Skip to content

New York Super Bowl teammates on different sides of same-sex marriage debate

Michael Strahan, Nicole Murphy AP

They were teammates for one of the greatest Super Bowl wins in NFL history.  Four years later, they’re on opposite sides of a debate that has nothing to do with football.

So why are we mentioning it here?  Blame it on the lockout.

Last week, Giants defensive end and future first-ballot Hall of Famer Michael Strahan appeared in a video supporting same-sex marriage in New York, which is considering a law recognizing such relationships.

“I always played the game tough but fair,” Strahan says in the 38-second message. “And I feel it’s unfair to stop committed couples from being married.”

Strahan appears in the video with his girlfriend, Nicole Murphy.  “We believe everyone should have the right to get married,” Strahan says.

More recently, the guy who helped deliver Strahan’s only career Super Bowl ring disagrees.  In an interview with the National Organization for Marriage, via TMZ.com, David Tyree says “[t]his will be the beginning of our country sliding toward . . . it’s a strong word, but anarchy.”

Tyree also says that “two men will never be able to show a woman how to be a woman,” apparently referring to whether two men could raise a daughter — but demonstrating that he has never seen La Cage Aux Folles.

The fact that former Super Bowl heroes are being enlisted for this debate shows how divisive and controversial the measure is.  We’ve got a feeling that a strong sense of that reality will be demonstrated in the comments posted below.

Permalink 106 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, New York Giants, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors
106 Responses to “New York Super Bowl teammates on different sides of same-sex marriage debate”
  1. salmen76 says: Jun 16, 2011 8:22 AM

    What people do behind closed doors and who they marry is their business. Gays have been together sense the beginning of time. Not allowing them to legaly get married isn’t going to stop gays from being together. Ha Ha. That’s funny. Why would any American want to deny another couples wish to be married just because they are the same sex. It’s the Culty-bible-belt believers that just can’t stand anybody else being happy. Ain’t no 2000 year old book ever gonna run my life. Geaux Saints!

  2. footballhistorian says: Jun 16, 2011 8:33 AM

    Like Strahan’s stand (wrong as it is) is a surprise? He ought to look at what marriage is…and not how he practiced it.

  3. dccowboy says: Jun 16, 2011 8:35 AM

    Not sure I really care that much about this, but, there are some questions that same sex marriage raises.

    What’s magical about two? seems to me that western societies settled on two (man and woman) in recognition of the idea that was the basic family unit and granted legal rights to that couples offspring. If marriage is not for the purpose of a man and a woman forming a family and establishing legal rights for their offspring (which same sex marriage pretty much says it is not) then why can’t ‘commited threesomes or foursomes or Xsomes of whatever sexual mix’ have just as much right to formalize their committed relationship by a governmentally recognized ‘marriage’?

    I’m pretty much saying that same sex marriage obsoletes our concepts of bigamy (the idea that being married to two or more people is ‘bad’). It’s a purely societal concept that appears to be changing.

  4. deep64blue says: Jun 16, 2011 8:38 AM

    Marriage is a union of a man and a woman – by definition you can’t have same-sex marriage.

  5. severs28 says: Jun 16, 2011 8:38 AM

    Judging from the looks of Strahans “girl” friend. I would say it is no wonder that the two believe same sex marriage is ok. Look at that dude! And no, I don’t mean Strahan.

  6. myopinionisrighterthanyours says: Jun 16, 2011 8:41 AM

    Mike, for a second I thought you said a the comments would provide a strong dose of sanity, and then I woke up. Cue up Michael Buffer and the propoliticaltalk.com crowd.

  7. spoonfedbear says: Jun 16, 2011 8:42 AM

    Internet 101, how to drive traffic to you website on a slow news day. Who cares what either of these guys have to say. Move on or move out.

  8. nickvpackfan says: Jun 16, 2011 8:44 AM

    Couldn’t have said it better myself Tyree…

  9. krow101 says: Jun 16, 2011 8:45 AM

    Strahan was always the smart one. Tyree will never have to pay for a drink in NYC, but he’s wrong on this one.

  10. eaglescouch says: Jun 16, 2011 8:46 AM

    I hate it when I agree with Strahan, but the gapped tooth fool is right on this one. And is David Tyree still in the NFL?

  11. bradymancrush10 says: Jun 16, 2011 8:49 AM

    Oh yeah, this isn’t going to go over well……

  12. assklown says: Jun 16, 2011 9:01 AM

    This is from cnn’s website … It is not justifiable to alter a long-standing institution “because a minority — an influential minority — has … an agenda,”

    What other long standing institutions were legal here that are no longer legal, and rightlfully so? I can think of a couple of biggys right off the bat. Slavery. Women’s rights.

  13. readysethike says: Jun 16, 2011 9:03 AM

    I use to be against it, but the push for same sex marriage has been so strong I really dont care anymore, I ignore it when I see it in the street and I change the channel when I see it on tv. The government use to have a law essentially for same race marriages right? And that was wrong too. too many other things goin on behind the scenes in this country thst im worried about. But I would hate if my son grew up to be gay.

  14. etabaka says: Jun 16, 2011 9:04 AM

    According to Tyree’s logic, no single mother could raise a son and no single father could raise a daughter…? Awesome dude, Spit in the face of thousands of Americans struggling to do the best they can for their children.

  15. ironhawk says: Jun 16, 2011 9:06 AM

    I really don’t understand how someone could be such a bad person, that they wouldn’t want two people in love to get married. Wherever the cross goes, human suffering is soon to follow. You’d think for what a nice guy Jesus was supposed to be, that Christians wouldn’t be such awful people. I wouldn’t be surprised if Christians cause 80% of the pain and suffering on Earth.

    I call it “Christian Social Fascism” and it’s far worse than political Fascism. It’s the way Christians try to control and oppress Humanity. History tells us that all oppressed people eventually rise against their oppressors. I think that is starting to happen. It’s not an armed revolution, it’s a spiritual one. Christianity is dying, and in a few hundred years won’t even exist outside of the real rural hick areas. It’s because the cross is associated with hurting people and causing suffering, so the good people are leaving Church more and more every year. Well they’re also leaving because we’re becoming more educated, and no literate person would read the bible and think it’s real.

    Frankly, I think if Jesus was real and he looked down and saw the suffering and hate, he’d take his cross off too.

  16. liquidgrammar says: Jun 16, 2011 9:10 AM

    I subscribe to the theory that if gays and lesbians want to be miserable like heterosexuals seem to be when they’re married let them have at it!!! Who is David Tyree anymore anyway????!!!

  17. hawtkarl says: Jun 16, 2011 9:10 AM

    David Tyree is still relevant?

  18. 2dalake says: Jun 16, 2011 9:14 AM

    It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!

