position.
Can you honestly equate homosexuality with being black? One is an ethnicity which 99% of the world considers equal while the other is what a lot of people consider an immoral behavior, and I do mean behavior.
So just because I accept that women and people of color are my equal I have to accept that 2 men/women marrying is great for society? Sorry, no….
Yes you can equate it because both are minorities who at one time or still don’t have equal rights.
If you were alive 100 years ago i’m sure you would have agreed with holding blacks down as well. People like you are always a generation behind.
I’m not going to argue this for the 1000th time on the internet, people like you are stubborn and won’t change your mind. But until it happens and you realize the country hasn’t completely turn to crap because of a healthcare plan, letting gays serve or get married etc…you will let your fear cloud your judgment from ever seeing that allowing people to be free/equal isn’t going to ruin the country nor your day.
You can’t equate being gay with being black, when it’s possible to be both dumbass. A black man couldn’t have hidden the fact that he was black back then nor in the present. There isn’t a CLOSET for race. Gays on the other hand have a CLOSET whether right or wrong. I’m pretty sure some of those racist back then were closeted gays too. You can’t compare the two when there are RACIST GAYS. So your argument is stupid at best. I have a black friend who is gay, he tells me all the time how the racism is strong in the gay community.
In an effort to understand, I have to ask why? Why can you accept one group and not the other? What about them marrying is *bad* for society? I’ve had gay people in my life since childhood and so this is something that I just can’t understand because it’s not my experience, so I’m just curious.
So as long as you consider being black to be immoral, then it’s ok to treat them differently?
the MAJORITY of the world thinks the Christian faith is wrong…does it become ok then for christians to be persecuted?
Is it that hard to wrap your brain around the fact that some shit that people THINK is actually WRONG? Which is odd because you seem to think being gay is wrong, but thinking being gay is wrong is undeniable right.
The problem is that, at least for the Catholics, marriage is a sacrament and has a specific special meaning. Gays wanting to change that is imposing their beliefs. It has nothing to do with being homophobic, anti gay, not accepting the other group, etc. Do whatever you want, just don’t call it marriage.
But I think you’ll agree, Rican, that there is a difference between what the Catholic Church considers a marriage and what the federal government does. (For one thing: one offers the ability to divorce, the other excommunicates you unless you qualify for/can afford an annulment.) Similarly, the Catholic definition is not necessarily that of any other religious denomination. So why should that be codified in law? I’m a practicing Catholic and wanted to have a Catholic wedding and marriage, but I accept that my marriage means something different to my Church and my government.
Since when does the majority of the world feel the Christian faith is wrong? Unless you’re an islamo fascist or Marxist, but then again those 2 groups have a few screws lose as well. We must not say anything against Judaism though. Because it’s the Christians who said all those anti-homosexual laws, the Jews never did anything like that, right? *Looks at the Old Testament Law and examples of Sodom and Gomorah* Oh wait…damn, there goes all my political correctness.
As for being black it’s a condition you’re born with from the genetic get go. Being black can become a social hazard, but that’s only when you go down the path of gravy training, over use in affirmative action, and raising your kids on the example of gang music. Gay marriage on the other is a raw deal from the start with no potential for good. Marriage is a ceremony between a man and a woman that locks them spiritually between each other. Why do gays want to get their hands on a straight ceremony so bad? Just do Civil Unions and leave the straight stuff alone. There’s a difference between a man and a woman and a man and a man. One can make and stabilize a family.
Well not all marriages are Catholic. There are plenty of churches that DO perform gay marriages, and consider it sacred, and they’re having THEIR religious beliefs infringed upon.
Johnny Cage, it’s obvious you’ve never been married. What’s the divorce rate again? There isn’t much spiritual locking going on much anymore—marriage has become big business, just ask your local wedding planners. If marriage was only about faith and love, no one would spend $20,000 and up on weddings. Your idea of marriage is idealistic and romantic, maybe you should stick to the straight stuff.
Your kind of logic irritates me to the point of having a stroke. You assume that because some people fail at attempting the foundational tradition of marriage, it’s should be a green light towards it’s destruction. In other words because someone got divorced we should allow gays to butcher that institution all they want. Why stop there? We should re institute slavery because 70% of blacks don’t know their father and 50% go through some form of the prison system.
And in terms of your claimed failure of marriage, why not get the Nambla creeps into it so they can barter for their rights to marry little boys? Better be careful because that would prompt farmer ned to wedding that truck load of sheep he has. And all this because you heard Elizabeth Taylor kept getting divorced right?
“Your idea of marriage is idealistic and romantic, maybe you should stick to the straight stuff.”
No, my idea of marriage is what has been for the thousands of years the human race has been around. What’s getting you so moist is that most people in this country DO want to stick to the straight stuff. For some reason it angers not only militant gays, but folks like yourself who self-righteously think they’re fighting a new Civil Rights movement.
PS: Idealism and Romance is a STRAIGHT thing. It’s what’s kept married couples afloat and what’s helped men build civilization.
