Blog Entry

Thank you, Michael Irvin

Posted on: July 12, 2011 12:49 pm
Edited on: July 12, 2011 1:05 pm
 
For telling the truth. Please, don't stop. Keep telling the truth. Even when the homophobes and extremists try to shout you down, and they will, keep telling the truth. Even when some African-Americans, bathing in hypocrisy, try to stop you by saying being gay equates to being less than human, keep telling the truth.

I'd argue that your stance now is almost as significant as your Hall of Fame career. You've lended a high profile voice to the fight for equality and yes, keep telling the truth when you're told it's not that. Because it is.

Thank you, Michael Irvin. Hopefully other high profile athletes will follow your lead.

Please, keep telling the truth.
Category: NFL
Comments

Since: Feb 28, 2011
Posted on: July 13, 2011 8:38 pm
 

Thank you, Michael Irvin

lotusmaglite - first since you are trying to say I said things that I didn't, I will retrieve my quotes.

Secondly, my point was never that Gays do not  deserve equal treatment. My point is that sexual preference is not protected by any law or constitutional ammendment. Stop putting words in my mouth. I personally don't care as long as my rights, including my bank account are not affected.


I never said anything should not be done or that Gays do not deserve equal treatment. In fact, I stated earlier I really did not care as long as it did not affect me.   Lotus -1

I also mentioned several times about ammendments to the constitution and that has been the proper channel for gaining rights denied over the history of our country. Lotus - 2

Also, if a law is based on greed, then it is based on a moral, just a bad one that is not for the best of society. Many people have terrible moral values - you know morality can be good and bad.  Lotus - 3

I am out of this conversation. As always, if you disagree with Christianity, you have all the right in the world to express your opinion and press your cause. If you are a Christian, you cannot express your opinion and stand up for your morals or you are told to shut up by the exact same people who say you are oppressing others with your beliefs, because you are disagreeing with their beliefs.

If you tell me to keep my opinions and my beliefs in my house, church and head, then you do the same you hypocrite. Otherwise, stop calling people ignorant, stupid and backward because they want to stand by what they believe even though it is different than yours. If you are a true American, believing in the constitutional principles of free speech, then you would applaude those who stand and fight for your beliefs, as well as those who disagree, because we are all expressing our Constitutionally protected freedom of speech. When that same constitution eventually provides the same protection for sexual preference, I will gladly honor the law of my land. I may not agree with it, as I don't agree with other laws, but I have a deep seated moral value given by my parents and religion to respect the law and authority.



Since: Jan 8, 2007
Posted on: July 13, 2011 7:26 pm
 

Thank you, Michael Irvin

There is no doctrine or belief system upon which I base my "moral template", if you will. I got my morals from my family, my friends, and my upbringing.
lotusmaglite: I do respect your intelligence and ability to think through and argument.  We'll, of course have to agree to disagree.  My main response to your quote above is that this is from your fortunate upbringing.  By your same logic, one who was raised in a household that skirted the law and was much less scuplulous, has their moral compass shaped by their surroundings and experiences.  What I am saying is that a society that relies on this type of Secular Humanism will be swayed by the loudest and most poilished message dominating the airwaves. 

We see this type of influence clearly in many of these posts.  The US Constitution has an Establishment Clause (of which you are familiar).  It is not a Separation of Church and State Clause as the dominating messages in our society has termed it. 

Anyway, good back and forth.  That's what this country is all about and I'm proud to be an American.  I'm proud you are too.



Since: Jan 8, 2007
Posted on: July 13, 2011 7:09 pm
 

Thank you, Michael Irvin

lotusmaglite:  That's why we have things like the establishment clause.

Establishment clause - THE #1 most misinterpreted constitutional language ever...(in my opinion) to the detriment of our society.  Now used so effectively to allow and tolerate all things EXCEPT Christianity.

No, thank you. Keep the religious beliefs where they belong: in the church, in the home, and between the ears. They have no place in our laws.


Great example of my point.  Keep my beliefs where they belong because they are based in Christianity (whether I actually say it or not), but yours, because secular, are defendable and allowed to influence laws and public policy and cannot be criticized.  Do you see the hipocracy?