  19. shackdelrio says: Jun 16, 2011 9:25 AM

    Sounds like Tyree has been listening to Glenn Beck.

  20. shawon0meter says: Jun 16, 2011 9:29 AM

    Anarchy? really? really?

  21. jw731 says: Jun 16, 2011 9:29 AM

    Do these spokespersons actually think that when people are in a relationship of any kind, they sit and contemplate….Hmmm, I wonder what Strahan and Tyree think of this…..Seriously?

  22. j0esixpack says: Jun 16, 2011 9:34 AM

    I love how the opponents of Marriage Equality always go down the road of “anarchy” and things like polygamy, bestiality, and other warped practices.

    They know they’ve got no credible argument to maintain a “separate but unequal” status under the law so they grasp at straws.

    It would be hilarious one day to see gay elected officials make Opposite Sex Marriage illegal – then we’ll see how all these opponents of Marriage Equality feel about couples having different rights based on sexual orientation.

  23. kevinfromphilly says: Jun 16, 2011 9:36 AM

    Hey, why deny gay people the same right as everybody else to be incredibly miserable?

  24. the4cannon's says: Jun 16, 2011 9:37 AM

    who cares?

  25. the4cannon's says: Jun 16, 2011 9:38 AM

    how one man can look at another mans anus and say “Hell Yeah!!, I got to get in there” is beyond me and is just unnatural.

  26. bobbyhoying says: Jun 16, 2011 9:38 AM

    Christ was murdered for speaking the truth. All he did was love, feed and heal people. Truth is always met with venom because the father of lies hates truth. Spiritually dead people have no frame of reference so they hate hearing truth. Tyree understands the reaction he will get from the spiritually dead. Kudos to him for speaking it.

  27. alewatcher says: Jun 16, 2011 9:44 AM

    Gay people have just as much right as straight people to be miserable. Go ahead, let them get married.

  28. amanitoomerisgod says: Jun 16, 2011 9:45 AM

    The utter ignorance amongst my fellow football fans is daunting. They argue against respecting love as if love is evil. They view the imbuing of more people (gays, minorities) with rights as the end of humanity according to their Judeo-Christian values when if anything increasing the amount of love and respect in the world is the only way to staunch the end of humanity. The further problem is that those espousing these Judeo-Christian values see a silver lining in the end of the humanity (eternal salvation). This is indeed a very scary, dangerous thing. I implore you all to read ProFootballTalk and Sam Harris’ The End Of Faith in equal measure. Wake up and stop being so full of hate just because you don’t like some dudes affront to your precious masculinity. The world so needs an openly gay NFL player. Despite my comments about love and respect, I would sooner spit in Tyree’s drink than buy him one.

  29. rpiotr01 says: Jun 16, 2011 9:49 AM

    Anarchy? What anarchy? It’s been legal in cities and countries around the world and anarchy hasn’t broken out. The world doesn’t miss a beat because no one is paying attention to what other people are doing in their private lives.

    Listen, Tyree has a right to express his opinion, and people are entitled to their religious beliefs, and religious institutions are allowed to discriminate however they see fit. But the US government – which is supposed to represent ALL citizens, gay or straight – has no business denying civil marriage to gay couples. That’s it.

    Furthermore, De Smith needs to fire Jeff Kessler asap so we can get a CBA done!

  30. fonetiklee says: Jun 16, 2011 9:51 AM

    I love how people use religion as a justification for their own bigotry.

  31. smoothjimmyapollo says: Jun 16, 2011 10:05 AM

    “It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!”

    Really, that’s the best you got? A fictional man and his rib woman wife who produced only male offspring yet somehow populated the Earth. It’s fiction. It was made up because they didn’t have archeologists or paleontologists or other scientists to tell them how things worked. They didn’t know why people got sick and died so they made up a story about an invisible man in the sky being angry at them because they talked to a snake.

    Denying somebody rights because of a fictional book would be like denying African Americans the right to join the military because there were no black hobbits in Lord of the Rings.

  32. tswilsonjr says: Jun 16, 2011 10:08 AM

    I am thankful we live in a nation that has fought for freedom to discuss. This country does not prevent anyone of different sexual orientation from exercising their preferred lifestyle. Civil unions provide many of the same legal rights.

    We are all free to choose commitment or none. Recognizing Marriage of a male and female is meant to discourage divorce. States do this to try to keep parents together. I wish ppl could see that rather than looking at marriage between a man and a women as a slap in the face.

    Laws should be reviewed on an individual basis and not like this.

    By asking the recognition of “marriage ” specificly as something else makes the conversation switch gears. This is no longer about freedom but what our government endorses.

  33. vahawker says: Jun 16, 2011 10:09 AM

    Bobbyhoying..had me right up the part of agreeing with Tyree..ANARCHY if gays get married? That explains all the riots and destruction happening in Massachusetts.

    ironhawk..the “church” is exploding in other countries despite the very real threat of death in many of them. The church here in the US seems to be fading, in my opinion, because of the very UN-christian doctrines being pushed by so called “Christians”. Jesus called us to love, he ministered to the very people today’s “Christians” would spurn. I am a very well educated man and I believe in truth of Jesus as Lord. I see what my kids are being “taught” in school and frequently see more indoctrination rather than education in many subjects.

    Suffering and hate are man-made afflictions, just like war, poverty(although He did say “the poor you will have with you always”), hunger, etc.

  34. nyjalleffingday says: Jun 16, 2011 10:10 AM

    @ironhawk

    +1, bravo good sir, well said.

    @bobbyhoying

    I rather be spiritually dead than intellectually challenged, have fun with your sadistic oppressive fairy tale.

  35. whatswiththehate says: Jun 16, 2011 10:12 AM

    Well since the real purpose of marriage was lost many years ago, we might as well allow gay marriage. The natural purpose of marriage was to procreate. God knows that no longer applies these days. Heck, we need to put in place a law allowing multiple marriages. Maybe it will cut down on all the darn cheating that is going on now-a-days. Then again maybe not.

  36. sportsinhd says: Jun 16, 2011 10:14 AM

    Marriage as a religious and spiritual institution belongs to the churches (and synagogues or mosques). Your church can choose, or not choose, to marry any couple they want.

    Marriage as a civil contract, a civil union if you will, is a matter of the state, and church and state do not mix. There is no reason outside of religious doctrine to prohibit gay marriage.

  37. prior0knowledge says: Jun 16, 2011 10:26 AM

    I used to be against gay marraige. I was wary of changing the basic unit of western civilization. The man and woman topped family has been the basic foundation of our society for thousands of years, so it should not be abandoned for some popular “fad”.

    Another reason to be against gay marraige is MONEY. Tax deductions, automatic health care benefits, and Social Security survivor benefits are just some of the monetary penalties society will pay if we allow gay marraige.