Society has thankfully evolved in the thousands of years since marriage was founded. Otherwise, you and I wouldn’t have equal rights, I wouldn’t be able to vote, I’d be paid far less than you based on my sex, I wouldn’t have been able to marry my ex (he’s black), and I would be expected to stick around barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. It will keep evolving, regardless of whether or not you agree with the changes. I don’t think I’m special because I’m taking part in a human rights campaign, I think the way I do because I could really give a shit what everyone else does with their lives. Get married, have 4 wives, have 4 husbands, I could care less. My relationships won’t be invalid if Bob and Bill next door can get married.
Carrie, marriage is put in place for US so that we CAN prosper. Marriage to procreation to the family structure to raising a proper next generation. All that goes hand in hand. And please don’t try any of those low blows by putting marriage on the level with the social ills of the Jim Crow south. I myself am a product of a marriage between a White man and Black woman. People have been intermarrying with other cultures, races, and religions for these thousands of said years.
If you ask me marriage has done more to unit cultures than being a stone-aged primitive thing that’s kept us in the dark.
And listen, everyone used the excuse that “My new idea is evolution” to create extreme social woes for the planet. Communism and fascism are two good examples that have helped deprive society of advancement by claiming that they were “The new way to go”.
Johnny, proper next generation? Come on now, if it goes hand in hand, then where did the break-down occur? The world has went to hell in a hand basket, can we blame that on marriage? And if marriage stills exists only to raise the next “proper” generation, maybe we should put a freeze on it considering how over-populated the planet is. And plus, most of my above points were about me being a woman, not the Jim Crow South. I was in an interracial marriage, remember?
Listen, this is what I believe and you can call me a bleeding-heart hippie, if you like. I can’t change your mind, you can’t change mine. I believe in rights across the board. No one should have lesser rights than me or you based on religion, sexual preference, color, sex, etc. Maybe all the anti-gay marriage opponents should think about spending their money on programs designed to help marriages in trouble if they want to “save the sanctity” of marriage. Designate money for programs that counsel couples on money and debt (the number one cause of divorce), adultery, a healthy sex life, etc.
Also, I didn’t know gays were Communists. Now THAT is troubling.
Carrie I have to call em like I see them and you are an extreme liberal. Over population? Let’s limit the human race? You people honestly terrify me more than any Islamo fascist on a Jihad.
This isn’t about someone having “lesser” rights, this about a group trying to manipulate something sacred towards their own agenda. But the sad part is Extreme liberals are going to push for anything and everything that promotes eventual decay in this country. It’s a mental disorder, nothing less.
Johnny, something sacred? Give me a break. You are aware that in the Bible, multiple men, including Abraham and Jacob, had multiple wives? Back then, if a woman was raped, it was protocol that the rapist marry the victim and acquire her property. Women weren’t accepted until their dowry was settled. Sounds sacred, right?
You bring up the fact that marriage is for procreation. If I don’t want kids, I can’t get married? Give me a break.
If an extreme liberal believes in equal rights ACROSS THE BOARD
Ack, blue heelers, couches, and laptops never mix.
Call me an extreme liberal. I’m for equal rights. For everyone. Across the board. I won’t discriminate against you because you like men, you’re the color purple, you’re a Muslim/Buddhist/Wiccan. Who cares? The God I believe in doesn’t discriminate, so why should I? I’m no better than anyone else, you aren’t either. You’ve compared gays to Communists and think I’m starting a Jihad. So, Johnny Cage, keep up your hatefulness. You don’t bother me. The world will change regardless of you digging in your heels.
And yes, the planet is over-populated. Is that a surprise? Sorry, I don’t feel bringing more children into this world when there are so many lost in the system is an appropriate reason for getting married. In fact, the ONLY appropriate reason to get married is because you love someone with your heart and soul. How’s that for idealistic and romantic? Weird. . . .
It used to be considered “immoral” for a white person to marry a “colored” man or woman. Not just immoral, but ILLEGAL. Just because a lot of people considered interracial marriage to be immoral, does that alone make discrimination right?
Gay marriage is no different. And no, the fact that they cannot biologically create a child with each other doesn’t make them different either, because we allow old people, infertile people, and people who don’t intend to have kids get married all the time. Besides, with the divorce rate of first marriages at 40% and overall divorce rate of marriages at 50%, straights are doing a fantastic job at fucking up marriage. Letting gays get married certainly can’t make it any worse.
It’s one thing for men to put their junk in other men’s asses. It’s a whole other thing for them to do it, while legally sharing co-ownership and dependent health insurance rights. My God, what is happening to this world? Don’t even get me started on the horror of having two moms, versus having the heterosexual Ward and June Cleaver parents most of us grew up with.
Well, two moms is better than what the majority of kids in the foster system are dealing with. Pretty sure Ward and June are the minority, not the majority. Maybe you should talk to a child that doesn’t have parents what he or she thinks before you push that agenda. I imagine they’d be happy to just be loved.
“And the kicker, Tyree — who’s black — says, ‘How can marriage be marriage for thousands of years and now all the sudden because a minority, an influential minority, has a push or agenda … and totally reshapes something that was not founded in our country.’”
