David Tyree Thinks We're Heading Towards Anarchy
What's the former Syracuse WR and Super Bowl hero's well-thought-out reasoning? Important world issues like terrorism, crippling national debt, lack of education, illicit drugs, the stifling gap between the middle class and the wealthy? Nope, none of those...
11 months ago
Sean Keeley
50 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
David Tyree had premonitions of the coming anarchy
when he would piss himself while passed-out drunk on the SU campus. The man is a prophet. And gives great helmet.
Yeah, he has the right. That same right to free speech allows me to call him a complete dumbass for saying it.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
by wildcatlh on Jun 15, 2011 11:52 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Chris Rock said it:
See, it don’t make no sense to hate nobody…
…lt don’t make no sense… ’cause whoever you hate will end up in your family.
That’s right, you don’t like gays, you’re gonna have a gay son.
You don’t like Puerto Ricans? Your daughter’s gonna come home with ‘’Livin’ la vida loca!’’
Or from his other standup....
Shouldn’t gay people have the right to marry and be as miserable as the rest of us?
by PointBlankPeriodPeriod on Jun 16, 2011 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions
And Hey If I Can Screw Up Marriage
Shouldn’t everyone else be entitled to that right?
If your church will not recognize gay marriage, fine because there or many churches and religions but for the government not to do so says you are not as equal as others. Some religions require counseling before marriage and some have their own traditions but the state recognizes it. This is all most gay couples are asking for, the right to be treated equally and give their spouse the same rights heteros like me who screw up marriage have. if you want to redefine it as a “civil union” then I think that should be the legal term for all marriages and marriage can be a more religious term if need be.
Now back to my regularly scheduled sarcasm and Tully’s remarks.
by Orange Chuck on Jun 16, 2011 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Wow.
That is… something. I just can’t wrap my head around the logic and belief here. When I hear people claim the world is heading towards anarchy, ruin, etc. I just wonder if they have any sense of history at all.
Guess he's gonna really be pissed when he finds out New York state assembly just passed the bill to legalize gay marriage
Just waiting on the senates vote.
by PointBlankPeriodPeriod on Jun 16, 2011 1:16 AM EDT reply actions
To be fair, this is the fourth time the assembly has passed it and the world has yet to end. If it passes the senate, though, he’ll have to freak out.
Also, I find it embarrassing that this bigot is a graduate of my (our) university.
'Cuse 2010, Michigan 2012
It's one vote away from passing the Senate I believe.
I know there were recently four or five people who voted against it before who are prepared to vote for it now. It sort of feels like it’s time for it to happen.
I'm going to say this about that, then never speak of it again...
Would like to see the un-edited version of the interview, TMZ I’m sure did it’s best to sensationalize as much as possible. However, I think he makes a rather well-articulated point. Maybe the ‘anarchy’ is a little harsh, but let me explain:
This article is totally out of frame comparing this to civil rights moments of the 60s. This isn’t a debate about if anyone is less of a human being than anyone else. It’s about whether or not a group of people who have a compelled lifestyle preference (regardless of whether it’s genetic or psychological) can basically be recognized as wholly autonomous genders in a union originated in religious theology (granted, not taken as seriously now as should be). Most of these religions find homosexuality to be wrong, I don’t think we’re supposed have state intervening in religious matters that extensively, last I checked.
Because of this, I think that civil unions will be the best solution, even if it means that ‘marraige’ as a term is removed from the legal vernacular and left strictly for ceremonial purposes…for both straight and gay couples. Actually, any 2 guardians living under the same roof should be able to get a civil union. There’s all sorts of family situations that this could help financially.
Let’s be honest, when it comes down to it, this wouldn’t be an issue if it weren’t for the tax and benefits status of being wed. Progressive churches have been holding weddings for gay couples for decades. This decision should be left to those who want to participate.
Tyree’s line of thinking that leads to the invocation of ‘Anarchy’ started because of this fact: If ‘Same-Sex Marriage’ is instituted at a governmental level, it will be the first time that the government forces a majority of it’s population to accept something they don’t believe in*, not out of misguided bigotry, but out of moral principal. That’s the slippery slope he’s referring to.
I believe it is wholly compatible to be accepting of gay culture and normalcy in America and be opposed to same-sex marriage.
It’s a reality we’re going to have to face socially moving forward, that this is a uniquely nuanced situation where those in opposition aren’t necessarily an insidious bunch (such as segregation supporters). Just like anyone may be gay regardless of race and gender, anyone regardless of race and gender may not agree with it also. This is not a debate of simple human rights, it’s a debate of moral convictions, and should be left as such. After all, you can’t legislate morality.
