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

Since: Feb 25, 2009
Posted on: July 13, 2011 2:45 pm

Thank you, Michael Irvin

I'm still asking, based on what moral compass, doctrine, belief system are you deciding what previous opinion was right or wrong?
Ah. A simple question with a complex answer. I'll try to boil it down and not go on one of my long-winded tirades.

The criteria I use is edivence. In the case of homosexuality, the argument (for me) hinges on whether it is an unavoidable natural phenomenon or a conscious choice. All evidence points to the former. Ergo, it is not morally wrong. Nature has no morality. It is what it is. Applying morality to natural phenomena is a losing proposition for humankind, no matter how many times we've tried it.
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. All very common sense: no killing, stealing, cheating, hating, etc. Show honesty, compassion, loyalty, itegrity. Don't condemn what I don't understand; wait and judge things based on evidence - and so on. I therefore do not believe a doctrine or belief system is necessary for being a moral person.

I do believe that doctrines and belief systems provide stability and comfort for many, and therefore do not judge or condemn those who believe in them. I do judge and condemn those who demand that others act in accordance with their beliefs whether or not the others wish to do so.

So the case for me is fairly straightforward (no pun intended): Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon, a by-product of natural evolution that (for one) reduces the chances of overpopulation (there are a number of other explanations as to why this trait continues to thrive; I don't claim the "overpopulation" to be the one true explanation, just an example). It is expressed in a number of species, including ours. It is therefore neither right nor wrong, and any attempt to paint it as either is inherently flawed. The end.

Since: Mar 22, 2011
Posted on: July 13, 2011 1:05 pm

Thank you, Michael Irvin


Surely you have better things to do then sit around your parent's basement in your tighty whiteys and whine and complain about this..

I don't care one bit about this as it does not personally affect me.

Nor is it any of my business if Adam and Steve or Rhonda and Sheila hold hands, or are intimately involved.

Guess what?  It's none of your business either!

Move on to bigger things like wrapping your neighbor's house or something...  you uneducated morons!

Since: Feb 28, 2011
Posted on: July 13, 2011 11:54 am

Thank you, Michael Irvin

SL Mac - exactly what I have been trying to tell these numnuts who call me ignorant. There are no federal protections anywhere for sexual preference. I am not saying it is right or wrong - it just is. It can be changed, but it hasn't yet.

I have not quoted the bible or any religious articles - just the law.

Just because someone states what the situation is, does not make them a hater. Just don't say people have rights that they have not been given by law. I do not hate anyone, but the fact is gays do not currently have the same legal protection given to races, sexes and religions.

Since: Jul 13, 2011
Posted on: July 13, 2011 11:44 am

Thank you, Michael Irvin

You are sadly mistaken, there are vast legal ramifications of living in a non-recognized union that are all discriminatory and because of their basis in religion, illegal impositions of a state-based religion.  How?  If you're married, you do not have to 'give' your spouse their share of any property you owned prior, it becomes legally recognized joint property (unless excluded by a pre-nuptial agreement).  If you die, they don't have to wait for courts to declare the house they live in as their own, it is already theirs.  But a same-sex partner can be kicked out.  And if the owning partner tries to add them to their deed and make it joint property, they are hit with an outrageous gift tax based on the value of the house.  If you're married, and worse, if you're DIVORCED from a heterosexual union, you are entitled to your spouse's or ex-spouse's social security benefit when YOU retire, you get to determine whose is better for you.  If they die, you are entitled to apply for survivor's benefits.  Not so the same-sex partner, legal union or not - they have no recognition at the Federal level.  Your partner is SOL.  Your company is not required to offer health benefits to them, and if they do, YOU get to pay INCOME TAX for the benefit, where the hetero married couple does not.  Your partner has no claim to your company pension because the union is not recognized.  It's hardly equal rights.  And it's all based on someone's discomfort solely due to their personal religion.

That's not the United States of America we were told about in school.

Since: Feb 28, 2011
Posted on: July 13, 2011 11:31 am

Thank you, Michael Irvin

You can't just say that any group of people deserve protection from discrimination just because you believe they should. That is why we have laws. We have to abide by the laws regardless if we like them. If we do not like the laws, we can address it through the proper channels.