    So it is with wary reluctance I must support gay marraige. Because it is the right thing to do. It is not for support of “love”. Hell, I love my TV, but I shouldn’t be allowed to marry it. Because it is not fair that two committed people who wish the government to recognize their union, should not be denied just because of their gender. And neither money nor current religious beliefs should prevent us from doing the right thing.

    When we abolished slavery in the South, we wiped out in an instant the wealth of the South. Of all the property value in the South, the largest was slave ownership. But slavery was an abomination, so it had to go and protecting money is not a good argument when it comes to doing what is right.

  38. dan39564 says: Jun 16, 2011 10:29 AM

    The whole concept of Civil Marriage needs to be revised.
    It needs to be replaced, by a simple joint, equal rights contract! Any two concenting adults can enter into!
    If you want to be joined before god, then go see the head of your religion of choice and get married!

  39. 4gone says: Jun 16, 2011 10:33 AM

    50% divorce rate & higher taxes – it’s all yours.

  40. tswilsonjr says: Jun 16, 2011 10:36 AM

    Marriage tax deductions are an endorsement of the State of desired behavior.

    Laws dealing with seeing a dying partner in the hospital and such are issues of rights.

    In no way should we treat others like black sheep but our government giving marriage tax exemptions has nothing to do with rights.

    Marriage recognition as a man and women is an endorsement and promotion to an ideal of stable parenthood. This should be left alone. Ppl keep moving the goal posts on discrimination to the point we won’t be able to encourage anything good anymore.

  41. effthaeffinjetsgofins says: Jun 16, 2011 10:42 AM

    If a man should be allowed to marry a man, can a man marry his brother or sister?

  42. hobartbaker says: Jun 16, 2011 10:45 AM

    For the other guys on the team, same sex marriage means that if you have sex with the same woman more than one night you are married.

  43. wt01 says: Jun 16, 2011 10:48 AM

    To all those who think that the government pass laws because of what your religion says: it’s called separation of church and state and secularism. Got it? It’s constitutionally disallowed for the United States government to endorse, and thus pass laws based on, a religion’s beliefs and that’s what the Supreme Court-whether it was the liberal Warren Court or today’s more conservative court-says as well. You’re allowed to belief whatever you want and follow whatever religion you want, but don’t try and shove your beliefs, religious or not, down other peoples’ throats by taking away a group’s rights.

  44. smoothjimmyapollo says: Jun 16, 2011 10:51 AM

    “Another reason to be against gay marraige is MONEY. Tax deductions, automatic health care benefits, and Social Security survivor benefits are just some of the monetary penalties society will pay if we allow gay marraige.”

    While most of your argument is pretty logical, I’m not sure this will affect us that much. What percentage of people are gay, like 5% – 10%? Not all of them are going to want to get married just like not all heterosexual people want to get married, but for those that do, the effects should be minimal. Plus, if two people get married and share health care benefits, then fewer people are uninsured which reduces the cost of health care for everyone else.

    If these same people married into heterosexual marriages, nobody would be concerned about the costs of social security survivor benefits or tax breaks, yet the number of people getting married remains the same.

    Plus, nobody disputes heterosexual, non-religious marriages performed in a courthouse which is essentially the same service as a gay marriage. All gay marriage opposition comes down to religious reasons which violates the establishment clause of the first amendment.

  45. CKL says: Jun 16, 2011 10:52 AM

    prior0knowledge says:
    Jun 16, 2011 10:26 AM

    Another reason to be against gay marraige is MONEY. Tax deductions, automatic health care benefits, and Social Security survivor benefits are just some of the monetary penalties society will pay if we allow gay marraige.
    ________________________________
    My old company allowed gay couples to be on each other’s benefits but not straight unmarried couples who lived together. It’s a fairness issue. If you let unmarried couples on benefits, it should be all of them regardless of orientation. Gay couples with members who pay taxes already pay into SS etc. so why not let them have those rights? Gay couples can adopt kids or have surrogates have kids for them or do in vitro so they are already able to become parents. Are we heteros SO GOOD at marriage and kids that we should outlaw other consenting adults the same right? Nope. Newsflash: before it was more open to be gay I am POSITIVE there were a lot of gay parents who were living the hetero lifestyle because they didn’t want to come out of the closet and were actually….good parents. Being a good parent doesn’t have a single thing to do with sexual orientation IMO.

  46. cdaws84 says: Jun 16, 2011 10:58 AM

    Ironhawk…really? 80% of the pain and suffering in the world? Cross is associated to hurting people? Oppression? How exactly are you any different than those who don’t support gay marriage? You are filled with hate and make gross overstatements based on the actions of a few Christians. Christians are twice as likely to donate money and do charity work than atheists….They provide foundations to help feed and house the poor and needy….they do missionary work aiding those in other countries…and believe it or not…they even have organizations to help prevent gay/lesbian violence…..while they aren’t perfect….I for one fear the day that these organizations cease to exist…please educate yourself before you slander 1.2 billion people….

  47. 1historian says: Jun 16, 2011 10:59 AM

    The only states in which same-sex marriage is legal are those in which it is imposed by judicial fiat – either the courts or the legislature.

    In the 31 states in which the PEOPLE have had the right to express their opinion on the issue the count is 31-0 NO.

    This includes California, in which some judge said it was fine, and then the PEOPLE said it’s not.

    This also includes Maine in which the legislature said it was fine, an immediate petition was circulated to block the law. It got twice the required number of signatures in about 30 days. Despite the barrage of hate mail calling us haters and despite the backing of the press and despite our being outspent by $1.8 million the law was repealed.

    I am a practicing Catholic. The Church says that it is not a sin for a person to be sexually attracted to a member of his/her sex. It IS a sin to give way to that attraction.

    To those who are going to bring out the old priest-pedophile routine – we are suffering because of it, as we should. Steps have been taken to remedy the situation. There are approximately 65,000,000 Catholics in the United States and last year there were 7 reported – as in validated – reports of sexual abuse. Granted that is 7 too many but can you name any other institution – schools, families, other religions – that even

  48. berniemadoffsides says: Jun 16, 2011 11:05 AM

    I couldn’t care less if someone’s straight or gay. I absolutely could NOT care less…. but I don’t think two people of the same sex should be married. It has nothing to do with being against gays (Go be gay – I don’t care), but moreso to do with what kind of precedent it will set in terms of allowing any/all laws to be created from it. Believe me, it would absolutely be a catalyst for a lot more liberal ideas being made realities.

    The whole argument of legalizing drugs is along the same lines: it’ll destroy this already crumbling country. It doesn’t mean I hate people who use drugs, but making drugs more accessible will cause more harm than good. I realize there’s a similar hypocrisy in saying “Beer should be legal, but weed should not” and that “Men and women should be allowed to marry one another, but same-sex marriages shouldn’t be allowed.” But frankly, I don’t see how making either of these two ideas legal would solve anything.

