I’m a New York Giants fan, and I was quite disappointed to see that David Tyree, the accidental hero on one of the greatest plays in Super Bowl history and born in my hometown of Livingston, NJ, chimed in with his disapproval of gay marriage. Of course he’s entitled to his opinion, but like just about all of the assertions made about gay marriage from its opponents, they are religious in nature or come from the “ick” factor. None of it is justifiable in a secular legal system.
So, it’s irritating when you see the kind of clumsy attempts at rationalizing his position such as in the statements attributed to him on CNN.com such as, “His disapproval of gay marriage is based on religious as well as secular grounds, Tyree said.” So what are some of his “secular grounds”?
The bill’s passage would “be the beginning of our country sliding toward … anarchy,” he said
Yeah, that’s just ridiculous. Human sacrifices! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria! Since there’s no realistic mechanism to indicate the coming total breakdown of civil order because two guys file taxes together, I’m just going to ignore this one.
He also argued that same-sex parents are ill-equipped to raise a child of the opposite sex.
“You can’t teach something that you don’t have,” Tyree said in the video. “So two men will never be able to teach a woman how to be a woman.”
A search through the literature on developmental issues on PubMed shows that there is no evidence that children of homosexual parents are more or less harmed than in a mixed-gender nuclear family setup. So, yeah, Tyree is pulling that out of his butt like that catch he made in the Super Bowl. As for that last part about “two men will never be able to teach a woman how to be a woman”, I suppose all single parents with opposite gender kids should be outlawed as well based on that logic. In fact, let’s pull the kids out of those homes right now, Elian Gonzalez style! Oh wait, wasn’t David Tyree and his two sisters raised by a divorced single mother? How on earth did he learn to be a “man”?
It is not justifiable to alter a long-standing institution “because a minority — an influential minority — has … an agenda,” he said.
This one absolutely kills me. Slavery was a long standing institution. Anti-Miscegenation was a long standing tradition. Wife beating was a long standing tradition. Segregation was a long standing tradition! You get the point. How can a man who benefited from the strength of an influential minority with an agenda who tackled antiquated and hateful traditions be so incredibly blind to the irony?
There is yet to be a single, good secular argument put forth that justifies legally preventing same sex marriage. The attempts to post hoc rationalize conservative religious concerns about the subject by masking it in the language of science and reason is incorrect at best and dishonest at worst. If your faith tells you it is wrong, then don’t personally marry someone of the same sex, David Tyree, and stop parroting religious talking points as if they were something else.