I’m a Syracuse Graduate, you can be embarrassed of me too, if you like.
-JLG
*For the record, I also oppose any legislation that expressly prohibits gay marriage, such as Prop 8
The 'Cuse is in tha house, oh my God oh my God.
by StrawHatGuy on Jun 16, 2011 8:03 AM EDT reply actions 2 recs
DAMMIT.
I forgot every online debate needs to go like this:
a)F*** you.
b)No, f*** you f***ing f***.
c) F***ing-A right!
d) You’re all ignorant f***s.
a)What the f***?!?!?
proctor) Shut the f*** down!
[thread closed]
The 'Cuse is in tha house, oh my God oh my God.
TLDR
Born in '87, Orange fan since '86
by StealthTurkey on Jun 16, 2011 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I honestly wish the state didn't recongnize marriages at all.
Marriage should be a religious thing, ESPECIALLY since there are religious groups that recognize gay marriage, and they have the right to under the First Amendment.
This may or may not be true:
it will be the first time that the government forces a majority of it’s population to accept something they don’t believe in
There are competing polls out there and some suggest that the majority opinion is that same-sex marriage is perfectly ok. And there was a time when interracial-marriage was argued against on religious grounds and the majority of America did not believe in it (not to mention the myriad other rights denied to people of color). I also am confused by the idea that someone is being forced to accept something. Churches would not be required to marry gays if they did not choose to after all. And homophobes would not be required to marry someone of the same sex. Heck, they could still be as intolerant as they wanted to be.
You also can’t argue that this is explicitly about morality. More and more it seems to be clear that homosexuality isn’t a lifestyle (which is just a fancy word for choice), but a natural orientation. If someone can’t actually change who they are but are being discriminated against because of it, how is that not a human rights issue?
Ultimately, I think I agree with the idea that the State should only recognize civil unions as marriage is grounded in religion. But since I don’t see that happening anytime soon, I vote that the gay community be given the rights everyone else enjoys.
Do you realize how little sense you make?
Sorry, but calling this a religious matter is basically a fallacy of origin. Marriage is now a civil institution. NO ONE is talking about forcing churches to marry gay people. But straight people are married by the state- with a justice of the peace- constantly. So it is absurd to pretend that a civil institution should be deny to a portion of the population because it used to be a religious institution and some religions don’t like it. Especially since marriage absolutely DID NOT originate as a judeo-christian institution. You do understand that not all marriages are performed by church groups and that many church groups are perfectly willing to marry same sex couples, right? There is ABSOLUTELY NO secular argument against gay marriage. None at all. And since this is, in fact, a country with no institutionalized religion, the opinions of any religion on the morality of gay marriage should be absolutely irrelevant.
This isn’t a debate about if anyone is less of a human being than anyone else. It’s about whether or not a group of people who have a compelled lifestyle preference (regardless of whether it’s genetic or psychological) can basically be recognized as wholly autonomous genders in a union originated in religious theology (granted, not taken as seriously now as should be)
I have no idea how to make sense of this. Why would anyone need to be recognized as “wholly autonomous genders”? What in hell does gender have to do with anything. Marriage should be between two consenting adults. Gender is irrelevant. The end.
And ARE YOU KIDDING me on “the first time that the government forces a majority of it’s population to accept something they don’t believe in”? Have you seen any data? The majority of Americans are now in favor of gay marriage. Further more, it is both unethical and ridiculous to take a majority vote on minority rights. And this is what we are talking about. And no, I absolutely don’t believe that it is possible to be “accepting of gay culture and normalcy in America” and opposed to gay marriage. This is absolutely a civil rights issue and absolutely a minority rights issue. And seeking to deny someone their civil rights is an act of hatred. I do not care how you want to frame it. There is no room for a “debate of moral convictions” when it comes to civil rights. If someone is opposed to gay marriage, then they can go ahead and not get one.
And I hope you understand that saying “you can’t legislate morality” as a defense of people who think that gay marriage is immoral and therefore shouldn’t be legal is both hilarious and ironic. Legalizing gay marriage IS not legislating morality. You understand that we’re not talking about compulsory gay marriage, right? No one is going to be forced to get a gay marriage and no churches will be forced to perform gay marriages just like no churches are forced to marry divorced people, etc. etc.
This may be a debate of moral convictions for you. But for the people involved, it is absolutely a civil rights issue. Your attempt to frame it as anything else makes absolutely no sense.