    I don’t see many responsible, happy drug addicts… nor do I see many happily married couples. lol I’m not sure gays know what they’re getting themselves into here. We’ve decriminalized weed in California – let’s see what happens. Someone pick a state and make gay marriage legal and see what happens. Ironically, CA and NY are two of the worst states in terms of property taxes, unemployment, income taxes, etc, etc. Yeah, making either of these legal in either state should do wonders for their respective economy/unemployment rates.

  49. buckybadger says: Jun 16, 2011 11:07 AM

    If you don’t like gay marriage than don’t get one. Otherwise lets not discriminate because we think its wrong or gross. I think sex with fat people is gross so by most people’s logic they that should not be allowed. Allows these people who truly love each other and track record for staying with each other is better than straight couples.

    It is just pathetic that in this day in age people simply won’t respect the wishes of others that have NO bearing on their personal life. They will come up with some stupid excuse about protecting family life or site their religion but it is all B.S. Families will be strong if the love each other and support each other. If their parents happen to be gay it won’t make a difference.

  50. smoothjimmyapollo says: Jun 16, 2011 11:13 AM

    “I am a practicing Catholic. The Church says that it is not a sin for a person to be sexually attracted to a member of his/her sex. It IS a sin to give way to that attraction.”

    It is also a sin to eat at Red Lobster.

  51. smoothjimmyapollo says: Jun 16, 2011 11:17 AM

    @1historian

    That’s why we have a representative democracy, because what’s right isn’t always popular and what’s popular isn’t always right. For example, if taxes were left to a popular vote, would anybody pay any taxes?

  52. smoothjimmyapollo says: Jun 16, 2011 11:20 AM

    “Someone pick a state and make gay marriage legal and see what happens.”

    Stanley Cup riots aside, Canada seems to be doing alright.

  53. tswilsonjr says: Jun 16, 2011 11:21 AM

    Parenthood is just like marriage, it has a root in male female relationship.

    To make it clear not all parents are healthy but all children are born with a genetic female and male parent. Life gives us a pattern we can choose or refuse and this country doesn’t stop that.

    In 31 states citizens have voted to encourage this pattern as ideal without infringement of anyone’s rights.

    The problem is we are wasting time trying to redefine x and y. No matter what the laws of nature will not conform to your beliefs.

  54. henrypuppyhead says: Jun 16, 2011 11:22 AM

    bobbyhoying says: Jun 16, 2011 9:38 AM

    Christ was murdered for speaking the truth. All he did was love, feed and heal people. Truth is always met with venom because the father of lies hates truth. Spiritually dead people have no frame of reference so they hate hearing truth. Tyree understands the reaction he will get from the spiritually dead. Kudos to him for speaking it.

    ————————

    First, what did Jesus preach? Second, who makes the determination that you are “spiritually alive”, the clowns who run a racket telling you you’re on the winning team? How many cults have the same practices?

    Try this one on for size. Look up the term Bodhisattva and see how closely that corresponds to Jesus. Look up the Rosicrucians and find out why they believe in Jesus and his teachings but are labeled heretics.

    “Faith” is a concept that is used like a cudgel against reason and personal responsibility.

    I’d say grow up but let’s just start with getting out of bed and blaming everyone for “sliding into anarchy”.

    Get some Bactine for those knuckles.

  55. rpiotr01 says: Jun 16, 2011 11:23 AM

    @1historian

    America is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. We have institutions in place to make sure that minority rights are upheld, even if that goes against the will of the majority of people. Even if 90% of a population approves of discrimination, that doesn’t make it legal.

    Once again, the government represents all people. There is no legal justification for denying civil marriages under the law. This has nothing to do with religion or the sacrament of marriage. Christians have every right to feel the way they do about gays being married; they have every right to deny gays the sacrament of marriage; but they have NO right to deny them civil marriage under the law. Two separate institutions. And I know many Christians don’t see it that way – they see religious doctrine and civil law as one in the same. It is NOT. That’s something that community needs to come to terms with.

  56. henrypuppyhead says: Jun 16, 2011 11:26 AM

    0
    0

    1historian says: Jun 16, 2011 10:59 AM

    The only states in which same-sex marriage is legal are those in which it is imposed by judicial fiat – either the courts or the legislature.

    In the 31 states in which the PEOPLE have had the right to express their opinion on the issue the count is 31-0 NO.

    This includes California, in which some judge said it was fine, and then the PEOPLE said it’s not.

    This also includes Maine in which the legislature said it was fine, an immediate petition was circulated to block the law. It got twice the required number of signatures in about 30 days. Despite the barrage of hate mail calling us haters and despite the backing of the press and despite our being outspent by $1.8 million the law was repealed.

    I am a practicing Catholic. The Church says that it is not a sin for a person to be sexually attracted to a member of his/her sex. It IS a sin to give way to that attraction.

    —————————————

    I’m a recovering Catholic.

    Read the history of slavery in this country and it’s popularity and then get back to me with your “voice of the people” schtick.

    Wrong is wrong, regardless of how many people support it.

  57. jerryrichardsonisadumbassmoron says: Jun 16, 2011 11:27 AM

    bobbyhoying says: Jun 16, 2011 9:38 AM

    Christ was murdered for speaking the truth. All he did was love, feed and heal people. Truth is always met with venom because the father of lies hates truth. Spiritually dead people have no frame of reference so they hate hearing truth. Tyree understands the reaction he will get from the spiritually dead. Kudos to him for speaking it.

    _________________________________

    this is like me saying that “spiritually alive” people (to use your metaphor), are too dumb to realize there is definitely not a bearded dude in the sky who made the earth and everything on it in 7 days. your post is arrogant as f*ck and people like you are the reason christianity is on the decline. how about this for truth….see if you can handle it….your god is the main character in a fiction book that has somehow become the largest scam in the history of mankind

    now let me clarify by saying that i have no problem with christianity. i think it is good for our society as it teaches a good set of moral values. however, that being said, people like sir bobbyhoying and their arrogant attitudes of “if you arent christian then you are a bad person” piss me off to no end. i am not christian and i understand truth better than bobby could ever hope to.

  58. henrypuppyhead says: Jun 16, 2011 11:29 AM

    tswilsonjr says: Jun 16, 2011 11:21 AM

    Parenthood is just like marriage, it has a root in male female relationship.

    To make it clear not all parents are healthy but all children are born with a genetic female and male parent. Life gives us a pattern we can choose or refuse and this country doesn’t stop that.

    In 31 states citizens have voted to encourage this pattern as ideal without infringement of anyone’s rights.

    The problem is we are wasting time trying to redefine x and y. No matter what the laws of nature will not conform to your beliefs.