Gay pride parades are OK (which I think they are) but a student praying silently by themselves at lunch in school is reprimanted and suspended for imposing their beliefs on others around them.  Hipocracy. 




Since: Mar 16, 2008
Posted on: July 13, 2011 6:30 pm
 

Thank you, Michael Irvin

A right to marry people of the same gender would be an equal right. All American people would be free to marry whomever they choose. You portray it is acceptable that homosexuals are forced to married someone of the opposite sex or just accept the status quo. Square pegs don't fit into round holes. Equality would allow square pegs and round holes to find their match and be happy. Pursuit of happiness is a pretty big deal for Americans.

Other oppressed groups fought for new rights too. New rights that righted a wrong.
Nobody in this country has the right to marry whomever they choose.  Marriage is not something we can arbitrarily redefine on a whim.  If you want to talk about "finding a match", I guess I would point you to a biology textbook.  But I'm not here to try to prevent homosexuals from pursuing happiness.  I'm even arguing for their legal protections.  And yet, marriage is what it is, regardless of how people try to change it.

Did the government have the right to redefine the ownership of human beings as property? Did the government have the right to redefine suffrage as it pertains to women? See, these were also practices that had been the norm for all of human history as well. Did that make them right? No. Tradition doesn't make something correct when it's bases is oppression.
It is a fallacy to say that excluding non-traditional couples from marriage is an injustice on par with slavery or the oppression of women.

And besides, I even suggested offering legal protections to homosexual couples.  This is the government's realm of jurisdiction.  But the government has no place to redefine marriage.  We're no longer talking about legal protections, we're talking about the institution of marriage.  Marriage is primarily a spiritual/religious union.  I think we can eliminate oppression while still protecting marriage.

The argument against homosexual marriage isn't just based on tradition.  You haven't dealt with polygamy, group marriage, incest, bestiality, and the like.  Do you consider it an act of oppression that the government has outlawed these practices?  Once we allow one form of non-traditional marriage, what cause do we have to prevent other forms of non-traditional marriage?

Only heterosexual marriage is the ideal norm.  It's self-evident in our physiological design that men and women were made for each other.




Since: Jul 6, 2008
Posted on: July 13, 2011 5:25 pm
 

Thank you, Michael Irvin

I didn't know people still gave Michael Irvin the time of day!



Since: Feb 6, 2007
Posted on: July 13, 2011 4:46 pm
 

Thank you, Michael Irvin

AmericanFool, your name says it all. Homosexuality in nature research is very prevalent, and it wasn't just created, its demonstrated in many different species despite your ignorance. You want one quality that all homosexuals share? They are all sexually attracted to members of the same sex, if they aren't then they are not homosexuals. How have you known "several gay guys who weren't gay"? That doesn't make any sense. Have you ever known any gay guys who were gay? If you haven't, then you have not known any gay guys. 
Also, I never compared anyone to the KKK furthermore I said that you are entitled to you opinion, however do not assume that because I disagree with you that I am gay. I am not gay, nor have I ever been. There are many straight people who disagree with you, including myself. 



Since: Apr 15, 2008
Posted on: July 13, 2011 4:36 pm
 

Thank you, Michael Irvin

Ignorance, and attempting to redefine institutions such as marriage for favor, or personal gain amongst the elite are wrong. Any institution with hopes of remaining viable need to be clearly defined. The media, may mock David Tyree, and hail Michael Irvin, however, but David Tyree is right. Is there anyone in the media w/the courage, or intellect to make the same stand ?



Since: Oct 15, 2006
Posted on: July 13, 2011 3:34 pm
 

Thank you, Michael Irvin

I know this might ring hollow to some, but I'd like to point this out.  In most (if not all) states in the U.S., homosexuals and heterosexuals have exactly the same set of rights.  We are all free to marry somebody of the opposite gender.  Marriage comes with specific legal protections and also specific legal obligations.  What homosexuals are fighting for are new rights.  They want to have the right to get married to people of the same gender.  This is not an equal right.  This is a different right.

A right to marry people of the same gender would be an equal right. All American people would be free to marry whomever they choose. You portray it is acceptable that homosexuals are forced to married someone of the opposite sex or just accept the status quo. Square pegs don't fit into round holes. Equality would allow square pegs and round holes to find their match and be happy. Pursuit of happiness is a pretty big deal for Americans.