Oh, the IRONY! You can literally just replace “marriage” in the quote with “slavery” and slap his logic in his face.
For blacks to discriminate, it just makes me laugh. Fish’s simple argument poked a hole in these clowns’ beliefs. How many years have they been discriminated? FUNNY FOOTBALL GUY.
Marriage? Thousands of years? I think not! Marriage is a relatively new, post-agricultural concept that adheres that women are to be treated like cattle, something to be bought, sold and owned, to prevent all the junk you accumulate in your miserable existence being passed down to some bastard child. It’s a concept created for and by the church to control people’s lives and degrade women.
IN fact, no one today, or anytime ever needs to get married for a damn thing. Mate and breed just like you did while we were hunter-gathers. Lord knows no one in the ghetto raises their hand and says they want to be a wife, but they all damn sure raise their hands when asked if they want to be a mother.
It would be fun to take his ramblings word for word, only replace “gay” with “black”…and see what Jesse Jackson would have to say about it.
@Chupacabra Just working my way down the comments here. I really want to get back to the boobies. You’re just so wrong in your statement, I don’t even know where to start.
Marriage? Thousands of years? I think not! Marriage is a relatively new, post-agricultural concept
You’re just wrong on this. Just look it up yourself.
that adheres that women are to be treated like cattle, something to be bought, sold and owned, to prevent all the junk you accumulate in your miserable existence being passed down to some bastard child.
I can go with the cattle analogy but the bastard child, no you’re getting confused with your next point.
It’s a concept created for and by the church to control people’s lives and degrade women.
Not to degrade women although that was a cultural by-product. Marriage in this sense and monogamy was introduced to the general populace for one reason. There’s a reason Henry 8th had 8 wives. All rulers and kings spread their seed, have many children. You see that now with men with money they have many children by many different women. Why? To spread their lineage. Something like 50% of Mongolia is genetically related to Genghis Khan he had that many children.
Control peoples lives? Only the rulers are allowed to have many children, normal folks were regulated by the church and the introduction of theconcept of monogamy. Marriage had existed for many centuries before this. By making more than one wife a sin they controlled men and their lineage, only the rulers would have a lot of heirs. Also it’s no longer econmically viable for men to support more than one family, although with the introduction of benefits look at trailer trash, many children different fathers/mothers etc. It’s all there.
@You Are Not Funny
Let’s give David Tyree a break here you guys. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big hater of pro-blacksion mumbo jumbo as much as the next Korean storefront owner during the Riots. However Blacks are regular humans just like whites and everyone else are. Because it gets spoken from a black guy, it doesn’t make it any less credible than if it came from a guy of another race. So because he is black does that mean we should come down harder on him because of this? That right there is racism folks. His people were discriminated against in the past a lot, but that by no means should be a catalyst against his freedom of speech today! If he wants to challenge the gay agenda being pushed on marriage, then he should have as much rights to do so as a White Athlete does.
Yes, there was a time when blacks (as well as American Indians, Asians, and my race) have been grossly discriminated against. But still NOBODY should have a platform card to discriminate. If ANYONE were to discriminate (Black, White, Red, Yellow), it should be shunned. But you shouldn’t go pointing out his race as a handicap against him! This country finished putting blacks and other non-anglo races on trail for their race a long time ago.
I’m saying this and I have often been a big critic and opponent of the black community for the trash they churn out, like the ghetto culture. But right here in the case of David Tyree, we have a MAN…not a black man, not a white man, just a human MAN trying to state his standpoint. For this I support him. He should have no less of a pedestal to say his peace than a White or Hispanic athlete should.
All this guy was trying to say was that marriage is a traditional institution between a man and a woman, so why should we change it because a small group wants to manipulate it? And before everyone starts farting out “Yeah but slavery and Jim crow was a traditional institution, didn’t we change that?”. Garbage like Slavery and the Jim Crow was never sacred, it was never a Holy, it was never a traditional institution. That crap was just a money making opportunity and one big racial ego trip. It was never something noble or righteous or meant to keep the family together. Most of all it never bred better potential for future generations like marriage has.
^^ You are religious. Your opinion is irrelevant.
I wpuld argue that marriage is neither sacred nor holy. Your opinion to the contrary is unfounded. Additionally, state-sanctioned marriage should have nothing to do with religion. If Christians thought macaroni and cheese was sacred and that only a select group of people were allowed to have it, that doesn’t give the government the right to deny mac & chee to whomever cares to have some.
Uhh.. not all repubs are against gay marriage. I’m against liberals reproducing, not against gay marriage.
I’m pretty much against reproduction, at all. Stop having kids and start adopting puppies! Seriously.
Better yet, why not mutilate the kids and feed them to the puppies? I’m sure you extreme liberals would seriously love to campaign for that.
Why mutilate them first? That’s just cruel.
while i forever appreciate tyree’s luck on that last NY drive of SB XLII, fact is he sucked pretty much his whole tenure there. and he’s apparently as informed in social studies as he was on the giant’s playbook. so yeah good luck in baltimore.. oh that’s right, they cut you too. dummy
I heard a sermon this past Sunday identical to his comment on community access TV.