    ————————————-

    So you must be all about evolution and climate change issues. Damn that pesky “science/nature”.

  59. henrypuppyhead says: Jun 16, 2011 11:32 AM

    effthaeffinjetsgofins says: Jun 16, 2011 10:42 AM

    If a man should be allowed to marry a man, can a man marry his brother or sister?

    ———————

    Keep your personal fantasies to yourself.

  60. texline1 says: Jun 16, 2011 11:37 AM

    I would bet that virtually all of the people who are against same sex marriage also believe that virgins have babies, people get turned into pillars of salt, and one man had 2 of every animal in the world on a small boat, because they were told that in a book that was written by people who thought the world was flat and believed in ghosts.

  61. tswilsonjr says: Jun 16, 2011 11:44 AM

    Btw please stop bashing Christians. Things you say are very mob like and you assume all of us are the same.

    For the purpose of the conversation I study archeology, astronomy, philosophy, and relationships. I believe in having evidence.

    You assume all Christians believe something fictional. My world view on this subject and my faith come in part from an analytical approach.

  62. bluestree says: Jun 16, 2011 12:10 PM

    I’m blown away by how strong the support for gay marriage on this thread.
    It seems strange that there is more support for marriage equality here than there is for the players in the NFL lockout.
    That just doesn’t add up.
    Since this site shot to the top of the NBC Sports internet cabal, things have gotten strange around here.

  63. therevdewitt says: Jun 16, 2011 12:26 PM

    I know this sounds Kumbaya, but it’s more serious than that. This society, our standard of living can not survive the divisiveness, animosity, hate and oppression that keeps us all separated working against each other instead of united in common purpose. The population of the world has gone from 1 billion to 7 billion from 1820 to today. Extrapolate that and it goes from 7 billion to 49 billion by 2200. The world’s resources cannot support that type of population. The human race faces massive die-offs in the typical historical forms – drought, famine, war, disease, natural disaster, etc. And here we sit arguing, dividing ourselves, building animosity, over whether two people in a loving, committed relationship can get “married” if they are the same sex? It’s ridiculous. Simply put, government should be in the contract business. So if two consenting adults want to have a legal agreement with each other, they should be allowed to do so. Religious organizations are in the “marriage” business, and can define and practice their own beliefs in their own ways with no interference from the government. And the population has the freedom to choose a religion, or not, as they may wish. Any way you cut it, humanity has much bigger problems facing it and everybody would do well to just stay out of each others’ personal business and work together to solve the problems that will decide the collective fate of the species.

  64. bluestree says: Jun 16, 2011 12:28 PM

    tswilsonjr says:
    Jun 16, 2011 11:44 AM
    Btw please stop bashing Christians. Things you say are very mob like and you assume all of us are the same.

    For the purpose of the conversation I study archeology, astronomy, philosophy, and relationships. I believe in having evidence.

    You assume all Christians believe something fictional. My world view on this subject and my faith come in part from an analytical approach.
    —————————————–
    Good points but the fact is that a majority evangelical christians believe that any study of science that is not viewed through the prism of their faith is flawed and unacceptable.
    I think it is helpful when discussing christian beliefs to identify which sect of christianity you are referring to. Clearly the criticism here is aimed at evangelicals. It would be a good idea to make that clear if you’re talking abour today’s politics.
    Another mistake is to look at the last 2000 years and percieve christianity as an unbroken line. Today’s evangelical christianity grew out of the 1830’s Anglican church, and emigrated to the American south, where it was incubated in some isolation. It is shaped as much by the Civil War as by the words of the New Testament.
    Christianity has been the dominant religion in the western world not because of it’s timeless truths but because of it’s ability to morph into whatever is required to remain relevent. It is perhaps the greatest remnant of the Roman Empire. If you remember, the early Romans borrowed the Greek gods as well as much of their culture. The Romans were societal builders in the most obsessive nature, and christianity works. It is a great religion for the society that is acquisitive, militaristic and plutocratic.
    Like Rome. Like us.

  65. henrypuppyhead says: Jun 16, 2011 12:36 PM

    Very nice bluestree.

  66. henrypuppyhead says: Jun 16, 2011 12:41 PM

    Here, let’s try this again.

    You don’t get to cherry pick your science and then call yourself rational.

  67. cornellsteelers says: Jun 16, 2011 1:12 PM

    I’m a recovering Catholic.

    Read the history of slavery in this country and it’s popularity and then get back to me with your “voice of the people” schtick.

    Wrong is wrong, regardless of how many people support it.
    ____________________________________
    So if a large majority of people supported gay marriage, would you still use the slavery argument to say that gay marriage is wrong?

  68. myopinionisrighterthanyours says: Jun 16, 2011 1:36 PM

    I love when people get in to a debate over beliefs, and furthermore when they attempt to provide beliefs as fact. Beliefs are in their very nature, an opinion, and opinions are neither right nor wrong, despite what most people believe and hence, my posting name.

  69. nineroutsider says: Jun 16, 2011 2:09 PM

    @bluestree

    Brilliant!!!

    I will be stealing those words whenever needed…
    —————————————————-
    @myopinionisrighterthanyours

    Good point, but its even better when people turn facts into opinions and then dismiss them as so. I love when people do that as well and its done all of the time especially by the religious right.

  70. effthaeffinjetsgofins says: Jun 16, 2011 2:18 PM

    @henrypuppyhead

    very funny. I am making a point here.

    Would someone who believes gay marriage should be legal tell me how they would feel about siblings, gay or not, being able to be legally married? Or a father and adult daughter? Or mother and adult son?

  71. cornellsteelers says: Jun 16, 2011 2:43 PM

    therevdewitt says: Jun 16, 2011 12:26 PM

    I know this sounds Kumbaya, but it’s more serious than that. This society, our standard of living can not survive the divisiveness, animosity, hate and oppression that keeps us all separated working against each other instead of united in common purpose. The population of the world has gone from 1 billion to 7 billion from 1820 to today. Extrapolate that and it goes from 7 billion to 49 billion by 2200. The world’s resources cannot support that type of population. The human race faces massive die-offs in the typical historical forms – drought, famine, war, disease, natural disaster, etc. And here we sit arguing, dividing ourselves, building animosity, over whether two people in a loving, committed relationship can get “married” if they are the same sex? It’s ridiculous. Simply put, government should be in the contract business. So if two consenting adults want to have a legal agreement with each other, they should be allowed to do so. Religious organizations are in the “marriage” business, and can define and practice their own beliefs in their own ways with no interference from the government. And the population has the freedom to choose a religion, or not, as they may wish. Any way you cut it, humanity has much bigger problems facing it and everybody would do well to just stay out of each others’ personal business and work together to solve the problems that will decide the collective fate of the species.

