Human Events Blog

Football Star David Tyree, Gay Marriage, and Anarchy


Two former New York Giants players have recently made public statements about gay marriage.  Retired defensive end Michael Strahan supports it, and shot a video for the New Yorkers for Marriage Equality campaign.  A few days later, wide receiver David Tyree announced he was against same-sex marriage, and made his own video for the National Organization for Marriage.

Guess which one the media tackled?

Yahoo News sneered that Tyree “managed to put his foot in his mouth in the minds of many people.”  A NewsCore report headlined “Gay Marriage Will Lead To Anarchy,” which is not what Tyree said, went out of its way to smear the National Organization for Marriage as an “anti-gay group,” which is also what Yahoo News calls them.  Read their mission statement and decide for yourself if that’s a fair characterization. 

This is more of the vapid “this or that” false-choice rhetoric of people who can’t win an argument unless opposition to their viewpoints is pre-emptively defined as insane.  You’re either in favor of gay marriage, or you’re an anti-gay bigot!  There are no other choices, so stop arguing and submit!

Tyree did make a strong statement.  Here is the video he made for the National Organization for Marriage.  Warning if you’re easily offended by humble, heartfelt statements of faith: he says stuff like “marriage is the only relationship that actually mirrors a relationship with God.”

Tyree says a number of interesting and provocative things in this video, but here’s the “anarchy” part that has everyone so worked up: “If they pass this gay marriage bill… I guess you can say my peace is in God’s sovereignty, but… what I know, what would happen if this comes forth… this would be the beginning of our country sliding toward, it is a strong word, but anarchy.  The moment we have… if you trace back even to other cultures, other countries, that will be the moment when our society in itself loses its grip on what’s right.”

He’s saying that redefinition of marriage would be the beginning of a slide toward anarchy.  That is, as Tyree himself concedes, a strong statement, but it’s not the same thing as saying “Gay marriage, BOOM!, instant anarchy!”

Later, Tyree explains that he sees marriage as “the backbone of society.”  That’s a big idea that deserves far more than a short video, or blog post, to fully explore, but it goes to the heart of the dishonest and unfair tactics used against proponents of traditional marriage.  We believe marriage is inherently special, and important to society.  It has great significance in the raising of children, but even that is not the full measure of its value.  Believing this is not automatically an insult to permanent gay partnerships, any more than it’s an insult to people who remain single for their entire lives.

Universal participation in a tradition is not necessary to make it special.  Reverence for one thing does not require contempt for everything else.  Our culture’s shoddy treatment of marital vows has not diminished their power, any more than playing Beethoven badly corrupts his genius. 

Re-definition of marriage absolutely requires a re-definition of manhood and womanhood that runs contrary to both ancient tradition and objective reality.  You cannot say that men and women are uniquely different without asserting that a relationship between them is special.  You cannot say such relationships are special while also insisting they’re exactly the same as any other bond, formed between any number of people.  It is not logically necessary to assert that all other bonds are without merit or inferior, to acknowledge the marital relationship is unique and worthy of celebration. 

Does diluting the importance of marriage, by opening it to other permutations, represent the first step in a series of breakdowns that lead to anarchy?  That would be an interesting discussion to have with David Tyree.  You cannot begin that discussion by telling him he’s a bigot, madman, or fool for even voicing the idea.  If your arguments require doing so, then you are the one who needs a course in remedial logic, not Mr. Tyree.


Sign Up
  • SrCodeMonkey

    I’ve noticed that the replies are getting scrambled today too.

    I’m going to consider your question asked and answered. I think you’re being deliberately obtuse.

  • deeme

    I guess he hasn’t heard of the end of the Roman Empire…Not to mention what will happen if Sharia Law takes over..they think they have problems now..

  • RenegadeScholar

    This means that they are only able to love members of the same sex, and society telling them they are not legally allowed to love is both unjust and emotionally stressful for these people

    What a whopper of a straw man.

    1) Only “able to love members of the same sex?” So homosexual men don’t love their mothers? Silly. Also, men who believe themselves to be homosexual are like pedophile men who believe that they can only “love children.” Just because that’s how you feel doesn’t mean that’s how you should act.

    2) “Not legally allowed to love?” Huh? There is NO law on the books anywhere that says whom somebody is “allowed to love.” Ridiculous.

    There is no logical reason to denounce homosexual marriage because no one is harmed by it.