Thank you Mr. Tyree. Liberal fanatics support gay marriage because they also believe in population control, queers don’t reproduce they recruit. I have a cousin who is gay and i love no less because he’s gay. But marriage is an institution created to form stability and family. If you cant do one you cant do neither. This is why people are tired, tired, tired of the gay agenda. Who many fucking cher impersonators does this planet need? Ang the flannel industry would have been long gone cept for ugly dykes so I guess there is a positive benefit.
So where do you stand on sterile straight couples incapable of reproducing marrying then? You do realise that there are Christian adoption agencies don’t you? If marriage should only be available to those able to reproduce then why is the church handing out kids to couples who can’t? And if them not being able to reproduce isn’t the point then why doesn’t the same apply to gay couples? You say you aren’t a homophobe but the cher impersonator and dyke comments say otherwise, you’re just trying to rationalise it with poor reasoning.
suck on this: Marriage? Thousands of years? I think not! Marriage is a relatively new, post-agricultural concept that adheres that women are to be treated like cattle, something to be bought, sold and owned, to prevent all the junk you accumulate in your miserable existence being passed down to some bastard child. It’s a concept created for and by the church to control people’s lives and degrade women.
IN fact, no one today, or anytime ever needs to get married for a damn thing. Mate and breed just like you did while we were hunter-gathers. Lord knows no one in the ghetto raises their hand and says they want to be a wife, but they all damn sure raise their hands when asked if they want to be a mother.
Sounds good. So if a man and a woman want to get marry, and one of them is sterile, then they shouldn’t be allowed to marry either. Problem solved!
Yea, Marriage for no one, then! (crowd waves miniature American flags)
Thank you, JC! Fertility tests for everyone!
Marriage is an institution for land-owning males to breed sons they could be sure were theirs to pass down patrimony. It had NOTHING to do with family, stability, or foundation of society, and had EVERYTHING to do with preserving wealth within rich and powerful families. Furthermore, only the wealthy married properly in churches, because legal church-sanctioned marriage only mattered if you had land. Peasants did not, so few had legally recognized marriages.
Marriage as it was designed was essentially a purchase agreement between a land-owning man and the father of a young virgin girl, with whom he would have secured, unlimited, and exclusive breeding rights. A land-owning man needed a virgin so there would be no chance that she was pregnant by another male, and he required her to be faithful (while he was not) so he could be 100% sure that any child created with her was of his lineage. The needs of wealthy and powerful men to have legitimate sons became reinforced by social norms, laws, and even central tenets of the major religions. Religion and law was created and written to provide justification for what these men wanted. Marriage in those days had nothing to do with love, because love wasn’t the point.
Marriage as we practice it today is a 180 degree turnaround from what it was designed to be. Back then, children were the primary goal. Today, children are optional. Back then, sons were essential for patrimony. Today, daughters can inherit the same as sons, and in fact, spouses in inherit first (even when the spouse in question is the wife). Back then, younger children had no claim on the oldest son’s inheritance and had to fend for themselves. Today, children inherit equally. Back then, men had to have virgins to ensure paternity. Today, few men want to marry sexually inexperienced women, and paternity tests clear up any doubt of fatherhood.
So before you go spouting off about “marriage is an institution created to form stability and family,” do some fucking research on the REAL history of marriage, and you’ll quickly find out that NO ONE in the modern world practices marriage as it was originally designed. Marriage has been 100% redefined to fit modern sensibilities and desires, and there’s no good reason for denying the same privilege of legally recognized monogamous unions to couples who happen to be of the same gender.
Just because gay marriage is illegal won’t prevent people from being gay, so why not just let them? He’s being quite sensitive about this subject for such a macho man….I think he’s trying to tell us something
lol I totally agree how many of the most vocal anti gay guys have been caught out being total closet cases later on… I don’t know why some people seem to take two people that have nothing to do with them getting married as being some kind of personal attack on them … Allowing gays to have full equal rights under the law will not take anything away from anyone else’s rights it will just mean that finally gays are getting treated like everyone else… Before I hear another tirade about how its will effect traditional religious based marriages it wont since those who want the traditional religious type marriage can still do so if you apply a bit of common sense you will see that there is no real reason to be against gay marriage…
Hmm… doesn’t professional sports promote anarchy? *cough* Vancouver/Stanly cup
WIN!
Actually, the instigators weren’t hockey fans at all but members of an ‘anarchist’ group intended to cause mayhem, win or lose.
yes, you can equate homosexuality with being black. blacks werent allowed to marry whites, men arent allowed to marry men. in both cases, consenting adults. in both cases, equal rights per the constitution were not being observed.
people consider inequality immoral too. marriage has nothing to do with society. no one gives a crap who you marry, topher.
I have no problem with homosexuals really, but I can’t say that I support gay marriage.
In my heart I feel it is just wrong.
Well, in my heart, I feel it’s right. What makes your opinion be right and mine wrong?
And Colin right there, your attitude is why people do not support gay marriage in this country and vote it down.