    ___________________________________

    I know that you mean well, but the truth is the earth’s population will never sniff 49 billion. It actually will stop short of 10 billion as birth rates fall and populations become more stable. This will be caused by the gradual development of poorer nations, especially those in Africa where a large part of the Earth’s current population growth comes from.

  72. pkrlvr says: Jun 16, 2011 2:58 PM

    vahawk said:

    “I am a very well educated man and I believe in truth of Jesus as Lord.”

    Can’t have it both ways brother…….

    But since you are so well educated, please answer this question. Since jesus was invented only 2000 years ago, what happened to the souls of all the people who died for the hundreds of thousands of years before that???

    Apparently jesus only started saving recently……..

  73. pkrlvr says: Jun 16, 2011 3:09 PM

    “I know that you mean well, but the truth is the earth’s population will never sniff 49 billion. It actually will stop short of 10 billion as birth rates fall and populations become more stable. This will be caused by the gradual development of poorer nations, especially those in Africa where a large part of the Earth’s current population growth comes from.”

    Sorry dude, but you’re wrong. Our most populated nations are:

    1. China
    2. India
    3. USA
    4. Indonesia
    5. Brazil
    6. Pakistan
    7. Nigeria
    8. Bangladesh
    9. Russia
    10. Japan

    Only 2 countries in the top 20 are African.

    Fact is, our population is going to continue to grow at an exponential level until hunger, disease, or mother nature wipes us out.

  74. cornellsteelers says: Jun 16, 2011 5:28 PM

    @pkrlvr

    No, the earth’s population will most likely not grow indefinitely. I can see why one would think that given the planet’s explosive growth over the past two centuries, but the UN and other major population predictions expect birth rates to decline and population to level off during the next century. Even the highest possible estimates ATM have the world population at 14 billion in 2100.

  75. therevdewitt says: Jun 16, 2011 5:40 PM

    @cornellsteelers – “the truth is the earth’s population will never sniff 49 billion.”

    Yes, that part is true, because there aren’t enough resources, ergo the “massive die-offs in the typical historical forms – drought, famine, war, disease, natural disaster, etc.”

    And you say the population “actually will stop short of 10 billion as birth rates fall and populations become more stable.”

    And why is that? Will f***ing go out of style? I beg to differ.

    As for where the population growth is happening, please refer to pkrlvr above, he’s right on.

    As for undeveloped countries developing, how exactly do you expect that to happen with developed countries using all of the resources? For example, the United States, has roughly 4 percent of the world’s population and is using 25 percent of its energy supply. Now add in all the other developed countries and what you get is 20 percent of the world’s population using 80 percent of its resources.

    So, as we all argue about whether to keep suppressing each others’ civil liberties, the undeveloped countries can expect to bear the brunt of the die-offs, but no society will escape unscathed. The poor the world over, as always, will suffer the most.

    These are the brutal truths we have to be strong enough as a society to face if we wish to have any hope of mitigating the damage.

  76. trickbunny says: Jun 16, 2011 6:32 PM

    effthaeffinjetsgofins says:
    Jun 16, 2011 2:18 PM

    Would someone who believes gay marriage should be legal tell me how they would feel about siblings, gay or not, being able to be legally married? Or a father and adult daughter? Or mother and adult son?
    ———————————————–

    Apples and oranges, dude. Why? because not everyone believes that gay people are sick- but EVERYONE, gay and straight, believes that a father and daughter or a mother and son marrying each other IS sick! I guarantee you that, if gay marriage was universally accepted, it’s NOT going to open the door to incest marriage and interspecies marriage and whatever other kind of wacked out scenarios paranoid people with a stick up their _ss dream up.

    Plus, all this “if you let gay people get married, what’s next? Frogs marrying dogs?” stuff is total BS, a total distraction and scare tactic, and is *very* similar to a “Chicken Little/the sky is falling” mentality.

    I, personally, find it toally bizarre that some people are so freakin’ threatened by what gay people do. It’s like they’re *obsessed* with it. Freaky.

  77. cornellsteelers says: Jun 16, 2011 7:18 PM

    @therevdewitt

    I am going by the UN’s most recent population estimates. I had posted the links, but apparently the mods in their infinite wisdom decided it wasn’t worthy of being posted. In 1968 Paul Erlich wrote “The Population Bomb”, in which he predicted among other things that the UK would cease to exist due to a lack of food by 1980. I refuse to lend any credence to population fearmongering, or any other kind for that matter. As for the rest of your post, it’s just filled with the same tired “the rich countries are ruining the world” cliches I’vs read about a million times.

  78. henrypuppyhead says: Jun 16, 2011 7:59 PM

    cornellsteelers says: Jun 16, 2011 1:12 PM

    So if a large majority of people supported gay marriage, would you still use the slavery argument to say that gay marriage is wrong?

    ——————

    Get back to me when you understand false equivalency.

  79. wiley16350 says: Jun 16, 2011 8:10 PM

    But since you are so well educated, please answer this question. Since jesus was invented only 2000 years ago, what happened to the souls of all the people who died for the hundreds of thousands of years before that???

    Apparently jesus only started saving recently……..

    Actually a good question….and one that you will find hard to get a satisfying answer from a typical christian. Because most don’t have a true understanding of the bible. The answer is that Jesus has saved all from death (before and after his resurrection). Because Jesus has risen from death, all will be resurrected from death at some point in the future. People that died prior to Jesus’s resurrection are deemed righteous by their faith in God and his promises and their desire to do God’s will. They will be saved from their sins (the perfection of one’s charachter, only Jesus can accomplish this) during the 1000 year reign of Christ on earth. People today can be saved from their sins (perfection of one’s charachter, because of Jesus) by the holy spirit and submitting to God’s will. If Jesus is truly the leader of our lives (our works will be evident of that), then we have no reason to fear God’s judgements. Many christians will have a wake up call on judgement day because they did not truly give themselves to God. Those that do not submit to God’s will and have a desire for Jesus to save them will be sent to eonion chastisement (or correction). This chastisement will save them from their sins through the power of Jesus. In the end it will be through the death, resurrection and power of Jesus that everyone will be saved from death and sin. Currently, we have the choice to go the easy way (this life) or the hard way (next life). No matter what, we can’t save ourselves from death or sin.

  80. trickbunny says: Jun 16, 2011 9:10 PM

    wiley16350 says:
    Jun 16, 2011 8:10 PM

    Since jesus was invented only 2000 years ago, what happened to the souls of all the people who died for the hundreds of thousands of years before that???

    Apparently jesus only started saving recently……..
    ———————————————
    Actually a good question….and one that you will find hard to get a satisfying answer from a typical christian. Because most don’t have a true understanding of the bible. The answer is that Jesus has saved all from death (before and after his resurrection). Because Jesus has risen from death, all will be resurrected from death at some point in the future.
    ———————————————-

    OK, but I believe the original question was more along the lines of asking what happened to the souls of people who were around *before Jesus existed/was born* – not before he was ressurected. You seem to have sidestepped the question by substituting pre-ressurection for pre-existance. And what about the people that were here on Earth before the bible was written or the concept of God came to be?