    No one, that is, except the society that has to completely redefine concepts it has fully understood for thousands of years, just because a few people “want” it. Society itself suffers because the foundation of the family is marriage. Marriage is an institution that exists because it is important, not because people chose it on a whim. An institution is something that exists because it has meaning, like the Louvre, where established, great works of art are. What people want to do is turn marriage into a “yard sale” where any old piece of junk can be added.

    When someone wants to do something that does not hurt or affect any creature yet there are laws banning the act…

    Well–it hurts the sexually confused, vulnerable adolescent who gets recruited by the homosexual adult, who then brings him/her into the lifestyle, increasing his likelihood of STDs and an early death many-fold.

    And don’t say it doesn’t happen. It happens all the time, every day, all over the country. I know dozens of young men who were either regularly propositioned because they were somewhat effeminate acting, or who were recruited into that lifestyle and then got out of it because that’s NOT who they were. They were lied to and taken advantage of. By homosexuals.

    Anyway, I’m guessing you are all in favor of a law that ALLOWS people to do something that not only hurts, but KILLS a “creature.” A human being. It’s called “abortion.” So get off your high horse.

  • hyhybt

    The differences between any two people are far greater than the differences between men in general and women in general; there’s no reason to assume a lack of complementarity just because two people are of the same sex. Nor is it even relevant how that would affect child-rearing unless we have kids, which I have no intention of doing and am highly unlikely to do by accident. (Though it turns out, when you bother studying same-sex vs opposite-sex couples, the children of both turn out the same. Those who say otherwise are misusing studies which compare *single parents* versus opposite-sex couples.)

    A woman would simply not be a good match for me. Gay people marrying someone of the opposite sex is a sure-fire road to disaster.

  • hyhybt

    I’m not being obtuse. You presented no argument *whatsoever.* There was nothing to misunderstand, deliberately or otherwise.

  • hyhybt

    All governments fall eventually, and the Roman one lasted until *after* switching officially to Christianity. So what does that have to do with anything? Or Sharia law, for that matter. Why do people keep bringing up Sharia law on threads about gay marriage? Or at all, for that matter. There IS no Sharia law in the United States. There is not GOING to be Sharia law in the United States.

  • RenegadeScholar

    You cannot want to be in a homosexual marriage and just do so on your own


    I know two homosexuals who “married” twelve years ago. I was at their wedding. I don’t recognize it as a true marriage, and society mostly doesn’t, but so what?

    They consider themselves “married” and they can give one another power of attorney, etc., and have all of legal trappings of marriage.

    We don’t all have to destroy and overturn our way of life because a few people want it their way.

    The reality is that people marry each other. It has nothing to do with the government. Whether the government recognizes it or not is another matter.

  • SrCodeMonkey

    Yes — those who are demanding radical changes (NOW!) to millenia-old human social structures have the burden of justifying their position, not those who oppose them.

    But of course, being liberals, they believe that their position is just RIGHT on the face of it. Any intelligent right-thinking person will of course agree with them, and anyone who disagrees is an ignorant, hateful, bitter clinger.

    As Jim Quinn says, “A liberal is someone who thinks that 5,000 years of human history and experience means nothing now that HE’S here.”

  • hyhybt

    On your #1: which are you doing here, pretending not to understand the difference between the kind of love people have for a parent and the kind they have for a mate, or pretending not to know whoever you were replying to was speaking of the latter?

    On the other hand, you’re repeating the old “recruitment” myth, so is it really worth asking?

  • RenegadeScholar

    Well said.

    The Leftist reductionist crap is a double-edged sword. They just don’t know that until it is pointed out to them.

  • hyhybt

    No, they CANNOT “have all of legal trappings of marriage.” There are certain things no other legal arrangement other than marriage can provide. For example (and I hope it’s not one your couple ever encounters) Fifth Amendment protection extends to legal spouses.

  • RenegadeScholar

    Wilma can have children. Barney cannot.

    Sex discrimination, plain and simple. It’s simply not fair that only women are allowed to have children.

    I think a Leftist judge needs to rule that unconstitutional.

  • RenegadeScholar

    Mankind did not have the concept that each individual has a unique soul
    and is loved by God until Christianity.

    Whether or not you are Christian, if you think that every individual deserves individual rights, then you are the inheritor of that cultural tradition. Like it or not, I’m afraid you’ll just have to accept it.

  • SrCodeMonkey

    I think you’re too optimistic. If there’s one thing I know about liberals, it’s that they will never see how full of crap they are.

    (I always liked Wilma better anyway.)