Never in my comment did I say that I thought my opinion was the correct one, I just stated that was how I felt about it.
You automatically and Mama Pinkus interpreted it how you wanted to and responded in a hostile manner.
And for the record, I find a lot of gay men to be the most hostile, and arrogant people in the world. They have a nasty attitude that turn a lot of people off. Lesbians tend to be much better but there are ones like my own aunt that are straight up assholes also. That Perez Hilton/Rosie O’Donnel attitude tends to turn people off in case you guys can’t seem to figure it out.
Try acting more like Ellen or Portia and maybe just maybe, people’s attitudes will change.
What’s all this talked about hostility? I just asked what makes your opinion (“I can’t say that I support gay marriage. In my heart I feel it is just wrong.”) more legally valid than mine (I support gay marriage. In my heart I feel it is right). I’m sorry that came across as hostile; it was just a question.
if you have a problem with gay marriage, you have a problem with homosexuality. YOU’RE A HOMOPHOBE.
Mama, you’re a magnificent moron for saying and thinking that. Wait, you must be that Garofalo idiot.
In my heard I feel you’re just stupid.
Useless turd. Go F*CK yourself!(Would that be considered gay?)
Yeah, but if he comes out and slams Israel, Dave Mathews Band, George Bush, White people, etc…most of y’all okay wiff dat.
It’s hateful to slam the Dave Mathews Band now? I thought that was just good taste.
+1000 internetz for you
He has a good point, how can marriage be one thing for thousands of years, and then we just decide it’s something different?
So, back to polygamy and owning wives as chattel for everyone!
Or did he mean for everything to stop and be frozen where it aligns with HIS beliefs…Seriously all you homophobes, if you’re not going to go to the effort of coming up with objections that aren’t fucking retarded, then why should we even listen?
YOU ARE RIGHT!
I look forward to the stonings. Like in the Bible.
Okay, but they still forgot to sacrifice the pigeons.
You could also add the part where for almost 200 years, it was okay for states to prohibit interracial marriages.
Isn’t tradition grand? Now let me go chase the women who are on their periods out of town before I go picket the local Outback for selling shrimp.
Technically, they don’t have to leave town. You as the man, are obligated to provide them a menstruation hut to huddle in until their uncleanness passes.
and you KNOW that hut ain’t gonna smell good.
They still didn’t sacrifice the pigeons. (I will never get the hang of how the comments nest on this site)
It’s a bit hypocritial to say homos marrying will cause anarchy when clearly the flash mobs in chicago are mostly black and 50% of the jailed population is black…so the biggest law breakers(or engaging in anarchy) and those responsible for the further decay in society are clearly the blacks.
Throwing stones while in your glass house is a dangerous thing to do.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH A LITTLE ANARCHY?!?
Thanks is all.
It appears to me that professional sports often cause anarchy & rioting in the streets.
We should ban professional sports.
I think Lewis Black said it best: “If you care [about gay people getting married], you’re an asshole.”
If two people want to get married then that’s between them. As long as they pay their taxes and don’t expect any special treatment I could care less what genders they are.
I don’t care if they pay their taxes at all…it’s not like their taxes are gonna be spent on anything worthwhile.
Why do people pretend to care so much of what ‘marriage’ is?
If two people care for one another why does it ruffle so many feathers?
As long as a gay dude isn’t grabbing my ass I could care less; do what makes you happy.
It’s like people are so bitter they have to look for shit to take a stand on.
GO TO THE BACK OF THE BUS, GAY FOLK!!! WTF is wrong with these black homophobes???
That mental illness called “religion.”
Oh, and as a black, gay man, I should be honest here: While I think Tyree is a mentally unstable (i.e., religious) imbecile, shit is he HOT! Yeah, I would totally do him.
Two men can’t show a woman how to be a woman…true, but I’m sure they will be just as good as a single mom trying to show a boy how to be a man..
Two gay men have a better idea of what it’s like to be feminine than any straight man does.
Remind me, which political party did Eugene “Bull” Connor belong to? As the guy you’re alluding to with the fire hoses on black people comment, I just wanted to be sure you were aware that it’s part of the Democrat repetoire.
….”Gay marriage will lead to anarchy.” Although the merit of this hypothesis may be questionable–if indeed true, at least everyone’s haberdashery choices will be neat, trendy, and color coordinated….Artofwar
“And now to make Republican heads explode because, once again, the colored man has dominated another one of their past-times.”
Maybe you should do some research before you post this garbage. Go back and check your history……..it was the Democrats who passed the Jim Crow laws and fought against desegregation. Lincoln, a REPUBLICAN, freed the slaves. The Republican Party was FOUNDED as an anti-slavery party. The bigots were all Democrats.
It’s funny how the Democrats have twisted this story over the years. Google “The Racist History of the Democratic Party” if you want the facts.
By the way, you can’t choose what color you are when you’re born. You can choose whether you want to stick it in another man’s ass.
Mm-hmm. It was also a Democrat who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and appointed the first African American as Justice of the Supreme Court. And since 1964, the Solid South has voted Republican.