    Oh, anyway…

  81. rolandsloan says: Jun 16, 2011 10:46 PM

    Very anti-religious group here. Suprising….

  82. wiley16350 says: Jun 16, 2011 11:42 PM

    OK, but I believe the original question was more along the lines of asking what happened to the souls of people who were around *before Jesus existed/was born* – not before he was resurrected. You seem to have sidestepped the question by substituting pre-resurrection for pre-existence. And what about the people that were here on Earth before the bible was written or the concept of God came to be?

    Oh, anyway…

    People before Jesus resurrection included people before he lived. So you seem to be confused. The penalty for sin is death. When Adam sinned, death entered the world and now reigns. Because death reigns people can not overcome sin. Jesus’ death and resurrection gave him the power over sin and death. He now has the power to give life to everyone and he will do just that. Restore life to all those who lived from Adam on up. That is the first aspect of his mission as savior. The second aspect is eradicating sin, suffering and death and restoring the creation to good. So after people are raised from the dead they will be judged according to their faith, belief and how they submitted and respond to God’s calling. The ones that believe, have faith, submit to God’s will and calling will rule with Christ and teach righteousness to others during Christ’s 1000 year reign on earth (these people receive great rewards and include current Christians and the fathers and prophets of the old testament). I believe Those who lacked knowledge of God or lacked the ability to follow God because of limited time or mental capacity would live during this reign and learn righteousness from the saints. Others that might live during this period would be those that believe but didn’t completely submit to God because they lacked understanding and people who weren’t called during the previous life (this includes people from all eras). These people will be given complete knowledge and instruction in righteousness. The last group will include the stubborn, the false Christians and the wicked. These will endure eonion correction (not sure what it entails). They will have to face the lake of fire and second death. But I believe Jesus will bring life to them and save them from their sinful ways at the consummation of the ages. In the end Jesus will be the savior of all. Your statement about people before the bible or concept of God came about does not pertain to my belief. Because if the Christian God is true then people had a knowledge of him since the beginning.

  83. cornellsteelers says: Jun 17, 2011 12:33 AM

    henrypuppyhead says: Jun 16, 2011 7:59 PM

    Get back to me when you understand false equivalency.

    ______________________________

    False equivalency? I’m afraid that whether or not I made a false equivalency hinges on your belief that being against gay marriage is universally wrong. Thus, I am guilty of a false equivalency if and only if your assertion that the anti-gay marriage position is wrong is absolutely incontrovertible. Going further, the only way to prove your point for certain would be to prove that A)Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and a host of other religions are all based on hogwash, or that B)These religions have all been horribly misinterpreted and are actually supportive of intragender marriages. Since neither of these can be proven with any certainty, you cannot say with certainty that being against gay marriage is wrong, and I am not guilty of a false equivalency.

  84. therevdewitt says: Jun 17, 2011 9:20 AM

    @cornellsteelers – I’m not fearmongering; I’m pointing to a potentially catastrophic reality. And I’m not on a “blame the rich” kick. I’m an American. I live in this developed nation. I’m providing facts about the consumption of natural resources, as unsettling as they may be.

  85. cornellsteelers says: Jun 17, 2011 11:49 AM

    @therevdewitt — The key word is “potential”. Only the most extreme projections have the earth attaining a dangerously high level of population in the future, and even in those we’ll all be dead years before those levels are reached. Right now the developing nations are undergoing population explosions, just like those seen in now-developed western nations during the industrial revolution. I am not going to become alarmed unless the developing nations get stuck in their current stages of underdevelopment and thus continue to have high birthrates. As far as America’s consumption of resources is concerned, it seems entirely appropriate for a nation that produces 25-30% of the world’s entire GDP.

  86. therevdewitt says: Jun 17, 2011 1:36 PM

    I’m sure you understand it’s not sustainable, though. The world’s resources are not inexhaustible. Perpetual growth in all directions on a planet with finite resources cannot be maintained. And as I said in my original point, unless we realize that and plan for it collectively, the damage will be severe. No matter what cozy thoughts you seem to have that amount to an “it’ll all just work itself out” mindset. It won’t work itself out. We need to work it out, and stop distracting ourselves trying to suppress each others’ civil liberties in the meantime.

  87. cornellsteelers says: Jun 17, 2011 5:57 PM

    Oil, coal, and natural gas will not run out for the forseeable future. We have huge untapped reserves of all three right here in the US. In the meantime, we will continue improving and developing renewable/sustainable energy sources so that they can gradually supplant fossil fuels and help prevent future energy crises.

  88. axespray says: Jun 17, 2011 6:26 PM

    Someone remind me if this country’s rights are written in a bible or on the constituation?

    We’re America, right?

    Not The “Neo-Nazi Protestant White Bigot Racist Low IQ Deny Happiness to Anyone that isn’t one of us.” land, are we?

    (takes off keith olbermann costume)

    “sorry bout’ that, thought I was talking about sports.”

  89. therevdewitt says: Jun 18, 2011 11:41 AM

    Hah! Enjoy your fantasy world.

  90. purpleronin says: Jun 18, 2011 1:09 PM

    Christianity has become the ‘executioners mask’ for hate-filled bigots. Or maybe it always has been. Like lipstick on a pig, or a sugar-coated turd, a way for religous fanatics to say ‘my actions may seem evil but i’m absolved of guilt because its Gods Will’.

  91. cornellsteelers says: Jun 18, 2011 3:14 PM

    I don’t live in any fantasy world. Can you please tell me why you think we will run out of oil, coal, and natural gas in the near future?

  92. fonetiklee says: Jun 18, 2011 5:17 PM

    @wiley16350

    Dude you are nuts…

  93. bcgreg says: Jun 19, 2011 9:24 PM

    To be funny, everyone should have the right to be miserable, get divorced, and fight over assets and custody of children. Why should heteros be the only ones that have the priviledge to do this?

    To be real, I am against same sex marriage. I will NOT get into my reasons here. IMO, this is a gut issue. You are either for it or against it. There is no swaying anyone in either direction other than to the “I don’t care because I’m sick of hearing about it” position.

  94. bcgreg says: Jun 19, 2011 9:39 PM

    @ trickbunny

    Hate to break it to you, dude, but at one point in time, MOST people thought gay marriage was “sick” and that NO WAY would it become the norm or part of culture. There are still people who think it’s sick. The point is that it took one couple to raise the question about 2 gays getting married.

    Maybe at some point, LONG after all of us are gone, someone will ask about legalizing incestuous relationships. As one poster pointed out, at one point, no one EVER thought that slavery would be outlawed. At one point, no one thought that women would be able to vote. Hell, most thought women should stay at home well into the 1900s.