  • RenegadeScholar

    Because heterosexuals have been doing such a great job with marriage in
    this country? Come on, if you really want to protect marriage, ban

    First you Leftists and feminists trash society by bringing on no-fault divorce and doing everything you can to encourage a “free and easy life” and for women to “sexually liberate themselves from the slavery of marriage,” and THEN you condemn that same society for not doing well in marriage?

    You Leftists are just unbelievable. You can’t make this stuff up.

    Orwellian “double-think” at its best.

  • RenegadeScholar

    How exactly is my same-sex marriage remotely affecting your marriage

    Stupid question.

    How would your marriage to a child remotely affect my marriage?
    Or to an animal?

    To answer the question you were tying to ask, I’ll ask and answer another question:

    Q: “How exactly is my being on welfare remotely affecting your life?”

    A: Thanks to welfare, places where I’ve lived became infected by gang violence because fatherless kids with no jobs and nothing to do turned to crime as a way of proving themselves. Several generations later, we have dependency and destroyed families and futures thanks to welfare.

    Of course people warned of the consequences when welfare was created, and people like you asked, “How exactly is my being on welfare remotely affecting your life?”

    Now you’re asking the same question about marriage. And you’re as blind to the consequences as you ever were.

    You Leftists are NEVER concerned of the consequences of your ideas and laws. Only that you feel good and noble for having done them.

  • SrCodeMonkey

    Jim Quinn’s FIRST LAW: Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent.

  • hyhybt

    I don’t really have anything to say about any of them, for now at least. They have no place in this discussion to begin with. (I may look them up on my own later, but do not trust your links. Too many people here think groups like Liberty Counsel or ADF are trustworthy.)

  • RenegadeScholar

    So if my wife can’t conceive a child, is our marriage less valid in your view?

    Another typical Leftist diversion.

    The fact is that marriage is about children.

    But let’s use an analogy. I say that “dogs bark.”

    Does that mean that if it does not bark it can’t be a dog? No.
    Does that mean that if it barks it must be a dog? No.
    Does that mean only dogs bark? No.

    Nonetheless, dogs bark.

    In the same vein, marriage is about children.

    Is that easy enough for you to understand?

  • hyhybt

    Two problems: first, by your own analogy, if whether something barks or not is irrelevant to its being (or not) a dog, then whether children are involved is irrelevant to whether something is a marriage… and therefore, “marriage is about children” (a false statement anyway, but setting that aside for now) cannot be a basis for deciding what qualifies as a marriage. Either the ability to produce children is a necessary quality of marriage (in which case consistency demands that the infertile be excluded) or it is not necessary (in which case consistence does not allow it as a reason to disqualify gay couples.)

  • reddarin


    You don’t mind making claims that are easily refutable but then decline to comment once you’ve been shown to be incorrect?

  • hyhybt

    I, too, know what the Bible says. And what it *doesn’t* say. For instance, it *doesn’t* say that the description in Genesis, later quoted by Jesus, of how things generally go is a definition of the only way they are allowed to go. It doesn’t say that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of homosexuality (though it does give other reasons.) And so on… 

    But I don’t know where you got the idea I said “religious freedom is going away.” The ability some have had to impose their religious beliefs on others is going away, but that’s not at all the same thing.

  • deeme

    You might want to get with the program , not sure where you get your information but this might be two more subjects you need to read up on..Since you seem to  like the progressive movement..Keep saying it ,maybe if you click your heels together at the same time.

  • SrCodeMonkey


  • deeme

    I will agree with you on that one ,for the most part..

  • hyhybt

    Again, how is “other things are also unfair” a reason not to change those unfair things which can be changed?

  • hyhybt

    Wrong on both. It’s possible I misunderstood in the first place, though I still strongly suspect that an unbiased source (if there is such a thing) would show my reading to be correct… but either way, it’s completely irrelevant to the question of whether same-sex couples ought to be allowed civil marriage licenses.

  • hyhybt

    I’m more than willing to be informed, if you have any information to provide. All I’ve found so far is Sharia shouted about as a scare tactic, and an oft-repeated lie (as far as I can tell; again, if you have trustworthy information otherwise, please share) that the Roman Empire fell because of homosexuality.

  • deeme

    Boy this is really messed up , not replying to the right statements, you said if christians are going to tell people what to do then maybe it should go away and that is exactly what the liberal agenda is, they want a free for all. I am not saying you do, I am saying they do..Maybe you are too innocent to see the ultimate goals of your leaders..Those who care more about the freedoms of the people in the Middle east then in their own country. It all goes together , we are all in this together. they are having their babies, they are multiplying while we are dividing..Without God we are nothing and we can not pick  and  choose what we want to believe. The truth is the truth it never changes. We kill our unborn, they do not. If you can’t see the connections, step back from your one issue.