Other oppressed groups fought for new rights too. New rights that righted a wrong.

Does the government have the right to re-define marriage?  Can we arbitrarily re-write a practice that has been the norm for all of human history?  Is that within the government's scope of authority?  I contend that it is not.

Did the government have the right to redefine the ownership of human beings as property? Did the government have the right to redefine suffrage as it pertains to women? See, these were also practices that had been the norm for all of human history as well. Did that make them right? No. Tradition doesn't make something correct when it's bases is oppression.

Besides, its not the government redefining the term marriage. The definition is quite clear:

–noun 1. a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as  and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. b. a similar institution involving partners of  same gender: gay marriage. 2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. 3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two  to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.

Its the government not accepting the definition of marriage because of religion.



Since: Aug 30, 2007
Posted on: July 13, 2011 3:34 pm
 

Thank you, Michael Irvin

This is Ted Haggard, since you asked.


Ted Arthur Haggard
(born June 27, 1956) is an . Known as Pastor Ted to the congregation he served, he was the founder and former of the in ; a founder of the ; and was leader of the (NAE) from 2003 until November 2006.

In November 2006, escort and alleged that Haggard had paid Jones to engage in sex with him for three years and had also purchased and used .<sup id="cite_ref-Harris_1_0-0" class="reference"></sup> A few days later Haggard resigned from all of his leadership positions.

After the scandal was publicized, Haggard entered three weeks of intensive counseling, overseen by four ministers. In February 2007, one of those ministers, Tim Ralph, said that Haggard "is completely ."<sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference"></sup> Ralph later said he meant that therapy "gave Ted the tools to help to embrace his heterosexual side." On June 1, 2010 Haggard announced that he intended to start a new church in Colorado Springs.<sup id="cite_ref-2" class="reference"></sup> In February 2011, Haggard as bisexual.<sup id="cite_ref-CBS-GQ_3-0" class="reference">







</sup>



Since: Feb 25, 2009
Posted on: July 13, 2011 3:10 pm
 

Thank you, Michael Irvin

Dumbest statement yet. All laws are based on some moral value - we don't steal, because it is wrong to take another's posession - why is it wrong? Because someone decided it was wrong to do that. It is a value.
Nice bait and switch. You talk about a moral compass for our country, I refute it, then you move the goalpost to "laws". Fine by me.

Speaking of the dumbest statement yet, all laws are not based on some moral value. Some laws are based on greed. Some laws are based on fear. These are not moral values. Game over, you lose.

Then you move the goalpost from "morals" to "values". Okay. A value judgement isn't a moral judgement. The end, game over, wpscooter is now 0-2.

But to the larger point (wherein you are attempting to shoehorn religion into the country's founding principles by sleight-of-hand), we don't have to have philosophical debates about what the founders based their ideas on. We have historical record and their own, personal writings. And the latter two prove that the country was founded on secular rule of law, drawing much of it's underpinnings from the Enlightenment. 0-3.
You are right - the law is for everyone and at present, the US Consititution and its ammendments provide protection under the law for all races, sexes and religions - not sexual preference. That is the current law.
That is the current law, and therefore should be the law forever? You do realize that the amendments were called "amendments" because they amended the Constitution, right? And the reason they had to amend the Constitution was because it didn't protect all races and sexes. These amendments, by the way, only happened because people like Michael Irving said things like he did, and then many others said it. Loudly. In the streets. While being attacked by bigots, the police, and even the military. Just like today with LGBT's.

Arguing that because we haven't done a thing yet, we therefore shouldn't do a thing is pathetic. But I suppose as the house of cards you anti-rights lot erected collapses, there aren't many places to run and hide. a pathetic shelter like the one you've used is at least some kind of shelter, I suppose. The funny thing is, our little discussion will largely be irrelevant. Your side will lose. History has shown us that the people who stand up and fight for rights eventually win - unless they are killed to a person. Somehow, I doubt we'll be committing genocide, so look forward to a future of grumbling on your porch as happy, legally married gay couples stroll by, not giving the tiniest shit about you.


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com