OT: Michael Irvin: Champion of Equality
"I don't see how any African-American, with any inkling of history, can say that you don't have the right to live your life how you want to live your life," he said, according to the magazine.
Didn't expect that kind of insight from him.
Man + Man =/= Man + Woman. I know this is a Michigan board, but can the liberals not neg me?
<br>-Chet
Stick to recruiting. Your commentary is much more valuable in that area.
thats kind of the point of being gay. If gay men were women under the law, then marriage would theoretically be a nonissue right? Fail troll is a fail.
But you're delving into dangerous territory here. I'm not going to give the ranting response I want to, since I should avoid politics, but for real, you're on the wrong side of this issue... Marraige Equality is happening, it's not an if, it's a when. Don't be on the wrong side like the people who fought against interracial marraige, etc.
Was the controversial comment removed?
Man + Man =/= Man + Woman
- Man - Man
Man =/= Woman
Sorry guys, the math checks out. Men are not women.
I tried to solve that, but got "1 =/= Woman/Man," got frustrated, and just flipped to the back of the book for the answer.
Politics aside.... good article and thanks for sharing
I've always found it interesting how having someone close to you being affected by an issue can change your opinion on it so drastically. I mean it makes sense, but I just think its cool.
If ones views change due to circumstance they are either a hypocrite, intellectually dishonest, or misinformed.
It's like folks who rail against certain government programs/benefits, but are the first in line when they need them. The inability of people to look past their own noses blows my mind sometimes.
It looks like Irvin would be the first to say that he didn't see the situation clearly in the past.
But this was really me just soap-boxing against people (especially celebrities) in general. When asked opinions on things they know little about, I wish people would have the courage to say "I don't know, I'm not informed enough on that issue to comment."
you're dead wrong if circumstance informs the opinion. I never liked Irvin or his Canes or his Cowboys, but he sees bigotry against gays (it exists) ,and adds to the conversation through benefit of his own personal "circumstance" (his brother). Look, he's retired, speaking out in an obscure (to me) magazine, and rich. Is this overly courageous? Probably not. Hats off anyway.
Also, your analogy sucks. It may make more sense if Irvin suddenly woke up gay one day after railing against the "homosexual lifestyle", then wanted to marry his boyfriend but couldn't. Even in that case I don't see much hypocrisy. If he woke up gay he'd probably understand the situation quite a bit better and therefore have a more informed opinion.
When I was young (including my years in Ann Arobr) I didn't like the idea of guys being together. To be honest the idea still kinda grosses me out. But I'm sure I'm dressing every day in front of gay folks at the gym and I'm doing business with them every day at work. They should have all the rights and respect I do.
Heaven forbid a person would change his/her views about an important issue as they become more informed about it.
Deion and Emmitt were gay, huh? Interesting.
/s
If that were the case you'd think that Deion would be much more willing to take a hit.
Good for him.
Why pose shirtless and sweaty/oiled up on the cover? How does that further the message? It may sell magazines but doesn't it somewhat take away from what he's saying?
target audience. Do straight men complain about the SI swimsuit issue?
ladies making socio-political statements of value? I don't care what the cover looks like, but a lot of people are going to point to that and say "What?!?"
I didn't...but who knows...I may be gay
As Irvin points out, there hasn't been a athelete who identified himself as gay in any of the major 4 sports. That can't be because no such atheletes are gay. It's probably that gay athletes are concerned with the repurcussions in the lockeroom if they come out. Being a popular (and hetero) professional athelete and then posing as you described on the magazine shows a level comfort and acceptance that posing in a suit (or whatever would not.
exactly
The tiny handful who have come out doesn't hinder your argument in any way, of course.
I have always found Michael to be annoying but entertaining both on the field and as a broadcaster. But this shows a depth of character I had no idea the man had. Well done sir. And thanks for the link.
"The last thing I want is to go to God and have him ask, 'What did you do?' And I talk about winning Super Bowls and national titles," Irvin said, according to Out. "I didn't do anything to make it a better world before I left? All I got is Super Bowls? That would be scary."
Sports remains one of the last places where homophobia remains more accepted. Should be interesting to watch this in the coming years.
I used to think Irvin was a tool (because that's what he was). Now I've gotta tip my hat to the guy. He joins Ron Artest in the pantheon of reformed tools.