Oh, and turn-of-the-century Progressives were not necessarily “liberals” — well, not according to the twentieth century definition (speaking of word that has changed meaning…).
Do not make the mistake politicians do and think that because something was true in the 18th or 19th century — hell, the Fifties — it means the same thing today. The world is complicated. So are its issues.
Yes, he did. After calling Martin Luther King “That N***** Preacher” and having the FBI tap his phones.
Do some research. Kennedy and Johnson had no choice but to act on Civil Rights. The American People demanded it.
Also for the record, some voting totals on the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
House
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)
Senate:
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
Democrats have been brainwashed by their own party into thinking they are for minorities. Guess again.
lincoln also fought a war during that period that was focused on maintaining a powerful centralized government. that doesn’t sound very republican these days does it?
political parties adapt constantly. a democratic party candidate from the 1960′s would be running as republican candidate today. heck, bill clinton is the best republican president we’ve had in years. smaller govt., lower taxes, pro-business. that sounds like the GOP to me.
Of course there was a little think brainstormed by Pat Buchannan and used by Richard Nixon and every Republican candidate since. You know, Tyrone, the Southern Strategy.
Now let’s try to remember together…what idea was that based on?
Yeah. Goodnight and thank you ever so much for playing.
LOL.
“The Southern Strategy”…………favorite reference point of Democrats trying to convince voters that Republicans are racist. The next claim will be that ALL the racist Southern Democrats switched to the Republican Party. Another lie. In fact almost ALL (excluding 2) remained Democrats, including Al Gore Sr. Maybe you remember the late Robert Byrd, Democratic senator from West Virginia who passed away last year. Also a KKK member, and a close ally in the senate of Lyndon B. Johnson. Voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. When he died in 2010, guess which party he was still a member of? If you said DEMOCRAT……..you would be correct.
Come back when you’ve got a clue…….and thanks for playing.
Nixon had an extremely strong record on Civil Rights. If you read a little, maybe you would know that.
Damn, superficial guy said everything I was going to say…
It wasn’t that long ago that blacks were slaves. Then they had separate but equal. Women couldn’t vote. To this day, women are paid less than men in the workplace. Gays couldn’t serve openly in the military until recently.
A free society decides what it wants. It might be overwhelmingly popular or just barely popular enough to become the rule of law. The bottom line is that this issue has come to the forefront of our public social debates. (hell we’re even talking about it on Fish’s smut/celeb page)
If you feel two strangers getting married infringes on your rights, then by all means, voice your opinion. If you’re for it, do the same. Personally, I think its happening no matter what you do. Do I want to watch two gay guys making out on the bus? Not really my cup of tea. But who am I to say what two people can and can’t do? The only negative I can think of is this, “Mommy, why are those two men kissing?” And frankly, the in the coming generation, they wont know anything but that vision of the world. Like it or not, its coming. So prepare yourselves mentally if you have a problem with it.
And one last point, I doubt two gay guys will be worse parents than a man and a woman.
“Interesting logic because you know what else our country wasn’t founded on? Letting black people speak, vote”
Idiot. This statement is simply FALSE. No where in the Constitution does it say that a “black” person has now rights. It did state, at one time, that “non-whites” were counted as 3/5ths of a person. This included the Irish and Indians, which outnumbered blacks nearly 10-1.
You’re, it said that only white male property owners could vote. Because that doesn’t amount to the same thing at all.
Actually, no. It says, “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”
The 3/5 clause refers to slaves, not Irish and not Indians (nor free blacks, for that matter). Indentured servants (where you’d find most Irish before the Famine) were counted as whole.
No, the statement is NOT false. It may not have been written in the Constitution that “black people” did or did not have rights, but there were MANY laws on state and local levels limiting the rights of “negros” and “mulattos.” There was also social practice and dominant moral codes which, while not technically law, functioned to shape and control society, preserving rich whites at the top and black slaves at the bottom.
Also, back in those days, Federal law was considerably more limited than it is today, so despite what the Constitution said, states didn’t necessarily draft their own constitutions to operate in accordance with Federal law. Do not forget that the Civil War was really about states’ rights, with the North fighting for unification of all states as one nation (and therefore all equally subject to federal laws and rulings), and the South wanting their rights as individual states to be free of what they considered over-reaching federal control. Slavery just happened to be the major moral issue going on at the time… a catalyst for a war that eventually would have happened regardless of the state of blacks in America.
“Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman—an often-violated, easily broken, eminently disposable contract between a man and a woman. The minute we let gays and female gays get married, we are breaking down the last societal barrier between our world and their world… The only reason my wife and I got married in the first place was because it was something gays couldn’t do. Our wedding was conceived entirely as a giant homosexual taunt! But now, the vows I made to my wife seem as shallow and empty as the vows I made to my three previous wives.”
—Stephen Colbert on The Daily Show, February 23, 2004
^^ win
Daid Tyree is right. Marriage is an insitution between one man and one woman. The face that there is a disagreement among the pros and cons of this issue highlights the fact that just because one does not disagree with the view of another does not have to resort to name calling and vulgar, selfish and racist comments. Cover your keyboard people-your ignorance is showing big time
It’s okay for him to be homophobic, but no one else can be racist? What?