    While I agree that incest is disgusting, never say that it could never be on the table. The social boundaries of not only this country, but of the world, have constantly been redrawn and will continue to be for better AND for worse.

    So the question posed by the poster that you disparaged is actually a relevant one albeit not likely for many, many generations at least. The way things are going, it COULD happen. More than likely not, but who am I to speculate hundreds of years down the line. It just won’t be our problem to discuss…I hope.

  95. bcgreg says: Jun 19, 2011 9:47 PM

    @ purpleronin

    You said it when you said “fanatics”. Fanatics of any sect have lost perspective. Look at the Muslim fanatics who have ruined the world–yes, they are ruining the world! Remember, I did NOT say Muslims are ruining the world. I said Muslim FANATICS are. In sports, look at the fanatics in Vancouver who destroyed their city over a hockey game. A HOCKEY GAME. Perspective lost!

    For you to make a blanket statement that all Christians are bigots simply shows your own bigotry toward Christians. Be careful what you say and how you say it because Christians across the world have fed more hungry, clothed more poor, and housed more homeless than any other group in history. Yes, there are some screwed up people who hide behind Christianity and misuse the Bible to rationalize their hate, but like you said, those are FANATICS that I have nothing in common with.

  96. therevdewitt says: Jun 20, 2011 9:28 AM

    @cornellsteelers – I don’t see how it’s my responsibility to educate you about peak oil and finite coal and gas resources. Go read books. And it’s not just energy resources, it’s also clean water. Libraries are full of resources for you to research this issue. I encourage you to do so. If you’d rather take the U.N. at its word, so be it. If you want to take the time to find out for yourself, that’s great too.

  97. purpleronin says: Jun 20, 2011 10:59 AM

    @bcgreg I did not say all christians were bigots. I said: “Christianity has become the ‘executioners mask’ for hate-filled bigots” which clearly is an admonishment of “Hate filled bigots” – not Chistians. Obviously all Christians are not bigots..and niether am I. I have a lot of expierence with the faith and have known many Chistians, most of whom are good people. Besides, I dont deem myself to be some self- appointed judger of religous faiths. I do however have a very good understanding of bigotry in its many forms and feel quite comfortable in judging them (bigots), as I am human(and a bit of a Humanist). I do agree that in general terms fanatics are the driving force behind the degredation of most faiths, Chistianity and Islam most specifically, but through-out society including sports, and lets dont forget politics as well, especially here in America. At least those ‘crazies’ in Vancouver were living up to they’re names:’fans’ I must disagree with your ‘muslim fanatics’ are ruining the world statement. I think you give them far too much credit. They’re not that powerful, not by a long shot…

  98. 808raiderinparadise says: Jun 20, 2011 4:28 PM

    Yeah, well if you look over the comments on this site and the approvals of each it is clear the majority are in favor of same-sex marriage, its all about equality, plain and simple, there is no way to deny how much more gay people have come out of the closet in the workplace and society, and in turn many have become socialized to it and are no longer threatened or oppossed to it. I can’t knock people wanting to bind their love thru marriage, gay, straight, black, white, brown … in our turbulent world we could use some better values in everyone, it starts with equality, you don’t thave to love ideas/concepts you just have to be willling to accept them.

  99. cornellsteelers says: Jun 20, 2011 9:11 PM

    @therevdewitt

    Sorry, but it seems like you’re the one who needs to do some research. We have huge untapped reserves of all 3 resources I mentioned in our own country. Stop listening to fearmongering politicians who are in the pockets of those who would benefit from a rapid shift to alternative energy.

  100. som1com says: Jun 21, 2011 4:09 AM

    amanitoomerisgodsays:

    “Despite my comments about love and respect, I would sooner spit in Tyree’s drink than buy him one”

    So, that makes you the same sort of hypocrite that you probably claim all Christians are.

    Ironhawk, you seem to have no concept of the reality of who Jesus was and what being a Christian is about. Sure, there are some who give Christianity a bad name, but that happens in any social organization.

    Your implication that Jesus would be accepting of gay marriage is way off the mark. While Jesus would love gay people, He would tell them that the lifestyle is wrong, just as He did to every sinner He encountered. He made them aware of their sin and told them to repent (turn from it).

    4. Speaking on marriage, Jesus quoted scripture: Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? 6.So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” Matthew 19:4-6

    Being omniscient, I believe that Jesus knew this day was coming and the arguments that would be raised. Therefore, that is why He was very clear on many of the social issues, which in reality, are as old as time itself. Jesus has told us as Christians, it is our duty to stand for what scripture says. Does it mean that we are filled with hate?

    No, in fact, he calls us to love one another as we love ourselves, but that does not mean just put aside scriptures that make people uncomfortable. In respecting your freedom of speech and thought on the matter, you also have to respect the right of Christians to express their views as well.

    Finally, Jesus did not “wear” a cross. He died on one. For you, me, and the whole world, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Romans 10:13

  101. therevdewitt says: Jun 21, 2011 11:53 AM

    If you think that I’m hanging on the words of politicians, you’re farther away from reality than I thought.

  102. therevdewitt says: Jun 21, 2011 12:22 PM

    Moreover, what politician is out there saying that the population problem is going to lead to scarcity of natural resources? The politicians, when pressed on the population issue, tend to say “Oh, it’ll work itself out. It’s not a problem.” Which, I believe, is your position, CornellSteelers. So why don’t you stop listening to the politicians.

  103. bcgreg says: Jun 21, 2011 7:43 PM

    @ purpleronin

    Sounds like we’re mostly on the same side.

  104. slice60 says: Jun 22, 2011 5:13 PM

    Tyree also says that “two men will never be able to show a woman how to be a woman,” apparently referring to whether two men could raise a daughter…

    So by Tyree’s logic, he is also saying that a single Mother will never be able to show a man how to be a man & a single Father will never be able to show a woman how to be a woman.

    Well, there are ALOT of single parents out there working hard trying to raise good kids. In fact, I would estimate that MILLIONS of Americans have been raised/are currently being raised in single parent homes– especially in recent generations.

    So maybe it’s the single-parent society that will bring anarchy (his words, not mine) to this country, not gay marriage for a small percentage of the people.

  105. slice60 says: Jun 22, 2011 5:15 PM

    p.s. Does David Tyree even play football anymore? Or is this his new job? Maybe he can get a gig on the PTL show.

  106. cornellsteelers says: Jun 22, 2011 8:02 PM

    Tell me why it’s a problem, then. We are NOT going to run out of the aforementioned resources in the forseeable future. But if you want to spend your days freaking out about some impossible apocalypse, be my guest. Just don’t expect to rest of us to indulge you.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!