The media is going to rail against him, and he is no longer in the locker room so what is he really risking? There is far more intolerance of anti same-sex marriage comments from public figures. Even on the board there are very few comments against it than for it and it's not because that there are less people who are against it than for it. It's because anyone who speaks against it is labeled a bigot or hate-monger regardless of how thoughtful or insightful the comment is. It's the height of hypocrisy to be so intolerant of those who disagree with you while you preach to them that they have to be tolerant and unquestioning of your views and opinions. So I don't think it was courageous of him, although it may have been good hearted whether you agree with him or not.
You are speaking for a lot of people... probably for the silent majority.
the tide does seem to be changing fast. first comes same-sex marriage, next is polygamy.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/entertainment/52176389-78/polygamy-brown-u…
the same justification for same sex marriage applies to polygamy, doesn't it?
the same justification for same sex marriage applies to polygamy, doesn't it?
Nope. The justification for gay marriage is as follows:
The state is not compelled to recognize any relationships. If it wanted, Michigan could simply say, "do the monogamy thing if you want, and feel free to engage in religious ceremonies and the traditional institution of marriage, but we're just gonna treat you all like individuals." Instead, every state chooses to recognize a union of two people as a "marriage," and to grant certain rights and privileges to those people, both between the two of them (power of attorney stuff, etc.) and between them and the state (tax consequences, etc.). Essentially, everyone gets to choose someone to hang out with, and to get yelled at by when you leave the seat up.
The idea behind legalizing gay marriage is that the state does not have a legitimate reason for discriminating based on which two people enter such an agreement. it doesn't matter which two names are entered on the license. If two people want to enter the type of arrangement the state has set up, it doesn't matter if one is black and one is white, or that one is from Ohio and one is for Michigan, or that one is a man and the other is a man. There is no legitimate government interest in the specific attributes of the two people involved.
Compare that to polygamy. That asks the state to change the STRUCTURE of the institution in question, not simply the eligibility.
<quote>That asks the state to change the STRUCTURE of the institution in question, not simply the eligibility. </quote>
i think the argument is exactly your statement - that any marriage outside of one man and one woman changes the structure.
(sorry, i don't know how to properly use the quote function here. go blue!)
Gotta switch to "plain text editor", and use <blockquote>. There used to be a button for it, but it died with the Great Malware Incursion of 2011.
As for the structure, think of it like renting an apartment. Legally speaking, it's way different to refuse to rent a two-bedroom apartment to two people based on their characteristics than it is to refuse to rent it to three people.
The state has sanctioned a series of bilateral contracts. I'm in one. But there would be no difference from the state's standpoint if Wife in South Bend was Husband in South Bend. In legalese, there is no rational basis for the different treatment.
The point is that the relationship between 2 consenting adults could be recognized, regardless of the sex of the adults involved, without overhauling current legal practices. For example, in New York all they had to do was add another pair of boxes on the marriage license letting you choose between "Bride's Name" and "Groom's Name" or "Spouse 1" and "Spouse 2." Legalization of polygamy would be a paperwork nightmare in comparison because there is no precedent and an entirely new structure would need to be developed.
but I seriously doubt that everyone who supports gay marriage is as much of a bleeding heart as you're making it out, and in my personal experience I've come across a helluva lot of legitimate bigots, and a total of zero "thoughtful and insightful" comments against same-sex marriage that do not involve personal religious opinions. People tend to forget that whole "separation of church and state" thing.
Not sure where you got bleeding heart from, unless your reading your predisposition into the comments. There are legitimate bigots who are for same sex marraige as well, I have meet them but their existence isn't the baseline that I associtate with pro same sex-marriage people. However the same cannot be said for a majority of those who support same sex marriage. Seperation of Church and State is one of those things that people use to lump anything that can be assotiated with religion that they don't like into so they can dismiss it. SOCAS isn't this magical clause that you can waive to dismiss any religous thoughts. Because someone gains their morality and beliefs from a religious system dosn't mean that those morals and beliefs are less legitamate than others just because they are religous in nature. If you haven't come across any thoughtful and insightful comment aginst same-sex marraige you might want to widen your search, my guess is that like most people you tend to only assoiate with like minded people and go to web sites that share your point of view.