  • reddarin

    >Why do people keep bringing up Sharia law

    The next mainstream media person you see you need to kick them in the ass. See the problem with Liberalism? Saying something that might be construed as bad against a liberal sacred cow is taboo so instead of you being informed about a very real, very serious issue with a 1,000,000,000 strong religion you are uninformed.

    “Islamic law teaches that homosexuality is a vile form of fornication, punishable by death.  Beneath the surface”

    That and the pretty horrible punishments that are doled out for various offenses. Have you seen a movie called ‘The Stoning of Soraya M.’? I haven’t. I don’t think I can take it frankly. It is a true story and an accurate portrayal of a stoning. A very realistic portrayal.

  • Thomas

    I am not sure if you are lying or only ignorant of the fact that it is considered a hate crime in some Northern European countries to read aloud certain parts of the Bible and in Canada it is pretty much that way as well, and certain Catholic charities have been prevented from doing adoptions because they don’t want to place a child in any home that is less than a safe and balanced home.

    Hate and Love are strong terms in our culture that is in many ways still Christian dominated in mindset (tweet around on your new wife and see what happens if you doubt me). However, love, other than the lowest form of love that used to be called romance, love is wanting the best for others.

    Hate is wanting the worst or at least wishing ill on someone or a group of people. The worst thing a Christian could want for someone is the intense pain of being sepperated from God for all of eternity. God is reality; evil is choosing to reject God; without God there is emptiness that aches to be filled; this burning is called Hell, a fortase of which can in many cases be tasted in life.

    It doesn’t matter if you don’t believe in God if the person you are calling a hater doesn’t want you to be in pain, if they wish you to be better, rather than wishing ill on you it doesn’t matter that you think they are wrong, your calling them a hater is to not accurate, it is just the best argument you apparently have at your disposal.

    As to your argument that “If you don’t approve of gay people getting married, then don’t marry one.” the point of gay marriage is to force our tacit approval as a nation. It reminds me of the argument “if you are against abortion then don’t have one” which is no doubt where you got it from. Both of those sound pretty smart until you break them down into their parts and assemble them back in their proper order at which point you find out they are a lie because they pretend that they don’t involve anyone beyond the person who wants the abortion or the gay marriage, but it involves all of us (in the case of abortion it also involves the baby that is murdered) 

  • Thomas

    Depends on what country and how far SA types like yourself have been able to push it. It is what you would like in your little heart, you know to not have to argue any more. Or maybe you need me to argue with as you need someone to blame your unhappiness on?

    Have you ever seen Forrest Gump where the boyfriend beats her up and then blames it on the political situation? Well in Northern Europe it is against the laws to say anything about same sex acts except that they are fabulous, you can get thrown in jail for reading certain parts of the Bible, and yet statistically you would be no happier there,

    I mean Northern Europe is so easy going that they let Muslims rape their women and they blame themselves for it, you can imagine how they treat gays who are mostly hurting each other, and yet the gays are still just as miserable as they are here.

  • Thomas

    He didn’t say it was irrelevant he was explaining to your buddy who was being deliberately obtuse how it can be that marriage is for children, but childless couple can still be married.

    I could also add that couples have been getting married for thousands of years and some of them didn’t have kids and were still married after this problem was known and so that would be another way of explaining to you how it is still a marriage even if no children come from it.

    In fact men did used to drop women who were infertile, but Christianity prevents a man from abandoning his wife and leaving her without support. Would you be for that? Would it make you feel better if men dropped their wives if they were found to be infertile?

  • Thomas

     If you have time to google things you should try the group courage; I have read your posts and I don’t get the idea you are the preditor type, I just felt compelled to write that to you personally.

  • Thomas

    Well if you want to argue from culture, then why is it that you want to change the culture? And who are you to say what the culture should be? So you see once you insist on “only secular arguments” everything can be thrown out until you get down to Math and science.

    Why don’t you just try me and see if I can’t come up with a reason that your argument is religious? In fact I can because your ideology is a religion, but beyond that every argument besides one from math and science can thrown out by reasons I will be happy to share with you, and fortunately you have no argument from math or science, though I have seen some good tries to fake one with the de-bunked gay gene and so forth.

    Look my main point here is that the culture war is a religious war because liberalism is a religion that has declared war on Christianity  

  • hyhybt

    Unless you have some other group of the same name in mind, that’s for Catholics. But thank you.