Some states do not allow gay marriage and now some do. Every state is suppose to recognize another state's - this is where the fight will start in the court system. Some states do not want to recognize gay marriage because it will cost more health care tax dollars.

What I am saying is that until the courts, the constitution or an act is estalished, there are no rights to protect sexual preference. Right or wrong??

Since: Aug 17, 2009
Posted on: July 13, 2011 11:30 am

Thank you, Michael Irvin

I'd really like to commend Michael for his support of homosexuality.  Hopefully his support will help end the bigotry that exists.  However, did you see the cover of the magazine (Out)?  Here's a link.   

Since: Nov 19, 2006
Posted on: July 13, 2011 11:21 am

Thank you, Michael Irvin

To all you scholars out there touting that the Constitution doesn't preserve the right to equal treatment based on sexual preference: learn to think outside the lines.  The point is that this is our country, our government and our world to make better.  LGTB people have suffered terrible prejudice under the laws and social structures of this nation and it is time to stop.  You may not like the compromises you need to make at this point but that is immaterial, injustice has been done and now we must try to rectify that.  Our solutions will not be perfect, but they will demonstrate the we have the ability to evolve.  Please remember that when that Constitution was penned it was still legal to own another human being.  That view has evolved, through valiant struggle and through difficult compromise.  But the nation improved, and history will show that it is through those difficult struggles that America is great.  Too often we imagine a world that is only better for ourselves, and not a better world for all.  I am sick of the pettiness and selfishness that passes for righteousness in this new era of media consiousness.

Since: Mar 16, 2008
Posted on: July 13, 2011 11:11 am

Thank you, Michael Irvin

People keep talking about "equal rights" as it relates to homosexuality.  Maybe we can discuss the ways that homosexuals have fewer rights than heterosexuals.

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.

ALL of our states enforce limitations on marriage.  Most enforce the tradition that marriage is between one man and one woman.  All states limit marriage to only two partners.  Polygamy is illegal.  Group marriages are illegal.  Marrying your cousin is illegal (unless you get sterilized, I've heard...).  This is not because the government has the authority to define marriage, but because government is tasked with the responsibility of defending what is right and good and healthy for its citizens.

I think we have two separate issues.  (1) In many places in this country, Homosexual relationships (or "marriages") do not have the same legal status as heterosexual marriages.  This pertains to taxes, hospital visitation rights, inheritances, child visitation rights, and handling the estate in the case of divorce, etc.  This seems wrong.  I support some method of offering these legal protections to homosexual couples.  Civil unions sound like the way to go, for me.

(2) 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.  Marriage is primarily a God-given institution, not a legal contract.  It is a beautiful picture of two distinctly different genders being united.  Unity amidst diversity.  A man and a woman, with inherent biological differences, complimenting each other.  We can't simply change marriage based on our whims.  It is bigger than us.  Furthermore, once we try to change the definition of marriage to include homosexual unions, what allows us to stop there?  What gives the government the authority to outlaw polygamy?  What about group marriages?  Once you start re-writing the rules on marriage, it quickly becomes obvious that there are no clear guidelines about where to draw the lines.  In reality, we already have clear guidelines.  The guidelines are given by God, and they are intuitively obvious in the physiological differences between men and women.  Marriage = the committed union of 1 man and 1 woman.

I do not hate homosexuals.  I think the government can extend legal protections to homosexual couples like the government does for married heterosexual couples.  I would love to see an end to second-class treatment of homosexuals.  I look forward with hope that we can live in a world where people do not propagate hatred towards others, even when we disagree about moral issues.  I also think it is absurd that any government would think that it has the authority to redefine the institution of marriage.  That's where I stand.  That's my honest, respectful, humble opinion.

Since: Sep 29, 2010
Posted on: July 13, 2011 10:39 am

Thank you, Michael Irvin

my point is sexual preference doesnt need to be legislated, its protected under freedom which is what this country is about. If you dont want that im sure therer are many places u can get beheaded or stoned to death for trying to be free.

Since: Feb 28, 2011
Posted on: July 13, 2011 10:27 am

Thank you, Michael Irvin

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.

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