I know better than to continue this here. I also can't piece together half the shit you're trying to say.
you're criticizing people's intolerance of intelorance. there is a difference. i should be intolerant of people who deprive others' freedoms for who they are. for example i should be intolerant of anyone who is a racist.
so no it is not hypocrisy. just as you should tolerate my intolerance of your intolerance.
the criticism you receive for your unfair opinions might annoy you and you may go crying that your freedom of speech has been affected (even though it is freedom of speech that allows people like me to criticize you). but don't for a second think that that is comparable to a gay person being shunned by society for who he is.
fact is you may give all the religious or pseudo-moral justifications you want, but you think that gays don't deserve the same rights that you deserve. you think they are not your equal. and that is the definition of bigotry.
Fact is that I never gave a position on same sex marriage. You might want to back up and acctually read what was written. You were so quick to label me that you didn't make any effort to understand what was said. You don't know what I think other than the short blurb I wrote, so you might want to back off the " you think they are not your equal" since you don't know that. But thanks for proving the point of how people are demonized.
"It's because anyone who speaks against it is labeled a bigot or hate-monger regardless of how thoughtful or insightful the comment is. It's the height of hypocrisy to be so intolerant of those who disagree with you while you preach to them that they have to be tolerant and unquestioning of your views and opinions."
you gave a position on the intolerance of intolerance. and then you implied that these "insightful" thoughts were snuffed out by so-called hypocrisy.
there's no need to hide behind implications or, you know, from what you said. i understood your point very well.
but you think that gays don't deserve the same rights that you deserve. you think they are not your equal. and that is the definition of bigotry.
If I may ask a question, and then present you some indisputable facts, and I think this can be done without betraying any of my, or your, personal biases....
The question: What can a straight man do that a gay man cannot?
Now, a fact: A straight man may marry a woman; he may not marry a man. A gay man may marry a woman; he may not marry a man. This is indisputable.
The usual answer to my question is that gay people are being prohibited from marrying someone they love, while straight people are not.
Another fact: It is illegal to marry one's sister, and that will not change even if 50 states recognize gay marriage. Also indisputable.
So, there is currently a line drawn between those kinds of marriages that are legal and those that are not. When 50 states recognize gay marriage, there will still be a line, but it will be in a different place that still excludes some, as certainly there must be some people in this country, however few and hidden they may be, that wish to marry their sister. And we as a society continue to be "intolerant" of that.
Therefore, it is false to speak of "rights," if the "right" is to marry any person one is in love with.
I'm not presenting a slippery-slope argument, that gay marriage necessarily leads elsewhere. Just an effort to frame the debate correctly. If it's "bigoted" to want to take away a "right," and if the right is that of marriage, then the right includes all people. By a perfectly good string of logic, gay-rights people are as bigoted as anyone else, unless they're in favor of all marriage, no matter how distasteful society sees it.
Therefore I suggest the whole idea of "rights" and "bigots" be dropped. The only hypocrisy I see is to call others bigots if you aren't 100% open to everything. Call it what it is: a redrawing of the line. As I've been perfectly happy with there being a line where it exists today, I don't see a problem with putting it somewhere else. I only see a problem in accusations of bigotry where none exists.
" It's because anyone who speaks against it is labeled a bigot or hate-monger regardless of how thoughtful or insightful the comment is."
That's because it's a bigoted position. HTH.
It has NO impact on my life. None. It has no impact on the lives of 90-95% of Americans. So why then are we debating this when our economy is collapsing, the climate is warming, terrorists are killing, and Ohio State is cheating?
Legalize it or not, I don't care. I am tired of personal choices being of national importance. Abortion also fits into this category.
Here is why:
I have two young sons (2 and 6 years old). I also have three young nephews and a niece (all 12 or younger). Any one of them might well be gay and would, under current circumstances, be denied the right to important freedoms that are granted to hetersoexual individuals once they grow up.
I choose to fight this battle because I love my sons (and nephews and niece) and because I have friends who are also affected.
You are wrong then that it has "no impact on 90-95% of Americans if the well-being and rights of family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, etc. is importnat to people, and I belive it is for most of us.
Was the civil rights movement irrelevant since it only "affected" 10% of Americans?