'Cuse 2010, Michigan 2012
by Orange22 on Jun 16, 2011 7:23 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Tyree’s line of thinking that leads to the invocation of ‘Anarchy’ started because of this fact: If ‘Same-Sex Marriage’ is instituted at a governmental level, it will be the first time that the government forces a majority of it’s population to accept something they don’t believe in*, not out of misguided bigotry, but out of moral principal. That’s the slippery slope he’s referring to.
That’s untrue on two fronts.
It’s firstly untrue because it clearly would not be the first time that’s happened. It’s not even the first time it’s happening now. As a quick and easy example, we’re being forced to accept (and pay for) the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, despite polls showing that the majority of Americans feel we should end our participation in all three.
Second, it’s untrue that the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage. In fact, in May, for the first, time, the Gallup tracking poll found majority support for gay marriage.
This really is akin to the Civil Rights movement. Pre-1960 (or so), the biggest supporters of anti-miscegenation laws were the churches. The churches didn’t really change their tune until the mid-1960s, or shortly before the Supreme Court decided Loving v. Virginia.
Now, I agree that the state should be out of the business of gay marriage. If people want to enter into a civil union, gay or straight, they can do so if they want. Civil unions would carry everything that now comes with marriage. If you want to get married, that’s a religious (or any other) ceremony, but it’s not in the state’s hands. But I also know that will never, ever happen (I’m a libertarian, but a realist; I know that despite the fact that I believe my ideals are the correct ones, it’s unlikely that many of them will see the light of day). So working within the system we now have, the state has no justification to deny gays the right to marry on “moral”, aka religious, grounds.
Nobody is forcing anybody to “accept” anything. The First Amendment would protect any religious institution from having to perform a gay marriage against its will. People like David Tyree could continue to hate gay marriage (and gay people) as much as they want. But moral objections should never be a reason to deny basic human rights.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
by wildcatlh on Jun 16, 2011 7:45 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Honestly, I used to be on the other side of things. 15 years ago, if you asked me this, I probably would have gone on a rant about “special rights”, about the “definition of marriage”, and so forth.
It took one of my best friends from childhood came out of the closet to change my position on things (along with going to college (where I started in 1995. I’m old.) and meeting and becoming friends with openly gay people for what was really the first time in my life.. I look at a gay person’s love for their partner and see… nothing different than, say, my love for my wife. There’s no reason that the state should deny a gay person the same rights as a straight person solely as a result of the moral objections of religious groups. If you look at the gay marriage polls by age, a large majority of younger people, particularly those under 29, are enthusiastic supporters of gay marriage. The opposition nowadays comes mostly from older people, especially those 65+, where it’s wildly unpopular.
At some point down the road, it becomes clear what will happen. Gay marriage is an inevitable thing. I just hope we don’t drag our feet for much longer.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
I am
"If I ain't gonna be part of the greatest, I gotta be the greatest myself." Busta Rhymes
by FeloniousPhunk on Jun 29, 2011 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Personally, I say let them get married. WHO CARES?! If GOD OMFG GOD OMG GOD cares, he'll blow up their airplane when they go on a better vacation than you.
Personal preference, societal beliefs, religious views are all relatively private things. Keep them to yourself if you’re just going to be negative.
You can be racist, you can be homophobic, you can be sexist….but keep it in your own damn yard. This country guarantees the right to pursue happiness. Don’t shit on someone else’s pursuit.
Born in '87, Orange fan since '86
I don't know how appropriate it is for me to give my long, ranting argument supporting gay rights.
But I’ll just leave it at what gays do is their business and the business of those who choose to support them. If you’re against gay marriage, preach it, but don’t butt your head into other people’s lives.
It's so silly
What if I went around to Christian, hetero couples and told them they can’t get married until they prove their alignment with God and their knowledge of the Bible? They would have a fit right there in the linen isle of Target!
Most religious zealots are against gay marriage because GOD OMFG GOD “says” it’s wrong. Since when is somebody who believes in God the judge? One of the biggest things I learned from religion as a kid was not to judge people! I’m not religious at all anymore but I feel it is an excellent standard to live by. The Bible preaches this so much, and it’s funny how people cling to the vague condemnations, but not the clear-cut virtues.
Born in '87, Orange fan since '86
by StealthTurkey on Jun 16, 2011 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions
Ya know
If there is a camera rolling, probably not a good idea to veer from the politically correct. What good does it EVER get anyone???
If you have a statement you want to make, the written word is the best way to do it. Even if you have a coherent, rationale explanation like StrawHatGuy, haters are still gonna hate. But they have to confront it intellectually or be intellectually dishonest. And you can always fall back on the full, reasoned explanation.