The face that you can’t understand Gloria’s post means your ignorance is showing big time.
We can’t understand Gloria’s post because it doesn’t make any fucking sense.
Dude. Best written post. This is basically what they should post under every news site for this story. It’s exactly what they wanna say but are too fucking scared to say directly.
The answer is potato.
boil ‘em, mash ‘em, stick in a stew ….
Seeking knowledge from Tyree is almost as bad as seeking it from Tiki.
ahhh yes, how the giant’s couldn’t win without tiki barber. famous last disgruntled words. very next sb he got to interview the giants from the championship locker room. HA.. fucking.. HA.. one is bright, isn’t one
Blacks are the most hypocritical people on the planet. They hate but they don’t want to be hated . They discriminate but don’t want to be discriminated against. It’s always that their struggle has always been worse than any other group that’s ever struggled. Everythings ok for them but not ok for everybody else. They apparently don’t have sense enough to equate the black struggle to the gay struggle. I’ll kiss his black ass if he even knows what anarchy means.
Careful, things aren’t always that black and white (not meant to be a pun; that’s awful). There are plenty of black people who approve of gay marriage, and plenty of people who get the civil rights connection. Look at Coretta Scott King. Before she died she was a huge supporter of gay rights.
That’s true. All of any race is not one way or another. I was referring to your average person.
AleisterCrowley: Referring to the average person? Yeah, I think that makes you a racist. Then again, your first post pretty much cleared that up anyway. And you can kiss MY black, gay ass.
Marriage is nothing sacred. Marriage has been around for thousands of years and so has adultery, where’s the anarchy in that? Or what about having multiple wives, or sex before marriage since it’s such a moral device?
/I hope this douche’s kid(s) become ghey
Personally, I think that gays should have just as much right to be forced to endure a horrible marriage as any straight couple.
Since when did the gay struggle equate with black slavery and its path to freedom? To my knowledge, which I’ll openly admit is kindergarten level, no “gays” were ever hoarded onto ships and sailed across an ocean to provide cheap labor for the agricultural elite in a country they didn’t even know existed — FOR 400 years. Are we in the midst of some gay exodus or holocaust I am unaware of? I’m pretty sure the same amount of people are getting their ass beat for being opposing sports teams fans, as are getting beat up for being gay. In fact I’m going to go out on a limb and say MORE.
But oh, they can get married and get tax and insurance benefits. So is it about money then? I’m fucking confused. When the powers that be start telling people who prefer the same sex they can’t vote, or own property, or put them in interment camp like Japanese Americans during WWII then maybe Ill start drawing drastic comparisons to the black struggle or even the Jewish push for a homeland. The fact is they’re not. They’re not even remotely trying to do that.
So if you’re gonna pull the minority card, try using the native american/eskimo check box. Actually, scratch that — just eskimo. Native Americans got the shittiest deal of all.
Other than that, I totally think they should be able to get married. Fly kites, own submarines, do whatever the fuck they want. Fuck the police (literally if you choose) and fight the power.
“3:30 in the morning with not a sole in sight we sat four deep at a traffic light,
talking about how dumb and brainwashed some of our brothers and
sisters are… while we waited for a green light to tell us when to go.”
Gays were targeted in the Holocaust, which is where the gay pride symbol of the inverted pink triangle came from. Gays were also targeting during the Red Scare, with McCarthyism scapegoating homosexuals as Communists and vice versa. If you were thought to be in any way sympathetic to Communist leanings and you were male, the powers-that-be might blackball you by claiming that you were homosexual (even if you weren’t), which would lead to police harassment, job dismissal, imprisonment, and even forced institutionalization (since homosexuality was considered deviant in those days). Indeed, the “House Committee on Un-American Activities” was rather obsessed between proving a link between homosexuality and Communist sympathies.
So while gays weren’t loaded up in boats and sailed across the ocean to be made into slaves, they HAVE been discriminated against, plotted against, legislated against, and murdered en masse as well as been the victims of individual hate crimes. The struggle of homosexuals to gain equal rights has NOT been insignificant or easy by any stretch of the imagination.
Ahhh….the good old days.
My issue is with people who say they are Christian, and yet believe homosexuality is acceptable to God. Please provide me ONE scripture in the Bible where when homosexuality is directly spoken of it is shown as acceptable to God. There are NONE. EVERY scripture directly speaking of homosexuality shows disapproval by God.
It’s been my experience after speaking with people of various religions in Christendom that some people read and accept the parts of the Bible that agree with their personal moral beliefs and ignore the parts that don’t coincide with their personal beliefs. A prime example of this is the issue of homosexuality.
Or stoning women, or sacrificing rams. Or y’know, eating shrimp, for those who ignore the parts that don’t coincide with their personal definition of delicious.
I’m speaking of moral principles in the Bible, not the laws created based on the moral principles. Christians today are not under the Mosaic law as in Judaism, but the moral principles behind the laws have not changed.