In the end, in my opinion, all of these debates are simply the fake hand off to the fullback, while the real meaningful issues in the world are running a sweep around the end.
For every detriment caused by not having the ability to marry, there are probably benefits to it. I have never done the research, much less the math, but heterosexuals spend a lot more on divorce attorneys.
Dictated, but not read.
And
The idea of civil unions makes sense to me.
Of course, somewhere out there is the nutjob that wants to form a civil union with his golden retriever… and will be able to find an attorney to advocate that the dog can be added to the health insurance. Granted, it may have to go out-of-network for health care, but the prescription savings will be nice.
Or when Hugh Hefner or Charlie Sheen sues, desiring to form multiple civil unions. (On an unrelated note, why did Hugh Hefner (at 85) just propose to his 25- year old girlfriend? First, are we (or she) to believe that after all these years and divorces, he finally found “the one.” Second, not like the guy is desperate. Behind her are hundreds of women ready to take her place. Third, it is not like he could not give her anything that a marriage would accomplish, and marriage would only run the risk of him losing more/sooner. Not like he is a devout Catholic or something. What gives?)
No real answers coming from me.
Dictated, but not read.
Honestly? I think polygamy should be allowed as well.
For me it all comes down to this: Does it involve consenting adults?
A child cannot consent. A dog (or any other animal) cannot consent. But adults can freely give their consent. And if adults do such a thing, why should I care? I may think their choice is wrong, but it’s none of my business.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
good to see a mature discussion like this on here
On the internet its pretty rare…as for Tyree, sigh. You would think a person educated at a university like Syracuse would be more open minded. I guess some will always have these views and should be entitled, I suppose.
by SyracuseBills on Jun 16, 2011 12:17 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
is there anything this site cannot do?
look at this discussion.
I was an RA from 2002-04
I can tell you yes, yes it is.
The 'Cuse is in tha house, oh my God oh my God.
The whole "heading towards anarchy" thing is silly
People have been saying the world will end for one reason or another for as long as people have been around. I for one am fine if gay people want to get married, but I guess for people like Tyree, he sees it as a slippery slope into moral decay or something.
I’m pretty sure the sun will come out tomorrow either way.
"(BARF)" - Donovan McNabb, during his game winning drive against Virginia Tech in 1998
Didn't you hear?
Sunspot activity is decreasing. We may need a new saying soon….
Dictated, but not read.
Doomsayers:
A) Because our nation will piss God off and he’ll screw us: Wrong, because we screwed ourselves
with gluttonous credit card debt long ago.
B) Because rule of law is being challenged in an unprecedented way and could
lead to blurring of Western Democratic Reasoning: Correct, because legal action base on
emotional appeal is becoming more prevalent.
The 'Cuse is in tha house, oh my God oh my God.
Isaac Asimov’s Book of Facts (1979) described an Assyrian clay tablet, dated back to around 2800 BC, that discussed the moral decay of the day,. Written on the tablet was that bribery and corruption had become common, and that as a result, the world would soon be coming to an end.
Not a generation has passed in the history of man where people feared that, as a result of some sort of moral decay, the world would come to an end. We’re still here, and I’m reasonably sure that gay marriage will not cause sulfur to rain from the skies.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
I dont agree with David
but why are we surprised by this? Firstly, its usually the converts who are the most fanatical, and while he may have always been a Christian – he reaffirmed his spirituality when he got clean and got WAY INTO IT. Now Im not trying to say all Churches are like this, but SOME of those southern baptist type churches preach this stuff ever sunday and the people who go there eat it up. David, who changed his life through the church (for the better if you ask me because I would take a bigot over a drug dealer any day of the week) puts a lot of stock into what he is told by his preacher (or whatever his church calls it).
Secondly, why do we care? We are talking about a bench player who made one major play in his entire career. He was then cut a year later. This is not someone who is a super star or a roll model for kids. This is a guy with a history of drug abuse and mental illness. Why does anything he says have enough credibility to justify publishing it? Im sure if you look around any league you can find bigots, drug users, and violent criminals just as you can find good kind people, intelligent people and even a few homosexuals. I think whoever did this interview is trolling for a sound bite and they found it.
I understand the agenda, to vilify David and make him the embodiment of bigotry. Perhaps there is some greater good in that. But right now we are turning against a guy who turned his life around and making an example of him to other athletes to not have non-PC beliefs.
I just dont think its even worth dedicating any time or content to the guy or his opinions (which I dont agree with). Why is David Tyree a source worth quoting on this issue? What makes him credible to speak on it?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanShots on Troy Nunes Is An Absolute Magician
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