Wow, dude. Some pretty intricate mental gymnastics there, I’ll tell ya.
“Religions in “Chistendom”"? LMFAO!
If you quote someone, check your spelling so you don’t change the meaning of what the person has said.
OMG, I live in Christendom?? Check, please!
I did not say you lived in a place called Christendom. I spoke of “religions in Christendom” meaning the various religious denominations that are within the collective group known as Christendom.
A Guy, you stated “different religions in Christendom”. Christianity is ONE religion with different denominations. A denomination in “Christianity”, for example, is Baptist as opposed to Lutheran (which consists of different Synods). PLEASE RESEARCH!
P.S. USE SPELL CHECK!
It’s not so much about money as it is material security (among other things). Say a gay guy with a homophobic family cuts ties with them, gets a good job and buys a house. He falls in love with a guy, the guy moves in and they get Civil Unioned or whatever. They adopt a kid. The guy who technically owns the house fills out the adoption paperwork because on paper he’s the one with a home. The other one quits his job to become a stay at home dad until their kid is older. Then the first guy gets hit by a car, while they’re on vacation. It’s possible that the family of the injured guy could deny his partner visitation rights, and make medical decisions for him. For instance, they could take him off life support. They could take custody of the kid. They could take the house, his possessions, and his money. The surviving partner wouldn’t get social security. So basically, they could take his family and home away from him and leave him with nothing.
And yes, I know this is an extreme example. But my point is, it isn’t just about getting a tax break.
Here is the bottom line:
Looking back through history, conservatives, AT BEST, have only controlled the pace at which society changes. They were, in the end, not able to stop blacks from getting the vote, or marrying whites, or being segregated. They weren’t able to stop women from getting the vote, or owning property, or entering the workforce. Time, and time, and time, and time again, they have missed the mark on their conception of how this country and society should rightfully evolve, and they’re missing it once again.
Gays will get the right to marry. Its only a matter of time.
This. This right here.
are you fucking high or just stupid?
SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS were who tried to block blacks from everything.
Im amazed at the amount of complete ignorance you show on a daily basis with your opinions/ comments…and COMPLETELY amazed at how little you know about anything of actual importance. You as a human are funnier than your semi-witty jabs at celebrity.
Indeed.
Factually incorrect on some counts.
Todd S,
“Im amazed at the amount of complete ignorance you show on a daily basis with your opinions/ comments…and COMPLETELY amazed at how little you know about anything of actual importance.”
Says the guy who obviously doesn’t grasp that the Democrats of the 1960s were a completely different party than the Democrats today, and same goes for the Republicans. When Nixon adopted the Southern Strategy in the 60s and claimed the anti-black platform for the Republicans, both parties became drastically different and have evolved drastically since then. Do you see any Republicans voting for civil rights now? Because I’m pretty sure they’re the anti-equal opportunity party. But that must be my highness/stupidity spouting off facts and political realities again.
Aren’t you proving Todd’s point? Most of those changes beantown talks about happened well before the Republicans turned “Anti black”.
Spew,
I’m not proving Todd’s point because he tried to make it about party where Beantown Babe correctly used the term “conservatives” which is non-party specific. Nowhere does she say Republicans or Democrats controlled the pace, she said “conservatives” which is a mindset that could apply to either party at any point in history as illustrated by the fact that Democrats used to be the ones impeding civil rights progress because they were the conservatives.
Let me put it in simpler terms:
Liberal doesn’t always mean Democrats.
Conservative doesn’t always mean Republicans.
OMG–not to lose my cool, but I am kind of totally giddy and bragging to my roommates right now that you agreed with me and commented on my post Superficial!
OK, yes, I lost my cool, I’m a dork…
I think this is how it started with Anthony Weiner on Twitter.
What does ANY of this have to do with TITTIES???
This about says it all in terms of the “traditional definition” of marriage:
http://i.imgur.com/4BWCh.jpg
This is also factually incorrect. NIxon’s “Southern Strategy” is a favorite retort of those who like to claim that Republicans are racists. They claim that all of the Southern Democrats switched to the Republican Party after the Civil Rights Act passed……..which is completely false. Almost ALL of the Southern Democrats that voted against Civil Rights remained Democrats. Al Gore, Sr., for example. You should also read some of President Johnson’s comments on black people. He talks about having to give them something……not too much………just enough to shut them up. He didn’t mind dropping the “N” word either. He and Kennedy didn’t come up with Civil Rights……….they were forced to act because the people demanded it.
And for the record, Nixon had a strong record on Civil Rights.
Liberals continue to enslave black people………..by making them a slave to the system. They want everyone to live off the government.
This.
Canada legalized gay marriage 6 years ago and now there’s rioting in Vancouver!
IS THAT A COINCIDENCE!?!?!
Well that’s easily remedied—gay hockey fans shouldn’t be allowed to get married. Duh.
“hockey fans shouldn’t be allowed to get married”
Fixed it for ya.
Thanks. Gross oversight on my part.
thanks for posting the picture of the catch, you dick.
Um, yeah. It is.